202 Retrospective Criticism. 



space enough for other sorts ; and the empty spaces between the trees were 

 filled with a valuable collection of Criniim, Amaryllis, iiTedychium, Gardenia, 

 and i/ibiscus. 



The proprietor used every endeavour to receive, in a suitable manner, the 

 high personages who did him the honour to visit him ; and he had the pleasure 

 of finding that his exertions were gratefully acknowledged. He also showed 

 great kindness, after the royal visit, in throwing open his flower-garden to the 

 public; on which occasion we-feared that it would sustain considerable injury, 

 as the crowd was exceedingly great ; but the following day proved that the 

 damage the garden had suffered was very trifling ; a great honour to the in- 

 habitants of Stockholm, and which showed that they knew how to make a 

 right use of the confidence that was placed in them. (Gar. Zeit., 1837.) 



Art. V. Retrospective Criticism. 



Mr. Main's Animadversions on Keith'' s Botanical Lexicon, (p. 89.) — Having 

 admitted Mr. Main's animadversions on my Botanical Lexicon into your 

 Maf^azine, perhaps you will have the goodness to admit a few brief remarks 

 in reply. In the outset, Mr. Main is all gentleness and urbanity ; and re- 

 dolent of nothing but sweets, and flowers, and frankincense, making the de- 

 lighted author feel, for a moment, as if he were reposing on a bed of roses. 

 Every thing is as it should be j for the work contains, by the admission of 

 Mr. Main, not merely " the marrow of my former work, but numerous quo- 

 tations from every author, ancient and modern, accompanied with sound 

 critical remarks, which greatly enhance its value. In short, it is a valuable 

 compendium of botanical knowledge, which ought to be in the hands of every 

 voung botanist, and every young gardener, as it enables the student to compare 

 the knowledge of the ancients with what is now known and taught, and shows 

 by what gradual steps the science of botany has been advanced to its present 

 preeminence." This is all very gratifying, to be sure, and a favour for which I 

 beff Mr. Main to accept of ray best thanks. But who would have supposed 

 that it was merely a temporary calm, and the prelude of a coming storm ? or 

 who, after all this commendation, would have anticipated an attack, such as to 

 make the writer forget, or, at the least, fail to make use of, the ordinary civility 

 of expression which is due, not merely to those who agree with us in opinion, 

 but to those who differ from us also, whether upon matters of science, or 

 upon other subjects. [We have inserted this ; but we think the reverend 

 writer has been unjust towards Mr. Main, whose review appears to us to 

 be written with perfect candour and good feehng.] 



In what I have said concerning systems, and the preference which I give to 

 the system of Jussieu over that of Linnaeus, I am let off pretty easily. But 

 it is when Mr. Main comes to that part of his review which relates more im- 

 mediately to physiology that the latent storm begins to break out. 



1. My first fault is a fault of defect, which the critic finds in the work. He 

 has looked " in vain for anything decidedly new." My reply is, that it was 

 not the object of the work to hold up novelties to the view of the world, but 

 rather to state facts, or theories already known, in their chronological order j 

 and, if I had even had a new theory, " cut and dry," and ready, perhaps there 

 mio'ht be more of discretion in keeping it by me for nine years longer, — 



. " Nonumque prematur in annum," HoR. De Art. Poet. 



than in publishing it too hastily, as some theorists do, only to make them- 

 selves a laughing-stock, or subject of sneer, to all men of sense, and of sound 

 science. 



2. My second fault is a fault of defect, or of omission also. " The dark 

 pawes of former writers [I ought] to have cleared up; and their theories 

 [I ouwht] either to have established, or demolished by an appeal to practical 



