Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ART. I. A complete Body of Planting and Gardening. Containing the Natural History, Culture, and Management, of Deciduous and Evergreen Forest Trees, with practical Directions for raifing and improving Woods, Nurferies, Seminaries, and Plantations; and the Method of propagating and improving the various Kinds of deciduous and evergreen Shrubs and Trees, proper for Ornament and Shade. Alfo Inftructions for laying out and difpofing of Pleafure and Flower Gardens; including the Culture of Prize Flowers, Perennials, Annuals, Biennials, &c. Likewife plain and familiar Rules for the Management of the Kitchen Garden; comprehending the newest and beft Methods of raising all its different Productions. To which is added, the Manner of planting and cultivating Fruit Gardens and Orchards. The Whole forming a complete History of Timber Trees, whether raised in Forefts, Plantations, or Nurseries; as well as a general Syftem of the prefent Practice of Flower, Fruit, and Kitchen Gardens. By the Rev. William Hanbury, A. M. Rector of Church-Langton in Leicestershire. Folio. 2 Vols. 41. 4 s. Dilly.

EVER

VERY perfon who has heard of Mr. Hanbury's extraordinary plantations at Church-Langton, and of his close cultivation of them ever fince the year 1753, will conclude that the extensive experience of near 20 years, built, too, on the experience of former writers, muft be very fufficient to recommend a fyftem of planting and gardening from this Gentleman's pen.

The poffeffion of knowledge, however, and an happy talent of communicating knowledge, are qualifications feldom united in the fame perfon; nor is it altogether easy to determine from which of them, Separately, a reader would chufe to accept, with preference, a treatife upon any fubject. From the one we may receive even the information with much fatisfaction; while any improvement extracted from the other, is obtained with la bour, and perhaps, too, even with difguft.

VOL. L.

B

The

The language of botany, in whatever form, is not very inviting to general readers; and though it does not appear fufceptible of any advantages beyond perfpicuity and brevity, yet where these are wanting, even the profeffed botanift (though no poet) may be allowed to knit his brows. Method, indeed, is of much more importance than ftyle, in a body of gardening; yet when a clergyman, who muft, in courfe, be supposed a man of letters, becomes our inftructor, we expect good language; free, at least, from that obfcurity, or unneceffary verbufity, into which uneducated writers are apt to fall. We are forry, however, to obferve, that the merit of this work is rather derived from the tiller of ground, than from the cultivator of learning. Defects of this kind, might pass unnoticed in an ELLIS; but they can hardly be excufed in an HANBURY.

We do not expect that a cenfure of this kind will be very cordially received by Mr. H. himself; but, furely, he who paffes fo confident, fo harfh, and fo indifcriminate a cenfure on all writers who have gone before him in the fame walk, can never object to the unreferved expreffion of our real opinion of his performance. The fecond paragraph in his preface is conceived in the following emphatic terms:

Numbers of books have been written within thefe few years on different parts of planting, botany, or gardening; all of which are extremely defective, their plan of execution being both unnatural and abfurd.'

Dr. Johnson fhrewdly obferves, in the preface to his edition. of Shakespeare, that great part of the labour of every writer, is only the deftruction of those that went before him;' and that the first care of the builder of a new system, is to demolish the fabrics which are ftanding.' Where a new builder determines to erect an edifice on pre-occupied ground, he must undoubtedly overturn whatever ftands in his way, without diftinction; and then he has nothing to do but to begin his intended foundation, and convert the old materials and rubbish to his own use. This is exactly the conduct which Mr. Hanbury has adopted. Proposing to write a voluminous body of gardening, it was firft neceffary to prejudice the Public againft every thing lately done of that kind, as the productions of fools, or madmen. This he attempts to effect in a very fummary manner, by fuch confident affertions as that above quoted. The proofs are next to be attended to.

We entirely agree with Mr. Hanbury, that to treat the plants as they ftand arranged in the different claffes of the fcience, is certainly a good method for a treatise folely on bo tany, but fhould by no means be adopted in a book on gardening, where the unlearned but useful gardener would be puzzled to find out the forts for his purpose, among the hard names,

titles,

titles, claffes, and technical terms of the fcience.' Having condemned the botanical arrangement of the articles, in a treatise of practical gardening, he proceeds to cenfure a writer who has treated them according to the feafons, as they rife in the course of the year; a method not ill calculated however for un learned gardeners. But it is the alphabetical form which Mr. Hanbury chiefly aims to difcredit, for a reafon not very difficult to discover. Another performance, fays he, has appeared under the form of a dictionary; though nothing can be more injudicious than to compofe a book of this nature dictionary wie: for to arrange the various genera, fo widely different in their natures, in an alphabetical order, is very bad; but to continue all the fpecies, of what kind foever, under their refpective genera, must be still worse. One fpecies of a genus may, perhaps, be an annual, the next a perennial, a third a tree, and the fourth an ufeful efculent for the table: this perhaps may require the heat of a stove; that perhaps be hardy enough for the coldest fituations; while another may demand the moderate protection of a green-house, or thrive very well abroad under a warm wall.'

All these objections may be admitted, and yet the alphabetical arrangement, nevertheless, remain the cleareft both to the intelligent and the ignorant; having, as in Miller's Dictionary, the work above alluded to, an English index of popular names, referring to the botanical denominations under which the arti cles may be found: fome trouble is undoubtedly caused by this double fearch, but it will daily decrease in proportion as the reader improves in his knowledge of botanical arrangement; which he will infenfibly do by confulting the articles. To this indeed might be added, a green-houfe index, and an hot-houfe index, for the ready turning to articles in the dictionary, which require thofe kinds of forced cultivation, with indexes of other kinds for particular purposes. Thus the whole botanical fyftem being digefted under one alphabet, no perfon with the affiftance of fuch proper indexes, could be at a lofs for any thing, if he knows what he is seeking for, either in botanical Latin or com mon English.

It remains now to examine how far Mr. Hanbury's plan is calculated to guard against the objections which he has made to the plans of other writers.

The whole fubject is divided into fix books; and the distri bution is as follows:

Book I. After an introduction to botany, according to the Linnæan system, this first book treats of the culture of foreft trees, under the fubdivifions of deciduous, aquatic, and ever

green.

B 2

Book

Book II. Principles for defign in gardening, for the management of the feminary and nursery, and for grafting, budding, layering, &c. culture of hardy, deciduous, foreign trees and fhrubs, proper for the wilderness, hardy evergreen trees and fhrubs, and climbers.

Book III. Treats of perennial flowers, under the fubdivifions of prize flowers, and hardy flowers in general. This concludes the first volume. Book IV. Of annuals and biennials in general; the greenhoufe, and green-house plants, ftove, and stove plants. Book V. Of the kitchen garden in general, the doctrine of hot beds, &c. with the management of low forts of fruit. Book VI. The culture and management of orchards, fruit trees, and fruit.

Notwithstanding Mr. Hanbury found fo much confusion in the dictionary form, and notwithstanding this digeft may appear fo unexceptionable to the Author, yet thefe fix divifions, with their fubdivifions, under each of which the articles are ranged. in feparate alphabets, as fo many fmall dictionaries, actually perplex the unity of the fubject, and introduce more confufion than they were contrived to avoid. In a profeffed body of planting and gardening, why are useful grain, edible roots, flowers merely for fight, ufelefs or noxious weeds, all to be affociated together, under the claffes of perennial, and annual FLOWERS? When this jumble occurs under an improved arrangement, why not accept Miller's jumble, with the advantage of having the whole under one alphabet? Duck's meat, for inftance, though intitled to a place among aquatic plants, in a treatife of botany, or an herbal, has furely no business in a treatife of planting and gardening, under the class of perennial flowers, where no inftructions are given for cultivating them, and where no one wishes for the knowledge. As little propriety is obferved in ranking a fpecies of the parfnep in the fame department, among flowers! The feveral kinds of marjoram, are scattered about under the claffes, Perennial flowers, Annual flowers, Green-house plants, and the Kitchen-garden. Anemonies are divided into two chapters, under Prize flowers, and Perennial flowers; the arbutus, or ftrawberry tree, is a title to be found under the divifions of Evergreen trees, and again under Perennial flowers; and the pine apple, with its cultivation, will be seen under the clafs of stove plants, and in the Kitchen garden, among the low fruits. Walnut trees appear three times, first as timber trees, fecondly as ornamental trees for fhade, and thirdly as fruit trees. Thus articles are multiplied, to prevent confufion; though fo many chapters under the fame head titles, in different divifions of the work, muft confuse and mislead 3 every

every reader who has not the botanical diftinétions at his fingers ends; when he has, he will prefer collecting all the fpecies under their proper genera.

If Mr. Hanbury's method and disposition, in his work, is not fo clear as might be expected after his liberal and repeated charges of abfurdity heaped upon other horticultural writers, in his preface, his language and ftyle have as little claim to the Critic's approbation. For this the very title may be appealed to; and (not to repeat here, what we have frequently obferved, of the effrontery of those authors who dare to recommend their own productions as compleat) a more confused, long-winded enumeration of particulars, extended by and, with, alfo, including, likewife, comprehending, and other copulatives, is feldom feen: a farther fpecimen, or two may be given, to shew that' this cenfure is not ill founded. The chapter upon the vifcum or miffeltoe, begins in the following rambling inelegant manner: The miffeltoe is a very extraordinary plant, growing from the fides and branches of other trees, inftead of the earth, out of which our noble collection Springs. This occafions a fingularity beyond expreffion, and is by many thought very delightful and fine. In thofe countries where the mifleltoe is rarely found, it is much admired, and is to most people a very desirable plant; and even where it abounds in the hedges and woods, they have a peculiar regard for it, and feldom fail to procure fome of it in the winter, by which a part of the house is distinguished. Again, the first chapter that mentions the anemone, introduces it in the following pompously obfcure terms: Inferior in beauty to none, though perhaps the least cultivated of any of the feven capital fhed flowers, is the wind flower; for which no other reason can be affigned than the inattention it has mostly met with, perhaps in the great regard and over-care of the other forts; and which if taken off, and the nature of the flower duly weighed, reason would direct us to fhew it more respect than it has hitherto met with; for its charms in its variety of colours are transcendant, and its compofition is of fuch a nature as to form (if the phrafe may be allowed) a confcious beauty. There is a certain freedom or eafe in this flower, that is not common; they blow with thofe truly admired flowers the ranunculi at all their times; but the proportions required to establish a compleat flower of that kind, give it rather a ftiff formal look. Nothing of this is to be found in the anemone ; and without defaming the preceding flowers, for that turn in those is perfection, the anemone fhews itself without that stiff look in its varieties of all colours (yellow excepted) large and double, in all its natural luxuriance and eafe, waving with every wind its petals of fo delicate a nature, fo foft and fufceptible as to be affected by every breath of air, opening and

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »