Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorBellis, Richard Thomas
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-10T12:30:18Z
dc.date.available2019-12-10T12:30:18Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-20
dc.identifier.citationBellis , R T 2020 , ' 'As to the plan of this work … we think Dr. Baillie has done wrong' : changing the study of disease through epistemic genre in Georgian Britain ' , Notes and Records of the Royal Society . https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2019.0036en
dc.identifier.issn0035-9149
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 264039810
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: a03f7a51-36b0-4ad5-8b44-4e35cae3d6fe
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85083104980
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000649162600002
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/19109
dc.description.abstractIn the eighteenth century, the writing of case histories, incorporating findings at post-mortem, was central to how the study of disease was practised. The use of this epistemic genre reflected the work of medical practitioners with their patients. By contrast, Matthew Baillie's Morbid Anatomy (1793) was a work of anatomy on the subject of disease that promoted an anatomical approach to the study of disease and stemmed from his own, different practice, which was anatomical. This was criticized by contemporaries who were sceptical that such an approach would prove useful to the physician's practice. Baillie's work took on the features of anatomy books, and omitted many of the features central to the writing of case histories, such as patient narratives. Instead he focused on describing, in generalized terms, the changes in structure caused by disease. These descriptions were valued by contemporaries, who incorporated his descriptions into their own works, changing the way that cases included anatomical findings. At the same time, Baillie's later editions contained more features of cases, such as descriptions of symptoms. Thus, individual books worked to integrate epistemic genres, and change practice in the study of disease.
dc.format.extent20
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofNotes and Records of the Royal Societyen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by the Royal Society. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2019.0036en
dc.subjectMatthew Baillieen
dc.subjectEpistemic genreen
dc.subjectMorbid anatomyen
dc.subjectCase historyen
dc.subjectStudy of diseaseen
dc.subjectEighteenth centuryen
dc.subjectDA Great Britainen
dc.subjectRB Pathologyen
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subject.lccDAen
dc.subject.lccRBen
dc.title'As to the plan of this work … we think Dr. Baillie has done wrong' : changing the study of disease through epistemic genre in Georgian Britainen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Historyen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2019.0036
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record