produce an emotion of gloom and melancholy; but fuch ornaments, if these can be termed fo, ought to be rejected, because they are in themfelves difagreeable. The other thing wanted to bring the art to perfection, is, to ascertain the precife impreffion made by every fingle part and ornament, cupolas, fpires, columns, carvings, statues, vafes, &c. for in vain will an artist attempt rules for employing these, either fingly or in combination, until the different emotions they produce be distinctly explained. Gardening in that particular alfo, hath the advantage: the feveral emotions raised by trees, rivers, cascades, plains, eminencies, and its other materials, are underftood; fand each emotion can be defcribed with fome degree of precifion, which is attempted occafionally in the foregoing parts of this work.

In gardening as well as in architecture, fimplicity ought to be a ruling principle. Profufe ornament hath no better effect than to confound the eye, and to prevent the object from making an impreffion as one entire whole. An artist destitute of genius for capital beauties, is naturally prompted to supply the defect by crowding his plan with flight embellishments: hence in a garden, triumphal arches, Chinese houses, temples, obelisks, cascades, fountains, without end; and in a building, pillars, vases, ftatues, and a profufion of carved work. Thus fome women defective in tafte, are apt to overcharge every part of their

drefs

drefs with ornament. Superfluity of decoration hath another bad effect: it gives the object a diminutive look: an island in a wide extended lake makes it appear larger; but an artificial lake, which is always little, appears ftill lefs by making an island in it *.

In forming plans for embellishing a field, an artift without taste employs ftraight lines, circles, fquares; because these look beft upon paper. He perceives not, that to humour and adorn nature, is the perfection of his art; and that nature, neglecting regularity, diftributes her objects in great variety with a bold hand. A large field laid out with ftrict regularity, is ftiff and artificial †. Nature indeed, in organized bodies comprehended under one view, ftudies regularity, which, for the fame reason, ought to be studied in architecture: but in large objects, which cannot otherwife be furveyed but in parts and by fucceffion, regularity and uniformity would be useless properties, because they cannot be discovered by the eyet. Nature therefore, in her large works, neglects

*See appendix to part 5. chap. 2.

+ In France and Italy, a garden is disposed like the human body, alleys, like legs and arms, answering each other; the great walk in the middle representing the trunk of the body. Thus an artist void of taste carries felf along into every operation.

A square field appears not fuch to the eye when view

ed

glects these properties; and in copying nature, the artist ought to neglect them.

Having thus far carried on a comparison between gardening and architecture; rules peculiar to each come next in order, beginning with gardening. The fimpleft plan of a garden, is that of a spot embellished with a number of natural objects, trees, walks, polished parterres, flowers, ftreams, &c. One more complex comprehends statues and buildings, that nature and art may be mutually ornamental. A third, approaching nearer perfection, is of objects affembled together in order to produce, not only an emotion of beauty, but also fome other particular emotion, grandeur, for example, gaiety, or any other above mentioned. The completest plan of a garden is an improvement upon the third, requiring the several parts to be fo arranged, as to inspire all the different emotions that can be raised by gardening. In this plan, the arrangement is an important circumftance; for it has been shown, that fome emotions figure beft in conjunction, and that others ought always to appear in fucceffion, and never in conjunction. It is mentioned above*, that

ed from any part of it; and the centre is the only place where a circular field preferves in appearance its regular figure.

Chap. 8.

that when the moft oppofite emotions, fuch as gloominess and gaiety, ftillness and activity, follow each other in fucceffion, the pleasure, on the whole, will be the greatest; but that such emotions ought not to be united, because they produce an unpleasant mixture *. For this reason, a ruin affording a fort of melancholy pleasure, ought not to be feen from a flower-parterre which is gay and cheerful t. But to pafs from an exhilarating object to a ruin, has a fine effect; for each of the emotions is the more fenfibly felt by being contrafted with the other. Similar emotions, on the other hand, fuch as gaiety and sweetness, ftillness and gloominess, motion and grandeur, ought to be raised together; for their effects upon the mind are greatly heightened by their conjunction.

Kent's method of embellishing a field, is admirable; which is to replenish it with beautiful objects, natural and artificial, disposed as they ought to be upon a canvas in painting. It requires indeed more genius to paint in the gardening way in forming a landfcape upon a canvas, no more is required but to adjust the figures to each other an artist who would form a garden in Kent's manner, has an additional tafk; which is, to adjust his figures to the feveral varieties of the field.

A fingle garden must be diftinguished from a plurality;

Chap. 2. part 4.

See the place immediately above cited.

plurality; and yet it is not obvious in what the unity of a garden confifts. We have indeed fome notion of unity in a garden furrounding a palace, with views from each window, and walks leading to every corner: but there may be a garden without a house; in which cafe, it is the unity of defign that makes it one garden; as where a fpot of ground is fo artfully dreffed as to make the feveral portions appear to be parts of one whole. The gardens of Verfailles, properly expreffed in the plural number, being no fewer than fixteen, are indeed all of them connected with the palace, but have scarce any mutual connection: they appear not like parts of one whole, but rather like fmall gardens in contiguity. A greater diftance between these gardens would produce a better effect their junction breeds confufion of ideas, and upon the whole gives lefs pleasure than would be felt in a flower fucceffion.

Regularity is required in that part of a garden which is adjacent to the dwelling-house ; because an immediate acceffory ought to partake the regularity of the principal object *: but in proportion

to

The influence of this connection furpaffing all bounds, is still visible in many gardens, formed of horizontal plains forc'd with great labour and expence, perpendicular faces of earth fupported by maffy ftone walls, terrace-walks in ftages one above another, regular ponds and canals without the leaft motion, and the whole furrounded, like a prifon, with high

walls