There is a book in the Library of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences of the University of Padova which provides an example of the Renaissance context of critical review of ancient knowledge: an anthology of all the most important writings of materia medica of the Arab and the Salerno Schools, published by Giunti in Venice in 1623, as an update of a hugely successful collection dating from the mid-thirteenth century (digital copy). The structure of the anthology demonstrates its aim of reviewing ancient knowledge comparing them in a critical spirit.
They are collected works of pharmacy which examine the ingredients (simples or drugs), as well as recipes including those of the Grabadin and the Antidotary of Nicholas, and techniques, including Liber servitoris Albucasis and the Compendium aromatariorum by Saladino Ferro d'Ascoli.

The anthology opens with the Opera di Mesue, the first book is the Canone universale and the second book is the De simplicibus: actually, this is a component of a controversial attribution to a Pseudo-Mesue (d. 1015), which copies a late Arab translation, with particular reference to the Canon of Medicine by Avicenna. In De simplicibus, each botanical species is reproduced with an illustration and, along with it, a description of the collection and selection of the parts (electio), the quality (complexio: traditionally hot or cold, dry or wet), preparation (rectificatio, distillation for which the Arabs were masters), effect (posse), and doses, always comparing the antiqua versio at the beginning of each entry with the comments of successive physicians such as Cristoforo degli Onesti (1320-1392 ca), Giovanni Manardo (1462-1536), Jacques Dubois (1478-1555) – latinised as Jacobus Sylvius, and Giovanni Costeo (1528-1603). In the comment by Sylvius, in particular, there is updated knowledge not only with regards to the terminology, but also to medical content (Hasse p. 129). In addition to simples, different versions of the recipes are also compared.

The identification and the selection of simples, plants in particular, is a sensitive issue for the pharmacist: a mistake can completely alter the medication and its effects. Two short treatises published in the Venetian anthology deal with this.
In the Tractatus quid pro quo, alternative ingredients are listed for each recipe, a kind of table of substitute equivalences. For example, "Pro cichorea scariola", "Pro agarico, epithymum", "Pro absinthio, abrotanum, vel origanum", "Pro hyperico, semen anethi", sometimes with doses "Pro pipere nigro, pipere album in duplo". That became important if we consider those difficult-to-find ingredients, for example, "Pro pistachiis, nuclei pinearum", "Pro cornu cervino, caprinum", "Pro adipe ursino, vel lupino, vulpinus", "Pro salamandra, viridis lacerta", "Pro crocodilli adipe, adeps canis marini". At times, the proposed substitute seems more like a practical suggestion from a housewife such as, for example, a peach pip in place of an almond, "Pro amygdalis amaris, absinthium, vel nuclei persicorum".
A list of synonyms follows, beginning with "Artemisia, id est matricaria" and many are listed in the same style, such as "Iris illirica, i. lilium silvaticum". However, the effort of ordering does not mitigate the complexity and uncertainty: one wonders how not to confuse "Hypericon, idest cauda caballina" (horsetail), "Hypericon herba sancti Ioannis, herba perforata, scopia regia, triscalamus, idem est, semine, et foliis utimur" (St. John’s wort) and "Hipericus, idest, salastium, vel herba sanctae Mariae" (hypericum or mint?). The nomenclature had not yet been formalised by the enlightened efforts of Linnaeus and the uncertainty in the determination of the species indicated in the recipe, can have fatal consequences, for example, "Cacaparia simil est canapis foliis", "Capillus veneris similis est polutrico, nisi quia facit ramusculos in stipite", Crassula minor "similis est ei [alla marior] sed multo minor".

The summa of pharmacological knowledge from the Salerno School is the Opus pandectarum (Encyclopaedia of medicaments) by Matthaeus Sylvaticus (1285-1342?), written in 1317 and dedicated to the King of Naples, Robert of Anjou, as stated in the incipit and held in the Library of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences of the University of Padova in a 1512 edition. It is a dictionary of simples, mostly plants. For each one, there are synonyms in Arabic, Greek and Latin. The Arabic names are prevalent and the number of exotic plants is high, underscoring the Arabic influence on the Salerno School. For the identification of plant simples, the morphology of the parts of the plants is described, in particular, the roots: it is Linnaeus, who later establishes that the flower would be the defining factor in determining the species. Following that, are the effects and the therapeutic instructions (posse), with explanations on the techniques of preparation, composition and dosage. Citations from previous authorities are always provided: Hippocrates, Pliny, Galen, Dioscorides, Mesue, Avicenna, Rhazes, Serapion, Bulcasim (Liber servitoris di Albucasis). Some simples are only listed with the synonym, without any other explanation, from the book of synonyms by Simon of Genoa (Simon Januensis). There are some animal simples listed such as mummies, leeches, mice from which blood and dung are recommended, the testicles of animals or the vermis grane or vermis tinctorum (cochineal). Of the few mineral simples, there are various Lapis, such as Lapis Ametistus, which acts as a powerful psychiatric medication "contra ebrietatem, facit hominem vigilem, malas reprimit cogitationes, et bonum in scibilibus confert intellectum" (c. 139v). Note the handwritten gloss in the reproduced page.