A number of terms, all equally clear and useful, have been used for the architectural style of gardening. Right now we will focus on just three: architectural, formal and Italian. Of these, the first is best for now, especially if architecture is understood in the broadest sense to include all the exterior accessories of buildings, to which the work of the architect may rightfully extend.

Columns, obelisks, arches, wall fountains, statues, and all similar structures are included within the common range of architecture and architectural gardening. In fact, the earliest and some of the best examples of this style were planned and executed by professional architects—men who did not claim to be gardeners at all.

The term "formal" has its obvious signification. It is perfectly legitimate, and in many places highly serviceable. This method is also widely known as the Italian style, having received its best development in Italy.

The architectural style is diametrically opposed at all points to the extreme natural style. It is opposite in methods and in effects, but that is no reason why a person of artistic taste may not find full satisfaction in either.

It is common to ad mit the architectural, the natural and all other possible styles of gardening to equal consideration, because each may claim advantages in special situations. This way, you can choose from among different styles, in a frame of mind free from prejudice, the one best suited to any given circumstances of environment and demand.

English and American gardeners used to be very much prejudiced against geometrical methods of any kind. As a result, their attempted naturalistic effects were forced into situations where failure could meet them, where a less finicky taste might have achieved beautiful and satisfying results through the discredited methods.

Formal gardening has made great progress in America during the last 50 years. It is now better understood, more justly appreciated and much better practiced. The formal gardens more recently made are of better design and are more clearly fitted to their surroundings.

It is now seen, in fact, that many small, rectangular plots—as for example within a quadrangle of buildings, or at the side of a residence on a small lot—may be more conveniently treated in simple formal style than in any affected "natural" style. This plain, straightforward sort of formal gardening, in particular, has a real place and is rapidly advancing in popularity.

Before beginning to point out the key points required in an architectural style garden, it would be best to consider its broader relations, conditions and limitations. The architectural garden is, in a sense, an extension of the adjoining building or buildings.

A house generally has porches, promenades, provision for the exercise, rest or enjoyment of its inhabitants in the open air, with more or less protection under foot and overhead. A public building has its colonnades, pergolas, loggias and approaches. These may extend indefinitely away from the actual walls of the building and into the area of the garden.

It is necessary only to keep up a close and obvious connection between the entrance steps, the walks of stone or marble nagging, the resting seats of hewn stone, the fountains, the statuary and the stone boundary walls, to see how completely the main edifice may extend quite to the boundary of the grounds.