ABSTRACT
It might appear that the history of the concept of schizophrenia has been well documented: a number of texts (for example, Leigh 1961; Hunter and MacAlpine 1963; Jones 1972) describe the historical background against which concepts like schizophrenia were to emerge, while texts or articles which discuss 'schizophrenia', whether academic (for example, Lewis 1966; Neale and Oltmanns 1980; Strauss and Carpenter 1981) or aimed at a wider audience (for example, Wing 1978; Clare 1980) give due consideration to Kraepelin's introduction and elaboration of the concept of dementia praecox in the fifth and subsequent editions of his textbook, to his disagreements with Bleuler, and to Bleuler's introduction of the concept of schizophrenia. It will be argued here, however, that these accounts, which are usually couched in terms of Kraepelin and Bleuler having described or differentiated a form of mental illness, are best thought of as received wisdom about 'schizophrenia', and that an analysis of what Kraepelin and Bleuler actually did (as distinct from what they are said to have done) not only casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of traditional accounts but also helps us to understand some of the problems facing the modern concept of schizophrenia.
