I refer you to an article in the July 8, 2016, edition of The New York Times: "Was Mary Lincoln Driven 'Mad' by a Vitamin Deficiency?" Here is an excerpt:

Could pernicious anemia, a disease caused by a vitamin B12 deficiency, have explained the many strange behaviors of Mary Todd Lincoln?

She was not exactly a model first lady. Historians have had a field day describing her violent temper, wild shopping sprees (she owned 300 pairs of kid gloves), depressed moods and all-consuming fears of burglars, storms and poverty. Late in life, at her son’s urging, she was committed to a mental hospital for several months.

Plenty of theories, none proven, have been floated. She was bipolar. She had syphilis or that well known cause of feminine madness, menstrual trouble. She was spoiled and narcissistic. She never recovered from a road accident in which her head hit a rock. She lost her mind grieving the deaths of three of her four sons and her husband’s assassination.

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/health...n-b12.html

Here is the link to the referenced journal article:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/622399/pdf

To bad Dr. Sotos isn't a veterinarian.
I wonder if Mary's cooking, food scraps and French pastry crumbs Willie and Tad slipped to me from under the table were the reasons for my sleep apnea, high blood pressure and my strong infatuation for French Poodles?

Fido

I have read about many of her symptoms, but Mary having the Lhermitte symptom was a totally new one to me. I had never heard of it before. I looked it up in Wikipedia, and there it says, "Lhermitte's phenomenon or the Lhermitte phenomenon, sometimes called the barber chair phenomenon, is an electrical sensation that runs down the back and into the limbs. The sensation can feel like it goes up or down the spine. It is generally considered uncomfortable. In many patients, it is elicited by bending the head forward. It can also be evoked when a practitioner pounds on the posterior cervical spine while the neck is flexed; this is caused by involvement of the posterior columns."

(07-10-2016, 05:40 AM)RJNorton Wrote: I have read about many of her symptoms, but Mary having the Lhermitte symptom was a totally new one to me. I had never heard of it before. I looked it up in Wikipedia, and there it says, "Lhermitte's phenomenon or the Lhermitte phenomenon, sometimes called the barber chair phenomenon, is an electrical sensation that runs down the back and into the limbs. The sensation can feel like it goes up or down the spine. It is generally considered uncomfortable. In many patients, it is elicited by bending the head forward. It can also be evoked when a practitioner pounds on the posterior cervical spine while the neck is flexed; this is caused by involvement of the posterior columns."

This was new to me, too. Please excuse if I overlooked in the article, but where does this quite specific "major physical finding" (Lhermitte's) come from, is there anywhere a source?
I go with Dr. Houme's assessment:
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...-3066.html

(07-10-2016, 02:38 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: This was new to me, too. Please excuse if I overlooked in the article, but where does this quite specific "major physical finding"

Eva, Dr. Sotos writes:

"True pain is classically absent or atypical in PA (Cabot 1896; Woltman 1924). Her physician commented “she did not often experience pain,” and Mary’s few references to non-cranial “pain” generally do not elaborate. An exception was from 1868 to 1870, when she complained of “great . . . pain in my spine” that was both “burning” and “cold.” This unusual sensation, which never again appeared in her letters, fits the Lhermitte symptom: a disagreeable “electric” sensation that travels down the spine or limbs after neck flexion. It is “a common early symptom of subacute combined degeneration of the cord,” occurring in 25% of SCD inpatients from 1962 to 1971 (Gautier-Smith 1973, 861). Generally brief and non-painful, it may sometimes be pervasive, “violent,” and enervating (Lhermitte, Bollak, and Nicholas 1924; Olkon 1933; Pearce 1994). Descriptions of the Lhermitte symptom, starting with the original in 1924, invariably cast it as “electric” (Lhermitte, Bollak, and Nicholas 1924). Mary, living before the age of household electricity, appears to have used close non-electrical metaphors. (Jumping into cold water, for example, can feel like an electric shock.)"

Thanks, Roger. "...fits the Lhermitte symptom" to my understanding isn't automatically a "finding" (i.e. determined diagnosis). I'm glad most real life diagnosises are founded on more substantial examination.

I am curious about "image C " on page 429:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/622399/pdf

C) This haggard woman, blurrily photographed at a formal White House meeting in March 1863,“ is often identified” as Mary Lincoln. She would have been 44 years old. Her hair style, facial structure, facial lines, submandibular fat, and clothes (mourning wear) match Mary’s.


Can anyone shed some further insight into this image? Thanks!

Reignette, I believe that is a close-up of Mary in a photo that was taken when Native American chiefs visited the White House in March of 1863. I think this photo was taken in the White House conservatory, and Mary is in the rear at the far right. John Nicolay is in the rear-center.

Lloyd Ostendorf writes, "Mrs. Lincoln appears older than she does in some other pictures taken that year, possibly because of the harsh side lighting on her face." The photo has a "Brady 1862" imprint, but the Native Americans visited in 1863. Offhand I have no explanation for that discrepancy.

(07-11-2016, 05:05 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Reignette, I believe that is a close-up of Mary in a photo that was taken when Native American chiefs visited the White House in March of 1863. I think this photo was taken in the White House conservatory, and Mary is in the rear at the far right. John Nicolay is in the rear-center.

Lloyd Ostendorf writes, "Mrs. Lincoln appears older than she does in some other pictures taken that year, possibly because of the harsh side lighting on her face." The photo has a "Brady 1862" imprint, but the Native Americans visited in 1863. Offhand I have no explanation for that discrepancy.

This image is one three taken in the early spring of 1863, and published together for the first time in White House History, Spring 2009, p 64-69. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/photog...mmer-house

Author Cliff Krainik notes: "The bonneted woman at far right has occasionally been identified as Mary Todd Lincoln, but positive identification remains unsolved...No contemporary identification, however, supports the claim, and even George Nicolay (one of the president's secretaries) who named all the other non-Indian guests in the picture, failed to provide her identity."

Here is an image of the stereocard of the alleged Mary Lincoln with John Nicolay, the Native Americans, and others. Again, it's dated 1862, although the Native Americans visited in 1863.

http://cdm16089.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/r...l1/id/3533

Any opinions? Is it Mary? I tried to find a photo also taken in 1863 for comparison. In Lloyd Ostendorf's book on Mary Lincoln photos, he lists the one on the right as having been taken in the fall of 1863.

So these two photos were taken roughly 6 months apart (if Ostendorf is accurate on the date).

Thank you, Roger and Blaine.

I see some physical resemblance of MTL, but the facts you presented outweigh any consideration.

1. The Brady imprint of 1862 v. the date of visit (1863)
2. There was no “contemporary” identification of MTL.

The image makes for a good debate, but I would not use it to identify MTL.

I'm just guessing, but I'll say the one on the left is not Mary.
The nose is similar, but the eyes, the chin, and lines around the mouth don't seem to match.

Although similar she doesn't seem Mary to me - something around the eyes and mouth is different.

Like others, I don't believe that is Mary either. Too much change in appearance that can't all be blamed on bad lighting. I would also suspect that Mary would want to be placed in the middle of that photo, not tucked behind the flora and fauna.