The Nerine and Amaryllid Society is the fortunate recipient of a copy of a recently published work on the historical background to the introduction of Nerines. Our member, Dr. John David, wrote a review of this publication for the NAAS Journal and, with his permission, the article is reproduced here (with additional photographs).
James Douglas’s A Description of the GuernseyLilly with a modern Commentary and bibliography by Dr Helen Brock.
The arrival ofNerine sarniensis in Europe is shroudedin mystery, illuminated by a few facts, but mired in a welter of myth andspeculation. We are fortunate that at an early stage the distinguished doctorand Fellow of the Royal Society, James Douglas, published a monograph on theGuernsey Lily (as ‘Guernsay Lilly’ in the 1725 edition) that not only includeda botanical description of the plant but also the results of his enquiries inGuernsey as to its occurrence there. This work was first published in 1725,with a second edition in 1729, the latter being reprinted in 1737. The firstedition appeared some 90 years after the first definite report ofN.sarniensisin Europe, and therefore is important as a record of what was known at a timemuch closer to when the plant was introduced than our own.The present publication comprises two volumes:one being a facsimile reproduction of the 1737 reprint of the second edition,the other being a recent memoir written by Dr Helen Brock in the early 1990s. Iwill not discuss the facsimile of the Douglas monograph in this review, as itdoes not require further comment. While 185 copies of the facsimile andcommentary were printed at the time, the work was never published, and wasrescued by the present publisher some 20 years later. Those who attended thisyear’s NAAS AGM will have been able to admire the beautiful presentation of thevolumes. The facsimile is half bound in dark (described by the publisher as‘chocolate’) leather, with leather corners front and back and subtle blindtooling on the leather, and bands on the spine to give an eighteenth centuryfeel. The binding is completed by marbled paper in pink and cream with specklesof gold. The quality of the binding is evident from the way the book remainsopen at each page. The Commentary is a modern binding covered in a vibrant pinkcloth reminiscent of the flowers ofNerine, with aNerine embossed in white onthe front. Printed on almost foolscap sized paper, both volumes are ratherslim, the first being 80 pages with three fold-out illustrations as in theoriginal, the second is 88 pages, with 18 pages of introduction to thefacsimile. The volumes are contained in a cloth-covered slipcase also,according to the publisher in chocolate.
As noted above, the principal interest ofDouglas’s monograph is his investigations into the original introduction ofN.sarniensisinto Europe. This account is given in pages 10 – 19 of the facsimile. It wasRobert Morison, Professor of Botany at Oxford who, in 1680, recorded the storyof theNerine“roots” being cast ashore following the stranding (or shipwreck) of a boatcarrying the plant from Japan. In Morison’s and Douglas’s time, both of whichpre-date Linnaeus’s ordering of plant nomenclature in 1753, the Guernsey lilywas generally known as Lilio-Narcissus or Narcissus. Indeed when Jacob Cornutfirst described the plant in 1735 he named it Narcissus japonicus. Linnaeus,however, named itAmaryllis sarniensis, taking the species name from Douglas’searlier name of Lilio-Narcissus Sarniensis Autumno florens[1].It was not until Herbert in 1820 that the generic nameNerine was introduced for it.Herbert, drawing on the poetry of the renaissance, and being aware of the mythfirst reported by Morison, chose the name to allude to the sea nymph thatrescued Vasco da Gama’s ship in Camoens’s epic poem, Os Lusiades. Dr Brock wasunaware of this and chose in her introduction to reiterate the widely held viewthat the name is derived from Greek mythology, but compounds the error bysuggesting the word nerine is Greek, when no such word is to be found in anyGreek dictionary.Brock’s Commentary echoes Douglas’s monographin taking the five chapter headings from it. Each chapter provides additionalinformation and context for understanding Douglas’s account. Some of this issupported from Brock’s study of Douglas’s papers which are held in theHunterian Museum in Glasgow. However, while she was obviously a diligentresearcher and has brought together much useful information there are a numberof errors, mainly taxonomic, that the reader should be aware of[2].This is particularly evident in Appendix 6, where the author has updatedDouglas’s original list of synonyms and added further names from the account byTraub (1967). Notwithstanding this, the author does uncover some usefuladditional information about the early cultivation ofN. sarniensis from contemporaneous literature. The Commentaryincludes, in addition, James Knowlton’s account of his visit to Guernsey onDouglas’s behalf to enquire into the origin of the Guernsey lily. This is followedby seven Appendixes, four of which are poems relating to the lily and the finalAppendix is a facsimile of the first few pages of the 1729 edition where theyvary from the 1737 reprint. There are notes and references at the end, but noindex.
[1]In the 1725 Edition Douglas gives it the nameNarcisso-Lirion Sarniense but in the second edition fell into line with thenomenclature then current on the continent for this group of plants. In botheditions he also cites the name ‘Lilium Sarniense’ to which he adds “vulgo”,meaning that this is its common name, i.e. the Guernsey lily. This should notbe taken to be a botanical name.
[2]These are given in an erratum list supplied with theCommentary. The list does not cover the errors in Appendix 6, which are tootechnical to be of use to the general reader.
One of the original fold-out illustrations reproduced in the Facsimile.
Perhaps the most important element of Dr Brock’sCommentary is her analysis of the conflicting accounts of how the Guernsey lilycame to Guernsey. The shipwreck story, published by Morison was apparentlyderived from one of his students who was the second son of Lord Hatton,Governor of the Channel Islands after the Restoration in 1660. While it wasalso said that the first roots had been presented to an inhabitant of Guernseyby a grateful stranded sailor, this version of events rarely seems to havereceived much exposure in later accounts – perhaps lacking the romance of theshipwreck version. Douglas opted for a combination of the two stories. Brockbrings into this the complicating factor of the Commonwealth soldier, GeneralLambert, who was imprisoned on the island during Lord Hatton’s governorship,and whose daughter married Morison’s student, Charles Hatton. We know thatLambert had at least one plant ofNerine sarniensis while he was living atWimbledon during the Commonwealth, since there is a painting of it inMarshall’s Florilegium, now held in the Library at Windsor Castle. Thepainting, reproduced as the frontispiece to Brock’s Commentary, dates from 1659,just 25 years after it was first described from a plant grown by the Parisnurseryman Jean Morin. This then leads to two further explanations: first, thatLambert received the nerine from the loyal parliamentarians of Guernsey andsecond, that Lambert brought the bulbs to the island and is the source of theirintroduction. Such evidence as is available rules the second explanationalthough the first remains possible, in that Lambert could have obtained hisplants either from Guernsey or from Paris.
To lay to rest the shipwreck story Brock hasexamined the shipping records held by both the Dutch and English at the timeand established that no ship was lost on the Guernsey coastline. This seemsfinally to nail what was always an inherently improbable tale, but one whichclearly captures the popular imagination as she points out in relation to theScarborough lily (Cyrtanthus elatus) which has a definite date and route ofintroduction, but is said likewise to have arrived as the result of ashipwreck. Not content with disproving the story, Brock goes on to explore howthe story came about. Her hypothesis is that the dangerous post-Restorationpolitics and the Catholic conspiracies with which both Charles Hatton andGeneral Lambert were innocently involved, led to Hatton asking his mentor,Morison, to cover up the true explanation for the source of the bulbs by givingthe shipwreck story in his book. Although not impossible, since it is not knownfor definite how the bulbs reached Guernsey (or even how they reached Paris),this elaborate saga seems rather unnecessary.
It is intriguing, though, that by Douglas’stime, if not before, Guernsey was exporting the bulbs to England in significantnumbers. This would suggest that someone had quickly spotted the potential ofNerine and had managed to bulkthem up in sufficient numbers to support the trade. This, at a time whencultivation under glass would have been rare or nonexistent: the earliestgreenhouse on Guernsey still in existence dates back to 1792. It is also widelyheld on Guernsey that the original nerines continue to be grown and floweroutside at the foot of a sheltered house wall. This too is referred to byBrock, but since then it has been found that these nerines closely resemblethose growing on Table Mountain. Thus it should not be doubted that the plantarrived on Guernsey sometime in the first half of the seventeenth century:whether it was then transmitted to Paris, or arrived at Paris independently itdoes not now seem possible to determine. While the earliest explorations datefrom the early 1500s and by 1600 a number of South African plants had beenbrought back to Europe, it was not until 1652 that the Dutch established an outpostat the Cape of Good Hope. It is curious that, given their horticulturaltradition they did not bring back the bulb themselves. Indeed in Douglas’smonograph he states that the Dutch received it through a student from Guernseystudying at Leiden during the time when Dr Hotton (Petrus Houttuyn, 1648-1709)was Professor of Botany there.
The mystery of theintroduction ofN. sarniensis to Europe has baffled all those that have studied the evidenceavailable at the time. In her Commentary Brock has brought to light furtherinformation, mainly from unpublished sources, which does make a further step inour understanding of the problem. She add some fascinating information from herresearch, and provides a useful survey of the literature, as well asillustrations of the time, including some hitherto unseen paintings such as theone acquired by William Sherard, now held the Botany School at Oxford,thankfully reproduced in colour.
Illustrations in the Commentary.
Without doubt we should be grateful to thepublishers for being willing to give this work a wider circulation and admiretheir courage in producing such a fine edition. At £375, given the quality ofthe binding and presentation and the limited number of copies, the book isrealistically priced. This is no consolation to many Nerine enthusiasts forwhom the price puts the book well beyond their means, while undoubtedly it willappeal to the deeper-pocketed denizens of the Channel Islands. However, I understandthe publishers are generously donating a copy to the Nerine & AmaryllidSociety and I encourage those unable to afford this work, to consult theSociety’s copy.
