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).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".