GARDEN-FLOWERS

GARDEN-FLOWERS

Some of the flowers introduced into our gardens, and now cultivated either on account of their beauty or the pleasantness of their smell, have been procured from plants which grew wild, and which have been changed, or, according to the opinion of florists, improved by the art of the gardener. The greater part of them however came originally from distant countries, where they grow, in as great perfection as ours, without the assistance of man. Though we often find mention of flowers in the works of the Greeks and the Romans, it appears that they were contented with those which grew in their own neighbourhood. I do not remember to have read that they ever took the trouble to form gardens for the particular purpose of rearing in them foreign flowers or plants. But even supposing that I may be mistaken, for I do not pretend to have examined this subject very minutely, I think I may with great probability venture to assert, that the modern taste for flowers came from Persia to Constantinople, and was imported thence to Europe, for the first time, in the sixteenth century. At any rate, we find that the greater part of the productions of our flower-gardens were conveyed to us by that channel. Clusius and his friends in particular, contributed very much to excite this taste; and the new plants brought from both the Indies by the travellers who then continued still more frequently to visit these countries, tended to increase it. That period also produced some skilful gardeners, who carried on a considerable trade with the roots and seeds of flowers; and these likewise assisted to render it more general. Among these were John and Vespasian Robin, gardeners to Henry IV. of France, and Emanuel Sweert, gardener to the emperor Rodolphus II., from whom the botanists at that time procured many rarities, as appears from different passages of their works. As this taste for flowers prevails more at present than at any former period, a short history of some of the objects of it may not be disagreeable, perhaps, to many of my readers.

Simon de Tovar, a Spanish physician, brought the tuberose to Europe before the year 1594 from the East Indies, where it grows wild in Java and Ceylon, and sent some roots of it to Bernard Paludanus, who first made the flower publicly known in his Annotations on Linschoten’s Voyage[1592]. The full tuberoses were first procured from seed by one Le Cour, at Leyden, who kept them scarce for some years, by destroying the roots, that they might not become common[1593]. The propagation of them in most countries is attended with difficulties; but in Italy, Sicily and Spain, it requires no trouble; and at present the Genoese send a great many roots to England, Holland and Germany. The oldest botanists classed them among the hyacinths, and the name Polianthes tuberosa was given them by Linnæus in his Hortus Cliffortianus.

The auricula, Primula auricula, grows wild among the long moss covered with snow, on the Lower Alps of Switzerland and Steyermark[1594], whence it was brought to our gardens, where, by art and accident, it has produced more varieties than any other species of flower. I do not know who first transplanted it from its native soil. Pluche[1595] says only that some roots were pulled up by Walloon merchants, and carried to Brussels. This much, at any rate, is certain, that it was first cultivated with care by the Flemings, who were very successful in propagating it. Professor Weismantel, who deserves to be ranked amongst the principal writers on flowers[1596], says that the auricula was described and celebrated by Ovid, Pliny and Columella; but this I much doubt. The botanists even of the seventeenth century, who searched for plants in the works of the ancients with great diligence, and who took the liberty of making very bold assertions, were not able to find any name that would correspond with the auricula; for the conjecture of Fabius Columna, that it is the alisma of Dioscorides, is highly improbable, as that Grecian author extols his plant, which was fond of water, on account of its medicinal virtues only. In the time of Clusius, most of the varieties of the auricula were scarce.

The common fritillary, or chequered lily, Fritillaria Meleagris, was first observed in some parts of France, Hungary, Italy, and other warm countries[1597], and introduced into gardens about the middle of the sixteenth century. At first it was called Lilium variegatum; but Noel Capperon, an apothecary at Orleans, who collected a great many scarce plants, gave it the name of Fritillaria, because the red or reddish-brown spots of the flower form regular squares, much like those of a chess-board. It was called meleagris by Dodonæus, because the feathers of that fowl are variegated almost in the same manner[1598].

The roots of the magnificent crown imperial, Fritillaria imperialis, were about the middle of the sixteenth century brought from Persia to Constantinople, and were carried thence to the emperor’s garden at Vienna, from which they were dispersed all over Europe. This flower was first known by the Persian name tusac, until the Italians gave it that of corona imperialis[1599], or crown imperial. I have somewhere read that it has been imagined that the figure of it is to be found represented on coins of Herod, and that, on this account, it has been considered as the lily so much celebrated in the Scripture.

The Persian lily, Fritillaria Persica, which is nearly related to it, was made known almost about the same time. The bulbs or roots were brought from Susa to Constantinople, and for that reason it was formerly called Lilium Susianum[1600].

African and French marigolds, Tagetes erecta and patula, were, according to the account of Dodonæus and others, brought from Africa to Europe, at the time when the emperor Charles V. carried his arms against Tunis. This however is improbable; for these plants are indigenous in South America, and were known to botanists before that period under the name of Caryophyllus Indicus, from which is derived the French appellation œillet d’Inde. Cordus calls them, from their native country, Tanacetum Peruvianum[1601].

Among the most beautiful ornaments of our gardens is the belladonna lily, Amaryllis formosissima, the flower of which, composed of six petals, is of a deep-red colour, and in a strong light, or when the sun shines upon it, has an agreeable yellow lustre like gold. The first roots of it ever seen in Europe were procured in 1593, on board a ship which had returned from South America, by Simon de Tovar, a physician at Seville. In the year following, he sent a description of the flower to Clusius; and as he had at the same time transmitted some roots to Bernard Paludanus and count d’Aremberg, the former sent a dried flower, and the latter an accurate drawing of it to Clusius, who published it in 1601[1602]. One of the Robins gave in 1608 a larger and more correct figure, which was afterwards copied by Bry, Parkinson, and Rudbeck; but a complete description, with a good engraving, was published in 1742, by Linnæus[1603], who in 1737 gave to that genus the name by which it is known at present[1604]. Sweert, Bauhin, and Rudbeck, are evidently mistaken in assigning the East Indies as the original country of this plant; and Broke[1605], who was not a botanist, but only a florist, is equally wrong in making it a native of the Levant. Tovar received it from South America, where it was found by Plumier and Barrere, and at a later period by Thiery de Menonville[1606]. At first it was classed with the narcissus, and it was afterwards called lilio-narcissus, because its flower resembled that of the lily, and its roots those of the narcissus. It was named flos Jacobæus, because some imagined that they discovered in it a likeness to the badge of the knights of the order of St. James in Spain, whose founder, in the fourteenth century, could not indeed have been acquainted with this beautiful amaryllis.

Another species of this genus is the Guernsey lily, Amaryllis Sarniensis, which in the magnificence of its flower is not inferior to the former. This plant was brought from Japan, where it was found by Kæmpfer, and also by Thunberg[1607], during his travels some years ago in that country. It was first cultivated in the beginning of the seventeenth century in the garden of John Morin, at Paris, where it blowed, for the first time, on the 7th of October 1634. It was then made known by Jacob Cornutus, under the name of narcissus Japonicus flore rutilo[1608]. After this it was again noticed by John Ray[1609], in 1665, who called it the Guernsey lily, which name it still very properly bears. A ship returning from Japan was wrecked on the coast of Guernsey, and a number of the bulbs of this plant, which were on board, being cast on shore, took root in that sandy soil. As they soon increased and produced beautiful flowers, they were observed by the inhabitants, and engaged the attention of Mr. Hatton, the governor’s son, whose botanical knowledge is highly spoken of by Ray, and who sent roots of them to several of his friends who were fond of cultivating curious plants[1610]. Of this elegant flower Dr. Douglass gave a description and figure in a small treatise published in 1725, which is quoted by Linnæus in his Bibliotheca, but not by Haller.

Of the comprehensive genus Ranunculus, florists, to speak in a botanical sense, have obtained a thousand different kinds[1611]; for, according to the manner in which they are distinguished by gardeners, the varieties are infinite and increase almost every summer, as those with half-full flowers bear seed which produce plants that from time to time yield new kinds that exhibit greater or uncommon beauties. The principal part of them, however, and those most esteemed, were brought to us from the Levant. Some were carried from that part of the world so early as in the time of the crusades; but most of them have been introduced into Europe from Constantinople since the end of the sixteenth century, particularly the Persian ranunculus (R. asiaticus, Linn.), the varieties of which, if I am not mistaken, hold at present the first rank. Clusius describes both the single and the full flowers as new rarities. This flower was in the highest repute during the time of Mahomet IV. His Grand Vizir, Cara Mustapha, well-known by his hatred against the Christians and the siege of Vienna in 1683, wishing to turn the sultan’s thoughts to some milder amusement than that of the chase, for which he had a strong passion, diverted his attention to flowers; and, as he remarked that the emperor preferred the ranunculus to all others, he wrote to the different pachas throughout the whole kingdom to send him seeds or roots of the most beautiful kinds. The pachas of Candia, Cyprus, Aleppo, and Rhodes paid most regard to this request; and the elegant flowers which they transmitted to court were shut up in the seraglio as unfortunate offerings to the voluptuousness of the sultan, till some of them, by the force of money, were at length freed from their imprisonment. The ambassadors from the European courts in particular, made it their business to procure roots of as many kinds as they could, which they sent to their different sovereigns. Marseilles, which at that period carried on the greatest trade to the Levant, received on this account these flowers very early; and a person there, of the name of Malaval, is said to have contributed very much to disperse them all over Europe[1612].

[Among the favourites of the present day may be instanced,--

The varied and social Pelargoniums (commonly called geraniums), which from their capability of living in the confined air of rooms almost form a part of the household furniture in this country. They are nearly all members of the Cape of Good Hope. A large number however of those with which we are familiar are not distinct species, but mere varieties. Geraniums were first introduced into this country at the end of the seventeenth century. Pelargoniums differ from geraniums principally in the irregularity of their flowers, their shrubby stems and tubular nectaries. They were first separated by L’Heritier.

The Dahlia, an universal favourite; its exquisite symmetry, when perfect, and the size of its flowers rendering it one of the most beautiful of our garden-plants. It is generally stated to have been introduced by Lady Holland in 1804; but it was introduced many years before that period, and was only brought from Madrid by Lady Holland, who apparently did not know that it was already in the country. The first species of Dahlia known to Europeans was D. superflua (variabilis, De C.); it was discovered in Mexico by Humboldt in 1789, and sent to Professor Cavanilles, of the Botanic Garden at Madrid, who named the genus in honour of the Swedish Professor Dahl. Cavanilles sent a plant of it to the marchioness of Bute. From this species, nearly all the varieties known in our gardens have been raised. There are now in England ten or twelve species. including innumerable varieties.

The Rose, which is one of our oldest favourites, and has been known from time immemorial among the civilized nations of Europe and Asia. It occurs in almost every country of the northern hemisphere, both in the Old and New World. It is not found in South America nor in Australia. The name is derived from rhos, which signifies red in Armorican, whence ῥόδον, Greek, and rosa, Latin. More than one hundred species have been described, and more than two thousand varieties may be procured in the nurseries.

And lastly, the Calceolarias, which are natives of South America. Their great variety has rendered them especial favourites. They abound in Chili and Peru. The name is derived from calceolus, from the resemblance of the corolla (coloured part of the flower) to a slipper. In 1820, half-a-dozen species only were known in this country. During the next ten or twelve years, five or six more species were introduced from Chili. Innumerable hybrids are now raised every year, varying in colour through every possible shade of crimson, brown, orange, purple, pink, and yellow: there are one or two of a pure white colour.]

FOOTNOTES

[1592] Hagæ, 1599, fol.

[1593] Miller’s Gardener’s Dictionary.

[1594] Haller, Histor. Stirpium, i. p. 272, n. 612.

[1595] Spectacle de la Nature, ii. p. 49.

[1596] Des Blumisten vol. i. Erfurt, 1783, 8vo, p. 5.

[1597] [It also occurs wild in the eastern and southern parts of England.]

[1598] Clusii Hist. Plant. ii. p. 154.

[1599] Ibid. i. p. 128. Dodonæi Pempt. p. 202.

[1600] Clusii Hist. Plant. i. p. 130.

[1601] Dodonæi Florum Hist. p. 62. Bauhini Hist. Plant. iii. p. 98.

[1602] Hist. Plantar. i. p. 157.

[1603] Abhandl. der Schwed. Akad. iv.

[1604] Hortus Cliffort. p. 135.

[1605] Beobacht. v. einigen Blumen, 1769, 8vo.

[1606] Barrere, Hist. Nat. de la France Equinoxiale. Traité de la Culture du Nopal, par T. de Menonville, 1787, 8vo.

[1607] Flora Japonica. The Japanese consider the bulbs poisonous.

[1608] J. Cornuti Canad. Plantarum aliarumque Historia. Par. 1635, 4to.

[1609] A complete Florilege, furnished with all the requisites belonging to a florist. London, 1665, fol. lib. i. cap. 10, p. 74.

[1610] Morisoni Plantarum Historia, pars 2. Ox. 1680, fol. p. 367.

[1611] Miller’s Gardener’s Dictionary. [Of one species alone no less than eight hundred varieties were known at the end of the last century.]

[1612] Tournefort, Voyage du Levant, vol. ii. p. 15.--Traité des Renoncules (par D’Ardene), Paris, 1746, 8vo.--Pluche, Spectacle de la Nature, vol. i.

END OF VOL. I.

Printed by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street.

Transcribers’ Notes

Text contains Greek. Equipment that cannot display these characters may substitute question marks or other placeholders.

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed. Words spelled differently in quoted text than elsewhere were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were silently corrected, except as noted below; ambiguous unbalanced quotation marks and hyphens at the ends of lines were retained, except as noted below.

Text often uses periods where commas might be expected. As the author’s intent is unknown, all of them have been retained.

The spelling and accent marks of non-English words have been retained as printed in the original book; some possible or likely errors are noted below, but not comprehensively.

Footnotes, originally at the bottom of the page, have been renumbered and moved to the end of each chapter. The footnotes to a footnote retain their original letter-identifications.

In footnotes, the letter “l.” and the number “1.” look alike, so the representations of some of them here may be incorrect.

Page 2: “but he produces” was printed as “but he produce,” (with a comma instead of an “s”); changed here. “produce,” was the last word on the line, and the last word on the next line was “latters”, which has been changed here to “latter”.

Page 34: “At present it is cultivated” was printed as “A-present” with the hyphen at the end of the line; changed here.

Page 84: “Recréations” was printed that way, with just one accented “é”.

Page 84: “de la Congr. de St. Maur,” was printed as “de la de Congr. St. Maur,” but changed here based on examination of an earlier edition.

Page 99: “of trying to what distance” was printed that way.

Page 173: “They consider the forming the strata” was printed that way.

Page 177: “Lottichii” was imperfectly printed, so the “ii” may be something else, such as “Lottichius”, which appears on page 324.

Page 239: “recals” was printed that way.

Page 241: The closing quotation mark at the end of the paragraph ending “be admitted into this association”, appears to belong after the sentence ending “should not be excluded”. Later in the same paragraph, “insure his houses” was printed that way.

Page 295: Extraneous closing quotation mark removed at end of poem.

Footnote 1013, referenced on page 326: “Arzneywissenschaft” may be a misprint for “Arzneiwissenschaft”.

Page 354: Missing closing single-quotation mark for text beginning “‘Si fanno certi orologii”.

Page 419: “lay old of the wire” was printed that way.

Page 454: Missing closing quotation mark added after “in great quantity at Marseilles.”

Page 462: Closing quotation mark added after “fall upon the countess.”

Volume II of this set is available at no charge from Project Gutenberg, www.gutenberg.org, eBook number 48152.