MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046302369 · doi:10.1353/mou.2010.0007

Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing (review)

2009· article· en· W2046302369 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricNarrativeLiteratureArchivistSubject (documents)HistoryArtClassicsPhilosophyLinguisticsComputer scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing Joel E. Mann Susan P. Mattern. Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008. Pp. x +279. ISBN 978-0-8018-8835-9. US $55.00. The twin impulses of the historian, to archive and to narrate, are often in tension. The archivist wants to collect and preserve, indiscriminately and exhaustively, the artefacts of history. The narrator, by contrast, seeks to tell a story by emphasizing certain of those artefacts at the expense of others, judging, at least implicitly, which of them are significant and which are not. Susan Mattern’s latest book, Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing, showcases the work of a historian both alive to the demands of these impulses [End Page 93] and talented enough to meet them. That is not to say that both demands should always be met. The subject of Mattern’s study, as it happens, is neither Galen’s rhetoric proper nor his views on healing per se but rather the “clinical narratives” or “case histories” that survive in his writings. She has done us the great service of combing Galen’s corpus for these, cataloging and studying them along the way. Here is where Mattern’s archival impulses are most potent, for example, in the book’s two appendices, the first of which lists the standard editions of each of Galen’s works, while the second comprises a table containing an entry for each case history in Galen (358 total). Each entry records the textual reference, the name or unique description of the patient, the medical problem at issue, and a summary of Galen’s involvement with space for additional comments in the case of especially remarkable or interesting histories. This is typical of the diligence and discipline Mattern exercises in her treatment of the subject, evident also in the dense thicket of footnotes that cite a bibliography of truly admirable scope and depth. The main body of her text is divided into six chapters that organize and present the case histories according to their basic narrative elements of setting and character. The second (“Place and Time”) and fourth (“The Patient”) of these are particularly “archival.” Here Mattern is most careful to make connections and offer analyses without prejudice as to their broader significance (scientific, social, cultural, or otherwise). Indeed, she is willing in places to risk the coherence of her exposition for the sake of impartiality, as she sometimes recognizes, for example, when she introduces a discussion of the categories Galen uses to describe his patients: “The division is not especially logical nor can it be made entirely consistent, but it captures certain complexities in Galen’s way of thinking, which I have tried to sum up in the conclusion to this chapter” (99). Nevertheless, it is when Mattern uses Galen’s stories to tell a story that her book is most engaging. This is true especially of the third and fifth chapters (entitled, respectively, “The Contest: Rivals, Spectators, and Judges” and “Physician and Patient”), which analyze Galen’s portrayal of the relational dynamics between himself and the other “characters” in his clinical narratives. The third chapter makes a convincing case that, whatever other purposes they may serve, the clinical narratives are for Galen a record of his public struggles with and victories over his medical (and sometimes philosophical) competitors. The agonistic atmosphere of the Second Sophistic, during which time orators and other intellectuals routinely gave public demonstrations of their talents for the sake of fame and fortune, transformed a sick person from a mere patient into an opportunity—an opportunity both for Galen to succeed and for rival physicians to fail. The fifth chapter suggests that the reputation Galen acquired through these displays of healing had social implications. In a thoroughly Thucydidean [End Page 94] moment, Mattern describes how, when a person fell ill, the exigencies of sickness and survival could dissolve the usual social conventions and invert political hierarchies. So Galen tells us that he gives orders like a general, regardless of whether his patient is a pais or a politician (146). At the same time, he reports consorting with slaves and others of marginal status...

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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