Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

BENJAMIN WALLER
Block 1, Building 16

The plans for this garden were drawn in November, 1950 by Alden Hopkins and Don Parker in consultation with Arthur Shurcliff. The principle feature of a central arbor, surrounded with four diamond-shaped parterres, was derived from a plan of the original gardens in this location drawn by Miss Luty Blow, a great-granddaughter of the builder, Judge Benjamin Waller. The original Waller garden was a recreation of an 18th-century, Blow family garden at Tower Hill in Sussex County, Virginia. Tradition says that a Blow lady, who married into the Waller family, created it to keep alive memories of her happy childhood at Tower Hill.

BASSETTT HALL
Block 1, Building 22

Beginning in 1929, there were 62 landscape plans concerning Bassett Hall. They reflect the frequent changes and alterations following the annual trips and residency periods of the Rockefeller family, who were deeply interested and very much involved with all that was done at this location. To a large degree, results reflect the particular choices and desires of the Rockefellers, who were usually shown a variety of possible schemes for an area or feature—all compatible with 18th-century usage—and chose the one most appealing to them.

Concerning precedent for garden features at this site, Shurcliff's correspondence reveals the following facts, which are generally given in chronological order.

"Position of old outbuildings is characteristic. Location of turnaround at front door is known. Plan for the ground is based on these facts and on the assumption that the expected tenant … would like an arrangement of gardens recalling old work in the South."(Shurcliff letter, 12 April 1929, to Arthur Woods [Clyde's office])

"Regarding the circle to the front door, I drew this following the indications of an ancient circle which appears on the ground and which the family say was obliterated about twenty-five years ago."

(Shurcliff letter, 19 March 1931, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn [CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2])

Several letters involve "the circle of [paper] Mulberry trees which was said to surround Bassett Hall once upon a time." (Shurcliff letter, 1 June 1931, to Arthur F. Perkins [CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2]) Alice C. Smith, who lived at Bassett Hall before the Restoration, writes describing mulberry trees extending across the back of the house and on each side (Letter, 11 June 1931, to Shurcliff) [CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 20]. This information was relayed to Perkins, Shurcliff's assistant, with a notation that it "will be of use in restoring the old layout." (Shurcliff letter, 15 June 1931, to Perkins [CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2)]

A Shurcliff telegram, 9 November 1931, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn notes "… my old Bassett Hall garden of last year which Mr. David [John D. Rockefeller, Jr.] liked fits your revised scheme for mansion arranged with plan like Tuckahoe …" (CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2) In a 13 December 1935 letter to Mrs. N. A. Baker, a prospective purchaser of the Tuckahoe estate, Shurcliff mentions his own measured landscape plans for upwards of 100 southern places. Congratulating her on the expected ownership, he observed: "The arrangement of the grounds is one of the most authentic of all the old places. Many … were rearranged a hundred years ago, but those which escaped these changes were forced to run the gauntlet of neglect which followed the War between the states. Then came the new naturalistic School of Planning which spoiled so many of the early layouts … I found Tuckahoe one of the most interesting of all the places and one which preserved more faithfully than others the earmarks of the ancient designs."("Southern Places" folder, Clyde's office)

An extract from a Shurcliff letter discusses the Bassett Hall landscaping. "… studied Box layout of Dr. Van Garrett and Lottie Garrett to see the extent to which the box display proposed for Bassett Hall garden would be comparable. Was not sure that an orangery would be attractive or useful remembering the one at Versailles, but on glancing at the one at the Vest House and on hearing of the one at Wye House (Md.) thought the idea might have some merit …" (Shurcliff letter, 27 May 1931, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn [CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2)]

A Shurcliff letter, 10 November 1931, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn mentions that the utility building on the southeast side corresponds to buildings on the "Frenchman's Map." He continues: "Mr. Rockefeller showed some interest in the proposed orangery, which in relation to the garden occupies a position like the one at Wye House. This building would make a very delightful place to sit in the winter as it would face the south and might have attractive flowering plants, including oranges, arranged within. With regard to the Box… the thought has been to use fine Restoration Box here rather generously so this place would be one of the most interesting, if not the finest, as far as Box is concerned, barring the great Tree Box at the Palace."(CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll. Box 2)

An Arthur Woods letter, 27 November 1931, to Kenneth Chorley states: "Nelson [Rockefeller] called me up this morning and said … his mother felt strongly that she did not want an elaborate box garden; she has too much formal garden to take care of now at Pocantico. Tentatively, she thought there might be box on the long path, but not anywhere else."(CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2)

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. writes on 16 December 1931, to Shurcliff: "Mrs. Rockefeller approves and I authorize the planting of the box hedge either side of the vista from the gardens of Bassett Hall which looks toward the woods."(CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2) Also, Mrs. Rockefeller asked if a line of trees could grow together with the box along the vista to which Shurcliff replied that both would thrive due to the hot southern sun.

Shurcliff, in a 21 December 1931 letter to Rockefeller, observes: "One of the most attractive features which I anticipate in this garden will be the combination of very large trees which are already growing in the garden will be the combination of very large trees which are already growing in the garden and the smaller rows of new flowering trees in association with the box, in contrast with the flowers overhead, is very captivating and is characteristic of the old gardens in the South." He goes on to strongly recommend using a box hedge on both sides of the garden at right angles with the vista hedge. Such a plan "encloses this portion of the garden very pleasantly and in the Southern manner."(CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2)

Shurcliff notes that a photograph and working drawing of the Wye House Orangery in Maryland is contained in the Monograph Series edited and published by Russell F. Whitehead, fol. XVI, no. 5. (Shurcliff letter, 14 March 1932, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn [CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2)]

Shurcliff, in an 8 February 1933 letter to Chorley, discusses the importance of the square dooryard developed separately from the carriage entrance drive and says that it is authentic according to Virginia precedents. Only two houses in Williamsburg—Bassett Hall and Tazewell Hall—are set back far enough to take on the appearance of a typical Southern home of the country type. Bassett Hall has always been the seat of ^a large landholder and it is to be expected that it would have the usual front yard near the house and then an axial carriage approach through the rough. To retain a separation of front yard and approach through the rough. To retain a separation of front yard and approach as expressed by the fence adds interest and dignity. Shurcliff notes that front yards were common at the largest places—Marmion, Mt. Airy, Westover, Ash Lawn, etc.—even though generally of small size and cut across by the approach drive. He concludes that: "The purpose of front yards throughout Virginia appears to have been to keep cattle away from the houses."(CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2) At this point, the folder contains photostats of his measured landscape plans for Delk Farm and Pleasant Point, both of which have approaches comparable to that at Bassett Hall. Later, he wrote: "At Bassett Hall … the avenue of approach, the front yard, the long vista into the woodlands, the larger gardens, give a hint of the grand manner of the old Virginia plantations."(Shurcliff letter, 13 February 1940, to T. Rutherfoord Goodwin [from "Garden Data for Guide Book," Clyde's office)]

Shurcliff bases the design for the front fence at Bassett Hall on a "scalloped pattern which showed on one of the water color drawings which Mr. Rockefeller bought in England."(Shurcliff letter, 21 June 1933, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn [CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 2)]

Correspondence and four sketches concerning a south gate at the end of the box-edged, woods vista were studied in 1937. Thought was given to having some livestock and the problem arose of preserving views into or across pastures without necessary fences cutting across sight lines. Shurcliff observes that, in instances at Wye House and Mount Vernon, the question was solved by ha-ha walls and at Upper Bremo by a ha-ha ditch.(Shurcliff letter, 18 November 1937, to Kenneth Chorley [Clyde's office])

Following is a Shurcliff letter, 26 March 1934, with a short discussion of the Bassett Hall landscaping to a guide for the grounds during Garden Week.

SEMPLE HOUSE (William Finnie)
Block 2, Building 7

Drawings, dated 30 March 1929, exist with an elaborate system of symmetrically arranged box parterres on the western third of the rear yard. These were never carried out but correspondence does exist presumably referring to the design. Shurcliff, writing to Arthur Woods, says: "Arrangement of grounds is based on description of tenant … It is felt that this place deserves rather generous treatment of the grounds in view of its historic significance." (Letter, 24 April, 1929; Shurcliff Coll., Clyde's Office)

A later (1931) "Minimum Plan for Peyton Randolph" [early name for Semple House] has a centrally located box parterre on each side of the central walk to the south in the rear yard. The first two squares center on circular forms, with the back two containing diamond-shaped forms. Again, this formation seems never to have been carried out.

Another drawing of the same year shows the complex as developed with what came to be labelled "4 turf parterres" in the 15 August 1951 landscape layout drawn by Alden Hopkins and executed in consultation with Shurcliff. The following Shurcliff letter seems to describe the grounds as developed. Studying his proposed plans with Shaw and Hepburn, he writes: "… after looking over the measured plan recently made of Marmion they agreed with Mr. Perry and me that the plan proposed for the path system for Peyton Randolph should be carried out as shown in the ink lines … I think it would be wise in the quadrangle bounded by the group of buildings to make all the paths of brick as at Marmion." (Letter, 16 November 1931, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, CWF Archives, Shurcliff Coll., Box 26, "Landscaping—Semple, 1934/37")

Concerning the unimplemented, elaborate box garden to the west, Shurcliff writes: "Pattern of garden is adapted from Box Garden at Tuckahoe" (Letter, 24 April 1929 ["Regarding Landscape Development of Williamsburg Places"], to Arthur Woods) .

MOODY HOUSE
Block 2, Building 31

A rough, pencil plan of the grounds as they existed in the early 20th-century exists as drawn by a former resident, Miss Laetitia Roper of Richmond. While a Shurcliff letter to Goodwin refers to it "as a guide for the future layout" (CWF Archives, Perry, Shaw, Hepburn—Boston, Box 15, "Lee House" [Letter, 25 January 1929]) , the plan evidently represents the later period exclusively, because it bears little relation to the present design.

The Shurcliff plans of 1939/40—which were carried out—exist largely the same today, except that a paved arbor shown behind the dairy and smokehouse is no longer in place and the paved service court immediately behind the house was reduced in size to create a turf panel beneath the large beech tree. Minimal alterations by Don Parker in 1977 involved additional trees and an expanded garden reshaped from the earlier rectangular plan to an oval, together with two garden benches, in the south garden area.

ORRELL HOUSE
Block 2, Building 38

Simple Shurcliff plans, drawn in 1929/30, provide for a perimeter privet hedge, two hollies, a magnolia, and system of brick walks. A 1929 survey of existing conditions shows the central rear garden walk as an original feature which existed before restoration was begun. Concerning the walks, Shurcliff correspondence says: "the old splayed brick walk in front of the McCandlish House [early name for Orrell] is rather old and attractive. I say lets keep it as is …" (CWF Archives, Perry, Shaw, Hepburn-Boston, Box 15, "McCandlish House" [Shurcliff letter, 14 June 1929, to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn]). Another contemporary, and evidently unimplemented sketch, shows vegetable gardens and fruit trees with a central walk and bench—all located in the extreme southern section of the rear yard.

A 1936 Shurcliff plan gives the garden its present configuration. It provides for an elaboration of the grounds with a central grass panel enclosed in what appears to be dwarf box, together with installation of a bench on the south axis. The triangular, paved area in front of the kitchen was added in 1948 by Alden Hopkins.

Concerning the early layout, Shurcliff writes: "Old foundations of walks and buildings control this design… Future garden development after the manner of the Audrey [Brush-Everard] garden with similar arrangement of fences and trees" (from typescript booklet, "Letter to Colonel Arthur Woods from Arthur A. Shurtleff regarding Landscape Development of Williamsburg Places," 24 April 1929).

THE QUARTER
Block 2, Building 48

Only minimal landscape plans from 1929/30 by Shurcliff exist. These involve a perimeter hedge along the eastern property line and planting of two parcels of box immediately west of the house. Shurcliff's letter, "Regarding Landscape Development of Williamsburg Places" (24 April 1929) to Arthur Woods says: "… the ultimate design is based upon analogy."

BRACKEN HOUSE
Block 2, Building 52

The Shurcliff landscape drawing from 1936 was apparently never implemented. It shows a central walk with bilateral paths, intersected by three others, to form four rectangular grass panels centered on peach trees and with seats at the ends of the central side path. Although no plan for the existing scheme is contained within the files, it appears that the present design was developed following demolition of the modern kitchen wing to the southwest sometime after 1940.

Concerning the reasoning behind Shurcliff's design, he writes that: "Much knowledge of the old layout was secured from Mr. Clark, the old shoemaker who lived on this property before the Civil War and who remembers the height, location and fences. He states the rear grounds at that time were used for a tannery and that there were then no gardens or flowers" (from typescript booklet, Letter to Colonel Arthur Woods from Arthur A. Shurtleff regarding Landscape Development of Williamsburg Places," 24 April 1929).

LIGHTFOOT HOUSE:
Block 3, Building 10

Shurcliff drew up a plan of this site, labelled "Existing Conditions Dr. Goodwin's House," which shows a relatively undeveloped yard. The first, full-scale landscape plan showing conditions much as they are today was drawn by Shurcliff in 1940. Minor changes were made in 1961 by Don Parker when a reconstructed necessary house and garden benches were added.

The only available Shurcliff correspondence concerning the location dates from the 40's. Discussing the garden immediately behind the house, he says: "At the south two straight paths are arranged, the thought being one would be for service, the other for the master's approach" (CWF Archives, Block 3, Bldg. 10, "Allen-Byrd Landscaping" [Letter, 23 May 1940, to A. Edwin Kendrew]) Several months later, he writes that he has shifted the "northerly kitchen gate a little more to the north to come opposite the bulkhead, believing it would express the ancient relation of the kitchen garden to the basement of the mansion, through which basement the service to the dining room upstairs might have led" (CWF Archives, Block 3, Bldg. 10, "Allen-Byrd Landscaping" [Letter, 16 July 1940, to A. Edwin Kendrew]). Documentation suggests that arrangements here were especially thoroughly checked by Perry, Chorley, and ultimately approved by Mr. Rockefeller.

PALMER HOUSE
Block 9, Building 24

There are several Shurcliff drawings done in 1933 for about garden to be located immediately to the west of the house. Enclosed within an original existing brick wall, one has two garden areas—a central, grass circle edged with box and a rectangular lawn, edged with symmetrically arranged cedars, leading to a conservatory. This was an existing 1850's orangery, since wrecked. A variant of this box garden has a circular, compartmented plan with paths radiating from a central sundial. Evidently, neither design was ever carried out. A drawing of existing conditions by Shurcliff in 1929, shows sections of brick garden walks in excellent condition at the rear of the south dooryard.

A Moorehead drawing of 1934 shows the Blair Street line which formerly ran just east of the house at a right angle to Duke of Gloucester Street. The garden in this location, and currently associated with this site, was created by Hopkins in 1951.

Shurcliff says: "These already attractive grounds are only slightly changed to make them more convenient and to attempt to restore the garden which is said to have occupied the grounds south of the existing Orangery. The cruciform paths which were discovered during the excavation on the south lawn are said by the present tenant to be very modern." ("Letter to Colonel Arthur Woods from Arthur A. Shurtleff regarding Landscape Development of Williamsburg Place," 24 April 1929, typescript booklet)

GEORGE REID HOUSE (Modern Name)
CAPTAIN ORR'S GARDEN

Copy from the Office of Arthur A. Shurcliff.

Duke of Gloucester Street, corner of Colonial Street No. 18 on the key map.

The Orr Garden ranks second to the Brush Garden in the age of some of its box hedges which have stood in this garden since early times. Still remaining in its ancient axial position, leads the path to the south door of the house. Nearby stands the ancient wellhouse, and an old outbuilding. A fowl-house may be seen which though less than a century in age, is of the type used in colonial times.

The intimacy of the garden and outbuildings with the everyday life of the colonial household is well exemplified and the place has required little restoration. To save space, the ancient paths were made straight and narrow, and were placed for the most direct communication but always with an aim to avoid curves which were rarely used by the planners of those days. Shade trees were needed under the high sun of this latitude, but the sheer beauty of trees, flowering plants, and box was not overlooked for its own sake as an essential in the everyday life. The Captain's smithy stood in the southerly unrestored part of the lot and nearby was stable and paddock. Fruit trees and a vegetable garden were included.

If evidences other than the orderly layout of this plot of ground are needed to show the artistic sense of the townsman, the visitor should notice the architectural niceties of the dwelling and even of the well-house. The gate latches resemble those at Mount Vernon.

from Shurcliff, "Garden for Guide Book" (typescript booklet), 13 February 1940

CUSTIS-MAUPIN HOUSE
Block 13, Building 26-A

The elaborate box parterre immediately west of the house first appears on a 1931 Shurcliff layout. The material is specified as dwarf box and the design incorporates four Crosses of St. Andrew. A 1933 "Maupin House Flower Garden Plan" specifies the panels to be planted with sweet marjoram, sternbergia, phlox, ranunculus, columbine, snapdragon, sweet William lavender, iris, gladiolus, lychnis, achillea, poppies, doronicum, pinks rosemary, thyme, crysanthemum, eupatorium, fall crocus, wallflowers, mint, and flax. A Hopkins landscape plan of 1960 notes that the parterre garden area is to be held undisturbed.

The following information is all that exists in early correspondence files concerning the development of gardens at this site. Items are from CWF Archives, Block/Bldg. Files, "Maupin-Dixon." Arthur F. Perkins writes Shurcliff on 25 August 1931 that: "Miss Maupin told me that she remembered her mother's having told her that a long time ago, within the memory of her mother but not within her own, there were terraces in the rear of the Maupin lot." A Shurcliff letter, 25 September 1931, to Perkins says: "Attached … is a scheme for the Maupin garden, which as you see is moved up near the street in accordance with the wish of Colonel Woods and Mr. Chorley, and approved by Mr. Perry, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Hepburn in New York and Boston at a second conference today." Later information from minutes shows that this was done "with the idea of visibility of the garden particularly in mind" (Extract from minutes of conference held in New York, 25 Sep. 1931). A Chorley letter to Shurcliff advises that the plan "seemed very good" to Mr. Rockefeller who, also, specifically asks that a large crepe myrtle be planted in the yard.

Summarizing the research work and precedents for the layout at this location, Shurcliff states that Sauthier's 18th-century maps of North Carolina were consulted for patterns of the gardens; that the brick and gravel paths and their location were chiefly assumed; and, concerning the flower gardens, that: "18th century existence in doubt, Present flower garden assumed" (Shurcliff letter, 10 February 1940, "Record of Landscaping," to Kenneth Chorley [Typescript pamphlet]) .

TALIAFERRO-COLE
Block 13, Building 40

In 1940 Shurcliff landscape plan, although having the same configuration, contains a greater diversity of plants than today. The earlier vegetable garden and vineyard areas appear larger than at present.

Meager correspondence in the Foundation Archives has uncovered the following information concerning design development:

Shurcliff, in a 3 January 1941 letter, to Albert Edwin Kendrew comments that: "It would be amusing to add a parapet of brick to the retaining wall if that could be justified." This item was approved. He goes on to suggest a "diaphanous" fence along the Duke of Gloucester Street sidewalk in order to give the greatest possible visibility to the garden. A later notation at the side says: "No; Millington print shows board fence."

A Kendrew memorandum to files, 20 May 1941, discusses objections to the fence form, which ultimately was developed, and explains that it "had been designed following indications on the water color drawing by Millington dated 1834. Further, this fence coincided in design with the early nineteenth century period of the house … Civil War photographs showed that fences of this kind were prevalent throughout the section in the nineteenth century."

Another Kendrew letter, 14 January 1941, to Shurcliff observes that property line fences "should be 4' 6" high in accordance with general eighteenth century ordinances."

Shurcliff offers an illuminating detail, in a 15 January 1941 letter to Kendrew, when he notes his delight at recent approval to vary "the pattern to accentuate the foot-ways and to indicate changes and additions were made during the many years." (This information was all taken from: CWF Archives, Block 13, Bldg. 40, "Taliaferro-Cole")

BRYAN HOUSE
Block 14, Building 15-A

Drawings show that the elaborate gardens immediately west of the house evolved from a simple, symmetrically arranged "fruit and flower garden" containing grass panels edged by box in July, 1941, through a more complicated, formal, quincuncial arrangement of four beds and central round box, to today's plan of quincuncial center with two rectangular, box-edged panels at the lateral ends. The earlier layouts are by Shurcliff, and the third—obviously developed from them—was drawn by Alden Hopkins in consultation with Shurcliff in December, 1941. A sketch for the topiary hen and chickens, now in place, is dated July, 1968 and is without notation as to its creator.

Concerning development of the landscape scheme, research in the Foundation Archives uncovered the following correspondence:

Alden Hopkins, in a 16 October 1941 letter to Shurcliff, writes: "We found from excavations that an old fence (post hole) line had existed along the west boundary which accurately determined its direction and southwest corner… By checking with the Sauthier maps of North Carolina towns and their house and garden relationship and designs, I have evolved a typical period layout." He goes on to discuss the garden in the center of which "is a small bird house on a decorative post copied from an old eighteenth century one on the Eastern Shore … The dwarf pear at the corners would repeat the character so often seen in Kip's engravings and other old prints of having the shrub or tub or plant at the corners of the beds."

Discussing his own "scholarly approach to find a solution to landscape layout," Shurcliff, in a 28 November 1941 letter, writes Kendrew that "… the Sauthier plans show that the transverse cross axes were generally arranged symmetrically even though nearby buildings were highly unsymmetrical in relation to the garden pattern."

An illuminating detail is contained in a Shurcliff letter, 20 January 1942, to Kendrew. "Suggested to Mr. Hopkins that the path with the most elaborate brick patterns reminiscent of marmion would be the more appropriate if placed parallel with the south side of the main house, thus connecting the south steps with the street and garden." (All letters taken from: CWF Archives, Block 14, Bldg. 15-A, "Bryan House")

PRENTIS HOUSE
Block 17, Building 11-A

There is an extant "Sketch showing Layout of Prentis House, Grounds and Dependencies in 1765 based on excavated original Foundations and Documents" drawn by S. P. Moorehead and dated 30 September 1937. This shows the rectangular, rear garden configuration, which was later developed by Shurcliff. Shurcliff's landscape plan is dated 7 December 1938 and uses the earlier information as a basis on which to design a "large garden," "east garden," paddock, and peach orchard. The axial walkway from the rear door extends through the parterre, past the stable to Nicholson Street. At the center is a formal box garden, centered on quadruple panels planted with roses. The two end panels are centered with pear trees.

Research in the CWF Archives uncovered no additional material. However, Shurcliff's detailed explication of the garden development for this site mentions that the "Frenchman's Map" was used in fence placement and that Sauthier's maps of North Carolina towns (1769)—especially Edenton—also show use of garden "squares" (Shurcliff letter, 10 February 1940, "Record of Landscaping," to Kenneth Chorley.

The principal guide and source of inspiration was Joseph Prentis' "Garden Book" with entries covering the years 1784 through 1788, together with his "Monthly Kalender," or garden record for the years 1775-1779, which particularly concerns planting of vegetables and their necessary monthly care. The paths, Shurcliff says, are also based on this manuscript description of his garden by Prentis. Further, Shurcliff continues: "Pages 1-6 of the "Garden Book" determined the layout of the garden as now restored. The old garden was divided into 'squares,' one being 'next chimney.' Another 'square' is referred to as 'next Street.' These two 'squares," one to contain Rape Seed and the other Carrots cast light on the layout in combination with the notations that there was an 'East Garden' and a 'Large Garden'" (Shurcliff letter, 10 February 1940, op. cit.) Immediately following are two Shurcliff letters concerning this garden.

PITT-DIXON HOUSE
Block 18, Building 4-B

Shurcliff's 11 June 1936 "Landscape Plan" contains a stableyard, fruit garden, flower garden, vegetable garden, and grass plot. The flower garden is composed of a sequence of four rectangular panels—box-edged and centered with tree box. Crepe myrtles and Russian olives are also included.

Concerning the paths here, Shurcliff writes that: "the design was determined by the position of fences, the remains of old terrace slopes, and the doors to the several buildings. In addition, a rectangular checkerboard was assumed to be appropriate to the station of the owner." (Shurcliff letter, 13 February 1940, "Garden Data for Guidebook," to T. Rutherfoord Goodwin [Typescript pamphlet in Clyde's office]) No material was found in the CWF Archives concerning this site.

LUDWELL-PARADISE HOUSE
Block 18, Building 7

A September, 1928 preliminary sketch landscape plan exists showing a configuration completely different from what was ultimately done. A bifurcated path leads from the back door to formally arranged "flower garden" located approximately where the present-day reconstructed Kitchen now sits. Surveys and archaeological studies from the early '30s show the existence of diagonal walks from the Kitchen to the privy and well. These were incorporated into Shurcliff's 30 January 1931 landscape plan, which shows the axial walk which today leads from the house to the box gardens. Originally, this walk was laid continuing through the center of the boxwoods to the stable yard. The configuration of the parterre was in six panels. Each of the middle two contained semicircular growths of box with the four end panels having straight runs of box along the walk. Evidently, these became overgrown and, in 1949, were revised by Alden Hopkins in consultation with Shurcliff. The central brick walk and crosswalks were removed and areas of the box were relocated forming the configuration as it is today with a central grass panel and lateral gravel paths. Following is Shurcliff description of the design evolution of the gardens which states that the precedent for the original parterre was early gardens at Port Royal.

THE RED LION
Block 18, Building 23-A

Research indicates that archaeological work was done early in 1938 so that landscape plans could be more authentically developed. A Shurcliff letter, 26 July 1938, to Kenneth Chorley describes somewhat this development. He says: "Last week at Williamsburg I thought out with Mr. Kendrew's scheme for landscaping the Blair place and am drawing this to scale to go over with Mr. Perry when he returns … The unusual contour of the ground suggests 18th century grading and I am using this in hope of developing a garden different from any we have built."

Another Shurcliff letter gives insight into the original conception of use for the principal garden feature. In a 10 August 1936 letter to Chorley, he explains: "The sunken grass panel would be used for 18th century games like those listed by Mrs. Bullock, perhaps Four Corners, a species of bowling, or Pall Mall, a variety of croquet with only one wicket."

A 24 October 1938 Shurcliff drawing of an octagonal sunken panel in the ground at the rear of this site was incorporated into his landscape plan of the same year. This last plan includes the bifurcated walkway from the back door to the rectangular garden and, beyond it, a horseshoe-shaped flower garden surrounded by hemlock. The sunken grass panel at the center is unique in the Historic Area and relatively sophisticated due to the canted seat locations at the four corners.

Further garden details are covered by the following excerpts from a Shurcliff letter, 17 December 1943, to A. Edwin Kendrew. "… we [Shurcliff and W. G. Perry] advise Live Oaks around the north, east and west sides of the garden with 'returns' of four oaks in what might be called the Plaisance immediately north of the house. The twenty-two trees [live oaks] surrounding the garden would be allowed to grow together as an aerial hedge in the 18th century manner, as originally intended by the garden scheme, being an attractive treatment we have not used elsewhere in Williamsburg and which would be specially appropriate here because the central panels of the garden are sunken. The adjacent foliage would unite. Headroom would be maintained everywhere from 6½ to 7 feet and the tops would be kept as low and as narrow in spread as the thrift of the trees will allow. All letters referred to above are from CWF Archives, Block 18, Bldg. 23-A, "Dr. Blair's House."

The letter immediately following seems to explain why a brick wall was constructed at this location, aside from the fact that the Advisory Board of Architects recommended several such walls along Duke of Gloucester Street.

GEORGE WYTHE HOUSE
Block 21, Building 4

The chronology of landscape development as reflected in drawings presently available in the Architectural Drawings Archive is as follow. "Existing Conditions at Wythe House," 1 December 1928, drawn by Arthur Perkins for Shurcliff, notes: "sections of brick path excavated" in the area immediately behind the house and on axis with the door. "Ultimate Layout for Wythe House" 11 March 1929, shows the area directly behind the house as an open, rectangular grass panel, with three formal parterres to the south along the Bruton Churchyard wall.

Shurcliff's own abbreviated explanation of this early garden design—which was never carried out—is contained in his 24 April 1929 letter, "Regarding Landscape Development of Williamsburg Places," to Col. Arthur Woods. He says: "Design is based on foundations of old well, old shed and the foundations which have been preserved at the north. Other records indicating the ancient layout of the place may be found. Until such time, the proposed design should be considered as tentative. The three gardens are in the manner of those at Westover …"

"Landscape Plan," 20 June 1929, has the entire central, rear yard labelled "The Green." An axial, central walk leads through the first half leaving the westernmost portion as an uninterrupted grass panel. The area next to Bruton is shown as "Vegetable Garden" and ground immediately south of the house, near the well, is noted as "Herb Garden." An arbor is shown at the west end of the green, and two garden houses on the southern periphery. This design was, evidently, largely carried out.

Alden Hopkins, in a 1960 design, demolished the extreme western end of the open, grass panel and the arbor, dovecote, etc. were moved closer to the house.

Research in the Foundation Archives uncovered the following information. A. E. Kendrew, in a 23 June 1939 letter to Shurcliff, explains the rationale behind construction of the fence running from the north house facade to the west. "…the Frenchman's Map clearly shows a fence here. Further, it will have the advantage of separating even more the long string of service buildings and service yards from the main garden." References in the same file indicate that study was made of recollections concerning a former flower garden at the site by former residents, Mary Sherwell and Kate Millington Blankenship.

In a 29 may 1939 letter to Kendrew, Shurcliff says: "At the end of the lawn I have raised the ground locally 16" to make a raised terrace which might easily have disappeared during the past century or more by modern gardening operations. Wouldn't it be a good idea to lift the end of the vista in this manner to five a little more character to the termination?" He goes on to say that he espouses "a plain open lawn on the west side flanked by the enclosing high and beautiful hedge and accented by columnar clipped work, or perhaps large shade trees." These shade trees—sycamores—were later planted, but have since been mostly removed due to their overwhelming scale.

An interesting conjecture is implied in a 24 January 1940 letter from Shurcliff to T. Rutherfoord Goodwin. He observes that paths have been built on sites discovered through excavation. Further, Shurcliff says: "These paths imply the Mall and its flanking trees, an implication characteristic of Virginia in the 18th century."

Following implementation of the first landscape plan, there are several references to the fact that Mr. Rockefeller wanted the central grass area made more elaborate—perhaps articulated with topiary trees. Shurcliff, in a 2 March 1940 letter to Kendrew, describes a visit he and Kenneth Chorley made to the site. "He felt, and I agree, that we ought to brace up the layout so it would not look so uninteresting and thin. We seem to have overdone the simplicity attributable to George Wythe. He goes on to advocate clipped trees along the mall as in "Britannia Illustrata." Concerning this feature, Shurcliff wrote Chorley on 2 March 1940 that he "worked out a scheme for the Mall which will cheer it up but not beyond a reasonable George Wythe simplicity." Incidentally, the Research Department determined at the time that Shurcliff's favored term of "Mall," in reference to the open greensward, was improperly used. Clipped hemlocks were soon after installed and later died.

An intriguing notes from Fiske Kimball to Caroline Sinkler of Ambler, Pennsylvania on 1 April 1940 asks permission for Shurcliff to visit her gardens at "The Highlands." He assures her that it is the "best model for a Southern air in maintenance." Exactly how or what way this site may have influenced work on the Wythe garden remains unknown.

W. G. Perry, in a 16 January 1940 letter to Kendrew, describes his own desire to enhance and emphasize original features, while downgrading the hypothetical and unproven. Brick walks were to be used as far west as the central cross walk [now removed], as archaeological evidence proved they once were. The remainder of the walks continued to and through the western arbor in marl.

All of the letters referred to above are from CWF Archives' Shurcliff Collection or Block/Bldg. files. The following Shurcliff letter elucidates further the work at this site.

JOHN BLAIR HOUSE
Block 22, Building 5

Concerning the early landscape layout, which bears little relationship to what exists on the site today, Shurcliff writes: "Derived from analogy as little or no basic data has been found." (Shurcliff letter, 24 April 1929, "Landscape Development of Williamsburg Places," to Col. Arthur Woods)

The earliest (1932) plans show only simple, symmetrical lanes of trees running from south to north at the rear of the house. Following discovery of the insurance policy showing the kitchen's location, principal garden interest was shifted to the area between the house and reconstructed outbuilding along Duke of Gloucester Street.

Correspondence between Shurcliff and Helen Bullock, of the Research Department, throws some light on the resulting development. In a 13 March 1937 letter to Shurcliff, Mrs. Bullock writes urging creation of a kitchen "herb and phskick" garden at this location. "I am to be the tenant of the Blair Kitchen and my enthusiasm for this development is influenced not only by my historical interest on the subject of kitchen gardens but by my own personal enthusiasm." Shurcliff refers to this idea for an herb garden as "first-rate" in an 18 March 1937 letter to Perry, Shaw and Hepburn. Recently in New York City, he continues, he "ran across an ancient herb garden design which could be applied to this plot of ground. Throughout most of the year, herbs are disappointing in appearance and consequently I think we should need the four clipped trees which I proposed to Mr. Perry … This would give a note of character and would reinforce the rectangularity of the plot of ground and the pattern of the paths." Mrs. Bullock, in a 4 May 1937 letter to Shurcliff, suggests drawing plants from John Randolph's Treatise on Gardening of ca. 1765. Randolph lived nearby at Tazewell Hall and describes a similar garden there.

Shurcliff's garden scheme, ultimately carried out, is dated 16 April 1937 and shows half of the garden which we see today—a quincuncial design formed by paths and having a diamond-shaped center. Ten specimen, clipped box are specified. The herbs included in the kitchen garden are: anise, aconite, thyme, pennyroyal, sheep mint, selfheal, camomille, betony, sweet basil, citronella, chives, and feverfew. In December, 1940, the garden design was repeated west of the central entrance path forming the configuration we have today.

COKE-GARRETT HOUSE
Block 27, Building 1

Shurcliff's "Measured Plan," August, 1928, shows two brick paths on the west side of the house at the rear. These walks, leading north, were incorporated into the landscape plan and still exist today. The "Proposed Plan for Grounds of Garrett House," 7 September 1928, has several garden areas including a triangular flower and box-edged garden in the southwest front corner of the property. Another elaborate box parterre—resembling the British "Union Jack" in design—is shown to the northwest at the back of the plot. Drawings by Don Parker in 1970 show that the northwest box parterre was removed and a "broad swale and meadow" re-established. The triangular box parterre and paths at the front were also demolished. The triangular box parterre and paths at the front were also demolished at this time. A "new west boxwood garden w/ enclosing fence as per Frenchman's Map" was developed.

An abbreviated explication of the garden development is contained in the following Shurcliff reports concerning the site. "Excavations revealed old brick paths, see survey. Note old rose trellis whose oblique line and peculiar construction were significant, also location of old trees and a single Box bush. Front fence was in fair condition and regarded to be moderately old. Confirmatory evidence regarding layout was received from previous tenants. Proposed design of lower Box Garden based on design of 'Hickory Hill, Virginia.'" (Letter, 24 April 1929, "regarding Landscape Development of Williamsburg Place," to Col. Arthur Woods) . "The rose garden of this place is of the so-called English Flag type. The paths leading to the Coke-Garrett House from the west garden entrance were determined in location and material by old paths which were found by excavating. The paths on the north side of the house were determined in location by the position of the old well" (Letter, 13 February 1940, "Garden Data for Guide Book," to T. Rutherfoord Goodwin) .

Research in the CWF Archives uncovered the following material concerning this site. Shurcliff, in a 19 February 1931 letter to Perry, Shaw, and Hepburn, discusses the extensive use of box. He describes a visit to the gardens with Rockefeller, who remarked that "we might the Lottie Garrett garden" if the Foundation needs them elsewhere later. A sympathy for the authenticity and integrity of the place is shown by Shurcliff's efforts to keep extant plant materials in place where possible and—when removal could not be avoided—save them for reuse at the same site. This same delicacy of approach is reflected in his letter, 7 September 1928, to Perry Shaw, and Hepburn, when he says: "The present brick paths should form the basis of the location for the path extensions and none of the old work should be injured. The new brickwork should conform as closely as possible with the old brickwork, both with regard to width, method of laying and type of brick, though exact duplication of the old brick is not necessary. Where old and new brickwork joins, use some of the brick scattered about the garden to make a gradual transition from old to new."

The following letters, from the Shurcliff Collection in the CWF Archives explain, somewhat, the evolution of the layout through the years. The observation (8 March 1945 letter to A. E. Kendrew) concerning desirability of gardens with an "overgrown" appearance has bearing on the landscape situation at Carter's Grove.

ARCHIBALD BLAIR HOUSE (Grissell Hay Lodging)
Block 29, Building 1

A chronological picture of the development of this site is available from the following drawings in the Architectural Drawings Archive. Shurcliff's "Landscape Record Plan," undated but ca. 1929, shows the path system and service area as it exists today. Also included is the long box-lined walk to the mount, which connects with the Brush gardens. A drawing, "Van Garrett Box Mound," 6 September 1932, executed by F. D. Johnson for Shurcliff, shows the feature planted with a single large box on top. This scheme was evidently never implemented and manuscript drawings of the location appear to place it nearer the house in what is now the South Garden. Shurcliff's "'Mount' on Van Garrett Place," 7 November 1932, shows the feature as it exists today—developed as an overlook for surrounding gardens, with seats and trees at the top.

Research in CWF Archives uncovered the following correspondence concerning this site. Kenneth Chorley, in an 18 November 1929 memorandum to Arthur Woods, notes that the Advisory Committee of Architects has approved Shurcliff's plans for the Brush-Blair gardens. "Mr. Shurcliff," he says, "also explained that they had found direct evidence that the present Audrey box hedge walk extended into the Van Garrett garden on the location in which they are now planting the new box. He tells me that that is very characteristic of the southern Colonial gardens—they are often connected and form a neighborly development of gardens, one running into the other."

Shurcliff, in a 21 May 1930 letter to Perry, Shaw and Hepburn, observes that the several outbuildings form one of the most interesting early house complexes in Williamsburg and encourages that they be saved. Thoughtfully, he notes the "otherwise the extensive place layout, the central position in the town, and the interesting house will lose the support which the present rapidly vanishing design affords."

Arthur F. Perkins, in a 23 September 1932 letter to Shurcliff, refers to "the size of the large specimen box which was removed from the old mount at the Van Garrett place …" Correspondence, and a drawing in the Architectural Drawings Archive, infer that this feature was originally planted with such a bush at its summit.

Another Shurcliff letter of 11 March 1936 to Perry, Shaw, and Hepburn states: "The ancient layout of the Dr. Van Garrett Box Garden included a row of fruit trees outside each row of Box, throughout its whole length. This combination of fruit trees closely planted outside Box hedges we also found on the Lottie Garrett place on the long north-south central path. My measured plans of Virginia places show this arrangement of fruit trees along Box paths is very common."

Letters referred to above are from the Shurcliff Collection and Block/Bldg. files of the CWF Archives. Following is a Shurcliff letter describing the known history of the mount at this site.

BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE
Block 29, Building 10

Shurcliff's "Existing Conditions at Audrey House," 28 November 1928, shows the old box garden as it exists today. Tradition says that it was planted in the 1830s. From this drawing, it appears that the central path was already impassible. Shurcliff's "Plan showing Proposed Paths," 3 January 1936, shows a new brick walk situated to the north of the old box gardens. An extension of these gardens through to the Archibald Blair property is also shown. This scheme connects with the mount and box-edged walk south to the Blair House and Nicholson Street.

Sketch plans by Shurcliff, dated September, 1949, exist for development of symmetrical grass panels bordering each sid of the original box gardens and development of a large vegetable garden immediately northeast of the laundry. Other sketches by Shurcliff of the same year show an elaborate parterre to the northeast, toward the Palace Power House, where 18th century lawn games could be played.

The only available correspondence in CWF Archives concerning this site discussed erection of slatted shade screens to protect the box following death of a large tree situated on the south which had formerly protected them from the strong afternoon light. Also, Mr. Rockefeller asked that dead boxwoods be replaced with small bushes which would close gaps but leave it clear that they were not original plantings.

In a "Report of the Landscape Architects' Visiting Committee," 17 October 1940, from Bremer W. Pond to Kenneth Chorley, there is the following reference to the Brush gardens. "Committee interested in antiquity of garden and approved the present program of leaving the present box undisturbed as an indication of the history of a garden which has passed through the vicissitudes of nearly two centuries and has not been restored."

The following Shurcliff letter gives some insight into the garden's development through 1940.

ELKANAH DEANE HOUSE
Block 30, Building 1-A

Shurcliff's landscape plan of October, 1937 shows a triple series of parterres—three quincuncial plans with oval, round, and rectangular center, located in what today is the open field immediately north of the house. "landscape Plan for Deane Lot," 30 November 1937, shows the same elaborate series of gardens planted with box and flowers. The general configuration is as today, located behind the house along Prince George Street. Shurcliff's "Plan 'A'," 2 March 1938, shows the same triple parterre gardens located in an area diagonally northwest of the house. His "Plan 'B,'" of the same date, shows a symmetrically arranged parterre of unique design incorporates a rotated Maltese Cross set within a square.

Research in the CWF Archives uncovered the following information. Shurcliff, in a letter of December 1937 to Kenneth Chorley, writes concerning the plan of a garden located immediately north of the house along Palace Street. This scheme, he says, takes into consideration the three outbuildings on the north boundary line indicated on the "Frenchman's Map." The layout in accord with this location would attract "patronage from the elite passing along the Palace Green…the design of this garden is taken direct from Sauthier's map of Edenton." [Design referred to is the one ultimately adopted, so that the source of the present garden is Sauthier]

Shurcliff makes plain that he prefers this north garden location in which the old well is incorporated believably into the scheme but, also, offers a layout showing the parterre in the location behind the house along Prince George Street as it is today. Points in support of the latter location were that the garden on axis with the house would serve as a visual and perambulatory lead-in to the smithy, and that servants could have better used the well if it were situated in the middle of an open lawn.

A. E. Kendrew, in a 9 December 1937 letter to Perry, Shaw, and Hepburn, says: "There is one further point which I believe you might like to consider and that is a tendency in all the landscape work here in Williamsburg to overdo planting particularly along the streets. It seems to me that at this property we have a wonderful opportunity by locating the formal garden directly in back of the house and to develop a lawn fronting on Palace Green and extending all the way back to the outbuildings. If such an open space were developed, it seems to me that the rather extensive vista back to the outbuildings and flanked on the North side by them would be very attractive. Furthermore, there is little in the records to indicate that formal gardens existed at this property, but the records do state through advertisements of this property that there was 'pasture' available.

A Shurcliff letter, 24 December 1937, to Chorley says that Perry and Shaw "have recently found some documents which indicate that the garden was behind the house…that location may have a bearing on the development of the Wythe lot… [and] effect of the combined gardens upon the attractiveness of Prince George Street." The document referred to is a 4 November 1775 Virginia Gazette advertisement for the sale of the Elkanah Deane lot which has a "good garden a the back of the dwelling house."

Shurcliff, in a letter of 7 January 1938 to Chorley, suggests the development of an "orchard north of the house so the east end of the place would seem attractive when viewed from the Palace Green. I have also used specimen clipped evergreens [these yaupon hollies were removed by chain-saw about two years ago] in the garden itself so these will rise up sufficiently high to be seen from the Palace Green and will indicate the existence of a garden which visitors would then wish to view close at hand."

Referring to his drawings: "Plan 'A'" and "Plan 'B'," Shurcliff writes that the Deane House merits a less cramped garden site and on one hidden to a less degree from Palace Green than the one proposed directly behind the house. Thus, a relatively small garden nucleus framed by an orchard and grass—all located to the northwest—would in his mind be the best location. (Shurcliff letter, 2 March 1938, to Kenneth Chorley).

All letters referred to above are from the CWF Archives' Shurcliff Collection or Block/Bldg. files.

ROBER CARTER HOUSE
Block 30, Building 13

Shurcliff's "Existing Conditions at Saunders House," 17 December 1928, shows a relatively well-defined central, rear dooryard area enclosed by fences and tree rows. There is a falling terrace at the western edge and numerous notations concerning brick foundations, walls, and steps. His "I-2," 15 September 1931, contains a scheme developed from the earlier layout. A box-edged, rear dooryard area with three semicircular box parterres attached. Continuing on the established axis from the rear door is a sweeping western vista across three levels of falling terraces. Shurcliff's "Proposed Layout," 16 July 1934, adds development of a formal, symmetrically arranged and intricately articulated flower garden with central grass panel and garden seat just west of the Brick Quarters. Later, simplified and revised versions of the layout show that these early, elaborate schemes were never carried out. Landscape development as it is today took place in 1951 and was drawn up by Alden Hopkins in consultation with Shurcliff.

Research in the CWF Archives uncovered the following correspondence concerning this site. A 1931 archaeological report by Herbert S. Ragland says that the record is so complex as to be undecipherable—due to the many periods represented—and will require much deliberation in determining which ear to restore.

Because it was once the town house of Robert Carter of "Nomini Hall," Shurcliff, in a 31 August 1931 letter to Perry, Shaw, and Hepburn, speaks of expanding the "Master's grounds of the terrace," which would be noble in scale and form a logical, grand, and generous gesture reflective of the genteel life-style such a figure would probably have had.

Further insight to the method of development followed here is contained in a typewritten note, evidently by Shurcliff and bearing the pencilled date 3 March 1933. Titled "Saunders-Dinwiddie," it says: "This mansion … lends itself to the grand manner in the development of grounds. Plans for the future restoration of these grounds show the long axis leading up to the center of the west front and indicate the symmetry of gardens and path patterns, together with the outbuildings, in this portion of the grounds. The use of 'falls' (terraces) was made possible here by the rapidly falling ground. The several levels were connected with ramps in the Virginia custom. Some of the largest trees on this place are about a century old."

Another perspective on the landscape development is provided by a letter, 19 March 1936, from Helen Bullock to Shurcliff. She says: "The stream was used by the other owners of Palace Green property as water for a pasture. As the lots extended to Nassau Street on the west, the extreme western portion of the lot may have been used as a pasture without interfering with the garden development on the eastern side of the run."

Letters referred to above are from the CWF Archives, Shurcliff Collection, Box 26, "Saunder-Dinwiddie." Following is a Shurcliff letter further explicating the subject.^{There was a formal garden at one time, now removed.}

THE GRAND MANNER

The beauty which is sought upon a very large and lavish scale by Americans today in the layouts or their places and gardens was sought by Americans of the Colonial period in Virginia but they attained it by following a single style, though with many variations of that style. Virginians were not torn as we are between the styles of Italy, England, France, Spain, Japan and the modernistic. Virginians followed the styles which were prevailing in England, and though England was changing, the changes of style were very slow.

In general, the beauty which the Virginians sought and attained in the Colonial heydey was, as we say, Georgian. This was the style of the elaborate Shirley, Westover, Carter's Grove, Brandon, Stratford, and of Mount Vernon. Though the designer and owner of Mount Vernon overthrew the civil authority of the Georges, yet the fashionable style of place design of the Georgians continued to hold sway with him and with all other liberated Colonials.

In the South, the grand manner of laying out grounds and garden was used without wasteful size or wasteful cost. In the skillful hands of Virginians public buildings, mansions, and grounds of moderate or even small size were large enough to achieve the effect, but the great buildings or groups of buildings were handled with equal skill. Modest architectural embellishment was considered sufficient for the good purpose. Elsewhere in America we have seen this "manner" laboriously attempted with places and with buildings of vast size and fabulous cost, but the attempts have often resulted in an appearance of cold ostentation and clumsiness, because the essentials of this manner were not understood. There is no ostentation in the grand manner of the South, but the air of repose, dignity, ease, is attained. There is on the other hand no skimping of space or niggardly cramping of lines. The places appear generous even though the actual size be small. There is a sense of Hospitality like that of the climate and the temper of Virginians.

Among the essentials of the grand manner the Virginians sought:— a site on shapely topography, buildings of simple mass and symmetrical front sometimes having symmetrical wings; a long straight approach entering on the buildings; a symmetrical arrangement of outbuildings, fences, walls, gates; a symmetrical arrangement of the lawns, paths, hedges, "fall", trees, mounts, orchard rows, gardens, and other landscape features which lay opposite the mansion on the living side. Size and cost were unimportant, but there must be no clumsiness, no disarray, no confusion, no halt of deliberate intention, no copying of natural irregularity in any of these essential features.

from: Shurcliff letter, 17 march 1933, "Description of Williamsburg Places," to B. W. Norton (CWF Archives, "Landscape General") #5 [Page #5 is missing from both the electronic and bound versions of the text]

#6 plantations like Mount Vernon, Brandon and Shirley, but it was condensed in its scope of course to the size of the town lots. At Lottie Garrett the many radical changes which were made in the house in ancient times have resulted in picturesque grounds, but each panel of the grounds has an axis and a symmetry which is of Virginia origin. The same is true of the interesting grounds at the rear of Bassett Hall and at Rogers.

In Williamsburg the most distinguished sites, other than the magnificent ones of the Capitol, College, and Palace, were considered to be on the Duke of Gloucester Street, or on the three Greens which flanked this street, — the Palace Green, the Court House Green, and the less important Market Square. On these sites, close to the street lines, were placed Bruton Parish Church and the homes of Blair, Cole, Wythe, Saunders-Dinwiddie, Tucker, Dr. Coleman, Bull, Elizabeth Coleman, Paradise, Barlow, Vest, and also the many famous taverns like the Raleigh, Market Square, Red Lion, and the shops.

In following the traditions of the great places, the inhabitants of Williamsburg were not attempting a slavish adherence to a "Colonial Style" or a "Georgian Period". They followed the usual lead of the times. No other way of arranging grounds was known from Carolina to Maryland. The needs of a Southern climate and the fashions and customs of place design in England led to the common usages and tastes in Virginia, whether the ground space was large or small.