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.