DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19489#0084
52 THE FORMAL GARDEN IN ENGLAND hi.
the University of Oxford, and it thus became
the basis of the Ashmolean collection. In lists
of garden books of this period the name of
Sir Hugh Piatt often occurs, and the titles of
his books, The Garden of Eden and Flora s
Paradise, raise expectations which are uniformly
disappointed. Piatt says he will not trouble
his readers with rules for the shaping and
fashioning of an orchard—"every Drawer or
embroiderer, nay, almost each Dancing-master,
may pretend to such niceties," and having thus
demolished the necessity of such a poor thing
as the designer, Piatt unfolds his own learning
in a meagre string of amateur notes on plants.
Piatt was only a dabbler in science, and from
our point ot view stands on a very different
footing to such men as Markham and Lawson.
Both of the latter were thoroughly familiar with
the garden, not only as practical gardeners, but
as designers of gardens. They do not appear
to have had any special training in design, but
there is an important difference between the
country gentleman of the seventeenth century
and his successor in the nineteenth. The latter
has no traditional knowledge of design, and
the arts of design form no part whatever of
his education, whereas the English gentleman
from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century
did possess a general traditional knowledge of
design and of the principles which govern it.
He was not better educated, but he succeeded
the University of Oxford, and it thus became
the basis of the Ashmolean collection. In lists
of garden books of this period the name of
Sir Hugh Piatt often occurs, and the titles of
his books, The Garden of Eden and Flora s
Paradise, raise expectations which are uniformly
disappointed. Piatt says he will not trouble
his readers with rules for the shaping and
fashioning of an orchard—"every Drawer or
embroiderer, nay, almost each Dancing-master,
may pretend to such niceties," and having thus
demolished the necessity of such a poor thing
as the designer, Piatt unfolds his own learning
in a meagre string of amateur notes on plants.
Piatt was only a dabbler in science, and from
our point ot view stands on a very different
footing to such men as Markham and Lawson.
Both of the latter were thoroughly familiar with
the garden, not only as practical gardeners, but
as designers of gardens. They do not appear
to have had any special training in design, but
there is an important difference between the
country gentleman of the seventeenth century
and his successor in the nineteenth. The latter
has no traditional knowledge of design, and
the arts of design form no part whatever of
his education, whereas the English gentleman
from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century
did possess a general traditional knowledge of
design and of the principles which govern it.
He was not better educated, but he succeeded