It has been a subject of lively dispute whether Dioscorides lived
before or after Pliny. It seems certain that one of these authors
copied from the other on particular matters, and in neither case is
credit given. Pliny was born A.D. 23 and died A.D. 79, and would
therefore have lived under the Emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius,
Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. Suidas, the historian, who
probably wrote in the tenth century, dates Dioscorides as contemporary
with Antony and Cleopatra, about B.C. 40, and some Arab authorities say
he wrote at the time of Ptolemy VII, which would be still a hundred
years earlier. But Dioscorides dedicates his great work on materia
medica to Areus Asclepiades, who is otherwise unknown, but mentions as
a friend of his patron the consul Licinius Bassus. There was a consul
Lecanius Bassus in the reign of Nero, and it is therefore generally
supposed that Dioscorides was in his prime at that period, and would
consequently be a contemporary of Pliny’s. It is possible that both
authors drew from another common source.
Dioscorides was a native of Anazarbus in Cilicia, a province where
the Greek spoken and written was proverbially provincial. Our word
solecism is believed to have been derived from the town of Soloe in
the same district. The Greek of Dioscorides is alleged to have been
far from classical. He himself apologises for it in his preface, and
Galen remarks upon it. Nevertheless Dioscorides maintained for at
least sixteen centuries the premier position among authorities on
materia medica. Galen complains that he was sometimes too indefinite
in his description of plants, that he does not indicate exactly enough
the diseases in which they are useful, and that he does not explain
the degrees of heat, cold, dryness, and humidity which characterise
them. He will often content himself with saying that a herb is hot
or cold, as the case may be. As an illustration of one of his other
criticisms Galen mentions the Polygonum, of which he notes that
Dioscorides says “it is useful for those who urinate with difficulty.”
But Galen adds that he does not particularise precisely the cases of
which this is a symptom and which the Polygonum is good for. But these
defects notwithstanding, Galen recognises that Dioscorides is the best
authority on the subject of the materials of medicine.
It is generally stated that Dioscorides was a physician; but of this
there is no certain evidence. According to his own account he was
devoted to the study and observation of plants and medical substances
generally, and in order to see them in their native lands he
accompanied the Roman armies through Greece, Italy, and Asia Minor.
This was the easiest method of visiting foreign countries in those
days. It is not unlikely that he went as assistant to a physician,
perhaps to the one to whom he dedicated his book. That is to say,
he may have been an army compounder. Suidas says of him that he was
nicknamed Phocas, because his face was covered with stains of the shape
of lentils.
In his treatise on materia medica, “Peri Ules Iatrikes,” or, according
to Photius, originally “Peri Ules,” On Matter, only, he describes
some six hundred plants, limiting himself to those which had or
were supposed to have medicinal virtues. He mentions, besides, the
therapeutic properties of many animal substances. Among these are
roasted grasshoppers, for bladder disorders; the liver of an ass for
epilepsy; seven bugs enclosed in the skin of a bean to be taken in
intermittent fever; and a spider applied to the temples for headache.
Dioscorides also gives a formula for the Sal Viperum, which was a noted
remedy in his time and for long afterwards. His process was to roast
a viper alive in a new earthen pot with some figs, common salt, and
honey, reducing the whole to ashes. A little spikenard was added to the
ashes. Pliny only adds fennel and frankincense to the viper, but Galen
and later authors make the salt a much more complicated mixture.
His botany is very defective. He classifies plants in the crudest way;
often only by a similarity of names. Of many his only description is
that it is “well-known,” a habit which has got him into much trouble
with modern investigators who have looked into his work for historical
evidence verifying the records of herbs named in other works. Hyssop
is an example. As stated in the section entitled “The Pharmacy of
the Bible,” it has not been found possible to identify the several
references to hyssop in the Bible. Dioscorides contents himself by
saying that it is a well-known plant, and then gives its medicinal
qualities. But that his hyssop was not the plant known to us by that
name is evident from the fact that in the same chapter he describes
the “Chrysocome,” and says of it that it flowers in racemes like the
hyssop. He also speaks of an origanum which has leaves arranged like an
umbel, similar to that of the hyssop. It is evident, therefore, that
his hyssop and ours are not the same plant.
The mineral medicines in use in his time are also included in the
treatise of Dioscorides. He mentions argentum vivum, cinnabar,
verdigris, the calces of lead and antimony, flowers of brass, rust of
iron, litharge, pompholix, several earths, sal ammoniac, nitre, and
other substances.
Other treatises, one on poisons and the bites of venomous animals,
and another on medicines easy to prepare, have been attributed to
Dioscorides, but it is not generally accepted that he was the author.
The best known translation of Dioscorides into Latin was made by
Matthiolus of Sienna in the sixteenth century. The MS. from which
Matthiolus worked is still preserved at Vienna and is believed to have
been written in the sixth century.
The very competent authority Kurt Sprengel, while recognising the
defects in the Materia Medica of Dioscorides, credits him with the
record of many valuable observations. His descriptions of myrrh,
bdellium, laudanum, asafoetida, gum ammoniacum, opium, and squill are
selected as particularly useful; the accounts he gives of treatments
since abandoned (some of which are mentioned above, but to these
Sprengel adds the application of wool fat to wounds which has been
revived since he wrote), are of special interest; and the German
historian further justly points out that many remedies re-discovered in
modern times were referred to by Dioscorides. Among these are castor
oil, though Dioscorides only alludes to the external application of
this substance; male fern against tape worms; elm bark for eruptions;
horehound in phthisis; and aloes for ulcers. He describes many chemical
processes very intelligently, and was the first to indicate means of
discovering the adulterations of drugs.