On Gardeners' Flowers 



he tempts us, any more than he necessarily 

 must, to narrow down our tastes, or wil- 

 fully leads us to prefer the lower to the 

 higher, or carries out evil tendencies as 

 to faulty colouring or shape, that we must 

 hold him justly to blame. 



But with reference to losses from 

 cultivation, is the gardener always neces- 

 sarily one-sided ? May he not raise a 

 plant, without material loss of any kind, 

 to a higher order of beauty ? Theoreti- 

 cally it appears by no means easy to say. 

 Even if it were a mere question of size, 

 can a plant be quite perfect that is 

 designed for being two feet high, if it 

 can be raised without any loss to three 

 or four? How should we like our Snow- 

 drops and Harebells to be of twice the 

 present size ? On the contrary, if the 

 plant is improved by enlargement of the 

 blossom, with or without corresponding 

 diminution of the foliage, would not this 

 show that the blossom had originally been 

 too small? It might be answered, of 

 course, that some forms have dwindled 

 or deteriorated, and may be restored by 

 giving them the advantages they require. 

 But this will not be the usual case. In 

 general, where the wild plant seems really 

 inferior, we shall probably find that the 



167 



