Dioscorides

also known as Pedanius Dioscorides of Anazarbus

(b. Anazarbus, near Tarsus in Cilicia; fl. a.d. 50–70)

pharmacy, medicine, chemistry, botany.

A letter attached to Dioscorides’s work as a dedicatory preface reveals almost all that is known of his life. The letter states that Dioscorides lived a soldier’ life; this enabled him to learn at first hand the identity, preparation, and uses of medicines. Galen names his birthplace,¹ and some manuscript notations add the name Pedanius. Some authorities believe that Dioscorides studied at Tarsus and Alexandria and later attached himself to the Roman army as a military physician. These suppositions are based on his statement that he led a “soldier-like life” (σισδα γάρήμīν στρα⊤ιω⊤кòν ⊤óν βιоν);, his remark that he has “lived” (σενδιáγоν⊤εѕ) with Areius of Tarsus, and the likelihood that his travels would have taken him to Alexandria, where he could have had access to the library. Dioscorides has been dated both by the mention of his contemporaries and by Galen’s use of Dioscorides’ work. Erotian (fl. caa.d. 60), a commentator of the Hippocratic works who lived during the Neronian age, mentions Dioscorides (assuming that the name is not an interpolation).² In his letter to Areius, Dioscorides mentions Laecanius Bassus, presumed to be C. Laecanius Bassus, consul in A.D.64, who is spoken of by Pliny and Tacitus.³ Quintus Sextius Niger (fl 25 b.c.) is the latest writer whom Dioscorides cites. Pliny the Elder did not know Dioscorides’ works directly, but certain similarities between Pliny’s and Dioscorides’ texts are explained by their having employed the same written source, Sextius Niger.⁴

Although numerous treatises in Greek and Latin are falsely attributed to Dioscorides—both by virtue of his reputation as a major authority in medicines for around 1,600 years and because of numerous editions of his work—only one treatise, IIερì űληѕίατριкήѕ (De materia medica), is now attributed to Dioscorides. The title is taken from book 3 and is the same title as that of Sextius Niger’s lost work. Written in five books, the treatise discusses over 600 plants, thirty-five animal products, and ninety minerals in simple, concise Greek; Dioscorides feared that his nonliterary style would hinder recognition of the arduousness of the task he had set himself in collecting information. Of the approximately 827 entries, only about 130 substances are included in the Hippocratic corpus (since modern subspecies do not always correspond to Dioscorides’ varieties [ειδη], an exact count is difficult). Being the author of by far the largest pharmaceutical guide in antiquity, Dioscorides added considerably to the knowledge of drugs. More important, this procedure for relating information on medicine and his unadorned critical skill determined the general form of later pharmacopoeias, both Eastern and Western. Galen, always a severe critic, acknowledged Dioscorides’ work to be the best of its kind and showed his respect by numerous citations.⁵

Although an empiricist in method, Dioscorides apparently belonged to no definite philosophical school (his friend Areius was a follower of Asclepiades). He cited the need to study each plant in relation to its habitat, to observe rigorously the plants at all seasons, to note all parts from the first shoots to the seeds, to prepare each medicine with precision, and to judge each medicine by its merits.

Dioscorides claimed that his work surpassed that of his predecessors in terms of his industry in collecting his information, his unlimited range in finding medicines, and the arrangement of his material. He conceded that the older writers transmitted much accurate information but deplored the fact that recent writers had introduced the element of controversy to medicine by speculating vainly on the causes (αὶτίαѕ)of drugs’ powers, while failing to pay proper attention to their experience in the use of drugs. For each item generally he gave a Greek synonym, and the names themselves were often of foreign origin, coming from various languages of Africa, Gaul, Persia, Armenia, Egypt, and the like (for which reason linguists are interested in Dioscorides). There follows a deposition on the substance’s origin and physical characteristics. He then gives a discourse on the mode of preparation of the medicine and, finally, a list of its medicinal uses with occasional notations of harmful side effects. Often he relates information about how the simple is compounded in a prescription; further, he gives dietetic hints and even tests for detecting a fraudulent preparation.

Even though he faulted earlier writers for their poor classification, Dioscorides’ method is not always clear, although he believed his procedure to be superior. His system is as follows (number of items are approximate): book I (129 items), deals with aromatics, oils, salves, trees, and shrubs (liquids, gums, and fruits); book II (186), with animals, animal parts, animal products, cereals, pot herbs, and sharp herbs; book III (158), with roots, juices, herbs, and seeds; book IV (192), with roots and herbs not previously mentioned; and book V (162), with wines and minerals.

Dioscorides says that whenever possible he saw plants with his own eyes but that he also relied on questioning people in the course of his travels and on consulting previously written works. Dioscorides is credited as being the first to recognize the extensive use of medicines from all three of the natural kingdoms—animal, vegetable, and mineral.⁶

Dioscorides cautioned his readers that knowledge of plants was gained by experience: Differences in climates cause wide variations in living patterns—for example, medicines from plants growing in highaltitude windy areas are stronger than those from plants in marshy, shady locations shielded from the wind. Some medicines, such as the white and black hellebore, retain their power for years; others have a shorter effective lifetime. Herbs that are full of branches, such as abrotonum and absinthium, ought to be gathered at seed time. Seeds are best taken when dry; fruits, when ripe; and flowers, before they fall. When the medicine is from sap or juices, the stem should be cut while at full ripeness, but liquids from roots are to be extracted after the plant has lost its leaves.

He notes that storage of medicines is important: Flowers and aromatics should be placed in drug boxes made of limewood. Some herbs are best kept if wrapped in paper (chartes) or leaves. Moist medicines may be placed in thick vessels made of such things as silver, glass, or horn. Earthenware is satisfactory if it is not too thin. Brass vessels are suitable for eye medicines and for liquids, especially those compounded with vinegar, liquid pitch, or cedar oil; but tin vessels ought to be used for fats and marrows.

In his preface he names as the older authorities upon whom he relied lolas the Bithynian, Hexaclides the Tarentine, and Andreas the physician. He also cites various more recent writers whom he called Asclepiadeans (’Ασкληπιάδειоι)—namely, Julius Bassus, Niceratur, Petronius, Niger, Diodotus, and, most frequently, Crateuas the rhizotomist—and ten other authorities.

Dioscorides was largely responsible for determining modern plant nomenclature, both popular and scientific, because of the reliance of later authorities on his work. Numerous medicines in Dioscorides’ work appear in modern pharmacopoeias, among them almond oil, aloes, ammoniacum, belladonna, calamine, calcium hydrate, cherry syrup, cinnamon, copper oxide, coriander, galbanum, galls, ginger, juniper, lavender, lead acetate, marjoram, mastic, mercury, olive oil, opium, pepper, pine bark, storax, sulfur, terebinth, thyme, and wormwood.

The transmission of Dioscorides’ text is as important as what it says. Editors and copyists added or subtracted from Dioscorides’ writing as a means of contributing their experiences with various drugs in the context of their needs. The numerous and extensive textual modifications make the problem of arriving at a definite understanding of Dioscorides’ own Greek text very difficult. Latin, Arabic, and various European vernacular translations reveal greater variations. The study of its transmission is a veritable introduction to the knowledge of Western pharmacy down to the seventeenth century.

Papyri reveal that as early as the second century a.d. recensions had already appeared. The happy survival of a beautifully illustrated manuscript, written entirely in Greek capitals about a.d. 512, demonstrates that by the sixth century Dioscorides’ own order of presentation had been completely redone in favor of an alphabetical order. Produced at Constantinople as a wedding gift for Anicia Juliana, daughter of the emperor Flavius Olybrius, the manuscript was offered for the sale price of one hundred ducats to an ambassador of the emperor Ferdinand I by a Jewish physician of Suleiman. The text includes material from other writers. The lavish botanical illustrations in this manuscript and another of the seventh century are the subject of speculation concerning whether the illustrations are from Dioscorides’ original work or from Crateuas, the rhizotomist and physician to Mithridates (120–63 b.c.), who was known to paint herbal illustrations with his own hand.⁷ A second-century papyrus fragment of Dioscorides’ text has illustrations that are different in at least one instance from those in the Juliana manuscript.⁸ There is no direct evidence that Dioscorides himself is responsible for the paintings. Plants are drawn in detailed color showing the entire plant, including the root system, flower, and fruit. Certainly the botanical illustrations became standardized, most copyists being content to draw from precedent rather than from nature. One folio (f.5v) has a portrait purporting to show Dioscorides writing at a desk on the right, while on the left is a painter thought to be Crateuas, drawing a mandrake plant held by Epindia, or Lady Inventiveness, who is standing at the center of the painting.

In the sixth century, Cassiodorus advised some monks: “If you have not sufficient facility in reading Greek then you can turn to the herbal of Dioscorides, which describes and draws the herbs of the field with wonderful faithfulness.”⁹ Gargilius Martialis (third century) is the first known Latin author to cite Dioscorides. This reference caused some to believe that Martialis was responsible for the first Latin translation; since, however, the other Latin medical writers living before the sixth century failed to cite Dioscorides, it seems more likely that Dioscorides was translated into Latin later than Martialis. Another consideration is Cassiodorus’ use of the word herbarium to describe Dioscorides’ work—but Dioscorides listed all types of substances, not merely plants. Very popular during the early Middle Ages was a pseudo-Dioscoridean text known as De herbis femininis, which described and illustrated some seventy-one plants and herbs. Since Cassiodorus referred only to an illustrated herbal, he might possibly have meant De herbis femininis, not the complete Dioscorides, especially since Isidore of Seville is known also to have used De herbis femininis. Based on Dioscorides, whom the copyists credited with the authorship, the text is severely edited, with additions from other writers. Twenty-seven known manuscripts of De herbis femininis, three of which date from the ninth century, testify to its popularity, especially during the early Middle Ages, when the needs of medical science were simpler than those which the full Dioscorides’ work was meant to fill.

The Latin West did not have to await the Arabic Latin translations of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries in order to possess the complete Dioscorides. A Latin translation made in Italy by the sixth century used Dioscorides’ original order rather than that of the Juliana manuscript. Although the Latin spelling and grammar are poor, the translation is fairly accurate, with some omissions. The earliest manuscript is written in the eighth-century Beneventan script; generally manuscripts of this class possess no illustrations.¹⁰ In addition, there was at least one Old English version of Dioscorides.¹¹

Stephanus, son of Basilius (Isţifan ibn Basīl), translated Dioscorides into Arabic in the second half of the ninth century, but his translation was corrected by Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq. Another Arabic translation was by Ibn Juljul in the second half of the tenth century in Cordova.¹² Dioscorides greatly influenced Islamic medical botany and therapy, as witnessed by the reliance on his works by such noted writers as Maimonides, Ibn al-Bayṭār, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), and Yaḅyā; ibn Sarāfyūn (Serapion the Elder).

In the late eleventh or early twelfth century, a popular new edition of Dioscorides was produced in Latin that eclipsed the Old Latin translation. The arrangement was alphabetical. The rubric to a Bamberg manuscript (which contains only the wording of Dioscorides’ preface in the Old Latin translation) said that Constantine the African (d. ca. 1085) was responsible for the alphabetical order.¹³ Whoever the editor was, he meant to bring Dioscorides up-to-date by inserting new drugs—for example, ambergris and zeodary. (The inserted items are related to Constantine’s translations of other works and thus support his claim to the editorship.) The main body of the text is close to the Old Latin version and is not a translation from the Arabic. In the section on stones, the editor of this version inserted the text of Damigeron (ca. second century b.c.), rather than using Dioscorides’; the editor, however, included only those stones that were in Dioscorides’ original. Later thirteenthcentury writers—Arnold of Saxony and Bartholomew the Englishman, for example—quote extensively a treatise called Dioscorides on Stones, which is actually Damigeron’s text and not Dioscorides’. But this is not the only treatise falsely ascribed to Dioscorides: two other notable pseudo-Dioscoridean treatises are De physicis ligaturis¹⁴ and Quid pro quo,¹⁵ the latter being a guide for drug substitutions.

About 1300, Pietro d’Abano lectured and commented on the alphabetical Dioscorides version and said he knew of another, briefer version. When the text of the Latin alphabetical Dioscorides was first published at Colle di Val d’Elsa, Italy, in 1478 and again at Lyons in 1512, the printer included many of d’Abano’s comments.

Judged by the number of editions, printings, and translations, Dioscorides was very popular during the Renaissance. The Greek text was in print in 1499. By this time the list of synonyms following each item had grown extensively to include Arabic and European vernacular words. A translation by Jean Ruelle received twenty-five different editions, and by 1544 approximately thirty-five editions of Dioscorides’, translations and commentaries had been produced.¹⁶ The most illustrious edition was Mattioli’s, first published in Venice in 1554. So many editions and translations were made from Mattioli’s critical Dioscorides that it is said that this printing is the basic work for modern botany.

NOTES

1.On Simple Medicines, in Opera omnia, C. G. Kühn. ed., XI. 794: δ δε ’Аναζαρβεν̀ς Διοσκονρiδης έν πέντε βιβλious: cf. XIII, 857: ωι δέ Δωσκσρiδης ό Tαρσενι έδκεν ’Аρεiω τω ’Аσκληπωδεiε.

2.Das Hippokrates-Glossar des Erotianos, Johannes Ilberg, ed. (Leipzig, 1893), p. 116; also, Erotiani, Ernst Nachmanson, ed. (Uppsala, 1918), p. 51.

3. Pliny, Natural History, 26. 4. 5; Tacitus, Annals, 15.33.

4. Max Wellmann, “Sextius Niger. Eine Quellenuntersuchung zu Dioscorides,” in Hermes, 23 (1888), 530–569.

5. XI, 795; see also index, vol. XX, for list of citations.

6. Galen, XI, 794.

7. Vienna MS Med. Gr. 1 and Vienna MS Suppl. Gr. 28; see also L. Choulant, “Ueber die HSS. des Dioscorides mit Abbildungen,” in Archiv für die zeichnenden Künsre, 1 (1855), 56–62.

8. J. de M. Johnson, “A Botanical Papyrus With Illustrations,” in Archiv für die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, 4 (1913), 403–408.

9.Institutiones divinarum et humanarum litterarum, ch. 31.

10. Munich MS lat. 337.

11. London, BM MS Cotton Vitellius C III, eleventh century, pub. by O. Cockayne, Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England, 3 vols., I (London, 1864–1866; repr.. 1961), 251–325; cf. Oxford Hatton MS 76, early eleventh century, ff. 110–124, an Old English version of De herbis femininis.

12. See Madrid BN MS Arab. 125 (Gg 147), twelfth century, cited by Hartwig Derenbourg, Notes critiques stir les manuscrits arabes de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Madrid (Paris, 1904), pp. 7–8, 19, 30–31.

13. Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek MS med. 6 , thirteenth century, f.28v.

14. London BM MS Sloane 3848, seventeenth century, ff. 36–40; and Cambridge MS Add. 4087, fourteenth century, ff. 244v-254v

15. Brno MS MK, fifteenth century, 173–174v; Vatican MS lat. 5373, ff. 36–41; and Vienna MS Pal. 5371, fifteenth century, ff. 121–124V.

16. Jerry Stannard, “P. A. Mattioli and Some Renaissance Editions of Dioscorides,” in Books and Libraries at the University of Kansas, 4 , no. 1 (1966), 1–5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) Several modern Greek texts and pseudo-Dioscoridean Greek texts exist. There are two critical Greek texts of the ∏ερi vλης ὶατρικη̂ѕ (De materia medica), but both contain other treatises formerly attributed to Dioscorides but now regarded as spurious. Definitely outdated is a twovolume ed. by Curtius Sprengel in Medicorum Graecorum opera quae exstant, C. G. Kühn, ed. (Leipzig, 1829–1830). vols, XXV–XXVI, which reprints as authentic three pseudo-Dioscoridean texts: ∏ερi δηλητηρiων φαρμακων (On Poison Drugs),∏ερi iοβόλων(On Animal and Deadly Poisons), and ∏ερi άπλών Φαρμάkών (On Simple Drugs), sometimes known as Eπ̀όριστα. The best critical ed. is Max Wellmann, Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei De maleria medica libri quinque, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1906–1914; repr., 1958). In “Dioscorides,” in Pauly, Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft(Stuttgart, 1903), Wellmann regarded the treatise On Simple Drugs as a third- or fourth-century work falsely assigned to Dioscorides. Subsequently he became convinced that it was a legitimate work of Dioscorides and published it in vol. III of his critical ed. of Dioscorides. His attempt to authenticate this work (not convincing to later authorities) was published as Die Schrift des Dioscorides ∏ερi άπλών Φαρμάkών (Berlin, 1914). A German trans. of On Simple Drugs was prepared by Julius Berendes: “Die Hausmittel der Pedanios Dioskurides,” in Janus, 12 (1907), 10–33. The oldest MS is Florence, Laur. Gr. 74, 10, fourteenth century; no Latin version has been identified. Berendes has also translated the two other pseudo-Dioscoridean Greek texts that Sprengel mistook as authentic: “I. Des Pedanios Dioskurides Schrift über die Gifte und Gegengifte. II. Des Pedanios Dioskurides Schrift über die giftigen Tiere and den tollen Hund,” in ApothekerZeitung, nos. 92–93 (1905), 933–935, 945–954. A pseudo-Dioscoridean lapidary is printed in F. de Mély, Les lapidaires de l’antiquityé et du moyen âge (Paris, 1902), I , 179–183.

(2) No accurate trans. of Dioscorides has appeared in a modern European language. Berendes prepared a German trans., Des Pedanios Dioskurides aus Anazarbos Arzneimittellehre in fünf Büchern (Stuttgart, 1902), but unfortunately it is based on the inadequate Sprengel ed. Woefully inadequate is an English trans. prepared from the Greek by John Goodyer between 1652 and 1655 but not published until much later in Robert T. Gunther, The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides (New York, 1934; repr., 1959).

(3) On the basis of a second-century papyrus, Campbell Bonner observed (“A Papyrus of Dioscorides in the University of Michigan Collection,” in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 53 (1922], 141–168) that Oribasius’ citations to Dioscorides in the fourth century resemble the papyrus text more than they do the alphabetical Greek version found in the Juliana MS (Vienna, Gr.l), sixth century. The papyrus text seems close to Escorial MS Gr. III. R.3, eleventh century, which Wellmann, in his critical text, considered more corrupt. A MS containing a section of Dioscorides in red Greek capitals, dating from around A.D. 600, has parts of four chapters in nonalphabetical order from bk. 3 (in order, chs. 82, 83, 78, and 79 of Wellmann ed.). This MS (Naples MS lat. 2; formerly Vienna MS lat. 16) has a Latin treatise written over the Greek Dioscorides text. It is known to have been at the monastery of Bobbio in the eighth century (erroneously reported by Charles Singer, “The Herbal in Antiquity and Its Transmission to Later Ages,” in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 47 [1927], 34–35; cf. J. V. Eichenfeld, Wiener Jahrbücher der Literatur, 25 [1824], 35–37, and Wellmann, “Dioscorides,” in Pauly, Real-Encyclopädie [1903], col. 1136).

(4) A facsimile repr. of the Vienna MS Med. Gr. I, with beautiful color plates, is published as De materia medica (Graz, 1966); cf. Otto Waechter, “The ‘Vienna Dioskurides’ and Its Restoration,” in Libri, 13 (1963), 107–111; and G. E. Dann, “Ein Faksimile-Druck des Wiener Dioskurides,” in Zur Geschichte der Pharmazie, 18 (1966), 9–11.

(5) The Latin text is inadequately treated. The old Latin trans. is found in Munich MS 337, eighth century, and Paris BN, lat. 9332, ninth century, pp. 243–321. K. Hoffmann and T. M. Auracher began editing Munich 337 (Römanische Forschungen, 1 [1882], 49–105), and the project was continued by H. Stadler (ibid., 10 [1897], 181–247, 369–446; 11 [1899], 1–121; 13 [1902], 161–243; 14 [190], 601–637). Stadler had the advantage of the discovery of BN 9332, which he used for editing bks. II-V but he did not reedit bk. I. BN 9332 has missing leaves now in Bern MS A 917, ff. 1v–2v. Bk. I, using BN 9332, is reedited by H. Mihuescu, Dioscoride Latino Materia Medica Libro Primo (Iasi, Romania, 1938). The alphabetical Latin Dioscorides is perhaps represented best by Cambridge, Jesus Col., MS Q.D. 2 (44), twelfth century, ff. 17–145; Erfurt MS F 41, fourteenth century, ff. 1–62v; and Vatican MS Urb. lat. 1383, twelfth century, ff. 1–116. Pietro d’Abano’s commentary, together with the text of Dioscorides, is found in Paris BN lat. 6819, thirteenth century, ff. 1–70v., and BN 6820, fourteenth or fifteenth century, ff. 1–74. It was apparently the MS BN 6820—probably the exact copy—that the printer Johannes de Medemblich mistook part of d’Abano’s commentary for Dioscorides” text. The early printings are covered by Jerry Stannard, “P. A. Mattioli. Sixteenth Century Commentator on Dioscorides,” in Bibliographical Contributions, University of Kansas Libraries, 1 (1969), 59–81.

(6) A text of De herbis femininis is published by Heinrich Kästner, “Pseudo-Dioscoridis ‘De herbis femininis,’” in Hermes, 31 (1896), 578–636, from only three MS sources. This version is faulty; for instance, London BM Sloane MS 1975, twelfth century, ff. 49v–73, adds some herbs, whereas London BM Harley MS 5294, twelfth century, ff. 43v–58, and Oxford Bodl. Ash. MS 1431, late eleventh century, ff. 31v–43, omit many herbs. Kästner’s ed. did not use these MSS. De herbis femininis is the only version of the Latin MSS always to be illustrated. No study yet has been made of the drawings.

(7) The best overall treatment by modern scholars remains Max Wellmann’s preface to his Pedanti Dioscuridis, II, v–xxvi; and his articles “Dioscorides” and “Areios,” in Pauly, Real-Encyclopädie. Charles Singer (Journal of Hellenic Studies, 47 [1927], 1–52) studied the transmission problem and worked with the iconographic aspects; see also his “Greek Biology and Its Relation to the Rise of Modern Biology,” in Studies in the History and Method of Science (Oxford, 1921), II, 1–101. César E. Dubler has written an extensive examination of the various substances mentioned by Dioscorides as they are transmitted through various medical writers, especially writers in Arabic: La “Materia Médica” de Dioscórides. Transmisión medieval y renacentista, 5 vols. (Barcelona, 1953–1959). Vol. I has a valuable concordance which traces the translations of the plants and other substances from Greek to Latin, Arabic, and Castilian. With Elias Terés as coauthor, vol. II prints an Arabic version of Dioscorides, principally from Madrid BN MS 5006 but with other texts consulted. Vol. III reproduces in facsimile the Salamanca 1570 printing of Don Andrés de Laguna’s Castilian trans. first printed in Anvers in 1555. The remainder of the volumes are concerned with commentaries, indexes, etc.

(8) Attempts have been made by modern botanists and other scholars to identify the plants in Dioscorides. The best is Berendes’ trans. into German with his own commentary (Stuttgart, 1902). Useful are the following: R. Mock, Pflanzliche Arzneimittel bei Dioskurides die schon in Corpus Hippocratum vorkommen, diss. (Tübingen, 1919); R. Schmidt, Die noch gebräulichen Arzneimittel bei Dioskurides, diss. (Tübingen, 1919); Leon Moulé, “La zoothérapie au temps de Dioscoride et de Pline,” in International Congress for the History of Medicine (Antwerp, 1920), pp. 451–461; Edmund O. von Lippmann, “Die chemischen Kenntnisse des Dioskorides,” in Abhandlungen und Vorträge zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1906–1913), I , 47–73; Achille Morricone, “I medicamenti di origine animale recavati dal mare nell’opera di Dioscoride,” in Pagine di storia della medicina, 7 (1963), 24–28; and Ernst W. Stieb, “Drug Adulteration and Its Detection, in the Writings of Theophrastus, Dioscorides and Pliny,” in Journal mondial de pharmacie, 2 (1958), 117–134. Attempts to identify some of the plants and animals of the illustrations are made by E. Bonnet, “Étude sur les figures de plantes et d’animaux...,” in Janus, 14 (1909), 294–303, and other of his articles in Janus, 8 (1903), 169–177, 225–232, 281–285; and by E. Emmanuel, “Étude comparative sur les plantes dessinées dans le Codex Constantinopolitanus de Dioscoride,” in Schweizerische Apotheker-Zeitung, 50 (1912), 45–50, 64–72.

John M. Riddle