{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017080745341614908, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2270531400966185, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
["Historia animalium" compared to "Gynaecia" in the literature of the Middle Ages].

In her essay the author pictures the dominating role of Aristotle's doctrines as compared with the more progressive scientific achievements of the Alexandrian school of medicine during the Middle Ages. One of the consequences of this dominance was an almost total neglect of the special health problems of women who were-in contrast with men and according to the Aristotelian tradition of the Middle Ages-considered to be defective human beings: a nearly uneradicable opinion far into later centuries. In addition it was not only in accordance with Christian doctrines but with religious and social conceptions and habits of the Arabic tradition as well. The progressive efforts of some reasonable medieval physicians to improve the deplorable position of women were incapable to break through the bulwark of cooperating misjudgments and prejudices. It took a lot of time-from Hippocrates to Galen and the Arabs-and many errors were made till the teachings of Soranos of Ephesos, the first great gynaecologist, began to gain ground since the late Middle Ages, when his treatment of women's diseases and obstetrical instructions slowly prevailed the speculative perceptions of Aristotle and his epigones.