This article deals with early modern surgical case literature, more specifically with printed collections of observations in surgery. It examines the work of late seventeenth- to late eighteenth-century Italian practitioners from different backgrounds and of different statuses, and highlights the complexity of cognitive and social purposes pervading the genre, besides that of sharing empirical knowledge. These can be apprehended through a second look at texts and contexts, by analysing the ways in which authors selected, penned, and arranged their narratives. As the anthologies under examination show, collected observations varied significantly in focus and scope, with some seemingly designed to sustain the authoritative legacy of learned surgery, others defying a professional ethos for non-academic practitioners, and others still surveying ailments in light of hospital statistics. In fact, as this article suggests, the genre was flexible enough – and the narratives malleable enough – to adjust to changes in surgical theory and practice. In spite of new intellectual expectations, however, it was not plastic enough to take on new epistemic functions, such as reframing surgical nosology.

中文翻译：

---

实践知识和经验修辞：三位意大利外科医生及其观察

本文涉及早期现代手术案例文献，更具体地说是印刷的手术观察集。它审视了 17 世纪末至 18 世纪末来自不同背景和不同地位的意大利从业者的作品，并强调了除了分享经验知识之外，这一类型的认知和社会目的的复杂性。这些可以通过重新审视文本和上下文，通过分析作者选择、书写和安排他们的叙述的方式来理解。正如正在检查的选集所显示的那样，收集到的观察结果在重点和范围上差异很大，其中一些似乎旨在维持学术手术的权威遗产，另一些则违背了非学术从业者的专业精神，和其他人仍在根据医院统计数据调查疾病。事实上，正如这篇文章所暗示的那样，这种类型足够灵活——叙事也足够可塑——可以适应外科理论和实践的变化。然而，尽管有新的知识期望，它的可塑性还不足以承担新的认知功能，例如重新构建外科疾病分类学。