Andrews Jonathan
School of Historical Studies & Northern Centre for the History of Medicine, Newcastle University, Armstrong Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NEI 7RU, UK.
Hist Psychiatry. 2010 Dec;21(84 Pt 4):387-405. doi: 10.1177/0957154X09349706.
The second part of this paper explores deepening doubts about pyromania as a special insanity, British debates post-1890, and pyromania's supplanting with the broader diagnostic category of insane incendiarism. It assesses the conceptual importance of revenge and morbid-motivations for arson, and the relationship of Victorian and Edwardian concepts of arson to more modern psychiatric research.The main objective is to ascertain the extent to which Victorian and Edwardian medico-psychologists and medical legists arrived at meaningful and workable definitions of criminal insanity linked to arson. It concludes by emphasizing the limitations, contentiousness and inconsistencies in the use of technical terms such as'pyromania', contrasted with the qualified success of authorities in arriving at more viable and broadly acceptable explanations of insane firesetting.
本文的第二部分探讨了对纵火癖作为一种特殊精神错乱的质疑不断加深的情况、1890年后英国的相关辩论,以及纵火癖被更广泛的“精神错乱纵火”诊断类别所取代的情况。它评估了报复和纵火的病态动机的概念重要性,以及维多利亚时代和爱德华时代的纵火概念与更现代的精神病学研究之间的关系。主要目的是确定维多利亚时代和爱德华时代的医学心理学家和法医学家在多大程度上得出了与纵火相关的犯罪精神错乱的有意义且可行的定义。文章最后强调了“纵火癖”等技术术语使用中的局限性、争议性和不一致性,与之形成对比的是,当局在得出关于精神错乱纵火的更可行且更广泛可接受的解释方面取得了一定成功。