Any creation, to be recognised as a work of art, must be such as can never be mistaken for a work of nature. It is true that art may create a work which shall be mistaken for nature; but in such a case the object created could afford no pleasure as a work of art, because it Would be without the first condition, viz. that kind of aspect by which art is at once recognised. Much is very properly said about the imitation of nature, because no work whatever could produce an effect on the human mind but such as was in accordance with those works from which the human mind receives all its impressions, and to which impressions alone it is accommodated. A work of art, therefore, that is not composed in imitation of, or, in other words, upon the same principles of composition as the works of nature, can no more give pleasure to the human mind, as at present constituted, than an article not fit to he taken into the stomach as food can give nourishment to the human body. The great object of all human exertion, after satisfying those wants which are essential to our existence, is to procure the approbation or applause of ourselves or others.

To imitate nature in such a way as thai the object produced should he mistaken for nature, could never excite much approbation for the artist, because its very perfection, by deceiving the spectator into a belief of its reality, would prevent it from being considered as a work of art. On the contrary, when an object is imitated in a totally different material from that in which At appears in nature, and the imitation is successful, the applause of the spectator is great in proportion to the degree of skill displayed.

Thus, suppose a person to succeed in making arti6cial flowers of coloured paper so like real flowers as to deceive the spectator, and another person to carve an imitation of such flowers in wood or stone, what would be the merit which the common sense of mankind would assign to each of these two persons? The artificial flower-maker would be considered in the light of a manufacturer, or mechanical producer, or repeater of an object, while the carver in wood or stone would be considered as possessing a superior degree of mind, from his having produced the resemblance of a flower in a material so unlike the texture of flowers as wood or stone; he would, in short, be con-sidered an artist.

20. The principle of the recognition of art is thus, we think, proved to be founded in human nature: it is recognisable in every description of human improvement; and it is no less essential in the case of the fine arts than in those of common life, or of any of the mechanical arts and manufactures. We have considered it necessary to insist on this principle here, in order that our readers may go along with us when we come to make the application of it to the modern style of landscape-gardening. This style is said to be an imitation of nature; and, in consequence of this expression, many persons have argued in favour of imitating nature so closely as to produce scenes which might be mistaken for natural ones; or, in other words, for those which result from causes operating independently of man. If we are right in our principle, however, such fac-simile imitations of nature, even of the most beautiful nature that can be selected, constitute but a very inferior style of art; and the landscape gardener who should produce a piece of water surrounded by grass and trees, with its margin fringed by bushes and water-plants, and varied by gravel and stones, in such a natural-looking manner that it might be selected for copying from by a landscape-painter, and mistaken by him for a piece of natural scenery, has exactly the same pretensions to the character of an artist as a manufacturer of artificial flowers or wax figures, who should produce a flower of tinted paper, or a dressed figure of a man or boy, so complete a fac-simile of nature that a botanical painter, or a cursory observer, might be desirous of making a drawing from the one, and of speaking to the other, believing both to be alive.

30. The rules which. in landscape-gardening, may be derived from the principle of the recognition of art are numerous. With respect to ground, it must either be reduced to levels, or slopes of regular curvatures, as in the ancient style; or, in the modern style, to polished curvatures and undulations, which shall be, either from their beauty of form, or from their clothing of herbage, distinguishable at first sight from the natural surface of the ground by which the work of art, that is, the lawn, park, or pleasure-ground, is surrounded. Wood, if the common trees of the locality are employed, must be either planted in lines, or massed in geometrical figures; but, if foreign trees and shrubs only are used, they may be planted in irregular masses or groups, and as single trees. If indigenous trees and shrubs are at any time introduced in the modern style of landscape-gardening, the greatest care must be taken not to crowd, or even group, them together in such a manner as that a stranger might conclude they had grown up there naturally. They must be placed so as to stand distinct from other trees and shrubs, and so as to take forms more perfectly developed than what the same species are found to have in a natural or accidental state in the surrounding country.

For example, in a country abounding with the common English oak, no artist, who understands his art, would employ that tree in his artificial plantations, unless at their boundaries, so as to harmonise them with the natural woods of the country; or unless in an avenue, or in some other way in which they could at once be recognised as having been planted. But, supposing that one indigenous oak existed in the midst of his artificial plantation, which he was obliged to retain; or that he were absolutely required to plant one; or that he were desirous of having one to complete a collection; how is that tree, supposed to be common in the neighbourhood, to be treated, so as to subject it to the principle of the recognition of art, and yet so as not to violate its natural form, by clipping it in the ancient manner? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the state of the common oaks in the neighbourhood: these are, in all probability, either crowded in oak woods, or pruned or otherwise mutilated in hedgerows. Give the oak, in the artificial plantation, therefore, ample room on every side; preserve it from cattle, and let its branches stretch out all around, and hang down upon the ground; and you have at once a tree of art, and of great natural beauty.