There are no active references in this article.
A suckering shrub 11⁄2 to 4 ft high; stems and branches clad with glandular bristles and a few slender prickles, the largest of which may be curved but are rarely hooked. Leaves composed of three or five leaflets, rarely seven except on sterile shoots; rachis downy or glabrous, glandular, usually more or less prickly beneath. Leaflets elliptic, ovate or roundish, 1 to 31⁄2 in. long, obtuse or acute at the apex, rounded or slightly cordate at the base, dark green and glabrous above, hairy beneath at least on the main veins, with a rather prominent reticulation, teeth shallow, simple or glandular-compound. Stipules narrow, with spreading, acute tips. Flowers solitary, but sometimes up to three or even more in a cluster, bright rosy pink or crimson, sometimes dark velvety red (though probably only in cultivars), usually sweetly scented, 11⁄2 to 3 in. wide; petals overlapping, with a white or yellowish claw. Pedicels up to 3 in. long, clad with sessile or stalked glands, sometimes mixed with minute prickles. Receptacle ellipsoid or ovoid, rarely globular, usually with the same covering as the pedicels. Sepals of varying length, glandular on the back and at the edge, with a few lateral appendages or sometimes strongly pinnated, spreading to reflexed after flowering and soon falling. The glands in all parts of the inflorescence are aromatic, with a balsamic odour. Styles varying from glabrous to woolly, ellipsoid to globular, about 1⁄2 in. long, slow to ripen, with a leathery coat and acidulous flesh.
Native of southern and central Europe, east to the Ukraine, and of Asia Minor, the Caucasus and Iraq; cultivated since time immemorial. In the western part of its range R. gallica is patchily distributed and in the main confined to calcareous soils. But so long has it been grown, both as an ornamental and officinal plant, that it is difficult for botanists to distinguish the truly wild forms from escapes and the relics of ancient cultivation. The wild European form is sometimes distinguished as var. pumila (Jacq.) Ser.
Before the 19th century the red-flowered, semi-double officinal roses were the commonest form of the species in cultivation; this and the other principal sorts are mentioned below. From these an immense number of ornamental cultivars were raised early in the 19th century (a few earlier). Paul listed almost 500 of them in The Rose Garden (1848), mostly bred in France and many with variegated flowers. See further under Gallica group, p. 163.
The name R. gallica L. is discussed by Crépin in Bull. Herb. Boiss., 2nd ser., Vol. 5, pp. 139-41. Whatever may be the identity of the rose so named by Linnaeus in the first edition of Species Plantarum, the R. gallica of the second edition is the species described here. It has been stated that typical R. gallica has single flowers, but Linnaeus based the name on R. rubra multiplex of C. Bauhin’s Pinax and R. rubra flore valde pleno et semi-pleno, simplici fere of J. Bauhin’s Historia; it therefore covers the whole gamut from double to almost single.
R. holosericea Du Roi
R. provincialis sens . Dum.-Cours., not Herrm. nor Mill.
The first detailed account of the Velvet roses was given by Roessig in his Beschreibung (1799, 1803) and some are portrayed in his Die Rosen. All had dark purplish red flowers, but there were two main sorts. In one the petals had a blackish sheen and the other, which he believed to be the original, a violet sheen. Of both there were single, semi-double and double forms, making six in all. He admitted that R. holosericea was near to R. gallica and indeed the differences he gives – the bristly but not prickly stems, pinnated sepals, round receptacles and non-exserted styles – are all part of the normal variation of R. gallica.Velvet roses had been grown for some two centuries before Roessig’s time and owed the name (and the epithet holosericea) to the velvety texture and lustre of their petals (the erroneous belief, current in the 19th century, that they were Moss roses, could have been dispelled by reading the descriptions in Gerard’s Herball and Parkinson’s Paradisus). The semi-double ‘violet’ form of the Velvet rose was named by Roessig R. violacea and the rose still cultivated as ‘Violacea’ (see p. 203) agrees well with his account. Unfortunately Roessig said nothing of the habit of var. holosericea, for ‘Violacea’ disagrees with R. gallica as usually defined, in its tallish, lax habit. A possible explanation is that the Velvet roses came from the Near East, where it may be that R. gallica is not always as dwarf as it is in Europe. Among the roses collected by Nancy Lindsay in Iran in the 1930s was one which she called ‘the crested red cabbage’. This had leafy sepals and roundish leaflets as in ‘Violacea’, and very double, purple-red flowers.The Velvet roses were certainly used in breeding the large race of Gallica roses that came into gardens towards the end of the 18th century. One still with us is ‘Tuscany’. Another was the Maheka rose or ‘Belle Sultane’ of Redouté (Vol. III, p. 78, t.). It has been suggested that this is ‘Violacea’, but the Maheka rose, according to Dumont de Courset’s description, had flowers which changed colour with age from rosy pink to ‘rouge vif’ and finally to dark brown.
Interpreted in a broad sense, this is really the typical variety of R. gallica (see footnote). In some works it is also called Rose of Provins (e.g., by Gerard) while in France the name ‘Rosiers de Provins’ eventually came to mean all the cultivated forms of R. gallica. The name derives from Provins, a town to the south-east of Paris, in the old County of Champagne, once famous for its officinal red roses. No doubt the local soil and climate, and the traditional skills of the growers, helped to give the Provins rose its pre-eminence. But Pomet, in his famous Histoire des Drogues (1694), insists that it is a distinct sort. To quote from the English translation: ‘These Provins Roses are what are most esteemed of any Flowers in the whole World…. But since, of late years, these Provins Roses were dear, several Druggists and Apothecaries contented themselves with the common red roses that are cultivated about Paris and other parts…. Nevertheless, those who have made use of the other sort, have found, that they are not equal to the true Provins Roses, either in Beauty or Virtue; besides which, they will not keep so long, notwithstanding all their Pains to preserve them.’According to tradition, the Provins rose was brought from the Near East by Thibaut IV, King of Navarre and Count of Champagne, who led the Crusade of 1239-40. This has the ring of truth, for there can be little doubt that the medicinal applications of the R. gallica were learnt from Arab works. The tannin-rich petals of the Provins rose were astringent and, either dried or converted into conserves or syrups were put to various uses, among them the treatment of tuberculosis, as laid down by the Arab physician Mesuë of Damascus, whose works became very influential in early European medicine (Linnaeus named after him the genus Mesua). But other forms of the officinal R. gallica must have had the same properties as the true Provins rose, even to a lesser degree. The dried petals of the Provins rose, according to Pomet, were exported in vast quantities to the West Indies and for this purpose their keeping qualities would have been of more importance than when they were used locally. The red rose was also much used to make rose-water and rose-vinegar, and was grown for that purpose in private gardens. There is also mention in the old literature of a very double form whose buds did not open properly; this was used for making sugar of roses.Although the origin of the White Rose of York is uncertain, it is now held to be reasonably certain that the Red Rose of Lancaster was originally acquired as an emblem by Edmund, second son of Henry III and first Earl of Lancaster, through his marriage in 1275 to Blanche, widow of Henry I, King of Navarre and Count of Champagne (Capt. H. S. Lecky RN, ‘The Rose in Heraldry’, Rose Annual 1931, reprinted in the same publication in 1957, pp. 10-21).The similarity of ‘Provins’ to ‘province’ and ‘Provence’ has been the source of much misunderstanding (see note, p. 70). Confusion has also been caused by the fact that in the nomenclature of the apothecaries the officinal red rose was known as Rosa damascena or the Red Damask. This usage passed into common speech – ’ … the vulgar idea is that a Damask Rose is a blowsy red Rose, like a rural lass at a country fair’ (Gard. Chron. 1849, p. 596). But in garden nomenclature a Damask rose was R. damascena and ‘damask’ as an epithet had in earlier times meant flesh-coloured or light pink (incarnate).