THE MODERN CEMETERY. 
8i 
teries is making them ridiculous. Culture follows 
close after wealth and our reproach, as a people ig- 
norant of art, is being taken from us. Upon every 
other department of architecture and sculpture, our 
Chandlers, Hunts, Furnesses and Richardsons 
of the one, our Bailys, Bitters and Boyles of the 
others, have left their indellible impress; in the 
cemetery, alone, where, equally without churches, 
it would seem the services of the artist are especial- 
ly needed, we have accepted the tradesman as our 
architect and the granite cutter as our sculptor; 
there, only, we permit mass to usurp the place of 
meaning — mere mechanical feats of stone cutting 
to pass for art. 
Look about your grounds and tell us if there be 
a single section, the original beauty of which has 
not rapidly deteriorated or been converted in posi- 
tive ugliness in process of “improvement” at the 
hands of the marble-man. 
Examine closely the “Art Monuments” and 
“Artistic Memorials” that fairly cumber the ground 
and see how many of them bear the impress of the 
noble names that are making us respectable in art 
circles! Look again and note, of the few pieces 
that are not absurd in themselves, how many are not 
rendered tedious by repetition at the hands of the 
“Mortuary Architect,’’ “Cemetery Decorator” or 
(not to be outdone) “Designer and Constructor of 
Artistic Memorials.” 
There are a few firms and individuals, alas, how 
few! who have done much conscientious work; but 
but even of these it may be said in Weggian quota- 
tion, — 
“They know the right and they approve it, too; 
Abhor the wrong and yet the wrong pursue.” 
(Sometimes and because there is big money in 
doing so, Mr. Boffin.) But for the rest — it verily 
seems as though they had said, “Evil be thou my 
good,” and are sticking to it manfully. 
That our progress in art should halt at the ceme- 
tery gates seems too great an anomaly to be true, 
and yet the reason is simple. The modern cemetery 
was established at just the time when art-culture 
was at its lowest among us — when the meaning of 
the word “monument” was, as Dr. Holmes has put 
it, polarized in our minds, and stood for certain 
blocks of stone placed one upon another and en- 
graved with names. A large trade-interest was in- 
volved in keeping the lot owner away from the 
artist; the cemetery officials were too much occu- 
pied in conquering the new and perplexing difficul- 
ties in their front to give any thought to what the 
monument-man was doing (so to speak) in their rear; 
the lot-owner was solicited at a time when recent 
bereavement so obscured his vision that he was 
easily induced to accept the package as being what 
the label called for, and once accepted its associa- 
tions were too sacred to permit of criticism. 
But the time is near at hand when culture will 
supersede conventionality, and when that day ar- 
rives, are you not likely to be arraigned somewhat 
thus: 
“You must have known that this structure which 
our father was induced to place here, was prepos- 
terous, and that the fellow who cajoled him into 
doing it was a quack and humbug. You have con- 
nived at the doing of a thing which will make this 
place repulsive to us forever.” 
Have we made clear the necessity for a remedy? 
Turn on the light, as is your bounden duty not 
only to your lot-owners but to yourselves; the 
growths that flourish in darkness are mostly poison- 
ous. 
To do this effectually will cost no more than you 
expend annually in the destruction of moles and 
caterpillars, and whereas, in the latter case the war- 
fare has to be continuous, in the former it needs 
but an original impulse. 
RECIPES. 
First. Prepare a pamphlet with contrasted 
views within your own grounds — the letter-press 
pointing out exactly wherein the one is good and 
the other the reverse. 
Second. In this pamphlet group together a 
monument of original design and all the copies of it 
(large and small ) showing distinctly the names of 
the owners, and in the letter-press “show up” the 
downright immorality of this form of theft and the 
monument men who encourage it. 
Third. Rigorously prohibit this theft, with- 
in your grounds, by photographing, sketching or 
measurement of monumental work. 
Fourth. Procure the authority of your lot- 
owners and, by prosecution for trespass, make an 
example of the operative partner in such theft. 
Fifth. Restrict the size of central monument 
to a reasonable proportion (both as to ground plan 
and height) to the plot in which it is to be placed. 
Sixth. Restrict the location of monument with- 
in the plot to the actual centre. 
These restrictions will tend to minimize the evil 
effects of injudicious selection and, in many cases, 
make the placing of any monument impracticable. 
Seventh. Encourage lot-owners to consult you 
before selecting a design; qualify yourself to criti- 
cise judiciously and do not Spare your criticism. 
The hope of our established modern cemeteries is 
now in the artist; you can do more than any other 
man toivards securing him a hearing. 
In our next, we shall try to establish some 
definite canons of criticism — a subject that admits 
of being treated good-naturedly. 
