100 
THE FLOEIST AND POMOLOGIST. 
[ May, 
this question are open to us, and in both methods the practice is triumphantly vin¬ 
dicated. First, what is the relative state of the flbwer now as regards approximation 
to perfection, as compared with its place before the practice was adopted ; and 
secondly, what is the ratio of its cultivation now and then ? To both these ques¬ 
tions the logic of facts” supplies us with incontrovertible answers. To the first: 
since the practice has existed “ there has been an advance, in its ratio immensely 
beyond any formerly obtained,” in everything that “ constitutes beauty in the 
flower, as stoutness of petal, smoothness, fine texture, richness and regularity of 
colouring, and harmonious distribution,” resulting in “ greater symmetry, and 
contrast, and variety,” and therefore “ eliciting increased delight and a larger 
measure of approbation.” To the second: the increase in the extent of the 
cultivation has been quite equal to the advance in the path of perfection. 
As to the assertion that there is a deceptive difference created in the flower, I 
can only say that is the error merely of the ignorant, and I assure my readers 
that not the most skilful manipulation can make that good which is in itself 
radically bad. The good may be made more prominent, and what is not so 
pleasing placed, so to speak, in the background, but this cannot be reprehensible, 
for if it were, it would involve in condemnation all the arts of life and practices 
of civilisation. 
And as to dishonesty, there can be none, where there is neither coverture in 
the practice—it is openly taught, openly practised, and openly proclaimed, nor 
advantage obtained by it, other than as the beauty developed delights more 
largely ourselves and others. I trust I have thus shown the practice of “ dressing 
flowers ”—a practice necessarily limited in its scope, though not limited in prin¬ 
ciple—is not deserving the animadversion and severity of criticism which some 
persons (those without information, or only very partially informed) have applied 
to it. And that surely must be innocent and advantageous which is followed 
within clearly understood and well-defined bounds, by cultivators of every degree, 
and results in familiarising the eye with a model more nearly approaching to the 
exactness of perfection which science delineates ; whilst just as it increases the 
beauty of the flower, it educates our tastes, and gives us a readier ability to 
detect the ills requiring to be remedied. In fine, it cannot be a reproach “ to feel 
the beauties God has created for our pleasure, and to draw them forth from the 
obscurity in which He has hidden them,” while by such an “ exercise of our in¬ 
telligence,” we more widely diffuse admiration, and excite deeper and more 
enlarged emotions of delight. 
The modus operandi is very simple, and certainly very different in its results 
to those assumed by a recent critic. “ It is the province of art to conceal art.” 
Assuredly that must be the very poverty of art which imparts to the flower an 
appearance of looseness, in opposition to the compactness conferred by nature. 
What the artist has to do is to follow Nunn, begin “where Dame Nature left off, 
and perfect what she left imperfect.” By a judicious opening and reversal of the 
upper points of the calyx, a point is legitimately gained in size ; whilst by a skil- 
