Seeing and believing: three episodes in the history of neurophysiology

In this contribution I look at three episodes in the history of neurophysiology that bring out the complex relationship between seeing and believing. I start with Vesalius in the mid-sixteenth century who writes that he can in no way see any cavity in nerves, even in the optic nerves. He thus questions the age-old theory (dating back to the Alexandrians in the third century BC) but, because of the overarching psychophysiology of his time, does not press his case. This conflict between observation and theory persisted for a quarter of a millennium until finally resolved at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the discoveries of Galvani and Volta. The second case is provided by the early history of retinal synaptology. Schultze in 1866 had represented rod spherules and bipolar dendrites in the outer plexiform layer as being separated by a (synaptic) gap, yet in his written account, because of his theoretical commitments, held them to be continuous. Cajal later, 1892, criticized Schultze for this pusillanimity, but his own figure in La Cellule is by no means clear. It was only with the advent of the electron microscopy in the mid-twentieth century that the true complexity of the junction was revealed and it was shown that both investigators were partially right. My final example comes from the Hodgkin-Huxley biophysics of the 1950s. Their theory of the action potential depended on the existence of unseen ion pores with quite complex biophysical characteristics. These were not seen until the Nobel-Prize-winning X-ray diffraction analyses of the early twenty-first century. Seeing, even at several removes, then confirmed Hodgkin and Huxley’s belief. The relation between seeing and believing is by no means straightforward.

Leadership through intellect:the meaning of leadership in the intellectual history of nineteenth and early twentieth century Germany

This study examines the understanding of leadership in Germany, as it developed throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The investigation is based on the work of contemporary writers and thinkers, as well as on the leadership styles of key political figures. Given the ideological connotations of the term "Führung" in post-war Germany, the aim is to reconsider the meaning of leadership, with particular reference to the alternative notion of spiritual guidance. The rise to power of Napoleon I fundamentally influenced the understanding of leadership in Germany, as is demonstrated through an analysis of the Napoleonic reception in contemporary literature. Despite polarised responses, the formation of the heroic ideal may be identified, the quest for spiritual guidance having become subordinate to the charismatic legitimisation of political authority. As advocated by Thomas Carlyle, the mid to late nineteenth century witnessed the realisation of this ideal through Bismarck. The intellectual response to this development is characterised by the work of Wagner, Burckhardt and Nietzsche. In different ways each figure emphasised the need to redefine greatness and to seek spiritual guidance from alternative sources. The reflection on leadership in the early twentieth century is traced through the work of Harry Graf Kessler and the circles around Stefan George. Hitherto unpublished material is examined, revealing both the influences of nineteenth century thought and reactions to the "persönliches Regiment" of Wilhelm II. The intellectual debate culminates in Max Kommerell's 1928 study Der Dichter als Führer. Read in conjunction with unpublished notes and correspondence, this provides new insights into Kommerell's thought. The concept of poetic leadership constitutes a potential spiritual and intellectual alternative to the ideal of the political "Führer" which dominated the forthcoming era. It therefore remains of contemporary significance and may contribute to a broader discussion of the leadership dilemma in modern Germany.