234 PARKS AND PLEASURE-GROUNDS. 



and yet tlie whole scenic effect is often lield to be as 

 justly ascribable to him^ as some finisbed gem of a pic- 

 ture is attributable to a Claude or a Turner. We fear 

 that proper allowance is seldom made for this disad- 

 vantage on the part of the garden artist. It was 

 averred, for example, by Repton, that many of those 

 clumps which brought no small share of obloquy on the 

 style of Brown — a style sufficiently marked with other 

 and inherent faults — ^were intended by him to be thinned 

 out into groups, but in consequence of his intentions 

 being forgotten or disregarded, were permitted to remain 

 and grow up into that imdeniable deformity which awa- 

 kened the bitter criticism of Price and others. In this 

 Brown appears to have been made responsible for errors 

 not his own. It is easy to see how other artists may 

 suffer similar injustice. In short, by this means the 

 delicate finish of the scenic picture may never have been 

 accorded, and so the desired effect, imagined with ex- 

 quisite taste, and skilfully aimed at in the primary exe- 

 cution, may be entirely frastrated. And how are these 

 natural defects of the art to be remedied? Only by 

 repeated revision. To stipulate for such revision, as the 

 privilege of the original artist, may be inconsistent with 

 the delicacy of a gentleman while actually engaged in 

 his profession ; but in a work like the present no deli- 

 cacy should prevent the strong assertion of its necessity. 

 Without doubt, to attain a degree of perfection the 

 artist should be occasionally recalled to revise his work, 

 and to correct the consequences of time by a few addi- 

 tional touches. But the artist may cease to practise, 

 and his works may long outlive him: to meet these 

 contingencies we should recommend that, in the case of 

 any new parks and pleasure-grounds, or where any con- 

 siderable addition or alteration in them has been made. 



