THE GARDEN ALBUM AND REVIEW . 
67 
perhaps we should add to them the real love of 
flowers, which is sure to come as soon as we 
give our attention to the subject. 
Nothing makes us feel more ashamed of the 
paucity of flowers in many of our gardens, 
than a passing study of some of the old garden 
works. Miller’s Gardener’s Dictionary, first 
published in 1731, gives most interesting 
accounts of the flowering plants then known; 
and amongst them we are surprised to find 
many names, which have been brought out by 
florists of late years, as new importations or 
discoveries. Miller was appointed Curator to 
the Chelsea Apothecaries’ Garden in 1722, and 
the list of hardy plants he gives, as growing 
there, is indeed an astounding one. For 
instance, he gives names of nineteen plants 
flowering in January, twelve in December, ten 
in November,fifty-four in October,one hundred- 
and-fourteen in June; some no doubt were 
medicinal plants, and their flowers of little 
value, but what is calculated to take down our 
modern pride is, that nearly all our noveities 
were well known then, and he gives excellent 
cultural notes on them. The climate must 
have been rather different at that time, as in 
Chelsea, which was then I suppose near 
London, not in it, the flowers were out about a 
month earlier than they are now with us in the 
south. Almost all these wonderful long lists 
are of perennial plants, of which no doubt our 
ancestors had a far finer stock than we have 
now, though we are beginning to recognize 
their value. They seem to have almost died 
out during a very bad gardening period in the 
last century, when bedding out became a craze. 
Trentham garden is described in 1859, as a 
“startling mass of geraniums and calceolarias,” 
and “this alone,” the writer adds, “was the 
aim of the gardeners in many places.” 
Gardening is a study that in past ages has 
gained the attention of some great men. We 
may remember Sir William Temple’s devotion 
to his garden, and how the poet Cowley tells 
us it was his highest ambition to “ be master of 
a small house and a large garden.” But there 
is a greater name than these ; we all know of 
Lord Bacon as a great statesman, philosopher, 
writer, Lord Chancellor, and in these last years 
reputed by some the author of Shakespeare’s 
plays : but we may not all remember that he 
was also a very keen gardener, and that his 
essay “ On Gardens ” is still one of the leading 
classics in garden literature. Macaulay calls 
it one of Bacon’s most interesting essays, and 
tells us that after his fall and retirement into 
private life, “ his business was literature, his 
favourite amusement gardening.” We shall 
agree with many of his views written 250 years 
ago, for that was a good age for gardens, and, 
as we know, many of our most beautiful places 
were laid out then. He says, “ I do hold it, in 
the royal ordering of gardens, there ought to 
be gardens for all the months of the year : in 
which, severally, things of beauty may be then 
m season ”—then he gives us a long list of 
plants for each month, ending “ these particu¬ 
lars are for the climate of London ; but my 
meaning is perceived, that you may have ‘ ver 
perpetuum’ as the place affords.” He gives us 
several hints that he realised the value of 
mixed planting as “ let the borders wherein 
you plant your fruit trees be fair and large and 
low, and not steep and set with fine flowers.” 
Land was more plentiful in those days, and 
people less so, than now : and we should, many 
of us, dissent from some of his dictums, such 
as, “ For gardens, the contents ought not well 
to be under thirty acres of ground.” Sir 
William Temple, on the contrary, writes in 
1685, “ As to the size of a garden, which will 
perhaps in time grow extravagant among us, I 
think from four or five to seven acres is as 
much as any gentleman need design.” Bacon 
again describes how he would have hedges and 
arches formed, and “ over every space, between 
the arches, some little figure, with round 
coloured glass, gilt, for the sun to play upon.” 
I hope we should now consider it an insult to 
our flowers to embellish the garden with bits of 
coloured glass. But I am sure we shall none 
of us dissent from Bacon’s best known saying 
on the subject, with which I will end—a saying 
so well known that it is dear to the heart of 
every garden lover—“ God Almighty first 
planted a garden ; and, indeed, it is the purest 
of human pleasures.” 
E. M. Hill, F.R.H.S. 
IS RHUBARB A FRUIT? 
A writer in “Gardening Illustrated;’ recently 
wrote :—“ There has been a much greater call 
for this fruit (many will say it is a vegetable, 
no doubt, as it usually comes under the latter 
name) than I can remember for many years, 
the scarcity of Apples being probably respon¬ 
sible for this.” 
For many years past there has been a good 
deal of discussion as to whether Tomatos and 
Cucumbers were really to be classed as Vege- 
tables.or as Fruits, but never have we seen it 
stated—except in penny gardening books 
written by ladies—that Rhubarb is a fruit. Of 
course it serves the same purpose as such fruits 
as the Apple, Gooseberry, Raspberry, and 
Currant, but it is rather a long stretch of the 
imagination to describe the leaf-stalks of 
Rhubarb—even when used in pies—as fruit. 
Besides, the idea of a fruit conjures up in one’s 
mind visions of pruning, training, budding, 
grafting, and other operations which deal 
exclusively with fruit trees, but not one of 
which can be employed in the cultivation of 
Rhubarb. In the case of the Tomato, much 
may be said for classing it amongst the 
vegetables. Owing to its beautiful colour and 
shape, however, it is gradually winning its way 
into schedules as a “ fruit,” but it is questionable 
if the Cucumber will ever come to be regarded 
by gardeners as other than a vegetable pure and 
simple. The Rhubarb, however, cannot with 
any reason be classed as a “ fruit.” 
