MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1624270067 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2015.0036

Sir Thomas Browne: A Life by Reid Barbour (review)

2015· article· en· W1624270067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Kaoukji

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)ClassicsHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Sir Thomas Browne: A Life by Reid Barbour Natalie Kaoukji Reid Barbour. Sir Thomas Browne: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. xiv + 534 pp. Ill. £70.00 (978-0-19-967988-1). Sir Thomas Browne: A Life presents an account of Thomas Browne’s life beyond the world of books—immersed in a world of travel, exchange, urban civic and mercantile cultures, medical practice, and domestic life. It draws principally on institutional records, works by Browne’s contemporaries, and Browne’s own notebooks and correspondence. The book is organized into three parts: Browne’s early years (London 1605–16, Winchester and Ireland 1616–23, Oxford 1623–31), his medical training in Europe (Montpellier 1631–32, Padua 1632–33, Leiden 1633–34), and his later life as author and practicing physician (Halifax 1634–37 and Norwich 1637–82). For the first two sections, Barbour seeks to reconstruct Browne’s early life through the medical worlds of Oxford, Montpelier, Padua, and Leiden, drawing on university records, selected works of professors of medicine (including Liceti, Imperiale, Riviere, Scharpe, Ranchin, Silvaticus, Sala), contemporary travel accounts, and secondary literature on the regions; for the third section, he seeks to extend the world of Browne’s authorial strategies, antiquarianism, and medical practice beyond East Anglia, charting the influence of Browne’s published works further afield and Browne’s two-way engagement with the wider intellectual sphere through his extensive correspondence and his medical notebooks. The third section is significantly longer than the others (at 304 pp., 56 pp., and 74 pp., respectively), and is likely to be of greatest interest to historians of medicine, presenting material that is likely to be less familiar. It offers an insight into Browne’s medical correspondence, his day-to-day medical practice, medical notebooks, antiquarian studies and his navigation, on behalf of his son Edward, of the institutions of the Royal Society and the Royal College of Physicians. It offers an excellent case study in the relationship between local medical practice and extended intellectual networks, and offers opportunities for reflection on the ways in which antiquarian methodologies and global trade networks sat together in the framework of seventeenth-century natural knowledge. In his presentation of Browne’s extension of the medical consultation to correspondence with other physicians Barbour offers a picture of seventeenth-century medical practice as hovering between the closed patient–physician encounter and the network of reports of the distant and unseen more commonly associated with natural philosophical and antiquarian knowledge economies. The organization of the book is primarily oriented to chronology. Three themes nonetheless seem to recur throughout the work: first, the valorizing of the lowly, local, domestic, and particular—a notion captured in a reported detail of Browne’s home furnishing, a picture of Ovid’s Baucis and Philemon situating the gods in a humble domestic scene (a late eighteenth-century version of which provides the book’s cover image); second, a preoccupation with place and the relationship between locality, travel, and reading, particularly configured in the relationship between Browne’s largely unwritten early travels and his static later life made mobile through writing; and third, the question of the relationship between [End Page 341] direct and indirect experience underwriting Barbour’s endeavor in the work to present Browne’s travels, practice, and life as the source of material for his works. A great deal of material here will be of interest to historians of medicine. Nonetheless the lack of medico-historical perspective in some of the discussion, and particularly in section 2, can be problematic. The use of evidence in this section can be a little uncritical, and the discussions of early modern medical texts are lacking a broader perspective of commonly held views from which to distinguish distinctive or characteristic ones. In the natural philosophical and medical contextualization more broadly, Barbour’s readings tend to be underpinned by an expectation of opposition between religious, medical, antiquarian, and what are characterized as Baconian and empirical orders of knowledge. A shift of focus that took as read the methodological and conceptual continuity between these spheres may perhaps have allowed for many of the subsections to bear more directly on one another. There are...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207