Chapter XXVI: Part 26

The Roman writers who give an account of the ancient Germans, all relate that they lived principally on milk; but they disagree in one thing, because many of them tell us that they used cheese, while others affirm that they were not even acquainted with the method of preparing it[1564]. Pliny, on the other hand, says that they did not make cheese, but butter, which they used as a most pleasant kind of food. He ascribes to them also the invention of it; for it is highly probable that under the expression “barbarous nations” he meant the people of Germany: and his description of butter appears to me so clear, that I do not see how it can be doubted[1565]. He very justly remarks, that, in order to make butter in cold weather, the milk ought to be warmed, but that in summer this precaution is not necessary. The vessel employed for making it seems to have had a great likeness to those used at present; we are told at least that it was covered, and that in the lid there were holes[1566]. What he says however respecting _oxygala_ is attended with difficulties; and I am fully persuaded that his words are corrupted, though I find no variations marked in manuscripts by which this conjecture can be supported. Having made an attempt by transposing the words to discover the real sense, I found that I had placed them in the same order as that in which they had been before arranged by Dithmar, who, in his annotations on Tacitus, quotes them in the same manner as I would read them, and with so much confidence that he does not even hint they were ever read otherwise. Had we both been critics, this similarity might have given our conjecture perhaps more authority; but Dithmar also was a professor of the œconomical sciences[1567].

_Oxygala_ was evidently a kind of cheese, the preparation of which has been best described by Columella[1568]. In order to make it, sweet milk was commonly rendered sour, and the serum was always separated from it. Of this process Pliny speaks likewise; but he first mentions under the above name a kind of cheese formed from the caseous parts which remained behind in the butter-milk, and which when separated from it by acids and boiling, were mixed and prepared in various ways. It must in general have been sourish; for, according to the account of Galen[1569], it affected the teeth, though he mentions also another kind of cheese, under the name of _caseus oxygalactium_[1570], which was perfectly mild. In the Geoponica[1571] directions are given how this cheese may be kept fresh for a long time. If my reading be adopted, the medicinal effects spoken of by Pliny are not to be ascribed to the butter, but to the sour cheese[1572]; and physicians undoubtedly will be much readier to allow them to the latter than to the former. Whether Tacitus by _lac concretum_, which he says was the most common food of the Germans, meant cheese or butter I cannot examine, as we have no grounds to enable us to determine this question, respecting which nothing more can be known[1573].

I have now laid before the reader, in chronological order, every thing that I found in the works of the ancients respecting butter; and it is certain, from what has been said, that it is not a Grecian, and much less a Roman invention; but that the Greeks were made acquainted with it by the Scythians, the Thracians and the Phrygians, and the Romans by the people of Germany[1574]. It appears also, that when they had learned the art of making it, they employed it only as an ointment in their baths, and particularly in medicine. Besides the proofs already quoted, a passage of Columella[1575] deserves also to be remarked, because that author, and not Pliny, as Vossius thinks, is the first Latin writer who makes use of the word _butyrum_. Pliny recommends it mixed with honey to be rubbed over children’s gums in order to ease the pain of teething, and also for ulcers in the mouth[1576]. The Romans in general seem to have used butter for anointing the bodies of their children to render them pliable[1577]; and we are told that the ancient Burgundians besmeared their hair with it[1578]. A passage of Clemens of Alexandria, in which he expressly says that some burned it in their lamps instead of oil, is likewise worthy of attention[1579]. It is however certain, on the other hand, that it was used neither by the Greeks nor the Romans in cookery or the preparation of food, nor was it brought upon their tables by way of dessert, as at a later period was the custom. We never find it mentioned by Galen and others as a food, though they have spoken of it as applicable to other purposes. No notice is taken of it by Apicius; nor is there anything said of it in that respect by the authors who treat on agriculture, though they have given us very particular information concerning milk, cheese and oil. This, as has been remarked by other writers, may be easily accounted for, by the ancients having entirely accustomed themselves to the use of good oil; and in the like manner butter at present is very little employed in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and the southern parts of France, where it is sold in the apothecaries’ shops for medicinal purposes[1580]. It is certain besides, that in warm countries it is difficult to preserve it for any length of time.

To conclude, I shall offer one remark, which, in my opinion is entirely new. It appears to me, by the information which I have here collected from the ancients, that at the period when these authors wrote, people were not acquainted with the art of making butter so clean and so firm as that which we use on our tables. On the contrary, I am fully persuaded that it was rather in an oily state, and almost liquid. They all speak of butter as of something fluid. The moderns cut, knead and spread butter; but the ancients poured it out as one pours out oil. Galen tells us, that, to make soot of butter, the butter must be poured into a lamp. Had the ancients used in their lamps hard or solid butter, as our miners use tallow in the lamps that supply them with light under ground, they would not have made choice of the expression _to pour out_. We are told that the elephants drank butter; and liquid butter must have been very familiar to the Greek translators of the Sacred Scriptures, when they could mention it as flowing in streams. Hecatæus, quoted by Athenæus, calls the butter with which the Pæonians anointed themselves, oil of milk[1581]. Casaubon observes on this passage, that the author makes use of these words, because butter was then employed instead of oil, and spoken of in the like manner, as was the case with sugar, which was at first considered to be a kind of honey, because it was equally sweet and could be applied to the same purposes. Hippocrates, on the like grounds, calls swine’s seam, swine’s oil[1582]. This explanation I should readily adopt, did not such expressions respecting butter, as one can apply only to fluid bodies, occur everywhere without exception. In warm countries, indeed, butter may be always in a liquid state; but I am of opinion that the ancients in general did not know by means of kneading, washing and salting, to render their butter so firm and clean as we have it at present. On this account it could not be long kept or transported, and the use of it must have been very much limited.

I shall remark in the last place, that butter appears to have been extremely scarce in Norway during the ages of paganism; for we find mention made by historians of a present of butter which was so large that a man could not carry it, and which was considered as a very respectable gift[1583].

FOOTNOTES

[1544] The works with which I am acquainted that treat on this subject, are the following:--M. Schoockii Tractatus de Butyro: accessit ejusdem Diatriba de aversatione Casei. Groningæ, 1664, 12mo.--H. Conring De habitus corporum Germanicorum antiqui et novi caussis. Helmst. 1666, 4to, or Frankf. 1727, 8vo.--Vossii Etymologicon, art. Butyrum.--Traité de la Police, par De la Mare, lib. v. 7. ii. p. 799.--Tob. Waltheri Dissert. de Butyro. Altorfii, 1743.--Conr. Gesneri Libellus de lacte et operibus lactariis, 1543, 8vo. This small treatise I have hitherto sought for in vain.

[1545] Bochart, Hierozoicon, ii. 45, p. 473.

[1546] Genesis, chap. xviii. ver. 8: “And he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set before them.” Deuteron. chap. xxxii. ver. 14: “Butter of kine and milk of sheep.” Judges, chap. v. ver. 25: “He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish.” 2 Samuel, chap. xvii. ver. 29: “And honey, and butter, and sheep.” Job, chap. xx. ver. 17: “He shall not see the rivers, the floods, the brooks of honey and butter.” Ibid. chap. xxix. ver. 6: “When I washed my steps with butter and the rock poured me out rivers of oil.” Proverbs, chap. xxx. ver. 33: “Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter.” Isaiah, chap. vii. ver. 15: “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.” Ibid. ver. 22: “And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give, that he shall eat butter; for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.”

[1547] Michaelis Suppl. ad Lex. Hebr. v. i. p. 807; and his Mosaisches Recht (on the Laws of Moses), § 291 and 295.

[1548] iv. 2. p. 281: “Postquam emulxere lac, in cava vasa lignea diffundunt; et compungentes ad illa vasa cæcos lac agitant (δονέουσι τὸ γάλα) cujus quod summum est, delibatur, pretiosiusque habetur; vilius autem quod subsidit.”--That δονέειν signifies to shake or beat, there can be no doubt. Theocritus uses the same word in speaking of a tree strongly agitated by the wind. It is used also to express the agitation of the sea during a storm; and in Geopon. xx. 46, p. 1270, where the preparation of that sauce called _garum_ is mentioned, it is said that it must be placed in the sun, and frequently shaken.

[1549] De Morbis, lib. iv. edit. 1595, fol. v. p. 67. Also in his treatise De Aëre, Locis, et Aquis, sect. iii. p. 74, he says the Scythians drink mares’-milk, and eat cheese made of it.

[1550] De Natura Mulierum, sect. v. p. 137.--De Morbis Mulier. 2. sect. v. p. 191, 235, and in several other places. Vossius therefore, in his Etymolog. p. 84, says erroneously, that this word was first used by Dioscorides.

[1551] Edition of Basle, 1538, fol. v. p. 715.

[1552] It occurs however in Phavorinus.

[1553] Athenæus, iv. p. 131. Respecting Anaxandrides see Fabricii Bibl. Gr.

[1554] Historia Animal. iii. 20, p. 384: πᾶν δὲ γάλα ἔχει ἰχῶρα ὑδατώτη, ὃ καλεῖται ὀῤῥὸς, καὶ σωματῶδες, ὃ καλεῖται τυρός. Omne lac habet succum aquosum, qui dicitur serum, et alterum corpulentum, qui vocatur caseus.--P. 388: ὑπάρχει δ’ ἐν τῷ γάλακτι λιπαρότης, ἣ καὶ ἐν τοῖς πεπήγοσι γίνεται ἐλαιώδης. Inest in lacte pinguedo, quæ in concreto oleosa fit. This is the translation of Scaliger; but by Gaza the latter part of the passage is translated as follows: “quæ etiam concreto oleum prope trahit.” It appears to me doubtful what ἐν τοῖς πεπήγοσι properly means. The comparison of oil occurs also in Dioscorides and Pliny. Aristotle, in all probability, intended to say that the fat part of milk was observed under an oily appearance in cheese made of sweet milk from which the cream had not been separated; and that indeed is perfectly agreeable to truth.

[1555] Lib. iii. p. 233; xvii. p. 1176; xv. p. 1031.

[1556] Histor. Æthiop. lib. iv. 4, 13.

[1557] Histor. Animal. viii. 31, p. 977.

[1558] Hist. Nat. viii. 10, p. 440.

[1559] Hist. Animal. ii. 18.

[1560] Indica. Amst. 1668, 8vo, p. 537.

[1561] Lib. xiii. cap. 7.

[1562] De Simplic. Med. Facultat. lib. x. p. 151. Edit. Basil. ii. p. 134.

[1563] De Aliment. Facultat. iii. cap. 15, p. 54. Edit. Basil. iv. p. 340.

[1564] Cæsar de Bello Gall. iv. 1. vi. 22. Strabo, lib. iv. speaking of the Britons, says, “In their manners they are somewhat similar to Celts, but more simple and barbarous; so that many, although they abound in milk, are unable to make cheese, through want of skill.”

[1565] Lib. xi. c. 41, p. 637.

[1566] Ib. lib. xxviii. cap. 9, p. 465.

[1567] In my opinion the passage ought to be arranged as follows:--prælirato. Quod est maximum coactum, in summo fluitat. Id exemptum, addito sale, butyrum est, oleosum natura. Quod reliquum est decoquunt in ollis. Additur paululum aquæ (aceti?), ut acescat. Id quod supernatat, oxygala appellant. Quo magis virus resipit, hoc præstantius indicatur. Pluribus compositionibus miscetur inveteratum. Natura ejus adstringere, mollire, replere, purgare.--Dithmar’s emendation may be found in Taciti Libel. de Moribus German. Francof. 1766, 8vo, p. 140.

[1568] Lib. xii. 8, p. 786.

[1569] De Aliment. Facultat. iii. cap. 16, p. 55.

[1570] Ibid. cap. 17, p. 57.

[1571] Lib. xviii. 12, p. 1188.

[1572] See Mercurialis, p. 38.

[1573] De Moribus Germ. cap. 23.

[1574] On this account some conjecture, and not without probability, that the name also βούτυρος or βούτυρον is not originally Greek, but that it may have been introduced into Greece from some foreign country, along with the thing which it expresses. Conring, for example, is of opinion that it is of Scythian extraction. The Grecian and Roman authors, however, make it to be a Greek word, compounded of βοῦς, an ox or cow, and τυρὸς, cheese, as we learn from the passages of Galen and Pliny already quoted. Cheese was known to them much earlier than butter; and it is therefore possible, that at first they may have considered the latter as a kind of cheese, as it appears that τυρὸς once signified any coagulated substance. The first syllable of the word, indeed, one should hardly expect, as the Greeks used the milk of sheep and goats much earlier than cow’s-milk; and for this reason Schook conjectures that the first syllable was added, as usual among the Greeks, to magnify the object, or to express a superior kind of cheese. Varro De Re Rustica, ii. 5, p. 274, says, “Novi majestatem boum, et ab his dici pleraque magna, ut βούσυκον, βούπαιδα, βούλιμον, βοῶπιν; uvam quoque bumammam;” and we find in Hesychius, “βούπαις νέος μέγας· βούπεινα, μέγας λιμὸς· βουφάγος, πολυφάγος.” But this supposes that the Greeks preferred butter to cheese; whereas they always considered the former as of less importance, and less proper for use. The same word being still retained in most languages determines nothing; especially as the Swedes use the word _smor_, which is totally different, and which was the oldest German name, and that most used in the ninth century; and Lipsius, in an old dictionary of that period, found the word _kuosmer_ butyrum, the first syllable of which is certainly the word _kuh_, a cow. See Lipsii Epist. ad Belgas, cent. iii. 44, and Wormii Litteratura Runica, cap. 27. These etymological researches, which must always be uncertain, I shall not carry further; but only remark that, according to Hesychius, butter, in Cyprus, where I did not expect it, was called ἔλφος, which word may also be foreign. See Martini Lexic. Philol. art _Butyrum_, who derives ἔλφος from _albus_.

[1575] Lib. vi. 12, p. 582.

[1576] Lib. xxviii. cap. 19, p. 486.

[1577] A passage of Tertullian _adversus Jud._ alludes to this practice. The same words are repeated Adversus Marcion. iii. 13.

[1578] Sidonius Apollinaris, carm. 12.

[1579] Clemens Alexand. Pædag. i. p. 107.

[1580] When Leodius accompanied the elector palatine Frederic II. in his travels through Spain, he was desirous of purchasing in that country several articles necessary for their journey. After much inquiry concerning butter, he was directed to an apothecary’s shop, where the people were much astonished at the largeness of the quantity he asked for, and showed him a little entirely rancid, which was kept in a bladder for external use. H. Th. Leodii Vita et Res Gestæ Frederici Palatini. Francof. 1665, 4to, lib. vi.

[1581] Lib. x. p. 447.

[1582] What Hippocrates calls ἔλαιον ὑὸς Erotian explains by τὸ ὕειον στέαρ.

[1583] Suhm, in the eighth vol. of the Transactions of the Copenhagen Society, where a reference is made, p. 53, respecting the above-mentioned circumstance, to Torfæi Histor. Norveg. pars. i. vi. sect. iii. cap. 2, p. 319.

AURUM FULMINANS.

If a solution of chloride of gold be precipitated by an excess of ammonia, a yellow powder will be obtained, which, when heated, or only bruised, explodes suddenly with a prodigious report. The force of this aurum fulminans is terrible, and, in the hands of incautious persons, has often occasioned much mischief. But, however powerful, it cannot, as some have imagined, be employed instead of gunpowder, even were not this impossible on account of the high value of the metal from which it is made; for explosion does not take place when the powder is confined. Phænomena of this kind are always of importance, and afford subject of speculation to the philosopher, though no immediate use can be made of them[1584]. Experiments, however, have rendered it probable that this powder may possess some medicinal virtues, and we are assured that it can be employed in enamel-painting.

He who attempts to trace out the invention of aurum fulminans is like a person bewildered in a morass, in danger every moment of being lost. I allude here to the immense wilderness of the ancient alchemists, or makers of gold; to wade through which, my patience, though pretty much accustomed to such labour, is not sufficiently adequate. Those who know how to appreciate their time will not sacrifice it in endeavouring to discover the meaning of books which the authors themselves did not, in part, understand, or to comprehend passages in which the writer tells us nothing, or, at any rate, nothing of importance. I have, however, made my way through this labyrinth from Spielmann to the works which are ascribed to Basilius Valentin[1585].

The period when this powder was invented is as uncertain as the accounts given of its composition. It is however probable that the discoverer was a German Benedictine monk, who lived about the year 1413[1586]; and there is reason to think that he may have made many useful observations, of which we are yet ignorant. When new observations have been made respecting gold, they have always been found afterwards in the works of Valentin, in a passage which no one before could understand. Such writings are of no more utility than the answers of the ancient oracles, which were comprehended when a knowledge of them was no longer necessary, and which misled those who supposed that they comprehended them sooner. But the account of aurum fulminans in Valentin is so uncommonly intelligible, that it almost seems he either wrote in an explicit manner without perceiving it, or that the words escaped from him contrary to his intention. As the work in which it may be found is scarce, I shall transcribe the prescription[1587]:--

“Take a pound of aqua regia made with sal-ammoniac; that is, take a pound of good strong aquafortis, and dissolve in it four ounces of sal-ammoniac, and you will thus obtain a strong aqua regia, which must be repeatedly distilled and rectified until no more fæsces remain at the bottom, and until it becomes quite clear and transparent. Take fine thin gold-leaf, in the preparation of which antimony has been used; put it into an alembic; pour aqua regis over it; and let as much of the gold as possible be dissolved. After the gold is all dissolved, add to it some _oleum tartari_, or _sal tartari_ dissolved in a little spring-water, and it will begin to effervesce. When the effervescence has ceased, pour some more oil into it; and do this so often till the dissolved gold falls to the bottom, and until no more precipitate is formed, and the aqua regia remains pure and clear. You must then pour the aqua regia from the gold calx, and wash it well with water eight or ten times. When the gold calx is settled, pour off the water, and dry the calx in the open air when the sun shines, but not over the fire; for as soon as this powder becomes a little heated or warm, it explodes, and does much mischief, as it is so powerful and violent that no man can withstand it. When the powder has been thus prepared, take strong distilled vinegar and pour over it; keep it continually over the fire for twenty-four hours, without stirring it, so that nothing may fall to the bottom, and it will be again deprived of its power of exploding; but take great care that no accident happens by carelessness. Pour off the vinegar, and, having washed the powder, expose it to dry.”

The latter part of the receipt shows that Valentin had made experiments in order to discover how aurum fulminans might be deprived of its power of exploding, and he found that this could be done by vinegar. It appears from his writings that he had discovered also that the same thing could be effected by sulphur[1588].

After the time of Valentin, Crollius, who lived in the last half of the sixteenth century, seems to have been best acquainted with this powder, and to have principally made it known[1589]: at any rate his works are referred to by most of the modern writers. He calls it _aurum volatile_, and speaks of its being useful in medicine. The name _aurum fulminans_ was, as far as I know, first used by Beguin[1590]. The method of preparing it is described by Kircher, who considers it as a thing uncommon, and who calls it _pulvis pyrius aureus_[1591].

FOOTNOTES

[1584] [That this and other similar chemical phænomena may be of more advantage than as affording merely subjects for speculation to the philosopher, although not immediately applicable to any useful purpose, may be inferred from the valuable application of fulminating mercury, a somewhat similar compound to that under consideration. This, at first, as with fulminating gold at present, was a mere curiosity; it has recently caused the almost complete substitution of percussion for flint locks in fire-arms, which in addition to the greater certainty caused by the increased rapidity of the discharge, œconomises the quantity of powder requisite.

Fulminating mercury is made by dissolving mercury in nitric acid and pouring the solution into warm alcohol. Effervescence ensues. When this has ceased, the mixture is poured upon a filter, and well-washed with water; after draining, the filter is expanded upon plated copper or stone-ware, heated to 212° by steam or hot water. Dr. Ure recommends that the powder be mixed with a solution of mastic in spirits of turpentine, to cause attachment. Its extensive use in making percussion-caps is well-known. It is however a very dangerous substance to experiment with, owing to the readiness with which it explodes, and has caused many very serious accidents.]

[1585] Spielmann, Institut. Chem. p. 288.

[1586] See Preface of B. N. Petræus to the Works of Valentin, Hamb. 1717, 8vo.

[1587] Fr. Basilii Valentini Letztes Testament; Von G. P. Nenter. Strasb. 1712, 8vo, p. 223.

[1588] See Bergmann on Pulvis fulminans, in his Opuscula Physica et Chemica, 1780, 8vo, ii. p. 133.

[1589] O. Crollii Basilica Chymica. Franc. (1609), 4to, p. 211.

[1590] J. Beguini Tyrocinium Chymicum was printed for the first time at Paris, in 1608, 12mo. In the French translation, Les élémens de chymie, revues, expliquez, etc., par J. L. de Roy; Paris, 1626, 8vo, the receipt for making _or fulminant_ may be found p. 314.

[1591] Kircheri Magnes. Coloniæ, 1643, 4to, p. 548. The author says that he found the receipt for preparing it in Liber insignis de incendio Vesuvii. That I might know whether this work contained anything respecting the history of aurum fulminans, I inquired after it. Kircher undoubtedly meant Incendio del Monte Vesuvio, di Pietro Castelli; in Roma 1632, 4to: but the directions given there, p. 46, for making _oro fulminante_, are taken from Crollius. Nothing further is to be found in Kircher’s Mundus Subterraneus.

GARDEN-FLOWERS.

Some of the flowers introduced into our gardens, and now cultivated either on account of their beauty or the pleasantness of their smell, have been procured from plants which grew wild, and which have been changed, or, according to the opinion of florists, improved by the art of the gardener. The greater part of them however came originally from distant countries, where they grow, in as great perfection as ours, without the assistance of man. Though we often find mention of flowers in the works of the Greeks and the Romans, it appears that they were contented with those which grew in their own neighbourhood. I do not remember to have read that they ever took the trouble to form gardens for the particular purpose of rearing in them foreign flowers or plants. But even supposing that I may be mistaken, for I do not pretend to have examined this subject very minutely, I think I may with great probability venture to assert, that the modern taste for flowers came from Persia to Constantinople, and was imported thence to Europe, for the first time, in the sixteenth century. At any rate, we find that the greater part of the productions of our flower-gardens were conveyed to us by that channel. Clusius and his friends in particular, contributed very much to excite this taste; and the new plants brought from both the Indies by the travellers who then continued still more frequently to visit these countries, tended to increase it. That period also produced some skilful gardeners, who carried on a considerable trade with the roots and seeds of flowers; and these likewise assisted to render it more general. Among these were John and Vespasian Robin, gardeners to Henry IV. of France, and Emanuel Sweert, gardener to the emperor Rodolphus II., from whom the botanists at that time procured many rarities, as appears from different passages of their works. As this taste for flowers prevails more at present than at any former period, a short history of some of the objects of it may not be disagreeable, perhaps, to many of my readers.

Simon de Tovar, a Spanish physician, brought the tuberose to Europe before the year 1594 from the East Indies, where it grows wild in Java and Ceylon, and sent some roots of it to Bernard Paludanus, who first made the flower publicly known in his Annotations on Linschoten’s Voyage[1592]. The full tuberoses were first procured from seed by one Le Cour, at Leyden, who kept them scarce for some years, by destroying the roots, that they might not become common[1593]. The propagation of them in most countries is attended with difficulties; but in Italy, Sicily and Spain, it requires no trouble; and at present the Genoese send a great many roots to England, Holland and Germany. The oldest botanists classed them among the hyacinths, and the name _Polianthes tuberosa_ was given them by Linnæus in his Hortus Cliffortianus.

The auricula, _Primula auricula_, grows wild among the long moss covered with snow, on the Lower Alps of Switzerland and Steyermark[1594], whence it was brought to our gardens, where, by art and accident, it has produced more varieties than any other species of flower. I do not know who first transplanted it from its native soil. Pluche[1595] says only that some roots were pulled up by Walloon merchants, and carried to Brussels. This much, at any rate, is certain, that it was first cultivated with care by the Flemings, who were very successful in propagating it. Professor Weismantel, who deserves to be ranked amongst the principal writers on flowers[1596], says that the auricula was described and celebrated by Ovid, Pliny and Columella; but this I much doubt. The botanists even of the seventeenth century, who searched for plants in the works of the ancients with great diligence, and who took the liberty of making very bold assertions, were not able to find any name that would correspond with the auricula; for the conjecture of Fabius Columna, that it is the _alisma_ of Dioscorides, is highly improbable, as that Grecian author extols his plant, which was fond of water, on account of its medicinal virtues only. In the time of Clusius, most of the varieties of the auricula were scarce.

The common fritillary, or chequered lily, _Fritillaria Meleagris_, was first observed in some parts of France, Hungary, Italy, and other warm countries[1597], and introduced into gardens about the middle of the sixteenth century. At first it was called _Lilium variegatum_; but Noel Capperon, an apothecary at Orleans, who collected a great many scarce plants, gave it the name of _Fritillaria_, because the red or reddish-brown spots of the flower form regular squares, much like those of a chess-board. It was called _meleagris_ by Dodonæus, because the feathers of that fowl are variegated almost in the same manner[1598].

The roots of the magnificent crown imperial, _Fritillaria imperialis_, were about the middle of the sixteenth century brought from Persia to Constantinople, and were carried thence to the emperor’s garden at Vienna, from which they were dispersed all over Europe. This flower was first known by the Persian name _tusac_, until the Italians gave it that of _corona imperialis_[1599], or crown imperial. I have somewhere read that it has been imagined that the figure of it is to be found represented on coins of Herod, and that, on this account, it has been considered as the lily so much celebrated in the Scripture.

The Persian lily, _Fritillaria Persica_, which is nearly related to it, was made known almost about the same time. The bulbs or roots were brought from Susa to Constantinople, and for that reason it was formerly called _Lilium Susianum_[1600].

African and French marigolds, _Tagetes erecta_ and _patula_, were, according to the account of Dodonæus and others, brought from Africa to Europe, at the time when the emperor Charles V. carried his arms against Tunis. This however is improbable; for these plants are indigenous in South America, and were known to botanists before that period under the name of _Caryophyllus Indicus_, from which is derived the French appellation _œillet d’Inde_. Cordus calls them, from their native country, _Tanacetum Peruvianum_[1601].

Among the most beautiful ornaments of our gardens is the belladonna lily, _Amaryllis formosissima_, the flower of which, composed of six petals, is of a deep-red colour, and in a strong light, or when the sun shines upon it, has an agreeable yellow lustre like gold. The first roots of it ever seen in Europe were procured in 1593, on board a ship which had returned from South America, by Simon de Tovar, a physician at Seville. In the year following, he sent a description of the flower to Clusius; and as he had at the same time transmitted some roots to Bernard Paludanus and count d’Aremberg, the former sent a dried flower, and the latter an accurate drawing of it to Clusius, who published it in 1601[1602]. One of the Robins gave in 1608 a larger and more correct figure, which was afterwards copied by Bry, Parkinson, and Rudbeck; but a complete description, with a good engraving, was published in 1742, by Linnæus[1603], who in 1737 gave to that genus the name by which it is known at present[1604]. Sweert, Bauhin, and Rudbeck, are evidently mistaken in assigning the East Indies as the original country of this plant; and Broke[1605], who was not a botanist, but only a florist, is equally wrong in making it a native of the Levant. Tovar received it from South America, where it was found by Plumier and Barrere, and at a later period by Thiery de Menonville[1606]. At first it was classed with the narcissus, and it was afterwards called _lilio-narcissus_, because its flower resembled that of the lily, and its roots those of the narcissus. It was named _flos Jacobæus_, because some imagined that they discovered in it a likeness to the badge of the knights of the order of St. James in Spain, whose founder, in the fourteenth century, could not indeed have been acquainted with this beautiful amaryllis.

Another species of this genus is the Guernsey lily, _Amaryllis Sarniensis_, which in the magnificence of its flower is not inferior to the former. This plant was brought from Japan, where it was found by Kæmpfer, and also by Thunberg[1607], during his travels some years ago in that country. It was first cultivated in the beginning of the seventeenth century in the garden of John Morin, at Paris, where it blowed, for the first time, on the 7th of October 1634. It was then made known by Jacob Cornutus, under the name of _narcissus Japonicus flore rutilo_[1608]. After this it was again noticed by John Ray[1609], in 1665, who called it the _Guernsey lily_, which name it still very properly bears. A ship returning from Japan was wrecked on the coast of Guernsey, and a number of the bulbs of this plant, which were on board, being cast on shore, took root in that sandy soil. As they soon increased and produced beautiful flowers, they were observed by the inhabitants, and engaged the attention of Mr. Hatton, the governor’s son, whose botanical knowledge is highly spoken of by Ray, and who sent roots of them to several of his friends who were fond of cultivating curious plants[1610]. Of this elegant flower Dr. Douglass gave a description and figure in a small treatise published in 1725, which is quoted by Linnæus in his Bibliotheca, but not by Haller.

Of the comprehensive genus _Ranunculus_, florists, to speak in a botanical sense, have obtained a thousand different kinds[1611]; for, according to the manner in which they are distinguished by gardeners, the varieties are infinite and increase almost every summer, as those with half-full flowers bear seed which produce plants that from time to time yield new kinds that exhibit greater or uncommon beauties. The principal part of them, however, and those most esteemed, were brought to us from the Levant. Some were carried from that part of the world so early as in the time of the crusades; but most of them have been introduced into Europe from Constantinople since the end of the sixteenth century, particularly the Persian ranunculus (_R. asiaticus_, Linn.), the varieties of which, if I am not mistaken, hold at present the first rank. Clusius describes both the single and the full flowers as new rarities. This flower was in the highest repute during the time of Mahomet IV. His Grand Vizir, Cara Mustapha, well-known by his hatred against the Christians and the siege of Vienna in 1683, wishing to turn the sultan’s thoughts to some milder amusement than that of the chase, for which he had a strong passion, diverted his attention to flowers; and, as he remarked that the emperor preferred the ranunculus to all others, he wrote to the different pachas throughout the whole kingdom to send him seeds or roots of the most beautiful kinds. The pachas of Candia, Cyprus, Aleppo, and Rhodes paid most regard to this request; and the elegant flowers which they transmitted to court were shut up in the seraglio as unfortunate offerings to the voluptuousness of the sultan, till some of them, by the force of money, were at length freed from their imprisonment. The ambassadors from the European courts in particular, made it their business to procure roots of as many kinds as they could, which they sent to their different sovereigns. Marseilles, which at that period carried on the greatest trade to the Levant, received on this account these flowers very early; and a person there, of the name of Malaval, is said to have contributed very much to disperse them all over Europe[1612].

[Among the favourites of the present day may be instanced,--

The varied and social Pelargoniums (commonly called geraniums), which from their capability of living in the confined air of rooms almost form a part of the household furniture in this country. They are nearly all members of the Cape of Good Hope. A large number however of those with which we are familiar are not distinct species, but mere varieties. Geraniums were first introduced into this country at the end of the seventeenth century. Pelargoniums differ from geraniums principally in the irregularity of their flowers, their shrubby stems and tubular nectaries. They were first separated by L’Heritier.

The Dahlia, an universal favourite; its exquisite symmetry, when perfect, and the size of its flowers rendering it one of the most beautiful of our garden-plants. It is generally stated to have been introduced by Lady Holland in 1804; but it was introduced many years before that period, and was only brought from Madrid by Lady Holland, who apparently did not know that it was already in the country. The first species of Dahlia known to Europeans was _D. superflua_ (_variabilis_, De C.); it was discovered in Mexico by Humboldt in 1789, and sent to Professor Cavanilles, of the Botanic Garden at Madrid, who named the genus in honour of the Swedish Professor Dahl. Cavanilles sent a plant of it to the marchioness of Bute. From this species, nearly all the varieties known in our gardens have been raised. There are now in England ten or twelve species. including innumerable varieties.

The Rose, which is one of our oldest favourites, and has been known from time immemorial among the civilized nations of Europe and Asia. It occurs in almost every country of the northern hemisphere, both in the Old and New World. It is not found in South America nor in Australia. The name is derived from _rhos_, which signifies red in Armorican, whence ῥόδον, Greek, and _rosa_, Latin. More than one hundred species have been described, and more than two thousand varieties may be procured in the nurseries.

And lastly, the Calceolarias, which are natives of South America. Their great variety has rendered them especial favourites. They abound in Chili and Peru. The name is derived from _calceolus_, from the resemblance of the corolla (coloured part of the flower) to a slipper. In 1820, half-a-dozen species only were known in this country. During the next ten or twelve years, five or six more species were introduced from Chili. Innumerable hybrids are now raised every year, varying in colour through every possible shade of crimson, brown, orange, purple, pink, and yellow: there are one or two of a pure white colour.]

FOOTNOTES

[1592] Hagæ, 1599, fol.

[1593] Miller’s Gardener’s Dictionary.

[1594] Haller, Histor. Stirpium, i. p. 272, n. 612.

[1595] Spectacle de la Nature, ii. p. 49.

[1596] Des Blumisten vol. i. Erfurt, 1783, 8vo, p. 5.

[1597] [It also occurs wild in the eastern and southern parts of England.]

[1598] Clusii Hist. Plant. ii. p. 154.

[1599] Ibid. i. p. 128. Dodonæi Pempt. p. 202.

[1600] Clusii Hist. Plant. i. p. 130.

[1601] Dodonæi Florum Hist. p. 62. Bauhini Hist. Plant. iii. p. 98.

[1602] Hist. Plantar. i. p. 157.

[1603] Abhandl. der Schwed. Akad. iv.

[1604] Hortus Cliffort. p. 135.

[1605] Beobacht. v. einigen Blumen, 1769, 8vo.

[1606] Barrere, Hist. Nat. de la France Equinoxiale. Traité de la Culture du Nopal, par T. de Menonville, 1787, 8vo.

[1607] Flora Japonica. The Japanese consider the bulbs poisonous.

[1608] J. Cornuti Canad. Plantarum aliarumque Historia. Par. 1635, 4to.

[1609] A complete Florilege, furnished with all the requisites belonging to a florist. London, 1665, fol. lib. i. cap. 10, p. 74.

[1610] Morisoni Plantarum Historia, pars 2. Ox. 1680, fol. p. 367.

[1611] Miller’s Gardener’s Dictionary. [Of one species alone no less than eight hundred varieties were known at the end of the last century.]

[1612] Tournefort, Voyage du Levant, vol. ii. p. 15.--Traité des Renoncules (par D’Ardene), Paris, 1746, 8vo.--Pluche, Spectacle de la Nature, vol. i.

END OF VOL. I.

Printed by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street.

Transcribers’ Notes

Text contains Greek. Equipment that cannot display these characters may substitute question marks or other placeholders.

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed. Words spelled differently in quoted text than elsewhere were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were silently corrected, except as noted below; ambiguous unbalanced quotation marks and hyphens at the ends of lines were retained, except as noted below.

Text often uses periods where commas might be expected. As the author’s intent is unknown, all of them have been retained.

The spelling and accent marks of non-English words have been retained as printed in the original book; some possible or likely errors are noted below, but not comprehensively.

Footnotes, originally at the bottom of the page, have been renumbered and moved to the end of each chapter. The footnotes to a footnote retain their original letter-identifications.

In footnotes, the letter “l.” and the number “1.” look alike, so the representations of some of them here may be incorrect.

Page 2: “but he produces” was printed as “but he produce,” (with a comma instead of an “s”); changed here. “produce,” was the last word on the line, and the last word on the next line was “latters”, which has been changed here to “latter”.

Page 34: “At present it is cultivated” was printed as “A-present” with the hyphen at the end of the line; changed here.

Page 84: “Recréations” was printed that way, with just one accented “é”.

Page 84: “de la Congr. de St. Maur,” was printed as “de la de Congr. St. Maur,” but changed here based on examination of an earlier edition.

Page 99: “of trying to what distance” was printed that way.

Page 173: “They consider the forming the strata” was printed that way.

Page 177: “Lottichii” was imperfectly printed, so the “ii” may be something else, such as “Lottichius”, which appears on page 324.

Page 239: “recals” was printed that way.

Page 241: The closing quotation mark at the end of the paragraph ending “be admitted into this association”, appears to belong after the sentence ending “should not be excluded”. Later in the same paragraph, “insure his houses” was printed that way.

Page 295: Extraneous closing quotation mark removed at end of poem.

Footnote 1013, referenced on page 326: “Arzneywissenschaft” may be a misprint for “Arzneiwissenschaft”.

Page 354: Missing closing single-quotation mark for text beginning “‘Si fanno certi orologii”.

Page 419: “lay old of the wire” was printed that way.

Page 454: Missing closing quotation mark added after “in great quantity at Marseilles.”

Page 462: Closing quotation mark added after “fall upon the countess.”

Volume II of this set is available at no charge from Project Gutenberg, www.gutenberg.org, eBook number 48152.