The plant-lore & garden-craft of ShakespeareEllacombe, Henry Nicholson
General
The plant-lore & garden-craft of Shakespeare
Ellacombe, Henry Nicholson
Gardens in literature; Plants in literature; Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616 -- Knowledge -- Botany
But Virgil gives it a bad character, speaking of it as "filicem
invisam." Horace is still more severe, "neglectis urenda filix
innascitur agris." The Anglo-Saxon translation of Boethius spoke
contemptuously of the "Thorns, and the Furzes, and the Fern, and all the
weeds" (Cockayne). And so it was in Shakespeare's time. Butler spoke of
it as the--
"Fern, that vile, unuseful weed,
That grows equivocably without seed."
Cowley spoke the opinion of his day as if the plant had neither use nor
beauty--
"Nec caulem natura mihi, nec Floris honorem,
Nec mihi vel semen dura Noverca dedit--
Nec me sole fovet, nec cultis crescere in hortis
Concessum, et Foliis gratia nulla meis--
Herba invisa Deis poteram cœloque videri,
Et spurio Terræ nata puerperio."
_Plantarum_, lib. i.
And later still Gilpin, who wrote so much on the beauties of country
scenery at the close of the last century, has nothing better to say for
Ferns than that they are noxious weeds, to be classed with "Thorns and
Briers, and other ditch trumpery." The fact, no doubt, is that Ferns
were considered something "uncanny and eerie;" our ancestors could not
understand a plant which seemed to them to have neither flower nor seed,
and so they boldly asserted it had neither. "This kinde of Ferne," says
Lyte in 1587, "beareth neither flowers nor sede, except we shall take
for sede the black spots growing on the backsides of the leaves, the
whiche some do gather thinking to worke wonders, but to say the trueth
it is nothing els but trumperie and superstition." A plant so strange
must needs have strange qualities, but the peculiar power attributed to
it of making persons invisible arose thus:--It was the age in which the
doctrine of signatures was fully believed in; according to which
doctrine Nature, in giving particular shapes to leaves and flowers, had
thereby plainly taught for what diseases they were specially
useful.[91:1] Thus a heart-shaped leaf was for heart disease, a
liver-shaped for the liver, a bright-eyed flower was for the eyes, a
foot-shaped flower or leaf would certainly cure the gout, and so on; and
then when they found a plant which certainly grew and increased, but of
which the organs of fructification were invisible, it was a clear
conclusion that properly used the plant would confer the gift of
invisibility. Whether the people really believed this or not we cannot
say,[92:1] but they were quite ready to believe any wonder connected
with the plant, and so it was a constant advertisement with the quacks.
Even in Addison's time "it was impossible to walk the streets without
having an advertisement thrust into your hand of a doctor who had
arrived at the knowledge of the Green and Red Dragon, and had discovered
the female Fern-seed. Nobody ever knew what this meant" ("Tatler," No.
240). But to name all the superstitions connected with the Fern would
take too much space.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account