344 
THE GARDENING WORLD 
February 1, 1890. 
FLOfJldl/LWf^. 
The Rev. G. Jeans on the Philosophy of 
Florists' Flowers —II. 
“ In my last I disposed of the first of the three forms of 
objection in which the charge of uselessness is ordinarily 
brought against the system of fancy flowers. 
“The second objection admits the existence among 
us of a systematic standard of excellence, not the mere 
creature of caprice, but repudiates it as bad, on the 
ground that to admit any such external and common 
standard at all, it not being founded in nature, is 
unnaturally to cramp the freedom of taste existing 
separately and independently in every one. And 
further, because, by creating a conventional fastidious¬ 
ness, it restricts, instead of augmenting, the pleasure 
derivable from flowers, and fixes our admiration rather 
on effects produced by art, than on the genuine 
beauties of nature. 
“ This form of objection, or some portion of it, is 
most frequently used by those who are naturally 
capable of the highest degree of discrimination, both of 
beauties and of defects, in such matters—the ladies ; 
and therefore I am not without hope that when I have 
shown them that their fears are groundless, I shall 
enlist heartily in our cause some of the ablest supporters 
of this really interesting science. And that the objec¬ 
tion, though specious and less transparently unsound 
than the former, is wholly imaginary might not 
unreasonably be inferred, from the universal habit of 
florists perversely to agree in preferring their bondage 
tr liberty ; while yet they ever become more interested 
in their pursuit, the more they occupy themselves in it 
and at the same time continue to retain their relish for 
a hedge Violet or a Primrose. 
“ Those who plead for ignorance, even though it be 
ignorance of the properties of a Pink, are presump¬ 
tively in the wrong. Nor will the presumptive 
evidence in this instance mislead us, for the objection 
assumes as true what I hope to show is unfounded :—- 
(1) That there is no external standard of floral ex¬ 
cellence in nature, but only in the capricious taste of 
each beholder; (2) that therefore the established 
system is of the florists' making, not of his finding 
ready made for him ; (3) that to be bound by it is to 
diminish .the natural pleasure beneficently given us by 
the Creator in the works of his creation. 
“1.—With regard to the first assumption, the principal 
object of these papers is to trace out from nature, as I 
hope to do in a subsequent one, -that standard which is 
alleged to have no existence ; for there certainly is an 
external standard of perfection, and that in every 
species of flower, even though we should never reach it 
in practice, to see it; because care and cultivation uni¬ 
formly develop certain qualities, differing in each 
species, which are only dimly, and perhaps not at all, 
seen in their wild or natural state. And in those 
kinds which are technically called florists’ flowers, or 
such as are capable of great diversity in their varieties, 
by a judicious use of the method of hybridising, fresh 
varieties are still produced, more and more developing 
those qualities in the same direction, and pointing to 
a yet invisible standard of what, if ever reached, would 
be the perfection of that particular species. 
“2.—Therefore it follows that if florists do not 
unwisely depart from the standard indicated in 
nature, their requirements are not their own, and 
they are not answerable for any alleged consequences 
of their art. It is not they who put restrictions 
on the admirers of natural beauties, if any such 
restrictions exist (which, however, they do not) ; but 
not even for the appearance of them are they answer- 
able. 
“ The work of the florist is simply to follow whither 
nature leads him, selecting always that track in which 
there is the greatest promise of success ; and on his 
judgment in never departing from this, and in using 
the best means for securing the accomplishment of his 
desires, depends the correctness of his practical science. 
“And though mistakes have, of course, been made, 
and will be made again in the endeavours after advance¬ 
ment in each particular object of our culture, yet these 
still become fewer as progress is made in developing the 
natural powers and characteristic excellences of the 
plant, whereby the philosophy of its improvement is 
seen ; and we do not work in the dark, because there 
is a system of such development in nature, and a 
definite point of perfection, the constant approach to 
which constitutes improvement in each species. And as 
this is effected by crossing the seed of those varieties 
which have shown respectively the greatest advances in 
some particular quality, it is plain that there is a sub¬ 
stantial truth in the phrase, common among florists, 
‘ a high-bred flower.’ 
“3.—As to the third and last assumption—namely, 
the hardship of being deprived of the power of 
admiring a wild Pansy, and so of losing half the 
pleasure designed by the Creator—the matter is not 
quite fairly stated. I do not think florists generally 
despise wild flowers in their proper place ; with myself, 
I know the very reverse is the fact. I take much more 
pleasure in them now than I did before I paid atten¬ 
tion to their cultivated varieties ; and, further, I think 
it will be found that a wild Pansy will be tolerated, 
and even cherished by a florist, where a badly cultivated 
one, though much in advance of it in respect of pro¬ 
perties, would be consigned with disgust to the pit 
as a weed. Yet it is frankly to be admitted that an 
untutored eye may delight in a cultivated specimen, 
which, to the more deeply versed, and, therefore, 
fastidious taste of the connoisseur, would convey 
unqualified distaste. But that is no more an argument 
that a person must sacrifice his pleasure in flowers by 
learning to cultivate them, than it is an argument 
against learning the art of painting, lest the student 
should lose his admiration of the signs in the streets ; 
or the art of music, lest he should cease to be pleased 
with the organ of an itinerant. The same argument, 
indeed, is equally available, and has been often used 
against all civilisation generally, and every particular 
part of it. The fact is, that we are so constituted that 
our onward progress in everything must be clogged with 
such accompaniments, and he who would have it other¬ 
wise forgets that he is in a world of probation and dis¬ 
cipline and hardness. We are urged forward only by the 
goads and spurs of our wants. But who ever regretted 
the introduction of coffee from Arabia, tea from China, 
or muslin from India, because the use of these things is 
inseparably connected with disgust at acorn diet, and 
at the homespun manufactures of our ancestors ? The 
refinement of our pleasures, in changing their objects, 
does not necessarily abridge them ; nor, though it were 
sure to introduce a corresponding loss at the other end 
of the scale, would it lessen by a hair’s breadth the 
sum of human enjoyment, while assuredly it is capable 
of a beneficial effect in humanising the man. And 
therefore I think ladies especially should pause before 
they find fault with a pursuit which may, in its degree, 
become subservient to one of the great ends they them¬ 
selves are destined to fulfil on our behalf.” 
The Show Tulip. 
There having been so much patience and consideration 
recently bestowed upon the question of classifying the 
yellow Carnations, and which has now linked itself 
into the much more important subject, “The Philosophy 
of Florists’ Flowers,” I hope there may not be attributed 
to me, in any degree, a motive of selfishness when I 
ask my brother florists of the south for similar con¬ 
sideration and support for what that great florist of the 
past—the Rev. George Jeans—speaks of as being not 
only the “grandest” amongst florists’ flowers, but 
perhaps the “oldest” in cultivation as a fancy flower. 
I, of course, refer to the show Tulip, which Hogg, 
in his treatise on The Cultivation of Florists’ Flowers , 
terms the “masterpiece of perfection,” and describes 
them as “ those beautiful, those exquisitely beautiful 
flowers, which are the pride and boast of every amateur 
who grows them.” 
I might, indeed, fill a column of your valuable paper 
by similar quotations from men of fame who have long 
been at rest, but it would be superfluous for me to do 
so. My special desire in this instance is not to 
expatiate, but briefly and plainly to put before all florists 
of the south the simple question as to whether this old 
favourite flower is any longer to continue a “cast out,” 
or uncultivated by them, or whether there still exist 
those who are ready to support its revival and general 
cultivation, so that the gardens and floral exhibitions 
in London and neighbouring towns may again be 
adorned, as in the time of Carter, Austen, Strong, 
Goldham, Clarke, Groom, Norman, Willison, Turner, 
Headley, Glenny, and others too numerous to mention 
(twenty to fifty years ago), with this, the “ inasterp ; ece 
of perfection ” of florists’ flowers, in all its richness and 
splendour, such as a really well-grown show Tulip 
would present ? 
Mr. Washington Peakman, of Birmingham, afforded 
me a short time ago a very unexpected treat, by the 
perusal of two volumes of Robert Sweet’s Florists' 
Guide, which contains a very large number of highly 
coloured engravings of the finest varieties of show 
Tulips, cultivated by the principal southern growers 
sixty years ago. The engravings are most beautifully 
executed, and are evidently faithfully represented, for 
the defect in marking, such as “ skips” in the feathering, 
&c., are clearly shown. Old Polyphemus and 
Louis XVI. appear among the number, the former being 
in cultivation now, and the original strain figures A 1 
amongst the flamed bizarres. There must, I imagine, 
be thousands of bulbs of the old varieties of show 
Tulips still to be found in the gardens of London and 
neighbouring towns, if they were only carefully 
hunted up. 
Mr. Cullingford informed me a few years ago that 
he had a large number of them. If these remarks 
should meet with a few sympathising friends who will 
follow up the question with their views, and in the 
hope of a Tulip show being held at the Royal 
Aquarium, or any other suitable exhibition, between 
the 21st and 25th of May next, my object will be so 
far achieved. 
I have had a correspondence with Mr. James W. 
Bentley, Thornham House, Castleton, Manchester, 
honorary secretary to the Royal National Tulip 
Society (northern section), in reference to my article 
which appeared in this journal, June 22nd last (p. 376); 
and whilst his committee will be ready to render every 
assistance they can towards the establishment of a 
southern section of their society, they cannot hold out 
any expectation of pecuniary support, as their funds 
will not admit of it. Nine-tenths of their subscribers 
consist of Lancashire working men, and seeing that 
they could have no interest in southern shows in 
regard to exhibiting, anything beyond their good 
wishes could scarcely be expected from them. —James 
Thurstan, Finsbury House, Richmond, Cardiff. 
The Auricula Aphis. 
It will be of interest and value to all Auricula growers 
who are troubled with the aphis which attacks the 
roots of their favourites, to know that at Slough the 
enemy has been completely stamped out by a very 
safe and simple means. At the last spring potting, 
sphagnum moss was used for putting over the crocks to 
keep the drainage clear, and during the summer the 
plants were occasionally watered with soot water, with 
the result that the pest has been completely eradicated. 
The moist, cooling effect of the sphagnum, and the soot 
water, have had a most beneficial effect on the plants, 
which are showing signs of returning activity, and 
are looking wonderfully well. 
- >!< • 
THE GARDENERS’ ORPHAN 
FUND. 
I am somewhat surprised at “A. D’s.” remarks, at 
p. 329, in reference to the election of so many life sub¬ 
scribers, in consequence of their having been enabled to 
become donors to the fund of sums sufficient to entitle 
them to that privilege. “A. D.” has so frequently 
proclaimed himself as a warm supporter of the fund 
that this douse of cold water thrown at other willing 
workers seems to me to be very much out of place. 
The committee are enormously indebted to the orga¬ 
nisers of fetes, &c., such as those referred to at p. 310, 
and to the local secretaries, who secure votes in the 
same way. It is one of the chief and most healthy 
sources of income, a splendid illustration of what can 
be achieved by union or combination—“ Monie littles 
mak a muckle.” 
It is safe to say that except in this way nothing like 
so much money could have been got together, and it is 
but just and proper that those who give their time and 
their support to the promotion of this sort of thing 
should have some voice and control in the application 
of the funds. On this ground I defend the giving of 
votes to those who bring us funds, not altogether “out 
of their own pockets.” But are votes everything ?—as 
“ A. D.” would appear to have us believe. Is it right 
to assume that these gentlemen have no object in view 
but the securing of votes for themselves ? I venture to 
say that no such sordid motive influenced one of them. 
I select one of several letters now before me, in which the 
writer says, “‘A. D.’s ’ remarks are more stimulating to 
me than otherwise. I shall still try to get what I can in 
sums great or small. It is to help the helpless that I 
am working, and not for privileges for myself.” 
Many of those, I may point out, who have become 
life subscribers are also annual contributors, and most 
likely will continue so. Having once obtained an 
interest in the fund, they are more likely to lend their 
support in other ways, and there would be nothing 
absurd in securing by similar efforts another and yet 
another vote. That good annual subscribers are more 
desirable than life donors may be true enough ; but that 
