Abigail Bliss
November 1, 2011
Drayton, Richard. "Plants and Power, and Notes." In Nature's Government, Science, Imperial Britain, and the 'Improvement' of the World, 26-49, 281-286. New York: Yale University Press, 2000.
In “Plants and Power, and Notes” (2000), Drayton asks, how did botanists find patronage in England’s 16th -18th centuries? He argues that botany became associated with influence because rulers saw a parallel between dominion over the microcosm of the world found in a garden and their pursuit of earthly power. At first, they were attracted by the idea that the knowledge of nature had been passed down from God and through a lineage of kings, giving them a right to preside over a wondrous garden. Then, as Linnaeus’ system of classification rendered the natural sciences accessible to ordinary people, gardens became a means by which rulers earned their right to rule by providing a way for their subjects to contribute to the empire. The garden no longer represented the virtues of the ruler; it displayed the virtues of the empire as a whole, pulling plants from all areas of the world as England strove to expand its dominion. Drayton’s account is riddled with dates and names that often distract the reader and make his analysis read more like a timeline than an argument. Yet, he is able to convey that gardens served a greater purpose than being beautiful; they could include untrained people in building of an empire, force a ruler to seek verification from his population instead of God, and justify imperialism, as the collection and understanding of plants would benefit the world as a whole.
Horace Walpole, “The History of the Modern Taste in Gardening (1771/1780)” in The Genius of the Place, 313-316.
In “The History of the Modern Taste in Gardening (1771/1780),” Walpole asks what factors shifted the view of a garden as separate from the area beyond its border to one that included nature and all of its disorder as a part of the garden. He points to the sunk fence and the artist Kent as catalysts because they lessened the distinction between the contained garden and the nature that surrounded it. In Kent’s designs, he modified the landscape to seem more aesthetically appealing, replacing the ominous gloom of many trees with the pastoral pleasure of a few, for example. So too, he desired the confined garden to mimic the unruliness of nature more closely, replacing fountains and canals with meandering streams. Yet, as much as Walpole’s flowery descriptions of Kent’s plans that render his writing so compelling reveal strong admiration for the artist, he seems to critique and even mock Kent for taking his imitation of nature a step too far. Why conceal that nature has been modified to accommodate and please man? Ultimately, Walpole suggests that sometimes the order and practicality of a landscaped garden are preferable to the attempted replications of nature proponed by Kent.
Thomas, Keith. "Cultivation or Wilderness?" In Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800, 254-269. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
“Cultivation or Wilderness?” (1983), asks why the appreciation for a garden of geometric order and abundant fertility was abandoned in the 18th century in favor of a desire for an informal garden that almost mimicked the unruliness of nature. Improved transportation made the before-detested jagged mountains more accessible, a comfortable middle class was forced to run to the cliffs for a sense of thrill and danger, and, in England, the sheer abundance of lands of symmetrical cultivation caused people to turn to the refreshing view of unenhanced landscapes. Yet, Keith seems to argue that the most important factor was religion; people’s belief that all of God’s creation served a purpose forced them to include the previously abhorred mountains and untamed landscapes in their admiration. Wilderness became a place where people sought spiritual renewal. Keith argues that this appreciation created the foundation for the desire to protect nature from man’s damaging presence. But the view of a beautiful, unblemished landscape was limited to the wealthy because of its dependence on a prior familiarity with English painting and the ability to afford not using the land for cultivation. While the rest of Keith’s account, built on traveler’s first-hand reactions to the design or lack thereof of their surroundings, is compelling, I am left wondering, how ingrained can a view become in society if only the upper classes are can conceive of it?