JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
May 19, 1881. ] 
19 th 
Th 
Reading Horticultural Show. 
2ota 
F 
Alexandra Palace Floral Exhibition (two days). 
21st 
S 
22nd 
Sen 
5th Sunday after Easter. 
23rd 
M 
Royal Geographical Society at 8.30 P.M. 
24 th 
Tu 
Royal Horticultural Society—Fruit and Floral Committees at 
25th 
W 
Royal Botanic Society (First Summer Show). [11 A.M. 
DOUBLE FLOWERS—A PROTEST. 
^HENCE the love of flowers, which seems in¬ 
herent more or less in every human breast ? 
Well, we confess we have just propounded a 
question which we fear we cannot answer, and 
will not attempt to do so. It is a love T7hich 
exists, however, which is a living power for 
good, and we sincerely pity the man who is in¬ 
capable of being moved by the quiet unobtrusive 
beauty of flowers. 
The beauty of fhwersl How the simple expression 
transports one from the smoke-bound, brick or stone-pent 
town, and even the ccmtortable country home when the snows 
of winter mantle the earth, to the dewy dell in spring time when 
the Buttercups dot the emerald grass ; the Wood Anemone 
waves its spotless flowers in response to the zephyrs of May ; 
the Primroses and “ Cowslips wan that hang the pensive 
head,” peep out shamefacedly from among their cushions of 
clustering leaves ; and “ the wee, modest, crimson-tipped flower ” 
—the Daisy—welcomes the returning summer. Such a picture 
floats before the writer’s vision as he pens these lines. He 
can almost fancy he hears the exultant shcuts of the school¬ 
boys and girls—some of them, alas! no more—as the Free 
Church school of Pitlessie is “ skelt ” at noon ; and he can 
again recall the sight of the little bands that used to flock— 
still flock—to Priestfield “ den ” to gather abundant handfuls 
of Primroses mingled with other simple wild flowers. 
It is said, and there is truth in the assertion, that it is the 
association of extraneous thoughts with the recurring annual 
bloom of “ old-fashioned ” flowers 'which cause many persons 
to cling so attachedly to them. While admitting that there is 
some truth in this, we imagine that it is the simple beauty, 
unsophisticated beaut) 7 ) of the flowers themselves which wields 
the greater power. We admit at once that, while admiring 
all beautiful flowers, there are some to which we are fondly 
attached, and to none more so than simple Primroses. “ Ah ! ” 
some reader may exclaim, “ that proves the power of associ¬ 
ation of ideas.” Not so fast, my friend. We have a strong 
affection for simple forms of Primroses, no matter whence 
they come, but that affection does not extend to all the 
tribe. For instance, our heart goes out in tenderness towards 
the Abyssinian one (Primula verticillata), while we love 
not, and scarcely even admire, the double forms of our own 
much-loved Primula veris. If association of ideas only rules, 
how comes it that the foreigner with its simplicity charms 
so much, and the companion of our childhood fails to do so 
when transformed—we very nearly wrote deformed, into a 
391 
wispy multiplicity of petals ? Again, we grow as well as we 
can and we admire the fine “ perfected ” forms of the Chinese 
Primrose, but its gaudy beauty fails to awaken half the 
emotion which the little white P. viscosa (commonly called 
P. nivalis) does, and yet both are foreigners alike. The double 
Chinese or other Primroses we look upon as being very 
useful for bouquets or cut-flower work generally, or affording 
an appearance at a dull season ; but as for their possessing 
beauty in its highest type, we emphatically deny it. The 
highest beauty consists of simplicity and elegance combined 
with delicacy of colour. 
Double flowers in general possess neither simplicity nor 
elegance. They are mostly ungainly monstrosities ; and as for 
delicacy of colouring, the single flowers nearly possess a mon¬ 
opoly of it. Why is the Primrose, the wild Daisy, or the 
Buttercup so much admired and cherished, and the Dandelion 
held in contempt ? It surely cannot be that we were less 
familiar with Dandelions in youth than with Buttercups or 
Primroses. It cannot be that its peculiar shade of yellow is 
its condemnation. No, but it is gaudy, it is inelegant, it is a 
wisp of petals; hence it is a failure, a “ hissing and a 
bye-word ”—and—and a model for the florists ! Double 
Daisies are more showy when planted in masses ; but will any¬ 
body say they are more beautiful individually than the com¬ 
mon one ? Are the petals (florets) better formed, are they 
more snowy white, are they so beautifully tinted, are they as 
simply elegant as the single common ones of the fields and 
roadsides 9 Emphatically nc. And are double Pelargoniums 
finer than single ones ? Are they half so fine ? When cut 
they stand better, and that is their only recommendation. We 
are unable to see very much beauty even in single Zonals ; but 
as for the doubles, we would as soon think of getting enthu¬ 
siastic over a bundle of red rags ! They are showy, so is a 
red cart when newly painted. They are gay, so is a soldier’s 
coat; but who dare call them beautiful ? 
And double Roses. Are they more beautiful than our 
wild ones? True, they are, many of them, bigger; but is 
our sense of the beautiful to be measured by inches ? True, 
they have more petals ; but is beauty become a matter of 
arithmetic ? Is a flower with six petals more beautiful than 
one with five ? Is not the flower with the five better every way 
if the extra petal destroys the beautiful symmetry, which is 
half the charm in single flowers ? And have the florists not 
by their derangement of this symmetry—which is what has 
been done in ninety-nine cases out of every hundred where 
the addition of more petals to a perfectly formed flower has 
been the object—done a great deal to destroy beauty? I for 
one think the florists and others who strive to “ improve ” our 
flowers have all gone on the wrong track. It is time for them 
to learn that the mere enlargement of a flower from the size 
of a shilling to the size of a florin is not of itself improve¬ 
ment, nor yet is the multiplication of petals. Let us have 
elegance, by which I mean symmetry, purity and delicacy of 
colouring ; but are greater diameters and increased numbers 
of petals elements of beauty ? 
Moreover, it is surely not a necessary qualification that 
flowers should be exactly round. A waggon wheel is surely a 
poor model for an improver to aim at, and yet something 
equivalent is kept in view. Flowers assume many shapes, and 
yet this very variety in form is one of the charms of plants 
and flowers. Yet with all the hubbub the florists make about 
No. 47 .—Vol. II., Third Series. 
No. 1703.— Ton. LXV., OLD Series. 
