The paper marks the first charting of the history of garden history, as it were. I get the impression that Brent writes as he thinks, but I quite like that, it's charming, even if it often demands a second (and fourth) reading. The first section highlights how garden history developed in what we can perhaps think of as the subjective era. Garden chroniclers had their ideas and weren't afraid to bob it into their works. The fact that they hadn't visited many of their subjects didn't seem to hamper their opinion.
I don't mind admitting that I have long been confused by garden history, having occasionally dipped a toe into the shallows out of necessity and extracting whatever snippet was required at the time. Now it has become necessary to throw myself in at the deep end I'm very glad that Mr Elliott has provided this lifebelt whilst I get my bearings.
The source of the confusion has now become much clearer. Our method of classifying and quantifying garden styles has organically developed over the centuries and occasionally switched completely. Classification by geographical style has been keen, especially in the 16th and 17th centuries. However, when applied to Britain this develops a life of its own and can evolve out of all recognition to the original state - for example the Italian or Dutch styles as referenced in this country may eventually bear little resemblance to the styles in the country named.
Following that, we took to referencing periods by reign, eg. Elizabethan, Tudor, Queen Anne etc. That is not to say that the previous nationalistic labels don't still apply. So the same gardens and styles were referenced differently through time. Of course the method of classification also speaks volumes of the period in which is was written. This might not matter so much if the terms weren't used quite so interchangeably and with little recognition of the fact in modern writings.
Additionally, from a garden design point of view we have, historically, continually referenced past styles but invariably (and usually accidentally) imbued that with a sense of the contemporary. I fear that this hasn't happened just once - so what we often have is a garden referencing the style of a garden attempting the revival of the characteristics of a particular period. Confusing, isn't it.
Happily, according to Elliott, in the 19th century we began to become more historically self aware. History was increasingly popular in the mainstream and the handling of material became increasingly sophisticated. We began to realise that the motives of the writer must be understood, that there should be an objectivity in our history and that we must check period sources.
Frighteningly, Elliott notes that "the development of garden history follows, at usually two generations' distance, the same stages in conceptual and technical progress" (2012: 29). I don't imagine he could have written that without a little wide-eyed alarm. Two generations distance to the general progress of history!! What's more alarming is that we haven't yet caught up, and, I fear, have a similar lag behind other artistic disciplines we should be trotting alongside.
Of course it's terribly improper of me to make any assumptions about a piece before I've finished it, but felt like a comment on the first half might be of interest, and, if I'm honest, might help me cement it in my head. I'm just about to start the section on 'Changing fashions in the study of history' and am quite optimistic about the whole thing. Brent Elliott seems to be really on to something here, and it seems that a little self reflection might be what is needed within the horticultural world. The first charting of the history of garden history, perhaps will mark a turning point in the garden historian's view of themselves. Also, perhaps, in that of the modern gardener. It is only by recognising how we think about the past, and how we assess our own discipline, that we can really be aware of how we direct ourselves in the present.
And that does need some work. Let's start clawing back those generations.
