LEADER 03424nam 22005775 450 001 9910300437803321 005 20251113175024.0 010 $a3-319-69336-0 024 7 $a10.1007/978-3-319-69336-1 035 $a(CKB)4100000001795034 035 $a(DE-He213)978-3-319-69336-1 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC5228504 035 $a(PPN)223956716 035 $a(EXLCZ)994100000001795034 100 $a20180117d2018 u| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurnn|008mamaa 181 $ctxt$2rdacontent 182 $cc$2rdamedia 183 $acr$2rdacarrier 200 10$aAcademic Theories of Generation in the Renaissance $eThe Contemporaries and Successors of Jean Fernel (1497-1558) /$fby Linda Deer Richardson ; edited by Benjamin Goldberg 205 $a1st ed. 2018. 210 1$aCham :$cSpringer International Publishing :$cImprint: Springer,$d2018. 215 $a1 online resource (XXXI, 301 p. 11 illus.) 225 1 $aHistory, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences,$x2211-1956 ;$v22 311 08$a3-319-69334-4 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 330 $aThis volume deals with philosophically grounded theories of animal generation as found in two different traditions: one, deriving primarily from Aristotelian natural philosophy and specifically from his Generation of Animals; and another, deriving from two related medical traditions, the Hippocratic and the Galenic. The book contains a classification and critique of works that touch on the history of embryology and animal generation written before 1980. It also contains translations of key sections of the works on which it is focused. It looks at two different scholarly communities: the physicians (medici) and philosophers (philosophi), that share a set of textual resources and philosophical lineages, as well as a shared problem (explaining animal generation), but that nevertheless have different concerns and commitments. The book demonstrates how those working in these two traditions not only shared a common philosophical background in the arts curricula of the universities,but were in constant intercourse with each other. This book presents a test case of how scholarly communities differentiate themselves from each other through methods of argument, empirical investigation, and textual interpretations. It is all the more interesting because the two communities under investigation have so much in common and yet, in the end, are distinct in a number of important ways. 410 0$aHistory, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences,$x2211-1956 ;$v22 606 $aMedicine$xHistory 606 $aMedicine$xPhilosophy 606 $aMedical education 606 $aHistory of Medicine 606 $aPhilosophy of Medicine 606 $aMedical Education 615 0$aMedicine$xHistory. 615 0$aMedicine$xPhilosophy. 615 0$aMedical education. 615 14$aHistory of Medicine. 615 24$aPhilosophy of Medicine. 615 24$aMedical Education. 676 $a940.21 700 $aDeer Richardson$b Linda$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$0917413 702 $aGoldberg$b Benjamin$4edt$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/edt 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910300437803321 996 $aAcademic Theories of Generation in the Renaissance$92057012 997 $aUNINA