{"title":"The Concept of Complexion in Antonio da Parma’s Medical Anthropology","authors":"Aurélien Robert","doi":"10.1163/15733823-20230077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Antonio da Parma (d. 1327) was a philosopher and physician, active in Bologna in the early fourteenth century, and associated with so-called “Bolognese Averroism.” His philosophical works are increasingly better documented. While his medical works are much less studied, his commentary – written between 1310 and 1323 – on the first book of Avicenna’s <jats:italic>Canon</jats:italic>, had a considerable influence on later commentators. This paper presents his analysis of the notion of ‘complexion’, a notion central to his anthropology for the philosophical issues it seeks to address: the possibility, for example, of defining the specific nature of the human body – as compared with other natural species – or of conceiving a scientific and universal discourse when confronted with the extreme variability of individual bodily complexion, which is at the heart of medical practice. Taking from Galen and Avicenna their ‘relativistic’ analysis of the well-balanced complexion, Antonio uses the idea of a latitude of individual complexion within the limits set by the natural species, to thereby make this picture of the human body coherent with the principles of Aristotelian natural philosophy. In so doing, he addresses the relationship between matter and form in a human body, the individuation of human bodies, or the principle of identity of a singular body. The paper concludes with a transcription of the relevant passages from Antonio’s commentary on Avicenna’s <jats:italic>Canon</jats:italic>.","PeriodicalId":49081,"journal":{"name":"Early Science and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-20230077","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Antonio da Parma (d. 1327) was a philosopher and physician, active in Bologna in the early fourteenth century, and associated with so-called “Bolognese Averroism.” His philosophical works are increasingly better documented. While his medical works are much less studied, his commentary – written between 1310 and 1323 – on the first book of Avicenna’s Canon, had a considerable influence on later commentators. This paper presents his analysis of the notion of ‘complexion’, a notion central to his anthropology for the philosophical issues it seeks to address: the possibility, for example, of defining the specific nature of the human body – as compared with other natural species – or of conceiving a scientific and universal discourse when confronted with the extreme variability of individual bodily complexion, which is at the heart of medical practice. Taking from Galen and Avicenna their ‘relativistic’ analysis of the well-balanced complexion, Antonio uses the idea of a latitude of individual complexion within the limits set by the natural species, to thereby make this picture of the human body coherent with the principles of Aristotelian natural philosophy. In so doing, he addresses the relationship between matter and form in a human body, the individuation of human bodies, or the principle of identity of a singular body. The paper concludes with a transcription of the relevant passages from Antonio’s commentary on Avicenna’s Canon.
期刊介绍:
Early Science and Medicine (ESM) is a peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to the history of science, medicine and technology from the earliest times through to the end of the eighteenth century. The need to treat in a single journal all aspects of scientific activity and thought to the eighteenth century is due to two factors: to the continued importance of ancient sources throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period, and to the comparably low degree of specialization and the high degree of disciplinary interdependence characterizing the period before the professionalization of science.