The Transported Flowers of Botany Bay: Herbarium, Greenhouse or Botanical Ark?: Early Representations of the Australian Flora in the Work of British and French Naturalists, Botanical Artists and Gardeners

Abstract

The story of the transported flowers of Botany Bay cannot be told without referring to one important principle of Enlightenment which is the idea that scientists cooperated in their shared aim to learn and to earn. Science made travelling safer and enabled governments to make use of their new discoveries: unknown territories and exotic species also added empirical findings to the knowledge of that time period. It was easier than before to record and spread knowledge whether it was documented in encyclopaedias or exhibited in the public sphere. The fascination with botany was widespread at the end of the eighteenth century and it demonstrated the interest of enlightened circles in natural sciences in a very colourful way. In this essay, the author explores botanical representations, made by British and French naturalists, gardeners and painters who were pioneers in their field of research: They put Australia’s flora on the botanical map and introduced it to a wider public with astonishing results. These pioneers came together in one historic endeavour: to present and to preserve Australia’s exotic world of plants in herbaria, in paintings and in gardens. A discussion of the early perception, description and nursery of New Holland’s plants in Europe exemplifies important aspects of this particular chapter of Australian history. At the same time it reveals a successful collaboration between British and French botanists during times of war.1 “How vain are the hopes of man! Whilst the whole botanical world, like myself, has been looking for the most transcendent benefits to our science, from the unrivalled exertions of your countrymen, all their matchless and truly astonishing collection, such as has never been seen before, nor may ever be seen again, is to be put aside untouched, to be thrust into some corner, to become perhaps the prey of insects and of destruction”.2 When the Swedish botanist and rector of Uppsala University, Carl von Linné (1707–1778) heard that his former student, Daniel Solander (1733–1782), intended to participate in a new research expedition, only a few months after his return from the southern hemisphere, von Linné was not exactly delighted. Daniel Solander and Joseph Banks (1743–1820) had returned to England in July 1771. These two surviving naturalists had accompanied James Cook on his voyage around the world between 1768 and 1771. The famous Swede wrote his letter to the British naturalist John Ellis (d. 1776) in October 1771. At this point in time, he thought that the new discoveries, unknown species brought home to England by Banks and Solander from their voyage to the South Sea, would not receive any critical appraisal in the foreseeable future. In his letter, von Linné voiced his concern by telling John Ellis that Solander’s intention to leave Europe once more “has affected me so much, as almost entirely to deprive me of sleep”, and he urged Ellis “to do all that in you lies 1 In memoriam of Professor Jan Bender († Portland, Oregon 2018). The author gratefully acknowledges Bender’s advice who commented upon an earlier version of this article. 2 Carl Linnaeus to John Ellis, October 22, 1771, in: James Edward Smith, ed., 1821. A Selection of the Correspondence of Linnaeus and Other Naturalists from the Original Manuscripts, Vol. 1, 267. https://doi.org/10.35515/zfa/asj.32/2018.06 46 Henriette von Holleuffer – The Transported Flowers of Botany Bay for the publication of these new acquisitions, that the learned world may not be deprived of them”.3 A Theoretical Approach: The Virtual Greenhouse The correspondence between Carl von Linné and John Ellis identifies two key questions: How was it possible to learn something about New Holland’s exotic flowers, unfamiliar trees and wild shrubs without visiting the unknown continent? And: Who made use of any such botanical knowledge and in which way? These were relevant questions in 1771 as the participation in a scientific expedition was a privilege of only very few people. It must not be forgotten that the expedition of HMS Endeavour was the first known voyage to the southern hemisphere devoted exclusively to scientific discovery.4 It was a high-profile project marking the age of Enlightenment in Europe. Botany was an important field of scientific research, and natural resources were respected for their economic potential by statesmen in many countries. The greenhouse of Botany Bay was never built. It is a hypothetical concept, rendered by the author who is a historian, and serves as a useful approach to the following analysis which deals with a successful collaboration between British and French botanists in the age of discovery for the benefit of Australian natural sciences. The historian’s question behind its hypothetical construction is whether or not any new – botanical or horticultural – knowledge gained at the time could be useful or at least self-serving. The (re)construction of a virtual greenhouse and the display of a selection of Australian plants at the time of their first description at the end of the eighteenth century reflect the way of dealing with the exotic, in general, and with New Holland’s flora in particular. Important sources can be found in the first books on Australian flora and in the literature about the earliest experiments of Australian plant breeding in England and France.5 For this purpose, I explain the hypothetical design of a virtual greenhouse as follows:6 Its four sides exhibit the lines of botanical 3 Linnaeus to Ellis, October 22, 1771, in: Smith, Correspondence, Vol.1, 268. 4 It must be noted that William Dampier’s landfall at Shark Bay (Western Australia) in 1699 resulted in the first known description of Australian flora: William Dampier, 1729. A Voyage to New Holland in the Year 1699. 5 As this essay focuses on the early representation of the Australian flora in Europe and the transfer of plants to Europe, readers are advised to consult different types of primary sources: (a) the records of the first British and French scientific expeditions to New Holland, (b) catalogues of botanical gardens in England and France, (c) the first known botanical works on the so-called ‘general Australian flora’. For a first orientation see: the journals written or/and edited by Arthur Phillip (1789), John White (1790), or Jacques-Julien Houtou de Labillardière (1800). Another important group of primary sources are the catalogues of cultivated plants, compiled by: Charles Louis L′Héritier de Brutelle (1788), William Aiton (1811) and Aimé Bonpland (1813). The third group refers to the category of ‘general Australian flora’, i.e. works of botanical art and scientific description: James Edward Smith (1793f.), Étienne Pierre Ventenat (1803f.) and de Labillardière (1804–1806) exemplify the group of enlightened scientists and gardeners who compiled the first books on the Australian flora. The author of this essay emphasizes that these works only describe a small selection of relevant research material. Several important collections of Australian flora are held in herbaria in London, Paris, Geneva and Florence. However, research for this essay focussed on a case study: it deals with knowledge transfer and knowledge transformation, i.e. the establishment of the Australian flora in Europe’s cultural and horticultural contexts – a project which was achieved (not merely) by British-French collaboration. Therefore, research was limited to the Australian flora as subject of British and French botanical art and gardening (horticulture). Botanical exploration of New Holland during the age of discovery describes an important subject for research which has created a wide range of published works. In this particular context readers should refer to two carefully selected studies: Roger L. Williams, 2001. Botanophilia in Eighteenth-Century France: The Spirit of the Enlightenment, International Archives of the History of Ideas, Vol. 179; Williams, 2003. French Botany in the Enlightenment: The Ill-fated Voyages of La Pérouse and his Rescuers, International Archives of the History of Ideas, Vol. 182. For a general orientation: Wilfrid Blunt, 1994. The Art of Botanical Illustration: An Illustrated History; Helen Hewson, 1999. Australia: 300 Years of Botanical Illustration. 6 An interdisciplinary approach can be found in the following Project Paper: Susan Turner and others, n.d. “Re-creating the Botanics: Towards a Sense of Place in Virtual Environments”. The authors of this paper 47 ZfA | ASJ 32/2018 thinking in the age of Enlightenment and the findings of recent academic research about this important issue.7 The historical concept of botanical thinking was built on three pillars: (a) the aim to name and describe a new species, (b) the evaluation of its economical value and its possible cultivation, (c) the aesthetic perception of the plant as a living organism or as a painted image. New research has be done on this subject: Therefore, it is necessary to design a hypothetical roof construction – the fourth structure and top – which shelters the case study from the dust of outdated interpretations: (d) its flexible architecture, designed by contemporary academic discourse on the history of scientific illustration (or flower painting) and environmental concern, sheds light on the evolution of Australian botany as a self-serving field of interest.8 One of these architects who appreciate to work with transparent structures is Judy Dyson (Monash University). In her profound analysis, “Botanical Illustration or Flower Painting: Sexuality, Violence and Social Discourse”, Dyson argues: Botanical illustration and flower painting are regularly designated as separate genres, one scientific, the other art historical, distinctions that are challenged [here] as problematic given that the art forms share and interrelate in ways that have not been sufficiently considered. [...] However, botanical illustration has a long genealogy that participated in developin