Why, for instance, are so many roses named after abominable
horticulturists or their wearisome female relatives? How can you call a
rose Frau Karl Druschki? I always call that great white rose Mabel,
because it reminds me of a large, lymphatic, handsome girl, who was
entirely without charm. Scent in a flower is charm in a woman. Frau Karl
Druschki has no scent. Hugh Dickson has nothing wrong with it but its
name. Fancy calling a beautiful apricot-tinted rose William Allen
Richardson! Its godfathers and godmothers in its baptism showed a small
sense of humour. Besides, its name is quite obviously Doris. It is
permissible to call a pink rambler Dorothy, but why add the unspeakable
surname Perkins? Why should a red rose be named after a duke? It is
insufferable, snobbish, and inept. No rose should be named after any
man, and should never bear more than the first name of a woman. Niphetos
is a possible name; it is the most sentimental of the white roses. But
almost all roses have their counterparts in women. There is, for
instance, in my garden a pink, useful, knobbly dumpling of a rose. I
have not the faintest idea what the horticulturist would call it, but no
one can see it without knowing that its real name is Kate.
I think the roses that I love best are those of the deepest and darkest
crimson. They have velvety skins and the most perfect fragrance. It is
part of the perversity of the thing that they should be so difficult to
manage. You feed them and tend them, and they give you scanty and
imperfect bloom, or they die, and the intelligent inquest results in an
open verdict. When that happens, the only consolation is to find
somebody else who has had the same trouble with the same rose. I have
not ventured to ask one of them to put up with a London garden as yet,
but I fancy one is coming to stay with me next year. Perversity haunts
the garden, and the dock always grows as near as possible to some plant
that you value. "Now then," says the dock, "if you dig me up, you'll
have to pay for it." But especially does perversity attach itself to
roses. What have I done for the perennial lupins? Nothing. And they have
given me numberless spikes of incomparable loveliness. What have I done
for the Canterbury bells? Nothing. And they also seem to like it. But I
did a good deal for that particular rose which I call Mabel, and then
there was a late spring frost. It was no fault of mine. I was not even
there when it was done. I was in bed at the time. But it annoyed Mabel.
She seemed unable to forget it. Why must those loathsome and
parthenogenetic green flies devour the tender roses? There is still a
certain amount of rhubarb in the garden, and they are welcome to it. I
would very much rather they ate it than that I should eat it myself. But
the green flies will not look at it. They cling to the rose and suck its
life out. Then, out of sheer devilry, they grow wings and migrate to
some other rose tree.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account