Looking over the pages of the new Journal of Horticulture, whose claims have been so prominently placed before the American public, our attention was caught by an article from the pen of the Hon. E. W. Bull, entitled "Field Culture of the Grape in Massachusetts." This article is mainly occupied with a discussion of the kinds of soil best adapted to bring the grape to perfection, and after a few flings at the " popular treatises" and their authors, Mr. Bull lays down the rule, that for high-flavored grapes the soil ought not to be rich and heavy, but light and warm. Now in this there is certainly nothing new. Most " popular treatises" that we have been able to consult tell us the same thing, but at the same time they assert that if the conditions of dryness and high temperature can be combined with rich soil, the fruit will attain its highest perfection. Hence in borders designed for grapes to be grown under glass, the soil is of the richest character, and complete success is to be attained only when the vine is supplied with abundance of food.

So far we agree perfectly with Mr. Bull, although we confess that certain reports which have reached us from vineyards at the West have shaken our faith in light soils, at least under all circumstances.

In the Horticulturist for May, 1866, F. R. Elliott writes as follows: uIn my immediate section, on the south shore of Lake Erie, we have grapes growing in almost every variety of soil; and so well is the matter now understood by our best wine-makers, that they make a decided variation in the prices paid for grapes. Vineyards of Catawba, growing on sandy or loamy soils, find sale at a very low price, to the wine-makers. Some refuse to use them at any price, while they pay from seven to ten cents per pound for the same variety upon limestones and clays. Indeed, we have men who claim they can detect the soil in which the grape was grown by seeing the bunch."

But Mr. Bull fortifies his position with an extract from Haraszthy, which contains an analysis of the soil of the famous vineyard, Chateau Margaux. We are not of those who utterly despise and condemn chemical analyses in application to soils. It is true we have little faith in most five-dollar, or even twenty-five dollar analyses, but at the same time we think that a good deal of the outcry that has been made against the analysis of soils has been done for "buncombe," and we have reason to believe that, with one or two exceptions, the fiercest denunciations have come from men who could not make an analysis if they were to try, and could not discriminate between a valuable and a worthless analysis when both were presented to them.

The analysis noted by Mr. Bull is obviously very imperfect, but at the same time it does afford us certain data which may lead to a just appreciation of the character of the soil. It is as follows:

Oxide of iron...................... 3.841

Alumina........................... 1.690

Magnesia.......................... 0.263

Soluble silicates................... 0.880

Phosphoric acid.................... 0.147

Potash (?)........................ . 1.291

Carbonate of lime.................. 0.891

Organic matter.................... 6.670

Insoluble residue.................. 85.427

Mr. Bull adds the following comments: "This analysis shows the large proportion of more than three and one quarter per cent. of oxide of iron, about one and a half per cent. of clay, one and one quarter per cent. of potash, with phosphoric acid and carbonate of lime in small quantities, and only six and one half per cent. of organic matter; the rest, 85.427 per cent., being insoluble remainder. Not a very rich soil, one would say; yet this vineyard produces the finest grapes of the district."

Let us consider the subject a little farther. This analysis is quoted by Haraszthy from the French work of Rendu - Ampelo-graphie Francaise - where it will be found, page 431. It was made by a certain "Pro-fesseur" Peplowski, of whom it is improbable that any of our readers have ever before heard. It gives us little or no clue to the physical character of the soil - no man could tell from it whether the soil is light or heavy. The iron, magnesia, soluble silicates, etc., form but 14.573 per cent. of the entire bulk of the soil. Of what does the 85.427 per cent. insoluble matter consist ? Is it clay or sand, or a mixture of both ? and if the latter, then in what proportion ? It is true that Mr. Bull infers that the soil contains but one and a half per cent. of clay, but then Mr. Bull evidently does not know that clay is not alumina, or, rather, that alumina is not clay. It is a disputed point among chemists whether or not alumina ever occurs free in the soil. Some maintain that free alumina is only found in the ruby and a few other precious stones. However this may be, it is very certain that alumina is not clay - meaning by that term the chemical compound to which heavy soils owe their peculiar characteristics. This substance is hydrated silicate of alumina.

Now the term insoluble is merely a comparative term. Band is usually regarded as insoluble, and we venture to say that if Professor Peplowski found any sand in the soil of the vineyard of the Chateau Margaux he entered it among the "insoluble" substances. But sand is not insoluble, even by the ordinary means used by chemists in making analyses. It is soluble in hydrofluoric acid, and when fused with 'carbonate of soda and some other substances it is very readily soluble. In the sense, however, in which sand is insoluble, clay is insoluble too; and therefore as the menstruum is not specified, we are left totally in the dark as to the character of this insoluble portion, and, as we before remarked, we can not tell whether the soil is light or heavy. We must therefore content ourselves with a consideration of the character of the soil as regards its richness in plant food. Mr. Bull says it is not very rich. So far as this analysis is concerned, we beg leave to differ from him.

First, then, as regards organic matter. This soil contains 6.67 per cent. of organic matter. Mr. Bull thought he was making a liberal addition to his soil when he added forty loads of muck, which is probably equal to forty tons per acre. The soil under consideration if eighteen inches deep contains one hundred tons of such matter. Professor Voelcker says that any soil containing over six per cent. of organic matter should be classed with the vegetable molds. The soil of Chateau Margaux is evidently a vegetable mold.

The percentage of iron is, as Mr. Bull says, very large. We do not know what the influence of this ingredient may be. It is worth investigation, however.

In regard to potash we have no data. It is true that Haraszthy gives potash 1.291 per cent., but this is entirely unwarranted by the original. Rendu gives it upotasse de soude, 1.291." We confess that our knowledge of French is too limited to enable us to understand this as it stands, and we suspect that a typographical error has crept in, changing "et" into "de," and that it should read upotasse et soude" - that is to say, potash and soda, instead of potash of soda. We do not insist upon this translation, for we know that ridiculous mistakes have arisen from verbal interpretations.* Mr. Haraszthy could evidently make nothing of the statement, and preferred to cut the Gordian knot by stating what was absolutely incorrect*

* One of the most amusing instances of an author being led astray by verbal criticism occurs in Ik Marvel's " Wet Days at Edgewood." The author, in attempting to show that Sir Walter Scott had no knowledge of farming, says: "Again (and I count this a surer indication), he puts in the mouth of Cromwell (Woodstock) a mixed metaphor of which no apt farmer could have been guilty. The Puritan general is speaking of the arch-loyalist Dr. Rochecliffe, and says, ' I know his stiffneckedness of old, though I have made him plow in my furrow when he thought he was turning up his own swathe.'"We are satisfied that the word swathe is a misprint for sward. Scott's knowledge of English was pretty thorough, whatever his