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 botanist (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 course, be fuppofed a man of letters, becomes our inftructor, we expect good language; free, at leaft, from that obfcurity, or unneceffary verbofity, 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 pafs 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. himfelf; 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 unreserved 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. Johnfon 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 muft 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. Propofing to write a voluminous body of gardening, it was firft neceffary to prejudice the Public against 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 treatife folely on botany, but should 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 courfe 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 difcover. Another performance, says he, has appeared under the form of a dictionary; though nothing can be more injudi cious than to compofe a book of this nature dictionary wile: 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 useful 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 à 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 caufed 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 consulting the articles. To this indeed might be added, a green-house index, and an hot-house 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 system 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 feeking for, either in botanical Latin or con 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 diftri bution is as follows:

Book I. After an introduction to botany, according to the Linnæan fyftem, 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 hrubs, 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, stove, 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 confufion 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 small 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 af fociated 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 bufinefs in a treatise of planting and gardening, under the clafs 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-boufe 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 feen under the clafs of ftove plants, and in the Kitchen garden, among the low fruits. Walnut trees appear three times, firft 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 every

3+

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

If Mr. Hanbury's method and difpofition, 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 observed, of the effrontery of thofe authors who dare to recommend their own productions as compleat) a more confufed, 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, instead 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 miffeltoe is rarely found, it is much admired, and is to most people a very defirable plant; and even where it abounds in the hedges and woods, they have a peculiar regard for it, and seldom fail to procure fome of it in the winter, by which a part of the house is diftinguished.' Again, the firft chapter that mentions the anemone, introduces it in the following pompously obfcure terms: Inferior in beauty to none, though perhaps the leaft cultivated of any of the feven capital fhed flowers, is the wind flower; for which no other reafon 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, reafon would direct us to fhew it more respect than it has hitherto met with; for its charms in its variety of colours are tranfcendant, and its compofition is of fuch a nature as to form (if the phrafe may be allowed) a confcicus beauty. There is a certain freedom or ease 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 eftablish a compleat flower of that kind, give it rather a stiff formal look. Nothing of this is to be found in the anemone; and without defaming the preceding flowers, for that turn in thofe is perfection, the anemone fhews itself without that ftiff 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 hutting,

B 3

fhutting, and gently obeying the direction of fuch externals." The confused turn of expreffion in this paffage, is fo uniform throughout, that the general remark cannot escape the reader; but there are two rhetorical efforts in it, that claim particular attention: these are, the conscious beauty attributed to the anemone, and the Writer's delicate care not to defame other flowers. If thofe other flowers have a conscioufntfs of charac⚫ ter, Mr. H.'s tenderness is laudable, as defamation is cruel, and even actionable; the consciousness of beauty fhewn by the anemone, may perhaps have given difguft, and point out the reafon of its being fo much neglected: felf conceit feldam efcapes this mortification.

It was not without concern that we perceived, in Mr. Han bury, fomething of a difpofition to promote old wivery, in order to awaken our devotion; for which good purpose far fuperior motives are, we hope, to be urged on a rational foundation. Under the article paffiflora, the paffion flower, Mr. H. obferves that these flowers are well known; and in fome countries ferve as monitors to the religious, as fhewing the inftruments of our bleffed Saviour's paffion; for they bring in the leaves of fome of the forts to represent some part of it, and the contorted cirrhi the flagella with which he was fcourged. I fee no ili ufe to be made of this, and am for encouraging every thing that may raife in us due reflection, and awaken us to a fenfe of devotion and of our duty.' On the contrary it is to be apprehended that fuperftition, being a veneration contracted by FOLLY for NONSENSE, can be converted to no ufe without the intervention of knavery; and what kind of purpofe it will then be made to ferve, is left to the reflection of every fenfible and honest man.

As to the botanical doctrine, and the preceptive rules, exhibited in the work, Mr. Hanbury is himself too able a gardener, and has moreover called in the affiftance of Miller's reprobated dictionary too frequently, to leave them open to any very material impeachment: at the fame time that thefe volumes bear no ftriking appearances of fuperiority, to diftinguish them above all thofe which this Gentleman treats with fuch contempt, as extreamly defective, unnatural, and abfurd.

ART. II. An Attempt to demonftrate the Meffiahship of Jesus, from the prophetic History and Chronology of Meffiab's Kingdom in Daniel, By Richard Parry, D. D. Preacher at Market-Harborough. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Davis. 1773.

WE

E have had more than one opportunity of mentioning this Writer in terms of approbation. His endeavours to elucidate Scripture, and to remove the difficulties with which feveral