The re-creation of small period gardens for museums and public spaces in Britain

The re-creation of small period gardens for museums and public spaces in Britain

Museum .Wunu,qrmenf and Curutowhip, Vol. 14, No. -1, pp. 351-374. 1995 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Prmted m Great Britain All rights reser...

2MB Sizes 3 Downloads 9 Views

Museum

.Wunu,qrmenf

and Curutowhip, Vol. 14, No. -1, pp. 351-374. 1995 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Prmted m Great Britain All rights reserved 02hn-477wh RI 5 nn + n nn

0260-4779(95)00065-8

The Re-creation of Small Period Gardens for Museums and Public Spaces in Britain SYLVIA LANDSBERG

Introduction Mushrooming interest in the United Kingdom national heritage has encouraged many of the institutions and owners of private houses who open their property to the public to construct gardens which are closely in sympathy with the buildings. As ‘living museums’, such gardens arouse lively interest not only amongst adults but also children who will be the future guardians of our landscape heritage. The following remarks are primarily aimed at those who are inexperienced in commissioning a small historic garden, although they also apply to any garden re-creation which requires research, and they take as their examples the re-creation of gardens dating from c.1150-c.1650.

1. General view of the garden of the Tudor House Museum, Southampton, before its recreation in 1980.Although planted with modern bedding, it had been known for years as ‘the Elizabethan Garden’.

358

The

Re-creation

of Small

Period

Gardens

for

Museums and Public

Spaces in Britain

The later the period of the garden, the larger and more complex task its reinstatement is likely to be, perhaps involving as many as 50 or 100 people and requiring a million pounds or more expenditure to achieve. The approach must therefore be strictly professional from the very germination of the idea. However, an earlier medieval garden can be authentically reproduced on a tiny site because small enclosed gardens were typical of the period. Such a project is tempting for amateur groups to undertake, so some words of advice are necessary because one of the greatest dangers lies in involving a group of people who do not even know that they do not know. With the proliferation of volunteer interest groups, such as ‘Friends of. . .‘, and garden and countrysideoriented trusts, substantial projects are often undertaken with total innocence encapsulated in an initial, understated request to a researcher: ‘Will you design a garden for us?’ An equally naive researcher, perhaps the most historically qualified of the group but not necessarily a landscape (gardening) professional, may then ‘do’ a quick design, virtually on the back of an envelope, under pressure of it being required for ‘a meeting next week’. Acting on such impulse will not be doing the owner a favour, at least with regard to the implications of cost, construction and future maintenance. The Design and Construction

Process

In tackling period gardens the three ‘Rs are: reconstruction, in which plans, or foundations and even plant lists of a past garden on the site exist, thus enabling an identical layout to be brought to life (as has been recently done for the William III parterres at Hampton Court); restorution, where sufficient remains exist for the garden to be returned to its former glory (as at eighteenth-century Painshill); and re-creation when a period garden may never have existed on the site, or where the site is no longer intact, but enough is known about other gardens of the time to assemble a jigsaw, so to speak, of the most characteristic features. This is also known as pastiche, and is the only process at present possible in respect of English medieval gardens. The design of re-created gardens differs from those entirely of the twentieth century in that the exercise of creative imagination has to be reigned in by the demands of historical authenticity, but whilst authenticity is the first consideration it has in turn to be tempered by practicality, at least in a garden open to the public; and also by aesthetics. A re-created medieval garden which has to cater for visitors in their thousands, all year round, cannot therefore be as historically authentic as a private one. The balance between historical authenticity and practicality depends to some extent on the funds to be made available, the provision of tunnel arbours being an example. In the Southampton Tudor Garden, constructed with a minimal budget, the tunnel for the arbour is made of one-and-a-half inch steel tubing, galvanized and painted to an ash colour. The jasmine which was ‘common in our London gardeyns’ in the Tudor period twines itself so closely that the metal posts can eventually become virtually invisible. A totally authentic alternative for vines is a flat-topped oak timber pergola, as can be seen at Tretower Court in South Wales, but this is more expensive if trellised side railings also have to be included as rose supports, and is consequently appropriate only to the property of a

SW-VIA

LANDSBEKG

2. Artist’s bird’s eye view of the re-created Yeoman’s Homestead at The Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, Singleton, West Sussex, showing the reconstructed Bayleaf farmhouse surrounded by its orchard, farm buildings and woodland hedgestripe or ‘shaw’.

relatively wealthy medieval householder. A more expensive but more authentic option than metal alone is the tunnel which has been erected in Queen Eleanor’s garden using a skeleton of 2-inch steel tubes as a framework support for wooden poles, such a robust framework being essential where children are liable to use it as a ‘Jungle Gym’, or play ‘Push and Shove’ ! Paint, extra poles at the ends, and massedhoneysuckle and vines soon camouflage the metal, though the supply of replacement poles becomes the problem because the correct ‘bean-poles’

360 The Re-creation

of Small Period Gardens for Museums and Public Spaces in Britain 3. Artist’s bird’s eye view of Brother Cadfael’s Garden at The Shrewsbury Quest, showing a. The Physic Garden, b. Brother Cadfael’s private arbour, c. The Abbot’s Herber, d. vegetable beds, and e. The Green Court.

obtained from coppiced hazel, or similar poles from osiers, only last for a few years. Continual replacement is too disturbing in a public garden, but a row of sapling western red cedars, some one-and-a-half inches thick, has proved to offer a perfect alternative, particularly as this is one of the most durable of timbers. For practical reasons, seven-stranded fencing wire, burnt to a brownish colour and looking remarkably similar to the original withie ties, has been used here, and also in the Shrewsbury Quest, to tie the poles together, since genuine willow withie ties loosen within a year. A timber pergola is historically authentic, but it is common even today, so the curved pole tunnel, when clothed with plants, provides a new dimension in realizing a medieval garden. Wear and tear is another problem. Not all medieval paths would have been wide enough to accommodate the wheelchairs and pushchairs which are a present-day requirement, while the fine sand or turf surfaces, which were then more common than gravel, are today quite impractical in a public garden. One way of retaining both historical authenticity and practicality is to close off a small corner, thus allowing the visitor to look into the past but not step into it. Examples which may be cited are the checkerboard turf and bed herber in Sir Roger Vaughan’s Garden; Brother Cadfael’s private arbour in the Shrewsbury Quest (also used for growing irritant plants); the Secret Garden of the Southampton Tudor Garden (where bees in skeps which need protection from children are housed); and the trellised exedra or conversation corner of Queen Eleanor’s Garden, carpeted with fragile ground cover plants. Apart from the wear and tear aspect, there is incidentally also a strange urge on the part of the designer to keep some corner of the garden sacred from the twentieth-century foot. Aesthetics also have to be considered, and whilst every designer tries of course to ensure that the garden is visually appealing, beauty lies in all the sensesof the

SYMA LANDSBERG

361

beholder. Although we may today pay lip-service to a broader approach, the twentieth-century fashion is to look at a garden and think of it primarily in the visual terms of overall colour, texture as a visible rather than tactile phenomenon, and form. The medieval approach was, sensually, more balanced: listening to the many sounds of water, or of purring doves; touching and appreciating the softness of fennel or sage; picking, and scenting in the hand, aromatic foliage which is not necessarily air-scenting; and finally, in communion with a single flower, spiritually absorbing signs of an invisible world beyond the material one. Very few present-day visitors feel free to be tactile, and although the garden owner may make a special educative effort to convey something of the medieval visitor’s attitude to gardens, the designer has to emphasize those features which will instinctively be most enjoyed by way of the present-day predominantly visual approach. In all historical garden projects, whether simple or complex, there are eight basic roles to be fulfilled, and in sequence these are: ownership, commission, design, funding, implementation, maintenance, interpretation and periodic inspection to ensure continued historical authenticity. The team involved in a garden construction can be as simple as owner, designer and constructor, the latter even being the future maintainer, but these three people still have to undertake all eight tasks, Bayleaf being a successful example. The key roles are described below. The Owner (or Owner’s Agent) Initially the obligation of the owner is to commission the garden, perhaps on the recommendation of an outside body, and then to fund it, or to work with sponsors to ensure its funding. The first task is to appoint a historiandesigner, with whom should be agreed the extent of involvement which he or she is able to undertake. This will include giving the designer a proposed brief, for discussion, which incorporates the points set out in the checklist below. This detailed questioning may seem obvious to a landscape professional, but not necessarily to an amateur group, or even the researcher, who may have limited knowledge of the demands of the design process. However, the owner must be realistic about all aspects of the time scale since the idea for a period garden often manifests itself only the year before the celebration of a particular centenary or festival. A minimum of two years is required when research, fund-raising, the growing of plants, working within the seasons, and even archaeological work, is involved before actual construction can take place. Even with the professional approach adopted for Queen Eleanor’s Garden, an archaeological investigation of the site was suddenly ordered, which delayed the whole schedule. This revealed, beneath the ground surface, the remains of rooms of a twelfth-century building, many feet deep. These walled spaces had been filled with rubble, which is still the cause of a gardener’s nightmare. Ideally an additional year for growth and maturing of the garden should elapse before the official unveiling, even if the public are allowed to visit it in the meantime. Unlike a building, which can be opened on the day of its completion, the garden opening should not be considered in terms of marking a somewhat naked birth, but rather a later adorned christening.

362

The

Re-creation

of Small

Period

Gardens

for

Museums

and

Public

Spaces

in Britain

An early decision should also be made about hours of opening, not least because the problem of vandalism, if the garden is open but unattended, has to be addressed. If entry can be assured through a manned museum building, vandalism is not usually a problem. One way of economising on maintenance is to open the garden at its peak periods only, rather than every day of the year. Visits to medieval gardens out of season can in any case be rather disappointing. The best viewing months with regard to the plants are April to July; in winter electrically-operated water features have to be switched off, and some expensive woodwork moved indoors. Finally, apart from the obvious responsibility of funding the garden, the owner should ensure that it is interpreted adequately to the public. The Historian-Designer The main task of the historian-designer is to produce a plan, a plant list, and an outline of the main types of planting, with an accompanying report which sets out the proposed garden and its detailed features in its historical setting. The result should be historically authentic, practical, and aesthetic, in that order. The checklist below sets out the extent to which the historian-designer should be able to provide what is required, in the way of design detail and implementation, according to his or her own skills and time to be made available. A firm brief can then be written so that adequate professional back-up can be arranged at this stage. Such back-up should be insisted upon, but historical authenticity need not be carried to extremes. For instance, machined rather than hand-sawn timber may have to be used for reasons of economy; rabbit-proof netting may be necessary, as at Bayleaf; and concealed electric fountain pumps can be used if the need for flowing water can be justified. As part of being practical, every effort should be made to set aside a piece of ground for propagation, compost heaps, etc., and an irrigation system or at least piped water supply with strategically located taps, should be included. Thought should be given to visitor circulation and the provision of paths which are adequate in width and durability if the anticipated visitor numbers are large. As an example of detail, the researcher may specify authentic path surfaces and edgings, while a professional landscaper may have to provide the actual construction specification. Discussions with craftsmen prior to the execution of a particular feature in such a garden is inevitably a time-consuming part of the process, since there is little published technical information. There is usually no question of obtaining alternative estimates for each feature. One cannot ethically carry on a detailed dialogue concerning a previously non-existent design and, after picking a trusting craftsman’s brains, use the information so gained to commission the piece from a more competitive supplier. For Queen Eleanor’s Garden, craft features involving nine different craftsmen were smoothly integrated into the timetable by choosing the best local craftsman for each job, without having to hunt out alternative competitive estimates. Stage 2 of the design process becomes fraught with delays if the designer cannot be given the go-ahead to proceed with approved craftsmen or suppliers. Regarding maintenance, the research-designer may have to be involved in of a formal appointing and advising a gardener, and in the development maintenance plan over the first few years. This is a wise precaution when there

SYLVIA

363

LANDSBHG

may be as many as four different gardeners in four years, as occurred with Queen Eleanor’s garden. This is even more important when a team of volunteers is to manage a garden, and the research-designer must make it clear that neither the owner nor the landscape professional should alter the design without consultation, since introduced errors compromising historical authenticity will later be attributed to the researcher. The Landscape-Professional

or Implementer

The research-designer will be appointed primarily for research expertise, so the owner will usually also have to appoint a landscape professional whose task is to pick up the project at the level at which the research-designer no longer has the skills required. This is likely to involve the initial estimating; elaborating the researcher’s plan, and also craft drawings to the required technical level prior to obtaining quotations, if necessary; sending out to tender; drawing up of contracts after detailed estimates are received; ordering materials and plants; dovetailing together the construction time-table, and supervising the work of numerous subcontractors and craftsmen (perhaps involving a main contractor for this process). A specialist landscape architect’s firm may itself have suitable personnel to undertake the research, depending upon the depth and amount of historically authentic detail required, but one problem here is that of paying for, or allowing for sufficient research time. The amount required is often difficult to assess in advance, but the more time spent, the greater will be the individuality of the garden. As an example, the bronze falcon which crowns the fountain of Queen Eleanor’s garden required 112 hours of research and travelling time, and contact with the craftsmen, for the design alone. Such expenditure of time cannot always be fully paid for, but the dedicated researcher, like the ideal craftsman, will generally be satisfied if allowed adequate time even if underpaid. When the research-designer is not one of the landscape professional’s in-house team, as is likely, then the designer should be in a consultant relationship to the landscape professional. However ‘research consultant’ has unexpected connotations as put to the present author by one landscape professional: ‘A consultant is appointed for what he knows, not to find out what he does not know; his research time should be funded by lecturing, writing, etc.’ So much for research. It is wise to clarify such expectations at the outset! The Volunteers

(not all of whom

are necessarily

amateurs)

With small projects it will often be a group working in a voluntary capacity who will have sown the seed of the idea of the period garden in the first place. Volunteers are often organised as a group of museum ‘Friends’, and there are now some forty county Garden Trusts or similar interested groups in Britain. Although it is apt to be time-consuming, many enjoy the increased social contact, but others dislike being overtly organised and prefer to control their own time, which should be respected. Often the owner is a town or county council whose officers and even officer titles change continuously, as with the Southampton Tudor Garden. Volunteers likewise change, but, under the umbrella of a permanent organisation, ‘Friends’ and local government officers can, together,

364 The Re-creation

of Small Period Gardens for Museums and Public Spaces in Britain 4. Queen Eleanor’sGarden, Winchester,asconstructed in 1986, seen from the West, showing the buttresses of the Hall, the vine-covered tunnel arbour, the fountain and channel,and,to the rear, the oak-shingled pentice.

provide a continuing framework for dialogue. ‘Friends’ may not only raise funds, but also stimulate local interest and perform a valuable role in interpretation, by writing, lecturing and photographing, or by attendance in the garden. It is difficult to mix professionals and amateurs in the actual construction work, since costly professional time has to be spent on close supervision. However, if volunteers are in a position of total responsibility for constructing a period garden there should always be a professional supervisor, even if a retired volunteer professional. However, much planting can safely, and even best, be left to volunteers once the garden layout is complete, or they can undertake specific tasks. For instance, one September morning in Queen Eleanor’s garden, a volunteer group successfully planted 1000 daisies (of 500 additional hawkbit, only two survived!). With regard to fund-raising, often undertaken by volunteers, extreme tact is required, particularly where fund-raisers are acting in connection with a garden from which entrance fees are obtained. There are several grant-giving trusts for gardens which will sponsor historic projects, and it is worth perusing The Directory c~f Grant-m&ng Trusts, while Local Authorities often have a specific purse set aside for volunteer projects of this nature. However, grant-giving bodies never sponsor maintenance, and a volunteer group could be wise to harness the initial burst of enthusiasm to ensure permanent paid gardening help. Sometimes local horticultural students are a tempting source of free labour. It should be remembered, however, that such workers do not have the ability or inner motivation of either professionals or life-long experienced amateurs. Furthermore, their work has to be closely supervised and dovetailed into a tight college schedule which will always take precedence. Maintenance

Once it is constructed, the success of a medieval garden depends upon the standard of its maintenance, and a good and sympathetic gardener should be valued like gold. Whether a very good gardener, or a very poor one, a supervisor is essential: the owner or the owner’s representative must be seen to show real

SYLVIA LANUSBEKG

365

interest. Ideally there should b e an obsessive paid gardener (preferably one who has been involved in the garden construction) visiting the garden as many days a week as possible, who jealously considers the garden to be his own. Although working to a basic plan, such a dedicated gardener will improve it, make observations which are entirely new, and will both anticipate future crises and enjoy talking to the visitors. The owner of a period garden should remember that if a gardener is also to be an unpaid guide and interpreter his gardening hours will inevitably be cut short. If it is not possible to provide appropriate propagating space within the period garden, a gardener may be prepared to do it from home, but this should be duly compensated for, rather than taken for granted. Although additional main supplies and plants will need to be bought in by the owner, there is no doubt that it helps immensely for the gardener to be entrusted a petty cash account, with which to remedy any immediate minor problems. In the view of the present author, volunteers should not be expected to undertake full responsibility for permanently maintaining a public garden. However keen the initial group may be it will often fall to the most conscientious member, who, even if ill, will have to step in when standards threaten to drop, and while the others attend to their family crises. Interpretation Owners of period gardens which are opened to the public have a duty to interpret them, and it is wise for the research-designer to insist upon this, even to providing the interpretation material, because the owner may not always be entirely aware of the differences between a twentieth-century attitude towards a garden, and that of half a millennium ago. Someone also has to assume responsibility for administration, media interviews, answering letters, leading guided tours, perhaps keeping a garden diary or a visual record of the plants in different seasons,and undertaking other photography. Here the special skills of individual volunteers can be invaluable, benefitting from their life-long experience. However, the most effective form of interpretation is an official guide, paid or unpaid, but an illustrated leaflet is useful, including a plant list, such as have been produced for Sir Roger Vaughan’s Garden, Queen Eleanor’s Garden and the Southampton Tudor Garden. Such a leaflet, ideally accompanied by a summer picture postcard view, will ensure that even in the dead of winter when plants are at their poorest, the overall design and architectural features will be valued. Almost invariably such leaflets are bought after the visit, but their availability should be clearly advertised at the garden entrance. Identification of individual plants can be linked to the leaflet. Labels, whether giving a name or a reference number, can be a problem. To be permanent and affordable the most satisfactory are laminated PVC on an aluminium stake. Pretty ceramic or enamel labels, which are costly and an artifice, are too tempting for felonous fingers, while all labels suffer from being accidentally broken, obscured by growing plants, and also being moved. This latter activity appeals greatly to the warped sense of humour not only of children: the present author has observed adults laughingly exchanging labels (but not for long!). Labels can also be intrusive in any part of the garden where a contemplative mood is to be fostered, but they are justifiable in physic gardens where there is a long tradition of labelling. In the sixteenth-century,

366

The

Re-creation

of Small Period

Gardens

for

Museums

and Public

Spaces

in Britain

Erasmus commented on such a garden where each plant had ‘a little banner’ with its name, and a remark such as: ‘Marjoram, not for you, swine’ (being injurious to pigs). An alternative is a stand with a broadly-labelled plan, together with labelled photographs or drawings, located within the adjacent building or under cover, (bearing in mind, however, that few plants stay in permanent positions). Annually updated bats, or abseys (so named from the Elizabethan A B C boards), are ideal, for frequently moved crops as at Bayleaf, but these tend to disappear unless a deposit is paid. Inspection An annual inspection by an historical expert should be arranged, not only to prevent the garden straying from its standard of authenticity, but also to identify and solve problems which may arise. The turf seats of Queen Eleanor’s garden are an example. The original turf banks, topped and faced with turf, as often illustrated in medieval manuscripts and undoubtedly suitable for a month’s visit by a medieval queen, proved impossible to maintain the whole year round. Stone facing was therefore added later. The inspectors themselves can learn much that is new from the careful observations of an intelligent gardener. However inspection visits should not be too frequent lest the owner comes to rely on the historical inspector as the garden supervisor! A Check List for Construction

of a Re-created Period Garden

(For the determination of the role of the research-designer and preparation of the draft brief.) 1. Aim and function of garden, indicating degree of historical authenticity required, and likely opening date. 2. Site information already available. List of plans, surveys, written information. 3. Site problems. Excessive shade, summer heat or wind, surface soil and subsoil conditions, availability of water. 4. ParticuZar site requirements, e.g. Heritage restrictions, environmental problems, public access,irrigation, visitor circulation, archaeological investigation, etc. 5. Sources offunding for design commission, construction, maintenance, labour, repairs and sundries, interpretation. 6. Level of research expected. (a) Studying of review publications already in print, (b) researching original documents (manuscripts, transcriptions, English or foreign publications). (c) Searching for craftsmen, materials and plants (the latter may involve setting up provisions for growing them off site). 7. Degree of involvement by research-designer. By simple ticking, the amount of back up which the research-designer requires will immediately become clear (Landscape professional to cover items not achievable by the researcher): (a) survey; (b) research; (c) discussions to completion of design with craftsmen/ contractors; (d) plans and drawings (see 7 below); (e) initial estimating; (f) subsequent putting out to tender and detailed costing; (g) drawing up of contracts; (h) construction, including scheduling and supervision of con-

SYIMA LANDSBERG

367

tractors; (i) research report; (j) maintenance involvement (e.g. maintenance plan, appointment of gardeners, annual inspection); and (k) interpretation. 8. Proposed timescale. Dates for the following: Stage Z. Outline design for estimating. (The project may be discontinued, postponed or amended at this point.) Stage 2. Research report and final plans (after decision to proceed with the project). Castings for the whole project, from main contractor, individual craftsmen and suppliers. (Some features may be omitted at this stage, or postponed due to shortage of time.) To include budget implications regarding gardening hours and feature repairs or replacement. Construction and planting start and finish (bearing in mind the seasonalnature of some crafts). Opening. Possible Launch. 9. Presentation details which are required from research-designer or landscape professional Stage 1 (a) Outline, sketch plan, indicating major features and planting types. (b) Initial report (state number of pages expected). (c) Estimate of cost. Stage 2 (a) Plans (all to metric scale and professional construction level), to include overall garden plan; sketches and working drawings of individual features; planting plans. (b) Final research report. To include placing the garden in the historical context; justifying the chosen design, with references; contemporary illustrations; plant lists and numbers (common and Latin names). (c) Interpretative matertial e.g. Leaflet text and illustration choices; label texts; artists’ impression; photographs; texts for information plaques; model; further reading. (d) Maintenance plan 8. Construction. To include all costing, contract scheduling, supervision of contractors.

specifications,

timetable

[The Author thanks Rachel Bebb f or assistancein drawing up this list] Case Histories of Re-created Period Gardens The Tudor Garden Tudor House Museum, St Michael’s Square, Southampton, Hants SO14 2AD. Garden size: 60 X 70 feet. Constructed in 1980. Open lOa.m.-12.00 and 1.00 p.m.-5 p.m., Tuesday-Friday; (4 p.m. Saturday); 2 p.m.-5 p.m., Sunday (Phone before a special journey). No charge. Research and design: S. Landsberg. The garden is adjacent to the City Museum and is owned and maintained by Southampton City Council. Its re-creation was the inspiration of The Friends of the Southampton Museums, who fund-raised for it, with grants also from The

368

The Re-creation

of Small

Period

Gardens

fey

Museums

and

Public

Spaces in Britain

5. View of the re-created Tudor Garden of the Tudor House Museum, Southampton (19W, showing the central ‘knot’ of clipped herb hedges, herbaceous borders and, beyond, the jasmine and rose tunnel arbour.

Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust, The Ernest Cook Educational Trust, Hampshire County Council and Southampton City Council. Tudor House was at one time owned by the Lord Chief Justice of Henry VIII. Its social level is therefore that of the aristocracy but since such gardens were extensive the aim in this tiny space is to establish a living museum, the garden being a collection of features of ornamental gardens of the Tudor reign (148%1603), re-created from sixteenth-century texts and illustrations. The plants are a selection of those grown in the period, each displayed in the way it would have been used. No details of a contemporary on-site garden are known, so this has to be a re-creation rather than a reconstruction. it contains a rose and vine arbour, a jasmine arbour, a secret garden with beehives, herbaceous border beds, a camomile lawn with a fountain, and a clipped ‘knot’ bed embroidered with entwined hedges of santolina, savory, germander and box. Using simple working drawings, two gardeners employed by the City Council laid out the garden, one of whom became its first gardener. Like Queen Eleanor’s Garden (see below), the garden is built on the ruins of an old building, with this factor and the wind causing some problems with growth on the arbour. The paid gardener works about eight hours a week, with the herb ‘knot’ requiring about five hours of clipping per month from April to September. As he is not always to hand, plant labels and an illustrated guide supplement the interpretation. An irrigation system, operating out of visitor hours, would have been preferable to the present watering by hose attachments. Queen Eleanor’s

Garden

The Great Hall, The Castle, Winchester, Hants. Garden size: A narrow triangle 30 X 90 feet (overall). Constructed in 1986. Research and design: S. Landsberg and J. H. Harvey. Hampshire County Council acted as Landscape Architects, bringing all sketch plans to working drawing level, under Brian Grayling, who managed the project. Open daily lOa.m.-5.30p.m. except Christmas Day and Boxing Day. Free entry to Hall and Garden.

SYIMA LANDSBERG

369

The garden lies adjacent to The Great Hall which is the only surviving building of the castle and contains King Arthur’s Round Table. Its construction was the inspiration of the Hampshire Gardens Trust. It is owned by Hampshire County Council who funded the garden construction, and who maintain it, augmented by grants from the Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust and the Ernest Cook Educational Trust. The garden is named after Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor of Castile, respectively the queens of Henry III who built the Hall, and of Edward I who altered it, in the period 1236-1290. It is known that there were several small gardens in the castle, and the size and shape of the present re-creation would not have been unusual. The garden has been laid out as a jigsaw of features known from royal castles and palaces of the time. These include an oak-shingled pentice, as at Clarendon Palace in the thirteenth century, white doves (known to have been kept at the castle) and a water channel as at nearby Wolvesey Castle. The fountain, electrically operated, was reconstructed by local stonemasons from a thirteenth-century description, and local carvings; the stone seats are interpreted from the minstrels’ windowsill seats in the Hall. The tunnel arbour and turftopped seatsare copied from contemporary illustrations. No expense was spared on genuine craftwork. Since eight types of craft were involved an overall contractor was necessary, to dovetail the work. An archaeological investigation revealed some unsurmountable problems which affect rooting or cause waterlogged conditions. High surrounding buildings cause a damp heat to build up and they have proved visually intrusive. A difficult site, but the garden is probably as authentic a recreation as it is possible to achieve. Paid gardeners work about eight hours a week in summer, daily watering being necessary in addition to an irrigation system which operates outside visiting hours. No interpreters are on site. Plants are not labelled here, since labels would be intrusive given the sensual rather than intellectual mood of the garden. Although the interpretative panel requested for the garden has at the time of writing (Summer 1995) not been supplied, there is a leaflet guide to the garden, sold in the Hall shop. The garden is not manned, but the Hall Shop staff keep a wary eye for unruly behaviour. Bayleaf-A

Yeoman’s Homestead

Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, Singleton, Near Chichester, West Sussex PO18 OEU. Garden size: 90 X 100 feet. Constructed in 1989. Open March-October daily, 10 a.m.-5 p.m., November-February, Wednesdays, Sundays and Bank Holiday Mondays. Museum entrance charge. The homestead design by museum staff and consultants includes an orchard, farm buildings and woodland hedge strip or ‘shaw’. Garden research and design: S. Landsberg, Consultant J. H. Harvey. The museum was originally set up to display the history of vernacular building methods, by re-erecting buildings from all over the county which would otherwise have been destroyed, and increasingly period surroundings are being added to these buildings. The Bayleaf building, removed from Kent, was the home of a wealthy Kentish yeoman, or perhaps bailiff of the adjacent estate, and the garden represents the period around 1500. Such a garden is mainly utilitarian,

370

The Re-creation

of

Small Period

Gardens

for

Mureltmr

and Public

Spaces in Britain

6. Artist’s impression of Queen Eleanor’s Garden alongside the Great Hall of the Castle, Winchester, seen from the East. The design includes a tunnel arbour, herbaceous borders, turf-topped and stone seats, and a fountain and channel, while the conversation corner, into which the public may look, is to be seen bottom right.

apart from a toddlers’ corner which would have given safety from hogs, and it includes an arbour with a trestle table. Whilst many medieval ornamental plants and herbs are still available, most vegetable varieties have been improved and ‘look-alikes’ have to be substituted, the plant list being selected from the results of John Harvey’s researches (Harvey, 1981). The garden displays vegetable beds and fencing types of the period, such as diamond-patterned oak lath, wattle and pleached hawthorn hedges. The paid gardener, who also constructed the garden from simple sketch plans and working drawings, spends about twelve hours a week with two part-time volunteer helpers. All act as interpreters. A really experienced vegetable grower has proved to be essential. A booklet about the whole project is available and although plants are not labelled, information bats can be borrowed, showing plant positions. Built on virgin chalk downland, it took several years to perfect the soil. Hosepipe restrictions have been combatted by use of copious manure and a ground cover of medievally edible ‘weeds’. The wandering museum poultry became a problem, necessitating the fencing off of the vegetable area, and the local rabbit population has built up to such an extent that rabbit-proof netting has had to be concealed in the wattle. Two newly established pear trees will help to provide some shade for the very open site. Although the garden demonstrates that, as in medieval times, this type of garden can be managed on minimum water, an emergency irrigation system would have been useful.

SYLVIA

7. Bayleaf, yeoman’s

Brother

after re-erection vegetable garden

Cadfael’s

LANDSBERG

at The Weald and Downland with its plots and paths, c.1500.

Garden

at The Shrewsbury

371

Open Air Museum, re-created in 1989

seen across to a pattern

the of

Quest

193 Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, S42 6AH. Garden size 95 X 145 feet. Constructed in 1994. Open daily lOa.m.-5.30p.m. except Christmas Day and New Year. Entrance charge. Garden research and design: S. Landsberg. Consultant: J. H. Harvey. The garden and associated re-created monastic buildings have been established as a commercial venture by Beringar Ltd., on a site rented from Shrewsbury Town Council, the garden construction being mainly funded by Beringar Ltd., an attempt to find sponsors not being very successful. The garden is a re-creation on a part of the old Abbey site, of which no garden details survive. Such gardens would have extended over several acres, so only certain monastic features have been selected for inclusion here. Most of the garden relates to Ellis Peter’s fictitious Brother Cadfael, whom she portrayed as a herbalist at the Abbey around 1120-1150. The plan of design of the physic garden area is based on a remarkable c.l160-the Wibert plan of Christ Church Priory, Canterbury, (see Harof diamond lath trellis fences is also taken vey, 1981) and the pattern from this evidence. The plants represent the actual medicine chest ingredients of the period, which are identified, together with their uses, in the ‘Mater’ list of 1050 (Harvey, 1981). The utilitarian plants of a cellarer’s garden are also grown, and a small abbot’s pleasure garden contains ornamental plants of the period, and a fishpond or servatorium. There are turf-topped seats and a pole tunnel arbour, which will eventually become covered with vines.

372 The Re-creation

of

Small Period Gardens for Museums and Public Spaces in Britain 8. Brother Cadfael’s Garden at The Shrewsbury Quest, constructed in 1994 on the site of the former monastic buildings, showing wellestablished medicinal herbs, trellis fences, the re-created wooden Cloisters, and the Abbey church beyond.

The design and construction was complicated on the one hand by English Heritage restrictions regarding root and post-hole damage to possible building remains beneath, and, on the other hand, Health and Safety requirements which stipulated that the industrially contaminated soil over the whole site had to be replaced to a depth of 50cm, which inconveniently delayed the construction. Fortunately the future gardener had been appointed, and in the absence of any landscape architect’s support he nobly monitored the project, and in particular the quality of the new soil. Watering is by hosepipe. The paid gardener is present full time, acting also as interpreter, and is assisted in gardening by two virtually unpaid handicapped helpers. Plant labels are supplied in all but the ornamental abbot’s garden, and a brochure is being prepared (1995).

SYLVIA LANDSBERG The Petersfield

373

Physic Garden

11 a The High Street, Petersfield, Hants. Garden size: 60 X 120 feet. Constructed in 1989. Open daily. No charge. Landscape architects: Hugh Watson Associates, using a design based on a sketch plan by S. Landsberg, with additional research by Friends of the Physic Garden. This undeveloped burgage town plot was given to the people of Petersfield by a private donor. It is held in trust by the Hampshire Gardens Trust which appointed the Friends of Petersfield Physic Garden. These voluntary organisations have fund-raised for the layout, and for an interpretation centre, and continue to maintain it. The name is associated with the seventeenth-century botanist doctor, John Goodyer, quoted in Gerard’s Herbal, and who lived in Petersfield. It has been designed as a pattern of rectangular beds typical of the period, brick-edged following a contemporary Hampshire writer’s instructions. The beds are filled with native plants which have medicinal uses, each numbered with reference to a master key plan. A fine central sundial has been carved in stone, based on a seventeenth-century illustration, and surroundall the roses are of the ing beds contain herbaceous plants, and shrubs; period. A small knot bed has the pattern of the owner’s own heraldic knot, the design of which, by happy coincidence, was chosen as the winner of a national competition which by its publicity helped to swell the funds. The garden was laid out by landscape professionals, and planted by volunteers who now maintain the garden, involving about 12-14 hours a week. They also act as interpreters when present. Although the garden is often unmanned during the day, vandalism has to date been mainly restricted to children climbing in overnight. An irrigation system has been installed.

Sir Roger

Vaughan’s

Garden

Tretower Court, Tretower, Crickhowell, Powys, Wales NP8 IRE Garden size: 60 X 100 feet. Constructed in 1991. Open 9.30a.m.-6p.m. in summer; to 3.30 p.m. in winter. Sundays 2 p.m.-6 p.m. Entrance charge. Research and design: Elisabeth Whittle. The garden lies within the castle curtilage and is owned by Cadw, Welsh Monuments, who funded its construction, constructed it, and maintain it. The re-created garden relates to the lifestyle of the fifteenth-century royalist courtier who owned it. It displays an area enclosed by diagonal lath fencing which contains turf seats, and another with a checkerboard of grass squares and herbaceous beds. There is also an electrically pumped bowl fountain, timberframed tunnel arbours supporting vines and roses, and a flowering mead area with seats built round tree trunks. The site did not have problems regarding underlying foundations, but it has been a hard battle to improve the clay soil. The stone bed edgings and the timber, rather than pole, tunnel arbours are good choices from a maintenance point of view. The keen paid gardener works some twenty hours a week (and more off site), acting also as an enthusiastic guide. The plants are not labelled, but there is a

374

The

Re-creation

of Small Period

Gardens for Museums

and

Public

Spaces in Britain

leaflet with a plant list available. A collection of photographs of common plants is being built up. Watering is adequately done by hosepipe. [Editors’ Note: Sylvia Landsberg’s book, The Medieval Garden, is scheduled for publication by the British Museum Press, London, ISBN 0 7141 2080 4, 12 February 19961 Select Bibliography Harvey, J. H., Mediaeval Restoring

Period

Gardens Tudor

London (Batsford), 1981, (2nd edition 1991) (Shire Publications), 1988 (2nd edition 1993) Garden, 1982, (leaflet, available from The Tudor House Museum

Gardens,

Landsberg, S., The address given above). ‘Tudor House, Southampton’, in The Conservtion of Historic Gardens-Proceedings of a Symposium of the Garden History Society and the Ancient Monuments Society, 1984. Queen Eleanor’s Garden, 1986, (leaflet, available from The Great Hall, address given above).

‘A Tudor

Reprise’ (The Tudor Garden), The Garden, Vol. 120: 3, 1995, pp. 157-161. Garden, London (British Museum Press), 1995. ‘Bayleaf-A Yeoman’s Vegetable Garden’, The Garden, Vol. 121: 6, 1996. Whittle, E. (ed), The Conservation of Historic Gardens in Europe-Proceedings of the Garden History Society and University of York Conference, 1995 Whittle, E. and Robinson, R., Sir Roger Vaughan’s Garden, 1991 (leaflet, available from Tretower Court address given above). The

Medieval

Photo Credits Sylvia Landsberg, Southampton, except 8., by Trisha Walters, Shrewsbury.