000			02059nam a2200241ui 4500
001			GW0401200943
003			OSt
008			110913s2010 deu f 001 0 lat d
020			_a978-3-1102-1871-8
040			_aUCA-HUM _cUCA
245	0	0	_aAnonymus londiniensis : _bde medicina / _cedidit Daniela Manetti
260			_aBerlin : _bWalter de Gruyter, _c2010
300			_aXXVII, 131 p. ; _c21 cm
490	0	0	_aBibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana
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 {u1CA9}stotle ̕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 quoted in the text (Herophilus, Erasistratus and Asclepiades) have different roles (Herophiluss̕ 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.
650	0	4	_aMedicina griega y romana _98453
700	1		_aManetti, Daniela, _eedt
909			_bhum _c-
942			_n0
998			_b1 _c110914 _dm _ea _f- _g0
907	0		_aejc _bhum110916
907			_a84ds2
999			_c880031 _d880031