APPENDIX 327 



than is unavoidable; to multiply statues; or to introduce 

 unnecessary formal or architectural features, is to defeat the first 

 object of the park, to bring ruthlessly before the mind the image 

 of the city from which one has sought to escape; it is a blun- 

 der, an impertinence, a crime. 



A park then should consist of natural objects, turf, water, 

 trees and shrubs, arranged by the art and skill of man so as to 

 afford the greatest possible pleasure and enjoyment to the 

 people, with no artificial objects which are not essential to 

 their comfort or convenience. 



To which of the arts does this work belong ? Is it landscape- 

 gardening ? This brings me to a vital question. 



Is landscape-gardening one of the fine arts, or is it only a 

 bi-product of the arts, unworthy of the lifelong devotion of a 

 serious mind ? 



One is almost forced to believe that its professors are ashamed 

 of it. Few of them even call themselves landscape-gardeners 

 any more, but "Landscape Architects," and latterly I have 

 found some classified simply as "Architects." The Oxford 

 dictionary defines an architect as "a master builder; a skilled 

 professor of the art of building, whose business it is to prepare 

 the plans of edifices, and exercise a general superintendence 

 over the course of their erection." I would not quarrel about 

 the name unless there is an idea behind it. I fear that the 

 name is only one of many indications of a tendency to introduce 

 into landscape-gardening a formalism based on architectural 

 lines and principles which, if not checked, will very soon debase 

 and degrade it. Is landscape-gardening one of the fine arts ? 



It may seem presumption in a layman to express an opinion 

 on this subject; but there is a grain of truth in the proverbial 

 advantage of the looker-on at a game. Ever since I wandered 

 as a lad through the parks and gardens of Europe, I have had 

 a love for landscape-gardening, and have been as closely in 



