Book I. GARDENING IN THE BRITISH ISLES. T9 



that the latter has misrepresented his antagonist's meaning, by confounding the study of 

 pictures with that of the study of the principles of painting. Price published an able 

 answer to this production, which, he informs us, was even more read than the original 

 essays. Two anonymous poems of no merit made their appearance, as satires on The 

 Landscape, and indirectly on the Essai/s on the PicLuresque. The Review of the Land- 

 scape, and of a?i Essay on the Picturesque, 8cc. by Marshall, was published in 1795. 

 There can scarcely be any thing more violent than this publication. The periodical 

 critics brought forward all sorts of reasons against the use of the study of pictures, and 

 deny (with truth perhaps as to themselves) the distinct character of the picturesque. Mr. 

 Price they treat as " a mere visionaiy amateur," and Knight as " a Grub-street poet, 

 who has probably no other garden than the pot of mint before his windows." 



The vagn; opinion of a great mass of couniri/.genf/e7>ien, tourists, and temporary authors, maybe also in- 

 cluded; these taking the word picturesque in its extreme sense, and supposing it intended to regulate what 

 was useful, as well as what was ornamental, concluded that Price's object was to destroy all comfort and 

 neatness in country-seats, and reduce them to mere portions of dingle or jungle scenery. Such opinions we 

 have frequently heard expressed by men in other respects of good sense. Even continental authors have 

 imbibed and dissemmated similar exaggerations. " Egares jjar Gilpin, qui a cherche par ses voyages en 

 diverses parties de V Angleterre et de I'Ecosse, a donner des regies, pour y assiijeter le genre pittoresque et 

 romantique, its ont pris Fo^casion pour demander que Fart fut totalement banni des jardins. lis adoptent 

 le pittoresque d'un Solvate - Rosa dans les paysages, comme le vrai nature dans Vart de faire des jardins, et 

 on rejette comme un assen 'c^sement a ce nieme art, toutes les 7-egles qu'un Bridgewater {Bridgeman) et un 

 Brown avoient publiees dans ce genre." {Description Pittoresque des Jardins, du gout le plus ?noderne. 

 Leipsig, 1802. See also Tubinger's Taschenbuch,fiir nature und Gartenfreunde, 1798, p. 194.) 



Of eidightened and liberal minds, vrho have in some degree opposed Price's principles, we can only in- 

 stance the late W. Wj-ndham, who in a letter to Repton, (Repton was at one period secretary to WjTidham, 

 when that gentleman was in office,' -n-ritten after the publication of his defence, combats, not the works of 

 Price, but the popular objections to the supposed desire of subjecting every thing to the picturesque. 

 " The writers of this school," he observes, " show evidently that they do not trace with any success the 

 causes of their pleasure. Does the pleasure that we receive from the view of parks and gardens, result 

 from their affording in their several parts, subjects that would appear to advantage in a picture? What 

 is most beautiful in nature, is not always capable of being represented in a painting ; as prospects, moving 

 flocks of deer. Many are of a sort which have nothing to do with the purposes of habitation ; as the sub- 

 jects of Salvator Rosa. Are we therefore to live in caves ? Gainsborough's Country Girl is more pictu- 

 resque than a child neatly dressed. Are our children to go in rags ? No one will stand by this doctrine ; 

 nor do they exhibit it in any distinct shape at all, but only take credit for their attachment to general 

 principles, to which every one is attached as well as they. Is it contended, that in laying out a place, 

 whatever is most picturesque is most conformable to true taste ? If they say so, they must be led to conse- 

 quences which they can never venture to avow. If they do not say so, the whole is a question of how 

 much or how little, which, without the instances before you, can never be decided." " Places are not to 

 be laid out with a view to their appearance in a picture,' but to their use, and the enjoyment of them in 

 real life ; and their conformity to these purposes is that which constitutes their true beauty. With this 

 view, gravel walks, and neat mown lawns, and, in some situations, straight alleys, fomitains, terraces, 

 and, for aught I know, parterres and cut hedges, are in perfect good taste, and infinitely more conform- 

 able to the principles which form the basis of our pleasure in those instances, than the docks and thistles, 

 and litter and disorder, that may make a much better figure in a picture." {Letter from IVynd/iam, 

 published by Repton, in a note to his Observations on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening.) 



The opinion of Professor Dugald Stewart, as given incidentally in his Philosophical Disquisitions on the 

 Beautiful, {Essays, p. 285. 1810. 4to. edit.) is of great value. He says, " As to the application of the know- 

 ledge thus acquired from the study of paintings, to the improvement of natural landscape, I have no doubt, 

 that to a superior understanding and taste, like those of Price, it may often suggest very useful hints ; but 

 if recognised as the standard to which the ultimate appeal is to be rnade, it would infalUbly cover the face 

 of the country -uith a new and systematical species of affectation, not less remote than that of Brown from 

 the style of gardening which he wishes to recommend ; let painting be allowed its due praise in quicken- 

 ing our attention to the beauties of nature ; in multiplying our resources for their farther embellishment ; 

 and in holding up a standard, from age to age, to correct the caprices of fashionable innovations ; but let 

 our taste for these beauties be chiefly formed on the study of nature herself; nor let us ever forget so far 

 what is due to her indisputable and salutary prerogative, as to attempt an encroachment upon it by laws, 

 which derive the whole of their validity from her own sanction." (p. 287.) 



348. To draw a fair conclusion from these different opinions, it is necessary to take the 

 whole of them, and the general scope of the authors into view. From the vein of excel- 

 lent sense which pervades Wyndham's letter, and particularly the latter part of it, which 

 we have extracted entire, it is impossible to avoid suspecting, either that there is a cul- 

 pable obscurity in the works referred to, or that Wyndham had not sufficiently, if at all, 

 perused them. We are inclined to believe that there is some truth in both suppositions. 

 "We have no hesitation, however, both from a mature study of all the writings of these 

 gentlemen, relating to this subject, as well as a careful inspection of their own residences, 

 in saying, that there is not an opinion in the above extract, to which Price and Knight would, 

 not at once assent. Knight's directions, in regard to congruity and utility, are as distinct as 

 can well be expected in a poem. Price never entered on the subject of utilitj% His 

 works say, " Your object is to produce beautiful landscapes ; at least this is one great 

 object of your exertions. But you produce very indifferent ones. The beauty of your 

 scenes is not of so high a kind as that of nature. Examine her productions. To aid 

 you in this examination, consult the opinions of those who have gone before you in the 

 same study. Consult the works of painters, and learn the principles which guided them 

 in tlieir combinations of natural and artificial objects. Group your trees on the principles 

 they do. Connect your masses as they do. In short, apply their principles of painting 

 whenever you intend any imitation of nature, for the principles of nature and of painting 

 arc thesam.e." " Are we to apply them in every case? Are we to neglect regular 

 beauty and utility ? Certainly not, that would be inconsistent with common sense." 



