Retrospective Criticism* 467 



slew's objection is, for the most part, acknowledged j but this objection 

 operates against himself with equal effect in the case of B.'s opinion, ex- 

 pressed in p. 79. The facts in p. 277. seem to us scarcely amenable to 

 the above objection. — J. D. 



The Natural Productions indigenous to Britain. — Sir, The remarks of 

 your correspondent go (p. 273.) respecting my article upon the produc- 

 tions of this country (p. 1.), if I understand his meaning aright, alto- 

 gether misrepresent my argument. I can assure w that I consider the 

 beech and the pine ? (Scotch pine) to be as much natives of this island as go 

 himself does ; nor did I ever say, or mean to say, that they were not so. 

 My object was to vindicate Caesar from the charge of falsehood, by proving 

 that the ^^^bies and Fagus did not signify the Scotch pine and the beech so 

 called. Your correspondent seems not to have viewed my argument in this 

 light : but surely the way to persuade the world that a person is in error is 

 not merely to assert that another's opinion differs from his ; the facts ought 

 to be adduced which bear him out in his judgment, instead of a bare 

 opinion to the contrary. Your correspondent quotes Evelyn^s Sylva, to 

 contradict an assertion which was never made. Will your correspondent 

 inform me who " the learned expositors " are with whom he is so readily 

 induced to coincide in believing that the i^agus of Csesar is the beech ? for 

 I do not see at all how Gc.has proved my assertion to be futile, that the 

 i'^'agus of Caesar is a species of oak. oc will see in a future Number some 

 additional proofs of the fact in question, which (but it is needless) I might 

 here repeat. I cannot help being of opinion that your correspondent never 

 referred to the passage of Caesar in question, or else he is guilty of inten- 

 tionally misquoting; which, for his credit, I hope is not the case. He 

 unaccountably leaves out the most important part of the sentence, which is 

 as follows : — " Materia cujusque generis, ut in Gallia, est, praeter fagum et 

 abietem." Without this, the passage is unintelligible ; or od might at once 

 as well endeavour to prove that ebony and the cocoa-nut are natives of 

 Great Britain ; '* which, I should hope, all your readers know to be false." 

 oc proceeds as follows : — " T. E. L.'s reasoning is this; Caesar was correct 

 in saying that the i^agus was not found in Britain ; but Caesar's Tragus is 

 the oak, but not the beech ; therefore the oak was not found in Britain ! " 

 Perversio optimi fit pessima. I should fancy that (ji is no botanist, or else 

 is ignorant of facts known to all who profess any acquaintance with the 

 science. Does oj suppose that only one species of Quercus exists? and 

 surely he does not think that the ^'bies of Caesar, which " hewn on Nor- 

 wegian hills " was fitted " to be the mast of some tall ammiral," is synony- 

 mous with our Scotch pine the only native species. Let cc understand my 

 argument once for all ; in which I am borne out by Mr. Mitford, no mean 

 authority. Caesar states that the only Gallic trees which he did not meet 

 with in Britain were the ^^bies and Tragus. To this I assent ; contending 

 that the ^'bies is probably the silver fir, and the i^agus the Quercus -Sallota, 

 or evergreen oak of the Mediterranean, neither of which is or ever was a 

 native of England; and not, as cc strangely interprets it, the Quercus 

 i?dbur, or British oak. It was with great reluctance that I entered into 

 this controversy ; but I could not see Caesar's veracity impugned, without 

 striking a blow in his defence ; which excuse, I trust, will satisfy ck that no 

 offence is intended by these remarks. I am. Sir, &c. — J, E.L. Bichmond, 

 Yorkshire, May^. 1831. 



The Flora of Richmond {Yorkshire'), as compared ivith that of Thirsk, 

 (p. 276.) — Sir, Allow me, through the medium of your Magazine, to ex- 

 press my due acknowledgments for the critical remarks with which your 

 correspondent N. has favoured me, at p. 276., respecting the " Sketch of 

 the Flora of Richmond;" and likewise to assure him that 1 am fully sen- 

 sible of his good wishes, so kindly expressed for my success as a naturalist, 

 ' - H H 2 



