  Horticulture stands to garden design much as building does to architecture. This book has been written entirely from the standpoint of the designer, and therefore contains little or no reference to the actual methods of horticulture. Throughout the book it is modestly assumed that there can be no "design" in anything but in lines of stone, and clipped trees to "harmonise" with the stone, and to bring in "order" and "balance." A Longleat, Highclere or Little Trianon, or any of the many English places which are planted in picturesque ways can show no design; but a French town, with its wretched lines of tortured Limes, is "pure" and "broad" in design. The naivetÉ of However rich the details, there is no difficulty in grasping the principle of a garden laid out in an equal number of rectangular plots. Everything is straightforward and logical; you are not bored with hopeless attempts to master the bearings of the garden. This is the kitchen gardener's view, and that of the market gardener of all countries, but the fun is in calling the idea of it "grasping a principle"! At this rate makers of chessboards have strong claims to artistic merit! No wonder that men who call a "principle" the common way of setting out kitchen and cabbage gardens from Pekin to Mortlake can see no design in the many things that go to make a beautiful landscape! Equally stupid is the assumption, throughout the book, that the people the authors are pleased to term "landscapists" flop their houses down in the Tailpiece |
|
