This contribution argues that the physiological and psychological chapters of Nemesius of Emesa’s highly influential conspectus of late-antique anthropology, De natura hominis, are not random memoranda on the human organism or disjecta membra extracted from a range of late-antique sources. On the contrary, it is claimed here that De natura hominis 6-28, in which the medical anthropology of the Platonic–Galenic tradition comes to the fore, mark a decisive phase in the argument of Nemesius’ text. The human is defined by Nemesius as the only living being which is at once ruler and ruled. In De natura hominis 6-28, this image of humankind is given an anatomical proof.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 365 | 43 | 2 |
Full Text Views | 41 | 2 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 77 | 1 | 0 |
This contribution argues that the physiological and psychological chapters of Nemesius of Emesa’s highly influential conspectus of late-antique anthropology, De natura hominis, are not random memoranda on the human organism or disjecta membra extracted from a range of late-antique sources. On the contrary, it is claimed here that De natura hominis 6-28, in which the medical anthropology of the Platonic–Galenic tradition comes to the fore, mark a decisive phase in the argument of Nemesius’ text. The human is defined by Nemesius as the only living being which is at once ruler and ruled. In De natura hominis 6-28, this image of humankind is given an anatomical proof.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 365 | 43 | 2 |
Full Text Views | 41 | 2 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 77 | 1 | 0 |