DOMESTIC NOTICES. 



533 



operations, their observations .- 1. 1 1 « 1 conclusions. 



They fancy ■ isequenoe which they ardently 



wish. :t iid proclaim it to the world as a new dis- 

 oovery, while more extended observation and ex- 

 perience would have convinced them of its want 

 of reality, and perhaps given them reasons to 

 doubt the accuracy of their first conclusion. En- 

 il tavors to disoover aseful facts are always lauda- 

 b e, even when the discoveries arc beyond the ca- 

 pacity that undertakes them ; but we ought to be 

 silent in regard to dubious results, rather than to 

 publish and applaud them at the hazard of mis- 

 guiding others. A man ought to deliberate when 

 he is doubtful, and inquire when he is ignorant j 

 nor ought he to proclaim a principle upon hasty 

 experiments. A man intent upon inquiry, will 

 find in the course of his investigations, that though 

 one result generally gives rise to another, it is 

 often difficult to discover the real cause that pro- 

 duced them. To search, is not always to find; 

 and to find, is not always to be informed. We 

 may pursue objects in horticulture, as the first in- 

 habitants of Arcadia chased the sun, which, when 

 they had reached the hill on which he seemed to 

 rest, was still beheld at the same distance from 

 them. 



It is an acknowledged truth, that although a 

 great deal has resulted from application and indus- 

 try, discoveries in our horticultural practice are 

 not always awarded to those who are solely, and 

 it may be incessantly, searching for them. Some 

 of the most valuable have resulted from neoessity 

 or chance. Care will sometimes betray the ap- 

 pearance of negligence, and he, who, in searching 

 for some important fact, will neglect others equal- 

 ly important, that are obvious and familiar, must 

 fail in elucidating truth to prove his own investi- 

 gations, and is consequently incapable of criticising 

 others. In things that are easily performed, there 

 is always danger from confidence, and in things 

 difficult, there is as much danger from ignorance. 

 The mind, afraid of grasping with profound truths, 

 is disdainful of simple ones, and hastily withdraws 

 itself from deep researches, while it passes, with 

 scornful rapidity, over tasks to which its powers 

 arc inadequate, and attempts to captivate its rea- 

 ders with florid language, in order to hide the 

 sterility of its ideas. Capricious in its censure, 

 expressing opinions with colloquial wauijishness, 

 confounding errors with improprieties, and falla- 

 cies with truths; sometimes too gross and vulgar 

 for common courtesy, at others too absurd and 

 bombastic for common sense ; sometimes treating 

 twaddle and nonsense with encomiastic serious. 

 ness, and at others treating profound Boientifie de- 

 ductions with levity and burlesque, and through- 

 out evidently actuated by prejudices that are only 

 equalled by the impotcney of the production, the 

 criticism dwindles down to the despicable standard 

 of meanness and malignity. 



And such is the tenor of some of our horticultu- 

 ral criticisms at the presont day. No suhjoct is 

 minutely or particularly examined, (though judg- 



ment is passed upon all.) except under dissyllabic 

 ejaculations, such as — ••Quite right," "that's 

 good," " I hate this, and like tin other thitiL'." — 

 disdaining the labor of investigation, yet claiming 



all the dignity of learned crit ioisin. Let anyone 



glance, if they have patience enough, at the cri- 

 tique in the February number of the Horticulturist, 



and observe the ridiculous obliquity of the critic's 



vision, — how wit is struggling with ignorance, and 

 sophistry with conceit. Again, in tin' subsequent 

 number, we observe metaphor degenerating into 

 vulgar cant, and analogy stretched out into hyper- 

 bolical exaggeration j enfeebled by the want of 

 force, and clouded by the want of perspicuity. 

 Such criticism admits neither of apology nor ex- 

 tenuation. It wants the candour of honesty to de- 

 serve the one, and the humility of ignorance to me- 

 rit the other. This critic's budget is like a jack* 

 of-all-trades' shop — an omnium gatherum of little- 

 ness, containing a variety of trifles, but nothing of 

 value. It may pass well enough when the frivo- 

 lous imagination only wishes for amusement, but 

 will be passed over with contempt by the inquir- 

 ing mind that seeks for instruction. 



Such, I have said, is our horticultural criticism. 

 But who will dare to criticise the critics? Cer- 

 tainly not the mere mechanical clod-hoppers of the 

 soil. Such involuntary excursions of thought are 

 too ethereal for their labor-loaded imaginations, 

 and too presumptuous in their character to escape 

 the denunciations which have been already feebly 

 inflicted. Our amateur friends, however, ought to 

 consider, in their critical lucubrations, that the 

 hard-working mechanic, and laborious tiller of the 

 soil, can handle the pen as well as the spade, and 

 can criticise as well as those who spend their lives 

 in studious idleness, and much more to the point; 

 at least we are induced to draw this inference if 

 we arc justified in judging from the specimens al- 

 ready produced. 



No person who is thoroughly conversant with 

 the present ambiguous and undefined state of hor- 

 ticultural knowledge will deny that criticism is 

 above all things needful, both for the rectification 

 of errors, and consolidating our principles. But 

 let us have critics who are equal to the task. No 

 editor of a horticultural journal will minutely cri- 

 ticise and comment upon every production that 

 may be sent to his pages; nor is itneeosary. when 

 his readers belong to that fortunate class who are 

 capable of judging for themselves. Moreover, as 

 a oaterer of knowledge, he is necessitated to re- 

 cord the experience and opinions of others, leaving 

 his readers to draw their own conclusions. A 

 critic, however, is iu a very different position; he 



constitutes himself a tribunal for the judgment of 



public productions, and consequently renders hhn- 

 Belf amenable to the public for the judgment which 

 In- gives, A critic is not less debased in prostitu- 

 ting his judgment by exaggerated censure, than 

 he is by attempting to shrink from the odium he 

 incurs by exaggerated praise, nor can his incapa- 

 city be more clearly illustrated, than when ho at- 



