Editing Jethro Tull (agriculturist) (section)

==Rejection of Virgilian husbandry: debate with Stephen Switzer==
While supported by a number of powerful patrons, Tull's revolutionary claims regarding horse-hoeing husbandry and rejection of Virgilian, "old" husbandry presented in ''The Horse-Hoeing Husbandry'' drew fire from a variety of critics. One of his most vehement dissenters was [[Stephen Switzer]], a contemporary landscape gardener and leader of the Private Society of Husbandmen and Planters.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Bruyn |first=Frans De |date=2004-09-27 |title=Reading Virgil's Georgics as a Scientific Text: The Eighteenth-Century Debate between Jethro Tull and Stephen Switzer |journal=ELH |volume=71 |issue=3 |pages=661–689 |doi=10.1353/elh.2004.0035 |issn=1080-6547 |hdl=10393/32258 |s2cid=201791276 |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/elh/v071/71.3bruyn.html|hdl-access=free }}</ref> Following the publication of ''The Horse-Hoeing Husbandry: Or, An Essay on the Principles of Tillage and Vegetation'' in 1731, Switzer fiercely attacked Tull in the final two volumes of his own monthly publication, ''The Practical Husbandman and Planter'', in 1734.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sayre |first=Laura B. |date=2010-01-01 |title=The pre-history of soil science: Jethro Tull, the invention of the seed drill, and the foundations of modern agriculture |journal=Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C |series=Studies from the History of Soil Science and Geology |volume=35 |issue=15–18 |pages=851–859 |doi=10.1016/j.pce.2010.07.034|bibcode=2010PCE....35..851S }}</ref> He not only accused Tull of plagiarizing his technological inventions from others, namely the horse hoe and drill, but also attacked him for his criticism of farming techniques found in Virgil's ''Georgics'' and his rejection of traditional, "Virgilian" husbandry.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Cambridge history of science. Volume 4, Eighteenth-century science |last=Porter |first=Roy |date=2003-01-01 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0521572439 |oclc=491069066}}</ref>

Throughout the 18th century, ''[[Georgics]]'', a didactic poem written by the Roman poet [[Virgil]] in 37–30 BC, continued to hold great philosophical and cultural power in Britain, serving not merely as poetry but as manuals of husbandry and even scientific treatises.<ref name=":0" /> The sheer number of English translations and editions of ''Georgics'' between 1690 and 1820 highlights its cultural significance in British society.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=De Bruyn |first=Frans |date=May 2017 |title=Eighteenth-Century Editions of Virgil's Georgics: From Classical Poem to Agricultural Treatise |journal=Lumen: Selected Proceedings from the Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies |pages=151–3}}</ref> In the preface to his translation, [[William Benson (architect)|William Benson]] declares his certainty that "the Husbandry of England in General is Virgilian."<ref name=":0" /> In a polemic chapter entitled "Remarks on the Bad Husbandry, that is so finely Express'd in Virgil's First Georgic," Tull derides it for several apparent deficiencies in farming techniques:
*Shallow and late ploughing of poor land: Tull disagrees vehemently, as hoeing to enrich the soil is at the crux of his "New Husbandry", and encourages frequent and early ploughing. Lacking modern scientific understanding of soil nutrition, he incorrectly imagined that the act of dividing soil into smaller and smaller particles through pulverization was what gave nutrition to vegetable roots. Thus he promoted the enrichment of soil by frequent ploughing, which he reasoned would also encourage absorption of dew moisture in the land.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |title=The horse-Hoing husbandry: or, an essay on the principles of tillage and vegetation. Wherein is shewn a method of introducing a sort of vineyard-culture into the corn-fields, in order to increase their product, and diminish the common expence; by the use of instruments described in cuts. By I. T. |last=Tull |first=Jethro |year=1731 |pages=27–70}}</ref>
*[[stubble burning|Burning of stubble]] to enrich land: Tull derides Virgil's "unbecoming" foolishness for suggesting such a faulty method. Tull cites measurements of soil weight before and after stubble burning, noting that the decrease in soil weight must indicate loss of soil content and nutrition.<ref name=":1" />
*Tilling of land with harrows and cross-ploughing: again Tull scoffs at a method of ploughing which diverged from his own.
He concludes with a declaration that his "New Husbandry," at odds with many of his contemporaries and differing "in all respects, warrants [him] calling it Anti-Virgilian."<ref name=":1" />

Tull's attack was not without consequences. Switzer leapt to Virgil's defence against what he saw as groundless and polemic attacks from Tull. He took offence at Tull's rejection not only of Virgil, but of any and all who practised husbandry in his style. Switzer criticized Tull for prescribing heavy ploughing to all regardless of soil type and condition, and for his dogmatic dismissal of the value of dung. He compared Tull to a quack who claims one medicine can cure all manners of diseases.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The practical husbandman and planter: or, Observations on the ancient and modern husbandry, planting, gardening, &c ...By a society of husbandmen and planters |last=Switzer |first=Stephen |year=1733 |pages=xi–xv}}</ref> For two more volumes, Switzer fine-combs through ''The Horse-Hoeing Husbandry'', mining Virgil for authoritative statements on agriculture and pouncing on apparently erroneous claims. Tull's rejection of a traditional mode of agronomy in favour of self-experimentation, and Switzer's defence of classical authority marked the beginnings of an intellectual discussion around the field of agricultural science.