Volume 7, Issue 1, 2010 Volume 7, Issue 2, 2010

Old Roses Greetings, The feature story in this issue of the Old Garden Rose & Shrub Journal is by James Delahanty of Sherman Oaks, Ca. He has written ―an appreciation‖ of the life and times, and the often controversial contributions to roses by rose nurseryman Roy Hennessey (1897-1968). We have accompanied the article with lovely rose photos of the period; most are black and white; most are from AR Annuals. The Edwin DeT. Bechtel Monograph entitled ―Our Rose Varieties and Their Malmaison Heritage‖ continues in this issue. Chapter II offers a study of the important contributions to roses made by Empress Josephine Bonaparte and her special advisors and associates. We congratulate distinguished rosarian Ruth Knopf who has been named Great Rosarian of the World for 2011. And then, our ―Old Rose News‖ is really ―new‖ news about rose groups and events. Enjoy. ‗Paul‘s Scarlet Climber‘ at Rosaraie du Val de Marne, Paris by MW

11

Table of Contents Old Rose Greetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Empress Josephine

Our Rose Varieties and their Malmaison Heritage . . . . . . . . . 3 Chapter II—The Empress Josephine and the Roseraie by Edwin deT. Bechtel

Roy Hennessey, photo from his book, “Hennessey on Roses” 2nd Edition 1943

FEATURED ARTICLE Roy Hennessey: An Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 by James Delahanty

“At a time when the forces of the market were inevitably moving toward the total conversion of the marketable roses to hybrid teas and floribundas, his catalog carried a sizeable array of of old garden roses, hybrid musks, polyanthas, as well as species roses.” JD

Know Our Writers – Roy Hennessey . . . . . . . 22 by Betty Ellen Vickers

Beaute de l'Europe, seedling of Gloire de Dijon, now at Vintage

Old Rose News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..22 RARE FRENCH ROSES Help Me Find Old Rose News. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Great Rosarian of the World 2011 by Clair Martin

Ruth Knopf

Old Rose News. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 SUSTAINABLE ROSES Book Three Rose Groups to Know Calendar of Old Rose Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED WHEN A NEW ISSUE OF THE OGR & SHRUB JOURNAL IS POSTED TO THE ARS WEBSITE, send your e-mail address to [email protected]. Thanks. Marilyn

Old Garden Rose Committee Members and Editorial Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2

Our Rose Varieties and their Malmaison Heritage 1949—By EDWIN DeT. BECHTEL. Submitted by Maureen Reed Detweiler from the Schorr Rose Horticulture & Research Library at ARS Second in a series of four chapters to be published in this Journal. Chapter II—THE EMPRESS JOSEPHINE AND THE ROSERAIE AT MALMAISON

Above: Paintings by Redoute Left: „La Rose d‟York Alba, before 1600 (White Rose of York, Duc d‟York) Photo at Roseraie du Val de Marne, Paris, by Marilyn Wellan

litical leaders. After Napoleon Bonaparte won such distinction at the siege of Toulon, Barras urged her marriage with the moody and cadaverous young Corsican. Bonaparte was six years younger than Josephine, but he was completely fascinated by the exotic and resourceful widow. Indifferent but calculating and impressed by the promise of his future career, she became Napoleon Bonaparte‘s wife by a merely civil and defective marriage on March 9, 1796. Directly thereafter, Bonaparte left for the Italian campaign as general of the Directoire army. After his astonishing victory, Josephine joined him in Italy, and there had her first taste of princely living. In 1798 -1799, during Napoleon‘s absence on his Egyptian campaign, Josephine did much to compromise and annoy him by her disloyalty and extravagance. When he returned, he was angry and tempestuous but forgave her. With grumbling protests, he confirmed her purchase of the chateau at Malmaison with its appurtenances for the very excessive sum which Josephine in his absence had obligated herself to pay. But Josephine had not neglected Napoleon‘s political interests during his campaign in Asia Minor. She and her group of friends helped in careful plans for the coup d'état

THE CREOLE AND THE EMPRESS: Marie-Josephe-Rose Tascher de la Pagerie (Empress Josephine) was born at Trois-Islets on the Island of Martinique in 1763 on the very day when the island became a French possession. Her father, a native of France, had emigrated to Martinique. Josephine‘s mother is said to have been of Irish descent. This may account for the name ―Rose,‖ her favorite name before her marriage, her blue eyes, her native wit, and her love of flowers. She was taken back to France, and there she married the Vicompte de Beauharnais when she was sixteen. They had two children, Eugene, who became an able officer under his stepfather, Napoleon, and the Viceroy of Italy; and the temperamental and beautiful Hortense, future Queen of Holland, wife of Louis Bonaparte and the mother of Napoleon III. Josephine‘s first marriage was unhappy. It ended when her husband was arrested and guillotined for the offense of being a nobleman. In peril herself during the Terror of 1793, she was then and later without visible means of support. However, she gained the friendship and protection of Barras and became influential and popular among the inner circle of Directoire po-

3

Versailles. It is set in a curve of the beautiful valley of the Seine near the town of Rueil. It derived its name from mala mansion (mal maison), the baneful and dreaded outpost of the Norman pirates in the early Middle Ages. When Josephine took title in 1799, it was more like a caserne than a palace. Napoleon during the First Consulate shared in Josephine‘s eager wish to improve and beautify the chateau and the gardens. Rooms were added; the chateau was exquisitely furnished; and objets d‘art, paintings and an excellent library of fine books gave it distinction. Jospephine established a salon; her ―reunions des jeudis‖ attracted Ber„Madame Zoetmans‟ Damask, 1830, Marest; nardin de Saint-Pierre, the author of Paul et Photo at Roseraie du Val de Marne, Paris by Marilyn Wellan Virginie, Lemercier and Chenier, poets and dramatists, and Isabey, the artist. A theatre of the 18th Brumaire which thrust Napoleon upfor small plays was installed. The First Consul ward as First Consul and autocrat. The period of added a salle du conseil where he had frequent the First Consulate included her happiest years. state conferences. There he announced the formaMuch was done and expensively for the enlargetion of the Legion of Honor and planned the Conment and embellishment of Malmaison during cordat. During the Consulate Napoleon and Josethose five years. Then came the Empire, and she phine often visited Malmaison. It was better than was crowned Empress at the coronation in Dethe Tuileries which Napoleon called ―triste cember, 1804. comme la grandeur,‖ but it was an expensive retreat. A more stately and much more troubled existence then began, and she saw less of Malmaison until By the purchase of additional land, the area of the Napoleon, taking advantage of the defect in their park and gardens was increased to a total of sevmarriage ceremony, divorced her for reasons of eral hundred acres. The forest and streams had state in December, 1809. Thereafter, under the great natural beauty; the poet Delille mentioned Emperor‘s liberal settlement allowance of two them in an ode. But Josephine wished to landmillion francs a year, Josephine lived at Malmaiscape Malmaison as an English garden. Her suson, interrupted by a six months‘ exile to Navarre, perintendent, Etienne Soulange-Bodin (whom Naat the time of the birth of the Emperor‘s son in poleon later criticized for extravagance), engaged 1811. She died in May, 1814, six weeks after the Thomas Blaikie, a Scotch horticultural expert. He Emperor‘s first abdication. In the twilight of the laid out the park and garden ―avowedly‖ in the Hundred Days and Waterloo, Napoleon spent his English style and planted many English trees and last four days at Malmaison before his surrender shrubs. Josephine herself employed an English to the English and St. Helena. Forlorn, he gardener, Howatson, the botanist, Ventenat, and wantered about the chateau and the gardens. He the very able and practical horticulturist, Andre finally entered Josephine‘s bed chamger where Dupont. Others helped with advice and services, she died, and there he took his farewell in remorse scientific and practical. Among them was Charles and despair. Francois Brisseau de Mirbel, a botanist and horticulturist. He was also an artist—and there was something of the picaresque in his morals. He MALMAISON AND ITS INCIDENTS: acted as Josephine‘s intendant at Malmaison after Malmaison is situated about eight miles from she became Empress. Though he, too, was exParis and only about half of that distance from travagant as well as untrustworthy, de Mirbel ac-

4

„R. gallica versicolor; „Rosa Mundi‟, Gallica, before 1581, Linnaeus; Photo at Roseraie du Val de Marne, Paris by Marilyn Wellan

tually served Josephine well with his pen. He catalogued many of her plants (but unfortunately not her roses.) He also attended to her enormous and productive correspondence with collectors of plants and horticulturists who responded with plants and seeds from all over the world.

flourished at Malmaison. Included were the eucalyptus, catalpa, numerous varieties of heathers and myrtles, hibiscus, phlox, camellias, geraniums, mimosas, cactus, rhododendrons and many dahlias, rare tulips and hyacinths, etc. Many of these new species and varieties, but not her roses, were described by Ventenat and illustrated by Redoute in the magnificent volumes of the Jardin de la Maison, issued at Josephine‘s direction and expense.

It is well known that Josephine had a standing arrangement with John Kennedy of the nursery firm of Kennedy and Lee at Hammersmith, near London, to advise her about her garden and horticultural questions. He held a special passport which allowed him to pass through the French and English lines during the continental blockade and the Napoleonic wars. And as it was Josephine‘s determination to obtain all possible roses (as well as any other unusual plants), commanders of French men-of-war were directed when vessels were captured as prizes to search them for strange seeds and plants for her collection. One of Napoleon‘s secretaries writes that Josephine often gave him for translation letters addressed to her in English on the subject of new plants and shrubs. And many consignments to Malmaison followed because of this concern of Josephine ―pour les sciences naturelles.‖

Josephine was also fond of birds and animals. The pursuit of the rose sometimes brings in its train an almost Franciscan devotion to birds and animals! Josephine‘s entrance hall at Malmaison was crowded with rare birds, parrots and songsters. On the lake and streams were swans, white and black, and Carolina and china ducks. In the enclosures were kangaroos, a chamois, an ostrich, flying squirrels and a seal. There were monkeys of many kinds. A trained orang-outang dressed in a fashionable coat and skirt was taught to curtsy and eat at a table. Josephine also had a famous flock of Merinos to help her play the shepherdess after the pathetic precedent of Marie Antoinette. But her animals finally overflowed into the Paris Zoo, the Jardin des Plantes. They needed more space, like the animals after Ararat.

Between 1804 and 1814, Josephine caused 184 new plants and shrubs to be planted, and they

5

But it is difficult to work out the plan of the rose garden as a whole from the Touret drawings. Some details, however, seem fairly clear: the spacing of the roses was apparently generous; the width of the beds accommodated three roses bushes; and a number of bushes were grown as tree roses or standards. One of the unexpected revelations from these drawings is that—if one forgives the urns among the roses, the urns on the accenting columns and the superimposed urns on the pergola—the character of the Malmaison rose garden has the general aspect of a modern rose garden.

THE ROSERAIE AT MALMAISON: The roseraie, however, was Josephine‘s absorbing interest and project. It was begun soon after the purchase of Malmaison in 1799. During the five years of the First Consulate it became well estab-

This brings us to the attempt to verify the number of rose varieties at Malmaison at the death of Josephine in 1814. Of course there is no contemporaneous record of these roses—The Dictionnaire de Filassier describes only about one hundred varieties and species; and Guerrapain in his Almanach des Roses in 1811, describes one hundred and seventy roses. A number of writers assume that there were two hundred and fifty varieties in 1814—1815, with many Gallicas. For comparison when one refers to later dates, there are estimates of as many as twenty-five hundred varieties in 1828. More conservatively, Sweet‘s Hortus Britannicus gives the total number of varieties as 1,059 in 1827, of which by far the greater number were Gallicas. Certainly by 1840 that number was more than doubled. These figures tend to show (1) the large increase in varieties during the short period of the existence of Josephine‘s garden and (2) the constant increase of varieties thereafter. This assumes that the Malmaison total was about two hundred and fifty varieties.

lished. Memoirs of her contemporaries mention Josephine‘s love of her garden and her frequent visits to her roses to inspect and enjoy them. As she led her guests down the long paths of the roseraie, she astounded and exhausted them with her knowledge. Her enthusiasm revealed her ambition: to assemble at Malmaison all known roses and to add new roses to her collection as soon as they were obtainable anywhere. From the reproductions of three drawings, each entitled ―Vue partielle du Jardin des roses de l‘Imperatrice Josephine a la Malmaison,‖ made by M. E. Touret, many of the roses at Malmaison appear to have been planted in regularly spaced quadrilateral beds along the middle of a winding path, broad and long, which began at a point opposite a wing of the chateau at a distance of several hundred feet from it. The path ran along a large grass area cut by curving cross paths with irregular plantings at the corners. The long winding path with its interior row of rose beds ended at a circular planting in the distance near a vinecovered pergola of a somewhat pretentious design.

But this is perhaps an unverifiable assumption. M. Jules Gravereaux, founder of the famous Roseraie de L‘Hay, now owned by the French Government, undertood the very difficult task of identifying Josephine‘s roses. In his research he was aided, among others, by the last representatives of the Cochet family, whose dynasty as rose nurserymen and originators began with Christophy Cothet at the end of the eighteenth century. Gravereaux published the results of his investigation in his monograph: Les Roses de la Malmaison, 1912.

Along the opposite side of the central grass area near the chateau was another broad path with a formal arrangement of two rows of rectangular beds and a half circle. Thence the path with its single row of rose beds continued to the distant arbor.

6

As no list of Josephine‘s roses exists, Gravereaux investigated all the known sources. To discover the roses known during the First Empire, he examined Redoute and Thory, Les Roses, Paris, 1817—1820 (168 plates of roses) for roses in existence prior to 1815, and also Andrews‘ Monograph on Roses, 1787 (78 roses), Miss Lawrence‘s Collection of Roses, 1796—1799 (90 roses), the German book, Die Roses of Roessig, 1800—1817 (49 roses), and Dupont‘s, Guerrapain‘s, Ventenat‘s and other catalogues. Gravereaux‘s total of Malmaison roses is 197 rose species and varieties. He admits that his list may contain inaccuracies, and he is uncertain as to the identity of at least twenty roses included in his list. Gravereaux‘s list includes the following: Gallica, 107 varieties or types; Centifolia, twentyseven; Moss Rose, three; Damask, nine; Bengal, twenty-two; Scotch Rose (Spinosissima), four; Alba, eight; Lutea, three; Musk, one; and also the following species roses: Alpina, Arvensis, Banksiae, Carolina, Cinnamomea, Clinophylla, Laevigata (the Cherokee rose), Rubrifolia, Rugosa, white and red, Sempervirens, Setigera.

In the folio edition, Thory mentions especially the beauty of the Agatha Gallicas and the variety of colors of all the other Gallicas. He says of the Gallica Pupurea Velutina Parva that it gloriously decorated Josephine‘s garden, instantly disappeared at her death, but was later discovered in gardens of amateurs. Thory criticizes the growers of Gallica seedlings. He says that the Gallica varieties in 1819 numbered five hundred, an excessive number, for the new strains were degenerating. He was convinced that many of the new varieties were not permanent. He does not find all of them beautiful or worth cultivating. He criticizes some of the new roses of the conservative and careful Dupont. He mentions a Damascena Prolifera (similar in its proliferous habit to a Centifolia Prolifera Redoute which is in Border C of the New York Botanical Rose Garden) which sometimes grows a pedicel with leaves and a rose bud out of the heart of the rose. Thory is not unsympathetic with the older botanists (including Linnaeus) who felt that such habits of growth were obnoxious. As to the Rosa indica, the Bengal rose, Thory says that it is susceptible to a spot disease: ―noire et gangreuse.‖ Obviously, there was black spot in Josephine‘s garden.

As a commentary on some of the roses grown at Malmaison, the folio edition of Redoute‘s Les Roses helps and delights us. Although it was published in 1817—1820 and includes a number of roses that were first known after Josephine‘s death, it describes and illustrates many of the Malmaison roses. The descriptions are, of course, by Thory and the colored engravings by Redoute, who was originally employed by Josephine. By checking Gravereaux‘s list against this edition of Les Roses, it is possible to identify among them about seventy-five or eighty roses that probably grew in the Malmaison Garden. Among them there are about a dozen of Descemet‘s originations and about the same number of Dupont‘s.

Thory also speaks of the activities of the hybridizers. And, as we shall see later, he refers to the originations of Dupont and Descement, both of whom had much to do with Josephine‘s rose garden. The growing of seedlings was a venturesome undertaking in more than one sense. The story about the seedlings which Descemet planted at St. Denis is familiar. They were in danger of destruction when the allies advanced on Paris in 1815. Vibert, who later became such a celebrated grower and originator of roses, hastened to St. Denis, took them up, carted them to Chenevieres-sur-Marne, and there successfully replanted most of them. Similar episodes, often as spirited if not as dramatic, are not unusual as one traces the influence of Josephine‘s example as a patron and lover of roses. But Josephine‘s garden and roseraie ended with her death; and within a few years many of her roses had disappeared.

One of the greatest rose authorities of our time, Miss Ellen Willmot, regarded this folio edition of Redoute and Thory as one of the two works ―preeminent among the many which have been written on roses.‖ But it is unnecessary to commend Redoute and Thory‘s Les Roses.

7

“He not only marched to a different drummer, he heard music not yet written and songs as yet unsung. He proselytized for the rose as few others before or after him. And he urgently sought to have the rose perform to its optimal level. In the tug of war between man and the rose, he urged man to forego sacrificing the rose to man‟s will, convenience or ego, but to study the rose to let it be all that it could be. In that respect, Hennessey on Roses might have more appropriately been titled: Hennessey for Roses.” JD

Roy Hennessey: An Appreciation By James Delahanty, Sherman Oaks, CA Were Roy S. Hennessey alive today to know that an ―appreciation‖ was being written about him, he would probably snort in indignation for two reasons: first, because the recognition was so late arriving, and second, because he would assume that the rose world ran out of academic ‗eggsperts‘ to honor. In his time, Hennessey‘s larger than life personality seemed to obscure his insights into rose culture. But then, he became the stuff of legend— exhorting his customers in print and in pen to ―PRUNE NO ROOTS!‖ or asking them NOT to visit his property; or refusing to sell to those who planned to plant new roses in spots where old ones had died; or requiring that hybrid polyanthas be purchased in units of three or six or no sale. His reputation for irritability was so formidable that the young David Gilad would experience anxiety at the prospect of spending a weekend with Hennessey as an intern. But Hennessey belied his reputation by becoming a mentor and admirer of the Israeli plantsman-to-be.

„Paul‟s Scarlet Climber‟ from G.A. Stevens‟ book “Climbing Roses” 1933

ent talents could Tillotson counsel Hennessey not to react to every perceived slight or slur from agents of the American Rose Society. Karl P. Jones of Barrington, Rhode Island, referenced Hennessey‘s legendary prickliness by prefacing an article on shrubs in the 1973 American Rose Annual with a statement of qualification that he had earned both the friendship and respect of Roy Hennessey; the observation occurred five years after Hennessey‘s death.

Will Tillotson of Roses of Yesterday and Today in Watsonville, California, once observed that he maintained cordiality and comity with Hennessey based on Hennessey‘s recognition that Tillotson sold many more roses than did Hennessey and Tillotson‘s recognition that Hennessey knew considerably more about roses and rose culture.

Roy Hennessey was born in San Francisco on September 1, 1897. (The date is approximate and imprecise, as in various documents 1896 and 1899 also appear.) A 1918 World War I Draft Registration revealed a Roy S. Hennessey working in Sequim, Washington, as the Head Loader at the Snow Creek Logging Company. Hennessey reported that he had no relations and described him-

Only through the device of admiration for differ-

8

self as being of medium height and medium build, with gray eyes and brown hair. Twelve years later he appeared in the 1930 census as a resident of Portland, Oregon, where he possessed a home worth $5,500, a radio, and a wife named Georgia. They were married when both of them were 26— approximately in 1925. She was a stenographer employed at a local lumber company; he was a stevedore. After the mid-1930‘s, he became a rosarian and plantsman of some notoriety—from the very beginning. It is not clear how he acquired the wherewithal to rent land in the Hillsboro area.

the presence of old fashioned Tea roses and Hybrid Perpetuals in the catalog and notes that some people may be thrilled by the spell of the ―… poetic hackneyed phrases like ‗Fumes of Araby.‘‖ In a parenthetical phrase he asks: ―Huh, did I get it wrong?‖ However, in the chapter on fragrance in his book, Hennessey uses the phrase most appropriately. Hennessey could have been quite capable of underplaying his education in order to gain a tactical advantage over those he thought might underestimate him. While his comments on life and mores both in and out of the rose world were amusing to many of his partisans, they could be ―wearing‖ on those not privy to the quarrels or their origin. And his verbal violence was matched by a capability for physical violence. Ralph Moore told of going to see Hennessey for a first meeting only to find that some indeterminate time prior to his visit, Hennessey had physically ejected the eminent Robert Pyle from his premises for some objectionable statement or another. Moore recalled that letters from Hennessey could be ―smokin.‖ Another example of the unpredictable Hennessey personality was his defense of the name of the rose ‗Nigger Boy.‘ In his 1949 catalog Hennessey notes that he had ―considerable pressure‖ brought to bear on him to change the name of the rose on the ground that it injured the feelings of black people— although Hennessey‘s response makes it seem as if he had been asked not to sell the rose. He offered two defenses: one was that the name glorifies the people so identified as intended by the originator, Knight of Australia; the other reason was that the rose was simply the best possible massed effect polyantha-type, indeed a ―perfect polyantha…cluster flowered, extremely heavy blooming…of compact growth, with completely healthy foliage. A plant so foolproof it could be planted in beds or masses to bloom continually, with an absolute minimum of spraying, shearing, or grooming.‖

Orphaned at an early age, he managed to acquire an education on his own and maintained a lifelong disregard common to autodidacts for those accredited as ―eggsperts‖ on the basis of academic attainments. In Hennessey on Roses he noted that there was no long list of works consulted for the writing of the book, as his knowledge was that gained from actual growing of roses as opposed to reading about them. His private correspondence tended to be a collection of run-on sentences, remarkably devoid of punctuation except for exclamation points. And he dedicated his book to his wife, who he described as ―nagging‖ him into clarity of thought by following him out in the fields to request more examples and exposition of his precepts and ideas. (See Tribute on page 22.) However, it would be a great mistake to conclude that self-educated meant uneducated. True, there were glaring typographical and spelling errors in his catalogs; the rose ‗Tausendschoen‘ would be listed as ‗Tausenchon‘ in the 1949 catalog and as ‗Tausendschoend‘ and ‗Sausendschoend‘ in the 1961 version. In a review of his catalogs in 1959 in the New Yorker, Katherine S. White observes that she could not follow his theorizing about fertilizers but enjoyed his comment regarding the ―Aegean stables.‖ Such a phrase permits a number of interpretations. He may have been making a wonderful pun in switching from the traditional ―Augean stables‖ to ―Aegean,‖ or he may have been making a mistake in the initial reference, or it may have been a typographical error. This ambiguity characterizes much of Hennessey‘s work, no matter how Manichean his view of the world. In another use of a classical reference, he refers to

Never one to leave a wound unsalted or an issue unagitated, Hennessey purchased a third of a page ad on page 23 of the October, 1952 ‗American Rose‘ magazine, touting his catalog of large roses and proudly proclaiming his nursery to be ‗The

9

Home of Nigger Boy‖—in double bold print. Twelve years later, however, the same rose would be offered with a ―lack of enthusiasm,‖ because Hennessey and his partner Albert Jones had a

July 1, 1968 of hip injuries sustained in a fall, his obituary listed only a daughter in California and a grandson as survivors. Perhaps it is significant that his last recorded residence is in Troutdale, Oregon, some fifty miles upriver from the nursery site at Scappoose. It is clear that Hennessey never A Hennessey established warm and amicable relations with contemporary, contemporary plantsmen in the area, some of Will Tillotson, whom he regarded with suspicion. Hennessey had owner of Will written a weekly column on gardening with roses Tillotson‟s in the Sunday edition of the Oregon Journal for Roses until his death in 1957, about fifteen months in the early 1940‘s. But and who sold when the Portland Rose Society sponsored a book roses through on growing roses in 1950—Roses Illustrated and his catalog How to Grow Them-- the dedication was to Fred “Roses of Edmunds, the curator of the Portland International Yesterday and Today.” Test Gardens. Hennessey was relegated to position number thirty-three in a list of perfunctory ―thankyou‘s.‖ The appearance of his name was preceded by expresplant coming out in the near future that sions of gratitude to Dr. Raywould be its superior in good foliage, color mond Allen, Secretary of the stability and rich red blooms. The political American Rose Society, whose climate of 1949 versus 1961 might have been book on roses Hennessey dea factor, but it does not seem to have surscribed as ―inane,‖ and the faced in the catalogs as such. names of some of his rival businessmen in the Oregon Prior to his career as a plantsman, Hennessey area. No mention was made of not only worked as a logger and a longshore- Another Hennessey contem- the Hennessey nursery in the man, he was also an organizer for the union porary, Dr. R. C. Allen, ARS section describing those who that would eventually dominate the Pacific President, Executive Secre- had been of service in explainports. His enthusiasm for his work was so tary, Treasurer and President ing rose culture in various geoof the World Federation of great that he was advised to think about an- Rose Societies, Author of graphic areas. Probably most other line of business lest he become ―food “Roses for Every Garden” galling to Hennessey would for the fishes‖ himself. In the early 1930‘s he have been that he was listed apparently entered the nursery business, initially after every possible recognition had been given to growing gladiolas, rhododendrens, and tulips in those with academic degrees. the Hillsboro, Oregon area before shifting to roses. In the late 1940‘s he moved to Scappoose, Early Opinions: some twenty miles equidistant from both Portland and Hillsboro. He purchased land on Dixie MounFrom 1934 through 1941 Hennessey participated tain at an elevation of 1500 feet with soil that was in the Proof of the Pudding segment of the Ameridecomposed sandstone with iron seepage. The can Rose Annuals (ARA). Proof of the Pudding combination of geography and soil promoted both (popularly shortened to POP) was a mechanism aeration of the soil as well as moisture retention. which the American Rose Society adopted to inform its members as to the performance of new Hennessey referred to himself and his operation roses (usually limited to introduction within the as a ―one-man band‖ and this self-description may previous five years) in various parts of the counhave been a little too accurate. At his death on try. Participants were identified and their com-

10

ments reprinted in what became a popular and regular part of the Annuals. (The program remains popular today in the form of Roses in Review.) Hennessey early on acquired a reputation as a stern critic of new roses. After two years of assessing a 1935 polyantha by Archer, ‗Hythe Cluster,‘ Hennessey decided to propagate it because of the ―tremendous trusses‖ of pink, semidouble cupped blooms. J. Horace McFarland, the editor of the 1938 ARA commented . . .―this from a man who seldom praises a rose unless it has something.‖ Hennessey could be casually dismissive of roses he considered unworthy of notice. He rejected ‗Will

„‟The Doctor‟ HT 1936, Howard & Smith. Photo from the 1942 American Rose Annual. Left: Another of Hennessey‟s contemporaries, J. Horace McFarland

Rogers‘ as ―unimportant,‖ and issued a one-word review of J. H. Nicholas‘s polyantha, ‗Snowbank:‘ ―Phooey!‖ But his reputation for sparing praise may be overblown. In the eight years that Hennessey contributed to the POP, he issued 306 opinions on new roses. Of these, 167 or 55% were clearly positive opinions, 122 were negative, and the rest could not be characterized as either or represented his opinion that judgment would have to wait another year. These figures may be slightly weighted toward the positive because of a

11

couple of factors: one is that roses rated positively were reviewed multiple times, whereas roses rated negatively were usually not rated again. Thus, ‗Will Rogers‘ received only the one review and was never considered by Hennessey again. On the other hand, ‗Christopher Stone‘ received four positive reviews ranging from 1937‘s ―heaviest – blooming red rose in existence‖ to 1941‘s ―best bedding rose by twice its nearest competitor.‖ A compilation of his reviews suggests that Hennessey quickly dumped roses which failed to pass his tests for retention. A second mitigating factor was that 1941 was a year in which Hennessey praised only twelve roses and negatively rated thirty one. But his comments about withholding judgment for a year indicate that he was planning to participate in the following year. It may be that his sour views in 1941 militated against having him participate again, or it may be that he was overly busy trying to arrange for the publication of his book. By the late 1930‘s Hennessey acquired something of a national reputation for producing vigorous and extra large plants either through expert grafting and budding, or by rigorous bud selection. McFarland again noted that the basic own root plant on which ‗The Doctor,‘ a sensational bloom from Howard & Smith, grew was so inferior that someone like Hennessey should be put to work developing a decent plant upon which the beautiful rose could grow. Given that Hennessey‘s comments in the POP reviews reflect an easy familiarity with the properties of the various rootstocks in use at the time, he was a natural candidate for the task. Hennessey also possessed a proven talent for ―bud selection,‖ a process by which plants that

possess a propensity to have both desirable and available at three or more nurseries. Such comundesirable traits are individually sorted so that mercial longevity testifies to Hennessey‘s ability the desirable traits are maximized while the undeto assess the qualities of the roses he chose to ofsirable ones are discarded. For example, by carefer the public. On the other hand, one could argue ful selection, Hennessey was able to offer a rethat the retention of so many roses for which the montant version of ‗Paul‘s Scarlet Climber‘ adbudwood had already been purchased indicated an vertised in his catalog as ‗Hennessey‘s Everinability or disinclination to secure rights to the blooming Paul‘s Scarlet Climber,‘ a product that newest and latest novelties on the market. was neither a sport nor a stabilization of a trait. Both intimate and During the years of his expert hands-on participation in the know-how were esProof of the Pudding, sential to amassing Hennessey evaluated the such stock. roses from 25 to 30 difIn his assessments ferent breeders per year, Hennessey revealed ranging geographically an assumption that a from Bohm in Czechonew rose, a slovakia to Knight in ―novelty,‖ should be Australia. In general, he able to be justified by was more inclined to being better than any praise the roses of previous offering in Mallerin, Cant, Kordes the same color or and Dot, and less inclassification. Thus, clined to respect the his evaluations are roses of Nicholas, Dickreplete with comson or McGredy. But he ments such as a diswas particularly vocifermissal of ‗Pink ous in denouncing roses Grootendoorst‘ as that he did not believe ―...it does not measmerited the benefits of a ure up to Eutin.‖ He patent, or were misreprejects ‗Zulu Queen‘ resented by what he on the ground that he „Mrs Calvin Coolidge‟ HT, 1923, Sport of Ophelia; AR Annual „24 termed the ‗printer‘s can ―see no excuse art.‘ for this rose as we have Crimson Glory which is exactly the same color.‖ In fact, in discussing an The Major Writings improved system for rating roses a few years later, Hennessey would allot ten points for “You can do most anything with a rose, except ―novelty,‖ but penalize a rose twenty-five points grubbing it up and leaving it on top of the ground, for not having that quality. Hennessey‘s preferand it will grow and bloom.” (An idea expressed ence for established and recognized standards was repeatedly through Hennessey‘s garden columns) reflected in his succeeding catalogs since 40% of the roses that appeared in the 1949 catalog also In late July of 1940 Hennessey started writing a appeared in the 1961 catalog. Roses that he first weekly garden column on rose care for the Sunencountered in the thirties were still being offered day edition of the Oregon Journal. It is clear that in his catalogs twenty years later, such as 'Girona,' many of the ideas to be found later in his book 'Kitty Kininmonth,' and 'Orange Triumph.' In were tested or reflected in the weekly columns. fact, of the roses offered by Hennessey in both the 1949 and the 1961 catalogs, some 90% (112 out Some forty-seven columns ran in the Oregon of 124) are still in commerce and over 60% are Journal on Sundays from July 28, 1940 through

12

October 26, 1941 when the column finally ceased, although the passion and fire of the effort really stopped in the middle of July, 1941. The last few columns consisted of two barely disguised ads for Hennessey‘s Open House in the latter part of August, 1941, two columns on rose show preparation which were essentially a re-statement of previous columns on rose show preparation and transport techniques, and a final column on rose planting that echoed the very first column on the same subject.

phrases because the Hennessey credentials were his success in growing large plants, national recognition, and sizable roses that won in rose competitions. In his own comment on why his opinions differed from the norm, Hennessey notes that his methods were proven by experience and testing of ―roses grown in the soil, instead of making roses conform to traditional treatments handed down from other times and conditions.‖

The columns focused on the usual and eternal aspects of rose cultivation with the basics of planting, spraying, other disease and insect control, rose show preparation, and the specifics of selecting particular cultivars to satisfy special garden conditions. In the beginning of the life of the column, Hennessey attempted to indicate the reasons for opting for one particular path rather than another, but the latter efforts were ‘Kitty Kininmonth’ Hybrid Perpetual with Gigantea strain. by Alister Clark, Australia 1922. more imperative than exPhoto from G.A. Stevens’ book “Climbing Roses” planatory.

On October 27, 1940 Hennessey again addressed questions of rose plantings and stressed that manure and trash should never be placed in the rose bush planting sites because they will generate potentially fatal methane gas, that roots should never be pruned, and that only clean soil free of any prior rose

Right: Roy Hennessey in a field of ‘President Herbert Hoover’ photo May 24, 1934 from 1935 AR Annual.

The degree to which Hennessey‘s ideas and opinions aroused opposition in the Portland rose community may be gauged by the fact that it took just four issues before the Oregon Journal added a ―forword‖ to Hennessey‘s August 18, 1940 column explaining that the Journal published Hennessey‘s articles to make his ideas and findings available to the public, and not to provoke controversy with the faction who disagreed. The ―forword‖ was unsigned. The first paragraphs sounded as if the newspaper were apologizing for publishing Hennessey in the first place; the latter half of the message sounded as though Hennessey himself had dictated the

connection should be employed. An unsigned column in the same section also discussed rose planting but mentioned that many authorities advise adding manure or bone meal to the rose hole when planting and that roses need sun in order to live happy productive lives. A later Hennessey column suggested a three-foot spacing for roses in order to provide for sizable roses, the only ones capable of

13

producing frequent and continuous bloom; but a short unsigned companion note suggested a twofoot spacing, consistent with more traditional cutting back of roses to four or five buds.

roses influenced by R. gigantea need spring and fall coolness to be at their best, the foetida influence dictated the need for the dryness and increased ultra-violet rays. Thus, ‗Mrs. Pierre S. Dupont‘ required elevations over 800 feet to be at its best and to avoid paling into white. ‗Joanna Hill‘ was best grown in the greenhouse; and the worst thing about ‗Souvenir de Jean Soupert,‘ aside from its dislike of strong sun, was its long name.

In the beginning of the following January, a note appeared indicating that Hennessey would be on ―vacation‖ because of the press of his work at his nursery, and because of lessened interest in rose culture until Spring when the column would return. Spring came early that year as Hennessey resumed the column on January 19th with an attack on pruning as a form of ―whacking,‖ a term that Hennessey asserted that he invented for the American Rose Society vocabulary.

One September 1940 column discussed ―style‖ in roses as a purely artificial concept. He believed that roses of yesterday were thought to be just as beautiful as the roses of the curA singular difference rent day. In fact, he between the columns „Emily Gray‟ H.Wich. 1917 Williams; AR Annual „23 argued that an arand other Hennessey rangement of roses writings is that the columns are quite specific as to should contain at least some roses with ―weak current roses. In both the longer article for the necks‖ so that they can look at the viewer and de―Our Garden‖ collection of essays and the basic mand acknowledgement of their beauty, hanging ‗Hennessey on Roses,‘ most of the roses mennecks or not. tioned were hypotheticals with fabricated names. But in his columns Hennessey directly and specifically noted the fragrance qualities of ‗Girona‘ at 85 degrees and a dry climate, compared to ‗Etoile d‘Hollande‘ which featured a musk tang when the temperatures are high, but a damask scent when the temperature dropped.

The single most ill-advised prediction that Hennessey may have ever made occurred in a December 12, 1940 column in which he declared that by 1955 the trend in rose culture would favor the cultivation of single roses. He attributed the backwardness of the public in selecting double and fuller roses to craven deference to the fashion of the day. He combined references to both longgone roses of the thirties plus such stalwarts as ‗Mermaid,‘ ‗Schoener‘s Nutkana,‘ ‗Dainty Bess,‘ and ‗Innocence.‘ Hennessey also believed that the relative unpopularity of roses whose color was in

Hennessey‘s discussion of the influence of the addition of the hybrid foetida with its vibrant yellow color to the modern rose included commentary on the best known yellow roses of the day, although he stressed generally the fact that while yellow

14

A selection of roses from the 1965-66 Hennessey Catalog ‘Flaming Ruby,’ ‘Florida Red,’ ‘Albert,’ ‘Golden Splendor.’ Images provided by James Delahanty.

the categories known as rose pink or rose red was entirely due to the prejudices of so-called ―experts‖ who foisted their preferences on unwary gardeners and insecure novices whenever possible. The columns also produced a rare case in which Hennessey second-guessed or revised a stated opinion. An early December 1940 column assessed the quality of rooted cuttings versus plants that were budded or grafted. Hennessey took the position that many modern roses grew on weak plants and were incapable of providing proper nourishment for the blooms. In fact the notion of rooting cuttings had been pretty well disgraced by the dismal performance of own root plants. While nurserymen would benefit from the reduced cost of own root cuttings, the performance of ―own root one year roses‖ had been so pathetic that even cheap nurserymen vending ten cent roses had to bud them to sell them at all. He also noted that budding roses with strong and healthy rootstocks provided some immunity to disease as well as the benefits of vigor. He did note that the presence of the graft provided a place for natural entry point for disease. Later in the revision—really additions-- to the book, he would add a chapter in which he again compared own root versus budding, and achieved a more balanced assessment in which the benefits and disadvantages of both systems of propagation were more closely matched. Hennessey repeatedly touted the benefits of spraying with ethylene dichloride as a cure for thrips, other insects and even rose midge in preference to the traditional uses of rotenone, derris, pyrethrums and other agents. (Ethylene dichloride was declared a major air contaminant and removed for use in California in 1988.) Of course, Hennessey‘s support of the use of this heavy gas, purportedly not toxic to humans or other animals, as well as the use of store bought mixtures of other sprays and the like to accommodate regional factors, occurred at the dawn of the long period of dominance of the idea of ―better living through chemistry.‖ It is possible that the tension and implied lack of support from the Oregon Journal indicated by its running of concurrent articles that rebutted his arguments allowed the column to fizzle out. It is also possible that the workload of column, nursery, book publication, and correspondence depleted his energy and required prioritizing of tasks.

15

Finally, Hennessey characterized his test gardens and display gardens as ―an expensive nuisance,‖ given that so few visitors understood that roses performed at their best in differing climates and heat zones. Later, this attitude would manifest itself in such practices as encouraging the townspeople in Scappoose not to direct visitors to his property and refusing to allow people to pick up their orders at the nursery as it wasted his time.

to it. It will cater to the eccentric egotism of the individual who wishes to cut all the roots off at planting time, …and likewise to the wretch who wishes to chop the plant completely to the ground twice a year.‖ And he recognized that the rose bush would survive even malign neglect through failure to spray, water, fertilize—―even through a whole summer of desertion.‖ Later Hennessey would develop these notions of the hardiness of the rose into memes more congenial to the modern ear by noting in the 1949 catalog that bugs could be ignored for a couple of years and then the natural predators of rose bugs would appear to satisfy their appetites. He acknowledged that this approach would not produce roses fit for exhibition, nor would it save anyone located near any overly enthusiastic bug killing neighbor. In a 1953 allegory for The Rose Annual, the journal of the Royal National Rose Society, he created a fable in which troubled and fearful potential rose gardeners stumble upon a garden characterized by companion plantings and a lack of spraying to their wonderment and delight. The moral of the story is that ―Roses grow, no matter what you do or what care you give. Sometimes I think the care is worse than the abuse.‖

In 1941 the Oregon Journal published Our Garden Journal, a book consisting of articles compiled from garden writers of the Pacific Northwest on various aspects of gardening. Hennessey contributed a fourteen page distillation of articles he had written for the Sunday newspaper garden section over the current year. In the preface, the editor, Dean Collins, lauded him as a writer with a ―national reputation as an authority on the culture of roses.‖ The same editor of Roses Illustrated and How to Grow Them nine years later relegated Hennessey to position number 33 in the importance of his contribution to the concepts in the book. In any event Hennessey‘s contribution to Our Garden Journal would be noteworthy for three major emphases. The first and most important was the notion that roses were actually easy plants to grow, ones that would withstand the most barbaric attempts to deter them from their appointed task of blooming and setting seed. There is an underlying subtext here that probably drove his opponents into a frenzy—namely that those who utilized other methods did so from ignorance and ego. The second aspect considered the problem of rose diseases and how to combat them, and the third discussed methods of preserving roses for the purposes of exhibiting them at rose shows. Neither the second nor third requires further discussion.

While it is common to regard the wisdom of the past through the prism of modern sensibilities, Hennessey did not excommunicate people for spraying their roses or declining to utilize companion plantings by refusing to sell them roses or to do business with them. Being ousted from Hennessey‘s world required root pruning, fouling of the planting site, or refusal to abide by the aesthetics of hybrid polyanthas. Spraying for insect damage or engaging in monoculture (only rose bed gardening) constituted venial as opposed to mortal sins.

However, the notion of roses being easy to grow and able to survive the most drastic treatments was a prelude to the extended idea that would appear the next year in Hennessey‘s book, Hennessey on Roses. Basically, Hennessey made two arguments; one was that the rose would continue to bloom and thrive despite the treatment it received at the hands of traditional rose ―experts.‖ He clearly asserted that the rose bush would ―grow and bloom almost without regard to what is done

Hennessey on Roses appeared in l942. The book was self-published. Hennessey originally submitted it to the American Rose Society with the idea that the ARS should publish and promote it. When the American Rose Society proposed to submit it to a committee for appraisal, Hennessey rejected that procedure. He did advertise the book in the l943 American Rose Annual and two subsequent annuals. No ad appeared in the 1946 ARA

16

although an article refuting his notions regarding root pruning did. (The American Rose Society discontinued advertising for a while in its 1947 annual.)

ded roses were preferable to own root roses because regular gardeners wanted to plant a rose bush rather than to grow one. But the former items were his main concern and he backed them up over the years with threats to cease doing business with persons who violated his precepts.

Hennessey‘s book contained illustrative pictures from his gardens in the Hillsboro area. And it contained the famous dedication to his wife for Hennessey customers tell of receiving post cards ―nagging‖ him for clarifications so as to make the and invoices with messages roaming around the task of reading it easier. However, it did not consides of the cards and all over the place indicating tain two items standard in most rose books of the that the long roots which were characteristic of his day. There was no list of articles and books conroses should not be pruned or cut. Commands in sulted, as Hennessey prided himself on learning capital letters with the same imperatives appeared through experience and observation. He argued in his catalogs. And he is credited with creating an that all the authority necessary for validation of epidemic of national backache by his insistence his ideas was to be found in the excellence of the that rosarians dig holes big enough, deep enough some 10,000 roses and wide enough to he had grown and spread out the long sold. Hennessey roots of his roses — stated that he did sometimes reaching not keep notes until three feet or more. He it was time to write asserted that studies the book—although showed that rose roots some of the ideas could grow to a depth were adumbrated in of some 56 inches with the Oregon Joura spread of some seven nal. Nor was there feet. Since the roots a list of contempowere the storehouse in rary roses with acwhich the dynamic encompanying deergy of the plant Hennessey‟s field of „Talisman, April 15, 1934 Photo from American Rose Annual, 1935 scriptions, assessawaited spring, Henments and observanessey believed the tions. He thought that the inclusion of such a list garden grower had a choice between great first of roses that would soon be obsolete was a waste year blooms from plants with roots the size that of time. Consequently, he used fictitious names they had been in the nursery or of waiting until a when he needed an example of roses to be disbutchered set of roots caught up with the surge of cussed as to habit or habitat. (One such fictitious the plant to grow and equal its potential. To him it name, Joseph‘s Coat, would be adopted for a claswas a no-brainer. sic multi-colored climber by hybridizer Herb Swim in 1963.) For Hennessey, in planting roses there were two items that did not permit any discretion on the Hennessey‘s main concerns in Hennessey on part of the gardener. One taboo was adding maRoses related to the pruning of roots, general nure, trash, or fertilizer at the site of the bush to pruning principles, and the utilization of compost be planted. These items caused all sorts of negaor other additions to the soil in the planting proctive reactions ranging from the creation of methess. While he also expressed preferences for inforane gas to facilitating the development of root mal versus formal rose beds, experimentation by canker or other injury to the roots. Only clean soil rose growers to find the idiosyncrasies of their should be allowed to touch the roots. For similar own roses, and the reasoned conclusion that budreasons soil from a previous planting had to be

17

removed and replaced with fresh clean soil from some other part of the garden. These items were not negotiable and Hennessey made it quite clear that if he knew that these rules were being violated, there would be no further business dealings.

classes to include Austin roses as well as minifloras, the emphasis still remains on classic exhibition form in hybrid teas, floribundas, and miniature roses. Expansion of the roses eligible to be awarded best in show may be taking root slowly, but the progress toward Hennessey‘s ideal of any rose being eligible for a ―sweepstakes award‖ can best be described as glacial.

Hennessey discussed at great length and with palpable passion the art of pruning. His language in the book was argumentative to the maximum degree. At one point he insisted that a gang of goats would do a better job of pruning than most professional gardeners with pruning shears in hand. Note that he himself admitted occasionally ―whacking‖ plants for aesthetic or other purposes, and that his prohibition of ―whacking‖ related to the undifferentiated pruning of all roses under rules laid down on the basis of the English experiences of two centuries ago. He believed that the creation of the hybrid teas, with the infusion of R. gigantea influence as well as that of the chinas dictated a more nuanced approach to pruning with recognition that tea roses sulk mightily if over pruned and china roses tend to build up slowly to their optimal height. These factors had to be taken into account rather than emulating the European experience of roses whacked down by nature through the occasion of winter and root storage of energy. He regarded the foliage as food factories; the ruthless removal of canes and foliage retarded the development of the rose to the heights to which it could reach and the blooming it could supply.

Modern rose authors do not always agree with the Hennessey tenet regarding root pruning. Rather they assert that ―trimming any damaged or exceptionally long roots to the average length of the others‖ is a good rule (Amanda Beales, Rose Basics); Lance Walheim in Roses for Dummies advises cutting off any ―broken or mushy‘ roots‖ as well as stimulating new growth on the roots by removing an inch or so. Generally, Hennessey‘s contemporaries adhered to the five decades old norm that there should be equality between the roots below and the plant above. Even R. C. Allen, derided by Hennessey as ―inane,‖ argued in Roses for Every Garden that holes should be dug to fit roots rather than the reverse. While Allen did argue that the roots received from most growers would be sufficient unto the task, he even went so far as to italicize his admonition that if the roots did not fit the hole, the remedy was to enlarge the hole rather than cutting or bending or coiling the roots. However, it is unlikely that even if scientific evidence overwhelmingly supported Hennessey‘s contention that long, uncut roots promoted larger and more vigorous roses, rose cultural practices would be modified. In fact, the boxed roses of recent years portend to the contrary. The very idea of product standardization is in direct contradiction of Hennessey‘s concern for the rose qua rose rather than as a product for easy production, transport and consumption.

In other sections of the book he anticipated the findings of the Royal National Rose Society regarding the lack of a need to deadhead back to a five-leaflet node by about fifty years. He mandated the planting of roses with afternoon shade in locales with fierce summer sun in order to protect blooms and he argued that the development of R. gigantea in jungle forests in dappled shade meant that its descendants would show a tendency to develop their colors best in moist and cooler climes. And, he also argued that the purpose of a rose show was not to promote the stingy blooming exhibition rose but to place greater prominence on good ―GARDEN‖ roses, those with decorative form and floriferous qualities rather than the neurasthenic qualities of exhibition roses. While the modern rose show has expanded the number of

Few modern writers agree with Hennessey on the issue of pruning versus ―whacking.‖ Walheim justifies pruning on the basis that it improves flowering, maintains the health of the plant, directs growth, and keeps the rose bush within decent boundaries. He especially argues that hybrid teas be more heavily pruned in order to produce fewer but more spectacular blooms. Hennessey specifically rejected the notion of fewer but better blooms in favor of a multiplicity of bloom in the

18

garden or the vase at home rather than at a rose show. Beales recommends pruning first year roses back to three or four bud eyes and regular pruning back to about half the length of thick canes and a greater percentage for thin or twiggy canes.

Although he opted for budded roses, he seems clearly aware of their faults which he lists as the weakness of the bud union and the finality of its demise when frozen, the perpetuation of weak or easily diseased roses, and the lack of a suitable understock for all sections of the country. Currently market forces have mandated a change to own root roses and programs preparing the public for the changed circumstances are already underway. Regional variations may become more important than ever in the marketing and development of roses as the notion of a rose for every garden does not dictate the same rose or even the same class of roses. Hennessey‘s catalogs clearly designated which roses were most suitable for which climates and sections of the country. Thus, he distinguished between the coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest versus the interior hotter, drier climes, and indicated which roses may only safely be grown in the South with its warm more humid climates.

The debate over whether there is a ―rose sickness‖ danger from planting roses in the same place as previous roses continues unabated. Adding trash or manure to newly planted roses is generally not regarded as wise in modern texts Hennessey‘s arguments against full sun for roses in America was partially predicated on the origin of current hybrid teas with a gigantea and tea background and the fact of better bloom in dappled shade. Those who live in the desert Southwest can best appreciate his arguments as they stretch shade canvases over their roses in blistering temperatures devoid of any ameliorative cloud cover. Partially, of course, Hennessey‘s argument for shade for roses in midday sun was dictated by his belief that most writings on roses originated in England where there ―was a decided dearth of sunshine and where full sun is not too ‗full‘ at that.‖ While current books for beginners take note of the widely variable circumstances in the United States for growing roses and other books finesse the question of ―full sun for roses,‖ few offer chapters entitled ―The Shady Rose Garden‖ as does Hennessey.

Even if the world has not caught up with Hennessey, or even if the commercial rose world has passed him by, his care of observation and dedication to the best possible roses cannot be denied or gainsaid. At a time when the forces of the market were inevitably moving toward the total conversion of the marketable roses to hybrid teas and floribundas, his catalog carried a sizeable array of old garden roses, hybrid musks, polyanthas (hybrid and dwarf), as well as species roses.

The expanded 2nd edition of Hennessey on Roses in 1943 contained additional paragraphs on such topics as alkalinity in soil and the hardiness of some china roses. The chief emendation is a chapter on the virtues of budded versus own root roses. Ultimately, Hennessey asserts the superior value of budded roses because they represent less trouble to the customer who wants to harvest blooms rather than to grow a rose bush. However, he does note that roses with a strong china background seem to flourish in wet moist warm climates such as the South, and points to the vigor and strength of Noisettes and tea roses in that region as evidence. He observed that roses with foetida influence had not yet developed sufficient resistance to disease to grow satisfactorily on their own roots and that the process would take many generations.

Hennessey and the American Rose Society Hennessey‘s quarrels with the American Rose Society ran the gamut from the personal to the intellectual to the banal. He objected to the salary and the expense account of the Secretary of the American Rose Society at a time when the Society was attempting to establish a fee for registering roses. Hennessey called it a ―racket.‖ He objected to the adoption of the term ―floribunda‖ for the class formerly known as ―hybrid polyanthas‖ and retained the term ―hybrid polyantha‖ when other vendors had long since banished the term to a kind of taxonomic attic. He based his objection on the fact that Dr. J. H. Nicholas, whom he described as a Jackson and Perkins General Man-

19

ager or Salesman, devised the term in order to sell more roses during the Great Depression although the term adopted by Nicholas had already been in use to describe a species for awhile. (It is only fair to note that Nicholas‘ reputation was based on much more than the Jackson and Perkins association and that the term has lasted longer than the previous appellation of ―hybrid polyantha.‖) Hennessey railed against the refusal of the American Rose Society to give him credit for hybridizing new roses. This refusal was apparently based on his development of ―partnerships‖ with plantsmen in other parts of the country in which the labor, space, and time commitment was supplied by the distant partner and the knowledge and intellectual drive was supplied by Hennessey. This process was described by Hennessey in a series of letters to Kenneth Buchanan of Sacramento, California. In these letters the partnership notion referred to a twenty year association with Albert Jones of Arkansas. The American Rose Society at that time could apparently account for an association in which Jones got credit as the breeder and Hennessey as the introducer as in the case of ‗Arkansas Sunshine‘ and a half dozen other roses, or it could accommodate Hennessey as the sole breeder as in the case of ‗Heavenly Fragrance‘ and some sports of ‗Roger Lambelin‘ or ‗La France,‘ but it could not comprehend equal partners separated by hundred or even thousands of miles.

viewed the activities of the agents of the American Rose Society as those of the ignorant, or the evil. Hennessey‘s views on local, state, and national politics seem rooted in the conviction that most politicians are lawyers and poltroons, interested only in personal enrichment, and in looting the public treasury. He proposed a system of near continuous elections so that the outraged citizenry could oust the inefficient and the dishonest, but predicted that the voters would not enact such a system because they were too lazy and wanted someone else to do the hard work for them. He seems, despite his low opinion of the citizenry, to have believed that the cure for democracy is more democracy through the aegis of elections, something akin to the Progressive movement in its infancy. His regard for rose consumers did not accord them a much higher status. He admitted that his move to Scappoose would achieve economies of scale in the cost of operating his nursery; however, the move would not result in lower prices but a better product. And, of course, his admonition to readers of his catalog that he and Tillotson could not continue to offer rare and prize roses were customers not forthcoming in purchasing them gave an exceptionally clear command as to where the duty of the customer lay. But as in many of Hennessey‘s attitudes, the underlying impulse can be taken either as rationally disinterested or purely self-regarding in motivation and execution.

A more serious rift between Hennessey and the American Rose Society was occasioned by the lack of enthusiasm for his book and the requirement of review by an editorial committee. This breach might have been exacerbated by the publication of an article in the 1946 American Rose Annual in which Fred Edmunds argued that extensive root systems were required in the case of lighter, poorer soils and that the pruning of roots to correspond with the tops of plants would give them strong, new roots and canes. Analogizing from the adage that a ―man was as old as his arteries,‖ Edmunds argued in favor of cutting roots depending upon the situation and equated long roots with inferior roses. Whatever the scientific merits of either Edmunds‘ or Hennessey‘s views, the world of the latter did not permit much in the way of honest disagreement. Hennessey ever-after

Parting Words … A study of Hennessey‘s photo in the 1943 edition of his book reflects his prose. He seems to embody a wiry, sideways smiling, hidden eyed troublemaker who enjoyed the fray and gave no quarter to his opponents. It is hard to raise much sympathy for Hennessey‘s interpersonal relationships except for the fact that he represented a free spirited individual standing in the way of corporate progress, fashionable and comforting myths, and the marketing of cookie-cutter roses that would overwhelm the next few generations. His likes, dislikes, and modes of expression were totally out of step with the conformist zeitgeist of the 1950‘s and even the Tillotson admiring garden writer for

20

Notes: For the most part the sources utilized are cited within the main text of the Appreciation. However, credit for assistance has to be extended to my friend Barry Smith of Portland, Oregon who worked with microfiche to produce copies of Hennessey‘s columns in the ‗Oregon Journal.‘ There were e-mail conversations with Paula Ballin, Sean McCann, and Lily Shohan that helped to elucidate the contradictory character of Hennessey. Ralph Moore provided tales of interaction with Hennessey, and Fred Edmunds, Jr. provided information and opinions via a telephone call not long before his death. Kenneth Buchanan of Sacramento provided letters from Hennessey (and others) which are now located in the Huntington Library in San Marino, Ca. The librarians at the Multnomah County Regional Library and the Hillsboro Public Library, as well as those at Mt. St. Mary‘s College in Los Angeles, were unstinting in their efforts to be helpful. My friend Judy Artley Sandbloom engaged in genealogical research mentioned in the text. None of the persons listed above is responsible for any errors of interpretation or fact; such that appear are solely my responsibility. JDelahanty

Roy Hennessey. Photo from his book, “Hennessey on Roses”

The New Yorker found his tirades and harangues ―wearing,‖ however amusing they might be to his admirers. By his own admission he was a ―one man band.‖ The duality of Hennessey‘s precepts, actions and opinions has been a constant theme in reporting his life. But the final analysis has to stress that however conscious he was of his role as an iconoclast and defiant of the conventional wisdom, he paid a price in reduced financial success and diminished professional prestige for his marching to a different drummer. He not only marched to a different drummer, he heard music not yet written and songs as yet unsung. He proselytized for the rose as few others before or after him. And he urgently sought to have the rose perform to its optimal level. In the tug of war between man and the rose, he urged man to forego sacrificing the rose to man‘s will, convenience or ego, but to study the rose to let it be all that it could be. In that respect, Hennessey on Roses might have more appropriately been titled: Hennessey for Roses.

21

Old Rose News

Know our writers by Betty Ellen Vickers, Chair, ARS Library Board Below, Roy Hennessey‟s dedicates his book, Hennessey on Roses to his wife, Georgia.

IMPORTANT NEWS FROM VINTAGE VINTAGE GARDENS is importing a number of very rare roses from France this winter. Two nurseries have agreed to supply Vintage with Teas, Chinas, Noisettes, Hybrid Perpetuals, Bourbons, and Pernetianas that have recently been uncovered in European collections. These roses are not available in the USA! The roses are being supplied by two old rose nurseries in France:

A Tribute Dear Mrs. Hennessey: I wish to thank you on behalf of the readers of this work, for without your assistance it certainly would not have appeared in its present form. You took down from dictation floods of rose information, and having sorted it, you found it was phrased in such sternly technical language and was so compressed that you yourself could not understand it, even though you have learned in your present association a very great deal of Hennessey rose lore. Most often what should be a chapter was compressed into a couple of pages containing every essential fact but only to be described (mildly) as ―heavy reading.‖ You therefore pursued the author of this book through fields and over rows of roses, in storage houses and on tractors, in packing house and garden, crying pathetically, ―Roy, please come in this minute and stretch this subject out. Put more words in it, explain it, give examples, talk about it more. It‘s so frightfully technical I can‘t make head or tail of it myself. Yes, I know you‘re busy, but you‘ll have to come, really you will.‖ The strain on the Hennessey domesticity was frightful; the Head of the House maintained that it was all there and anyone could understand it. You, Mrs. Hennessey, pointed out that you probably represented ―anyone‖ fairly well, but you couldn‘t grasp it in its present form, and it had to be stretched out. For your laudable feminine persistence and constant nagging I therefore tender my sincere thanks on behalf of myself and the readers of this book. Very truly yours,

La Roseraie du Desert, the old rose nursery of John and Becky Hook, and Roses Fabien Ducher, the nursery of Fabien Ducher of the famous PernetDucher rose family. All imported roses must undergo a two-year quarantine by the USDA. As they have done in the past, Vintage will propagate these roses under controlled conditions during the quarantine period. Fans and customers of Vintage will be able to pre-order from the lists of roses on their website, and will receive their plants in the Spring of 2013. Visit the Vintage website to see these exciting collections of rare roses. Incredible rose portraits will help you envision them in your garden. Co-owner of Vintage Gardens Gregg Lowrey is a Vice President of Heritage Rose Foundation, and Chairman of the Editorial Board which produces the beautiful member magazine, Rosa Mundi. http://www.vintagegardens.com A ROSARIAN’S BEST RESOURCE:

Help Me Find If you don‘t know Help Me Find, discover it. If you have discovered it, support it. Founded by two people who envisioned a website that is all about roses; one that would collect, organize and present the rose knowledge and expertise from around the world. Your observations about the listings are welcome. Your financial support is welcome too. http://www.helpmefind.com

ROY HENNESSEY

22

Old Rose News Ruth Knopf—2011 The Great Rosarians of the World™ will be celebrating the eleventh year of this annual lecture series on January 22-23, 2011, at The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens in San Marino, California, by honoring Ruth Knopf who is best known for her work popularizing and preserving the Noisette roses she has discovered growing in her beloved American South.

The Great Rosarians of the World™ lecture series was founded in 2001 to honor and celebrate the men and women who have contributed to our understanding and love of our National Flower the Rose. Originally presented at The Huntington in late January the program was expanded to the east coast in 2007 where it is repeated in New York City in early June. Over the years we have had the unique opportunity to hear a broad selection of the greats of the rose world, men and women of the caliber of Peter Beales, Ralph Moore, Roger Phillips, Miriam Wilkins, Wilhelm Kordes, David Austin, and Marilyn Wellan.

Mrs. Knoph will be honored again on the East Coast at New York City on June 10-12, 2011. Mrs. Knopf is a native of South Carolina and continues to live near Charleston. She began her career collecting the old garden roses she discovered growing near her home and eventually broadened her research to include ‗found‘ roses from all over the American South. Following the horticultural traditions of her region she began propagating her foundlings and sharing them with friends. She has made numerous trips to Southern California where she participated in several Old Rose Symposia at The Huntington and has spoken on her work identifying and preserving roses. Mrs. Knopf was one of the chief forces behind the 9th International Conference on Heritage Roses, held in Charleston in 2000. As part of the preparation for the conference she helped develop and establish the Hampton Park Noisette Study Garden and the Heritage Rose Trail, both in Charleston.

The lectures and workshops are designed for everyone from novice to experienced rose growers to learn more about the flower we all love. It is also a great place to meet fellow gardeners and exchange tips on growing roses. Join us in honoring Ruth Knopf at one or both of these great occasions. January 22-23, 2011 Great Rosarians of the World™ 11 West Huntington Library, Art Collections and Botanical Gardens, San Marino, Ca.

In light of her work preserving Noisette roses, which had been developed in South Carolina in the early 1800s, Mrs. Knopf was the first recipient of the Charleston Horticultural Society‘s prestigious 1830 Award.

June 10-12, 2011 Great Rosarians of the World™ 11 East New York City

Mrs. Knopf is being honored by GROW for her dogged persistence in searching out and preserving the roses of her region where her activities have insured the survival of many heretofore lost roses from the early days of the republic.

Watch for more details on the GROW website at www.greatrosarians.com or contact Clair Martin or Pat Shanley for more information.

23

Old Rose News The Publication You Have Been Waiting For . . . . . . . . THE SUSTAINABLE ROSE GARDEN, A Reader in Rose Culture Edited by Pat Shanley, Peter Kukielski and Gene Waering. Available NOW. $34.95 + $4 s&h. Mail check or money order for $38.95 per copy, payable to: Manhattan Rose Society. Mail to Pay Shanley, P. O. Box 442, Locust Valley, NY 11560. A SAMPLING OF THE 288 PAGES, 38 ARTICLES IN THE SUSTAINABLE ROSE GARDEN: Birth of a Rose Garden Sustainable Garden Practices at the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden Health in David Austin‘s English Roses The Historical Significance of ‗Knock Out‘ An Accidental Sustainable Rose Garden A Century (or Two) of Hybrid Musks . . . . . . and much, much more.

THREE ORGANIZATIONS WE HOPE YOU WILL JOIN AND SUPPORT: HERITAGE ROSES GROUP IS REORGANIZING From the National Heritage Rose Group: we are reorganizing since the death of our leader Miriam Wilkins, who founded this group. We are hoping to spread the word throughout the US and Canada by sending this notice to organizations, nurseries, and individuals. If you can use it in your publications or emails, we would be most grateful. Please get in touch with [email protected] if you have any questions. Many thanks. HRG

HERITAGE ROSE FOUNDATION is devoted to the preservation of old roses. Membership in the Foundation is open to any individual or organization that is in sympathy with its purposes and goals. The Foundation is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and contributions to it are tax-deductible. Members receive the Foundation's acclaimed journal, Rosa Mundi, published two times a year, and a quarterly Newsletter. www.heritagerosefoundation.org

AMERICAN ROSE SOCIETY Founded in 1892, the ARS is the oldest single horticultural plant society in America. ARS is an educational, non-profit organization dedicated exclusively to the cultivation and enjoyment of roses. ARS supports its members by providing educational programs, resourceful publications and continuing research. We have more than 300 affiliated societies in our national network. www.ars.org

24

Calendar of OGR Rose Events January 22-23, 2011 GREAT ROSARIANS OF THE WORLD, WEST San Marino, CA honoring RUTH KNOPF http://www.greatrosarians.com April 16, 2011 OPEN GARDENS, Old Sacramento City Cemetery Historic Rose Garden 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. http://www.theheritagerosesgroup.org Sunday after Mother‘s Day. May 15, 2010 CELEBRATION OF OLD ROSES, hosted by the Bay Area Heritage Roses Group El Cerrito Community Center, 7007 Moeser Lane El Cerrito, CA 94530-2392 For complete information, check the Heritage Roses Groups website. http://www.theheritagerosesgroup.org or contact [email protected] May 21, 2010 OLD ROSE SYMPOSIUM , Wyck House, an historic Quaker family home circa 1690, in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. Heritage Rose Foundation is co-sponsoring. http://www.wyck.org JUNE 2-6, 2011 AMERICAN ROSE SOCIETY SPRING NATIONAL ROSE SHOW & CONVENTION—WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA Of interest to Heritage Rose enthusiasts: Rose Show Classes for Old Garden Roses, Shrubs, Climbing Roses. Watch for full schedule and registration forms soon at www.ars.org June 10-12, 2011 GREAT ROSARIANS OF THE WORLD, EAST New York City honoring RUTH KNOPF http://www.greatrosarians.com June 18-19-20, 2011 HERITAGE ROSE FOUNDATION EVENT—Programs & Tours Lyon, France (tentative) http://www.heritagerosefoundation.org Please submit your Old Garden Rose Events for the Journal‘s calendar to [email protected]

25

MARILYN WELLAN, OLD GARDEN ROSE & SHRUB JOURNAL EDITOR American Rose Society Old Garden Rose Committee Chair 3853 Rue Left Bank, Alexandria LA 71303 ~ E-mail: [email protected] COMMITTEE MEMBERS & EDITORIAL BOARD: ANNE BELOVICH, Stanwood, WA - Collector of Rambling and Climbing Roses; Former member of Heritage Rose Foundation Board of Directors; Contributor to HRF Journal Rosa Mundi. JAMES DELAHANTY, Sherman Oaks, CA - Chair of American Rose Society Editorial Advisory Committee; former Chair of ARS Local Society Relations Committee; Editor and Writer. MAUREEN DETWEILER, New Orleans, LA - Preservationist, Historian, Writer; One of founders of the New Orleans Old Garden Rose Society; Member ARS Library Board. CLAUDE GRAVES, Richardson, TX - Leader in EarthKind and Modern Rose Research Programs; Former Chair of ARS OGR Comittee; President of Dallas Area Historical Rose Society; Photographer. CHARLOTTE HARING, Shreveport, LA - Leader in establishing and maintaining heritage rose gardens at Gardens of the American Rose Center; Long-time Member ARC Committee; Member ARS Library Board. MALCOLM MANNERS, Lakeland, FL - Professor of Horticulture; Founding Member of Heritage Rose Foundation, Board Member; Writer; Leader in Collection and Preservation of Old Roses. PEGGY MARTIN, Gonzales, LA - HRF Vice President-Membership; New Orleans OGR Society Officer; OGR Chair for ARS Gulf District; Frequent Speaker on Old Roses; Leading efforts in Found Rose Identification. GEORGE MEILING, Columbus, OH - Chair of ARS Rose Classification Committee; ARS Leader and Benefactor; Sponsor of Earthkind Garden at Columbus; Writer. STEPHEN SCANNIELLO, Jersey City, NJ - President Heritage Rose Foundation; Gardener; Leader in Rose Conservation and Preservation efforts; Speaker; Author of numerous books. PAT SHANLEY, Glen Cove, NY - Member ARS Executive Committee and Board of Directors; ARS Membership-Marketing Chair; Founder of Great Rosarians of the World-East and Manhattan Rose Society. BETTY ELLEN VICKERS, DeSoto, TX - HRF Leader; HRF Board Secretary; Chair of ARS Library Board; Writer and Editor of Yellow Rose for Dallas Area Historical Rose Society. GENE WAERING, New York City and Jacksonville, FL - Publisher of The Sustainable Rose Garden; Leader in Sustainability Movement; Co-Founder of Great Rosarians of the World-East; Writer. ARS President Jeff Wyckoff — E-mail: [email protected] ARS Executive Director Jeffrey Ware — E-mail: [email protected]

26