An essay on design in gardening / first published in 1768. Now greatly augmented. Also a revisal of several later publications on the same subject. By George Mason.

  • George Mason
Date:
1795
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An essay on design in gardening / first published in 1768. Now greatly augmented. Also a revisal of several later publications on the same subject. By George Mason. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    22/240 (page 4)
    ipecfator makes no part of the idea. Con- fequently this definition agrees not with ei- ther of Mr. Gilpin’s, but rejects with Mr. Price “ exclufive reference to art.” I fhould have thought it an improper epithet for my purpofe, if it had impofed the fame reftraint on natural defign, which the imitative art is unavoidably fubject to. But, as there is not equal imbecillity in a mirror for giving- true reprefentations univerfally, perhaps feeing a piece of rural feenery in that way may be a good illuftration of the general* [* I humbly apprehend that Mr. Price and Mr. Gilpin are both miftaken in the ground-work of their conclufions. They both feem perfuaded, that pitlurefque can have but one meaning. In my idea it has at lead: two. Its general mean- ing (according to my own apprehenfion) I have given in the text. But when the word is ufed in contradiftin&ion to any other (fuch as beautiful) I conceive it then to be exprefiive of vijible fingularity. In this latter fenfe it does not exclude other qualities, but only implies, that fuch fingularity is the pre- valent. Mr. Price’s explanation is not very different from this; only that he looks upon that meaning to be primary, which I take to be but fecondary. If the word pitlurefquenefs was not fo ftrikingly inharmonious, it would be a very ufe- fyl acquifition to our language.] meaning