60 



end, not less beautiful and healthy, than if they had sprung 

 from plants, which were raised in the ordinary manner."* 



Notwithstanding this seeming nicety in the Roman prac- 

 tice, and the probability that it might have led to the estab- 

 lishment of principles, it is curious enough to perceive, that 

 the art became retrograde, rather than progressive, in the 

 hands of the Romans. Palladius, who wrote more than a 

 century after Seneca, and nearly two after Varro and Colu- 

 mello, directs, in his work to be done in November, that, in 

 transferring large trees, all the branches should be cut away, 

 previously to their removal, and consequently the trees much 

 more defaced and mutilated than after the Greek manner ; 

 a precept which seems to be but too faithfully observed by 

 most planters of the present day.t 



If we descend in our investigation to modern times, we 

 shall not find that any considerable progress has been made 

 in the art. beyond the knowledge of the ancient nations. 

 The difficulty of transplanting an old tree still remained 

 proverbial ; and Baptista Mantuanus, who flourished in the 

 fifteenth century, might well exclaim — 



Heu, male transfertur senio cum induruit arbor ! 

 After the revival of learning in Europe, gardening, and in 

 some sort arboriculture, were among the useful arts first stu- 

 died : but the rudeness of those early attempts at the former, 

 gave no earnest of the excellence which it was afterwards 

 to attain. It is a popular error to suppose, as is done by some, 

 that our rectilinear gardens, our formal avenues, and elabo- 

 rate topiary works were borrowed from the Dutch, after the 

 accession of King William. On the contrary, they belong 

 to a far earUer day. They were accurate transcripts, derived 

 from antiquity, of the Roman garden, as we find it admired 

 by Cicero, and described by Pliny, in the most polished ages 



* Note VIII. t Note IX. 



