ill '
587. The monotonous style was most ably exposed by Price andKniyht. TIic Essays on
the Picturesque of the former, aud the poem of the latter, though verging on the opposite
extreme of tho evil tliey wished to remove, both greatly improved the taste of proprietors
and patrons. The object of The Landscape, a didactic poem, was to teach the art of
creating scenery more congruous and picturesque than what is met with in that “ tiresome
and monotonous scene called Pleasure-ground.” Price’s Essays on the Picturesque,
and on the Use o f studying Pictures, with a View to the Improvement o f real Landscape,
arc w itte n with the same intention; but, as might be expected from a prose work, enter
on tho subject much more at Icng-th. The first answer to Price’s work wiis a letter by
Repton, in wliich candour obliges us to state that the latter has misrepresented his antagonist’s
meaning, by confounding the study of pictm-es with that of the study of the
principles of painting. Pi-ice published an able answer to this production, which, he
informs us, was even more read than his original essays. Two anonymous poems of no
merit made their appearance, as satires on The Landscape, and, indii-cctly, on the
Essays on the Picturesque. The Review o f the Landscape, and o f an Essay on the
Picturesque, &c., by Marshall, was published in 1795. There can scarcely be anything
more violent than this publication. The periodical critics also brought forward all sorts
of reasons against the study of pictures, and denied (perhaps with truth, as to their perception
of it) tho distinct chai-acter of the picturesque. Sir U. Price they treated as “ a
mere visionai-y amateur,” and Knight as “ a Grub-street poet, who has probably no
other garden than the pot of mint before liis windows.” The increased liberality which
has taken place in the minds of literary men since that period is perhaps as great as the
improvements which have taken place within the same period in the application of
science to the useful arts. A great mass of counti-y gentlemen, tourists, and temporary
authors, also, taking the word “ pictm-csque,” in its extreme sense, and supposing it intended
to regulate what was useful, as well as what was ornamental, concluded that
Price’s object was to destroy all comfort and neatness in country-seats, and to reduce
them to mere portions of dingle or jungle scenei-y.
588. O f enlightened and liberal minds, who have in some degree opposed Price’s principles,
we can only instance the late W. Windham, who, in a letter to Repton, (Repton
was at one period secretary to Windham, when that gentleman was in office,) written
after the publication of his defence, combats, not the works of Price, but the popular
objections to the supposed desire of subjecting every thing to the pictm-esqiic. “ Tlie
writers of this school,” he observes, “ show evidently that they do not trace with any
success the causes of then- pleasure. Does the pleasure that we receive from the view of
parks and gardens result from their affording, in their several pai-ts, subjects that would
appear to advantage in a picture ? What is most bcautiilil in nature is not always
capable of being represented in a p a in tin g ; as prospects, moving flocks of deer. Many
arc of a sort which have nothing to do with the pm-poses of habitation; as the subjects
of Salvator Rosa. Are we therefore to live in caves ? Gainsborougli’s Country Girl is
more pictm-esque than a child neatly dressed. Ai-e our children to go in rags ? No one
will stand by this doctrine; nor do they exhibit it in any distinct shape at all, but only
take credit for their attachment to general principles, to which every one is attached as
well as they. It is contended that, in laying out a place, whatever is most picturesque
is most conformable to true taste. I f they say so, they must he led to consequences
which they can never vcntm-e to avow. I f they do not say so, the whole is a question
of how much or how little, which, without the instances before you, can never be
decided.” “ Places are not to be laid out with a view to thcir appearance in a picture,
but to their use, and the enjoyment of them in real life ; and tlieir conformity to these
purposes is that which constitutes their true beauty. With this view, gi-avel walks, and
neat mown lawns, and, in some situations, straight alleys, fountains, terraces, and, for
aught I know, parteires and cut hedges, ai-c in perfect good taste, and infinitely more
conformable to the principles which form the basis of our pleasure in those instances,
than the docks and thistles, and litter and disorder, that may make a much better figure
ill a picture.” (Letter from Windham, published by Repton, in a note to his Observations
on the Theory and Practice o f Landscape Gardening.) The opinion of Professor Dugald
Stewart, as given incidentally in his Philosophical Disquisitions on the Beautiful (Essaijs,
p. 285. 1810, 4to edit.), is of great value. He say s : — “ As to tho application of the
knowledge thus acquired from the study of paintings, to the improvement of natural
landscape, I have no doubt that, to a superior understanding and taste, like those of
Price, it may often suggest very useful h in ts ; but, if recognised as the standard to
which the ultimate appeal is to bo made, it would infallibly cover the face of the
counti-y with a new and systematical species of affectation, not less remote than that of
Brown from the style of gardening which he wishes to recommend. Let painting he
allowed its due praise, in quickening our attention to the beauties of nature ; in multiplying
our resources for tlicir further embellishment; and in liokling iqi a standard,
from age to age, to correct the caprices of fashionable innovations; but let our taste
for these beauties be chiefly formed on the study of nature herself; nor let us cver
forget so far what is due to her indisputable and salutai-y prerogative, as to attempt au
ciKu-oachmcnt upon it by laws, wlucli derive tho whole of thcir validity from her own
sanction.” (p. 287.)
589. To draw a fa ir conclusion from these different opinions, it is necessary to take the
whole of them, and the general scope of the authors, into view. Prom the vein of excellent
sense which pervades Windham’s letter, and particularly the latter part of it, which
wc have extracted entire, it is impossible to avoid suspecting, either that there is a culpable
obscui-ity in the works referred to, or that Windham had not efficiently, if at all,
pcmscd them. We are inclined to believe that there is some tm th in both suppositions.
We have no hesitation, however, both from a mature study of all the writings of these
gentlemen relating to this subject, as well as a careful inspection of their own residences,
in saying, that there is not an opinion in the above extract, to which Price and Knight
would not at oncc assent. Knight’s directions, in regard to congruity and utility, arc as
distinct as can well be expected in a poem. Price never entered on the subject of utility.
His works say, “ your object is to produce beautiful landscapes; at least this is one
great object of your exertions. But you produce very indifferent ones. The beauty of
your scenes is not of so high a kind as that of nature. Examine her productions. To
aid you in this examination, consult tho opinions of those who have gone before you in
the same study. Consult the works of painters, and learn the principles which guided
them in their combinations of natui-al and ai-tificial objects. Group your trees on the
principles they do. Connect your masses as they do. In sliort, apply their principles
of paintin'^ whenever you intend any imitation of n a tu re ; for the principles of nature
and of pffinting are the same.”— “ A x q we to apply them in every case ? Are we to
neglect regular beauty and utility ? ” Certainly n o t ; that would be inconsistent with
common sense. , . „
590 The taste o f the present day in landscape-gardening may be considered as comparatively
chastened and refined by the discussion which has taken place on the subject,
and by a great many fine examples. I t is also more liberal than it was half a century
ao-o ; admitting the use of the beauties of every style, even the geometric, as occasion
requires • in short, considering beauty as always relative to the state of society; and, in
gardening, even to the state of the surrounding country. The principal artist of tlic
period which has intervened since the death of Brown and Ernes was the late II.
Repton Esq This gentleman, from being an amateur, began liis cai-eer as professor of
landscape-gardening about 1788 ; and, till a sort of decline and inactivity of taste took
place from 1800 to 1810, he was extensively consulted. Though at first an avowed
defender and follower of Broivn, he gradually veered round with the change effected m
public opinion by the Essays on the Picturesque; so that, comparing Ins earlier works of
1795 and 1805 with his Fragments on Landscape-Gardening published in 1817, he
appears by the latter much more a disciple of Price, than a defender of his “ great self-
tauo-ht predecessor.” Repton was a beautiful draughtsman, and gave, besides plans and
views, his wi-itten opinion in a regular foi-m, gcncraUy combining the whole in a manuscript
volume, wliich he called the red book of the place. He never, we beUeve, undertook
the execution of his p la n s ; nor was he, as far as we are aware, ever employed out of
E n g lan d ; hut Valleyficld, in Pcrthsliire, was visited hy his two sons, and aiTanged
from their fatlicr’s designs. Tlie character of this artist’s talents seems to have heen
cultivation rather than genius; he was more anxious to follow than to le a d ; and to
gratify the preconceived wishes of liis employers, and improve on the fashion of the day,
rather than to strike out grand and original beauties. This, indeed, is perhaps the
most useful description of talent both for the professor and his employers. Repton’s
taste in Gothic architecture, in teiTaces, and architectural appendages to mansions, was
particnlarly elegant. His published Observations on these subjects are valuable; thougli
we think otherwise of his remarks on landscape-gardening, which we look upon as
puerile, wanting depth, often at variance with each other, and abounding too much in
affectation and an-ogance. On the whole, however, we have no hesitation in asserting,
that, both by his splendid volumes, and extensive practice among the English nobility,
he has supported the credit of this country for taste iu laying out grounds. One of liis
earliest scenes of action was Cobham HaU, in Kent, where, as Prince Puckler Muskau
observes, there is an inscription to his memory by Lord Darnley. Repton was bom
near Eelbrig, in Norfolk, and died at Hai-e Street, in Essex, in 1817.
591. The fine gardens existing in England at the present day are so numerous, that it
is quite impossible to describe even a tenth part of those that are worthy of notice ; and
wo shall, therefore, content ourselves with selecting two ; the first entitled to pre-eminence
from being the gardens of the sovereign at her principal residence ; and the second from
their singularity and th e groat expense lavished on then- constniction.
The royal gardens ai Windsor and its yicinity. Windsor Castle has been a royal residence since tho
time or \Villiam tho Conqueror, and almost every sovereign who has reigned m Kngland since th a t
A i l I