Abstract
A peculiarity of Charles Dickens's narrative style is the use of lengthy entertaining and thought-provoking descriptions. Among them, a significant number are dedicated to meticulous accounts of accidents and illnesses which are noteworthy also because they disclose this writer's remarkable interest in and knowledge of medical matters. Dickens was a regular reader of The Lancet and a keen observer of symptoms and cures, so much so that according to an article published in the British Medical Journal in 1924 he possessed 'powers of medical observation far in advance of the clinicians of his day'. Dickens had first-hand experience of clinical cases, and there is no doubt as to his actual contribution to furthering medical knowledge. However, the full scale of his impact upon modern medicine is best appreciated when considered in the light of the medical debate of 1850s England and with regards to Dickens's place in the cultural critique of mid-Victorian England. In spite and because of his medical knowledge, Dickens was skeptical of the unquestioned authority of science and scientists, and he equally disapproved of the traditional doctor-patient relationship. This paper aims to explore these aspects from a literary perspective through a reading of a lesser-known work by Charles Dickens and Mark Lemon entitled Mr. Nightingale's Diary (1851). wider audience still today, both among Anglophone and non-Anglophone audiences 1 . As opposed to Dickens's novels and short stories, in fact, his dramatic oeuvre has not received significant attention from critics or theatre practitioners; the texts have no large production history and they have hardly been translated into languages other than the original English. The bicentenary of Dickens's birth, in 2012, helped to d raw public and critical attention also to parts of his literary production which are still usually dismissed, and in such terms Dickens's plays as well as his use of the theatrical medium are central to the present argument. The anniversary celebrations saw also an increase in the number of articles and scholarly works dealing with Dickens's contribution to current medical scholarship, with special emphasis on the accuracy of descriptions of
Highlights
This paper reflects on Charles Dickens’s place in the mid-Victorian medical debate and cultural milieu through a reading of Mr Nightingale’s Diary, a one-act play written in 1851 together with his friend Mark Lemon, a famous Shakespearean actor at the time and a founder of the satirical journal Punch
What follows combines the unquestionable merit of Dickens's medical interest, his engagement with medical discourses and the validity of theatrical practice through an almost forgotten farce, Mr Nightingale’s Diary
An avid reader of The Lancet, an influential medical journal ‘founded ... for the purpose of exposing the abuses of corrupted and contended professionalism’ [6: 29-30], Dickens learnt how to treat symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia through mesmerism, a technique he learnt from a well-known practitioner, Doctor John Elliotson
Summary
The Strange Gentleman and The Village Coquettes, both dated 1836; Is She His Wife?(1837); The Lamplighter (1838); Mr Nightingale’s Diary (1851); The Frozen Deep (based on Wilkie Collins’ namesake short story; 1857); and No Thoroughfare (1867). 2 To cite some examples: S. The hiddenSprings of Fiction, (here [6]) partly belongs to this category of works When it comes to Dickens, though, there seem to be no references to his plays or to his endeavor to spark debate on the limits and the dangers of unquestioned medical discourse. A recent article by the BBC News Magazine online, published on Dickens’s birthday, on 7th February, is exemplary in this respect: posing a rhetorical question – ‘Did Charles Dickens really save poor children and clean up the slums?’ – and relying on authoritative voices from academia (e.g. Malcolm Andrews, editor of the Dickensian Journal of the Dickens Fellowship; Heather Shore, a social history expert at Leeds Metropolitan University; Hugh Cunningham, professor of social history at the University of Kent), the article draws the conclusion that Dickens did not help change things [1] Contrary to such opinion, this study contends that Dickens did change things, and that he managed to do so from the stage, through a medium which afforded him constant experimentation, and a direct contact with his public whose response, both emotional and intellectual, he was able to record immediately. What follows combines the unquestionable merit of Dickens's medical interest, his engagement with medical discourses and the validity of theatrical practice through an almost forgotten farce, Mr Nightingale’s Diary
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
