I recently attended the History of Science Society’s annual meeting in Portland, Oregon. It was notable for me because it involved my first plane trip in over four years, and by some miracle, both my flights were on time. I’ve gone to this meeting several times and have gotten to know a number of people with whom it was nice to catch up. Now I have the added pleasure of meeting individuals whom I’ve only known through social media and Zoom. One of the joys of Portland was finally encountering the Swedish historian of botany Anna Svensson with whom I had been on a virtual panel and shared emails and tweets. I’d read her dissertation that included chapters on her work on a Kew digitization project and an investigation of plants pressed between the pages of books (Svensson, 2017). At a talk I attended years ago, the botanical historian Karen Reeds (2009) had mentioned such a practice and gave some examples of plants she had come across in early modern herbals, but that’s the only reference to this I’d encountered, until Svensson’s work. It intrigued me, and I was thrilled that it was the topic of her HSS presentation.
Svensson has done considerable research since her first publication, and in Portland she presented many examples of plants pressed between the pages of herbals and florilegia. There was variation in the number of specimens in a book, from one up to 30. In some cases, the cuttings were found alongside information relevant to that particular plant, in others, the placement seemed random. There were also instances where the plants were in books that have nothing to do with botany, making the question of motive more difficult to answer. Was the plant put there for future reference or was it preserved for sentimental reasons? Svensson admits that it’s often impossible to answer such questions, yet investigating these cases can still tell a great deal about the history of use of a particular volume. She gave several examples of “ghosts,” stains on paper in the shape of a plant indicating where a cutting was kept, probably for a considerable period of time. She said that it’s not that unusual to find pressed plants or their traces in early modern books, more so in herbals than in volumes on materia medica. I found this distinction interesting, but I’ll leave it to Svensson to come up with a hypothesis as to why. It does show that the presence of plants in books gives at least some suggestions as to how these works were used in the course of learning about and observing plants.
Earlier in the year Svensson and Will Beharrell, the librarian at the Linnean Society, organized a one-day meeting about the plants-in-books practice. It was held at the annual meeting of the European Botanical and Horticultural Libraries Group. This was a perfect venue because these practitioners have to deal with the plant material that ends up in their collections. There is the fraught question of what to do with the plants: leave them in the books or store them separately, also how to annotate the record to note the presence and whereabouts of the material. As with most practices, there are differences of opinion. The plant loses context if removed, and the book no longer has what could be called a form of material annotation. On the other hand, the chemicals in plants can damage the paper. Some libraries have a hard and fast rule for all this material, at other institutions it’s on a case by case basis. No one just discards these finds, and the librarians were glad for an opportunity to discuss this phenomenon.
But back to Portland, where Svensson presented many wonderful examples and tackled the issue of books being used as plant presses. She noted that 17th and 18th-century instructions to travelers for the collection of plant specimens suggested the use of books to press and preserve plants. However, she found that it was difficult to figure out how often this practice was actually used. The privateer-naturalist William Dampier, the first European to collect plants in Australia, preserved them between pages of a book, as he noted in his memoir on the voyage. Carl Magnus Blom, one of Carl Linnaeus’s students, collected in Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands using a book only as a press, not for reference. Garden catalogues were sometimes employed for the purpose.
Svensson mentioned an early exsiccatae, a printed 1720 materia medica by the Danish physician Johannes de Buchwald in which each entry was accompanied by a specimen. This became a more common practice in the 19th century when more economical books were available; it was a way to distribute the fruits of collecting expeditions and provide income for collectors. In her abstract Svensson notes: “It is clear that books had an important role in the collection and circulation of plants on a global scale as well as in more local field collecting, drawing on the power of plants to conjure up the places where they were collected, for empirical observation, colonial prospecting, keepsakes of pilgrimage, and memories of personal travel.” I really can’t do justice to Svensson’s presentation here because I can’t replicate her quite abundant visual evidence that would stir the heart of any botanist, particularly an herbarium lover.
References
Reeds, K. (2009). Finding a Plant in an Early Herbal: Hypericum, Saint John’s Wort, in Hieronymus Bock’s (Tragus), Kreuter Buoch, 1546. AVISTA Forum Journal, 19, 70–72.
Svensson, A. (2017). A Utopian Quest for Universal Knowledge: Diachronic Histories of Botanical Collections between the Sixteenth Century and the Present. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.