[82] See the place immediately above cited.
[83] The influence of this connection surpassing all bounds, is visible in many gardens, left in their original form of horizontal plains forc’d with great labour and expence, perpendicular faces of earth supported with massy stone walls, terrace-walks in stages one above another, regular ponds and canals without the least motion, and the whole surrounded, like a prison, with high walls excluding every external object. At first view it may puzzle one to account for a taste running cross to nature in every particular. But nothing happens without a cause. Perfect regularity and uniformity are required in a house; and this idea is extended to its accessory the garden, especially if it be a small spot incapable of grandeur or much variety. The house is regular, so must the garden be: the floors of the house are horizontal, and the garden must have the same position: in the house we are protected from every intruding eye, so must we be in the garden. This, it must be confessed, is carrying the notion of resemblance very far. But where reason and taste are laid asleep, nothing is more common than to carry resemblance beyond proper bounds.
[84] See chap. 4.
[85] See these terms defined, chap. 3.
[86] Taste has suggested to Kent the same artifice. The placing a decay’d tree properly, contributes to contrast; and also produces a sort of pity, grounded on an imaginary personification.
[87] “Houses are built to live in, and not to look on. Therefore let use be preferred before uniformity, except where both may be had.”
Lo. Verulam, essay 45.
[88] p. 94.
[89] Chap. 2. part 4.
[90] Chap. 10.