You might not believe it, but I do at least glance at my own notes or flip through my texts before I do a write up on a plant here on the blog. I have a mind like a sieve and I'm very liable to forget something - at least for the duration of writing the post - so I like to be sure.
But I'm going to use today's post as a sort of test for my brain. I'm going to give you a brief rundown of the Doctrine of Signatures without checking my notes. I want to see how well it's 'stuck' in there.
So, here we go ... stream of consciousness style, if you don't mind.
First, let's define the Doctrine. Essentially it's a way of gleaning clues - signs or "signatures" - from the plants as to what they might be able to do for us as medicines for our bodies and our spiritual and emotional realities. We look to the form of the plant (ie the shape & textures of the flowers, leaves, stems & roots) where we might see a similarity to a human organ or body part. We look to the colours of same, where we might see the colour of blood or bile or bone. We look at the growth habit of the plant as these tend to indicate adaptations the plant has to make and lastly the environment it prefers to grow in and its role within the environment (as discussed re alder, last time). It's rarely just one signature but their combinations that suggest the uses of the plants.
Discerning the signatures takes the eye of an artist, a working knowledge of human anatomy and experience. It's no "primitive system based on superstition" as I've seen it described. Once you learn to work with it, the bodies of plant and human weave themselves together in the mind's eye and something just clicks. It's one thing to understand in theory, but once you get out there and start looking at the plants .. well, it blows my mind.
Examples?
Everyone's favourite example is eyebright. The red streaks in the tiny flowers of that wiry little plant look (somewhat) like bloodshot eyes, and they do indeed help to clear up eye gunk from conjunctivitis or allergies when used as a compress or eyewash. Taken internally, the tea or tincture works too, which it seems to do by relieving sinus congestion which in turn takes pressure off the eye. Eyebright also brightens our 'outlook', so it can nice to have around when we're not quite depressed, but maybe the world "through a glass darkly". So here we have a bit of a pun, almost, but still, it's a signature. For my take on fun with eyebright, including pics, how we use it 'recreationally' (yes, really!), and a success story in comments, see this old post .
Large leaves are the signature for lungs because they resemble lungs - comfrey and mullein are examples. Both of these plants have textures and patterns to their leaves that resemble the cilia of the breathing apparatus in human beings, too. Cool, eh? Comfrey and mullein are both moisturizing and healing to lung tissue, mullein is particularly good at dealing with 'tickling' coughs (I'm still working on that mullein monograph). As you may know, comfrey has been vilified for a few years now due to theories about liver damage, in some places it's even illegal to sell it for internal use (silly, if you ask me, but you didn't so we'll drop that for now) so mullein is the preferred lung helper. (But I still say we shouldn't entirely discount comfrey.)
Hollow stems or tubular flowers are the signatures for healing the 'tubes' of the body, like the esophagus or the eustachian tubes of the ears. Elder, which has hollow stems, and monarda, with its tubular flowers, come to mind, a reader used the former and I used the latter, both of us successfully, to clear ear problems .. there's a plant that's used for fallopian tubes but I'll be damned if I can remember it's name and I promised myself I wouldn't cheat so we'll all have to remain in suspense for now.
Yellow is the signature for jaundice and therefore bile - dandelion and yellow dock are examples of plants that support the liver and gall bladder, although of course they do other things as well. But speaking of the liver, what's the signature for the liver in burdock? It's one of the liver plants, isn't it? But there's no yellow ..
No, but there's purple, and purple is the signature for toxins in the blood. What's the organ that detoxifies the blood? The liver. There's plenty of purple in echinacea, too, both in the flowers and in the joint between the leaf and the stem. Echinacea is an excellent blood purifier, it's most herbalist's first choice for treating bacterial infections (using it for mere colds is considered by some to be waste of good medicine). The 'cone' of echinacea, protruding or swelling up from the petals, resembles a boil or pimple and echinacea is an excellent remedy for those. The rayed petals and the tingly sensation of the taste are a signature for 'diffusives', these are the plants that send their medicines quite quickly through the body. They're often combined with other plants to speed things up. Monarda's flowers are rayed as well, although they arrayed differently, as a crown around the round 'head'; that's another plant with a diffusive action that can be added to a formula as a sort of catalyst.
That rounded head is seen again in burdock, this time with the petals (and then the seeds with their little hooks) sticking out like pins on a pincushion. Burdock seed is very diffusive. It has similar properties as the slower working roots and leaves, but if you want that medicine fast, use the seeds - but carefully, because burdock can be very cleansing. Burdock seeds have that sharpish/salty taste in common with echinacea.
You might be getting the idea by now - it's an intricate system of patterns laid overtop of other patterns and understanding it involves the use of all our senses. That's something we're biologically wired for, the use of our senses, integrating the information they give us to understand the world, and our brains are very, very good at making extrapolations.
I won't suggest that the Doctrine of Signatures is the best way to learn about medicinal plants; at the very least it makes a useful mnemonic device. But it might be more than that .. I can't help but wonder if getting outside among the plants, using our brains and senses in this (dare I say it) more evoluntionarily appropriate way as opposed to just learning by reading is good for us, the way eating real food instead of junk is good for us, or getting out into the sunlight instead of living indoors all the time is good for us.
In any case, it's very much a part of how I learn, so you'll find me referring to it quite often when I write about the plants here.
Wow, yes. This really resonated with me. Ive been struggled for years now, working through mankind's relation with plants and fungi and the rest of the natural world to, the rocks, the animals as well. When the Creator made the earth and gave us all the plants, I've been struggling to understand why he didnt give us a user manual... I mean all these amazing plants and no directions? Then I discovered Stephen Harrod Buhner and that completely turned my applecart upside down... the search was seriously on... blood in water and all that. Then I discovered the Esenes and all their ancient writings and modus operendi, and the extended writings of Christendom that didnt make the cut to get into the Bible, and for a while got more than a little worried about the fallen angel Azazel who taught the women on earth about plant medicine, apparently most displeasing. God and I have an amazing relationship... the way it works is I have a gut feeling, a golden thread as Buhner puts it... I follow it... I learn stuff... which leads to other feelings and open and closed doors, which I go through or dont go through. Your blog was an open door. I just went through it. Looking forward to plumbing its depths. Thank you for what you do.
ReplyDeleteHello, welcome, and thanks for your comment. If you'd like more reading on plants incorporating the Doctrine of Signatures, I can heartily recommend any books by Matthew Wood. And if you're open to reading in olde worlde English, get yourself into Nicolas Culpeper. It's like reading Shakespeare, takes a little getting used to the Elizabethan era lingo, but quite illuminating in its way.
DeleteNice to have you here, keep in touch!
Diving headlong into Culpeppers book (free on gutenberg.org). I can already see he placed a lot of emphasis on the planets. Would you mind giving me a sneak peek ahead.. do you also place emphasis on this. I have since I retired from the Army, been self teaching very basic astronomy because I was, and am, fascinated with the old timey Appalachian approach to farming by the signs. As I knew nothing about astronomy I jumped in... that was three years ago. And when I say I knew nothing, I didnt even know that the moon followed the suns ecliptic, had no idea which way the moon moved through the zodiac signs, or the sun for that matter. I didnt know that the arc of the moon was at its highest in Gemini and at its lowest in Sagitarius. So for three years Ive been watching our weather looking for correlations with the signs. All very interesting to me as I try to learn how to farm the old fashioned way. Have hammered most of my swords into ploughshares so to speak.
DeleteAstronomy or astrology?
DeleteI don't tend to work astrology into my posts, no. But I suppose it is often a part of my thinking when I'm working with plants - sometimes helpful when getting to know a new one, composing a formula, planting, harvesting, etc. It's not by any means 'top of mind' but it's there.
Another of my favourite books that has nuggets of that Appalachian approach of farming by the signs is "A Natural Year" by Grace Firth.
You might find it useful, especially if you are growing food.
You might want to check out this post of mine from way back where I discuss what I would recommend as a course of study for budding herbalists.
https://garblingthedandelion.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-well-rounded-herbal-practioner.html
Definitely astronomy, not astrology. Ive read the Foxfire series treatise on farming by the signs, and Ive read the Maria Thun - Biodynamics take on the effects of planets and the moon and sun in the various zodiac constellations. Ive parsed several various flavors of farmers Almanacs and I right away picked up on the inconsistencies and thought Damn, Im going to have to figure this out for myself because they cant all be right.
DeleteThanks for the reference Ill soak it in.
Have you seen reference to Rudolph Steiner?
DeleteYes Ive read quite a bit by Steiner, but I have to say I was not impressed... very fluffy and lacking in details I was looking for. Also some of his stuff was OUT THERE in my opinion. I never went back. But I refer to Maria Thuns work that I downloaded for free, repeatedly. Strange, as she continued the work of Steiner.
DeleteOkay - Biodynamics takes a geocentric point of view (movement of planets as seen from earth) rather than heliocentric (as seen from the sun). Right? I'd consider that astrological but I guess I'd be wrong!
DeleteI hear you on Steiner's work. I have a taste for the esoteric but he's a little to "woo" even for me.