 |
 |
| November 2007 |
| Billie Silvey |
 |
| Nature--Trimmed. . . |
 |
| How nature is understood by the people living in a particular time determines how they will plan the use of it, from gardens to parks to large plots of ground. Does nature exist to be tamed, trained and trimmed, or does it have a beauty of its own? Should it be left to grow and flourish spontaneously? |
| To the 18th century, classical mind, humanity was the measure of all things, and nature existed to be improved by human beings. You placed something in the middle--a pond, a fountain, a fake temple, with corresponding items on either side for perfect balance and symmetry. Trees existed to be trimmed, into cones or balls or fantastic shapes, but each was balanced by another. And paths ran straight, dividing the whole into a perfect patchwork, like a modern city. The intellect dominated, and nature took on a geometric precision. |
 |
| . . . and Untrammeled |
| The more emotional Romantics, in contrast, saw the beauty of nature in the wild, with mysterious twists and turns through shaded groves of overgrown verdure. Trees and bushes were allowed to spread, flower, even tangle with abandon. The Romantic preoccupation with the heroism and even brutality of the Middle Ages led to the building of gothic ruins, such as crumbling towers or pointed arches. Even skulls and tombs were features of the Romantic park or garden. |
 |
 |
| When you go to a garden supply store today, are you more drawn to white classical statues and urns or to gargoyle faces and patterns of leaves? Do you have balanced yew trees on either side of your front steps, or do you let plants sprawl more naturally? Do you sow seeds broadcast or arrange them in neat rows constrained by clear borders? |
| Your answer to such questions may help indicate whether you tend toward the Classical or the Romantic. |