288 PARKS AND PLEASUKE-GKOUNDS. 



Quarterly Review, in his miscellaneous works, disai> 

 proves of its being called gardening in any sense. 

 "The art," he says, "has been nnfortunately named. 

 The idea of its being, after all, a variety of the garden- 

 ino- art, with which it has little or nothing to do, has 

 given a mechanical turn to the whole profession, and 

 certainly encouraged many persons to practice it with 

 no greater qualifications than onght to be found in a 

 tolerably skillful gardener."' (Prose ^\^orks^ vol, xxi. p. 

 104.) In these observations, there is undeniably some 

 truth ; though it may be urged, on the other hand, 

 that a gardener is as likely to be a successful designer 

 as the forester, the bailiff, or the road-surveyor, or 

 even the amateur, to whom the work is occasionally 

 intrusted. Unquestionably, the artist employed in 

 this department ought to have a special and profes- 

 sional training; but it may also be asked, Is not the 

 other part of the title, Landscajye-goxd^emn^^ a little 

 too ambitious, and does it not pr()ceed on an analogy 

 calculated to mislead, and therefore to disai)]>oint \ It 

 is well known that the expounders of this branch of 

 art have adopted some of the princqjles and employed 

 very much the language of painting. The artist in 

 our department is supposed to create a landscape in 

 living nature, just as the painter creates one on can- 

 vas. The comparison thus instituted between the two 

 arts, implies that there are certain resemblances be- 

 tween them ; but if there are resemblances, it is no 

 less certain that there are differences. A brief cou- 

 eideration of these harmonizing and antagonistic points 

 may afford us some light, and will enable us to make 

 most of those general observations which we have 

 proposed to offer. 



