1878. ] 
THE CARNATION AND PICOTEE. 
157 
nations were shown. I had never seen florists 
dressing their flowers before, and I must express 
my opinion that it was a very unedifying sight. 
The lovely flower was seized by the scruff of its 
tender throat,much like a poor victim is seized by the 
dentist, and a pair of ivory tweezers were employed 
in pulling every single petal out of its place. ‘ I say, 
old fellow, have you seen these Carnation fellows 
dressing their flowers ?’ said a brother rosarian to 
me. ‘ They are like a lot of ladies’-maids,’ 1 
answered, ‘preparing their mistresses’ heads for a 
ball.’ It was most amusing work watching them, 
and the difference they made to their pets, and the 
improvement or the reverse that they effected in 
Nature’s handiwork, were so great, that I am suro 
the dame herself would not have recognised her 
children.” Asking four questions,—“ Is this right 
and proper ? If it is, how r is it the Carnation is the 
only flower manipulated in this way P How is it 
rosarians are content to show their blooms as they 
are grown ? And what would be thought of a man 
who fastened down with gum or some cosmetic the 
inmost petals of the somewhat thin Etienne Levet, 
or of the operator who applied some sort of con¬ 
trivance which held the Rose in a grip like a vice, 
and prevented its opening?” Mr. Camm remarks, 
“No end of a row would be made about it, and quite 
properly, too. If this practice goes on, we shall 
come to this: it will not be the best florists or the 
best flowers that will win; it will be the most 
skilful operators, and the most highly dressed and 
artificial flowers, that will carry off the prizes.” 
Finally, as I am told, though I have not read 
the communication, “ A. D.,” giving the rein to 
an imagination excited to the verge of pruri¬ 
ency, likens the chaste, cold, white card to the 
flaunting garb of a prostitute. 
Verily these are grave sayings, and if they 
had the force of fact to support them, we 
Carnation and Picotee-growers and lovers should 
deserve to be exiled from the domains of Flora. 
But indeed the charges made rest on no basis 
of fact or argument. The description of the 
work of the dresser, vivid as it is made by the 
force of Mr. Camrn’s imagination (“ A. D.” I 
pass entirely over, for gentlemen who assume a 
monopoly of “ honesty ” can deserve no reply), 
is a caricature so extreme, that it utterly dis¬ 
torts, not describes, the result; and as for the 
question, Why is the Carnation the only flower 
manipulated in this way ? (assuming as a fact 
what is not a fact, for every flower, the Rose, 
of course, included, is “ dressed ” more or less, 
as the inherent properties of the flower sug¬ 
gest,) I answer, the Carnation is so treated 
because it rejoices in a measure of li variety ” 
possessed by no other flower, because “ with¬ 
out violence to its general unity, it has no two 
petals, and no two stripes on the same petal, 
alike in the form of their colours.” Where, 
therefore, Nature has left a hidden beauty, the 
florist steps in to produce its development, just 
as the lapidary by his art gives brilliancy and 
form to the otherwise dull and shapeless dia¬ 
mond. Both work on the same principle, and 
both, if successful, produce the same result—the 
development of beauty, inherent, but previously 
unseen. 
The card is used merely as a foil to the 
flowers, and the white ground is chosen simply 
from the impossibility of finding neutral tints, 
which, whilst they would combine with the 
varying colours and modes of colour of the 
flowers, would harmonise with each other. 
Many years ago, at the wish and with 
the aid of an artist friend, I made a 
number of experiments in this direc¬ 
tion, with the result I have indicated. The 
florist, in his effort to set off his productions to 
advantage, resorts of necessity to the effects to 
be obtained from the principles of combination 
or contrast , and as, in the case of the foil, he 
cannot combine and harmonise, he turns natur¬ 
ally to the broader and bolder effects of con¬ 
trast. Forty years ago Carnations were shown 
without cards, in tubes elevating the bloom 
completely from the ground. There are now no 
Carnation-growers of eminence who would 
recur to the practice. 
As to the worth of the argument that £: no 
attempt was made to break from the traditional 
mode of exhibiting these flowers,” what would 
the learned writer think of its parallel if 
applied, say, to a course of lectures on botany ? 
“ The lecturer was very successful, from the 
point of view of the professed botanist; his 
language was well chosen, and he illustrated his 
subject with force and clearness. But at the 
risk of being considered rash heretics, we 
venture to dispute the usefulness of this 
minute consideration of Nature. She is great 
and glorious in her broader aspects, and in such 
a light only do we think it worthy to consider 
her.” Rash heretic, indeed, would be the ex¬ 
clamation of the learned Professor, with the 
addition possibly of a stronger expletive. 
The same reply suffices for the Editor of the 
Garden , who asks in effect that the broader 
results of the garden shall be transferred to 
the exhibition-table. Many a time and oft I 
have had the remark addressed to me by 
visitors to my flowers:—“ Talk of exhibitions ; 
there are no exhibitions like this I” The 
egotism of the quotation will, I trust, be for¬ 
given me, as it is given solely as a stimulus to 
others to obtain, as they readily may, a like 
enjoyment. The “ bed of seedlings ” referred to 
by the Editor of the Garden was indeed glori¬ 
ous, an aggregation of form, colour, and mode 
of colouring grand indeed in its effects, but it 
would be a stretch of language, in truth, to say it 
had been“ left alone,” and the veriest tyro would 
sirrelv understand there was more variety in 
white, scarlet, and maroon, than in scarlet and 
maroon, or in a self-coloured flower only. 
Whether the Editor of the Garden sustains his 
case by calling to his aid the comparison of the 
dressing-tweezers to the instruments of the 
dentist, or Mr. Camm by likening the florist’s 
work to that of “ a lot of ladies’-maids pre¬ 
paring their mistresses’ heads for a ball,” I 
