“There are, properly,” he writes, “but two styles of landscape-gardening, the natural and the artificial.  One seeks to recall the original beauty of the country, by adapting its means to the surrounding scenery; cultivating trees in harmony with the hills or plain of the neighboring land; detecting and bringing into practice those nice relations of size, proportion and color which, hid from the common observer, are revealed everywhere to the experienced student of nature.  The result of the natural style of gardening, is seen rather in the absence of all defects and incongruities —­ in the prevalence of a beautiful harmony and order, than in the creation of any special wonders or miracles.  The artificial style has as many varieties as there are different tastes to gratify.  It has a certain general relation to the various styles of building.  There are the stately avenues and retirements of Versailles; Italian terraces; and a various mixed old English style, which bears some relation to the domestic Gothic or English Elizabethan architecture.  Whatever may be said against the abuses of the artificial landscape-gardening, a mixture of pure art in a garden scene, adds to it a great beauty.  This is partly pleasing to the eye, by the show of order and design, and partly moral.  A terrace, with an old moss-covered balustrade, calls up at once to the eye, the fair forms that have passed there in other days.  The slightest exhibition of art is an evidence of care and human interest.”

“From what I have already observed,” said Mr. Ellison, “you will understand that I reject the idea, here expressed, of ’recalling the original beauty of the country.’  The original beauty is never so great as that which may be introduced.  Of course, much depends upon the selection of a spot with capabilities.  What is said in respect to the ’detecting and bringing into practice those nice relations of size, proportion and color,’ is a mere vagueness of speech, which may mean much, or little, or nothing, and which guides in no degree.  That the true ’result of the natural style of gardening is seen rather in the absence of all defects and incongruities, than in the creation of any special wonders or miracles,’ is a proposition better suited to the grovelling apprehension of the herd, than to the fervid dreams of the man of genius.  The merit suggested is, at best, negative, and appertains to that hobbling criticism which, in letters, would elevate Addison into apotheosis.  In truth, while that merit which consists in the mere avoiding demerit, appeals directly to the understanding, and can thus be foreshadowed in Rule, the loftier merit, which breathes and flames in invention or creation, can be apprehended solely in its results.  Rule applies but to the excellences of avoidance —­ to the virtues which deny or refrain.  Beyond these the critical art can but suggest.  We may be instructed to build an Odyssey, but it is in vain that we are told how to conceive a ‘Tempest,’ an ‘Inferno,’