Hortus Malabaricus

Page 1

{Extracted from THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY.•Vol. 58. December, 1920.] BIBLIOGRAPHICAL N< >TES. LXXXII. THE DATES OP BIIKEJOE'S ' HOETUS MALABAKICTJS.' EBBOBS in dates, like misspelled names, once committed to print, are difficult to get rid of. As a number of modern library catalogues have stumbled over the dates of llheede's Hortus Indiens Malabarieug, it is apparent that some earlier 'records which explain the discrepancies afe in danger of being overlooked. Among a dozen catalogues examined, at least three uncritically accept the misprinted date 1073 for Pars iv.•nor can we assume that in all eases where inclusive dates are stated correctly, the intervening volumes have all been carefully scrutinized. While many cataloguers place their chief reliance on Pritzel's Thesaurus, one would suppose that their curiosity would he roused, at least, by finding the date for this volume given as 1683 in the second edition of Pritzel (1872-77), though the first (1851) gives it as " (errore) 1673 (1683)," an explanation unhappily omitted in the revision of the bibliographv. S -guier (BibL Bot., 1740) and Miltitz (Bibl. Bot., 1829) merely give the correct date without comment. Drvander however (Cat. Bibl. Banks, iii. 179, 1797) gives it as " 1673 (1683)," while Haller (BibL Bot. i. 589 (1771), says: "Tomus iv. De arboribus fructiferis malabaricifl . . . 1683 ("male 1673)." As definite proof that Pars iv. was actually published in 1683, one may cite the review of this volume in Acta Eruditorum anno MDCLXXXIY. (i.e. for 1683), p. 159, which (juntes the title quite fully, though it gives the date 1683 without comment. Every copy of the dlor/tus Malabaricwi ought to have this correction noted on the title of Pars iv. to avoid future confusion. Beside the date of Pars iv., the work offers another stumbling block to the cataloguer in the title-page for the first volume. Although published in 1678, many copies do not have the original title, but the one dated 1686, which was reprinted verbatim from that of pars vi., but with the sole change of the volume number; hence we frequently find 1686-1703 carelessly given as inclusive dates for the entire work. Drvander (I. c.) explains the dates of pars i. as follows:• " Duae adsunt editiones Tomi lmi, quarum utraque in titulo impresso Labet annum 1678, sed in titulo sculpto, altera 1678, altera 1686." 1 have not been able to confirm this distinction between the printed and engraved titles; in copies 1 have seen both are alike, and judging from information in various catalogues, copies with both dates in the first volume cannot be common. Such a possibility, however, is suggested by the copy in the John Crerar library of Chicago, with an engraved title dated 10S2 in the first volume, though its main title-page has the original date 1678. while Pars iii. (1682) also has an engraved title of the same date, but not identical with that in pars i. Again, the (¡ray Herbarium of Harvard University has two sets of the first six volumes, with imprints varying considerably, though the dates are tin,' same for the respective volumes, and in one of them Pars i. (1678) even basa totally different printer's device, a basket of flowers in place of the usual landscape enclosed by the motto: "Non aestas est laeta Diu, componite nidos." These examples indicate that almost any combination of <lates might .•en possible m early volumes.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.