gardening in the eighth century

[coraa]

I was going through old files on my computer, and I found my thesis. Back when I was writing it, I posted this excerpt (from Charlemagne's "De Villis," in the capitularia). I still love it so much, so I'm posting it again:

It is our wish that they shall have in their gardens all kinds of plants: lily, roses, fenugreek, costmary, sage, rue, southernwood, cucumbers, pumpkins, gourds, kidney-bean, cumin, rosemary, caraway, chick-pea, squill, gladiolus, tarragon, anise, colocynth, chicory, ammi, sesili, lettuces, spider's foot, rocket salad, garden cress, burdock, penny-royal, hemlock, parsley, celery, lovage, juniper, dill, sweet fennel, endive, dittany, white mustard, summer savory, beets, hazelwort, marshmallows, mallows, carrots, parsnip, orach, spinach, kohlrabi, cabbages, onion, chives, leeks, radishes, shallots, cibols, garlic, madder, teazels, broad beans, peas, coriander, chervil, capers, clary. And the gardener shall have house-leeks growing on his house. As for trees, it is our wish that they shall have various kinds of apple, pear, plum, sorb, medlar, chestnut and peach; quince, hazel, almond, mulberry, laurel, pine, fig, nut and cherry trees of various kinds. The names of apples are: gozmaringa, geroldinga, crevedella, spirauca; there are sweet ones, bitter ones, those that keep well, those that are to be eaten straightaway, and early ones. Of pears they are to have three or four kinds, those that keep well, sweet ones, cooking pears and the late-ripening ones.

I could just roll around for hours in this kind of detail about everyday life and material culture. Hours and hours.

(Also, wouldn't that be a genuinely awesome garden?)

Comments

[aitchellsee.livejournal.com]

That would indeed be a cool garden (or, well, a nifty one: I see that some of the species wouldn't really care to be in a cool garden since they seem to thrive in Mediterranean and North African locales and all).

(Hi, I wandered by from a friend of a friend, and enjoyed your garden talk and its mediaevalness.)

TL:DNR Geek Alert for the Following:

I was looking up "colocynth" on Google, since I'd never heard of it, and I was taken aback by something I noticed in the citations at the end of its Wikipedia entry. You're a scholar, perhaps you can confirm their usage?

The very first work cited as source material was:

Davis & Company Parke. Manual of therapeutics. Parke, Davis & Co. 1909. pp. 262-266.

Now, I'd always assumed that the pharmaceutical company Parke Davis and Company was named after a couple of guys, and so it proved when I Googled it (PD&Co is now part of Pfizer), but even if it had been named for ONE founder, as was Eli Lilly and Company (now "Lilly Company") I would have ignorantly expected it to be cited in scholarly works under the first letter of the corporate name ("P" for Parke" or "E" for "Eli", not under the initial letter of the "person's" last name, as in this citation.

As I don't have a copy of whichever Manual of Style currently governs academic usage, I appeal to you: IF "Parke" had been the first name of the hypothetical company founder "Parke Davis" rather than that of a separate person, would the form used above by the author of the Wikipedia article be correct? Or should they have cited it as "Parke Davis & Company"?

(Whereas, in actuality, since it is NOT the name of one guy, but that of two separate founders, "Something is wrong on the Internet!" How does one contact Wikipedia to alert them that the proper form--as displayed in some sample listings at www.abebooks.com that I just consulted as a test--should have been "Parke, Davis & Company"?)

Presumably the unfortunate author of the Wikipedia entry saw Parke comma Davis ampersand Company in the book itself, and mistakenly assumed they were "putting the last name first" on purpose, and thus in hir own citation created the Erroneous Thing that is "Davis & Company Parke".)

[coraa.livejournal.com]

Hallo!

I think it should be Parke Davis & Company in your first example. As to your second question -- since it's Wikipedia, I think you'd just correct the page yourself. :) Unless it's been protected from edits. Contacting Wikipedia won't do much good, since presumably it isn't a global misunderstanding but just a goof from whatever person put in the citation.