HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Rosier mousseux à fleurs doubles' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 121-350
most recent 5 MAY 20 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 5 MAY 20 by DucdeGuiche
Where does one get hardiness zone 6 for this rose? Since I grow in zone 5 thank goodness that everyone else reports the hardiness of Old Moss as zone 4. Everyone except Mary's Plant Farm... who report zone 3!
Discussion id : 105-083
most recent 15 FEB 20 SHOW ALL
Initial post 26 AUG 17 by flodur
This is not a reference!

"Modern Roses 10
Book (Apr 1993) Page(s) 104.

Communis Moss, pale rose, ('Centifolia Muscosa'; 'Common Moss'; 'Mousseau Ancien'; 'Old Pink Moss'; 'Pink Moss'; R. centifolia muscosa); Appeared in southern France about 1696"

Who does say this? Where can I find this reference of 1696?
Reply #1 of 15 posted 26 AUG 17 by Patricia Routley
C. C. Hurst. See 1971 reference.
1596 is being quoted by the 1911 and 1914 references.
Reply #2 of 15 posted 26 AUG 17 by flodur
Thanks Patricia, I have seen these references, but none gives a reference for 1696 or about 1696, they just claim. (I don't have the Hurst & Dickson's).
Reply #3 of 15 posted 27 AUG 17 by Patricia Routley
You don't need to have them. HelpMeFind has them for all to see. I have all on my bookshelves and have double checked them.
The 1914 Dicksons cat has "Raiser and Date of Introduction 1596". The contributing administrator has modified this to [Introduced by 1596. ]

The 1911 reference is exact as we have it.

Hurst's work was reprinted by Graham Thomas. See The Graham Stuart Thomas Rose Book, page 328 for more.
Reply #4 of 15 posted 27 AUG 17 by flodur
Sorry Patricia, I have no problem to believe that you quoted correctly. I would like to know the reference of the year 1696 or 1596. Do these authors say where they found these years or just claim it? The oldest reference I found is from 1699 (Elias Peinen, Hortus Bosianus).
Reply #5 of 15 posted 27 AUG 17 by Patricia Routley
I understand that - but thank you.
The two authors just claim it, with no explanation.
One of these days you might share the 1699 reference with HelpMeFind.
Reply #7 of 15 posted 27 AUG 17 by flodur
Hi Patricia, I have the Hurst in my computer together with hundreds of rose books and articles, just forgot it....!
He refers to "Gerard, The Herball, or, Generall historie of plantes /gathered by John Gerarde of London, master in chirurgerie, 1597", page 1085. But as he says, the 'Velvet Rose' described in the book, has nothing to do with 'Muscosa'.
I think we have to refer to "Hortus Bosianus, 1699". That is what Hurst says:
"... a circumstantial account of the existence of the Moss Rose in the south of France, at Carcassonne, as far back as 1696, and this appears to be the earliest date mentioned for the existence of the Moss Rose."
Reply #11 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by CybeRose
The Velvet rose is also called Holosericea. This is the very dark Tuscan rose,
Reply #8 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by CybeRose
I can't get the title or author to "stick", so here is the reference.

Hortus Bosianus p. 81 (1699)
Elias Peinen
ROSA Centifolia fructu muscoso

Reply #9 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by jedmar
Hortus Bosianus is added. 1699 seems to be the second edition. First published 1690.
Reply #10 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by flodur
There is an earlier edition of 1686. The only rose mentioned is: p. 31 Rosa Sinensis - but that means an Althaea, not a rose!
Reply #12 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by CybeRose
The 1686 book was written by D. Paulo Ammanno. It may be proper to regard it as a work separate from Peinen's, even though both catalog the plants in the same garden. Similarly, the Hortus Kewensis (1768) of Dr. John Hill is generally neglected. The Hortus Kewensis of 1789, attributed to head gardner WIlliam Aiton, is considered to be the first edition.
Reply #13 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by CybeRose
I just found the following note that has saved me much further searching for Ducastel, 1746.

The Garden: an illustrated weekly journal of gardening in all its branches 86: 257 (May 27, 1922)
The first edition of "L'ecole du Jardinier Fleuriste" bears on its title page the date in Roman numerals thus: M.DCC.LXIV. I cannot make 1746 of that, but 1764. The book was published anonymously, Freard du Castel being only the reputed author. The writer nowhere mentions the Moss Rose in that book, nor does he mention any of the places referred to by Major Hurst, either in the North-West or in the South of France. The reference to the flower having been grown for half a century in or near Carcassonne is not contained in this work as quoted by Major Hurst.
C. Harman Payne

However, this book and this date (1746) and these places and this author were reported by Jamain & Forney in 1873, I have found them to be unreliable in other cases, so I'm not surprised that they got this wrong, as well.

Les Roses, histoire-culture-description p. 57 (1873)
Hippolyte Jamain, Eugène Forney
Nous citerons entre autres la Rose mousseuse, ou mieux moussue, la Cristata et le Centfeuilles, la Rose des peintres, obtenu par les Hollandais, qui se fait remarquer par ses dimensions plus fortes, l'Unique panachée, et enfin la Rose Pompon, charmante réduction du type, trouvé à l'état sauvage, en 1735, sur une montagne des environs de Dijon par un jardinier qui y coupait du buis. D'autres variétés présentent parfois des anomalies singulières de feuillage: la Cent-feuilles à feuilles de laitue, par exemple; mais c'est la Cent-feuilles moussue qui, par les franges vertes et soyeuses des divisions de son calice, offre le caractère le plus intéressant pour l'horticulteur. Il est certain que cette modification curieuse se présente très-rarement sur des rameaux du Cent-feuilles ordinaire. Nous avons vu une anomalie opposée chez notre collaborateur M. Jamain: un rosier moussu donner un rameau du Cent-feuilles ordinaire parfaitement revenu au type. C'est Mme de Genlis qui, dit-on, aurait vu pour la première fois la rose Cent-feuilles moussue en Angleterre, et l'aurait introduite en France; mais le Jardinier fleuriste de 1746 la cite comme étant cultivée à cette époque dans le Cotentin, le Messin et sur le littoral de la Manche. Elle fut apportée dans ce pays par Fréard Ducastel, qui l'avait trouvée à Carcassonne, où elle était connue depuis un demi-siècle.

The bit about Ducastel was taken from Forney's 'La taille du rosier: sa culture, ses belles variétés' p. 176 (1864).

And again, the bogus reference is repeated in the Journal des roses p. 93 (Juin 1893)
Reply #14 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by jedmar
"Le jardinier Fleuriste" was authored by Louis Liger in 1708, with later reprints, e.g. 1754. However, there is no mention of the Moss Rose in this book either.
Reply #15 of 15 posted 14 FEB 20 by jedmar
Jamain & Forney have apparently taken the passage on the Moss Rose directly from "Annales de la Société royale d'agriculture et botanique de Gand" of 1846, where the editor Charles Morren comments on the book by Victor Paquet "Centurie des plus belles roses" (1845). Reference added. Plate I of Paquet's book is apparently 'Perpétuelle Moussue' with 2 pages of history and description.
Reply #16 of 15 posted 15 FEB 20 by CybeRose
At least the 1846 comment does not claim that Ducastel wrote about it in 'L'Ecole du Jardinier Fleuriste'. That appears (so far) to have been Forney's invention.

However, considering that the Moss Rose was listed in the Hortus Bosianus (Leipzig) of 1699, it is clearly true that it was known a half-century before 1746, whoever was responsible.

The following is a detailed study of the old literature.

The Gardeners' Chronicle, July 22, 1922 — Sept 2, 1922
The History of the Moss Rose
C. Harman Payne
48, 69-70, 84, 93, 108, 124, 135

p. 135: "It is curious at this point to observe that Jules Gravereaux, the great French rosarian, in his Guide to his exhibits at the Retrospective Rose Show in Paris in 1910 repeats, without quoting an authority, that the Moss Rose was grown at Carcassonne towards the close of the 17th century, on the authority of Fréard du Castel, a gentleman of that city, who settled down in Normandy in 1746, and introduced it there. Where, we may well inquire, did Fréard du Castel make this statement, for it was unquestionably not in L'Ecole du Jardinier Fleuriste?"

I should add that it may have been someone else who first reported that Fréard du Castel was responsible for introducing the Moss Rose.

Despite Payne's published study, Forney's version of the story has been repeated by other writers who have not bothered to check their sources. This mindless quoting is all too common, and not only in Rose literature.

History of the rose - Page 112
Roy E. Shepherd - 1954

Roses - Page 183
Jack Leigh Harkness - 1978

Reading the Landscape of Europe - Page 54
May Theilgaard Watts - 2009
Discussion id : 103-828
most recent 1 AUG 17 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 1 AUG 17 by Sambolingo
Available from - Old Market Farm
Discussion id : 19-471
most recent 14 JUN 07 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 11 JUN 07 by Giuseppe's Rose Garden
The name 'Common Centifolia' for the Moss Rose is incorrrect. The 'Common Centifolia' is an unmossed variety, synonymous to 'Cabbage Rose'.

Reply #1 of 1 posted 14 JUN 07 by jedmar
Thank you for your comment. we made the corrections.
© 2021