„Sterben Sie weise!”—Dramatisierungen der Hypochondrie in Fallerzählungen des 18. Jahrhunderts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autobiographical reports on hypochondriasis, now known as somatic symptom disorder or illness anxiety disorder, were common and popular in the eighteenth century. In this article, I compare and contrast two such autobiographical reports by poets with a case study by the famous philosopher and physician Marcus Herz of the well-known poet Karl Philipp Moritz, published after the latter’s death. Despite the serious subject matter, the three texts all rely on elements of the poetic genre of comedy. The article analyzes how the poet-patients linked therapy and healing to writing and imagination, while the physician paradoxically thought writing and imagination contributed to the sickness of hypochondriasis. Related topics such as the topos of the melancholic poet; laughter as a method of healing; acting, role play, and lying in dialogical therapy; as well as psychological aspects of doctor-patient-relations establish the topicality and timeliness of eighteenth-century discourse on hypochondriasis. While the practice of psychotherapy and its foundation on the interrelatedness of soma and psyche were still experimental, the first principle of a therapeutic relationship between doctor/therapist and patient/subject was already mapped out in Herz’s text. The article shows how a patient’s perspective on his own healing as well as a doctor’s perspective on the patient’s healing relied on different formal aspects of the classical poetics of drama. The “dramatic” exaggeration of sickness in hypochondriasis and the narration of its healing are thus closely modeled on formal aspects of dramatic structure. Besides their well-being, patients’ autonomy is at stake through the power of telling their own stories.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".