by Poe · Cluster: Flowers · Spring · Garden

Abstract

Aesthetic tale-essay in which the immensely wealthy poet Ellison devotes his fortune to landscape-gardening as the supreme art, theorizing beauty, nature and the artist’s creation of an intermediate Nature between man and God.

Testo / Text

Parti / Parts

Readability (prose)46.4 Flesch ease13.1 FK grade16.9 Fog17% complex25.4 words/sent

Connections

Topoi: Locus Amoenus, Book of Nature Archetypes: Self-Made Man Motifs: Garden, Nature, Flowers, Money and Gold Themes & Concepts: Beauty, Imagination, Artist and Society, Natural Order, Immortality of Art Fame, Sublime, Providence Forms & Genres: Essay, Short Story, Nonfiction Settings: Garden (2)

Testo integrale / Full text

The garden like a lady fair was cut

     That lay as if she slumbered in delight,

 And to the open skies her eyes did shut;

     The azure fields of heaven were ’sembled right

     In a large round set with flow’rs of light:

 The flowers de luce and the round sparks of dew

 That hung upon their azure leaves, did show

 Like twinkling stars that sparkle in the ev’ning blue.

                —GILES FLETCHER



  No more remarkable man ever lived than my friend, the young

  Ellison. He was remarkable in the entire and continuous profusion

  of good gifts ever lavished upon him by fortune. From his cradle

  to his grave, a gale of the blandest prosperity bore him along.

  Nor do I use the word Prosperity in its mere wordly or external

  sense. I mean it as synonymous with happiness. The person of whom

  I speak, seemed born for the purpose of foreshadowing the wild

  doctrines of Turgot, Price, Priestley, and Condorcet—of

  exemplifying, by individual instance, what has been deemed the

  mere chimera of the perfectionists. In the brief existence of

  Ellison, I fancy, that I have seen refuted the dogma—that in

  man’s physical and spiritual nature, lies some hidden principle,

  the antagonist of Bliss. An intimate and anxious examination of

  his career, has taught me to understand that, in general, from

  the violation of a few simple laws of Humanity, arises the

  Wretchedness of mankind; that, as a species, we have in our

  possession the as yet unwrought elements of Content,—and that

  even now, in the present blindness and darkness of all idea on

  the great question of the Social Condition, it is not impossible

  that Man, the individual, under certain unusual and highly

  fortuitous conditions, may be happy.



  With opinions such as these was my young friend fully imbued; and

  thus is it especially worthy of observation that the

  uninterrupted enjoyment which distinguished his life was in great

  part the result of preconcert. It is, indeed evident, that with

  less of the instinctive philosophy which, now and then, stands so

  well in the stead of experience, Mr. Ellison would have found

  himself precipitated, by the very extraordinary successes of his

  life, into the common vortex of Unhappiness which yawns for those

  of preeminent endowments. But it is by no means my present object

  to pen an essay on Happiness. The ideas of my friend may be

  summed up in a few words. He admitted but four unvarying laws, or

  rather elementary principles, of Bliss. That which he considered

  chief, was (strange to say!) the simple and purely physical one

  of free exercise in the open air. “The health,” he said,

  “attainable by other means than this is scarcely worth the name.”

  He pointed to the tillers of the earth—the only people who, as a

  class, are proverbially more happy than others—and then he

  instanced the high ecstasies of the fox-hunter. His second

  principle was the love of woman. His third was the contempt of

  ambition. His fourth was an object of unceasing pursuit; and he

  held that, other things being equal, the extent of happiness was

  proportioned to the spirituality of this object.



  I have said that Ellison was remarkable in the continuous

  profusion of good gifts lavished upon him by Fortune. In personal

  grace and beauty he exceeded all men. His intellect was of that

  order to which the attainment of knowledge is less a labor than a

  necessity and an intuition. His family was one of the most

  illustrious of the empire. His bride was the loveliest and most

  devoted of women. His possessions had been always ample; but,

  upon the attainment of his one and twentieth year, it was

  discovered that one of those extraordinary freaks of Fate had

  been played in his behalf which startle the whole social world

  amid which they occur, and seldom fail radically to alter the

  entire moral constitution of those who are their objects. It

  appears that about one hundred years prior to Mr. Ellison’s

  attainment of his majority, there had died, in a remote province,

  one Mr. Seabright Ellison. This gentlemen had amassed a princely

  fortune, and, having no very immediate connexions, conceived the

  whim of suffering his wealth to accumulate for a century after

  his decease. Minutely and sagaciously directing the various modes

  of investment, he bequeathed the aggregate amount to the nearest

  of blood, bearing the name Ellison, who should be alive at the

  end of the hundred years. Many futile attempts had been made to

  set aside this singular bequest; their ex post facto character

  rendered them abortive; but the attention of a jealous government

  was aroused, and a decree finally obtained, forbidding all

  similar accumulations. This act did not prevent young Ellison,

  upon his twenty-first birth-day, from entering into possession,

  as the heir of his ancestor, Seabright, of a fortune of four

  hundred and fifty millions of dollars. {*1}



  When it had become definitely known that such was the enormous

  wealth inherited, there were, of course, many speculations as to

  the mode of its disposal. The gigantic magnitude and the

  immediately available nature of the sum, dazzled and bewildered

  all who thought upon the topic. The possessor of any appreciable

  amount of money might have been imagined to perform any one of a

  thousand things. With riches merely surpassing those of any

  citizen, it would have been easy to suppose him engaging to

  supreme excess in the fashionable extravagances of his time; or

  busying himself with political intrigues; or aiming at

  ministerial power; or purchasing increase of nobility, or

  devising gorgeous architectural piles; or collecting large

  specimens of Virtu; or playing the munificent patron of Letters

  and Art; or endowing and bestowing his name upon extensive

  institutions of charity. But, for the inconceivable wealth in the

  actual possession of the young heir, these objects and all

  ordinary objects were felt to be inadequate. Recourse was had to

  figures; and figures but sufficed to confound. It was seen, that

  even at three per cent, the annual income of the inheritance

  amounted to no less than thirteen millions and five hundred

  thousand dollars; which was one million and one hundred and

  twenty-five thousand per month; or thirty-six thousand, nine

  hundred and eighty-six per day, or one thousand five hundred and

  forty-one per hour, or six and twenty dollars for every minute

  that flew. Thus the usual track of supposition was thoroughly

  broken up. Men knew not what to imagine. There were some who even

  conceived that Mr. Ellison would divest himself forthwith of at

  least two-thirds of his fortune as of utterly superfluous

  opulence; enriching whole troops of his relatives by division of

  his superabundance.



  I was not surprised, however, to perceive that he had long made

  up his mind upon a topic which had occasioned so much of

  discussion to his friends. Nor was I greatly astonished at the

  nature of his decision. In the widest and noblest sense, he was a

  poet. He comprehended, moreover, the true character, the august

  aims, the supreme majesty and dignity of the poetic sentiment.

  The proper gratification of the sentiment he instinctively felt

  to lie in the creation of novel forms of Beauty. Some

  peculiarities, either in his early education, or in the nature of

  his intellect, had tinged with what is termed materialism the

  whole cast of his ethical speculations; and it was this bias,

  perhaps, which imperceptibly led him to perceive that the most

  advantageous, if not the sole legitimate field for the exercise

  of the poetic sentiment, was to be found in the creation of novel

  moods of purely physical loveliness. Thus it happened that he

  became neither musician nor poet; if we use this latter term in

  its every-day acceptation. Or it might have been that he became

  neither the one nor the other, in pursuance of an idea of his

  which I have already mentioned—the idea, that in the contempt of

  ambition lay one of the essential principles of happiness on

  earth. Is it not, indeed, possible that while a high order of

  genius is necessarily ambitious, the highest is invariably above

  that which is termed ambition? And may it not thus happen that

  many far greater than Milton, have contentedly remained “mute and

  inglorious?” I believe the world has never yet seen, and that,

  unless through some series of accidents goading the noblest order

  of mind into distasteful exertion, the world will never behold,

  that full extent of triumphant execution, in the richer

  productions of Art, of which the human nature is absolutely

  capable.



  Mr. Ellison became neither musician nor poet; although no man

  lived more profoundly enamored both of Music and the Muse. Under

  other circumstances than those which invested him, it is not

  impossible that he would have become a painter. The field of

  sculpture, although in its nature rigidly poetical, was too

  limited in its extent and in its consequences, to have occupied,

  at any time, much of his attention. And I have now mentioned all

  the provinces in which even the most liberal understanding of the

  poetic sentiment has declared this sentiment capable of

  expatiating. I mean the most liberal public or recognized

  conception of the idea involved in the phrase “poetic sentiment.”

  But Mr. Ellison imagined that the richest, and altogether the

  most natural and most suitable province, had been blindly

  neglected. No definition had spoken of the Landscape-Gardener, as

  of the poet; yet my friend could not fail to perceive that the

  creation of the Landscape-Garden offered to the true muse the

  most magnificent of opportunities. Here was, indeed, the fairest

  field for the display of invention, or imagination, in the

  endless combining of forms of novel Beauty; the elements which

  should enter into combination being, at all times, and by a vast

  superiority, the most glorious which the earth could afford. In

  the multiform of the tree, and in the multicolor of the flower,

  he recognized the most direct and the most energetic efforts of

  Nature at physical loveliness. And in the direction or

  concentration of this effort, or, still more properly, in its

  adaption to the eyes which were to behold it upon earth, he

  perceived that he should be employing the best means—laboring to

  the greatest advantage—in the fulfilment of his destiny as Poet.



  “Its adaptation to the eyes which were to behold it upon earth.”

  In his explanation of this phraseology, Mr. Ellison did much

  towards solving what has always seemed to me an enigma. I mean

  the fact (which none but the ignorant dispute) that no such

  combinations of scenery exist in Nature as the painter of genius

  has in his power to produce. No such Paradises are to be found in

  reality as have glowed upon the canvass of Claude. In the most

  enchanting of natural landscapes, there will always be found a

  defect or an excess—many excesses and defects. While the

  component parts may exceed, individually, the highest skill of

  the artist, the arrangement of the parts will always be

  susceptible of improvement. In short, no position can be

  attained, from which an artistical eye, looking steadily, will

  not find matter of offence, in what is technically termed the

  composition of a natural landscape. And yet how unintelligible is

  this! In all other matters we are justly instructed to regard

  Nature as supreme. With her details we shrink from competition.

  Who shall presume to imitate the colors of the tulip, or to

  improve the proportions of the lily of the valley? The criticism

  which says, of sculpture or of portraiture, that “Nature is to be

  exalted rather than imitated,” is in error. No pictorial or

  sculptural combinations of points of human loveliness, do more

  than approach the living and breathing human beauty as it

  gladdens our daily path. Byron, who often erred, erred not in

  saying, I’ve seen more living beauty, ripe and real, than all the

  nonsense of their stone ideal. In landscape alone is the

  principle of the critic true; and, having felt its truth here, it

  is but the headlong spirit of generalization which has induced

  him to pronounce it true throughout all the domains of Art.

  Having, I say, felt its truth here. For the feeling is no

  affectation or chimera. The mathematics afford no more absolute

  demonstrations, than the sentiment of his Art yields to the

  artist. He not only believes, but positively knows, that such and

  such apparently arbitrary arrangements of matter, or form,

  constitute, and alone constitute, the true Beauty. Yet his

  reasons have not yet been matured into expression. It remains for

  a more profound analysis than the world has yet seen, fully to

  investigate and express them. Nevertheless is he confirmed in his

  instinctive opinions, by the concurrence of all his compeers. Let

  a composition be defective; let an emendation be wrought in its

  mere arrangement of form; let this emendation be submitted to

  every artist in the world; by each will its necessity be

  admitted. And even far more than this, in remedy of the defective

  composition, each insulated member of the fraternity will suggest

  the identical emendation.



  I repeat that in landscape arrangements, or collocations alone,

  is the physical Nature susceptible of “exaltation” and that,

  therefore, her susceptibility of improvement at this one point,

  was a mystery which, hitherto I had been unable to solve. It was

  Mr. Ellison who first suggested the idea that what we regarded as

  improvement or exaltation of the natural beauty, was really such,

  as respected only the mortal or human point of view; that each

  alteration or disturbance of the primitive scenery might possibly

  effect a blemish in the picture, if we could suppose this picture

  viewed at large from some remote point in the heavens. “It is

  easily understood,” says Mr. Ellison, “that what might improve a

  closely scrutinized detail, might, at the same time, injure a

  general and more distantly observed effect.” He spoke upon this

  topic with warmth: regarding not so much its immediate or obvious

  importance (which is little), as the character of the conclusions

  to which it might lead, or of the collateral propositions which

  it might serve to corroborate or sustain. There might be a class

  of beings, human once, but now to humanity invisible, for whose

  scrutiny and for whose refined appreciation of the beautiful,

  more especially than for our own, had been set in order by God

  the great landscape-garden of the whole earth.



  In the course of our discussion, my young friend took occasion to

  quote some passages from a writer who has been supposed to have

  well treated this theme.



  “There are, properly,” he writes, “but two styles of

  landscape-gardening, the natural and the artificial. One seeks to

  recall the original beauty of the country, by adapting its means

  to the surrounding scenery; cultivating trees in harmony with the

  hills or plain of the neighboring land; detecting and bringing

  into practice those nice relations of size, proportion and color

  which, hid from the common observer, are revealed everywhere to

  the experienced student of nature. The result of the natural

  style of gardening, is seen rather in the absence of all defects

  and incongruities—in the prevalence of a beautiful harmony and

  order, than in the creation of any special wonders or miracles.

  The artificial style has as many varieties as there are different

  tastes to gratify. It has a certain general relation to the

  various styles of building. There are the stately avenues and

  retirements of Versailles; Italian terraces; and a various mixed

  old English style, which bears some relation to the domestic

  Gothic or English Elizabethan architecture. Whatever may be said

  against the abuses of the artificial landscape-gardening, a

  mixture of pure art in a garden scene, adds to it a great beauty.

  This is partly pleasing to the eye, by the show of order and

  design, and partly moral. A terrace, with an old moss-covered

  balustrade, calls up at once to the eye, the fair forms that have

  passed there in other days. The slightest exhibition of art is an

  evidence of care and human interest.”



  “From what I have already observed,” said Mr. Ellison, “you will

  understand that I reject the idea, here expressed, of ‘recalling

  the original beauty of the country.’ The original beauty is never

  so great as that which may be introduced. Of course, much depends

  upon the selection of a spot with capabilities. What is said in

  respect to the ‘detecting and bringing into practice those nice

  relations of size, proportion and color,’ is a mere vagueness of

  speech, which may mean much, or little, or nothing, and which

  guides in no degree. That the true ‘result of the natural style

  of gardening is seen rather in the absence of all defects and

  incongruities, than in the creation of any special wonders or

  miracles,’ is a proposition better suited to the grovelling

  apprehension of the herd, than to the fervid dreams of the man of

  genius. The merit suggested is, at best, negative, and appertains

  to that hobbling criticism which, in letters, would elevate

  Addison into apotheosis. In truth, while that merit which

  consists in the mere avoiding demerit, appeals directly to the

  understanding, and can thus be foreshadowed in Rule, the loftier

  merit, which breathes and flames in invention or creation, can be

  apprehended solely in its results. Rule applies but to the

  excellences of avoidance—to the virtues which deny or refrain.

  Beyond these the critical art can but suggest. We may be

  instructed to build an Odyssey, but it is in vain that we are

  told how to conceive a ‘Tempest,’ an ‘Inferno,’ a ‘Prometheus

  Bound,’ a ‘Nightingale,’ such as that of Keats, or the ‘Sensitive

  Plant’ of Shelley. But, the thing done, the wonder accomplished,

  and the capacity for apprehension becomes universal. The sophists

  of the negative school, who, through inability to create, have

  scoffed at creation, are now found the loudest in applause. What,

  in its chrysalis condition of principle, affronted their demure

  reason, never fails, in its maturity of accomplishment, to extort

  admiration from their instinct of the beautiful or of the

  sublime.



  “Our author’s observations on the artificial style of gardening,”

  continued Mr. Ellison, “are less objectionable. ‘A mixture of

  pure art in a garden scene, adds to it a great beauty.’ This is

  just, and the reference to the sense of human interest is equally

  so. I repeat that the principle here expressed, is

  incontrovertible; but there may be something even beyond it.

  There may be an object in full keeping with the principle

  suggested—an object unattainable by the means ordinarily in

  possession of mankind, yet which, if attained, would lend a charm

  to the landscape-garden immeasurably surpassing that which a

  merely human interest could bestow. The true poet possessed of

  very unusual pecuniary resources, might possibly, while retaining

  the necessary idea of art or interest or culture, so imbue his

  designs at once with extent and novelty of Beauty, as to convey

  the sentiment of spiritual interference. It will be seen that, in

  bringing about such result, he secures all the advantages of

  interest or design, while relieving his work of all the harshness

  and technicality of Art. In the most rugged of wildernesses—in

  the most savage of the scenes of pure Nature—there is apparent

  the art of a Creator; yet is this art apparent only to

  reflection; in no respect has it the obvious force of a feeling.

  Now, if we imagine this sense of the Almighty Design to be

  harmonized in a measurable degree, if we suppose a landscape

  whose combined strangeness, vastness, definitiveness, and

  magnificence, shall inspire the idea of culture, or care, or

  superintendence, on the part of intelligences superior yet akin

  to humanity—then the sentiment of interest is preserved, while

  the Art is made to assume the air of an intermediate or secondary

  Nature—a Nature which is not God, nor an emanation of God, but

  which still is Nature, in the sense that it is the handiwork of

  the angels that hover between man and God.”



  It was in devoting his gigantic wealth to the practical

  embodiment of a vision such as this—in the free exercise in the

  open air, which resulted from personal direction of his plans—in

  the continuous and unceasing object which these plans afforded—in

  the high spirituality of the object itself—in the contempt of

  ambition which it enabled him more to feel than to affect—and,

  lastly, it was in the companionship and sympathy of a devoted

  wife, that Ellison thought to find, and found, an exemption from

  the ordinary cares of Humanity, with a far greater amount of

  positive happiness than ever glowed in the rapt day-dreams of De

  Staël.