Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape

1

Presented to The Garden Club of Virginiaby Ginnifer L. McGill2003 Favretti Fellow

Living Ruins: The Rosewell LandscapeAn Historical Account of Her Gardens and PlantationGloucester County, Virginia

Copyright © 2003 by The Garden Club of Virginia.All Rights Reserved.

Reproduction:

All material contained herein is the intellectual property of the Garden Club of Virginia exceptwhere noted. Permission for reproduction, except for personal use, must be obtained from:

The Fellowship Committee, ChairThe Garden Club ofThe Garden Club of VirginiaThe Kent-Valentine House12 East Franklin StreetRichmond, VA 23219www.gcvirginia.org

2 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Table of Contents 3T

ab

le

.o

f.

Co

nt

en

ts

Photograph courtesy of the Rosewell Foundation by Bill Brookner (Feb. 2001)

4 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Acknowledgements 5

Acknowledgements

Any attempt to explore, research, and adequately record the history of Rosewell’s landscape would be incomplete without the knowledge of those who have known the place for years. Many have learned the traditions of her oral history, aided the research of others, resolved unanswered questions and posed new ones, while maintaining a sincere love for the Rosewell Plantation. Without the help of such individuals, this project would not be nearly as rich, thorough or informed. Personal communication and interviews with Wray Page, Paul Aplan, Gordon Chappell, and Bill Kelso were informative and helpful in establishing the framework and basis for many of my findings. Margaret Perritt and Hilary Hicks of The Rosewell Foundation were especially helpful in providing access to documentation, photographs, and resources kept on file in archives of the Visitors’ Center. Their interest in my work and the conversations I shared with each were invaluable to the development of my research.

Stephanie Jacobe of the Virginia Historical Society provided a valuable resource for my project. High resolution scans of photographs held in the collections there enabled me to study details of the landscape that I would not typically have been able to see with mere photocopies. I thank her for the time spent preparing the CDs containing these files.

Dickson Fogleman’s assistance was also imperitive to my research. His generosity, interest, and support were invaluable to my field work and documentation both at Rosewell and in Charlottesville. I thank him for his patience throughout the length of this project.

I extend many thanks to Will Rieley, Landscape Architect to The Garden Club of Virginia and my mentor throughout this Fellowship tenure. His enthusiasm for my work and findings fueled much of my own passion for the research I conducted. I appreciate the patience, knowledge, experience, and love for teaching that he shared with me throughout the summer.

Of course, the experiences I gained through my research, travels, and writings would not have been possible without the opportunity provided by The Garden Club of Virginia’s Favretti Fellowship. My love for architecture and the landscape were enriched by a renewed passion for history, specifically that of Virginia. The Fellowship established by these women provided an unrivaled opportunity to study an historic landscape of Virginia, simultaneously enriched by the knowledge, history and personal commentary of these women. I will always remember the afternoons I spent with many of the GCV’s members. To each of you, I extend my appreciation for your generosity, knowledge, and enthusiasm.

4 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Acknowledgements 5A

ck

no

wl

ed

ge

me

nt

s Ginnifer L. McGill Favretti Fellow summer 2003

RosewellGloucester, Virginia

The Garden Club of Virginia Scale: 0’-1” = 40’-0”

Plant List

Trees AR Acer rubrum Red MapleBS Buxus sempervirens Aborescens Tree Box

CF Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood CI Carya illinoinensis Pecan

CO Celtis occidentalis HackberryFA Fraxinus americana White Ash

IO Ilex opaca American HollyJN Juglans nigra Black WalnutJV Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red CedarLT Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip PoplarMA Morus Alba White MulberryMG Magnolia grandiflora BullbayPD Populus deltoides Eastern CottonwoodPO Platanus occidentalis American SycamorePS Prunus serotina Wild CherryQP Quercus phellos Willow OakSV Sassafras varifolium Sassafras

Shrubs

BX Buxus sempervirens American BoxwoodFS Forsythia sp. Forsythia

LB Lindera benzoin Spicebush PC Philadelphus Coronarius Mock Orange

SP Spiraea sp. Spirea RB Rubus sp. Wild raspberry

Groundcover and Perrenials

CM Cymbalaria muralis Kenilworth Ivy FV Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry HF Hemerocallis fulva Day Lily HH Hedera helix English Ivy NC Narcissus sp. Daffodil PA Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern VM Vinca major Big-Leaf Periwinkle

20

20

20

20

2020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

18

19

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

16 15

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

19

15

1617

18

1213

1415

16

161514131211 10

9

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

17

19

19

17

17

17

17

17

17

Well

Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery Site

Ice HouseRuins

Road to Visitors’ Center

CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SV

JV

Shrubs along path edges and into wooded area LB, RS, FS, SP, PC

BXGroundcover and Perrenials in wooded area include

HF, FV, HH, VM, CM, NC, PA

IO and JVdistributed throughout wooded area

PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

0’ 20’ 40’ 80’

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CI CICO

JN

PO

COJN

PO

6 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Preface 7

Preface

Throughout much of the 20th century, the Rosewell Plantation has been an important landmark in the study of colonial Virginia history. Since the plantation’s demise in the fire of 1916, the house, its property, and the families inhabiting them have been the focus of several academic studies, papers, archaeological digs and restoration proposals. Because the ruins of the mansion still exist, much of this work focuses upon the house itself, typically scraping the surface of the Rosewell grounds. This is due to lack of specific documentation about the gardens and the abundance of overgrowth to which much of the landscape has succumbed. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to create a document, focusing primarily upon the landscape, gardens, and grounds of the Rosewell Plantation, from the 17th Century to the present.

The intention is to consolidate all references, images, research and stories related to the landscape of Rosewell. Because they are scarce and are scattered throughout a variety of sources spanning three centuries, such an attempt may have once seemed futile to make in isolation. However, it is crucial to synthesize all of these pieces of information relating each idea, image, fact, or reference to one another within a single document. This will provide a well-documented map of resources from which future studies of the Rosewell landscape may be derived, posing questions and offering leads, which may be further investigated by archaeologists, historians, and students alike.

In order to achieve this goal, it is crucial to present all sides of the varying opinions, which have developed about this landscape throughout the evolution of its oral history. The interpretation of these ideas and the myths and legends surrounding them are essential in telling the landscape narrative. In addition to the documentation of past academic studies, I made extensive use of the diaries, letters, and memoirs of the Page and Deans families. The references made within these accounts are useful in extrapolating details about the grounds of Rosewell. Combining these details with mid-19th and early 20th C. photographs allowed me to make more definitive and detailed findings about the plantation as a whole. I will present this information, as well as my interpretation and synthesis, within a chronological account of Rosewell’s landscape history, supplemented when possible with illustration.

6 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Preface 7P

re

fa

ce

Photograph courtesy of The Rosewell Foundation

8 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Historical Overview 9

Historical Overview

Rosewell is located in Gloucester County, Virginia on Carter Creek off of the northern shore of the York River. The name, Rosewell, did not originate with the plantation founding; rather, it was the original name of Carter Creek. In fact, the earliest known reference to Gloucester County dated May 21, 1651 describes a transfer of land “lying between Rosewell Creek, S.E. etc.”1 Some claim that the Rosewell name originated from the spring adjacent to this creek, whose waters abundantly “rose well,” but I believe it is more likely to have taken a European name pre-dating Rosewell Creek. Further study of individuals with this surname, whom I uncovered in my research, and their relationships to the settlers of this area may prove fruitful in establishing the origins of Rosewell Plantation’s name.2

Having waxed and waned in size, seen the faces of many and felt varying degrees of care and neglect over the years, the name and place of Rosewell never ceased to exist. To understand Rosewell Plantation’s character, her place in time and within the Virginia landscape, one must look far beyond the 7 acres, defi ning the property owned by the Gloucester County Historical Society and managed by The Rosewell Foundation today. Though visitors gaze upon the ruins, the land spanning 3000 acres around the house holds the secrets of those who lived here, while Carter Creek and the York River still fl uidly circle the edges of Rosewell’s banks. Together, they defi ne the history of her landscape. Visitors to Rosewell today can see the brick ruins of the 18th Century mansion standing alone in a wooded area. However, because of overgrowth and property lines preventing clearance to the water, one is unable to experience the incredible vistas to the York River once enjoyed by the inhabitants of Rosewell mansion. As impressive as the ruins now stand, they are but a whisper of the grand narrative, a mere trace of the physical vastness and glimpse of the activity once enlivening this place. Thus, her landscape tells a colorful story, offering years of wisdom, which aid her stature among the ruins.

Photograph courtesy of the Rosewell Foundation

Carter Creekto York River

1 “Gloucester County, Virginia: A Step Back in Time.” Gloucester Historical Committe, 2001. 2 The histories of individuals such as Sir Henry Rosewell and Thomas Rosewell as well as settlers who may have come to the area from Rosewell, Scotland, may prove helpful in establishing the origins of the names “Rosewell Creek” and “Rosewell Plantation.”

8 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Historical Overview 9H

is

to

ri

ca

l.

Ov

er

vi

ew

York River


The Rosewell story begins long before the colonial settlers began to inhabit these areas, for the lands were roamed and lived upon by Indians and specifically thought to have been home to the Powhatan Tribe. Indian artifacts found at Rosewell are proof of their life here, and more intensive studies of the land may uncover details of the influence they had on the of Rosewell prior to European settlements. Plans surrounding the excavations plans of specific Indian settlements on and around the Rosewell property may be seen in An Archaeological Management Plan for The Rosewell Foundation, prepared by Thane Harpole and David Brown.1

The ownership of the Rosewell land changed hands several times, and with each transition, so did the size of Rosewell change. In 1639, George Menefie was issued a land patent encompassing 3,000 acres from Claybank Creek to Timberneck Creek. Through this wilderness land ran an intervening stream, known at the time as Rosewell Creek, now called Carter Creek. In 1645, he left this 3000-acre land tract to his only child, Elizabeth Menefie, who married Henry Perry. It is believed that this couple built a home somewhere upon the land, but eventually moved to England. In 1690, their two daughters sold the estate “between Clay Bank and Timberneck Creeks called Rosewell” to John Mann.2 This began the story of Rosewell plantation’s evolution, from its 3000 acres during its early occupation to the donation of a mere 7 acres of land to the Gloucester Historical Society, defining the property of the visitors’ center and ruins today.

I will now attempt to trace the historical eras of the Rosewell Plantation, offering detailed accounts of the physical place, the people who defined its character, and how it’s landscape and views evolved and changed during each period. Simultaneously, I will make connections to the physical ground today.

Rosewell mansion as once seen from the York River

1 Harpole, Thane and Brown, David. An Archaeological Management Plan for the Rosewell Foundation. 22 July, 2002. Kept on file at the Rosewell Vistors’ Center.2 McCartney, Martha W. “An Historical Overview of Rosewell.” Discovering Rosewell: An Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Overview. ed. Rachel Most. Gloucester: The Rosewell Foundation, 1994. 1.


Photograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society

A Map of the Most Inhabited Part of VirginiaFry and Jefferson, 1951 from Discovering Rosewell

Rosewell and Fairfield on Carter Creek

Hi

st

or

ic

al

.O

ve

rv

ie

w

12 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Page Family Era 13

The Page Family Era: 1694-1837

It is the Page family name that is most commonly associated with the foundations of Rosewell Plantation. A summary account of the most important members of the Page family who lived and created the place of Rosewell can be seen in the Family Tree. When the Perry daughters sold the 3,000-acre tract to John Mann in 1690, Mann had already held a one-year lease and was occupying the property at the time. He and his wife, Mary Kemp, built a home upon the land adjoining Timberneck Creek. Around 1688-9, their daughter Mary married Matthew Page, and this young couple also resided on the Timberneck Creek Plantation. Matthew Page was the son of John Page, “whose large landholdings included several hundred acres known as Middle Plantation (present day Williamsburg). He “was one of the two founders of the College of William [and] is entombed at Bruton Parish Church.”1 John Mann passed away in 1694, leaving the third of his Gloucester County Estate containing the Timberneck Creek home to his wife, and the other 2/3 to his daughter and son-in-law, Mary and Matthew Page. The couple then relocated to the site, which would become the place known as Rosewell today. Mary Page’s mother bequeathed her third of the dowry to her daughter when she died, and in 1703, after her husband’ death, Mary Mann Page was credited with the entire Menefie Patent of Abingdon Parish, reassembling the 3,000 acre tract. Mary Mann later remarried her late husband’s cousin, John Page, but she carefully made provisions in her will that the land, deeded to her by her husband, would eventually be passed down to her eldest son, Mann Page. So, around 1711, when he finished school in England, Mann Page returned to Gloucester County to take control of the property left to him, Rosewell Plantation.2

One of the earliest graves in the Rosewell cemetery

photo from The Library of Congress

1 Brown, Nicholas. “Rosewell Tombs are Moved to Abingdon.” Richmond Times Dispatch. 10 December 1969. 2 McCartney, 3.

12 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Page Family Era 13T

he

.P

ag

e.

Fa

mi

ly

.E

ra

Rosewell Plantation between Timberneck and Carter Creeks;Matthew and Mary Page Era

Map from Discovering Rosewell


There is not much known about Rosewell as it existed during its formative years. However, it is certain that the late 17th century house built by Mary and Matthew Page is not that of the ruins remaining today. Rather, Mann Page’s parents built a wood-frame house here, which clearly did not meet his standards, for he would eventually build a much grander brick house in its place. Archaeological studies have uncovered partial foundations of the 17th Century house, which stood at an approximate 45-degree angle from the orientation of the 18th Century mansion. It is interesting to compare this orientation with Rosewell (Carter) Creek to that of the mansion, aligned with the north-south axis facing out to the York River. The 18th c. orientation seems more sophisticated than the 17th c. choice to face the house directly towards Carter Creek, the nearest body of water. The later decisions of Mann Page seem influenced by formal architectural conventions and may be attributed to his recently completed education in England.

Image from Ground Penetrating Radar Survey

14 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Page Family Era 15T

he

.P

ag

e.

Fa

mi

ly

.E

ra

17th century orientation to Carter Creek

18th century N-S orientation to the York River


Further archaeological studies along the lines parallel to the foundations of the 17th c. house may prove successful in finding details of the Rosewell landscape and perhaps, gardens of the Mattthew Page Era. Such endeavors may be aided by the Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey1, sponsored by The Garden Club of Virginia in 1997. The images produced by Geosight reveal several features, which seem to be orthogonal with the 17th c. foundations. It is also interesting to note an old smoke house still standing in a post-fire photo. The structure can also be seen behind the burnt kitchen dependency in a pre-fire photograph. The small thatched-roof structure still stands near the cemetery in the photographs and significantly, appears to be oriented, not with the neighboring dependencies of the mansion, but at an angle orthogonal with the 17th century home. Such clues offer evidence that there is a potential wealth of information yet to be discovered about Matthew and Mary Page’s 17th century plantation.

The Page Family era of Rosewell can be broken down into three generations: Mann Page, Mann Page II, and John Page. Research of these three men proves frustrating due to the confusion created by naming conventions of the time. Many relatives across generations share each of their names, while there is also inconsistency in past documentation when referring to these individuals. This should be recognized by anyone who might conduct research in the future. I will now trace the three generations of Pages, focusing upon the influences they had upon Rosewell’s landscape.

1 Bevan, Bruce. Geosight. A Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey at Rosewell. sponsored by The Garden Club of Virginia. 22 April 1997. Kept on File at the Rosewell Foundation’s Visitors’s Center.


Photograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society

Photograph courtesy of the Rosewell Foundation

Th

e.

Pa

ge

.F

am

il

y.

Er

a

18 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Mann Page: 1711-1730 19

Mann Page: 1711-1730

In 1711, Mann Page (1691-1730) returned to Rosewell and began the construction of the house for which the ruins today are known. This massive brick home was built to impress, and the extravagance that it entailed most likely detracted from the attention and funding that he was able to give the landscape during his lifetime. When he passed away in 1730, the home was not yet occupied, and in fact, it is said that the fi rst offi cial function within the walls of the home was his own funeral. It is for this reason that I will discuss the Mann Page era with respect to the architecture of Rosewell, the buildings that surrounded the main house, and the relationship that the architecture has with the landscape.

There is much to debate as to the design origins of the mansion built by Mann Page. Regardless, it is without a doubt that the mansion was one of the fi nest of its time and may have been infl uenced by Page’s father-in-law, Robert Carter, one of the wealthiest men of Virginia at that time. There are many similarities between Rosewell and Corotoman1, the home of Robert Carter. Furthermore, Carter’s Christ Church was designed by Williamsburg architect Richard Taliaferro, attributed by many as Rosewell’s designer due to similiarities between his work and Rosewell’s design.2 Thomas Waterman also found interesting parallels between the Rosewell mansion and Cound, located in Shropshire, England and designed by John Prince.3 The fl at roof and cupolas are signifi cant here, for the original Rosewell mansion had a fl at roof made of lead, hidden behind a parapet wall. Waterman generated detailed drawings of what the house may have looked like in its original construction. He was, however, incorrect in rendering Rosewell’s roof visible as Cound’s roof is. A model built for the Eye of Jefferson Exhibit in Washington, DC shows how the hidden fl at roof probably appeared at Rosewell.4

Also controversial in Waterman’s renderings of Rosewell are the hyphens connecting the two dependencies to the mansion. Though two outbuildings did exist, there is no evidence that they were connected by the hyphens shown in Waterman’s drawings. Archaeologists have looked for foundations along these lines, but were unsuccessful in fi nding any traces.5 It is possible that Mann Page intended to build these hyphens. The dependencies, with common pitch roof angles, characteristic of the medieval carpenter’s guild, are not of the same classical plan instruction as that of the mansion. Mann II may have built these dependencies later, unable to fund the more elaborate structures and hyphens, hypothesized by Waterman and perhaps intended by Mann Page I in the early 18th Century.

Photograph courtesy of The Valentine Museum

1 An image of Corotoman and its gardens is displayed at Christ Church. More details about the home can be found in Waterman’s Mansions of Virginia, p.110 and Glenn’s Some Colonia Mansions, 283.2 Further information about Taliaferro and his design work in Colonial Virginia may be found in Lanciano’s book, Our Most Skillful Architect.3 Waterman, Thomas. Mansions of Virginia, 1706-1776. New York: Bonanza Books, 1965. 107.4 Lind, Robin, “Rosewell: Cecil Page Remembers.” Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal. Vol. XL, 11. 17. March 1977. 5 Harpole, Thane and Brown, David. An Archaeological Management Plan for the Rosewell Foundation. 22 July, 2002.

18 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Mann Page: 1711-1730 19M

an

n.

Pa

ge

Image of Cound in Shropshire, EnglandPhotograph from Waterman, The Mansions of Virginia

Rendering of Rosewell (note roof and hyphens) from Waterman, The Mansions of Virginia

Image of model from Eye of Jefferson Exhibitshows flat roof hidden behind parapet wall

Photograph from Gazette-Journal March 17, 1977


The large cellar, used by the Page family to store wine and food, also has a significant relationship to the landscape. The entrance east of the mansion can be seen in the images. An earlier image shows a structure, attached to the mansion, through which one passed before descending the staircase, while the later images reveals the stain the structure left after it was removed. Details such as these are necessary for dating many of the photographs used in my analysis, since most are not already dated. Archaeologists have done studies in this cellar, and further work in this area may reveal more significant details about the activity that took place here. What is compelling is the idea that it may have been connected to a tunnel down to the water. Though doubted by most, according to oral history, some have claimed that they walked this tunnel in the mid-20th century. It is more probable that the tunnels in question refer to the drainage system connected to the mansion, but further studies at the cellar level could confirm or refute this.

Successive views from the southeast show the changing stairs (wood to concrete)and removal of structure leading to basementPhotographs Courtesy of the TRF


an

n.

Pa

ge

Photograph courtesy of the VHS,

Looking into the cellarcourtesy of The Rosewell Foundation

Photograph courtesy of TRF

Photograph courtesy of TRF

Looking into the cellarJune 2003

Successive views from the southeast show the changing stairs (wood to concrete)and removal of structure leading to basementPhotographs Courtesy of the TRF


It is certain that brick tunnels drained water away from the mansion, one to the east towards Carter Creek and the other to the south toward the York River. It is likely that Mann Page was responsible for planning and building these, simultaneous to the construction of the house. The infrastructure has been partially uncovered by archaeologists, but those seen in images are much too small to be traversed.1 Also signifi cant to the hydrology of the Rosewell landscape are the spring and the well. The spring is located to the west of the mansion next to a ravine fed by a small channel from Carter Creek. As seen in the image, “stone retaining walls and a wooden trough facilitated fl ow and collection.”2 According to the Archaeological Management Plan, there was also a spring house located there. What may be the roof of this building is seen in the photo below. The brick-lined well, 18 feet deep, is located to the east side of the house next to the cemetery. Though now fi lled with debris, it once provided the Page family with their daily cleansing water, according to Lanciano. He believes that the water from the spring was preferable to that of the well, even though the spring was a greater distance from the house. According to Cecil Page, the well was never used in the later years of the Deans family, and water was always taken from the spring.3

Photographs on fi le with the archaeologists at the Rosewell Foundation

1 From a book of photographs, documenting the archaeology work at Rosewell. Held at the Rosewell Foundation Visitors’ Center. 2 Lanciano, Claude O. Rosewell: Garland of Virginia. Charlotte: The Delmar Company, 1978. 3 Lind, Robin, “Rosewell: Cecil Page Remembers.” Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal. Vol. XL, 11. 17. March 1977.


Approximate Location of WellPhotograph courtesy of TRF

Photograph from Lanciano, Rosewell: Garland of Virginia

Possible roof of Spring HousePhotograph courtesy of TRF

Ma

nn

.P

ag

e

The WellJune 2003


Though we do not know what Mann Page’s intentions for the landscape and gardens were, there are features of the architecture that have significant relationships to the landscape of Rosewell. The flat roof created an outdoor terrace from which one experienced grand vistas to the York River and beyond. It is here where John Page spent time with Thomas Jeffferson. Some stories claim the two fished in the waters collected on the roof and that they drafted the Declaration of Independence there. Thought these are certain of legend, it is recorded in Jefferson’s Garden Book that he spent time traveling to Rosewell in the year 1768.1 John Page’s daughter, Lucy Page Saunders, wrote a ghost story later in her life, giving the most descriptive existing accounts of Rosewell during the Page Family Era. The story, Lenora and the Ghost, describes this outdoor room on the roof of Rosewell:

A wall of bricks, surmounted by large flagstones, surrounded the top of the building. At each end was a turret, within which were small apartments, and on the roof of each, large weather cocks whirled mournfully. Into one of these rooms, you ascended from the winding staircase, leading from the basement to the roof. From the other, called the summer-house, you beheld from its four fine windows beautiful views of the winding Carter’s Creek, and the majestic York River, which expanded wider and wider as you gazed. The looking over the battlements, upon the cedars and holly and pines overhanging the high banks, and cultivated fields, and flocks and herds and grazing, you would imagine it all encircled by the deep blue waters, and that you were upon an island more attractive than the James River Island, which attracted the footsteps of our forefathers. 2

The west cupola provided access to the roof, and the stair extended to the cellar. Leviner notes that “it may also have ventilated the house during the summer as rising hot air escaped through its windows, creating a draft.”3 The east cupola was the summer house, only accessible from the roof, providing a refuge for more private views “stretching nearly ten miles up and down the river York.”4 It is clear that the cupolas played an important role in connecting the Page family to the landscape, immediate and afar, and furthermore, that the situation of the Rosewell mansion within the landscape was a treasure among those of the time. During one of her stays at Rosewell, Peggy Lowther, sister of Margaret Page, writes to her cousin that “I wish, my Dear Cousin, that it was in my power to give you a description of this delightful place – but I am so certain that it is not possible for me to do it justice that I shall not attempt it, I expected to see something extraordinary when I came here, but really the grandeur and elegance of the house and, the beauty of the situation exceeded anything that I could form an idea of.”5

John Page describes the home the plantation as “the most beautiful seat in Virginia, with the most elegant house in America thereon.” The landscape and the views afforded by her are crucial to the understanding of the Rosewell mansion’s relationship to its site. It is therefore certainly unfortunate that a visitor to the ruins today is not yet able to experience the grandeur and beauty of the water’s view described by those who lived here.

Photograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society, Smith Family PapersCropped image used in TRF Visitors’ Center shows window edge of cupola

1 Betts, Edwin Morris. Thomas Jefferson’s Garden Book: 1766-1824. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1944. 12. Also includes letters from TJ to JP, which discuss pleasure gardening of the time. 2 Saunders, Lucy Burwell Page. Leonora and the Ghost. Baltimore: Charles Harvey and Co., 1876. 3 Leviner, 39.4 Saunders.5 Peggy Lowther. Letter to Hannah Iredell, 18 July 1800, Iredell Papers, Duke University, Durham. It is unfortunate that she did not attempt to describe more. Discovery of other letters may prove that she did.


an

n.

Pa

ge

Rendering of the Rosewell Mansion as it probably appeared with hidden roof and two cupolasImage from Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia

Photograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society, Smith Family Papers Shows details not seen in cropped image though window edge is cropped


Circulation into, through and around the landscape of Rosewell was signifi cant to the time, particularly in light of travel and arrival by boat. A dip in the existing forest tree line north of the mansion shows the road, once leading straight to the Rosewell Plantation. Thomas Boyd describes this road:

“As a youngster in Gloucester County, Virginia, and in the years since, I would often drive down a narrow road to a point where broad cornfi elds begin and stretch toward the York River. Across these fi elds and beneath the canopy of hundred-year-old oaks, stand the ruins of, one of the fi nest examples of Georgian architecture in colonial America.”1

This 20th-century route may have been used by the Page family when travelling into Gloucester and possibly the location of the cedar allee discussed later. This is likely, since it is located on the ridge leading away from the mansion. It is possible that guests were taken by smaller boat from Carter Creek to a stream north of the mansion and brought by carriage down this path as a formal arrival to the landside entry court of the mansion. (see diagrams on pp. 28-9) Apparent terracing to the south-east indicates that one probably climbed a bluff to the mansion from Carter Creek for less formal arrivals than those described above, though one would have approached the south-side door more from the southeast than directly from the south.

Down Creek Road ends at private residence today (red)Once extended to Rosewell Mansion (yellow)

1 Boyd, Thomas. “Splendor in the Ruins.” Country. February 1982.


an

n.

Pa

ge

Down Creek Road on north axisPhotographs, June 2003

View of Down Creek Road today Photograph, August 2003


Such an argument could be supported by the fact that “the treatment of the brick mansion’s north door with its pitched pediment supported by consoles and narrow, paneled pilasters was more elaborate and handled with greater confidence than the south door.”1 Lucy Page even refers to the south door as the “great back door,”2 and while a visitor from the north enters a grand hall, one enters into a narrow passage from the south. Cecil Page recalls: “As you went in on the riverside to the right was the parlour and on your left ‘twas the dining room, and then the big hall. They said you could turn a carriage of four around in there.”3 The formality of entering the big hall on evenings of entertainment certainly suggests that the north side was the used as the main entrance to the house. Living across the creek at Shelly and a frequent guest of Rosewell, perhaps Cecil Page was considered a “backdoor guest”.

More details about this area are described in the John Page Era section. Brick foundations of a boathouse and wharf still exist here, although we cannot be certain of the implications, diaries of Robert Carter do indicate payment to both boat and coach attendants belonging to Mann Page during one if his visits to Rosewell.4 Betty Crowe Leviner explains that Carter typically visited the area to see each of his daughters, Judith Page at Rosewell and the other living across the creek at Fairfield. If he traveled by boat across Carter Creek to Rosewell, he could have arrived at the wharf and climbed up the bluff to the mansion. Rather, it seems that he was taken by coach on an alternate route, perhaps that along the northern axis of the house. It is possible that he arrived at another wharf farther east of the mansion, intended for smaller boats. Further analysis of these notes and other correspondence of the time might offer better clues as to the authenticity of these ideas.

South (water-side) entrance

North (land-side) entrance

Plan from Leviner article1 Leviner, 15.2 Saunders, Lucy Burwell Page. Leonora and the Ghost. Baltimore: Charles Harvey and Co., 1876. 3 Lind, Robin, “Rosewell: Cecil Page Remembers.” Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal. Vol. XL, 11. 17. March 1977. 4 Robert Carter Diary. 27 May 1722. Alderman Library. The University of Virginia.


Up Carter Creek to Fairfi eld

Approach from the southeastPhotograph courtesy of TRF

Possible informal (blue) and formal (yellow) approaches (Photo, TRF)

Ma

nn

.P

ag

e

1 Leviner, 15.2 Saunders, Lucy Burwell Page. Leonora and the Ghost. Baltimore: Charles Harvey and Co., 1876. 3 Lind, Robin, “Rosewell: Cecil Page Remembers.” Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal. Vol. XL, 11. 17. March 1977. 4 Robert Carter Diary. 27 May 1722. Alderman Library. The University of Virginia.

30 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Mann Page II: 1737-1765 31

Mann Page II: 1737-1765

Mann Page II (1718-177?) was quite young when he inherited the responsibilities of the Rosewell Plantation. It was, therefore, his task to take over where his father left off. Due to the debt created by his father, it is most likely that he did not make additions, which were unnecessary to the functioning of the plantation. For this reason, I believe that Mann Page’s energies were most likely spent growing vegetables within the kitchen garden and maintaining the outbuildings and farmlands of the plantation. In Claude Lanciano’s book, illustrator Richard Genders depicts a formally arranged garden on the water-side of the mansion. Meade description of the landscape does not detail formal gardens: “For a long time old Rosewell has been standing on Carter’s Creek, in sight of York River, like an old deserted English castle, in solitary grandeur, scarce a tree or shrub around it to vary and beautify the scene.”1 It is more likely that the gardens were never laid out in a formal arrangement, rather used for the sole purpose of growing food and a few flowers. A garden plan included in the Eye of Jefferson exhibit has been thought to be the plan for the garden at Rosewell. The 18th century plan was found among Thomas Jefferson’s drawings in the Coolidge Collection and has been studied in detail by William Kelso.2 In his account, “The Rosewell Landscape,” he notes the significance of the 240-foot width. The distance between the two hedgerows in the Shurcliffe plan, discussed later, is also approximately 240 feet. The length is nearly 450 feet in the 18th century plan, while that of Shurcliffe’s is less than 300. Of course, if the Coolidge plan were that of the Rosewell garden in the 18th century, it is possible that the Deans Family shortened the garden significantly in the 19th century, while leaving the width the same. Kelso describes the relationship differently, observing that Shurcliffe’s plan shows a 100-foot loss in width and no change in length. I believe that is because the drawing he attributes to Shurcliffe is not authentic. Though it does show a much longer and narrower garden, it is not the Shurcliffe plan held by Colonial Williamsburg today. Rather, it is probably a non-scaled rendering created by an unknown artist. This understanding makes the 240 foot width in the Coolidge drawing far more significant. In 1991, limited archaeological testing was performed that revealed garden features in this area. More thorough investigations must be conducted to differentiate between the 19th-century plowed area found during these studies and the remnants of the 18th-century garden, walking surfaces and planting beds, which might lie below. Though the plan offers hope for aid in such discoveries, other scholars, who have examined the plan and are familiar with Rosewell, are not convinced that it is the garden at Rosewell. Regardless, it is the only clue, even suggesting the design of a garden at Rosewell during the Page Family Era.

During the time that Mann Page II lived at Rosewell, an article from the Boston Evening Post, dated 05/04/1741 and titled “Virginia, Gloucester,” reported: “And from Williamsburg, in Virginia. That on the 17th of February last, in the Night, Eleven Negroes belonging to Mrs. Page of Gloucester County, were burnt to death in her kitchen, which took fire while they were asleep.”3 The Mrs. Page to whom the account probably refers is his first wife, Alice Grymes. It is not certain whether this building was one of the flanking dependencies seen in many of the photographs. Perhaps, the family was still using the kitchen of the 17th century home at that time, and the fire was Mann II’s reason for constructing the two flanking buildings on axis with the mansion. Of course, it is just as possible that the west dependency, the kitchen, burned in 1741 and then had to be rebuilt. Archaeological studies may help to prove where this fire took place and offer additional clues to explain the history of the dependencies.

1 Meade, Bishop. Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia. Philadelphia” J.B. Lippincott Co., 1861. 2 vols. 332.2 Kelso, William M. “The Rosewell Landscape” Discovering Rosewell: An Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Overview. ed. Rachel Most. Gloucester: The Rosewell Foundation, 1994. 3 Article courtesy of Margaret Perritt. Originally from The Education Research Database.

30 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Mann Page II: 1737-1765 31M

an

n.

Pa

ge

.I

I

Possible Plan of Rosewell found in Thomas Jefferson’s Papers; if existing, the Ha-Ha wall would have prevented livestock from falling off of the 20-ft. cliff at the end of the Rosewell Garden.taken from Discovering Rosewell

Formal Gardens, probably never realized at RosewellImage from Lanciano, Rosewell: Garland of Virginia

Plan of Rosewell attributed to Shurcliffe in Kelso’s“The Rosewell Landscape”, Discovering Rosewell

Shurcliffe’s Plan of 1931, courtesy of CW


The family cemetery, located to the east of the mansion, was a prominent landmark on the property of Rosewell during the Mann Page II era, for both his father and grandfather were buried there. The gravesite, an appropriate tranquil site overlooking the waters of the York River, was home to the Page tombs, made of Italian marble. Trees probably surrounded the graves since the 17th century. The earlier image shows a large tree, whose stump was recorded on the Shurcliffe plan in the 1930’s. The later image shows the gravesite, still in sight of the water in the 1960’s. Today, this view to the water is non-existent. Each of these three views shows a different fence, and neither is probably that which surrounded the graves in the 17th century. In fact, it has been claimed that Thomas Booth, the owner immediately following the Page family, sold off the brick that once enclosed the cemetery: “even the bricks of which the wall of the graveyard was made were removed. The very foundations of the tombstones themselves appear to have been taken away, and the large marble slabs are scattered about the surface of the ground.”1 Though many do not believe that Booth caused this destruction, it is possible that a brick wall, built by Mann Page around his parents’ graves, once stood here.

View looking southJune 2003

View looking south1937 Historic Ameican Buildings Surveyfrom The Library of Congress

1 Glenn, Thomas Allen. Some Colonial Houses and Those Who Lived in Them. Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates and Co., 1899.

32 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Mann Page II: 1737-1765 33M

an

n.

Pa

ge

.I

I

View looking northeastJune 2003

View looking northeast1937 Historic Ameican Buildings Surveyfrom The Library of Congress

Stump in the 1931 plan is of old tree in photofrom Glenn, Some Colonial Houses and Those Who Lived in Them

1931 Shurcliffe PlanCourtesy of Colonial

Williamsburg


I found it interesting that the Colonial Williamsburg website notes the 1770 purchase of fava beans from the Norton Company by John Page of Rosewell.1 Provoked by the notion that such powerful information could be used to discover further specific details about the 18th Century garden of Rosewell, I consulted a primary source, John Norton and Sons, Merchants of London and Virginia. An invoice from the date noted by Colonial Williamsburg, however, indicates that the fava beans were not purchased by John Page of Rosewell. Rather, a Mann Page, who was residing outside of Fredericksburg at the time, requested these seeds, among many others.2

Rather than dismiss this invoice as irrelevant, I recalled that Mann Page II moved from Rosewell to the plantation, Mannsfield, just outside of Fredericksburg in Spotsylvania County. Mann II built this home with the intent that each of his eldest sons from each of his two marriages would inherit a plantation of his own. While John Page, daughter of Mann’s first wife Alice Grymes, would receive Rosewell, his eldest son, Mann III, with Anne Corbin Tayloe, would inherit Mannsfield. Mann II moved with his family, including Mann III, to Mannsfield around 1765 when John Page married, leaving John in charge of the Rosewell plantation. If the 1770 letter were written by Mann II, it would makes sense, for he includes requests for various furniture, dishes, pots, and utensils, which would only be ordered by a 52-year old Mann II, were he, perhaps, outfitting a second home.

What is puzzling about this observation, however, is that the editor of the Norton Papers, Francis Norton Mason, refers to the Mann Page who wrote this letter in question as the son of John Page of North End, John being the brother of Mann II. If this is the case, the request for goods was written by Mann II’s nephew Mann. It is my belief, however, that the letter was more likely written by Mann II of Mannsfield. Mason forms his deduction on the basis that “of the three contemporary Mann Pages this one only had a family at the time of the letters presented here.”3 However, in 1770, ten years before his death, Mann Page II would have been 52 years old. He had been living at Mannsfield for about five years, and his son Mann III (jr.), approximately 21 years old, was also living here along with his other children, Robert, Gwynn, Matthew, Elizabeth, and Lucy.

In the 1770 letter and “Invoice of Goods for my Family,” Mann Page lists goods needed “For a Youth 21 Yr. Old” as well as “For a Boy 16 Yr. Old.” While the 21 year old could assuredly be Mann Page, Mann II’s son (born 1749), so could the 16 year-old be Robert, his second child with Tayloe. Robert’s birthday is not known, and it is documented as being around 1751, which would make him 18 or 19 at the time of the letter, but it is possible that he was actually born in 1754 or after February 15th of 1753, making him the 16 year-old boy to which Mann Page refers in his letter while also giving evidence of Robert’s actual year of birth.

With these discoveries in hand, I further investigated the Mann Page to which Mason refers. The eldest son of John Page of North End, this Mann Page was born around 1747, making him only 23 at the time the letter in question was written. Clearly it is impossible that he have a 21 or 16 year-old child at the age of 23, but just to be sure, I consulted the ages of his children. His first son, William Byrd, was born around 1768, and a daughter, Jane Byrd, was born in 1770.4 If this were, therefore, the Mann Page who wrote the letter to the Norton Co. at this time, he would have been ordering clothing for a small child or infant, rather than French Kid Gloves and Stockings for young gentlemen.

Mann Page II and Mannsfield

1 www.history.org2 Mason, Frances Norton. John Norton and Sons: Merchants of Virginia. Richmond: The Dietz Press, 1937.3 Mason. 4 Glenn, Thomas Allen. Some Colonial Houses and Those Who Lived in Them. Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates and Co., 1899.

http://www.history.org


If all of my deductions are true, then the letter and Invoice of Goods sent to the Norton Company must certainly have been written by Mann Page II of Rosewell.1 Therefore, the list of garden seeds, which he requests for Mannsfield, just 5 or fewer years after his departure from Rosewell, could be very similar to the ones which would have been ordered for the Garden at Rosewell during his nearly 50 years of living there.

Flanders Onionlarge Orange Carrotearly White Garden Turnepearly prickly cucumberlong green prickly Do (Ditto)ColliflowerColliflower BrocolyPurple Doearly CabbageSugar Loaf DoLarge English DoGreen SavoyCharlton PeasLarge Marrow fat Do.Large Sugar PeaDwarf Do.Windsor BeansGarden SpadesPruning knivesBlue Grass SeedNanquin with Trimmings

Ma

nn

.P

ag

e.

II

Mann Page II’s home, Mannsfield; Image from Waterman, Mansions of Virginia1 www.history.org2 Mason, Frances Norton. John Norton and Sons: Merchants of Virginia. Richmond: The Dietz Press, 1937.3 Mason. 4 Glenn, Thomas Allen. Some Colonial Houses and Those Who Lived in Them. Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates and Co., 1899.

1 Insurance documents about Mannsfield are listed at The Library of Virginia. These should be located to discover other important details about Mannsfield.I also found references to the Page family in Business Records in the Virginia State Library. These merchant papers should be checked for further information offering clues such as these to the Rosewell Landscape: Allason Papers, William James of Fredericksburg, Jerdone Family Papers, Neil Jamison, and Augustine L. and William K. Davis.


36 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Governor John Page: 1765-1808 37

Governor John Page: 1765-1808

John Page (1744-1808), eldest son of Mann Page II, was a leading Revolutionary, Congressman, and Governor of Virginia. Though the majority of his time was occupied with service to his country and state, his influences upon the house and land during his time there are significant to the story of the Rosewell landscape. John Page was familiar with his landscape and environment, and constantly studied each: “I took the bearing of the Sun’s Center when it was elevated 80’, supposing that by making that Allowance for refraction, I should have the true magnetic amplitude I observed with an excellent theodolite.”1 Insurance Papers of 1802, 1806, and 1815 provide important information about the outbuildings and dependencies of the Rosewell mansion during the time that John Page lived here. The barn and the stables are shown on them, and it is likely that these photos are taken in front of the stables in the 19th century. There were other outbuildings on the property. In Leonora and the Ghost, Lucy Page refers to the dairy down by the water: “With them, she picked cotton, fed the cows and pigs, skimmed the cream and churned butter at the dairy on the brink of the creek”2 It is very possible that a dairy existed here, and John Page mentions Mary the dairymaid in his 1795 Commonplace Book.3 He also refers to the walnut tree by the Rabbit House as well as an old wheat barn. These three may be added to the list of outbuildings cataloged in the AMP.4

Photographs courtesy of The Roswell Foundation

1 Page, John. Letter to Robert Carter, 12 March 1795, Duke University, Durham2 Saunders 5.3 John Page. “Commonplace Book of 1795”. The Virginia Historical Society. 4 Harpole, Thane and David Brown. An Archaeological Management Plan for the Rosewell Foundation. 22 July, 2002.

36 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Governor John Page: 1765-1808 37G

ov

er

no

r.

Jo

hn

.P

ag

e

1 Page, John. Letter to Robert Carter, 12 March 1795, Duke University, Durham2 Saunders 5.3 John Page. “Commonplace Book of 1795”. The Virginia Historical Society. 4 Harpole, Thane and David Brown. An Archaeological Management Plan for the Rosewell Foundation. 22 July, 2002. Photographs from Bennie Brown’s Thesis

18061802

1815


Again, we do not know what kind of garden existed at Rosewell during the years of John Page. We do, however, have references to various trees and plants. For instance, in the ghost story, she describes “The looking over the battlements, upon the cedars and holly and pines overhanging the high bank.” Furthermore, “the young girl went, with her handmaidens, and gathered abundantly, holly and cedar, beautifi ed with innumerable red and blue berries; and soon the hall and tee gallery with the portraits were tastefully decorated.” “’Come ye weary and heavy laden, and I will refresh you,’ was the motto, made of evergreens, that was over the marble mantle, and was brightened by the Yule log.”1 Pine, holly and cedar still grow on the edges of these waters. On March 8, 1798, in the postscript of a letter from John Page to St. George Tucker of Williamsburg, he says: “Mrs. Page requests four Lombardy Poplars and as many Weeping Willows.”2 In his 1776 Almanac, on July 2nd, 1776, John Page records that he “gave [money] to Will to Buy Crocus.”3 On the 21st

of June, 1776, John Page makes a detailed record of the “Walnut Tree by e/y Rabbit House.” He measured that is “was 8 1⁄4 in in circumference in the thickest part. 871/2 foot high to the Topmost Bough. It was planted in 1773.”4 He then measured again on the 1st of Jan 1777, “so that the tree had increased in circumference and thickness? 1/3,1416 Inch or 0,31, nearly 3/10 1 inch in 193 days.” Hence, it is clear that though much of his time was dedicated to politics, he also gave at least a fraction of his attention to the landscape and plants of his home at Rosewell.

References in his writings and others refer not only to the trees and plants of Rosewell, but more specifi cally to the fruits and fl owers growing there. Margaret Page writes to her husband in Philadephia on April 17th, 1794 and expresses her concern that the freeze will ruin the fruit at Rosewell: “I am afraid we shall lose all the fruit, as the Weather still continues cold, and I am told there was ice, twice last week.”5 On the opening page for March of his1795 Almanac, he says that “We returned home from Philadephia almonds in full bloom.”6 In April of 1795, he records:

1 Apricots in Bloom

2 Peaches blossoming….. 4 Plumbs do. [blossoming]` 5 do [plumbs] In full bloom, & Cherries nearly so 6 Cherries in full bloom, apples blossoming Pears do [in full bloom]”

1 Saunders 9-10.2 John Page. Letter to St. George Tucker, 8 March 1798, Tucker-Coleman Papers, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.3 John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1776.” Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg. 4 John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1776.” Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg. 5 Margaret Page. Letter to her son, John Page, 19 January 1820, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.6 John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1795-6.” The Virginia Historical Society.

Pines, cedars and hollies on the Rosewell banksAugust 2003


ov

er

no

r.

Jo

hn

.P

ag

e

One of several old cedars seen in the wooded area of the Rosewell banks todayAugust 2003


It was written in 1843 that “Formerly there was a vineyard in the front of the house and a garden in the rear. There are now few or no trees in front of the house, and this circumstance perhaps enhances the effect. It seems to stand in proud and silent solitude, like some old fashioned castle.”1 It is interesting to note Peggy Lowther’s description of a party she attended near Rosewell:

“I have been at one Turtle and one Fish Feast, at the first there were 30, at the last 40 odd gentlemen and ladies. We dined under an arbor about 5 yards from the beach and after dinner, the fiddle struck up and every one in company except Mr. Page and myself danced on the green – it was called a fish feast, but there were fewer of them than anything else. It was really most elegant entertainment and given seven miles from where the gentleman at whose expense it was resided, because it was a pleasant situation.”2

It is possible that there were also vineyards and arbours at Rosewell, on the north or south side of the mansion, and perhaps future archaeological studies paired with intensive analysis of John Page’s descriptions of the plantation will uncover evidence of such. In June of 1795, John Page also refers to “catalpa blossoms,”3 Further investigations of Page family writings may eventually reveal papers that more thoroughly describe the gardens and plants at Rosewell. I discovered two letters held at the University of Chicago’s Library, but was unable to retrieve copies within the time span of this project.4 These and others, which must surely will be resting on the shelves of unknown homes, repositories, or attics will serve as a starting point for the next student, seeking details of the Page family at Rosewell.

Aerial showing potential 18th C. “vineyard in the front of the house and garden in the rear”Photograph courtesy of The Rosewell Foundation

1 C.C. Petersburg. “Stone House.” Southern Literary Messenger. Minor, B.B., ed. printed January 1844. written October 1843. 2 Margaret “Peggy” Lowther Page. Letter to Hannah Iredell, 18 July 1800, Iredell Papers, Duke University, Durham.3 John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1795-6.” The Virginia Historical Society. 4 The two letters held in Chicago are from Margaret Page at Rosewell to her sister in Edenton, NC and from John Page to Margaret Page. It is very possible that these letters contain information about the Rosewell Landscape.


Aerial showing potential 18th C. “vineyard in the front of the house and garden in the rear”Photograph courtesy of The Rosewell Foundation

Garden Vineyard?

Go

ve

rn

or

.J

oh

n.

Pa

ge


Farm life at Rosewell defined much of what characterized her landscape in the 18th century. Because plant life does not define an agricultural plantation alone, it is important to acknowledge the wildlife living on the Rosewell grounds. Lucy Page recalls that Christmas dinner was prepared using animals from the Rosewell farm: “There were hams, turkeys, pullets, cakes, pies and apples.”1 John Page’s diaries are laden with accounts and inventories of his animals. On May 4th, 1776, “according to Goodrich’s account,” there were “ 28 cows and young cattle, 10 last years, 8 steers broke, 1 calf, 47 total 38 old sheep, 26 lambs, 64 total”2 On November 5th, 1776, John Page also records that he “Paid for turkeys.” Also worth noting about the landscape are the crops grown there. John Page “paid Goodrich, the overseer for Cotton seed” on May 4th and 22nd of 1776.3 According to his journal accounts, we also know that he grew wheat, tobacco, barley, and other crops. It is in his discussion of a harvest that I made an interesting discovery. Page says that when he “Cut forward my wheat___Apocynum blossomed.”4 Unfamiliar with Apocynum, I researched it to learn its Latin and common names, Apocynum cannabinum, Indian Hemp. The herbaceous plant was found by European settlers in North America to be used by the Indians. From the plant’s fiber, Indians made rope, fishing lines, and nets that rivaled the hemp that the Europeans were familiar with. In fact, Captain John Smith describes the plant used by Virginia Indians in 1612:

“We have seen some mantles made of Turkey feathers, so prettily wrought and woven with threads that nothing could be discerned but the feathers, that was exceeding warme and very handsome.” 5

Discoveries about the plant life at Rosewell, natural and planted, are most likely to be made in the writings of those who lived there. For this reason, it is important to continue the search for such documents.

1 Saunders 10.2 John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1776.” Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg. 3 John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1795-6.” The Virginia Historical Society. 4 John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1795-6.” The Virginia Historical Society. 5 www.in2thewild.com

http://www.in2thewild.com


ov

er

no

r.

Jo

hn

.P

ag

e

Apocynum CannibinumPhotograph by Daniel Reed, www.2bnthewild.com


Because a large number of animals roamed the property of Rosewell, it was important that Page build fences to keep them out of his crops. We know that these fences did exist in the 18th

century because of detailed accounts that he kept in his journals. The image shows a drawing, which accompanies one of his descriptions in 1795:

“1795 Sept 28th. Began to sow barley in the fi eld along the lane in the lower end on this side of the Barn beginning by the gate of that fi eld, and sowing eastward to the fence by the gate on the road through the lane. Note this part was in corn last year and wheat this year. We fi nished sowing the other side of the fi eld in barley as far as the lot by the old wheat barn on the 13th Oct. …We then sowed from the Terrace down to the gum thicket about 18(16?) acres. 18 bushels then the upper land of the fi eld on the lane about 14 acres and lastly in the fi eld on the hill opposite to the quarter Spring about ? acres in which last piece 11 1⁄2 bushels of barley were sown.”1

Not only does this description offer details about the locations of fences on the Rosewell plantation, but it also makes reference to landscape features such as the gum thicket, Terrace, and spring hill. It is my belief that the Terrace is that to the east of the mansion, leading to the wharf and boat house. Though not within the boundaries of The Rosewell Foundation’s property, one is still able to walk down, through what might have been a “terrace” to the water’s edge. Further research should be conducted to determine specifi cally what area John Page’s refers to as the “Terrace” and “gum thicket,” for this will provide important insight into earth-moving activity that may have taken place here in the 18th century. The description of the hill opposite the spring is also signifi cant, for this landmark was also important in the 19th century. A Deans family member describes a runaway slave: “Finally he met Grandfather on the spring hill and threw himself at his feet.”2 What may have been considered the “hill” can be seen in a photo of the spring. It is surely the high land behind the ravine leading to the spring to which both the Page and Deans accounts refer. Further study in this area may prove to reveal the types of activities that took place on the “spring hill” and its signifi cance to the plantation. Extensive description of the plantation, fi elds, fences, and boundaries of Rosewell follow this journal entry. Further transcription, comparative studies and on-site investigations of these areas may prove helpful in making defi nitive fi ndings about the plantation and topography of Rosewell in the 18th Century.

Location of spring, though probably farther south than drawn (as marked)Drawing from Discovering Rosewell

1 John Page, “Commonplace Book of 1795.” The Virginia Historical Society. 2 Smith, Anna Maria Dandridge Deans. “Geneological Notes Concerning Deans Family,” Smith Family Papers, The Virginia Historical Society.

View north up Carter Creek from bank to which “terrace” may have led

View towards Blundering PointPhotos taken August 2003


ov

er

no

r.

Jo

hn

.P

ag

e

John Page’s journal entry, showing a drawing of fences and boundaries at RosewellPhotograph courtesy of The Virginia Historical Society

Photo of spring with what may be the “spring hill” in the backgroundPhotograph courtesy of The Rosewell Foundation

Location of spring, though probably farther south than drawn (as marked)Drawing from Discovering Rosewell


Those who John Page associated with are also relevant to the study of Rosewell’s landscape. I found several accounts, detailing interactions with individuals who shared his interests in botany, gardening, and the landscape. A January 19, 1820, letter from Margaret Page, John Page’s wife, to her son, John, an attorney in Monroe County describes two of her late husbands acquaintances:

“The Parson Fontaine of whom you enquire was not the grandson of the poet Fontaine. (but, as your dear Father informed me) descended from a branch of the same family…I knew him well, as he died several years after I came to Virginia, was the pastor of our parish, and lived in habit of great intimacy with your father…Your father esteemed Mr. Fontaine as a Man of considerable talent, but I believe it not to the superlative to degree! He had much skill in gardening and published a garden calendar for every month in the year, a manuscript copy of which I ought to have among my papers.”1

After conducting research about Fontaine, I learned that he preached the sermon at the funeral of John Page’s first wife, Frances. Though the manuscript of the sermon does not reveal anything about his gardening, it would certainly be relevant to obtain copies of his published garden calendars that were evidently used by the Page family at Rosewell. It is unfortunate that any copies Mrs. Page still had in her possession after she moved to Williamsburg were probably carried away by Union soldiers as many of the other family papers reportedly were. Her letter also discusses John Page’s friendship with John Clayton:

“The great Botanist Clayton of whom you also inquire was well-known to your father, but died before my time; he was greatly celebrated and ranked in Europe (I have been informed) next to Linnaeus! He resided either in Gloster or Middlesex, I am not certain which, but soon after my arrival at Rosewell, I heard the remains of his garden frequently spoken of, as being of no great Distance, and I was to have visited it, but the constant engagements of your Father in the Publick Service, left him but little time to devote to any other purpose!”2

John Clayton served as the Gloucester County Clerk of Court and kept company with John Page as friend, neighbor and scientist. It is for him that the interrupted fern and spring beauty are named, and in fact, on October 11, 1957, Conway Zirkle addressed a meeting of the Garden Club of Virginia in Williamsburg, VA. The title of his address was “John Clayton and Our Colonial Botany,” in which he described the importance of this man to the colonial Virginia landscape.3

John Page gives a description of Clayton and makes it evident that conversation about plants, gardens and botany was a common occurrence between them. Despite political preoccupation or economic decline, John Page took interest in gardening and the landscape. Perhaps this was light conversation for these men during times of political duress. Page describes Clayton as

‘a strict, though not ostentatious, observer of the practice of the Church of England; and seemed constantly piously disposed. I have heard him say, whilst examining a flower, that he could not look into one, without seeing the display of infinite power and contrivance, and this he thought it impossible for a BOTANIST to be an ATHIEST.’”4

One of the few images taken from inside the gardenPhotograph courtesy of The Virginia Historical Society

1 Margaret Page. Letter to her son, John Page, 19 January 1820, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.2 Margaret Page. Letter to her son, John Page, 19 January 1820, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.3 Zirkle, Conway. “John Clayton and Our Colonial Botany.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. v. 67, no. 3. An excerpt from an address given at a meeting of The Garden Club of Virginia in Williamsburg, October, 11, 1957. 4 Berkeley, Edmund and Dorothy Smith. John Clayton: Pioneer of American Botany. Chapel Hill: UNC P, 1963.


ov

er

no

r.

Jo

hn

.P

ag

e

One of the few images taken from inside the gardenPhotograph courtesy of The Virginia Historical Society

He further describes that:

“When any one…described to Mr. Clayton, what he thoughr a newly-discovered tree, shrub, plant, or fl ower, he would, in a modest manner, say ‘did you not fi nd it in such a county, and in such a such a place?’ On being answered that it was found in that very spot, he would add, that it was called by the Indians (I have been told) so and so; by them used for such and such purposes, and may be found described in such a class of Linnaeus…And such was his desire to obtain complete knowledge of the plants of Virginia, that, notwithstanding his great parsimony, he would offer a reward for any discovery of a plant unknown to him.”1

These interests may also have been signifi cant within a group of intellectuals to which both belonged. In May of 1773, it was reported that:

“We hear that a Philosophical Society, consisting of 100 members, is established under the Patronage of His Excellency, the Governor, for the Advancement of Useful Knowledge in this Colony, of which the following Gentlemen were elected Offi cers, for the year ensuing; John Clayton, Esq. , author of Flora Virginica, President; John Page of Rosewell, Esq., Vice-President; the Rev. Samuel Henley, Professor of Moral Philosophy, Secretary; Mr. St. George Tucker, Assistant secretary; David Jameson, Esq., Treasurer.”2

Surely relevant is the association with St. George Tucker, from whom Page requested poplar and willow trees for Rosewell. Further inquiry into the papers of these men and others associated with John Page may provide surprising details of the garden at Rosewell. Although I consulted as many of these records as time allowed, I would recommend that this avenue be taken, should further research be conducted about the Rosewell landscape.

1 Berkeley, Edmund and Dorothy Smith. John Clayton: Pioneer of American Botany. Chapel Hill: UNC P, 1963.169.2 Berkeley.

48 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Booth and Catlett Families: 1837-1853 49

The Booth and Catlett Families: 1837-1853

In 1837, Thomas Booth purchased Rosewell from John Page’s executors. There is extended debate as to his treatment of and intentions for the Rosewell mansion and grounds. Many claim that he literally butchered the property for his own financial gain, while others assert that he saved the plantation from falling into complete disrepair. That he cut and sold Rosewell wood is one such debate: “The avenue of cedars which made such a splendid approach from the river landing to the front door he sold off to be made into tubs.”1 While many condemn these actions, The Four Families of Rosewell, an historical fiction account by Caroline Baytop Sinclair, makes a more favorable explanation:

“Mr. Booth,” said Margaret, “ ‘Would you consider taking down those big cedars on the walkway to the river? I would like a clear view of the water, and they are so big! Perhaps we could plant some Magnolias there. Those on the driveway to Eagle Point are so beautiful and I love the bog blooms.’ ‘Why, yes, my dear, I think we can do that. I am just getting a sizable apple orchard started and I have read that cedars are incompatible with apple trees. We might be well rid of them. They are certainly venerable trees and very large. If we can locate a purchaser we may be able to sell them to advantage.’”2

What is most questionable about this debate is whether the cedars were on the land or water side of the mansion. Glenn, for instance explains that: “The grand old cedars bordering the avenue, some of which are said to have been of enormous size, were cut down and the wood sold for tub timber.”3 Determining whether or not these cedars were planted along the central axis of the garden will establish a more definitive description of the Page family’s garden design at Rosewell.

In his thesis, Bennie Brown makes a connection between the cedar avenue, purported to have extended between Christ Church and Corotoman, home of Robert Carter, Mann Page’s father-in-law, and that at Rosewell.4 If Carter did influence Page, it is more likely that the cedars were planted on the north side of the house, along the avenue intended for more formal arrivals. It seems doubtful that they would be planted in the garden for the purpose of creating a “splendid approach from the river landing to the front door,” considering that an approach from the water would begin much farther southeast than south, not along an axis, and probably considered less formal. Nevertheless, these hypotheses should be further studied by archaeologists in the field.

It is known that the flat lead roof and dual cupolas were removed and replaced with a hip roof and lone cupola in the center. While many attribute these actions to Booth, others assert that it was Catlett who replaced the roof.5 John T. Catlett was Booth’s cousin who took ownership of the property in 1847. I discovered an October1843 description of the Mansion indicating that “The roof is flat and sheeted with lead. The story that there was once a fishpond up there is fabulous.”6 If this 1843 account is accurate, Booth would have made the changes to the roof between his 7th and 10th years of living at Rosewell. It seems more probable that he did, in fact, repair the leaky roof when he moved in, and indeed, Catlett was responsible for the drastic changes. Between the years of 1850-1, Catlett made $6725 worth of improvements to the plantation.7 It is for this reason that some also think he executed the roof replacement. In 1853, Catlett sold the property to Josiah L. Deans, whose family would retain ownership of Rosewell for the next 150 years.

1 Wilstach, Paul. Tidewater Virginia. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1929. 2132 Sinclair, Caroline Baytop. The Four Families of Rosewell. Virginia Beach: Grunwald and Radcliff, 1989. 44.3 Glenn, Thomas Allen. Some Colonial Houses and Those Who Lived in Them. Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates and Co., 1899. 4 Brown, Bennie Jr. “Rosewell: An Architectural Study of an 18th Century Virginia Plantation.” Thesis for MA, University of Georgia. 1973. 5 Lanciano, Claude O. Rosewell: Garland of Virginia. Charlotte: The Delmar Company, 1978. Published by the Gloucester County Historical Committee. 145-6.6 C.C. Petersburg. “Stone House.” Southern Literary Messenger. Minor, B.B., ed. printed January 1844. written October 1843. 41.7 Leviner 66.

48 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Booth and Catlett Families: 1837-1853 49T

he

.B

oo

th

.a

nd

.C

at

le

tt

.F

am

il

ie

s

Photo from within the fenced garden, showing the change from two cupolas to onePhotograph taken from Glenn, Some Colonial Houses and Those Who Lived in Them

Photo from within the fenced garden, showing the change from flat to hipped roofPhotograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society, Smith Family Papers

50 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Deans Family: 1853-1916 51

The Deans Family: 1853-1916

Though much has been written about the Page family’s relationship to Rosewell, the Deans family lived at Rosewell for over 60 years and still own most of the property today. I discovered several scrapbooks, written by Josiah Deans’ granddaughter at The Virginia Historical Society. She provides beautifully detailed accounts of life at Rosewell, and several of these accounts were useful to the interpretation of the 19th century garden. Included is her description of her grandmother’s response to the move from their family home of Midlothian:

“A great sorrow of her life was the leaving her dearly loved home, Midlothian, and removing to Rosewell. It was a most serious break. Grandfather bought it from Mr. Tabb Catlett. The soil is wonderfully fertile and all agriculturalists are fascinated by its responsive qualities. His Negroes had increased and developed into hardy young men and women and they had outgrown the estate. His plan was to set half of them at Rosewell and run both plantations. Meantime his family had outgrown Midlothian, and Grandmother wished him to add to the house. Rosewell was at the time dreadfully out of repair. It was originally a Barbour grant of land and finally came into the Page family through the marriage of Miss Mann with Colonel Matthew Page of Williamsburg. …It was completed in 1730 and I have heard that the first public function held within the walls was the funeral of the builder, Mann Page. The house was complete but the grounds which were conceived of on an equally fine scale, were left incomplete by the owner. The large fortune underwent considerable division among the heirs, and Rosewell was most costly to keep up. It was called “Page’s Folly”. It remained in the Page family until after the Revolution and the general impoverishment of the country caused the Pages to sell it. In changing hands, the old house was not bettered in condition and became a moated grange in desolation. The mahogany wainscoating that went up to the ceiling of the main hall, became the haunt of rats and vermin.”1

When her grandfather moved to Rosewell, he “set out beautiful varieties of trees in lovely groves,” but the author asserts that “The trees and groves he set out are very lovely, but they were saplings in Grandmother’s time and she lamented the velvety shaded lawn of Midlothian.” Today, these saplings, most likely including the Willow Oaks to the north, have grown into massive canopy trees, creating the velvety lawn, longed for by Mrs. Deans over 150 years ago. The author further describes her Grandmother’s impressions of Rosewell and the life that ensued:

“The move was a dreadful blow to my dear Grandmother and her older children. Rosewell was beautifully situated on a peninsular to itself; on one side is Carter’s Creek and on the other is the broad York. The natural beauties were great, but it was a social uprooting as there was no neighborhood. The Pages lived across the creek at Shelly, which was part of the original estate; the Catletts lived at Timberneck, some five miles by water…Therefore my Grandmother regarded the change as a sort of Siberian exile.”

Nevertheless, she also describes that the “succession of young daughters, all well-endowed with gifts that go for social enjoyment, made Rosewell a centre of interest for many years…In my childhood as many as twenty-five sat table for periods of time. Walks and drives, sailing, cards, and croquet were the order of the day.” And so, it is clear that both the indoors and outdoors were enjoyed by the Deans family for socializing and play at Rosewell.

1 Smith, Anna Maria Dandridge Deans. “Geneological Notes Concerning Deans Family,” Smith Family Papers, The Virginia Historical Society.

50 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Deans Family: 1853-1916 51T

he

.D

ea

ns

.F

am

il

y

Rosewell Plantation during Deans OwnershipFrom Discovering Rosewell

Bache Map of 1856From Discovering Rosewell

Garden:Further studies should be conducted to more accurately identify these circualr forms.The Barn and stable are those seen in the Page Family Insurance Papers.


This social life may also be specifically associated with the garden:

“I think these Southern people took every conceivable occasion for a dinner or a supper party. The catching of the first sheepshead of the season or the first dish of strawberries or green peas were occasions of festivity which was eagerly desired by the successful fisherman or gardener as an advertisement of his success in his line as by the pleasure-loving gentry themselves.”1

19th century photographs establish the fact that there was an enclosed garden at Rosewell during the time that the Deans lived there. It is possible that this garden was not there during the years of the Page family, for Smith explains that:

“A garden had to be set out; Grandmother’s old garden was a dream of jessamine bowers, handsome shrubs, wonderful beds of ever-succeeding perennials and a wealth of roses. Gardens were the pride of the Gloucester matron, and Mrs. John Tabb of White Marsh had one of the most celebrated in Virginia. It was the model for all the county.”

A photograph of Mrs. Deans’ garden at Midlothian is helpful in establishing what her own tastes were in garden design. For example, the central axis in the photo is similar to that of the garden in that taken from within Rosewell’s garden. More information about the Midlothian garden as well as Mrs. Tabb’s in White Marsh may offer additional insight into the Deans’ garden at Rosewell. Living at Shelly when Rosewell was occupied by the Taylors (of the Deans family), Cecil Page recalls:

“I knew it when the foundations to the kitchen and laundry were there,” Page said, “but t’wasn’t nothing connecting it. They had a boathouse down there on the creek. It was in perfect condition when I knew it and they had a beautiful spring rocked up with great large rocks. I don’t know why but old-timey people always put their gardens right in front of their houses. They had all sorts of pretty flowers, magnolias and Lord, the prettiest crepe myrtle you ever saw. It was such a beautiful yard. It’s hard for me to believe it when I see it now.”2

1 Smith, Anna Maria Dandridge Deans. “Geneological Notes Concerning Deans Family,” Smith Family Papers, The Virginia Historical Society. 2 Lind, Robin, “Rosewell: Cecil Page Remembers.” Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal. Vol. XL, 11. 17. March 1977.


Midlothian, original home and garden of the Deans prior to RosewellPhotograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society, Smith Family Papers

Rosewell Garden Central Axis

Th

e.

De

an

s.

Fa

mi

ly

Midlothian Garden Central Axis


It is not certain when this garden was cultivated into the beautiful place that Page describes. Before Josiah Deans’ “attention was seriously turned to the beautifying and ordering of the house and lawn (beyond the planting of splendid trees), the war of the sixties stopped his activities,” but after the war, “Fences grew up, the garden was cultivated.” This may have been the first time that serious attention was given to the garden south of the mansion, aside from typical kitchen garden use. Evidence of the kitchen garden is seen in a description of the blacksmith, Uncle Lame Lewis, at Rosewell: “When there was no blacksmithing or dentistry to be done, he took his stool and joined the company of old men who sat in the vegetable garden and rubbed soil in the palms of their hands for celery, lettuce and asparagus beds. They also discussed the neighborhood news. It was the perfection of gardening!” The inferred proximity of the blacksmith shop to the garden prompted me to hypothesize that perhaps an unidentified outbuilding seen to the west of the fenced garden in a panoramic photograph is the blacksimith shop. According to John Page’s journal, there was a blacksmith working at Rosewell in the 18th century, so perhaps the shop was built during his time there. Though it cannot be certain, the area where the foundations of this structure lie are valuable resources for determining exactly its use. Regardless, the blacksmith shop should also be added to the AMP list of outbuildings on the Rosewell plantation. We do not know when the garden fence was built or even if it existed prior to the Deans’ arrival at Rosewell. We do know that Josiah Deans built several fences after the war, and it is possible that one of them, though probably not that around the garden, is that referred to in the following account:

“It makes me shudder even now to hear the tales of the terrors of the midnight raids of the lawless bands of soldiers from the Yankee camp across the river. The side board at Rosewell is scarred by their bayonets; the corner cupboard is broken through. These can be seen today with the mended south hall door that they broke open with a fence rail.”1

Other areas that were fenced during the Deans Era can be seen on the Shurcliffe Plan and in the photographs.

1 Smith, Anna Maria Dandridge Deans. “Geneological Notes Concerning Deans Family,” Smith Family Papers, The Virginia Historical Society.


he

.D

ea

ns

.F

am

il

y

Panoramic view of fenced garden and outbuilding with vista to water and ice housePhotograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society


Farm life was just as important to the Deans family as it was to the Pages. Josiah Deans continued to raise various crops in his fi elds, while his animals were also a priority:

“Grandfather had all the Tide-water Virginians’ respect for ancestry in horses, cattle, sheep and dogs. He believed that good blood would tell in animals as much as people. …[and] had twelve pleasure horses in the stable and 18 for his farm when the war broke out…My grandfather adopted the simple device of turning his cattle, sheep, and hogs looks in the woods and marshes of Blundering Point and Wilson’s Field. The plantation was literally deserted and there were no 100 mouths to feed so they increased and multiplied like wild creatures with none of the dangers of the wild to threaten them.”

Rabbit House near large walnut tree?

Blundering Point


he

.D

ea

ns

.F

am

il

y

Outbuildings around RosewellPhotograph courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society

His granddaughter even recalls the slaughtering of beef, mutton, and hogs in the barn at Rosewell. She indicates that there were several barns, and in fact, a large number of outbuildings on the plantation. Further investigation into her accounts could be useful in establishing archaeological test plots. She describes Rosewell when her family moved there:

“The old harmonious arrangement of the place, which had been planned but not completed by the builder had been disregarded. Barns and stables had been dropped around like an inconsequential shower of outhouses. Grandfather always intended to set them in order, but during the first few years of his occupancy, his energies were exclusively directed to the utilitarian side of life.”

Using photos taken during this time, I blew up details to reveal areas that may be studied more closely in the future.


There has been much question as to the construction date of the Ice House, which once stood southwest of the house, overlooking Rescue’s Cove. Some believed it to be an 18th Century structure, while others seem to think it a later structure: “perhaps first half of the nineteenth Century.”1 Though archaeological testing would prove this, I found an account by the granddaughter of Josiah Deans in a Smith Scrapbook at the Virginia Historical Society, which associates her family with the introduction of colonial ice houses. She describes her great-great grandfather, Josiah Deans II (the Deans family nomenclature becomes just as confusing as that of the Pages.):

“He introduced into Gloucester the beautiful style of ice house that Mr. Jefferson built at Monticello after the Italian model. It is circular with a shingled roof rising to a point and standing on a very green mound surrounded by forest trees, making the usually unsightly icehouse a real point of beauty in the domestic landscape.”

Her account does not say for certain that her family built the ice house at Rosewell, but its description is strikingly similar. A letter I found that was written by a Page family member about a party she attended near Rosewell leads me to believe that there was not an ice house at Rosewell during the Page Family Era:

“They had, I am convinced, 5 bushels of Ice – and the ladies not only drank it in Wine, Punch, Cyder, and water, but eat it in quantities – it is certainly one of the greatest luxuries in the world – I was prevail’d upon to taste it twice but I did it with fear and trembling – they were in utter astonishment at my being afraid of it and assured me is was the first thing a Doctor recommended for a weakly person.”2

If the ice at this party, dated 1800, was such a surprise to Mrs. Page’s sister, Peggy Lowther, (living with the Page family at the time) then it is probable that there was not an ice house at Rosewell then and therefore, that the Deans family most likely built the ice house at Rosewell after their move to the plantation.

On March 24, 1916, the Rosewell mansion caught fire. The fire was unable to be extinguished, for “there were no fire companies in the county then and Rosewell boasted no plumbing. Drinking water was carried in pails to the house, and water for cooking was brought from the spring in a sled-mounted barrel,”3 but the mansion succumbed to the flames, marking the end of the Rosewell plantation in its occupied days.

sled-mounted barrel used to put fire out in 1916?

photo courtesy VHS

1 Most, Rachel. Ed. Discovering Rosewell: An Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Overview. Gloucester: The Rosewell Foundation, 1994. 2 Margaret “Peggy” Lowther Page. Letter to Hannah Iredell, 18 July 1800, Iredell Papers, Duke University, Durham.3 Lind, Robin, “Rosewell: Cecil Page Remembers.” Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal. Vol. XL, 11. 17. March 1977.


he

.D

ea

ns

.F

am

il

y

Ice House foundations visible today, June 2003

Ice House prior to fi re, courtesy VHS Ice House in the 1960’s, courtesy TRF

60 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Post-Fire Years: 1916-1979 61

Post-Fire Years: 1916-1979

The years between the time fi re destroyed the home and when the Rosewell Foundation became involved are important in telling the story of Rosewell’s landscape. The plantation was left deserted in 1916, and in 1923, Nellie Taylor Greaves inherited her mother’s property at Rosewell. In the late 1950’s Greaves granted Ivor Noel Hume permission to conduct an archaeological dig in an area to the west of the house. It is thought that the area was an 18th century refuse pit, due to the large number of artifacts that were found here. Although a resident farm manager was left in charge of the property, the ruins and gardens eventually succumbed to vines and overgrowth after his death in the 1940’s. The view to the water became completely obstructed, and the ruins were vandalized and pillaged for brick and other treasures. A signifi cant portion of this vandalism included the “desecration of tombs in the family cemetery.”1 The Page family restored the tombs in 1955 and “enclosed the cemetery with a protective fence just outside the foundations of the original brick wall,” but vandals destroyed them again within 8 years. It was for this reason that the family made an appeal to the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA). The Gloucester branch arranged for the removal of the tombs to the churchyard of nearby Abingdon Protestant Episcopal Church, where they still remain today.

Simultaneously, the mansion ruins continued to fall into disrepair, and in 1969, it was recorded that “[t]he remains of the Rosewell mansion, standing precariously in the midst of a forest of grapevines and large willow oaks, cannot withstand the elements much longer.”2 The owner’s children, Nellie Deans Greaves and Lt. Col. Fielding Lewis Greaves, later inherited the 247-acre estate, and in 1979, they deeded the mansion ruins and 8.75 acres of surrounding land to the Gloucester Historical Society.3 So, in 1980, the process of clearing the site to uncover the ruins began. Unfortunately, the deed did not provide a right-of-way to Carter Creek and the York River, preventing future visitors’ understanding of the Rosewell landscape’s relationship with the water. In 1981, stabilization began to prevent further deterioration of the mansion’s remains.


November 1966

1 Brown, Nicholas. “Rosewell Tombs are Moved to Abingdon.” Richmond Times Dispatch. 10 December 1969. 2 Brown, Nicholas. “Rosewell Tombs are Moved to Abingdon.” Richmond Times Dispatch. 10 December 1969. 3 Most, Rachel. Ed. Discovering Rosewell: An Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Overview. Gloucester: The Rosewell Foundation, 1994.

60 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Post-Fire Years: 1916-1979 61P

os

t-

Fi

re

.Y

ea

rs

Photograph courtesy of The Rosewell FoundationOctober 9, 1965


62 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Post-Fire Years: 1916-1979 63

In October of 1931, Arthur Shurcliffe prepared an Existing Conditions Plan of the Rosewell mansion and its surrounding landscape. This detailed inventory of Rosewell was a part of the Southern Colonial Places Project, sponsored by the Williamsburg Holding Corporation and in cooperation with Perry, Shaw, and Hepburn Architects of Boston. The following legend is derived from that found in the June 1932 Plan, Photostats, and Notes compilation of each colonial place documented within the Project. Both this book and the plan of Rosewell, drawn by Shurcliffe, are held at The Rockefeller Library at Colonial Williamsburg. Photographs included in the Deans Family Era are paired with this plan, since it was drawn just 15 years after the Rosewell plantation was abandoned as a result of the mansion fire.

C.M. Lagerstroemia indica Crape MyrtleT. BOX Buxus sempervirens Aborescens Tree BoxSAS Sassafras varifolium SassafrasMOCK Philadelphus Coronarius Mock OrangeSPIREA Spirea SpireaFORS Forsythia ForsythiaAV Arborvitae Thuja

AP Malus sp. AppleMAG. GR. Magnolia grandiflora BullbayMIM. Albizzia juilibrissin Mimosa TreeCAR. POP Populus Cottonwood PEC. Carya illinoinensis PecanASH Fraxinus americana White AshLOC. Robinia pseudoacacia Black LocustTULIP Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip PoplarWAL Juglans nigra Black WalnutWIL OAK Quercus phellos Willow OakENG. ELM Ulmus campestris English ElmW. MUL Morus lba White MulberrySYC Platanus occidentalis Sycamore HON LOC Gleditsia triacanthos Honey LocustPER Diospyros virginiana PersimmonW. CHERRY Prunus sp. Wild CherryJ QUINCE Cydonia japonica Japanese Quince

MIC. ROSE Rose roxburghi Microphylla Rose

62 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Post-Fire Years: 1916-1979 63P

os

t-

Fi

re

.Y

ea

rs

Arthur Shurcliffe Plan of Exisiting Conditions, 1931Courtesy of the Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg

64 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Rosewell Foundation: 1979-present 65

The Rosewell Foundation: 1979-present

In 1989, the “Preservation Division of the Gloucester Historical Society reorganized to establish the Rosewell Foundation.”1 This organization has worked for the past 15 years to maintain and preserve the ruins and grounds of Rosewell. The Foundation is open to the public 7 days a week, providing a fi lm, exhibit, and tours, which aim to increase contemporary knowledge about this historically signifi cant property. Established to preserve the past of Virgnia’s landscape, the Foundation will continue to develop Rosewell’s trajectory into the future. Many archaeologists have been involved in the efforts of the Foundation thus far. The details of these efforts as well as archaeology plans for the future can be found in An Archaeological Management Plan for the Rosewell Foundation, kept on fi le at the Rosewell Foundation. This account offers a well-organized map of signifi cant archaeological sites on and around Rosewell. The Foundation is also responsible for maintaining the landscape, and this includes tree-removal when necessary. In August of 1994, a tremendous dead Cottonwood was removed from the east side of the house. As 19th and 20th century trees begin to die at Rosewell, it will be the Foundation’s responsibility to initiate a new generation of shade trees into the landscape of the Rosewell ruins.

The Rosewell Foundation Visitors’ Center as seen from the north yard of the ruins. The picture window provides ample views to the ruins from the exhibit room.

June 2003

1 Most, Rachel. Ed. Discovering Rosewell: An Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Overview. Gloucester: The Rosewell Foundation, 1994. 67.

64 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Rosewell Foundation: 1979-present 65T

he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Fo

un

da

ti

on

the Cottonwood on Shurcliffe’s 1931 plan

Cottonwood still alive and standing, courtesy TRF

Removal of the Cottonwood in August 1994, courtesy TRFThe Rosewell Foundation Visitors’ Center as seen from the ruins. June 2003


Since the establishment of The Rosewell Foundation, The Garden Club of Virginia has been involved with the organization. In fact, the Rosewell plantation was included as part of the Club’s Garden Week in 1998. Most importantly, the group has played a role in the decision-making processes regarding the restoration or preservation of the gardens at Rosewell. In 1980, Rudy Favretti, Landscape Architect to The Garden Club of Virginia at that time, made several recommendations to the GCV concerning their role in funding the garden restoration at Rosewell. Twenty-three years later, a Fellowship created in his name sponsors my research of the Rosewell landscape, his third recommendation to the Restoration Committee in the document shown.1

Flowers on the Ruins Garden Week 1998

Photo courtesy TRF

Historical Re-enactmentsGarden Week 1998

Photo courtesy TRF

1 From The Garden Club of Virginia Papers held at the Virginia Historical Society.

66 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Rosewell Foundation: 1979-present 67T

he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Fo

un

da

ti

on

Document courtesy the Virginia Historical Society

1 From The Garden Club of Virginia Papers held at the Virginia Historical Society.


A great deal of other Restoration Committee correspondence, concerning their involvement at Rosewell, can be viewed at the Virginia Historical Society, where the Committee’s records, notes, and documents are archived. GCV involvement at Rosewell has not ceased over the past 2 decades, for the group funded a topographical survey of the property in 1996 and a Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey in April of 1997. It is their hope that the research I am conducting this summer will provide thorough documentation of the Rosewell plantation, proof of its significance within the landscape of Virginia history, and further insight for future decision-making concerning their role in the interpretive garden restoration at Rosewell.


Images from the Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey,

sponsored by the GCV in 1997

Th

e.

Ro

se

we

ll

.F

ou

nd

at

io

n

70 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Rosewell Garden Today 71

The Rosewell Garden Today

The present-day plan is a combination of my own plant inventory and analysis on site and the 1996 land survey sponsored by the Garden Club of Virginia.

Plant List

Trees AR Acer rubrum Red Maple

BS Buxus sempervirens Aborescens Tree Box CF Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood CI Carya illinoinensis Pecan


IO Ilex opaca American HollyJN Juglans nigra Black WalnutJV Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red CedarLT Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip PoplarMA Morus Alba White MulberryMG Magnolia grandiflora BullbayPD Populus deltoides Eastern CottonwoodPO Platanus occidentalis American SycamorePS Prunus serotina Black Cherry QP Quercus phellos Willow OakSV Sassafras varifolium Sassafras

Shrubs BS Buxus sempervirens American Boxwood

FS Forsythia sp. Forsythia LB Lindera benzoin Spicebush PC Philadelphus Coronarius Mock Orange


Groundcover and Perrenials CM Cymbalaria muralis Kenilworth Ivy FV Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry HF Hemerocallis fulva Day Lily HH Hedera helix English Ivy NC Narcissus sp. Daffodil PA Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern VM Vinca major Big-Leaf Periwinkle

70 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape The Rosewell Garden Today 71T

he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Ga

rd

en

.T

od

ay

Ginnifer L. McGill Favretti Fellow summer 2003



Plant List





Shrubs






20

20

20

20

2020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

18

19

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

16 15

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

19

15

1617

18

1213

1415

16

161514131211 10

9

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

17

19

19

17

17

17

17

17

17

Well

Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery Site

Ice HouseRuins


CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SV

JV





PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

0’ 20’ 40’ 80’

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CI CICO

JN

PO

COJN

PO


The diagrams below indicate those trees shown on Shurcliffe’s plan of 1931 that are still exisitng today. The area shown and accompanying photographs detail the landscape to the north of the mansion. Though no formal landscape or garden is known to have existed here, these trees were planted by the Deans’ family to create a more intimate landscape for their new home. Further archaeological research may uncover remnants of the vineyard and cedar allee that were purported to have existed in this area during the Page Family Era.

The Tulip Poplar that is now in the wooded are to the west is evidence of the yard’s more expansive size of years past. Further clearing up to or beyond this tree would help to achieve a more realistic sense of what it once felt like to occupy this space, while also expanding the cleared land to be studied for archeological siginifi cance and artifacts.




Plant List





Shrubs






20

20

20

20

2020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

18

19

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

16 15

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

19

15

1617

18

1213

1415

16

161514131211 10

9

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

17

19

19

17

17

17

17

17

17

Well

Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery Site

Ice HouseRuins


CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SV

JV





PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

0’ 20’ 40’ 80’

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CI CICO

JN

PO

COJN

PO

photo of mansion from the northAugust 2003

photo from the mansion looking northAugust 2003


he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Ga

rd

en

.T

od

ay

Post-fi re photo from the northcourtesy VHS

photo from the northAugust 2003

pre-fi re photo from the northeastcourtesy VHS

photo from the northeastAugust 2003


2020

20

20

20

202020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

1818

1919

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

1616 1515

19

19

19

1919

18

18

18

19

15

1617

1818

1213

1415

16

1615141314131412

11 109

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

1717

19

19

17

17

17

17

1717

1717

Well

Mansion Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery SiteCemetery Site

Ice HouseIce HouseRuinsRuins

Road to Road to Road to Road to Visitors’ Visitors’ CenterCenter

CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QPQPQPQP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CICI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LTLT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QPQP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SVSV

JV

CO

Shrubs along path edges and into wooded area Shrubs along path edges and into wooded area Shrubs along path edges and into wooded area LB, RS, FS, SP, PC LB, RS, FS, SP, PC

BXGroundcover and Perrenials in wooded area include Groundcover and Perrenials in wooded area include

HF, FV, HH, VM, CM, NC, PAHF, FV, HH, VM, CM, NC, PA


PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CFCF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CICI CICO

JN

PO

COJNJN

POPO

successive photos from the west


he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Ga

rd

en

.T

od

ay

2020

20

20

20

202020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

1818

1919

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

1616 1515

19

19

19

1919

18

18

18

19

15

1617

1818

1213

1415

16

1615141314131412

11 109

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

1717

19

19

17

17

17

17

1717

1717

Well

Mansion Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery SiteCemetery Site

Ice HouseIce HouseRuinsRuins

Road to Road to Road to Road to Visitors’ Visitors’ CenterCenter

CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QPQPQPQP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CICI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LTLT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QPQP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SVSV

JV

CO

Shrubs along path edges and into wooded area Shrubs along path edges and into wooded area Shrubs along path edges and into wooded area LB, RS, FS, SP, PC LB, RS, FS, SP, PC

BXGroundcover and Perrenials in wooded area include Groundcover and Perrenials in wooded area include

HF, FV, HH, VM, CM, NC, PAHF, FV, HH, VM, CM, NC, PA


PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CFCF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CICI CICO

JN

PO

COJNJN

POPO

successive photos from the north





Plant List





Shrubs






20

20

20

20

2020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

18

19

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

16 15

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

19

15

1617

18

1213

1415

16

161514131211 10

9

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

17

19

19

17

17

17

17

17

17

Well

Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery Site

Ice HouseRuins


CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SV

JV





PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

0’ 20’ 40’ 80’

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CI CICO

JN

PO

COJN

PO

The diagrams below indicate those trees and shrubs shown on Shurcliffe’s plan of 1931 that are still existing today. The area shown and the accompanying photographs detail the landscape to the south of the mansion on the water side. One can again see the tulip poplar as well as the ash tree that are now in the wooded area to the west. This area was once an expansive space that led out to the ice house, while the area due south of the mansion was once a fenced garden. It is not certain whether the garden in this now mostly wooded area to the south existed during the Page Family Era, but it is probable that their kitchen garden was located here. It is most likely that the fenced garden was built by the Deans’ family as discussed in an earlier chapter. Though no physical evidence of the garden was found in previous, less comprehensive archaeological digs, one can be virtually certain that artifacts remain to be found in the area.

This photograph shows the Locust represented in Shurcliffe’s drawing. It also shows what I believe to be the Red Maple shown in the drawing. Though dead, the tree is still standing today. Some believed it to be a Cottonwood such as the others that are dispersed across the site. Shurcliffe is believed, however, to have been extremely accurate in his findings, and he recorded the Car. Poplars in locations where we know that they did exist. (see Rosewell Today section detailing tree removal). After comparing his measurements to my own, I found that the tree he locates and names a Red Maple is that large ivy-covered specimen still standing today. (see images on next page) The location of this tree paired with the images on these pages are extremely helpful in locating the fence line. The Bache Map shown on page 51 offers the most definitive clues about the garden’s size and physical form and seems to include the outhouse and fence. This map at a better resolution would offer further details about the Rosewell Garden.


he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Ga

rd

en

.T

od

ay

Red Maple seen from the mansion

The photographs here show the fenced garden as it existed at the time of the Deans family’s residence at Rosewell. One sees the close proximity of the Red Maple to the fence. The larger tree in the foregound is what I believe to be the Ash, that was 55” in caliper at the time of Shurcliffe’s drawing. Therefore the area from which this picture was taken is now completely wooded and overgrown. The red tape in the photo above shows the fence line that I approximated, based on the locations of these trees in the photographs, the dimensions taken from Shurcliffe’s drawing and my own fi eld work, pulling lines perpendicular from the mansion ruins. Further study and analysis by the archaeological team should certainly uncover the remnants of this fence. Establishing this location and the precise locations of the corners will also prove helpful in locating the outbuilding seen in the garden photo above. I believe that the two trees seen behind it are the Apples that Shurcliife shows in his drawng. Using his information, this photograph, and my analysis of the fence and tree locations, the foundations of this building, an archaeological treasure, could defi nitely be located with precision. Such work should be conducted in the fall or winter seasons when the overgrowth and insects are not as daunting.

photographs taken August 2003





Plant List





Shrubs






20

20

20

20

2020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

18

19

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

16 15

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

19

15

1617

18

1213

1415

16

161514131211 10

9

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

17

19

19

17

17

17

17

17

17

Well

Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery Site

Ice HouseRuins


CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SV

JV





PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

0’ 20’ 40’ 80’

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CI CICO

JN

PO

COJN

PO

Tree Box still standing at the end of the garden June 2003

Taken from what appears to be the cross path of the garden shown in Shurcliffe’s drawing, the historic photograph on the left was fairly easy to replicate using his measurements. The photograph was most likely taken from what is now the far edge of the cleared path. Therefore, to be more accurate, the cleared path should extend slightly farther east into the wooded area. Further studies and inventories of the entire area (vegetation species, landmarks, etc.) should be conducted in the fall or winter when the area is more readily traversed.

“Terracing” leads to water’s edgephoto courtesy TRF


he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Ga

rd

en

.T

od

ay

What were once prominent views to the water are now obscured by overgrowth. One can, however, push his/her way to the water through the wooded area. Continuing straight past the garden leads to the bluff that hangs over the water’s edge, while walking east and down the sloped “terracing” leads one directly to the water’s edge. Each of these areas contains remnants of brick foundations that should be further studied for further clues about the Rosewell landscape. Ginnifer L. McGill

Favretti Fellow summer 2003



Plant List





Shrubs






20

20

20

20

2020

21

21

21

21

20

20

19

18

19

19

18

18

20

19

18

17

16

20

16 15

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

19

15

1617

18

1213

1415

16

161514131211 10

9

1415

16

16

16

15

1514

17

19

19

17

17

17

17

17

17

Well

Mansion Ruins

HH, CM

Cemetery Site

Ice HouseRuins


CICI

CI

CI

CI

MGMG

JN

PO

LT

JN

CO

QP

QP

JN

JN

2-JN

CI

CI

JN

BSMA

AR LT

LT

FA

deadPD

LT

LT

QP

QP

AR

QP

QP

PO PO

CI

CO

COPO

SV

JV





PS

AR

AR

CI

CI

JV

6-CF1-LT

CF

CF

5-CFCO

LT

CF

CF

CO

AR

4-CF

2-CF 2-CF

LT

PSCI

CI

CO

JN

CI

5-IO

JVIO

JN

2-CF

CF

ARCO

2-PO

0’ 20’ 40’ 80’

6-CI

JNLT

CI

CI CICO

JN

PO

COJN

PO

View back to mansion from end of garden pathJune 2003

“Terracing” leads to water’s edgephoto courtesy TRF

Beyond the garden is bluff overlooking water June 2003


Details of garden today: Sassafras, Tulip Poplar, Strawberry, Kenilworth IvyJune 2003


he

.R

os

ew

el

l.

Ga

rd

en

.T

od

ay

Today’s view to garden from south porch of mansionAugust 2003

View through mansion out south entrance to gardenJune 2003

Mid-60’s view to garden and water from mansioncourtesy TRF

82 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Appendix 1: Page Family Tree 83

82 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Appendix 1: Page Family Tree 83A

pp

en

di

x.

1:

Pa

ge

.F

am

il

y.

Tr

ee

84 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Appendix 2: The Rosewell Garden Tomorrow 85

The Rosewell Garden Tomorrow

Though considered, the mansion ruins were never rebuilt, and many feel this was the best decision:

“We all agreed that, as a ruins enshrouded in the thick vines, Rosewell evoked more than it would have by restoration. This is by no way to negate the wonder of the restoration at Williamsburg… It is to say that ruins have their place, as in Italy and Greece, and we must preserve these ruins. From the ruins, we were deeply moved, but deeply fearful that they too would pass.”1

The Rosewell Foundation has taken great measures to insure that the ruins would not be lost, and so, it is important that similar steps are taken to preserve what little is left or known of the early gardens at Rosewell. Gordon Chappell of Colonial Williamsburg developed a plan for the landscape at Rosewell. He presented this to the Interpretive Planning Committee for the Rosewell Foundation on September 17, 1998. (see Appendix 2) The minimal intervention recommended by Chappell seems like the most viable action, not only because of the limited knowledge we have of a formal garden, but because the site should also be treated as an archaeological treasure. There are many answers, which lie hidden below the ground at Rosewell, particularly in the area once enclosed by fence. It is my hope that the documentation, observations, and hypotheses included in this paper will act as an aid to the archaeologists working at Rosewell in the near future.

The Rosewell plantation is situated on a bluff, once providing stunning vistas to the York River and Carter Creek. It is my opinion that a clearing to the water is crucial for visitors to truly understand the mansion’s relationship to its site. The mansion ruins evoke awe and fear, and the water will act as a reminder of what has kept this place grounded in the Virginia landscape for over three centuries. It is certain that the grounds of Rosewell deserve the same attention as the ruins, for they too have a story to tell. They are living ruins.

Axonometric by Gordon Chappell

1 Dowdey, Clifford. “ A Trip to Rosewell.” Virginia Record. 22.

84 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Appendix 2: The Rosewell Garden Tomorrow 85A

pp

en

dix

.2:T

he

.Ro

sew

ell.G

ard

en

.To

mo

rrowGordon Chappell’s Development Plan


pp

en

dix

.2:T

he

.Ro

sew

ell.G

ard

en

.To

mo

rrow

92 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Appendix 3: Bibliography 93

Books

Berkeley, Edmund and Dorothy Smith. John Clayton: Pioneer of American Botany. Chapel Hill: UNC P, 1963. Betts, Edwin Morris. Thomas Jefferson’s Garden Book: 1766-1824. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1944. Coffin, Lewis A. and Holden, Arthur C. Brick Architecture of the Colonial Period in Maryland and Virginia. New York: Dover, 1919.Glenn, Thomas Allen. Some Colonial Houses and Those Who Lived in Them. Philadelphia: Henry T. Coates and Co., 1899. Lanciano, Claude O. Rosewell: Garland of Virginia. Charlotte: The Delmar Company, 1978. Published by the Gloucester County Historical Committee. Lanciano, Claude O. Our Most Skillful Architect: Richard Taliaferro and Associated Colonial Virginia Constructions. Gloucester: Lands End Books, 1981. Mason, Frances Norton. John Norton and Sons: Merchants of Virginia. Richmond: The Dietz Press, 1937.Meade, Bishop. Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia. Philadelphia” J.B. Lippincott Co., 1861. 2 vols. Most, Rachel. Ed. Discovering Rosewell: An Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Overview. Gloucester: The Rosewell Foundation, 1994. Noel-Hume, Ivor. Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County Virginia, 1957-59 Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution, 1962. Page, Richard Channing Moore. Geneology of the Page Family in Virginia. Bridgewater, Va.: C.J. Carrier Co., 1893. Saunders, Lucy Burwell Page. Leonora and the Ghost. Baltimore: Charles Harvey and Co., 1876Sinclair, Caroline Baytop. The Four Families of Rosewell. Virginia Beach: Grunwald and Radcliff, 1989. Waterman, Thomas Tileston. Domestic Colonial Architecture in Tidewater Virginia. New York: Dover, 1968. Waterman, Thomas Tileston, The Dwellings of Colonial America. Chapel Hill: U of NC P, 1950. Waterman, Thomas Tileston. The Mansions of Virginia: 1706-1776. New York: Bonanza Books, 1965. Wilstach, Paul. Tidewater Virginia. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1929. Zirkle, Conway. “John Clayton and Our Colonial Botany.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. v. 67, no. 3. An excerpt from an address given at a meeting of The Garden Club of Virginia in Williamsburg, October, 11, 1957.

Journal and Newspaper Articles

Boyd, Thomas. “Splendor in the Ruins.” Country. February 1982.Brown, Nicholas. “Rosewell Tombs are Moved to Abingdon.” Richmond Times Dispatch. 10 December 1969. Dowdey, Clifford. “A Trip to Rosewell.” Virginia Record. Dunstan, William Edward III. “Rosewell, an Unfulfilled Dream.” Virginia Cavalcade. 1970 20(2) 12-25.Leviner, Betty Crowe. “Rosewell Revisited.” Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts. November 1993 Volume XIX, Number 2. The Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts. Leviner, Betty Crowe. “The Pages and Rosewell” Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts. November 1987 Volume XIII, Number 1. The Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts. Lind, Robin, “Rosewell: Cecil Page Remembers.” Gloucester-Mathews Gazette Journal. Vol. XL, 11. 17. March 1977. McCartney, Martha W. “An Historical Overview of Rosewell.” Discovering Rosewell: An Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Overview. ed. Rachel Most. Gloucester: The Rosewell Foundation, 1994.C.C. Petersburg. “Stone House.” Southern Literary Messenger. Minor, B.B., ed. printed January 1844. written October 1843.

Letters and Diaries

Robert Carter. Diary Entry. 9 November 1727. Alderman Library. The University of Virginia. John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1771.” Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg.John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1776.” Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg. John Page. “Commonplace Book: 1795-6.” The Virginia Historical Society. John Page. Letter to St. George Tucker, 8 March 1798, Tucker-Coleman Papers, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.John Page. Letter to Robert Carter, 12 March 1795, Duke University, DurhamMann Page. 1775-1869. Letters pertaining to financial matters at Rosewell. Rockefeller Library at Colonial Williamsburg.Margaret Page. Letter to John Page, 17 April 1794, Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg. Margaret Page. Letter to her son, John Page, 19 January 1820, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.Margaret “Peggy” Lowther Page. Letter to Hannah Iredell, 18 July 1800, Iredell Papers, Duke University, Durham.Margaret “Peggy” Lowther Page. Letter to Hannah Iredell, 5 September 1800, Iredell Papers, Duke University, Durham.Anna Maria Dandridge Deans Smith. “Geneological Notes Concerning Deans Family,” Smith Family Papers, The Virginia Historical Society.

92 Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape Appendix 3: Bibliography 93A

pp

en

di

x.

3:

Bi

bl

io

gr

ap

hy

Academic Papers

Brown, Bennie Jr. “Rosewell: An Architectural Study of an 18th Century Virginia Plantation.” Thesis for MA, University of Georgia. 1973. Leviner, Betty Crowe. The Page Family of Rosewell and Mannsfield: A Study of Economic Decline. 1987. Rockefeller Library, Colonial WIlliamsburg.

Personal Interviews

Aplan, Paul. Chappell, Gordon. Colonial Williamsburg. Hicks, Hilarie. Executive Director. Rosewell Foundation, Inc. Gloucester, Virginia. Kelso, William. Director of Archaeology, Jamestown Rediscovery Association for the preservation of Virginia Antiquities. Jamestown, Virgnia. Page, Wray. Perritt, Margaret. Curator. Rosewell Foundation, Inc. Gloucester, Virginia.

Web Sites

www.history.orgwww.in2thewild.comwww.swem.wm.edu/spcollwww.vahistorical.orgwww.vahistorical.org/aamcvhs/AAG_sol.pdfwww.lva.lib.va.ushttp://www.history.org/History/jdrlweb/guides/aids/WILLIAMSBURG.pdf

Other

Bevan, Bruce. Geosight. A Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey at Rosewell. sponsored by The Garden Club of Virginia. 22 April 1997. Business Records in the Virginia State LibraryChappell, Gordon. “Rosewell: A Plan for Landscape Development.” Held at The Rosewell Foundation. “Declaration on Rosewell.” Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia. Richmond, policy no. 701, (June, 1802)“Declaration on Rosewell.” Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia. Richmond, policy no. 1162, (September, 1806)“Declaration on Rosewell.” Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia. Richmond, policy no. 1910, (May, 1815)“Gloucester County, Virginia: A Step Back in Time.” Gloucester Historical Committe, 2001. Harpole, Thane and David Brown. An Archaeological Management Plan for the Rosewell Foundation. 22 July, 2002. Mason, Polly Cary. Records of Colonial Gloucester County. Newport News, VA, 1946. 2 vols. Alderman.“The Pages of Rosewell.” A Family Tree. The Rosewell Foundation. Shurcliffe, Arthur A. Measured Plan of Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia. Williamsburg: Williamsburg Holding Corporation, October 1931. (at Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg)


http://www.swem.wm.edu/spcoll

http://www.vahistorical.org

http://www.vahistorical.org/aamcvhs/AAG_sol.pdf

http://www.lva.lib.va.us

http://www.history.org/History/jdrlweb/guides/aids/WILLIAMSBURG.pdf

Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape

Documents

Transcript of Living Ruins: The Rosewell Landscape