Retrospective Criticism. 4.85 



consist.'" Undoubtedly, both you and Mr. Thompson are at liberty to 

 prefer, and recommend, whatever system you think best; but my mode of 

 training by two stems | is also exhibited in the Chiswick garden ; and you 

 know that 1 have, in my book, not only given specific reasons for the posi- 

 tion of every branch, but have explained the principles and laws of nature 

 which render the position of the branches, as 1 have directed them to be 

 placed, absolutely necessary, to produce that equal division of the sap 

 which is essential to make the most of a tree trained within a given 

 space. Then, how can you, who have quoted my book, feel justified in 

 making such a public declaration as that above quoted in italics ? Is it 

 that your understanding of the term science is different from that which I 

 have explained in your Magazine, Vol. V. p. 39-i. ? You say, Mr. Sey- 

 mour's mode is most scientific, because a specific reason is assigned for the 

 position of every branch ; but may not any person assign a specific reason 

 for what he does, however absurd? And may not anyone suggest a 

 theory of the cause of an effect, however unfounded and erroneous ? Now, 

 I have not only assigned a specific reason for the position of every branch, 

 but have explained the principles and laws of nature which constitute the 

 cause of the effect desired to be produced: then, how can Mr. Seymour's 

 method be more scientific than mine ? You refer to Mr. Seymour's mode, 

 published in your Magazine in the years 1825, 1826, and 1830; but my 

 mode of training was published in a treatise in 1818, and laid before the 

 Horticultural Society of London long before that time : it must be clear, 

 then, that I could not have benefited by Mr. Seymour's mode and prin- 

 ciples ; but he possibly may by mine. The fair question, then, is, are the 

 principles and laws of nature such as I have explained them ? Or, has 

 Mr. Seymour, or any other person, proved my notions to be erroneous, and 

 his correct ? If I am correct, it must result that Mr. Seymour can have 

 obtained no advantages, by his mode of training, over mine, or any other 

 method; but inasmuch as he has established the principles and con- 

 formed to the laws of nature (which I have explained) more correctly 

 than I, or others, have done; and, if Mr. Thompson, or others, who have 

 adopted my mode of training by two stems, have failed in perfecting my 

 plan, it must have been occasioned by their having neglected, or not under- 

 stood, those principles and laws of nature. 



Although you and I may differ as to what constitutes science, it surely 

 cannot be a matter of indifference to your readers whether they possess a 

 knowledge of the science of horticulture, as defined by me, or not. How- 

 ever, to settle this, we will refer to Mr. Hersch ell's definition of science, aa 

 given in Lardner's Cyclopaedia. He says, "The great, and indeed the only, 

 ultimate source of our knowledge of nature and its laws is experience. 

 But experience may be gained in two ways : either, first, by noticing facts 

 as they occur, without any attempt to influence the frequency of their 

 occurrence, or to vary the circumstances under which they occur; this is 

 observation : or, secondly, the putting in action causes and agents (over 

 which we have control), and purposely varying their combinations, and 

 noticing what effects take place ; this is experiment. To these two 

 sources, then, we may look as the fountains of all natural science." Now, 

 how does this apply to the subject before us ? This author also says, 

 " Arts cannot be perfected, until the whole processes are laid open, and 

 their language simplified and rendered universally intelligible. Art is the 

 application of knowledge to a practical end. If knowledge be merely accu- 

 mulated experience, the art is empirical ; but if it be experience reasoned 

 upon, and brought tinder general principles, it assumes a higher character, 

 and becomes a scientific art." He further says, " The whole tendency of. 

 empirical art is to bury itself in technicalities, and to place its pride in 

 particular short cuts and mysteries, known only to adepts ; to surprise and 

 astonish by results ; but to conceal processes. The character of science is 



i i 3 



