Plate Date Ventenat's name Modern name Authority 



49 1804 Cotyledon crenata Kalanchoe crenata Haw. Britten in Fl. Trop. 



Afr. II 

 65 1804 Pelargonium radicatum Pelargonium radicatum Harv. in FI. Cap. I 



(Geranium ciliatum) Vent. 



109 1805 Mesembryanthemum carinatum Semnanthe lacera (Haw.) Sond. in FI. Cap. 



N. E. Br. 

 Probably this does not exhaust the list, which could be greatly extended if monochrome plates were also 

 considered. It is a little odd to have to admit that Redoute's finest published pictures of succulents are not to 

 be found in the one book devoted especially to them at all ! 



NTERPRETATION 



Flowers may be portrayed on a two-dimensional sheet of paper in various ways and to suit various tastes. 

 A botanical drawing may boast little in the way of art, while the opulent canvasses of Van Huysum could scarcely 

 be used to illustrate a flora or monograph. A degree of accuracy, of nature-copying, is inherent in both, but even 

 that can be overdone if too much insisted upon. As early as 1530 Weiditz, who made the woodcuts for Brunfel's 

 Herbal direct from nature, engraved plants that were obviously wilted or had the foliage diseased or nibbled. 

 Few puritans would deny the artist the privilege of making good such flaws, otherwise we could dispense with his 

 services in favour of a photographer. Interpretation, then, or " rubato," is the important point here. A 

 painting or drawing can be made to satisfy both botanist and artist, but often one has to suffer at the expense of 

 the other. Truly great flower painters are few in number, and their published work may be but a small or 

 untypical part of their output, or ruined by coarse engraving and poor colouring. Certainly no estimate of 

 Redoute's stature as a flower painter would be complete without studying the vellums in the Paris Museum and 

 private collections. Here my aim is altogether more modest, and confined to notes on the value of his pictures 

 of succulents as compared with his non-succulents, and with the succulents of other artists. 



The more extreme succulent plants, because of their condensed form, simplicity of outline and intensified 



geometrical patterns, pose special problems in delineation. As anyone can find out who tries to sketch a 

 Mommillaria, a steady hand and complete mastery of perspective and parallel lines are needed. The very stiffness 

 and symmetry which is so characteristic a feature aiid endears them to their admirers can be anathema to an artist 

 accustomed to the informality of a rose or a ranunculus. And so it was, I think, to Redoute, who exercised his 

 genius on proving that the cactus is no less easy to apotheosize than any other flowering plant, and in similar 

 fashion. We can see evidence of this in two ways : his choice of plants, and his treatment of them on paper. 



An analysis of the plants grouped together in the " Plantes Grasses " reveals a curious and surprising situation- 

 Only 30 stem succulents are included, mostly toward the end of the work, and the remaining 84"o of the plates are 

 of leaf-succulents plus one or two mesophytes. There are several plants like Aizoon, Tetragonia and Trionthema 

 on the borderline of succulence and horticulturally uninspiring, but almost a complete absence of the dwarf, highly 

 specialised, xerophytic Ficoidaceae like Conophytum and Argyroderma, and of globular cacti. By modern 



standards the Malmaison collection would be considered dull and untypical of succulents as a whole. Now why 

 is this ? It could be because the more extreme succulents (which we know from Alton and Haworth to have been 

 in cultivation then) were not available to Redoute, or were beyond the skill of the Malmaison gardeners to grow. 

 Since some of the plates show drawn and over-lush specimens, there is some support for this. But I think it 

 more probable that Redoute picked just those plants least removed from their mesophytic ancestors as most 

 amenable to what has been called his "feminine " style of presentation. We know that he had first choice of 

 the plants for painting, not the botanist, who was called in afterwards to fit a literary frame to the masterpiece. 

 Where he does undertake stiff, formal subjects Wke Euphorbias and cacti, we can marvel how skilfully he softens 

 the rigidity and starkness with but the least departure from botanical accuracy. A Redoute Opuntia is still an 

 Opuntia, but it looks fit almost for a lady's corsage. His cacti are beautiful in spite of their spines— not because 

 of them. 



In this respect it is instructive to compare his cacti with, for example, the famous steel engravings of George 

 Engelmann's books, which in their own right deserve equal praise. In the Engelmann plates the spines are 

 everything : a quite different type of beauty emerges from their interplay and extraordinary profuseness. If 

 I may be forgiven a musical analogy here, the difference is as great as that of Sibelius interpreted by Beecham and 

 by Serge Koussevitsky : the former links him with the nineteenth century romantics, the latter establishes him 

 firmly among contemporary composers. 



In daring to criticise Redoute's approach to succulents I hasten to add how much, in such a controversial 

 subject, depends on personal tastes. A few will turn to Ehret, Jacquin and even the humbler Botanical Magazine 

 and Britton & Rose plates for the truest illustrations of succulents, whereas others — notably those who share his 



19 



