botanical art

The Reeves Collection

of Chinese botanical drawings

Having recently completed a three-year conservation research

project on the collection, Kate Bailey describes an outstanding
collection of early 19th-century art held at the RHS Lindley Library
218 December 2010

W
hen Robert Fortune
embarked on his first
trip to China in 1843,
he had been well briefed by an
active member of the Horticultural
Society’s Chinese Committee, John
Reeves. Reeves referred him to a set
of coloured drawings which he had
sent back from Canton to the
Society some years earlier. These
watercolours, now known as the
Reeves Collection, are bound into
eight albums and are held at the RHS
Lindley Library where they have been
the subject of a conservation research
project over the last three years.
John Reeves and the East
India Company
John Reeves (1774–1856) was born in
West Ham, London, the youngest
son of a clergyman. Leaving Christ’s
Hospital school at the age of 15,
Reeves took up an apprenticeship
with a London tea broker, Richard
Pinchback. He then joined the East
India Company as a tea inspector in
London. In 1803 he married Sarah
Russell with whom he had four
children, but in 1810 Sarah died.
Whether her death prompted
Reeves to consider a career move is
not known, but in 1811 he was
appointed assistant tea inspector for
Canton and started to learn Chinese.
Prior to sailing in 1812, Reeves was
introduced to Sir Joseph Banks by
his first cousin, a prominent barrister,
confusingly also named John Reeves.
Although the details of that meeting
were not recorded, it is obvious from
the ensuing correspondence that
Banks appointed Reeves to be one
of his many collectors. From letters I
have traced in several institutions, it
is clear that although Reeves was
somewhat daunted at the prospect
A painting of a double-flowered cultivar
of Hemerocallis fulva demonstrates the
realism of some of the Reeves paintings
December 2010
of sending information to the great
man, Banks himself held Reeves in
high regard. To Banks he sent
samples of teas, bird’s nests and
information about horn lantern-
making, Chinese deities, plants, oils
and much else.
The East India Company’s tea
trade with China was based at
Canton, on the north bank of the
Pearl River. Other commodities
were also traded, either by the
Company itself, or by its senior
officers who were permitted to carry
on ‘private trade’. Westerners were
unwelcome, being disparagingly
referred to as fan qui (foreign devils)
by the Chinese, and the government
restricted their movement. During
the winter months, ‘the tea season’,
employees stayed at the Company’s
factory, a series of connected
buildings comprising warehouses,
offices, bedrooms, dining room
and library. The only permitted
excursions were to Honam Island
and the Fa-Tee (flowery land)
nurseries on the opposite bank.
The summer months, from about
March to October, depending on
sailing conditions, were spent
100km down river at Macao where
European and American traders
were allowed rather more freedom.
Making the Collection
In 1816–17, Reeves returned home
to work in London temporarily.
The Horticultural Society’s minutes
of Council (Anon. 1817-31) record:
‘That the proposal of John Reeves
Esq. to send plants and drawings
from China, for the use of the
Society, be accepted with thanks –
and that the Secretary do offer to
Mr. Reeves the advance of such
sums as he may require towards the
cost of the same.’
Reeves became a corresponding
member and the Society arranged
for the payment of his expenses. He
Plantsman
The
undertook some preparatory work:
the East India Company’s records
show that he had copies made of the
Chinese flower paintings held at East
India House in Leadenhall Street,
London, and it would seem that he
also procured collectors’ seals for
the Society and for himself. The
Society’s seal comprised the letters
‘HS’ and a cartouche within which
Reeves could ink in the number of
the drawing.
Reeves must have been prompt in
appointing his first painter, whom
Joseph Sabine described as ‘one of
the best native artists’. The Society’s
minutes (Anon. 1817–31, 1815–24)
can be read together to build up
an early record of the making of
the Collection. Twenty-nine
commissioned pictures had been
received by 7 July 1818, and by April
1820 this number had increased to
81. A further report to the Drawings
Committee for 25 April 1822 shows
that the figure had risen to 138, with
52 separate Chinese drawings.
Two types of picture
These minutes indicate that two
types of picture were being sent back.
The commissioned paintings were
executed on thick, cream English
watercolour paper, predominantly
produced by Whatman and made
from cotton rag, measuring at least
48 x 36cm. These bear the Society’s
seal, and most also show the Chinese
plant name, written in Chinese
characters in Chinese ink. The
painting of Paris polyphylla (p220)
shows a typical layout of these
sheets; in this instance the Chinese
characters for the plant name are
accompanied by a transliteration
which gives their sounds in Canton­
ese. Although many of Reeves’s
numbers were trimmed away during
binding it has been possible to
partially re-create his original
painting order. However, a few of ➤
219
botanical art
This painting of Paris polyphylla shows damaged foliage and paler undersides to the leaves, techniques
derived from adherence to painting the true nature of the subject
these paintings formed separate sub-
sets. The series of Camellia pictures,
for example, were given their own
discrete numbering system, possibly
because there was a great deal of
interest in the introduct­ion of these
and many were similar in appearance.
It is likely that these pictures were
sent back early on because John
Potts, the Society’s gardener sent out
to China to collect in 1821, made
reference to camellias in his diaries
(Potts 1821, rough journal):
‘Dec.11. Packing some boxes of
plants, received some Camellias
from Macao…’
220
and the Society’s second gardener,
John Damper Parks, who joined
Reeves in 1823, noted:
‘Nov. 20 1823. A Camellia which
is scarce at Canton…It has flowered.
I have seen a drawing of [it] with
Mr. Reeves.’
The second type of picture was
small, purchased works painted on
fine, almost transparent, white
Chinese papers made from mixed
fibres, including rice straw. These
pictures, such as of Callicarpa
bodinieri (p221), which were not
inscribed in Chinese, were sent to
the Society on approval.
Features of the Collection
The Reeves Collection is perhaps
unique in a number of respects.
Although other collections of
Chinese botanical work are held
privately, and in public institutions
such as Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,
their provenance is not recorded in
the same detail as it is with the
Reeves pictures. The numbers on
the paintings, where they exist, can
be compared with the Society
minutes and, by a process of simple
deduction, it is possible to determine
which paintings were sent back in
the early or later batches. This
information can be corroborated
by dated watermarks in the papers.
Furthermore, almost all the
pictures, fans and wallpapers which
formed part of the export art trade
in the 19th century were produced
by men who remained anonymous.
The Chinese regarded these items as
commercial products rather than art,
and their creators as tradesmen rather
than artists. It is therefore very
unusual to be able to match named
painters to a collection. The Reeves
Collection is a notable exception.
Two of Reeves’s 1829 notebooks
survive at the Natural History
Museum, London. These principally
record the making of a collection of
fish paintings for Major-General
Thomas Hardwicke, but also a few
plant paintings. Four artists’ names
are given – Akew, Akam, Akut and
Asung, with records of payments
made to each. The prefix ‘A’ or ‘Ah’
in Cantonese denoted a person of
low social status, such as a servant.
From the notebooks it has been
estimated that each man produced
about one picture per day and was
paid one dollar, in the contemporary
currency, for three paintings.
From close scrutiny of the 900 or
so pictures at the Lindley Library I
have been able to discern Reeves’s
notes of the names of three of these
December 2010
 About 35 paintings of Camellia were sent back;
these were particularly valued because of the
potential for introduction of new cultivars.
The painting of Callicarpa bodinieri is typical of the
purchased works done on Chinese paper
painters, with dates. This confirms
that he was using the same artists for
fish and flower painting, and that he
employed them over a period of 12
years. From the dates given, and
known flowering times, it is almost
certain that much of the painting
was carried out during the summer
months in Macao.
The notebooks also serve to
confirm that Reeves was keeping a
watchful eye over the painting
process. He may have needed to do
so. In his obituary in the Gardeners’
Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (29
March 1856) it was stated that the
drawings were ‘executed in his own
house, under his own superint­
endence, in order to secure himself
against the deceptions practiced by
the native draughtsmen’. John
Barrow (1806) noted that it was not
unknown in pictures ‘to meet ➤

December 2010 221

botanical art
Clerodendrum bungei, demonstrating the realism of damaged foliage and paler undersides to the leaves
with the flower of one plant set upon
the stalk of another, and having the
leaves of a third’. The intention,
perhaps, was not necessarily to
deceive but merely to produce
colourful pictures to boost sales to
foreigners.
The close supervision paid
dividends. Joseph Sabine (1824)
commented that ‘Of the correctness
of these drawings I have little
doubt…’. The need for such accuracy
is obvious. These drawings were, in
effect, a plant catalogue used by the
Society to order live specimens from
Reeves. The supporting information
provided by him, including
222
translations of such exotic names as
‘purple pheasant’s tail’, ‘yellow
golden thread’ and ‘egg-yellow globe’
for some of the chrysanthemums,
formed the basis of a series of articles
by Joseph Sabine and John Lindley in
the Society’s Transactions. Not only
were the drawings used for research
and to verify the names of live
specimens, but they could also be
used for comparative purposes.
Sabine, for example, concluded that
differences in appearance between
the plants in the drawings and
those grown in England might be
attributable to different gardening
techniques.
Chinese and Western flower
painting traditions
The two types of picture in the
Collection emphasize the
differences between Chinese and
Western flower painting traditions.
The smaller pictures on the Chinese
papers are typically Chinese, with
traditional pigments such as
vermilion, yellow gamboge and blue
azurite being laid down in thin
washes with no visible under-
drawing. This was achieved using a
fine brush and well-diluted ink, so
that the watery lines would have
disappeared beneath the painted
areas. The detail is exquisite and the
overall effect is one of brightness and
transparency.
In contrast, the paintings on the
Western papers represent a fusion
of Western and Chinese painting
methods. Many include separately
drawn flower parts, as an aid to
classification and identification in
accordance with the principles of
Linnaean taxonomy. Graphite
under-drawing can be readily seen,
and the paint has been applied more
thickly in layers, often as a gouache.
This has produced an opaque effect.
Unlike the smaller pictures, which
would have been repeatedly dipped
in an alum solution to fix the colours,
the artists would have been unable to
do this with the thicker papers. This,
and the breakdown of the paint
binder, may account for the green
malachite flaking from the surface of
painted leaf and stem areas in some
of the pictures.
A further problem, more
noticeable on the larger drawings
and particularly the pictures of
camellias, is the darkening of lead
white and red lead. This has been
caused by sulphur dioxide, an
atmospheric pollutant often
associated with coal-burning, which
has reacted with the lead carbonate
to produce lead sulphide.
December 2010
 Plantsman
The

Portion of one of the Camellia paintings showing

restoration of the lead white which had turned
to black lead sulphide as a result of sulphur
dioxide pollution

Both types of painting faithfully

portray diseased and insect-damaged
leaves and the pale undersides of
foliage. The illustrations of
Clerodendrum bungei (p222) and Paris
polyphylla (p220) are good examples
of both these techniques. This
practice was probably derived from
Chinese instructional texts that
taught the importance of painting
the true nature of the subject. In
many instances, white petals were
surrounded with a grey-blue wash to
make them stand out from the
paper, as in the illustration of Hosta
plantaginea (p224). These
characteristics are all typical of
Chinese painting method.
Foreshortening was not usually
adopted, and shading, if any, tended
to be achieved by gradations of a
single colour. This was made
possible by grinding the mineral
pigments, particularly malachite, to
varying degrees of fineness: the
smaller the individual crystals, the
paler the shade.

Later history of the drawings

During the 1820s the Horticultural
Society faced increasing financial
difficulties. This resulted in Reeves
being requested to cease his
collecting activities, and led to the
disposal of unwanted drawings. In
1859, three years after Reeves’s
death, the Society’s entire library,
including the Reeves albums, was
auctioned off. However, by a set of
fortuitous circumstances, five
Reeves albums came back to the
Society in 1936 through a bequest by
horticulturist and coal magnate
Reginald Cory. He had bought them
from a bookseller in 1908 and he left
his library to the Society after his
Two Chrysanthemum cultivars with their Chinese names and transliterations death in 1934. In 1953, three ➤

December 2010 223

botanical art
references
Anon. (1815–1824) Minutes of the
Drawings Committee of the
Horticultural Society of London
Anon. (1817–1831) Minutes of Council
of the Horticultural Society of London
2–10
Anon. (1856) Obituary: John Reeves.
The Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural
Gazette: 29 March
Barrow, J (1806) Travels in China.
T Cadell and W Davies, London
Bretschneider, É (1898) History
of European Botanical Discoveries
in China. Sampson Low, Marston
& Co., London
Lindley, J (1826) Report upon the
new or rare plants which have flowered
in the garden of the Horticultural
Society at Chiswick, from its first
formation to March 1824. Trans. Hort.
Soc. Lond. 6: 80
Lindley, J (1830) Report upon the
new or rare plants which have flowered
in the garden of the Horticultural
224
Society at Chiswick, from its first
formation to March 1826. Trans. Hort.
Soc. Lond. 7: 239
Parks, JD (1823) Rough Journal. Unpub­
lished, held at RHS Lindley Library
Potts, J (1821) Fair Journal. Unpub­
lished, held at RHS Lindley Library
Potts, J (1821) Rough Journal. Unpub­
lished, held at RHS Lindley Library
Reeves, J (1829) China Fishes.
Unpublished, held at Natural History
Museum
Reeves, J (1829) Chinese Fish.
Unpublished, held at Natural History
Museum
Sabine, J (1824 ) Account and descript­
ion of five new Chinese chrysanthemums;
with some observations on the treatment
of all the kinds at present cultivated in
England, and on other circumstances
relating to the varieties generally.
Trans. Hort. Soc. Lond. 5: 425
Sabine, J (1826) On Glycine sinensis.
Trans. Hort. Soc. Lond. 7: 460
This illustration of Hosta plantaginea shows the
grey-blue wash used by the Chinese artists to
highlight white flowers
more albums came to the Society’s
notice and these were purchased
with funds derived from the Cory
bequest. As a result, nearly all the
Reeves drawings that were sold in
1859 are now back in the Society’s
possession.
Conservation research
One of the purposes of my research
has been to identify the best
conservation treatments for these
pictures. The papers in the five
smaller albums have suffered water
damage during the period of private
ownership which has resulted in
discoloration, tide-lines and some
mould damage, in addition to the
pigment changes referred to above.
The Chinese papers were adhered
with animal glue to 1837 Whatman
papers, presumably during the
binding process. This has caused
unsightly brown patches and severe
creasing at the corners, some of
which have become detached.
One volume has already been
disbound and the intention is to
disbind the others with a view to
returning the drawings to their
original format as individual sheets.
I collected tiny fragments of
pigment trapped at the spine edges
and these are the subject of on-going
pigment identification using light
microscopy and chemical tests.
Although inorganic pigments can
be readily identified using these
methods, I have established that
some of the pigments, including
several reds, are organic. It is hoped
that these can be identified using
Raman spectroscopy (a type of laser
analysis) so that a more comprehen­
sive list of the pigments used in
Canton at this period can be
compiled. This will be a valuable
resource for future researchers.
December 2010
 Plantsman
The

John Reeves’s contribution to

horticulture
There is no indication in the Society’s
minutes, or in the journals of its
gardeners, of the difficulties Reeves
encountered in sending plants to
England, but his letters are revealing.
Firstly, the physical restrictions
imposed by ‘the villainous govern­
ment of this vile country’ meant that
he was largely reliant upon Chinese
collectors. In 1830 he wrote to
Lindley that ‘the Chinese collectors
have tried my patience out over and
over again’. Secondly, he was
frustrated at Chinese gardeners who
considered his potted specimens of
wild flowers to be weeds and
therefore not worthy of cultivation.
Finally, he re-potted several hundred
plants with suitable loam and packed
them into wooden crates for
shipment. But many were lost
overboard, neglected during transit
or died from the extreme conditions
associated with crossing the equator.
Despite these difficulties, John
Reeves is credited with the intro­
duction of many fine azaleas,
camellias, chrysanthemums and
moutan peonies, many of which are
represented in the drawings. These
were the subject of several papers Wisteria sinensis, a plant associated with Reeves, though not introduced by him
presented to the Horticultural
Society by John Lindley and Joseph obituary that ‘Not a Company’s ship Conclusion
Sabine. Reevesia thyrsoidea was named at that time sailed for Europe without The Reeves drawings were said by
in his honour by Lindley. Émile her decks being decorated with the Bretschneider to be ‘by far the most
Bretschneider listed nearly 50 plants little portable greenhouses …’. extensive in Europe’. Much inform­
as Reeves’s introductions, including Reeves’ name is particularly ation about them has come to light
Astranthus cochinchinensis, associated with two well-known as a result of my research. Following
Clerodendrum canescens, Photinia garden plants: Primula sinensis, which conservation treatment, these
prunifolia and Prunus serrulata. So he certainly introduced, and Wisteria pictures will once again be a working
industrious was Reeves, that it was sinensis, which he did not. The first collection, capable of being used for
reported in the Gardeners’ Chronicle Wisteria sinensis was brought to research purposes, as Reeves and the
England by Captain Robert Welbank Society originally intended.
conservation funding
of the East India Company in 1816,
The Reeves Collection is being but Reeves did send back a fine Kate Bailey is completing a
conserved and digitised with the specimen, given to him by Consequa, PhD (funded by the Finnis Scott
generous support of the KT Wong one of the Cantonese merchants, Foundation and the RHS) at
Foundation. It is anticipated that
which flourished in the Society’s the Conservation Department,
the work will take three years.
garden in Chiswick for many years. Camberwell College of Arts, London

December 2010 225