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 Tabernzemontanus 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 Tabernzemon- tanus with their appropriate descriptions, and de |’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 |’Obel had forgotten his English. After this episode, the relations between the two botanists seem, not unnaturally, to have become some- what strained. <Callout type="warning" title="Blunders in Gerard's Work">Gerard’s lack of botanical knowledge led to numerous errors and omissions.</Callout> | 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 110 The Botanical Renatssance [cH. 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’,” 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’, printed at Basle in 1545, refers to it as recorded by previous writers, and figures a tree with 1 Orkney Islands * Doxiv. Iv] or stream. III The Herbal in England pendent fruits, out of which geese are dropping into a lake Hector Boethius [Boece] in his Scottish Chronicle ‘The breede of Barmakles. - = z eee vp =a ae . Text-fig. 54. “The breede of Barnakles” [Gerard, The Herball, 1597]. gives a quaint account of the origin of geese from drift- wood in the sea, “in the small boris and hollis” of which First thay schaw thair heid and “growis small wormis. II2 The Botanical Renaissance [cH. feit, and last of all they schaw thair plumis and wyngis. Finally quhen thay ar cumyn to the iust mesure and quantite of geis, thay fle in the aire, as othir fowlis dois*.” 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 after- wards 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®.” The Goose Tree is also figured by de l’Obel and d’Aléchamps, but it is refreshing to find that Colonna in ' Hector Boethius, ‘Heir beginnis the hystory and croniklis of Scotland... Translatit laitly in our vulgar and commoun langage, be maister Johne Bellenden...And Imprentit in Edinburgh, be me Thomas Davidson’ [1536] (Cap. XIv. of the ‘Cosmographie’). “ ‘Turner on Birds:...first published by Doctor William Turner, 1544.’ Edited by A. H. Evans, Cambridge, p. 27, 1903. [The original passage will be found in Avium precipuarum...Per Dn. Guilielmum Turnerum,...Coloniz excudebat Ioan. Gymnicus, 1544. ] Iv] The Herbal in England 113 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 en- larged 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 A, 8 114 The Botanical Renaissance [cH. 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.” | Text-fig. 55. “ Barberry”=Zerderis [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 Voah 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.” 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 ’Ecluse, de I’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 pub- lication 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 |’Obel’s manuscript notes are also inserted. The scheme of classification adopted is, however, markedly inferior to that of de |’Obel. Occasionally, in spite of his comparatively late date, Parkinson displays an imagination that is truly medieval. 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 8—2 116 The Botanical Renaissance [CH. 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 ReEviIvAL 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 ex- ponent, 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. 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 kow 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 con- ceptions. 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 classifi- cation, to which we shall return in a later chapter.
Key Takeaways
- Gerard’s 'Herball' contains numerous woodcuts and illustrations from earlier works, but lacks accurate botanical descriptions.
- The legend of the Goose Tree was widely believed in early modern times, despite its absurdity.
- Johnson's edition improved on Gerard's work by correcting errors and adding more plants.
Practical Tips
- When studying historical texts like Gerard’s 'Herball', be aware that many descriptions may contain inaccuracies or superstitions.
- Use the illustrations in historical herbals as a starting point for identifying plants, but cross-reference with modern botanical resources.
- Understand that while early herbalists had limited knowledge of plant anatomy and classification, their works still provide valuable insights into traditional medicine.
Warnings & Risks
Superstitions in Early Herbalism
Be cautious of the many superstitions and unfounded beliefs present in historical texts.
Incorrect identification of plants can lead to dangerous or ineffective remedies. Historical herbals often lack the scientific rigor we expect today, which can result in unreliable information.
Modern Application
While Gerard’s 'Herball' and similar works may seem outdated by modern standards, they remain valuable resources for understanding early methods of herbal medicine. The superstitions and inaccuracies present in these texts highlight the evolution of scientific thought over time. Modern readers should use historical herbals as a starting point for research, cross-referencing with contemporary botanical knowledge to ensure safety and efficacy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What was the main issue with Gerard's 'Herball'?
Gerard’s 'Herball' contained numerous inaccuracies due to his lack of formal botanical training. He relied on illustrations from earlier works without proper descriptions, leading to a mix of accurate and erroneous information.
Q: Why was the legend of the Goose Tree believed by many in early modern times?
The legend of the Goose Tree was widely accepted because it was supported by anecdotal evidence and seemed to align with natural phenomena. It was also reinforced by historical figures like William Turner, who took steps to verify its truth.
Q: How did Johnson’s edition improve upon Gerard's 'Herball'?
Johnson’s edition improved on Gerard's work by correcting numerous errors and adding a significant number of new plant descriptions. He also illustrated the text with Plantin’s woodcuts, making it more comprehensive.