12 HISTORY OF GARDENING. Parr I.

observes the author of the Historical View, the striking resemblance which Pliny’s gardens bear to the French or Dutch taste. The terraces adjoining to the house; the lawn declining from thence; the little flower-garden, with the fountain in the centre; the walks bordered with box, and the trees sheared into whimsical artificial forms; toge- ther with the fountains, alcoves, and summer-houses, form a resemblance too striking to bear dispute.“ In an age,” observes Lord Walpole,“ when architecture displayed all its grandeur, all its purity, and all its taste; when arose Vespasian’s amphitheatre, the temple of Peace, Trajan’s forum, Domitian’s bath, and Adrian’s villa, the ruins and vestiges of which still excite our astonishment and curiosity; a Roman consul, a polished emperor’s friend, and a man of elegant literature and taste, delighted in what the mob now scarcely admire in a college-garden. All the ingredients of Pliny’s garden corre-= putt! spond exactly with those laid out by London and Wise on Dutch principles; so’ that ppl J nothing is wanting but a parterre to make a garden in the reign of Trajan serve for the e eps description of one in the reign of King William.”— The open country round a villa was feb

managed, as the Roman agricultural writers inform us, in the common field system lately opt prevalent in Britain; there were few or no hedges, or other fences, or rows of trees, but{ ee the what was not under forest was in waste, with patches of fallow or corn. Thus it appears a be that the country residence of an ancient Roman, not only as to his garden, as Lord Wal- wee at pole has observed, but even as to the views and prospects from his house, as Eustace ind that and Malthus hint, bore a very near resemblance to the chateau of a French or German ust OR ee nobleman in the 18th century, and to not a few in France and Italy at the present day. Pat — The same taste as that displayed by Pliny appears to have prevailed till the fall of the pes

on Hise

Roman empire; and by existing in a faint degree in the gardens of religious houses during the dark ages, as well as in Pliny’s writings, has thus been handed down to modern times.

44. The progress of gardening among the Romans was much less than that of architecture. Professor Hirschfield remarks(Theorie des Jardins, tom. i. p. 25.), that as the descriptions of the ancient Roman authors make us better acquainted with their country-houses than with their gardens, and as the former appear more readily submitted to certain rules than the latter, we are apt to bestow on the gardens the reputation which really belongs to the

t for

country-houses, and give the one a value which does not belong to the other. The pi fen

different manner in which the ancients speak of country-houses and of gardens, may beta lead us to judge which of the two objects had attained the highest degree of perfection. ee suo

The descriptions of the first are not only more numerous but more detailed. Gardens are ders, oF 201 only mentioned in a general manner; and the writer rests satisfied with bestowing appro- jap at bation on their fertility and charms. Every country-house had its gardens in the days cf as soe of Pliny; and it is not too much, taking this circumstance in connection with the re- ve, at pe marks of Columella, to hazard a conjecture that even the Romans themselves considered rds ers, their gardens less perfect than their houses. Doubtless the Roman authors, so attentive ie ihe gm

|

to elevate the glory of their age in every thing concerning the fine arts, would have en- larged more on this subject, if they had been able to produce any thing of importance. To decide as to the perfection which a nation has attained in one of the arts, by their perfection in another, is too hazardous a judgment; the error has been already committed in regard to the music of the ancients, and must not be repeated in judging of their gardens. The Romans appear in general to have turned their attention to every thing which bore the impression of grandeur and magnificence; hence their passion for building don, Pliny baths, circuses, colonnades, statues, reservoirs, and other objects which strike the eye,‘ Besides, this taste was more easily satisfied, and more promptly, than a taste for plant- ations, which required time and patience. Inall probability the greater number contented themselves with the useful products of the soil, and the natural beauty of the views, bestowing the utmost attention to the selection of an elevated site commanding distant scenery.— Cicero(De Legg. iii. 15.) informs us that it was in their country-villas that the Romans chiefly delighted in displaying their magnificence; and in this respect, the coincidence in habits between ourselves and that great people is a proud circumstance, 45. The Roman taste in gardens has been condemned as unnatural; but such criticism we consider as proceeding from much too limited a view of the subject. Because the Roman gardens were considered as scenes of art, and treated as such, it does not follow that the possessors were without a just feeling for natural scenery. Where all around is nature, artificial scenes even of the most formal description will please, and may be approved of by the justest taste, from their novelty, contrast, and other associations. If all England were a scattered forest like ancient Italy, and cultivation were to take place only in the open glades or plains, where would be the beauty of our parks and picturesque grounds? The relative or temporary beauties of art should therefore not be\ entirely rejected in our admiration of the more permanent and absolute beauties of nature. That the ancient Romans admired natural scenery with as great enthusiasm as the Be art moderns, is evident from the writings of their eminent poets and philosophers; scarcely HHS, The one of whom has not in some part of his works left us the most beautiful descriptions

of lie 188

axed a m te purposes 0 Hor, asus these appear f {btn

~ty~