PARK AND CEMETERY. 
570 
should not, for in its early and primitive 
meaning the word architect meant sim- 
ply and solely “chief workman” or 
“master artisan.” It is well, I believe, 
for us to recall this earlier meaning of 
the word at the present time 
It is quite largely the architect him- 
self who is responsible for any wrong 
impression that may have developed in 
the use of the term landscape architect; 
as many have assumed that, because the 
word ‘architect’ is used at all, the term 
‘landscape architect’ means simply an 
architect who meddles a bit with 
the landscape immediately surround- 
ing his buildings. Many architects 
have done this, with regrettable re- 
sults both to the client and to the pro- 
fession of landscape architecture. I 
think it is but fair to suggest that if 
the architect solves the problems of his 
buildings successfully, he may well leave 
to the landscape architect the matter of 
designing the surroundings for them, 
realizing that his own architectural 
problems are many and difficult, and that 
the trained landscape architect can, by 
co-operating with him, greatly improve 
the net re.sult ; for, as we all know, the 
effect of many a successful building has 
been seriously impaired by lack of a 
proper setting. 
What Mr. Olmsted meant when he 
termed himself a landscape architect 
was that he was aiming to be a master 
artisan in matters pertaining to land 
and to human works thereon, having 
regard both to the beauty of its ap- 
pearance and to its use. In a very real 
sense such work covers agriculture, for- 
estry, gardening, engineering and the 
elements of agriculture. 
Landscape architecture has been de- 
fined as “a group of activities which in- 
clude horticulture, architecture, civil en- 
gineering and agriculture.” Humphrey 
Repton, a great English authority on 
matters of this sort, says that in order 
to carry out this line of work one must 
possess not only artistic ability and 
taste, but “a complete knowledge of sur- 
veying, mechanics, hydraulics, botany 
and the general principles of architec- 
ture.” We may well weigh his words, 
for Humphrey Repton was a cultivated 
Englishman gentlemen of great refine- 
ment and good taste. He was the first 
Englishman from such a grade of so- 
ciety to undertake the planning or de- 
signing of country estates. Kent, one 
of his predecessors in this line of work, 
was a coach painter by trade who 
possessed some artistic taste but little 
culture. “Capability” Brown, Rep- 
ton’s most famous immediate prede- 
cessor, was a gardener, who, by asso- 
ciation with men of refinement and 
by his tact and native ability, worked 
his way up to an honorable place; 
but Repton was a well-educated Eng- 
lishmen, who had traveled and stud- 
ied much. Repton, however, called 
himself a landscape gardener, as did 
all of the others at that time, but 
Mr. Olmsted chose to avoid that term 
for several reasons. In the first 
place, these workers in landscape de- 
sign in England had confined their 
efforts almost entirely to the design 
of country estates. The term, land- 
scape gardening, was, I believe, first 
used by the poet Shenstone to mean 
particularly an informal or pictur- 
esque treatment of the grounds of an 
estate, as distinguished from the older 
style of formal treatment that had 
been in vogue and carried to such 
excess. In the early part of the eight- 
eenth century formality had been 
pushed to the point of puerility. A 
reaction set in, due to numerous 
causes, and the “new style,” or so- 
called “English style,” was introduced 
by Kent and others, who, as Sir Hor- 
ace Walpole enthusiastically exclaim- 
ed, “leaped the wall and saw all na- 
ture was a garden,” and so in fact 
it is in those delightful parts of old 
England in which they labored; those 
country estates with their deer parks 
and pleasure grounds. These men 
made a practice of designing country 
places in an informal or naturalistic 
manner, and termed this landscape 
gardening. They were in favor of 
abolishing all formality, and they 
themselves carried their theory to ex- 
cess. 
Later, in the latter part of the eight- 
eenth century and the first of the 
nineteenth century, men like Repton 
came forward, realizing that formality 
had its place and value, and began to 
use it under certain circumstances but 
still called themselves landscape gar- 
deners. This latter use of the term 
was a serious twisting of the original 
meaning; for a garden is, properly 
speaking, a place engirt, inclosed or 
set apart and highly cultivated. Land- 
scape is, as we have seen, a piece of 
the earth’s surface that can be seen 
at one time by a man who is him- 
self standing upon the earth, and may, 
of course, mean a broad stretch of 
country not all inclosed. 
There is another important point 
and one that has not been particular- 
ly mentioned in discussions of the 
term landscape architect, one to 
which I have already alluded, name- 
ly, that the English landscape de- 
signers mentioned were engaged al- 
most exclusively in the preparation 
of plans for country estates. These 
were, of course, not always large, 
and often were walled in or engirt 
(girt in), and, therefore, perhaps in 
a sense gardens. Mr. Olmsted in 1856 
had before him not such a problem, 
but that of designing a great public 
park for a large city. This work was 
not gardening in any sense of the 
word; it was something quite differ- 
ent. It was work of design, a work 
that could be undertaken and success- 
fully carried out only by a “master 
artisan in matters pertaining to land.” 
Here were to be developed, and we 
know how well it has been done, 
broad peaceful landscape effects, giv- 
ing the tired city dweller opportunity 
for restful contemplation and relief 
from city sights and sounds. These 
were to be designed and executed 
where none had existed before, and 
in such a way that there should be 
no obstructive evidence of man’s elab- 
orate control and no marring of the 
pleasing, restful effect by such gar- 
den elements as beds of geraniums 
or rare and striking shrubs clipped 
into formal shapes; in other words, 
no gardening, as we now understand 
that term. This was what he termed 
landscape architecture. The French 
landscape designers had already 
adopted this term, their phrase, archi- 
tects paysagiste, meaning simply 
landscape architect. 
Many of Mr. Olmsted’s great 
works are familiar to us all. They in- 
clude Central Park, New York; Pros- 
pect Park, Brooklyn; the almost un- 
rivaled Park System of Boston ; the 
great work designed by him at the 
World’s Fair at Chicago; and almost 
innumerable country estates, notably 
Biltmore at Asheville, N. C., the mere 
enumeration of which serves to show 
some of the diversity of the work, 
and even the most casual observer 
can see in them some of the reasons 
why this sort of work is not properly 
to be called landscape gardening. A 
gardener, as commonly understood, is 
one who cultivates a garden. He may, 
and of course should, know a great 
deal about botany and horticulture, 
but when you come to associate the 
word garden with landscape there is 
implied simply that we have a gar- 
dener who cares for a garden having 
a naturalistic or landscape character; 
the absolutely essential factor of cre- 
ative design disappears. Expensive 
mistakes have often resulted from, 
employing on landscape work a person 
who was simply a common gardener 
and ignorant of the principles of this 
sort of design. Art commissioners 
would not think of employing a man 
(Continued on page XIV.) 
