H C, H 12 (9.92 Littré), and C 4.6.1 indicate that
patients who managed to endure to the fifth day would live. Celsus records the
Greek distinction between reverse (opisthotonos) and forward (emprosthotonos) spinal flexion
(cf. H C, Diseases 3.12 [7.132 Littré], Internal Affections 52 – 54
[7.298–302 Littré]; C A, Acute 3.61 [p. 339 Drabkin; CML 6.1.1,
p. 328]).
See also: C (A.), H C N, P.
trokhiskos (Lat. pastilla) “pill,” often made up as a way to store a remedy, which in
use would be dissolved (in wine or water) and applied, to eye or skin, etc.
A (P.), A T, A M, -
A, A, B, C (P.), C, F,
G (V.), H, H E, I
A, K, K, M P, M,
N, P, P, P (M.).
verdigris (Grk. ios) copper acetate prepared by steeping copper in vinegar: T-
, Lapid. 57; D, MM 5.79; P 34.110–111; G, Simples
9.3.10 (12.218–219 K.); A in P A, 7.24.11 (CMG 9.2, p. 398).
See also: A, A, A S, A T,
C, D (P.), D S, E, E
(P.), E, E (P.), H, H, H,
H S, I M, L, L, M,
N (P.), O, O, P, P, P, P
(M.), P, S C, T (P.), T
G.
ManuscriptsPlant representations in classical botanical treatises are known only from MSS of D-
’ De materia medica (Greek, Latin and Arabic), and from fragmentary Egyptian
pharmacological papyri (cf. P). Numerous copies of illustrated late-antique pharma-
cological treatises in Latin (mainly on therapeutic plants) are also preserved. If their plant
representations (still little studied despite Collins, probably because of their sheer quantity)
descend from earlier prototypes as hypothesized, they might complement those from Greek
MSS, as also do those in Arabic translations of Dioskouride ̄s.
While only one Latin illustrated copy of Dioskouride ̄s’ text is known (Munich, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, CLM 337), extant are a handful of Arabic copies (Grube) and almost
30 Greek codices ranging from early 6th to late 16th centuries, first studied in the early 19th
c. (Millin; cf. Choulant). The most ancient of them, the “Vienna Dioscorides” (Vienna,
Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, medicus graecus 1), was fully reproduced in a monumental
work that remains a milestone in the historiography of ancient botanical illustration
(Premerstein et al.). Despite several subsequent studies, including new and high-quality fac-
similes (Gerstinger 1970), there is so far no comprehensive analysis, thus leaving open the
origin of these illustrations (whether from Dioskouride ̄s or added later), their tradition (link-
ages between MSS or groups of MSS, and the correspondence between textual and iconic
traditions), and their function and relation with the text (including the fundamental question
of schematism vs. realism).
GLOSSARY