What makes this edition different?
Culpeper's Herbal has been in continuous publication since 1653 - which is no minor feat! - so what makes this edition different to all the others?
Excellent question!
I've put a ridiculous amount of research into identifying as many of the plants as possible, as accurately as possible.
Yes, other editions have been released that include plant identifications, but if you look closely, you'll often find they'll let you down.
Perhaps the common name matches, but when you read the description provided by Culpeper, he's very clearly describing a quite different plant. In other cases, I've seen folks just straight-up leave out plants they weren't able to identify (because of course 'Dragons' doesn't need a description)!
There are definitely a few that I'm not 100% on, and a few others I'm more uncertain on (especially being located across the globe and not being able to investigate the flora of the London area first-hand), but I've trawled both modern and historical references to do the best job I possibly could - beating every other attempt I've been able to find by a significant margin.
You'll also find high-quality, full-colour botanical illustrations of the plants mentioned.
No, not crappy line-art that's challenging to match to its real-world counterpart.
No, not that one set of illustrations from an 18th-century edition that you see included in most editions since then (which, again, often absolutely are not the plant described in the text).
I genuinely couldn't answer which has taken more time between identifying the plants, vs sourcing and painstakingly restoring stunning, full-colour antique botanical illustrations of every plant highlighted in the Herbal... but honestly, it was probably restoring the illustrations.
Spanning across a number of publications, artists, and centuries, these illustrations not only aid in recognising and identifying the plants discussed, but are works of art in their own rights.
