5^> 



IRISH GxVRDENING 



Review. 



The English Rock Garden. 



Mi;. RixiiXALD Fakrer's latest hook on (iarilciiiii;^ 

 is a ty])ic'al t'xaiiij)le of his work, ami all readers 

 and admirers of his earlier works will, therefore, 

 know exactly what to expeet. 



They will expeet to find descrii)tions of ])lants, 

 told in Mr. P'arrer's own iuiniitahle way, descrip- 

 tions based upon jjrofound observation, with an 

 almost photograi)hic I'cprochiction of the ])lants in 

 their native hahitat; and, side 1)V side with these. 



English Flowei- tiaiden), and had Mr. l-'aricr su])- 

 plemented his own work with contribntions from, 

 say. Professor Bayly Balfour on Saxifages and 

 I'rinndas, Dykes on Iris, Bowles on Crocus, 

 I'lieger on Sednms. &c., the book would have been 

 cliea]) at any ])rice. 



The second is to supi)lement his own work by 

 extracts fi'om the works of othei- writers, ([noting 

 in every I'ase his authority for the description. 



Unfoi-tunately. the author in the ])resent instance 

 adopts neither of these alternatives; but. as far as 

 one can gather, lie either waves aside those plants 

 with which he is not intimately acquainted with a 

 lew ina(le(|uate ])h rases, or else he a])i)arently in- 

 cor])orates desci-i))tions, oi'casionally inaccurate, of 

 other ant hois without quoting the authority or 



rituto by] 



Iris sindi'ers. 



[/■'. G J'n'stun. 



they will expei't to tnid other descriptions, either 

 inadequate or carelessly inaccurate — and both ex- 

 pectations will be fully realised. 



Frankly, the compilation of a work of this nature 

 is too big a jol) for any one man. The Kock Garden 

 is no longer a small heap of clinkers upon which 

 a few species struggle for existence. The modern 

 Rock Garden occupies a considerable amount of 

 space, and its plants one numbers no longer by 

 units but by hundreds. I do not know the actual 

 lumd^er that Mr. Farrer has described, but it nuist 

 he well over four figures, and it is obviously im- 

 possible for anyone to have accurate jxirsonal 

 knowledge of anything like that number. 



For an author confronted with a work of this 

 magnitude there are only two alternatives. The 

 first is to invite the co-operation of a certain niun- 

 bcr of specialists to supplement his own work 

 (ilobinson did this to a certain extent with the 



verifying the description. For instance, he de- 

 scribes as the true Sd.rifrdda X Clii'iiji Trees the 

 false, dowdy form of S. KIi:.iihefli:r sent out by 

 some ntirseries, as he states that S. lufeiji'ifolht is 

 indistinguishable from .S'. erosa and ;S. peniisylca- 

 iiicd. and, like them — coarse weeds — should be con- 

 signed to the wild garden; whereas *S'. i nteniifolid 

 is a small, deciduous plant with 4-inch, paddle- 

 shaped leaves and 6-inch fiower stems, utterly un- 

 suitable for any " wild garden," and meriting a 

 c-hoice sjjot. 



Now Ii-ving in " Saxifrages or Kockft)ils," says 

 of ,s'. ('Iierii/ Ti-ees. "see Elizdhefli:i\" and of »S'. 

 infediifiiHd , classes it vaguely with S. crrjsd and 

 S. Iiierdcidfolid . It is tnithinkable that so careful 

 an observer as Mi-. Farrer coidd have made these 

 mistakes if these ])lants were familiar to liim, and 

 if, as seents possible, he simply acce])ted Irving's 

 description of them without verification, he would 



