TOPIARY 
‘<If I do not defend the taste through thick and thin, I am prepared 
to admit that much may be said in its favour, and it is far from my 
intention to denounce it as either extravagant or foolish. It may be 
true, as I believe it is, that the natural form of a tree is the most 
beautiful possible for that particular tree, but it may happen that we 
do not always want the most beautiful form, but one of our own 
designing, and expressive of our ingenuity.” —Shirley Hibberd. 
Mopern horticultural works, and especially those that 
are of the Dictionary type, do not as a rule take any 
notice whatever of Topiary, and those in which it 
is noticed deal with the subject with a brevity that is 
provoking, inasmuch as the student is little or none 
the wiser for the information given. ‘* Johnson’s 
Gardeners’ Dictionary” is silent on the subject, and 
“¢ Cassell’s Popular Gardening ” may be searched in vain 
for any reference to it. 
Mr G. Nicholson, F.L.S., V.M.H., in his celebrated 
‘‘ Dictionary of Gardening,” writes, under Topiary, 
‘¢ Although the absurd fashion of cutting and torturing 
trees into all sorts of fantastic shapes has, happily, 
almost passed away, yet, as the art of the Topiarist was 
for a considerable period regarded as the perfection of 
gardening, some mention of it is desirable here. When 
the fashion first became general in Britain, it is probably 
impossible to ascertain; but it reached its highest point 
in the sixteenth century, and held its ground until 
driven out of the field in the last (eighteenth) century 
by the natural or picturesque style. From an archzo- 
logical point of view, it is not to be regretted that 
4 
