Retrospective Criticism. 29 



Art. III. Retrospective Criticism. 



Marchioness of Tavistock dahlia. — Mr. Editor: Notwithstanding you 

 have prefiiced your comments, on our communication in your Magazine 

 of the 18th Ultimo, pages 445, 446, by stating that you did not "mention 

 any particuhir individuals," and that the above gentlemen (meaning the 

 subscribers) had "seen fit to apply" your " remarks to themselves," 

 you have admitted that we were the persons you alluded to in your re- 

 marks on the dahlia var. Marchioness of Tavistock. Your attempts to 

 place us as the aggressors, in this aftair, and to plead " strict justice" 

 for your own remarks, w hich you have been pleased to term " severe," 

 comes with a poor grace from the Editor, when it is admitted our opin- 

 ion was solicited and given to him, as we have before stated, in confi- 

 dence and friendship. 



We will now take the Editor's own version of this matter, and will 

 attempt to show that it is possible for an editor to err. After informing 

 us that it is "his duty to point out the comparative merits of new flow- 

 ers, and to decide upon their superiority," " in order that the floricultu- 

 ral community" " may be kept informed of the value of every new 

 dahlia;" he very gravely adds, "that he has given too much attention 

 to the cultivation of the dahlia, not to jirofess some knowledge of a fine 

 flower." If the Editor joossesses all the "knowledge" he professes io 

 have, still loe would respectfully decline to be classed among " those 

 who are willing to rely upon" his "judgment." 



The Editor proceeds, and states, "as the foundation of " his "re- 

 marks," that " with the Beauty of Cambridge in one hand, and the 

 Marchioness of Tavistock in the other, the two were compared, and the 

 observation made was, that it strongly resembled the former; and, if 

 our memory serves us, (for we did not then think of ever speaking of 

 the decision) (?) that the Beauty of Cambridge w"is one which would 

 be grown by them as soon as the Marchioness of Tavistock." We re- 

 collect stating, that if the flower then exhibited, of the Marchioness of 

 Tavistock, was a fair specimen, w'e would as soon cultivate the Beauty 

 of Cambridge; and, for the edification of your readers, if not for your- 

 self, Mr. Editor, we will copy the descrij)tion given of the Beauty of 

 Cambridge, in the catalogue published by Hovey & Co., No. 9 Mer- 

 chants Row, Boston, in May, 1837. After due caution, attended with 

 the usual very particular sisrn of *^*, the public are informed that 

 " There is not an indifferent flower in this catalogue." The Beauty of 

 Candjridge is represented to be as follows, viz. " Beauty of Cambridge, 

 (Brewer's,) fine white, elegantly tipped ivith purple." 



" Now, mark the change ! **#*##* 



In spring they call me while, in autumn skim-shy-blue." 

 The Editor further states, that his " remarks were not made because 

 the Marchioness of Tavistock was not thought a dahlia su])erior to all 

 the others, but because it should have been classed w ith one of such in- 

 feriority as the Beauty of Cambridge," with its '•' still'," irregular and 

 blunt " petals," nearly every flower showing a large eye, and the col- 

 ors dirty v^hile and dull |)nrplc, mottled and unevenly shaded into one 

 another, without any distiuctncss." 



B}' comparing the above statements, made by the professor of " fine 

 flowers," we conclude he possessed but little knowledge of the Beauty 

 of Cambridge in May last, or at any other time; both his stories cannot 

 be correct. Will he please to inform those " who are willing to rely 

 upon" his "judgment," which of these statements are correct, so i\\a.X 

 they may be duly informed by him whose " duty" it is " to decide." 



