The Victorian period holds a particular fascination for the sympathetic historian of women's history. On the surface, at least, women were obviously "oppressed" by society's narrow definition of their role. Torn by the harsh realities of industrialization and the uncongenial atmosphere of Social Darwinism, nineteenth-century Americans sought refuge in a cult of domesticity which exalted Woman and Home. Woman's psychological and cultural burdens consequently became more onerous, even as her legal rights remained circumscribed. Her image was shot through with contradictions: Guardian of the race, yet wholly subject to male authority; preserver of civilization, religion, and culture, yet considered intellectually inferior; the primary socializer of her children, yet with no more real responsibility and dignity than a child herself Woman was inevitably tormented by the ambiguities of her position. In the wake of the renewed feminist consciousness of recent years, it is tempting to locate the source of twentieth-century problems in the apparent injustices of nineteenthl-century society. Many current feminist histories of the period do just that. One way or another each plays upon a single theme: Woman as Victim. The problem such works present for the historian are obvious: They are not history, but polemics. Fortunately, Ann Douglas Wood's treatment of the "fashionable diseases" manages to avoid the worst defects of recent feminist writing.' But it, too, suffers from a presentism which makes the author often too willing to distort historical evidence and lay blame, while missing a larger opportunity to explore the immense conplexities which lie at the root of Victorian attitudes toward women. The article is at its weakest in its discussion of two major points: nineteenth-century medical therapeutics in the treatment of women's diseases, and the attitudes and self-images of pioneering women doctors. Wood's handling of both