[Venette, Nicolas] (1633-1698) 
The date of Venette's birth has been given by 
some as 1622, but Francois Tesnier, in a sketch 
entitled; "Prficurseurs de 1'arboricultiore frui- 
tidre. Venette (le docteur Nicolas) (1633-1698), 
in Le Jardin, 26:287-288 (1912), twice gives it 
as 1633, once in the title as above and again in 
the body of the text* Tesnier's scholarship can 
probably be trusted in regard to this date* Bun- 
yard, moreover, in a paper on "Henry van Oosten 
and the 'Dutch gardener'," Jour* Pomol* 1:37-40 
(1919), says that Venette was a physician of La 
Rochelle, where he was born about 1632 and died 
in 1698* The Surg* Gen* Cat. has also used the 
dates 1633-1698* 
L'art de tailler les arbres fruitiers, avec un diction- 
naire des nots dont se servant aux jardiniers, en parlant 
des arbres* Et im traitd de 1'usage des fruits des arbres, 
pour se conserver en sante, ou pour se guerir, lors que 
I'on est malade* Avec une liste des fruits fondans pen¬ 
dant toute I'annee* Paris, Charles de Sercy, 1683* 
71, 86 p* (Dept* Agr.j Brit. Mus.) 
"De 1'usage des fruits des arbres pour se 
conserver son sante, ou pour se guerir lors que 
I'J'on est malade* Seconde partie." 86 p. 
At end of the second part is "Approbation du 
College royal des medeoins de la Rochelle," of 
"un livre compose par un de nos confreres, qui 
a pour titre, De 1'usage des fruits des arbres," 
This is signed by Chauvet and Arnault, and dat¬ 
ed: "A la Rochelle le 8, Mars 1683*" 
This is almost certainly the 1st ed,, altho 
M. Gibault, Jour. Soo. Nat* Sort. Franco (4) 6: 
730, mentions an edition of 1678 as well as that 
of 1683, stating that this work, apparently the 
1678 edition, brought 12 francs at the Decaisne 
sale* Cat, Bib, Decaisne (1883), however, un¬ 
fortunately has the date for this copy printed 
"1883," which does not clarify M, Gibault's re¬ 
mark* 1678 is not cited by other authorities 
and the internal evidence is against it* The 
edition of 1683 contains a privilege granted 
May 29 and registered June 11, 1683, while the 
printing was finished July 31 of the same year* 
This is probably one of the cases of error due 
to Roman numbers in the imprint, M.DC.LXXXIII 
being interpreted as M.DC.LXXVIII, 
