HERB - Re: Culpepper and beginning period books

[Jenne Heise]

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Kathleen Keeler wrote:
>     But Christianna, you are talking about modern treatments.  I think the Period
> version is that there is only a single truth, and that a reliable herbal will give
> it to you.  The question was to identify an available primary source that reflects
> the ideas of the time, which Culpeper may not.

Well, I agree with the point about Culpeper-- he may or may not reflect
the ideas of the time. When you look at the history of any one book, and
who the book was plaguarized from, you can get a sense of whether this
book was widely known and used.

But it's my impression that though many authors plagarized from one
another, there was still-- at least in the early days of printing-- a
certain amount of 'Dr Atkin's Diet Book' or 'Martha Stewart' type
publications, where the author was using the medium to advance their own
quack theory. Now, if that quack theory was picked up by the populace (and
I think Culpeper's was-- in the 17th century) then we can say that it is
period.

>    I would therefore recommend DP O'Hanlon's translation of "Macer's Virtues of
> Herbs". Macer wrote in rhymed Latin about 1200, it is pretty straight from
> Dioscorides. 

I checked for this one; the only copy I could find in libraries is in the
New York Botanical Garden....

>    The middle period stuff is, as Jasmine says, repetitious, and it should be,
> because they are all of them generally repeating Dioscorides.  The problem is that
> Dioscorides himself is not readily available and the translation in my U's library
> is very difficult indeed.  But if you have Dioscorides you have the information in
> western herbals until late Period.

That may depend on what you consider late period. For instance, there are
things in 'Tacticum Sanitanis' that are not in Dioscorides-- and the
editions used for 'The Medieval Health Handbook' were 13th and 14th
century (to me late period is 16th and late 15th century)

Then there are things like Hildegarde of Bingen's writings, which we can't
be sure who used.

>    What do we know about what was available to people in the Middle Ages?  The
> history of medicine and of geography features new translations of classical sources
> after about 1250.  Earlier they had a very limited collection of what the Romans
> and Greeks knew. Their Aristotle was only one book and not the one we're most
> likely to read today (check me on that).  And of course the stuff the Arabs
> preserved wasn't accessible then either.

Hm. What about Hortulus? Or the Nine Herbs charm of the Anglo-Saxons? 
(My impression is that not every book was a direct copy of Dioscorides.
That even if they borrowed from Dioscorides, the authors also included
anything they themselves knew or believed....)

>    Jadwiga, one nice thing about Culpeper is the section on methods in some
> editions.  Its the closest to Period source of how to do a decoction or preserve
> herbs in sugar that I know.  Do you know a better one?

Well, I can't make any comparative statements about this, since my edition
hasn't got the recipes and I've finally broken down and just ordered a
copy that does.

I'm very fond of Markham's _English Housewife_, myself, and I seem to
think I have a few other sources kicking around that I would use.

Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise	      jenne at tulgey.browser.net
 "in verbis et in herbis, et in lapidibus sunt virtutes"
(In words, and in plants, and in stones, there is power.)

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.