Theophrasti De Historia Plantarum (1483 Incunabulum)

lium. To speak absolutely: I shall set forth generally according to the nature of each tree: plants are allotted their own particular difference. Indeed, each one obtains a certain temperament and a peculiar mixture: which evidently corresponds to the underlying fruits, in many of which a certain similarity is noted, although it is more uncertain and doubtful to the senses: namely for the reason that the nature of flavor follows a pure and sincere concoction and digestion in the flesh of the fruit. For we ought to consider one thing as it were the matter, and the other as it were the form and species. The seeds themselves, and the tunics membranes or skins with which they are clothed, also differ among themselves by the distinction of their flavors. And to speak simply, all parts of trees and plants—such as the root, the stem, the branch, the leaf, the fruit—seem to have a certain kinship with the whole nature, although they differ in scent and flavor, such that some parts of the same plant are fragrant and well-flavored, while others are entirely odorless and insipid. For in some, the flowers are odorless, but the leaves are fragrant. In others, conversely, the leaves and branches are more so, as in the coronaria garland/crown-making genus. In some, the fruit. In others, neither. In others, the root. In others, some other part. The reason for the flavor is similar. For some things can be chewed, others cannot. And it is not peculiar to the leaves or the fruits, a fact we observe in the linden. For its leaves are very sweet, and are fodder for most animals. Yet the fruit can be chewed by no one, for on the contrary, nothing is more unpleasant, so that they do not eat the leaves. Yet the fruits can be eaten not only by us, but also by other animals. But we shall attempt to contemplate the causes of this and other similar things later. Now let us consider it established that many differences exist in various ways through all the parts. For of flowers, some are downy, as in the vine, the mulberry, and the ivy. Others are foliated bearing leaves or petals, such as those of the almond. The apple, pear, and plum also have large ones; those of the olive are indeed foliated but are tiny. In the same way, in the genus of annuals and herbaceous plants: some are foliated, others are downy. Of all of them, some are bicolored, some unicolorous, and these are white. For when only the pomegranate produces a scarlet original: "phœniceus" color, and some almonds produce a reddish one. There is no other among the urban cultivated trees with a bicolored or full flower, but if there is one, it is certainly wild, such as the fir. For its flower is saffron-colored, and those which they report in the outer sea are similar in color to roses; but the iannuae likely refers to species similar to pomegranate or specialized cultivated flowers emerge in greater part as such, both bicolored and in pairs, and they bear a second flower in the middle of the flower itself, just as the rose, the black violet, and the lily; some even emerge with one leaf, yet showing the description pattern/structure mostly, as the flower in the inflorescence; for in this, one does not discern each leaf. Nor does the lowest part need a receptacle, but they end in angles at the last. The flower of the olive seems to be almost such. They also differ in origin and position: for some produce the flower around the fruit itself, such as the vine and the olive, whose fallen little flowers are seen to be perforated; and this is taken as an argument that the tree has properly finished flowering. For if they have withered, or have been moistened, they will fall off together with the fruits, and thus they will in no way be perforated. The greater part holds the fruit in the middle of the flower. But there are not wanting those that emit the flower sitting above the fruit itself, such as the pomegranate, the Amerian apple, the plum, the myrtle, and in the genus of shrubs, the rose. And the greater part