236 THE JOURNAL OF BOTA>'^T 



engraver of his blocks is known (Ar. p. 50), but the di-aughtsman is not 

 otherwise recorded *. From internal evidence it may be sufficiently 

 assumed that Brunfels drew the figures himself ; he had little money 

 to pay for them being done, and in the absence of any other claimant 

 he should certainly be credited with them. No one but the man w^ho 

 had spent hours over them could have so insisted on the value and 

 trath of his " viva? eicones " f- 



The figures are relatively few, inserted without special plan, and 

 consist of individual stnclies, clearly done without premeditation, and 

 not o-iven for every plant, as they might have been if commissioned. 

 The first volume contains 83 ; the second, published in the following 

 vear, 49 : it is thus probable that the latter gives the time of 

 engraving, at about one a week ; and there seems every possibility 

 that the figures were drawn by Brunfels in his younger days (a man 

 does not do such fine work when over sixty), and that the existence 

 of these figures determined him to publish the accompanying text, 

 which is a compilation of no great value. It is interesting to note 

 even at this early date the list of 47 authorities consulted ; many of 

 these are little known as botanists, the work being of a medical 

 nature rather than scientifically botanical, except for the figures. 

 The inclusion of these was evidently a special idea of Brunfels on his 

 own initiative. He thus appears as the earliest Nature Student, of 

 the type idealized by Euskin, with a capacity for observing small 

 points far beyond his time, and in fact beyond many who came after 

 him. Even Fuchs' men attached no importance to the smaller 

 details of a flower, and rarely drew them ; they became great at 

 * stem and leaf,' but floral foi-m and mechanism was beyond them, as 

 also such minor points as bracts, stipules and adventitious roots. The 

 first part (1530) shows Brunfels rather in the hands of the publisher, 

 who inserted the title-page of the period (including a doubtful Venus, 

 more definite Silenus, Dioscorides, and a melancholy Apollo Avith a 

 'cello) ; a flamboyant red and black escutcheon spoils a whole page, 

 and large Biblical initials are used (the P of Plantago records Lot's 

 daughters and the Pillar of Salt). In the second part (1531) such 

 meciiieval excrescences are removed ; the title-page is sensible as a 

 plain design, one ornamental border is retained for contents-page, and 

 the initials are taken from a good fount. The make-up of the volume 

 thus passes from one epoch to another. His page-block is 9^ in. by 

 5| (or 10 by 6 ; again a good ratio) ; but only half the figures are 

 ])rmted on a whole page ; the others are incorporated with the text. 

 There is no attempt to design the page ; a big plant may be doubled 

 up to make it go in. (Ai*. 48) ; small ones are put in corners ; but are 

 well arranged (vol. ii.) with the text balancing the design. {Alche- 

 milla, ii. 53.) 



As plant-studies, these figures are still admirable in every respect. 

 It is diflicult to realize that the man who did them knew no botan}^ 



* Arber naively suggests that the engi-aver drew them — so used are we to the 

 inferiority of the artistic profession ; but there is no reason why they should 

 have been so dcjne. any more than modern work is left to the printer or process- 

 engraver. 



t " Sumnia cum diligentia et artificio effigatac/' : and truly so. 



