Part 27

“But if a tree be sluggish, and bound, will it not help it?” Whatever excites a more vigorous circulation will be of advantage. Whether any supposed advantage from the knife arises in this way, we do not know. But a good _scraping_, or a scouring off of the whole body with sand, and then a pungent alkaline wash—(soft soap diluted with urine) would, we think, be better for bark-bound trees than the whole tribe of slits, vertical, horizontal, zig-zag, or waved.

* * * * *

HOVEY’S MAGAZINE OF HORTICULTURE.—We recommend all who can afford three dollars a year for a sterling monthly, beautifully got up, in the best style of Boston typography, to send to Boston for Hovey’s Magazine. We give it an unqualified recommendation, and those who take it one year will be loth to part with it.

DOWNING’s FRUIT AND FRUIT-TREES OF AMERICA.

When a book is hopelessly weak or incorrect, it should be the object of criticism to exterminate it. But when a work is admitted to be, upon the whole, well done, criticism ought to be an assistance to it, and not a hindrance. Praise by the wholesale is better for the publisher than for the reputation of the author; since, in a work like Downing’s, every pomologist knows that perfection is not attainable, and indiscriminate eulogy inclines the better-read critic to rebut the praise by a full development of the faults. Thus on one side there as general praise and faint blame; and on the other, faint praise and general blame.

We shall, at present, confine our attention to the catalogue of apples and pears, for all other fruits of our zone together are not of importance equal to these; and if an author excels in respect to these, his success will cover a multitude of sins in the treatment of small fruits, and fruits of short duration. Mr. Downing has shown good judgment in making out his list of varieties; his descriptions, for the most part, seem to be from his own senses; he has added many interesting particulars in respect to fruits not recorded before, or else scattered in isolated sentences in magazines and journals.

But are his descriptions thorough and uniform? While he has added _materials_ to pomology, has he advanced the _science_ by reducing such materials to a consistent form? If we compare Mr. Downing’s descriptions with those of Kenrick, or even of Manning, he excels them in fullness. If he be compared with classic European pomologists, he is decidedly inferior, both in the conception of what was to be done, and in a neat, systematic method of execution. Indeed, Mr. Downing does not seem to have settled, beforehand, in his mind, a _formula_ of a description; sometimes only three or four characteristics are given. Downing sins in excellent company. There is not an American pomological writer who appears to have _conceived_, even, of a systematic, scientific description of fruits. European authors, decidedly more explicit and minute than we are, have never reduced the descriptive part of the science to anything like regularity. We do not suppose that there can be such exact and constant dissimilarities detected between variety and variety of a species, as exists between species and species of a genus. We do not think a description of fruits to be imperfect, therefore, merely because it is less distinctive than a description of plants. But the more variable and obscure the points of difference between two varieties, the more scrupulously careful must we be to seize them. Where differences are broad and uniform, science can afford to be careless, but not where they are vague and illusory. We can approximate a systematic accuracy. But it must be by making up in the _number_ of determining circumstances, that which is wanting in the invariable distinctiveness of a few that are _specific_.

1. Downing’s descriptions are quite _irregular_ and _unequal_. Both his pears and apples are imperfect, but not alike imperfect. The descriptions of pears are decidedly in advance of those of the apple. It would seem as if the improvement which he gained by practice was very easily traced in its course on his pages.

Hardly two apples are described in reference to the same particulars. With respect to color of skin, size and form, eye and stem, he approaches the nearest to uniformity. But with respect to every other feature there is an utter want of regularity, which indicates not so much _carelessness_ as the want of any settled plan or conception of a perfect scientific description.

We will, out of a multitude of similar cases, select a few as specimens of what we mean. Of the _Pumpkin Russet_, he says, “flesh exceedingly rich and sweet;” but he does not speak of its _texture_, whether coarse or fine; whether brittle or leathery. _Pomme de Neige_—“flesh remarkably white, very tender, juicy and good, with a slight perfume;” but is it sweet or sour, or subacid, or astringent? No one can tell by reading the joint descriptions of the _Red_ and the _Yellow Ingestries_ what their flavor is, since it is only said that they are “juicy and high flavored”—but whether the high flavored juice is sweet or sour, does not appear. These are not picked instances. They occur on almost every page of his list of apples. The _Summer Sweet Paradise_ is, of course, sweet, since we are three times told of it, once in the title and twice in the text. The SWEET _Pearmain_ also, is a “sweet apple” “of a very _saccharine_ flavor.” Of course it is _sweet_. Nos. 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, and very many more, are described without information as to their flavor except that, whatever it is, it is “brisk,” or “high,” or “rich”—forlorn adjectives unaffianced to any substantive which they may qualify. Sometimes the health of the tree and its hardiness are given, and as often omitted. Some times its habit of bearing is mentioned, but oftener neglected. The color of the flesh is given in No. 82, but not in 83; in 84, but not in 85; from 86-92 inclusive, but not to the _second_ 92, for the Bedfordshire Foundling and the Dutch Mignonne are both numbered 92. The color of the flesh is not given in 93, 97, 100, 101, 103, 110, although the intermediate numbers have it given. Why should one be minutely described, and another not all? We should regard it an ungrateful requital for all the pleasure and profit which this volume has afforded us to hunt up and display what, to some, may seem to be mere “jots and tittles,” were it not that these, in themselves, unimportant things mark decisively the absence in the author’s _plan_, of a style of description which pomology always needed, but now begins imperiously to demand. And we are confident that a pomological manual _on the right design_, is yet to be written. Our hearty wish is, that Mr. Downing’s revised edition may be that manual.

2. We are led, from these remarks, to consider, by itself, the _imperfect scale_ of descriptions adopted by all our American pomological writers, upon which Mr. D. has not materially improved.

The description of the _tree_ is very meagre or totally neglected. _Nothing at all_ is said of it in cases out of the 174 apples numbered and described. The general shape of the tree is given in but _thirty-eight_ instances in the same number.

The _color of the wood_ is, usually, noticed in the account of pears; but in the account of apples in not one case, we should think, in ten.

The peculiar _growth of the young wood_, in a great majority of cases, is not noticed; but more frequently in the pear than in the apple list. The least practised observer knows how striking is this feature of the face of a tree. We do not remember an instance where the _buds_ have been employed as a characteristic. Are distinctive marks so numerous that such a one as this can be spared? The shape, color, size, prominence, and shoulder of buds, together with their interstitial spaces, form too remarkable a portion of trees to be absolutely overlooked in a book describing the “fruits and _fruit-trees_ of America.”

Equally noticeable is the almost entire neglect of the _core and seed_, as identifying marks. Once in a while, as in the case of the Belle Fleur, the Roman Stem, the Spitzenberg, and the Pomme Royale, we are told, that the cores are hollow. But neither among pears nor apples, is the core or seed made to be of any importance. This is the more remarkable as being a decided _retrocession_ in the art of description. Prince, wisely following continental authors, is careful in his description of pears, to give, and with some minuteness, the peculiarities of the seed. But Downing injudiciously misled by, in this respect, the decidedly bad example of British authors, has, almost without exception, neglected this noble criterion. There is not another single feature, either of fruit or fruit-trees, which we could not spare better than the _core and seed_. Not only may varieties be marked by their seeds, but they form, in connection with the core, important elements of diagnosis of _qualities_. A long-keeper, usually has a very small, compact core, with few seeds. A highly improved and luscious pear, not unfrequently is wholly seedless; while fruits not far removed from the wild state abound in seeds. Whenever a _system of description_ shall have been formed, we venture to predict that the _core and seed_ will be ranked at a higher value in it than any one other element of discrimination and description.

The same neglect or casual notice is bestowed upon the _leaf_. If anything about it is remarkable it is mentioned, not otherwise: but is there a page of any book that was ever printed, that has more reading on it than is on a leaf, if one is only taught to read it? _It_, too, is not only a sign of difference but very often of _quality_. Mr. D. has availed himself of this criterion in describing peaches. Is it a legible sign only in the peach orchard? He that is ignorant of these marks, and only can tell one _fruit_ from another, is yet in the a b c of pomology. Who but a tyro, on importing _Coe’s Golden Drop_, would not at once perceive the imposition, if there was one, the moment his eye saw a bud, or its shoulder? Van Mons learned to select stocks for his experiments, as well by the wood and bud in winter, as by the leaf and growth of summer. In a large bed of seedlings every experimenter ought to know by wood and leaf what to select as prognosticating good fruit, and what to reject, without waiting to see the fruit. Nurserymen of our acquaintance, without book, label, or stake, can tell every well-known variety on their grounds. One of our acquaintance never had a mark, label, stake, or register, of any kind upon his ground; a culpable reliance on his ability to read tree-faces; for, on his throwing up the business suddenly, his successor fell into innumerable mistakes. It is just as easy for a pomologist to know the face of every variety, as for a shepherd to know the face of every sheep in his flock, or a grazier every animal of his herd.

3. Although the “Fruit and Fruit-trees of America” professes to give the process of management only for the _garden and the orchard_, it ought to include, and we presume was designed to embrace the essential features of nursery culture. Every cultivator of fruit must be a private nurseryman; he needs the same information, the same directions as if were a commercial gardener. He that designs planting an orchard ought to know the _disposition_ of each variety of fruit-tree, that he may suit the circumstances of his soil, or provide for the peculiarities of a tree, as a farmer needs to know the peculiarities of the different breeds of hogs and cattle. With a large number of persons it would be enough to say of fruits, “superb,” “extra-superb,” “superlatively grand,” “extra magnificent;” for such, a _princely_ catalogue would answer every purpose. But such as have some knowledge, and every year, we are happy to believe, the number of such increases, ask, not the author’s bare eulogy, but a definite statement of all those special qualities on which such eulogy is founded. The exact _taste_ of each variety of fruit should be studied in respect to soil; some, and but few, love strong clays; yet fewer thrive upon wet soils; but some will, as the Sweet or Carolina June, which does well on quite wet soils; some refuse their gifts except upon a warm and rich sand; some, and by far the greatest number, love a deep loam, with a subsoil moist without being wet. The buds of some varieties escape the vernal frosts by their hardiness; some by putting forth later than their orchard brethren. Some varieties thrive admirably by ground or root grafting, while very many, so worked, are killed off during the first winter; some varieties, if budded, grow off with alacrity, others are dull and unwilling; some form their tops with facility and beauty; others, like many men, are rambling, awkward, and averse to any head at all. Some sorts, put upon what stock you will, have singularly massive roots; others have fine and slender ones. Every variety of tree has traits of disposition peculiar to itself; and in respect to traits possessed in common, even these may be classified. In every description there should be, at least, an attempt at giving these various nursery peculiarities. It cannot be done, as yet, with any considerable accuracy. _Fruit-trees have not yet been minutely studied._ A florist can give you a thousand times more minute and special information in respect to the peculiar habits and wants of his flowers, than an orchardist can of his trees. Doubtless, it is easier to do it in plants which have a short period; whose whole life passes along before the eye every season, than in plants whose very youth outlasts ten generations of Dahlias, Pansies, Balsams, etc. But that only makes it the more important that we should be up and doing. Let no work be regarded as classic which does not take into its _design_ the most thorough enunciation of all the peculiarities of fruits, and pomology will receive more advantage in ten years, than it could by a hundred years of rambling, unregulated, discursive descriptions.

The ability which Mr. D. has shown as a horticultural writer, his industry in collecting materials for this, his last work; the skill which he has shown himself to possess in describing fruits, give the public a right to expect that he will “go on unto perfection;” and if Mr. D. will adopt a higher standard and set out with a design of a more systematic description of fruits, every liberal cultivator in the land will be glad to put at his disposal whatever of minute observation he may possess.

* * * * *

Buckwheat is a corruption rather than a translation of the Saxon word _Buckwaizen_, the first syllable signifying beech, the tree of that name, whose nut the kernel of the grain so much resembles in shape. The grain, therefore, might be properly called beech-wheat.

LETTER FROM A. J. DOWNING.

We give below a letter from Mr. Downing, long known as an eminent pomologist and more recently yet more distinguished for his writings upon Horticultural matters. Although a private letter, it is of general interest, and he will, we hope, indulge the liberty taken.[13]

“HIGHLAND GARDENS, NEWBURGH, NEW YORK, _Feb. 29th, 1845_.

“MY DEAR SIR: I thank you for the interesting article on horticulture in the West, which appears in the last No. of _Hovey’s Magazine_.

“My particular object in writing you at this moment is to call your attention to the remarks you make on the ‘Golden Russet,’ which you call ‘the prince of small apples.’ From your description of this fruit it is the ’sheep-nose,’ or ‘Bullock’s Pippin’ of Coxe, well known here, and one of the most melting and delicious of apples. I understand from Professor Kirtland of Cleveland, that this is the apple known by the name of Golden Russet in his region.

“Will you do me the favor, for the sake of settling the synonyms, to send me two or three cuttings of the young wood, by mail? I can then determine in a moment. The Sheep-nose has long shoots of a peculiar _drab_ color. If your apple proves the same, I think I shall cancel the title ’sheep-nose’—(a vile name), known only in New Jersey, and substitute ‘American Golden Russet’[14]—this being its common title in New England and the West. I speak now in relation to my work on fruits, now in press.

“What do you mean by the ‘White Bell-flower of Coxe?’ The Detroit I have carefully examined, and it is quite different from the Yellow Bellflower. The Monstrous Bellflower—the only other one Coxe describes—is a large autumn fruit, while the Detroit keeps till April?

“My work on Fruits has cost me a great deal of labor, but will still contain many imperfections. When it is out of press—in about six weeks—I promise myself the pleasure of sending it with the copy of each of my previous works for the acceptance of your Horticultural Society. And I then hope to be favored with your criticism. Hoping an early answer to my queries herein,

“I am sincerely yours, “A. J. DOWNING.

“H. W. BEECHER.”

We should have said “Monstrous Bellflower” instead of White.

The Bellflower here mentioned is the White or Green Bellflower of Indiana, the _Ohio Favorite_ of western Ohio about Dayton, etc., the _Hollow-cored Pippin of some_; and it has been inquired for, at Mr. Alldredge’s nursery, as the _Cumberland Spice_. Mr. A—— considered, from the description given, that the white Bellflower only could have been meant. But from the following description of Cumberland Spice in Kenrick, from Coxe, I am inclined to think that the true Cumberland Spice may have been inquired for.

“The tree is very productive; a fine dessert fruit, large, rather oblong, contracted toward the summit; the stalk thick and short; of a pale yellow color, clouded near the base; the flesh white, tender, and fine. It ripens in autumn, and keeps till winter, and shrivels in its last stages.”

The fruit was brought to Wayne County, Indiana, by Mr. Brunson. He came from New York to Huron county, Ohio, and thence to Wayne County, Indiana. It is universally diffused through the eastern and central parts of Indiana, and is esteemed a first-rate apple. The _tree_ strikingly resembles the Green Newtown Pippin, but its brush is not so small, and there is less of it, the top being rather more open. The wood is brittle, and, as the tree is a free and constant bearer, it tends to break, and is troublesome to keep in good order. Mr. Ernst and other gentlemen of Cincinnati suppose the variety to be the _Detroit_. We cannot say one thing or another, except that it is of the Bellflower family. The Detroit of New York is a widely different fruit, of a bright scarlet color, and we never heard of any other _Detroit_, until the name was applied to this apple.

There is not the least doubt that the _Golden Russet_ of the West is the _Bullock Pippin_ and _Sheep-nose_ of New Jersey, and we hope that the proposed name “_American Golden Russet_” will deliver us, for ever after, from eating any more _sheep-noses_. Names are of importance in classifying fruits, and there is a pleasure also in having a decorous name to a good fruit. It is amusing to look through a catalogue of singular names.

The _Hoss_ apple is popularly the _Horse_ apple, and when, on a certain contingency a gentleman promised to eat a _hoss_ it was not so hazardous a threat as some have imagined. The French, in naming their fruits, exercise a freedom with things human and divine, to which we occidentals are not accustomed (as, _Ah Mon Dieu! Grosse Cuisse Madame_, etc.), and an innocent person, recapitulating his pears, might, if overheard by neighbors understanding French, be thought very profane, or worse. There are other names which have a tendency to make the mouth water, as _Onion Pear_. One must have pleasing associations while eating the _Toad Pear_. (See Prince’s Pom. Man. p. 24 and 34.) The French _Bon Chrétien_ (or Good Christian) is called in these parts the _Bon Cheat-em_. Then, there is the Demoiselle, the Lady’s Flesh, and Love’s Pear (Prince, 58, 34, and 117)—very proper for young lovers. Then, there is the _Burnt Cat_ (_Chat Bruslé_ of the French, Prince 89), which undoubtedly has a musk flavor. We have less objection to the _Priest’s Pear_ (_Poire de Prêtre_, Prince, 108). Piscatory gentlemen would always angle in our nurseries for the _Trout_ pear (Prince 130), and if they did not get a bite, the pear _would_, as it is a fine variety. How did those who named pears, _Louise Bonne de Jersey_, or _Van Mons leon le clerc_, expect common folks to hold fast to the true name? But he must have a short memory indeed, who forgets the emphatic name of _Yat_ or _Yut_.

But to return from our digression. We give the description of the Golden Russet from three sources, and indorse their general accuracy:

GOLDEN RUSSET.—(DR. PLUMMER.)

“SIZE.—2 2-10 inches long; 2 7-10 inches wide.

“FORM.—Rather smaller at the summit; moderately flattened at the ends.

“PULP.—Very tender, juicy, yellowish white.

“COLOR.—Deep yellow, with brown and russet clouds; or wholly brown and russet.

“SURFACE.—Nearly dull; ruffled by the confluent lineoles; dots hardly discoverable.

“FLAVOR.—Sweet and delicious.

“STEM.—Slender; half to one inch long, reaching to a considerable distance beyond the verge.

“EYE.—In rather contracted cavity; closed.

“Ripens in the tenth month.

“It is one of our best apples, and keeps well through the winter.”

“Whether the Leathercoat and the Glass apple are the same as are now known under those names, it is impossible to determine. Near Poughkeepsie, in the State of New York, the Leathercoat used to be a favorite fruit; and whether it is the same as the Golden Russet, described above, I am not now able to say; but my recollection of that apple after a lapse of twenty-three years, induces me to think it is no other than the Golden Russet; and, indeed, Trevelyan calls it also the ‘_russet_ appell.’ The Glass apple was described in a former number of ‘The Orchard.’ If the ‘lethercott’ has descended to us under the name of Golden Russet, the fine flavor of this apple would lead us to believe that it had not deteriorated, after a period of more than two centuries and a half.”—_West. Farm. and Gard._, 1843.

BULLOCK’s PIPPIN, OR SHEEP-NOSE.—(COXE.)

_Golden Russet of Cincinnati. Golden Russet of the Eastern nurseries._—(_Dr. Kirtland._)

“Neither the size nor appearance of this fruit would attract attention; yet it sells more readily in markets where it is known than any other apple. Its flavor is rich and pleasant, and many people consider it the best fruit of the season. In northern Ohio it matures at New-Year’s, while in Cincinnati it is in perfection in November.”—_West. Farm. and Gard._, 1841.

GOLDEN RUSSET—BULLOCK PIPPIN, OR SHEEP-NOSE.—(A. HAMPTON.)

“This apple is below medium size; the skin is yellow, inclined to a russet; the flesh yellow, rich, juicy, tender and sprightly. I know of no apple more generally admired for its richness and excellent flavor than this; commanding a high price, and ready sale, in market; it makes very rich cider; a great and constant bearer; and keeps well till spring.”—_West. Farm. and Gard._, 1841.

We do not know another apple whose _flavor_ and _flesh_ are so admirable. A gentleman in Ohio, on being asked for a list of a hundred trees for an orchard, replied, “set out ninety-nine Golden Russets, the other one you can choose for yourself.”

[13] Mr. Downing’s untimely end by drowning is well known.

[14] There is an English Golden Russet, distinct and quite acid.

ATTENTION TO ORCHARDS.