1846. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
117 
REVIEW OF DOWNING’S FRUITS AND FRUIT TREES 
OF AMERICA.—No. I. 
When a book is hopelessly weak or incorrect, it 
should be the object of criticism to exterminate it. But 
when a work is admitted to be, upon the whole, well 
done, criticism ought to be an assistance to it, and not a 
hindrance. Praise by the wholesale is better for the 
publisher than for the reputation of the author; since, 
in a work like Downing’s, every pomologist knows 
that perfection is not attainable, and indiscriminate eulo¬ 
gy inclines the better read critic to rebutt the praise by 
a full development of the faults. Thus on one side 
there is general praise and faint blame; and on the 
Other, faint praise and general blame. 
It is charged against Mr. D. by implication, that he 
has added little to the stock of pomological knowledge 
that is new) and therefore that his book cannot be re¬ 
garded as so greatly in advance of others. One would 
suppose this to be a criticism more appropriate to an 
oration, or a rhetorical effort of some sort, than to a 
Fruit Manual. A work which, like Manning’s, embo¬ 
dies only one’s own observations, must be limited, and 
of interest only to a few, and these advanced pomolo- 
gists. Invaluable as are the labors of Manning, his 
work will be found in but few hands; since, being ori¬ 
ginal, it is limited. There are a thousand observers, 
and hundreds of writers on fruit; each year the results 
of observation and experiment accumulate. The author 
who collects these scattered morsels, and puts them into 
good shape within a moderate compass, adding what¬ 
ever his own eyes have seen that is new, has dis¬ 
charged a good work. We have never seen any reason 
to believe that Downing had not added much to his 
descriptions of fruit that is absolutely new. No one in 
his senses, could expect even a man born in a garden, 
to exhaust, at the first effort, so large, so tangled, so 
multifarious a subject as pomology. If Downing’s work 
stands decidedly before any already published, that is 
praise enough. 
A more serious charge is urged by a correspondent 
of Hovey’s Magazine, (vol. 2, p. 48,) and endorsed by 
the accomplished editor of that invaluable Magazine. 
On p. 49 of this Magazine, Mr. Humrickhouse says— 
“ No notice is taken of the fact that others had occu¬ 
pied the field before him. One would suppose, indeed, 
that a gap—an absolute want—of a manual and work 
of reference existed, and that he is the first and only 
one who ever conceived the idea of supplying it.” 
Really, this is to the point, and sufficiently pointed. 
But what shall be said of the fairness of a critic who 
will say such things, when Mr. Downing, so far from 
neglecting to mention former treatises, sets apart a 
chapter to them as “ books quoted •” giving them full 
title, size, date of publication, &c., &c. In this list 
sixty-eight authors are named, thirty-three of Avhom 
wrote expressly on pomological subjects! Perhaps it 
is thought by some, that an author ought to go bowing 
right hand and left through every page of his book, 
with profuse compliments, a hundred times repeated, 
like a gay beau in a drawing room! We prefer a more 
manly style of literature. Again, it is stated, (Hovey’s 
Magazine, p. 48:) “He has nowhere, as I can see, suita¬ 
bly acknowledged that he has derived assistance from 
Kenrick or from Prince; and yet both are authors, from 
whom, it is apparent, that he has drawn as largely as 
from any others;” and the editor adds his hearty appro¬ 
val; specifies Kenrick, Coxe, Thatcher, Prince, Man¬ 
ning, “and ten volumes of our Magazine,” which, it is 
said, are passed over in the preface ; mention being 
made only of the London Horticultural Society’s Cata¬ 
logue ! No man can pretend that Downing has omitted 
these authorities in the body of his book; or in the list 
of authors quoted; it is only in the preface that he neg¬ 
lects them! This is vastly too sensitive for our appre¬ 
ciation. Every page through the book gives these 
various authors and works specific credit for their 
specific part; all home and foreign authors are register¬ 
ed in a separate chapter, as the sources of his informa¬ 
tion; but because they are not a third time mentioned 
in the preface, it is said by Mr. Humrickhouse (p. 50,) 
“Charity, it must be said, impels us to attribute this 
omission to accident and over-sight, rather than to any 
deliberate intention.” 
But we have, in other quarters, seen charges of neg¬ 
lect, and of contempt of Mr. Kenrick. It was, we be¬ 
lieve, in the Boston Courier that we first saw it. We 
have taken some pains to examine Mr. Downing's 
descriptions, one by one, with our eye upon his fidelity 
in this matter. We do not say that he is perfect. But 
we do say that he is not open to the sweeping charges 
so unjustly urged against him. Let us examine. In 
the descriptions of peaks, Kendrick is mentioned eigh¬ 
teen times. What pears are they, with which his name 
is connected? Andrews, Bleecker’s Meadow, Beurre 
d’Amalis, Burnett, Capsheaf, Cumberland, Dix, Fulton. 
M. Louise, Pitts’ Prolific, Queen of the Low Countries, 
Washington, Lewis, Vicar of Winkfield, Wilhelmine 
—American pears, or foreign varieties of comparatively 
recent introduction. Now it is only in respect to these 
two classes of pears that Kenrick deserves credit. His 
descriptions of other sorts are borrowed absolutely or 
simply reproduced. Mr. Hovey thinks his Magazine 
neglected. This would certainly be a culpable neglect; 
for in no other periodical has there been so much done 
for American pomology. But we find it nineteen 
times mentioned in the list of pears. Kenrick is cre¬ 
dited in the description of thirty-one apples; and these, 
chiefly, of the newer varieties, in respect to which only 
Kenrick ought to have credit. 
We do not regard Mr. Downing as immaculate upon 
this point; it is to be expected that a revised edition 
will be more scrupulously careful; but we have seen 
nothing which justifies the charge of general disregard 
of the credit due to the authorities to whom he is in¬ 
debted. And if there is a quiet assumption of original¬ 
ity pervading his pages, in things not original, let that 
man who has written a book without secret vanity, 
| cast the first stone. 
In proceeding now to an examination of portions of 
Mr. Downing’s book, our desire is to help and not to 
hinder. 
We shall, at present, confine our attention to the 
catalogue of apples and pears, for all other fruits of our 
zone together are not of importance equal to these; 
and if an author excels in respect to these, his success 
will cover a multitude of sins in the treatment of small 
fruits, and fruits of short duration. Mr. Downing has 
shown good judgment in making out his list of varie¬ 
ties; his descriptions, for the most part, seem to be 
from his own senses; he has added many interesting 
particulars in respect to fruits not recorded before, or 
else scattered in isolated sentences in magazines and 
journals. 
But are his descriptions thorough and uniform? W T hile 
he has added materials to pomology, has he advanced 
the science by reducing such materials to a consistent 
form? If we corqpare Mr. Downing’s descriptions with 
those of Kenrick, or even of Manning, he excels them in 
fulness. If he be compared with classic European 
pomologists, he is decidedly inferior, both in the con¬ 
ception of what was to be done, and in a neat, syste¬ 
matic method of execution. Indeed Mr. Downing 
does not seem to have settled, before hand, in his mind, 
a formula ol description; sometimes only three or four 
characteristics are given. Downing sins in excellent 
company. There is not an American pomological 
writer who appears conceived even, of a systematic, 
scientific description of fruits. European authors, de¬ 
cidedly more explicit and minute than we are, have 
never reduced the descriptive part of the science to 
anything like regularity. We do not suppose that there 
can be such exact and constant dissimilarities detected 
between variety and varieteis of a species, as exists be¬ 
tween species and species of a genus. We do not 
think a description of fruits to be imperfect therefore, 
merely because it is less distinctive than a description 
of plants. But the more variable and obscure the 
points of difference between two varieties, the more 
scrupulously careful must we be to seize them. Where 
differences are broad and uniform, science can afford to 
