In 1415 Henry v founded a double Bridgettine abbey at Syon, intended to house sixty nuns and twenty-five brothers; the publication of this book is intended to commemorate its 600th anniversary. Like all the major religious houses, Syon Abbey was affected by the Dissolution and in 1539 a small group of nuns took refuge in a sister house in Flanders. Eventually the Bridgettine order returned to England in 1861. Never having surrendered the abbey’s seal, keys or deeds, they could reasonably claim to have been the only English religious order that survived the Dissolution. Unfortunately, due to falling numbers and ill health, they were disbanded in 2011, just a few years short of the anniversary, and the surviving medieval books and manuscripts that had formed part of the abbey’s original extensive library were dispersed to various university libraries and repositories.

The editors rightly point out that Thomas Betson, the herbal’s author and last librarian at Syon Abbey from 1481 until his death in 1517, was apparently compiling a notebook for his own reference rather than the production of an original work. Betson’s use of, and copying from, other texts available to him, provides one of the strongest reasons for the present publication. Although entitled ‘a herbal’ Betson’s text pre-dates some of the earliest continental herbals that established the standard format of the genre: detailed description of the plant (often including an illustrative woodcut) and discussion of its astronomical properties, followed by its uses and curative powers. Adams and Forbes point out that few of the plants in Betson’s list are actually used in his remedies.

Throughout the book there are detailed cross-references, relating to Betson’s possible source material, most of which probably originated from before 1500. In particular, the editors suggest that Betson’s section on plant names was taken from John Bray’s Sinonoma de nominibus herbarum dating from 1381, although this was not recorded in the Syon library. The selection of herbal remedies was apparently compiled from a number of different sources, and offers a variety of potential ‘cures’ for miscellaneous ailments – particularly unappealing is the use of horse dung to ‘fasten loose teeth’ (p 254).

This is a book full of good things: an excellent transcript, which can be easily checked against the original document thanks to the editors’ use of electronic technology and meticulous referencing; a useful section on apothecary weights; good translations; and mostly accurate identification of the plants in Betson’s plant list. There are, however, some inevitable mistakes with such an undertaking.

From the brief biographical notes for Adams and Forbes it would appear that neither professes any great botanical or medical interest. This has resulted in some question marks about a few of the modern botanical synonyms and common names suggested; for example, Betson’s Anagallis would be recognisable as our Scarlet Pimpernel, not a synonym for Comfrey (Symphytum). However, Thomas Johnson, in the 1633 edition of John Gerard’s herbal, gives a synonym for Comfrey of Alus gallicus related to the French use of the plant in leather tanning, which probably caused Betson’s confusion. It seems likely that his and / or his source’s (Bray) transcribing was inaccurate. Johnson is also equally clear that the sycomore should not be confused with the European sycamore. Unfortunately, the editors have accepted the insidious modern ‘correction’ of ‘sycamore fig’, rather than retaining the accurate Biblical sycomore. Similarly Adams and Forbes were unaware that smallpox was commonly known by its Latin name, variola(s). Betson’s recipe for the use of rose water on the burning variola facial pustules was probably soothing, and may have helped prevent damage to the patient’s eyes.

These are only minor errors, but, sadly, the book suffers badly from poor proofreading and compilation. Apart from the ‘typos’, the illustrations have been inserted in the wrong place (instructions to the printer were retained), part of Appendix 3 is duplicated, Appendix 1 may be missing (p 33 n 36; p 213 n 1), the bibliography is incomplete and unaccountably some reference titles have found their way into the index. These errors should have been removed with proper proofreading and adherence to standard conventions.

While these criticisms may appear to be unnecessary carping, these presentational and technical errors, in the view of this reviewer, undermine the otherwise careful and mostly accurate preparation of the text. Nonetheless, if the reader can overlook such shortcomings, they will be rewarded with much that is useful and worthwhile.