Popular medicine in thirteenth-century England

thereby demonstrating a well-educated, informed, probing, and critical mind. He was familiar with various Berber dialects, as well as Celtic-Iberian nomenclatures and, through Ibn Juljul, Latin. He cited a number of unknown sources including one, simply, as "a Byzantine". In his introduction he said that he had studied pharmacy in the city of Marrakesh where, through his teacher, he became familiar with 'Abdallah, who was critical of both Dioscorides and Ibn Juljul. The value in Dietrich's outstanding scholarship lies in identifying the understanding of plant drugs and in discovering the detailed, critical, and empirical spirit of these various Arabic commentators, most especially 'Abdallah and the "Anonymous". In his preface, the Anonymous explained the necessity for a knowledge derived from experience about drugs that must be known by their proper name in one's mother tongue, in various other languages, and how each relates to the other. For each chapter Dietrich gives the Arabic transliteration, the Greek term, and a German translation. He adds copious references to various editions of Dioscorides, including one in Arabic, and identifies most fragments, some (e.g., Juljul) from manuscript sources. The identification of the sources is well done and a tremendous hurdle considering that Ibn Juljul alone cites nine authorities, among them Galen, Hunain b. IshAq, and Rhazes. In addition Dietrich identifies plants by modern, scientific citation, and he asks experts for their insight in the various vernacular dialects, such as Berber, that the anonymous author was precociously interested in learning. Dietrich's scholarship is meticulous and thorough in respect to the Arabic transmission but less complete in respect to the broader picture of Dioscorides' work. Dietrich's introduction has a discussion ofwhat is known ofthe author and his sources, the sources that the Anonymous, Ibn Juljul and 'Abdallah employed, an analysis of the commentary's structure, linguistic analysis (especially of aetiologies and various dialects), a discussion of the errors and misunderstandings in the text-this is an important section-and a glossary of unusual Arabic words. The main body of Popular medicine in thirteenth-century Englandconsists ofeditions of recipes and antidotaries written mostly in Anglo-Norman, a language that Tony Hunt, Reader in French at St Andrews, rightly points out is slighted by medical historians. All chapters but the first print thirteenth-century texts, preceded by descriptions of the manuscripts that contain them. The editor prefaces his editions with an introduction that surveys the written recipe from earliest times through the fifteenth century. The …