350 Aster History; Fucus 
Fuchs surpasses all of lis Century in Jus Figures.——In 1542 
Fuchs published his masterpiece, his De historia stirpium,* at the 
Isengrin press of Basle, a folio of 896 numbered pages, famous 
for its 512 large and life-like woodcuts (over 400 of which repre- 
sented plants native to Germany), styled pudcherrima by Pritzel 
(no. 3427). Sachs (History of Botany, transl. by Garnsey, 1890, 
p. 19) says of it that ‘‘ Fuchs’ splendid figures remained unap- 
proached.’ Fuchs himself says that his figures were new and 
original, that they were delineated from nature, that the plants 
figured had never been figured from nature before, and that his 
work had been wr ught out at great expense and elaborated in 
long vigils. He says that his sole care had been that the figures 
be absolutely true ; that his utmost diligence was devoted to make 
sure that in every plant depicted, root, stem, leaves, flowers, seeds 
and fruits should all be exhibited; that “he took heed that no 
shading or other device by which printers sometimes seek to 
add to their art, should obscure the clear native form of his 
plants, nor would he permit his painters to indulge in any embel- 
lishments of fancy. The wonderful industry of the painters (Hein- 
rich Fiildmaurer and Albert Meyer)+ was rivalled by that of the 
engraver, Vitus Rodolphus Speckle,+ the best woodcutter in Stras- 
burg, who so ably expressed the lineaments of each painting that 
he seems almost to have entered into a strife with the painters for 
victory.”” So Fuchs describes t his work in his ‘‘ Epistola nuncu- 
patoria’”’—“ at Tubingen, in the calends of March, 1542.” 
Fuchs Aster Figure.—A view of Fuchs’ life-size figure 1 
* Fuchs’ Historia was soon translated into Dutch, French and Spanish; but the 
most notable translation was that of the very next year, by Fuchs himself, into German 
forming his ‘* New Kreuterbuch ”’ of 1543. Fuchs’ descriptions of species in the shorter 
Latin editions do not equal those of Bock ; but in his German rendering he made the 
descriptions much fuller and more lifelike. So at least Meyer considered them ; a 
Fuchs was not himself satisfied, said that to him “ pleraque non erant satis distincte 
and in 1556 wrote to his friend the K6nigsberg professor and physician Aurifaber, that 
he had begun to revise it from the beginning ; that it was proving a great onde 
‘* crescit tamen operis moles,’’ 
he said, but that he believed it would not be unpleasing to the studious— 
‘* studiosis non ingratam...confido.”’ 
He kept at work on it the next ten years, when it was still unpublished at his death, 
and the last known of the manuscript was its appearance at a sale in Vienna in 173% 
t The likenesses of the three are given, edition 1542, page following 896. 
t See page 10 of this Epistola; edn. 1542 (ex fbr. Bu.). 
