otliers should shai-e om* pleasure. Tho most rommitic spot, the most picturesque
situations, and the most delightful assemblage of natm*e’s choicest materials, will not long
en<rao-c our interest without some appropriation, something we can call om- own ; and,
if not our own property, at least that may be endeared to us by calling it om- own home.
(Fraqments o f Landscape-Gardemnq, p. 206.) This envie de sarrondtr seems to have
existed, and the proximity and intcrmixtm-e of property to have been felt as an evil
ainono- landed proprietors, from the earliest ages. Aliab dcsu-cd the field of Naboth,
that lie might convert it to a garden of herbs (or flower-garden), because it was near to
liis house; and Marvel, the attorney, says to his patron,—
“ What course take you
(With your good patience) to hedge in the manor
Of your neighbour, Master Frugal ? As ’tis said,
He will not sell, nor borrow, nor exchange,
And his land lying in the midst of yours,
Is a foul blemish.”
M a s s i n g e r . New Way to P a y Old Debts, a c t n . s c e n e 1.
“ I stick Still in the inn of a hired house,” writes the amiable Cowley to Evelyn, “ without
that pleasantest work of human industry, the improvement of something which we can
call our own.”
S e c t . II. Beauties o f Landscape-Gardening, considered as an imitative Art, and
Principles o f their Production.
1474. The chief object o f all the imitatice arts is the production o f natural ar universa,
beauty. Music, poetiy, and painting, are the principal imitatiyc a r ts ; to these has been
lately added, landscape-gardening', an art which has for its object the production oi
landsc.apes by conihinatious of the actual materials of nature, as landscape-painting has
for its object thcir imitation by combinations of colours. Landscape-gai'demiig has been
said “ to realise whatever the fancy of the painter has imagined ” (Girardin) ; and, “ to
create a scenery more pure, more hai'monious, and more expressive, than any that is to
be found in nature herself.” (Alison.) Such are Alison’s ideas of the powers of this a r t ;
and such appeal-, in some degree, to have been those of Whately and Girardin. A more
coiTcct idea of its capacities, in our opinion, is suggested by the remark of Horace Wal-
polo, when he represents it as “ proud of no other art than that of softening nature’s
hai-shucss, and copying her graceful touch.” I t has also been said, that it is “ to poetry
and pointing, what the re.ality is to the reiircscntatiou.” (Girardin.) But expcnenco
proves, that the former (the reality) is sometimes exceeded by the latter, both m respect
to natural and picturesque beauty. Suppose, for example, any given variety of ground,
rocks, and distance as the basis, which is to he furnished with wood, water, and buildings,
aud the rocks shown or concealed as the gai-dener may wish, or as the gcmus of
tho place may require, and every other purpose effected which is iu the power of gardening
to perform. When all this is done, it may he a scene greatly inferior in beauty
to the imitative creation of a painter from the s.amo groundwork and materials. As
another example, let there be a natural landscape, either of mediocrity or of any given
beauty, with every circumstance so arranged as to bo alike suitable for hoth a r ts ; and
let a painter and a gai-dcnor each attempt to copy it according to his rcqiectree ai-t, with
or without permission to improve its beauties. Which of the two imitations would
he most beaiitiftil, considered in the abstract, and without reference to any selfish or
arbitrai-y association ? Most probably it wiU be the production of the painter ; as lus
work appeals to tho imagmation and the fancy, and calls forth the higher faculties of tho
mind. In short, no comparison between the powers of landsc.ape-paiiitmg and those of
landscape-gardening can be instituted, that wiU not evince the superior powers of tho
former ait. The great source of the beauty of every verdant landscape is wood ; and so
much of the beauty of all woods depends on accidental circumstances, in thcir progress
from the time of planting till they attain a considcrahlc age, and which eircumstanccs
cannot be said practically to be under the control of the gardener, that, however high
our aim, however wc may study tho natm-al effects of time, and however ooirectly we
may imitate them, at the end of all onr labours any wood formed by art will always be
far inferior to a natural wood under the same circumstances. Eor further illustrations
we have only to appeal to such painters as have made landscape thcir particular study,
and who certainly must he considered in this case as tho best judges with regard to
scenic truth or pictui'csqne beauty. . ,
1475. Landscape-gardening has, however, beauties peculiar to itself. Every one has
experienced the delightful feelings which are raised in the mind by a beautiful scene in
a romantic country. A t such a time aU paltry vanities, all bad passions, seem to fade
away, and, as the poet has so beantifully expressed it, tho mind seems elevated
From Na ture unto Nature’s God.
I t seems, indeed, almost impossible to gaze upon the beauties of hills and dales, and
wood and water, without some of the higher feelings being awakened ; and, though the
best endeavours of man to imitate tlic beauties of natnre must in some degree fiill short
of the original, yet still it is iu the power of the landscape-gardener to change a barren
waste, the sight of whieh can only raise np painful feeliugs in the mind, to a smiling
landscape which cannot be contemplated without a glow of plcasurablo sensations.
Viewed in this light, landscape-gardening assumes a more important character than it
would at first sight appear to have any claim to ; it is no longer a mere arrangement of
lines and forms; hut an art which requires the exertion of imagination, feeling, and
taste. In this respect, the professors of the modern stylo have a strildng advantage over
their predecessors. Laiidscapc-gardeners in the old style, even in the largest places,
were confined to long straight avenues bordered by tall trees which impeded the free
cii'culation of air and light, and were calculated alike to depress the spirits and injure
the health ; and though many felt the inconveniences and even absiu'dities of tliis style,
it was long before any one had courage to effect a change. Old prejudices ai-e always
difficult to conquer, and in this case they appeared almost iiisui-moiratahle. The flrst
English landscape-gardener who had courage to adopt the modern style was Kent, who
had been originally brought up as a painter, and who, consequently, had a li-vely feeling
for the beautiful in landscape-sccnery; and the flrst place on which he tried his skill was
at Esher in Surrey. The beautiful variation of the gnounds at this place, with the wator
and rich distant scenery, made it an excellent subject to work upon ; and here Mr. Kent
boldly deviated from the straight lines of his predecessors. It is, however, interesting to
remark the difficulty that existed in overcoming established prejudices; for this place,
which was considered a most daring innovation, appears to us now excessively formal
and precise. .
1476. 7'he principles o f imitative landscape-gardening, in that view of this t e m which
limits it to “ the art of creatiug landscapes of picturesque beauty,” we consider, with
Girai'din, Price, Knight, and other authors, to be those of p a in tin g ; and in viewing it
as adding to picturesque beauty some other natural expression, as of grandem-, decay,
melancholy, &c,, we consider it, with Pope, Warton, Gray, and Eustace, as reqiunng,
both in the designer and observer, the aid of a poetic mind ; that is, of a mind conversant
with all those different emotions, or pleasures of imagination, which are called up by
certain signs of affecting or interesting qualities, fuTnishcd by sounds, motion, buildings,
and other objects.
1477. There is one essential difference, however, between tho landscape-gardener and
tho painter, which ought never to be lost sight of by the fomc r, and this is, that the
matorials with which he works ai'e always changing, while those of the artist are^ fixed.
Thus, for example, the landscape-paintor can introduce trees of any particular height or
colour that he thinks necessary to produce a particular effect in his landscape ; but the
trees introduced by the landsc.ape-gardener will vaiy in height and form every year, and
ill colour every season. It is, therefore, necessary for the landscape-gardener to consider
all these changes before he begins to p la n t; and it is ob-rious that even ivith all the
consideration that he can givo tlicm, they must occasion a degree of uncertainty in his
art, from wliich the landscape-painter is free.
1478. The principles o f composition to be studied hy the landscape-gardener arc, therefore,
not exactly the same as those which govern the ai'tist; and there are many objects whieh
produce a fine effect in park scenery which do not look well in a picture. Eor example,
few scenes have a more beantiful effect in pleasure-grounds than a velvet lawn presenting
a sui'face of uniform smoothness and vci'dure, perhaps occasionally diversified by a few
swelling knolls ; yet how badly such a scene would look in a pictm-e; in fact, it would be
almost impossible to pamt it. On the other hand, the rough banks of a river covered
with “ tussocks of rushe.s, large stones, and stumps, the ground sometimes smooth, sometimes
broken and abrnpt, and seldom keeping, for a long space, tho siimc level from the
water,” though they may produce a flno effect in a picture, would be extremely unsmtablo
to the pleasure-gi'ounds of a geutleman’s residence.
1479. In imitating nature the landscape-gardener must, however, bowai'e of copying
too exactly ; he must remember that his object is not to present a facsimile of all nature,
but to select the most beautiful natiu'al objects, so as to produce the most pleasing
combinations. L,andseapc-gardeners, especially on tho Continent, are too apt to consider
that the principal a it in forming a garden in the natural style, is to render it as unlike
as possible to a garden in the regular style ; and hence we find Bacon, and other early
wi'iters on the natm-al style of laying out grounds, recommending the introduction of
hushes of briars and brambles, and other exact imitations of nature in its roughest
1480. The hand o f man should be as visible in gardens laid out in the natural style as in
the most formal geometric gardens, because both are equally intended to show that they
are works of art, and to display the taste and wealth of tlieir possessor. No gentleman
who has his grounds laid out in the natural style, would feel flattered by having them
mistaken for a portion of the uncidtivated country untouched by the hand ot man, though