实践知识和经验修辞:三位意大利外科医生和他们的观察

Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1163/15733823-20220045
M. Donato
{"title":"实践知识和经验修辞:三位意大利外科医生和他们的观察","authors":"M. Donato","doi":"10.1163/15733823-20220045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article deals with early modern surgical case literature, more specifically with printed collections of observations in surgery. It examines the work of late seventeenth- to late eighteenth-century Italian practitioners from different backgrounds and of different statuses, and highlights the complexity of cognitive and social purposes pervading the genre, besides that of sharing empirical knowledge. These can be apprehended through a second look at texts and contexts, by analysing the ways in which authors selected, penned, and arranged their narratives. As the anthologies under examination show, collected observations varied significantly in focus and scope, with some seemingly designed to sustain the authoritative legacy of learned surgery, others defying a professional ethos for non-academic practitioners, and others still surveying ailments in light of hospital statistics. In fact, as this article suggests, the genre was flexible enough – and the narratives malleable enough – to adjust to changes in surgical theory and practice. In spite of new intellectual expectations, however, it was not plastic enough to take on new epistemic functions, such as reframing surgical nosology.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practical Knowledge and the Rhetoric of Experience: Three Italian Surgeons and Their Observations\",\"authors\":\"M. Donato\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15733823-20220045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article deals with early modern surgical case literature, more specifically with printed collections of observations in surgery. It examines the work of late seventeenth- to late eighteenth-century Italian practitioners from different backgrounds and of different statuses, and highlights the complexity of cognitive and social purposes pervading the genre, besides that of sharing empirical knowledge. These can be apprehended through a second look at texts and contexts, by analysing the ways in which authors selected, penned, and arranged their narratives. As the anthologies under examination show, collected observations varied significantly in focus and scope, with some seemingly designed to sustain the authoritative legacy of learned surgery, others defying a professional ethos for non-academic practitioners, and others still surveying ailments in light of hospital statistics. In fact, as this article suggests, the genre was flexible enough – and the narratives malleable enough – to adjust to changes in surgical theory and practice. In spite of new intellectual expectations, however, it was not plastic enough to take on new epistemic functions, such as reframing surgical nosology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-20220045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-20220045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文涉及早期现代外科病例文献,更具体地说,是外科观察的印刷集合。它考察了17世纪晚期至18世纪晚期来自不同背景和不同地位的意大利实践者的工作,并强调了除了分享经验知识之外,该类型中普遍存在的认知和社会目的的复杂性。通过分析作者选择、写作和安排叙事的方式,这些可以通过对文本和语境的重新审视来理解。正如正在审查的选集所显示的那样,收集到的观察结果在焦点和范围上差异很大,有些似乎是为了维护学术外科的权威遗产,有些则违背了非学术从业者的专业精神,还有一些仍然根据医院的统计数据来调查疾病。事实上,正如这篇文章所暗示的,这种体裁足够灵活,叙事也足够有可塑性,可以适应外科理论和实践的变化。然而,尽管有新的知识期望,它还没有足够的可塑性来承担新的认知功能,如重构外科分类学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Practical Knowledge and the Rhetoric of Experience: Three Italian Surgeons and Their Observations
This article deals with early modern surgical case literature, more specifically with printed collections of observations in surgery. It examines the work of late seventeenth- to late eighteenth-century Italian practitioners from different backgrounds and of different statuses, and highlights the complexity of cognitive and social purposes pervading the genre, besides that of sharing empirical knowledge. These can be apprehended through a second look at texts and contexts, by analysing the ways in which authors selected, penned, and arranged their narratives. As the anthologies under examination show, collected observations varied significantly in focus and scope, with some seemingly designed to sustain the authoritative legacy of learned surgery, others defying a professional ethos for non-academic practitioners, and others still surveying ailments in light of hospital statistics. In fact, as this article suggests, the genre was flexible enough – and the narratives malleable enough – to adjust to changes in surgical theory and practice. In spite of new intellectual expectations, however, it was not plastic enough to take on new epistemic functions, such as reframing surgical nosology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1