Difference between revisions of "Cemetery/Burying ground/Burial ground"

Revision as of 18:21, April 18, 2016

History

In the late eighteenth century, three primary types of burial places existed: land adjoining a church (often termed the “churchyard,” but also called a cemetery or burial ground) [Fig. 1], the family plot at one’s home (the burying ground), and public space that was unaffiliated with any specific denomination. ^[1] This latter type was also denoted as a “burying ground” but most commonly was labeled as a cemetery. ^[2] Initially located in central urban areas such as commons, by the nineteenth century public burial grounds were increasingly located in suburban precincts. As late as 1724 (and perhaps long after) New Englanders “valued graveyards more as meadows than as sacred spaces,” and, in the public’s mind, graveyards were regarded as “common, if not hallowed ground,” according to historian David Charles Sloane. ^[3] The word “cemetery,” which “derived from the Greek word for ‘dormitory’ and implied that death was but a tranquil sleep,” reflected the increasing sentimentalization of death and the Protestant theological shift from punitive to redemptive interpretations of death. ^[4] Notably, the terms “burying ground” and “churchyard” were not completely phased out with the introduction of rural cemeteries and continued to be used interchangeably. ^[5] Although the term “cemetery” was often associated with rural park-like spaces, it also referred to enclosed burial grounds, such as the one described in 1796 by Timothy Dwight in New Haven, Conn.

The New Haven Burying Ground, as it was originally named, was one of the earliest burial places to be located out side the main commercial district of a town [Fi g. 2]. Concerns about public health stemming from overcrowded urban burial places, the development of romantic discourse on the emotional impact of natural scenery, and anxieties about appropriate veneration of the dead resulted in a movement to relocate burial grounds from congested urban sites to more rural settings. ^[6] Observers of the New Haven Burying Ground, including Dwight , praised the proprietors for their orderly and well laid out grounds based upon a geometric plan, with each fenced lot fashioned in the shape of a parallelogram. The division of the landscape was carried over into the placement of the city’s various populations — the poor, Yale affiliates, strangers, and “negroes” — into clearly defined, separate spaces. As such, New Haven Burying Ground became a model for other cities. Nevertheless, some writers, such as Rev. Nehemiah Adams (1842), continued to argue for the use of urban plots in the belief that the dead should be permitted to commune with the “joyous events” of the city.

The archetypal nineteenth-century burial ground, however, was Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., founded in 1831 on the grounds of a former estate called “Sweet Auburn.” ^[7] The founders of the so-called rural cemetery originally envisioned combining an “experimental” or botanic garden with a burying ground. Given the precedent for a garden cemetery that was set by the famed Père Lachaise (founded in Paris in 1804) and the influence of English landscape gardens upon botanic garden designs of this period, it is not surprising that the planners of Mount Auburn Cemetery desired a rural, naturalistic design. ^[8] They left much of the original grounds and vegetation intact and landscaped the grounds with the introduction of avenues, walks, and waterways [Figs. 3 and 4]. The boundaries of the cemetery were intended to blend into the grounds of the experimental garden through intermingled vegetation and meandering avenues. Throughout the grounds, picturesque views rewarded the visitor. Instead of the regimented landscape at the New Haven Burying Ground, Mount Auburn Cemetery embraced openness, created by the use of serpentine pathways and carefully placed vegetation, which could both screen and create vistas. The actual grave sites, however, were still bounded by iron railings to mark a zone of respect for the dead [Fig. 5].

Although the Mount Auburn Cemetery planners quickly were forced to discard their plans for an experimental garden, they fulfilled their vision of a rural, picturesque, park-like landscape. ^[9] It became the model for a number of subsequent cemeteries, such as Spring Grove Cemetery (Cincinnati), Laurel Hill Cemetery (Philadelphia), and Greenwood Cemetery (Brooklyn), and it earned the praise of such critics as A. J. Downing. ^[10] Even without the existence of a botanic garden, the superintendents of Mount Auburn Cemetery were able to lavish much attention on ornamental plantings. It is worth noting that extensive discussions about the ornamentation of burial places with plant material and other landscape features did not generally appear in treatise literature about the sites until the popularization of rural cemeteries in the nineteenth century.

As Downing pointed out in his 1849 essay “Public Cemeteries and Public Gardens,” Mount Auburn Cemetery also had “the double wealth of rural and moral associations . . . it awakens, at the same moment, the feeling of human sympathy and the love of natural beauty.” The rural setting, with its suggestions of the sublime, enhanced the experience of mourning for one’s loved ones. The space was also an educational tool, providing exemplary taste in planting arrangements, as well as a guide to American history through the monuments to “illustrious men,” as described by H.A.S. Dearborn (1832).

Burial monuments found on the grounds contributed to the emotional impact of Mount Auburn Cemetery’s “romantic” and “picturesque” scenery. Obelisks and other ancient style markers, for example, gave rise to associations with classical heroes (see Column). The entrance gates, executed in the Egyptian style, were associated with the notion that “eternity was evoked by the massive forms.” Such grand gateways were also found at the New Haven Burying Ground. ^[11]

By the time Downing wrote his 1849 essay about public cemeteries and gardens, Greenwood Cemetery, Mount Auburn Cemetery, and Laurel Hill Cemetery had established a norm in cemetery design that influenced later designs [Figs. 6 and 7]. Although burial grounds did not require natural scenery to be effective places for “solemn meditation,” in Downing’s words, rural cemeteries fulfilled a vital niche in American life. They created rural pleasure grounds where Americans could witness the beauty of nature enhanced by art. In the absence of public gardens or parks, cemeteries were the next best thing—educating “the popular taste in rural embellishment.”

-- Anne L. Helmreich

Texts

Usage

Citations

Images

Notes

↑ For a discussion about early American cemeteries and burial grounds, including both church and family plots, see John R. Stilgoe, Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), 219–31. Stilgoe associates family plot–type burial grounds in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with southern culture. He argues that “Tidewater settlers confronted death and burial . . . in a manner different from New Englanders,” and points to, for example, the southern practice of maintaining plots and gravestones in contrast to Puritan neglect that was more common in the north (p. 229), view on Zotero.
↑ David Charles Sloane provides a useful chart of the characteristics of American cemeteries, including date, design, location, grave marker style and material, type of manager of the cemetery, distinctive features, paradigms, and examples. See David Charles Sloane, The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 4–5, view on Zotero.
↑ Ibid.
↑ Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove: The Founding of Cincinnati’s Rural Cemetery, 1845–1855,” Queen City Heritage 43 (spring 1985): 18, view on Zotero. Note that most of the evidence collected for this project concentrates upon Protestant burial areas. This bias appears to be inherent in primary cemetery/burying ground/burial ground accounts of the American landscape. Future research needs to be conducted with regard to the burial practices between 1492 and 1850 of other faiths, especially Catholicism and Judaism, in America.
↑ The evidence collected here does not support David Sloane’s argument, in his otherwise illuminating study, that the term “cemetery” became the standard in the early nineteenth century. Sloan writes, “Although used sporadically by Europeans for centuries, the term became the standard one for a burial place in the nineteenth century. Rural cemeteries were different than previous burial places, and their founders believed that they deserved a distinct name.” Sloane, The Last Great Necessity, 55, view on Zotero.
↑ For more about Romantic literature and its effect upon the rural cemetery movement, see David Schulyer’s chapter about rural cemeteries in his book The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), view on Zotero.
↑ For more about the history of Mount Auburn Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward, Silent City on a Hill: Landscapes of Memory and Boston’s Mount Auburn Cemetery (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989), view on Zotero, and Barbara Rotundo, “Mount Auburn: Fortunate Coincidences and an Ideal Solution,” Journal of Garden History 4 (July–September 1984): 223–56.
↑ For further information about the development of Père Lachaise, see Richard A. Etlin, The Architecture of Death: The Transformation of the Cemetery in Eighteenth-Century Paris (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984), 299–301, view on Zotero.
↑ Mount Auburn Cemetery also marked a new period in the financing of cemeteries. Instead of being treated as the property of the city or a church, Mount Auburn Cemetery was run by a corporation of private, civic-minded individuals and lots were sold to the public.
↑ For further details about the history of Spring Grove Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove,” 17–32, view on Zotero. For more about Laurel Hill, see Keith N. Morgan, “The Emergence of the American Landscape Professional: John Notman and the Design of Rural Cemeteries,” Journal of Garden History 4 (July–September 1984): 269–90, view on Zotero. Also, see Donald Simon, “Green-Wood Cemetery and the American Park Movement,” in Essays in the History of New York City: A Memorial to Sidney Pomerantz, ed. Irwin Yellowitz (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1978), 61–77, view on Zotero.
↑ James Curl, A Celebration of Death: An Introduction to Some of the Buildings, Monuments, and Settings of Funerary Architecture in the Western European Tradition (London: Constable, 1980), 274, view on Zotero.

[1] For a discussion about early American cemeteries and burial grounds, including both church and family plots, see John R. Stilgoe, Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), 219–31. Stilgoe associates family plot–type burial grounds in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with southern culture. He argues that “Tidewater settlers confronted death and burial . . . in a manner different from New Englanders,” and points to, for example, the southern practice of maintaining plots and gravestones in contrast to Puritan neglect that was more common in the north (p. 229), view on Zotero.

[2] David Charles Sloane provides a useful chart of the characteristics of American cemeteries, including date, design, location, grave marker style and material, type of manager of the cemetery, distinctive features, paradigms, and examples. See David Charles Sloane, The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 4–5, view on Zotero.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove: The Founding of Cincinnati’s Rural Cemetery, 1845–1855,” Queen City Heritage 43 (spring 1985): 18, view on Zotero. Note that most of the evidence collected for this project concentrates upon Protestant burial areas. This bias appears to be inherent in primary cemetery/burying ground/burial ground accounts of the American landscape. Future research needs to be conducted with regard to the burial practices between 1492 and 1850 of other faiths, especially Catholicism and Judaism, in America.

[5] The evidence collected here does not support David Sloane’s argument, in his otherwise illuminating study, that the term “cemetery” became the standard in the early nineteenth century. Sloan writes, “Although used sporadically by Europeans for centuries, the term became the standard one for a burial place in the nineteenth century. Rural cemeteries were different than previous burial places, and their founders believed that they deserved a distinct name.” Sloane, The Last Great Necessity, 55, view on Zotero.

[6] For more about Romantic literature and its effect upon the rural cemetery movement, see David Schulyer’s chapter about rural cemeteries in his book The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), view on Zotero.

[7] For more about the history of Mount Auburn Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward, Silent City on a Hill: Landscapes of Memory and Boston’s Mount Auburn Cemetery (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989), view on Zotero, and Barbara Rotundo, “Mount Auburn: Fortunate Coincidences and an Ideal Solution,” Journal of Garden History 4 (July–September 1984): 223–56.

[8] For further information about the development of Père Lachaise, see Richard A. Etlin, The Architecture of Death: The Transformation of the Cemetery in Eighteenth-Century Paris (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984), 299–301, view on Zotero.

[9] Mount Auburn Cemetery also marked a new period in the financing of cemeteries. Instead of being treated as the property of the city or a church, Mount Auburn Cemetery was run by a corporation of private, civic-minded individuals and lots were sold to the public.

[10] For further details about the history of Spring Grove Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove,” 17–32, view on Zotero. For more about Laurel Hill, see Keith N. Morgan, “The Emergence of the American Landscape Professional: John Notman and the Design of Rural Cemeteries,” Journal of Garden History 4 (July–September 1984): 269–90, view on Zotero. Also, see Donald Simon, “Green-Wood Cemetery and the American Park Movement,” in Essays in the History of New York City: A Memorial to Sidney Pomerantz, ed. Irwin Yellowitz (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1978), 61–77, view on Zotero.

[11] James Curl, A Celebration of Death: An Introduction to Some of the Buildings, Monuments, and Settings of Funerary Architecture in the Western European Tradition (London: Constable, 1980), 274, view on Zotero.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==History==
-In the late eighteenth century, three primary types of burial places existed: land adjoining a church (often termed the “churchyard,” but also called a cemetery or burial ground) [Fig. 1], the family plot at one’s home (the burying ground), and public space that was unaffiliated with any specific denomination. <ref>For a discussion about early American cemeteries and burial grounds, including both church and family plots, see John R. Stilgoe, ''Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845'' (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), 219–31. Stilgoe associates family plot–type burial grounds in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with southern culture. He argues that “Tidewater settlers confronted death and burial . . . in a manner different from New Englanders,” and points to, for example, the southern practice of maintaining plots and gravestones in contrast to Puritan neglect that was more common in the north (p. 229). </ref> This latter type was also denoted as a “burying ground” but most commonly was labeled as a cemetery. <ref>David Charles Sloane provides a useful chart of the characteristics of American cemeteries, including date, design, location, grave marker style and material, type of manager of the cemetery, distinctive features, paradigms, and examples. See David Charles Sloane, ''The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History'' (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 4–5. </ref> Initially located in central urban areas such as [[common]]s, by the nineteenth century public burial grounds were increasingly located in suburban precincts. As late as 1724 (and perhaps long after) New Englanders “valued graveyards more as [[meadow]]s than as sacred spaces,” and, in the public’s mind, graveyards were regarded as “common, if not hallowed ground,” according to historian David Charles Sloane. <ref>Ibid.</ref> The word “cemetery,” which “derived from the Greek word for ‘dormitory’ and implied that death was but a tranquil sleep,” reflected the increasing sentimentalization of death and the Protestant theological shift from punitive to redemptive interpretations of death. <ref>Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove: The Founding of Cincinnati’s Rural Cemetery, 1845–1855,” ''Queen City Heritage'' 43 (spring 1985): 18. Note that most of the evidence collected for this project concentrates upon Protestant burial areas. This bias appears to be inherent in primary cemetery/burying ground/burial ground accounts of the American landscape. Future research needs to be conducted with regard to the burial practices between 1492 and 1850 of other faiths, especially Catholicism and Judaism, in America. </ref> Notably, the terms “burying ground” and “churchyard” were not completely phased out with the introduction of rural cemeteries and continued to be used interchangeably. <ref>The evidence collected here does not support David Sloane’s argument, in his otherwise illuminating study, that the term “cemetery” became the standard in the early nineteenth century. Sloan writes, “Although used sporadically by Europeans for centuries, the term became the standard one for a burial place in the nineteenth century. Rural cemeteries were different than previous burial places, and their founders believed that they deserved a distinct name.” Sloane, ''The Last Great Necessity'', 55. </ref> Although the term “cemetery” was often associated with rural park-like spaces, it also referred to enclosed burial grounds, such as the one described in 1796 by Timothy Dwight in New Haven, Conn.
+In the late eighteenth century, three primary types of burial places existed: land adjoining a church (often termed the “churchyard,” but also called a cemetery or burial ground) [Fig. 1], the family plot at one’s home (the burying ground), and public space that was unaffiliated with any specific denomination. <ref>For a discussion about early American cemeteries and burial grounds, including both church and family plots, see John R. Stilgoe, ''Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845'' (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), 219–31. Stilgoe associates family plot–type burial grounds in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with southern culture. He argues that “Tidewater settlers confronted death and burial . . . in a manner different from New Englanders,” and points to, for example, the southern practice of maintaining plots and gravestones in contrast to Puritan neglect that was more common in the north (p. 229), [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/A7HSIRGH view on Zotero]. </ref> This latter type was also denoted as a “burying ground” but most commonly was labeled as a cemetery. <ref>David Charles Sloane provides a useful chart of the characteristics of American cemeteries, including date, design, location, grave marker style and material, type of manager of the cemetery, distinctive features, paradigms, and examples. See David Charles Sloane, ''The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History'' (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 4–5, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/972MSSSH view on Zotero]. </ref> Initially located in central urban areas such as [[common]]s, by the nineteenth century public burial grounds were increasingly located in suburban precincts. As late as 1724 (and perhaps long after) New Englanders “valued graveyards more as [[meadow]]s than as sacred spaces,” and, in the public’s mind, graveyards were regarded as “common, if not hallowed ground,” according to historian David Charles Sloane. <ref>Ibid.</ref> The word “cemetery,” which “derived from the Greek word for ‘dormitory’ and implied that death was but a tranquil sleep,” reflected the increasing sentimentalization of death and the Protestant theological shift from punitive to redemptive interpretations of death. <ref>Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove: The Founding of Cincinnati’s Rural Cemetery, 1845–1855,” ''Queen City Heritage'' 43 (spring 1985): 18, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/H33IR6NI view on Zotero]. Note that most of the evidence collected for this project concentrates upon Protestant burial areas. This bias appears to be inherent in primary cemetery/burying ground/burial ground accounts of the American landscape. Future research needs to be conducted with regard to the burial practices between 1492 and 1850 of other faiths, especially Catholicism and Judaism, in America. </ref> Notably, the terms “burying ground” and “churchyard” were not completely phased out with the introduction of rural cemeteries and continued to be used interchangeably. <ref>The evidence collected here does not support David Sloane’s argument, in his otherwise illuminating study, that the term “cemetery” became the standard in the early nineteenth century. Sloan writes, “Although used sporadically by Europeans for centuries, the term became the standard one for a burial place in the nineteenth century. Rural cemeteries were different than previous burial places, and their founders believed that they deserved a distinct name.” Sloane, ''The Last Great Necessity'', 55, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/972MSSSH view on Zotero]. </ref> Although the term “cemetery” was often associated with rural park-like spaces, it also referred to enclosed burial grounds, such as the one described in 1796 by Timothy Dwight in New Haven, Conn.
-The New Haven Burying Ground, as it was originally named, was one of the earliest burial places to be located out side the main commercial district of a town [Fi g. 2]. Concerns about public health stemming from overcrowded urban burial places, the development of romantic discourse on the emotional impact of natural scenery, and anxieties about appropriate veneration of the dead resulted in a movement to relocate burial grounds from congested urban sites to more rural settings. <ref>For more about Romantic literature and its effect upon the rural cemetery movement, see David Schulyer’s chapter about rural cemeteries in his book ''The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Nineteenth-Century America'' (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986). </ref> Observers of the New Haven Burying Ground, including Dwight , praised the proprietors for their orderly and well laid out grounds based upon a geometric plan, with each fenced lot fashioned in the shape of a parallelogram. The division of the landscape was carried over into the placement of the city’s various populations — the poor, Yale affiliates, strangers, and “negroes” — into clearly defined, separate spaces. As such, New Haven Burying Ground became a model for other cities. Nevertheless, some writers, such as Rev. Nehemiah Adams (1842), continued to argue for the use of urban plots in the belief that the dead should be permitted to commune with the “joyous events” of the city.
+The New Haven Burying Ground, as it was originally named, was one of the earliest burial places to be located out side the main commercial district of a town [Fi g. 2]. Concerns about public health stemming from overcrowded urban burial places, the development of romantic discourse on the emotional impact of natural scenery, and anxieties about appropriate veneration of the dead resulted in a movement to relocate burial grounds from congested urban sites to more rural settings. <ref>For more about Romantic literature and its effect upon the rural cemetery movement, see David Schulyer’s chapter about rural cemeteries in his book ''The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Nineteenth-Century America'' (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/CFGQ8QT3 view on Zotero]. </ref> Observers of the New Haven Burying Ground, including Dwight , praised the proprietors for their orderly and well laid out grounds based upon a geometric plan, with each fenced lot fashioned in the shape of a parallelogram. The division of the landscape was carried over into the placement of the city’s various populations — the poor, Yale affiliates, strangers, and “negroes” — into clearly defined, separate spaces. As such, New Haven Burying Ground became a model for other cities. Nevertheless, some writers, such as Rev. Nehemiah Adams (1842), continued to argue for the use of urban plots in the belief that the dead should be permitted to commune with the “joyous events” of the city.
-The archetypal nineteenth-century burial ground, however, was Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., founded in 1831 on the grounds of a former estate called “Sweet Auburn.” <ref>For more about the history of Mount Auburn Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward, ''Silent City on a Hill: Landscapes of Memory and Boston’s Mount Auburn Cemetery'' (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989) and Barbara Rotundo, “Mount Auburn: Fortunate Coincidences and an Ideal Solution,” ''Journal of Garden History'' 4 (July–September 1984): 223–56. </ref> The founders of the so-called rural cemetery originally envisioned combining an “experimental” or botanic garden with a burying ground. Given the precedent for a garden cemetery that was set by the famed Père Lachaise (founded in Paris in 1804) and the influence of English landscape gardens upon botanic garden designs of this period, it is not surprising that the planners of Mount Auburn Cemetery desired a rural, naturalistic design. <ref>For further information about the development of Père Lachaise, see Richard A. Etlin, ''The Architecture of Death: The Transformation of the Cemetery in Eighteenth-Century Paris'' (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984), 299–301. </ref> They left much of the original grounds and vegetation intact and landscaped the grounds with the introduction of avenues, walks, and waterways [Figs. 3 and 4]. The boundaries of the cemetery were intended to blend into the grounds of the experimental garden through intermingled vegetation and meandering [[avenue]]s. Throughout the grounds, [[picturesque]] [[view]]s rewarded the visitor. Instead of the regimented landscape at the New Haven Burying Ground, Mount Auburn Cemetery embraced openness, created by the use of serpentine pathways and carefully placed vegetation, which could both screen and create [[vista]]s. The actual grave sites, however, were still bounded by iron railings to mark a zone of respect for the dead [Fig. 5].
+The archetypal nineteenth-century burial ground, however, was Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., founded in 1831 on the grounds of a former estate called “Sweet Auburn.” <ref>For more about the history of Mount Auburn Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward, ''Silent City on a Hill: Landscapes of Memory and Boston’s Mount Auburn Cemetery'' (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989), [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/K5AS42UI view on Zotero], and Barbara Rotundo, “Mount Auburn: Fortunate Coincidences and an Ideal Solution,” ''Journal of Garden History'' 4 (July–September 1984): 223–56. </ref> The founders of the so-called rural cemetery originally envisioned combining an “experimental” or botanic garden with a burying ground. Given the precedent for a garden cemetery that was set by the famed Père Lachaise (founded in Paris in 1804) and the influence of English landscape gardens upon botanic garden designs of this period, it is not surprising that the planners of Mount Auburn Cemetery desired a rural, naturalistic design. <ref>For further information about the development of Père Lachaise, see Richard A. Etlin, ''The Architecture of Death: The Transformation of the Cemetery in Eighteenth-Century Paris'' (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984), 299–301, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/G6QIFAZT view on Zotero].</ref> They left much of the original grounds and vegetation intact and landscaped the grounds with the introduction of avenues, walks, and waterways [Figs. 3 and 4]. The boundaries of the cemetery were intended to blend into the grounds of the experimental garden through intermingled vegetation and meandering [[avenue]]s. Throughout the grounds, [[picturesque]] [[view]]s rewarded the visitor. Instead of the regimented landscape at the New Haven Burying Ground, Mount Auburn Cemetery embraced openness, created by the use of serpentine pathways and carefully placed vegetation, which could both screen and create [[vista]]s. The actual grave sites, however, were still bounded by iron railings to mark a zone of respect for the dead [Fig. 5].
-Although the Mount Auburn Cemetery planners quickly were forced to discard their plans for an experimental garden, they fulfilled their vision of a rural, [[picturesque]], [[park]]-like landscape. <ref>Mount Auburn Cemetery also marked a new period in the financing of cemeteries. Instead of being treated as the property of the city or a church, Mount Auburn Cemetery was run by a corporation of private, civic-minded individuals and lots were sold to the public. </ref> It became the model for a number of subsequent cemeteries, such as Spring Grove Cemetery (Cincinnati), Laurel Hill Cemetery (Philadelphia), and Greenwood Cemetery (Brooklyn), and it earned the praise of such critics as [[A. J. Downing]]. <ref>For further details about the history of Spring Grove Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove,” 17–32. For more about Laurel Hill, see Keith N. Morgan, “The Emergence of the American Landscape Professional: John Notman and the Design of Rural Cemeteries,” ''Journal of Garden History'' 4 (July–September 1984): 269–90. Also, see Donald Simon, “Green-Wood Cemetery and the American Park Movement,” in E''ssays in the History of New York City: A Memorial to Sidney Pomerantz'', ed. Irwin Yellowitz (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1978), 61–77. </ref> Even without the existence of a [[botanic garden]], the superintendents of Mount Auburn Cemetery were able to lavish much attention on ornamental plantings. It is worth noting that extensive discussions about the ornamentation of burial places with plant material and other landscape features did not generally appear in treatise literature about the sites until the popularization of rural cemeteries in the nineteenth century.
+Although the Mount Auburn Cemetery planners quickly were forced to discard their plans for an experimental garden, they fulfilled their vision of a rural, [[picturesque]], [[park]]-like landscape. <ref>Mount Auburn Cemetery also marked a new period in the financing of cemeteries. Instead of being treated as the property of the city or a church, Mount Auburn Cemetery was run by a corporation of private, civic-minded individuals and lots were sold to the public. </ref> It became the model for a number of subsequent cemeteries, such as Spring Grove Cemetery (Cincinnati), Laurel Hill Cemetery (Philadelphia), and Greenwood Cemetery (Brooklyn), and it earned the praise of such critics as [[A. J. Downing]]. <ref>For further details about the history of Spring Grove Cemetery, see Blanche Linden-Ward and David C. Sloane, “Spring Grove,” 17–32, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/H33IR6NI view on Zotero]. For more about Laurel Hill, see Keith N. Morgan, “The Emergence of the American Landscape Professional: John Notman and the Design of Rural Cemeteries,” ''Journal of Garden History'' 4 (July–September 1984): 269–90, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/99NMZBA9 view on Zotero]. Also, see Donald Simon, “Green-Wood Cemetery and the American Park Movement,” in ''Essays in the History of New York City: A Memorial to Sidney Pomerantz'', ed. Irwin Yellowitz (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1978), 61–77, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/X2G3SFEZ view on Zotero]. </ref> Even without the existence of a [[botanic garden]], the superintendents of Mount Auburn Cemetery were able to lavish much attention on ornamental plantings. It is worth noting that extensive discussions about the ornamentation of burial places with plant material and other landscape features did not generally appear in treatise literature about the sites until the popularization of rural cemeteries in the nineteenth century.
 As Downing pointed out in his 1849 essay “Public Cemeteries and Public Gardens,” Mount Auburn Cemetery also had “the double wealth of rural and moral associations . . . it awakens, at the same moment, the feeling of human sympathy and the love of natural beauty.” The rural setting, with its suggestions of the sublime, enhanced the experience of mourning for one’s loved ones. The space was also an educational tool, providing exemplary taste in planting arrangements, as well as a guide to American history through the monuments to “illustrious men,” as described by H.A.S. Dearborn (1832).
-Burial monuments found on the grounds contributed to the emotional impact of Mount Auburn Cemetery’s “romantic” and “[[picturesque]]” scenery. [[Obelisk]]s and other [[ancient style]] markers, for example, gave rise to associations with classical heroes (see [[Column]]). The entrance [[gate]]s, executed in the Egyptian style, were associated with the notion that “eternity was evoked by the massive forms.” Such grand [[gateway]]s were also found at the New Haven Burying Ground. <ref>James Curl, ''A Celebration of Death: An Introduction to Some of the Buildings, Monuments, and Settings of Funerary Architecture in the Western European Tradition'' (London: Constable, 1980), 274. </ref>
+Burial monuments found on the grounds contributed to the emotional impact of Mount Auburn Cemetery’s “romantic” and “[[picturesque]]” scenery. [[Obelisk]]s and other [[ancient style]] markers, for example, gave rise to associations with classical heroes (see [[Column]]). The entrance [[gate]]s, executed in the Egyptian style, were associated with the notion that “eternity was evoked by the massive forms.” Such grand [[gateway]]s were also found at the New Haven Burying Ground. <ref>James Curl, ''A Celebration of Death: An Introduction to Some of the Buildings, Monuments, and Settings of Funerary Architecture in the Western European Tradition'' (London: Constable, 1980), 274, [https://www.zotero.org/groups/54737/items/itemKey/84K24TRS view on Zotero]. </ref>
 By the time Downing wrote his 1849 essay about public cemeteries and gardens, Greenwood Cemetery, Mount Auburn Cemetery, and Laurel Hill Cemetery had established a norm in cemetery design that influenced later designs [Figs. 6 and 7]. Although burial grounds did not require natural scenery to be effective places for “solemn meditation,” in Downing’s words, rural cemeteries fulfilled a vital niche in American life. They created rural [[pleasure ground]]s where Americans could witness the beauty of nature enhanced by art. In the absence of [[public garden]]s or [[park]]s, cemeteries were the next best thing—educating “the popular taste in rural embellishment.”