This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from De materia medica appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 August 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the five-volume book De Materia Medica, written by Dioscorides between 50 and 70AD (page from 6th-century edition pictured), is the precursor to all modern pharmacopoeias?
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article describes De Materia Medica as an illustrated book. So are the illustrations in the manuscripts of this work copied from their exemplars -- & possibly derive from the illustrations in the original -- or from nature, or a mixture of the two? I assume someone has investigated this, & there would be an analysis of these illustrations from an art-historian perspective. -- llywrch (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Like all books until the age of printing, each new manuscript was copied laboriously by hand from an existing manuscript, which was very unlikely to be the original. The result was copies of copies of copies. This method continually introduced new errors, and then propagated them in copied texts, making it possible to trace 'family trees' of versions of the text. In the case of illustrations, each attempt at copying inevitably deviated a little further from the original. Your surmise that some copies were made with some knowledge of nature is possible, but just as likely is an element of decoration (some MS were decorated with gold as well as watercolour and ink), as seen in some of the illustrations in the article. Further, texts were sometimes freely modified, and generic illustrations added, without regard to the original at all; and in other MS the illustrations were dropped altogether. All this is to say that most of the question might concern an article like Manuscript. However, art historians have indeed investigated the process in Dioscorides manuscripts, and I'll mention this briefly in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Re your hiding of search terms - the internet archive was already there but mislabelled as Latin version. That led me to check all the links and reword and organise better. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
OK. I've reformatted the Latin list, more compactly, to show it's the books that are being linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Michael Goodyear - with your latest we now have Osbaldeston listed three times, under Editions, Translations, and Sources (this last as cited numerous times in the text). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Quite right - and by no means the only duplication - the confusion lies in far too many overlapping sections - I have consolidated all of them and pruned duplicates - I think it improves the overall layout and organisation --Michael Goodyear✐ ✉ 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
