Photo finish

Abstract

It is time to draw the threads together. I have been arguing that we should lower the historical gaze onto the sufferers. “Banish money,” wrote John Keats, “- banish sofas - Banish wine - Banish Music - But right Jack Health- Honest Jack Health, true Jack Health - banish Health and banish all the world.”1 Health is the backbone of social history, and affliction the fons et origo of all history of medicine. For whereas one could plausibly argue, a history of crime should start not with the criminals but with law and police-because these define criminality - the sick cannot possibly be regarded as a class apart, conjured up by the faculty. Moreover, it is especially important to get under the skin of the sufferers, because most maladies have not in fact been treated by the profession but by self- or community help, or in the paramedical marketplace where the sufferers' own initiatives, confidence, and pockets are critical. In addition, lay medical power has also been crucial in a sphere I haven't touched upon here, since I have been concentrating on the sufferer as an individual - in other words, lay-instigated social, civic, and institutional strategies for sickness, above all, in earlier times, for coping with epidemic pestilences such as plague. For what emerges, for example, from recent studies of civic health arrangements in the Italian Renaissance is that physicians regularly had to play second fiddle, in the teeth of various lay interests, to city fathers, philanthropic patrons, and, of course, the Church itself.2