_ LA BOTANIQUE EN PROVENCE. 91 
the vat 2 of deliberately ousting Pena’s name from their joint 
produc M. Legré says the supersession was done gradually. 
Thus the vpistle to the Queen was signed only by Lobel, and he further 
mystifies the public by ~ form of the title and the index, “In 
e ahitiee here exclaims: ‘‘ The trick is rl 
e has succeeded; Lobel has gained possession in the eyes of 
posterity.” This language is too strong for the actual fact, i in 
the title-page of the 1605 complete volume we find: ‘‘ De lucidae 
simplicium medicamentorum explicationes, & Sti a pa rience 
. authoribus Petro Pena & Matthia De l’Obel, me : 
quibus accessit altera pars . . . opera & studio ataae is ‘LrObel”™ 
not variation in Lobel’s own name). The index of the 
Penae Index.’”’ This shows the danger of building too much on 
slight foundations 
Although we ks not been able to follow our author in this 
matter as far as he would lead us, yet on the whole he has made 
ati the sam 
district. Our author is ntatally tiapened to take a favourable view 
of his fellow-countryman, just as M. Ed. Morren was equally 
pres! predisposed in favour of his own compatriot. 
space we have given to the above statement precludes our 
mentioning * = remainder of the work in similar detail ; besides, 
it appeals more particularly to those who concern themselves with 
the local obits of the old ‘‘ Narbonaise.’”” We must mention, 
- however, one or two points of interest: thus, with: reed to the 
*‘ Paysage de la Craie,’ near Arles, the authors of the Adversaria 
translate the vernacular into ‘‘ Creta’’ (Phalangium cret@ salonensis 
= Asphodelus fistulosus Linn.); our countrym an Johnson in hi 
turn further translated it into ‘‘ Candy,” as Crete was then termed 
in English, when treating of this plant in his edition of Gerard’s 
Herball, p- 49; the mistake does not exist in the corresponding 
entry in the original, as rg be seen by comparing the two entries 
(Gerard, Herbal, 1597, p 
A reader of the Stoncria must be struck with the frequency of 
‘‘Norbona’”’ and ‘‘ Norbonensis’’ in place of the correct 2 
it seems that the London printers misread the word, and it passed 
uncorrected by the authors at a time when spelliig was uncertain, 
or carelessly employed. 
e mountain L’Aigoual was locally the “Ort de Dieu” or 
‘* Hort-de-Diou,”’ rendered in French by “Jardin de Dieu,” —_ 
latinized by our authors variously as ‘¢ Hortus Dei,” ‘ Dei 
arium,” and “ Dei paradisus.” It was a noted place for rare 
plants, but is now greatly altered for the worse by the waste of 
the forest-vegetation (déboisement). Nardus gangitis, &c., is m 
Indian, but derived from a small town, Ganges, not far from 
Montpellier. 
We should have been better pleased had the three indanes, of 
