GARDEN f I 'HERE must be some insidious 
ARTIFICIALITY A passion for scrolls and curli¬ 
cues, some lust for trimming that is 
innate with most of us and which threatens every now and then 
to overmaster our reserve and spring forth. We must be gravely 
aware of this sleeping evil and crush it down in whatever horrible 
form it appears. The curving rows of coleus on the smooth lawn ; 
the tufts and pompons on the shaven poodle; the wavy plaster 
lines that the untiring painter squeezes in inexhaustible supply 
over walls and ceilings; the dabs and volcanoes on the cake frost¬ 
ing; and the fantastic cropping of the box and privet and ever¬ 
green into strange shapes and ridiculous figures—these all are 
various outcroppings of the same disease which like sin seems 
common to the human race, and which even appear in the most 
refined and advanced. 
Some of these abominations are returning. Only a little while 
ago we noticed the revival of topiary—ivy stags with electric 
eyes were the improvements of this century over the arts of the 
past. Then, too, we were shown with pride evergreens cut into 
segments—they looked exactly like a half dozen great green 
pancakes caught on a spear. At this our anxiety arose and like 
the fire wardens, lest the danger spread, we prepared our wet 
blankets. But we came across an old cure, an extinguisher that 
worked in the eighteenth century. Here it is; it is part of 
Alexander Pope’s campaign against garden hypocrisy: 
“How contrary to this simplicity (of Homer) is the modern 
practice of gardening! We seem to make it our study to recede 
from nature, not only in the various tonsure of greens into the 
most regular and formal shape, but even in monstrous attempts 
beyond the reach of the art itself; we run into sculpture, and are 
yet better pleased to have our trees in the most awkward figures 
of men and animals, than in the most regular of their own. 
“For the benefit of all my loving countrymen of this curious 
taste, I shall here publish a catalogue of green to be disposed 
of by an eminent town gardener, who has lately applied to me 
upon this head. Pie represents that for the advancement of a 
politer sort of ornament in the villas and gardens adjacent to 
this great city, and in order to distinguish those places from the 
more barbarous countries of gross nature, the world stands much 
in need of a virtuoso gardener, who has a turn to sculpture, and 
is thereby capable of improving upon the ancients in the imagery 
of evergreens. I proceed to this catalogue: 
“Adam and Eve in yew; Adam a little shattered by the fall of 
the tree of knowledge in the great storm; Eve and the serpent 
very flourishing. 
Noah s ark in holly, the ribs a little damaged for want of 
water. 
“The tower of Babel not yet finished. 
“St. George in box; his arm scarce long enough, but will be in 
a condition to stick the dragon by next April. 
A green dragon of the same, with a tail of ground ivy for the 
present. 
“N. B.—Those two are not to be sold separately. 
“Edward the Black Prince in Cypress . . 
_ “A Queen Elizabeth in Phyllirea, a little inclining to the Green 
sickness, but of full growth . . . 
“An old Maid of Honor in wormwood. 
“A topping Ben J'onson in laurel. 
“Divers eminent modern poets in bays, somewhat blighted, to 
be disposed of a pennyworth.” 
WHAT ARCHITECT S’ T7VERY little while there ap- 
HOUSES TEACH A_> pears in House & Garden 
an article on an architect’s own 
home. This series, which is issued so intermittently, we believe 
is of considerable value. Occasionally architects are prone to dis¬ 
cuss theories of their profession and though the discussion is in¬ 
teresting, it leaves the layman but little enlightened on his own 
particular problem of home building. But when the architect 
analyzes his own house, when the reader may study what the 
architect does when unhampered by the whims or restrictions of 
his client, there are several generalities of practical nature de¬ 
veloped which are worth while considering. 
When it comes to the design of his own home, most of us 
would expect that the architect would be an adherer to the strict 
conventions of style. The articles do not substantiate this sup¬ 
position, however. The men who have written, in most cases 
were not bound at all. They built houses like the Colonial, houses 
with the suggestion of the English cottage, or just houses that 
were good to look upon. 
There is much to be gained in this freedom from the restric¬ 
tions of style. When one builds a house of a kind instead of a 
house of a type, there is greater opportunity for individuality. 
What is more, it gives full chance to take advantage not only of 
the physical qualities of the environment as it affects structure 
and form, but also of its character as it affects design. 
By the use of the word individuality we mean not the expression 
of personal taste in art, as much as the particular wants, and 
pleasures of the individual. Since the house has primarily a utili¬ 
tarian function, this is very important. The nature lover must 
have his desire for outdoors catered to. Wide window spaces 
should provide him with a varied panorama; provision should be 
made for the sort of living-rooms that unite the life without with 
that within. In the case of such a man the regular arrangement 
of the Colonial house has not sufficient flexibility best to gratify 
these desires. The social person with a penchant for entertaining 
needs the roomy, high ceilinged living-room of long and un¬ 
broken wall space, a room that is adaptable to dancing and which 
is fitted for the easy arrangement of conversational groups or for 
the disposal of card tables. How often is the plan which ap¬ 
peared so desirable in its arrangement of music-room, and living- 
room found physically unfit, for with it the hostess needs at least 
a dual corporality to look after her guests. 
The situation, too, makes its demands. The irregular, undu¬ 
lating plot may not be treated to support a rectangular, regular 
plan. Its surface and vegetation will fight against the horizontal 
lines of a clapboard, shingled roof structure, but be well fitted for 
some form of the flexible concrete or stucco houses or perhaps- 
fairly insist on a fieldstone building. 
Stated baldly these requirements appear perfectly obvious. 
The average house builder, however, makes them secondary con¬ 
siderations. He insists on a particular design and leaves to the 
architect the stupendous task of trimming nature to fit it, and 
then modifying the result to fit the wants of the owner that are 
at variance with the style and the situation. 
This, then, seems to be one lesson that the architects who write 
of their own homes have given us. Clearly define for yourself 
the purposes your house is to serve beyond acting as a place to 
sleep and eat. Determine then your chiefest wants and con¬ 
veniences. Most probably the architect’s resulting plan, on view¬ 
ing the location, will give you the utmost satisfaction. Perhaps 
if the designer knew first of all the tastes and interests of his 
client, if he understood his character, this work would be much 
simplified. These few suggestions will become more apparent 
when the remarks of Mr. Grey in another part of this magazine- 
are carefully considered. He appreciated landscape, loved views,, 
was fond of trees; his house catered to his desires, for from 
every point one may find nature a framed and living picture. He- 
began by finding out what kind of a house he needed; we doubt 
if you asked him what style it was, that he could tell you. 
(164) 
