Reconstruction of the William Paca Garden
Between 1967 and 1968, Laurance Brigham began the first design for the restored William Paca Garden. At that time, the findings from the Powell excavations were available to Brigham. Contract Archaeology supplied Brigham with charts and oral consultations based on Glenn Little’s first phase of excavations in 1967 (Wright 1973). With all available archaeological information at his disposal, Brigham was aware of the locations of the bathhouse, artificial brick stream, and pond.
The first garden design was completed in February 1968. Brigham proposed:
“…the garden to be quite formal in character and design…the accustomed center walk or ‘Grand Allee’ that led to the focal point of the walk, which was usually at the rear of the garden, will be the general theme of the plan.” (Wright 1976).
The initial plan called for the central walk to be constructed on axis with the house. The main garden area was to extend the length of the property, while the width only extended from the end of the east wing to the end of the west wing. The remaining area along the eastern side of the garden proposed to be segmented into several smaller informal gardens. Shortly after the completion of the first design, Brigham was informed that it was archaeologically determined, through topographical analysis, the central walkway was on axis with the kitchen or east hyphen and not with the center of the house. Brigham designed a new plan according to the archaeological findings. The second plan, completed in 1969, carried the names of both Laurance Brigham and Contract Archaeology, showing that the plan was a joint decision between architect and archaeologist (Wright 1973). The plan called for the construction of a terraced garden in the south portion of the property to be partially conjectural. As for the north portion of the garden, the abundance of historical and archaeological information available suggested Paca once had a wilderness style garden in the area closest to King George Street.
The foundation of Carvel Hall Hotel occupied roughly 7/8 of the top two terraces. Because of the hotel’s intrusion into the historic soil levels, archaeological evidence regarding the area’s original design was lacking. Historical research also did not provide many clues as to how Paca organized the upper garden. The 1884 Frank Mayer sketch and a photograph taken prior to the construction of Carvel Hall show the southern most portion of the garden. Both provide evidence that a terrace existed directly behind the house. The discovery of several sections of sloping walls also indicated the locations of the two additional terraces. In addition, the Mayer Sketch depicts a central pathway originating behind the kitchen and running down the middle of the garden property, a central path that was verified by the archaeological investigation.
As one can observe today, Laurance
Brigham took the historical and archaeological information regarding the upper
garden to heart. The central path
was aligned with the rear of the kitchen and extended down the three terraces
splitting the garden into two equal halves. Aside from this, the remaining
surface aspects of the upper garden are conjectural.
The parterres designed by Laurance Brigham for the terraces occupying the upper garden are conjectural (Wright 1973). Brigham’s decision to include parterres was based on their being typical for the period. Both the archaeology conducted in the garden as well as the historical documentation fail to suggest that Paca once had parterres on either side of the central walk. In addition both the 1884 Mayer drawing and the 19th century photograph show the terrace to be bare.
Although archaeology played a role in the restoration of portions of the upper garden, it was most significant during restoration of the area below the third fall. The reconstruction of the lower garden was based almost entirely on the information gathered during the Bruce Powell and Glenn Little excavations. Aside from the archaeological evidence, the only other document that provides any indication of the original design of Paca’s lower garden is the Peale portrait. Looking at the Charles Wilson Peale portrait of William Paca, one can see a two-story summerhouse and a one-story brick structure in the background. Closer examination of the painting also reveals a Chippendale bridge spanning a pond. While they are clearly visible in the painting, Laurance Brigham and the Garden Committee were not entirely certain of their actual location in the garden area aside from their being adjacent to the north garden wall.
The archaeological work conducted in the lower third of the garden found much of the original Paca landscape to be intact. Glenn Little’s excavation of the garden in 1967 provided Laurance Brigham and Orin Bullock with the exact location of many of the original garden features: the springhouse, the summerhouse, the bathhouse, the pond, as well as numerous artificial drains and streams.
In order to restore the original surface grade of the lower garden, Laurance Brigham used the wall foundations discovered by Powell and Little as a guide. At the base of the third fall, the east and west garden walls appeared to level out and extend north for about 80 feet at which point the grade of the walls sloped up. Using the archaeological information, Brigham designed the lower garden to include a fourth fall and terrace adjacent to the north wall. The ground between the third and fourth fall was brought down to the 18th century surface level and a fish-shaped pond was constructed according to the contours found during Glenn Little’s excavations in 1967-68.
At the base of the third fall, the artificial brick stream was restored based on the information provided by Contract Archaeology. Brigham ran into some difficulties when trying to make the brick stream functional. At some point in the 19th century, the water from a spring located behind the west wall arch was diverted through underground culverts into the Annapolis drain system. In order to restore the flow of water back through the garden, pipes were attached from the culverts through the restored arch.
Following the restoration of the garden surfaces, Orin Bullock began reconstruction of the three garden outbuildings. During Glenn Little’s excavations, the foundations of both the springhouse and bathhouse were unearthed. In 1975, Kenneth and Ronald Orr’s archaeological investigation revealed the possible location of the garden’s summerhouse as well as provided additional evidence regarding the interior design of the springhouse.
Bullock's design of the restored springhouse and bathhouse is based on the archaeological remains of the original structures as well as the portrait by Charles Wilson Peale. The dimensions of both restored structures measure 9 feet square and were constructed using materials similar to those found during the excavations. In order to preserve the original foundations of both buildings, concrete bases were built around the corners of the historic walls. The new structures were then built upon these bases, leaving the archaeological remains untouched and preserved (Eareckson 1977). Bullock based the interior design of the restored springhouse on the information gathered during the Orr excavations. Bullocks’ decision to make the structures one story in height with a pyramidal style roof was based on the evidence of a similar structure in the Charles Wilson Peale painting.
The final outbuilding to be restored at the garden was the pavilion, or summerhouse. Not until the conclusion of the Orr excavations in 1975 was Bullock or the Garden Committee convinced of the structure’s original location. During both the Powell and Little excavations, a feature was unearthed directly in line with the central walkway on top of the fourth terrace. In 1975 the same feature was unearthed once again and examined. Bullock determined that it was a remnant of the original summerhouse.
Little of the original foundation of the structure remained through to the 20th century. As a result, Bullock based his design of the summerhouse on the Peale portrait. The building was restored as a two-story structure with an octagonal roof. The restored structure also included a statue of the god Mercury as to correspond with the Peale painting. The placement of Mercury was further supported by 18th century literature. Batty Langley suggests in his book, New Principles in Gardening (1728):
“For private cabinets in a Wilderness or Grove: Harpocrates God, and Agerona Goddess of Silence, Mercury God of Eloquence.”
In his book, Langley provides a variety of suggestions on how gentlemen of the time should decorate their garden. Langley offers suggestions for thirteen types of gardens with each style given specific ornamentation. Mercury is the only suggestion for wilderness-style gardens.
The restored William Paca Garden was made complete with the addition of garden decorations and vegetation. A Chippendale style bridge was constructed across the fish-shaped pond. It was placed in accordance with the cobble foundations found during Little’s archaeological investigations of the area. The architectural style of the bridge was based directly on the evidence from the Peale portrait and from the stair rails in the Paca House.
The placement and types of plants used in the garden were purely conjectural on the part of Laurance Brigham. There was no archaeological evidence that could determine how Paca planted his garden. As a result, Brigham turned to designs typical to the 18th century. Langley (1728) states:
“That walks of a wilderness be so placed as to respect the best views of the Country.”
and
“That such walks whos views cannot be extended, terminate in Woods, Forefts, misshapen Rocks, strange Precipices, Mountains, old Ruins, grand Buildings, etc…”
The problem Brigham faced was that in Paca’s day the view would have overlooked the Severn River. However, today the view is of the Naval Academy. To correct this, Brigham decided to plant out the view of the academy with trees and shrubs. In doing so he used Langley’s gardening principle of making the summerhouse and pond the terminating view. Furthermore, this made the summerhouse the focal point of the garden much as it was during Paca’s day. While Brigham felt his design would not have the same depth as Paca’s original view, he believed the feeling of distance would be maintained in the way the trees were planted at the rear of the garden (Wright 1976).
Conclusions
The restoration of the William Paca Garden was a combined effort between restoration architects and archaeology. Using information archaeologists discovered about the historic garden, preservationists Laurance Brigham and Orin Bullock were able to reconstruct a lost landscape. For Brigham, the restored views he created were to him his most important contribution. A scholar of period gardening, Brigham was very much aware of the importance of views in 18th century gardens. The various gardening dictionaries of the period like Langley, Miller, and Leblond suggest gardens be places where the views of the participants are controlled by the landscape. This was accomplished with the creation of focal points. In the William Paca Garden the summerhouse in Paca’s time and in the present serve this purpose. As Brigham described to St. Clair Wright in 1976:
“You ask me how the pond and terraces will affect the design, I can only say that the Grand Allee will lead directly to the focal points which will be the lake, and of course, the Pavilion, and these two items will be the most important features of the whole design, not to mention that these features in one garden of the Colonial period were not only different, but completely unique.”