PREFACE

...which undoubtedly will draw the eyes of many learned and good men to contemplate them. But truly, it has happened to me most vexatiously that there are those who corrupt, mutilate, and destroy our plant illustrations. Against those who corrupt and steal illustrations, from Mattioli’s commentaries. Indeed, in recent years, Andrés Laguna original: "Andreas à Lacuna"; a prominent Spanish physician and humanist not only transferred the greater part of our labors into his own commentaries on Dioscorides, written in the Spanish tongue, but also rendered all the illustrations previously published by us so deformed—due to the negligence of his craftsmen and his own stinginess—that none of the natural splendor seen in our smaller editions can be perceived in them. But even more harshly must we accuse Cottier, the printer of Lyon original: "Coterius Typographus Lugdunensis"; referring to Philibert Cottier, who saw to it that these same images were recut and included in our Dioscorides when it was translated into the French language. For he, far more addicted to profit than eager to help his own people, reduced those images into such a tiny form that no fruit can be gathered from them; neither the leaves, nor flowers, nor fruits, nor roots have a clear appearance, but all appear confused, tangled, mutilated, and defiled. It has come to the point that I sometimes regret having undertaken such great labor, especially when I see these imposters corrupting and seizing the efforts of others with impunity.

Likeness ...?

Furthermore, to say something else specifically regarding illustrations, I formerly shrunk away from printing them, thinking that no one could ever attain such a true and exact knowledge of simple medicines simples: individual medicinal plants or minerals used as remedies from images that their entire variety could be captured in a single picture. For the appearance of a sprouting herb is not the same as that of a mature one, nor is the mature one the same as that which is already growing old. If all such changes of herbs had to be represented in individual pictures, who could doubt that the work would require infinite labor and immense expense? Yet, when I saw that such efforts by others were commended by almost everyone, and that the enthusiasm of men publishing images of things was growing daily, I did not want to appear as the only one holding a contrary opinion. Having finally weighed the matter more carefully and discovered it to be otherwise—learning differently from experience itself—I did not wish to fail this excellent and by no means fruitless study. To this was added a further incitement: the vanity of a certain printer from Mantua, who had stealthily inserted certain images into our works previously published in Italian—images not added by us at all, which resembled anything rather than the plant itself. I rejoiced that this happened while I was still alive, so that I might personally erase the shameful mark falsely burned into my reputation. Therefore, to assist the efforts of others and to counter the recklessness of this malicious engraver, I also wished to try if I could provide anything of value in this matter—not only to bring my own findings into the light, but also to deserve well of you, the students, if I could.

But how difficult this task has been for us, I need not explain at length. For everyone knows how difficult it is to find men who can depict things "to the life" original: "ad uiuum"; meaning drawn from a living specimen rather than copied from other books just as they are, and who can diligently engrave what has been depicted. There is an even greater scarcity of the latter. You students will easily judge this for yourselves, as in this work you will perhaps encounter some images sculpted quite skillfully, and others, truly, not skillfully enough. Certainly, whatever I was able to do for the common good—though I realize it may be meager—I have not failed to provide my zeal, labor, or diligence. What I have achieved, I do not know. The judgment of all things will be yours.

The opinion of Cornarius regarding not publishing illustrations is refuted.

But Janus Cornarius A German humanist and rival of Mattioli—a man otherwise most learned in both languages Greek and Latin, but who perhaps wishes to be held as unique among all others—seems to think far differently than we do. For in his Dioscorides, which he has now for the first time translated into Latin with certain emblems added, he not only included no images, but also sharply condemns those who have inserted them into their commentaries. Whether he did this led by envy or by reason, I would wish you to be the judges, should you ever read the preface of that "good man" and diligently explore his mind. For although it was said by Galen The most influential physician of antiquity, whose authority was absolute in the Renaissance (which we also wrote before Cornarius did) that images of plants contribute little to investigating their knowledge, those who include images of plants and animals in their books are not to be accused for this reason. Indeed, I have nowhere found that Galen condemned the images of plants that are usually painted in books, but rather he condemned those who think they can become most skilled in botanical matters solely by inspecting images and reading any books whatsoever—even if written by the greatest and most serious authors. Therefore, it is a cause for no small wonder that Cornarius, a man otherwise remarkably learned, not only failed to understand Galen’s words, but even twisted them into a perverse meaning. Thus, one might easily suspect that when Cornarius realized he was the very last translator of Dioscorides, and that no room remained for him to bring anything new to the images of plants, he adopted the plan of utterly detesting those who have pictures of plants in their books. He perhaps thought that by this kind of detestation, he would not only acquire the most praise for himself but also cover up his misfortune and (if I may say so with his permission) his ignorance in the history of plants.

For what other reason is there why he condemns the industry of others? As if it were not permitted for posterity to devise something by their own genius and study that was not noticed by the ancients before. But Galen did not condemn the images of plants, nor the books written on the history of plants, but rather the men who believed that by the inspection of these things alone, anyone could become skilled in botany. That this is a clear argument is shown by what Galen himself recorded for the memory of posterity in the first book of On the Powers of Foods, when he says that these books were prepared for us so that they might be "monuments" of those things we have learned before, not so that the unrefined and ignorant might attain perfect doctrine through them. But if there are those who lack teachers and wish to apply themselves diligently to what has been written clearly and copiously, Galen himself testifies that they will receive great fruit from it, especially if they do not find it burdensome to read them over again. By which...