BEAUTIES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE ART. 67 



we should aim to separate the accidental and extraneous 

 in nature, and to preserve only the spirit, or essence. This 

 subtle essence lies, we believe, in the expression more or 

 'ess pervading every attractive portion of nature. And it 

 s by eliciting, preserving, or heightening this expression, 

 that we may give our landscape gardens a higher charm, 

 than even the polish of art can bestow. 



Now, the two most forcible and complete expressions to 

 be found in that kind of natural scenery which may be 

 reproduced in Landscape Gardening, are the Beautiful 

 and the PicTUREsauE. As we look upon these as quite 

 distinct, and as success in practical embellishment must 

 depend on our feeling and understanding these expressions 

 beforehand, it is necessary that we should attach some 

 definite meaning to terms which we shall be continually 

 obliged to employ. This is, indeed, the more requisite, from 

 the vague and conflicting opinions of most preceding writers 

 on this branch of the subject ; some, like Repton, insisting 

 that they are identical ; and others, like Price, that they 

 are widely different. 



Gilpin defines Picturesque objects to be " those which 

 please from some quality capable of being illustrated in 

 painting." 



Nothing can well be more vague than such a definition. 

 We have already described the difference between the 

 beautiful landscapes of Claude and the picturesque scenes 

 painted by Salvator. No one can deny their being essen- 



properly estimated among those barren copyists which we find so many of our 

 flower, landscape, and portrait painters to be. But the artist stands much 

 higher in the scale, who, though a copyist of visible nature, is capable of seiz- 

 ing it with poetic feeling, and representing it in its more dignified sense ; sucb, 

 for example, as Raphael, Poussin, Claude, &c." — Weinbreitneb. 



