000 03845nam a22006135i 4500
001 234444
003 IT-RoAPU
005 20230501182707.0
006 m|||||o||d||||||||
007 cr || ||||||||
008 230228t20112011gw fo d z grc d
020 _a9783110218718
_qprint
020 _a9783110239034
_qPDF
024 7 _a10.1515/9783110239034
_2doi
035 _a(DE-B1597)9783110239034
035 _a(DE-B1597)122861
035 _a(OCoLC)979745071
040 _aDE-B1597
_beng
_cDE-B1597
_erda
050 4 _aR138
_b.A65 2011eb
072 7 _aMED039000
_2bisacsh
082 0 4 _a610.938
_222
084 _aonline - DeGruyter
245 0 0 _aDe medicina /
_cDaniela Manetti.
264 1 _aBerlin ;
_aBoston :
_bDe Gruyter,
_c[2011]
264 4 _c©2011
300 _a1 online resource (131 p.)
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
490 0 _aBibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana ,
_x1864-399X
505 0 0 _tFrontmatter --
_tHOC VOLVMINE CONTINENTVR --
_tPRAEFATIO --
_tDE HVIVS EDITIONIS RATIONE --
_tCONSPECTVS EDITIONVM --
_tCONSPECTVS LIBRORVM --
_tCONSPECTVS SIGLORVM --
_tAnonymi Londiniensis Iatrica --
_tFragmenta maiora --
_tFragmenta incertae sedis apud D. --
_tIndex verborum et nominum
506 0 _arestricted access
_uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec
_fonline access with authorization
_2star
520 _aGreat 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.
530 _aIssued also in print.
538 _aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546 _aIn Greek, Ancient (to 1453).
588 0 _aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 28. Feb 2023)
650 0 _aMedicine
_xPhilosophy
_vEarly works to 1800.
650 0 _aMedicine, Greek and Roman
_vEarly works to 1800.
650 0 _aMedicine, Greek and Roman.
650 4 _aAltertumswissenschaft.
650 4 _aGriechische Texte.
650 4 _aKlassische Philosophie.
650 4 _aPapyrologie.
650 7 _aMEDICAL / History.
_2bisacsh
653 _aPapyrology, Ancient Science and Medicine, Ancient philosophy, Greek texts.
700 1 _aManetti, Daniela
_ecuratore
850 _aIT-RoAPU
856 4 0 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239034
856 4 0 _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9783110239034
856 4 2 _3Cover
_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/cover/isbn/9783110239034/original
942 _cEB
999 _c234444
_d234444