( 42 ) 



and the loofenefs of it's hanging leaves, cha- 

 racterize both thefe trees with fo much pre- 

 cifion, that at any diftance, at which the eye 

 can diftinguifh the form, it may alfo diftin- 

 guifh the difference. The elm has not fo di- 

 tincl: a character. It partakes fo much of 

 the oak ; that when it is rough, and old, it 

 may eafily, at a little diftance, be miftaken 

 for one : tho the oak, I mean fuch an oak 

 as is ftrongly marked with it's peculiar cha- 

 racter, can never be miftaken for the elm. 

 This is certainly a defect in the elm ; for 

 ftrong characters are a great fource of pic- 

 turefque beauty. 



This defecl: however appears chiefly in the 

 fkeleton of the elm. In full foliage, it's 

 character is better marked. No tree is better 

 adapted to receive grand mattes of light. In 

 this refpect it is fuperior, not only to the oak, 

 and the afh, but perhaps to every other tree. 

 Nor is it's foliage, fhadowing as it is, of the 

 heavy kind. It's leaves are fmall, and this 

 gives it a natural lightnefs -, it commonly hangs 

 loofely ; and is in general, very picturefque. 



The elm naturally grows upright ; and 

 when it meets with a foil it loves, rifes higher 

 than the generality of trees > and after it has 



arTumed 



