Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth-Century Literature and Culture

Abstract

Although we have come to regard "clinical" and "Romantic" as oppositional terms, Romantic literature and clinical medicine were fed by the same cultural configurations. In the pre-Darwinian nineteenth century, writers and doctors developed an interpretive method that negotiated between literary and scientific knowledge of the natural world. Literary writers produced potent myths that juxtaposed the natural and the supernatural, often disturbing the conventional dualist hierarchy of spirit over flesh. Clinicians developed the two-part history and physical examination, weighing the patient's narrative against the evidence of the body. Examining fiction by Mary Shelley, Carlyle, the Brontës, and George Eliot, alongside biomedical lectures, textbooks, and articles, Janis McLarren Caldwell demonstrates the similar ways of reading employed by nineteenth-century doctors and imaginative writers and reveals the complexities and creative exchanges of the relationship between literature and medicine. janis mC l arren caldwell practiced emergency medicine for five years before pursuing a Ph.D. in English Literature. She now teaches literature and science at Wake Forest University, where she is an Assistant Professor of English. An expert in nineteenth-century literature and medicine, she has received grants for research at Cambridge University and at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Her published work focuses on medical history and ethics in Romantic and Victorian literature.

Authority and medical expertise: Arthur Conan Doyle inThe Idler

“…Nonetheless, a feature of fin-de-siècle mass-market periodicals was ‘to hold apparently contradictory discourses in suspension’ (Tattersdill 2016, 19) and, when we examine Conan Doyle’s presentation of Koch in the Review of Reviews , we find a variety of contrasting voices. The sketch is sandwiched between the aforementioned anonymous reflection on Koch (which connects his work to that of infamous quack Count Mattei)1 and Koch’s own defence of his decision to maintain secrecy around his discovery.…”

“…3. This conception of periodicals draws on Tattersdill (2016) discussion in his introduction to Science, Fiction, and the Periodical Press .…”