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


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

HospitalismSarah Perry

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — 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.
The Butchering Art: Joseph Lister’s Quest to Transform the Grisly World of Victorian Medicine 
by Lindsey Fitzharris.
Allen Lane, 304 pp., £16.99, October 2017, 978 0 241 26249 8
Show More
Show More

In​ the small hours of a spring morning last year I asked for a hot-water bottle to be put on my calf: a ruptured disc was crushing my sciatic nerve, causing leg pain unappeased by opioids and benzodiazepines. I went back to sleep. When I woke up, I felt a damp substance on my leg, and when I wiped it off, I noticed a wet white rag was hanging from my fingertips. I thought little of it: pain was my sole preoccupation at the time, and there wasn’t any. Later that day, awaiting surgery, I was told the hot-water bottle had caused a burn clean through the epidermis, cauterising the nerves.

The burn became a black disc so tough you could rap it like the cover of a leather-bound book; I fretted about scarring, but what concerned the doctors was the possibility of my acquiring one of the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that plague hospital wards. Two weeks later – the necrotic flesh had receded to reveal body fat resembling butter softened in the microwave – a GP peeled the dressing off, lifted it to her nose, and recoiled at the unmistakeable smell of infection. Swabs were taken, but it was merely the Staphylococcus aureus bacterium, its name deriving from the Greek for ‘grape-cluster berry’, which it resembles. A course of antibiotics, frequent sluicings with saline, and all would be well.

In the days of Lister, Liston and Pasteur, such infections were thought to be an example of what was known as ‘hospitalism’, for the better prevention of which it was even proposed that all hospitals should be razed by fire and rebuilt every ten years or so. Hospitalism comprised the ‘big four’ of infection: septicaemia, erysipelas, pyaemia and hospital gangrene. The last was most to be feared: to picture an afflicted limb, think of a gnawed chicken bone spat into a napkin. Surgeons would excise, amputate and re-embowel under anaesthesia, only to lose patients to infection in the aftermath.

Efforts to combat and contain hospitalism were as misguided as they were strenuous. All could agree on the urgent necessity of forestalling or treating infection, but not on the cause or the cure. The contagionist faction believed disease was communicated by some invisible agent, a chemical or an ‘animalcule’, and urged containment through quarantine and trade restrictions. This was all very well: but what of diseases like cholera, which couldn’t be explained by contact transmission?

The anti-contagionists theorised that a pythogenic process caused disease spontaneously to erupt from filth and decay, with pestilence travelling in an infectious miasma that seeped across windowsills. That the most disease-stricken populations lived in the most squalid conditions only bolstered the theory. Andrew Mearns’s survey of urban squalor from 1883, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London, describes rooms ‘black with the accretions of filth which have gathered upon them through long years of neglect. It is exuding through cracks in the boards overhead; it is running down the walls; it is everywhere.’ Any air that penetrated these rookeries had first passed over ‘the putrefying carcasses of dead cats or birds, or viler abominations still’. This was the model of a post hoc fallacy: surely a child breathing in air that had lingered over a rotting animal was inhaling a deadly pestilence?

Even the worst corner of the worst slum couldn’t compete with hospital wards and dissection rooms for filth. Berlioz trained as a doctor and recalled a visit to the ‘terrible charnel-house’ of a Paris dissecting room. ‘The fragments of limbs, the grinning heads and gaping skulls, the bloody quagmire underfoot and the atrocious smell it gave off’ made him feel ‘terrible revulsion’. Sparrows squabbled over morsels of lung; a rat gnawed at a vertebra. Berlioz jumped out of the window and ran home to take sanctuary in music. Surgeons took pride in aprons so dirty they could have stood up on their own; Robert Liston, who pioneered the use of anaesthesia, stored his instruments up his sleeve between surgeries to keep them warm. The mortality rate among medical students – who were liable to let the knife slip – was high: the surgeon John Abernethy concluded his lectures with a resigned ‘God help you all.’ When John Phillips Potter nicked his knuckle anatomising – at the dead man’s request – the circus performer the ‘Gnome Fly’, he swiftly succumbed to pyaemia, a kind of blood poisoning caused by the spread of pus-forming organisms which cause abscesses. The pus drained from his body could be measured by the pint. When Potter died, it was surmised that if he had eaten breakfast before picking up the scalpel, the food would have absorbed any poison attending the corpse, and he would have survived essentially unscathed.

This was the Grand Guignol stage on which Joseph Lister – the subject of Lindsey Fitzharris’s agreeably grisly and fastidiously detailed book The Butchering Art – took his place. Born into a Quaker family, Lister was tall, handsome and abstemious. He stammered and was prone to melancholy. Convinced, until he determined otherwise, that cold and wet feet could induce sickness, he wore thick-soled shoes. His father, Joseph Jackson Lister, an expert in microscopic lenses, solved the problem of image distortion. He passed on to his son a belief – not widely held – in the crucial importance of the microscope to medical science. Lister’s mother had suffered from erysipelas, an acute skin infection; his brother, having survived smallpox, was killed by a brain tumour.

Lister entered University College London in 1844, aged seventeen. London was a shock after the lawns and cedars of his Essex childhood, and his studies were attended by protracted periods of depression. Nonetheless it was exhilarating to be in the fray, and he proved his mettle early on when a woman called Julia Sullivan was admitted after being stabbed in the abdomen by her husband (looking down, she exclaimed: ‘Oh, my entrails are coming out!’). Lister had two lives in his hands: Sullivan’s and that of her husband, who would hang if a wounding became a murder. Fitzharris describes the incident with characteristic briskness, neither sparing the reader nor descending into prurience. Lister treated his patient with uncommon skill, suturing the gut in a procedure generally cautioned against because of the likelihood of infection (the application of a red hot poker, pressed on the entrails as slowly as possible, was the preferred method). She lived.

Lister’s first inkling that hospitalism was not inevitable came during an outbreak of hospital gangrene. Tasked with sloughing dead matter from infected wounds and applying a caustic solution, he observed that ulcers which had been debrided and cleaned were more likely to heal. The suggestion that the cause of infection lay inside the body was powerful. Examining pus from a gangrenous patient beneath the microscope he discovered ‘some bodies of pretty uniform size which might be the materies morbi [morbid substances]’. He had looked the enemy in the eye.

He pursued his prey down labyrinthine paths of theory, experiment and failure – periodically blocked by administrative obfuscation and opposition from his peers. Questions followed hard on the heels of answers (‘11 p.m. Query. How does the poisonous matter get from the wound into the veins?’). What was the purpose of inflammation? Was it beneficial or harmful; was it the cause of infection, or merely a signifier? What pus was dangerous, and what wasn’t? Why did a compound fracture often grow gangrenous, when fractures neatly contained beneath the skin didn’t? Frogs suffered for Lister’s ambition. ‘What new points render requisite still further experiments with the poor frogs?’ his father asked. Lister presented papers. He advocated cleanliness on the wards. He familiarised himself with the work of Louis Pasteur, whose investigations into spoiled wine had identified rod-like bacteria annexing the yeast. He concluded that ‘just as we can destroy lice on the nit-filled head of a child by applying a poison that causes no lesion to the scalp, so I believe that we can apply to a patient’s wounds toxic products that will destroy the bacteria without harming the soft parts of this tissue.’ Antiseptic irrigation was already in use, but only as a treatment, not as a prophylactic: Lister proposed that wounds should be cleaned before infection set in. He experimented with various preparations, pouring dilute potassium permanganate (used in powder form to produce a photographer’s flash) into the skin flaps of a recently amputated limb, but that test was a failure.

The most striking element of Fitzharris’s book is not its depiction of surgical daring (the legendary James Syme could take your leg off at the hip in less than a minute), or ghastly suffering (an unanaesthetised man with a facial tumour endured 24 minutes, watching slices of his jawbone drop ‘with a sickening rattle’ into a bucket), but the suggestion that the advance towards asepsis was driven as much by happenstance – and by adherence to the Holmesian principle that one must observe rather than merely see – as by hours in the laboratory. Lister’s lifelong fascination with the microscope, which prompted his examination of gangrenous pus as well as his use of antiseptics, can be traced back to his father, and to his own childhood realisation that a bubble trapped in a windowpane enlarges what lies beyond it. And one of the strongest challenges to the anti-contagionist theory came not from a paper in the Lancet, but from the Great Stink of 1858. The Thames, by this stage little more than a sewer conveying effluent to the North Sea, began to emit a stench which, according to Faraday, could be observed ‘rolled up in clouds so dense that they were visible at the surface’. Londoners fled; there was a proposal that the Houses of Parliament be evacuated. And yet there were no epidemics that year, contrary to the expectations of proponents of the miasma theory.

Lister’s greatest advance was prompted by a newspaper report. In Carlisle, sewage engineers gagging at the smell of liquid waste spread over nearby fields had addressed the problem by covering it with carbolic acid, a substance used with indiscriminate enthusiasm for tasks including preserving ships’ timbers and preventing body odour. But a curious side-effect was observed: an outbreak of cattle plague in the carbolic-soaked fields was halted, the plague-causing parasites having been eradicated. Lister, who had abandoned his trials with potassium permanganate, quickly obtained a sample of carbolic acid. Shortly afterwards, treating a child whose leg had been shattered by a cart, he faced a choice: whether to amputate to forestall the inevitable gangrene, or to test his theory that carbolic acid could prevent infection. With the arrogance necessary to the practice of medicine, Lister decided to put carbolic acid to the test. Some weeks later the boy walked out of the hospital.

Unfortunately, nobody – least of all a scientist – likes to be publicly corrected. Infection was still considered by many to be inevitable, and best left to play out as Providence determined – a version, in fact, of the ‘therapeutic nihilism’ to which most Quakers, Lister’s father included, adhered. To argue the contrary was tacitly to condemn surgical practices that had been in use for decades. In Vienna, the Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis observed that, contrary to received wisdom, mothers were more likely to die of the postpartum infection ‘childbed fever’ when attended by a surgeon rather than a midwife. When a colleague cut himself performing an autopsy and died of an infection with symptoms identical to those of childbed fever, Semmelweis realised that the disease had been transmitted from corpse to surgeon and that it had been caused by the same agent that killed new mothers. A simple solution presented itself: surgeons should wash their hands with a preparation of chlorinated lime before administering to women in labour. Handwashing facilities were installed, deaths from childbed fever plummeted and Semmelweis briefly rejoiced in the title ‘Saviour of Mothers’. The triumph was short-lived: doctors demanded a full explanation of his theory, and not receiving one, refused to wash their hands. Semmelweis took to roaming around Vienna thrusting pamphlets into the hands of passers-by urging women to allow only midwives to attend their births. He was eventually sent to an asylum (where he sustained a wound in a scuffle with the guards and died, probably of an infection).

Lister wasn’t exempt from charges of quackery and folly, and Fitzharris – with an eye for the narrative arc – recounts the humbling of her hero. Anonymous letters to newspapers accused Lister of intellectual theft. His methods were denounced as ‘obsolete and inelegant’. In a broadside reminiscent of those levelled at Darwin, one opponent castigated Lister for portraying nature as ‘some murderous hag whose fiendish machinations must be counteracted’. Nonetheless, when Queen Victoria could no longer bear the pain caused by an abscess under her arm, it was Lister who was summoned to Balmoral, accompanied by a copper pumping mechanism known as a ‘donkey engine’, which sprayed a fine mist of carbolic acid (including, to the horror of onlookers, into the queen’s face). The abscess and the surgical instruments were soaked in antiseptic; the pus was drained; the wound healed well; and Lister – with what one imagines to have been a rare flash of humour – declared himself ‘the only man who has ever stuck a knife into the queen’.

Fitzharris does not do the longue durée, confining herself to Lister and his contemporaries. But efforts to tackle infection are almost as old as the human record. The Berlin Papyrus, an Egyptian medical document from at least as early as 1200 BCE, stresses the necessity of keeping wounds closed, to prevent malicious spirits from entering with disease in their wake – a notion that calls to mind the theory of the pestilential miasma. The topical application of honey was known to be beneficial: in the Greek physician Dioscorides’ De Materia Medica it is observed that honey is ‘good for all rotten and hollow ulcers’. Moses issued the Israelites with instructions to isolate those who had been in contact with the dead outside the camp (19th-century surgeons bustling from mortuary to operating table might have done well to recall this). The Butchering Art, with its attention to detail, its admiration for its subject and its unflinching sympathy for the suffering, proposes a causal chain – running through the history of human sickness and not yet at its end – in which Lister forms a strong and vital link.

Send Letters To:

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

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 40 No. 16 · 30 August 2018

Sarah Perry writes that her doctors were concerned at the possibility of her ‘acquiring one of the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that plague hospital wards’ (LRB, 5 July). Two weeks later, her GP ‘recoiled at the unmistakeable smell of infection … but it was merely the Staphylococcus aureus bacterium … A course of antibiotics, frequent sluicings with saline, and all would be well.’ All clearly was well. But it seems worth pointing out that there are several strains of S. aureus, including some that are resistant to broad-spectrum antibiotics – MRSA stands for methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus – and have since the 1990s plagued hospital wards, as well as nursing homes, prisons, homeless shelters and military barracks.

Martin Sanderson
Ipswich, Suffolk

send letters to

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

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.