4’82 
AND CE;ME.TER.Yc 
R egarding Landscape Design. 
(Paper read by J. Wesson Phelps before the Hartford Florists’ Club.) 
There is a common notion that Landscape Archi- 
tecture is the development of beauty out of doors. 
It is that ; but it has so much to do with other things 
that to call it only a study of beauty would not be 
comprehensive. And then, Beauty is such a flighty 
spirit! One time you see it and then you don’t. You 
may stand directly viewing the same picture — for ex- 
ample, a flower — and once it will seem blank and the 
second time it will be the same flower, but it will look 
alive. So there is need to search out a better founda- 
tion for a guide to Landscape Criticism. Such foun- 
dation may lead to many discussions of beauty ; nev- 
ertheless Architecture and Landscape Architecture 
have purposes of their own and require for their de- 
velopment certain manly considerations which, though 
they include, they yet master the more flighty and 
delicate thoughts of pretty things and their lovers. 
In current literature it is becoming popular to write 
concerning nature, and there is general advice to go 
into the woods and fields and to learn the birds, the 
trees, the grasses and the flowers ; to distinguish the 
songs of the birds, and to feel the tunes of the trees 
which allow so many variations to the playing winds. 
Yes, the beauties of nature are various, and each beau- 
ty is likely to be written up sooner or later ; but what 
I wish is to point out the real relation between nature 
and man. I am discussing nature as man brings it to 
himself. 
How often is it spoken of — what man may learn 
from nature ! And yet how often in these discourses 
do we fail to remind ourselves that man is a part of 
nature — that even outdoor nature includes man 1 The 
relation is simple, very delicate and minutely complex. 
Man is subject to nature’s laws; yet nature is sus- 
ceptible to the wishes of man. To study thoroughly 
nature and its phases we must also study man and 
his development. He who thinks of the beautiful 
woods or the roughness of the mountain peaks and the 
vastness of the sea and does not, at the same time, 
dream of man’s needs and development ignores one 
of God’s noblest creations and forgets the tender rela- 
tionship between nature and man. 
Fundamental facts are simple, often self-evident, 
and sometimes seemingly too axiomatic even to men- 
tion. Such is the case with one of the fundamental 
principles in the theory of Landscape Architecture. It 
seems absurd to reiterate that man is a part of nature, 
yet this is that sort of a fact which is always under- 
stood and still very, very often absurdly denied. The 
axiom must ever be kept in mind. 
In order to use the axiom in Landscape Design let 
us consider, by way of analogy, that every species of 
the animal kingdom has some effect upon the land- 
scape. The squirrels in gathering nuts, building nests, 
and in coming from their homes into the free air, 
make use of natural conditions and appear to delight 
in nature. In his work and in his play, the squirrel 
judges everything by its effect upon himself, and he 
in turn produces some effect upon his surroundings. 
Compare with this the way in which man seems to 
dally with nature and sometimes to assert that what 
he does is as though he had nothing to do with it. I 
refer to a certain abuse of the so-called naturalistic 
gardening. The true type of naturalistic gardening 
is one of the greatest and most delicately balanced 
styles of gardening and one much used in the United 
States, yet because of its delicate balance it might eas- 
ily collapse through inconsistency, were the name fol- 
lowed haphazard. Here, moreover, is the place to sup- 
ply our ever so simple axiom, that “man is a part of 
nature, and that whatever man does concerns him- 
self.” Whenever a naturalistic garden denies this it 
is false. 
I have often asked myself, and occasionally have 
been asked, what to do with a supposed piece of land. 
Given a plot of ground, what can be done with it? 
The Yankee method of reply is useful. “Why do you 
want to do anything with it?” “Oh, nothing,” the 
questioner answers, “I was thinking of an hypothetical 
case.” One may then reply, “If there is no cause 
for doing anything; if, on account of location or 
other cause, the land is not capable of giving satisfac- 
tion to mankind sufficient to furnish a cause ; if the 
land is good enough as it is, then better do nothing 
with it.” That is, if your work is in no way worthy 
of the expense, save your money. A noble work of 
man, either directly or indirectly, affects mankind. 
The positive use of this axiom is that it first asks 
for the purpose and then demands that that shall dom- 
inate everything. It also asserts that the purpose shall 
not deny the handiwork of man. Nature may be imi- 
tated as closely as the purpose of the plan will permit, 
but certain things are impossible. Man cannot build 
an actual wild garden, that is, a garden which grew 
independent of man and has always been left to itself. 
Man may, however, build an imaginary wild garden, 
but this must always serve the purpose of an imagi- 
nary or suggestive garden, and in it there might be 
a possibility of planting some cultivated plants or of 
placing a hut. The finished product must serve the 
purpose of man. 
It is often said in a certain college, where the Eng- 
lish langauge is taught with special earnestness, that 
the sole test of any composition, — either written or 
spoken, — is its effectiveness for the purpose at hand. 
The same applies elsewhere, and it is equally true in 
