In his book Botanical Icons. Critical Practices of Illustration in the Premodern Mediterranean, Andrew Griebeler offers an in-depth overview of the relevance of images in scientific treatises from the classical period to the 17th century, coinciding with the advent of botany as a discipline. He manages to demonstrate that these depictions are not just artistic interpretations of long textual descriptions, but rather icons representing complex botanical concepts. To support his argument, the author chooses an accessible and direct language, and a clearly outlined structure. The book consists of eight chapters, with the first three focusing on the classical tradition of plant illustrations and the last four (chapters 5 to 8) on their impact on the early modern development of botany as a discipline, with a specific interest in the medieval Mediterranean basin and, as such, the Middle East and Southern Europe. Yet, the core of this book must be sought in chapter 4, entitled Illustrating Dioscorides (77-100) where, Andrew Griebeler concentrates on his main case study, the De materia medica by Dioscorides and its visual tradition.

The De materia medica and its illustrations are the connecting element of the whole book's main argument. In his introduction, the author affirms that the aim of his work is to "[...] account for the unique role of illustrations in the production and transmission of botanical knowledge in the premodern Mediterranean, making evident the claim that a picture does not merely document an object of the world, but also actively forms knowledge for it" (6). Andrew Griebeler certainly keeps his word and successfully demonstrates his point. Yet, he does more than that. While the author frequently mentions Dioscorides' work and its influence both textually and visually on later works, he does not immediately unveil that the visual palimpsest of this ancient Greek medical treatise will become the tropos against which all the other texts and images considered in the book will be compared. As such, one can argue that Andrew Griebeler, with his Botanical Icons, succeeds in doing something even more ambitious than what he originally claimed; he attempts and manages to position the visual tradition of Dioscorides as the key origin for images in the discipline of botany in the West. While there have been many academic studies concerning the textual and scientific tradition, of the De materia medica, Griebeler's work is the first art historical study of its kind. The author takes on a new and original perspective on how we should look at the medieval reception of classical texts and images, effectively suggesting that much of the early modern scientific knowledge was based on a multidisciplinary and holistic approach.

Overall, this book successfully manages to showcase the paramount role images had in conveying complex knowledge relative to nature. The author does so by proving how the classical and early modern miscellaneous depictions of plants are not to be interpreted as the results of the lack of skill or real-life observation, but rather as a means to represent as many of their characteristics as possible. Such a take is quite revolutionary in the field and well supported by the evidence provided through the carefully selected examples from the array of manuscripts that Andrew Griebeler offers to the readers. Nevertheless, at times, some further explanation or detailing might have added to the case and strengthened the argument. For example, he only marginally touches upon the concept of copying from pre-existing texts. As a result, the visual tradition and expectations of certain literary/scientific genres are not fully explored. Yet, if compared to traditional studies on the matter such as Otto Pächt's book Byzantine Illumination (1952), which Andrew Griebeler cites and where Pächt affirms that only during the Renaissance naturalism was finally rediscovered, Botanical Icons manages to successfully argue against such a mainstream thesis. This book effectively proposes a novel way to look at and interpret these botanical images. As a result, by the end of chapter 3, the author has brilliantly achieved his main objective of demonstrating that illustrations of nature in the early modern period are not simple visual representations of wordy scientific texts, but rather carriers of meaning and knowledge on their own. The author then goes on to expand his analysis by turning to consider Dioscorides' treatise in chapter 4.

In chapter 4, Griebeler predominantly focuses on two rather well-known copies of the De materia medica, both produced in Constantinople in Greek and both fully illustrated; these are the sixth-century copy known as the Vienna Dioscorides at the Austrian National Library and the ninth/tenth-century copy held at the Morgan Library in New York. By turning his attention to these two examples, Andrew Griebeler engages in the complex challenge of tracing the history and legacy of botanical illustrations in scientific manuscripts through the lens of the Dioscorides tradition. Whereas chapters 1 to 3 laid out the foundation for chapter 4 - the visual analysis of the two Dioscorides manuscripts - chapters 5 to 8 form a sort of postscript, outlining the extent to which the visual tradition of the Dioscorides illuminations had a lasting impact on what botanical and medical compendia looked like in the whole Mediterranean, Europe, and the Middle East.

Andrew Griebeler has produced an extraordinarily innovative and methodologically rigorous art historical reinterpretation of a much-studied and renowned scientific text, and he has engaged with a huge array of visual material beautifully included in this publication, effectively showcasing the paramount role of images in scientific knowledge transmission. However, this most exciting feature of the book may potentially represent its limit. The reason being, as previously mentioned, that the author does not explicitly claim that such a huge work will be undertaken, albeit it is hinted at and suggested multiple times throughout the various chapters. Yet, these hints do not do justice to the incredible in-depth analysis of the cultural phenomenon described by the author. I have personally found Griebeler's approach and novel take on the Dioscorides manuscripts' visual tradition to be a most pleasing surprise, as he combines a scientifically rigorous method with an accessible and engaging language. In addition, the author pauses to discuss a topic too often bypassed in the history of sciences, that of the role of images in the transmission of scientific knowledge. I consider this book to be a new key reference for whoever wants to continue investigating the role of depictions of nature in scientific medieval and early modern manuscripts.

Benedetta Mariani