APPENDIX 223 



are for the shape of the average residential grounds. It 

 is neither necessary nor desirable to follow any one of 

 them exactly. Parts of a plan may be used, portions 

 rearranged, and paths made to suit convenience. Though 

 the brotherhood of artistic gardeners warn against the 

 garden plan and bedding, it must not be forgotten that 

 space is more economically used when defined in beds, 

 turf, and paths. An orderly mind enjoys a plan, and can 

 break the formal lines into curves of grace by spreading 

 border plants backward among the taller plants, and by 

 the introduction of original ideas in grouping and in the 

 placing of seats, arches, trimmed box, or cedars. 



A small suburban or city lot less than a hundred feet 

 in length and half as wide can be made to give an im- 

 pression of spaciousness, and to deceive the eye, by means 

 of curving walks, shrubbery, and receding borders, which 

 lend to the lines of distance. 



At present there are arguments for and against paths 

 in gardens. Equal numbers are arrayed on each side, and 

 when so well balanced it is safe to assume that each has 

 some truth worth considering. The eminent landscape 

 architects of the past, among them Repton, have laid 

 down rules for paths. Fashions in path making change, 

 however, and while one generation decides on gravel 

 another prefers brick, a third pounded earth, a fourth 

 cement, as most practical, and the naturalist insists that 

 shaven turf makes the finest path. 



