Johnson's History of the Dahlia (1847)

This article is adapted from the series The Gardener’s Monthly Volume of September, 1847. It was published under the title "The Dahlia; Its Culture, Uses and History."

This book—at 111 pages, it is indeed such—was written by George William Johnson (1802-1886) and J. Turner. It was published in London by Simpkin, Marshall, & Company.

Although the original work is in the public domain, this article has been edited for the modern reader and contains new material. This version is Copyright © 2024 by Steve K. Lloyd and may not be reproduced without permission.

by G. W. Johnson and J. Turner (1847)

Edited with revisions by Steve K. Lloyd © 2024

This most beautiful of our autumn border flowers being a native of the New World was totally unknown to the ancients; indeed it was not recognized by botanists before the close of the last century, nor was it introduced to our gardeners until about forty years ago.

The first discovered species of the genus is that known now to botanists as Dahlia superflua, or D. variabilis. It was found in 1789, and named by Cavanilles, a Spanish botanist, in honour of Dahl, a Swedish pupil of Linnzeus, and a cultivator of the same sciences. Some objections have been raised to the name of Dahlia on the ground that it too nearly resembles that before given to a very different genus, Dalea; but this objection is not sufficient to counterpoise the greater inconveniences attendant upon a change of names. Willdenow, in 1803, gave it the names of Georgina pinnata, but though these were adopted also by M. De Candolle and a few other distinguished botanists, the prior applied names have prevailed, and, according to established custom, have been generally retained.

The plants from which three supposed species of this genus were described, were sent from the Botanic Garden at Mexico to the Royal Garden at Madrid, in which the one, called by Professor Cavanille, Dahlia Pinnata, flowered in October, 1789; his D. Rosea and D. Coccinea produced flowers a few years afterwards, and all were successfully figured and described by him in his “Icones;’’—the first in 1791, the two last in 1794; they do not seem, however, to have been successfully treated, for with him they attained the height of three or four feet only, and did not flower till October. In 1802, plants of each were transferred from Madrid to the Jardin des Plantes at Paris, where they grew so well as to enable Mons. Thouin, in 1804, not only to describe and figure them, but also to treat on their cultivation. In May, 1804, seeds of the three kinds were sent from Madrid, by Lady Holland, to Mr. Buonainti, Lord Holland’s librarian in England; from these good plants were produced, one of which, the D. Pinnata, flowered in September following, and was figured by Andrews, in the ‘‘Botanist’s Repository.” In the succeeding year, plants of the D. Rosea and the D. Coccinea also flowered in the gardens of Holland House.

Though this importation of the seeds was the most successful as to its produce (for from it nearly all the plants then in our gardens were obtained,) yet the original introduction of the first species was (on the authority of the Hortus Kewensis) from Spain, in 1789, by the Marchioness of Bute ; but it is probable that the plant so introduced was soon after lost, as we do not find any further notice taken of it. The other species, then called Coccinea, was actually flowered by Mr. John Frazer, who is said to have obtained it from France in 1802, the same year in which it was produced in the French gardens from seed procured from Madrid. It also appears, that in the autumn of 1803, Mr. Woodford flowered, at Vauxhall, a plant of Cavanille’s D. Rosea, which he had obtained from Paris; so that, independently of one introduced by the Marchioness of Bute, in 178Y, it seems that both species had flowered in this country before the seeds were transmitted by Lady Holland.

At Madrid they were a long time in the Royal Garden without any indications of change; and it will be seen that after they were spread through Europe, some years elapsed before any extensive increase of variation took place.

Mons. De Candolle, it is said, obtained from Madrid the plants which he cultivated at Montpelier, about the same time they were sent to Paris. His Memoir was printed in 1810, and he therein describes only five varieties of D. superflua, viz., Rubra, Purpurea, Lilacina, Pallida, and Flavescens, besides three varieties of D. Frustranea ; viz., Coccinea, Crocea, and Flava. Probably, when he wrote, he had not obtained any double flowers, though he evidently expected such would soon be produced.

Mons. Otto, as early as 1800, obtained from Dresden, for the Royal Garden at Berlin, a plant of the D. Pallida of the ‘‘Hortus Berolinensis;” and in 1802, a plant of the D. purpurea, of the same work, was sent to him from Madrid; but he had no new varieties from his own seed till 1806.

The first introduction of the dahlia into the Royal Gardens at Berlin has been already noticed, as having occurred between 1800 and 1805. Mons. Otto informed Mr. Sabine that the chief varieties were raised between 1809 and 1817, but that the first which shewed themselves were produced in 1806 and 1807. About 1813 he began to pay more particular attention to their cultivation, and improved their kinds by cross impregnations of the stigmata of the florets. The first double flower he possessed came from Stutgard; but a complete double one of his own flowered in 1809; it was dark red, exactly similar to that from Stutgard, but had, at first, blown only semi-double. Three more double ones were raised in 1815 and 1816, and he had in 1820 no more than six with double flowers. A pure white single one was given to him in 1809, and in 1810 he raised another white one himself. He mentions that in the Catalogues of the Nurseries at Berlin, from 80 to 100 sorts are enumerated for sale, but he considers the really good ones to be about thirty.

In our own country we had an early promise of great success, and had we hit upon the right plan of management, in keeping the plants when produced, there is no doubt but we should have been as equally successful as the continental gardeners in obtaining varieties. Mr. Buonainti saved seeds from the plants raised at Holland House, in 1804, the produce of which seeds he states to have given him, in the succeeding year, nine varieties of that which was called D. Pinnata, two of which were double, one with lilac and the other with dark purple flowers; of the single flowered plants, some were certainly dark coloured, four figures were published from them at the time; the paler coloured varieties were chiefly considered as belonging to what was then called D. Rosea; he had also two varieties of D. Coccinea, the original deep coloured one and a paler one, which, though called by him Crocata, was the pale yellow variety, as is apparent from the figure of it, published in the “Paradisus Londinensis.”

Mr. Salisbury also obtained several varieties from the seeds which he received from Holland House in 1806; these he had particularly noticed in his paper printed in the first volume of the Transactions of the Horticultural Society. In the fifth volume of the second edition of the Hortus Kewensis, which was published in 1813, the varieties of D. superflua, there named, are Purpurea, Lilacina, and Nana; the latter being taken from a double variety, figured in Andrews’ “Botanical Repository,’’ but which is certainly not particularly entitled to be considered as a dwarf plant. No varieties of D. frustranea are given in the Hortus Kewensis.

Mons. de Candolle, in his essay on the genus, has observed, that it is not probable we shall ever see a blue one, since the variation is from purple to yellow. He considers blue and yellow to be the fundamental types of the colours of flowers, and that they mutually exclude each other: yellows pass readily into red or white, but never into blue: and in like manner, blue flowers are changed by cultivation into red and white, but never into yellow. (Hort. Trans. 1. & ii., Gard. and Flor. ii. 66.) |

Until about forty years ago, no variety was known that did not possess a tinge of purple in its blossoms, and it was even doubted whether a blossom entirely untinged with purple could be produced. (Mort. Soc. Trans. vii.)

When Mr. Sabine wrote on the dahlia in 1818, the single varieties only were abundant; the number of double ones was very limited, but they rapidly increased, and have now nearly expelled the single ones from gardens of repute. The extension of sorts has, however, been limited to the Dahlia superflua; the varieties of D. frustranea have but little multiplied, and no double flowers of that species have yet been produced. The brilliancy of the colours of the blossoms of the D. frustranea, however, is such, that it might have been expected it would have induced some practical horticulturist to apply his skill to their improvement.

A few of the double dahlias which were raised at an early period still hold a place in the estimation of gardeners, but in general those of a few years’ standing have yielded their places to a younger progeny, which in their turn may be deprived of their station by fresh productions. (Hort. Soc. Trans. vii. 141.)

After 1814, the dahlia was introduced to more general notice, and cultivated in most collections; but it was reserved for the intelligent cultivators of the last few years to circulate it more extensively, and make the most rapid advances towards a state of perfection. Indeed, so lately as less than twenty years since it was considered a perfectly novel sight to witness dahlias with double flowers in the garden of a tradesman or cottager; but, owing to the astonishing rapidity with which new and good sorts have since been obtained and circulated, it is now quite as rarely that we see or meet with a cottager’s garden which does not contain at least a few good dahlias, and many possess plants of first-rate sorts. (Pawton on the Dahlia, 9.)

In taking a retrospective view of the dahlia fancy, it is pleasing to remark the gradual improvement of this autumnal favourite up to the present time. This improvement is annually progressing towards greater perfection; for, of late years, many of the finest varieties have been introduced; and it is notorious that an established fine seedling, at the present time, will command a higher price than at any previous period. To mark the progress of the dahlia, the stand that obtained the £20 prize for the best twenty-four blooms at the Cambridge Dahlia Show in 1840, contained only one variety that was shown in the first stand of the same number of blooms at the Metropolitan Exhibition of 1846, a brief period of six years. That variety was Springfield Rival, a flower of 13 or 14 years’ standing. Both stands were grown by Mr. Turner. The former was considered to be the best that has been produced up to that time, and the latter was certainly the best twenty-four he had shown during 1846. At Cambridge, Unique was what is termed the “bloom of the exhibition;” Penelope, Amato, Hope, Conservative, Maid of Bath, and many other flowers now out of date, were stars in that superior stand.

The publications which have hitherto appeared on the dahlia are the following: 

Cavanille’s “Icones Plantarum qua &c., in Hortis (Hispania) hospitantur,” printed at Madrid in 1791, and subsequent years. 

“Memoire sut la cellure des Dahlias, &c. par Mons. Thouin,” in the third volume of the Annales da Museum, published at Paris in 1804. 

A communication from Mr. Buonainti, librarian to Lord Holland, on the dahlia, printed at the end of Macdonald’s ‘‘Gardener’s Dictionary;’’ this appears to have been written about July 1806.

‘‘Observations on the different species of Dahlia, &c.,” by Mr. Salisbury, read April, 1808, before the Horticultural Society. 

“Observations on the Culture of the Dahlia in the northern parts of Great Britain,” by Mr. Wedgewood, read before the Horticultural Society in November, 1808, and published, together with the preceding, in the first volume of the Society’s Transactions.

The dahlias are described and noticed by Professor Willdenow, of Berlin, in his “Enumeratio Plantarum Horti Regis Botanici Berolinensis,” printed at Berlin, in 1809, and in this he refers to the plates and descriptions of the Hortis Berolinensis, in which they had been figured a short time before; and to his edition of the Species Plantarum of Linneus. 

“Note sur la Georgina (dahlia),’’ by Mons. De Candolle, in the 15th volume of the Annales de la Museum, printed in 1810. Instructions for the cultivation of the dahlias in France, are given by Mons. Dumont de Courset, in Le Botaniste Cultivateur.

In 1812, at Paris, M.A. Thiebant de Berneaud, published ‘‘Memoire sur la culture des dahlies, &c;” and in similar floricultural works, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Maddock, and others have written, in this country, upon dahlia culture.

Figures of different varieties of the dahlia, with some observations on each, have, at various times, been published it the Paradisus Londinensis, the Botanist’s Repository, the Botanical Magazine, the Botanical Register, and other periodicals devoted to flowers.

An expensive work, entitled “The Dahlia Register,’’ intended to have been continued annually, was published in 1836. It contained 53 coloured plates of the best varieties then known. No other volume was published. In 1840, Mr. Paxton published “A Practical Treatise on the Cultivation of the Dahlia;” and Mr. Turner, in 1846, gave to the public his“Practical Observations on the Culture of the Dahlia.”

From all of the foregoing, we have culled the most useful information; and this amalgamated with, and corrected by, our own later experience, will render, we believe, this volume, the most useful and comprehensive authority on the culture of the dahlia that has hitherto appeared.