CHAPTER V 



THE EVOLUTION OF THE ART OF PLANT 

 DESCRIPTION 



ROBABLY one of the chief objects, 

 which the early herbalists had in view 

 in writing their books, was to enable 

 the reader to identify various medicinal 

 plants. Nevertheless, until well into 

 the sixteenth century, their drawings 

 were so conventional, and their descrip- 

 tions left so much to be desired, that it 

 must have been an almost impossible 

 task to arrive at the names of plants by their aid alone. 

 The idea which suggests itself is that a knowledge of the 

 actual plants was, in practice, transmitted by word of mouth, 

 and that the herbals were only used as reference books, 

 to ascertain the reputed qualities of herbs, with whose 

 appearance the reader was already quite familiar. If this 

 supposition is correct, it perhaps accounts for the very 

 primitive state in which the art of plant description remained 

 during the earlier period of the botanical renaissance. 



When we turn to the Aristotelian school, we find that 

 the writings of Theophrastus include certain plant descrip- 

 tions, which, although they seem somewhat rudimentary 

 when judged by modern standards, are greatly in advance 

 of those contained in the first printed herbals. The mediaeval 

 philosopher, Albertus Magnus, who, as we have already 

 pointed out, was a follower of Aristotle and Theophrastus, 

 also showed marked originality in his descriptions of flowers, 

 and drew attention to a number of points which appear to 

 have escaped the notice of many more recent writers. For 



