142 Dr. Thornton* s Second Letter 



should be greatly surprised if yon ever departed from. 

 When excusing yourself as editor, I must beg leave to ob- 

 serve you have fallen into a slight mistake, when you say, 

 M Astronomy has nothing to do with botany/' Antiently 

 agriculture was founded on a knowledge of the stars. 



Quid faciat laetas segetes, quo sic/ere terram 

 Vertcre, Maecenas, ulmisqueadjungere vires 

 Conveniat— Virgil. Georg. lib. i. 



Astrology and botany were early connected ; and the four 

 seasons are so much concerned in botany, that a scientific 

 knowledge of their production is expected from the accom- 

 plished botanist. The effect of light on plants supposes some 

 slight acquaintance with the bright luminary producing it — 



.... quandoque bonus dormitat Homeru? . — Hor. de Arte Poeli a. 



I am now publicly challenged by your reviewer to answer 

 other passages of his " critique" on my work. "If I can 

 show the same want of information in these as in astronomy, 

 he promises to take shame on himself and kiss the rod." 

 He trusts " the decision to those who understand the 

 subject. To their impartial judgment he calmly leaves it.*' 

 With the same sangfroid, he says, "he has long since learnt, 

 that no real honour is lost by the acknowledgement of an 

 error ;" u that he has made a blot, which Dr. Thornton 

 has fairly hit ; and he has a right to avail himself of it as far 

 as it will go. But he must make many more such kits, or 

 he will not save his gammon." Although I conceive a con- 

 test in which reputation and fortune are both deeply con- 

 cerned is more serious than a game at back -gammon, and 

 the hits of more importance than such light amusements, 

 and that many would excuse my contending with such an 

 adversary ; yet, as greatly provoked to the contest, in the 

 next letter I shall have the honour to address you, I will 

 promise " satisfactorily " to prove to you, and the philoso- 

 phic world, that this reviewer of yours is as " slenderly" 

 acquainted with authors on botany, as he has been proved 

 to be with regard to those on astronomy ; and that all my 

 botanical doctrines are founded on authors of the highest 

 reputation, and not more of my invention, than was the 

 satellite of Venus; and, therefore, that I cannot merit, as has 

 been "unjustly" attempted, to be held up for those opinions 

 to public ridicule. His sneers have arisen from his total 

 unacquaintance with the valuable writings of modern vege- 

 table physiologists, as Bonnet, Duhamel, Lamarck, Scne- 

 bier, Ventinat, &c, equally as he was ignorant of what had 



been 



