INTRODUCTION 



foUorum (XXIV §§ 47 and 131) ; foliis exprimitur sucus 

 (XXIV § 70) ; fit etfoliis sucus (XXIV § 109) ; sucus e 

 fronde (XXV § 68). 



The claims of " fleshy " have to be considered. 

 On the face of it, perhaps, it is a more natural epithet 

 for leaves than either " glossy " or " juicy," and it is 

 the only meaning given by ForcelUni. Against the 

 rendering must be put the frequent use of aapKcohrjg 

 by our Greek authorities in this sense, often in close 

 conjunction wath XLTrapog. 



In Phny XXV § 161 occurs a phrase which seems at 

 flrst sight to settle the matter. He speaks of 

 folia . . . carnosa, pinguia^ larga suco. Does this 

 mean " fleshy, glossy, juicy leaves "? The last two 

 epithets, however, may be connected, which would 

 give the sense: " rich with copious juice." This is 

 perhaps unlikely, but cannot be ruled out as im- 

 possible. The parallel passage in Dioscorides (IV 

 88, 89) does not help in deciding the question. 



Hort may be right in translating Xnrapog by 

 " glossy," but what did PUny take it to mean when 

 apphed to leaves ? A consideration of all the per- 

 tinent passages suggests a combination of " glossy " 

 and " fleshy," i.e., not necessarily large, but " sleek 

 and plump." Perhaps, if a single word must be 

 chosen to render pijiguis whenever it occurs, " rich 

 gets as near to Phny's idea of the meaning as the 

 Enghsh language will permit. But unfortunately 

 modern botanists are opposed to this rendering. 



It may seem that the best course would be to 

 identify the leaf referred to, and to vary the trans- 

 lation to suit the actual facts. Botanists, however, 



^ Littre translates pinguia (into the French) " grasses " ; 

 Bostock and Rilej " unctuous." 



xii 



