478 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
June  7,  1900. 
Tlie  I(istory  of  tl^e  Rose. 
That  the  Rose  was  known  to  the  Israelites,  and  is  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament,  there  can  be  little  doubt.  It  was  probably  known 
to  them  by  the  pre-eminent  title  chahaheleth,  for,  although  that  ihay 
have  been  the  general  name  for  a  flower,  yet,  like  the  Persian  gul,  it 
may  have  been  applied  to  the  Rose  as  the  flower — the  superlative  of 
the  floral  world.  Rosa  spinosissima  and  another  species  is  a  native  of 
Palestine;  but  as  we  have  no  description  of  the  flower  in  the  Old 
Testament,  whether  these  or  some  other  flower  is  intended  remains 
quite  uncertain,  though  some  flowers  mentioned  in  its  pages  are 
translated  into  “  Rose”  in  our  authorised  version. 
When  we  descend  to  later  ages,  when  descriptions  of  the  flower 
were  given,  we  cannot  but  be  struck  by  the  almost  unvarying  name  of 
the  flower.  In  Greek  it  is  B,hodon\  in  German,  i?ose;  in  Dutch, 
Roos;  in  Danish,  Bose;  in  Swedish,  Eos  ;  in  French,  Rose;  in  Italian, 
Rosa;  in  Spanish,  Rosal  ;  in  Portuguese,  Roseira  ;  in  Russian,  Rosa  ; 
in  Polish,  Roza;  in  Bohemian,  Ruze;  in  Sclavonic,  Ruxiza  ;  in 
Finnish,  Ruusu;  in  Welch,  Rlios ;  in  Anglo  Saxun,  Rose;  and  in 
Gaelic,  Ros.  Everyone  of  these  seems  to  be  derived  from  a  root-word 
signifying  red  or  ruddy. 
The  Rose  is  mentioned  by  Homer  and  by  Anacreon.  By  the 
former  in  the  hymn  to  Ceres,  by  the  latter  in  many  of  his  odes, 
through  which  we  learn  that  it  was  a  flower  remarkable  for  the 
beauty  of  its  petals  ;  that  it  grew  amidst  thorns ;  that  it  had  a  divine 
fragrance;  was  of  the  colour  of  tbe  human  complex’on;  that  it  was 
the  most  beautiful  of  all  flowers;  “the  queen  of  flowers;”  the 
“  flower  of  love.” 
Theophrastus  and  Pliny  state  that  Roses  may  be  distinguished 
one  from  another  by  the  roughness,  smoothness,  colour,  smell,  and  the 
greater  or  smaller  number  of  their  flower-leaves  or  petals.  The  lattir 
writer,  speaking  of  the  Rose  generally,  thus  describes  it : — “  The  Rose 
grows  upon  a  thorny  rather  than  on  an  herbaceous  plant ;  it  grows 
also  upon  a  plant  similar  to  a  Bramble.  There  it  has  an  agreeable 
smell,  but  not  perceptible  at  any  great  distance.  The  whole  flower 
sprouts  at  first  enclosed  in  a  calyx  full  of  seeds,  which  in  a  short  time 
swells,  and  becomes  pointed  at  the  summit  like  green  alabastri.'-’ 
By  degrees  the  flower  grows,  opens,  and  expands  itself,  containing  in 
the  middle  of  its  calyx  the  erect  yellow  stamina.”  This  author  then 
proceeds  to  enumerate  eleven  kinds  of  Roses,  which,  he  says,  were  well 
known  to  the  Romans.  They  are  the  following : — 
1.  Eosa  Prrenestiua, 
2.  R.  Campana. 
3.  R.  Milesia. 
4.  R.  Traehinia. 
5.  R.  Alabaiidica. 
C.  R.  spineola. 
7.  R.  centifolia. 
8.  R.  grasca. 
9.  R.  grseeula. 
10.  R.  moscheuton. 
11.  R.  coroneola. 
Four  other  kinds  of  Roses,  are  mentioned  by  Pliny  in  different 
parts  of  his  “Natural  History,”  but  of  these  he  gives  no  description  ; 
they  do  not  appear  to  have  heen  in  such  high  repute  as  the  above, 
though  somewhat  esteemed  for  their  medicinal  properties.  These  kinds 
are  called  R.  alba,  pallida,  spinosa,  and  quinqutfolia. 
Of  the  first  two  kinds  of  the  eleven  more  particularly  described 
by  Pliny,  the  Campanian  was  the  earliest  in  flower,  and  the  Prsenestine 
the  first  which  ceased  blowing.  The  Milesian  was  of  a  very  bright 
colour,  and  consisted  of  not  more  than  twelve  petals  ;  it  was  the  latest 
which  came  into  blossom.  The  Trachinian  Rose  was  less  red  than  the 
Milesian,  fl'he  colour  of  the  petals  of  the  Alabandic  llose  inclined  to 
white;  it  was  less  esteemed  than  any  of  the  preceding.  The  Rosa 
spineola  had  a  large  number  of  very  small  petals,  and  was  the  least 
esteemed  of  all.  The  Rosa  centifolia,  or  Hundred-h  aved  Rose,  had 
many  small  petals.  It  grew  in  Campania  in  Italy,  and  in  Greece  near 
Philipi ;  to  the  latter  place,  however,  Pliny  says  it  was  not  indigenous. 
It  grew  also  in  the  vicinity  of  Mons  Pang^us,  and  the  neighbouring 
inhabitants,  taking  it  from  this  place,  cultivated  it  for  profit.  The 
Rose  called  graeca  by  the  Romans,  but  by  the  Greeks  Lychnis,  had 
only  five  petals  ;  it  was  of  the  size  of  a  Violet,  and  grew  only  in  moist 
situations;  it  was  scentless.  The  petals  of  the  Rosa  grgecula,  which 
were  very  broad,  were  tolled  or  convoluted  into  a  ball ;  they  did  not 
expand,  except  when  forced  by  the  hand,  and  had  the  appearance  of 
always  growing.  The  Rosa  moscheuton  bad  petals  shaped  like  an 
Olive,  and  grew  upon  a  stem  like  that  of  the  Mallow.  Funditur  h 
caule  malvaceo."')  The  Rosa  coroneola  was  an  autumnal  Rose,  and, 
when  compared  with  other  kinds  of  Roses,  had  a  flower  of  a  middle 
size.  All  of  the  above-mentioned  Roses,  according  to  Pliny,  were 
destitute  of  fragrance,  with  the  exception  of  the  R.  coroneola.  The 
Prsenestine  and  Campanian  Roses  obtained  their  names  from  their 
respective  localities.  The  Trachinian  Rose  appeals  to  have  been  a 
native  of  Thessaly,  and  grew  near  the  city  of  Heraclea,  called  also 
The  “alabastrus”  was  a  perfame-bos  which  the  Rose-bud  resembled  in 
form. 
Tiachiuea.  The  Milesian  and  Alabandic  Roses  were  probably  foreign.' 
kinds,  the  former  deriving  its  appellation  from  Miletus,  a  city  in  the 
Island  of  Crete,  where  it  was  first  found  ;  the  latter  from  Alabanda^ 
a  city  of  Caria,  in  Asia  Minor.  ^ 
Mentzelius  in  his  “Lexicon  Plantarum,”  regards  the  Praenestine, 
Trachinian,  and  Milesian  as  varieties  of  what  he  calls  the  Rosa  rubra 
saccharina,  which  he  considers  the  same  as  the  R.  graecula  of  Pliny. 
Mentzelius  and  Clusius  both  agree  in  calling  the  Milesian  Rose  the 
Rose  de  Provence.  Ferrarius,  in  bis  work  entitled  “  Flora,  seu  de 
Florum  Cultura,”  states  that  the  Rose  called  by  him  “Rosa  alba 
multiplex  ”  has  by  different  authors,  been  regarded  as  either  the  Rosa 
spineola,  Campana,  ( r  Alabandica  of  Pliny.  He  says,  also,  that  some 
authors  consider  the  Rosa  damascena  multiplex  to  be  the  same  as  the 
Rosa  coroneola,  wh  le  others,  again,  think  it  is  the  Rosa  spineola 
mentioned  by  Pliny. 
The  flower  enumera'ed  among  the  Roses  by  Pliny,  and  which  was 
called  by  the  Romans  R.  graeca,  but  by  the  Greeks  Lychnis,  is  the 
flower  mentioned  by  Dioscorides  under  the  name  Lychnis  stephano- 
mantike,  or  Lychnis  coronaria.  It  is  generally  considered  to  have 
been  a  species  of  our  present  genus  Lychnis,  commonly  known  as  the 
Rose  Campjion.  Dioscorides  says  the  “  Lychnis  stephanomantike  is  a 
flower  resembling  the  white  Violet,  but  ot  a  purple  colour.”  It  was 
woven  into  crowns,  hence  called  stephanomantike,  or  coronaria. 
There  is  one  other  Rose  mentioned  by  Pliny,  but  not  classed  by 
him  with  the  kinds  most  celebrated  among  the  Romans — namely,  the 
Rosa  sylvestris.  This  Rose,  called  also  Cynorhodon  by  Pliny,  and  by 
Scribonius  Largus  R.  canina,  grew  upop  a  Briar,  according  to  the 
former  author,  and  had  a  leaf  resembling  the  impress  of  a  man’s  foot. 
Theophrastus,  who  also  mentions  this  Rose,  says  it  bore  fruit  of  a  red 
colour.  Dioscorides  agrees  with  this  account,  and  says  the  fruit 
resembles  the  nucleus  of  an  Olive.  Pliny,  however,  states  that  this 
plant  bears  a  black  berry,  which,  Bodaeus  a  Stapel  remarks,  no  other 
author  has  mentioned,  and  considers  that  the  passage  in  Pliny  refers  to 
another  plant  subsequently  mentioned  by  that  author.  Among  the 
thorns  of  the  stem  of  the  Rosa  sylvestris  grew  a  round  sponge-like 
substance  resembling  a  Chestnut;  the  presence  of  this  excrescence 
upon  this  kind  of  Rose  is  also  mentioned  by  Marcellas,  an  old  writer 
on  materia  medica.  Pliny  says  it  grew  particularly  upon  the  Cyno¬ 
rhodon,  and  that  it  contained  a  worm  or  grub  which  produced  the 
insects  called  cantharides.  The  same  insects  are  mentioned  by 
Aristotle  to  issue  from  a  worm  found  upon  the  kynakanthe,  or  “  Dog- 
briar  ”  (?)  In  the  spongy  substance  alluded  to  we  recognise  the 
moss-like  prickly  excrescences  which  are  found  upon  all  Rose  trees, 
but  especially  upon  the  Rosa  canina,  and  which  are  the  habitations  of 
the  insect  called  Cynips  rosse. 
Commentators  on  Pliny  regard  the  R.  sylvestris  of  this  author  to 
be  the  R.  Eglanteria  of  Linnaeus,  now  the  R.  rubiginoaa,  which,, 
according  to  Fries,  Linnaeus  for  a  long  time  referred  to  the  species 
R.  canina.  The  Cynorhodon  of  Theophrastus,  the  Cynosbaton  and 
oxyacantha  of  Dioscorides,  the  cynacautha  of  Aristotle,  and  the 
R.  sylv  stris,  cynorhodon,  cynosbaton,  cynapanxim,  and  neurospaston 
of  Pliny  have  been  generally  considered  as  identical.  There  still 
appear,  however,  to  have  been  some  doubts  upon  this  point  which  are 
not  yet  satisfactorily  explained.  It  would  be  uselessly  occupying 
space  to  enter  at  length  upon  the  consideration  of  this  question.  The 
R.  sylvestris  appears  to  have  obtained  its  synonym  R.  canina  or 
cynarhodon  from  a  supposition  that  its  root  was  a  beneficial  remedy 
for  bites  of  mad  d(  gs;  an  instance  of  its  curative  powers  is  cited  by 
Pliny. 
The  Roses  mentioned  by  Theophrastus  are  four  only — viz.,  1, 
Rhodon  pentaphylla  (five-leaved)  ;  2,  B.  dodekaphylla  (twelve-leaved)  ; 
3,  R.  eikosaphylla  (twenty-leaved);  4,  R,  ekatontaphylla  (hundred¬ 
leaved). 
The  first  of  these  is  considered  by  Stackhouse  to  have  been  the 
same  as  the  Rosa  canina  of  Linnaeus;*  the  second  has  not  been 
referred  to  any  species  with  which  we  are  at  present  acquainted ;  the 
third  is  thought  to  resemble  the  R.  cinnamomea  :  and  of  the  fourth,  or 
Hundred-leaved  Rose,  Theophrastus  says,  “The  inner  petals  are 
exceedingly  small,  for  the  blossoming  is  such  that  some  are  inward 
and  some  outward.  The  greater  number  of  such,”  he  adds,  “  are  about 
Philippi,” 
Theophrastus  gives  no  detailed  account  of  the  Roses  he  has 
named  ;  he  merely  says  that  they  are  not  large,  and  have  not  a 
pleasant  smell.  He  enumerates  the  Rose  tree  among  perennial  and 
woody  shrubs,  also  among  those  plants  which  have  their  fruit  placed 
under  their  flowers,  “  a  peculiarity,”  he  remarks,  “  which,  on  account 
of  its  great  size,  is  most  plainly  to  be  seen  in  this  plant.”  Some 
classical  writers,  who  have  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  odes  of 
Anacreon  which  eulogise  the  Rose  are  frauds,  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
say  that  Theophrastus  never  saw  a  Rose,  and  support  this  opinion 
from  the  very  cursory  manner  in  which  he  notices  the  plant.  It  is 
impossible,  however,  to  coincide  with  phem. 
*  Illustrationes  Theophrasti,  &c.  Aucloie  J.  Stackhouse.  O.xon,  1711. 
