On the Names of Plants

those to whom a diligent investigation of things is pleasing will have something to read. To me certainly, to confess candidly what I feel, in the course of translating, that so prolix a dispute concerning names was very often troublesome, while I was forced to consult so many authors whose testimonies Tragus very frequently employs; often also it was pleasant. Not rarely it seemed superfluous, but very often most useful and necessary. Moreover, we have added Hebrew names to the histories of certain plants—not those which we ourselves had devised, as I see some have done, but those especially which might appear either in the Bible or in the writings of the Rabbis and Talmudists; and for that reason we have added almost everywhere testimonies of the passages from which we had taken them. But in truth, we borrowed certain things from Phrisius at the beginning, of which we later repented, since once his writing was weighed, we discovered nothing more insipid than it. Furthermore, we found not a few terms among the Hebrews which exactly correspond to Serapion’s names of plants, as you can see in the history of Mandragora, the Citron, and certain other plants.

We pray, moreover, that those studious of botany might take in good part this small work of ours, which one day, God willing, when we have obtained more leisure, we shall strive to polish and adorn. For the rest, while we adduce testimonies from Dioscorides, we follow Marcellus Virgilius in the distinction of chapters, but Ruellius in the version. In citing Theophrastus, we have sometimes used the partition of the Greek copy, in which ten books of the history of plants exist, and sometimes that of Gaza, who translated only nine books; of which matter it pleased us to warn the reader, lest this diversity should disturb him. We have also annotated, diligently and with the greatest zeal, the passages of the writers on botany which are cited by the Author in all chapters, so that if this translation of ours should satisfy some less, they may betake themselves to the primary sources. For although I have endeavored to render each thing to the best of my ability with a proper phrase suited to botany, yet it cannot be that in so vast a material one does not sometimes err—a thing which we see has happened even to the most learned men. For Marcellus Virgilius often emends the translation of Hermolaus Barbarus, and Manardus and Ruellius not rarely correct him; just as we see that even the version of Ruellius himself does not please the learned in all things.

What wonder is it, therefore, if the same should sometimes happen to me, which is evident to have occurred to the most learned as well? I would not wish, however, for smatterers (for I do not shun the file of the learned; nay, rather, I shall be deeply grateful to them if they emend our errors not only learnedly but also candidly) to attack us with a certain impetus and rashness. How much labor these things cost us, and how much diligence we employed while, in translating these commentaries, we read through at least fifteen writers on botany and tried to imitate their style, both we ourselves have experienced, and others will testify, who have themselves at some time been engaged in this course of studies