Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological andBiomedical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /shpsc

John Locke’s seed lists: a case study in botanical exchange

Stephen A. Harris a, Peter R. Anstey b

a Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RB, UKb Department of Philosophy, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 15 May 2008Received in revised form 12 April 2009

Keywords:BotanyJohn LockePierre MagnolJacob BobartOpen networkNatural history

1369-8486/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.09.003

E-mail addresses: stephen.harris@plants.ox.ac.uk;1 For a discussion of botanical networks and the exc2 For example, a list of forty-two species from 1669

This paper gives a detailed analysis of four seed lists in the journals of John Locke. These lists provide awindow into a fascinating open network of botanical exchange in the early 1680s which included two ofthe leading botanists of the day, Pierre Magnol of Montpellier and Jacob Bobart the Younger of Oxford.The provenance and significance of the lists are assessed in relation to the relevant extant herbariaand plant catalogues from the period. The lists and associated correspondence provide the main evidencefor Locke’s own important, though modest contribution to early modern botany, a contribution which hewould have regarded as a small part of the broader project of constructing a natural history of plants.They also provide a detailed case study of the sort of open and informal network of knowledge exchangein the early modern period that is widely recognised by historians of science, but all too rarely illustrated.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

1. Introduction

The philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) was a man of order, ameticulous note taker and a systematic recorder of any knowledgethat he encountered. One branch of knowledge in which he sus-tained an interest throughout his adult life was botany. This is evi-denced in the many botanical works in his library, the fact that hekept his own herbarium and his ongoing interactions with many ofthe leading botanists of his day; the Bobarts, Pierre Magnol, DenisDodart and Paul Hermann. It is not surprising therefore, to find thatLocke, like many botanically aware virtuosi of the late-seventeenthcentury, collected and transmitted seeds and plants within hisbotanical network.1 It is also unsurprising to find, given Locke’s pen-chant for record keeping, that Locke kept lists of the seeds that hedistributed.

This article concerns the four main seed lists that appear inLocke’s Journals and the correspondence associated with them.These lists constitute the main evidence for his modest, but impor-tant, contribution to early modern botany. They are not the only listsof seeds and plants among Locke’s papers,2 but they are far and awaythe most important with regard to his interests in botany in so far as

ll rights reserved.

peter.anstey@otago.ac.nz.hange of floral material in the lateis found in Bodleian Library (Bodl.)

they provide a window into Locke’s botanical network, a network thatincludes botanists and their herbaria, catalogues of plants and virtuosocollectors. Locke’s seed lists, therefore, when studied in context, fur-nish us with a rich case study or cross section of the early modernbotanical community in England and beyond and thus will repay care-ful study. In fact, the documents discussed here enable us to examinein minute detail the kind of informal network of knowledge exchangethat has been widely appreciated by historians of early modern sci-ence, but only rarely given adequate scrutiny. What emerges is a fas-cinating example of the kind of unheralded episode of fact gatheringfor the broader programme of natural history which guided the natu-ral philosophical outlook of Locke and so many of his contemporaries.

In Section 2 we reconstruct the circumstances in which the listsarose. Section 3 concerns the relations between the seed lists andthe herbaria which were being assembled in Oxford in the latterhalf of the seventeenth century. The fourth section is given overto an analysis of connections between the seed lists and the plantcatalogues that were assembled and published during the period ofLocke’s active interest in botany. The fifth and final section assessesthe significance of Locke’s seed lists for our understanding of Lockeand the transmission of botanical knowledge.

Renaissance see Ogilvie (2006), pp. 162–164.MS Locke d. 9, p. 40.

S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264 257

2. Provenance and description of Locke’s seed lists

There are four seed lists in Locke’s Journals from the early 1680s.They all are records of seeds that he gave to Jacob Bobart the Youn-ger (1641–1719), the Keeper of the Oxford Botanic Garden. In orderto understand their provenance and importance we will also needto examine three other lists. First, there is a list in the hand of Wil-liam Courten (alias, Charleton; 1642–1702) which is a record ofseeds that Locke had at Montpellier. Then there is a list in the handof the French botanist Pierre Magnol (1638–1715). It comprises alist of seeds that Magnol desired Locke to send him. Finally, thereis a further list in the hand of Jacob Bobart the Younger which ispossibly related to Locke’s lists. It may be a ‘wish list’ of species thatBobart desired or a checklist of species that Bobart did not possessat the time that the list was composed. Both Locke and WilliamCharleton call the lists of seeds ‘catalogues’, however, we arereserving the term ‘catalogue’ for the published plant registerswhich we discuss in Section 4 below. The respective dates and man-uscript references for these lists are as follows:

Locke List #1: 15 April 1680:3 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, pp. 64–69Locke List #2: 18 October 1680: Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, pp. 187–188Locke List #3: 18 January 1681: Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, pp. 5–7Locke List #4: 21 February 1682: Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, pp. 38–43Charleton’s List: 14 February 1679 (NS): Bodl. MS Locke c. 5, fol.31r-v

Magnol’s List: 12 March 1680 (NS): Bodl. MS Locke c. 31, fol.167r–v

Bobart’s List: no date: Plant Sciences Library, Oxford, MS Sher-ard 40.

The lists themselves date from the early 1680s. They are thepractical outworking of a particularly fertile interaction that Lockeenjoyed with the botanical community at Montpellier which be-gan only a few months after his arrival in France. En route toMontpellier, one of the great botanical centres of early modernEurope, Locke made the acquaintance of William Charleton, whoaccompanied him from Lyon. Once in Montpellier, where he ar-rived on 4 January 1676 (NS), Locke began collecting informationon local horticultural practices and agriculture, inspected the‘Physick Garden’ and duly recording his observations in his Jour-nal. Before long, presumably at the behest of his former employer,he was sending seed and cuttings back to England. Anthony Ash-

3 All dates are Old Style unless otherwise indicated. The new year is assumed to begin4 Locke sent the grape vines to Shaftesbury on 7 February 1676 (NS); they were shipped

invoice for the vines on 17 March (NS), ibid., p. 56. Two of the vines sent by Locke are listed i‘St Johns—from Monpelier’, National Archives (NA) PRO 30/24/5/293, fol. 319r. The ‘Book o

5 Shaftesbury had apparently ordered the orange trees (see Thomas Stringer to Locke, 25 Nhim on 15 February of the next year for ‘one Livre a peice’; they were sent five days later

6 Ibid., p. 44.7 In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ‘sycamore’ referred to either Ficus carica8 ‘Sabina baccifera’ is usually associated with the Linnaean name Juniperus sabina L. (Cu9 It had not arrived by 5 June (Locke, 1976–1989, Vol. 1, p. 447).

10 See, for example, Shaftesbury’s ‘A noate of fruite Trees I desire Mr Locke to gett me fromthat is (but for one omission) identical to and in the same order as that found in Locke’s JouLocke d. 9, p. 236, and reworked with the other Journal material on fruit trees, olives and vipp. 57–58) written for Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury’s note concerning ‘Grafts of pares sent bysending Shaftesbury grafts on root stock.

11 See Stringer to Locke, 13 July 1677, Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 1, p. 499, and Locke to C12 Locke sent more melon seeds to the Shaftesbury household which were received arou13 This is a reference to the maritime genus Cochlearia (Brassicaceae), whose members w14 Bodl. MS Locke f. 28, p. 24. The entry has been crossed through indicating that Locke h

October 1678, Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 1, p. 628. For Locke’s acquaintance with Pere Ange15 Charleton to Locke, 4 February 1679, Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 1, p. 674–675.16 Bodl. MS Locke c. 5, fol. 31r–v.17 Charleton to Locke, 4 February 1679, Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 1, p. 674.18 Locke to Charleton, 11 April 1679, ibid., Vol. 2, p. 7. Locke notes in Bodl. MS Locke f. 2

ley Cooper (the Earl of Shaftesbury), whose household Locke hadleft behind when he headed for France, was delighted in April1676 to receive a box of eight grape vine cuttings from Montpel-lier.4 His wife was equally pleased with the orange trees that Lockesent her.5 Shaftesbury also expected to receive a parcel of seeds andthese were probably the batch Locke sent via a Mr Waldo fromMontpellier on 18 February (NS) which comprised varieties forthe kitchen garden.6 Another batch of seeds (Sycamore7 and ‘Sabinabaccifera’8) was sent to the Shaftesbury household via a Mr Nevockon 10 May (NS) of the same year.9 Shaftesbury clearly saw Locke asan important source of new stock for his garden, for his ‘Book ofMemorandums’ for the garden at Wimborne St Giles reveals Locke’splace in Ashley’s aspirations for his orchard and enables us to tie anumber of Locke’s Journal and notebook entries concerning fruittrees to Ashley’s garden.10

A year later we hear of another batch of seeds, this time sent byLocke via Charleton to Thomas Stringer, Shaftesbury’s steward. Itappears that they were to be collected from Stringer by GeorgeWall and taken down to Oxford.11 Nothing more about these seedsis known, but given that Locke had left his Oxford lodgings ten yearspreviously in April 1667, it is likely that these seeds were intended tofind their way to the Bobarts at the Oxford Botanic Garden, the firstinstalment of what was to become a far more substantial transfer ofseeds a few years later.12 And the flow of seeds was by no meansunidirectional. Sometime after late July 1678 Locke wrote in hismemorandum book a reminder to ‘send to him [Stringer] for someScurvy-grasse13 seeds for p[ere] Ange Capucin à Orleans’ whom hehad met in Orleans.14

The significant flow of seeds from Montpellier seems to havebegun in February 1679 whilst Locke was residing in Paris. Charl-eton sent Locke a large collection of seeds from Montpellier.15

Some were Charleton’s own but many of them belonged to Locke.Charleton claimed that his own seeds were too old to germinateand the implication seems to be that Locke’s seeds were not. He listsLocke’s seeds in an enclosure.16 Interestingly, it is seeds derived fromthis list which comprise the first of Locke’s seed lists. Charleton saysthat the seeds that are regarded as the rarest are marked with redlead and adds ‘though I know not how they may be esteemed of inEngland’.17 This comment implies that Locke already had it in mindto take the seeds to England. Locke acknowledged receipt of theboxes containing the seeds on 11 April just a week before he leftParis for London.18

Locke arrived in London on 10 May 1679 (NS) and remainedthere until December that year when he went up to Oxford

on 1 January.on 5 March (NS). See Lough (1984), p. 28 for the list of species. Locke forwarded the

n the ‘Book of memorandums’ on the gardens at St Giles: ‘Spiran—from Monpelier’ andf memorandums’ is foliated on the verso of each page.ovember 1675, Locke, 1976–1989, Vol. 1, pp. 434–435) and Locke purchased them for(Lough, 1984, pp. 42 and 46).

L. (Moraceae) or Platanus (either P. orientalis L. or P. x hispanica Miller ex Münchh.).pressaceae).

France this Yeare’ (NA PRO 30/24/5/293, fol. 335v) which contains a list of pear treesrnal for 15 August 1678 (NS) (Lough, 1984, p. 220) and copied by Locke into Bodl. MS

nes in his ‘Observations upon the growth and culture of vines and olives’ (Locke, 1766,Mr Lock out of france 1679’ (NA PRO 30/24/5/293, fol. 329r) suggests that Locke was

harleton 16 August 1677, ibid., p. 509.nd April 1678.ere considered effective against scurvy.ad acted on this memo. The seeds are mentioned in a letter to Nicolas Toinard of 29see Locke’s journal as transcribed in Dewhurst (1984), p. 138.

8, pp. 102–103 that the boxes arrived on 21 April (NS).

258 S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264

where he stayed until 3 February. While there, on 9 January infact, he lent Bobart his copy of the first edition of Magnol’s Botan-icum Monspeliense (1676), a recently published catalogue ofplants in the Montpellier region of France.19 It is hard to resistthe suggestion that Locke and Bobart spoke at length about theMontpellier botanists and the species that Locke had encountered.For, a few months later, Locke wrote out a seed list in his Journal(15 April 1680, List #1) with the heading ‘A catalogue of seeds gi-ven Jacob Bobert which Mr Charlton sent me from Montpellier’(Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 64). The natural inference from thisdescription of the seeds is that they were the very seeds thatCharleton had sent him while Locke was in Paris. Many, perhapsall, of the seeds would have been harvested from the Physic Gar-den at Montpellier and its surrounds. It is tempting to speculatethat Magnol himself might have been the source for some of theseeds, for four months later we read of a second instalment fromMontpellier that was on its way to Locke and these seeds had in-deed been selected by Magnol (see below). Locke may have beenspurred into action by another letter he received from Charletonon 2 March 1680 which included a note ‘of what Dr. Magnol de-sires of the many plants you mention’d together with his thanks’.20

The enclosure survives among Locke’s papers at Bodl. MS Locke c.31 fol. 167r–v. If Locke were to solicit seeds from Bobart for Mag-nol, surely he should reciprocate in kind. Whatever the motive,Locke’s seeds went to Bobart.

Locke may not have acted straight away on Magnol’s request. Per-haps the distance between his residence in London and the Oxford Bo-tanic Garden made soliciting seeds for Magnol difficult; the time of theyear was not ideal for seed availability and perhaps Bobart had simplyrun out of seed from the previous year’s collection. Nothing had beensent by 3 August 1680 when Charleton, who still resided in Montpel-lier, wrote to Locke about a parcel of ‘about 20 sorts of different seedswhich Dr Magnol gave me for you’ which were being delivered by a MrChiney.21 It is certain that these seeds make up the list in Locke’s Journalfor 18 October 1680 (Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, pp. 187–188, List #2). Charl-eton mentions ‘about 20 sorts’ and Locke lists twenty species. Lockeheads his second list as follows, ‘Given Jacob Bobert these followingseeds which were sent me from Montpellier’ (see Fig. 1).22

Magnol may have been giving Locke a push along, for on 23November (NS), a month or so after forwarding the second batchof seeds to Bobart, Locke hurriedly wrote to Nicolas Toinard inParis saying ‘I only have time to ask you to send this packet ofseeds according to the address or to Montpellier or to Lyons,whichever of the two you find easier. These grains are from theGarden at Oxford and should there be any species which can beused in the Jardin du Roi in Paris, you can take a half portion ofeach species you or your friends in Paris would like. Please sendthe letter by the post’.23 Toinard replied to Locke, 1 January 1681:

I have just now received at last the packet of seeds . . . for whichI am infinitely grateful. . . . I will take, since you permit it of me,

19 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 2.20 Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2, p. 159.21 Ibid., p. 223.22 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 187.23 Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2, p. 293. Locke recorded in another notebook ‘Toinard Nov

change court. . . . a letter & seeds for Mr Charleton’ (Bodl. MS Locke f. 28, p. 91). The entry isp. 309.

24 Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2, p. 338, p. 340.25 Ibid., p. 341.26 Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, pp. 5–7.27 Charleton had written to Toinard on 8 April 1681 (NS) ‘vous donner avis que j’ay receu

Library Add. MS 28728, fol. 71).28 Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2, p. 399. See also Toinard to Locke, 21 May 1681, ibid., pp.

February 1681 (NS), ‘that mixed collection of seeds that I sent to the Montpellier botanist29 Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2, pp. 439, 440.30 Ibid., p. 448.

one part of your seeds as a treat for M. Abe Gendron from you,and I’ll also give some to M. Justel and to the Jardin du Roy.24

The remainder of the seeds he sent on to Lyon.25

Having been assured that his seeds had arrived safely in Paris,Locke gave a third batch of seeds to Bobart a week later on 18 Jan-uary 1681 while he was visiting Oxford. He recorded the list in hisJournal with the title ‘Given these following seeds to Mr Bobert’(List #3).26 Soon he was to hear from Charleton himself that hehad received Locke’s seeds from Toinard in Paris.27 On 17 May1681 Charleton wrote in acknowledgment to Locke that:

I received the box of seeds at last, (by the obliging care of MrToinard) and delivered them to Dr. Magnol who ha’s [sic] setthem in his garden and some of them begin already to apeareabove the ground, he return’s you many thanks, and tells methat if you would send him the Catalogue of seeds and plantsthat you or your friends have a mind to he will take care to pro-vide them for you.28

The reference to ‘the Catalogue of seeds and plants that youor your friends have a mind to’ is the most striking feature ofCharleton’s reply. No mention of any such list of seeds is to befound in the extant Locke/Charleton correspondence from thisperiod. Could it be that Locke, perhaps as a result of consultingJacob Bobart, had actually constructed such a list and mentionedit to Charleton? This question brings into play a further manu-script which survives among the Sherard archive in the Depart-ment of Plant Sciences at Oxford. MS Sherard 40 is a list, inBobart’s hand, of species derived from Magnol’s Botanicum(1676), the very book which Locke had lent Bobart in January1680 and which he was to lend him again on 8 August 1681, justthree months after Charleton’s letter mentioning ‘the Catalogue’.Unhappily the Bobart list is undated and lacks any endorsementor indication of its purpose. It is possible that it is a kind of ‘wishlist’ composed by Bobart whilst he had access to Locke’s copy ofthe Botanicum and that this list is, or is the parent of, the ‘cata-logue’ that Magnol had mentioned to Charleton. Perhaps on re-ceipt of Charleton’s 17 May letter, Locke was motivated toconfer again with Bobart about composing or finishing a ‘wishlist’, for on 8 August he once again lent Bobart his own copyof Magnol’s Botanicum. It appears that the Botanicum was notprocurable in Oxford at this time. It was not in Bodley’s library,nor is there any record of it in any of the college libraries. Fur-thermore, Bobart’s friend, the botanist William Sherard did notpossess a copy of the Botanicum.

The indefatigable Charleton wrote to Locke again on 10 Septem-ber, informing him that Magnol had given him (Charleton) someseeds for Locke as well as two copies of the Botanicum, ‘one for your-self, the other for you to bestow on a friend’.29 In early October Charl-eton finally got around to sending the seeds on and he added somemore which had been collected by a friend in the Pyrenees.30 The seeds

23 Sent him by Mr Carmel friend of James Bagnal next dore to the harrow in Exetercrossed out. See also Locke to Toinard, 29 November 1680, Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2,

la boette de semences et que je les ay distibuees suivant l’ordre de Mr Lock’ (British

400–401, and Locke to Toinard, 21 May 1681, ibid., p. 404. See Locke to Toinard, 20s, for most of the plants that grow wild in this country are rarer there’, ibid., p. 380.

Fig. 1. Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 187 (used with permission).

S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264 259

arrived and were duly listed in Locke’s Journal on 21 February1682 when he was back in Oxford and, we assume, about to deliverthem to Bobart. The list is prefaced by ‘These following seedsgiven Mr Bobert which were sent me from Montpellier by Mr Charl-eton those marked P were gatherd in the Pyreneaux mountains’ (List#4).

31 See Anstey & Harris (2006), pp. 163–164.

This list does not mark the end of Locke’s botanical involvementwith Charleton and Bobart, but it is the last extant list and is theterminus of the period of most intensive exchange. Later, in1687, while Locke was in exile in the Netherlands, he sent moreseeds to Charleton and suggested that Charleton might send somespares on to Bobart, a suggestion which Charleton duly took up.31

260 S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264

It is clear from the foregoing reconstruction of this early mod-ern seed exchange that Locke was, in effect, the nodal point inthe distribution network. Both William Charleton and Nicolas Toi-nard were involved in integral ways with seed lists and theiraccompanying seeds, but it was Locke who was the key player,both through his long standing relationship with Bobart in Oxfordand the evident esteem in which he was held by Pierre Magnol. Butwhat of the contents of these seed lists? What is it about the namesand the types of species collected and exchanged that renderedthem so important to Bobart and Magnol, botanists in two of theleading botanical institutions of the late seventeenth century? Itis to the contents of the lists themselves that we now turn.

3. Locke’s seed lists and early modern English herbaria

Names are the keys to communicating about plants, and areessential for identification, comparison and classification. The slowspeed with which names were communicated through publicationin the early modern period, together with the difficulty of procuringpublications, meant that different authors gave very different poly-nomial names to the same plants. In addition to high rates of pre-Lin-naean polynomial synonymy, the interpretation of polynomials canbe a difficult task because there were no agreed rules about plantnaming, detailed plant descriptions were often absent and illustra-tions were uncommon. Thus, for polynomial interpretation, herbar-ium material that is both contemporary and properly labelled, isinvaluable. Furthermore, since living plants were difficult to movelong distances, except as seed, herbaria provide evidence that ma-ture plants were effectively raised from seeds exchanged betweenindividuals. Herbaria associated with early botanic gardens and pri-vate gardens can be seen as indisputable records of the success of at-tempts to germinate, propagate and disperse seeds.32

In Locke’s seed lists, there are names which are so general it isdifficult to associate them with either pre-Linnaean polynomials inuse by Locke’s contemporaries or with Linnaean binomials. Forexample, ‘Medica cochleata’33 clearly refers to seed from the speci-ose leguminous genus Medicago but just as it is impossible to say

32 Harris (2006), pp. 10–11, discusses some of roles of seed movement in relation to Binternational botanic garden seed exchange schemes has been considered by Gunther (19

33 Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 40; 21 February 1682.34 Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 6; 18 January 1681.35 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 65; 15 April 1680. Herbarium material is to be found in the Mo36 Dandy (1958).37 Locke’s own herbarium (Anstey & Harris, 2006) is irrelevant to these comparisons as38 Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium is a single, leather bound, elephant folio book herbariu

arranged alphabetically by polynomial name. The specimens are labelled or annotated byYounger. The herbarium is extensively annotated and name changes have been made; atunknown to previous commentators on the Oxford herbaria (e.g. Clokie, 1964) since it onlylibrary of Bedford Infirmary Medical Library (Savage, 1948, p. 55; Dony, 1949, pp. 15–16). Oof Plants in this was 2577’.

39 Bishop Wynne’s Herbarium is a single, leather bound, elephant folio book herbariumidentically bound to that of Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium, and the specimens arranged aPlantarum & Arboreu[m]. Tam Anglicarum quam exoticarum Ichoatus Deo favente Oxoniithere are hand-coloured engravings of birds and garden flowers taken from unknown pralthough Bobart the Younger has labelled many of the specimens and annotated others. Rcollection has been consulted, for example, page markers torn from student essays (e.g. bUniversity of Oxford in June 1976, was amassed by the Reverend John Wynne (1665?–17Wells. He was elected a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, in 1687 and was the College’s Pri

40 Bobart the Younger’s Hortus siccus comprises 2,202 specimens arranged on individualcontents of this collection have been briefly described by Anstey & Harris (2006) in relatiobased on circumstantial evidence, suggest that the collection may have been made aroun

41 Despite its name, the Morisonian Herbarium was put together by Jacob Bobart the Youarranged according to Morison’s Sciagraphia. The collection comprises some 6500 specime

42 Vines & Druce (1914).43 In making the comparisons between the seed lists and the names in both the herbaria an

are the same; word order and obvious orthographic errors have been ignored. The problemtaken into account.

which species, so it is impossible to determine which of the numer-ous polynomials known to Locke was being referenced. Similarly,‘Limonium peregrine[um]’34 may refer to numerous species or poly-nomials of the diverse coastal genus Limonium. Perhaps the impreci-sion in such cases is because Locke or the suppliers of these seedsknew only that they belong to general groups and were uncertainas to the actual species. Only by growing and comparing the materialto other examples, living or dead, could an accurate identification bemade. Without samples of these plants we can only have limited cer-tainty over identification. In other cases, herbarium specimens allowthe identity of ambiguous names to be resolved. Locke’s ‘MespilusAronia S. rhois Coriariorum’ might refer to numerous different spe-cies of the complex genus Crataegus, but with reference to earlymodern herbarium material it is clear the most likely identity ofthe seed is C. azarolus L.35

Pre-Linnean English herbaria are not uncommon, and besidesthe enormous Sloane Herbarium36 (Natural History Museum, Lon-don) some of the most important are to be found in Oxford. Fourof the Oxford herbaria are relevant to the seven seed lists that areassociated with Locke and are the subject of this paper, since thereis strong evidence that Jacob Bobart the Younger was involved withtheir creation and/or annotation.37 The four herbaria are: Bobart theElder’s Herbarium;38 Bishop Wynne’s Herbarium,39 Bobart the Youn-ger’s Hortus siccus;40 and the Morisonian Herbarium.41 Of these, onlythe Morisonian Herbarium has been the subject of extensive previ-ous commentary.42 The majority of material in these collections islabelled with only vernacular and/or polynomial names and, unhap-pily, the locations in which the specimens were collected are un-known. However, given the close connection between all of thesecollections (through Bobart) and the Oxford Botanic Garden, it wouldnot be unreasonable to assume that much of the material, not nativeto the British Isles, was collected from material growing in or close tothe Garden.

Comparison of Locke’s seed lists with the contents of these her-baria is instructive. Of the 242 names mentioned in Locke’s seedlists all but sixty-nine are found in at least one of the four herbariastudied by Bobart the Younger.43 However, this is likely to be anoverestimate since some of Locke’s seed list names are very general,

obart the Younger’s Hortus siccus, whilst the role of Bobart in the establishment of12, 1922).

risonian Herbarium (Tree-2345) and in the herbarium of Bobart the Elder (M10r–4).

it was prepared in 1664 and 1665.m of some 2,584 specimens glued and/or strapped to 297 pages. The specimens areat least three primary hands, of which one is Bobart the Elder and another Bobart theleast one of the specimens is labelled by John Ray (fol. C29r–03). This collection wascame into the possession of Oxford University in early 1950s with its transfer from then the pastedown of the inside back cover is a note stating ‘Octob: 6: 1687 the number

of some 2,000 specimens glued and/or strapped to about 280 pages. The volume islphabetically by polynomial name. The titlepage of the volume states ‘Hortus SiccusVto. Martii. MDCLXXXVI’, above an engraving of the Sheldonian Theatre. In addition,inted Dutch sources. A single hand appears to have labelled most of the specimens,ay’s hand appears in the herbarium (e.g. fol. G15r), together with evidence that the

etween fol. M7v and fol. M8r). This collection, purchased through private sale by the43), correspondent of Locke’s, abridger of Locke’s Essay and later Bishop of Bath andncipal between 1715 and 1720.sheets according to Morison’s Sciagraphia and stored in sixteen Solander boxes. The

n to Locke’s herbarium. The date of this collection is unknown; Vines & Druce (1914),d 1666.nger to support Part III of Morison’s Historia (which Bobart completed in 1699) and isns arranged on single sheets.

d catalogues (Section 4) matches have been scored when all words in the polynomialsof synonymy exists with these types of data but as far as possible, synonyms have been

S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264 261

for example, ‘Jonquilles doubles’44 or ‘Whiteradish seed’,45 or rely onvernacular descriptions, for example, ‘Melon seed of St Nicholas ofTholose’.46 Furthermore, some apparently specific names, for exam-ple, ‘Myrrhis odorata’,47 could be applied to a number of differentplants found in the four herbaria. Moreover, the appearance ofnames in the Locke seed lists which fail to appear in the herbaria,may mean that the seed failed to germinate or establish itself, oreven that Bobart simply did not collect material from these plantsfor his herbaria.

Thirteen seed list names appear in all herbaria, and these areplants of the late-seventeenth century which are either horticul-tural, for example, ‘Admirabile peruvian’ or ‘Mirabilis peruuiana’(Mirabilis jalapa L., Nyctaginaceae);48 medicinal, for example, ‘Mar-um Syriacum’ (Teucrium marum L., Lamiaceae);49 mutants, for exam-ple, ‘Hedysarum Clypeatum flore rubro’ and ‘Hedysarum Clypeatumflo[re] albo’ (Hedysarum coronarium L., Fabaceae);50 agricultural, forexample, ‘Galega’ (Galega officinalis L., Fabaceae);51 or curiosity, forexample, ‘Paliurus’ (Rhamnus paliurus L., Rhamnaceae).52

The number of Locke seed list names found in single herbaria isentirely consistent with the known provenances of the individualcollections.53 The greatest number of unique names is found in theMorisonian Herbarium, which is to be expected since this was thecollection with which Bobart was most intimately associated afterthe death of Morison in 1683. Only one unique entry is associatedwith the herbarium of Bishop Wynne (better known as the abridgerof Locke’s Essay),54 which is the collection that bears the fewestannotations by Bobart.55 These unique names include curious treessuch as ‘Siliquæ eduliis’.56 Similar comments can be made aboutthe total numbers of seed list names found in the four herbaria;the greatest numbers are found in the two herbaria with which Bo-bart continued to work, that is, the Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium andthe Morisonian Herbarium. Furthermore, when pairwise similaritiesbetween the herbaria, based on the occurrence of Locke seed listnames, are considered, Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium, Hortus siccusand the Morisonian Herbarium are more similar to each other thanany are to Bishop Wynne’s Herbarium. It is clear therefore, that

44 As a matter of convention, names from Locke’s seed lists are surrounded by inverted care written in italics.

45 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 68 (15 April 1680) and Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 42 (21 February46 Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 42 (21 February 1682).47 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 66 (15 April 1680).48 Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 41 (21 February 1682) and Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 66 (15 Apr

Herbarium (fol. M13r–01), Bobart’s Hortus siccus (HS 14:34) and Morisonian Herbarium (Shgarden plant, from the New World in the mid-sixteenth century. It was, and still is, great

49 Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 41 (21 February 1682). Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium (fol. M06r–the Morisonian Herbarium (Sheet III–XI–XL). Teucrium marum is a species introduced to Eurconsignment of plants he had sold to the Duchess of Beaufort for her garden in 1694 (MS

50 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 68 (15 April 1680) and Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 6 (18 January 1681)(fol. H02r–02 and fol. H02r–01), Bobart’s Hortus siccus (HS 1:84 and HS 1:85) and the MEuropean species widely grown as an animal fodder and nectar source. Red-flowered plan

51 Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 42 (21 February 1682). Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium (fol. R11r–0Morisonian Herbarium (Sheet II–II–IV–9). Galega officinalis is a continental European spec

52 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 69 (15 April 1680). Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium (fol. P01r–03)Morisonian Herbarium (Sheet Tree-652; specimen lost). Rhamnus paliurus is a plant of south

53 In an attempt to investigate the similarities between the herbaria, items in each of theabsence matrix based on polynomial name was created, pairwise similarities between heunweighted pair group mean analysis (Legendre & Legendre, 1998).

54 ‘Securidaca peregrine’ (Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 6, 18 January 1681); Bishop Wynne’s Hewould have chosen to add this specimen to the Bishop Wynne Herbarium rather than the

55 This is hardly surprising since the herbarium is unlikely to have been in Bobart’s posse56 Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 66 (15 April 1680), the Morisonian Herbarium sheet Tree-401. Th57 For the plant catalogues in Locke’s library see Harrison & Laslett (1971): ## 225 (Bauhin

(Ortus sanitatis); 2201 (Parkinson); 2444, 2444a, 2447 (Ray); 2692 (Sloane); 2898 (Thurne58 We have not been able to identify which printing of the London pharmacopoeia of the

because all of the College Censors listed were censors in 1677 and John Micklethwaite is59 Comparison of Bobart’s entries in MS Sherard 40 with those in Magnol (1676), show

entries. Magnol (1676) comprises 1,256 names (and twenty-two illustrations) and is a rarefrom Locke. The second edition of this book, Magnol (1686), a reissue of the 1676 editionpresentation copy to the Royal Society and john Evelyn agreed to report on it John Evelyn

60 Bobart (1648) and Stephens & Brown (1658).

the Bishop Wynne Herbarium is at best only tangentially relatedto Locke’s seed lists. However, more detailed analysis of these her-baria based on these methods is confounded by the knowledge thateach of these collections was created over a long period, in the caseof Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium this may have been as much as fortyyears.

4. Locke’s seed lists and early modern plant catalogues

Early modern plant catalogues are often a more comprehen-sive source of information about plant names than herbaria,although they suffer from the problem that names may be misin-terpreted. Catalogues of plant names were commonly publishedand multiple copies made, unlike herbaria which were producedby individuals, had limited circulation and may not have survivedto the present day. In the early modern period two types of plantcatalogue are found: catalogues published to inform about thecontents of particular botanic gardens or comprehensive listsand descriptions of known plants. Locke’s library contained atleast thirteen plant catalogues.57 It also contained books on gar-dening and various pharmacopoeias which included within theircontents alphabetical lists of plants used for medicinal purposes.A nice example of the latter is his copy of Pharmacopoeia Londinen-sis remedia which is bound with the notebook Bodl. MS Locke f. 23and has an appended list, in Locke’s hand, of the plants listed in the‘Catalogues simplicium ad Pharmacopoeian’ of the Londonpharmacopoeia.58

For present purposes, the most important Botanic Garden cata-logue is Pierre Magnol’s Botanicum Monspeliense (1676), which Bo-bart borrowed from Locke, and he appears to have used to make alist of 316 plants.59 The two catalogues of the Oxford Botanic Gardenpublished in 1648 and 1658 are important as baselines to indicatespecies that were likely to have been grown in the Oxford gardenby the Bobarts at the end of the seventeenth century.60 In England,two major comprehensive lists and descriptions of known plantswere produced during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth

ommas, whether they are polynomials or vernacular names. Modern scientific names

1682), respectively.

il 1680), respectively. Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium (fol. M13r–01), Bishop Wynne’seet III–XV–I–599). Mirabilis jalapa, the Marvel of Peru, was introduced into Europe, as aly valued for its heavily scented, long lasting flowers.02), Bishop Wynne’s Herbarium (fol. M06r–02), Bobart’s Hortus siccus (HS 12:11) andope from the Near East and was widely believed to be a cure all. Bobart added this to aSloane 3343 fol. 35r).

. Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium (fol. H02r–01 and H2r–02), Bishop Wynne’s Herbariumorisonian Herbarium (both Sheet II–II–VI–7). Hedysarum coronarium is a continentalts are more common than white-flowered plants.8), Bishop Wynne’s Herbarium (fol. G01r–01), Bobart’s Hortus siccus (HS 1:75) and theies that was an important animal fodder., Bishop Wynne’s Herbarium (fol. P01r–01), Bobart’s Hortus siccus (HS 15:22) and the

ern Europe that is often thought to have been used to make Christ’s Crown of Thorns.collections were treated as characters in an analysis of overall similarity. A presence–rbaria were scored based on Jaccard’s coefficient and the similarities clustered using

rbarium S10r–010 is labelled in Bobart the Younger’s hand. It is unclear why BobartMorisonian Herbarium.

ssion; rather it may have been a collection he consulted with permission of its owner.is is Ceratonia siliqua L. (Fabaceae), the carob tree, and a source of chocolate substitute.); 360 (Bobart); 980 (Dodart); 1870 (Magnol); 1939 (Matthioli); 2053 (Morison); 2142isser).College of Physicians is bound in Bodl. MS Locke f. 23. It clearly dates to circa 1678

listed as President.that they are identical, including the comments that accompanied some of Bobart’sbook; as far as we can tell the only copy available to Bobart was the one he borrowedwith corrections and an Appendix, was much more widely circulated. Bobart sent a. See Birch (1756–1757), Vol. 4, pp. 524, 528.

262 S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264

centuries. These were the Historia volumes of those two seven-teenth-century botanical rivals, Robert Morison (1620–1683) andJohn Ray (1627–1705).61

Magnol was an important source of plant information, bothfrom published work and apparently first hand, for Bobart in hispreparation of the third volume of Historia Oxoniensis. Magnol isexplicitly acknowledged in the Praefatio to the Historia62 and is spe-cifically mentioned in the notes associated with five of the names onLocke’s seed lists.63 Magnol is acknowledged in other areas of thetext, for example, ‘Scabiosa annua integrifolia, sive foliis Bellidis’,‘Hieracium Dentis Leonis folio Asphodeli radice’ and ‘Tragopogonpurpurocaeruleum Crocifolium’.64

As explained previously (Section 2), one possible explanation ofMS Sherard 40 is that it is a ‘wish list’ prepared by Bobart fromMagnol’s printed catalogue. If this is the case and if the list is re-lated to Locke’s botanical network, then one might expect manyseeds from MS Sherard 40 to appear in Locke’s seed lists. Unhappilythis is not the case. Only twenty-one of the names mentioned inMS Sherard 40 appear in Locke’s lists. Of these, the majority werebased on Bauhin names and presumably could have been obtainedfrom sources other than Magnol at Montpellier. However, there arethree names ‘Nasturtium pumilum supinum vernum’ (Hymenolo-bus procumbens (L.) Nutt., Brassicaceae65), ‘Trifolium fructu cochle-ato cyliari’ [sic ciliare] (Medicago sp., Fabaceae) and ‘Trifoliumfragif[erum] tomentosum’ (Trifolium tomentosum L., Fabaceae),66 onLocke’s list which could only have come from Magnol at the time,since they were newly described by him in 1676. Of these only ‘Tri-folium fragiferum tomentosum’ is represented in Bobart the Elder’sHerbarium.67 ‘Juncus Lithospermi semine’ (Schoenus nigricans; Junc-aceae) appears on both Locke’s lists and MS Sherard 40 with a refer-ence to the Hortus Regius Blesensis.68 However, since this is a nativeBritish species it is unclear why Bobart would need to obtain seedfrom Magnol.

The single specimen of ‘Trifolium fragiferum tomentosum’ pro-vides one of the strongest links between Bobart and Magnolthrough Locke. Bobart could only have obtained this species fromMagnol, who had described it in 1676 in the catalogue Bobart bor-rowed from Locke and from which he had made notes in MS Sher-

61 Morison (1680, 1699), Ray (1686, 1688, 1704).62 Morison (1699), Praefatio, sig. d1r.63 ‘Juncus Lithospermi semine’ (Schoenus nigricans L., Cyperaceae. Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 6,

HS 9:137a; Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium: J8r–10). ‘Jacea Incana montana capite pini’ (CMorisonian Herbarium: III–VII–XXX–19; Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium: J1r–9). ‘Bellis montaf. 6, p. 41, 21 February 1682; no specimens in any of the herbaria under consideration). ‘Li‘Libanotis cakryopt. Flo[re] Luteo’ (Cachrys libanotis L., Apiaceae. Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 18710:1, HS 10:2; Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium: C1r–5). ‘Plantago angustifol[ia] Capitulis LagoMorisonian Herbarium: III–VIII–XXXVII–13; Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium: P15r–4). At leastRay (1686, 1688), the number of names are 103 and thirty-three, respectively. The appaherbaceous plants having appeared in Morison (1680) and the third planned volume (vol

64 Morison (1699), pp. 47, 66, 80, respectively.65 Cafferty & Jarvis (2002).66 Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 6 (18 January 1681), Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 7 (18 January 1681) an

pumilum supinum vernum’ and ‘Trifolium fragiferum tomentosum’ are presented in Magn67 Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium T09r–09; labelled in Bobart the Younger’s hand.68 Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 6 (18 January 1681). Material with this name appears in all four h

in Morison’s catalogue of the Hortus Regius Blesensis (Morison, 1669). It is possible thSuperintendent of the Jardin du Roi. Clokie (1964), p. 163, indicates that he sent specimenobtained from British locations.

69 Dandy (1958), Chambers (1997) and McClain (2001), pp. 210–212.70 Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 39 (21 February 1682). Fruiting specimens are preserved in Boba

British Library Sloane MS 3343, fol. 67r (30 November 1697) indicates that Bobart sent seedthe 1648 or 1658 catalogues of the Oxford Botanic Garden. Hippocrepis multisiliquosa is a

71 Locke to Toinard, 20 February 1681 (NS), Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2, p. 380.72 We incorrectly claimed in Anstey & Harris (2006), p. 163, that ‘Locke placed his charact

species in the list which appear in the Botanicum’. In fact, Locke’s marks in his copy of the73 This interest continued. See the list of Dutch roots that Locke sent to Edward Clarke in h

contains advice for Clarke’s garden.74 See for example Charleton to Locke, 28 February 1679 (NS), Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 1,

Locke c. 31, fol. 166. See also Bodl. MS Locke c. 42 (first part), p. 196, and Bodl. MS Locke

ard 40. Seeds were evidently obtained from Magnol, andpresumably germinated, grew and flowered in the garden at Ox-ford, as a flowering specimen is preserved in Bobart the Elder’sHerbarium and labelled in Bobart’s hand. We also know that Lockesent the seed on his seed lists to Bobart. However, we do not knowwhether Bobart supplied Locke with a copy of MS Sherard 40 fortransmission to Magnol in Montpellier.

It is well known that Bobart was an important character in thesupply of horticultural plants to wealthy individuals of late seven-teenth-century Britain, especially Hans Sloane and the Duchess ofBeaufort.69 One of the best sources of information about the types ofplants that were being supplied by Bobart is British Library MS Sloane3343. Fifteen of the names on Locke’s seed lists appear in this manu-script, of which one, ‘Ferrum Equinum Siliqua multiplici’ (Hippocrepismultisiliquosa L., Fabaceae), also appears in MS Sherard 40.70 Togetherthe evidence suggests that Bobart may have been suppling seed fromplants he had grown from seed supplied by Magnol, via Locke.

5. Conclusion: Locke’s seed lists as a window into early modernbotany

What conclusions can be drawn about the significance ofLocke’s seed lists? First and foremost we need to stress that thereis no evidence that the lists reflect any specific agenda on Locke’spart. None of the lists are weighted toward any particular classof plant, say, medicinal or kitchen garden. Each list contains arange of species that cover a variety of uses. In keeping with thiswe find him telling Toinard that for Abbé Gendron ‘if I had knownwhether that excellent man was in search of scent, beauty of blos-som, or value for medical purposes, I could have supplied him withany quantity from here’.71 One might have expected Locke to havefocused on medicinal species, given his ongoing interest in physicand his annotations to his copy of Magnol’s Botanicum.72 However,as we have seen from the plants he sent from France to the Shaftes-bury household, he was also interested in fruit trees and kitchen gar-den varieties.73 Moreover, his journal and correspondence givefurther testimony to his interest in fruit trees and vines74 and hislongstanding interest in plant taxonomy is illustrated in his own

18 January 1681; the Morisonian Herbarium: III–VIII–XXIII–28; Bobart’s Hortus siccus:entaurea sempervirens L., Asteraceae. Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 67, 15 April 1680; then[a] fol[io] obtuso crenat[o]’ (probably Chrysanthemum sp., Asteraceae. Bodl. MS Locke

banotis cachryophoros fl[ore] luteo’ (Bodl. MS Locke f. 6, p. 42, 21 February 1682) and, 18 October 1680; the Morisonian Herbarium: III–IX–I–1; Bobart’s Hortus siccus: HSpi’ (Plantago lagopus L., Plantaginaceae. Bodl. MS Locke f. 5, p. 6, 18 January 1681; thefifty-nine of the names on Locke’s seed lists are found in Morison (1699), in the case ofrently small number of names mentioned in Morison (1699) may be due to many

ume one of the series) never having been published.

d Bodl. MS Locke f. 4, p. 188 (18 October 1680), respectively. Engravings of ‘Nasturtiumol (1676), pp. 185, 265, respectively.

erbaria and the species is native to Great Britain. However, the name does not appearat Bobart obtained material of this species from Guy Cresent Fagon (1638–1718),s to Bobart. However, it is more likely either seed was grown or that specimens were

rt the Elder’s Herbarium (F01r–04) and the Morisonian Herbarium (Sheet II–II–VI–2).of ‘Ferrum Equinum Siliqua multiplici’ to Sloane. This name does not appear in either

southern European species with very distinctive, ornamental fruits.

eristic mark, a short marginal line in his copy of Magnol’s Botanicum to indicate thoseBotanicum relate to plants with medicinal uses.

is letter to Clarke of 27 January 1685, Locke (1976–1989), Vol. 2, p. 684. This letter also

p. 685, and Magnol’s list of the species of grapes grown around Montpellier, Bodl. MSd. 9, p. 84, for copies of Magnol’s list.

S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264 263

herbarium. It is in fact, quite likely that he was simply prepared totake what was available from Montpellier and its surrounds and al-low Bobart to determine which species among the seeds suppliedwere of interest.

This consideration leads to a second observation concerningLocke’s lists and that concerns the most natural manner of catego-rising Locke’s role in the transfer of seeds between Montpellier andOxford. In our view, it does not seem appropriate to classify Locke’sdelivery of seeds to Bobart or to Magnol (and later to Charleton) asa form of economic exchange, whether gift giving or exchange inkind. The extant correspondence and manuscript notes relatingto the seed lists and seed transfers do not imply any expectationof reciprocal exchange (though in fact this did occur) or the fulfill-ing of or incurring of any obligation between the parties involved.Neither should the transfer of seeds be seen as deriving from apatronage relationship. To be sure, there must have been an ele-ment of this in Locke’s forwarding of plants from France to theShaftesbury household, but in the cases of Bobart and Magnol,the social standing of the recipients rules this out.

Instead, the most natural way to understand Locke’s role in thetransfer of seeds and plant parts is as an example of what DavidLux and Harold Cook have characterised as scientific exchangethrough weak ties within an open network.75 If we consider the factthat some of the key players in the international network never meteach other, if we consider the informality of the various occasionsand circumstances in which seeds were exchanged, and the very factthat the evidence of the existence of this network has no prominencein Locke’s correspondence and notebooks but lies unobtrusivelyamidst a host of other material, it is hard to resist the conclusion thatLocke’s seed lists have revealed to us just the kind of informal com-munication network that Lux and Cook demonstrate was so impor-tant in the dissemination of natural knowledge in the earlymodern period.

This is reinforced by the fact that Locke’s role in the distributionof seeds and plant parts appears never to have been acknowledged.One searches in vain for Locke’s name in the references to collec-tors in the plant catalogues edited by botanists with whom hewas associated. For example, the third edition of Morison’s Planta-rum historia Oxoniensis universalis (1699) which Bobart the Youngercompleted and saw through the press, both Magnol and Charletonare acknowledged as sources in the Praefatio and their names ap-pear in the volume itself.76 As we have seen, Magnol’s name is asso-ciated with several of the species from Locke’s lists which appear inthe Plantarum historia, but Locke’s name is absent. Likewise, searcheshave failed to locate Locke’s name in Magnol’s later publications.Magnol does record in the second edition of his Botanicum (1686,p. 309) that he had grown his specimen of ‘Pentaphylloides fragariæfolio’ from seed received from England. Unhappily he is not morespecific about the seed’s provenance.77

Of course, Locke was not unique in his transmission of seeds toleading botanists of his day. Bobart and Magnol received seedsfrom many sources.78 Nor should Locke be thought to have had aunique relationship with Bobart the Younger. One can get a sense

75 Lux & Cook (1998).76 Magnol is frequently cited. For references to Charleton see Morison (1699), pp. 423, 677 ‘Pentaphylloides fragariæ folio’ (Potentilla norvegica L., Rosaceae) is found under var

‘Fragariæ Pentaphylli fructu’ and ‘Pentaphylloides fragariæ folio’ (Morison, 1669, pp. 265,majus erectum flore luteo, folijs ternis Fragariæ instar hirsutis’ (ibid., p. 193 and illustratio(BE–P07r–03) and in Bishop Wynne’s Herbarium (BW–F07r–01, leaf only, and BW–P06r–0

78 Edward Lhwyd in circa 1683 speaks of Bobart receiving ‘several boxes of plants every79 For Ward’s contacts with Bobart see Frank (1974), pp. 154–155. For Lawson’s contact80 Transcription of John Ward Diary, Wellcome Library MS 6175, p. 164. See also ibid., p81 Clokie (1964), p. 214, correctly cites references to Morgan in Plantarum historia, pp. 6882 See Locke’s essays ‘Anatomia’ and ‘De arte medica’ published in Dewhurst (1966), pp.83 Locke (1690). For Locke and the method of natural history see Anstey (2002, 2003).84 ‘Advertisement of the publisher to the reader’, General history of the air, Boyle (1999–

of the extent of the botanical networks of the day from the diariesof John Ward and Thomas Lawson, both of whom visited Oxfordand knew the Bobarts.79 Indeed, Ward’s diary provides for us an in-sight into another botanic garden, that of Edward ‘Ned’ Morgan,which in the early 1660s Robert Morison apparently once describedas ‘the best collection of plants in England’.80 Morgan’s garden mayhave been established, in part, from seeds sent by the Bobarts fromOxford. Morgan himself also provided specimens for Bobart theYounger and his name appears occasionally in the third volume ofMorison’s Plantarum historia.81

Were we to place Locke’s contribution to early modern botanyunder a methodological rubric with which he was familiar andwith which he would concur, it would be best seen as a series ofvery small constituents in the larger project of Baconian naturalhistory. Locke had expressed a preference for a broadly Baconianmethod of natural philosophy as early as his medical essays ofthe late 1660s82 and continued to regard experimental histories asthe best method for the accumulation of knowledge of nature inthe Essay concerning human understanding which was finished inthe Netherlands in the late 1680s.83 One important feature of theconstruction of natural histories is the collaborative nature of anysuch history. Bacon and his followers stressed that the constructionof any particular history is beyond the powers of one person. Lockehad played a role in Robert Boyle’s history of the air in the mid-1660s and was to be involved in the project again in the early1690s when he saw Boyle’s General history of the air through thepress. He described that work as ‘a Work too great for one singleMan’s Undertaking’.84 In that case, his contribution was initiallyone of fact gatherer and junior collaborator and it is clear fromLocke’s correspondence with Boyle on the matter that he was notproprietorial about the information which he was providing, butrather that he was merely trying to facilitate the history. The sameappears true of the seeds that Locke gave to Bobart and Magnol:there is no hint of any expectation of acknowledgment or recogni-tion on Locke’s part and, as far as we know, none was forthcoming.While the very informality and lack of a predefined objectives inthe sequence of exchanges of seeds suggests that there was no overtmethodological agenda driving Locke’s involvement with Magnoland Bobart, it is still fair to say that with respect to early modern bot-any, Locke can be best described as an under-labourer.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. R. Milton, Richard Yeo and an anony-mous referee for the journal for their comments on an earlier ver-sion of this paper. The picture from Locke’s Journal, Bodl. MS Lockef. 4, p. 187, is used with the permission of the Bodleian Library,Oxford.

References

Anstey, P. R. (2002). Locke, Bacon and natural history. Early Science and Medicine, 7,65–92.

54.ious synonyms in publications and herbaria available to Bobart: in publications as154, respectively), and ‘Pentaphylloides erectum Fragariæ folio’ and ‘Pentaphylloidesn); in Bobart’s Hortus siccus (BJr–01–161; leaf only), in Bobart the Elder’s Herbarium5).summer’ from ‘France, Italy or Germany’. See Gunter (1945), p. 73.

s with the Bobarts see Whittaker (1986), pp. 95–96, 136–138.. 738. For Morgan and his garden see Jeffers (1953)., 385, 520, 397.79–93. For the attribution of these essays to Locke see Anstey & Burrows (2009).

2000), Vol. 12, p. 5.

264 S.A. Harris, P.R. Anstey / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (2009) 256–264

Anstey, P. R. (2003). Locke on method in natural philosophy. In idem, (Ed.), Thephilosophy of John Locke: New perspectives (pp. 26–42). London: Routledge.

Anstey, P. R., & Burrows, J. (2009). John Locke, Thomas Sydenham, and theauthorship of two medical essays. Electronic British Library Journal. http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2009articles/pdf/ebljarticle32009.pdf.

Anstey, P. R., & Harris, S. A. (2006). Locke and botany. Studies in History andPhilosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37, 151–171.

Birch, T. (1756–1757). History of the Royal Society (4 vols.). London.Bobart, J. (1648). Catalogus plantarum horti medici Oxoniensis. Oxford.Boyle, R. (1999–2000). The works of Robert Boyle (Michael Hunter, & E. B. Davis, Eds.)

(14 vols.). London: Pickering and Chatto.Cafferty, S., & Jarvis, C. E. (2002). Typification of Linnaean Plant Names in

Brassicaceae (Cruciferae). Taxon, 51, 529–537.Chambers, D. (1997). Story of plants: The assembling of Mary Capel Somerset’s

botanical collection at Badminton. Journal of the History of Collections, 9, 49–60.Clokie, H. N. (1964). An account of the herbaria of the Department of Botany in the

University of Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dandy, J. E. (1958). The Sloane Herbarium: An annotated list of the Horti Sicci

composing it; with biographical accounts of the principal contributors. London:Trustees of the British Museum.

Dewhurst, K. (1966). Dr. Thomas Sydenham 1624–1689: His life and original writings.London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library.

Dewhurst, K. (1984). John Locke 1632–1704: Physician and philosopher. New York:Garland.

Dony, J. G. (1949). A Bobart herbarium at Bedford. Bedfordshire Naturalist, 3, 15–16.Frank, R. G. Jr., (1974). The John Ward Diaries: Mirror of seventeenth century

science and medicine. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 29,147–179.

Gunther, R. T. (1912). Oxford gardens. Based upon Daubeny’s popular guide to thePhysick Garden of Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gunther, R. T. (1922). Early British botanists and their gardens. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Gunter, R. T. (1945). Early Science in Oxford, Vol. 14. Life and Letters of Edward Lhwyd.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harris, S. A. (2006). Bobart the Younger’s Hortus siccus. Oxford Plant Systematics, 13,10–11.

Harrison, J., & Laslett, P. (1971). The library of John Locke (2nd ed.). Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Jeffers, R. H. (1953). Edward Morgan and the Westminster Physic Garden.Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 164, 102–133.

Legendre, P., & Legendre, L. (1998). Numerical ecology. Oxford: Elsevier.Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding. London: Edward Mory.Locke, J. (1766). Observations upon the growth and culture of vines and olives. London:

Richardson & Clark.Locke, J. (1976–1989). The correspondence of John Locke (E. de Beer, Ed.) (8 vols.).

Oxford: Clarendon Press.Lough, J. (1984). Locke’s travels in France 1675–1679. New York: Garland.Lux, D., & Cook, H. (1998). Closed circles or open networks?: Communicating at a

distance during the Scientific Revolution. History of Science, 34, 179–211.McClain, M. (2001). Beaufort: The Duke and his Duchess 1657–1715. New Haven: Yale

University Press.Magnol, P. (1676). Botanicum Monspeliense. Montpellier.Magnol, P. (1686). Botanicum Monspeliense (2nd ed.). Montpellier.Morison, R. (1669). Hortus regius Blesensis auctus. London.Morison, R. (1680). Plantarum historiæ universalis Oxoniensis pars secunda. Oxford.Morison, R. (1699). Plantarum historiæ universalis Oxoniensis pars tertia. Oxford.Ogilvie, B. W. (2006). The science of describing: Natural history in Renaissance Europe.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Ray, J. (1686). Historia Plantarum ... tomus primus. London.Ray, J. (1688). Historia Plantarum tomus secundus. London.Ray, J. (1704). Historia Plantarum tomus tertius. London.Savage, S. (1948). A book herbarium made by Jacob Bobart the elder and his son (c.

1660–). Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 160, 55.Stephens, P., & Brown, W. (1658). Catalogus horti botanici Oxoniensis. Oxford.Vines, S. H., & Druce, G. C. (1914). An account of the Morisonian Herbarium. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.Whittaker, E. J. (1986). Thomas Lawson 1630–1691: North country botanist, Quaker

and schoolmaster. York: Sessions Book Trust.