Dr Leen Kelchtermans

Recently, an extraordinary, anonymous eighteenth-century botanical manuscript was meticulously restored at The Phoebus Foundation’s paper conservation studio.¹ The handwritten compendium consists of two alphabetically arranged parts. The first is preceded by a hand-coloured title page from the famous Cruÿde Boeck (‘Herbal’) by the sixteenth-century physician from Mechelen, Rembert Dodoens. The title and other details were cut away and replaced with an image of a spina arabica. The second part opens with a depiction of a woman towering above a closed gate and an elegant cartouche featuring the coat of arms of Amsterdam, along with the initials ‘F.H.’ and intertwined ‘DC’. Each plant is accompanied by a description, including details on taste and medicinal applications. Additionally, every entry features an illustration: the author carefully coloured, meticulously cut out, and attached images from Dodoens’ publication.

During the restoration, a surprise emerged: a folded piece of paper hidden within the parchment spine. What was written on it, and what does it reveal about the author of this extraordinary manuscript?

Antwerp Surgeon

The piece of paper found in the spine of the botanical manuscript turned out to be a Latin copy of a baptismal record, written by the assistant priest of the Antwerp parish of Saint Andrew on 20 October 1762. It refers to the baptism of Petrus Josephus Van Laere, son of Carolus Van Laere and Elizabetha Van Duren. The copy exactly matches the original note in the corresponding baptismal register: Petrus Josephus was indeed baptised on 8 June 1746, at Saint Andrew’s parish. His parents had married in the same church five months earlier, on 5 January 1746, suggesting that Elizabetha was already four months pregnant at the time.²

At the age of twenty-four, on 30 June 1770, Petrus Josephus Van Laere married Maria Isabella Rottiers from Antwerp’s Saint James parish.³ A document from the Orphan Chamber archive dated 5 September of that same year reveals his parents died before he reached majority. It lists Van Laere’s expenses from 1764 as part of an inheritance settlement. Among costs listed for clothing, shoes, silver buckles, and a razor, the sharpening of lancets particularly stands out, as these were surgical instruments. He also purchased ‘two books concerning surgery’ from the bookseller Grangé, clearly indicating Van Laere’s activities within the Antwerp surgical community.⁴

These activities are further confirmed by the Account Book of Antwerp Surgeons, where Van Laere is mentioned several times as a fellow (‘confrater’) or master surgeon. Between 10 July 1772, and 7 May 1776, he paid 160 guilders in guild fees and 10 guilders to register an apprentice. This likely took place around 13 December 1774, when Van Laere obtained his diploma but still faced an eight-year apprenticeship.⁵ Once this apprenticeship ended, in 1782, his membership was again recorded in the Account Book, and in January 1787 another apprentice, Arnoldus Proestmans, was registered.⁶

Van Laere continued his surgical practice thereafter. During the Antwerp census of 1796, he was recorded as residing in the ‘chambre haute’ at ‘Rue de Convent 12’: ‘Pierre Vanlaere, 50, Churigijn [sic]’ lived there with his wife and two unmarried daughters, Johanna Maria Isabella and Maria Carolina.⁷ Nearly twenty years later, Van Laere died on 1 February 1815, as recorded in the surgeon’s obituary in the Antwerpsche Gazette.⁸

Now that the baptised individual named on the folded piece of paper hidden in the spine of the botanical manuscript has been identified as the Antwerp surgeon Petrus Josephus Van Laere, a question arises: could he also be the author of this work? The presence of the note makes it highly likely. Moreover, an analysis of the compendium’s contents and its dating further supports this hypothesis.

Reuse

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to say something about the manuscript itself. It strongly appears that it was not originally intended as a notebook. The two vertical red lines on the left and four on the right of each page suggest that the manuscript was intended as an account book for recording sums of money according to coin type. This is supported by an inscription on the front endpaper, in handwriting notably older than that of the manuscript itself. It reads: ‘Groot Boeck gheregelt voor [blank]’. This term explicitly refers to a commercial ledger in which merchants recorded their transactions.⁹ The name of the individual for whom the book was ‘gheregelt’ or provided with columns was never filled in.¹⁰ Later, the endpaper was glued to the cover, obscuring the inscription. Possibly, the author of the botanical manuscript did this himself, as he did not use the book for accounting purposes. Nor did he pay attention to the columns: he simply wrote over them or pasted illustrations on top.

Specialist

Although the author of the botanical manuscript used illustrations from Dodoens’ Cruÿde Boeck, he did not copy the texts from the doctor from Mechelen. Instead, for each plant, he noted medicinal properties and compared observations from various authors. He cited renowned authorities such as the Greek-Roman physician Claudius Galen (c.129-216), sixteenth-century physician-botanists including the French Matthias de Lobel and Jacques Daléchamps, and seventeenth-century medical scholars such as the Dane Simon Paulli and the Englishman Thomas Sydenham.

However, the author most frequently referred to scientists from the early eighteenth century. Carolus Linnaeus, who published the first edition of his botanical standard work Species Plantarum in Stockholm in 1753, is mentioned multiple times, as is Giovanni Alessandro Brambilla, Emperor Joseph II’s Italian personal physician, who released his influential Riflessione fisico-medico-chirurgiche in 1769. The author often compared the medicinal applications of plants with the ‘London’ and ‘Edinburgh materia medica’ (‘Londesche’ and ‘Edenborghse materia medica’). The latter was established when Francis Home became the first professor of Materia Medica at the Scottish university in 1768, holding the position for thirty years.¹¹ Additionally, he occasionally copied entire excerpts from Materia Chirurgica by the Viennese physician Joseph Jacob von Plenck, first published in 1771.

Dating

When the botanical manuscript entered The Phoebus Foundation’s collection, it was assumed to date from the early eighteenth century, as the paper bears a watermark from 1722.¹² However, this dating can be further refined based on the scientific reference works cited by the author. Indeed, the publication dates of their first editions provide a terminus post quem for the manuscript, definitively placing it after 1771 – the year Von Plenck’s Materia Chirurgica was first issued.

This dating also aligns with a note at the front of the manuscript: ‘ontfanghe van de Heer Kramp de somme van 73 [guilders]-10 stuyvers den 2[illegible digit] februarien 1782’ (‘received from Mr. Kramp the sum of 73 guilders and 10 stuivers on 2[?] February, 1782’). It appears the book was already in use by then – 1782 was also the year in which Van Laere’s surgical apprenticeship was fully completed. Another note at the back states: ‘Catharina is bij de heer [illegible name] comen wonen den 21 augusti 1764’ (‘Catharina came to live with Mr. [?] on 21 August 1764’). How exactly to interpret these notes remains unclear.

Van Laere’s Compendium?

Alongside the copy of his baptismal record hidden in the manuscript’s spine, the adjusted dating – after 1771 – strongly suggests Petrus Josephus Van Laere as the author. Indeed, he was active as a certified surgeon in Antwerp between 1774 and 1815. The author of the botanical manuscript was clearly no novice, but an experienced specialist, as evidenced by annotations containing detailed personal medical observations, such as ‘with the wine, in which rue had been boiled, and a bit of rose honey added, I healed a foul-smelling nasal ulcer and a rotten, ulcerous inflammation of the gums accompanied by decay of the jawbone.’ Furthermore, the remedy prepared from the mastic tree would not prevent the suppuration of head wounds, ‘as I myself have observed’, and regarding flaxseed he noted: ‘I have repeatedly found a paste made from flaxseed meal mixed with milk and powdered hemlock herb to be the best remedy when applied to breasts that were partly hardened, partly inflamed, and partly suppurating.’ Additionally, in connection with the sale of a specific type of valerian in ‘the shops’, he referred to ‘our College’.¹³ Could he mean the Collegium Medicum Antverpiense? It was established in 1620 to ensure the quality of surgical training in the city on the Scheldt and, among other things, also regulated the sale of medicines by pharmacists.¹⁴

Despite minor differences here and there, the botanical manuscript appears to have been consistently written by a single individual. A comparison between its handwriting and Van Laere’s signatures on various documents, such as his children’s baptismal records and the 1774 notarial deeds concerning his wife’s inheritance, further supports his authorship.¹⁵ The formation of letters, such as the capital ‘V’ and ‘L’, and the lowercase ‘p’, ‘r’, and ‘v’, is notably similar. In short, the hidden copy of his baptismal record, along with the dating and contents, the matching biographical data, and the similar handwriting, collectively constitute compelling evidence for attributing the botanical manuscript to the Antwerp surgeon Petrus Josephus Van Laere.

Conclusion

While the botanical manuscript already impressed due to its meticulous composition, the discovery of the copy of the baptismal record hidden in the parchment spine made it even more intriguing. It very likely is the reference work that Antwerp surgeon Petrus Josephus Van Laere carefully wrote in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. He devoted considerable attention to precisely colouring, cutting out, and pasting Dodoens’ prints, as well as recording his medical observations. His extensive study and comparison of medical and botanical sources from various centuries and regions reflect his dedication and thorough expertise. It strikingly illustrates the professionalization of medicine during that period, also in Antwerp, where the Collegium Medicum had already been operational for over a century. The compendium thus forms a valuable historical document. Thanks to a piece of paper hidden for centuries in the spine, we gain a rare insight into what likely were the study and doctor’s office of surgeon Van Laere, and consequently, the medical landscape of his time.

How to cite this item? Kelchtermans, ‘Dissecting an Antwerp Surgeon’s Botanical Manuscript’, Phoebus Findings, https://phoebusfoundation.org/en/phoebus_findings/11/, accessed on [dd.mm.yyyy].
All rights reserved. No part of this Phoebus Finding may be reproduced, stored in an information storage and retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, including copying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from The Phoebus Foundation. If you have comments or want to make use of our images, we’d like to hear from you. Contact us at: info@phoebusfoundation.org.

1. See https://phoebusfoundation.org/beleef/de-restauratie-van-een-18de-eeuws-plantenboek/.[↩]
2. Antwerp, Felix Archief (AFA), Parish Records (Parochieregisters), Saint Andrew’s Church, Baptisms, PR#111, fol. 207r; Idem, Saint Andrew’s Church, Marriages, PR#248, fol. 22r.[↩]
3. AFA, Parish Records (Parochieregisters), Church of Our Lady North, Marriages, PR#208, fol. 149v.[↩]
4. ‘twee Boecken raeckende de Chirurgie’, see AFA, Orphan Chamber Archive (Weeskamer), Individual Files, WK#3208, n.p.[↩]
5. A. De Mets, La Corporation des Chirurgiens-barbiers d’Anvers et l’Enseignement de la Chirurgie à Anvers, depuis la fin du moyen-âge jusqu’à la révolution française, Antwerp, 1921: 20.[↩]
6. AFA, Guilds and Trades (Gilden en Ambachten), Barbers and Surgeons, GA#4079, fol. 18r, 22v, 30v.[↩]
7. AFA, Civil Registration and Population (Burgerlijke stand en bevolking), Census of Year IV (1796), inv. 2932#49. For the baptismal records of these daughters, see AFA, Parish Records (Parochieregisters), Saint Walburga’s Church, Baptisms, PR#87, fol. 182r (27 March 1775) and fol. 224r (14 December 1776). The couple had eight children. In addition to the daughters already mentioned, there were also: Petrus Josephus (Antwerp, 19 February 1771), Maria Elisabetha (Essen, 31 January 1773), Henricus Josephus (Antwerp, 18 June 1779), Lucia Maria (Antwerp, 21 January 1782), Maria Josepha (Antwerp, 10 May 1784) and Joannes Josephus (Antwerp, 11 February 1786). For their baptismal records, see AFA, Parish Records (Parochieregisters), Church of Our Lady North, Baptisms, PR#41, fol. 12v; Agatha. The Online Search Environment of the State Archives of Belgium: Essen, Nativity of Our Lady Church, Baptisms, fol. 918v, https://agatha.arch.be/data/images/511/511_0001_037_00008_000/0_0919_r, accessed on 30.05.2025; ARA, Parish Records (Parochieregisters), Saint Walburga’s Church, Baptisms, PR#88, fol. 64r and 151v; Idem, PR#89, fol. 17r and 88r.[↩]
8. Family Search, Civil Registration and Population (Burgerlijke stand en bevolking), District Antwerp, Deaths 1814-1815, no. 190, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6W3S-1YQ?wc=Q82R-T18%3A1007785401%2C1007864101%26cc%3D2138481&lang=en&i=478, accessed on 30.05.2025; Antwerpsche Gazette, 16 (7 February 1815): 4.[↩]
9. See the entry ‘grootboek’ in the Geïntegreerde taalbank, https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M022359&lemma=grootboek&domein=0&conc=true, accessed on 30.05.2025.[↩]
10. See the entry ‘regelen’, meaning ‘to draw lines with a ruler’ in the Geïntegreerde taalbank, https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M058235&lemma=regelen&domein=0&conc=true, accessed on 30.05.2025.[↩]
11. J.H. Gaddum, ‘The Development of Materia Medica in Edinburgh’, Edinburgh Medical Journal (December 1942): 721-722.[↩]
12. London, Sotheby’s, 13.12.2022, lot 189.[↩]
13. Original quotations: ‘Ick genas met den wijn, daer wijnruijt in gekockt, en wat roosenhoning bij gedaen was, een stinckende neussweer, en een haetelijcke rottige versweering van het tantvlees, die met been bederf der tantkas gepaert ging’, ‘als ik selver heb waergenomen’, ‘Ick hebbe menighmael het lijnsaetmeel met melck en scheerlingkruijd tot poeder gebraght, als een pap op op [sic] borsten, die half verhaerdt, half ontsteeken en half verteert waeren en verettert waeren, uijt alle middelen het beste bevonden’, ‘de winckels’ en ‘ons Collegie’.[↩]
14. R. Van Hee, ‘Surgeons and the Collegium Medicum Antverpiense: Professionalisation of Surgical Practice in 17^th Century Antwerp’, Acta Chirurgica Belgica, 111 (2011): 184-191.[↩]
15. Beveren, State Archives, Notary Essen (Notariaat Essen), Notary Sonnius, dated 09.04.1774 and 12.07.1774.[↩]