GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 41 



the family, and in which also an ass might be kept for the use of the 

 gardener, in rolling his walks, carting manure and weeds, and for other pur- 

 poses. Instead of a crooked footpath entering through a gap in a hedge, as 

 in the first example, a rough winding road might be formed, by which it 

 might be supposed that the gravel had been carted out of the pit, but which, 

 owing to the lapse of time, had become principally covered with grass ; and 

 this might be entered through an old rickety gate ; while in the bottom of 

 the jiit there might be the cottage dwelling, and the hovels, which, though 

 comfortable within, ought to appear in a half-ruined state without ; and 

 a hayrick rudely fenced roinid, with a small stack of fagots for fuel, &c. 

 The reader can easily supply the rest. 



Both these examples would be fac-similo imitations, which might easily be 

 mistaken for nature itself, or what we call rustic scenery ; and, though they 

 might, and doubtless would, afford pleasure in themselves, and as contrasted 

 with the scenery around them, yet that pleasure could in no respect be con- 

 sidered as resulting from them as works of art, unless we were told that they 

 were artificial creations. 



62. Comparative merits of the different styles. — We have been thus diffuse 

 on the different styles of laying out groiuids, in order to show the distinctive 

 character of each ; and that each has its peculiar uses and beauties. Since 

 the introduction of the modern or irregular style of laying out grounds, it 

 has been customary to consider that style only as exclusivelj' beautiful ; and 

 the geometrical style as unnatural and altogether in bad taste. In conse- 

 quence of this opinion pervading, we may say, all ranks, and being found in 

 all books that mention gardening as an art of taste, we see constant attempts 

 made to introduce the irregular manner of planting, and serpentine lines, in 

 places where they are altogether unsuitable. For example, it is not im- 

 common, in the suburbs of London, to find a garden, or a public square, 

 with the boundary fence in a straight line, and parallel to it a serpentine 

 gravel walk. If the reader has understood the remarks in this and the 

 preceding pages, he will feel and comprehend the utter want of harmony 

 which exists between the straight line and the serpentine line, independently 

 of the impossibility of walking with comfort, when, at every five or six steps, 

 the walk makes a turn; and where the turns, for some distance before the 

 eye, may be all seen at once. For such scenes, and for all small gardens, 

 bordered by straight lines, the ancient or geometrical style is unquestionably 

 the best ; and as a proof that this is the case, it may be mentioned, that all 

 small gardens are laid out in this style involuntarily, by those who have no 

 preconceived ideas on the subject, doubtless from an innate feeling that it is 

 the most suitable to the boundary fence. Another class of persons, who 

 know just enough of gardening to be aware that there are two styles, and 

 who have been accustomed to hear the ancient style decried by all the 

 authors who have written or even touched on gardening since the time of 

 Horace Walpole, look at the straight walks of their small walled gardens as 

 deformities ; and regret that they cannot, for want of room, indulge in that 

 style which alone they have been taught to esteem as beautiful. Such ideas 

 are entirely the result of prejudice in favour of opinions expressed by men 

 considered as authorities, and who, at the time they wrote, were so much 

 captivated by the novelty of the irregular style, that they could not allow 

 themselves to do justice to any other. Hence, they condemned the geometric 



