PREFACE

** 4

...of the present work seems to be made. Since these three things in particular are encompassed—the text of Dioscorides, our Commentaries upon him, and the illustrations of the plants—I must give an account of each, so that I do not conceal how I have conducted myself in each, as must be confessed. Regarding the text of Dioscorides, which we decided should by no means be omitted for several reasons that would be too long to recount here, someone might ask: Why the Author approved of Ruel’s version above the others. Why did I prefer the translation of Jean Ruel Jean Ruel (c. 1474–1537) was a French physician whose 1516 Latin translation of Dioscorides was highly regarded for its elegant style., a most learned French physician, and deem it worthy to be read above the others in our commentaries, even though two other equally supreme and most learned men—Ermolao Barbaro and Marcello Virgilio of Florence—labored diligently in the same study? I confess candidly that I followed Ruel’s version, but I have not for that reason ever looked down upon the noble efforts of the others; rather, I have always admired the study of both, as both deserved the greatest praise in that work. However, this moved me more to accept Ruel: that his translation has become more common to all and is more frequently found in the hands of students. Add also that this version is preferred by the common judgment of almost everyone, especially physicians. To this judgment, I also saw fit to subscribe.

Yet it certainly did not escape me that Ruel was perhaps too scrupulous, in that he sometimes preferred to abandon Dioscorides rather than Pliny—now captured by the brilliance of the Latin language, now uncertain in his knowledge of a thing—following Theodorus Theodorus Gaza, who translated Theophrastus's botanical works into Latin., who seems to have done the same very often in translating Theophrastus. Having observed this, I indeed accepted Ruel’s interpretation, but in such a way that I have sometimes dared to depart from it, following either the authority of the oldest and most approved manuscripts and that of Oribasius Oribasius (c. 320–400 AD) was a Greek medical compiler and personal physician to the Emperor Julian., or relying on certain experience of the matter. Of those things I changed, I left some marked with an obelisk A symbol (†) used in ancient texts to mark passages suspected of being corrupt or doubtful., and for some we even suppressed the mark in that copy which we have published most recently.

Correction of the text from various manuscripts, and those very ancient. And now, in performing this duty more extensively, the most illustrious man Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq (1522–1592) was a Flemish diplomat who served as the Holy Roman Emperor’s ambassador to the Ottoman Empire; he is famous for bringing the first tulips to Europe and discovering the "Vienna Dioscorides" manuscript., a Belgian who served as Ambassador for Emperor Ferdinand to Suleiman, the Emperor of the Turks, for seven continuous years, has helped me immensely. For he brought back with him from Constantinople two very ancient copies of Dioscorides: one he received as a loan from Antonio Cantacuzeno, a nobleman of Constantinople, and the other from a certain Interpreter of the Emperor (they call them a Dragoman original: "Dragomanum" among the Turks), solely for the sake of helping me. With the help of these copies, we have corrected the text of Dioscorides that is publicly circulated in many places, and even Ruel’s own version, as everyone will easily understand from the many annotations arranged in the margin. So that it would be clear to all from where we received them, we added the name of Cantacuzeno, the Dragoman, or my own manuscript to each and every annotation. We do not doubt that this will be most welcome to learned men and students of botany.

Thus it happened that I did not think Ruel’s name should be written on the text itself, lest I seem to agree with him in name while frequently disagreeing with him in fact. For I thought it would be enough if I informed students here that I am indebted to Ruel for the translation of Dioscorides, and if I further gave the reason why I did not always wish to be bound to him. Because we have (as I believe) performed this abundantly, let us now proceed to the other thing proposed, which concerned our commentaries. Regarding these, it would truly be better for me to remain silent than to say a few things, if I wished to meet the "little noses" An idiom for critics or those who turn up their noses in disdain. and backbiters. Against detractors. For this kind of man is common today and flourishes more every day—men who produce no fruit or seed in the entire course of their lives, yet greedily pluck at others' work, then tear it apart and trample it underfoot. But they are all sycophants, reckless and impudent, since they study only to mock good and learned men.

We have known for a long time that there are some of this "black flour" A metaphor for people of bad character or malicious intent. who, having written booklets against us, strive to obscure our efforts, relying only on sophistries, disguised lies, quarrels, and insults. But since I consider these to be more truly donkeys than men, frolicking in the streets, I shall allow them to fart until they bleed original: "pedere sinam ad sanguinem usque." Mattioli is known for his aggressive and often crude polemical style against his scientific rivals.. In the meantime, let these most desperate scoundrels prattle, act, write, and bark against me; let them tear, lash, wound, and attack our labors with slanders, insults, and every kind of evil they rely upon; and if anything even more serious comes to their minds, let them bring it forth against us. They will not, however, turn me away from the studies and labors of helping the Commonwealth and propagating the truth. Nor will they ever, with their poisonous bites, so tear apart and weaken my writings (as they persuade themselves) that they do not continually emerge among good and learned men, shining like the purest gold despite their innate malice. For I would seem to myself to be censured among good and holy men if the most wicked and desperate men praised me.

Indeed, I have always considered it the greatest honor if students and those who deserve well of the Commonwealth are reviled by them, since the designs of such plotters aim at nothing else than to oppress virtue and confound the truth—but to extol vice (if they only could) and nourish lies everywhere, so that they might seem to bring something of a miracle into the open through these diabolical illusions. The Greeks call a slanderer diabolos original: "διαβολον", by which word both Greeks and Latins call that execrable and foulest enemy of the human race, the Devil—namely, the supreme architect of slanders, the father of lies, and the master of discord. From his school proceed those dark wits breathing out envy, virulence, disguises, and lies, as the material of Hellish discipline. Therefore, those who prefer to wink at lies rather than speak freely for the truth are not of God, but of the devil. For legitimate children always bear some mark from their parents. Our Commentaries (by the gift of God Almighty) have been in everyone’s hands with great praise for almost twenty years...