This section is from "The Horticulturist, And Journal Of Rural Art And Rural Taste", by P. Barry, A. J. Downing, J. Jay Smith, Peter B. Mead, F. W. Woodward, Henry T. Williams. Also available from Amazon: Horticulturist and Journal of Rural Art and Rural Taste.
To define the differences between the pleasures derivable from the works of nature and those of man, is a difficult subject. Natural objects are common and obvious, and are imbued with an habitual and universal interest, without being vulgar. Familiarity with them does not breed contempt, as it does in the works of man. They form an ideal class; their repeated impression on the mind, in as many different circumstances, grows up into a sentiment. The reason is, that we refer them generally and collectively to ourselves as links and mementos of our various being; whereas, we refer the works of art respectively to those by whom they are made, or to whom they belong. This distracts the mind in looking at them, and gives a petty and unpoetical character to what we feel relating to them.
A fine poet thus describes the effect of the sight of nature on his mind:
"The sounding cataract Haunted me like s passion; tho tall rock, The mountain, and the deep and gloomy wood, Their colore and their forms were then to me An appetite, a feeling, and a love, That had no need of a remoter charm By thought supplied, or any interest Unborrowed from the eye".