IV] The Herbal in England 109 



in one of which, written by Stephen Bredwell, a statement 

 occurs which is so inconsistent with Gerard's own remarks 

 that he certainly committed an oversight in allowing it to 

 stand! In Bredwell's words — " D. Priest for his trans- 

 lation of so much as Dodonceus, hath hereby left a tombe 

 for his honorable sepulture. Master Gerard comming last, 

 but not the least, hath many waies accommodated the whole 

 worke unto our English nation." 



The ' Herball ' is a massive volume, in clear Roman 

 type, contrasting markedly with the black letter used in the 

 works of Turner and Lyte, and giving the book a much 

 more modern appearance. It contains about 1800 wood- 

 cuts, nearly all from blocks used by Tabernsemontanus in his 

 ' Eicones' of 1590, which Norton obtained from Frankfort ; 

 less than one per cent, are original. There is an illustration 

 representing the Virginian Potato, which appears to be 

 new, and is perhaps the first figure of this plant ever 

 published (Text-fig. 60). Gerard did not know enough 

 about botany to couple the wood-blocks of Tabernsemon- 

 tanus with their appropriate descriptions, and de I'Obel was 

 requested by the printer to correct the author's blunders. 

 This he did, according to his own account, in very many 

 places, but yet not so many as he wished, since Gerard 

 became impatient, and summarily stopped the process of 

 emendation, on the ground that de I'Obel had forgotten his 

 English. After this episode, the relations between the 

 two botanists seem, not unnaturally, to have become some- 

 what strained. 



Gerard evidently aimed at conveying information in 

 simple language, for in one place, where he speaks of a 

 preparation being "squirted" into the eyes, he apologises 

 for the colloquialism, explaining that he does not wish " to 

 be over eloquent among gentlewomen, unto whom especially 

 my works are most necessary." 



The value of Gerard's work must inevitably be at a 

 discount, when we realise that it is impossible, from internal 

 evidence, to accept him as a credible witness. His oft- 

 quoted account of the " Goose tree," "Barnakle tree," or the 

 "tree bearing Geese," removes what little respect one may 

 have felt for him as a scientist, not so much because he 

 held an absurd belief, which was widely accepted at the 



