1868. 



NEW ENGLAND FAEMER. 



653 



of fact and not of the imagination. With all 

 that has been written on corresponding sub- 

 jects during the last generation, we cannot be 

 far amiss in asserting that the volume before 

 us is wholly new — new in its language, as in its 

 illustrations and arrangement, a product from 

 the virgin ore and not from the scraps and 

 waste metal of the past. We venture to add 

 that it fills a place now entirely imoccupied in 

 English literature." 



We hope the annexed extract, with the favor- 

 able opinion of our contemporary will induce 

 many farmers to purchase this book and make 

 it their winter's study. Farmers' Clubs are 

 often at a loss for fit subjects for discussion, 

 and the introduction of frivolous ones some- 

 times offends sensible men, and proves fatal to 

 the success of the association. Might not this 

 volume be adopted as a sort of class book, by 

 farmers' clubs ? The book might be placed upon 

 a stand or table, and each individual in turn 

 called upon to read a page, more or less ; all 

 present having the privilege of asking any 

 question as to the meaning of words or ex- 

 pressions used by the writer. A little experi- 

 ence would soon regulate details of procedure, 

 and bring out thoughts and knowledge of facts 

 from the various members of the club in such 

 order as might be agreed upon. But to the 

 extract : — 



The art of agriculture consists in certain 

 practices and operations which have gradually 

 grown out of an observation and imitation of 

 the best efforts of nature, or have been hit 

 upon accidentally. 



The science of agriculture is the rational 

 theory and exposition of the ^•uccessful art. 



Strictly considered, the arf and science of 

 agriculture are of equal age, and have grown 

 together from the earliest times. Those who 

 first cultivated the soil by digging, planting, 

 manuring, irrigating, had their sufficient rea- 

 son for every step. In all cases, thought goes 

 before work, and the intelligent workman al- 

 ways has a theory upon which his practice is 

 planned. No farm was ever conducted with 

 out physiology, chemistry and physics, any 

 more tban an aqueduct or a railway was ever 

 built without mathematics and mechanics. 

 Every successful faimer is, to some extent, a 

 scientific man. Let him throw away the 

 knowledge of facts and the knowledge of prin- 

 ciples which constitute his science, and he has 

 lost the elements of his success. The farmer 

 without his reasons, his theory, his science, 

 can have no plan ; and these wanting, agricul- 

 ture would be as complete a failure with him as 

 it would be with a man of mere science, des- 

 titute of manual, financial, and executive skill. 



Other qualifications being equal, the more 

 advanced and complete the theory of which 

 the farmer is the master, the more successful 

 must be his farming. The more he knows, the 

 more he can do. The more deeply, compre- 

 hensively, and clearly he can think, the more 

 economically and advantageously can he work. 



That there is any opposition or conflict be- 

 tween tcience and art, between theory and 

 practice, is a delusive error. They are, as 

 they ever have been and ever must be, in the 

 fullest harmony. If they appear to jar or 

 stand in contradiction, it is because we have 

 something false or incomplete in what we call 

 our science or our art ; or else we do not per- 

 ceive correctly, but are misled by the narrow- 

 ness and aberrations of our vision. It is often 

 said of a machine, that it was good in theory, 

 but failed in practice. This is as untrue as 

 untrue can be. If a machine has failed in 

 practice, it is because it was imperfect in theo- 

 ry. It should be said of such a failure — the 

 machine was good, judged by the best theory 

 known to its inventor, but its incapacity to 

 work demonstrates that the theory had a flaw. 



But, although art and, science are thus insep- 

 arable, it must not be forgotten that their 

 growth is not altogether parallel. There are 

 facts in art for which science can, as yet, fur- 

 nish no adequate explanation. Art, though no 

 older than science, grew at first more rapidly 

 in vigor and in stature. Agriculture was prac- 

 tised hundreds and ^ thousands of years ago, 

 with a success that does not compare unfavor- 

 ably with ours. Nearly all the essential points 

 of modern cultivation were regarded by the 

 Romans before the Christian era. The annals 

 of the Chinese show that their wonderful skill 

 and knowledge were in use at a vastly earlier 

 date. 



So much of science as can be attained through 

 man's unaided senses, reached considerable 

 perfection early in the world's history. But 

 that part of science which relates to things in- 

 visible to the unassisted eye, could not be de- 

 veloped until the telescope and the microscope 

 had been invented, until the increasing expe- 

 rience of man and his improved art had created 

 and made cheap the other inventions by whose 

 aid the mind can penetrate the veil of nature. 

 Art, guided at first by a very crude and imper- 

 fectly developed science, has, within a compar- 

 atively recent period, multiplied those instru- 

 ments and means of research whereby science 

 has expanded to her present proportions. 



The progress of agriculture is the joint work 

 of theory and practice. In many departments 

 great advances have been made during the last 

 hundred years ; especially is this true in all 

 that relates to implements and machines, and 

 to the improvement of domestic animals. It 

 is, however, in just these departments that an 

 improved theory has had sway. More recent 

 is the development of agriculture in its chemi- 

 cal and physiological aspects. In these direc- 

 tions the present century, or we might almost 



