Grasses alone, and of these the seeds only of those which are so
abundant in an eatable farinaceous substance that they deserve to be
cultivated as food to man, are properly corn. Notwithstanding this
definition, buck-wheat, which belongs to a kind of plants that grow
wild in Europe, knot-grass, water-pepper, &c., because it is sown and
employed like corn, is commonly reckoned to be corn also. Our wheat and
oats, however, were not produced from indigenous grasses, as has been
the opinion of some learned naturalists, who, nevertheless, were not
botanists; nor has buck-wheat been produced from the above-mentioned
wild plants[1287]. Both these assertions can be proved by the strongest
botanical evidence; and the latter is supported by historical
testimony, which cannot be adduced in regard to the proper species of
corn, as they were used before the commencement of our history.
Two centuries ago, when botanists studied the ancients, and believed
that they had been acquainted with and given names to all plants,
some of them maintained that buck-wheat was their _ocimum_: others
have considered it as the _erysimum_ of Theophrastus; and some as the
_panicum_ or _sesamum_. All these opinions, however, are certainly
false. It is indeed difficult to determine what plant the _ocimum_
of the ancients was; but it may be easily proved that it was not
buck-wheat, as Bock or Tragus[1288] has confidently asserted. The
_ocimum_, or a species of that name, for it seems to have been applied
to several vegetable productions, was a sweet-smelling plant, called
also, at least by later writers, _basilicum_; one kind of _ocimum_ had
a thick, woody root[1289], and others possessed a strong medicinal
virtue[1290]. The ancient writers on agriculture give it a place
between the garden flowers and the odoriferous herbs[1291]; but none
of these descriptions can be applied to our buck-wheat, which is both
insipid and destitute of smell. Two unintelligible passages of an
ancient writer on husbandry make _ocimum_ to have been a plant used
for fodder, or rather a kind of green fodder or meslin composed of
various plants mixed together[1292]. The _erysimum_ of Theophrastus
produced seeds which had a very hot acrid taste[1293]; and he doubts
whether it was eaten by cattle[1294]. Pliny says expressly that it
ought to be classed rather among medicinal plants than those of the
corn-kind[1295]; though Theophrastus has mentioned it more than once
among the latter.
It is not worth the trouble to enter into an examination of more
opinions of the like kind, as several respectable writers, who lived
in the beginning of the sixteenth century, consider buck-wheat to be a
plant first introduced into Europe in their time, though they are not
all agreed in determining its native country. John Bruyerinus, or as he
was properly called, La Bruyère-Champier, physician to Francis I., king
of France, who in the year 1530 wrote his book, often printed, De Re
Cibaria[1296], says that buck-wheat had been first brought to Europe a
little before that time from Greece and Asia. That well-known botanist
Ruellius[1297], who wrote in 1536, and Conrade Heresbach[1298], who
died in 1576, give the same account. The latter calls the northern part
of Asia the original country of this plant, or that from which it had
a little before been brought to Germany. A nobleman of Brittany, whose
book, Les Contes d’Eutrapel[1299], was printed after his death in 1587,
remarks occasionally, that at the time when he wrote, buck-wheat had
been introduced into France about sixty years, and that it had become
the common food of the poor. Martin Schook[1300] wrote in 1661, that
buck-wheat had been known in Flanders scarcely a hundred years. The old
botanists, Lobelius, the brothers Bauhin, Matthiolus, and others, all
assert that this grain was new in Europe[1301]. I shall here remark,
that Crescentio, who lived in the thirteenth century, and described
all the then known species of corn, makes no mention of buck-wheat. It
undoubtedly acquired this name from the likeness which its seeds have
to the fruit of the beech-tree[1302]; and in my opinion another name,
that of _Heidenkorn_ (heath-corn), by which it is known in Germany, has
been given it because it thrives best in poor sandy soil where there is
abundance of heath. From the epithets _Turcicum_ and _Saracenicum_, its
native country cannot be determined, for maize is called Turkish wheat,
though it originally came from America. I consider also as improbable
the conjecture of the learned Frisch[1303], that from the word _Heide_
(a heathen), an expression little known in Upper Germany, has arisen
the appellation of _ethnicum_[1304], and thence _Saracenicum_, given to
this plant, though the Bohemians call it _pohanka_, from _pohan_, which
signifies also a heathen.
There is reason to believe that this grain must have been common in
many parts of Germany in the fifteenth century. In a bible, printed in
Low-German, at Halberstadt, in the year 1522, entitled Biblia Dudesch,
the translator, who is not known, but who is supposed to have been a
catholic, translates a passage of Isaiah, chap. xxviii. ver. 25, which
Luther translates _er säet spelz_, he soweth spelt, by the words _he
seyet bockwete_, he soweth buck-wheat[1305]. The name _heydenkorn_
occurs in a catalogue of plants so early as the year 1552[1306]; and
Jos. Maaler, or Pictorius, has in his Dictionary, printed in octavo,
at Zurich in 1561, Heidenkorn, _Ocimum_. I find there also, Heydel,
a plant, _Panicum_. Dasypodius[1307] likewise in his Dictionary, of
which I have the edition printed in 1537, says _Panicum_, Butzweyss,
Heydel; and in a vocabulary of the names of plants added to it, Heydel,
_Panicum_. Butz Weysz, _Panicum_. Frisch has the word Heydel-Fench,
which he explains by Buck-wheat; and he remarks that in the Swiss
dialect _Buch_ is changed into _Butz_. Ryff or Rivius, a physician who
lived in the middle of the sixteenth century, has changed _Buch_ or
_Book_ into _Bauch_, and such errors often arise by transforming the
High- into Low-German. It has, however, analogy in its favour, for the
long _o_ of the Low-German is in High-German often changed into _au_:
for example, _look_, _lauch_; _schmooken_, _smauchen_; _ook_, _auch_;
_ooge_, _auge_. But the long _o_ of the Low-German becomes frequently
the long _u_ of the High-German; as _good_, _gut_; _buch_, _buchbaum_;
_book_, _bookbaum_, &c.
That buck-wheat was cultivated in England about the year 1597, is
proved by Gerard’s Herbal.
A new species of this grain has been made known of late years, under
the name of Siberian buck-wheat, which appears by experience to have
considerable advantages over the former. It was sent from Tartary to
Petersburgh by the German botanists who travelled through that country
in the beginning of the last century; and it has thence been dispersed
over all Europe. We are however told in the new Swedish Economical
Dictionary, that it was first brought to Finland by a soldier who had
been a prisoner in Tartary[1308]. Linnæus received the first seeds,
in 1737, from Gerber the botanist[1309], and described the plant in
his Hortus Cliffortianus. After this it was mentioned by Ammann[1310],
in 1739; but it must have been earlier known in Germany, at least in
Swabia; for in 1733 it was growing in the garden of Dr. Ehrhart, at
Memmingen[1311]. In Siberia this plant sows itself for four or five
years by the grains that drop, but at the end of that time the land
becomes so full of tares that it is choked, and must be sown afresh.
Even in the œconomical gardens in Germany it is propagated in the
same manner; and it deserves to be remarked that it grows wild among
the corn near Arheilgen, a few miles from Darmstadt, though it is
cultivated nowhere in the neighbourhood. Had it been indigenous there,
Ehrhart might in 1733 have raised it from German seed.
The appellation of _Saracenicum_ gives me occasion to add the following
remark: Ruellius[1312] says, that in his time a plant had begun to be
introduced into the gardens of France, but merely for ornament, called
Saracen-millet, the seeds of which were brought to that country about
fifteen years before. This millet, which was from five to six feet in
height, was undoubtedly a _Holcus_, and perhaps the same kind as that
sought after by us for cultivation a few years ago, under the name of
_Holcus sorghum_[1313]. This _Holcus_, however, was cultivated, at
least in Italy, long before the time of Ruellius; for there is little
reason to doubt that it was the _Milium indicum_ which was brought
from India to that country in the time of Pliny[1314]. That ancient
naturalist says it was a kind of millet seven feet high; that it had
black seeds, and was productive almost beyond what could be believed.
In the time of Herodotus it was cultivated at Babylon, but it must
have been then little known to the Greeks; for that historian would
not venture to mention its size and fertility, as he was afraid that
his veracity might be called in question[1315]. According to his
account, it grew to be as large as a tree. It is worthy of remark,
that this kind of millet is still cultivated at Babylon, where it was
seen and admired by Rauwolf[1316]. It is undoubtedly the monstrous
_Holcus_ mentioned by Apollonius, who considered it as one of the most
remarkable productions of India[1317]. It appears that it continued to
be cultivated by the Italians in the middle ages; for it was described
in the thirteenth century by Crescentio, who speaks of its use and
the method of rearing it[1318]. The seeds had some time before been
brought from Italy to Germany, and we find that it is on that account
called Italian millet. The old botanists named it also _Sorgsamen_ and
_Sorgsaat_; appellations formed from _sorghum_. The name _Morhirse_,
under which it again came to us from Switzerland, in later times[1319],
has arisen either from the black colour of one of the kinds, or it
may signify the same as _Moren-hirse_ (Moorish-millet), because it is
almost the only corn of the sable Africans[1320]. However this may be,
it can never become an object of common cultivation among us, for our
summer is neither sufficiently long nor sufficiently warm, to bring it
to perfection. Last summer (1787) I could with difficulty obtain a few
ripe grains for seed.
[The cultivation of buck-wheat has never been very extensive in this
country, as it will not bear the frosts of our springs or the severity
of winter. The only counties in which it is grown to a moderate extent
are Norfolk and Suffolk, where it is called _brank_. If a small patch
is occasionally met with elsewhere, it is in general principally
for the sake of encouraging game, particularly pheasants, which are
extremely fond of it.
The seed of the buck-wheat is said to be excellent for horses, the
flowers for bees, and the plant green for soiling cows, cattle, sheep,
or swine. No grain seems so eagerly eaten by poultry, or makes them
lay eggs so soon or so abundantly. The flour is fine and white, but
from a deficiency in gluten does not make good fermented bread; it
serves well, however, for pastry and cakes, and in Germany and Holland
is extensively used, especially by the farmers, dressed in a variety
of ways, among others as pancakes, which if eaten hot are light and
pleasant, but become very heavy as they cool. A hasty pudding made
of the flour with water or milk, and eaten with butter and sugar, is
considered a favourite dainty.]