That I might be able to investigate whether our artichoke was known
to the ancients, I have not only collected a variety of scattered
passages, compared them with one another and with nature, and laboured
through a tedious multitude of contradictions and a confusion of
names, but I have also been obliged to examine a load of groundless
conjectures, heaped together by commentators[596], in order that I
might understand them and ascertain their value. By these means I have
learned more than seems hitherto to have been known; and I have found
that more is believed than can be proved; but that the fruits of my
toil will give complete satisfaction to my readers, I do not pretend to
hope. Before the botany, however, and the natural history in general of
the ancients can be properly elucidated, before truth can be separated
from falsehood, what is certain from what is uncertain, and things
defined from those which are undefined, researches of this kind must be
undertaken, and the same method as that which I have followed must be
adopted.
The names of plants in ancient authors which have been applied to our
artichoke, are the following: _Cinara_, _Carduus_, _Scolymus_, and
_Cactus_.
The _Cinara_, which is originally a Greek word, belonged certainly
to the thistle species; and the description of its top, as given by
Columella[597], seems, as has already been remarked by Nonnius[598] and
others, to agree perfectly with that of our artichoke. The _cinara_
was commonly furnished with prickles, but that was preferred which
had lost them by cultivation, and for which means were prescribed
that did not produce the desired effect[599]. It was raised from seed
sown in spring, but was propagated also from slips or shoots which in
Italy were planted in autumn, that they might bear earlier the next
summer[600]. The direction given to water these plants frequently, is
still followed by our gardeners in respect to their artichokes, and
they expect from this attention that the fruit will be more abundant
and tender. By this method many give to their artichokes a superiority
which others that have not been watered so carefully cannot attain. A
complaint, which occurs in ancient authors, is also prevalent, that the
roots are often destroyed by mice. I do not, however, find it remarked
what part of the _cinara_ was properly used, but it may be conjectured
it was the top, because the tender fruit is praised[601].
_Carduus_, among the Romans, was the common name of all plants of the
thistle kind. It occurs among those of weeds[602], and may be then
properly translated by the word _thistle_. It, however, often signified
an eatable thistle; and this has given Pliny occasion to make use of an
insipid piece of raillery, when he says that luxury prepared as food
for man what would not be eaten by cattle.
It is an old and common fault, that when the Greek and Roman authors
have not given us such descriptions of natural objects as are
sufficient to enable us to ascertain exactly what they are, we suppose
that they have been known under different names, and a variety of
characteristics are drawn together to enable us to determine them.
What, for example, we find respecting the _cinara_ is too little to
give a just idea of the plant; we read somewhat more of the _carduus_;
and because between these there seems to be an affinity, it is
concluded that the _cinara_ and the _carduus_ were the same plant; and
everything told us respecting both of them is thrown into one. Some
even go further, and add what they find under a third or a fourth name.
It is indeed true, that many natural objects have had several names,
and the species may sometimes be rightly guessed; but conjecture ought
never to be admitted unless the identity can be fully established;
else one may form such a monstrous production as Horace has delineated,
when he says,
Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam
Jungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas,
Undique collatis membris--
I wish commentators would follow the example of our naturalists, who
consider a plant as a distinct species until it has been proved on
sure grounds that it is nothing else than a variety of a plant already
characterized. I should not therefore affirm that the _cinara_ and
the _carduus_ are the same, were I not able to produce the following
incontestable proofs in support of my assertion.
In the first place, the Latins, Palladius and Pliny, give us the same
account of the _carduus_ that Columella and the Greeks do of the
_cinara_. The former lost its prickles through cultivation[603]; its
flowers were also of a purple colour[604]; it was propagated by seed
and by shoots; it required frequent watering; and it was remarked that
it throve better when the earth was mixed with ashes. Had not the
_carduus_ and the _cinara_ been the same, Palladius and Pliny would
have mentioned the latter; for we cannot suppose that they otherwise
would have omitted a plant that formed a dish so much esteemed and
so well-known among their countrymen. The latter claims to himself
the merit of having passed over no one that was held in estimation.
In the second place, Virgil has translated the word _cynaros_ in a
part of Sophocles now lost, by _carduus_[605]; thirdly, Athenæus says
expressly, that the _cinara_ was by the Latins named _cardus_ and
_carduus_[606]; and, lastly, the old glossaries explain _cinara_ by
_carduus_, as we are told by Salmasius. On these grounds, therefore, I
am of opinion that the _cinara_ and the _carduus_ were the same.
We are informed by Apicius[607] and Pliny[608] in what manner the
_carduus_ was dressed by the ancient cooks. The latter gives directions
for pickling it in vinegar; but neither of them tells us what part of
it was eaten. Lister thinks that Apicius speaks of the tops of the
young shoots, which, as far as I know, are parts of the artichoke never
eaten at present. It is, however, worthy of remark, that the tops
(_turiones_) of certain kinds of the thistle family of plants, and
among these the common burr[609], are in some countries dressed and
eaten like asparagus. It is not improbable also that Pliny and Apicius
may have meant the ribs of the leaves; though none of the ancients has
taught us the art of binding up, covering with earth, and blanching
the _cinara_ or _carduus_. This, perhaps, was a new invention of the
gardeners; and the cooks may have had other methods of rendering the
ribs of the leaves tender and eatable. Had they meant the bottom of the
calyx, they would not have omitted to give a circumstantial account of
the preparation previous to its being pickled.
The _Scolymus_ is by Pliny and Theophrastus reckoned to belong to the
genus of the thistles. The former says, that, like most others of
the same kind, the seeds were covered by a sort of wool (_pappus_).
It had a high stem, surrounded with leaves, which were prickly, but
which ceased to sting when the plant withered[610]. It flowered the
whole summer through, and had often flowers and ripe seed at the same
time; which is the case also with our artichoke plants. The calyx
of the _scolymus_ was not prickly[611]; the root was thick, black
and sweet, and contained a milky juice. It was eaten both raw and
cooked; and Theophrastus observes, as something very remarkable, that
when the plant was in flower, or, as others explain the words, when
it had finished blowing, it was most palatable. What renders this
circumstance singular is, that most milky roots used for food lose
their milk and become unfit to be eaten as soon as they have blown.
This is the case with the goat’s beard, which is eatable only the first
year.
The _scolymus_ however is not the only plant which forms an exception;
for the garden Scorzonera retains its milk, and continues eatable after
it has bloomed, and as long as it has milk it may be used. According
to Theophrastus and Pliny, the roots of the _scolymus_ are eatable. On
the other hand, Dioscorides says that the roots were not eaten, but the
young leaves only: as he informs us, however, that they were dressed
like asparagus, it would appear that he meant the young shoots[612].
Theophrastus expressly tells us, that, besides the roots, the flowers
also were used as food; and he calls that which was eatable the pulpy
part. We have, therefore, full proof that the ancients ate the tops of
some plants in the same manner as we eat our artichokes.
It may however be asked, what kind of a plant was the _scolymus_?
That it was different from the _cinara_ is undoubtedly certain; for
Dioscorides[613] expressly distinguishes them; nor was it the eatable
_carduus_, for Pliny compares it with the _carduus_, and says that it
was characterized from the latter by having roots fit to be eaten.
Stapel is of opinion that the _scolymus_ is our artichoke; but this
seems to me improbable, for the leaves and roots of the latter are not
sweet, but harsh and bitter, and the calyx is prickly, which was not
the case in the _scolymus_ of Theophrastus. Besides, I find nothing
in the whole description of the _scolymus_ or in the accounts given
us by the ancients of the _cinara_ and _carduus_, that can be applied
to our artichoke alone, and not to any other plant. It may be here
replied, that it would be very difficult to ascertain plants from the
names of the ancients, were such strong proofs required, because they
had not the art of separating the different genera correctly, and of
assigning to each certain characterizing marks. This I allow; and for
that reason it is impossible to elucidate properly the Greek and Latin
names of plants; but, in my opinion, it is better to confess this
impossibility, than to deceive oneself with distant probabilities. Let
the genus be ascertained when one cannot ascertain the species; let
the order to which the plant belongs be determined when one cannot
determine the genus; or, at least, let the class be assigned when
there is sufficient authority to do so. The _cinara_, _carduus_ and
_scolymus_ were therefore species of the thistle, of which the roots
and young shoots, and also the bottom of the calyx of the last, were
eaten. Were I appointed or condemned to form a new Latin dictionary, I
should explain the article _Scolymus_ in the following manner:--Planta
composita, capitata. Caulis longus, obsitus foliis spinosis. Radix
carnosa, lactescens, nigra, dulcis, edulis. Calyx squamis inermibus,
disco carnoso, ante efflorescentiam eduli. Semina papposa. Turiones
edules. This description, short as it is, contains every thing that
the ancients have said in order to characterize that plant. It can,
indeed, be understood only by those who are acquainted with the terms
of botany; but what follows will require no explanation or defining of
botanical names.
Should it be said that the _scolymus_ must be our artichoke because no
other plant of the thistle kind is known the bottom of the calyx of
which is eatable, I would in answer observe:--First, other species may
have been known in ancient times, which perhaps have been disused and
forgotten since the more pleasant and delicious artichoke became known.
It is certain that many old plants have in this manner been banished
from our gardens by the introduction of new ones. Thus have common
alexanders (_Smyrnium olusatrum_) fallen into neglect since celery was
made known by the Italians, about the end of the seventeenth century;
and so at present has the cultivation of winter-cresses (_Erysimum
barbarea_), bulbous-rooted chærophyllum (_Chærophyllum bulbosum_),
rocket (_Brassica eruca_), and others, been abandoned since better
vegetables have been obtained to supply their place. Secondly, it is
certain that, even at present, the bottom of the calyx of some others
of the thistle-kind, besides the genus of the artichoke, is eaten; such
as the cotton-thistle (_Onopordum acanthium_), and the carline thistle
(_Carlina acaulis_), without mentioning the sun-flowers which has been
brought to us in modern times from South America.
Without engaging to examine all the hypotheses of commentators
and ancient botanists on this subject, I shall take notice of one
conjecture, which, upon mature consideration, appears to have some
probability. Clusius[614] is of opinion that the plant called by the
botanists of the seventeenth century _Carduus chrysanthemus_, and by
those of the present age _Scolymus hispanicus_, the golden thistle,
is the _scolymus_ of Theophrastus; because its leaves, beset with
white prickles, and its pulpy, sweet, milky roots are eaten, and
excel in taste all roots whatever, even those of skirret; and because
it was collected and sold in Spain, Italy, and Greece. But what has
principally attracted my attention to this conjecture, is the account
of Bellon[615], that this plant in Crete or Candia is called still by
the Greeks there _ascolymbros_. This name seems to have arisen from
_scolymos_; and besides Stapel[616] found in an old glossary the word
_ascolymbros_. I am likewise convinced that, as Tournefort[617] has
said, the botany of the ancients would be much illustrated and rendered
more certain, were the names used by the modern Greeks known. It is
certain that many old names have been preserved till the present time
with little variation; but nevertheless I can as little admit the
assertion of Clusius as that of Stapel; for _Scolymus hispanicus_ has
neither the bottom of the calyx pulpy, nor wool adhering to the seeds,
like the _scolymus_ of Theophrastus; and the young roots only can be
eaten, because, like those of most plants of the genus of the thistle,
they lose their milk when the flower is in bloom; lastly, the leaves
retain their power of pricking, even after they have become withered.
The fourth name which, with any kind of probability, has been
translated by the word artichoke is _cactus_. This plant, which, in the
time of Theophrastus and Pliny, grew only in Sicily and not in Greece,
had broad prickly leaves[618]; the flower was filled with a kind of
wool, which, when eaten inadvertently, was pernicious[619]; the calyx
was prickly: and, besides a long stem, it shot forth branches which
crept along the ground[620], and which, when the outer rind had been
peeled off, were eaten either fresh, or pickled in salt water[621].
The bottom of the calyx of this plant was likewise used, after it had
been freed from its seeds and woolly substance[622]. It had a great
resemblance to the pith of the palm-tree[623].
That the _cactus_ was different from the _scolymus_ we are expressly
told by Theophrastus; and Pliny also distinguishes them both from each
other and from the _carduus_. Athenæus[624] is the only author who says
that the _cactus_ and the _cinara_ were the same; but he gives no other
proof than a very simple etymology. It must therefore be admitted that
the _cactus_ was a species of the thistle kind entirely different from
any of the former.
I think I have proved, therefore, that the Greeks and the Romans used
the pulpy bottom of the calyx, and the most tender stalks and young
shoots of some plants reckoned to belong to the thistle kind, in the
same manner as we use artichokes and cardoons; and that the latter
were unknown to them. It appears to me probable that the use of these
plants, at least in Italy and Europe in general, was in the course of
time laid aside and forgotten, and that the artichoke, when it was
first brought to Italy from the Levant, was considered as a new species
of food. It is undoubtedly certain that our artichoke was first known
in that country in the fifteenth century. Hermolaus Barbarus, who died
in 1494, relates that this plant was first seen at Venice in a garden
in 1473, at which time it was very scarce[625]. About the year 1466,
one of the family of Strozzi brought the first artichokes to Florence
from Naples[626]. Politian, in a letter in which he describes the
dishes he found at a grand entertainment in Italy in 1488, among these
mentions artichokes[627]. They were introduced into France in the
beginning of the sixteenth century[628]; and into England in the reign
of Henry the Eighth[629].
Respecting the origin of the name various conjectures have been
formed, none of which, in my opinion, are founded even on probability.
Hermolaus Barbarus, Henry Stephen, Ruellius, Heresbach, and others
think that _artichoke_ or _artichaut_, as it is called by the French,
and _arciocco_ by the Italians, is derived from the Greek word
_coccalus_, which signifies a fircone, with the Arabic article _al_
prefixed, from which was formed _alcocalon_, and afterwards the name
now used[630]. This etymology is contradicted by Salmasius[631],
who denies that _coccalus_ had ever that signification. He remarks
also that artichokes were by the Arabs called _harsaf_, _harxaf_, or
_harchiaf_; and he seems not disinclined to derive the name from these
appellations[632]. Grotius, Bodæus, and some others, derive it from a
Greek word[633], which occurs in Alexander Trallianus, and which is
supposed to signify our plant; but that word is to be found in this
author alone, and in him only once; so that the idea of these critics
appears to me very improbable. Frisch affirms, in his dictionary,
that our modern name is formed from _carduus_ and _scolymus_ united.
Ihre[634] considers the first part of the name as the German word
_erde_ (the earth), because it is often pronounced _erdschoke_; but
I rather think that the Germans changed the foreign word _arti_ into
the word _erde_, which was known to them, in the same manner as of
_tartuffolo_ we have made _erdtoffeln_[635]; besides, Ihre leaves the
latter part unexplained[636]. In the seventeenth century the plant was
often called _Welsch distel_ (Italian thistle), because the seeds were
procured from Italy, and also _Strobeldorn_, a word undoubtedly derived
from _strobilus_.
Were the original country of the artichoke really known, the etymology
of the name, perhaps, might be easily explained. Linnæus says that it
grew wild in Narbonne, Italy, and Sicily, and the cardoons in Crete;
but, in my opinion, the information respecting the latter has been
taken only from the above-quoted passage of Bellon, which is improperly
supposed to allude to the artichoke. As far as I know, it was not
found upon that island either by Tournefort or any other traveller.
Garidel, however, mentions the artichoke under the name given it by
Bauhin, _cinara sylvestris latifolia_, among the plants growing wild in
Provence; but later authors assure us that they sought for it there in
vain[637]. I shall here remark that the artichoke is certainly known in
Persia; but Tavernier says expressly that it was carried thither, like
asparagus, and other European vegetables of the kitchen-garden, by the
Carmelite and other monks; and that it was only in later times that it
became common[638].