Retrospective Criticism. 119 



To proceed to the first charge, I cannot admit that the species of 

 ValantM are the most worthless part of vegetation, nor even that they are 

 " miserable weeds of no beauty." To be sure they cannot be compared 

 with Strelitzza, Magnolia, or A'^'mphae^a ; but then, are they not preferalsle to 

 several of the Chenopodese ? Are they less "worthless" than Vauchen'a? 

 Yet that genus was named "in honour of M. Vaucher," to use your own 

 words. 



Yet, granting (as beauty is all matter of taste) that the Valantii^ are 

 "^ miserable weeds," does it follov/ from that that the name was conferred 

 sneeringly, rather than in honour of Vaillant ? You tell us (^Encyc. of Plants, 

 p. 629.) that the Smithifs are " inconspicuous worthless weeds ;" was it then 

 in disrespect that Salisbury inscribed that genus ? Will posterity say that 

 he would have employed his time better in turning over the leaves of the 

 English Botany ; or in studying the species of SaXix ? If then the con- 

 duct of Salisbury was pure, be just to the memory of Linnaeus, and 

 acknowledge that his intentions might have been equally so ; remember 

 that the Linnae^a is not a gorgeous lily, or a spreading palm, but an 

 humble, trailing, northern plant, conspicuous only by the name it bears ; 

 remember that Hookerk is a moss, and Borrera a lichen. 



Having thus, I trust, made it clear that even an inconspicuous genus is 

 sometimes honourable, I shall proceed to the second charge, that Linnaeus 

 was unable to understand the writings of Vaillant ; and on this head I am 

 delighted to say that I have his own incontrovertible testimony in my 

 favour. In the Linnean correspondence, published by Sir J. E. Smith in 

 1821, Linnajus (vol. ii. p. 277.), in a letter to Haller, thus expresses him- 

 self. I shall give the passage in full, as it gives ample proof, not only of 

 Linnaeus's powers of comprehendmg the writings of Vaillant, but also of 

 his impartiality : — 



" Jussieu is my friend, and so is Dillenius. I had never any acquaint- 

 ance with Vaillant. He was a man full of himself, ambitious of raising 

 his own fame on the overthrow of his teacher, the excellent and honour- 

 able Tournefort. Vaillant was merely demonstrator in the Paris garden, 

 and rude in literature. He set himself up against Jussieu, and once 

 laughed Dillenius to scorn. He was poor, &c. All this is nothing to me : 

 I wish to be a just and reasonable man, as well as a botanist. I confess I 

 never yet read any writer who was more accurate than Vaillant, who made 

 more discoveries in botany, who laboured harder, or reaped a more sparing 

 reward. Is a man to be handed down to posterity as a scoundrel, a mad-: 

 man, or the most stupid of all mortals, merely because he has pursued, 

 honoured, and laboured to improve botany ? Jussieu, as I am informed, 

 has solemnly sworn hostility to the memory of Vaillant during his own life ; 

 nor is Dillenius content with the numerous cavils with which he has 

 insulted his manes in the Hortus Elthamemis. Admit that Vaillant has his 

 faults in synonymes, and perhaps other respects : who has ever been free 

 from botanical error ? He is a wise man who can distinguish good from 

 evil ; and that general may be esteemed happy who conquers and disperses 

 his enemies with the loss of half his own forces. Who is more meritorious 

 in exotic plants, though not systematic, than Plukenet ; but who was ever 

 more unprincipled, more of a heretic in botany, or a greater scandal to 

 our science, than either Plukenet or Vaillant ? If the authority of the 

 Hortiis Elthamensis is to be followed, I should have nothing to do with 

 Vaillant, nor against him. But an honest man ought to do justice to every 

 one's deserts. If you give due praise to Vaillant, posterity will be just to 

 your memory. In this respect I care not for a Jussieu or a Dillenius." 



Again, at page 284. 



" With regard to Vaillant, I never yet met with any body more sagacious 

 as to genera than he was, and I am daily sensible of this." 



These passages require no comment, they speak for themselves . 



I 4. 



