There is greatly wanted, and I think that there would be a large market demand, for a really good work on the planting of shrubbery—on shrubbery. There are several books on the subject, very, very pretentious and very very poor. There is not one that is tolerably good. The main error of them is that they are written from the point of view of a botanist rather than of a landscape artist. Look at those which you have with you and you will see this. This is the case with the more pretentious as well as the more humble. In the earlier chapters of Scott there is some effort to present (petty) landscape principles, but in the consideration of particular shrubs there is not often a thought of anything but specemins and rarely for anything but botanical consideration of [965]individuals apart from others, and in a nursery condition—or a condition little beyond that of the nursery plant seen by itself and without the slightest regard for effect as an element of landscape, of grouping or massing, or composition. There is not a single tolerably good work on the subject. There are many very bad ones. Were the subject well and popularly treated in a book which could be made popular, even through public libraries, it would be of great service. It would dignify the life of the author.

I had a notion of undertaking such a book—of compiling such a book—when I was on the Brooklyn Park. My ultimate intention being to present some sort of photographic representations of plants in a fairly mature condition—to show their history. (It is so absurd to show nursery specemins, or extremely immature, or mangled specemins, as most books do). I gave it up when I moved from Brooklyn to Brookline— Then, independently, and without suggestion from me, Harry Codman undertook such a book, associated with Charles Eliot. The occasion, the opportunity, remains. There are many books but not one that comes within gun-shot of what is needed. If you will have in view the making of such a book you need not fear that the material—the observation and the thought that you may be led to give the subject will be wasted. It is extremely improbable that any other book would be made on the same lines that you would determine upon, or that the information that you would collect and the fashion that you would give it, would be adopted by another.

There is a hundred times the need of a good book on shrubs, (or on the planting of limited spaces of ground with some reference to “landscape” effect, where trees (when well grown) would be inconvenient and have bad effect), than there is for any new botanical work, or any more work in landscape planting proper. See my article in the new Johnsons Cyclopedia, (on “Landscape Gardening,” I believe it is—)

The Central Park and the Brooklyn Park must now supply innumerable illustrations of the proper use and of the improper use of shrubs, of the proper and of the improper treatment of them, mostly they would be illustrations of what to avoid, and this largely with respect to pruning, crowding, isolation, and grouping. Rarely in either work are shrubs serving the purpose for which they were planted. This from vicious pruning, from lack of thinning at the proper time &c. Exactly opposite purposes, motives and principles have been had in view by successive gardeners who have been allowed to deal with them— Bushes planted for groups and masses and screens have been treated as specemins while bushes planted to be seen apart, specemin fashion, have been crowded and overgrown and made subordinate to what were planted as temporary nurses. And so on, and so on. There is no possible way of misusing bushes of which illustrations may not be found on both the New York and the Brooklyn Parks— Nay; it is much worse than that. There is no possible motive with regard to which shrubs could have been planted that has not been adopted and discarded and other motives successively had in view. Of late [966]there has been something approaching a return of purpose toward that originally had in view, but with very patchy results, and the frequent introduction of passages (not subordinate to general landscape considerations) of limited local motive. Also a great deal has been lost in trying to make specemins of shrubs originally planted with a view to masses, to groups. A great deal of instruction what to avoid can soon be obtained on the New York and Brooklyn Parks. (Nevertheless I don’t know where one could find better hints and illustrations of what should be aimed at—)

This is simply to set you thinking.

The main (literary) work required could be now done at Biltmore better than anywhere else. But the collection of shrubs to be studied and described individually to be found in the Arnold Arboretum will in a year or two be as good as any I know. Taking that with the grouping of various shrubs and the detached shrubs to be found on other public and private grounds about Boston and you could find nowhere else—not even at Kew—a better field of study than is to be had in Boston.