Library Catalog
Amazon cover image
Image from Amazon.com

De medicina / Daniela Manetti.

Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextSeries: Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum TeubnerianaPublisher: Berlin ; Boston : De Gruyter, [2011]Copyright date: ©2011Description: 1 online resource (131 p.)Content type:
Media type:
Carrier type:
ISBN:
  • 9783110218718
  • 9783110239034
Subject(s): DDC classification:
  • 610.938 22
LOC classification:
  • R138 .A65 2011eb
Other classification:
  • online - DeGruyter
Online resources: Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also in print.
Contents:
Frontmatter -- HOC VOLVMINE CONTINENTVR -- PRAEFATIO -- DE HVIVS EDITIONIS RATIONE -- CONSPECTVS EDITIONVM -- CONSPECTVS LIBRORVM -- CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM -- Anonymi Londiniensis Iatrica -- Fragmenta maiora -- Fragmenta incertae sedis apud D. -- Index verborum et nominum
Summary: Great change has pervaded the evaluation of this text, since it was first published by Diels in 1893: it appeared to be a text consisting of notes on an introductory course of medicine, badly copied by a scribe or an uneducated pupil, probably written in the age of Domitian or Trajan. Its most disturbing aspect was the presence of a doxography on the causes of disease, attributed to Aristotle, recording numerous doxai of 5th and 4th century physicians and philosophers, including Hippocrates, who constituted the crux of the controversy, because the figure ill accorded with the image that had taken shape in nineteenth-century historiography. In recent years new insights have shown that actually it is an autograph, an unfinished draft, that the author, to be dated to 1st cent. AD, excerpted earlier derivative literature but has also views of his own, that the doxography derived from ‘Aristotle’ is to be clearly placed in the early Peripatetic setting, that the physiological section, which follows, has a background of school practice in dialectical argument, that the main authorities "ed in the text (Herophilus, Erasistratus and Asclepiades) have different roles (Herophilus’s is the most positive) but the authors always feels at liberty to confute their opinions and treats them as characters of the same scientific context.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number URL Status Notes Barcode
eBook eBook Biblioteca "Angelicum" Pont. Univ. S.Tommaso d'Aquino Nuvola online online - DeGruyter (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Online access Not for loan (Accesso limitato) Accesso per gli utenti autorizzati / Access for authorized users (dgr)9783110239034

Frontmatter -- HOC VOLVMINE CONTINENTVR -- PRAEFATIO -- DE HVIVS EDITIONIS RATIONE -- CONSPECTVS EDITIONVM -- CONSPECTVS LIBRORVM -- CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM -- Anonymi Londiniensis Iatrica -- Fragmenta maiora -- Fragmenta incertae sedis apud D. -- Index verborum et nominum

restricted access online access with authorization star

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec

Great change has pervaded the evaluation of this text, since it was first published by Diels in 1893: it appeared to be a text consisting of notes on an introductory course of medicine, badly copied by a scribe or an uneducated pupil, probably written in the age of Domitian or Trajan. Its most disturbing aspect was the presence of a doxography on the causes of disease, attributed to Aristotle, recording numerous doxai of 5th and 4th century physicians and philosophers, including Hippocrates, who constituted the crux of the controversy, because the figure ill accorded with the image that had taken shape in nineteenth-century historiography. In recent years new insights have shown that actually it is an autograph, an unfinished draft, that the author, to be dated to 1st cent. AD, excerpted earlier derivative literature but has also views of his own, that the doxography derived from ‘Aristotle’ is to be clearly placed in the early Peripatetic setting, that the physiological section, which follows, has a background of school practice in dialectical argument, that the main authorities "ed in the text (Herophilus, Erasistratus and Asclepiades) have different roles (Herophilus’s is the most positive) but the authors always feels at liberty to confute their opinions and treats them as characters of the same scientific context.

Issued also in print.

Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.

In Greek, Ancient (to 1453).

Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 28. Feb 2023)