The Arc de Siècle: functional neurological disorder during the ‘forgotten’ years of the 20th century, 2020, Stone et al

I suspect it is a play on "fin de siècle," with "arc de siècle" meaning the "arc of the century," probably meaning "the course of the century" which would make sense if the paper is about how the perception of FND changed over the course of the 20th century - - which might well be "full circle" as @Jonathan Edwards said.

"Fin de siècle" also carries a connotation of decay and rebirth, so maybe they think that FND is having a rebirth of interest in the 21st century.

 

maybe he's hearing voices

 

Unfortunately it seems to be more complicated than that. The 1922 report makes it clear that there were cases of shell shock arising after percussive injuries, but that ancillary forces who had not been near the front line sometimes suffered the same symptoms. Some were malingering, some not. There must have been other causes. One should not even be too judgmental about the malingerers.

What brings it all together is the use of the term "neurasthenia" to describe some cases.

It is not helpful that the supposed leading expert, or one of them, Rivers was apparently considered a charlatan by one of the other witnesses to the committee, Thomas Graham Brown.

 

I think there is a subtle reference to the " arc-de-cercle" which was the arched back that Charcot decided was the cardinal sign of hysteria.

http://www.richardwebster.net/freudandcharcot.html

"Freud, Charcot and hysteria: lost in the labyrinth" by RICHARD WEBSTER

 

It´s probably referencing to himself and rather means "Art de Siècle", assuming that he will be considered the big capacity of the 21st century.


The Art de Siècle: functional neurological disorder during the ‘forgotten’ years of the 20th century, 2020, Stone et al

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxXhjFvNNGc

 

This whole thread should be a warning to other authors. Being pretentious and/or using foreign language that can't be translated is guaranteed to put potential readers off reading the paper. I haven't read the paper myself because having a title that nobody can really understand just makes the authors look like a bunch of wallies. And why should anyone want to read a paper written by a wally?