Landscape gardens in essence

Apollo, Feb, 2005 by Todd Longstaffe-Gowan

Here Harris's enthusiasm gets the better of him, for several others compiled comparable topographical records: John Spyers--who worked in Brown's office--produced over 100 topographically astute, amateur views of Hampton Court Park and gardens and neighbouring Bushy Park between 1770 and 1780; and the Frenchman Jean-Claude Nattes executed over 160 atmospheric pencil and ink wash views of Stowe between 1805 and 1809. It is almost certain, however, that Piper was among the only recorders of the mechanics of garden hydraulics (Fig. 2)--from lakes to cascades--that were such important constituents of English gardens of the period.

Harris's prefatory remarks are followed by a transcription of Piper's Description of the Idea and General-Plan for an English Garden, to which is in turn appended two insightful essays by Magnus Olausson, a leading scholar in the field of eighteenth-century Swedish landscape history. The first essay deals with Piper's personal development, his work and achievements, and the second provides a 'textual criticism' of his Description, analysing in detail aspects of the architect's manuscript, such as the play and distribution of water, the planning of roads and paths, planting design, the use of inscriptions, and his interest in the ferme ornee. The second book, titled The English Park, is an extremely handsome facsimile reproduction of Piper's original manuscript.

What continues to puzzle scholars, and what remains central to any discussion of Piper and his work, is his trustworthiness as an interpreter of English landscape gardening, his accuracy as a draughtsman and the extent to which his European experiences moulded his perception of English landscape. These are important questions as they in turn pose further questions about the veracity of our current views of the eighteenth-century English landscape garden. There are two schools of thought on the subject. Olausson is of the opinion that whilst Piper was in England he paid little or no attention to the work of Brown and his followers. If Piper's record of English landscape gardens makes them appear formal, or if his own schemes in the English taste have a whiff of regularity (Fig. 3), it is because his work was coloured by his familiarity with French and Italian gardens. Piper, he argues, expressed undisguised admiration for French engineering and garden design, commenting in 1809 that the 'large and regular style achieved by le Notre and his imitators particularly in France and Italy should by no means be rejected'. Piper was, he concludes, 'something of a paradox': having introduced the English landscape park to Sweden, he proceeded to contrive gardens that were 'faithful to what he had learned in Italy and France'.

The other school of thought--to which I subscribe--is that Piper recorded reasonably accurately the English landscape as he saw it, but that he discerned underlying structures that English commentators failed to see. Many of the landscapes that he recorded--including Stowe and Stourhead--had, at the time of his visits, formal elements or structures, some of which were 'relict features' left by earlier garden improvers, and others that had been contrived by the landscape gardeners of the day. For instance, we now know that Brown did not 'sweep away' all traces of the formal landscapes where he was working; Phibbs has proved that he very often used geometric forms and formal elements in his own landscapes.