The Lasting Presence of Gerard's Herball

The Lasting Presence of Gerard's Herball The Lasting Presence of Gerard's Herball

staff.washington.edu
from staff.washington.edu More from this publisher
05.04.2013 Views

Vinci, and Weiditz, for example—must have influenced the work of botanical illustrators and possibly contributed to a change in focus (Arber, 1953). Surely the work of these men was known. They produced exquisite, realistic images of plants. Botanists embarking on exploratory adventures began to take artists with them to record their discoveries accurately. Again, the influence probably moves the other way as well: one can easily imagine the printed woodcuts in herbals encouraging a botanist’s attention to detail and thus possibly improving his skills in observation. Compared to hand drawn depictions of plants, woodcuts were crude, one step removed from the freshness of pen and paper. Readers in the 16 th and 17 th centuries were perhaps more aware of this distinction than we are today, they more in awe of the new capacity to replicate painstakingly drawn images, than we (Eisenstein, 1979, vol.I, pp.263,264). The contrast quite probably enhanced a tendency toward detailed examination in some and encouraged it anew in others. In his introduction (1636), Johnson mentions a change in the habits of people studying the natural world, claiming that people in the Middle Ages simply transcribed from the Ancients, “never endeavoring to acquire any perfect knowledge of the things themselves.” In the 1630’s (according to Johnson), “men began to be somewhat more curious.” Elizabeth Eisenstein (1979, vol.I) notes that the botanists prior to this period lacked “plant guides,” with accurate drawings complementing text (vol.I, p.264). Botanists, herbalists, and gardeners probably used herbals to compare illustrations and text with their own experience and to plants in the field. They could consult an herbal (like Gerard’s) to confirm or amend conclusions about their observations and to find 8

additional information. Or perhaps a botanist simply looked through Gerard’s Herball, browsing and admiring the skill of 16 th century draftsmen on display. The observations and skill of these draftsmen were evidently admired in the 19 th century, even while some woodcuts may be inaccurate from a botanical point of view. Gosse remarks in Gossip in the Library (1891), The great charm of [Gerard’s Herball] at the present time consists in the copious woodcuts. Of these there are more than two thousand, each a careful and original study from the plant itself. In the course of two centuries and a half, with all the advance in appliances, we have not improved a whit on the original artist of Gerard’s and Johnson’s time. The drawings are all in strong outline, with very little attempt at shading, but the characteristics of each plant are given with a truth and a simplicity which are almost Japanese. (p.70) I turned to the Herball to gain insight into the charm of the woodcuts. As I turned the pages of the Herball, a wash of memories spread over me. The tissue- paper fragile pages are the perfect medium for preserving my memory of the anemone, for example. Called the “winde flower,” it is as fresh in the Herball as in a garden. I remembered the day I learned the name of the delicate Anemone japonica, a book about perennials balanced on my knee. This particular windflower blooms in the fall, and that day a clump of tall white flowers was bobbing graciously as pedestrians strolled in the sun. I eagerly read more. “…[it is] slow to establish, but once Japanese anemone takes hold it can be invasive, requiring digging out to keep plants in their intended space and to control spread.” Hmm. Sounds like a recipe for caution. Gerard (1636) concurs, 9

additional information. Or perhaps a botanist simply looked through Gerard’s <strong>Herball</strong>,<br />

browsing and admiring the skill <strong>of</strong> 16 th century draftsmen on display.<br />

<strong>The</strong> observations and skill <strong>of</strong> these draftsmen were evidently admired in the 19 th<br />

century, even while some woodcuts may be inaccurate from a botanical point <strong>of</strong> view.<br />

Gosse remarks in Gossip in the Library (1891),<br />

<strong>The</strong> great charm <strong>of</strong> [Gerard’s <strong>Herball</strong>] at the present time consists in the copious<br />

woodcuts. Of these there are more than two thousand, each a careful and original<br />

study from the plant itself. In the course <strong>of</strong> two centuries and a half, with all the<br />

advance in appliances, we have not improved a whit on the original artist <strong>of</strong><br />

Gerard’s and Johnson’s time. <strong>The</strong> drawings are all in strong outline, with very<br />

little attempt at shading, but the characteristics <strong>of</strong> each plant are given with a truth<br />

and a simplicity which are almost Japanese. (p.70)<br />

I turned to the <strong>Herball</strong> to gain insight into the charm <strong>of</strong> the woodcuts.<br />

As I turned the pages <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Herball</strong>, a wash <strong>of</strong> memories spread over me. <strong>The</strong> tissue-<br />

paper fragile pages are the perfect medium for preserving my memory <strong>of</strong> the anemone,<br />

for example. Called the “winde flower,” it is as fresh in the <strong>Herball</strong> as in a garden. I<br />

remembered the day I learned the name <strong>of</strong> the delicate Anemone japonica, a book about<br />

perennials balanced on my knee. This particular windflower blooms in the fall, and that<br />

day a clump <strong>of</strong> tall white flowers was bobbing graciously as pedestrians strolled in the<br />

sun. I eagerly read more. “…[it is] slow to establish, but once Japanese anemone takes<br />

hold it can be invasive, requiring digging out to keep plants in their intended space and to<br />

control spread.” Hmm. Sounds like a recipe for caution. Gerard (1636) concurs,<br />

9

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!