Editor's Introduction xxxiii 



lines, to take a terrain and study out just what it 

 is worth for the purpose of creating a landscape 

 which shall be evolved from its own peculiar 

 constitution and capacity for beauty. Better work 

 may be done and has been done; note Central 

 and Prospect Parks, New York City, designed 

 by Olmsted and Vaux. These men, as well as 

 Prince Piickler, also based their work on funda- 

 mental principles of art, and in the best land- 

 scape architecture of the future these principles 

 will not and cannot be changed, for they are in- 

 herent in the nature of the subject. 



As an example of the way Puckler indicated 

 his principles of design it may be permitted to 

 quote a final passage from one of his letters: — 



The Park at Mount B. affords a perfect study for 

 the judicious distribution of masses of water to which it 

 is so difficult to give the character of grandeur and sim- 

 plicity that ought to belong to them. It is necessary to 

 study the forms of nature for the details, but the prin- 

 cipal thing is never to suffer an expanse of water to be 

 completely overlooked or seen to its whole extent. It 

 should break on the eye gradually, and if possible lose 

 itself at several points at the same time, in order to 

 give full play to the fancy; the true art in all landscape 

 gardening. 



The estimate of the genius of Puckler, enunci- 

 ated by Goethe nearly a hundred years ago, has 

 been already quoted. It would seem well to com- 

 pare this with the latest and most authoritative 

 criticism of Puckler made in one of the letters 

 of the late Charles Eliot, the best writer on land- 



