Content uploaded by Rocío Martínez Prieto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rocío Martínez Prieto on Apr 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
115
A Short Approach to the Analysis of the Textual Tradition of an Extract
about Phytotherapy from the Codex Sangallensis 751
Rocío Martínez Prieto
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
rocio.mtnezp@gmail.com
Abstract: A research study that deals with the structural and the lexical relations existing
between texts with similar contents could be a way to show the circumstances involving the
recovery and the interpretation of the European bibliographical heritage -related, in this
case, to Latin medical texts with ancient roots. Following this idea, this paper analyzes the
textual tradition of an unpublished extract about phytotherapy from the Codex Sangallensis
751. This tradition is observed in the relations that exist between the extract and a group of
similar texts gathered or transmitted during Late Antiquity and High Middle Ages, and the
well-known De materia medica written by Dioscorides, which is considered to be the origin
of them all. Therefore, this work is based on the parallels that we can find between these
texts and the extract and on the relationships which, in the opinion of the researcher A.
Ferraces (1999, 2010 et 2014), exist in the group of texts. The developed study shows how
this research can provide philology with information, explaining some details regarding the
hypothetical origin of the extract and its possible inclusion into the Dioscoridean tradition.
Key words: Textual tradition; Ancient and Medieval phytotherapy texts; History of
medicine; Dioscoridean writings
Introduction
During the last part of Antiquity and the early centuries
of the Middle Ages, copyists from Europe copied and
gathered several writings about phytotherapy based on
the classical Greco-Latin doctrine. One of the most
translated and copied text was the work written by the
Greek botanist Dioscorides about medicinal plants
entitled Περί ὕλης ἰατρικής, commonly known in Latin as
De materia medica. Regarding its textual transmission,
the Spanish researcher A. Ferraces supposes that a group
of independent texts about phytotherapy written in
different ages derive from the Dioscoridean writing in
form of Latin translations. This fact can be explained by
the comparison between the texts, in order to find
parallels in structure and contents.
The aim of this paper is to compare the group of texts,
which seem to be part of the Dioscoridean writing
transmission as Latin translations, with an unpublished
extract about phytotheraphy found in Cod. Sang. 751, in
order to prove the hypothetical relations between the
extract and these translations of De materia medica,
shedding light on the uncertain issue of the extract’s
origin and its inclusion into the Dioscoridean tradition.
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 751, p. 392: an
unpublished extract about phytoteraphy
The Sankt Gallen Stiftsbibliothek Cod. Sang. 751 is a
part of a large group of manuscripts digitalized by the
project E-codices, whose goal is to collect and spread
medieval and modern manuscripts of Switzerland,
creating a virtual library.1 In the description written by A.
Beccaria (Beccaria 1956, 372-81), the manuscript in
which this research is based on includes a group of 39
medical writings from known and unknown authors. It
consists of 500 numbered pages, written on parchment
with small letters from the second half of the ninth
century. The spelling of the author’s notes made St.
Gallen scholar G. Scherrer (Beccaria 1956, 372) consider
its origins to be in the Romance area, whereas the Old
High German glosses of some pages show that the
manuscript, which probably was taken from the Abbey
Library of St. Gallen in an early date, was later in the
Germanic zone. The texts are written in Latin and Old
German, and the contents cover several issues related to
medicine (pathology, phytotherapy, dietetics, measures
and weights, astrology, etc.).
1 E-codices. Virtual Manuscript Library of Switzerland [online]:
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/csg/Shelfmark/20/0.
Chapter published in BAR S2775 II Jornadas Predoctorales en Estudios de la Antigüedad y de la Edad Media. Κτῆμα ἐς αἰεὶ:
el texto como herramienta común para estudiar el pasado, Edited by N. Olaya Montero, M. Montoza Coca, A. Aguilera Felipe
and R. Gómez Guiu. British Archaeological Reports Ltd; 9781407314556; £39; 2015. Order Online: www.barpublishing.com
Rocío Martínez Prieto
116
The group of texts written by known authors contains a
work about chronic diseases identified as the Liber
Esculapii; an epistle identified as the Epistula ad
Antiochum regem by Ps. Hippocrates, and two more
identified with the Prognostica by Democritus and the
Epistula ad Macenatem. There are also several
interpolations from Ps. Dioscorides and Oribasius; the
Herbarius by Ps. Apuleius; the books I-III from De
medicina by Plinius the Elder; the Gynaecia by
Vindicianus; some excerpts that scholars attribute to
Galenus, and an untitled writing about the common
dracunculus, which is possibly part of a group of texts
dealing with the virtues of different substances used in
medicine known as Dynamidia. The group of texts
written by unknown authors includes, among others, a
Greek medical glossary translated into Latin; a writing
about antidotes; an excerpt about the signs of some
diseases and their prognosis; the hermeneumata, a
compilation of short medical texts; and a group of several
miscellanies with prescriptions and essences, from which
comes the extract that is being covered by this paper.
The extract is placed between an anonymous text entitled
“de obseruatione ciborum...” –probably from the work
written by Antimus– and an excerpt about patients
suffering from tuberculosis, which does not appear in the
description of A. Beccaria and it seems to be related to a
text about the pleurisy preceding the first one. Our extract
is part of one of the three miscellanies of prescriptions
and essences, which the manuscript includes. The chosen
text is a description of the virtues, the use and some
features of three plants to which the tradition gives
medicinal and, in some cases, magical traits.
The corpus used for the analysis: a brief selection of
texts
With the aim to approach the textual tradition of the
excerpt found in Cod. Sang. 751 p. 392, that can help to
discover several details about its origin and transmission,
this paper compares the extract with a group of texts
which describe the features of medicinal plants and their
prescription against several diseases, including the three
plants that our excerpt deals with. These phytotherapy
manuals were transmitted or collected during Late
Antiquity or High Middle Ages, and they represent a
sample of the several texts that contain works from
preexisting sources, being most of them Greek texts
which were transmitted thanks to the Latin translations
made in the last part of the Ancient period (Ferraces
2010, 201). This is exactly what happened with the work
written by Dioscorides.
The well-known phytotheraphy treatise entitled Περί
ὕλης ἰατρικής is nowadays better known by the title given
by the Latin translations, which circulated during a large
period of time, probably coming from three different
branches (Ferraces, 2010, 204). To build the corpus of
the analysis, in order to provide the research with
materials to compare the contents and the structure of the
excerpt, a group of four texts which are considered to be
Latin translations of De materia medica has been chosen,
using the Dioscoridean treatise to strengthen it. This
selection is explained by the large amount of parallels
found between these texts and the extract from Cod.
Sang. 751, allowing us to think in a hypothetical
Dioscoridean origin of it. In order to set up a starting
point for developing future researches to clarify the issue
of the extract’s origin and its circumstances of
transmission, the parallels found will be shown and the
starting hypothesis will be proposed in this paper.
The corpus used for the analysis includes the following
texts: an excerpt titled Liber medicinae ex herbis
femininis, attributed to Dioscorides and dated between the
fifth-sixth centuries AD; the Dynamidia Hippocratis, a
work in several books falsely attributed to Hippocrates
and transmitted by six manuscripts from the eighth-
twelfth centuries AD; the Glossae Medicinales, a part of
an encyclopedic lexicon collected ca. 700 AD and titled
Liber Glossarum; a writing known as Herbarius, falsely
attributed to Apuleius, a rhetorician and a philosopher
from the second century AD; De materia medica written
by Dioscorides in the first century, and from which the
rest of the texts of the corpus hypothetically comes.
A. Ferraces (1999, 131-69; 2010, 204; 2014, 280-81)
explains the relation between these texts by remarking
that Dioscorides’ writing was translated into Latin three
times: the first translation (to which he refers as Diosc-
A), from which the Herbis femininis and the Curae
herbarum texts come, and which was used as a source to
write the Dynamidia Hipocratis and the Liber
Glossarum; the second translation (Diosc-B), which
consists of several excerpts inserted between the texts of
the Herbarius by Ps. Apuleius; and, finally, the third
translation (Diosc-C), that uses texts from several
manuscripts, edited with the title Dioscorides
Longobardus.
All texts used for the analysis are, thus, versions of two
out of the three Latin translations from the Dioscoridean
writing. In addition, these two translations (Diosc-A and
Diosc-B) have a fragmentary nature, showing differences
related to vocabulary and techniques of translation
(Ferraces 2010, 205). Although A. Ferraces always refers
to the modern editions of the texts, to develop this paper
several versions from the manuscripts or texts in the
original language are used whenever it has been possible;
otherwise, the reference editions of the texts are used: the
Discoridean De materia medica from the Greek edition
by M. Wellmann (1906-14) and the Spanish edition by A.
Laguna (1555); the Herbarius by Ps. Apuleius from the
edition by E. Howald and H. Sigerist (1927); the Liber
medicinae ex herbis femininis by Ps. Dioscorides from
the manuscript versions of Harley 1585 and Harley 5294;
the Dynamidia from the manuscript versions of St.
Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 751 and Cod. Sang.
762, France, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Lat. 11219,
Bern, Burguerbibliothek, Cod. A. 92. 24 and from the
edition by A. Mai (1835); the Glossae medicinales from
the edition by J. L. Heiberg (1924).
Analysis of the Textual Tradition of an Extract about Phytotherapy from the Codex Sangallensis 751
117
Relations and parallels between the texts of the corpus
and the extract: an approach to its textual tradition
As it has been said before, during the analysis and
comparison, several parallels were found between the
texts of the corpus and the excerpt that are showed in the
appendix at the end of this paper. The text of the excerpt
was edited according to several scientific rules
–explained on the appendix footnotes–
2
in order to get a
clearer reading, whereas the rest of the texts were just
transcribed from the original manuscripts or copied from
later editions. Moreover, for the purpose of making the
comparison as visual as possible, only the parts that
contain parallels are taken from the texts of the corpus,
although the text of the extract is entirely copied –with
the parts which contain coincidences with the texts
underlined–. On the other hand, more than one edition
and manuscript of the texts from the corpus are used
whenever it has been possible, with the aim of contrasting
information and increasing the possibility to find
coincidences, that in some cases only appear in one of the
versions.
Using the numbers assigned to every parallel, they will be
explained bellow individually in order to understand
wholly their implications and roles in the research.
2. All the texts, with the exceptions of the Ps. Apuleius’
Herbarius and the Glossae medicinales, refer to the
mandrake as a remedy for wounds (plaga, ἕλκος, uulnus,
ulcera). Greek Dioscorides (Wellmann 1906-14) and Ps.
Dioscorides (Harley 5294) mention the plant’s leaves
(φύλλα, folia), whereas Ps. Dioscorides (Harley 1585)
and Dynamidia seem to refer to the plant in general, and
the excerpt from Cod. Sang. 751 -referred from this point
on as G- to the roots, which recommends to grind and
boil with oil. Moreover, all the texts, apart from G and
Ps. Dioscorides (Harley 1585), remark that the
mandrake’s leaves must be mixed with barely-groats
(ἄλφιτον, polenta).
4. Both Greek Dioscorides and G refer to the ability of
the mandrake to induce birth. Dioscorides remarks also
that it can be used as an emmenagogue, stimulating
menstrual flow (ἔμμηνα ἄγει), and adds information
about the dose that must be given (ἡμιώβολον).
5. In this case, Spanish Dioscorides (Laguna 1555) and G
agree in a medical prescription regarding to the
haemostatic property of the mandrake’s seeds, i.e. which
can stop menstrual bleeding. However, the texts show
differences in the mixture composition –mixed with
garum in G and mixed with sulphur in Dioscorides– and
in the way of giving it –drunk in G and applied directly
into the vagina in Dioscorides.
2
Conspectus abbreuiationum et siglorum: Diosc. Pedanii Dioscuridis
Anazarbei de materia medica libri quinque edidit Max Wellmann,
Berolini 1907-1914; G Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 761,
p. 392; < > Addidi; [ ] Deleui.
7. Both Ps. Apuleius and G recommend giving a
beverage elaborated with the plant to epileptic patients as
a remedy, but Ps. Apuleius adds more details about the
way to administrate it, whereas G remarks that this
remedy was proved by Diocles –probably referring to the
physician Diocles of Carystus.
8. All the texts –apart from the Harley 5294 version of
Ps. Apuleius– contain a phrase that refers to the similarity
between the common dracunculus and a snake. Whereas
Dynamidia and Glossae mention that the common flower
of the dracunculus is like a snake’s (draco) tongue,
Dioscorides and Ps. Dioscorides describe thoroughly the
physical appearance of the plant, remarking that the stem
looks like a snake (δράκων, colubre). Ps. Apuleius, on the
other hand, remarks that the plant’s root has a snake’s
head (draco), whereas the text in G merely mentions that
the plant is similar to a snake (serpens).
12. Once again, all the texts –in this case with the
exception of Herbarius– make reference to the possibility
of seizing snakes without danger after rubbing your hands
with the root of the common dracunculus. All of them
recommend rubbing your hands with the plant’s root in
order to seize snakes safely or avoid to be bitten (sine
periculo, μὴ δάκνεσθαι), but the text in G, on the other
hand, suggests holding it to seize snakes without a doubt
(sine dubio).
15. The last parallel found concerns the verbena, which is
considered by G, Dynamidia and Glossae to treat any
disease (omnia sanantur, omnibus sucurrit, omnibus
morbis sucurrit).
As it can be seen throughout the analysis, there are texts
that keep a closer relation based on its lexical and
structural parallels, such as most of the fragments from
De materia medica, Herbis femininis, Dynamidia
Hippocratis and even Glossae medicinales. On the other
hand, Herbarius, with its Dioscoridean interpolations,
seems to be a bit different, always adding more
information in the prescriptions or using a very different
vocabulary to express the common points. Finally, G
seems to always use a different style compared with the
texts of the corpus: although the contents are often the
same, the differences in vocabulary and structure stand
out among the rest.
Final considerations
By returning to the part which deals with the relations
between the texts of the corpus that are supposed to exist
by A. Ferraces, we can find that most of the parallels are
explained by the relations of the texts as versions of the
Latin translations of the De materia medica: therefore,
the texts from Ps. Dioscorides and Dynamidia show a lot
of coincidences in their structure and vocabulary,
probably due to the fact that they are both considered to
be part of the first translation (Diosc-A), as well as
Dynamidia and Glossae, that also share a great number of
parallels with the first two. On the other hand, the
differences could maybe be understood as interpolations
Rocío Martínez Prieto
118
from other texts, determined by the circumstances of their
different ways of transmission. Regarding the Herbarius
by Ps. Apuleius, probably the only testimony left by the
second translation (Diosc-B), the additional information
could be explained as a result of the author’s hand,
instead of considering it as a Dioscoridean interpolation.
Lastly, the differences in vocabulary and structure –and
even in some cases also in contents– found in the excerpt
from Cod. Sang. 751 (G) could be explained, as stated
before, by the fact of a different transmission.
Summarizing, although there are some differences in the
common points found between the excerpt and the texts
chosen for the analysis, it could be suggested that all
these texts come from the Dioscoridean Latin
translations, and, therefore, that the extract from Cod.
Sang. 751 probably defines its origin as a part of the
transmission of the Dioscoridean work. In any case, the
differences found in the extract should be studied in the
future from this hypothesis, that is, considering the
context of the Dioscoridean tradition, in order to prove as
much as possible where its real origin could be set and
which could be the branch of transmission from which it
would come.
References
Studies:
BECCARIA, A. 1956, I codici di Medicina del Periodo
Presalernitano (Secoli IX, X e XI), Storia e letteratura: Raccolta
di studi e testi 53, Roma, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
FERRACES RODRÍGUEZ, A. 1999, Estudios sobre textos latinos de
fitoterapia entre la Antigüedad tardía y la alta Edad Media,
Monografías 73, La Coruña, Universidade da Coruña, Servicio
de Publicacións.
— 2010, “Tradición indirecta del De materia medica de
Dioscórides y del De plantis atribuido a Tésalo de Tralles: la
reutilización de dos fragmentos en traducción latina”, in
LANGSLOW, D.; BRIGITTE, M. (eds), Body, Disease and
Treatment in a Changing World Latin texts and contexts in
ancient and medieval medicine, Laussane, Éditions BHMS,
201-12.
— 2014, “Fuentes intermedias y latín vulgar: nuevas
perspectivas para el estudio del léxico técnico en las
Etimologías de Isidoro de Sevilla”, in CODOÑER, C.; ALBERTO,
P.F. (eds), Wisigothica. After M.C. Díaz y Díaz, mediEVI 3,
Florencia, SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 253-91.
Editions:
HEIBERG, J.L. (ed.) 1924, Glossae medicinales, Københaun.
HOWALD, E.; SIGERIST, H. (eds) 1927, Pseudoapulei Herbarius.
Antonii Musae De herba Vettonica liber,
Pseudoapulei Herbarius, Anonymi De taxone liber, Sexti Placiti
Liber medicinae ex animalibus, Corpus Medicorum Latinorum
IV, Leipzig-Berlin, B. G. Teubner.
LAGUNA, A. (ed.) 1555, Pedacio Dioscorides Anazarbeo,
Acerca de la materia medicinal y de los venenos mortíferos /
traduzido de lengua griega en la vulgar castellana & illustrado
con claras y substantiales annotationes…por el Doctor Andres
de Laguna…, Amberes, en casa de Juan Lacio.
MAI, A. (ed.) 1835, Scriptores De Rebus Alexandri Magni
Commentarii In Virgilium, Dynamidia, Historica Et
Grammaticalia Quaedam, Romae, Typis Collegii Vrbani.
WELLMANN, M. (ed.) 1906-14, Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei
de materia medica libri quinque, vol. 2, Berlín, Weidmann.
Manuscripts:
Berna, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A. 92. 24, ff. 3v-4r.
London, British Library, Harley 1585, ff. 79v-80r, 87r.
London, British Library, Harley 5294, ff. 46v, 52v, 56r.
Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 751, pp. 392, 339-40.
Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 762, pp. 121-23, 130-
132, 132-3.
Analysis of the Textual Tradition of an Extract about Phytotherapy from the Codex Sangallensis 751
119
Appendix
CCXX. DE MANDRAGORA DICITUR. 1.
Ipsa mandragora habet similitudinem hominis
iacentis. 2. Ipsa<m> radice<m> teris et
dequoquis cum oleo et super plaga<m> pone;
mirum sanat. 3. Ipsa teris cum uino albo et
mel; dabis bibere; matricis uel cauculorum
dolorem tollit. 4. Et ad mulieres qui partum
uolu<nt> habere: Ipsa<m> radicina<m> dabis
bibere[re]; concepit. 5. Ad mulie<rem>: Ipsa
poma trita cum garo dabis bibere; profluuium
sanat. 6. Ipsa trita cum ficis edropicos curat.
7. Ipsa trita epelenticis et lunaticis dabis
bibere; remedium est; Dioclis probauit.
CCXXI. DE DRAGONTEA DICITUR.
8. Ipsa erba habet similitudinem serpentis.
9. Ipsa<m> dragontea<m> dabis bibere
mulierem; profluuium mire sanat. 10.
Ipsa<m> trita<m> cum uino dabis bibere;
cauculum sanat. 11. Trita<m> cum uino dabis
ad caducos bibere; remedium est. 12. Et si
ipsa<m> in manu tua habueris, sine dubio
prendis serpentem.
CCXXII. DE BIRBINA DICITUR. 13. De
birbina dicitur, hoc est erba sanguinaria. 14.
Ipsa colligis in mense madii die iouis luna
decurrente ante sole<m> leuante<m> cum
oratione dominica et nullum ferrum super te
non habeas nisi paxillo roboreo, et in nullum
domum non introire ante quam illa in ecclesia
pona[n]tur ut XII missae dicta<e> sint, et
dabis bibere ubi uolueris; 15. omnia sanantur;
hoc Dioclicianus probauit.
____________________________________
1. hominis iacentis correxi: hominem iacentem
G | 4. Ad mulier<em> ipsa poma transposui:
post radicina<m> G; confer Diosc. IV, 235, 10
et 236, 6 | 6. ficis correxi: ficos G | 7.
epelenticis et lunaticis correxi: epelenticos et
lunaticos G | 13. CCXXII anteposui: post
dicitur G | 14. colligis correxi: collegis G;
missae correxi: missas G; sint correxi: sunt G
2. τὰ δὲ φύλλα πρόσφατα ἁρμόζει πρός
(...) τὰσ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑλκῶν μετ’ ἀλφίτου
καταπλασσόμενα·
4. καθ’ ἑαθτὸν δὲ ὅσον ἡμιώβολον
προστεθεὶς ἔμμηνα καὶ ἔμβρυα ἄγει (...).
(Wellmann 1906-14, 235) 5 | Metido por
si dentro de la natura de la muger, en
quantidad de medio obolo, atrahe el
menstruo, y el parto. (Laguna 1555,,
423) 5. (...) aplicada (a mixture
elaborated with the fr uit’s seeds) por
abaxo con açufre viuo, restriñe el
menstruo. (Laguna 1555, 424)
8. (...) καυλὸν δὲ ἔχει λεῖον ὀρθόν, ὡς
διπηχυαῖον, παχὺν ὡς βακτηρίαν,
ποικίλον κατὰ τὴν χρόαν, ὡς ἐοικέαι
δράκοντι, κ αὶ πλεονάζει μὲν ὲν τοῖς
διαπορφύροις σπίλοις,· (Wellmann
1906-14, 231-2) | Produze vn tallo
derecho, liso, luengo de dos codos,
gruesso como vn bordon, vario de color,
y differentiado con ciertas manchas
purpureas, de suerte que parece serpiente.
(Laguna 1555, 242) 12. φασὶ δὲ καὶ τοὺς
διατρίψαντας αὐτὰ ταῖς χερσὶν ἤ τὴν
ῥίζαν ἀναιροῦντας ὑπὸ ἔχεως μὴ
δάκνεσθαι. (Wellmann 1906-14, 233) |
Dizese que los que se houieren fregado
con las hojas de la Dragontea las manos,
ò truxeren la rayz della consigo, no seran
mordidos de biuoras. (Laguna 1555,
243)
7. Ad epilempticos, hoc est daemoniosos et
qui spasmum patiuntur, sic facies: de
corpore ipsius herbae madragorae tribulas
scripulum I et dabis bibere in aqua calida,
quantum merus continet, statim mirifice
sanantur. (Howald and Sigerist 1927,
225)
8. (...) radix eius ima caput draconis habet.
(Howald & Sigerist 1927, 48)
2. Huius folia recentia (...) cum polenta
prosunt (...) uulneribus. (Harley 5294, f.
46v) | Haec autem herba facit ad (...)
uulnerum (feruores) (Harley 1585, f. 79v)
8. Caulem habet directum, cubitis duobus,
sic est baculum uarium in modum colubre.
(Harley 1585, f. 87v)
12. Si quis hanc radicem manibus
confricuerit serpentes sine periculo
facillime prendit. (Harley MS 5294, f.
52v) | Siquis uero huius herbae radicem
inter manus confricuerit serpentes sine
ullo periculo facillime prendit. (Harley
1585, f. 87v)
2. Cum polenta trita imposita
(mandragora) (...) ulcera sanat. (Cod.
Sang. 762, pp. 130-131) | Cum polenta
trita imposita (...) ulcera sanat. (Mai
1835, 456)
8. (...) esse colore draconis et florem eius
ut lingua draconis. (Cod. Sang. 762, p.
122)
12. Siquis hanc radicem manibus
confrigerit serpentem sine periculo
prendit. (Cod. Sang. 751, p. 339) | (...)
siquis hanc radicem manibus confricet,
serpentes sine periculo conprehendet.
(Mai 1835, 453). | Siquis hanc radicem
sanus manibus confricet serpentes sine
periculo prendet (Cod. Sang. 762, p.
121).
15. Folia eius trita cum sal et aceto
omnibus sucurrit. (Cod. A. 92. 24, f. 3v)
8. (...) colore draconis, et flos eius ut
lingua draconis. (Heiberg 1924, 25)
12. (...) si quis radicem huius erbe sanis
manibus confricet, serpentes sine periculo
prendet. (Heiberg 1924, 25)
15. (...) folia trita cum sale et aceto
omnibus morbis succurrit. (Heiberg
1924, 94)
Cod. Sang. 751, p. 392
Dioscorides’ De materia medica
Ps. Apuleius’ Herbarius
Ps. Dioscorides’ Herbis femininis
Dynamidia Hippocratis
Glossae medicinales