Heather Meek, <i>Reimagining Illness: Women Writers and Medicine in Eighteenth-Century Britain</i> Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 2023. Pp. 324. ISBN 978-0-2280-1906-0. CA$75.00 (cloth).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This excellent study shows the extensive and deep medical knowledge of six women, each of whom was a 'medical savant' (p.131) who authored imaginative texts in eighteenth-century Britain.Facilitated by cultures of medicine and professional writing that had not yet formalized sufficiently to exclude women's voices, women's imaginative writing on health and medicine flourished during the eighteenth century.Illness and the body proved generative topics in their literary output, whether in poetry, prose or autobiography.Characters' suffering prompted experimentation in communicating voice and interiority; particular medical conditions prompted new poetic forms.At the same time, these women's writings show distinctive forms of medical knowledge, particularly but not only relating to women's bodies.The book is an important contribution both to literature and to the history of medicine and science, foregrounding women's creativity and expertise even as patriarchal stereotypes of women's inferiority persisted.Meek underscores how medical ideas have been profoundly gendered in the past, demonstrating the insufficiency of a narrative of modernizing 'Enlightenment' progress in knowledge.Strikingly, though, Meek's close analysis conveys an alternative kind of dynamism, one undertaken by thinking and feeling women across the life course as they suffered, cared and treated, creating innovative imaginative responses to illness, and to medical knowledge about it.A comprehensive introduction lays out the literary and medical contexts, inviting readers to 'regard illness as at once a concrete pathology and a label attached to a range of overlapping and competing narratives ' (p.19).The six chapters that follow each explore one woman's writing within a richly drawn context of contemporary medicine literature.Chapter 1 on Jane Barker's writing on hysterical affliction makes a compelling case for Barker as a pioneer.Meek argues that her novel Love Intrigues (1713) rewrote conventional medical views on women's physical and mental illness through the protagonist Galesia, whose condition is not the result of her inherent female weakness but of very real social conditions coupled with the duplicitousness of her male lover.The women examined in the remaining five chapters are perhaps more familiar to readers interested in the topic: the poet Anne Finch on 'spleen' and melancholy; smallpox as discussed in the letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu; Hester Lynch Thrale Piozzi's reflections in her journals on the trials of motherhood; consumption in Mary Wollstonecraft's semi-autobiographical novel Mary, A Fiction (1788); and the experiences of breast cancer, mastectomy and recovery as conveyed by Frances Burney in a letter to her sister.Each chapter stands alone as a sophisticated and nuanced analysis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,016 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».