Retrospective Criticism. 309 



fruit, and that the older and larger the vine, the less likely it is to produce 

 a good crop. As I am not aware that the author has fruited the foreign 

 vine himself to any extent, I am disposed to think that his opinions are 

 formed from those of the gardeners of his vicinity, who may have been 

 comparatively successful with the renewal method. Having recently erect- 

 ed some large vineries for the more full testing of all the varieties of the 

 grape, I was very particular during my recent visit to Europe in making 

 inquiries respecting the most approved method of pruning ; and for this 

 purpose visited all the vineries within my reach. I do not recollect an ex- 

 ception to the general reply, that the spurring method was decidedly the 

 best, and produced the largest fruit at an earlier period in the age of the 

 vine. Where the vine is partially cut down every year, as in the renewal 

 jnethod, it becomes weakened and exhausted, and much of that sap which 

 should be devoted to the fruit, is spent upon the formation of new wood for 

 the next year. 



Roberts, who is deemed the only really practical writer on the vine, is 

 very decided in his approval of the spurring method. Our own vinery has 

 not been erected a suiRciently long time to enable me to speak from expe- 

 rience. I only give the result of careful inquiry. I am far from wishing 

 to say that the renewal method is decidedly wrong, or that by it good fruit 

 cannot be produced. On the contrary, I know many who succeed compar- 

 atively well with this mode. I am only desirous that the author's opinions 

 on this head should not be taken as facts, and that the spur method should 

 not be so unreservedly condemned, when there is such an array of evidence 

 in its favor. 



Well adapted as is this work to the wants of the community, it is much 

 to be regretted that our excellent friend the author, has somewhat aflected 

 its usefulness in making it by implication a vehicle ibr the praises of his 

 own very good establishment, and has so nicely adapted his theories to his 

 own soil and climate. I have no objection whatever to the author's being 

 born " in the largest garden," &c., for that may be a matter of opinion ; 

 neither do I dislike to see his deep-rooted attachment lo his own establish- 

 ment, for this is perfectly natural, and all men have a perfect right not only 

 to think, but to speak as loudly as they incline of those things which they 

 highly value. But at the same time I cannot admit their right to make 

 statements respecting others which are neither consistent with jus- 

 tice, nor in accordance with facts. No one can esteem the author or his 

 useful labors more than ourselves, and we sincerely regret that he has al- 

 lowed himself to make statements without endeavoring to ascertain their 

 correctness. The statements seem intended to prove the inferiority of the 

 Boston, Long Island, and other seaboard nurseries, to the inland nurseries 

 among which latter, the Highland Botanic Garden holds a conspicuous 

 place. He first asserts that the soil and climate of the seaboard are bad, 

 and that, in consequence, many fruits have become worthless. That this 

 defect has extended to the young trees in the seaboard nurseries, and that 

 when taken to the interior they carry their degenerate habit with them. 

 He also states that young trees from the inland nurseries succeed much 



