506 PROCEEDINGS OP THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



A. Female species. (1) Dioscorides says that the leaves are narrow; 

 Pliny says that they are narrower than the leaves of the lettuce ; (2) Dio- 

 scorides says that the fruit resembles service berries ; Pliny says that it 

 resembles filbert nuts ; (3) Dioscorides says that the root is black outside ; 

 Pliny says that it is reddish ; (4) Dioscorides says that it has no stem ; 

 Pliny says that it has a stem. B. Male species. (5) Dioscorides says 

 that the leaves resemble those of the beet ; Pliny says that they resemble 

 those of the garden sorrel. 



In all this there is no real conflict, except in the matter of the stem. 

 Pliny probably used lettuce, filbert nuts, and sorrel as standards of com- 

 parison, while Dioscorides used service berries and the beet, because each 

 thought the ones which he used would be readily familiar to his readers ; 

 " black " and " reddish," applied to the root, are only relative terms, 

 such as " white " and " black," applied to the two species. But there 

 is no compromise possible in the matter of the stems. Pliny must be 

 wrong here, for the mandragora as identified by later writers has no 

 stem. In spite of this discrepancy it is evident that Dioscorides and 

 Pliny were writing of the same plant. 



The mandragora of Theophrastus is very briefly characterized: (1) 

 It has a stem; (2) its fruit is (a) black, (b) similar to a grape,* and 

 (c) has a vinous juice. 



The third species of Dioscorides, which he says is also called [xopiov, 

 grows in thickly shaded places, and about caves. The leaves resemble 

 those of the " male," but are smaller, being about a span broad, and 

 whitish in color; they grow in a cluster about the root, which is tender 

 and white, somewhat more than a span in length, and about as thick as 

 the thumb. 



There has been a great deal of discussion about the mandragora of 

 Theophrastus and the third species of Dioscorides. Some have at- 

 tempted to identify them. This seems to me impossible from the start, 

 for tlie two authors happen to mention an entirely different sort of facts 

 about each ; while Dioscorides tells about liabitat, leaves, and root, I'heo- 

 phrastus speaks only of stem anA fruit. There is, then, no proper basis 

 of comparison, and it is useless to conjecture further as to their identity. 

 On the other hand, it is a pretty generally accepted view that the man- 

 dragora of Theophrastus is to be identified witli belladonna, f 



Various parts of the plant were eni[)loyed medicinally. The fresh 



* ()ajQ}hr)s: apparent])' tlie best interpretation of this word, 

 t See Ascherson, p. 734 f., note 2. 



