We have read a great many articles on ivy in art and architecture, and they tend to make the same three mistakes in the same order. They reach for fidelity, then for death, then for Bacchus, and by the third paragraph the plant itself has vanished under a pile of borrowed symbolism. In our studio we spend our days with a single sheet: the Hedera helix plate drawn for O.W. Thomé's Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, published in 1885. The plant on that paper does not behave like the symbol in those articles. It behaves like a line.
That gap — between the ivy on the wall of a Victorian cemetery and the ivy on Thomé's paper — is the reason we keep returning to this subject. The literature has an ivy, and we have an ivy, and the two are not the same organism. This piece is an attempt to say, calmly and in one place, where the standard treatment goes wrong, what it consistently omits, and what we would write instead if we were starting from the plate rather than from the received symbol.
What They All Get Wrong
The first paragraph almost always opens with fidelity. Ivy clings; therefore ivy is loyalty; therefore ivy at a Greek wedding, ivy on a bride's crown, ivy woven into the imagery of enduring love. The claim is not exactly wrong. It is thin. It treats a plant with a specific mechanical behaviour — adventitious rootlets producing an adhesive discs that fix stems to a substrate — as if it were a metaphor waiting for a wedding. The result is an article that could have been written about any climbing thing. Wisteria clings. Clematis clings. If clinging is the whole argument, the species has done no work.
The second paragraph reaches for death. Ivy on gravestones, ivy on ruined abbeys, ivy in the graveyard photograph that every book on nineteenth-century mourning eventually reproduces. Here the writing tends to invert its own first claim: the plant that meant faithful love in Greece now means the persistence of memory over decay in Victorian England, and the contradiction is smoothed over with the word "evergreen." Evergreen is a botanical fact, not a moral one. The reader has learned, at this point, that ivy means whatever the writer needs it to mean.
The third paragraph reaches for Bacchus, because every article about ivy eventually reaches for Bacchus. There is the thyrsus, the wreath, the reference to Dionysian rites, the note that ivy was thought to temper wine's effects. This is the part most likely to shade into folklore presented as fact. It is often not, strictly, an error — ivy did appear in Dionysian iconography — but it is a substitution. Instead of describing the leaf shape that made ivy legible in a Greek relief carved at forearm's length, the article recites what the symbol was supposed to signify, which is a very different piece of information.
Underneath these three moves is a single habit: the article treats ivy as a delivery vehicle for meaning it has picked up elsewhere, and never asks what the plant looks like, or why an artist would choose to draw it, or what the choice does to a wall. The plant is a pretext. The symbol is the subject. On our desk, that ordering is reversed, and it is the reason our reading of the same material lands somewhere else.
What Is Almost Always Missing
What is missing, first, is the line. Ivy is one of the great linear plants in European drawing, and almost nothing written about it in an art context says so out loud. A single stem of Hedera helix produces a repeating alternation of leaves along a wiry axis, each leaf held on a petiole long enough to space it from its neighbour, each blade lobed in a way that reads at distance as a small dark star. When an illustrator or a stone carver renders that pattern, they are not primarily thinking about fidelity or Bacchus. They are thinking about how a line moves across a surface and where the eye can rest. The Thomé plate of 1885 shows this with unusual clarity, because Thomé's whole enterprise — Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz — was built to teach the reader what a plant does before it teaches what a plant means.
What is missing, second, is the distinction between juvenile and adult growth. Hedera helix has two life stages that look almost like two different species. The juvenile is the ivy of walls: five-lobed leaves, climbing habit, no flowers. The adult is the ivy that appears once the plant has reached the top of its support: unlobed, entire leaves, upright stems, umbels of small greenish flowers, black berries in winter. Sculptors and illustrators in the European tradition worked mainly from the juvenile phase, which is the phase that carries the recognisable silhouette. When a writer treats "ivy" as a single visual quantity, they are collapsing two very different plants and, with them, two very different histories of representation.
What is missing, third, is any real interest in the plate itself as an object. The Thomé sheet is a chromolithograph, produced in Germany in 1885 for a national flora aimed at students and educated amateurs. The paper stock, the registration of colour, the convention of showing a habit sketch alongside dissected floral parts on the same sheet — these are the technical facts that determine what the ivy on the page looks like, and they belong in any serious article about the plant's iconography, because they are the material conditions under which that iconography actually reaches a modern viewer. The article that skips them is treating a printed sheet as if it were a floating idea, and treating an artist as if their choices did not depend on their tools.
What I Would Say Instead
We would start with the line. If you look at the Thomé plate of Hedera helix without knowing what it is supposed to mean, the first thing you register is a rhythm: leaf, gap, leaf, gap, along a stem that does not run straight but articulates at every node. The lobes on each leaf do a related job. They break the silhouette so that a mass of ivy does not read as a flat green field but as a texture with holes in it, and the holes are where the eye moves. This is drafting information. It tells you why a fifteenth-century sculptor chose ivy for the border of a tomb slab in preference to laurel, and why a Victorian architect asked for it in the plaster frieze of an entry hall. Ivy resolves at every scale. It works at the size of a leaf held in the hand and at the size of a wall seen from across a courtyard, and it works because the line does not close.
We would then say, plainly, what the Greek and Roman uses were and were not. Ivy was legible in Dionysian iconography because it was evergreen, because it grew wild in the same landscapes as the vine and often on the same trees, and because its leaf shape read cleanly at the scale of relief carving. Those are compositional and ecological facts. Whatever the ritual meaning attached to them, the reason the plant was available to be attached to them at all is that it draws well. When a Roman craftsman put an ivy wreath onto a marble portrait, they were making a choice constrained by chisel width and stone grain as much as by mythology.
We would then take the funerary reading, and turn it round. Ivy on a nineteenth-century grave is not primarily a message about the soul. It is a species that thrives in the shaded, undisturbed, weakly acidic conditions of an old churchyard, and the taste that let it stay there, growing over stone and inscription, was in part a decision by cemetery designers who had read their Ruskin and understood that a monument aged more truthfully with a plant on it than without. The symbol followed the horticulture. In our own practice, this is the reading we trust: the plant was there, the plant looked a certain way, the meaning attached later, and the meaning is legible only if the visual habits of the plant are legible first.
None of this makes the symbol wrong. It makes the symbol second. What Thomé's 1885 plate offers, and what most writing on ivy in art and architecture never asks it to offer, is a reference sheet for the line — the specific angle at which the petiole meets the stem, the specific depth of the lobes, the specific way the whole thing scales up when repeated. Once that reference is in your hand, the next question is not what ivy meant to the Greeks. The next question is what a single restored plate of Hedera helix does to the wall you hang it on, and whether that wall is doing the work an architect would once have asked of stone carved to the same silhouette. That question is where our own work at browse the botanical plates begins, and it is not one this piece is trying to answer.
New plates from the archive and 10% off your first print.
One email now with your code. No noise after.