아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용-13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할-
Aristotle vs Galen: Medieval Reception of Ancient Embryology- Medieval Medicine and the 13th Century Controversy over Plurality/Unicity of Substantial Form -
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In their embryology, Aristotle and Galen greatly disagreed on the role of human derived materials like menstrual blood and vaginal secretion (called by them female sperm or semen). This gap made those two ancients also disagree on their understanding of mother’s role in the generation of the human body in her womb. During the Middle Ages, especially during the thirteenth century, the scholastics drew on those two ancient thoughts for some rational underpinnings of their philosophical and theological doctrines. However, the manners of adoption and assimilation were varied. For example, Albert the Great strived to reconcile the two in the image of Avicenna, one of the main and the most important sources of Galenist medicine in the thirteenth Century. By contrast, those scholastics who played an important role in the controversy over plurality/unicity of the substantial form, drew on their disagreements. For example, pluralists like Bonaventure, William of la Mare, and Duns Scotus appealed to Galenist medical perspective to underpin their positions and paved ways to decorate Virgin Mary’s motherhood and her active contribution to the Virgin birth and to the manhood of her Holy Son. in contrast a unicist like Thomas Aquinas advanced his theory in line with Aristotelian model that Mary’s role in her Son’s birth and manhood was passive and material. Giles, another unicist, while repudiating Galenist embryology with the support of Averroes’s medical work called Colliget, alluded to some theologically crucial impieties with which might be associated some pluralists’ Mariology based on the Roman physician’s model. In this processus historiae, we can see not only the intertwining of medieval medicine, philosophy, and theology, but some critical moments where medicine provided, side by side with philosophy, natural settings and explanations for religious marvels or miracles such as the Virgin birth, the motherhood of Mary, the manhood of Christ, etc. Likewise, we can observe two medieval maxims coincide and resonate: “philosophia ancilla theologiae” and “philosophia et medicina duae sorores sunt.”
Abstract
In their embryology, Aristotle and Galen greatly disagreed on the role of human derived materials like menstrual blood and vaginal secretion (called by them female sperm or semen). This gap made those two ancients also disagree on their understanding of mother’s role in the generation of the human body in her womb. During the Middle Ages, especially during the thirteenth century, the scholastics drew on those two ancient thoughts for some rational underpinnings of their philosophical and theological doctrines. However, the manners of adoption and assimilation were varied. For example, Albert the Great strived to reconcile the two in the image of Avicenna, one of the main and the most important sources of Galenist medicine in the thirteenth Century. By contrast, those scholastics who played an important role in the controversy over plurality/unicity of the substantial form, drew on their disagreements. For example, pluralists like Bonaventure, William of la Mare, and Duns Scotus appealed to Galenist medical perspective to underpin their positions and paved ways to decorate Virgin Mary’s motherhood and her active contribution to the Virgin birth and to the manhood of her Holy Son. in contrast a unicist like Thomas Aquinas advanced his theory in line with Aristotelian model that Mary’s role in her Son’s birth and manhood was passive and material. Giles, another unicist, while repudiating Galenist embryology with the support of Averroes’s medical work called Colliget, alluded to some theologically crucial impieties with which might be associated some pluralists’ Mariology based on the Roman physician’s model. In this processus historiae, we can see not only the intertwining of medieval medicine, philosophy, and theology, but some critical moments where medicine provided, side by side with philosophy, natural settings and explanations for religious marvels or miracles such as the Virgin birth, the motherhood of Mary, the manhood of Christ, etc. Likewise, we can observe two medieval maxims coincide and resonate: “philosophia ancilla theologiae” and “philosophia et medicina duae sorores sunt.”
참고문헌 (79)
- 테르툴리아누스, "그리스도의 육신론" (1994), 분도출판사
- 하인리히 덴칭거, "하인리히 덴칭거: 신경, 신앙과 도덕에 관한 규정·선언 편람" (2017), 한국천주교주교회의
- Aegidius Romanus, "Aegidii Romani Opera Omnia. 2.13" (2008), Sismel
- Albertus Magnus, "Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, vol. 12" (1955), Aschendorff
- Albertus Magnus, "De animalibus" (1916), Aschendorff
- Albertus Magnus, "De morte et vita, Opera Omnia Alberti Magni, vol. 9" (1890), Vivès
- Albertus Magnus, "Opera Omnia Alberti Magni 27" (1894), Vivès
- Aristoteles, "Aristoteles Latinus 18.2" (1966), Brill
- Averroes, "Colliget", apud Iuntas
- Avicenna, "De animalibus seu De natura animalium, translatio latina Michaeli Scoti", Johannes and Gregorius de Gregoriis, de Forlivio
- Avicenna, "Canon Medicinae, translatio latina Gerardi Cremonensis", apud Iuntas
- Bonaventura, "S. Bonaventurae opera omnia vol. 2" (1882), Quaracchi
- Bonaventura, "S. Bonaventurae opera omnia vol. 3" (1882), Quaracchi
- Descartes, Rene, "Oeuvres de Descartes 11" (1974), J.Vrin
- Galenus, Claudius, "Cloudii Galeni Opera Ominia 4" (1822), prostat in officina libraria C. Cnoblochii
- Gulielmus de Conchis, "Dragmaticon philosophiae" (1997), Brepols
- Guillelmus de la Mare, "Le premières polemique thomistes: Le correctorium corruptorii "Quare"" (1927), Le Saulchoir
- Hippocrate, "De l ’art mèdical. Émile Littrè, trad" (1994), Le livre de poche
- Iohannes Duns Scotus, "Opera omnia 9" (2006), Typis Vaticanis
- Iohannes Duns Scotus, "Four Questions on Mary" (2012), Franciscan Institute Press
- Nemesius de Emesa, "Premnon Physicon a N. Alfano in Latinum translatus" (1917), Teubner
- Petrus Hispanus, "Quaestiones super libro De animalibus Aristotelis" (2015), Routeledge
- Thomas de Aquino, "Scruptum Super III Sententiis" (1933), Lethielleux
- Thomas de Aquino, "Summa Contra Gentiles" (1961), Marietti
- 2, "Opera omnia 25", pp.1996, Thomas de Aquino
- 2, "Opera omnia 25", pp.1996, Thomas de Aquino
- Thomas de Aquino, "Summa Theologiae" (1941), Studii Generalis O. P.
- Thomas de Aquino, "In duodecim libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis expositio" (1950), Marietti
- 김율, "13세기 이성의 자율성과 한계 의식 ― 보에티우스 다치아(Boethius de Dacia)의 학문이론을 중심으로", 대동철학, (61), pp.99~125 (2012), 대동철학회
- 박승찬, "생명의 원리에서 인격의 중심에로―서양철학적 관점에서 본 영혼론-", 가톨릭신학과사상, (67), pp.59~157 (2011), 신학과사상학회
- 박승찬, "서양중세의 아리스토텔레스 수용사: 토마스 아퀴나스를 중심으로" (2010), 누멘
- 박승찬, "인격에 대해 영혼-육체의 통일성이 지니는 의미 －토마스 아퀴나스의 작품들을 중심으로－", 철학사상, (35), pp.61~103 (2010), 철학사상연구소[DOI]
- 서병창, "세계의 영원성과 이중진리설", 가톨릭철학, (20), pp.115~148 (2013), 한국가톨릭철학회
- 손은실, "보에티우스 다치아의 『최고선에 관하여』 －13세기의 신학적 행복론과 철학적 행복론의 충돌?－", 철학사상, (41), pp.307~345 (2011), 철학사상연구소[DOI]
- 여인석, "“좋은 의사는 또한 철학자이다” 의사-철학자의 모델 갈레노스를 중심으로", 의철학연구, 25, pp.3~26 (2018), 한국의철학회
- 유대칠, "헤르베우스 나탈리스와 후기 중세 철학의 재인식", 코기토, 63, pp.253~278 (2008)
- 이경재, "시제 브라방과 13세기 지성단일성 논쟁", 중세철학, (17), pp.113~144 (2011), 한국중세철학회
- 이재경, "보에티우스 다치아와 이중진리", 범한철학, 58(3), pp.55~77 (2010), 범한철학회
- 정현석, "보나벤투라는 천사주의자인가? -보나벤투라 인간학에서 실체적 형상으로서의 영혼 개념 이해-", 중세철학, (16), pp.79~107 (2010), 한국중세철학회
- 정현석, "보나벤투라의 복수 실체적 형상론에서 인간의 통일성의 문제", 현대유럽철학연구, (38), pp.125~154 (2015), 한국하이데거학회
- 조규만, "마리아, 은총의 어머니 - 마리아 교의와 공경의 역사 -" (1998), 가톨릭대학교출판부
- 칼데라, 페데리카, "중세 III", pp.405~416 (2016), 시공사
- Baltz, Jay M., "The Mechanics of the Sperm-Egg Interaction at the Zona Pellucida", Biophysical Journal, 54(4), pp.643~654 (1988)
- Bazán, Bernardo C., "Pluralisme de formes ou dualisme de substances?: la pensée préthomiste touchant la nature de l'âme", La revue philosophique de Louvain, 67, pp.30~73 (1969)
- Børresen, Karl Elisabeth, "Anthropologie médiévale et théologie mariale" (1971), Solem Verlag
- Boureau, Alain, "Theologie, Science et Censure Au XIIIe Siecle: Le Cas de Jean Peckham" (1999), Belles Lettres
- Briggs, Charles F., "A Companion to Giles of Rome", pp.6~33 (2016), Brill
- Cadden, Joan, "Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Age: Medicine, Science, and Culture" (1993), Cambridge University Press
- Callus, Daniel A., "The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford" (1946), Blackfriars Publications
- Crisciani, Chiara, "Medical Ethics: Premodern Negotiations between Medicine and Philosophy", pp.29~46 (2014), Franz Steiner Verlag
- French, Roger, "Medicine before Science: The Business of Medicine from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment" (2003), Cambridge University Press
- French, Roger, "Canonical Medicine: Gentile da Foligno and Scholasticism" (2001), Brill
- Hillman, James, "The Myth of Analysis: Three Essays in Archetypal Psychology" (1972), Northwestern University Press
- Jacquart, Danielle, "La médecine médiévale dans le cadre parisien" (1998), Fayard
- Jacquart, Danielle, "Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages" (1988), Princeton University Press
- Jacquart, Danielle, "Albert le Grand et les problème de la sexualité", History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 3(1), pp.73~93 (1981)
- Jordan, Mark, "Thomas von Aquin: Werk und Wirkung Im Licht nuerer Forschungen", pp.233~246 (1988), Walter de Gruyter
- Lagerund, Henrik, "John Buridan and the Problems of Dualism in the Early Fourteenth Century", Journal of the History of Philosophy, 42, pp.369~387 (2004)
- Lottin, Dom O., "La pluralité des formes substantielles avant S. Thomas d’Aquin. Quelques documents nouveaux", Revue Néoscolastique de Philosophie, 34, pp.449~475 (1932)
- Martin, Craig, "Subverting Aristotle" (2014), Johns Hopkins University Press
- McAleer, Graham J., "Who were the Averroists of the Thirteenth Century?: A Study of Siger of Brabant and Neo-Augustinians in Respect of the Plurality Controversy", The Modern Schoolman, 76, pp.273~292 (1999)
- Michael, Emily, "Averroes and the Plurality of Forms", Franciscan Studies, 92, pp.155~182 (1992)
- Needham, Joseph, "Chemical Embyology" (1931), Cambridge University Press
- Oliva, Adriano, "La deuxième rédaction du Correctorium de Guillaume de la Mare: les questions concernant la Ia Pars", Archivum Historicum Franciscanum, 98, pp.423~464 (2005)
- Pegis, Anton, "St. Thomas and the Problem of the Soul in the Thirteenth Century" (1934), PIMS
- Pouderon, Bernard, "L’embryon formation et animation: antiquité grecque et latine traditions hébraïque, chrétienne et islamique", pp.157~184 (2008), J.Vrin
- Reynolds, Philip Lyndon, "Food and the Body: Some Peculiar Questions in High Medieval Theology" (1999), Brill
- Rukriglova, Dita, "L’affinité entre la philosophie et la médecine chez Maïmonide", Yod: Revue des études hébraïques et juives, 15, pp.1~10 (2010)
- Siraisi, Nancy, "Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: The Canon and Medical Teaching in Italian Universities after 1500" (1987), Princeton University Press
- Siraisi, Nancy, "Taddeo Alderotti and His Pupils: Two Generations of Italian Medical Learning" (1981), Princeton University Press
- Siraisi, Nancy, "Albertus Magnus and the Sciences: Commemorative essays" (1980), PIMS Press
- Tempkin, Owsei, "The Double Face of Janus and Other Essays in the History of Medicine" (1977), Johns Hopkins University Press
- Tempkin, Owsei, "Galenism: Rise and Decline of a Medical Philosophy" (1973), Cornell University Press
- Tress, Daryl McGowan, "Aristotle: Critical Assessments, vol. II", pp.328~358 (1999), Routledge
- Van Der Lugt, Maaike, "Le ver, le démon et la vierge: Les théories médiévales de la génération extraordianaire" (2004), Les belles lettres
- Van’t Land, Karine, "Blood, Sweat and Tears- The Changing Concepts of Physioilogy from Antiquity into Early Moern Europe", pp.363~392 (2012), Brill
- Vico, Romana Martorelli, "Aegidii Romani Opera Omnia. II.13", pp.3~50 (2008), Sismel
- Wielockx, Robert, "Aegidii Romani Opera Omnia, III. 1", pp.69~225 (1985), Leo s. Olschki Editore
- Zavalloni, Roberto, "Richard de Mediavilla et la controverse sur la pluralité des formes: textes inédits et étude critique", pp.213~506 (1951), Éditions de l'Institut Supérieur Philosophie