4 IHK SITDV OF i'I-ANTS IN ANCIEXT AM) MuDEKN TIMES. 



kiunvlcdge, yut tlicrc is no doubt that, us in art, thi; uti'ect was to stimulate and 

 reform; and that this study led up to the source, so long forgotten, whence the 

 ancients had themselves drawn their knowledge, that is, to the direct unestigation 

 of nature, which has invariably given to every bi-aiich of liuman knowledge new 

 and pregnant life. 



As regards botanical knowledge in particular, the studj' <jf old (irci-k wi-itings 

 on the part of western nations in both Northern an<l Southern Europe had the 

 immediate effect of instituting an eager search for all the different kinds of 

 indigenous plants; and, besides arousing a passion for investigation, it evoked un- 

 tiring industry in this pursuit, the results of which preserved in a ninuljer of bulky 

 hirli.iis still excite our wonder and respect. If these folios, dating for the most part 

 from the first half of the sixteenth century, are pei'used in the hope of their reveal- 

 ing some guiding principle as a basis for the arrangement of the suViject, the reader 

 will no doubt be obliged to lay them aside unsatisfied. The plants were described 

 and discussed just as the authors happened to come across them; and it is onh' 

 here and tliere that we find a feeble attempt to range together and make groups of 

 nearl}'-allied species. Only cursory attention was paid to the facts of geographical 

 distril)ution. Plants native to the soil, herbs which flowered in gardens and had 

 been reared from seed purchased from itinerant vendors of antidotes, and plants 

 whose fruits were brought to Europe as curiosities from the New World recently 

 discovered — all these were jumbled together in a confused medley. The whole 

 endeavour of the time was directed to the enumeration and description of all such 

 things as possess the power of proilueing green foliage and maturing fruit under 

 the sun's quickening rays. 



Owmg to the fact that researches were then limited to the native .soil of tin- 

 student, most of the botanical authors of that day had but ilark inklings of the 

 extent to which the floras of various latitudes and areas difler. They assumed that 

 plants of the Mediterranean shores, which had been described centuries before by 

 Theophrastus or Dioscorides or Pliny, wei-e necessarily the same as those of their 

 own more inclement countries. The German " Fathers of Botany " (Brunfels, born 

 about 1495, died 1534; Bock, 1498-1554: Fuchs, 1501-1566, are the best known) 

 applied the old Greek and Latin names without scruple to the species growing in 

 their own localities. They were so firmlj' convinced of the identity of the German, 

 Greek, and Italian floras that even tlu' ntmierous inconsistencies occurring in the 

 descriptions did not disconcert them, or prevent them from discussing at great 

 length whether a particular name was intended by Theophrastus and Dioscorides to 

 indicate this or that plant. It was by slow degrees that botanists fii-st began to 

 abandon these fruitless debates concerning the Greek and Latin names of plants, 

 with which it had been the custom to fill so many pages of the herlials. Step by 

 step they became conscious that although the yellow pages of the ancient books 

 deserved all gratitude for the stimulating influence they had exercised, yet the 

 srreen book of nature should be set above them. This led to tlu'ir ilevoting 

 themselves entirelj' to direct researches in the subject of their native floras. The 



