Tracing the introduction history of the tulip that went wild (Tulipa sylvestris) in sixteenth-century Europe.

Tulipa sylvestris, commonly called the "wild tulip", was introduced from the Mediterranean to northern Europe in the sixteenth century and became widely naturalized. Research has focused on tulips that came from the Ottoman Empire, but the introduction path of this native European, early ornamental tulip is unclear, and so is its taxonomic status: three subspecies are provisionally accepted, sometimes treated as species. Here we elucidate the history of introduction of T. sylvestris and discuss its taxonomy based on our historical findings. The first bulbs came from Bologna (northern Italy) and Montpellier (southern France) in the 1550-1570 s. Several renowned botanists were involved in their introduction, namely Gessner, Wieland, Aldrovandi, De Lobel, Clusius, and Dodoens. There were various introduction routes, including one from Spain which was apparently unsuccessful. The strong sixteenth-century Flemish botanical network facilitated the introduction and naturalization of T. sylvestris across Europe. Based on the latest tulip taxonomy, the diploid subspecies australis is native in the Mediterranean, and the tetraploid sylvestris is naturalized over Europe, but our historical findings show that both sylvestris and australis were introduced to northern Europe. This underlines the need to reconsider the taxonomic status of T. sylvestris, highlighting the importance of botanical history in understanding the complex taxonomy of naturalized cultivated plants.

The emperor's herbarium: The German physician Leonhard Rauwolf (1535?-96) and his botanical field studies in the Middle East.

This paper presents the results of the new interdisciplinary research done on Leonhard Rauwolf's herbarium with plants from the Middle East, which was later owned by Emperor Rudolf II. Using various sources, it examines how the herbarium came into the imperial collections, Early Modern methods of botanical research as described by Rauwolf in his printed travelogue, and how the illustrations for the printed book were produced from the specimens in the herbarium. The appendix (available in the online version) presents the new corrected botanical identification of the c. 200 plants in the fourth volume of Rauwolf's herbarium, and a correct transcription of the Early Modern Latin and vernacular names Rauwolf collected for these plants.

[A journey into the (un)known. Borderlands of knowledge for Leonhard Rauwolf (1535?-1596)]. / Eine Reise ins (Un-)Bekannte. Grenzräume des Wissens bei Leonhard Rauwolf (1535?-1596).

The Augsburg physician Leonhard Rauwolf is known to the history of Western sciences for "discovering" the exotic flora of the Near East. This article deals with the social background of his studies in Germany and France and his perception of foreign lands, plants, and peoples. Before Rauwolf started his journey at Marseille in 1573 he had received a proper education in practical botany at Montpellier under Guillaume Rondelet. He had also collected about 600 specimens of plants in his herbarium. According to the common medical conventions of his time--most prominently represented by the Renaissance anatomist Andreas Vesalius--in his travel account Rauwolf claimed to tell only what he had seen, experienced, observed by himself, or touched with his own hands. Contrary to his own claim of pure "autopsy", or direct experience, however, Rauwolf's Aigentliche Beschreibung [Actual Description] was composed from different sources. As previously unnoted manuscript letters from the Trew-collection at the University Library of Erlangen show, editorial work on Rauwolf's book was a lengthy process. The final composition ended up drawing on such different sources as the Old and New Testament, ancient natural philosophy, Christian travel literature and sermons, more recent botanical books, oral information from other academics, fellow travellers or indigenous people, and--finally--Rauwolf's own mpressions and observations.

[Critical notions about Paracelsus [corrected] or "Antiparacelsianism"?, 1570-1630]. / Paracelsuskritische Haltungen oder "Antiparacelsismus"?, 1570-1630.

Historians of early modern medicine have frequently portrayed Paracelsians and Antiparacelsians around 1600 as two largely separate, hostile factions locked in a fierce battle. As I will argue in my paper, this account attributes too much weight to the public self-fashioning of both groups: From the mid-16th century onwards, some physicians chose the deceased Theophrastus of Hohenheim, or Paracelsus, as their new medical hero and tried to attract affluent patients with new, supposedly more powerful "spagyric" medicaments. Other physicians showed intense interest without thereby accepting Paracelsus as the "Luther of medicine". Based on my analysis of large collections of early modern physicians' letters, I argue for a more nuanced and cautious account of this conflict. Well-known physicians like Konrad Gesner, Johann Crato von Krafftheim, or Joachim Camerarius did indeed condemn the arrogance and rudeness of Paracelsus and his belittling of the ancient medical authors. Yet, at the same time, they also showed a keen interest in the new chemical drugs which the "Paracelsians" promoted. None of these supposed "Antiparacelsians" supported or welcomed the vehement attacks by Thomas Erastus in his Disputationum de Medicina nova Paracelsi without reservations--although Erastus suggested this for tactical reasons.

[Physicians' households in the 16th century]. / Arztehaushalte im 16. Jahrhundert. Einkünfte, Status und Praktiken der Repräsentation.

16th-century's medicine was marked by a wave of professionalization: besides scientific influences--evident by new ambitious texts on botany, anatomy, and chemiatry--functions of medical expertise for political purposes were an important factor. Based on findings made in my DFG-funded project "Arztliche Autorität in der Frühen Neuzeit" (medical authority in early modem times) is discussed how these influences altered the professional conditions for physicians. "Haushalt" (household) can be understood as a social community as well as a monetary budget in this context: physicians earned their money with a lot of different ventures beside medical practice, as commerce, farming, banking, or mining etc. Expenses for houses, gardens, interior etc. were based on needs of everyday life but could also be signs of luxury. Thus the physicians demonstrated the high social status they had acquired, and some of them thereby placed themselves at one social level with the nobility. Even scientific books can be estimated as a special case of such a conspicuous consumption for in most cases publishing made high investments without monetary benefit necessary. Thus scientific reputation was to some degree foreseeable: epoch-making books like above all Andreas Vesalius' "De humani Corporis fabrica libri septem" (Basel 1543) had to be financed out of the assets of the family (in Vesalius' case: a high-standing family in the emperor's services). Other sources show clearly that many doctors were not able to afford publishing comparable elaborated and expensive books.