THE PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE 1982

E. V. Elwes, C. Chem, FRSC, DHM
M. D. Gibson
L. Hollis, DHM
R. F. Pearson
H. N. Raban, DHM
J. H. Sliottcr, DHM
R. D. Squires
S. C. Thomson

© Copyright 1983 Royal National Rose Society
Published by
THE ROYAL NATIONAL ROSE SOCIETY
Bone Hill, Chiswell Green Lane, St Albans, Hertfordshire
Telephone: St Albans (0727) S0461.
Filmset, printed and bound in Great Britain by
Hazell Watson & Viney Ltd,
Aylesbury, Bucks

The Two Roses of Charleston

LÉONIE BELL

The Noisette roses began with 'Champneys'
Pink Cluster' and 'Blush Noisette ',
both raised in Charleston, USA. Léonie Bell
considers the origin and identity of these
roses, and asks whether the accepted doctrine
agrees with what happened in South
Carolina many years ago

     It would seem that everything that can possibly be told about Rosa x noisettiana has been, almost too often. My own file of direct quotes, on 5 X 8 inch cards typed to the very edges, numbers forty-one so far. The Latin binomial covers two roses, one thought to be the openpollinated child of the other. Now evidence has come to light which may show them to be distinctly different roses, easily recognized once known.

     The origin of the first, `Champneys' Pink Cluster', is fairly well documented. Its parents were the `Old White Musk', R. moschata, which began to flower in August, and `Old Blush' China, both of which grew in the large plantation garden of John Champneys southwest of Charleston, South Carolina. He was an import-export merchant whose trade was so successful that he had his own wharves on Johns Island there. I have not been able to corroborate the year that his seedling first bloomed, but it is given as 1802 by Dr C. C. Hurst, which is plausible.

      Many writers have claimed this had to be a once flowering hybrid because the Musk parent, as they knew it, had not the genes for repeat bloom. This of course was not so, for the Musk of Gerard and Parkinson was the only kind grown in gardens in the early 1800s. The Champneys rose was noteworthy because it not only repeated from June to November, it did so abundantly. All the rose writers before 1850 agree on this. The small pink stained flower was no great beauty, nor very double (primary hybrids seldom are), but it became a good seed parent. After John Champneys sent his friend, William Prince, two tubs of young plants, Prince in turn shipped many more from Long Island to England. The Loddiges Nursery near London, which listed hundreds of rose names without a capital among them, offered it as "champigny" in 1818.

     Fifty years ago, in the American Rose Annual 1932, Mrs Frederick Love Keays described at length a rose given to her with the homely local name, "Faded Pink Monthly". The plant was known to have existed before the Civil War, say, 186o. So convinced was she that it was the 'Blush Noisette' that she translated C. A. Thory's description from Les Roses of `Le Rosier de Philippe Noisette' and compared hers with that, phrase by phrase. The only serious discrepancies she could see were height of growth and size of cluster. Whereas Thory's grew to "eight or ten feet", hers never topped five, and whereas Thory wrote, "The flowers are rarely solitary, more often they come three or six together at the ends of the branching stems,- where they unite in a kind of panicle often composed of a great many flowers, even as many as one hundred and thirty", hers never numbered more than thirty. Still, she was so sure of her judgment that, for her, "Faded Pink Monthly" became 'Blush Noisette' from that year on.

     Another discrepancy became apparent in 1979 when 1 saw the living Champneys rose for the first time, in California, stock that had originally come from Virginia. Mrs Keays, quoting Thory in 1932 again, had written, "The pedicels are covered with downy hairs or glands." There is not likely to be a quantity of both at once, and here on the Champneys rose were only hairs. A check with Thory later revealed he'd stated, "The ovoid calyx tubes, the elongated pedicels supporting them, and the common penduncles are covered with a kind of short close down." Coming from a species like R. moschata they would have had to be. Why then did Mrs Keays feel justified in adding or glands? Because her rose had them.

     Plain little "Faded Pink Monthly" entered the gardens and minds of many of us back in 1957. That was the year one of our rose specialists, receiving budwood with no identity, decided to market it under the name given him by six or seven experts, "Marie Pavic", as that cultivar was then misspelled.

     Meanwhile my fellow sleuth, who prefers the anonymity of being called merely Douglas, had found two similar forms in his Easton, Pennsylvania, neighbourhood. Their only distinction was that one stayed under two feet while the other could reach five or six in time, if winters were kind. The blooms of both had more petals and the buds held their charming scrolled form longer, too, I thought, than the one being sent out as "Marie Pavic". Many were the mild arguments we had over the three, for one spray in tight bud was impossible to tell from another. Many were the candidates from the Noisette lists that I submitted to hire as possible examples of an old kind, thought too worthy to discard, that might be offered under a new name, a phenomenon not rare in the rose world, and still, along the way, a distinct possibility.

     Later he was to find a 15 foot specimen growing up the south side of a house in Allentown, Pa. Now I have seen photographs taken of the parts and plant of one forty feet across, down in Texas where everything is oversize. It looked as if we had a strain on our hands, a group of sibling roses alike in all ways but plant size and petal number. Not to sound presumptuous, because we still lacked Mrs Keays' conviction, we called them our "FPM/MP" strain. The variations in this part of the United States and our South are far too common to ignore, or to regard as all having been the real 'Marie Pavié, a rose introduced only in 1888.

     'Marie Pavié', one of a handful of roses credited to M. Allégatière of Lyon, France, was given out, with no stated parentage, in the Journal des Roses, November 1888, as a "shrub without prickles . . . flowers large, for a Polyantha, white overlaid pink at the centre, the same colouring as Souvenir de la Malrnaison and even more floriferous." Could it be that here was a dwarfed sport or selfed seedling of a much older rose, without a name? One that came to mind was Vibert's `Miss Glegg', "nearly white, a perfect beauty in miniature, profuse in bloom, dwarf in habit [and agreeably scented," according to Robert Buist in 1839.

     Some have argued that because 'Marie Pavié' was presented as a Polyantha, that indicated automatically the presence of Rosa multiflora. Yet the Multiflora characters as we know them in the dwarf Polyanthas did not enter the mainstream until the introduction of 'Mine Norbert Levavasseur', child of `Crimson Rambler', in 1903: the thin coarse foliage, too often subject to disease, or chlorosis in alkaline soil; the deeply slashed, or laciniatc, stipules; the prickles in pairs, or infrastipular, below each node. None of our group has these; most are entirely devoid of prickles, while the rich green leaves are among the most disease resistant in our gardens. Indeed, if multiflora were present, why then has nothing like 'Marie Pavié' been obtained since?

     Plenty of evidence exists that there were two so-called Noisette roses, of contrasting character. A favourite report is that of William Robert Prince, son of the Mr Prince to whom Champneys sent the tubbed plants of his small flowered, repeating marvel. It can be found in Prince's Manual of Roses, 1806, pages 154-55, but here is the essential part, the spellings those of Prince, the italics, mine:

     "The old Blush Noisette Rose was raised a few years after by Phillippe Noisette, of Charleston, from the seed of the Champney Rose, and this he sent to his brother Louis Noisette of Paris, under the name of the Noisette Rose. It is more double than its parent, and of much more dwarf and compact growth; the flowers in very large and dense panicles. The old Champney's Pink Cluster, although not full double, is still quite a favorite for its rapid growth, its appropriateness for pillars and other climbing positions, and for the profusion of its flowers which are in very large panicles much more diffuse than the preceding variety . . .'

     Prince accused Philip Noisette of "want of candor", for he was not alone in believing Noisette some kind of plant plagiarist when lie sent seeds and a seedling of another man's rose to France in his own name. Until late 198o, I resented his action too, particularly when it was becoming increasingly clear that what Thory described as Rosa Noisettiana was really the Champneys rose, while what Redouté portrayed was the Blush. But more of this later.

      More convincing, though, is a colour plate of each to be found in that book so rarely seen and even less appreciated, ROSES, by Henry Andrews. In Graham Thomas's Climbing Roses, page 9o, are two of Andrews' plate numbers without names. If you read my "Brown's Musk" in the 1981 Annual, you'd know how difficult it is to locate a full, paginated set of Andrews here in the States, so I'll spare you the problems involved. In time came the four requested photocopies of plates and texts, from Arnold Arboretum. The No. 95, called ROSA moschata carnea, or Flesh-coloured Musk Rose, is the Champneys, while No. 106, ROSA floribunda, or Abundant-flowering Rose, is the Blush.

     The inflorescence of No. 95 (see page 87) shows only the tip of what Thory meant by "a kind of panicle", projected schematically on page 171. Quite in contrast is the close budded, broad topped cluster of No. 106 which, making allowance for Andrews' style, can be seen repeated in the cluster done by Redouté, with its six wide open, semi-double blooms and twenty-eight buds. If our strain is theirs, Andrews even catches the essence of the Blush better, with its beautifully scrolled buds that presage our modern Floribundas, curiously in name as well as form.

     Why Redouté chose to use as his model another rose will always remain a mystery. He and Thory may have decided this was the way out of an impasse that they themselves could not understand. From the viewpoint of this botanical illustrator, one reason could have been that the Champneys rose could not be made to fit on one page, even the elephant size of the first edition of Les Roses. For another, the Blush was by far the more attractive rose.

     Andrews' short descriptions are essential for the record:
"Plate 95. ROSA moschata carnea. (See page 87). Rose with oval seed-buds [receptacles] and many-flowered panicles: footstalks [petioles] prickly: leaflets oblong, pointed, finely sawed, and smooth: stem climbing: spines of the branches scattered and straight.

     "This Rose, we believe, was first raised from seed in America, sent to France, and from thence to England. It is evidently a variety of the old Autumnal Rose, beginning in the summer season to unfold its delicate pink blossoms with an abundant succession till the month of November. Our figure is from a large plant trained against an old barn in Hammersmith Nursery, in 1824." By "old Autumnal Rose", Andrews of course meant Rosa moschata, the inflorescences of parent and child being quite similar.

     What is so striking about the living plant of `Champneys' Pink Cluster' is that the large basal canes, stained with lavender, bear an uncanny resemblance also to those of `Spray Cécile Brunner', formerly known as `Bloomfield Abundance'. In the latter, the cone of branchlets is devoid of true leaves, the shapely double blooms exposed singly on long stems of bracts only. In the Champneys rose, the cone's structure is full of leaves with a small cluster of three to six buds at each branch tip: again, Thory's "a kind of panicle", too complex for one botanical term to explain.

     "Plate 106. ROSA floribunda. (See page 86.) Rose with manyflowered panicles: seed-buds oblong: peduncles smooth: petioles prickly: leaflets oblong, pointed, and smooth: spines of the branches scattered and straight.

     "This delicate new Rose is said to be a hybrid production between the R. moschata and indica, and was received by M. Noisette, nurseryman near Paris, from his brother in America, and introduced by him from France to this country in 1816. The flowers at first are of a purply blush colour, and bleach as they fade to a pure white. Their unrivalled abundance, elegance, fragrance, and continued succession of bloom for six months, will always ensure its being regarded as one of the finest additions to this charming Genus." [1822] Could Andrews' praise have been prophetic?

     While his taste may have been excellent, Andrews' botanical descriptions do not give an accurate picture of either rose. His plates must speak for themselves; neither has been reproduced previously, so far as we know. I feel certain we have the first rose, discovered recently in Virginia, and an aged inhabitant of Bermuda; and fairly certain we have the second, though which of the six 0r seven of the strain that grow here is the original Blush is impossible to decide, s0 unstable is the growth habit. There is strong evidence that the `Blush Noisette', isolated, was capable of reproducing itself by seed (in favourable seasons about one quarter of the blooms set hips), which would account for the differences noticeable only in mature plants.

     Some mystery has shrouded this small rose of the enchanting buds and inimitable perfume. Surely its refinement could not come from the Musk and China roses alone? New leaves have a rich coppery sheen, the cymose cluster is broad topped, not drawn out; the pcdicels have a slight articulation 0r bend where they meet the peduncle, and a plum red tone which extends onto the slightly blocky receptacle. Even the glands here (not hairs) glisten red. Sepals are strongly reflexed, arcing out and down, hugging the pedicel.

     In an American book which few will have heard of, Everblooming Roses (1912), a Southern horticulturalist made this astonishing claim: "Philip Stanislaus Noisette [she used the spelling of his signature 0n his will] then crossed the Champney's Cluster with a hardy garden rose. He sent the new rose to Paris, France, in 1817."

     The presence of a third rose! Such a possibility, never before suggested or suspected, might explain why the FPM IMP complex, surely Noisette, differed so from the Champneys rose and its descendants.

     Despite her relative obscurity, Georgia Torrey Drennan, author of Everblooming Roses, wrote with authority about the roses she knew, so her casual allusion was not to be ignored. We can discount her word "hardy", however, because Mrs Drennan wrote in the Deep South, Louisiana, where the yellow Tea-Noisettes thrive. But while her statement was made one hundred years after the fact, two realities deserve consideration here: that the South has a deeply ingrained taste for oral history which at times must serve in lieu of written proof, and that a third rose was indeed involved.

     What "garden rose" could possibly have existed around 1810 0r 1811, that had the genes for rebloorn and was probably diploid, as were the Musk and China? Rosa bracteata and R. chinensis semperflorens had reached Europe almost twenty years earlier, but they clearly did not participate in the crossing. Nor did R. chinensis minima, first described as `Miss Lawrance's Rose' in 1815 but probably known before then. Only one remains, `Hume's Blush' Tea-scented China; but that seemed absurd. The official year of introduction of the Blush Tea to the United States was 1828 when William Prince imported it.

     Something must here be explained about the Noisette family, father, head gardener to the Comte de Provence (the future Louis XVIII), and three sons. Each was an avid horticulturalist, which around i800 meant nurseryman, collector, botanist. Near Paris, son Louis had a collection of rose species and garden varieties so extensive that his catalogues were used as reference in N. Desportes' Rosetum Gallicum, 1828. In America, Philip, having escaped the Revolution, was soon recognized as an authority on plants of all kinds and was made superintendent of the South Carolina Medical Society's garden in Charleston. His collection of "living exotic plants" meant so much to him that he provided for the disposal of it in his will. I envisage a lively two way sharing of new plants between these brothers, perhaps aided by the very ships in the service of friend John Champneys.

     The Pink Tea that came to be known as `Hume's Blush' was found in China in 1808 and reached Sir Abraham Hume in England presumably in 1809, for it had bloomed and was painted by Henry-onthe-spot Andrews by 1810. If the Empress Josephine could have obtained a plant in 1811 (as told us by Mr Wyatt in the Rose Annual, 1975), why then could not one have reached the States by 1812? Five years is not too short a period in which to grow from seed some exciting new hybrid; rooted slips of our FPMIMP strain flower when only a few inches high.

     One other aspect to take into consideration is the technique of artificial fertilization. Thanks to Philip Miller and Linnaeus, the mechanics of this were known well before 18oo; if misunderstood or ignored by nurserymen, surely a well read amateur naturalist like Noisette could conduct experimental crosses between two closely related roses. He would not have to have known how closely "related", only that both rebloomed. I am suggesting that Philip Noisette had at least some awareness of what he was doing, and that if so, the small plant he sent to his brother in 1817 labelled merely "blush" was indeed his very own production.

     One researcher in South Carolina remembers being told as a girl that Noisette "himself developed more than thirty varieties . . . [and that] for many decades bouquets from Noisette's rose garden were quite the fashion in Charleston". If our roses are his, their beautiful buds are in use to this day and they well deserve his name. By the same token, in the interest of accuracy, the Champneys hybrid should be designated something like Rosa X champagnana, but time will decide this.

     The incontrovertible proof would be to duplicate the strain by repeating the suspected Noisette cross, `Champneys' Pink Cluster' X 'Hume's Blush'. Perhaps some amateur hybridizers in southern France or Spain, lands of about the same warmth and sunlight as South Carolina, might try this, if they can secure the true 'Hume's Blush'. Dr Hurst and Mr Wyatt were told it was preserved in the conservatories at Sangerhausen, Germany. For several years Mr Petersen (and now Mr Thim) in Denmark listed it, but when two of us in the States tried to import it, the wrong rose came. The Noisette papers were sent to Philip's brothers in France after his death in 1835; they might tell us much if they could be found. Nothing of relevance remains here.

     Many questions remain unanswered in this story of what may after all be only a wild guess. Sometimes one must shake things up, turn over the soil as it were to expose a shard, some small clue to an idea, before other suppositions can be made, other likelihoods postulated.

     One question that can be resolved, however, is the identity of the rose that has long been regarded in England as the `Blush Noisette'. I have four plants of it, from England and Denmark, now from Maryland and North Carolina. It is without question a Noisette, and blush, but not the Blush. Back in 1897 when a prolific but nameless old rose was found near Vichy, France, M. Lévêque reintroduced it as `Belle Vichysoise'. Bobbink & Atkins offered this from 1925 through 1932. Mrs Keays bought it under that name, as she related in the American Rose Annual, 1943, and it is so registered in Modern Roses in all editions, from 1930 to 1981. The ruin of her garden was the source of our Maryland stock.

     I think it may be one that Robert Buist described in 1844: "Superba is one of our oldest Noisettes, and holds a rank among the first for profusion of bloom; of a pale pink colour, and in splendid clusters from the base to the top of the plant, forming a very excellent pillar variety; it will not exceed seven feet in height with us." Now an earlier description has turned up, again by Buist, who in 1839 added, "This, with Noisette Lee, are our two best old Noisette Roses." If some reader in England has the first edition of Thomas Rivers' The Rose Amateur's Guide, 1837, he might find it there and so give it an approximate time of introduction. If you will recall, Prince stated emphatically that the original `Blush Noisette' was "much more dwarf and compact" (than its parent, the Champneys rose.) Too, the blooms of `Belle Vichysoisc', or possibly Superba, are so double that they sometimes fail to open, have only moderate scent, and never set fruit - a poor parent plant indeed.

     For the sake of clarity in this somewhat complicated argument, the conclusions drawn arc summarized here and submitted for your consideration:
1. The rose described by C. A. Thory as Rosa Noisettiana is instead the earlier `Champneys' Pink Cluster', a semi-climbing rose.
2. The rose portrayed by Redouté is the `Blush Noisette', also illustrated by Andrews in his Plate 106, as Rosa floribunda; this was a dwarf, bushy plant.
3. Andrews' Plate 95 shows the true `Champneys' Pink Cluster' despite his calling it Rosa moschata carnea, and matches the plant we have now secured and identified as that.
4. The newly found and imported `Hume's Blush' may have been sent by Louis Noisette in Paris to his brother Philip in Charleston, around 1812.
5. The `Blush Noisette' was not a selfed seedling of `Champneys' Pink Cluster' but a cross made by Noisette with some third, repeating, diploid rose, possibly 'Hume's Blush' Tea-scented China.
6. We believe we have the `Blush Noisette', but it is a strain, not a cultivar of predictable height or doubleness. Its best known modern form is the alleged `Marie Pavié', which may be a re-named much older rose, but one to be cherished under any name.

     And last, Mrs Keays was right all along. As afterthought, the single time she referred to `Marie Pavié', in her voluminous writings about the old roses, occurred in the magazine Country Gentleman in 1935. "Faded Pink Monthly demonstrated itself as being a beautiful dainty pink clustering Noisette of bush form, a rose of perhaps a hundred years ago and lost to commerce. No doubt this rose lives on in some of the early polyantha roses of today, most probably in Marie Pavic (sic], quite probably in Cécile Brunner. From Faded Pink Monthly we have grown many young plants from cuttings, and a show they are from spring to frost." What a treasure trove of possibilities she has opened for us!

Rose Books Online     A Woodland Rose Garden

counter courtesy of WebCounter