Bergman Ted L L
School of Modern Languages, University of St Andrews, Buchanan Building, Union St, St Andrews, KY16 9PH, Scotland, UK.
J Med Humanit. 2024 Dec;45(4):421-441. doi: 10.1007/s10912-024-09892-8. Epub 2024 Oct 1.
While early modern Spain may seem a world away, it is an extremely rich and relevant context for gaining a better understanding of the Rhetoric of Health, specifically the power of metaphor, in the related spheres of policy-making and public debate. It was a time and place in which the urban populace's physical well-being depended upon the fortunes of theatrical performances due to a system of alms for hospitals driven by ticket receipts. Anti-theatricalists argued that the immoral nature of theatrical performances made them spiritually and medically detrimental to society. Pro-theatricalists argued that plays were always a public good on balance because they raised much-needed funds for hospitals. Instead of producing a conflict between morality and public health, each side reinforced their connection until the two topics became nearly inseparable in the sphere of public debate. While pro-theatricalists mainly stayed with their arguments about funding hospitals, anti-theatricalists developed a new strategy of literalising the metaphor of theatre as a "plague of the republic" and arguing that immoral entertainment brought literal disease to the populace as a punishment from God. This exemplifies Stephen Pender's observation of how, in an early modern medical context, "Rhetoric as a way of perceiving probabilities and adjusting one's argument to the audience and circumstance offers a model of ethical action and interaction". This article is organised chronologically to track specific adjustments to a specific public-health debate that rely upon moral metaphors of medicine. Each side wrangled over these metaphors in an effort to break a deadlock in a public-health policy debate with entertainment, finance, and morality at its centre. By the end of the seventeenth century, anti-theatricalists finally found their best rhetorical weapon in the literalisation of the "plague of the republic" metaphor, but it only offered a short-term solution to banning theatre contingent upon the ebb and flow of epidemics. Simultaneously, the finance structure of funding hospitals began to erase the role of hospitals from the longstanding debate about the morality of public theatre. The case of early modern Spain provides valuable lessons about the power of metaphor in the Rhetoric of Healthcare that are still applicable today.
虽然早期现代西班牙看似与现代相隔甚远,但它却是一个极为丰富且相关的背景,有助于我们更好地理解健康修辞学,尤其是隐喻在政策制定和公共辩论相关领域的力量。在那个时代和地方,由于医院的救济制度依赖门票收入,城市民众的身体健康状况取决于戏剧演出的兴衰。反戏剧主义者认为,戏剧演出的不道德本质使其在精神和医学层面上对社会有害。支持戏剧者则认为,总体而言戏剧始终是一种公益事物,因为它们为医院筹集了急需的资金。双方并未在道德与公共健康之间引发冲突,反而强化了两者的联系,直至在公共辩论领域这两个话题几乎变得不可分割。支持戏剧者主要坚持他们关于为医院筹资的论点,而反戏剧主义者则制定了一种新策略,即将戏剧隐喻为“共和国的瘟疫”并使之字面化,辩称不道德的娱乐活动给民众带来了实实在在的疾病,这是上帝的惩罚。这例证了斯蒂芬·彭德的观察,即在早期现代医学背景下,“修辞作为一种感知可能性并根据受众和情境调整论点的方式,提供了一种道德行为和互动的模式”。本文按时间顺序组织,以追踪对一场特定公共卫生辩论的具体调整,这场辩论依赖医学的道德隐喻。双方就这些隐喻争论不休,试图打破一场以娱乐、金融和道德为核心的公共卫生政策辩论中的僵局。到17世纪末,反戏剧主义者最终在将“共和国的瘟疫”隐喻字面化方面找到了他们最佳的修辞武器,但这只是一个短期解决方案,即根据疫情的起伏来禁止戏剧演出。与此同时,为医院筹资的财务结构开始使医院在关于公共戏剧道德的长期辩论中不再发挥作用。早期现代西班牙的案例为健康修辞学中隐喻的力量提供了宝贵的经验教训,这些经验教训至今仍然适用。