Talk:Rose of Sharon

Disambiguation page

This has been converted into a disambiguation page due to the fact that the name "Rose of Sharon" refers to Hibiscus syriacus at least as often as it is used to refer to Hypericum calycinum. The dialogue below--which led to this move--is copied from my Talk page. --Sewing 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Korean national flower

Hi Sewing, saw your addition to Rose of Sharon - unfortunately, what the Korean page you linked shows, is that the Korean national flower is not Hypericum calycinum, but another species, Hibiscus syriacus (no page for this species yet, but see Hibiscus). I suspect this is a case of translation error in translating from Korean to English. If I get time tomorrow, I'll create a page for Hibiscus syriacus and transer the Korea reference across. MPF 01:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see your note regarding the application of the name Rose of Sharon to Hibiscus syriacus at the bottom of the article...it didn't even register with me that the Latin names were different. But this is not an isolated "translation error," since the flower's Korean name (mugunghwa) is universally translated as "Rose of Sharon" in all sources. You may need to modify the Rose of Sharon article, however: the online American Heritage Dictionary defines "Rose of Sharon" as (1) Hibiscus syriacus (also known as "althea") and (2) Hypericum calycinum (also known as "Aaron's beard"). (Dictionary entry here.) Furthermore, a Google search for "hypericum calycinum" and "rose of sharon" together turns up 393 search results, whereas a search for "hibiscus syriacus" and "rose of sharon" together yields some 3,530 results: so there are 9 times more Web pages out there that refer to hib. syr. as Rose of Sharon than those that refer to hyp. cal. as Rose of Sharon. --Sewing 01:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; this is I fear yet another example of "US versus the Rest of the World" (and American domination of the internet) in name usage.I guess the translation of the Korean was done by American-influenced Koreans. I would think that 'Rose of Sharon' was applied to Hypericum calycinum before America was even discovered, let alone started using 'Rose of Sharon' for a different species. The US forms only 5% of the world's population; I feel that both the 'silent majority' and historical precedent deserve to have their usage recognised. - MPF 02:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for your assertion that Hypericum calycinum is the "real" Rose of Sharon? I have consulted 4 different reference books--all published long before the World Wide Web was born--and only 1 of them even mentions Hypericum calycinum.

I never said it was the biblical Rose of Sharon - that, for lack of any description in the bible, is unknown and impossible to determine. But it is probably the first species the name was applied to in the English language. I've added to the disambig page to reflect the biblical mention. - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, where does the English term "Rose of Sharon" come from? One of its earliest English appearances must be in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, in Song of Solomon 2.1:

"I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys."

According to a footnote in the 1991 edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible--a scholarly study Bible--the Hebrew word traditionally translated inton English as "rose" properly denotes a crocus (854 OT). According to an explanatory note on the same page:

"The flower of Sharon is probably the crocus that grows in the coastal plain of Sharon; the lily is the lotus flower."

The article "Sharon, the Plain of" in the 1985 edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary--a collaborative work by academics in many fields--says this about the flower:

"The rose of Sharon is a kind of crocus growing as a "lily among the brambles" (933)

In contradiction, the article "Rose" in the same dictionary says this:

"The rose of Sharon (Song of Sol. 2:1) is probably not a true rose, but a bright red tulip-like flower (Tulipa montana), today prolific in the hills of Sharon" (884).

A picture (with the caption "Rose of Sharon") in the article shows a solitary 6-petalled flower with 3 long, narrow, upward-pointing leaves attached its stem. (Of course, montana in the plant's Latin name refers not to the American state of Montana, but to the plant's hilly habitat.)

Note that neither the New Oxford Annotated Bible nor Harper's Bible Dictionary mention either Hypericum calycinum or Hibiscus syriacus. So if the "rose of Sharon" of the Bible--surely the source of the English name "rose of Sharon"--does not properly apply to either plant, how can we say that Hypericum calycinum is the "true" rose of Sharon?

Now, if we turn away from Biblical references, the 1986 edition of the New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Knowledge gives this entry for the "Rose of Sharon":

"Rose of Sharon, hardy shrub, Hibiscus syriacus, native to China. It can be grown farther north than many hibiscus plants. The flowers are red, purple, rose, or white. Height: 15 ft (4.6 m). Family Malvaceae. See also Hibiscus" (503).

The article does not even mention Hypericum calycinum as an alternate meaning.

Erm, this is an American text and has the sadly all-too-common parochial American viewpoint ("the rest of the world is not America, and therefore unimportant and doesn't matter"). Try checking some British texts, or Australian, or any other part of the English-speaking world – Sydney RBG, for example ([1]) gives Hypericum calycinum, Lilium candidum and Tulipa agenensis as being called "Rose of Sharon", but no mention of Hibiscus. - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am curious about your value judgments regarding the "Britain and most other English-speaking countries" vs. the "US and areas heavily influenced by US-english usage." First of all, I am Canadian, so don't prejudge my point of view. Secondly, the "American" text you refer to is a parallel printing of the original British text published in the same year by a publisher in London (I have updaed the Works cited to reflect this). Thirdly, while the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney mention Hypericum calycinum without mentioning Hibiscus syriacus, they speak Australian English, and this does not necessarily reflect usage in British English. Finally, Webster's dictionary--which uses American English--mentions Hypericum calycinum first, so there is no evidence of a predilection there to prefer Hibiscus syriacus over Hypericum calycinum. --Sewing 16:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary cites use of RoS for Hibiscus syriacus as a specifically US usage. Australian English is generally much closer to UK English; a google check of .au websites revealed most as using RoS for Hypericum calycinum, and a mix of names for Hibiscus syriacus with 'serious' sites (botanic gardens etc) mainly using "Hibiscus" or "Syrian Rose", and commercial nurseries mostly using RoS. PS sorry about accidentally wiping the above para when I posted mine - not sure how that happened! - MPF 16:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for the heated discussion, and I was wondering what the OED said. I absolutely accept the OED as the final and authoritative voice on the subject! --Sewing 16:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Finally, we find mention of Hypericum calcycinum in this 1977 definition from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

"rose of Sharon...1: a Eurasian St.-John's-wort (Hypericum calycinum) often cultivated for its large yellow flowers. 2: a commonly cultivated Asiatic small shrubby tree (Hibiscus syriacus) having showy bell-shaped rose, purple, or white flowers" (1006).

So in the one source I have available to me at home that even mentions Hypericum calycinum, it is in a definition together with Hibiscus syriacus. Even if "Rose of Sharon" was used in English to denote Hypericum calycinum before it was applied to Hibiscus syriacus, it is clear that "Rose of Sharon" is as much a misnomer for the first plant as it is for the second.

But note it is given as the first definition there, the one the compiler or editor considered the more relevant or widely used - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have made Rose of Sharon a disambiguation page, with links to the separate articles Hypericum calycinum (incorporating the material formerly in Rose of Sharon) and Hibiscus syriacus --Sewing 15:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That I agree is a very good idea, and have expanded it with the addition of two further species also (much more rarely) cited as 'Rose of Sharon', and usage by region - MPF 16:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Works cited

Crawford, Patricia L. "rose." Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 884. Paul J. Achtmeiter, gen. ed. HarperSanFrancisco, 1985.

Lapp, Nancy L. "Sharon." Harper's Bible Dictionary, p. 933-4. Paul J. Achtmeiter, gen. ed. HarperSanFrancisco, 1985.

"Rose of Sharon." The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Knolwedge, p. 503. New York: Portland House, 1977. (Originally published in 1970 in London by Mitchell Beazley Publishers, Ltd. and reprinted 1977)

"rose of Sharon." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1006. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1977.

Scott, R. B. Y. Annotations to Song of Solomon. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 854 OT. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Narcissus?

Is there not also a theory that the biblical plant was some kind of Narcissus? The Jerusalem Bible translates the word as "jonquil", which certainly suggests that some fairly reputable scholars must have thought so, though I'm a bit worried that going by a single bible translation would count as original research, and I can't easily find an actual source to cite. 81.86.133.45 21:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Grapes of Wrath

Rose of Sharon or 'Rosasharn' is an important character in the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. Perhaps worth adding? Sarahjeantaylor 17:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps a "references in popular culture" or in literature section is in order?-Zookman12 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which RoS?

The article starts out note the ambiguity of the term. Later the flower - which one?? - is given as the symbol of an organization. This should be cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.176 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)