This excellent book covers a great deal of territory chronologically, epistemologically as well as in terms of cultural theory and ancient history in the best sense of the expression – a rounded understanding of ancient intellectual and social life at the time of Galen and in the preceding centuries. It is committed to an idea of deep embedment of scientific cultures and practices into context (intellectual, socio-economical, heuristic, scientific) and makes an important effort to uncover the dialogue between Galenic scientific doctrines and philosophical arguments, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the written tradition – past, present and future – qua written, into which the famous physician carefully crafts a position for himself.
These aims are pursued by analysing three intertwined areas: the sociology and rhetoric of sharing knowledge in the early Roman empire and at the time of Galen; Galen's anatomical experiments as practice, as narrative and as polemical interface with great authorities of the past and present rivals; through an appendix (Chapter 8) on reception and its mechanisms and on the legacy of these Galenic strategies in the early modern era.
In the introduction, as well as in Chapters 1–3, S. illustrates the structure and scope of the book, thematically and methodologically, and his approach to the topic of anatomy and experiment on the living in classical antiquity (I was surprised not to find a reference to M. Grmek, Medea's Cauldron [2004] – the book is otherwise praiseworthy for its engagement with bibliography). The story then begins with an instance of the competitive dimension of medicine, in line with the well-known and much discussed agonistic quality of ancient cultures: the epigraphical evidence about the first- to second-century medical competitions held at Ephesus, where participants rivalled to display their skills and erudition in a variety of medical fields. An even stronger piece of evidence is offered by Galen's epideixes or public dissections, which take centre stage in S.'s book, as part of such an ‘exhibitionist-agonistic’ culture. The epideixes have attracted interest for their socio-cultural implications, but never before has the topic been treated at such length; in particular, not through a thorough interpretation of the textual account of anatomical discussions and argumentative experiments as part of a ‘licensing’ strategy, where the ability to ‘cut words’ is as vital and as skill-demanding as cutting through the skin of living beings. These first pages also constitute a great excursus on early imperial socio-cultural life and intellectual milieus to frame the understanding of medical practices and ‘markets’.
Chapter 1 further explores the topics of self-conscious textuality (the awareness of one's own thought and work as a ‘written datum’ to be copied and disseminated, and of the demands of varying readership) and, conversely, the illustrative, visual, even perspicuity-driven quality of medical research as public enterprise, economic event within a market, self-promotional occasion, visual performance, affirmation of status and concrete, sheer occasion for expenditure, sometimes to the point of extravagance. This chapter is too rich in detail to summarise, but makes excellent reading for any scholar interested in this period of ancient history and succeeds in bringing together an aspect of material life – the medical show, debate, agon, and its worded, ‘bookish’ correspondent, doxographical polemics as textual phenomenon.
The latter are more closely centred in Chapter 2, where various qualities of agonism vis-à-vis the demonstrations are explored: the horrific and the clinically distant, the mechanisms of legitimisation and claiming authority, the interlacement of triumphalism and polemic, with a wealth of examples and contextual details. Some threads of the argument are brought along from Chapter 1 and are developed with more details and interpretations – a helpful style of presentation in a book packed with technical information. Chapters 3–7 analyse in detail four famous Galenic anatomical experiments in their service to Galen's doctrinal and ideological interests. First, analogy across species of living beings and teleology of nature on the topic of the elephant's gallbladder, against the outlook of Asclepideans and Erasistratean doctors; secondly, the establishment by Galen of the presence of a (in fact, non-existing) bone in the heart of the elephant (Chapters 3, 4). S. writes excellent pages on ‘magnifying’ as an analogy of sorts – from mouse to elephant –, a rhetorical device and epistemological tool in a world without microscopes, as well as on the classification of species in ancient biology: for Galen's strong teleology it is key to prove that all animals present the same bodily structures across all species, and his dissections and observations work here purely as illustrations of what he already ‘knows’ – that is, the results of the dissections can never surprise him.
Chapters 5–7 explore two experiments, on a very concrete and descriptive level, and, building on these, pose fundamental questions about the rhetoric of science, medical epistemology, and the construction of tradition and authority. These are on Erasistratus and the arteries (Chapter 5), with remarks on Galen's resort to ridicule and his use of ‘Menandrean’ vignettes to cast his opponents as helpless and ludicrous; the experiment of the femoral artery (Chapter 6); finally, Galen's remodelling of the original Erasistratean experiment to suit his own theoretical agenda (Chapter 7). With Chapter 8 S. closes the circle by turning to a textual, and at the same time visual anatomical project in its dialogue with the preceding tradition, this time ‘Galen’ and the ‘Galenists’: Andrea Vesalius's De Humani Corporis Fabrica (1543). This is a sophisticated reflection on internal reception, ancient authority and experimental method, exploring the afterlife of Galen's modes and style of argument in the emergence of modern anatomy.
This review cannot do justice to the volume in its entirety. In fact, much of the value of this book is found in the several digressions, examples and directions opened that escape synopsis. I shall note a few that I found most stimulating: the use of the theme of ‘magnification’ as an arguing device (Chapters 3, 4); at various points, the author's reflections on images and imaging as a problematic epistemological move (pp. 25–36) and of public vs private discourses (pp. 36–50); the emphasis, building on the work of others, notably C. Petit in recent times, on the immense power of rhetoric, and its commerce and even intertwinement with the achievements of scientific research; the many details on the class- and status-dependent reality of anatomical practices (e.g. at pp. 82; 183–5); the brilliant parallel of juridical inquiry (pp. 176–81). Many of these suggestions will bear fruit in directions S. might have not reckoned, such as sociology of medicine and the exploration of the relationship between medicine and imperial literature and culture. S., additionally, is a good writer, which makes the book a pleasure and often a gripping read; Chapters 6 and 7 are, however, much more technical than the earlier ones and perhaps serve a slightly different and more restricted audience.
Finally, there are two points to develop and reinforce in this study: first, that of the ‘ineffectiveness’ of Galenic medicine as an aggravating factor – a formulation I find inadequate, repeated more than once (e.g. p. 9); secondly, the question of Galen's ‘lies’ vs ‘good faith’. This is a simplistic curiosity, perhaps, on the part of a reader and must remain an insoluble enigma; the question is nonetheless a legitimate one: was Galen mendacious as he insisted, for example, on the existence of the heart bone (p. 13, Chapter 4)? This question contributes to an inquiry on the working of ideology and on the chimaera of objectivity – even in the most direct of appraisals, which is the seeing and touching of a body –, which should work as a powerful caveat for historians of science.
To conclude, this book is a welcome addition to the sociology of medicine, rhetoric of medicine and the history of anatomical research. From a different angle, it also contributes to a pragmatic, material turn in ancient studies by looking at the history of knowledge through the gestures, the ‘hand’, the acts and instruments that contribute to its making. I found only one defect, made more perceptible by the richness of the material offered: a far too short and simplified general index, inadequate to guide readers through the many topics and texts; but this is a minor issue, and one that could perhaps be easily corrected.
