24 THE r6le of forests 



scape, they bring visitors into the regions where without them they would 

 stay away. We must love and appreciate our forests. The local people 

 have a real attachment for these evidences of a bygone age and see them 

 disappear with regret. I attach great importance to this and they 

 should be constantly protected by the Forest Service. They should 

 never, under any pretext, be included in the cut as long as they show 

 signs of life." 



Literature and Art. — Naturally the forest has stamped its mark on 

 French literature. Russeau spent much of his time in France and did 

 much to make the forests popular. Chateaubriand drew wonderful 

 pictures of American forests but they were not very real; they were more 

 the product of his imagination. Lamertine was a great admirer of the 

 French forests and La Fontaine was the son of a professional forester. 

 William Shenstone, who flourished in England in 1760, was undoubtedly 

 influenced by his knowledge of the French forests. 



It is well recognized that all forms of art are founded on nature. Some 

 persons believe that the gothic arch was suggested by the arcades of the 

 forest. In painting, almost every landscape owes much to the color and 

 shape of trees. Of the earlier French painters Claude shows most love of 

 foliage, but few of his pictures look as if he had painted them in the 

 woods. In every European forest the trees are so dense that it is difficult 

 to paint modem forests. In the words of a Frenchman, "You foresters 

 should think of this and not only space the trees, since then and then only 

 may the carefully tended forests become useful to the artist as well as to 

 the lumberman." Diaz was a man who spent most of his time in the 

 woods. The Brabigan school painted woods more or less; but Corot 

 (hke Claude) had no use for a "regular forest."- What he wanted was a 

 group of trees for the purpose of composition. 



While some of these French claims regarding forest influences may be 

 questioned by the scientist, yet no one familiar with the history of forest 

 economics can question for a moment the statement that no nation can 

 afford to destroy its forests because their direct and indirect benefits have 

 an increasingly important influence on national efficiency. 



