PLANT-LORE OF SHAKESPEARE 
ioi 
judgment most of our modern writers agree. 1 We may, there¬ 
fore, assume that Shakespeare meant the Iris as the flower 
given by Perdita, and we need not be surprised at his classing 
it among the Lilies. Botanical classification was not very 
accurate in his day, and long after his time two such celebrated 
men as Redoute and De Candolle did not hesitate to include 
in the “Liliacse,” not only Irises, but Daffodils, Tulips, 
Fritillaries, and even Orchids. 2 
What Iris Shakespeare especially alluded to it is useless to 
inquire. We have two in England that are indigenous—one 
the rich golden-yellow (Z pseudacorus ), which in some favour¬ 
able positions, with its roots in the water of a brook, is one of 
the very handsomest of the tribe; the other the Gladwyn 
(/. foetidis sim a), with dull flowers and strong-smelling leaves, 
but with most handsome scarlet fruit, which remain on the 
plant and show themselves boldly all through the winter and 
early spring. Of other sorts there is a large number, so that 
the whole family, according to the Index Kewensis, contains 
one hundred and seventy-six distinct species besides varieties. 
They come from all parts of the world, from the Arctic Circle 
to the South of China; they are of all colours, from the pure 
white Iris Florentina to the almost black I. Susiana ; and of 
all sizes, from a few inches to four feet or more. They are 
mostly easy of cultivation and increase readily, so that there 
are few plants better suited for the hardy garden or more 
ornamental. 
1 G. Fletcher’s Flower-de-luce was certainly the Iris—- 
‘‘The Flower-de-Luce and the round specks of dew 
That hung upon the azure leaves did shew 
Like twinkling stars that sparkle in the evening blue.” 
The “leaves” here are the petals. 
2 The whole subject of the Iris and Fleur-de-lys is fully treated in 
“ Chifletius (Jo. Joe.) Lilium Francicum Veritate Historica, Botanica et 
Heraldica illustratum.” Antw., 1658. 
