338 
ON THE LOVE OF FLOWERS. 
and from every individual contained in his collection lie derives unal¬ 
loyed pleasure. He is not tortured by that precise fastidiousness of 
propension (for taste it cannot be cajled) which will make him turn 
away disgusted from a beautiful tulip merely because it is a somewhat 
foul bizarre, or an imperfect byblomen. Whether a hyacinth be single 
or double, whether with a plain or a coloured eye, if it be a well-grown 
stately flower it meets his approbation. Nor is his regard confined to 
the narrow limits of the arch-florist; he bestows attention on every 
bud that blows, whether the early gems of spring, the ample blossoms 
of summer, or the parting glories of autumn. 
This general love of flowers is a source of unceasing pleasure to the 
possessor. In all his walk§, whether in the garden or in the fields, 
in the highly-cultivated pasture, or on the open common, he meets 
something to admire and arrest attention. His flower-garden is a 
receptacle for everything that is gay or sweet; he collects not only the 
ephemeral favourites of the professional florist, but also the more lasting 
ornaments of the grove and shrubbery. 
Unluckily for the exclusive notions of the thorough-bred florists 
many of their exquisites are monstrous, and as far removed from 
the simple elegance of nature as art and a vitiated fancy can make 
them. At the same time we willingly admit that a super-refined taste 
in flowers is a professional qualification; and to the amateur an accom¬ 
plishment, which to both may be productive of personal satisfaction 
and happiness, which is so far good ; and if at the same time it 
can be turned to account as a source of profit to the first and of 
fame to the second, it is at least a commendable study and a laudable 
pursuit. 
But it is frequently observed of this flower fancy that there is 
danger of its running into extremes. Some societies have erred in this 
way, by carrying the pursuit of Jloral varieties to too great a length. 
Such exertions do nothing for science. The botanist abhors and dis¬ 
claims it; the cultivator of the permanent beauties among shrubs and 
trees scouts the idea of giving preference to objects of so fleeting a 
character as what are at present called florists’ flowers, more especially 
if it operate so as to cause a neglect of less perishable plants. It is a 
diversion of the public mind from things which have long been and will 
long continue to be the glory of our gardens to trifles of so fugitive a 
description, that they are but rarely seen thrice in the same place, 
their value and novelty diminishing or rather vanishing together in a 
very few months. 
The old established stage, bed, and border flowers are not alluded to 
in this charge : they, it is likely, will always keep their ground in 
