WE

The Beautiful in Ground.

E have sketched, in a former volume, the elements of the Beautiful in a Tree. Let us glance for a few moments at the Beautiful in GROUND.

We may have readers who think themselves not devoid of some taste for nature, but who have never thought of looking for beauty in the mere surface of the earthwhether in a natural landscape, or in ornamental grounds. Their idea of beauty is, for the most part, attached to the foliage and verdure, the streams of water, the high hills and the deep valleys, that make up the landscape. A meadow is to them but a meadow, and a ploughed field is but the same thing in a rough state. And yet, there is a great and enduring interest, to a refined and artistic eye, in the mere surface of the ground. There is a sense of pleasure awakened by the pleasing lines into which yonder sloping bank of turf steals away from the eye, and a sense of ugliness and harshness, by the raw and broken outline of the abandoned quarry on the hill-side, which hardly any one can be so obtuse as not to see and feel. Yet, the finer gradations are nearly overlooked, and the charm of beautiful surface in a lawn is seldom or ever considered, in selecting a new site, or improving an old one.

We believe artists and men of taste have agreed that all forms of acknowledged beauty are composed of curved lines; and we may add to this, that the more gentle and gradual the curves, or rather the farther they are removed from those hard and forcible lines which denote violence, the more beautiful are they. The principle applies as well to the surface of the earth, as to other objects. The most beautiful shape in ground is that where one undulation melts gradually and insensibly into another. Every one who has observed scenery where the foregrounds were remarkable for beauty, must have been struck by this prevalence of curved lines; and every landscape gardener well knows, that no grassy surface is so captivating to the eye, as one where these gentle swells and undulations rise and melt away gradually into one another. Some poet, happy in his fancy, has called such bits of grassy slopes and swells,

MARCH 1, 1852.

No. III.

"earth's smiles;" and when the effect of the beauty and form of outline is heightened by the pleasing gradation of light and shade, caused by the sun's light variously reflected by such undulations of lawn, the simile seems strikingly appropriate. With every change of position the outlines vary, and the lights and shades vary with them, so that the eye is doubly pleased by the beauty of form and chiaro-scuro, in a lawn with gracefully undulalating surface.

A flat or level surface is considered beautiful by many persons, though it has no beauty in itself. It is, in fact, chiefly valued because it evinces art. Though there is no positive beauty in a straight or level line, it is often interesting as expressive of power, and we feel as much awed by the boundless prairie, or desert, as by the lofty snow-capped hill. On a smaller scale, a level surface is sometimes agreeable in the midst of a rude and wild country by way of contrast, as a small, level garden in the Alps will sometimes attract one astonishingly, that would be passed by, unnoticed, in the midst of a flat and cultivated country.

Hence, as there are a thousand men who value power, where there is one who can feel beauty, we see all ignorant persons, who set about embellishing their pleasuregrounds, or even the site for a home, immediately commence levelling the surface. Once brought to this level, improvement can go no further, according their views, since to subjugate or level, is the whole aim of man's ambition. Once levelled, you may give to grounds, or even to a whole landscape, according to their theory, as much beauty as you like. It is only a question of expense.

This is a fearful fallacy, however; fearful oftentimes to both the eye and the purse. If a dead level were the thing needful to constitute beauty of surface-then all Holland would be the Arcadia of Landscape Painters, and while CLAUDE, condemned to to tame Italy, would have painted the interior of inns, and groups of boors drinking, (vide the Dutch School of Art,) TENIERS, living in the dead level of his beautiful nature, would have bequeathed to the world pictures of his native land, full of the loveliness of meadows smooth as a carpet, or enlivened only by pollard willows and stagnant canals. It is not the less fearful to see, as we have often seen in this country, where new places are continually made, a finely varied outline of ground utterly spoiled by being graded for the mansion and its surrounding lawn, at an expense which would have curved all the walks, and filled the grounds with the finest trees and shrubs, if their surface had been left nearly or quite as nature formed it. Not much better, or even far worse, is the foolish fancy many persons have of terracing every piece of sloping ground—as a mere matter of ornament, where no terrace is needed. It may be pretty safely said, that a terrace is always ugly, unless it is on a large scale, and is treated with dignity, so as to become part of the building itself, or more properly be supposed to belong to it than to the grounds-like the fine, architectural terraces which surround the old English mansions. But little gardens thrown up into terraces, are devoid of all beauty whatever-though they may often be rendered more useful or available in this way.

The surface of ground is rarely ugly in a state of nature-because all nature leans to the beautiful, and the constant action of the elements goes continually to soften and

wear away the harshness and violence of surface. What cannot be softened, is hidden and rounded by means of foliage, trees and shrubs, and creeping vines, and so the tendency to the curve is always greater and greater. But man often forms ugly surfaces of ground, by breaking up all natural curves, without recognizing their expression, by distributing lumps of earth here and there, by grading levels in the midst of undulations, and raising mounds on perfectly smooth surfaces; in short, by regarding only the little he wishes to do in his folly, and not studying the larger part that nature has already done in her wisdom. As a common, though accidental illustration of this, we may notice that the mere routine of tillage on a farm, has a tendency to destroy natural beauty of surface, by ridging up the soil at the outsides of the field, and thus breaking up that continuous flow of line which delights the eye.

Our object in these remarks, is simply to ask our readers to think in the beginning, before they even commence any improvements on the surface of ground which they wish to embellish-to think in what natural beauty really consists, and whether in grading, they are not wasting money, and losing that which they are seeking. It will be better still, if they will consider the matter seriously, when they are about buying a place, since we have said in our last number, no money is expended with so little to show for it, and so little satisfaction, as that spent in changing the original surface of the ground.

Practically the rules we would deduce are the following: To select always, if possible, a surface varied by gentle curves and undulations. If something of this character already exists, it may often be greatly heightened or improved at little cost. Very often, too, a nearly level surface may, by a very trifling addition-only adding a few inches in certain points, be raised to a character of positive beanty--by simply following the hints given by nature.

When a surface is quite level by nature, we must, usually, content ourselves with trusting to planting, and the arrangement of walks, buildings, &c., to produce beauty and variety; and we would always, in such cases, rather expend money in introducing beautiful vases, statues, or other works of positive artistic merit, than to terrace and unmake what character nature has stamped on the ground.

Positively ugly and forbidding surfaces of ground, may be rendered highly interesting and beautiful, only by changing their character, entirely, by planting. Such ground, after this has been done, becomes only the skeleton of the fair outside of beauty and verdure that covers the forbidding original. Some of the most picturesque ravines and rocky hill-sides, if stripped entirely of their foliage, would appear as ugly as they were before beautiful, and while this may teach the improver that there is no situation that may not be rendered attractive, if the soil will yield a growth of trees, shrubs and vines, it does not the less render it worth our attention in choosing or improving a place, to examine carefully beforehand, in what really consists the Beautiful in ground, and whether we shall lose or gain it in our proposed improvements.

THE SAGE GRAPE-AGAIN.

BY J. FISK ALLEN, SALEM, MASS.

MR. EDITOR-The insinuation of your correspondent, Mr. SHELDEN, "one of the most experienced amateurs on the Hudson," that the Sage Grape was imposed upon the public by me, is false. I stated in the Culture of the Grape, upon what authority it was brought to notice; under these circumstances, if he chose to expend his two dollars, and was not satisfied with his bargain, it was his own affair.

The Horticulturist has, or should have, for its aim, the benefit of the public, not solely that of the "experienced cultivator of the Hudson.”

Mr. SAGE unquestionably considers this grape very good, and he has support in this opinion from others. You think "that no man who has ever tasted a grape that is a grape, would cultivate a vine of this sort, after tasting the fruit." We differ in opinion. The Sage Grape is unquestionably a native fox variety, but there are many people who prefer these to the foreign kinds. The Muscats, in all their varieties, which you and the majority of people prefer to all others, are very offensive to the minority. Are they humbugs? Many experienced persons, not only in this, but in European and vine districts, could not be induced to swallow one. In Paris, the Chasselas de Fontainbleau is preferred to all others. In Boston, this autumn, they were almost unsaleable at any price, Black Hamburghs and Isabellas being preferred. Are, therefore, all the varieties of Chasselas humbugs?

That any one accustomed to foreign varieties of green-house grapes, should prefer the Isabella, or any other of our native kinds, is singular and unaccountable to me, with my tastes, but it is a fact notwithstanding. I grow one Isabella vine under glass, for my family use, some members preferring them, and who do not make use of even Black Hamburghs. Many prefer the more spirited, or sour kinds, as St. Peters, Zinfandel, &c.

Supposing a reader of your Magazine living north of the state of Connecticut, wishes to cultivate the Sage Grape for his own use, or for sale, profit being his object. He buys a vine for fifty cents or one dollar, (and that is enough for him to pay for one;) plants it near a tree, or on the south side of a building; lets it grow three shoots, one to make his vine; the other two may be layered in July into boxes, to be planted out in the spring if wanted; if not, disposed of to his neighbors. The leading shoot may be bent down into a box the succeeding spring, to make another layer vine, or it can be cut back to three or four eyes. The second summer, if the soil is good, the vine will make one shoot strong enough to fruit the third year, and in four or five years the vine will be capable of bearing bushels of fruit, and this fruit will find purchasers-people who like the peculiar fox flavor. A farmer who attends our market, sold ninety dollars worth of native fox grapes this last autumn; the vines were old, and had run up large trees-all the cost to him of this fruit, was the labor of gathering.

Now, Mr. Editor, if our native grapes will yield this profit to the farmer, notwithstanding you or I may not desire them-they are not humbugs.

That they meet with a ready sale in our market, and at a price of from four to ten cts. per pound, is a fixed fact—and at a time, too, when Isabella Grapes were abundant; also pears, peaches, &c., and of green-house grapes a surfeit, selling at twenty to forty cents a pound, as to quality.

I have had the Sage Grape sent me the past season, and have given them to many indi

viduals, who have expressed their views of its quality-differing in their opinions-some wishing a vine; one only, saying, common fox, good for nothing.

In your February number you have an error; you state me as saying found in Maine," whereas I say in Connecticut.

February 5, 1852.

Yours truly,

"this grape was J. FISK ALLEN.

REMARKS.-A humbug we suppose to be something that pretends to be what it is not, and thus imposes on the public. Now, if Mr. SAGE, who gave the description of this fruit in Mr. ALLEN's book, in his own words, had called the Sage Grape a large and good for grape, every body would have understood him, and there would have been no "humbug" in the case. But he said not a word of its being a fox grape; on the contrary, he described it as having a "pulp very soft and juicy,"-while it is quite the reverse. He speaks of it as being the "richest flavored grape he ever tasted," and ends by saying, it "will surpass anything of the grape kind in this country." Now, as it answers none of these high encomiums, we think our correspondents are quite right in calling it a humbug.

Notwithstanding exceptional fancies, there is something, we must be allowed to add, like a general judgment, as to the quality of grapes, as in everything else. It is not sufficient to destroy that judgment, that an individual here and there does not agree. There are some men who prefer rye whiskey to the finest sherry, or pork and beans to canvass back ducks, but they would make but a sorry figure if they were to come out and attempt to palm off these delicacies as surpassing anything eatable or drinkable in the wide world. Mr. ALLEN is right in saying that he did not impose the description of the Sage Grape upon the public. But no doubt many of his readers considered him as endorsing it, by printing Mr. SAGE's highly wrought description, without any word of caution or doubt. ED.

CROPPING VINES UNDER GLASS.

BY H. W. S. CLEVELAND, BURLINGTON, N. J.

A. J. DOWNING, Esq.-Dear Sir: The letter of Mr. CHORLTON, in the current number of the Horticulturist, suggests an inquiry of much interest to grape growers, and to which a reply can only be obtained by each one contributing the result of his own experience— viz: how early, and how much fruit may vines (under glass) be permitted to bear without danger.

I have read many such statements as those of Mr. CHORLTON, of the wonderful success of vines in bearing the first or second year after planting, accompanied with sanguine anticipations of future luxuriant crops; but we rarely, if ever, hear anything more about them. I have had a few opportunities of observing the result in similar cases, and I have never known such early bearing to fail to injure the vines.

According to Mr. CHORLTON'S account, his vines ripened, the second season after planting, two hundred and sixty-two bunches, which, on seventy-four vines, is an average of between three and four bunches to a vine, and next season he has no doubt of a crop of eight or nine bunches from each vine.

Now, I have no doubt of the capacity of any well managed vines, to do what his have done thus far, but I very much doubt their capacity to realize his future expectations; and what I earnestly hope, is, that Mr. C. will inform us the next year how he succeeds, and especially if he does not succeed-for experiments which fail, are as valuable to learners