THE " LANDSCAPE-GARDEN." 



nothing ! The other begins with fetching back the 

 chaos of a former world, and has for its category of 

 effects, sham primsevahsms, exaggerated wildness, 

 tortured levellings, cascades, rocks, dead trunks of 

 trees, ruined castles, lakes on the top of hills, and 

 sheep-runs hard b)- your windows. One school 

 cannot keep the snip of the scissors off tree and 

 shrub, the other mimics Nature's fortuitous wild- 

 ness in proof of his disdain for the white lies of 

 Art. 



And all goes to show, does it not ? that inas- 

 much as the art of gardening implies craft, and as 

 man's imitation of Nature is bound to be unlike 

 Nature, it were wise to be frankl)- inventive in 

 eardenine on Art lines. Success mav attend one's 

 efforts in the direction of Art, but in the direction 

 of Nature, never. 



The smooth, bare, and almost bald appearance 

 which characterises Brown and Kent's school fails 

 to satisfy for long, and there springs up another 

 school which deals largely in picturesque elements, 

 and rough intricate effects. The principles of the 

 " Picturesque School," as it was called, are to be 

 found in the writings of the Rev. William Gilpin and 

 Sir Uvedale Price. Their books are full of careful 

 observations upon the general composition of land- 

 scape-scenery, and what was then called " Land- 

 scape Architecture," as though every English build- 

 ing of older days that was worth a glance had 

 not been "Landscape Architecture" ht for its site! 

 Gilpin's writings contain an admirable discourse 



H 



