When we look at an old garden list, it is easy to imagine the garden as a collection of plants, but a working garden around 1440 would have been something much more dynamic. Much like today, some plants were sown each year, while others survived from one season to the next. Certain plants could be divided or moved to new locations, while others scattered seed and returned wherever conditions allowed them to grow. That meant the gardener was not simply deciding what to plant. He was also watching what returned. This changes how we might picture Mayster Jon Gardener's world in the 15th century. A useful plant that survived winter, spread into a workable patch, or reliably produced seed represented more than one season's harvest. The plant could become part of the continuing structure of the garden. Likewise, the gardener still had to intervene, much as we do today. Beds were worked, plants were moved, unwanted growth was removed, and useful plants were encouraged. Every season, however, did not begin with an empty piece of ground. That relationship is still worth observing. In our own gardens, some plants disappear unless we continually recreate the conditions they need. Others seem to settle into a place and become increasingly dependable. The lesson is not that an old garden was automatically more sustainable. Gardeners then, as today, managed succession differently depending on the plants, conditions, needs of the household, and their own observations. What this historical record can remind us is that a garden exists through time, not just in a year's planting plan. Permanent culture begins when we notice not only what grows, but what persists, reproduces, moves, and returns. What plant in your garden seems to have found its own place? When a useful plant returns reliably, when would you work with that pattern rather than start over? When a useful plant begins returning on its own, what do you usually do?