Galen, Simple Drugs, Book 6, Preface

Parts of the preface to book 6 have been published before. See Jouanna 2011: 72–74 (French); Danielle Gourevitch 2016: 251 (English); and with important textual improvements by Petit 2017: 53–54 (English).

Galen’s Simple Drugs 6 preface

When I set out to write about the forms and capacities of simple drugs, I decided to present, in the first two books, the flawed approaches used by most of the more recent doctors, which led them so significantly astray. In the third book, I produced an elementary introduction, as it were, to the entire study, while in the fourth book, I inquired into the nature of flavours, endeavouring to discover everything from them that could benefit our understanding of their capacities. At the end of that book, I also discussed the olfactory qualities present in simple drugs. In the fifth book, I moved on to the remaining class of capacities, which are named after the actions they naturally effect, and there I presented their nature and substance.

At this point, all the general discussions about the capacities of simple drugs seem to have reached an end. Now, it is time to move on to the particular or specific discussions (or however you want to call them). These discussions involve going through each drug individually, as I did at the beginning, when I examined water and vinegar in the comments I wrote in the first book, and olive oil and rose oil in the second. However, in those places my discussion used them as examples in response to those who did not explain their capacities correctly. Here, I will go through each one briefly without being concerned anymore whether anyone has explained something about them inappropriately. Instead, I will write down what seems most true to me, without engaging in disputes with those who are mistaken.

It should be evident, I think, even if I do not say it, that for those readers who have forgotten what was said earlier, the discussion will not only be unclear, but will also lack the plausibility of demonstrative proof. It is perhaps better if I remind both of us that one must first test the capacities of drugs on the most well-mixed nature, and then on simple diseases; if, however, someone wants to use the qualities of taste to make an inference indicatively about the capacity, I have shown the method for this in the fourth book. If therefore someone carelessly skims through the earlier books, or even skips them entirely, and then comes straight to this book eager to become knowledgeable quickly about the capacity of drugs, they will not achieve a reliable grasp of them.

Since all drugs are either parts of animals, plants, or fruit, or their juices or fluids, or derived from metals, it seemed better to me to first discuss plants because their class is strongest in quantity and capacity, then next to talk about the minerals, and finally come to the parts of animals. I also realized it was necessary to compile the entries in alphabetical order, first writing about those plants whose names start with the letter "alpha", second those with the letter "beta", and so on with the third, fourth, fifth and all the rest of the letters in order.

This is also how Pamphilus composed his treatise on plants, but he digressed into stories told by old women and ridiculous Egyptian magic (goēteia) along with certain incantations they recite while pulling up the plants. He has even used them for amulets and other kinds of magic charms that are not only superfluous and outside the medical art, but also completely fictitious. I am not going to speak about any of these things, nor yet about their ridiculous metamorphoses. For I do not consider such myths to be useful even for small children, let alone for those who are eagerly pursuing the works of medicine. And it seems to me that Hippocrates said at the very beginning of the Aphorisms (1.1), ‘Life is short, and the art long,’ in order to suggest that one should not waste time on useless things, but endeavour, as much as possible, to take the most succinct path through the most useful aspects of the art. And so, it seemed superfluous to me to append the many Egyptian and Babylonian names for these plants, as well as whatever things people add about what the names mean or symbolize. For, it would be better, if someone wished to delve into these matters, to read the books of the translators for oneself and on one's own. For those who compiled these works also gave them this title, just as Xenocrates of Aphrodisias did, a man otherwise quite extravagant and not free from magic (goēteia).

One can tell from what he writes that Pamphilus, who composed the books about plants, is clearly a grammarian. He has neither seen the plants which he describes, nor has he tested their capacities, but has believed everything that was written before him without testing. He compiled books, needlessly adding a host of names for each plant, then describing whether any of them was transformed from a human being, and then appending incantations, indeed even some libations and fumigations, used when they are gathered from the earth, and other kinds of ridiculous magic (goēteia).

Dioscorides of Anazarbus, however, wrote in five books the material useful for everything, mentioning not only plants, but also trees, fruit, fluids, juices, and even all of the metals and parts from animals. And it seems to me that this man more than everyone else has produced the most complete treatise on the material of drugs. For his predecessors indeed produced much that is well written about these things, but no one so comprehensively, unless one were to praise Tanitros the follower of Asclepiades; for in fact everything he stated was well said apart from his causal reasoning. These works, therefore, must be read by one who wants to become practiced in material, and in addition to these, the works of Heraclides of Tarentum and Crateuas and Mantias. But they are not written in a similar way to the former, nor are they all assembled together in one work, as they are with Dioscorides, who inscribed the five books with the title On Material. Rather, some wrote specifically here and there on the preparation and testing of drugs, like Heraclides of Tarentum; others specifically on purgatives, preventative drinks, or clysters, like Mantias; others specifically on readily available remedies, like Apollonius; or on those according to place, like Mantias.

In most cases, the use of drugs is found in therapeutic treatises written by both the ancient writers and, in addition, by nearly all the more recent ones. For much is said by Hippocrates and also by Euryphon, Dieuches, Diocles, Pleistonicus, Praxagoras and Herophilus. There is in fact not a man among the ancients who did not contribute something to the art, large or small, concerning knowledge of drugs, without the magic (goēteia) and charlatanism later exhibited by Andreas. As a result, for anyone who has the leisure to consult with useful books written about drugs, they have many, both from the ancients, as I said, and also not a few from the more recent doctors, even up to those around Pamphilus [1] and Archigenes. Indeed, Rufus of Ephesus especially described many drugs in his therapeutic books and there are four works on plants composed in hexameter verse. So, there is no fear of running out of useful books, even if someone wanted to read nothing else except books about drugs for their entire life.

But one should avoid Andreas and similar charlatans, and much more still Pamphilus, who has never, not even in a dream, seen the plants whose forms he attempts to describe. For such men are, as Heraclides of Tarentum likened them, very similar to messengers who announce the form by which a fugitive slave might be recognized without ever having seen them. For they learn how one might recognize them from those who have seen them, then like an incantation they recite these same things which they would not recognise even if the one being announced happened was present. For I criticized those who first described the forms of plants, thinking it would be better for students to see for themselves alongside their teacher and not become like someone who navigates from the book. For also in this way the instruction accomplished by the teacher would be truer and clearer, not only of plants, shrubs, or trees, but of all other drugs as well.

But if indeed one needs a book, who would be so unfortunate as to overlook the works of Dioscorides, [Sextius] Niger, Heraclides, Crateuas, and countless others who have grown old in the profession, and instead tolerate someone who writes grammar books, incantations, metamorphoses, and sacred herbs of decans and demons? That magicians have made it their business to fabricate these kinds of things to amaze the common crowd, you can learn from the books of Pamphilus, who, in his books on plants, first described abrotanum, which is familiar to all of us, and then next agnus, a shrub that is also considerably familiar, and then agrostis, an herb not unknown even to the laymen, and then anchusa, which no one is ignorant of, just as no one is ignorant of adianton, which he described next. Now, in these cases he describes nothing more remarkable than what we already know. After them, however, he mentions a plant called, so he claims, "aetos" ("eagle"), about which he acknowledges no Greek has said anything, but which is described in one of the books attributed to Hermes the Egyptian. The book contains the thirty-six sacred plants of the horoscope, all of which are clearly ridiculous and fabrications of the author, very much like the ophionika and konkhakokhla. For in fact there is no such thing as a konkhakokhlon. The name is made up for a laugh, just like everything else that is written in his book. And these thirty-six plants only exist as names, without any real object underlying them. But perhaps Pamphilus, like many others, had the leisure to write down useless stories in books. At this point, I think I would waste too much time by mentioning them. Let us, therefore, begin now with what is useful.

περὶ τῆς τῶν ἁπλῶν φαρμάκων ἰδέας καὶ δυνάμεως ἐγχειρήσαντες γράφειν, ἐν μὲν τοῖς πρώτοις δύο βιβλίοις ἐπιδεῖξαι προειλόμεθα τοὺς μοχθηροὺς τρόπους τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων, οἷς πλεῖστοι τῶν νεωτέρων ἰατρῶν χρώμενοι σφάλλονται μέγιστα. κατὰ δὲ τὸ τρίτον οἷον στοιχείωσίν τινα τῆς συμπάσης ἐποιησάμεθα διδασκαλίας, εἶτα ἑξῆς κατὰ τὸ τέταρτον ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν χυμῶν φύσεως ἐζητήσαμεν, ἐξευρεῖν σπουδάσαντες ἅπαν ὅσον οἷόν τ' ἐστὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν τῶν δυνάμεων γνῶσιν ὠφεληθῆναι. διελέχθημεν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς τελευτῆς τοῦ βιβλίου καὶ περὶ τῶν πρὸς τὴν ὄσφρησιν ἐν τοῖς ἁπλοῖς φαρμάκοις ποιοτήτων. ἐν δὲ τῷ πέμπτῳ μεταβάντες ἐπὶ τὸ λοιπὸν γένος τῶν δυνάμεων, ὃ παρονομάζεται ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν ἃ πεφύκασι δρᾷν, ἐπεδείξαμεν κᾀνταῦθα ἑκάστου τὴν φύσιν καὶ οὐσίαν.

οἱ μὲν δὴ καθόλου λόγοι πάντες ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἁπλῶν δυνάμεως ἐοίκασιν ἤδη τέλος ἔχειν· ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς κατὰ μέρος ἢ κατ' εἶδος, ἢ ὅπως ἄν τις ὀνομάζειν ἐθέλοι, μετιέναι καιρός. εἶεν δ' ἂν οὗτοι καθ' ἕκαστον φάρμακον ἰδίᾳ περαινόμενοι, καθάπερ καὶ κατ' ἀρχὰς εὐθὺς ἐποιήσαμεν, ἐν μὲν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶνδε τῶν ὑπομνημάτων ὑπὲρ ὕδατός τε καὶ ὄξους ἐπισκεψάμενοι, κατὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον ὑπὲρ ἐλαίου καὶ ῥοδίνου, πλὴν ἐν ἐκείνοις μὲν ἐπὶ παραδειγμάτων ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν ἐγίγνετο πρὸς τοὺς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ὑπὲρ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτῶν ἀποφηναμένους· ἐνταῦθα δὲ διὰ βραχέων ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου δίειμι μηκέτι φροντίζων, εἴ τις μὴ καλῶς ἀπεφήνατο περὶ τινος αὐτῶν, ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἀληθέστατόν μοι φαίνεται γράφων, ἄνευ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς διαμαρτάνοντας ἀντιλογίας.

ὅτι δὲ οὐ μόνον ἀσαφὴς ὁ λόγος ἔσται τοῖς ἐπιλανθανομένοις τῶν ἔμπροσθεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀποδείξεως πιστὸν οὐχ ἕξει, δῆλον μὲν οἶμαι κᾂν ἐγὼ μὴ λέγω, κάλλιον δ' ἐστὶν ἴσως ἀναμνῆσαι κᾀμὲ, πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς εὐκρατοτάτης φύσεως τὴν πεῖραν χρὴ ποιεῖσθαι τῆς τῶν φαρμάκων δυνάμεως, εἶθ' ἑξῆς ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ἁπλῶν νοσημάτων. εἰ δὲ δὴ κᾀκ τῶν πρὸς τὴν γεῦσιν ποιοτήτων ἐθέλοι τις ἐνδεικτικῶς τεκμαίρεσθαι περὶ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτῆς, ἐδείξαμεν ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ καὶ τὴν ἐν τούτοις μέθοδον. ἐὰν οὖν τις ἤτοι ῥᾳθύμως ἀναγνοὺς τὰ πρόσθεν ἢ καὶ μηδ' ὅλως ἀναγνοὺς ἐπὶ τουτὶ τὸ βιβλίον εὐθέως ἀφίκηται, σπεύδων ὅτι τάχιστα ἐπιστήμων γενέσθαι τῆς τῶν φαρμάκων δυνάμεως, οὐχ ἕξει βεβαίαν τὴν γνῶσιν αὐτῶν.

ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ φάρμακα πάντα τὰ μέν ἐστι μόρια ζώων ἢ φυτῶν ἢ καρπῶν ἤ τινες ὀποὶ τούτων ἢ χυλοὶ, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῶν μετάλλων λαμβάνεται, κάλλιον ἔδοξὲ μοι περὶ τῶν φυτῶν πρῶτον διελθεῖν, ὅτι τε πλεῖστον αὐτῶν ἐστι τὸ γένος ἰσχυρότατόν τε καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, εἶθ' ἑξῆς περὶ τῶν μεταλλευόντων εἰπεῖν, ἔπειθ' οὕτως ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ζώων ἀφικέσθαι μόρια. καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν τῆς γραφῆς ἔγνων χρῆναι κατὰ στοιχεῖον ποιήσασθαι, πρῶτα μὲν ἐκεῖνα γράψας τῶν φυτῶν ὧν αἱ προσηγορίαι τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχουσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄλφα στοιχείου, δεύτερα δὲ ὅσα ἀπὸ τοῦ β, καὶ οὕτως ἤδη τρίτα τε καὶ τέταρτα καὶ πέμπτα καὶ τἄλλα ἐφεξῆς ἅπαντα κατὰ τὴν τῶν γραμμάτων τάξιν.

οὕτω δὴ καὶ Πάμφιλος ἐποιήσατο τὴν περὶ τῶν βοτανῶν πραγματείαν. ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνος μὲν εἴς τε μύθους γραῶν τινας ἐξετράπετο καὶ τινας γοητείας Αἰγυπτίας ληρώδεις ἅμα τισὶν ἐπῳδαῖς, ἃς ἀναιρούμενοι τὰς βοτάνας ἐπιλέγουσι. καὶ δὴ κέχρηται πρὸς περίαπτα καὶ ἄλλας μαγγανείας οὐ περιέργους μόνον, οὐδ' ἔξω τῆς ἰατρικῆς τέχνης, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψευδεῖς ἁπάσας. ἡμεῖς δὲ οὔτε τούτων οὐδὲν οὔτε τὰς τούτων ἔτι ληρώδεις μεταμορφώσεις ἐροῦμεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῖς μικροῖς παισὶ κομιδῆ χρησίμους ὑπολαμβάνομεν εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους μύθους, μήτι γε δὴ τοῖς μετιέναι σπεύδουσι τὰ τῆς ἰατρικῆς ἔργα. καὶ μοι δοκεῖ πρὸς Ἱπποκράτους εὐθέως ἐν ἀρχῇ τῶν ἀφορισμῶν εἰρῆσθαι ὁ βίος βραχὺς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρὰ χάριν τοῦ μὴ καταναλίσκειν τοὺς χρόνους εἰς ἄχρηστα, σπεύδειν δὲ ὡς οἷόν τε τὴν ἐπιτομωτάτην ἰέναι δι' αὐτῶν τῶν χρησιμωτάτων τῆς τέχνης. καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν βοτανῶν ὀνόματα ταῦτα Αἰγυπτιακὰ καὶ Βαβυλώνια, καὶ ὅσα τινὲς ἰδίως ἢ συμβολικῶς ἐπ' αὐταῖς ἔθεντο, περιττὸν ἔδοξὲ μοι προσγράφειν ἐνταῦθα. κάλλιον γὰρ, εἴ τις ἐθέλοι καὶ ταῦτα πολυπραγμονεῖν, ἰδίᾳ καὶ καθ' ἑαυτὸν ἀναγινώσκειν τὰς τῶν ἀντιφραζόντων βίβλους. οὕτως γὰρ καὶ αὐτὰς ἐπιγράφουσιν οἱ συντιθέντες αὐτὰς, καθάπερ καὶ Ξενοκράτης ὁ Ἀφροδισιεὺς ἐποίησεν, ἄνθρωπος τἄλλα περίεργος ἱκανῶς καὶ γοητείας οὐκ ἀπηλλαγμένος.

ὁ δὲ γε Πάμφιλος ὁ τὰ περὶ τῶν βοτανῶν συνθεὶς εὔδηλός ἐστιν κᾀξ αὐτῶν ὧν γράφει γραμματικὸς ὢν καὶ μήθ' ἑωρακὼς τὰς βοτάνας ὑπὲρ ὧν διηγεῖται μήτε τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτῶν πεπειραμένος, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πρὸ αὐτοῦ γεγραφόσιν ἅπασιν ἄνευ βασάνου πεπιστευκώς. οὗτος μὲν ἐξέγραψε βιβλία, πλῆθος ὀνομάτων ἐφ' ἑκάστῃ βοτάνῃ μάτην προστιθεὶς, εἶθ' ἑξῆς εἴ τις αὐτῶν ἐξ ἀνθρώπου μετεμορφώθη διηγούμενος, εἶτα ἐπῳδὰς καὶ σπονδὰς δὴ τινας καὶ θυμιάματα ταῖς ἐπὶ τούτων ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀναιρέσεσι προσγράφων, ἑτέρας τε γοητείας τοιαύτας ληρώδεις.

ὁ δὲ Ἀναζαρβεὺς Διοσκουρίδης ἐν πέντε βιβλίοις τὴν χρήσιμον ἅπασιν ὕλην ἔγραψεν οὐ βοτανῶν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ δένδρων καὶ καρπῶν καὶ χυλῶν καὶ ὀπῶν, ἔτι τε τῶν μεταλλευομένων ἁπάντων καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ζώοις μορίων μνημονεύσας. καὶ μοι δοκεῖ τελεώτατα πάντων οὗτος τὴν περὶ τῆς ὕλης τῶν φαρμάκων πραγματείαν ποιήσασθαι. πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν γέγραπται καλῶς, ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων οὕτως οὐδενὶ, πλὴν εἰ Τάνιτρόν τις ἐπαινοίη τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδου. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τούτῳ τἄλλα τε καλῶς εἴρηται, χωρὶς τῶν κατὰ τὰς αἰτίας λογισμῶν. ταῦτὰ τε οὖν ἀναγινώσκειν χρὴ τὸν ἔμπειρον γενέσθαι ὕλης βουλόμενον, ἔτι τε πρὸς τούτοις τὰ θ' Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Ταραντίνου καὶ Κρατεύα καὶ Μαντίου. γέγραπται δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίως οὕτως ἐκείνοις, οὐδ' εἰς ἓν ἤθροισται πάντα, καθάπερ τῷ Διοσκουρίδῃ, περὶ ὕλης γε ἐπιγράψαντι τὰς πέντε βίβλους, ἀλλ' ἰδίᾳ μὲν, εἰ οὕτως ἔτυχε, περὶ σκευασίας τε καὶ δοκιμασίας φαρμάκων ἔγραψαν, ὥσπερ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ταραντῖνος, ἰδίως δὲ περὶ καθαρτικῆς ἢ προποτισμῶν ἢ κλυσμῶν, ὥσπερ ὁ Μαντίας ἐποίησεν. ἰδίᾳ δ' εὐπορίστων βοηθημάτων, ὡς Ἀπολλώνιος, ἢ τῶν κατὰ τόπους, ὡς Μαντίας.

ἡ δὲ πλείστη τῶν φαρμάκων χρῆσις ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς θεραπευτικαῖς πραγματείαις ὑπὸ τε τῶν παλαιῶν γέγραπται καὶ προσέτι τῶν νεωτέρων ἁπάντων σχεδόν· καὶ γὰρ πρὸς Ἱπποκράτους εἴρηται πολλὰ καὶ πρὸς Εὐρυφῶντος καὶ Διεύχους καὶ Διοκλέους καὶ Πλειστονίκου καὶ Πραξαγόρου καὶ Ἡροφίλου, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεὶς ἀνὴρ παλαιὸς ὃς οὐ συνεβάλλετὸ τι τῇ τέχνῃ μεῖζον ἢ μεῖον εἰς ἐπιστήμην φαρμάκων, ἄνευ γοητείας τε καὶ ἀλαζονείας, ἣν ὕστερον Ἀνδρέας ἐπεδείξατο, ὥσθ' ὅτῳ σχολὴ χρησίμοις ὁμιλεῖν βιβλίοις περὶ φαρμάκων γεγραμμένοις, ἔχει πολλὰ καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν μὲν, ὡς εἴρηται, καὶ τῶν νεωτέρων δὲ, οὐκ ὀλίγα μέχρι καὶ τῶν περὶ Πάμφιλόν τε καὶ Ἀριχιγένην. καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ Ῥούφῳ τῷ Ἐφεσίῳ πολλὰ μὲν κᾀν τοῖς θεραπευτικοῖς βιβλίοις γέγραπται φάρμακα, καὶ περὶ βοτανῶν δὲ δι' ἑξαμέτρων ἐπῶν σύγκειται τέτταρα, καὶ οὐδεὶς φόβος ἐπιλείπειν χρήσιμα βιβλία, κᾂν ἐν ἅπαντι τῷ βίῳ βούληταὶ τις ἄλλο μηδὲν ἢ περὶ φαρμάκων ἀναγινώσκειν.

Ἀνδρέου δὲ καὶ τῶν ὁμοίως ἀλαζόνων ἀφίστασθαι χρὴ, καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἔτι Παμφίλου τοῦ μηδ' ὄναρ ἑωρακότος ποτὲ τὰς βοτάνας, ὧν τὰς ἰδέας ἐπιχειρεῖ γράφειν. οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ὁ Ταραντῖνος Ἡρακλείδης εἴκαζεν αὐτοὺς, ὁμοιότατοι τοῖς κήρυξίν εἰσιν, ὅσοι τὰ τῆς ἰδέας γνωρίσματα κηρύττουσιν ἀποδεδρακότος ἀνδραπόδου, αὐτοὶ μηδεπώποτε θεασάμενοι. λαμβάνουσι μὲν γὰρ τὰ γνωρίσματα παρὰ τῶν εἰδότων, λέγουσι δὲ ὡς ἐπῳδὴν αὐτὰ, ἃ μηδὲ εἰ παρεστὼς ὁ κηρυττόμενος τύχῃ, διαγνῶναι δυνάμενοι. ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ἐμεμφόμην τοῖς πρώτως γράψασι τὰς ἰδέας τῶν βοτανῶν, ἄμεινον ἡγούμενος αὐτόπτην γενέσθαι παρ' αὐτῷ τῷ διδάσκοντι τὸν μανθάνοντα καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ βιβλίου κυβερνήταις ὁμοιωθῆναι. καὶ γὰρ ἀληθέστερον οὕτω καὶ σαφέστερον ἡ διδασκαλία περαίνοι ἂν ὑπὸ διδασκάλων οὐ βοτανῶν μόνων ἢ θάμνων ἢ δένδρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων φαρμάκων.

εἰ δὲ ἄρα καὶ δέοιτο τοῦ βιβλίου, τίς οὕτως ἄθλιος ὡς παρελθεῖν τὰ Διοσκουρδίου καὶ Νίγρου καὶ Ἡρακλείδου καὶ Κρατεύα καὶ ἄλλων μυρίων ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ καταγηρασάντων, βιβλία γραμματικὰ γράφοντος ἐπῳδὰς καὶ μεταμορφώσεις καὶ δεκανῶν καὶ δαιμόνων ἱερὰς βοτάνας ἀνάσχοιτ' ἄν; ὅτι γὰρ γόητες ἄνθρωποι ἐκπλήττειν τὸν πολὺν ὄχλον ἔργον πεποιημένοι τὰ τοιαῦτα συνέθεσαν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔνεστὶ σοι γνῶναι τοῦ Παμφίλου βιβλίων, ὃς πρῶτον μὲν ἐν ταῖς βοτάναις ἔγραψεν ἀβρότονον, ἅπασιν ἡμῖν γνώριμον τυγχάνουσαν, εἶθ' ἑξῆς ἄγνον ἱκανῶς καὶ τοῦτο γνώριμον θάμνον, εἶτ' ἄγρωστιν οὐδὲ τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἄγνωστον πόαν, εἶτ' ἄγχουσαν ἣν οὐδὲ αὐτὴν ἀγνοεῖ τις, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐδὲ τὸ ἀδίαντον ἐφεξῆς αὐτῇ γεγραμμένον. ἐν μὲν δὴ τούτοις οὐδὲν ὧν ἴσμεν περιττότερον γράφει· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα βοτάνης μέμνηται καλουμένης, ὡς αὐτός φησιν, ἀετοῦ, περὶ ἧς ὁμολογεῖ μηδένα τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰρηκέναι μηδὲν, ἀλλ' ἔν τινι τῶν εἰς Ἑρμῆν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον ἀναφερομένων βιβλίων ἐγγεγράφθαι, περιέχοντι τὰς λστʹ τῶν ὡροσκόπων ἱερὰς βοτάνας, αἳ εὔδηλον ὅτι πᾶσαι λῆρός εἰσι καὶ πλάσματα τοῦ συνθέντος, ὁμοιότατα τοῖς ὀφιονίκοις <καὶ> τοῖς κογχακόχλοις. οὔτε γὰρ ὅλως ἐγίνετὸ τις κογχακόλος [2], ἀλλ' εἰς γέλωτα σύγκειται τοὔνομα, καθάπερ καὶ τἄλλα πάντα τὰ κατὰ τὸ βιβλίον αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα. καὶ αἱ λστʹ αὗται βοτάναι μέχρι τῶν ὀνομάτων προέρχονται, μηδενὸς αὐταῖς ὑποκειμένου πράγματος. ἀλλὰ Πάμφιλος μὲν ὥσπερ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ σχολὴν ἴσως ἦγεν ἀχρήστους μύθους ἐγγράφειν βιβλίοις· ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ νῦν ἡγούμεθα τὸν χρόνον ἀπολλύναι μνημονεύοντες αὐτῶν ἐπιπλέον. ἀρξώμεθα οὖν ἤδη τῶν χρησίμων.

[1] This may be a mistake for Philipp, often paired with Archigenes as οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἀρχιγένη καὶ Φίλιππον, esp. when talking about drugs, e.g., Comp. Med. Loc. XIII.14 K.; Comp. Med. Gen. XIII.502 K., XIII.642 K.

[2] Following Petit’s reading instead of Kühn’s ... “ὁμοιότατα τοῖς ὀφιονκοις τοῖς Κόγχλας. οὔτε γὰρ ὅλως ἐγίνετό τις Κόγχλας” ...

Galen, On the Capacities of Simple Drugs, VI. proem, XI.789–798 K.

Galen on Designer Drugs

On luxurious preparations of drugs for nerve damage.

It would not be useless to know about these kinds of drugs as well. While perhaps not as frequently as budget drugs, there is sometimes a need for them. For wherever there is a man who is an amateur pharmacist or doctor, even if he does not have more than five hundred thousand denarii, the man would not consider it worth his while to use any of the budget drugs. All the more if one is rich or especially a king—they would want the drug to be fragrant and prepared along with a great deal of silver.

There once was a rich man, the same one I told a story about in the first book of On Prognosis by Pulses, whose name I did not mention then and will not mention now, but you will get a sense of the kind of man he was from this pair of stories about his conduct. He once tried to treat a slave’s malignant ulcers. When he was unsuccessful, he entrusted the person to me, and when he saw that I had cured him, he asked me for the prescription for the drug. He was not aware that there are many different kinds of malignant ulcers and many different kinds of drugs but thought that one drug would be able to cure everything. Yet, even though the one administering the drug does not need to have any skill to use it, when he heard what the drug was made of and that all its ingredients were inexpensive, he exclaimed, “Keep this one for your beggars and teach me about the more luxurious ones.”

Another time, there was a young child who had a chronic ear condition and the man had no success in curing him (since even though he used drugs many times, he used them without a method). And so he ordered the child to be brought to me for treatment. Later, when he had learned that I had treated the child with what was available, he considered it not to be worth his while to acquire the prescription for the drug. So, having witnessed for himself many cases of nerve damage—fingers cut off and gone septic, some even leading to death or permanent injury—and recognizing that none of the patients I treated were in danger but had all quickly become healthy, he still thought what was important was to get a drug from me that was soothing and luxurious and which he could also use to treat nerve damage at the same time.

I had already often given many rough and ready prescriptions to colleagues and amateur doctors following the method we wrote about earlier, so that the theory behind their composition had been confirmed by their results. I would not give to poor people the kind of luxurious drug that this man wants, since I consider it better when cures are prepared with what is readily available. But since the rich man considered it important to get a recipe for a soothing and luxurious drug, I gave him several prescriptions that I produced according to the method I mentioned before. He was eager to have them tested and ordered both freedmen and slaves to find him patients with nerve damage. When the drugs worked beyond all expectations, first he praised me for generously sharing my recipes with him, and then he honoured me with gifts, for he was also prepared for such things. The recipes for the drugs I gave to him are as follows.

Cinnamon, Cretan dittany and maron [1], each in the amount of 40 drachmas. For these also have a pleasant aroma and are composed of fine parts. As for marjoram, since it does not have a pleasant aroma, I did not intend to mix it in at all. And yet, since it was difficult to get in Rome, as was maron, and I noticed that things that were difficult to get made him happy, just like the luxurious ones did, I added one small portion of it to the recipe, a fourth or fifth, I believe. After chopping and sifting them with a fine sieve, I ordered them to be mixed into a cerate prepared with the finest balsam sap and Tyrrhenian wax. I figured the right balance was to make it with eight parts wax and ten parts balsam sap.

To prevent the drug from being brittle but to make it rather somewhat cohesive, I mixed in one part terebinth resin, which itself has a pleasant aroma when it is of excellent quality. Additionally, I said, if you wish to make the drug more potent, do not add only one part of each of the herbs we mentioned, but a bit more, about one and a half parts. This drug has been tested by experience.

In addition to it, a second was composed with the same cerate and the juice of Cyrene, the mixture produced with the same proportion of spurge; and another, third, composed from both; and in addition to them a fourth, once I had gotten hold of stacte myrrh. For those patients whose nerve was exposed, I prepared the cerate from what’s called perfumer’s wax and from the ointments called spicatum and foliatum by the Romans. I mixed into it a twelfth part of pompholyx, washed, either using the masculine (peplumenos) or feminine (peplumenēs) form of the word; for whichever you choose, you will not do the drug either any good or harm [2].

And there is another way you can prepare it with Tyrrhenian wax: it is also possible to make it without the perfumes previously mentioned, by melting the Tyrrhenian wax with good nard in, naturally, a double vessel, since this is common for all perfumes. Once the wax has been scraped, you mix it with spikenard, amomum, malabathrum leaf, and washed pompholux in equal amounts. As we mentioned, in the case of stabbings, one needs more acrid drugs, which always protect the open wound. For exposed wounds, one should administer moderate styptics that have a dispersing capacity without any sting. Among styptics, one is amomum, but better are spikenard and malabathrum leaf.

Περὶ τῶν πολυτελῶν σκευασιῶν τῶν πρὸς τοὺς νευροτρώτους φαρμάκων.

Οὐκ ἄχρηστον ἂν εἴη καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπίστασθαι φάρμακα. χρεία γὰρ αὐτῶν ποτε γίγνεται σπανιώτερον, ὥσπερ τῶν εὐτελῶν πολλάκις. ὅπου γάρ τις οὐ πλείους ἔχων πεντακοσίων μυριάδων ἀνὴρ φιλοφάρμακός τε καὶ φιλίατρος οὐδενὶ τῶν εὐτελῶν ἠξίου χρῆσθαι, πολὺ μᾶλλον ἤτοι πλούσιός τις ἢ καὶ μόναρχος, εὐῶδές τε ἅμα καὶ πολλοῦ σκευαζόμενον ἀργυρίου βουληθήσεται τοιοῦτον ἔχειν φάρμακον.

τοῦ δὲ ἱστορηθέντος μοι πλουσίου κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον τῶν περὶ τῆς διὰ τῶν σφυγμῶν προγνώσεως μέμνημαι χωρὶς ὀνόματος, ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν, ὁποῖός τις ἦν, ἐκ δυοῖν αὐτοῦ τοιῶνδε μαθήσῃ πράξεων. ἕλκος οἰκέτου κακόηθες ἐπειρᾶτο θεραπεύειν αὐτός. ὡς δὲ οὐδὲν ἤνυσεν, ἐνεχείρισεν ἐμοὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἰδών τε θεραπευθέντα τοῦ φαρμάκου τὴν γραφὴν ᾔτει μὴ γιγνώσκων πολλὰς μὲν εἶναι διαφορὰς τῶν κακοήθων ἑλκῶν, πολλὰς δὲ τῶν φαρμάκων, ἀλλ' οἰόμενος ἓν φάρμακον δύνασθαι θεραπεύειν ἅπαντα. μὴ γοῦν μήτε τεχνικῶς αὐτῷ χρωμένου τοῦ προσφέροντος, ὡς ἤκουσεν ἐκ τίνων συνέκειτο, καὶ ἦν ἅπαντα εὔωνα, τοῦτο μὲν, ἔφη, τοῖς προσαίταις φύλαττε, τῶν πολυτελεστέρων δέ τι δίδαξόν με.

καὶ μέντοι καὶ παιδαρίου χρονίαν ἐν ὠσὶ διάθεσιν ἔχοντος, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐπὶ πολλοῖς οἷς ἐχρήσατο φαρμάκοις ἄνευ μεθόδου μηδὲν ὤνησεν, ἐμοὶ κᾀκεῖνο τὸ παιδάριον ἐκέλευσε προσαχθῆναι θεραπευθησόμενον. ὕστερόν τε γνοὺς αὐτὸ διά τινος τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων θεραπευθὲν, οὐκ ἠξίωσε λαβεῖν τοῦ φαρμάκου τὴν γραφήν. οὗτος τοίνυν αὐτὸς ἑωρακὼς πολλὰς τῶν νευροτρώτων, ἀποκοπέντας τε δακτύλους καὶ σαπέντας, ἐνίους δὲ καὶ τελευτήσαντας ἢ κυλλωθέντας, εἶτα γνοὺς ὅτι μηδεὶς ἐκινδύνευσε τῶν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ θεραπευθέντων, ἅπαντες δὲ διὰ ταχέων ὑγιεῖς ἐγένοντο, φάρμακον ἠξίου τι παρ' ἐμοῦ λαβεῖν εὔπνουν τε ἅμα καὶ πολυτελὲς, ᾧ τοὺς νευροτρώτους δυνήσεται θεραπεύειν.

ἐγὼ δὲ πολλὰς ἤδη πολλάκις ἐδεδώκειν ἑταίροις τε καὶ φίλοις ἰατροῖς γραφὰς αὐτοσχεδίους κατὰ τὴν προγεγραμμένην μέθοδον, ὅπως ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκβάσεων ὁ τῆς συνθέσεως αὐτῶν λόγος βεβαιῶται. πολυτελὲς δ', οἷον ἐκεῖνος ἐβούλετο, πένησιν ἀνθρώποις οὐκ ἂν ἔδωκα νομίζων ἄμεινον εἶναι διὰ τῶν εὐπορίστων γίγνεσθαι τὰς ἰάσεις. ὡς οὖν ὁ πλούσιος ἠξίωσεν εὔπνου τε καὶ πολυτελοῦς φαρμάκου λαβεῖν τινα σύνθεσιν, ἔδωκα πλείους αὐτῷ γραφὰς κατὰ τὴν προειρημένην μέθοδον ποιήσας, ὧν πειραθῆναι σπεύδων ἐκεῖνος ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ἐλευθέροις τε καὶ δούλοις ἀναζητεῖν αὐτῷ νευροτρώτους. ἐνεργησάντων δὲ τῶν φαρμάκων ὑπὲρ ἅπασαν ἐλπίδα, πρῶτον μὲν ἐπῄνεσεν ὡς ἀφθόνως αὐτῷ κοινωνήσαντά με τῶν γραφῶν, εἶτα καὶ δώροις ἐτίμησε, καὶ γὰρ ἦν ἕτοιμος καὶ εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα. τῶν δοθέντων δ' αὐτῷ φαρμάκων ἡ σύνθεσις ἦν τοιάδε.

♃ κινναμώμου, δικτάμνου καὶ μάρου ἀνὰ ἑκάστου δραχμὰς μʹ. καὶ γὰρ εὐώδη καὶ λεπτομερῆ ταῦτ' ἔστι. τὸ δὲ ἀμάρακον ὡς οὐκ εὐῶδες ἐνενόησα μηδ' ὅλως μιγνύειν. εἶτ' ἐπεὶ δυσπόριστον ἦν ἐν Ῥώμῃ, καθάπερ καὶ τὸ μάρον, ἑώρων δὲ ἐκεῖνον χαίροντα τοῖς δυσπορίστοις ὥσπερ γε καὶ τοῖς πολυτελέσι, προσέθηκα τῇ γραφῇ κᾀκείνου βραχύ τι μέρους ἑνὸς, ὡς οἶμαι τέταρτον ἢ πέμπτον. ταῦτα κοπέντα καὶ σηθέντα λεπτοτρήτῳ κοσκίνῳ μιγνύειν ἐκέλευσα κηρωτῇ δι' ὀποβαλσάμου τοῦ ἀρίστου καὶ κηροῦ Τυῤῥηνικοῦ. σύμμετρον δ' ἐστοχασάμην εἶναι τοῦ κηροῦ μὲν ὀκτὼ ποιήσασθαι μέρη, τοῦ δὲ ὀποβαλσάμου δέκα.

χάριν δὲ τοῦ μὴ ψαθυρὸν εἶναι τὸ φάρμακον, ἀλλ' ἡνωμένον πως ἑαυτῷ, καὶ τῆς τερμινθίνης ῥητίνης ἔμιξα μέρος ἓν οὔσης καὶ αὐτῆς εὐώδους, ὅταν ᾖ καλλίστη. γενναιότερον δ', ὡς ἔφην, εἰ βούλοιο ποιῆσαι τὸ φάρμακον, οὐχ ἓν μέρος ἑκάστης τῶν εἰρημένων βοτανῶν ἐμβάλλῃς, ἀλλὰ πλέον, ὡς ἓν καὶ ἥμισυ γενέσθαι. τοῦτ' οὖν ὑπὸ τῆς πείρας ἐμαρτυρήθη τὸ φάρμακον. ἕτερον δὲ δεύτερον ἐπ' αὐτῷ διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς κηρωτῆς καὶ ὀποῦ τοῦ Κυρηναίου συντεθὲν, κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναλογίαν τῷ εὐφορβίῳ τῆς μίξεως γενομένης, ἄλλο τε τρίτον ἐκ τῆς μίξεως ἀμφοῖν συντεθὲν καὶ τὸ τέταρτον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς τῆς στακτῆς σμύρνης προσλαβόν. ἐφ' ὧν δὲ γυμνόν ἐστι τὸ νεῦρον, ἐπὶ τούτων τὴν μὲν κηρωτὴν ἐκ κηροῦ τοῦ καλουμένου μυρεψικοῦ καὶ μύρων τῶν παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ὀνομαζομένων σπικάτου καὶ φουλιάτου συνέθηκα. δωδέκατον δ' αὐτῇ μέρος ἔμιξα πομφόλυγος, εἴτε πεπλυμένου λέγειν ἐθέλοις ἀῤῥενικῶς, εἴτε πεπλυμένης θηλυκῶς· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὁπωτέρως ἂν εἴποις οὔτ' ὠφελήσεις οὔτε βλάψεις τὸ φάρμακον.

ἔστι δέ σοι καὶ διὰ τοῦ Τυῤῥηνικοῦ κηροῦ σκευάζειν αὐτό. πάρεστι δὲ καὶ χωρὶς τῶν εἰρημένων μύρων τὸν μὲν Τυῤῥηνικὸν κηρὸν τῆξαι διὰ νάρδου καλῆς ἐπὶ διπλοῦ δηλονότι σκεύους, κοινὸν γὰρ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν μύρων. ξυσθείσῃ δὲ τῇ κηρωτῇ μίξεις νάρδου στάχυος καὶ ἀμώμου καὶ φύλλου μαλαβάθρου καὶ πομφόλυγος πεπλυμένου τὸ ἴσον ἑκάστου. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν νύξεων, ὡς εἴρηται, δριμυτέρων ἐστὶ χρεία φαρμάκων ἀνεῳγμένον ἀεὶ φυλαττόντων τὸ τραῦμα. τοῖς γεγυμνωμένοις δὲ τὰ μετρίαν στύψιν ἔχοντα μετὰ διαφορητικῆς ἀδήκτου δυνάμεως προσφέρεσθαι χρή. στύψεως δὲ μέτεστι μέν τι καὶ τῷ ἀμώμῳ, μᾶλλον δ' αὐτοῦ τῷ τε τῆς νάρδου στάχυι καὶ τῷ τοῦ μαλαβάθρου φύλλῳ.

Galen, Compound Drugs by Place 3.8, 13.635–640 K.

[1] Lots of opinions, not much certainty about what μάρον / marum is. Nice note from Bostock’s Pliny (relying on Fée) available via this link.

[2] Suggesting some debate over the gender of the word, pompholyx, πομφόλυξ.

About Ashes

“Ash. That’s what the remnant of burnt wood is called, which is a composite of contrary substances and qualities. For it contains within itself something earthy on the one hand, and on the other what is as it were smoky or sooty or whatever you want to call. These latter parts of it are very fine and when the ash is soaked in water and strained they are carried off with it; whatever earthy stuff remains behind becomes weak and not biting since it imparted the hot power to the lye water.

“Not all ash has precisely the same mixture; rather, it varies somewhat according to differences in the materials burned. Dioscorides—I have no idea why—says ash has an astringent power, but in fact fig ashes are free from any such quality because unlike oak, holm oak, strawberry tree, Valonia oak, mastic, ivy and anything else like these the fig tree itself doesn’t exhibit an astringent quality in any of its parts, but is mostly full of a strong, hot and acrid sap. Indeed, ash from astringent wood is very astringent and I’ve been known to use it on occasion to stop bleeding when no other drug was available; but no one should ever use fig ash for this, for since it is mixed with something detergent it is extremely acrid and caustic and differs in both respects from ash made of oak wood: first because the smoky material in it is much more acrid; and second because the (as it were) earthy material in it, which in the others is fairly astringent, is in this case detergent like in the ash of spurge.

“Lime is also a species of ash, being composed of finer parts than the ash from wood, inasmuch as stones need to be roasted much more intensely to be turned into ash—but for all that it also has a great deal of fire within it. And for this reason, when it is washed it becomes a drug that dries without biting, even more so if it is washed two or three times. It becomes considerably dispersing when it is washed with sea water. We’ll talk about it when we come to the discussion about things extracted from mines.”

δʹ. Περὶ τέφρας.

Τέφρα. τῶν κεκαυμένων ξύλων τὸ λείψανον οὕτω προσαγορεύεται, σύνθετον ὑπάρχον ἐξ ἐναντίων οὐσιῶν τε καὶ ποιοτήτων. ἔχει γὰρ ἐν αὑτῷ τὸ μέν τι γεῶδες, τὸ δ' οἷον αἰθαλῶδες ἢ λιγνυῶδες ἢ ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ τις καλεῖν. ταυτὶ μὲν οὖν τὰ μόρια λεπτομερῆ τ' ἐστὶ καὶ βρεχομένης ὕδατι τῆς τέφρας καὶ διηθουμένης συναποφέρεται. ὅσον δ' ὑπολείπεται γεῶδες, ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἄδηκτον γίγνεται ἐν τῇ κονίᾳ τὴν θερμὴν δύναμιν ἀποτιθέμενον.

οὐχ ἅπασα δὲ τέφρα τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκριβῶς ἔχει κρᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τῆς καυθείσης ὕλης διαφορὰν ὑπαλλάττεται. Διοσκορίδης δὲ οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως στυπτικὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν φησὶ τὴν δύναμιν. καίτοι γε ἡ συκίνη πάσης ἀπήλλακται τοιαύτης ποιότητος, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ δένδρον οὐχ ὥσπερ δρῦς καὶ πρῖνος καὶ κόμαρος καὶ φηγὸς καὶ σχῖνος καὶ κισσὸς, ὅσα τ' ἄλλα τοιαῦτα, τὴν στρυφνὴν ἐπιφαίνει ποιότητα κατ' οὐδὲν ἑαυτοῦ μέρος, ἀλλ' ἔστιν ὀποῦ πλῆρες ὅλον ἰσχυροῦ καὶ θερμοῦ καὶ δριμέος. ἐκ μὲν δὴ τῶν στρυφνῶν ξύλων ἡ τέφρα στυπτικὸν οὐκ ὀλίγον ἔχει, καὶ ἔγωγέ ποτε δι' αὐτῆς ἐπισχὼν αἱμοῤῥαγίας οἶδα, μηδενὸς ἑτέρου παρόντος φαρμάκου. τῇ συκίνῃ δ' οὐκ ἄν τις εἰς τοῦτο χρήσαιτό ποτε, πολὺ γὰρ αὕτη γε τὸ δριμὺ καὶ τὸ καυστικὸν ἔχει τῷ ῥυπτικῷ μεμιγμένον καὶ κατ' ἄμφω διενήνοχε τῆς ἐκ τῶν δρυΐνων ξύλων, ὅτι τε τὸ αἰθαλῶδες ἐν αὐτῇ πολλῷ δριμύτερόν ἐστι καὶ ὅτι τὸ οἷον γεῶδες, ἐν ἐκείναις μὲν ὑποστῦφόν πώς ἐστιν, ἐν ταύτῃ δὲ ῥυπτικὸν, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ τῶν τιθυμάλλων.

ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ τίτανος εἶδός τι τέφρας, λεπτομερεστέρα μὲν οὖσα τῆς ἐκ τῶν ξύλων, παρ' ὅσον ἀκριβέστερον οἱ λίθοι κατοπτᾶσθαι δέονται πρὸς τὸ γενέσθαι τέφραν, ὅμως μὴν ἔχουσα καὶ αὐτὴ τὸ οἷον ἐμπύρευμα πολύ. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πλυθεῖσα ξηραντικὸν ἀδήκτως γίνεται φάρμακον, καὶ μᾶλλον, εἰ δὶς ἢ καὶ τρὶς πλυθείη. διαφορητικὴ δ' ἱκανῶς γίνεται θαλάσσῃ πλυθεῖσα. λεχθήσεται δὲ ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς κᾀπειδὰν περὶ τῶν μεταλλευομένων ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν γίγνηται.

Galen, On Simple Drugs 8.19.2, 12.138–140 K.