!:i ■ :
II'i
I
:h | ’
P‘-l ;
SCIENCE OE GARDENING. Part H.
intending that tliis beauty should distinguish the English from the Chinese s ty le ;
simplicity is also the inling principle of Lord Kaimes; Girardin includes every beauty
under “ truth and nature,” and every nile “ under tho unity of the wholc, and the
connection of the p a rts ; ” and Shenstone states “ landscape or pictm-esque gardening ”
to “ consist in pleasing the imagination,” by scenes of grandeur, beauty, and variety.
Convenience merely has no share there, any farther than as it pleases the imagination.
Tlic principles of congniity, and of painting, arc those of Price and K n ig h t; and nature,
utility, and taste, those of Marshall. Prom these different opinions, as well as from the
general objects or end of landscape-gardening, there appear to be two principles which
enter into its composition; those which regard it as a mixed art, or an art of design,
and which are called the principles of relative b eau ty ; and thoso which regard it as an
imitative art, and are called the principles of natural or universal beauty. The ancient
or geometric gardening is guided wholly hy the former principles; and landscape-
gardening, as an imitative art, wholly by the latter ; but when landscape-gardening is
considered as the art of fonning a counti-y residence, its an-angements are influenced by
both principles. In coiifonnity with these ideas, and witli our plan of treating of both
styles, wo shall first consider its principles as an inventive or mixed, and secondly as an
imitative ai't.
Sect. I. Beauties o f Landscape-Gardening, as an inventive and mixed Art, and
Principles o f their Production.
1460. Works o f art, Alison observes, may be considered either in relation to their
design or intention— to the nature of their constiaiction for the intended purpose— or
to the nature of the end they are destined to serve; and their beauty according^ will
depend either upon the excellence or wisdom of the design, the fitness or propriety of
the construction, or the utility of the end. The considerations of design, of fitness, and
of utility, therefore, may be considered as the three great sources of the beauties of works
of inventive art. They have been called relative beauties, in opposition to those_ of
nature and imitative ait, wliich are hence denominated natural or independent beauties.
There is a third source of beauty common both to arts of invention and imitation, which
is that of accidental beauty, or such as is produced hy local, ai-bitrary, or temporary associations.
The beauties of objects, whether natural, relative, or accidental, ai-e conveyed
to the senses by the different qualities of m a tte r; such as form, sound, colom-, smell, and
motion; but form is the grand characteristic of matter, and constitutes in a great degi-ee
its essence to our senses. In our remarks, thcrefbre, on the beauties of inventive art,
we shall chiefly consider design, fitness, and utility, in regard to form.
1461. The merit o f design consists in combining, by the hand of man, forms and
objects, so as to make their effect more beautiful than if they had been left in their
original position. To do this, it is necessary that the objects combined should form a
whole; that is, that they should produce a single sensation on the mind, and not a succession
of sensations: and this involves two principles, viz. the necessity of the unity qf
the whole, and the necessity of the connection of the parts that compose it.
1462. Objects not beautiful in themselves may become so when combined, from the mere
circumstance of their' combination forming a whole, and thus producing an effect which
is satisfactory to the mind. On looking at any pleasing object, whether in nature or art,
it will always be found, on analysing it, that whether it he merely agi-eeable, or supremely
beautiful, it still forms a whole: this quality of forming a whole being independent of
every other kind of beauty, and yet common to all the different kinds of it. On the
other hand, no composition whatever, though its parts, when taken separately, may each
be of the gi-eatest beauty, will please when these parts are put togeflier, unless in that
state they form a whole. Parts, also, which, if viewed separately, have little or no
beauty, may, when combined in due subordination to the principle of unity, foi-m a
beautiful whole. A multitude of objects enter into the composition of those landscapes
which include a considerable portion of distant sceneiy. Many of these obj6cts taken
separately may not only be of little beauty, but may be disagreeable and even deformed;
yet some one principle, by operating alike on this immense number of seemingly discordant
particulars, reduces them all to one agreeable composite sensation. This
principle in the background of a natural landscape is distance; and in the foreground
of a natural landscape is continuous light or continuous shade. In like manner, all
discordant compositions may be rendered accordant, if not positively bcautifol, by some
uniting principle which may be applied in common to all then- parts. The whole of a
discordant landscape may be reduced to unity cf expression by increasing the distance
of the pictm-e from the eye, by excess of either light or shade being thrown over every part
of it, or by sameness of colom-ing ; and a house or other building which, in respect to its
form, its lines, or its style, is discordant, may be rendered tolerable by being stained in
every part with dark tints, so as to give the whole an appeai-ance of age and antiquity.
1463. The expression o f design in the ancient style o f landscape-gardening is displayed
Book III. BEAUTIES OE LANDSCAPE-GAEDENING.
liy such forms aud dispositions as shall at' once decide that they are works of art. Thits
regularity and uniformity are recognised in the rudest works of man, and point out his
employment of art and expense in their construction. Hence the lines, surfaces, and forms
of geometric gardening should be different from, and in some degree opposed to, those of
general natiu-e. IiTcgnlar siu-faccs, lines, or forms, may be equally useful, may he alike
works of art, aud, considered with reference to other beauties, may be more agreeable
than such as are regular ; but, if too prevalent, they might he mistaken for the production
of nature, in which case they would lose the beauty of design ; but foi-ms perfectly
regular, and divisions completely uniform, immediately excite the belief of design, and,
with this belief, all the admiration which follows the employment of skill and expense.
Ground, in level or regular slopes, or in liiUs or hollows of symmetrical shapes ; woods
of right-lined boundaries ; trees, and especially such as are foreign to the soil, planted
oqnidistantly in masses, in quincunx, or in straight rows ; water in architectural basins,
rogular canals, or fountains ; walks and woods of uniform width and perfectly straight ;
and straight wails and hedges ; are all easily distinguished from nature’s management
of these materials, and, consequently, are highly expressive of the hand of man.
1464. Regular forms are satisfactory, Stewai't observes {Philosophical Essays, 238.),
“ from the principle of a sufficient reason, adopted hy Leibnitz. "What is it that, in any
thing which is merely ornamental, and wliich at the same time does not profess to he an
imitation of nature, renders irregular foi-ras displeasing ? Is it not, at least, in part, that
irregularities are infinite ; and that no circumstance can he imagined which should have
decided the choice of the artist in favour of that particulai- figure which he has selected ?
The variety of regular figures, it must be acknowledged, is iiilinite also ; but, supposing
the choice to be once fixed about the number of sides, no apparent caprice of the artist,
in adjusting thcir relative proportions, presents a disagreeable and inexplicable puzzle to
the spectator.” Wherever symmetry “ is useful to the mind, and may assist its functions,
it is agreeable ; but wherever symmeti-y is useless, it becomes distasteful, because it takes
away variety ; therefore, things that wo see in succession ought to have variety, as our
minds have no difficulty in comprcliending them ; those, on the contraiy, that we see at
one glance, ought to have symmetry ; tlms at one glance we see the front of a building,
a parterre, a temple ; in such things there is always a sy-mmetry which satisfies the mind,
by the facility it gives of taking in tho whole object at once.” {Montesquieu.)
■ 1465. Regularity and uniformity arc, however, expressive of only common design.
Hence, to confer a character of superiority in works of design, variety should be introduced
; and as uniformity was the symbol of design, so uniformity ancl variety should
become the symbols of improved or embellished design. “ Eegarcling, therefore, fom s
in this light as beautiful merely from their e.xpression of design, the obseiwation of
Dr. Hutcheson may perhaps be considered as an axiom with regard to their beauty, viz.
tliat where the uniformity is equal, the beauty of forms is in proportion to thcir variety ;
and where their vai-iety is equal, tlieir beauty is in proportion to their uniformity.”
{Alison’s Essays, p. 106.) To this stage, in the progress of design, may he referred the
architectural ornaments introduced in garden scenery, such as seats, buildings, statues,
urns, &c. ; and in tlic later stages of the art, serpentine walks, labyrinths, verdant
sculpture, and many other decorations. The v.ariety and embellishment thus confeiTed
on gardens produced in time many absurdities, that we should not wish to see resorted
to in a revival of the ancient style, unless in examples considered solely with a view to
imitation. The sculpture of trees, however, might, when first introduced, he gi-eatly
admired, even hy men of sense, for its novelty, and the discovery of a certam degree of
skill in the aitist ; but as, in onr thnes, it would neither he new nor meritorious, it could
scarcely be consistently introduced with a view to embellish design. To prevent variety
from degenerating into confusion, ancl, as Professor Stewart chai-acteristicaUy exnresses
it, “ puzzling the spectator,” unity of intention must never be lost sight of. Tins, indeed,
is’ necessarily implied in every work of a r t ; since, without it, the slight
1 would only end in a chaos of materials.
Î slightest attempt at
1466. Design is quits as essential in lanascape-yaraentny in uie nuiurai siyie as in uie
ancient style, though it is not so openly avowed. Modern landscapo-garcleuing is, to a
certain extent, an art of imitation ; and as such, it does not aim at producing facsimiles
of natural scenery, but scenei-y composed of natural objects combined accordmg to the
rules of art. Tlras, the sculptor does not attempt colour, and the landscape painter does
not raise the objects he represents in relief, but both imitate nature according to the
rules of their respective arts. In the like manner, the imitator in a park or pleasure-
ground, of a landscape composed of ground, wood, ancl wator, does not produce facsimiles
’of the ground, wood, and wator which he sees ai-ound him on every sid e; bnt of
»round, wood, and water, an-anged in imitation of nature, according to the principles
■ of his particular art. To apply these principles to the formation of pleasure-ground
scenery, nature, in any given locality, makes use of a certain number of trees found
inclivcn’ous th e re ; but tho garden imitator of natural woods introduces other kinds of
G G 3
;• 'I
! I