324 



Gravestones^ 



be converging or parallel, but the ascent should be decisive, not hesitat- 

 ing. The pure obelisk is always grateful to the sense, and the idea of 

 ascent is best attained by isolation ; a single shaft is better than a 

 number of pinnacles. It is probably the gratefulness of this feeling 

 of ascent that dictates that the principal lines should be perpendicu- 

 lar rather than horizontal. The spirit is not elevated by the contem- 

 plation of a low horizontal structure. And yet I do not deny that 

 much has of late been accomplished in the use of horizontal lines, 

 rising to a moderate height. Indeed, I think some of the most beautiful 

 monuments in our modern cemeteries are in this form. But if this 

 form is adopted, it should be in large and solid blocks. Nothing is 

 more offensive than a slab laid on the earth, or mounted on legs like a 

 table. It must always be borne in mind, however, that large horizon- 

 tal surfaces require more care and are less durable than perpendicular 

 structureSc The slabs in old graveyards, overgrown with moss, grimy 

 with dirt, and with their inscriptions obscured, are disheartening ob- 

 jects. The use of the horizontal form, too, should always be sincere; 

 it should never seem to be what it is not, as for example a sarcophagus. 

 Literally, there is nothing in such an object. It does not even in- 

 dicate a like object hidden under ground, and if it did, it would be 

 all the more offensive to good taste. 



Mortuary chapels should be marked by simplicity. The mortuary 

 chapel in the Troy cemetery is a model of this kind of erection, in 

 every point of view —materials, color, form and expense. It presents 

 a refreshing contrast to a very elaborate and pretentious chapel in the 

 Cincinnati cemetery. 



In regard to columns I must say that except in combination 

 with. a structure, I think they are not in the best taste for monu- 

 ments. • A column is properly an integral part of a building. It sup- 

 ports something. But a column standing alone suggests nothing but 

 ruin or incompleteness, and on esthetic grounds these ideas are not to 

 be tolerated in a cemetery. However it may be in human estimation, 

 I suppose in the divine eye the life of man is always complete, or if 

 ruinous, it is man's own fault, and attention should not be invited to 

 that failure. Incompleteness in the human sense is not ruin. The 

 idea of discontent or repining should never be represented in a 

 monument. Eather the expression should be of submission, faith, 

 aspiration. So the broken columns, which used to be so common, are 

 not esthetically commendable, it seems to me. I once saw the use of 

 the column singularly debased — I think it was in Greenwood — 

 where three columns, broken off at different heights, were used to in- 

 dicate the different ages of deceased members of one family. 



