Learned medicine

Learned medicineis the European medical tradition in theEarly Modernperiod, when it experienced the tension between the texts derived from ancient Greek medicine, particularly by followers of the teachings attributed toHippocratesand those ofGalenvs. the newer theories ofnatural philosophyspurred on byRenaissance humanistic studies,the religiousReformationand the establishment of scientific societies.^[1]The Renaissance principle of"ad fontes"as applied to Galen sought to establish better texts of his writings, free from later accretions from Arabic-derived texts and texts of medieval Latin. This search for better texts was influential in the early 16th century.^[2]Historians use the termmedical humanismto define this textual activity, pursued for its own sake.^[3]

Learned medicine centred on thepractica,a genre of Latin texts based on description of diseases and their treatment (nosology).^[4]Its interests were less in the abstract reasoning of medieval medicine and in the tradition ofAvicenna,on which it was built, and instead it was based more on the diagnosis and treatment of particular diseases.^[5]Practica,covering diagnosis and therapies, was contrasted withtheorica,which dealt withphysiologyand abstract thought on health and illness.^[6]The tradition from Galen valuedpracticaless thantheoricaconcepts, but from the 15th century the status ofpracticain learned medicine rose.^[7]

"Learned medicine" in this sense was also an academic discipline. It was taught in European universities, and its faculty had the same status as those of theology and law.^[8]Learned medicine is typically contrasted with thefolk medicineof the period, but it has been argued that the distinction is not rigorous.^[9]Its Galenic teachings were challenged successively byParacelsianismandHelmontianism.^[10]

Learned medicine and syphilis[edit]

Around the year 1500 an issue for learned medicine was the nature ofmorbus gallicus,now identified asvenereal syphilis.Alessandro Benedetti,in particular, advocated the line that it was a novel disease, not described in the traditional authorities.Niccolo Leonicenoconceded that in terms of symptoms it could not be identified as known to the ancients; but denied that novel diseases could exist.^[11]

Notes[edit]

^Mary Lindemann (1 July 2010).Medicine and Society in Early Modern Europe.Cambridge University Press. pp. 84–7.ISBN 978-0-521-42592-6.
^Don Bates; Donald George Bates (2 November 1995).Knowledge and the Scholarly Medical Traditions.Cambridge University Press. pp. 160–1.ISBN 978-0-521-49975-0.
^Stephen Pender; Nancy S. Struever (1 November 2012).Rhetoric and Medicine in Early Modern Europe.Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 142.ISBN 978-1-4094-7105-9.
^Mary Ann Lund (7 January 2010).Melancholy, Medicine and Religion in Early Modern England: Reading 'The Anatomy of Melancholy'.Cambridge University Press. p. 79.ISBN 978-0-521-19050-3.
^Irvine Loudon(2001).Western Medicine: An Illustrated History.Oxford University Press. p. 74.ISBN 978-0-19-924813-1.
^Anthony Grafton;Nancy Siraisi,eds. (1999).Natural Particulars: Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe.MIT Press. p. 351.ISBN 0-262-07193-2.
^Ian Maclean (23 April 2007).Logic, Signs and Nature in the Renaissance: The Case of Learned Medicine.Cambridge University Press. p. 69.ISBN 978-0-521-03627-6.
^Mark Jackson (25 August 2011).The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine.Oxford University Press. p. 79.ISBN 978-0-19-954649-7.
^Peter Elmer; Ole Peter Grell (9 March 2004).Health, Disease and Society in Europe, 1500-1800: A Sourcebook.Manchester University Press. pp. 38–9.ISBN 978-0-7190-6737-2.
^Andrew Wear (16 November 2000).Knowledge and Practice in English Medicine, 1550-1680.Cambridge University Press. p. 34.ISBN 978-0-521-55827-3.
^Nancy G. Siraisi(2007).History, Medicine, and the Traditions of Renaissance Learning.University of Michigan Press. pp. 30–1.ISBN 978-0-472-11602-7.

[1] Mary Lindemann (1 July 2010).Medicine and Society in Early Modern Europe.Cambridge University Press. pp. 84–7.ISBN 978-0-521-42592-6.

[2] Don Bates; Donald George Bates (2 November 1995).Knowledge and the Scholarly Medical Traditions.Cambridge University Press. pp. 160–1.ISBN 978-0-521-49975-0.

[3] Stephen Pender; Nancy S. Struever (1 November 2012).Rhetoric and Medicine in Early Modern Europe.Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 142.ISBN 978-1-4094-7105-9.

[4] Mary Ann Lund (7 January 2010).Melancholy, Medicine and Religion in Early Modern England: Reading 'The Anatomy of Melancholy'.Cambridge University Press. p. 79.ISBN 978-0-521-19050-3.

[5] Irvine Loudon(2001).Western Medicine: An Illustrated History.Oxford University Press. p. 74.ISBN 978-0-19-924813-1.

[6] Anthony Grafton;Nancy Siraisi,eds. (1999).Natural Particulars: Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe.MIT Press. p. 351.ISBN 0-262-07193-2.

[7] Ian Maclean (23 April 2007).Logic, Signs and Nature in the Renaissance: The Case of Learned Medicine.Cambridge University Press. p. 69.ISBN 978-0-521-03627-6.

[8] Mark Jackson (25 August 2011).The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine.Oxford University Press. p. 79.ISBN 978-0-19-954649-7.

[9] Peter Elmer; Ole Peter Grell (9 March 2004).Health, Disease and Society in Europe, 1500-1800: A Sourcebook.Manchester University Press. pp. 38–9.ISBN 978-0-7190-6737-2.

[10] Andrew Wear (16 November 2000).Knowledge and Practice in English Medicine, 1550-1680.Cambridge University Press. p. 34.ISBN 978-0-521-55827-3.

[11] Nancy G. Siraisi(2007).History, Medicine, and the Traditions of Renaissance Learning.University of Michigan Press. pp. 30–1.ISBN 978-0-472-11602-7.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Learned medicine and syphilis[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]