For July. 1<)23 



ISl 



The Trend of Modern Gardening 



\ V ' HF.X one considers how easily we parted with the 



YY car])et bedding style of gardening which ])re- 

 vailed in mid-\'ictorian days, it comes as some- 

 what of a surprise to reahze that the conventional herbace- 

 ous border is still with us and alive and well, writes A. T. 

 Johnson in TIic Cmrdcii. This not only because the latter 

 is in many respects no less formal than the old bedded-out 

 arrangement, but also because of the great expense that 

 is entailed in its upkeep. In its orthodox form there is no 

 part of the garden so costly to maintain as a herbaceous 

 border, both in regard to material and labor. Yet. while 

 so many gardens, large and small, are still bearing unmis- 

 takal:)le indications that wages and general maintenance re- 

 main high, that portion of them which entails the heaviest 

 outlay in time and money is suffered to remain. 



There is, however, another point to be considered. I 

 have drawn a parallel between the herbaceous border and 

 the formally laid-out bed which may seem unjustifiable to 

 some ; but, as a matter of fact, there are probably not 

 n:anv people, among those who really think about such 

 things, to whom the average border of perennials is the 

 satisfaction that one is led to assume that it is. Indeed, 

 there are symptoms which show that a revolt against the 

 border of this kind has already set in. In not a few gar- 

 dens it has already ceased to exist, and not only on the 

 score of exi:>ense, nor yet because its undoubtedly splendid 

 effect has produced a sense of satiety th-it is shared by 

 owner and gardener alike. The typical herl^aceous border 

 seems likely to follow the carpet-bed because, like the lat- 

 ter, it is wanting in those attributes which are the final and 

 enduring test in all sound gardening, viz., interest in the 

 individual plant rather than tlie mass ; a felicitous treat- 

 ment of subjects which is the antithesis of formal arran.'.^e- 

 ment : and the impression of permanence, which is on? of 

 the greatest lessons we may learn from plants in the wild 

 state and the lack of which is the herbaceous border's most 

 notable failing. 



A momentarv consideration will reveal the fact that 

 although the bulk of the plants with which the average 

 herbaceous border is made are termed iierennials, they are 

 less permanent in one sense than a bed of annuals or 

 '"half-hardys." That is to say. the vast majority of them 

 have but a comparatively brief flowering period, which 

 means that gaps in the ranks must be filled up or grown 

 over by others set in with that object in view. Then, 

 most of our hardy perennials do forfeit their claim to what 

 is suggested by that term by demanding frequent lifting, 

 breaking-up and replanting. That they would prove their 

 perennial nature without this attention may be true 

 enough, but in so doing they would quickly deteriorate and 

 eventually lose their characteristic vigor and form. 

 Wherefore, regarded from such points of view, the border 

 of perennials is of anything but a permanent nature. It is 

 nuich more akin to the shelves of a conservatory than any- 

 thing else in the garden. 



It may be thought that I lay too much stress upon this 

 matter of permanency, or the lack of it ; but to anyone who 

 gives the subject a thought it will be manifest that therein 

 lies the essential difference between the gardener who 

 plants for a season a bed or a border, his sole object being 

 to create a certain definite display for a definite period and 

 the man who puts in a plant or a tree which he hopes 

 will become estaljlished and remain "a joy for ever." not 

 as a part of a whole, but for its own sake. The one mav 

 be fully justified in maintaining that he derives as much 

 pleasure out of his squad of Tulips or carefu'ly screened 

 fancv Pansies as the other gets from his odd pitches of 



Aneiuone and I'rinuila intcrsi)erse(l with Rose species and 

 a few other choice shrubs, but the sentiments which inspire 

 each of these respectively are as wide apart as the Poles. 



The sort of border which promises to supplant the or- 

 thodox type is furnished with individual plants rather than 

 groups. I have no quarrel with the latter where thev are 

 desirable, as often they are, but would avoid them where 

 they are to be to the whole what the marble chips are to a 

 piece of mosaic. There are fine old gardens in this coun- 

 try where almost every plant or shrub is an individual and 

 something n-.ore. It possesses some special history or 

 interest in addition to its own peculiar beauty or merit, and 

 rather than enthuse over the latest creation of the hy- 

 bridist's art the owner of such a garden will, as likely as 

 not, point out with keener pride some old variety or 

 species one of whose most cherished attributes is that it is 

 "out of cultivation." We may not all be able to fill our 

 borders with rare treasures, nor would it be desirable to 

 do so. A new Delphinium of merit has as much right to a 

 place in our soil as a bush of Lavender which has been in 

 cultivation with us for nearly four hundred years. 



However, to describe the lay-out or the contents of an 

 informal border would be hardly practicable, for each one 

 will be the outcome of the owner's individual taste, a 

 reflection of his individuality, and here, again, you have a 

 clear line of demarcation between the herbaceous and what 

 I have called, in the absence of a better term, the mixed 

 border. The former is, generally speaking, manifestly 

 the result of a carefully worked-out design, possibly the 

 exact re]dica of one of the map-like plans one sees in 

 nurserymen's catalogues, whereas the latter is as far re- 

 moved from any indication of such design as is a stretch 

 of moorland or a hedgerow bank. Even though maturity 

 and permanence may be among the most abiding charms 

 of this unconventional border of plants end shrubs, grasses 

 and bulbous things, it is the absence of conscious effort 

 which is. after all. its hap;:ie.'-:t feature. 



RAMBLING REMARKS ON PLANTS 



C ( lAlE one recently asked us whether any of the Dog- 

 woods bore white berries. Yes, though most species of 

 Dogwoods, for examjile, Cornus florida, C. canadensis, C. 

 mas, bear red berries : C. alba, C. asperifolia and C. pani- 

 culata bear white fruit. Of the other species oi Cornus, 

 some bear pale blue, others light blue ; some lead colored 

 and others deep blue fruit. Judged therefore from the 

 color of its fruits, the Cornel may be regarded as a patri- 

 otic shrub, for it represents all the colors of our national 

 flag. 



.\mong the several candidates for the honor of being 

 selected as our national flower, Kalmia latifolia, mountain 

 laurel, has been for a long time conspicuous, but as far as 

 we can learn, it has never been given that distinction by 

 a national vote. The chaste beauty of its flowers, varying 

 from deep rose to nearly white, makes this shrub a prime 

 favorite with all who love to gather wild flowers in the 

 "merry month of ]\Iay." Why has it not then been adopted 

 as our national flower? We cannot answer the question 

 for the masses, but our vote would be against it for one 

 reason ; namely, though all of its parts, wood, foliage, 

 flower and seeds are harmless to the touch, when taken 

 internally, they contain elements which place them among 

 the deadliest of our vegetable poisons. 



■ He wdio waits to do a great deal of good at once will 

 never do anything. — SainucI Johnson. 



