In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

Jia Tolentino

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Short Cuts: Harry Goes Rogue

Jonathan Parry

Beware Bad SmellsHugh Pennington
Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Florence Nightingale: The Woman and Her Legend 
by Mark Bostridge.
Viking, 646 pp., £25, October 2008, 978 0 670 87411 8
Show More
Show More

As a student at St Thomas’s Hospital, I used to walk the long ‘Nightingale’ wards – Florence Nightingale had not only founded its school of nursing but was influential in the design of the building – and learned to avoid prayer-time because the way out was obstructed by the line of ‘Nightingales’ kneeling at the door in order of seniority. And sometimes I watched patients having ECT in Scutari – the psychiatric clinic too was named in her honour.

Most of the heroes in the history of medicine (nearly all are men) have either discovered a remedy like penicillin or insulin, or developed a vaccine to protect against killer diseases like polio or smallpox, or introduced a bold new surgical procedure like heart transplantation. But Nightingale discovered nothing. Her forte was administration, and her main weapon was statistics. Did she even stalk the wards of the Barrack Hospital at Scutari at night? Yes – but with what to light her way? Mark Bostridge is no revisionist, but he does point out that the evidence from the 1850s has little or nothing to say about the lamp.

Nightingale’s path was enormously eased by her circumstances. Her family was wealthy. Her father educated her broadly and well: at 16 she was being taught chemistry, geography, physics, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy and history. She became fluent in French and Italian, was translating Homer and Plato in her teens, and at 19 was learning German. Her knowledge of geology was said by the president of the Geological Society to be bold and broad. Her Unitarian background cultivated an ethos of good works inspired by a belief in the individual’s moral obligation to society. Her father knew many leading figures of the day: Palmerston, Macaulay, Charles Darwin and Annabella Milbanke. In her twenties she came to know Christian von Bunsen, the Prussian ambassador in London, founder of a Protestant hospital in Rome and a German one in London, staffed by deaconesses from a Lutheran establishment at Kaiserswerth, near Düsseldorf.

Although Nightingale’s chosen vocation was wrong-headed in the eyes of her family – nursing was for working-class girls – she waited patiently until her opportunity came. Events provided it. In 1853, after a spell at Kaiserswerth, she was appointed superintendent of the Establishment for Gentlewomen during Illness, located for most of her time there in Upper Harley Street. It catered mainly for governesses in decline or at death’s door. After a year she gave notice – she wished to move on – but before giving up her job she took leave to nurse victims of the Broad Street Pump cholera outbreak in Soho. Between 31 August and 9 September, five hundred residents of the streets around Golden Square died.

Once the outbreak was over she returned to her parents’ home in Derbyshire. Mrs Gaskell was staying there at the time, writing North and South for serialisation in Charles Dickens’s Household Words. ‘She is like a saint,’ Gaskell wrote in a letter. ‘She must be a creature from another race so high & mighty & angelic, doing things by impulse – or some divine inspiration & not by effort & struggle of will … she seems as completely led by God as Joan of Arc.’ But in another letter she commented: ‘She will not go among the villagers now, because her heart and soul are absorbed by her hospital plans, and as she says, she can only attend to one thing at once.’

By this time the Crimean War was well underway. It had many modern features. ‘The British,’ Scientific American reported on 19 May 1855, ‘have displayed great inferiority in military management in the present war with Russia,’ but

it cannot be denied but that the national spirit for engineering enterprise has not failed to show itself in the most favourable light. Thus in the Crimea Uncle John has carried his railroads with him, and the locomotive is used there to wheel up shot, shell and other implements of war … from the camp in the Crimea, to the War Office in London, the Commander in Chief now reports direct the state of the siege every few minutes … a telegraph submarine cable, 301 miles long, is laid in the bed of the Black Sea, stretching from the monastery of St George, in the Crimea, to Kalerga, on the Bulgarian shore.

Information about the course of the war was brought to the British public with great speed by the Times’s Applegath rotary printing press, which could deliver ten thousand impressions an hour. It’s said that the telegraph’s power wasn’t appreciated by the military censors at first, and that by the time they came to understand what it could do, so much had been revealed about conditions in the Crimea that it was politically impossible to impose new controls. Nightingale’s decision to go there was prompted by a series of articles in the Times by its Constantinople correspondent, Thomas Chenery, describing the conditions at the Scutari military hospital. William Russell reported on the battles themselves, and the incompetence they revealed.

Everything about the war was a mess. Wherever one looked, the army appeared to be in a poorer state than it had been when it fought in the Peninsular War forty years earlier – when the treatise on military surgery that was officially recommended to medical officers going out to the Crimea was written. The Chief Medical Officer in the East, John Hall, had come from India in the summer of 1854, with a reputation for zeal based on his work in the Xhosa War of 1846. Yet at the Battle of the Alma on 20 September he replied to a request that each regiment should have its own operating table with the comment: ‘More stress has been laid on this want than is necessary. That surgeon must be poor in resource who cannot extemporise a table either out of a bank of earth, or his panniers if in the open field; and if in or near a house he surely could not be long without supplying himself with a substitute in the shape of a door or a window shutter which he could support on stones if nothing better presented.’

Nightingale had War Office support in her attempt to improve things. Commissariat deficiencies were one of the biggest problems and she attended to them in short order. She first entered the Barrack Hospital at Scutari on 4 November. By then the soldiers’ diet had been so deficient for so long that scurvy was beginning to appear. The medical department ordered 40,000 gallons of lime juice from the Admiralty. Twenty thousand gallons arrived in the Crimea in early December, but they weren’t distributed to the troops until early February. Such were the problems that Nightingale had to rectify.

To bypass blockages caused by red tape she bought supplies with her own money and with subscriptions sent from Britain and the colonies. She foraged in the official purveyor’s store as well. Although she made sure there was a medical officer’s written order for all the things she wanted, the rumour that these ‘cruises’, as she called them, led to the liberation of supplies without the filling in of forms did her reputation no harm. In January 1855 she wrote that she had become a kind of general dealer in ‘socks, shirts, knives and forks … cabbage and carrots … small toothcombs, precipitate for destroying lice … bedpans and stump pillows’. She crossed swords with the medical officer, who would have preferred her to confine herself to superintending the nurses. Even when it was said that the sick had been given port wine on the authority of the nurses alone, Hall stood no chance. ‘There is not an official who would not burn me like Joan of Arc if he could,’ Nightingale wrote, ‘but they know the War Office cannot turn me out because the country is with me.’

In 1855, the mortality rate at Scutari dropped to acceptable levels. Sebastopol fell on 8 September, but Nightingale’s canonisation had started long before. A big step was the publication in the Illustrated London News on 24 February of an engraving of the ‘Lady with the Lamp’. In early May she visited Balaclava and was received by cheering soldiers. On 13 May she collapsed and was laid low with fever. Her case was said to be as bad as any; recovery took weeks. What caused her illness? Bostridge is too enthusiastic in his acceptance of the case made in 1995 by D.A.B. Young that Nightingale’s illness and subsequent invalidism – from 1857 to 1880 she spent most of her waking hours propped up on a sofa – might have been caused by Brucella melitensis. In other words, she is supposed to have had Malta fever and then chronic brucellosis. But her symptoms are at best only compatible with that diagnosis. The organism is common in goats in the places she had been, and she may well have drunk their milk. However, the symptoms of both acute and chronic brucellosis are notoriously protean: we will never know the cause of her illness. There is, however, no doubt that like Darwin, who is said, but can’t be proved, to have had Chagas disease, Nightingale was a chronic invalid, and far more productive than her long lasting ill-health should have allowed.

Nightingale was not alone in bringing female nurses to the Crimea. The enemy had them too. The prime movers were the Russian surgeon Nikolai Ivanovich Pirogov and Grand Duchess Yelena Pavlovna, sister-in-law of the tsar. Pirogov was professor of surgery at the Academy of Military Medicine in St Petersburg, and one of the pioneers of ether anaesthesia. In 1847 he had experimented with its administration by rectum – but found that it caused too much irritation. In the Caucasus war that year he used anaesthetics routinely – the first military surgeon to do so. In September 1854 he wrote to Pavlovna suggesting that women be given the job of tending the wounded on the battlefield. On 6 November (the day after the Battle of Inkerman) she established a corps of nurses, the Khrestovozizhenska community. The first group arrived in the Crimea on 11 December and worked in the base hospitals, in the field, and under shellfire in the Sebastopol bastions. Seventeen of the 68 nurses who served in the peninsula died on duty. Pirogov stayed in Sebastopol for much of the siege and amputated many limbs. Pavlovna went on to found the Russian Red Cross and set up the St Petersburg Conservatory in her home, the Mikhailovsky Palace. Both figures have been celebrated as national heroes, and sometimes used to endorse institutional and government activities they probably wouldn’t have liked. A film portraying Pirogov as a socialist hero was released in 1947, more than sixty years after his death. The music was by Shostakovitch; but the script was by Yury Pavlovich German, whose best-known films portrayed heroic OGPU operatives tracking down criminals. The film won the Stalin Prize.

Of British deaths in hospital in the Crimea, 16,334 came from disease and 1724 from wounds. Just under 13,500 died from intestinal afflictions: 3651 from diarrhoea, 2543 from dysentery, 4513 from cholera and 2790 from ‘common continued fever’ (many of these were probably typhoid and paratyphoid). Diarrhoea, however, is a symptom, not a diagnosis. Which microbes caused it one can’t say, but it is certain they would have been transmitted by the faecal-oral route. Only dysentery is commonly spread by person-to-person contact; drinking water contaminated with human faeces accounts for the others. The number of diarrhoea and dysentery cases and deaths was highest in the period from November 1854 to January 1855. Did Nightingale’s activities end this massive outbreak? The microbiological answer is no. There is no doubt that she eased the lot of the sick and wounded. She improved soldiers’ diet, and the washing of clothes may have made typhus less common by removing lice. But there was no clean water. In later years she blamed the ‘want of ventilation, want of draining, want of cleanliness … frightful overcrowding’ – but not the drinking water. Nor did her efforts have much effect on deaths after surgery. Primary amputations (of which there were 1027) had a mortality of 28 per cent, and secondary ones (150) a mortality of 51.2 per cent. The best that can be said is that a 47 per cent mortality rate for leg amputations showed a 10 per cent improvement over the Peninsular War.

From her sofa Nightingale spent the next twenty-five years driving reforms in nursing, hospital design and military health. Her correspondence was vast and much of it survives. The Collected Works, edited by Lynn McDonald, has reached volume ten; six more are planned. Volumes on society and politics, theology, public health care, women, health in India, and social change in India have appeared already, and illustrate the breadth of her interests. The volumes on the Crimea, War Office reform, professional nursing, and hospital reform are still to come. Nightingale was consulted on all these subjects. If she wasn’t, she made it her business to make her views known. Not every battle was won – many ended in a draw. St Thomas’s Hospital is a good example. The wide spacing of its pavilions fell short of her ventilation standards by only a small margin, but their location on the Embankment was a defeat. She believed that its urban setting, and effluvia and dampness from the Thames, would breed disease. Far better would have been the leafy suburbs of Camberwell, Norwood or Lewisham.

Nightingale’s Notes on Nursing: What It Is and What It Is Not remains the most important book on the subject ever written. The first edition – or rather the first edition as revised by Nightingale – was in print for 34 years; reprinted in 1924, it has remained in print ever since. Nightingale’s philosophy is clear:

Is it not living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases, as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs, instead of looking upon them as conditions, like a clean and dirty condition … I have seen with my eyes and smelt with my nose smallpox growing up in first specimens, either in close rooms or in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have been ‘caught’, but must have begun.

Evidently, she was not only a miasmatist who ‘knew’ that disease came from bad smells, vitiated air and putrefaction, but also a believer in spontaneous generation. Miasmatism was the dominant public health paradigm throughout most of Nightingale’s working life, so it would be anachronistic to criticise her for holding to it. Fierce battles between bacteriologists and miasmatists were still going on when cholera attacked Europe for the last time, in Hamburg in 1892.

Bostridge concludes his book with an account of 20th-century Nightingale iconography. In his penultimate paragraph he describes a memorial service in Westminster Abbey in 2005, at the end of which a lighted lamp was placed on the high altar. ‘She would have scorned the perpetuation of the myth associated with her name,’ Bostridge observes, but goes on to write that ‘many of Florence Nightingale’s greatest concerns remain ours too … Most worrying to much of the population of the United Kingdom is our reported failure to keep hospitals clean and free from infection.’

He is right that the myth remains powerful, but doesn’t see that its influence is far from benign. It continues to drag miasmatism in its wake. This antique, intuitive, apparently commonsensical but deeply flawed set of beliefs is clearly alive and well in the minds of those who advise prime ministers that hospital ‘deep cleans’ are the way forward. ‘Cleanliness’ is attractive to policy-makers, but a visibly clean hospital is not necessarily a safe one – microbes cannot be detected by the naked eye. Neither is a dirty hospital always dangerous. It all depends on the microbes and how they are transmitted. A classic experiment was carried out by the US army in Cuba in 1900. The general view at the time was that yellow fever was spread by fomites – in this instance, infected clothing and bedding. But Walter Reed had evidence that it was transmitted by mosquitoes. To convince the doubters he constructed an ‘Infected Clothing and Bedding Building’. Sheets, pillowcases and blankets deliberately contaminated with the vomit, urine and faeces of yellow fever patients were shaken to distribute their contents into the air and used to make up beds in which three US army volunteers slept for 21 nights. Two more volunteers slept in yellow fever patients’ garments for 21 nights, and another two did the same using pillows covered with towels soiled with blood from a patient. None of the volunteers got sick.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 31 No. 1 · 1 January 2009

Mark Bostridge says that I perpetuate a ‘hoary old myth’ by insisting that Florence Nightingale was a miasmatist (Letters, 18 December 2008). But she was. Her utterly miasmatic Notes on Nursing remained in print unchanged until 1901. The only revision she considered, in 1875, was a substantial (and thoroughly miasmatic) addition on sewer gas. Neither can her support for antisepsis in 1882 in Quain’s Medical Dictionary be taken as indicating conversion to a belief in germ theory. She was reflecting current practice – by the late 1870s antisepsis had been enthusiastically adopted at St Thomas’s Hospital, the home of the Nightingale Nursing School. That Lister’s innovation had anything to do with Koch’s version of germ theory is itself a hoary old myth. As Lister’s main disciple, W.W. Cheyne, said in 1882 in his massive book on antiseptic surgery, ‘I have not mentioned the germ theory of infective disease at all. That has no essential bearing on the principles of antiseptic surgery.’

Hugh Pennington
Aberdeen

Vol. 31 No. 2 · 29 January 2009

Hugh Pennington is quite wrong about Florence Nightingale’s views on germ theory (Letters, 1 January). She explains in her writing on India that Robert Koch’s research on a cholera epidemic in Calcutta in 1883 prompted her rethinking. When Nightingale began work around 1850, germ theory was mere speculation. Even Joseph Lister’s landmark article on aseptic surgery, published in 1867, didn’t refer to specific germs, but to ‘minute organisms suspended’ in the air and ‘floating particles’. Notes on Nursing, which was written in 1859 and never intended for professional nurses, could hardly be expected to contain any discussion of such a subject. Germ theory received rudimentary coverage in lectures at the Nightingale School as early as 1873, and by 1891 she was advocating the use of magic lantern shows at village lectures in India to demonstrate the existence of bacilli, ‘the noxious living organisms in foul air and water’, as a way to encourage villagers to adopt strict hygiene measures.

Lynn McDonald
University of Guelph, Canada

Vol. 30 No. 24 · 18 December 2008

Hugh Pennington says, ‘Bostridge is no revisionist,’ and goes on to perpetuate some hoary old myths himself (LRB, 4 December). The worst error in his account is his insistence on Nightingale as a miasmatist. In common with most other commentators, stretching back to Lytton Strachey in 1918, Pennington refuses to acknowledge that Nightingale was an eventual convert to germ theory. Certainly by the late 1870s, when Koch published his landmark paper on ‘The Etiology of Traumatic Infectious Diseases’, Nightingale was urging nurses to use antiseptic precautions. She was, above all, a great empiricist, willing and able to accept new evidence as it emerged, and she ought to receive full credit for that.

Mark Bostridge
London NW3

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.