Emil Kraepelin’s psychiatric nosology, proposed in the 5th and 6th editions of his textbook published in 1896 and 1899, did not quickly gain worldwide acceptance, but was instead met with substantial and sustained criticism. The authors review critiques of Kraepelin’s work published in his lifetime by Adolf Meyer, Friedrich Jolly, Eugenio Tanzi, Alfred Hoche, Karl Jaspers, and Willy Hellpach. These critics made six major points. First, Kraepelin’s new categories of dementia praecox and manic-depressive insanity were too broad and too heterogeneous. Second, his emphasis on course of illness was misconceived, as the same disease can result in brief episodes or a chronic course. Third, the success of his system was based on the quality of his textbooks and his academic esteem, rather than on empirical findings. Fourth, his focus on symptoms and signs led to neglect of the whole patient and his or her life story. Fifth, Kraepelin’s early emphasis on experimental psychology did not bear the expected fruit. Sixth, Kraepelin was committed to the application of the medical disease model. However, because of the many-to-many relationship between brain pathology and psychiatric symptoms, true natural disease entities may not exist in psychiatry. Most of the ongoing debates about Kraepelin’s nosology have roots in these earlier discussions and would be enriched by a deeper appreciation of their historical contexts. As authoritative as Kraepelin was, and remains today, his was only one among many voices, and attention to them would be well repaid by a deeper understanding of the fundamental conceptual challenges in our field.

[AJP at 175: Remembering Our Past As We Envision Our Future

April 1927: In Memoriam: Emil Kraepelin, M.D.

Meyer provides an admiring but not uncritical overview of Kraepelin’s career and contributions to psychiatry. “It was the unflinchingly psychiatric orientation of the man,” he wrote, “that impressed and attracted physicians and students.” (Am J Psychiatry 1927; 83:748–755)]

埃米尔·克雷佩林（Emil Kraepelin）的精神病学在1896年和1899年出版的教科书的第5版和第6版中提出，但并没有很快获得全世界的认可，反而遭到了广泛而持续的批评。作者回顾了阿道夫·梅耶（Adolf Meyer），弗里德里希·乔利（Friedrich Jolly），欧金尼奥·坦齐（Eugenio Tanzi），阿尔弗雷德·霍奇（Alfred Hoche），卡尔·贾斯珀斯（Karl Jaspers）和威利·赫尔帕奇（Willy Hellpach）对克雷佩林一生的批评。这些批评家提出了六点要点。首先，Kraepelin的痴呆症和躁狂抑郁症的精神错乱的新类别太宽泛，太异类了。其次，他对病程的强调被误解了，因为同一病会导致短暂发作或慢性病。第三，他的系统的成功是基于他的教科书的质量和他的学术自尊，而不是基于经验的发现。第四，他对症状和体征的关注导致整个患者及其生命故事的忽视。第五，克莱佩林早期对实验心理学的重视并未取得预期的结果。第六，Kraepelin致力于医学疾病模型的应用。但是，由于脑病理学与精神病学症状之间存在多对多的关系，因此，精神病学中可能不存在真正的自然疾病实体。正在进行的有关Kraepelin疾病学的大多数辩论都起源于这些较早的讨论，而对它们的历史背景的更深刻理解将使它们​​更加丰富。像Kraepelin一样具有权威性，并一直保持到今天，他只是众多声音中的一种，而对它们的深刻理解将对我们领域中的基本概念挑战产生深刻的回报，从而使人们对它们的关注得到充分的回报。

[AJP在175：展望未来时缅怀我们的过去

1927年4月：在《回忆录》中：医学博士Emil Kraepelin

Meyer对Kraepelin的职业以及对精神病学的贡献提供了令人钦佩但并非不重要的概述。他写道：“正是男人坚定不移的精神取向给医师和学生留下了深刻的印象，并吸引了他们。” （Am J Psychiatry 1927; 83：748–755）]