1.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910828490603321

Autore

Anonymus ‹Londiniensis›

Titolo

Anonymus londiniensis : de medicina / / edidit Daniela Manetti

Pubbl/distr/stampa

Berlin ; ; New York, : De Gruyter, c2011

ISBN

1-283-39959-8

9786613399595

3-11-023903-5

Edizione

[1st ed.]

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (160 p.)

Collana

Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, , 1864-399X

Classificazione

FH 75800

Altri autori (Persone)

ManettiDaniela

Disciplina

610.938

Soggetti

Medicine, Greek and Roman

Medicine - Philosophy

Lingua di pubblicazione

Latino

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Note generali

Description based upon print version of record.

Nota di bibliografia

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Nota di contenuto

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

Sommario/riassunto

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.