← Back to results
Page 118 · DO #1265 · 53_Arber_Box4FF1r
- Collection
-
Agnes Robertson Arber (1879–1960) papers
- Item/Folder
-
Articles and notes for articles -- Ar [1], 2–5, 7–19, 1927–1958
- Digital Object
-
DO #1265,
page 118
- Collection-level dates
- 1886–1985
Page transcription
Nature-print leaves in a 15-cm-Ms., Le Fischer: H. Meltzclottische Pflanzenkunde. München 1929 p.625, ep. PLXIX
(1855): On Nature-Prints
Bradbury, Henry/Proc. Roy. Institution of Great Britain, vol. II, 1854-8, pp. 106-118, 3 plates. [P. 340.1.C.155.2]
Experiments in getting impressions of plants seem to have been made in the 16th century, and in 1550 de Moncoys, in his Journal des Voyages describes the technique used by a Dane, Welkenstein, who dried the pressed the plants nd then smoked them all over in the smoke of a candle or oil lamp. Then they were placed between two soft leaves of paper, and rubbed down with a smoothing-bone so that the soot was imprinted on the paper. (Summarize any further notes)
Kniphof about a century later published a book illustrated in a similar way, but with printers' ink substituted for lamp-black, and flat pressure for the smoothing-bone. (There is a copy of his work in the University Library:- MA.62, 29-31
Kniphof, J.H. (1757-61): Botanica in originali seu herbarum vivum...elegantissima eetypa...opera et studio J.G.Trampe. Halae Magdeburgice.)
The impressions are coloured by hand in rich strong colour, which much detracts from the delicacy of the nature-prints)
Another book illustrated with nature prints was :-
Hoppe, N.H.(1787-93) Metypa plantarum ratisbonensium, Regensburg.
There is a copy at the British Museum (Bloomsbury, 36.g.13), and B.M.Nat.Hist.) but not so far as I know in Cambridge.
So far as I know, Kniphof and Hoppe were the only people actually to apply the direct ectype method to the illustration of flowering plants. My impression is that the anonymous collection at St John's College with manuscript names was made by this process probably late in the eighteenth century. The handwriting strikes me as not unlike that of Dr William Heberden (1710-1801), which is reproduced in T.J.Pettigrew's Medical Portrait gallery, vol. III, No 7 (n.d. p. 1006) but I do not think it was his. (Newman, Cert. Step. - both names via 1840)
Like most medical men of his time Heberden may well have been a botanist closed school; here he is, could be unlikely. However, I knew of no evidence that he was. It would be interesting to compare the labelling of the nature print figures with any original labels which may remain in connexion with his materia medica cabinet.