Much that is said and written on this subject now, is ambiguous and misleading, I think. Are we to define agriculture an art, and not a science; strictly a science, or made up of both? This pertinent enquiry will arouse varying responses. Opinions will be colored much by the degree of culture and learning of the respondents. I regard it as no easy problem. But its solution is rendered somewhat easier, in the present age, than it was centuries ago. When agriculture was almost entirely guess work, "firing at random," so to speak, neither of the above mentioned definitions would obtain. With the steady advance of knowledge, growing out of research, experiment, discovery, greater precision of statement can be made. A distinguished scholar has recently laid down the dictum that agriculture is an art, not a science. Shall we wholly accept his teaching? A study of the terms, art and science, will aid us in our determination. But first let us bear in mind that they are synonymous now. An expression is strictly a synonym of another expression, when the two "so nearly approach each other, that in many or most cases, they can be used interchangeably.

Words may thus coincide in certain connections, and so be interchanged, when they cannot be interchanged in other connections." (Webster.) One of the synonyms of art is science. Art, of necessity, runs into science; science, perforce, draws upon art. The word art is derived from the Latin ars, denoting skill in execution, taken from the Greek, apeir, conveying like meaning. It involves the idea of doing, of accomplishing. "The employment of means to accomplish some desired end: the application of knowledge or power to practical purposes {Ibid). Now, this meaning, unquestionably, is alike to a certain degree, the meaning of science, that is, operative science, science in practice. Purely theoretically, there is a wide difference in the terms. Science implies speculative principles. Science comes from the Latin scire, to know, scientia, knowledge. Science is a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the character of logical perfection and, in point of matter, the character of real truth." (Sir Wm. Hamilton.) "The comprehension and understanding of truth or facts."(Dryden.) "Specifically, science is knowledge duly arranged, and referred to general truths and principles on which it is founded, and from which it is derived.

Science is literally knowledge, but more usually denotes a systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge. Science inquires for the sake of knowledge, art for the sake of production." (Webster.) "In science, scimus ut sciamns (we know that we may know), while in art, scimus ut ftrodu-camus, (we know that we may produce)."(Kars-lake.) Does agriculture embrace in any sense the two? Beyond controversy. Science is either pure or applied. The former is purely speculative, apart from application; the latter is, speculative principles carried out in practice. The one is simply rules, principles, deductions; the latter, these in operation. We see, then, how science belongs to the domain of art; that is to say, science in its practical working is art. Agriculture is science in the sense of being "knowledge duly arranged, and referred to general truths and principles, on which it is founded: systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge".

Agriculture is art in the sense of these principles, this knowledge being utilized. But is agriculture entirely a science? In other words, has it reached that point that it can be classed as one of the sciences; is it pure science? Assuredly not. But it certainly has progressed sufficiently to be rated as scientific. Its attainments in this are far greater than its deficiencies. Its problems are not all solved, it must be admitted. There are certain questions in agriculture that so far have baffled all investigations. Time may explain them. Perhaps we should rather call agriculture, inchoate science. This much we may safely claim, I think clearly, there are many things it has firmly established, and upon which it can and does safely proceed. Analysis by its wondrous searching reveals facts which become truths, axioms; and upon the strength of which action can be logically based. Herein is agriculture science in the most rigid acceptation of the term. Its conquests are many and great. But little that is tentative belongs unto it.

True, certain processes of growth and assimilation are yet a sealed book as to their comprehension.

Dr. I. R. Nicholls very pertinently says: "I have said that the new agriculture rests upon science and positive knowledge; but this remark must not be understood to mean that all the various departments of modern husbandry rest upon pure knowledge or demonstrated facts, for this position would plainly be indefensible; but I do say that the great fundamental principles are understood and established as clearly as those of most other branches of human knowledge. So far as the chemistry of plant structures and the forms of food they require are involved, our knowledge is positive; and also it is true that most of the details of practical farm industry are now so well understood that they may be said to be almost or quite removed from the regions of doubt. Clouds of uncertainty, the feeling that every step was governed by chance or blind caprice, belonged to the old agriculture; it certainly does not to the new".

Dr. J. B. Lawes uses the term, scientific agriculture, in his able writings. He speaks of "our advance in the path of scientific agriculture." Says Prof. McBryde: "Agriculture requires for the elucidation of the principles involved in its various practices, a very wide range of scientific inquiry." It is this scientific inquiry which has brought to light many truths bearing upon agriculture which now rest on the bed-rock of accuracy. The intelligent farmer, with all the accumulated data of plant life, food assimilation, weather influences, soil structure and soil treatment, can proceed confidently, and not be tossed about on the waves of uncertainty and mere caprice.

[We are not prepared to accept the proposition that applied science is synonymous with art. Nor can we admit that because we properly use the term "scientific agriculture," science and art are therefore one and the same thing; and notwithstanding the original "ars" of the Latin may have meant skill in execution, the modern "art" must have a broader significance. There are numerous artisans who are anything but " skilled " in their arts - mere bunglers in fact. In short, art, as we must understand it to-day, is simply the power of imitation - the ability to do something without any particular reason - while science is the power of reasoning on what we do, so that by the facts we gather from this experience we may do something or know something which we have never done or known before. By art we can make a right-angled triangle; by science derived from the triangle we can measure the height of a tree or a star. Thus, it is not difficult to see that in agriculture mere art, and science, are two distinct things.

Scientific agriculture becomes agriculture aided by science. - Ed. G. M].