When the works of these gentlemen were published, they were opposed by professors, by a numerous class of mankind who hate innovation, and with whom " whatever is is right," including perhaps some men of taste, who had not a sense of the picturesque, or had mistaken the object of the book.
The first answer to Mr. Price's work, was a letter by Mr. Repton, in which candour obliges us to state, that Mr. R. has misrepresented his antagonist's meaning, by con founding the study of pictures with that of the study of the principles of painting. Mr. Price published an able answer to this production, which, he informs us, was even more read than the original essay.
Two anonymous poems of no merit made their appear ance, as satires on The Landscape.
The Review of the Landscape, and of an Essay on the Picturesque, Etc. by Mr. Marshall, was published in 1795. There can scarcely be any thing more violent than this pub lication. One reason for his not approving of the essay on the picturesque, he has made evident by his remarks on the same subject, and on painting ; the fact being, as we have already more than once stated, and wish strongly to impress on the reader's mind, that a taste for the picturesque is not so natural as a taste for what is singular, grand, comic, or affecting, but requires a certain degree of previous study or preparation,—this preparation Mr. Marshall is evidently not furnished with.
Among the second class, or those with whom 44 what ever is is right," I shall just mention the periodical critics, who, in reviewing these works, brought forward all sorts of reasons against the use of the study of pictures, and deny (with truth perhaps as to themselves) the distinct character of the picturesque. Mr. Price they treat as "a mere vi sionary amateur," and Mr. Knight as " a Grub-street poet, who has probably no other garden than the pot of mint be fore his windows." The vague opinion of a great mass of country gentlemen, tourists, and temporary authors, may be here included, who, taking the word picturesque in its extreme sense, and supposing it intended to regulate what was useful, as well as what was ornamental, concluded that Mr. Price's object was to destroy all comfort and neatness in country scats, and reduce them to mere portions of dingle or jungle scenery. Such opinions we have frequently heard express ed by men, in other respects of good sense. Even conti nental authors have imbibed and disseminated similar ex aggerations. " Egate.> par Gilpin, que a cherche par ses en diverses parties de PAngleterre et de l'Ecosse, a dormer des regles, pour y assujeter le genre pittoresque et romantique, ifs out pris l'occasion pour demander que Part fur totalement banni des jardins. Its adoptent le pitto resque d'un Salvator Rosa dans les pysages, comme le vrai nature duns l'art de faire des jardins, ct on rejette comme tin asservisement a ce n.e.ne art, toutes les re4leo
qu'un Bridgewater (Briogeman ?) et tut Brown avuient publiees dans ce genre." (Description Pittoresque des Jar dins, du gOut le plus moderne. Leipsig, 18U2. 5cc also 'Iu binger Taschenbuch,.fiir nature and Gartenfreunde, 1798, p. 194. Of enlightened and liberal minds, who have in some degree opposed Mr. Price's principles, we can only instance the late Mr. Wyndham, who, in a letter to Mr. Repton, (Mr. Rcpton was at one period secretary to Mr. Wyndham, when that gentleman was in officc.) written af ter the publication of his defence, combats, nut the works of Mr. Price, but the popular objections to the supposed desire of subjecting every thing to the picturesque. "The writers of this school." he observes, 44 shew evidently that they do not trace with any success the causes of their plea sure. Does the pleasure that we receive from the view of parks and gardens result from their affording, in their several parts, subjects that would appear to advantage in a picture ? What is most beautiful in nature, is not always capable of being represented in a panning ; as prospects, moving flocks of deer. Many arc of a sort which have nothing to do with the purposes of habitation ; as the sub jects of Salvator Rosa. Are we therefore to live in caves ? Gainsborough's Country Girl is more picturesque than a child neatly dressed. Are our children to go in rags ? No one will stand by this doctrine: nor do they exhibit it in any distinct shape at all, but only take credit for their at tachment to general principles, to which every one is at tached as well as they. It is contended, that in laying out a place, whatever is most picturesque is most conformable to true taste ? If they say so, they must be led to conse quences which they can never venture to avow. If they do not say so, the whole is a question of how much, or how little, which, without the instances before you, can never be decided." 44 Places are not to be laid out with a view to their appearance in a picture, but to their use, and the en joyment of them in real life ; and their conformity to these purposes, is that which constitutes their true beauty. With this view, gravel walks, and neat mown lawns, and in some situations, straight alleys, fountains, terraces ; and, for aught I know, parterres, and cut hedges, are in perfect good taste, and infinitely more conformable to the princi ples which form the basis of our pleasure in those instances, than the docks and thistles, and litter and disorder, that may make a much better figure in a picture." (Letter from Mr. 'Wyndham, in a note to Mr. Reptoq's Observations on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening.