364 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



splendour only a theatrical display. Judging from the account of the 

 making of the model for the large statue entitled " Vital Energy," which 

 occupied so many years of the life of the late G. F. Watts, one could 

 fearlessly defy the combined skill of the modern world to produce, or to 

 imitate, anything so hugely skilful as the Sphinx with its inscrutable 

 benignity of countenance. Mr. Watts' statue is child's play in com- 

 parison with the Sphinx, since the former depended upon the pronounced 

 lines of swinging arms, and the prancing legs of the horse and so forth, 

 which is as nothing compared with the feat of having to make everything 

 depend upon the expression of a countenance. 



The Egyptian gardens were a worthy adjunct to the accompanying 

 impressiveness of temples and palaces, with their huge sculptured fronts, 

 which in their decay and ruin make their beholders look like Liliputians — 

 not that hugeness is much of a feat in itself, else would the ugly 24-storey 

 skyscrapers of New York be impressive. The gardens wore more or less 

 throughout the same air of dignity which was none the less pronounced 

 on account of their needfully artificial character. Doubtless everything 

 therein wore an aspect of tranquillity, and they appeared, on account of 

 their freshness, like welcome oases in the surrounding Sahara. Here at 

 least was the cool splash of water essential to all the regal freshness of 

 odour, bloom, and fruitfulness around, benign upon the bosom of Father 

 Nile in the midst of all the surrounding austerities. Here at least was 

 one genial product of this martial race of universal exporters of war 

 machines — the heavy armaments of that day — whence King Solomon 

 sent for his chariots and horses. 



From the very nature of their construction those gardens were the 

 luxury alone of the rich, of kings, and of the powerful. They were not on 

 this account small, although always formal, judging from the hieroglyphic 

 plan representations of them, and must throughout have worn an artificial 

 aspect, as do the Dutch gardens of modern days, where again everything 

 is imported ; parallels where it would be unjust to quarrel with artificiality, 

 or the made-to-please aspect of a garden. Not for a moment can it 

 be conceived that in the Egyptian garden there was anything puerile, of 

 the baby-house stamp, which we sometimes get in Dutch gardens, or in 

 the white spar rockeries and so forth of modern gardens ; they were a 

 Titanic race far too serious to descend to that level. 



Unquestionably the formal character of a garden interspersed and 

 flanked with effective masonry is more imposing and spectacular than 

 the freer landscape aspect of a garden. I do not say it is more beautiful ; 

 but what I mean to say is that the former ministers to the pride and 

 ostentation of man, the latter is more on the lines of the acceptance and 

 arrangement of beautiful things as they come from Nature's hands. 

 Herein man accepts his subordinate and primitive place of "dressing it, 

 pruning it, and keeping it in order." This was not the prime object 

 with these ancient gardeners, the Egyptians and the Babylonians, who 

 ruled by the stern imperious might of their own will, the very mention of 

 whose name is reminiscent of iron bondage. Even if they had dwelt in a 

 land productive of natural beauty, everything must appear in a halo of 

 magnificence and ostentation, along with the array of massive temples, 

 palaces, and towers surrounding. 



