C 95 3 



opinions of favages, and an art, the principles 

 of which had been inveftigated with fuch 

 care, and its practice enlarged and refined 

 by a fucceflion of fo many illuftrious men. 

 To make this illuftration the more plaufible, 

 you have oppofed gardening £not landfcape- 

 gardening] to the painter s ftudies of wild 

 nature. But wherefore of wild nature ex- 

 clufively, when, as I obferved before, the 

 ftudies of many of them are taken from the 

 moll highly embellifhed nature ? I am wil- 

 ling to fuppofe, that you mean no more by 

 wild nature, than fimple nature — nature un- 

 touched by art ; and that, perhaps, would 

 have been a more accurate and candid man- 

 ner of ftatinjg it ; but then fimple nature 

 would have raifed ideas of a variety of foft 

 and delightful fcenes, whereas wild is often 

 ufed for what is rude and favage, and you 

 might not be forry to give that bias to the 

 minds of your readers. As this wildnefs 



and 



