HERBALS
THEIR ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
A CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF BOTANY
1470-1670
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
C. F. CLAY, Manager
[Illustration]
Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET
London: WILLIAM WESLEY & SON, 28, ESSEX STREET, STRAND
Berlin: A. ASHER & CO.
Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
New York: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.
_All rights reserved_
[Illustration: LEONHARD FUCHS (1501-1566).
[Engraving by Speckle in _De historia stirpium_, 1542.]]
HERBALS
THEIR ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
A CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF BOTANY
1470-1670
BY
AGNES ARBER
(MRS. E. A. NEWELL ARBER)
D.Sc., F.L.S., FELLOW OF NEWNHAM COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
AND OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON
Cambridge:
at the University Press
1912
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
TO MY FATHER
H. R. ROBERTSON
“Wherefore it maye please your ... gentlenes to take these my labours
in good worthe, not according unto their unworthines, but accordinge
unto my good mind and will, offering and gevinge them unto you.”
WILLIAM TURNER’S _Herbal_, 1568.
PREFACE
To add a volume such as the present to the existing multitude of books
about books calls for some apology. My excuse must be that many of the
best herbals, especially the earlier ones, are not easily accessible,
and after experiencing keen delight from them myself, I have felt
that some account of these works, in connection with reproductions of
typical illustrations, might be of interest to others. In the words of
Henry Lyte, the translator of Dodoens, “I thinke it sufficient for any,
whom reason may satisfie, by way of answeare to alleage this action and
sententious position: _Bonum, quo communius, eo melius et præstantius_:
a good thing the more common it is, the better it is.”
The main object of the present book is to trace in outline the
evolution of the _printed herbal_ in Europe between the years 1470 and
1670, primarily from a botanical, and secondarily from an artistic
standpoint. The medical aspect, which could only be dealt with
satisfactorily by a specialist in that science, I have practically
left untouched, as also the gardening literature of the period.
Bibliographical information is not given in detail, except in so
far as it subserves the main objects of the book. Even within these
limitations, the present account is far from being an exhaustive
monograph. It aims merely at presenting a general sketch of the history
of the herbal during a period of two hundred years. The titles of the
principal botanical works, which were published between 1470 and 1670,
are given in Appendix I.
The book is founded mainly upon a study of the herbals themselves. My
attention was first directed to these works by reading a copy of Lyte’s
translation of Dodoens’ Herbal, which happened to come into my hands
in 1894, and at once aroused my interest in the subject. I have also
drawn freely upon the historical and critical literature dealing with
the period under consideration, to which full references will be found
in Appendix II. The materials for this work have chiefly been obtained
in the Printed Books Department of the British Museum, but I have also
made use of a number of other libraries. I owe many thanks to Prof.
Seward, F.R.S., who suggested that I should undertake this book, and
gave me special facilities for the study of the fine collection of old
botanical works in the Botany School, Cambridge. In addition I must
record my gratitude to the University Librarian, Mr F. J. H. Jenkinson,
M.A., and Mr C. E. Sayle, M.A., of the Cambridge University Library,
and also to Dr Stapf, Keeper of the Kew Herbarium and Library. By the
kindness of Dr Norman Moore, Harveian Librarian to the Royal College
of Physicians, I have had access to that splendid library, and my best
thanks are due to him, and to the Assistant-Librarian, Mr Barlow. To
the latter I am especially indebted for information on bibliographical
points. I have also to thank Mr Knapman of the Pharmaceutical Society,
Dr Molhuizen, Keeper of the Manuscripts, University Library, Leyden,
and the Librarian of the Teyler Institute, Haarlem, for giving me
opportunities for examining the books under their charge.
The great majority of the illustrations are reproduced from photographs
taken directly from the originals by Mr W. Tams of Cambridge, to whom I
am greatly indebted for the skill and care with which he has overcome
the difficulties incidental to photographing from old books, the pages
of which are so often wrinkled, discoloured or worm-eaten. For the use
of Plate XVIII, which appeared in _Leonardo da Vinci’s Note-Books_, I
am under obligations to the author, Mr Edward M^{c}Curdy, M.A., and to
Messrs Duckworth & Co. Text-figs. 7, 18, 77, 78 and 112 are reproduced
by the courtesy of the Council of the Bibliographical Society, from
papers by the late Dr Payne, to which the references will be found in
Appendix II, while, for the use of Text-fig. 108, I am indebted to
the Royal Numismatic Society. For permission to utilise the modern
facsimile of the famous Dioscorides manuscript of Juliana Anicia,
from which Plates I, II, and XV are derived, I have to thank Prof. Dr
Josef Ritter von Karabacek, of the k. k. Hofbibliothek at Vienna. In
connection with the portraits of herbalists here reproduced, I wish
to acknowledge the generous assistance which I have received from Sir
Sidney Colvin, formerly Keeper of Prints and Drawings, British Museum.
I would also record my thanks to Mr A. W. Pollard, Secretary of the
Bibliographical Society, Prof. Killermann of Regensburg, Signorina
Adelaide Marchi of Florence, Mr C. D. Sherborn of the British Museum
(Natural History) and Dr B. Daydon Jackson, General Secretary of the
Linnean Society, all of whom have kindly given me information of great
value. For help in the translation of certain German and Latin texts,
I am indebted to Mr E. G. Tucker, B.A., Mr F. A. Scholfield, M.A., and
to my brother, Mr D. S. Robertson, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
I wish, further, to express my gratitude to my father for advice and
suggestions. Without his help, I should scarcely have felt myself
competent to discuss the subject from the artistic standpoint. To my
husband, also, I owe many thanks for assistance in various directions,
more particularly in criticising the manuscript, and in seeing the
volume through the press. I am indebted to my sister, Miss Janet
Robertson, for the cover, the design for which is based upon a wood-cut
in the _Ortus Sanitatis_ of 1491.
A book of this kind, in the preparation of which many previous works
have been laid under contribution, is doubtless open to a certain
criticism which William Turner, “the Father of British Botany,”
anticipated in the case of his own writings. I think I cannot do better
than proffer my excuse in the very words of this sixteenth-century
herbalist:
“For some of them will saye, seynge that I graunte that I have gathered
this booke of so manye writers, that I offer unto you an heape of other
mennis laboures, and nothinge of myne owne,... To whom I aunswere, that
if the honye that the bees gather out of so manye floure of herbes,
shrubbes, and trees, that are growing in other mennis medowes, feldes
and closes: maye justelye be called the bees honye:... So maye I call
it that I have learned and gathered of manye good autoures ... my
booke.”
AGNES ARBER.
BALFOUR LABORATORY, CAMBRIDGE,
_26th July, 1912_.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I. THE EARLY HISTORY OF BOTANY
1. Introductory 1
2. Aristotelian Botany 2
3. Medicinal Botany 6
II. THE EARLIEST PRINTED HERBALS (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)
1. The Encyclopædia of Bartholomæus Anglicus and ‘The Book
of Nature’ 10
2. The ‘Herbarium’ of Apuleius Platonicus 11
3. The Latin ‘Herbarius’ 16
4. The German ‘Herbarius’ and related Works 18
5. The ‘Hortus Sanitatis’ 25
III. THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE HERBAL IN ENGLAND
1. The ‘Herbarium’ of Apuleius Platonicus 35
2. Banckes’ Herbal 38
3. ‘The Grete Herball’ 40
IV. THE BOTANICAL RENAISSANCE OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH
CENTURIES
1. The Herbal in Germany 47
2. The Herbal in the Low Countries 70
3. The Herbal in Italy 79
4. The Herbal in Switzerland 90
5. The Herbal in France 98
6. The Herbal in England 100
7. The Revival of Aristotelian Botany 116
V. THE EVOLUTION OF THE ART OF PLANT DESCRIPTION 119
VI. THE EVOLUTION OF PLANT CLASSIFICATION 134
VII. THE EVOLUTION OF THE ART OF BOTANICAL ILLUSTRATION 154
VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF SIGNATURES, AND ASTROLOGICAL BOTANY 204
IX. CONCLUSIONS 221
APPENDIX I
A Chronological List of the Principal Herbals and Related
Botanical Works published between 1470 and 1670 227
APPENDIX II
A List, in Alphabetical Order, of the Principal Critical and
Historical Works dealing with the Subjects discussed in this
Book 241
INDEX 247
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FRONTISPIECE
Leonhard Fuchs (1501-1566) [Engraving by Speckle in _De historia
stirpium_, 1542]
PLATES
PLATE _Face page_
I. “Sonchos” [Dioscorides. Codex Aniciæ Julianæ. circa
A.D. 500]. _Reduced_ 4
II. “Stratiotes” [Dioscorides. Codex Aniciæ Julianæ. circa A.D. 500].
_Reduced_ 8
III. Wood-cut of Plants [Konrad von Megenberg. Das půch der natur.
1475]. _Reduced_ 10
IV. “Orbicularis” [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici. ? 1484]. (_The tint
represents colouring, which was probably contemporary_) 12
V. “Mandragora” = Mandrake [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici. ? 1484].
(_The tint represents colouring, which was probably
contemporary_) 34
VI. Joachim Camerarius, the younger (1534-1598) [Engraving by
Bartholomæus Kilian. Probably between 1650 and 1700.
Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum] 68
VII. Charles de l’Écluse (1526-1609) [Print in the Botany School,
Cambridge] 74
VIII. Mathias de l’Obel (1538-1616) [Engraving by François
Dellarame. 1615. Department of Prints and Drawings,
British Museum] 78
IX. Fabio Colonna (1567-1650) [Ekphrasis. 1606] 88
X. Konrad Gesner (1516-1565) [Print in the Botany School,
Cambridge] 92
XI. Gaspard Bauhin (1560-1624) [Theatrum Anatomicum. 1605] 94
XII. John Gerard (1545-1607) [The Herball. 1636] 108
XIII. John Parkinson (1567-1650) [Theatrum botanicum. 1640] 114
XIV. Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603) [Drawn by G. Zocchi and
engraved by F. Allegrini, 1765, after an old portrait
in the Museum of the Botanic Garden at Pisa. Print in
the Botany School, Cambridge] 116
XV. “Phasiolos” = Bean [Dioscorides. Codex Aniciæ Julianæ.
circa A.D. 500]. _Reduced_ 154
XVI. “Dracontea” [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici. ? 1484].
(_The tint represents colouring, which was probably
contemporary_) 156
XVII. Study of _Aquilegia vulgaris_ L., Columbine [Albrecht Dürer,
1526. Drawing in the Albertina, Vienna]. _Reduced_ 168
XVIII. Study of _Ornithogalum umbellatum_ L., Star of Bethlehem,
and other plants [Leonardo da Vinci. 1452-1519. Drawing
in the Royal Library, Windsor]. _Reduced_ 170
XIX. “Crocus Byzantinus” and “Crocus Montanus hispan.” [Part of
a plate from Crispian de Passe. Hortus Floridus. 1614] 202
XX. “Cervaria fœmina” [Thurneisser. Historia sive Descriptio
Plantarum. 1587] 216
XXI. Nicholas Culpeper (1616-1654) [A Physicall Directory. 1649.
Engraving by Cross] 218
FIGURES IN THE TEXT[1]
[The initial letters, which will be found at the beginning of each
chapter, are taken from Pierre Belon’s ‘Les Observations de plusieurs
singularitez et choses mémorables, trouvées en Grece, Asie, Judée,
Egypte, Arabie, et autres pays estranges, ... Imprimé à Paris par
Benoist Prévost.’ 1553.]
TEXT-FIG. PAGE
1. “Plantago” = Plantain [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici, ? 1484] 12
2. “Artemisia” [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici, ? 1484] 13
3. “Lilium” [Herbarius Moguntinus, 1484] 14
4. “Aristolochia longa” [Herbarius Moguntinus, 1484] 15
5. “Serpentaria” [Herbarius Moguntinus, 1484] 16
6. “Brionia” [Arnaldus de Villa Nova, Tractatus de virtutibus
herbarum, 1499] 17
7. “Acorus” = Iris [Herbarius zu Teutsch, Mainz, 1485] 23
8. “Leopardus” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 25
9. “Daucus” = Carrot [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 26
10. “Passer” = Sparrow [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 27
11. “Pavo” = Peacock [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 27
12. “Arbor vel lignum vite paradisi” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 28
13. “Narcissus” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 29
14. “Bauser vel Bausor” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 30
15. “Panis” = Bread [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 31
16. “Ambra” = Amber [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 32
17. “Unicornus” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 33
18. A Herbalist’s Garden [Le Jardin de Santé, ? 1539] 34
19. Wood-cut of Plants [Bartholomæus Anglicus, Liber de
proprietatibus rerum, Wynkyn de Worde, ? 1495]. _Reduced_ 37
20. “Yvery” = Ivory [The Grete Herball, 1529] 42
21. “Nenufar” = Waterlily [The Grete Herball, 1529] 44
22. “Walwurtz männlin” = _Symphytum_, Comfrey [Brunfels, Herbarum
vivæ eicones, Vol. I. 1530]. _Reduced_ 48
23. “Helleborus Niger” = _Helleborus viridis_ L., Green Hellebore
[Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ eicones, Vol. I. 1530]. _Reduced_ 49
24. “Synnaw” = _Alchemilla_, Ladies’ Mantle [Brunfels, Herbarum
vivæ eicones, Vol. ii. 1531]. _Reduced_ 51
25. “Caryophyllata” = _Geum_, Avens [Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ
eicones, Vol. iii. 1540]. _Reduced_ 52
26. Hieronymus Bock or Tragus (1498-1554) [Kreuter Bůch, 1551] 53
27. “Erdberen” = _Fragaria_, Strawberry [Bock, Kreuter Bůch, 1546] 54
28. “Pimpernuss” = _Pistacia_, Pistachio-nut [Bock, Kreuter Bůch,
1546] 56
29. “Tribulus aquaticus” = _Trapa natans_ L., Bull-nut [Bock, De
stirpium, 1552] 57
30. “Brassicæ quartum genus” = Cabbage [Fuchs, De historia
stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced_ 59
31. “Polygonatum latifolium” = Solomon’s Seal [Fuchs, De historia
stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced_ 61
32. “Cucumis turcicus” = _Cucurbita maxima_ Duch., Giant Pumpkin
[Fuchs, De historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced_ 63
33. “Erdöpffel” = _Ranunculus ficaria_ L., Lesser Celandine
[Rhodion, Kreutterbůch, 1533] 65
34. “Ocimoides fruticosum” = _Silene fruticosa_ L. [Camerarius,
Hortus medicus, 1588] 67
35. “Palma” = Seedlings of _Phœnix dactylifera_ L., Date Palm
[Camerarius, Hortus medicus, 1588] 69
36. Rembert Dodoens (1517-1585) [A Niewe Herball. Translated
by Lyte, 1578] 71
37. “Capparis” = _Capparis ovata_ L. [Dodoens, Pemptades, 1583] 73
38. “Anemone trifolia” [Dodoens, Pemptades, 1583] 75
39. “Lacryma Iob” = _Coix lachryma-Jobi_ L., Job’s Tears [de
l’Écluse, Rariorum ... per Hispanias, 1576] 77
40. Pierandrea Mattioli (1501-1577) [Engraving by Philippe Galle,
Virorum Doctorum Effigies, Antwerp, 1572] 80
41. “Pyra” = _Pyrus communis_ L., Pear [Mattioli, Commentarii,
1560] 81
42. “Avena” = Oats [Mattioli, Commentarii, 1560] 82
43. “Trifolium acetosum” = _Oxalis_ [Mattioli, Commentarii, 1565].
_Reduced_ 83
44. “Malus” = _Pyrus malus_ L., Apple [Mattioli, Commentarii,
1565]. _Reduced_ 84
45. “Arbor Malenconico” or “Arbor tristis” = Tree of Sorrow
[Durante, Herbario Nuovo, 1585] 86
46. “Apocynum” [Colonna, Phytobasanos, 1592] 87
47. “Kalli” = _Salicornia_, Glasswort [Prospero Alpino,
De plantis Ægypti, 1592] 89
48. “Lachryma Iob” = _Coix lachryma-Jobi_ L., Job’s Tears
[Simler, Vita Conradi Gesneri, 1566] 91
49. “Solanum tuberosum esculentum” = Potato [Bauhin, Prodromos,
1620] 95
50. Jacques d’Aléchamps (1513-1588) [Wood-cut, circa 1600,
Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum].
_Enlarged_ 97
51. “Ornithogalum magnum” [d’Aléchamps, Historia generalis
plantarum, 1586] 99
52. “Tabaco” = _Nicotiana_, Tobacco [Monardes, Joyfull newes
out of the newe founde worlde, 1580] 105
53. “Reubarbe” = _Centaurea rhaponticum_ L. [Lyte, A Niewe
Herball, 1578] 107
54. “The breede of Barnakles” [Gerard, The Herball, 1597] 111
55. “Barberry” = _Berberis_ [Part of a large wood-cut from
Parkinson, Paradisus Terrestris, 1629] 114
56. “Cardamomum” = (?) _Solanum dulcamara_ L., Bittersweet
[Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 121
57. “Pionia” = Peony [Arnaldus de Villa Nova, Tractatus de
virtutibus herbarum, 1499] 123
58. “Petasites” = Butterbur [Fuchs, De historia stirpium, 1542].
_Reduced_ 126
59. “Sedum majus” [de l’Écluse, Rariorum per Hispanias, 1576] 128
60. “Battata Virginiana” = _Solanum tuberosum_ L., Potato [Gerard,
The Herball, 1597] 129
61. “Rose Ribwoorte” = an abnormal Plantain [Gerard, The Herball,
1597] 131
62. “Beta Cretica semine aculeato” [Bauhin, Prodromos, 1620] 132
63. “Carui” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 135
64. “Buglossa” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 137
65. “Nenufar” = Waterlily [Arnaldus de Villa Nova, Tractatus de
virtutibus herbarum, 1499] 139
66. “Nenuphar” = _Nymphæa alba_ L., White Waterlily [Brunfels,
Herbarum vivæ eicones, Vol. I. 1530]. _Reduced_ 141
67. “Gele Plompen” = _Nuphar luteum_ Sm., Yellow Waterlily [de
l’Obel, Kruydtbœck, 1581] 142
68. “Ninfea” = Waterlily [Durante, Herbario Nuovo, 1585] 144
69. “Tussilago” = _Tussilago farfara_ L., Coltsfoot [Fuchs, De
historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced_ 147
70. “Plantago major” = Plantain [Fuchs, De historia stirpium,
1542]. _Reduced_ 149
71. “Althæa Thuringica” = _Lavatera thuringiaca_ L. [Camerarius,
Hortus medicus, 1588] 150
72. “Pulsatilla” = _Anemone pulsatilla_ L., Pasque-flower
[Camerarius, De plantis Epitome Matthioli, 1586] 152
73. “Brionia” [Herbarius Moguntinus, 1484] 158
74. “Ireos vel Iris” [Arnaldus de Villa Nova, Tractatus de
virtutibus herbarum, 1499] 159
75. “Capillus Veneris” = Maidenhair Fern [Arnaldus de Villa Nova,
Tractatus de virtutibus herbarum, 1499] 160
76. “Cuscuta” = Dodder [Arnaldus de Villa Nova, Tractatus de
virtutibus herbarum, 1499] 161
77. “Cuscuta” = Dodder [Herbarius zu Teutsch, Mainz, 1485] 163
78. “Alkekengi” = _Physalis_, Winter Cherry [Herbarius zu Teutsch,
Mainz, 1485] 164
79. “Alkekengi” = _Physalis_, Winter Cherry [Ortus Sanitatis,
Mainz, 1491] 165
80. “Cuscuta” = Dodder [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 166
81. “Botris” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491] 167
82. “Asarum” = Asarabacca [Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ eicones,
Vol. I. 1530]. _Reduced_ 169
83. “Kuchenschell” = _Anemone pulsatilla_ L., Pasque-flower
[Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ eicones, Vol. I. 1530]. Reduced 171
84. “Lappa” = _Arctium_, Burdock [Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ eicones,
Vol. II. 1531]. _Reduced_ 173
85. “Scolopendria” = Hart’s-tongue Fern [Rhodion, Kreutterbůch,
1533] 174
86. “Dipsacus albus” = Teasle [Fuchs, De historia stirpium,
1542]. _Reduced_ 176
87. “Apios” = _Lathyrus tuberosus_ L., Earth-nut Pea [Fuchs, De
historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced_ 178
88. “Arum” = _Arum maculatum_ L., Wild Arum [Fuchs, De historia
stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced_ 179
89. The Draughtsmen and Engraver employed by Leonhard Fuchs [De
historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced_ 181
90. “Wintergrün” = _Pyrola_, Wintergreen [Bock, Kreuter Bůch,
1546] 182
91. “Rautten” = _Botrychium_, Moonwort [Bock, Kreuter Bůch, 1546] 183
92. “Castanum nuss” = _Castanea_, Chestnut [Bock, Kreuter Bůch,
1546] 184
93. “Fungi” = Toadstools [Mattioli, Commentarii, 1560].
_Reduced_ 185
94. “Rosaceum” [Mattioli, Commentarii, 1560]. _Reduced_ 186
95. “Suber primus” [Mattioli, Commentarii, 1565]. _Reduced_ 187
96. “Tragorchis” = _Orchis hircina_ L., Lizard Orchis [Dodoens,
Pemptades, 1583] 188
97. “Aconitum luteum minus” = _Eranthis hiemalis_ L., Winter
Aconite [Dodoens, Pemptades, 1583] 189
98. “Draco arbor” = _Dracæna_, Dragon Tree [de l’Écluse,
Rariorum ... per Hispanias, 1576] 191
99. “Cyclaminus” [Camerarius, De plantis Epitome ... Matthioli,
1586] 192
100. “Rosa Hierichuntica” = _Anastatica hierochuntica_ L.,
Rose of Jericho [Camerarius, Hortus medicus, 1588] 193
101. “Piper Nigrum” = Pepper [d’Aléchamps, Historia generalis
plantarum, Vol. II. 1587] 194
102. “Cedrus” = Cedar [Belon, De arboribus, 1553] 195
103. “Lentisco del Peru” = _Pistacia lentiscus_ L., Mastic Tree
[Durante, Herbario Nuovo, 1585] 197
104. “Mala Aurantia Chinensia” = Orange [Aldrovandi, Dendrologia,
1667]. _Reduced_ 198
105. “Chondrilla” [Colonna, Phytobasanos, 1592] 201
106. “Alkekengi” = _Physalis_, Winter Cherry [Blankaart,
Neder-landschen Herbarius, 1698] 203
107. The Male Mandrake [Brunfels, Contrafayt Kreüterbuch,
Ander Teyl, 1537] 205
108. Theophrastus von Hohenheim, called Paracelsus (1493-1541)
[From a medal, now in the British Museum. See F. W. Weber,
Appendix II] 206
109. Herbs of the Scorpion [Porta, Phytognomonica, 1591] 209
110. Lunar Herbs [Porta, Phytognomonica, 1591] 213
111. Astrological Diagram relating to the gathering of “Cervaria
fœmina” [Thurneisser, Historia sive Descriptio Plantarum,
1587] 217
112. Wood-cut from the Title-page of the Grete Herball, 1526.
_Reduced_ 223
113. A Herbalist’s Garden and Store-room [Das Kreüterbůch oder
Herbarius. Printed by Heinrich Stayner, Augsburg, 1534] 225
CHAPTER I
THE EARLY HISTORY OF BOTANY
1. INTRODUCTORY.
In the present book, the special subject treated is the evolution
of the _printed herbal_, between the years 1470 and 1670, but it is
impossible to arrive at clear ideas on this subject without some
knowledge of the earlier stages in the history of Botany. The first
chapter will therefore be devoted to the briefest possible sketch of
the progress of Botany before the invention of printing, in order that
the position occupied by the Herbal in the history of the science may
be realised in its true perspective.
From the very beginning of its existence, the study of plants has been
approached from two widely separated standpoints—the philosophical
and the utilitarian. Regarded from the first point of view, Botany
stands on its own merits, as an integral branch of natural philosophy,
whereas, from the second, it is merely a by-product of medicine or
agriculture. This distinction, however, is a somewhat arbitrary one;
the more philosophical of botanists have not disdained at times to
consider the uses of herbs, and those who entered upon the subject,
with a purely medical intention, have often become students of plant
life for its own sake. At different periods in the evolution of the
science, one or other aspect has predominated, but from classical times
onwards, it is possible to trace the development of these two distinct
lines of inquiry, which have sometimes converged, but more often
pursued parallel and unconnected paths.
Botany as a branch of philosophy may be said to have owed its inception
to the wonderful mental activity of the finest period of Greek culture.
It was at this time that the nature and life of plants first came
definitely within the scope of inquiry and speculation.
2. ARISTOTELIAN BOTANY.
Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, concerned himself with the whole field of
science, and his influence, especially during the Middle Ages, had
a most profound effect on European thought. The greater part of his
botanical writings, which belong to the fourth century before Christ,
are unfortunately lost, but, from such fragments as remain, it is clear
that his interest in plants was of an abstract nature. He held that all
living bodies, those of plants as well as of animals, are organs of the
soul, through which they exist. It was broad, general speculations,
such as these, which chiefly attracted him. He asks _why_ a grain of
corn gives rise in its turn to a grain of corn and not to an olive,
thus raising a plexus of problems, which, despite the progress of
modern science, still baffle the acutest thinkers of the present day.
Aristotle bequeathed his library to his pupil Theophrastus, whom he
named as his successor. Theophrastus was well fitted to carry on the
traditions of the school, since he had, in earlier years, studied under
Plato himself. He produced a ‘History of Plants’ in which Botany is
treated in a somewhat more concrete and definite fashion than is the
case in Aristotle’s writings. Theophrastus mentions about 450 plants,
whereas the number of species in Greece known at the present day is at
least 3000. His descriptions, with few exceptions, are meagre, and the
identification of the plants to which they refer is a matter of extreme
difficulty.
In various points of observation, Theophrastus was in advance of his
time. He noticed, for instance, the distinction between centripetal and
centrifugal inflorescences—a distinction which does not seem to have
again attracted the attention of botanists until the sixteenth century.
He was interested in the germination of seeds, and was aware, though
somewhat dimly, of the essential differences between the seedling of
the Bean and that of the Wheat.
In the Middle Ages, knowledge of Aristotelian botany was brought
into western Europe at two different periods,—the ninth and the
thirteenth centuries. In the ninth century of the Christian era,
Rhabanus Magnentius Maurus, a German writer, compiled an encyclopædia
which contained information about plants, indirectly derived from the
writings of Theophrastus. Rhabanus actually based his work upon the
writings of Isidor of Seville, who lived in the sixth and seventh
centuries—Isidor having obtained his botanical data from Pliny, whose
knowledge of plants was in turn borrowed from Theophrastus.
The renewal of Aristotelian learning in the thirteenth century was
derived less directly from classical writings than was the case with
the earlier revival. From the time of Alexander onwards, various Greek
schools had been founded in Syria. These schools were largely concerned
with the teachings of Aristotle, which were thence handed on into
Persia, Arabia and other countries. The Arabs translated the Syriac
versions of Greek writers into their own language, and their physicians
and philosophers kept alive the knowledge of science during the dark
ages when Greece and Rome had ceased to be the homes of learning, and
while culture was still in its infancy in Germany, France and England.
The Arabic translations of classical writings were eventually rendered
into Latin, or even sometimes into Greek again, and in this guise found
their way to western Europe.
Amongst other books, which suffered these successive metamorphoses,
was the pseudo-Aristotelian botany of Nicolaus of Damascus, which has
acquired importance in the annals of western science, because it formed
the basis of the botanical work of Albertus Magnus.
Albert of Bollstadt (1193-1280), Bishop of Ratisbon, was a famous
scholastic philosopher. He was esteemed one of the most learned men of
his age, and was called “Albertus Magnus” during his life-time, the
title being conferred on him by the unanimous consent of the schools.
The “Angelic Doctor,” St Thomas Aquinas, became one of his pupils.
According to legendary lore the name of Albertus would have been
unknown in science, but for divine intervention, which miraculously
affected his career. As a boy, tradition says that he was singularly
lacking in intelligence, so much so that it was feared that he would
be compelled to abandon the hope of entering monastic life, since he
seemed incapable even of the limited acquirements necessary. However,
one night, the Blessed Virgin, touched by his fervour and piety,
appeared before him in glory, and asked whether he would rather excel
in philosophy or in theology. Albertus without hesitation chose
philosophy. The Virgin granted his desire, but, being inwardly wounded
at his choice, she added that, because he had preferred profane to
divine knowledge, he should sink back, before the end of his life, into
his pristine state of stupidity. According to the legend, this came to
pass. Three years before his death he was suddenly struck down, in the
presence of his students, and never regained his mental powers.
The botanical work of Albertus forms only a small fraction of his
writings, but it is with that part alone that we are here concerned.
As already mentioned, his knowledge of botany was based upon a
mediæval Latin work, which he reverenced as Aristotle’s, but which is
now attributed to Nicolaus Damascenus, who was, however, a follower
of Aristotle and Theophrastus. Although Albertus undoubtedly drew
his botanical inspiration from this book, a large proportion of his
writings on the subject were original.
The ideas of Albertus were in many ways curiously advanced, especially
in the suggestions which he gives as to the classification of plants,
and in his observations of detailed structure in certain flowers. We
shall return to his writings in future chapters dealing with these
subjects. It will suffice now to mention his remarkable instinct for
morphology, in which he was probably unsurpassed during the next
four hundred years. He points out, for instance, that, in the vine,
a tendril sometimes occurs in place of a bunch of grapes, and from
this he concludes that the tendril is to be interpreted as a bunch of
grapes incompletely developed. He distinguishes also between thorns and
prickles, and realises that the former are stem structures, and the
latter merely surface organs.
[Illustration: _Plate I_
‘Sonchos’ [Dioscorides, Codex Aniciæ Julianæ, circa A.D. 500].
_Reduced._]
Albertus seems to have had a fine scorn for that branch of the science
now known as Systematic Botany. He considered that to catalogue all the
species was too vast and detailed a task, and one altogether unsuited
to the philosopher. However, in his Sixth Book he so far unbends as to
give descriptions of a number of plants.
As regards abstract problems, the views of Albertus on plant life
may be summed up as follows. The plant is a living being, and its
life principle is the vegetable soul, whose function is limited to
nourishment, growth and reproduction—feeling, desire, sleep, and
sexuality, properly so called, being unknown in the plant world.
Albertus was troubled by many subtle problems connected with the souls
of plants, such questions, for instance, as whether in the case of the
material union of two individuals, such as the ivy and its supporting
tree, their souls also united. Like Theophrastus, and other early
writers, Albertus held the theory that species were mutable, and
illustrated this view by pointing out that cultivated plants might run
wild and become degenerate, while wild plants might be domesticated.
Some of his ideas, however, on the possibility of changes from one
species to another, were quite baseless. He stated, for instance,
that, if a wood of oak or beech were razed to the ground, an actual
transformation took place, aspens and poplars springing up in place of
the previously existing trees.
The temperate tone of the remarks made by Albertus on the medical
virtues of plants contrasts favourably with the puerilities of many
later writers. Much of the criticism from which he has suffered at
various times has been, in reality, directed against a book called ‘De
virtutibus herbarum,’ the authorship of which was quite erroneously
attributed to him. We shall refer to this work again in Chapter VIII.
After the time of Albertus, no great student of Aristotelian botany
arose before Andrea Cesalpino, whose writings, which belong to the end
of the sixteenth century, will be considered in a later chapter. The
work of Cesalpino had great qualities, but, curiously enough, it had
little influence on the science of his time. He may be regarded as
perhaps the last important representative of Aristotelian botany.
3. MEDICINAL BOTANY.
With the Revival of Learning, the speculative botany of the ancients
began to lose its hold upon thinking men. This may be attributed to
the curious lack of vitality, and the absence of the power of active
development, manifested in this aspect of the subject since its
initiation at the hands of Aristotle. It had proved comparatively
barren, because, though the minds which engaged in it were among the
finest that have ever been concerned with the science, the basis
of observed fact was inadequate in quality and quantity to sustain
the philosophical superstructure built upon it. It might have been
supposed _a priori_ that accurate observation of natural phenomena
needed a less highly evolved type of mind than that required to cope
with metaphysical considerations, and hence that, in the development
of any science, the epoch of observation would have preceded the epoch
of speculation. In actual fact, however, the reverse appears to have
been the case. The power of scientific observation seems to have lagged
many centuries behind the power of reasoning, and to have reached its
maturity at least two thousand years later.
Aristotle and Theophrastus arrived by the subtlest mental processes
at a certain attitude towards the universe, and at certain ideas
concerning the nature of things. They attempted a direct advance in
scientific thought by extending these conceptions to include the plant
world. It was an heroic effort, but one which could not ultimately form
a basis for continued progress, because, in its inception, preconceived
ideas had come first, and the facts of Nature second. It seems to be
almost a law of thought, that it is the indirect advances which in the
end prove to be the most fertile. The progress of a science, like that
of a sailing boat, more often proceeds by means of “tacking” than by
following a direct course.
In the case of botany, the path which was destined to lead furthest
in the end was the apparently unpromising one of medicine. Various
plants from very early times had been used as healing agents, and
it became necessary to study them in detail, simply in order to
discriminate the kinds employed for different purposes. It was from
this purely utilitarian beginning that systematic botany for the
most part originated. As we shall show in later chapters, nearly all
the herbalists whose work is discussed in the present volume were
medical men. The necessity for some means of recognising accurately the
individual species of medicinal plants led in time to a sounder and
more exact knowledge of their morphology than had ever been acquired
under the influence of thinkers such as Albertus Magnus, who regarded
with some contempt the idea of becoming acquainted in detail with the
countless forms of plant life.
The mass of observations relating to herbs and flowers, accumulated
during a period of many centuries, largely for medicinal purposes, is
to-day serving as the basis for far-reaching biological theories, which
could never have arisen without such a foundation.
It is not systematic botany alone that we owe in the first instance
to medicine. Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712), one of the founders of the
science of plant anatomy, was led to embark upon this subject because
his anatomical studies as a physician suggested to him that plants,
like animals, probably possessed an internal structure worthy of
investigation, since they were the work of the same Creator.
In Ancient Greece there was considerable traffic in medicinal plants.
The herbalists[2] and druggists[3] who made a regular business of
collecting, preparing and selling them, do not appear however to have
been held in good repute. Lucian makes Hercules address Æsculapius as
“a root-digger and a wandering quack[4].”
The herbalists seem to have attempted to keep their business select by
fencing it about with all manner of superstitions, most of which have
for their moral that herb-collecting is too dangerous an occupation
for the uninitiated. Theophrastus draws attention to the absurdity of
some of the root-diggers’ directions for gathering medicinal plants.
For instance he quotes with ridicule the idea that the Peony should be
gathered at night, since, if the fruit is collected in the daytime, and
a wood-pecker happens to witness the act, the eyes of the herbalist
are endangered. He also points out that it is folly to suppose that
an offering of a honey-cake must be made when _Iris fœtidissima_ is
rooted up, or to believe that if an eagle comes near when Hellebore
is being collected, anyone who is engaged in the work is fated to die
within the year.
The herbalists’ knowledge of plants must have been in the first
place transmitted from generation to generation entirely by word of
mouth, but as time went on, written records began to replace the oral
tradition. The earliest extant European work dealing with medicinal
plants is the famous Materia Medica of Dioscorides, which was accepted
as an almost infallible authority as late as the Renaissance period.
Dioscorides Anazarbeus was a medical man who probably flourished in the
first century of the Christian era, in the time of Nero and Vespasian.
Tradition has, however, sometimes assigned to him the post of physician
to Antony and Cleopatra. His native land was Asia Minor, but he
appears to have travelled widely. In his Materia Medica he described
about five hundred plants, with some attempt at an orderly scheme,
though, naturally, the result is seldom successful when judged by our
modern standards of classification. The actual descriptions of the
plants are very slight, and it is only those with particularly salient
characteristics which can be recognised with any ease. Careful research
on the part of later writers has however led to the identification of a
number of the plants to which he refers.
There is a famous manuscript of Dioscorides at Vienna, which is said
to have been copied at the expense of Juliana Anicia, the daughter
of the Emperor Flavius Anicius, about the end of the fifth, or the
beginning of the sixth century. The character of the script settles the
age within narrow limits. Juliana lived into the reign of Justinian,
and was renowned for her ardent Christian faith, and for the churches
which she built. The manuscript which bears her name is illustrated by
a number of drawings, which are in some cases remarkably beautiful,
and very naturalistic. A facsimile reproduction of this manuscript was
published in 1906, and it is thus rendered accessible to students.
Examples of the figures are shown on a reduced scale in Plates I, II
and XV.
[Illustration: _Plate II_
‘Stratiotes’ [Dioscorides, Codex Aniciæ Julianæ, circa A.D. 500].
_Reduced._]
The botanists of the Renaissance devoted a great deal of time and
energy to the consideration of the writings of Dioscorides. The chief
of the many commentators who dealt with the subject were Matthiolus,
Ruellius and Amatus Lusitanus, and a discussion of the botany of
Dioscorides formed an integral part of almost every sixteenth-century
herbal.
One of the contemporaries of Dioscorides, Gaius Plinius Secundus,
commonly called the Elder Pliny, should perhaps be mentioned at this
point, although he was not a physician, nor does he deserve the name
of a philosopher. In the course of his ‘Natural History,’ which is
an encyclopædic account of the knowledge of his time, he treats of
the vegetable world. He refers to a far larger number of plants than
Dioscorides, probably because the latter confined himself to those
which were of importance from a medicinal point of view, whereas Pliny
mentioned indiscriminately any plant to which he found a reference
in any previous book. Pliny’s work was chiefly of the nature of a
compilation, and indeed it would scarcely be reasonable to expect much
original observation of nature from a man who was so devoted to books
that it was recorded of him that he considered even a walk to be a
waste of time!
The writings of the classical authors, especially Theophrastus and
Dioscorides, dominated European botany completely until, in the
sixteenth century, other influences began to make themselves felt. As
we shall see in the following chapter, the earliest printed herbals
adhered closely to the classical tradition.
CHAPTER II
THE EARLIEST PRINTED HERBALS
(FIFTEENTH CENTURY)
1. THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF BARTHOLOMÆUS ANGLICUS AND ‘THE BOOK OF NATURE.’
After the invention of printing, a very active period of book
production followed, during which many works, which had previously
passed a more or less lengthy existence in manuscript, were put into
circulation in print, contemporaneously with books actually written at
the time. The result is that a number of the “incunabula,” as printed
books of the fifteenth century are technically called, are far more
ancient, as regards the matter which they contain, than the date of
their publication would seem to suggest.
This characteristic is illustrated in the Encyclopædia of Bartholomæus
Anglicus, and in Konrad von Megenberg’s ‘Das půch der natur,’ which
were perhaps the earliest printed books containing strictly botanical
information. The former work, which was first printed about 1470,
was compiled by a monk, sometimes called Bartholomew de Glanville,
who flourished in the thirteenth century. The title by which it is
generally known is ‘Liber de proprietatibus rerum.’ One of the sections
of which it is composed is concerned with an account of a large number
of trees and herbs, arranged in alphabetical order, and is chiefly
occupied with their medicinal properties. It also includes some
theoretical considerations about plants, on Aristotelian lines. An
English translation, which was printed by Wynkyn de Worde before the
end of the fifteenth century, is interesting as containing the very
primitive botanical wood-cut reproduced in Text-fig. 19.
[Illustration: _Plate III_
Wood-cut of Plants [Konrad von Megenberg, Das půch der natur, 1475].
_Reduced._]
‘Das půch der natur’ is slightly later as regards the date of
publication, having been printed by Hanns Bämler at Augsburg in 1475.
It seems to have been very popular, for it passed through six or seven
editions before the end of the fifteenth century. A very large number
of manuscripts of ‘The Book of Nature’ exist, as many as eighteen
being preserved in the Vienna Library and seventeen at Munich. The
text is a compilation from old Latin writings, and is said to have
been translated into German as early as 1349. The portion dealing with
plants consists of an account of the virtues of eighty-nine herbs with
their Latin and German names. The chief interest of the work, from our
present point of view, lies in the fact that it contains the earliest
known botanical wood engraving (Plate III). We shall return to this
subject in Chapter VII.
2. THE HERBARIUM OF APULEIUS PLATONICUS.
Another very early book based on classical writings, especially those
of Dioscorides and Pliny, was the ‘Herbarium’ of Apuleius Platonicus.
This little Latin work is among the earliest to which the term “Herbal”
is generally applied. A herbal has been defined as a book containing
the names and descriptions of herbs, or of plants in general, with
their properties and virtues. The word is believed to have been derived
from a mediæval Latin adjective “herbalis,” the substantive “liber”
being understood. It is thus exactly comparable in origin with the word
“manual” in the sense of a hand-book.
Four early printed editions of the Herbal of Apuleius Platonicus are
known, all of which appear to have been based on different manuscripts.
The earliest was published in Rome late in the fifteenth century, from
a manuscript discovered by Joh. Philippus de Lignamine, physician to
Pope Sixtus IV. Nothing is definitely known concerning the author, but
it is conjectured that he was a native of Africa, and that his book
may date from the fifth century, or possibly even the fourth. The work
undoubtedly had a career of many centuries in manuscript before it was
printed.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 1: “Plantago” = Plantain [Herbarium Apuleii
Platonici, ? 1484].]
Various extant manuscripts of the Herbarium are illustrated with
coloured drawings of the crudest description, which are found on
comparison to be identical in many different examples, and to have been
reproduced, in a degraded form, when the book was printed. The original
figures, from which the drawings in the different manuscripts were
copied, must date back to very early times. They probably represent, as
Dr Payne has pointed out, a school of botanical draughtsmanship derived
from late Roman art.
[Illustration: _Plate IV_
‘Orbicularis’ [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici, ? 1484]. _The tint
represents colouring, which was probably contemporary._]
These illustrations, some of which are reproduced in Plates IV, V and
XVI, and Text-figs. 1 and 2, will be discussed in greater detail in
Chapter VII. One of their peculiarities is that, if a herb has the
power of healing the bite or sting of any animal, that animal is drawn
with the plant on the same block.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 2. “Artemisia” [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici, ?
1484].]
Soon after the appearance in Italy of the earliest printed editions of
the Herbarium of Apuleius Platonicus, three works of great importance
were published at Mainz in Germany. These were the Latin ‘Herbarius’
(1484), the German ‘Herbarius’ (1485), and derived from the latter,
the ‘Hortus Sanitatis’ (1491). The Latin and the German Herbarius,
together with the Herbarium of Apuleius Platonicus, may be regarded
as the _doyens_ amongst printed herbals. All three seem to have been
largely based upon pre-existing manuscripts, representing a tradition
of great antiquity.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 3. “Lilium” [Herbarius Moguntinus, 1484].]
The various forms of the Latin and German Herbarius, and of the Hortus
Sanitatis are described under many titles, and the unravelling of the
various editions is a matter of great difficulty. In the fifteenth
century, before copyright existed, as soon as a popular work was
published, pirated editions and translations sprang into existence. In
the case of the German Herbarius, a new edition was printed at Augsburg
only a few months after the appearance of the original at Mainz. Some
such editions were dated, and some undated, and the sources from which
they were derived were seldom acknowledged.
The passage of the earliest printed books through the press was
naturally extremely slow, as compared with the rapid production of
the present day. The result was that the printer had leisure to make
occasional alterations, so that different copies belonging actually to
the same edition sometimes show slight variations. The bibliographer
has thus to deal with an additional element of confusion.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 4. “Aristolochia longa” [Herbarius Moguntinus,
1484].]
As far as the works now under consideration are concerned, however,
much of the obscurity has been removed by the late Dr Payne, to whom we
owe a very lucid memoir on the various editions of the Latin and German
Herbarius and the Hortus Sanitatis, based in part upon the researches
of Dr Ludwig Choulant. Free use has been made of his account in the
present chapter.
3. THE LATIN HERBARIUS.
The work to which we may refer for convenience as the Latin Herbarius
is also known under many other titles—‘Herbarius in Latino,’
‘Aggregator de Simplicibus,’ ‘Herbarius Moguntinus,’ ‘Herbarius
Patavinus,’ etc. It was originally printed at Mainz by Peter Schöffer
in 1484, in the form of a small quarto. It is interesting to recall
that the earliest specimen of printing from movable type known to exist
was produced in the same town thirty years before.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 5. “Serpentaria” [Herbarius Moguntinus, 1484].]
Other early editions and translations of the Herbarius appeared in
Bavaria, the Low Countries, Italy, and probably also in France.
The work, like most of the early herbals, was anonymous, and was a
compilation from mediæval writers, and from certain classical and
Arabian authors. It seems to have no connection with the Herbarium
of Apuleius, which is nowhere cited. The majority of the authorities
quoted wrote before 1300 A.D. and no author is mentioned who might
not have been known to a writer about the middle of the fourteenth
century, that is to say, at least a hundred years before the Herbarius
was published. It is quite possible that the work was not written
at the time it was printed, but may have had a previous career in
manuscript.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 6. “Brionia” [Arnaldus de Villa Nova,
Tractatus de virtutibus herbarum, 1499].]
The wood-blocks of the first German edition are bold and decorative,
but as a rule show little attempt at realism (Text-figs. 3, 4, 5 and
73). A different and better set of figures were used in Italy to
illustrate the text (Text-figs. 6, 57, 65, 74, 75, 76). The authorship
of this version of the Herbarius is sometimes erroneously attributed to
Arnold de Nova Villa, a physician of the thirteenth century, a mistake
which arose through the conspicuous citation of his name in the preface
to the Venetian editions.
The descriptions and figures of the herbs are arranged alphabetically.
All the plants discussed were natives of Germany or in cultivation
there, and the object of the work seems to have been to help the reader
to the use of cheap and easily obtained remedies, in cases of illness
or accident.
4. THE GERMAN HERBARIUS AND RELATED WORKS.
Of even greater importance than the Latin Herbarius is the German
Herbarius or ‘Herbarius zu Teutsch,’ sometimes also called the German
Ortus Sanitatis, or the Smaller Ortus. This folio, which was the
foundation of the later works called Hortus (or Ortus) Sanitatis,
appeared at Mainz, also from the printing press of Peter Schöffer in
1485, the year following the publication of the Latin Herbarius. It has
been mistakenly regarded by some authors as a mere translation of the
latter. However, the two books are neither the same in the text nor in
the illustrations. The German Herbarius appears to be an independent
work except as regards the third part of the book—the index of drugs
according to their uses—which may owe something to the Latin Herbarius.
It seems from the preface that the originator of the book was a rich
man, who had travelled in the east, and that the medical portion was
compiled under his direction by a physician. The latter was probably Dr
Johann von Cube, who was town physician of Frankfort at the end of the
fifteenth century.
The preface to the Herbarius zu Teutsch begins with the words, “Offt
und vil habe ich by mir selbst betracht die wundersam werck des
schepfers der natuer.” Similar words are found in all the different
German editions, and in the later Hortus Sanitatis they are translated
into Latin. The preface reveals so clearly and so delightfully the
spirit in which the work was undertaken that it seems worth while to
translate it almost _in extenso_.
It is impossible, however, to grasp the medical ideas characteristic
of the earlier herbals, such as those presented in the preface which
follows, unless one understands the special terminology, in which the
“_four elements_” and the “_four principles_” or “_natures_” play a
great part. The ideas expressed by these terms had begun to dominate
medical and physiological notions five or six hundred years before
the birth of Christ, and they held their own for a period of more
than two thousand years. As an instance of their constant occurrence
in literature we may recall Sir Toby’s remark in ‘Twelfth Night,’ “Do
not our lives consist of the four elements?” In Aristotle’s time these
conceptions must have been already quite familiar to his pupils. Like,
his predecessors he distinguished four elements, Fire, Water, Earth and
Air, and to these he added a fifth—the Ether. In the four elements,
the four principles are combined in pairs—fire being characterised by
heat and dryness, air by heat and moisture, water by cold and moisture,
and earth by cold and dryness. According to Aristotle, heat and cold
are active, while dryness and moisture are passive in their nature.
By the “temperament” of a man is understood the balance or proportion
maintained between these conflicting tendencies. The particular
“virtues” of each plant, in other words the power of restoring lost
health or “temperament,” are determined by the “principles” which
it contains, and the proportions in which these occur. With this
introduction we may pass on to the preface of the Herbarius zu
Teutsch[5]:
“Many a time and oft have I contemplated inwardly the wondrous works
of the Creator of the universe: how in the beginning He formed the
heavens and adorned them with goodly, shining stars, to which He gave
power and might to influence everything under heaven. Also how He
afterwards formed the four elements: fire, hot and dry—air, hot and
moist—water, cold and moist—earth, dry and cold—and gave to each a
nature of its own; and how after this the same Great Master of Nature
made and formed herbs of many sorts and animals of all kinds, and last
of all Man, the noblest of all created things. Thereupon I thought on
the wondrous order which the Creator gave these same creatures of His,
so that everything which has its being under heaven receives it from
the stars, and keeps it by their help. I considered further how that
in everything which arises, grows, lives or soars in the four elements
named, be it metal, stone, herb or animal, the four natures of the
elements, heat, cold, moistness and dryness are mingled. It is also to
be noted that the four natures in question are also mixed and blended
in the human body in a measure and temperament suitable to the life
and nature of man. While man keeps within this measure, proportion or
temperament, he is strong and healthy, but as soon as he steps or falls
beyond the temperament or measure of the four natures, which happens
when heat takes the upper hand and strives to stifle cold, or, on the
contrary, when cold begins to suppress heat, or man becomes full of
cold moisture, or again is deprived of the due measure of moisture,
he falls of necessity into sickness, and draws nigh unto death. There
are many causes of disturbances, such as I have mentioned, in the
measure of the four elements which is essential to man’s health and
life. In some cases it is the poisonous and hidden influence of the
heavens acting against man’s nature, for from this arise impurity and
poisoning of the air; in other cases the food and drink are unsuitable,
or suitable but not taken in the right quantities, or at the right
time. Of a truth I would as soon count thee the leaves on the trees,
or the grains of sand in the sea, as the things which are the causes
of a relapse from the temperament of the four natures, and a beginning
of man’s sickness. It is for this reason that so many thousands and
thousands of perils and dangers beset man. He is not fully sure of his
health or his life for one moment. While considering these matters,
I also remembered how the Creator of Nature, Who has placed us amid
such dangers, has mercifully provided us with a remedy, that is with
all kinds of herbs, animals and other created things to which He has
given power and might to restore, produce, give and temper the four
natures mentioned above. One herb is heating, another is cooling, each
after the degree of its nature and complexion. In the same manner many
other created things on the earth and in the water preserve man’s life,
through the Creator of Nature. By virtue of these herbs and created
things the sick man may recover the temperament of the four elements
and the health of his body. Since, then, man can have no greater nor
nobler treasure on earth than bodily health, I came to the conclusion
that I could not perform any more honourable, useful or holy work or
labour than to compile a book in which should be contained the virtue
and nature of many herbs and other created things, together with their
true colours and form, for the help of all the world and the common
good. Thereupon I caused this praiseworthy work to be begun by a Master
learned in physic, who, at my request, gathered into a book the virtue
and nature of many herbs out of the acknowledged masters of physic,
Galen, Avicenna, Serapio, Dioscorides, Pandectarius, Platearius and
others. But when, in the process of the work, I turned to the drawing
and depicting of the herbs, I marked that there are many precious herbs
which do not grow here in these German lands, so that I could not draw
them with their true colours and form, except from hearsay. Therefore
I left unfinished the work which I had begun, and laid aside my pen,
until such time as I had received grace and dispensation to visit the
Holy Sepulchre, and also Mount Sinai, where the body of the Blessed
Virgin, Saint Catherine, rests in peace. Then, in order that the noble
work I had begun and left incomplete should not come to nought, and
also that my journey should benefit not my soul alone, but the whole
world, I took with me a painter ready of wit, and cunning and subtle of
hand. And so we journeyed from Germany through Italy, Istria, and then
by way of Slavonia or the Windisch land, Croatia, Albania, Dalmatia,
Greece, Corfu, Morea, Candia, Rhodes and Cyprus to the Promised Land
and the Holy City, Jerusalem, and thence through Arabia Minor to Mount
Sinai, from Mount Sinai towards the Red Sea in the direction of Cairo,
Babylonia, and also Alexandria in Egypt, whence I returned to Candia.
In wandering through these kingdoms and lands, I diligently sought
after the herbs there, and had them depicted and drawn, with their
true colour and form. And after I had, by God’s grace, returned to
Germany and home, the great love which I bore this work impelled me
to finish it, and now, with the help of God, it is accomplished. And
this book is called in Latin, _Ortus Sanitatis_, and in German, _gart
d’gesuntheyt_[6]. In this garden are to be found the power and virtues
of 435 plants and other created things, which serve for the health of
man, and are commonly used in apothecaries’ shops for medicine. Of
these, about 350 appear here as they are, with their true colours and
form. And, so that it might be useful to all the world, learned and
unlearned, I had it compiled in the German tongue. * * * * * *
“Now fare forth into all lands, thou noble and beautiful Garden, thou
delight of the healthy, thou comfort and life of the sick. There is no
man living who can fully declare thy use and thy fruit. I thank Thee,
O Creator of heaven and earth, Who hast given power to the plants, and
other created things contained in this book, that Thou hast granted me
the grace to reveal this treasure, which until now has lain buried and
hid from the sight of common men. To Thee be glory and honour, now and
for ever. Amen.”
Passing from the preface to the botanical part of the German Herbarius,
we find that it is divided into chapters, each of which deals with
a herb, except in a comparatively small number of cases in which an
animal, or a substance useful to man such as butter or lime, forms the
subject. The chapters are arranged in alphabetical order.
The Herbarius zu Teutsch represents a notable advance upon the Latin
Herbarius in the matter of the figures. Its publication, according to
Dr Payne, “forms an important land-mark in the history of botanical
illustration, and marks perhaps the greatest single step ever made in
that art.” This estimate seems to the present writer to be somewhat
exaggerated, but it must at least be conceded that the figures in
question are, on the whole, drawn with greater freedom and realism
than those of the Latin Herbarius, and are often remarkably beautiful
(Text-figs. 7, 77, 78). The most attractive is perhaps that of the
Dodder climbing on a plant with flowers and pods (Text-fig. 77), which
is drawn in a masterly fashion. These wood-cuts form the basis of
nearly all botanical illustrations for the next half-century, being
copied and recopied from book to book. No work which excelled, or even
equalled them was produced until a new period of botanical illustration
began with the Herbal of Brunfels, published in 1530.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 7. “Acorus” = Iris [Herbarius zu Teutsch,
Mainz, 1485].]
The German Herbarius was much copied and translated into other
languages, the original set of figures being, as a rule, reproduced on
a smaller scale. According to Dr Payne, the earliest French edition
called ‘Arbolayre’ (derived from the Latin, _herbolarium_) is now an
exceedingly rare book. It is said to differ little from the original
except in the fact that the French translator declined to believe the
myth that the Mandrake root has human form.
Another early French herbal, very similar to the Arbolayre, was
published under the name of ‘Le Grant Herbier.’ The origin of the text
of this book has been the subject of some discussion. Choulant regarded
it as derived from the Ortus Sanitatis, but an Italian authority,
Signor Giulio Camus, has discovered two fifteenth-century manuscripts
in the Biblioteca Estense at Modena, which have thrown a different
light on the subject. One of these is the work commonly called ‘Circa
instans,’ while the other is a version of the Grant Herbier; on
comparing the two, Signor Camus concluded that the French manuscript
was obviously derived from Circa instans. A version of the latter,
differing somewhat from the Modena manuscript, was printed at Ferrara
in 1488, and other editions appeared later.
The figures which illustrate the Grant Herbier seem to have been
derived from those of the Ortus Sanitatis rather than those of the
Herbarius. The work is of special interest to British botanists, since
it was translated into English and published, in 1526, as the ‘Grete
Herball,’ a book which will be discussed at length in the following
chapter.
Another work, which appeared with reduced copies of the familiar
illustrations from the German Herbarius, was the ‘Liber de arte
distillandi de Simplicibus’ of Hieronymus Braunschweig (1500). In this
book, the method of distilling herbs, in order to make use of their
virtues, was described in considerable detail, with drawings of the
apparatus employed.
5. THE HORTUS SANITATIS.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 8. “Leopardus” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491].]
The third of the fundamental botanical works, produced at Mainz towards
the close of the fifteenth century, was the ‘Hortus,’ or as it is more
commonly called ‘Ortus Sanitatis,’ printed by Jacob Meydenbach in 1491.
It is in part a modified Latin translation of the German Herbarius, but
it is not merely this, for it contains treatises on animals, birds,
fishes and stones, which are almost unrepresented in the Herbarius.
Nearly one-third of the figures of herbs are new. The rest are copied
on a reduced scale from the German Herbarius, and the drawing, which
is by no means improved, often shows that the copyist did not fully
understand the nature of the object he was attempting to portray. As an
example of a wood-cut, which has lost much of its character in copying,
we may take the Dodder (cf. Text-figs. 80 and 77).
[Illustration: Text-fig. 9. “Daucus” = Carrot [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz,
1491].]
The Ortus Sanitatis is very rich in pictures. The first edition opens
with a full-page wood-cut, modified from that at the beginning of the
German Herbarius, and representing a group of figures, who appear to
be engaged in discussing some medical or botanical problem. Before the
treatise on Animals, there is another large engraving of three figures
with a number of beasts at their feet, and before that on Birds, there
is a lively picture with an architectural background, showing a scene
which swarms with innumerable birds of all kinds, whose peculiarities
are apparently being discussed by two savants in the foreground. The
treatise on Fishes begins with a landscape with water, enlivened by
shipping. There are two figures in the foreground, and in the water,
fishes, crabs and mythical monsters such as mermen, are seen disporting
themselves. Before the treatise on Stones, there is a very spirited
scene representing a number of figures in a jeweller’s shop, and two
large wood-cuts of doctors and their patients illustrate the medical
portion with which the book concludes.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 10. “Passer” = Sparrow [Ortus Sanitatis,
Mainz, 1491].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 11. “Pavo” = Peacock [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz,
1491].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 12. “Arbor vel lignum vite paradisi” = Tree of
Paradise [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491].]
The treatise on Plants is considerably modified from the German
Herbarius, and the virtues of the herbs described are dealt with at
greater length. The Herbarium of Apuleius Platonicus is more than once
quoted, though not by name. A number of new illustrations are added,
some of which are highly imaginative. The Tree of Life (Text-fig.
12) and the Tree of Knowledge are dealt with amongst other botanical
objects, a woman-headed serpent being introduced in the first case, and
Adam and Eve in the second. There is a beautiful description of the
virtues of the Tree of Life, in which we read that he who should eat
of the fruit “should be clothed with blessed immortality, and should
not be fatigued with infirmity, or anxiety, or lassitude, or weariness
of trouble.” The engraving which is named Narcissus (Text-fig. 13) has
diminutive figures emerging from the flowers, like a transformation
scene at a pantomime! It is probably, however, intended to represent
the conversion of the beautiful youth, Narcissus, into a flower. Apart
from these mythological subjects, there are a number of very curious
engravings. A tree called “Bausor,” for instance, which was believed
to exhale a narcotic poison, like the fabulous Upas tree, has two men
lying beneath its shade, apparently in the sleep of death (Text-fig.
14).
[Illustration: Text-fig. 13. “Narcissus” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz,
1491].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 14. “Bauser vel Bausor” [Ortus Sanitatis,
Mainz, 1491].]
Among the herbs, substances such as starch, vinegar, cheese, soap,
etc., are included, and as these do not lend themselves to direct
representation, they become the excuse for a delightful set of genre
pictures. “Wine” is illustrated by a man gazing at a glass; “Bread,”
by a housewife with loaves on the table before her (Text-fig. 15);
“Water,” by a fountain; “Honey,” by a boy who seems to be extracting
it from the comb; and “Milk,” by a woman milking a cow. The picture
which appears under the heading of Amber shows great ingenuity
(Text-fig. 16). The writer points out that this substance, according
to some authors, is the fruit or gum of a tree growing by the sea,
while according to others it is produced by a fish or by sea foam. In
order to represent all these possibilities, the figure shows the sea,
indicated in a conventional fashion, with a tree growing out of it, and
a fish swimming in it. The writer of the Ortus Sanitatis, on the other
hand, holds the opinion that Amber is generated under the sea, after
the manner of the Fungi which arise on land.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 15. “Panis” = Bread [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz,
1491].]
The treatises on animals and fishes are full of pictures of mythical
creatures, such as a unicorn being caressed by a lady as though it were
a little dog (Text-fig. 17), recalling the “Lady and Unicorn” tapestry
in the Musée Cluny—a fight between a man and hydras—the phœnix in the
flames—and a harpy with its claws in a man’s body. Other monsters
which are figured include a dragon, the Basilisk, Pegasus, and a bird
with a long neck which is tied in an ornamental knot.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 16. “Ambra” = Amber [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz,
1491].]
Later Latin editions of the Ortus Sanitatis were printed in Germany
and Italy, and translations were also popular. The part of the book
dealing with animals and stones was produced in German under the name
of ‘Gart der Gesuntheit; zu Latin Ortus Sanitatis,’ so as to form a
supplement to the German Herbarius, which dealt, as we have seen,
almost exclusively with herbs. No really complete translation of the
Hortus was ever published, except that printed by Antoine Vérard in
Paris about the year 1500, under the title, ‘Ortus sanitatis translate
de latin en francois.’ Henry VII was one of Vérard’s patrons, and in
the account books of John Heron, Treasurer of the Chamber, which are
preserved at the Record Office, there is an entry (1501-2) which runs,
“Item to Anthony Vérard for two bokes called the gardyn of helth ...
£6.” This refers to a copy, in two parts, of Vérard’s translation of
the Ortus Sanitatis, which is still preserved in the British Museum.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 17. “Unicornus” [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz,
1491].]
The complete Ortus Sanitatis made its appearance for the last time as
‘Le Jardin de Santé,’ printed by Philippe le Noir about 1539, and sold
in Paris, “a lenseigne de la Rose blanche couronnee.” Text-fig. 18,
taken from this book, shows how the artist of the period represented a
“Garden of Health.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 18. A Herbalist’s Garden [Le Jardin de Santé,
? 1539].]
The title-pages of the early herbals were often decorated with such
pictures. A more ambitious example is reproduced in Text-fig. 113. In
this case the apothecary’s store-room is also depicted, and a housewife
is portrayed, laying fragrant herbs among linen. The small garden scene
on the title-page of the ‘Grete Herball’ (1526) is of special interest,
since it includes representations of the male and female Mandrake
(Text-fig. 112).
[Illustration: _Plate V_
‘Mandragora’ = Mandrake [Herbarium Apuleii Platonici, ? 1484].
_The tint represents colouring, which was probably contemporary._]
CHAPTER III
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE HERBAL IN ENGLAND
1. THE HERBARIUM OF APULEIUS PLATONICUS.
Concerning the Herbarium of Apuleius Platonicus, a few remarks have
been already made. This herbal was perhaps the first through which
any kind of systematic knowledge of medicinal plants was brought into
Britain. For this reason it may be mentioned here, although manuscript
herbals do not, strictly, come within our province. In the Bodleian
Library there is an Anglo-Saxon translation of the work, which is said
to have been made for King Alfred. Another Anglo-Saxon manuscript of
later date, probably transcribed between A.D. 1000 and the Norman
Conquest, has been rendered into modern English by Dr Cockayne. The
classical and Anglo-Saxon plant-names are given in the herbal, and,
although there is scarcely any attempt at description, the localities
where the plants may be found are sometimes mentioned.
The greater part of the manuscript is concerned with the virtues of
herbs. The plants were regarded in this, as in most early works, merely
as “simples,” that is, the simple constituents of compound medicines.
Hieronymus Bock in 1551 described his herbal as being an account of
“die Einfache erd Gewächs, Simplicia genant[7].” The term “simple,”
now almost obsolete, was a household word in earlier times, when most
remedies were manufactured at home in the still-room. The expression of
Jaques in ‘As You Like It’—“a melancholy of mine own, compounded of
many simples, extracted from many objects”—would not have seemed in the
least far-fetched to an audience of that day. It is interesting that,
although the word “simple,” used in this sense, has vanished from our
common speech, its antithesis “compound” has held its place in the
language of pharmacy.
The southern source of the Herbal of Apuleius is suggested by the fact
that the origin of the healing art is attributed to Æsculapius and
Chiron. We are told, also, that the Wormwoods were discovered by Diana,
who “delivered their powers and leechdom to Chiron, the centaur, who
first from these worts set forth a leechdom.” The Lily-of-the-Valley,
on the other hand, is said to have been found by Apollo and given by
him “to Æsculapius, the leech.”
Many of the accounts of the virtues of the plants are of the nature of
spells or charms rather than of medical recipes. For instance it is
recommended that “if any propose a journey, then let him take to him in
hand this wort artemisia, ... then he will not feel much toil in his
journey.” As is usually the case in the older herbals, the proper mode
of uprooting the Mandrake is described with much gusto. “This wort ...
is mickle and illustrious of aspect, and it is beneficial. Thou shalt
in this manner take it, when thou comest to it, then thou understandest
it by this, that it shineth at night altogether like a lamp. When first
thou seest its head, then inscribe thou it instantly with iron, lest
it fly from thee; its virtue is so mickle and so famous, that it will
immediately flee from an unclean man, when he cometh to it; hence as
we before said, do thou inscribe it with iron, and so shalt thou delve
about it, as that thou touch it not with the iron, but thou shalt
earnestly with an ivory staff delve the earth. And when thou seest its
hands and its feet, then tie thou it up. Then take the other end and
tie it to a dog’s neck, so that the hound be hungry; next cast meat
before him, so that he may not reach it, except he jerk up the wort
with him. Of this wort it is said, that it hath so mickle might, that
what thing soever tuggeth it up, that it shall soon in the same manner
be deceived. Therefore, as soon as thou see that it be jerked up, and
have possession of it, take it immediately in hand, and twist it, and
wring the ooze out of its leaves into a glass ampulla.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 19. Wood-cut of Plants [Bartholomæus Anglicus,
Liber de proprietatibus rerum, Wynkyn de Worde, ? 1495]. _Reduced._]
The writer of the herbal evidently fully accepted the mythical notion
that the Mandrake was furnished with human limbs. Plate V shows how
this plant was depicted in an early printed edition of the Herbarium of
Apuleius, but much more spirited and sensational treatments of the same
subject are to be found in some of the manuscripts dealing with herbs.
Sixteenth-century representations are shown in Text-figs. 107 and 112.
The earliest English printed book containing information of a
definitely botanical character is probably the translation of the
‘Liber de proprietatibus rerum’ of Bartholomæus Anglicus, which was
printed by Wynkyn de Worde before the end of the fifteenth century.
This has been briefly mentioned in the last chapter (pp. 10 and 11) and
a wood-cut from it is shown in Text-fig. 19.
2. BANCKES’ HERBAL.
The first book printed in England, which can really be called a herbal,
is an anonymous quarto volume, without illustrations, published in
1525. The title-page runs, “Here begynneth a newe mater, the whiche
sheweth and treateth of ye vertues and proprytes of herbes, the whiche
is called an Herball.” On the last page we find the words “Imprynted
by me Rycharde Banckes, dwellynge in London, a lytel fro ye Stockes in
ye Pultry.” I have not been able to satisfy myself that this work is
directly derived from any pre-existing book, and it seems possible that
it may really have some claim to originality. Dr Payne suggests that
it is probably an abridgement of some mediæval English manuscript on
herbs. It is certainly quite a different work from the much more famous
Grete Herball, printed in the succeeding year, and, although there are
no figures, it is in some ways a better book. Distinctly less space, in
proportion, is devoted to the virtues of the plants, and, on the whole,
more botanical information is given. For instance, under the heading
“Capillus veneris,” we find the following description: “This herbe
is called Mayden heere or waterworte. This herbe hathe leves lyke to
Ferne, but the leves be smaller, and it groweth on walles and stones,
and in ye myddes of ye lefe is as it were blacke heere.” The Grete
Herball, on the other hand, vouchsafes only the meagre information,
“Capillus veneris is an herbe so named”!
In cases where the virtues of the herbs are not strictly medicinal,
they are described in Banckes’ herbal with more than a touch of poetry.
Rosemary has perhaps the most charming list of attributes, some of
which are worth quoting. The reader is directed to “take the flowres
and make powder therof and bynde it to the ryght arme in a lynen
clothe, and it shall make the lyght and mery.... Also take the flowres
and put them in a chest amonge youre clothes or amonge bokes and
moughtes shall not hurte them.... Also boyle the leves in whyte wyne
and wasshe thy face therwith ... thou shall have a fayre face. Also put
the leves under thy beddes heed, and thou shalbe delyvered of all evyll
dremes.... Also take the leves and put them into a vessel of wyne ...
yf thou sell that wyne, thou shall have good lucke and spede in the
sale.... Also make the a box of the wood and smell to it and it shall
preserne [preserve] thy youthe. Also put therof in thy doores or in
thy howse and thou shalbe without daunger of Adders and other venymous
serpentes. Also make the a barell therof and drynke thou of the drynke
that standeth therin and thou nedes to fere no poyson that shall hurte
ye, and yf thou set it in thy garden kepe it honestly for it is moche
profytable.”
The popularity of Banckes’ Herbal is attested by the fact that a large
number of editions appeared from different presses, although their
identity has been obscured by the various names under which they were
published. To consider these editions in detail is a task for the
bibliographer rather than the botanist, and it will not be attempted
here. We may, however, mention a few typical examples.
In 1550, a book was printed by “Jhon kynge” with the title ‘A litle
Herball of the properties of Herbes newly amended and corrected, wyth
certayn Additions at the ende of the boke, declaring what Herbes
hath influence of certain Sterres and constellations, wherby maye be
chosen the best and most lucky tymes and dayes of their ministracion,
according to the Moone beyng in the signes of heaven, the which is
daily appointed in the Almanacke, made and gathered in the yeare of our
Lorde God. MDL the XII daye of February, by Anthony Askham, Physycyon.’
This work, which is generally called Askham’s Herbal, is directly
derived from Banckes’ Herbal, with the addition of some astrological
lore.
The book known as Cary’s or Copland’s Herbal, which was probably first
published about the same time as Askham’s Herbal, is simply a later
edition of the herbal of Rycharde Banckes, and another closely similar
edition with an almost identical title was published by Kynge.
Another version of the same work, undated, and printed by Robert Wyer,
appeared under an even more deceptive title—‘A newe Herball of Macer,
Translated out of Laten in to Englysshe.’ There was, as a matter of
fact, a certain Æmilius Macer, a contemporary of Virgil and Ovid, who
wrote about plants in Latin verse, and there is also a herbal which
was first printed in the fifteenth century, and which is known by the
name of ‘Macer Floridus de viribus herbarum.’ Macer Floridus or Æmilius
Macer is supposed to have been the pseudonym of a physician whose real
name was Odo. ‘De viribus herbarum’ deals with seventy-seven plants
in alphabetical order, and describes their virtues in mediæval Latin
verse, which is believed to date back to the tenth century. It is
illustrated with wood-cuts which are apparently copied from those of
the Herbarius zu Teutsch.
There seems to be no justification whatever for the use of Macer’s name
on the title-page of ‘A newe Herball of Macer.’ Except for some slight
verbal differences, it is identical with Banckes’ herbal of 1525.
Another closely similar edition, also undated, was published under the
name of ‘Macers Herbal. Practysd by Doctor Lynacro.’ Macer’s name was
probably merely borrowed in each case, in order to give the books a
well-sounding title, and thus to increase the chances of sale.
3. THE GRETE HERBALL.
Among the earlier English herbals, the greater reputation belongs, not
to Banckes’ Herbal in any of its forms, but to the ‘Grete Herball’
printed by Peter Treveris in 1526, and again in 1529. This was
admittedly a translation from the French, namely from the work known
as ‘Le Grant Herbier,’ whose origin we have discussed on p. 24. In the
preface and supplement, however, it also shows some indebtedness to the
Ortus Sanitatis. The figures in the Grete Herball are degraded copies
of the series which first appeared in the Herbarius zu Teutsch (see
Text-figs. 20 and 21).
The introduction to the Grete Herball, though it is less naïve and
charming than the corresponding part of the German Herbarius, may yet
be quoted, in part, as giving a very lucid idea of the utilitarian
point of view of the herbalist of the period, and also as bringing home
to the reader the immense influence of the theory of the four elements:
“Consyderynge the grete goodnesse of almyghty god creatour of heven and
erthe, and al thynge therin comprehended to whom be eternall laude and
prays, etc. Consyderynge the cours and nature of the foure elementes
and qualytees where to ye nature of man is inclyned, out of the whiche
elementes issueth dyvers qualytees infyrmytees and dyseases in the
corporate body of man, but god of his goodnesse that is creatour of
all thynges hath ordeyned for mankynde (whiche he hath created to his
owne lykenesse) for the grete and tender love, which he hath unto hym
to whom all thinges erthely he hath ordeyned to be obeysant, for the
sustentacyon and helthe of his lovynge creature mankynde whiche is
onely made egally of the foure elementes and qualitees of the same,
and whan any of these foure habounde or hath more domynacyon, the one
than the other it constrayneth ye body of man to grete infyrmytees or
dyseases, for the whiche ye eternall god hath gyven of his haboundante
grace, vertues in all maner of herbes to cure and heale all maner of
sekenesses or infyrmytes to hym befallyng thrugh the influent course of
the foure elementes beforesayd, and of the corrupcyons and ye venymous
ayres contrarye ye helthe of man. Also of onholsam meates or drynkes,
or holsam meates or drynkes taken ontemperatly whiche be called
surfetes that brengeth a man sone to grete dyseases or sekenesse,
whiche dyseases ben of nombre and ompossyble to be rehersed, and
fortune as well in vilages where as nother surgeons nor phisicians be
dwellyng nygh by many a myle, as it dooth in good townes where they be
redy at hande. Wherfore brotherly love compelleth me to wryte thrugh ye
gyftes of the holy gost shewynge and enformynge how man may be holpen
with grene herbes of the gardyn and wedys of ye feldys as well as by
costly receptes of the potycarys prepayred.”
The conclusion of the whole matter, which is set forth immediately
before the index, is in these words:
“O ye worthy reders or practicyens to whome this noble volume is
present I beseche yow take intellygence and beholde ye workes and
operacyons of almyghty god which hath endewed his symple creature
mankynde with the graces of ye holy goost to have parfyte knowlege and
understandynge of the vertue of all maner of herbes and trees in this
booke comprehendyd.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 20. “Yvery” = Ivory [The Grete Herball, 1529].]
From a twentieth-century point of view, the Grete Herball contains much
that is curious, especially in relation to medical matters. Bathing
was evidently regarded as a strange fad. We learn, on the authority of
Galen, that “many folke that hath bathed them in colde wa[ter] have
dyed or they came home.” Water drinking seems to have been thought
almost equally pernicious, for we are told, “mayster Isaac sayth that
it is unpossyble for them that drynketh overmoche water in theyr youth
to come to ye aege that god ordeyned them.” A period when men were
more prone than they are to-day to settle their differences by the use
of their own strong right arms is reflected in the various remedies
proposed for such afflictions as “blackenesse or brusinge comynge of
strypes, specyally yf they be in the face.”
Turning to less concrete ailments, it is rather striking to find what
a large number of prescriptions against melancholy are considered
necessary. For instance, “To make folke mery at ye table,” one is
recommended to “take foure leves and foure rotes of vervayn in wyne,
than spryncle the wyne all about the hous where the eatynge is and they
shall be all mery.” The smoke of Aristolochia “maketh the pacyent mery
mervaylously,” and also “dryveth all devyllsshnesse and all trouble
out of ye house.” Bugloss and Mugwort are also recommended to produce
merriment, and it is suggested that the lesser Mugwort should be laid
under the door of the house, for, if this is done, “man nor womann
can not anoy in that hous[8].” The number of specifics proposed as
a cure for baldness is somewhat surprising, when one remembers that
this condition is often attributed to the nervous stress and strain
of modern life! Hair-dyes and stains for the nails also receive their
share of attention.
Very remarkable powers were ascribed to products of the ocean, such
as coral and pearls. The former is described as being “a maner of
stony substaunce that is founde in partyes of the see, and specyally
in holowe, and cavy hylles that ben in ye see, and groweth as a maner
of a glewy humour, and cleveth to the stones.” The writer mentions
that “some say that the reed corall kepeth the hous that it is in
fro lyghtnynge, thondre, and tempest.” Pearls were regarded as of
great value in medicine, and, for weakness of the heart, the patient
is recommended to “Take the powdre of perles with sugre of roses,”
which suggests a remedy worthy of a poet! Many travellers’ tales are
incorporated in the herbal; we find, for instance, a most thrilling
description of the lodestone. “Lapis magnetis is the adamant stone that
draweth yren. It ... is founde in the brymmes of the occyan see. And
there be hylles of it, and these hylles drawe ye shyppes that have
nayles of yren to them, and breke the shyppes up drawynge of the nayles
out.” This description is illustrated by a picture of a rocky pinnacle
and a ship going to pieces; one man is already in the water, and two
others are on the point of losing their lives.
Many of the remedies for different ailments strike the modern reader
as being violent in a terrifying degree, and adapted to a more robust
age than the present; they incline one to echo the words, “There were
giants in the earth in those days.” But apparently the sixteenth
century held an exactly corresponding view of its predecessors, for
under the heading of “whyte elebore” we read, “In olde tyme it was
commely used in medycyns as we use squamony. For the body of man was
stronger than it is now, and myght better endure the vyolence of
elebore, for man is weyker at this time of nature.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 21. “Nenufar” = Waterlily [The Grete Herball,
1529].]
It is somewhat remarkable that both Christianity and Greek mythology
find a place in the Grete Herball. The discovery of Artemisia and its
virtues is attributed to Diana and the Centaurs, but in the event of
being bitten by a mad dog, the sufferer is recommended to appeal to the
Virgin Mary before employing any remedy. “As sone as ye be byten go to
the chyrche, and make thy offrynge to our lady, and pray here to helpe
and heale thee. Than rubbe ye sore with a newe clothe,” etc.
Quite a number of medicines enumerated in the Grete Herball still hold
their own in modern practice. Liquorice is recommended for coughs;
laudanum, henbane, opium and lettuces as narcotics; olive oil and
slaked lime for scalds; cuttle-fish bone for whitening the teeth, and
borax and rose water for the complexion.
This book throws an interesting light on the early names of British
plants. The Primrose is called “Prymerolles” or “saynt peterworte.”
The “devylles bytte” is said to be “so called by cause the rote is
blacke and semeth that it is iagged with bytynge, and some say that the
devyll had envy at the vertue therof and bete the rote so for to have
destroyed it.” Duckweed is called “Lentylles of the water” or “frogges
fote,” while Cuckoo-pint is known by the picturesque name of “prestes
hode,” and Wood-sorrel is called “Alleluya” or “cukowes meate.”
One of the most noticeable features of the herbal is the exposure of
methods of “faking” drugs, for the protection of the public, “to eschew
ye frawde of them that selleth it.” This is a great step in advance
from the days of the old Greek herbalists, when secrecy was part of
the stock-in-trade of a druggist, and, as we have pointed out in a
previous chapter, the credulous public was warned off by threats of the
miraculous and fearful ills, which would follow any unskilled meddling
with the subject.
Another work, which was illustrated with the same figures as those of
the Grete Herball, was ‘The vertuose boke of Distillacyon of the waters
of all maner of Herbes,’ which appeared in 1527. This was a translation
by Laurence Andrew from the ‘Liber de arte distillandi’ of Hieronymus
Braunschweig, to which we have already referred. It was almost entirely
occupied with an account of methods of distillation, but occasionally
there is a picturesque touch of description. For example, in speaking
of the Mistletoe, the author says, “This herbe hath a longe slender
lefe nother full grene, nor ful yelowe, and bereth a small whyte
berye.” The book was printed “in the flete strete by me Laurens
Andrewe, in the sygne of the golden Crosse.”
CHAPTER IV
THE BOTANICAL RENAISSANCE OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES
1. THE HERBAL IN GERMANY.
In his History of Botany, Kurt Sprengel first used the honoured
title, “The German Fathers of Botany,” to describe a group of
herbalists—Brunfels, Bock, Fuchs and Cordus—whose work belongs
principally to the first half of the sixteenth century.
The earliest of these was Otto Brunfels [Otho Brunfelsius], who is said
to have been born in 1464. His surname is derived from the fact that
his father, who was a cooper, came from Schloss Brunfels, near Mainz.
When Otto grew up, he became a Carthusian monk. We do not know how long
his monastic career lasted, but eventually his health appears to have
broken down, and, at the same time, his faith in the Roman Catholic
Church was undermined by the acquaintance which he began to make with
protestant doctrines. He fled from the monastery, and took up his abode
in Strasburg, where he was for nine years headmaster of the grammar
school. He wrote various theological works, but ultimately turned his
attention to medicine, and, before his death in 1534, he had become
town physician at Bern. As evidence of his medical studies we have his
fine herbal, which is still full of interest, whereas his other works,
which he probably regarded as much more serious contributions, have
fallen into oblivion.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 22. “Walwurtz männlin” = _Symphytum_, Comfrey
[Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ eicones, Vol. I. 1530]. _Reduced._]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 23. “Helleborus Niger” = _Helleborus viridis_
L., Green Hellebore [Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ eicones, Vol. I. 1530].
_Reduced._]
A new era in the history of the herbal may be said to date from the
year 1530, when the first part of Brunfels’ work, the ‘Herbarum vivæ
eicones,’ was published by Schott of Strasburg. In this book, with
its beautiful and naturalistic illustrations, there is, as the title
indicates, a real return to nature; the plants are represented as
they _are_, and not in the conventionalised aspect which had become
traditional in the earlier herbals, through successive copying by one
artist from another, without reference to the plants themselves. The
blocks for the ‘Herbarum vivæ eicones’ were executed by Hans Weiditz,
who was probably also the draughtsman. Examples are shown in Text-figs.
22, 23, 24, 25, 82, 83 and 84.
The illustrations of Brunfels’ herbal are incomparably better than the
text, which is very poor, and largely borrowed from previous writers.
Brunfels’ knowledge of botany was chiefly derived from the study of
certain Italian authors, Manardus and others, who spent their time
in trying to identify the plants they saw growing around them with
those described by Dioscorides. This was by no means unreasonable
in their case, since it was the plants of the Mediterranean region
that Dioscorides had enumerated. When, however, Brunfels attempted
to employ the same methods in his examination of the flora of the
Strasburg district, and the left bank of the Rhine, many difficulties
and discrepancies arose. He had no understanding of the geographical
distribution of plants, and did not realise that different regions have
dissimilar floras. It is curious that this should have been so, when we
remember that Theophrastus, more than eighteen hundred years earlier,
had clearly pointed out that the provinces of Asia have each their own
characteristic plants, and that some, which occur in one region, are
absent from another.
Hieronymus Bock, who in his Latin writings called himself Tragus
(Text-fig. 26), was a contemporary of Brunfels, though his botanical
work was somewhat later in date. He was born in 1498, and destined by
his parents for the cloister. But he proved to have no vocation for
the monastic life, and, having passed through a university course, he
obtained, by favour of the Count Palatine Ludwig, the post of school
teacher at Zweibrücken, and overseer of the Count’s garden. After
his patron’s death he removed to Hornbach, where he preached the
gospel, and also had an extensive medical practice, devoting his spare
time to botany. But he got into some trouble, apparently owing to his
protestantism, and was obliged to leave Hornbach. He was in serious
straits until Count Philip of Nassau, whom he had previously cured of a
severe illness, gave him shelter and support in his own castle. He was
eventually able to return to Hornbach, where he filled the office of
preacher until his death in 1554.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 24. “Synnaw” = _Alchemilla_, Ladies’ Mantle
[Brunfels, Herbarum vivæ eicones, Vol. II. 1531]. _Reduced._]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 25. “Caryophyllata” = _Geum_, Avens [Brunfels,
Herbarum vivæ eicones, Vol. III. 1540]. _Reduced._]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 26. Hieronymus Bock or Tragus, 1498-1554
[Engraving by David Kandel. Kreuter Bůch, 1551].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 27. “Erdberen” = _Fragaria_, Strawberry [Bock,
Kreuter Bůch, 1546].]
Bock’s great work is the ‘New Kreutterbuch,’ a herbal which first
appeared in 1539, printed at Strasburg by Wendel Rihel. In subsequent
editions the title was abbreviated to ‘Kreuter Bůch.’ The first edition
was without illustrations, but a second, containing many wood-cuts,
followed in 1546. The majority of the figures are said to have been
copied on a reduced scale from those in Fuchs’ magnificent herbal,
which appeared in 1542, between the first and second editions of Bock’s
work. Fuchs’ figures must have been used with great discretion, for
the plagiarism is often not obvious (see Text-figs. 27, 90, 91). A
considerable number of the figures are new, being drawn and engraved by
David Kandel, whose initials appear on the portrait of Bock, reproduced
in Text-fig. 26. The wood-cuts of trees in the third part of the book
are particularly noticeable (see Text-figs. 28 and 92) and are often
made more interesting by the introduction of figures of men and animals.
Bock’s chief claim to remembrance, however, does not lie in his
figures, but in his descriptions, which were a great advance on
those previously published. He was careful also to note the mode of
occurrence and localities of the plants mentioned, and in this feature
his work showed some approach to a flora in the modern sense of the
word. Bock seems to have been a keen collector, although hampered by
ill-health, and a great point in his favour is that he described only
those plants which had come under his own personal observation. The
Royal Fern (_Osmunda_) was traditionally supposed to bear seed upon St.
John’s Eve, though ferns were generally believed at that time to have
no organs of fructification. To test this statement, Bock four times
spent the night in the forest. He found “small black seed like poppy
seed,” in spite of the fact that he “used no charm, incantation or
magic character,” but went upon his search without superstition.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 28. “Pimpernuss” = _Pistacia_, Pistachio-nut
[Bock, Kreuter Bůch, 1546].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 29. “Tribulus aquaticus” = _Trapa natans_ L.,
Bull-nut [Bock, De stirpium, 1552].]
Bock’s freedom from the credulity which permeated the work of so many
of the early botanists is one of his most remarkable characteristics.
His chapters on _Verbena_ and _Artemisia_ reflect clearly the
independence of his thought. He points out that the former plant is
collected rather for purposes of magic than for medicine, and he
can hardly contain his scorn at the “monkey tricks and ceremonies”
connected with the use of the latter.
Leonhard Fuchs [or Fuchsius], the third of the Fathers of German Botany
(see Frontispiece), belonged to the same generation as Hieronymus
Bock, though he was a little younger and produced his chief work three
years later. He was born in 1501 at Membdingen in Bavaria, and at an
early age he became a student of the University of Erfurt, where he is
said to have taken a bachelor’s degree in his thirteenth year! After
a period of school teaching, he resumed his studies, this time at the
University of Ingolstadt, where he devoted himself chiefly to classics,
and became a Master of Arts. After this he turned his attention to
medicine, and took a doctor’s degree. At Ingolstadt he came under the
influence of Luther’s writings, which won him over to the reformed
faith.
Fuchs began to practise as a physician at Munich, but in 1526 he
returned to Ingolstadt as Professor of Medicine. He seems to have
been of a restless temperament, which was probably accentuated by
the persecution to which his protestant opinions exposed him. His
career for more than forty years consisted of periods of active
practice, alternating with periods of university teaching. In 1535
he was appointed to a professorship at Tübingen, and, while he held
this post, he declined a call to the University of Pisa, and also an
invitation to become physician to the King of Denmark. It is clear
that, both as a physician and a teacher, he was in great demand. He
acquired a widespread reputation by his successful treatment of a
terrible epidemic disease, which swept over Germany in 1529. A little
book of medical instructions and prayers against the plague, which
was published in London in the latter half of the sixteenth century,
shows that his fame had extended to England. It is entitled, ‘A worthy
practise of the moste learned Phisition Maister Leonerd Fuchsius,
Doctor in Phisicke, most necessary in this needfull tyme of our
visitation, for the comforte of all good and faythfull people, both
olde and yonge, both for the sicke and for them that woulde avoyde the
daunger of contagion.’
[Illustration: Text-fig. 30. “Brassicæ quartum genus” = Cabbage [Fuchs,
De historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced._]
In spite of his professional activity, Fuchs found time to produce
a botanical masterpiece, which appeared in 1542 from the press of
Isingrin of Basle, under the title ‘De historia stirpium.’ This was a
Latin herbal dealing with about four hundred native German, and one
hundred foreign plants, and was followed in the succeeding year by a
German edition, called the ‘New Kreüterbůch.’ Of all the botanists
of the Renaissance, Fuchs is perhaps the one who deserves most to be
held in honour. He is notably superior to his two predecessors in
matters calling for scholarship, such as the critical study of the
plant nomenclature of classical authors. His herbal rivals, or even
surpasses, that of Brunfels in its illustrations, and that of Bock
in its German text. The letter-press of the Latin edition is, on the
whole, inferior to the German, the brief descriptions being often taken
word for word from previous writers.
The Latin edition opens, however, with a long and most interesting
preface, in singularly pure and fine Latin. Fuchs is keenly indignant
at the ignorance of herbs displayed even by medical men. His outburst
on this subject may be literally translated as follows:—“But, by
Immortal God, is it to be wondered at that kings and princes do not at
all regard the pursuit of the investigation of plants, when even the
physicians of our time so shrink from it that it is scarcely possible
to find one among a hundred who has an accurate knowledge of even so
many as a few plants?”
That Fuchs’ work was indeed a labour of love is a conviction that must
force itself upon everyone who studies his herbal, and it is further
borne out by his own words in the preface—words which bear the stamp
of a lively enthusiasm: “But there is no reason why I should dilate at
greater length upon the pleasantness and delight of acquiring knowledge
of plants, since there is no one who does not know that there is
nothing in this life pleasanter and more delightful than to wander over
woods, mountains, plains, garlanded and adorned with flowerlets and
plants of various sorts, and most elegant to boot, and to gaze intently
upon them. But it increases that pleasure and delight not a little, if
there be added an acquaintance with the virtues and powers of these
same plants.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 31. “Polygonatum latifolium” = Solomon’s Seal
[Fuchs, De historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced._]
The wood-cuts which illustrate Fuchs’ herbal are of extraordinary
beauty (Text-figs. 30, 31, 32, 58, 70, 86, 87, 88). Some of them gain
a special interest as being the first European figures of certain
American plants, e.g. Indian Corn (_Zea mais_ L.) and the Great Pumpkin
(_Cucurbita maxima_ Duch.) (Text-fig. 32). These wood-cuts became
familiar in England in the second half of the sixteenth century,
being used on a reduced scale (borrowed from the octavo edition) in
both William Turner’s herbal and Lyte’s Dodoens, two books which we
shall consider a little later. In Fuchs’ great work we are fortunate
in possessing, in addition to the botanical drawings, a full-length
portrait of the author himself, holding a spray of Veronica, on the
verso of the title-page (see Frontispiece), and, at the end of the
work, named portraits, which are generally supposed to represent the
artist who drew the plants from nature, the draughtsman whose business
it was to copy the outline on to the wood, and the engraver who
actually cut the block (Text-fig. 89). It has also been suggested that
the first of these is perhaps engaged in colouring a printed sheet.
These portraits are powerfully drawn, and remarkably convincing. It
is pleasant to think that we know not merely the names, but the very
features of the men who collaborated to give us what is perhaps the
most beautiful herbal ever produced.
The influence of Fuchs’ illustrations is more strongly felt in later
work than that of his text. The majority of the wood engravings in
Bock’s ‘Kreuter Bůch’ (1546), Dodoens’ ‘Crǔ deboeck’ (1554), Turner’s
‘New Herball’ (1551-1568), Lyte’s ‘Niewe Herball’ (1578) and Jean
Bauhin’s ‘Historia plantarum universalis’ (1651), are copied from
Fuchs, or even printed from his actual wood-blocks, while a number
of his figures reappear in the herbals of Egenolph, d’Aléchamps,
Tabernæmontanus, etc., and the commentaries of Ruellius and Amatus
Lusitanus on Dioscorides.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 32. “Cucumis turcicus” = _Cucurbita maxima_
Duch., Giant Pumpkin [Fuchs, De historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced._]
Fuchs arranged his work alphabetically, making no attempt at a natural
grouping of the plants, and his herbal is therefore without importance
in the history of plant classification. His influence on methods of
plant description was, however, considerable, as is shown by the fact
that Dodoens, in his ‘Crǔ deboeck,’ took Fuchs’ herbal as a model for
the order of description of each plant. Fuchs’ text, as well as his
figures, may thus be said to have had an effect, even if an indirect
one, on British botany, since the herbals of Lyte and of Gerard are
based on the work of Dodoens, in which, as we have just shown, the
influence of Fuchs is clearly felt.
The publisher Christian Egenolph of Frankfort, though not himself a
botanical writer, must be mentioned at this stage, because he brought
out, in 1533, a set of plant illustrations which became particularly
well known (e.g. Text-figs. 33 and 85). They do not reflect any great
credit on Egenolph, since they were mostly pirated from Brunfels.
They were not even used to illustrate a new herbal, but merely a new
edition of the old German Herbarius, enlarged and improved by Dr
Eucharias Rhodion, and issued under the name of ‘Kreutterbůch von allem
Erdtgewåchs].’
Egenolph was evidently a keen man of business, for he made his figures
do duty over and over again. He used them not only as illustrations to
the herbal, but as a separate publication, without any letter-press,
and also in conjunction with an entirely unrelated text, such, for
example, as a Latin version of Dioscorides. Many later editions of
the Kreutterbůch appeared, and to these a number of figures were
added, chiefly copies, on a reduced scale, from those of Bock, who had
himself made considerable use of the drawings in the octavo edition
of Fuchs’ herbal. The editions produced under the auspices of Adam
Lonicer, the publisher’s son-in-law, are particularly well known. No
other botanical works of the period had a success comparable to that of
this long series of books, of which Rhodion’s ‘Kreutterbůch’ was the
prototype. This success was, however, achieved in the teeth of much
adverse contemporary criticism. Fuchs, in the preface of his ‘Historia
stirpium’ (1542), referred with unsparing touch to Egenolph’s botanical
mistakes. His trenchant indictment may be rendered into English as
follows—“Among all the herbals which exist to-day, there are none
which have more of the crassest errors than those which Egenolph, the
printer, has already published again and again.” This statement Fuchs
supports by means of actual examples.
It must nevertheless be admitted that, even if their quality was poor,
the herbals published by Egenolph and his successors did good service
in disseminating some knowledge of the plant world among a very wide
public. There is, in the British Museum, a beautiful copy of the 1536
edition, with a binding stamped in gold and bearing the arms of Mary,
Duchess of Suffolk, daughter of Henry VII. The duchess may perhaps have
inherited a taste for herbals from her father, for the British Museum
also possesses a copy of Vérard’s translation of the ‘Ortus Sanitatis,’
which is known to have been purchased by him.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 33. “Erdöpffel” = _Ranunculus ficaria_ L.,
Lesser Celandine [Rhodion, Kreutterbůch, 1533].]
Among the German Fathers of Botany, Sprengel includes a comparatively
little known name, that of Valerius Cordus (1515-1544), a man whose
actual achievement was small, but who, if he had not died so young,
would probably have become one of the most famous of the earlier
herbalists. His father, Euricius Cordus, was a physician, botanist,
and man of letters, so Valerius was brought up in a fortunate
environment. At sixteen he graduated at the University of Marburg,
and, after studying in various towns, he passed from the position of
pupil to that of teacher, and expounded Dioscorides at the University
of Wittenberg. He travelled widely in search of plants, and visited
many of the savants of the period. He is known to have made a stay
at Tübingen, and it is highly probable that he became personally
acquainted with Leonhard Fuchs.
Cordus had always longed to see, under their native skies, the plants
about which the ancients had written, and, in fulfilment of this dream,
he undertook a long excursion into Italy. He visited many of the towns,
amongst others Padua, Bologna, Florence and Siena, travelling partly
on foot and partly on horseback, and generally accompanied by his
friend Hieronymus Schreiber. The journey was a very trying one to men
accustomed to a more northerly climate. Wild and difficult country had
to be traversed in the height of summer, and the exposure and fatigue
led to a tragic conclusion. Cordus was injured by a kick from a horse,
which brought on a fever, and his companions had great difficulty in
getting him as far as Rome. He rallied, however, and his friends were
deceived into the belief that he was on the road to recovery. They even
thought it safe to leave him, while they made an excursion to Naples,
but he did not survive until their return. His fate, like that of
Keats, was to see Rome and die.
None of the botanical works of Valerius Cordus were published during
his life-time, but his commentaries on Dioscorides and his ‘Historia
stirpium’ were edited by Gesner after his death. The great merit of
the ‘Historia’ lies in the vividness of the descriptions. The author
seems to have examined the plants for their own sake—not merely in the
interest of the arts of healing.
Cordus did noteworthy service to medicine, however, for when he
passed through Nuremberg on his travels he was able to lay before
the physicians of that town a collection of medical recipes, chiefly
selected from earlier writings. This work, which had for some time been
in use in Saxony in manuscript form, was considered so valuable that,
after it had been examined and tested under the auspices of the town
council, it was published officially as the Nuremberg ‘Dispensatorium,’
probably in 1546[9]. This is said to be the first work of the nature
of a pharmacopœia ever published under government authority.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 34. “Ocimoides fruticosum” = _Silene
fruticosa_ L. [Camerarius, Hortus medicus, 1588].]
A passing reference may be made at this point to Jacob Theodor of
Bergzabern (1520-1590), a herbalist whose work was perhaps of no
very great importance, but who is closely connected with the German
Fathers of Botany, having been the pupil both of Otto Brunfels and of
Hieronymus Bock. In his books he called himself Tabernæmontanus.
Like the majority of the herbalists, Theodor was a medical man, and
his study of botany was a hobby which extended over many years. He
projected a herbal, but was unable for a long time to carry the idea
into effect, being deterred by the cost of the illustrations. This
difficulty was eventually overcome, chiefly through the generosity of
Count Palatine Frederick III, and of the Frankfort publisher, Nicolaus
Bassæus. The herbal first appeared in 1588, under the title ‘Neuw
Kreuterbuch,’ and in 1590 the illustrations were published without any
text as the ‘Eicones plantarum.’ The herbal is a large and very finely
illustrated work. The figures, however, are for the most part not
original, but are reproduced from Bock, Fuchs, Dodoens, Mattioli, de
l’Écluse and de l’Obel. This collection of wood-blocks became familiar
in England a few years later, when they were acquired by the printer
John Norton, and used to illustrate Gerard’s ‘Herball’ which appeared
in 1597.
There is still another German herbalist of the sixteenth century whose
work must not be overlooked. This is Joachim Camerarius[10] the younger
(Plate VI). His father was a celebrated philologist, and a friend of
Melanchthon. The son, who was born in 1534, was attracted to botany
in his early youth. He studied at Wittenberg and other universities,
and travelled in Hungary and Italy. He spent some time in the latter
country, and took a doctor’s degree in medicine at Bologna. At Pisa,
he became acquainted with Andrea Cesalpino. Finally he returned to
Germany, and settled down at Nuremberg. Here he cultivated a garden
which was kept supplied with rare plants by his friends, and the
Nuremberg merchants.
[Illustration: _Plate VI_
JOACHIM CAMERARIUS, the younger (1534-1598).
[Engraving by Bartholomæus Kilian, probably between 1650 and 1700.
Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum.]]
Camerarius brought out an edition of Mattioli (‘De plantis Epitome’),
but his chief work was the ‘Hortus medicus et philosophicus,’ which
appeared in 1588. The illustrations to this book consist partly of
drawings by Gesner, which the author had bought a few years previously,
and partly of original figures. It is impossible to discriminate with
any exactness between the work of the two men. These wood-cuts, of
which Text-figs. 34, 35, 71 and 100 are examples, will be discussed
more fully in Chapter VII. From the botanical point of view, they
represent a considerable advance, since the details of floral structure
are often shown on an enlarged scale. Camerarius was a good observer,
and his travels furnished him with much information regarding the
localities for the plants which he described.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 35. “Palma” = Seedlings of _Phœnix
dactylifera_ L., Date Palm [Camerarius, Hortus medicus, 1588].]
2. THE HERBAL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES.
In the sixteenth century, the Herbal flourished exceedingly in the
Low Countries. This was due in part to the zeal and activity of the
botanists of the Netherlands, but perhaps even more to the munificence,
and love of learning for its own sake, which distinguished that prince
of publishers, Christophe Plantin of Antwerp. In these qualities
he forms a notable contrast to Egenolph of Frankfort, to whose
shortcomings we have already drawn attention.
Plantin’s life extended from about 1514 to 1589, and thus included the
central years of that wonderful century. He was a native of Touraine,
and studied the art of printing at Caen and other French towns. Towards
1550, he and his wife, Jeanne Rivière, settled in Antwerp, where he
worked at book-binding, and his wife sold linen in a little shop.
Later, he returned to the profession of printing, and his business in
this direction gradually developed, and was eventually transferred to
the famous Maison Plantin. Christophe’s reputation grew to such an
extent that great efforts were made, in various quarters, to tempt him
from Antwerp. The Duke of Savoy and Piedmont, for instance, did all
he could to persuade him to come to Turin, promising him extensive
printing works and all necessary funds—but he remained faithful to the
city of his adoption. Perhaps the most potent factor in his success
was his keen judgment of men, which enabled him so to choose his
subordinates that he gathered around him an unrivalled staff.
One of Plantin’s daughters married Jean Moretus, her father’s chief
assistant and successor, and from him the business descended through
eight generations of printers to Édouard Jean Hyacinthe Moretus, the
last of his race, from whom, in 1876, the citizens of Antwerp purchased
the Maison Plantin and its contents. The house had remained practically
unchanged since the days when Christophe Plantin lived and worked
there, and it is now preserved as the Musée Plantin-Moretus. It is
built round a rectangular courtyard, and its beauty, both in proportion
and in detail, is such, that one feels at once that Plantin achieved
the ambition he expressed in his charming sonnet—‘_Le Bonheur de ce
Monde_’—“Avoir une maison commode, propre et belle.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 36. Rembert Dodoens, 1517-1585 [A Niewe
Herball, translated by Lyte, 1578].]
The pictures, furniture and hangings, and not only the very presses,
fonts, and furnaces for casting the type, but even the old account
books and corrected proof-sheets are still to be seen, all in their
appropriate places. The wage-books are preserved, showing the weekly
earnings of compositors, engravers and book-binders, throughout a
period of three centuries. In short, the Maison Plantin beggars
description, and a visit there is an infallible recipe for transporting
the imagination back to the time of the Renaissance, when printing was
in its first youth, and was treated with the reverence due to one of
the fine arts.
The first Belgian botanist of world-wide renown was Rembert Dodoens
[or Dodonæus] (Text-fig. 36). He was a contemporary of Plantin,
having been born at Malines in 1517[11]. He studied at Louvain, and
visited the universities and medical schools of France, Italy and
Germany, eventually qualifying as a doctor. He was successful in his
profession, being physician to the Emperors Maximilian II and Rudolph
II, and finally becoming Professor of Medicine at Leyden, where he
died in 1585. His interest in the medical aspect of botany led him
to write a herbal, and, in order to illustrate it, he obtained the
use of the wood-blocks which had been employed in the octavo edition
of Fuchs’ work. To these a number of new engravings were added. The
book was published in Dutch in the year 1554 by Vanderloe, under the
title ‘Crǔ deboeck.’ The text is not a translation of Fuchs, as is
sometimes supposed, although Dodoens took Fuchs as his model for the
order of description of each plant. The method of arrangement is his
own, and he indicates localities and times of flowering in the Low
Countries, information which clearly could not have been derived from
the earlier writer. Almost simultaneously with the first Dutch edition,
a French issue appeared under the title of ‘Histoire des Plantes.’ The
translation was carried out by Charles de l’Écluse, with whose own work
we shall shortly deal. Dodoens supervised the production of the book,
and took the opportunity to make some additions. It became known in
England through Lyte’s translation, which will be discussed in a later
section of this chapter.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 37. “Capparis” = _Capparis ovata_ L. [Dodoens,
Pemptades, 1583].]
The last Dutch edition of the herbal, for which the author himself
was responsible, was printed by Vanderloe in 1563. The publisher then
parted with Fuchs’ blocks, which were probably acquired by the printer
of Lyte’s Dodoens in England. This circumstance put great difficulties
in the way of Dodoens’ wish to reproduce his herbal in Latin. However
it proved a blessing in disguise, for he had the good fortune to
meet, in Christophe Plantin, “un homme qui ne reculait devant aucune
dépense, pour donner aux ouvrages qui sortaient de ses presses toute
la perfection et le mérite dont ils étaient susceptibles.” Plantin
undertook to produce a much modified Latin translation of the herbal,
and to have new blocks engraved for it, whilst Dodoens, on his side,
engaged to supply the artists with fresh plants, and to superintend
their labours. The work proceeded slowly, and was published in parts.
It was finally completed in 1583, and was produced in one volume, under
the name of ‘Stirpium historiæ pemptades sex sive libri triginta.’ In
this work, by far the larger number of the figures are original (see
Text-figs. 37, 38, 96 and 97); some, however, were borrowed from de
l’Écluse and de l’Obel. This arose from the fact that Plantin was also
the publisher for both these writers, and as he bore the expense of
their blocks, he had an agreement with the three authors that their
illustrations should be treated as common property. A few of Dodoens’
figures were based upon those in the famous manuscript of Dioscorides,
now at Vienna (see pp. 8, 85, 154).
In the ‘Pemptades,’ the botanist in Dodoens was more to the fore,
and the physician less in evidence than in his earlier work. It is
particularly difficult to appraise with any exactness the services
which Dodoens rendered to botany. Between him and his two younger
countrymen, de l’Écluse and de l’Obel, there was so intimate a
friendship that they freely imparted their observations to one another,
and permitted the use of them, and also of their figures, in one
another’s books. To attempt to ascertain exactly what degree of merit
should be attributed to each of the three, would be a task equally
difficult and thankless.
[Illustration: _Plate VII_
CHARLES DE L’ÉCLUSE (1526-1609).
[Print in the Botany School, Cambridge.]]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 38. “Anemone trifolia” [Dodoens, Pemptades,
1583].]
Charles de l’Écluse [or Clusius[12]] (Plate VII) was born at Arras
in the French Netherlands in 1526; like Dodoens, he passed the
closing years of his life at Leyden. He studied at Louvain, and other
universities, including Montpelier, where he came under the influence
of the botanist, Guillaume Rondelet, who also numbered d’Aléchamps,
de l’Obel, Pierre Pena and Jean Bauhin among his pupils. De l’Écluse
was an enthusiastic adherent of the reformed faith, to which he was
converted by the influence of Melanchthon, and he suffered religious
persecution, which brought even actual martyrdom to some of his
relatives. Though he did not himself lose his life, he was deprived of
his property, and, between poverty and ill-health, his career seems
to have been a melancholy one. He passed a nomad existence, attached
at one time as tutor to some great family, while, at others, he was
occupied in writing or translating for Rondelet, Dodoens or Plantin,
or undertaking precarious employment at the court of Vienna. The
University of Leyden finally appointed him to a professorship. It is
interesting to note that he paid more than one visit to England, and
that he was intimate with Sir Francis Drake, who gave him plants from
the New World.
De l’Écluse had a reputation for versatility scarcely exceeded by that
of his contemporary, the “Admirable” Crichton. He is said to have had a
wide knowledge of Latin, Greek, French, German, Flemish, Spanish, law,
philosophy, history, geography, zoology, mineralogy and numismatics,
besides his chosen subject of botany. Since his botanical début was
made as the translator of Dodoens, we may with reason look upon him as
a disciple of the latter.
The first original work de l’Écluse produced was an account of the
plants which he had observed while on an adventurous expedition to
Spain and Portugal with two pupils. This was so successful botanically
that he brought back two hundred new species. The description of his
finds was published by Plantin in 1576, under the title of ‘Rariorum
aliquot stirpium per Hispanias observatarum Historia.’ Wood-blocks
were engraved purposely for this book (see Text-figs. 39, 59 and 98),
but, for the confusion of the bibliographer, some of them were also
used to illustrate Dodoens’ work in the interval while the Spanish
flora of de l’Écluse awaited publication. In 1583 appeared our author’s
second work, which did the same service for the botany of Austria and
Hungary as the previous volume had done for the botany of Spain. These
two works, together with some additional matter, were republished in
1601 as the ‘Rariorum plantarum historia.’ In this book, the species
belonging to the same genus are often brought together, but, beyond
this, there is little attempt at systematic arrangement.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 39. “Lacryma Iob” = _Coix lachryma-Jobi_ L.,
Job’s Tears [de l’Écluse, Rariorum ... per Hispanias, 1576].]
De l’Écluse was weak in the synthetic faculty, his strength lying
rather in his powers of observation. Cuvier reckons that he added more
than six hundred to the number of known plants. It is characteristic
of his versatile mind, that his botanical interests were not confined,
like those of most of the early workers, to flowering plants. A
manuscript is preserved in the Leyden Library[13] containing more than
eighty beautiful water-colour drawings of fungi, executed under the
direction of de l’Écluse, by artists employed by his great friend and
patron, Baron Boldizsár de Batthyány. This gentleman is said to have
been so enthusiastic a botanist, that he set a Turkish prisoner at
liberty, on the condition that he should obtain plants for him from
Turkey.
De l’Écluse seems to have been a man of wide friendships, and his
botanical correspondence was very large. He did much for horticulture,
and is called by his friend, Marie de Brimen, Princesse de Chimay,
“le père de tous les beaux Jardins de ce pays.” He deserves especial
gratitude for one benefit of a very practical nature, namely the
introduction of the Potato into Germany and Austria. It is worthy of
note that de l’Écluse, unlike the majority of the herbalists, was not a
physician, and although he laid considerable stress on the properties
of plants, he was not preoccupied with the medical side of the subject.
He studied plants for their own sake, and abandoned the futile effort
to identify them with those mentioned by the ancients.
The third of the trio of botanists whom we are now considering is
Mathias de l’Obel [de Lobel or Lobelius], who was born in Flanders
in 1538, and died in England, at Highgate, in 1616 (Plate VIII).
He studied at Montpelier, under Guillaume Rondelet, who, finally,
bequeathed to him his botanical manuscripts. Here also he became
acquainted with a young Provençal, Pierre Pena, with whom he afterwards
collaborated in botanical work. De l’Obel took up medicine as his
profession, and eventually became physician to William the Silent, a
post which he held until the assassination of the Stadtholder. Later
on, he and Pena came to England, probably to seek a peaceful life under
the prosperous sway of Queen Elizabeth, which was so favourable to the
arts and sciences. Their principal work was dedicated to her, in terms
of hyperbolic praise. De l’Obel seems to have been well received in
this country, for he was invited to superintend the medicinal garden at
Hackney, belonging to Lord Zouche, and he eventually obtained the title
of Botanist to James I.
[Illustration: _Plate VIII_
MATHIAS DE L’OBEL (1538-1616).
[Engraving by François Dellarame, 1615. Department of Prints and
Drawings, British Museum.]]
De l’Obel’s chief botanical work was the ‘Stirpium adversaria
nova[14],’ published in 1570, with Pena as joint author. Pena does
not appear to have been a botanist of much importance, and he
eventually quite forsook the subject in favour of medicine. It has
been suggested, however, that de l’Obel was inclined to minimise the
value of his colleague’s work. The system of classification, upon which
de l’Obel’s reputation really rests, is set forth in this book. The
main feature of his scheme is that he distinguishes different groups
by the peculiarities of their leaves. He is thus led to make a rough
separation between the classes which we now call Dicotyledons and
Monocotyledons. The details of his system will be considered in a later
chapter.
In 1576 the work was enlarged, and republished as the ‘Plantarum seu
Stirpium Historia’; it was also translated into Flemish, and appeared
under the title of ‘Kruydtbœck’ in 1581, dedicated to William of
Orange, and the Burgomasters and other functionaries of Antwerp. The
blocks (see Text-fig. 67) used to illustrate this work were taken from
previous books, especially those of de l’Écluse. Immediately after the
publication of the Kruydtbœck, Plantin brought out an album of the
engravings it had contained, which, although they had been also used
to illustrate the herbals of Dodoens and de l’Écluse, were now grouped
according to de l’Obel’s arrangement, which was recognised as the best.
3. THE HERBAL IN ITALY.
The Italian botanists of the Renaissance devoted themselves chiefly to
interpreting the works of the classical writers on Natural History,
and to the identification of the plants to which they referred. This
came about quite naturally, from the fact that the Mediterranean flora,
which they saw around them, was actually that with which the writers in
question had been, in their day, familiar. The botanists of southern
Europe were not compelled, as were those whose homes lay north of the
Alps, to distort facts before they could make the plants of their
native country fit into the procrustean bed of classical descriptions.
One of the chief of the commentators and herbalists of this period was
Pierandrea Mattioli [or Matthiolus] (Text-fig. 40), who was born at
Siena in 1501, and died of the plague in 1577. We realise something of
the frightful extent of this scourge, when we remember that it claimed
as victims no less than three of the small company of Renaissance
botanists, Gesner, Mattioli and Zaluzian. Leonhard Fuchs was brought
into fame by his successful treatment of one of these epidemics. It
should also be recalled that, while Gaspard Bauhin, one of the best
known of the later herbalists, was practising as a physician at Basle,
no less than three of these terrible outbreaks occurred in the town.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 40. Pierandrea Mattioli, 1501-1577 [Engraving
by Philippe Galle. Virorum Doctorum Effigies, Antwerp, 1572].]
Mattioli was the son of a doctor, and his early life was passed in
Venice, where his father was in practice. He was destined for the law,
but his inherited tastes led him away from jurisprudence to medicine.
He practised in several different towns, and became physician,
successively, to the Archduke Ferdinand, and to the Emperor Maximilian
II.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 41. “Pyra” = _Pyrus communis_ L., Pear
[Mattioli, Commentarii, 1560].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 42. “Avena” = Oats [Mattioli, Commentarii,
1560].]
Mattioli’s ‘Commentarii in sex libros Pedacii Dioscoridis,’ his
_chef-d’œuvre_, the gradual production and improvement of which
occupied his leisure hours throughout his life, was first published in
1544. It was translated into many languages and appeared in countless
editions. The success of the work was phenomenal, and it is said
that 32,000 copies of the earlier editions were sold. The title does
not do the book justice, for it contains, besides an exposition of
Dioscorides, a Natural History dealing with all the plants known to
Mattioli. The early editions had small illustrations only (Text-figs.
41, 42, 93 and 94), but, later on, editions with large and very
beautiful figures were published, such as that which appeared at
Venice in 1565 (Text-figs. 43, 44, 95).
[Illustration: Text-fig. 43. “Trifolium acetosum” = _Oxalis_ [Mattioli,
Commentarii, 1565]. _Reduced._]
Mattioli’s descriptions of the plants with which he deals are not so
good as those of some of his contemporaries. He found and recorded
a certain number of new plants, especially from the Tyrol, but most
of the species, which he described for the first time, were not his
own discoveries, but were communicated to him by others. Luca Ghini,
for instance, had projected a similar work, but handed over all his
material to Mattioli, who also placed on record the discoveries made by
the physician, Wilhelm Quakelbeen, who had accompanied the celebrated
diplomatist, Auger-Gislain Busbecq, on a mission to Turkey.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 44. “Malus” = _Pyrus malus_ L., Apple
[Mattioli, Commentarii, 1565]. _Reduced._]
Busbecq brought from Constantinople a wonderful collection of Greek
manuscripts, including Juliana Anicia’s copy of the Materia Medica
of Dioscorides, now in the Vienna Library (see pp. 8 and 154). He
discovered this great manuscript in the hands of a Jew, who required a
hundred ducats for it. This price was almost prohibitive, but Busbecq
was an enthusiast, and he successfully urged the Emperor, whose
representative he was, “to redeem so illustrious an author from that
servitude[15].” His purpose in buying the manuscript seems to have been
largely in order to communicate it to Mattioli, who would thus be able
to make use of it in preparing his Commentaries on Dioscorides.
The personal character of Mattioli does not appear to have been a
pleasant one. He engaged in numerous controversies with his fellow
botanists, and hurled the most abusive language at those who ventured
to criticise him.
Another Italian herbalist, Castor Durante, slightly later in date
than Mattioli, should perhaps be mentioned here, not because of the
intrinsic value of his work, but because of its widespread popularity.
At least two of his books appeared in many editions and translations.
Durante was a physician who issued a series of botanical compilations,
bedizened with Latin verse. The best known of his works is the
‘Herbario Nuovo,’ published at Rome in 1585 (Text-figs. 45 and 103).
A second book, the original version of which is seldom met with, has
survived in the form of a German translation, by Peter Uffenbach. The
German version was named ‘Hortulus Sanitatis.’ As an illustration of
Durante’s charmingly unscientific manner, we may take the legend of
the “Arbor tristis” which occurs in both these works. The figure which
accompanies it (Text-fig. 45) shows, beneath the moon and stars, a
drawing of a tree whose trunk has a human form. The description, as it
occurs in the ‘Hortulus Sanitatis,’ may be translated as follows:
“Of this tree the Indians say, there was once a very beautiful
maiden, daughter of a mighty lord called Parisataccho. This maiden
loved the Sun, but the Sun forsook her because he loved another. So,
being scorned by the Sun, she slew herself, and when her body had been
burned, according to the custom of that land, this tree sprang from
her ashes. And this is the reason why the flowers of this tree shrink
so intensely from the Sun, and never open in his presence. And thus it
is a special delight to see this tree in the night time, adorned on
all sides with its lovely flowers, since they give forth a delicious
perfume, the like of which is not to be met with in any other plant,
but no sooner does one touch the plant with one’s hand than its sweet
scent vanishes away. And however beautiful the tree has appeared, and
however sweetly it has bloomed at night, directly the Sun rises in the
morning it not only fades but all its branches look as though they were
withered and dead.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 45. “Arbor Malenconico” or “Arbor tristis” =
Tree of Sorrow [Durante, Herbario Nuovo, 1585].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 46. “Apocynum” [Colonna, Phytobasanos, 1592].]
Much more famous than Durante was Fabio Colonna, or, as he is more
generally called, Fabius Columna (Plate IX), who was born at Naples
in 1567. His father was a well-known littérateur. Fabio Colonna’s
profession was that of law, but he was also well acquainted with
languages, music, mathematics and optics. He tells us in the preface
to his principal work that his interest in plants was aroused by his
difficulty in obtaining a remedy for epilepsy, a disease from which he
suffered. Having tried all sorts of prescriptions without result, he
examined the literature on the subject, and discovered that most of
the writers of his time merely served up the results obtained by the
ancients, often in a very incorrect form. So he went to the fountain
head, Dioscorides, and after much research identified Valerian as
being the herb which that writer had recommended against epilepsy, and
succeeded in curing himself by its use.
This experience convinced Colonna that the knowledge of the identity
of the plants described by the ancients was in a most unsatisfactory
condition, and he set himself to produce a work which should remedy
this state of things. This book was published in 1592, under the name
of ‘Phytobasanos,’ which embodies a quaint conceit after the fashion of
the time. The title is a compound Greek word meaning “plant torture,”
and was apparently employed by Colonna to explain that he had subjected
the plants to ordeal by torture, in order to wrest from them the secret
of their identity. But it must be confessed that Colonna himself is by
no means free from error, as regards the names which he assigns to them.
The great feature of the ‘Phytobasanos,’ however, is the excellence of
the descriptions and figures. The latter are famous as being the first
etchings on copper used to illustrate a botanical work (Text-figs. 46
and 105). They were an advance on all previous plant drawings, except
the work of Gesner and Camerarius, in giving, in many cases, detailed
analyses of the flowers and fruit as well as habit drawings. We owe to
Colonna also the technical use of the word “petal,” which he suggested
as a descriptive term for the coloured floral leaves[16].
By means of his wide scientific correspondence, Colonna kept in touch
with many of the naturalists of his time, notably with de l’Écluse and
Gaspard Bauhin.
[Illustration: _Plate IX_
FABIO COLONNA (1567-1650).
[Ekphrasis, 1606.]]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 47. “Kalli” = _Salicornia_, Glasswort
[Prospero Alpino, De plantis Ægypti, 1592].]
A passing reference may be made here to a book which is rather of the
nature of a local flora than a herbal, entitled ‘Prosperi Alpini
de plantis Ægypti,’ which was published at Venice in 1592. It contains
a number of wood-cuts, which appear to be original. The one reproduced
(Text-fig. 47) represents _Salicornia_, the Glasswort. The author was
a doctor who went to Egypt with the Venetian consul, Giorgio Emo, and
had opportunities of collecting plants there. He is said to have been
the first European writer to mention the Coffee plant, which he saw
growing at Cairo. Prospero Alpino eventually became Professor of Botany
at Padua, and enriched the botanical garden of that town with Egyptian
plants.
4. THE HERBAL IN SWITZERLAND.
Among the many scientific men, whose names are associated with
Switzerland, one of the most renowned is Konrad Gesner (Plate X), who
was born at Zurich in 1516, the son of a poor furrier. His taste for
botany was due, in the first instance, to the influence of his uncle,
a protestant preacher. Konrad went to France to study medicine, but in
Paris, the richness of the libraries, and the delight of associating
with learned men, tempted him away from his special subject into a
course of omnivorous reading. After an interval of school teaching at
Zurich, he betook himself to Basle, where he entered more methodically
upon the study of medicine, at the same time attempting to support
himself by working at a Latin dictionary. However, after a short period
of student life, he found the expense too great, and was obliged to
abandon it, and to take a post as teacher of classics in Lausanne. He
had received assistance at different times from his native town, which
again came to his help at this juncture, and generously allotted to
him a “Reisestipendium,” for the continuance of his medical studies.
He indeed owed much to Zurich, for, after taking his doctorate, he was
appointed first to the professorship of Philosophy there, and then to
that of Natural History, which he held until he died of the plague in
his forty-ninth year.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 48. “Lachryma Iob” = _Coix lachryma-Jobi_ L.,
Job’s Tears [Simler, Vita Conradi Gesneri, 1566].]
Gesner’s most remarkable characteristic was his versatility and
encyclopædic knowledge; he has been called the Pliny of his time. His
work on bibliographical and linguistic subjects was of importance,
and he also wrote on medicine, mineralogy, zoology and botany. The
botanical works published during his life were not of great importance,
but, at the time of his death, he had already prepared a large part
of the material for a general history of plants, which was intended
as a companion work to his famous ‘Historia Animalium.’ In order to
illustrate it, he had collected 1500 drawings of plants, the majority
original, though some were founded on previous wood-cuts, especially
those of Fuchs. The undertaking was so far advanced that some of the
figures had been drawn upon the wood, and certain blocks had even been
engraved. The whole collection, and the manuscripts, he bequeathed
for publication to his friend Caspar Wolf. Wolf seems to have made
an honest effort to carry out Gesner’s wishes, and he succeeded in
publishing a few of the wood-cuts, as an appendix to Simler’s ‘Vita
Conradi Gesneri’ (e.g. Text-fig. 48). Unfortunately he was hampered by
weak health, and the task, as a whole, proved beyond his powers. He
sold everything to Joachim Camerarius the younger, with the proviso
that the purchaser should make himself responsible for the publication.
Camerarius failed to fulfil the spirit of this obligation. It is true
that he brought a large number of Gesner’s figures before the public,
but he did this only by the indirect method of using them, among his
own drawings, to illustrate an edition of Mattioli, and a book of his
own.
Finally, about a hundred and fifty years after the death of Camerarius,
Gesner’s drawings and blocks came into the possession of the
eighteenth-century botanist and bibliographer, Christoph Jacob Trew,
who published them, thus giving Gesner his due so far as was possible
at that late date. Such blocks as were in good condition were printed
directly, and, from the drawings, a number of copper engravings were
made, coloured like the originals. The drawings were of unequal merit,
some of them being on a very small scale and lacking in clearness. In
one point, however, Gesner shows a marked advance on the methods of his
contemporaries—namely in giving detailed, analysed studies of flower
and fruit structure, as well as a drawing showing the habit of the
plant. It must not be forgotten that, even in Trew’s edition, it is
impossible to discriminate with certainty between the work of Gesner
and that of Camerarius.
Unfortunately, we have no knowledge of the text of Gesner’s manuscript,
but his letters make it clear that his interest in botany was
thoroughly scientific. If his work were extant, he would probably shine
as a discoverer of new species, especially among alpines, for his
figures indicate that he was acquainted with a number of plants which
de l’Écluse, Gaspard Bauhin and others were the first to describe.
[Illustration: _Plate X_
KONRAD GESNER (1516-1565).
[Print in the Botany School, Cambridge.]]
Among Gesner’s numerous scientific correspondents was Jean Bauhin, a
brilliant young man, twenty-five years his junior. Their acquaintance
began when Bauhin was only eighteen, but, in spite of his friend’s
youth, Gesner consulted him in botanical difficulties, describing him
as “eruditissimus et ornatissimus juvenis.”
Jean Bauhin was the son of a French doctor, a native of Amiens, who
had been converted to protestantism by reading the Latin translation
of the New Testament prepared by Erasmus. In consequence of his change
of faith, he was subjected to religious persecution, which he avoided
by retreating to Switzerland, where his sons Jean and Gaspard were
born. The medical tradition seems to have been remarkably strong in the
family. Both Jean and Gaspard became doctors—Gaspard, whose sons also
entered the profession, being, in fact, the second of six generations
of physicians. For two hundred years, an unbroken succession of members
of the family were medical men.
After Jean Bauhin had studied for a time at the University of Basle,
he went to Tübingen, where he learned botany from Leonhard Fuchs.
From Tübingen he proceeded to Zurich, and accompanied Gesner on some
journeys in the Alps. After further travel on his own account, and a
period at the University of Montpelier, he reached Lyons, where he
came in contact with d’Aléchamps, who engaged him to assist with the
‘Histoire des plantes.’ Bauhin began to occupy himself with this work,
but his protestantism proved a stumbling-block to his life there, and
he was obliged to quit France.
Jean Bauhin’s chief botanical work, the ‘Histoire universelle des
plantes,’ was a most ambitious undertaking, which he did not live to
see published. However, his son-in-law Cherler, a physician of Basle,
who had helped him in preparing it, brought out a preliminary sketch
of it in 1619, and, in 1650 and 1651, the _magnum opus_ itself was
published, under the name of ‘Historia plantarum universalis.’ This
book is a compilation from all sources, and includes descriptions of
5000 plants. The figures, of which there are more than 3500, are small
and badly executed. A large proportion of them are ultimately derived
from those of Fuchs.
Jean Bauhin’s more famous brother, Gaspard [or Caspar] (Plate XI),
was born in 1560, and was thus the younger by nineteen years. Gaspard
studied at Basle, Padua, Montpelier, Paris and Tübingen. He also
travelled in Italy, making observations upon the flora, and becoming
acquainted with scientific men. Unfortunately he missed being a pupil
of Leonhard Fuchs, since his sojourn at Tübingen took place some years
after the death of the famous herbalist, who had been his brother’s
teacher. The illness and death of his father in 1582 made it necessary
for him to settle in Basle, where he became Professor of Botany and
Anatomy, and eventually of Medicine.
Inspired by the example of his brother, he conceived the plan of
collecting, in a single work, all that had been previously written
upon plants, and, especially, of drawing up a concordance of all the
names given by different authors to the same species. His extensive
early travels served as a good preparation for this task, since he had
not only observed and collected widely, but had established relations
with the best botanists in Europe. He formed a herbarium of about 4000
plants, including specimens from correspondents in many countries,
even Egypt and the East Indies. Besides study bearing directly on his
great project, he accomplished a considerable amount of critical and
editorial work, which also had its value in relation to his main plan.
He produced new editions of Mattioli’s Commentaries, and of the herbal
of Tabernæmontanus, and published a criticism of d’Aléchamps’ ‘Historia
plantarum.’
There is a marked parallelism between the careers of the Bauhin
brothers, for Gaspard’s great work underwent much the same vicissitudes
as that of Jean. The main part of Gaspard’s chief work never saw the
light at all, although his son brought out one instalment of it, many
years after his father’s death. Gaspard was however more fortunate
than Jean, in that he lived to see the publication of three important
preliminary volumes, as the result of his researches, and it is on
these that his reputation rests.
[Illustration: _Plate XI_
GASPARD BAUHIN (1560-1624).
[Theatrum Anatomicum, 1605.]]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 49. “Solanum tuberosum esculentum” = Potato
[Bauhin, Prodromos, 1620].]
The ‘Prodromos theatri botanici’ of 1620 consisted of descriptions of
600 species, which the author regarded as new, although several had,
as a matter of fact, been already described by de l’Écluse. Figures
of about 140 species are given, two of which are here reproduced
(Text-figs. 49 and 62). One of these, the Potato (Text-fig. 49), still
retains the name of _Solanum tuberosum_ which Bauhin gave to it. He had
previously published a description of this plant in an earlier work,
the ‘Phytopinax’ of 1596.
In 1623, Gaspard Bauhin brought out his most important botanical book,
the ‘Pinax[17] theatri botanici.’ By this date, owing to the number
of different names bestowed upon the same plant by different authors,
and the varying identifications of those described by the ancients,
the subject of plant nomenclature had been reduced to a condition of
woeful confusion. Bauhin’s ‘Pinax’ converted chaos into order, since it
contained the first complete and methodical concordance of the names
of plants, and was so authoritative as to earn for the author the
title of “législateur en botanique.” The work, which dealt with about
6000 plants, was recognised as pre-eminent for many years. Morison
criticised the scheme of arrangement on which it was based, but adopted
its nomenclature, as also did Ray. Tournefort also retained, as far as
possible, the names of the genera and species used in the ‘Pinax.’ As
Sachs long ago pointed out, this work is “the first and for that time a
completely exhaustive book of synonyms, and is still indispensable for
the history of individual species—no small praise to be given to a work
that is more than 250 years old.”
Gaspard Bauhin deserves great honour as the first who introduced some
degree of order into the chaotic muddle of nomenclature and synonymy.
The special merits of his work, more especially his power of concise
and lucid description, and his faculty for systematic arrangement, may
perhaps be attributed to his French blood, since such qualities are
markedly characteristic of French scientific writing.
It is much to be regretted that the two brothers Bauhin should have
carried on their work independently and separately, considering that
they had in view practically identical objects—objects in which each
only achieved a partial success. It seems as if a work of much greater
value might have resulted if they had joined forces.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 50. Jacques d’Aléchamps, 1513-1588 [Enlarged
from wood-cut, circa 1600, Department of Prints and Drawings, British
Museum].]
5. THE HERBAL IN FRANCE.
France (excluding the French Netherlands) does not seem, at first
sight, to have contributed a great deal towards the development of
the Herbal in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but it must be
remembered that Jean and Gaspard Bauhin, and the publisher, Christophe
Plantin, were French by extraction, though Switzerland and Holland were
their countries by adoption. Most of the important herbals published
in other languages were translated into French quite early in their
history, sometimes in a modified form, so that France in the sixteenth
century was probably by no means backward in botanical knowledge. One
such adaptation was ‘L’Histoire des Plantes,’ by Geofroy Linocier,
which was founded, in part, on the works of Fuchs and Mattioli.
A well-known name among the earlier French writers is that of Jean
Ruel, or Joannes Ruellius, as he is commonly called (1474-1537). He was
a physician, and a professor in the University of Paris, and chiefly
devoted himself to the emending and explaining of Dioscorides. He also
wrote a general botanical treatise, ‘De Natura Stirpium,’ which first
appeared in Paris in 1536. This work, which is without illustrations,
is intended mainly to elucidate the ancient writers.
The most famous of the French herbalists was Jacques d’Aléchamps
(Text-fig. 50), whose _magnum opus_, which appeared in 1586, formed a
compendium of much of the material which had been contributed by the
different nations. He was born at Caen in 1513, and after studying
medicine at Montpelier, entered upon the practice of it at Lyons, where
he remained until his death in 1588.
D’Aléchamps’ great work is generally called the ‘Historia plantarum
Lugdunensis.’ Curiously enough, the author’s name is not mentioned
on the title-page. From the preface one would gather that Johannes
Molinäus (or Desmoulins) was the chief author. However, judging by the
way in which the book was quoted by contemporary writers, there appears
to be little doubt that d’Aléchamps was really responsible for it,
though assisted at different times by Jean Bauhin and Desmoulins.
The ‘Historia plantarum’ had numerous faults, but it was, at the time,
the most complete universal flora that existed. It contained about 2700
figures (two of which are reproduced in Text-figs. 51 and 101), but,
both in drawing and wood-cutting, they show marked inferiority to much
of the earlier work.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 51. “Ornithogalum magnum” [d’Aléchamps,
Historia generalis plantarum, 1586].]
6. THE HERBAL IN ENGLAND.
The greatest name among British herbalists of the Renaissance period
is that of William Turner, physician and divine, the “Father of
British Botany.” He was a north-countryman, a native of Morpeth in
Northumberland, where he was born probably between 1510 and 1515. He
received his education at what is now Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Pembroke deserves to be especially held in honour by botanists, for
a hundred years later, Nehemiah Grew, who was as pre-eminent among
British botanists of the seventeenth century as Turner was among those
of the sixteenth, also became a student at this college.
Like so many of the early botanists, William Turner was closely
associated with the Reformation. He embraced the views of his friends
and instructors at Cambridge, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer, and
fought for the reformed faith throughout his life, both with pen and
by word of mouth. His caustic wit was also used, with almost equal
vehemence, to attack the abuses which crept into his own party. A ban
was put upon his writings in the reign of Henry VIII, and for a time
he suffered imprisonment, but, when Edward VI came to the throne, his
fortunes improved, and, after a long and tedious period of waiting for
preferment, he obtained the Deanery of Wells. Difficulty in ejecting
the previous Dean caused much delay in obtaining possession of the
house, and Turner lamented bitterly that, in the small and crowded
temporary lodging, “i can not go to my booke for y^e crying of childer
& noyse y^t is made in my chamber.”
A clergyman’s life must have been full of unwelcome vicissitudes in
those days, if Turner’s career was at all typical. During Mary’s
reign he was a fugitive, and the former Dean of Wells was reinstated.
However, when Elizabeth ascended the throne, the position was reversed,
and Turner came back to Wells, “the usurper,” as he calls his rival,
being ejected. But his triumph was short-lived, for in 1564 he was
suspended for nonconformity. His controversial methods were violent
in the extreme, and he seems to have been a thorn in the flesh of his
superiors. The Bishop of Bath and Wells wrote on one occasion that he
was “much encombred w^{th} m^r Doctor _Turner_ Deane of Welles, for
his undiscrete behavior in the pulpitt: where he medleth w^{th} all
matters, and unsemelie speaketh of all estates, more than ys standinge
withe discressyon.”
Christian doctrine was by no means the only subject that occupied
Turner’s attention. He had taken a medical degree either at Ferrara
or Bologna, and, in the reign of Edward VI, he was physician to the
Duke of Somerset, the Protector. He had travelled much in Italy,
Switzerland, Holland and Germany, at the periods when his religious
opinions excluded him from England. One of the great advantages, which
he reaped from his wanderings, was the opportunity of studying botany
at Bologna under Luca Ghini, who was also the teacher of Cesalpino.
Another savant, with whom he became acquainted on the Continent, was
Konrad Gesner, whom he visited at Zurich, and with whom he maintained a
warm friendship. He also corresponded with Leonhard Fuchs.
Turner’s earliest botanical work was the ‘Libellus de re herbaria
novus’ (1538), which is the first book in which localities for many
of our native British plants are placed on record. In 1548 this was
followed by another little work, ‘The names of herbes in Greke, Latin,
Englishe, Duche and Frenche wyth the commune names that Herbaries and
Apotecaries use.’ In the preface to this book, Turner tells us that he
had projected a Latin herbal, and had indeed written it, but refrained
from publishing it because, when he “axed the advise of Phisicianes
in thys matter, their advise was that I shoulde cease from settynge
out of this boke in latin tyll I had sene those places of Englande,
wherein is moste plentie of herbes, that I might in my herbal declare
to the greate honoure[18] of our countre what numbre of sovereine and
strang herbes were in Englande that were not in other nations, whose
counsell I have folowed deferryng to set out my herbal in latin, tyl
that I have sene the west countrey, which I never sawe yet in al my
lyfe, which countrey of all places of England, as I heare say is moste
richely replenished wyth all kyndes of straunge and wonderfull workes
and giftes of nature, as are stones, herbes, fishes and metalles.”
He explains that while waiting to complete his herbal, he has been
advised to publish this little book in which he has set forth the names
of plants. He adds, “and because men should not thynke that I write of
that I never sawe, and that Poticaries shoulde be excuselesse when as
the ryghte herbes are required of them, I have shewed in what places
of Englande, Germany, and Italy the herbes growe and maye be had for
laboure and money.”
Turner’s _chef-d’œuvre_ was his ‘Herball,’ published in three
instalments, the first in London in 1551, the first and second together
at Cologne in 1562, during his exile in the reign of Mary, and the
third part, together with the preceding, in 1568. The title of the
first part runs as follows, ‘A new Herball, wherin are conteyned the
names of Herbes ... with the properties degrees and naturall places of
the same, gathered and made by Wylliam Turner, Physicion unto the Duke
of Somersettes Grace.’ The figures illustrating the herbal are, for
the most part, the same as those in the octavo edition of Fuchs’ work,
published in 1545.
The dedication of the herbal, in its completed form, to Queen
Elizabeth, throws some light on Turner’s life, and incidentally on
that illustrious lady herself. The doctor recalls, with pardonable
pride and perhaps a touch of blarney, an occasion on which the Princess
Elizabeth, as she then was, had conversed with him in Latin. “As for
your knowledge in the Latin tonge,” he writes, “xviii yeares ago or
more, I had in the Duke of Somersettes house (beynge his Physition
at that tyme) a good tryal thereof, when as it pleased your grace to
speake Latin unto me: for although I have both in England, lowe and
highe Germanye, and other places of my longe traveil and pelgrimage,
never spake with any noble or gentle woman, that spake so wel and so
much congrue fyne and pure Latin, as your grace did unto me so longe
ago.”
Turner defends himself against the insinuation that “a booke
intreatinge onelye of trees, herbes and wedes, and shrubbes, is not a
mete present for a prince,” and certainly, if we accept his account of
the state of knowledge at the time, the need for such a book must have
been most urgent. He explains that, while he was still at Pembroke
Hall, Cambridge, he endeavoured to learn the names of plants, but,
“suche was the ignorance in simples at that tyme,” that he could get
no information on the subject, even from physicians. He claims that
his herbal has considerable originality—a claim which seems well
founded. In his own words—“they that have red the first part of my
Herbal, and have compared my writinges of plantes with those thinges
that Matthiolus, Fuchsius, Tragus, and Dodoneus wrote in y^e firste
editiones of their Herballes, maye easily perceyve that I taught the
truthe of certeyne plantes, which these above named writers either knew
not at al, or ellis erred in them greatlye.... So y^t as I learned
something of them, so they ether might or did learne somthinge of me
agayne, as their second editions maye testifye. And because I would
not be lyke unto a cryer y^t cryeth a loste horse in the marketh, and
telleth all the markes and tokens that he hath, and yet never sawe
the horse, nether coulde knowe the horse if he sawe him: I wente into
Italye and into diverse partes of Germany, to knowe and se the herbes
my selfe.”
This herbal contains many evidences of Turner’s independence of
thought. He fought against what he regarded as superstition in science
with the same ardour with which he entered upon religious polemics. The
legend of the human form of the Mandrake receives scant mercy at his
hands. As he points out, “The rootes which are conterfited and made
like litle puppettes and mammettes, which come to be sold in England
in boxes, with heir, and such forme as a man hath, are nothyng elles
but folishe feined trifles, and not naturall. For they are so trymmed
of crafty theves to mocke the poore people with all, and to rob them
both of theyr wit and theyr money. I have in my tyme at diverse tymes
taken up the rootes of Mandrag out of the grounde, but I never saw any
such thyng upon or in them, as are in and upon the pedlers rootes that
are comenly to be solde in boxes.” Turner was, however, by no means the
first to dispute the Mandrake superstition; in the Grete Herball of
1526 it is definitely refuted, and it is ignored in some works that are
of even earlier date. The hoax was long-lived, for we find Gerard also
exposing it in 1597.
Turner had a fine scorn for any superstitious notions he detected in
the writings of his contemporaries, and seems to have been particularly
pleased if he could show that in any disputed matter they were wrong,
while the ancients, for whom he had a great reverence, were right. For
instance he has a great deal to say about a theory, held by Mattioli,
in opposition to the opinions of Theophrastus and Dioscorides, that
the Broomrape (_Orobanche_) could kill other plants merely by its
baneful presence, without any physical contact. He declares that this
view is against reason, authority and experience, and points out that
the figure which Mattioli gives is faulty, in omitting to show the
roots, which are the real instruments of destruction. He triumphantly
concludes, “And as touchynge experience, I know that the freshe and
yong Orobanche hath commyng out of the great roote, many lytle strynges
... wherewith it taketh holde of the rootes of the herbes that grow
next unto it. Wherefore Matthiolus ought not so lyghtly to have defaced
the autorite of Theophrast so ancient and substantiall autor.” Turner’s
work is largely occupied with the opinions of early writers, especially
Dioscorides, and his respect for their authority is a somewhat curious
trait in a character which seems, in other directions, to have been so
unorthodox. He did not however treat their books as the last word on
the subject, and the third part of his herbal is occupied with plants
“whereof is no mention made nether of y^e old Grecianes nor Latines.”
Turner’s herbal is arranged alphabetically, and does not show
evidence of any interest in the relationships of the plants. It is
as individuals, and essentially as “simples,” that he regarded them.
His descriptions of them were often vividly expressed, though not
markedly original. It must be remembered that botany was not the only
science which he studied. He wrote about birds, and also contributed
information about English fishes to Gesner’s ‘Historia Animalium.’
[Illustration: Text-fig. 52. “Tabaco” = _Nicotiana_, Tobacco [Monardes,
Joyfull newes out of the newe founde worlde, 2nd ed. 1580].]
Before discussing the next herbal which appeared in this country, we
may refer in passing to a botanical book which hardly comes under this
heading, but which is of interest in relation to the history of the
time. Nicolas Monardes, a Spanish physician, had published, in 1569
and 1571, some account of the plants which had lately been brought to
Europe from the recently discovered West Indies, and this work was
translated into English by John Frampton in 1577, under the title of
‘Joyfull newes out of the newe founde worlde.’ This book contains a
good figure of the Tobacco plant (Text-fig. 52), perhaps the first ever
published, and also a long account of its virtues. The reader is told
that the Negroes and Indians after inhaling tobacco smoke “doe remaine
lightened, without any wearinesse, for to laboure again: and thei dooe
this with so greate pleasure, that although thei bee not wearie, yet
thei are very desirous for to dooe it: and the thyng is come to so
muche effecte, that their maisters doeth chasten theim for it, and doe
burne the _Tabaco_, because thei should not use it.”
Twenty-seven years after the appearance of the first part of Turner’s
herbal, a translation of Dodoens’ work, made by Henry Lyte, appeared in
England. Lyte was born about 1529, and, towards the end of the reign
of Henry VIII, he became a student at Oxford. He was a man of means,
addicted to travel, and his temperament seems to have been much milder
and less revolutionary than that of his predecessor Turner. He did not
perhaps add very greatly to the knowledge of English botany, but he did
a valuable service in introducing Dodoens’ herbal into this country.
His book, which was published in 1578, was professedly a translation
of the French version of Dodoens’ Crǔ deboeck of 1554, which had been
made by de l’Écluse in 1557. Lyte’s copy of this work, with copious
manuscript notes, and, on the title-page, the quaint endorsement,
“Henry Lyte taught me to speake Englishe,” is preserved in the British
Museum. This copy proves that Lyte was no mere mechanical translator,
for the work is annotated and corrected with great care, references to
de l’Obel and Turner being introduced.
The title of Lyte’s book is as follows: ‘A Niewe Herball or Historie
of Plantes: wherin is contayned the whole discourse and perfect
description of all sortes of Herbes and Plantes: their divers and
sundry kindes: their straunge Figures, Fashions, and Shapes: their
Names, Natures, Operations, and Vertues: and that not onely of those
which are here growyng in this our Countrie of Englande, but of all
others also of forrayne Realmes, commonly used in Physicke. First set
foorth in the Doutche or Almaigne tongue, by that learned D. Rembert
Dodoens, Physition to the Emperour: And nowe first translated out of
French into English, by Henry Lyte Esquyer.’ The illustrations used in
the book were the same as those which had appeared in the translation
by de l’Écluse, and were for the most part copies of those in the
octavo edition of Fuchs’ herbal, with some additional blocks, which
had been cut specially for Dodoens. The result is that many of the
same figures occur both in Turner and in Lyte. There are said to be 870
figures in Lyte’s herbal, of which about thirty are new. Of the latter
_Centaurea rhaponticum_ is an example (Text-fig. 53).
[Illustration: Text-fig. 53. “Reubarbe” = _Centaurea rhaponticum_ L.
[Lyte, A Niewe Herball, 1578].]
Lyte occasionally adds a criticism of his own in a different type from
that used in the main body of the text. At the beginning of the book,
there is a long set of doggerel verses “in commendation of this worke,”
which imply that Rembert Dodoens himself made additions to the English
translation. The most important stanza is the following:—
“Great was his toyle, whiche first this worke dyd frame.
And so was his, whiche ventred to translate it,
For when he had full finisht all the same,
He minded not to adde, nor to abate it.
But what he founde, he ment whole to relate it.
Till _Rembert_ he, did sende additions store.
For to augment _Lytes_ travell past before.”
We now come to John Gerard[19] (Plate XII), the best known of all
the English herbalists, but who, it must be confessed, scarcely
deserves the fame which has fallen to his share. Gerard, a native of
Cheshire, was a “Master in Chirurgerie,” but was better known as a
remarkably successful gardener. For twenty years he supervised the
gardens belonging to Lord Burleigh in the Strand, and at Theobalds in
Hertfordshire, besides having himself a famous garden in Holborn, then
the most fashionable district of London. In 1596 he published a list
of the plants which he cultivated in Holborn, which is interesting as
being the first complete catalogue ever published of the contents of a
single garden.
Gerard’s reputation rests however on a much larger work, ‘The Herball
or Generall Historie of Plantes,’ printed by John Norton in 1597, but
the manner in which this book originated does the author little credit.
It seems that Norton, the publisher, had commissioned a certain Dr
Priest to translate Dodoens’ final work, the ‘Pemptades’ of 1583, into
English, but Priest died before the work was finished. Gerard simply
adopted Priest’s translation, completed it, and published it as his
own, merely altering the arrangement from that of Dodoens to that of
de l’Obel. He adds insult to injury by gratuitously remarking, in an
address to the reader at the beginning of the herbal, that “Doctor
_Priest_, one of our London Colledge, hath (as I heard) translated
the last edition of _Dodonæus_, which meant to publish the same; but
being prevented by death, his translation likewise perished.” After
the manner of the period, the herbal is embellished with a number of
prefatory letters, in one of which, written by Stephen Bredwell, a
statement occurs which is so inconsistent with Gerard’s own remarks
that he certainly committed an oversight in allowing it to stand!
In Bredwell’s words—“D. _Priest_ for his translation of so much as
_Dodonæus_, hath hereby left a tombe for his honorable sepulture.
Master _Gerard_ comming last, but not the least, hath many waies
accommodated the whole worke unto our English nation.”
[Illustration: _Plate XII_
JOHN GERARD (1545-1607).
[The Herball, 1636.]]
The ‘Herball’ is a massive volume, in clear Roman type, contrasting
markedly with the black letter used in the works of Turner and Lyte,
and giving the book a much more modern appearance. It contains about
1800 wood-cuts, nearly all from blocks used by Tabernæmontanus in his
‘Eicones’ of 1590, which Norton obtained from Frankfort; less than
one per cent. are original. There is an illustration representing the
Virginian Potato, which appears to be new, and is perhaps the first
figure of this plant ever published (Text-fig. 60). Gerard did not know
enough about botany to couple the wood-blocks of Tabernæmontanus with
their appropriate descriptions, and de l’Obel was requested by the
printer to correct the author’s blunders. This he did, according to his
own account, in very many places, but yet not so many as he wished,
since Gerard became impatient, and summarily stopped the process of
emendation, on the ground that de l’Obel had forgotten his English.
After this episode, the relations between the two botanists seem, not
unnaturally, to have become somewhat strained.
Gerard evidently aimed at conveying information in simple language, for
in one place, where he speaks of a preparation being “squirted” into
the eyes, he apologises for the colloquialism, explaining that he does
not wish “to be over eloquent among gentlewomen, unto whom especially
my works are most necessary.”
The value of Gerard’s work must inevitably be at a discount, when we
realise that it is impossible, from internal evidence, to accept him
as a credible witness. His oft-quoted account of the “Goose tree,”
“Barnakle tree,” or the “tree bearing Geese,” removes what little
respect one may have felt for him as a scientist, not so much because
he held an absurd belief, which was widely accepted at the time, but
rather because he went out of his way to state that it was confirmed by
his own observations! He gives a figure to illustrate the origin of the
Geese (Text-fig. 54), which is not, however, original.
Gerard relates how trees, actually bearing shells which open and hatch
out barnacle geese, occur in the “Orchades[20],” but he states that
on this point he has no first-hand knowledge. He proceeds, however,
to remark, “But what our eies have seene, and hands have touched, we
shall declare. There is a small Ilande in Lancashire called the Pile
of Foulders, wherein are found the broken peeces of old and brused
ships, some whereof have beene cast thither by shipwracke, and also
the trunks or bodies with the branches of old and rotten trees, cast
up there likewise: wheron is found a certaine spume or froth, that in
time breedeth unto certaine shels, in shape like those of the muskle,
but sharper pointed, and of a whitish colour; wherein is conteined a
thing in forme like a lace of silke finely woven, as it were togither,
of a whitish colour; one ende whereof is fastned unto the inside of
the shell, even as the fish of Oisters and Muskles are; the other
ende is made fast unto the belly of a rude masse or lumpe, which in
time commeth to the shape and forme of a Bird: when it is perfectly
formed, the shel gapeth open, and the first thing that appeereth is
the foresaid lace or string; next come the legs of the Birde hanging
out; and as it groweth greater, it openeth the shell by degrees, till
at length it is all come foorth, and hangeth onely by the bill; in
short space after it commeth to full maturitie, and falleth into the
sea, where it gathereth feathers, and groweth to a foule, bigger then a
Mallard, and lesser than a Goose.”
The fable of the Goose Tree was rejected in the later editions of
Gerard’s ‘Herball,’ published after the author’s death. It reappears,
however, late in the seventeenth century, in the ‘Historia Naturalis’
of John Jonston. The legend is of respectable antiquity, being found
in various early chronicles. Sebastian Muenster, for example, in his
‘Cosmographia[21],’ printed at Basle in 1545, refers to it as recorded
by previous writers, and figures a tree with pendent fruits, out of
which geese are dropping into a lake or stream.
[Illustration: Text-fig. 54. “The breede of Barnakles” [Gerard, The
Herball, 1597].]
Hector Boethius [Boece] in his Scottish Chronicle gives a quaint
account of the origin of geese from driftwood in the sea, “in the small
boris and hollis” of which “growis small wormis. First thay schaw thair
heid and feit, and last of all they schaw thair plum is and wyngis.
Finally quhen thay ar cumyn to the iust mesure and quantite of geis,
thay fle in the aire, as othir fowlis dois[22].”
It is rather surprising to find that William Turner was a believer in
the same myth, although, unlike Gerard, he took great pains to satisfy
himself of the truth of the story, which he seems to have approached
with quite an open mind. His account is as follows:—
“When after a certain time the firwood masts or planks or yard-arms of
a ship have rotted on the sea, then fungi, as it were, break out upon
them first, in which in course of time one may discern evident forms of
birds, which afterwards are clothed with feathers, and at last become
alive and fly. Now lest this should seem fabulous to anyone, besides
the common evidence of all the long-shore men of England, Ireland, and
Scotland, that renowned historian Gyraldus, ... bears witness that the
generation of the Bernicles is none other than this. But inasmuch as
it seemed hardly safe to trust the vulgar and by reason of the rarity
of the thing I did not quite credit Gyraldus, ... I took counsel of a
certain man, whose upright conduct, often proved by me, had justified
my trust, a theologian by profession and an Irishman by birth, Octavian
by name, whether he thought Gyraldus worthy of belief in this affair.
Who, taking oath upon the very Gospel which he taught, answered
that what Gyraldus had reported of the generation of this bird was
absolutely true, and that with his own eyes he had beholden young, as
yet but rudely formed, and also handled them, and, if I were to stay in
London for a month or two, that he would take care that some growing
chicks should be brought in to me[23].”
The Goose Tree is also figured by de l’Obel and d’Aléchamps, but it is
refreshing to find that Colonna in his ‘Phytobasanos’ (1592) flatly
denies the truth of the legend.
The importance of Gerard’s ‘Herball’ in the history of botany is
chiefly due to an improved edition, brought out by Thomas Johnson
in 1633, thirty-six years after the work was originally published.
Johnson was an apothecary in London, and cultivated a physic garden on
Snow Hill. His first botanical work was a short account of the plants
collected by members of the Apothecaries’ Company on an excursion in
Kent. This is of interest as being the earliest memoir of the kind
published in England. Later on, descriptions of botanical tours in the
west of England, and in Wales, appeared from his pen. But it is as the
editor of Gerard that he is chiefly remembered. He greatly enlarged
the ‘Herball,’ and illustrated it with Plantin’s wood-cuts. His
edition contained an account of no less than 2850 plants. Johnson also
corrected numerous errors, and the whole work, transformed by him, rose
to a much higher grade of value. It was reprinted, without alteration,
in 1636.
When the Civil Wars broke out, Johnson, who is said to have been a man
of great personal courage, joined the Royalists. He took an active part
in the defence of Basing House, and received a shot wound during the
siege, from which he died.
John Parkinson (1567-1650) may be regarded as the last British
herbalist, of the period we are considering, whose work was of any
great interest from the botanical point of view. His portrait is shown
in Plate XIII. Like Gerard and Johnson, he cultivated a famous garden
in London. In these days of bricks and mortar, it is hard to realise
that gardens of such importance flourished in Holborn, Snow Hill, and
Long Acre respectively. Another important London garden of the period
was that at Lambeth, belonging to John Tradescant, gardener to Charles
I.
Parkinson became apothecary to James I and botanist to Charles I. The
earlier of the two books, by which he is remembered, was rather of
the nature of a gardening work than of a herbal. It appeared in 1629
under the title, ‘Paradisi in Sole Paradisus Terrestris. A Garden
of all sorts of pleasant flowers which our English ayre will permitt
to be noursed up ... together With the right orderinge planting and
preserving of them and their uses and vertues.’ It has lately become
accessible in the form of a facsimile reprint. The words “Paradisi in
Sole” form a pun upon the author’s name, and may be translated “Of
park-in-sun.” The book was dedicated to Queen Henrietta Maria, with the
prayer that she will accept “this speaking Garden.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 55. “Barberry” = _Berberis_ [Part of a large
wood-cut, Parkinson, Paradisus Terrestris, 1629].]
The preface to this work is entirely at variance with the idea that
scientific knowledge has only been gradually acquired by the human
race. In Parkinson’s words:—“God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, at
the beginning when he created _Adam_, inspired him with the knowledge
of all naturall things (which successively descended to _Noah_
afterwardes, and to his Posterity): for, as he was able to give names
to all the living Creatures, according to their severall natures; so no
doubt but hee had also the knowledge, both what Herbes and Fruits
were fit, eyther for Meate or Medicine, for Use or for Delight.”
[Illustration: _Plate XIII_
JOHN PARKINSON (1567-1650).
[Theatrum botanicum, 1640.]]
Elaborate directions for the planting and treatment of a garden precede
an account of a large number of plants cultivated at that time, with
some mention of their uses. The book is illustrated with full-page wood
engravings of no great merit, in each of which a number of different
plants are represented (Text-fig. 55 is taken from part of one
illustration). The figures are partly original and partly copied from
the books of de l’Écluse, de l’Obel and others.
In 1640, Parkinson followed up this work with a much larger volume,
dealing with plants in general, and called the ‘Theatrum botanicum:
The Theater of Plants. Or, an Herball of a Large Extent.’ He complains
that the publication of the work has been delayed, partly through
the “disastrous times,” but chiefly through the machinations of
“wretched and perverse men.” According to the preface to the ‘Paradisus
Terrestris,’ the author’s original idea was merely to supplement
his description of the Flower Garden by an account of “A Garden of
Simples.” This scheme grew into one of a more extensive and general
nature, but without losing the predominant medical interest, which
would have characterised the work as originally planned. In accordance
with this intention, the virtues of the herbs are dealt with in great
detail.
Parkinson’s herbal is in some ways an improvement on that of Johnson
and Gerard. Almost the whole of Bauhin’s ‘Pinax’ is incorporated, with
the result that the account of the nomenclature of each plant becomes
very full and detailed. Many of de l’Obel’s manuscript notes are also
inserted. The scheme of classification adopted is, however, markedly
inferior to that of de l’Obel.
Occasionally, in spite of his comparatively late date, Parkinson
displays an imagination that is truly mediæval. He is eloquent on the
subject of that rare and precious commodity, the horn of the Unicorn,
which is a cure for many bodily ills. He describes the animal as living
“farre remote from these parts, and in huge vast Wildernesses among
other most fierce and wilde beasts.” He discusses, also, the use of the
powder of mummies as a medicine, and his description is enlivened with
a picture of an embalmed corpse.
The illustrations to the Theatrum Botanicum are of no importance, being
chiefly copied from those of Gerard.
The great British botanists who follow next upon Parkinson, in point
of time, are Robert Morison (b. 1620) and John Ray (b. 1627), but as
their chief works appeared after the close of the period selected for
special study in this book (1470-1670), and as they were botanists
in the modern sense, rather than herbalists, we will not attempt any
discussion of their writings.
While Morison and Ray were advancing the subject of Systematic Botany,
Nehemiah Grew and the Italian, Marcello Malpighi, born respectively
in 1641 and 1628, were laying the foundations of the science of Plant
Anatomy. Their work, also, is outside the scope of the present book,
and it is only mentioned at this point in order to show that the latter
part of the seventeenth century witnessed a considerable revolution
in the science. From this period onwards, with the opening up of new
lines of inquiry, the importance of the herbal steadily declined, and
though books which come under this heading were produced even in the
nineteenth century, the day of their pre-eminence was over.
7. THE REVIVAL OF ARISTOTELIAN BOTANY.
The subject of Aristotelian botany scarcely comes within the scope of a
book on Herbals, but, at the same time, it cannot be sharply separated
from the botany of the herbalists. It therefore seems desirable to
make a brief reference at this point to its chief sixteenth-century
exponent, the Italian savant, Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603), and to
one or two other writers whose point of view was similar. We have
already shown that, in the Middle Ages, Albertus Magnus carried on
the tradition of Aristotle and Theophrastus. At the time of the
Renaissance, there was again a revival of this aspect of the study,
as well as of the branch with which we are here more immediately
concerned, that, namely, which deals with plants from the standpoint
of medicine and natural history. Cesalpino (Plate XIV), it is true,
was largely concerned, like the herbalists, with the mere description
of plants, but the fame of his great work, ‘De plantis libri XVI’
(1583), rests upon the first book, which contains an account of the
theory of botany on Aristotelian lines.
[Illustration: _Plate XIV_
ANDREA CESALPINO (1519-1603).
[Drawn by G. Zocchi and engraved by F. Allegrini, 1765, after an old
portrait in the Museum of the Botanic Garden at Pisa. Print in the
Botany School, Cambridge.]]
Cesalpino’s strength lay in the fact that he took a remarkably broad
view of the subject, and approached it as a trained thinker. He had
learned the best lesson Greek thought had to offer to the scientific
worker—the knowledge of _how_ to think. He had, however, the defects
of his qualities, and his reverence for the classics led him into an
inelastic and over literal acceptance of Aristotelian conceptions.
The chief tangible contribution, which Cesalpino made to botanical
science, was his insistence on the prime importance of the organs of
fructification. This was the idea on which he chiefly laid stress in
his system of classification, to which we shall return in a later
chapter.
A botanist who had something in common with Cesalpino was the Bohemian
author, Adam Zaluziansky von Zaluzian (1558-1613). His most important
work was the ‘Methodi herbariæ libri tres,’ published at Prague in
1592. As a herbal it does not rank high, since Zaluziansky neither
recorded any new plants, nor gave the Bohemian localities for those
already known. But it opens with a survey of botany in general,
which is of interest as showing an approach to the modern scientific
standpoint, in so far as the author pleads for the treatment of botany
as a separate subject, and not as a mere branch of medicine. His
remarks on this point may be translated as follows:—“It is customary
to connect Medicine with Botany, yet scientific treatment demands that
we should consider each separately. For the fact is that in every art,
theory must be disconnected and separated from practice, and the two
must be dealt with singly and individually in their proper order before
they are united. And for that reason, in order that Botany (which is,
as it were, a special branch of Physics) may form a unit by itself
before it can be brought into connection with other sciences, it must
be divided and unyoked from Medicine.”
Guy de la Brosse, a French writer of the seventeenth century,
discusses the souls of plants and related topics, quite in the manner
of the Aristotelian school. In his book ‘De la Nature, Vertu, et
Utilité des Plantes,’ dedicated to “Monseigneur le tres-illustre et le
tres-reverand Cardinal Monseigneur le Cardinal de Richelieu,” he treats
of variation within single species, the sensitiveness of plants, their
chemistry and properties, and many other topics. His work is full of
interest, but a discussion of it would lead us beyond the bounds of our
present subject.
CHAPTER V
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ART OF PLANT DESCRIPTION
Probably one of the chief objects, which the early herbalists had in
view in writing their books, was to enable the reader to identify
various medicinal plants. Nevertheless, until well into the sixteenth
century, their drawings were so conventional, and their descriptions
left so much to be desired, that it must have been an almost impossible
task to arrive at the names of plants by their aid alone. The idea
which suggests itself is that a knowledge of the actual plants was, in
practice, transmitted by word of mouth, and that the herbals were only
used as reference books, to ascertain the reputed qualities of herbs,
with whose appearance the reader was already quite familiar. If this
supposition is correct, it perhaps accounts for the very primitive
state in which the art of plant description remained during the earlier
period of the botanical renaissance.
When we turn to the Aristotelian school, we find that the writings
of Theophrastus include certain plant descriptions, which, although
they seem somewhat rudimentary when judged by modern standards, are
greatly in advance of those contained in the first printed herbals.
The mediæval philosopher, Albertus Magnus, who, as we have already
pointed out, was a follower of Aristotle and Theophrastus, also showed
marked originality in his descriptions of flowers, and drew attention
to a number of points which appear to have escaped the notice of
many more recent writers. For instance, in describing the flower of
the Borage he distinguished the green calyx, the corolla with its
ligular outgrowths, the five stamens and the central pistil, though
naturally he failed to understand the function of the latter organs.
He observed that, in the Lily, the calyx was absent, but that the
petals themselves showed transitions from green to white. He noticed
the early fall of the calyx in the Poppy, and its persistence until the
ripening of the fruit in the Rose. On the subject of floral æstivation,
his observations were surprisingly advanced. He pointed out that the
successive whorls of sepals and petals alternated with one another,
and concluded that this was a device for the better protection of the
flower.
Albertus further classified the various forms of flower under three
types:—
1. Bird-form (e.g. _Aquilegia_, _Viola_ and _Lamium_).
2. Pyramid- and Bell-form.
3. Star-form.
When we leave the early Aristotelian botanists, and turn to those who
studied the subject primarily from the medical point of view, we find
a great falling off in the power of description. The accounts of the
plants in the Materia Medica of Dioscorides, for example, are so brief
and meagre that only those with the most marked characteristics can be
identified with certainty.
The Herbarium of Apuleius Platonicus, the earliest work to which the
term “herbal” is generally applied, scarcely makes any attempt at
describing the plants to which it refers. Such a paragraph as the
following[24] gives an account of a plant, which, compared with most of
the other descriptions in the herbal, may fairly be called precise and
full.
“This wort, which is named radiolus, by another name everfern, is like
fern; and it is produced in stony places, and in old house steads; and
it has on each leaf two rows of fair spots, and they shine like gold.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 56. “Cardamomum” = ? _Solanum dulcamara_ L.,
Bittersweet [Ortus Sanitatis, Mainz, 1491].]
The group of late fifteenth-century herbals which we discussed in
Chapter II—the Latin and German Herbarius and the Hortus Sanitatis—are
alike in giving very brief and inadequate accounts of the characters
of the plants enumerated, although their descriptions often have
a certain naïve charm. It is scarcely worth while to give actual
examples of their methods. It will perhaps suffice to quote a few
specimens from the English ‘Grete Herball[25],’ which is a work of
much the same class. The Wood Sorrel[26] is dealt with as follows:
“This herbe groweth in thre places, and specyally in hedges, woodes
and under walles sydes and hath leves lyke iii leved grasse and hath a
soure smell as sorell, and hath a yelowe flowre.” As another example
we may cite the Chicory, which is described as having “croked and
wrythen stalkes, and the floure is of y^e colour of the skye.” Of the
Waterlilies, we receive a still more generalised account: “Nenufar
is an herbe that groweth in water, and hath large leves and hath a
floure in maner of a rose, the rote thereof is called treumyan and is
very bygge. It is of two maners. One is whyte, and another yelowe.”
Occasionally we meet with a hint of more detailed observation. For
instance, the coloured central flower in the umbel of the Carrot is
mentioned, though in terms that sound somewhat strange to the modern
botanist. We read that it “hath a large floure and in the myddle therof
a lytell reed prycke.”
It is somewhat remarkable that Banckes’ Herbal, though originally
published a year earlier than the first edition of the Grete Herball,
shows a slight but distinct superiority in the matter of description
(see p. 38). Perhaps this is to be connected with the fact that
Banckes’ Herbal is without illustrations. But even if we allow that
the descriptions in Banckes’ Herbal occasionally seize on salient
features, it must be admitted that they still leave a great deal to the
imagination. As two typical examples, which are perhaps as good as any
in the book, we may take those of Tutsan[27] and of Shepherd’s Purse.
Of the first the herbalist writes, “This herbe hathe leves somdele reed
lyke unto ye leves of Orage. And this herbe hathe senowes on his leves
as hath Plantayne, and it hathe yelowe floures and bereth blacke berys,
and it groweth in dry woodes.” Of Shepherd’s Purse he says, “This herbe
hathe a small stalke and full of braunches and ragged leves and a whyte
flowre. The coddes therof be lyke a purse.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 57. “Pionia” = Peony [Arnaldus de Villa Nova,
Tractatus de virtutibus herbarum, 1499].]
The ‘Herbarum vivæ eicones’ of Otto Brunfels (1530) was the first
herbal illustrated with drawings, which are throughout both beautiful
and true to nature. The descriptions, on the other hand, are quite
unworthy of the figures, being mostly borrowed from earlier writers.
The wonderful excellence of the wood-blocks, with which the German
Fathers of Botany enriched their books, was, in one sense, an actual
hindrance to the development of the art of plant description. Since
the pencil of the draughtsman could represent every subtlety in the
characteristic form of a plant, the botanist might well be excused
for thinking that to take the trouble to set beside the drawing a
precise, verbal description of the plant in question was a work of
supererogation. However, in another sense the draughtsman indirectly
helped the cause of scientific accuracy in what, for want of a better
expression, may be called word-painting. There is no doubt that
constant critical examination of the artist’s work must have tended to
educate the eye of the botanist who supervised his efforts, and to
increase his perception of delicate shades of difference or similarity
of form, which he might never have noticed, or attempted to express in
words, if the draughtsman had not, as it were, lent him his trained
eyesight.
The next great worker, Hieronymus Bock, differs from Brunfels in the
comparative unimportance of his contributions to plant illustration,
and the relatively greater value of his text. His descriptions of
flowers and fruits are excellent, and the way in which he indicates
the general habit is often masterly. As an example we may quote his
description of Mistletoe plants, which may be translated as follows:
“They grow almost in the shape of a cluster, with many forks and
articulations. The whole plant is light green, the leaves are fleshy,
plump and thick, larger than those of the Box. They flower in the
beginning of spring, the flowers are however very small and yellow in
colour, from them develop, towards autumn, small, round white berries
very like those on the wild gooseberry. These berries are full inside
of white tough lime, yet each berry has its small black grain, as if
it were the seed, which however does not grow when sown, for, as I
have said above, the Mistletoe only originates and develops on trees.
In winter mistel thrushes seek their food from the Mistletoe, but in
summer they are caught with it, for bird-lime is commonly made from its
bark. Thus the Mistletoes are both beneficial and harmful to birds.”
In ‘De historia stirpium,’ the great Latin work of Leonhard Fuchs, the
plant descriptions are brief and of little importance, being frequently
taken word for word from previous writers. This book, however, is
notable in possessing a full glossary of the technical terms used,
which is of importance as being the first contribution of the kind to
botanical literature. We may translate two examples at random, to show
the style of Fuchs’ definitions:—
“_Stamens_ are the points [apices] that shoot forth in the middle of
the flower-cup [calyx]: so called because they spring out like threads
from the inmost bosom of the flower[28].”
“_Pappus_, both to the Greeks and to the Latins, is the fluff which
falls from flowers or fruits. So also certain woolly hairs which
remain on certain plants when they lose their flowers, and afterwards
disappear into the air, are pappi, as happens in Senecio, Sonchus and
several others.”
In the German edition of Fuchs’ herbal, the descriptions are remarkably
good for their time, being more methodical than those of Bock, though
sometimes less lively and picturesque. As an instance of his manner we
may cite his account of the Butterbur, of which his wood-cut is shown
in Text-fig. 58. “The flower of Butterbur,” he writes, “is the first to
appear, before the plant or leaves. The flower is cluster-shaped, with
many small, pale pinkish flowerets, and is like a fine bunch of vine
flowers in full bloom to look at. This large cluster-shaped flower has
a hollow stalk, at times a span high; it withers and decays without
fruit together with the stalk. Then the round, gray, ash-coloured
leaves appear, which are at first like Coltsfoot, but afterwards become
so large that one leaf will cover a small, round table. They are light
green on one side, and whitish or gray on the other. Each leaf has its
own brown, hairy and hollow stem, on which it sits like a wide hat or
a mushroom turned over. The root grows very thick, is white and porous
inside, and has a strong, bitter taste.”
Our English herbalist, William Turner, is often fresh and effective
in his descriptions. He compares the Dodder (_Cuscuta_) to “a great
red harpe strynge,” and the seed vessels of Shepherd’s Purse to “a
boyes satchel or litle bagge.” Of the Dead Nettle he says, “Lamium
hath leaves like unto a Nettel, but lesse indented about, and whyter.
The downy thynges that are in it like pryckes, byte not, ye stalk is
four-square, the floures are whyte, and have a stronge savor, and are
very like unto litle coules, or hoodes that stand over bare heades. The
sede is blak and groweth about the stalk, certayn places goyng betwene,
as we se in horehound.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 58. “Petasites” = Butterbur [Fuchs, De
historia stirpium, 1542]. _Reduced._]
The three great botanists of the Low Countries, Dodoens, de l’Écluse
and de l’Obel, were so closely associated that it is hardly necessary
to consider their style of plant description individually. Henry
Lyte’s well-known herbal of 1578 was a translation of the ‘Histoire
des Plantes,’ which is itself a version by de l’Écluse of the Dutch
herbal of Dodoens. We may thus fairly illustrate the style of plant
description of this school by a quotation from Lyte, since it has the
advantage of retaining the sixteenth-century flavour, which is so
easily lost in a modern translation. As a typical example we may take a
paragraph about the Storksbill (_Erodium_). It will be noticed that it
does not represent any great advance upon Fuchs’ work.
“The first kinde of Geranion or Storckes bill, his leaves are cut and
iagged in many peeces, like to Crowfoote, his stalkes be slender, and
parted into sundry braunches, upon which groweth smal floures somwhat
like roses, or the floures of Mallowes, of a light murrey or redde
colour: after them commeth little round heades, with smal long billes,
like Nedels, or like the beakes of Cranes and Hearons, wherein the
seede is contayned: The roote is thicke, round, shorte, and knobby,
with certayne small strings hanging by it.”
In his ‘Pemptades’ of 1583, Dodoens gave a glossary of botanical terms.
His definitions suffer, however, from vagueness, and are not calculated
greatly to advance the accurate description of plants. As an example we
may take his account of the flower, which may be translated as follows:—
“The flower (ἄνθος) we call the joy of trees and plants. It is the hope
of fruits to come, for every growing thing, according to its nature,
produces offspring and fruit after the flower. But flowers have their
own special parts.”
The descriptions from the pen of de l’Écluse are characterised by
greater fulness and closer attention to flower structure than those
of his predecessors. The plant which he calls _Sedum_ or _Sempervivum
majus_, of which his wood-cut is reproduced in Text-fig. 59, is
described as being “a shrub rather than a herb; occasionally it reaches
the height of two cubits [3 ft.] and is as thick as the human arm,
with a quantity of twigs as thick as a man’s thumb: these spread out
into numerous rays of the thickness of a finger. The ends of these
terminate in a kind of circle, which is formed by numerous leaves
pressing inwards all together and overlapping, just as in _Sedum
vulgare majus_. These leaves however are fat and full of juice, and
shaped like a tongue, and slightly serrated round the edge, with a
somewhat astringent flavour; the whole shrub is coated with a thick,
fleshy, sappy bark. The outer membrane inclines to a dark colour, and
is speckled as in _Tithymalus characia_: the speckles are simply the
remains of leaves which have fallen off. Meanwhile a thick pedicel
covered with leaves springs out from the top of the larger branches,
and bears, so to speak, a thyrsus of many yellow flowers, scattered
about like stars, pleasant to behold. And when the flowers begin to
ripen, and are running to seed (the seed is very small), the pedicel
grows slender. But the plant is an evergreen.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 59. “Sedum majus” [de l’Écluse, Rariorum ... per
Hispanias, 1576].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 60. “Battata Virginiana” = _Solanum tuberosum_
L., Potato [Gerard, The Herball, 1597].]
In Gerard’s ‘Herball’ of 1597 the descriptions are seldom sufficiently
original to be of much interest. We may quote, however, his account of
the Potato flower (Text-fig. 60), then so great a novelty that in his
portrait (Plate XII) he is represented holding a spray of it in his
hand. It has, he says, “very faire and pleasant flowers, made of one
entire whole leafe, which is folded or plaited in such strange sort,
that it seemeth to be a flower made of sixe sundrie small leaves, which
cannot be easily perceived, except the same be pulled open. The colour
whereof it is hard to expresse. The whole flower is of a light purple
color, stripped down the middle of every folde or welt, with a light
shew of yellownes, as though purple and yellow were mixed togither: in
the middle of the flower thrusteth foorth a thicke fat pointell, yellow
as golde, with a small sharpe greene pricke or point in the middest
thereof.”
The plant descriptions by Valerius Cordus, which were published after
his death, are among the best produced in the sixteenth century, but
they are too lengthy for quotation here.
So far as the period with which we deal in this book is concerned,
the zenith of plant description may be said to be reached in the
‘Prodromos’ of Gaspard Bauhin (1620), in which a high level of
terseness and accuracy is attained. As an example we may translate his
description of “_Beta Cretica semine aculeato_,” of which his drawing
is reproduced in Text-fig. 62: “From a short tapering root, by no means
fibrous, spring several stalks about 18 inches long: they straggle
over the ground, and are cylindrical in shape and furrowed, becoming
gradually white near the root with a slight coating of down, and
spreading out into little sprays. The plant has but few leaves, similar
to those of _Beta nigra_, except that they are smaller, and supplied
with long petioles. The flowers are small, and of a greenish yellow.
The fruits one can see growing in large numbers close by the root, and
from that point they spread along the stalk, at almost every leaf. They
are rough and tubercled and separate into three reflexed points. In
their cavity, one grain of the shape of an _Adonis_ seed is contained;
it is slightly rounded and ends in a point, and is covered with a
double layer of reddish membrane, the inner one enclosing a white,
farinaceous core.”
[Illustration: Text-fig. 61. “Rose Ribwoorte” = an abnormal Plantain
[Gerard, The Herball, 1597].]
[Illustration: Text-fig. 62. “Beta Cretica semine aculeato” [Bauhin,
Prodromos, 1620].]
Any great advance on Bauhin’s descriptions could hardly be expected
during the period which we are discussing, since it closed before the
nature of the essential parts of the flower was really understood. It
was not until 1682 that the fact that the stamens are male organs was
pointed out in print by Nehemiah Grew, though he himself attributed
this discovery to Sir Thomas Millington, a botanist otherwise unknown.
Gerard’s account of the stamens and stigma of the Potato as a
“pointell, yellow as golde, with a small sharpe greene pricke or point
in the middest thereof,” vague as it seems to the twentieth-century
botanist, is by no means to be despised, when we remember that the
writer was handicapped by complete ignorance of the function of the
structures which he saw before him.
A further hindrance to improvement in plant description was the lack
of a methodical terminology. As we have already shown, both Fuchs and
Dodoens attempted glossaries of botanical terms, but these do not
seem to have become an integral part of the science. It is a common
complaint among non-botanists at the present day, that the subject has
become incomprehensible to the layman, owing to the excessive use of
technical words. There is, no doubt, some truth in this statement, but,
on the other hand, a study of the writings of the earlier botanists
makes it clear that a description of a plant couched in ordinary
language—in which the botanical meaning of the terms employed has been
subjected to no rigid definition—often breaks down completely on all
critical points.
It is to Joachim Jung and to Linnæus that we owe the foundations of the
accurate terminology, now at the disposal of the botanist when he sets
out to describe a new plant. The published work of these two writers
belongs, however, to the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and
is thus outside the scope of the present volume.