February 19, 1896.J 



Garden and Forest. 



GARDEN AND FOREST. 



PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY 



THE GARDEN AND FOREST PUBLISHING CO. 



Office : Tribune Building, New York. 



Conducted by Professor C. S. Sargent. 



ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POST-OFFICE AT NEW YORK, N. Y. 



NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1896. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 



Editorial Article : — The Surroundings of Statues and Monuments 71 



Rate of Growth of the Long-leaf Pine 4. K. Mlodziansky. 72 



A Botanical Journey in Texas.— II E. N. Plank. 73 



Plant Notes : — Clematis' paniculata. (With figure.) 74 



Cultural Department:— Notes on Begonias R. Cameron. 7 



Dipladenias E. O. Or fret 



Notes on Geraniums T. D. Ha tj) 'eld. 



Cypripedium insigne N. J. R. 



Jatropha hast^ta Ethuard J. Canning 



Correspondence : — Propagating Hickories S. A. 



Growing Lettuce under Glass F. E Carr 



Cypripediums at Langwater Gardens T. D. Hatfield. 



Meetings of Societies: — The Western New York Horticultural Society- — IV... 



Recent Publications 



Notes 



Illustration : — Clematis paniculata in a Massachusetts Garden, Fig. 8 



The Surroundings of Statues and Monuments. 



WE have often said that in this country the placing- of 

 outdoor statues and monuments is not properly 

 considered. Such works cannot have their most effective 

 exposure nor can they increase the attractiveness of their 

 surroundings, unless they are artistically adapted to the 

 special character and the special arrangement of neighbor- 

 ing objects. The effect of its environment upon the work of 

 art, and the effect of the work upon its environment should 

 be considered with equal care. And this care can be rightly 

 bestowed only if the site is selected before the monument 

 is designed. At the very least, the general character of 

 the probable site should be thoroughly well understood in 

 advance. 



The folly of disregarding these plain truths has recently 

 been shown by the attempt to secure a monumental statue 

 of General Sherman for the city of Washington. Excep- 

 tionally fine sites for monuments of all kinds exist in that 

 city ; and from all accounts the models recently put on 

 exhibition are interesting and varied in character. Yet the 

 first thought excited in the minds of all who have examined 

 these models seems to have been the difficulty of deciding 

 between them, for the reason that no one had any idea 

 where the accepted design would eventually be placed. 



One of the newspapers of the city remarked that with 

 this thought, as it inevitably arose, came "a feeling of in- 

 justice, not to the artists personally, for they all share alike 

 in the disadvantage, but to their art itself, in asking for 

 competitive designs without any indication of the kind 

 of location the proposed monument is to occupy. It will 

 readily be seen how a design of superior excellence in 

 itself may fail of success because not so well suited to 

 certain finally chosen surroundings as another of less 

 merit ; also that every artist was placed in a trying 

 dilemma, whether to try to adapt his work in a blind sort 

 of way to all possible surroundings at the sacrifice oi 

 artistic completeness and strength, or to design with a 

 view to an imagined combined effect of statue and envi- 

 ronment at the risk of being thrown out for want of these 

 conditions." 



Some of the competitive designs were elaborate construc- 

 tions with terraces, balustrades or parapet-walls. Others 

 showed the chief equestrian figure upon a highly wrouo-ht 

 pedestal adorned by subordinate figures or groups ; and 

 others presented this figure in isolation upon a simple 

 pedestal. The mere fact that, among the designs of the 

 last-named class, the pedestals varied conspicuously in 

 height, complicated judgment upon the intrinsic merits of 

 the works by bringing in the question of appropriate 

 placing. And, of course, the more elaborate the composi- 

 tions were, and the more dominant their architectural ele- 

 ments, the greater became the importance of the matter of 

 placing and environment. 



Four of these varied compositions were eventually 

 selected from the many. But just here an evil only too 

 common in American practice once more has obtruded 

 itself; that is, the decision of the distinguished sculptors who 

 had been selected as experts to pronounce upon the merits 

 of the models was not fully accepted by the representatives 

 of the Army of the Tennessee, the donors of the statue. 

 Only one of the four models which has received the 

 honor of published preference, and the author of which 

 has been admitted to the final competitions, was among 

 the four which the expert jury pronounced the best. 

 After such a bad beginning, the Committee of the Army 

 of the Tennessee has now to decide upon the site 

 it prefers, and to obtain official permission to use it. It 

 is stated that this choice will be made before the four prize- 

 takers begin to elaborate their ideas for the final competi- 

 tion. But it is already too late to utilize the fine artistic 

 opportunity to the full. The committee must be confused 

 in its selection of a site by the varying character of the four 

 models for which it has shown its preference ; and when 

 the site is chosen more than one of the competitors will 

 be forced to alter his idea conspicuously, or, perhaps, to 

 recast it into a composition of an entirely different kind. 

 This fact is made plain when we say that one of the chosen 

 designs shows a very tall pedestal, surmounted by an 

 equestrian statue, adorned with large reliefs and surrounded 

 by allegorical figures, all raised upon an elaborate archi- 

 tectural base, while another shows a much lower pedestal 

 with an exedra behind it ; that is to say, one of these two 

 monuments should be equally conspicuous from all points 

 of view, while the other should be so set that the front view 

 would be much more important than any other. 



The proper method of procedure in a case like this would 

 have been to choose a site at the very outset, after consult- 

 ing with the experts who were to judge the models in 

 regard to the general character which would be desirable 

 for the monument itself. Thus, an intelligent choice among 

 varying sites could have been made, and, on the other 

 hand, the artist would have had a definite, or, at least, 

 general idea to work upon. Or, still better, in a city where 

 monumental sites are so fine and so diverse as they are in 

 Washington, two or three sites of different sorts might have 

 been chosen, with the understanding that it was open to 

 each competitor to decide fir which one he would prepare 

 his design, and that his design would then be judged upon 

 its intrinsic merits, as adapted to that special situation 

 no other. Thus the danger of possible loss through 

 checking of some fine idea by too narrow a limitatioi 

 opportunity would have been avoided, and yet the sculp- 

 tors would not have been obliged to adapt their work "in 

 a blind sort of way to all possible surroundings at the sac- 

 rifice of artistic completeness and strength," or else "to 

 design with a view to an imagined combined effect of 

 statue and environment" which it might prove impossible 

 to realize in fact. 



When it comes to a decision between the merits of works 

 offered in competition, as little as possible should lie in the 

 scale besides the intrinsic excellence at the respective 

 models. And this state of things can he brought about 

 only if the competitors have in advance a cleai idea with 

 regard to the special site, or. at least, the special kii 

 h ir which their work is 



