Historical Gardens

Which -if we recall- really was a story of three lions: two at De Paauw and the one at Drottningholm.

It turns out we are talking about at least four lions. Some closer inspection of other photos of the Swedish lion revealed that there are also two lions at Drottningholm.¹ It is not the same set as at De Paauw, though, because the ones in Sweden both have their tail on the right side of their body, while one of the statues in The Netherlands has his tail draped on the left side of his body.²
The lack of symmetry suggests that two different lion types were made, possibly in series, which could be combined at will. It is therefore quite possible that more of these lion statues are hidden in some collection or garden.

Be that as it may, the more interesting question is whether all lions share the same provenance. This is suggested by their similar appearance.
According to current literature, the lions at De Paauw were placed there somewhere in the early 1850s. It is claimed to be a gift from the Russian tzar Alexander II to Frederik, prince of The Netherlands. The earliest reference to that story I have found is from as late as 1924, when a large part of De Paauw was transferred to the council of Wassenaar. Its soon-to-be-former owner, Mr. Chabot, presented the set of lions and a trough as a gift, and in an accompanying letter stated how Frederik had originally received the statues.³

In most literature since then this story is repeated, with some inevitable minor alterations (e.g. ‘in 1850′, ‘around 1850′ or ‘in the early 1850s’). “Tzar Alexander II” is always named as the giver, even though he wasn’t tzar until 1855. The most logical conclusion would be that the actual donation was made by Alexander in the later 1850s. But that may be taking the easy route, and it does not explain how the Drottningholm lions fit into this story?

That last part is probably the easiest to answer. Knowing that prince Frederik’s daughter Louise married the Swedish crown prince Carl in 1850, certainly ties both families, gardens and lion groups firmly together. The fact that in 1850/51 architect Hermann Wentzel (1820-1889) worked in Stockholm on the Nationalmuseum, right before he was commissioned by prince Frederik at De Paauw in 1853, only strenghtens these ties.
This means we can already identify one possible explanation for the occurence of these statues in exactly those two gardens: two of the lions, given to Frederik by tzar elect Alexander, may in turn have been a gift from Frederik to his daughter.

But there is a catch here: in a recent article on the work that Wentzel did at De Paauw, an almost casual remark states that the lions were a gift by Alexander to a relative of Frederik. This relative then passed the lions on to him, for his newly remodelled garden.⁴
This puts things in a totally different perspective, and forces us to turn our attention to Drottningholm, where the lions are situated in front of the garden façade of the famous court theatre. Could it be the statues were originally a gift to the Swedish royal family, who then passed two lions, a trough and an architect on to the future queen’s father?

More on that in part 3.

1. For photos see: Ove Hidemark, The Drottningholm Court Theatre: its advent, fate and preservation (Stockholm 1993), pp 4+5, 64, 122+123 and 137. [back]
2. Both couples are placed facing opposite directions. The resulting difference is that -when seen from the side- in Sweden one always sees only one tail at a time, whereas at De Paauw either none at all, or two tails are visible. [back]
3. On September 27, 1924. See: Frans Micklinghoff, Kastelen, buytenplaetsen en landgoederen in Wassenaar (Wassenaar 1998), p150. It is likely that a dating of around 1850 or the early years of the following decade is inspired by the fact that in those years an extensive remodelling of both house and garden took place, under supervision of the prince. The German architect H.H.A. Wentzel was called in to give the estate a pompeian atmosphere. These slick, white marble lion statues must have fitted into the picture quite well, hence the dating in the early 1850s. [back]
4. Wim Meulenkamp and Carla Oldenburger, ‘A miniature Klein-Glienicke – Dutch stibadia modelled on Prussian examples’ in: Prussian Gardens in Europe. 300 years of garden history (Leipzig 2007), p99. But it never becomes clear where this information comes from. [back]

After last night’s surprising victory over England by the Dutch cricket team, which has caused both a shock and words of praise in Britain, one has to wonder where it all began. Certainly, cricket in Holland has never grown into a large and important sport, but as it turns out it was introduced at least as early as 1765.
The earliest reference to cricket in Holland I know of (mind you, I am not an expert in cricket), comes from the Boreel family, the owners of Beeckestijn. In reply to a request dated 23 August 1765 by Willem Boreel, Jean Palairet (agent in London of Willem’s father Jacob) confirms he had bought 4 balls (12 shilling) and 12 bats (12 shilling).¹ A week later he writes extensively about the name of the ship carrying the “masses de jeu de crickett et des douze boules”, but somehow forgets to mention the ship’s name itself.²

In his first letter Palairet states that he is still on the lookout for a rule book. Although these ‘Laws of Cricket‘ existed since 1744, a printed rule book based on revisions agreed upon in 1774, was not published until 1775. So it is safe to say that the Laws of Cricket probably never made it across the North Sea earlier than that.
That would not have stood in the way of a good match at Beeckestijn, though, because back then the game knew many different rules and forms. A major standardisation of the game only came about in 1809. The fact that none of the open areas in Beeckestijn’s garden is big enough to house a cricket field by modern standards, would not have posed a problem: the first laws of cricket only dictates the size of the pitch, the distance between the wickets and where the bowling and popping creases should be. The size of the surrounding field where the field players are, seems to have been open to interpretation and circumstances.
Finding opponents would not have been difficult as well. Willem attended college in Leiden (Leyden), at the time a university which drew students from many countries in Europe, including many from England.³

If we were to play a match on Beeckestijn by modern standards, we would be forced to play on a field just next to the garden proper, now in use as a meadow for horses (see my poor rendering of that situation on the left).⁴ Instead, wouldn’t it be nice to commemorate the 1765 introduction of the game at Beeckestijn with an annual historical cricket game, taking place at either the small or the big field in the landscape garden the family created in exactly the same period? Attention in the media and any proceeds of the game could then be used to support the future exploitation of Beeckestijn, after all one of te most important gardens in The Netherlands.

How on earth did Willem Boreel learn about cricket so soon? Continue Reading »

1. These amounts are confirmed by a receipt in the Boreel family archive. [back]
2. Both letters from Palairet are kept in the Boreel family archive at the Nationaal Archief in The Hague. Willem Boreel’s request has not yet been found. [back]
3. Willem Boreel became close friends with James Harris, later the first Earl of Malmesbury, who attended classes in Leiden from September 1765 till the spring of 1766. [back]
4. This field is now an important archaeological site, making it highly unlikely a game would ever be played there. [back]

And then I recognised a lion. During a relaxed browse on the internet through photos of Drottningholm, the Swedish royal palace near Stockholm. Which is strange, because I’ve never been to Sweden (let alone to Africa). My last visit to any zoo must have been 4 years ago, and even then I saw no lions. How could this be?

Well, first of all: the lion I recognised was on a picture of a statue. And secondly his lookalike is situated in the west of The Netherlands, at De Paauw in Wassenaar. Close to home and I had taken pictures of that one shortly before I was browsing and found the one in Sweden.

The lions at Drottningholm (above, photo Pippi Netgirl)
and at De Paauw (below, photo HvdE).

They are similar, although the finish of both statues is completely different: the details of the lion at De Paauw are much smoother, less outspoken than the Swedish specimen. The biggest difference is the watering hole forming the mouth of the Dutch lion (which is one of a set of two lions placed on either side of a water trough, or bath tub).
Apart from these superficial differences, they share a lot of features.

• The hair on top of the head parts in a V-shape on both lions and the ears are similar (the ear of the Drottningholm lion is damaged, but one can see it is the same).
• The facial features (eyebrows, cheekbones, nose) are the same and the spots where the whiskers would be are more outspoken in the Swedish lion, but the De Paauw specimen also has them.
• The manes are similar.
• The tendons (visible on the left forelegs and on their sides near the hindlegs) of both lions are shaped exactly the same.

And to top it off: there are horizontal lines that look like cracks or seams at both sides of the head on both lions, and they are at the same height.

The conclusion must be that these lions have been created after the same model. There must have been two models, though, because at De Paauw the lions have their tail on different sides of their body (both tails are visible from the house).
It looks like prefab workshop material, possibly delivered with smooth features, which could easily be adapted to the buyer’s taste when he wanted them to appear stronger, or at least more distinct. Which -as always- leaves me with more questions than answers, but the main ones are: where are they produced and who made them?

What I also do not know is whether the Drottningholm lion has company, nor do I know whether that lion was made for the palace gardens itself, or brought in afterwards.¹ The picture above is the only evidence I have of it.
The lions at De Paauw are reportedly a gift from tzar Alexander II to prince Frederik of The Netherlands (king Willem II’s younger brother), a donation that supposedly took place somewhere in the 1850s. That story, however, is riddled with uncertainty and opportunities to present an alternative view.

As is the case in all royal families in Europe, close ties are not hard to find between the two men. But how does Sweden tie in, and is that even important? More about that in part 2. For now, I leave you with two challenges: prove me wrong and spot the deciding differences I have missed; and educate me (us) on the provenance of the Drottningholm lion.

1. Due to the fact that most literature about Drottningholm seems to be in Swedish and/or is concerned with the theatre of the palace. Combine that with the fact that the only publically available (in The Netherlands) copy of Nils G. Wollin’s book ‘The marbles in the Royal Park of Drottningholm and their origins‘ (Stockholm, 1965) is missing from its library in Amsterdam, and you can imagine why. [back]

Schaep en Burgh, the most northern of the estates in ’s-Graveland, is currently being restored by its owner Natuurmonumenten. The estate, which originated in the 17th century, had been remodeled in 1818 into a landscape garden by architect J. D. Zocher Jr. Natuurmonumenten are now using a map from around 1820 as a guideline for their restoration.¹ The work is the first step of an extensive revitalisation plan by Natuurmonumenten. Apart from Schaep en Burgh, they will also start work on the other 9 estates they own in ’s-Graveland.

The work that has taken place in November and December 2008 focusses on the hook-shaped pond that Zocher designed just behind the house, the so-called ‘Lindenkom’. A photo taken in September 2008 shows how overgrown the area around the pond had become. Views over the pond, originally intended by Zocher, were blocked by undergrowth which was sometimes intentionally planted in the 190 years since the original design was made. A path running along the banks of the pond was barely visible and consequently barely used, I noticed during my visit in September 2008.

This photo made earlier this month shows the current situation. The trees on the island (in the shade on the right side of the picture) are all cleared and replaced by new planting. The banks along large portions of the pond are also cleared. New shrubs are planted and several species of trees replace the cut down trees.² The view at the house, and other important vistas, are open again.
As far as I can tell from my winterly visit, they have overdone the planting of shrubs around the pond a bit. The plan boasts the planting of 1600 plants, but they are planted frightingly close together. In my view, Natuurmonumenten has been a bit too eager to create a ‘voluptuous’ shrubbery in too short a time.

This eagerness may have been insprired by criticism on the work they are doing. In November 2008 objections were raised against the extensive clearing of trees and shrubs in the garden. Apart from the architectural and historical arguments -which in my view speak in favour of this restoration- the critics must not have realised that the abundance of mature beech trees in the garden would have posed a problem of increasing proportions in the near future, as they seem to have reached the point that they fall down without warning already. The work started with the clearing of two beech trees right next to the house, which were suffering major fungus infections. Beech trees have been falling apart in the whole area the past years, like a 260 year old specimen at Gooilust in April 2008 and one just behind the Lindenkom at Schaep en Burgh in the past months (photo), which only appears to have damaged a neighbouring tree in its fall.³

The stump of a recently broken beech tree at Schaep en Burgh, caused by a fungus infection. The ‘Lindenkom’ is visible in the background. Photos by HvdE.

Beech trees (in The Netherlands) have a lifespan of 200-300 years, when they are happy with their designated location. Trees in gardens are not always planted on favourable spots as far as life span is concerned. I believe people who care about parks and gardens -in their neighbourhood or in general- must prepare for a clearing of beech trees on a large scale in the upcoming decades, because they have been used abundantly in early 19th century landscape gardens throughout the country. I just hope they will be replaced with a good idea in mind, either by a modern layout, or a as the result of a restoration or revitalisation plan as is the case here.

1. I have not yet been able to trace that map down, I will post that when I have found it. The map is found in the Wijdemeren archive. Research was done by SB4. [back]
2. Among usual suspects as beech, oak and Populus nigra ‘Italica’, they also planted specimens of the Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera), which seems a bit out of tune. But I’m happy to be surprised by the result. [back]
3. Regional paper Gooi en Eemlander reported on the Gooilust beech tree on 22 April 2008, but the report is not available on their website anymore. [back]

Things have been fairly quiet surrounding Beeckestijn the past year. To remind ourselves where things stand: last year, the decision was made to transfer the estate from the Velsen council to nature preservation society Natuurmonumenten. That could not be done directly, so Beeckestijn was transferred to a ‘middle-man’, the Dienst Landelijke Gebieden (DLG), a subdivision of the Ministry of Agriculture. The final transfer was expected to be done swiftly, reason for the future owners to announce a first presentation of the bright and shiny future in December.

The neo gothic ‘chapel’ at Beeckestijn is one of the remaining buildings that is mentioned on the map of 1772. Photo by HvdE.

December 2007, that was… Now, a full year later, the final transfer has not yet been finalised and DLG is still sole owner of the estate.

Meanwhile the council of Velsen agreed upon a new zoning plan (links to .pdf-file) for the area Beeckestijn is located in. And that zoning plan does make future developments of Beeckestijn as a self sustaining estate just a little bit more difficult.¹
At least, that is what a local paper concludes.² One of the plans of the future owners was to rebuild the orangery that was demolished after WWII, and use it as a tearoom with a terrace, maybe even a shop. This would surely attract visitors and bring in much needed money. The zoning plan now blocks that plan in two ways:

1. The plan states that no additional catering industry vending points are allowed in the whole zoning area, unless it is planned in the area surrounding Velserbeek, an estate more to the north of Beeckestijn. According to the plan Beeckestijn already has a bar/restaurant on its premises which could remain there, but that has been closed since late spring 2006.

2. The more decisive point in the zoning plan is this: the only reason the council will support a new structure to be built, is when it is mentioned on ‘the map of Michael (1772)’.³ This can only apply to Beeckestijn, although it is not mentioned as such in the text. Michael is the architect of Beeckestijn, or at least the head gardener and the one drawing the map of 1772. There is no other location that Michael drew a map of in 1772, as far as I know.

The orangery would have been located just on the other side of the hedge. Photo by HvdE.

The orangery is not on that map. And although the orangery has been around for some 150 years, the fact that it does not comply to that rather arbitrary criterion imposed on Beeckestijn by its former owners, one of the few new ‘cash-cows’ for the future owners of Beeckestijn has been denied, the local paper implies.

The local paper did not take another section of the zoning plan into account, though. In section 8.2, on page 55, it is stated that current owner DLG believes the zoning plan is too strict when it comes to Beeckestijn.⁴ The council says in response it still prefers the restrictive line it originally intended to take as far as building plans are concerned.
But. It also states that any future building plans will be examined closely by the council, which may result in a cooperative attitude from their side.

So all is not lost. But it may make the final transfer of the estate to its future owners a bit more difficult, I presume.

1. To be fair, it also creates room for extra developments that could make the garden more attractive to visitors. More about that in later posts. [back]
2. The IJmuider Courant brought that news today. [back]
3. Zoning plan section 7.3.3., page 22. [back]
4. Section 8.3 seems to be missing from the plan. [back]

In the previous post I was quite positive about the newly built temple at Twickel, and I still am. But there is another fairly recent addition to the garden that I do not understand, certainly not when seen in connection with one of the main objectives that accompanied the installation of the temple on the ‘Bergje’.

Hermit’s lodge in October 2007. Photo by HvdE.

That particular objective (not mentioned in my previous post) is that through an opening in the planting on the mount, a clear view at the hermit’s lodge on an island to the south of the temple would be established.¹
The picture below shows that last year that view was already there. This year it was even better because some of the plants on the mount were cleared. There is still some planting of evergreens to be done, all the way to the top of the hill. But I am quite certain they will keep this view in mind when the ‘Bergje’ is being replanted (probably in the 2008-2009 planting season).

View from the ‘Bergje’ towards the hermit’s lodge taken in October 2007 (out of focus). The site of the newly planted plane trees (Platanus) is highlighted in magenta. In ten years time these trees will have grown big enough to fully block the view at the lodge.
Photo by HvdE.

What I do not understand is highlighted in the photo above. Recently, but not later than Spring 2007, two plane trees (Platanus) have been planted on the field between the pond called ‘Grote Meer’ (with the island and the hermit’s lodge) and the smaller pond called ‘Fonteingat’ (at the foot of the mount, not visible on this photo).² There they accompany an age old plane oak tree. The two new trees are planted way too close to that mature specimen -one can already see them bending sideways, away from the extended branches of the old tree. The new trees are also planted closely to one another (although the angle makes the distance look ridiculously small here -they are further apart than that).³
I can only hope the two trees are planted there as an addition to the already impressive foliage the mature plane oak tree is providing. The only other explanation for those trees being there I can think of is that they are planted as back up for when the mature tree dies. Which -if true- would be a reenactment of a ‘revitalisation policy’ that became popular in the 1980s in forestry circles, but has long since been judged by garden historians and restorators as a good way to forever destroy the original intent of a garden design.

One could of course argue that Twickel is not actually restoring its park, but is, well… revitalising it. That plan includes the addition of features that serve the overall purpose. Apart from the temple, some other new features have already been added to the park that were not there before. And that is alright.
But if we zoom in on this particular action, it makes no difference what reason may have lead to choosing this location for the new plane trees. Because in ten to fifteen years time they will have grown large enough to completely block the otherwise meticulously planned view from the temple on top of the ‘Bergje’ towards the hermit’s lodge on the island.

Either the planned view is not considered important anymore, or the trees are planted there by mistake. It is a pitiful inconsistency, which ever way you look at it.

1. To quote architect Michael van Gessel on the Twickel website: “Daar heeft men dan plotseling het volle zicht op het park met de Hermitage op het eiland aan de zuidzijde van het Grote Meer als eindpunt.“ [back]
2. The plane trees were already planted at the time the statement quoted in note 1 was published. [back]
3. The fact that the new trees are planted so close may reflect a usual trick in landscape gardens. The trees will grow away from each other to create room for themselves. The result is that the combined crowns will look more mature at an early stage than could be achieved with one or two separate trees. [back]

Those who want to see the new temple at Twickel with their own eyes will have to wait till spring 2009, when the gardens are opened to the public again. If you can’t wait that long, I have a picture or two of the new temple that may help pass the six five months till then with more ease (and anticipation, perhaps).
More images of the temple and Twickel as a whole are presented when you click the link ‘Twickel’ behind ‘HGimages’ below this post.

The temple is built as part of the second phase of the ongoing improvements under supervision of landscape architect Michael van Gessel, a process that started as early as 1999. Inspiration for this temple was found nearby: a design from 1833 by Johan David Zocher Jr. was retained in the Twickel house archives. That design was never executed, nor do we know for which location of the park it was originally intended.

The new temple on its elevated location. Photo by HvdE.

The idea to create the temple at this spot came in connection with plans to upgrade a location which had become derelict: the mount (‘Bergje’). It is a high and steep artificial hill lying right next to the pond that was dug there in the late 18th century, the Fonteingat. What should have been a focal point as well as an elevated spot to have an overview over the garden from, had –ironically- turned into a rather secluded spot in the garden. That had to change.

Last year the plan was announced on the website of Twickel. This year the building work has been done. The planting of the slopes of the hill, which should be covered in plants except for its ‘summit’ (according to last year’s announcement), will probably take place in the upcoming planting season.

The temple is a beautiful small neo-classical building with a copper plated roof supported by six Doric columns. It does provide a good focal point and it is a welcome addition, especially when seen from the part of the garden directly behind the castle, where the castle itself used to be the main and almost only focal point for the visitor.

The plans included a refurbishing of the paths circling up and down the hill to and from the top. Up till now, they were lined with simple wooden railings and were mere soil paths. In the new situation, the railing has gone and the paths are lined with stones of all shapes and sizes -I saw a fragment of a millstone in there somewhere- forming irregular steps and preventing the soil from obeying gravity.

The 150 year old orangery at Eikenrode in Loosdrecht will be demolished, sources close to Eikenrode say. The orangery (which might have been designed by J.D. Zocher jr) played an important role in the plans to revitalise the estate: it was to be restored and house care apartments. But it was set to fire in December 2007.

The damaged orangery in September 2008. Photo by HvdE.

In an initial response shortly after the fire, RACM concluded that although severe damage was done, restoration of the orangery was still possible. The orangery also kept its status as a monument of national importance (Rijksmonument). A few months later the whole future of Eikenrode was at stake, when banks decided to put the estate up for auction. These plans were curbed at the last moment, but the initial reason for this auction never became clear.

The plan to sell the orangery to a third party who will demolish the building, was allegedly induced by the discovery of large quantities of asbestos in the orangery. The associated costs to clean the site were too high for the current owners (which may explain why the banks planned the sudden auction).

The solution chosen is to have the orangery demolished, the site cleaned and a new building with care apartments erected by a third party. That same party will manage the new building and the surrounding garden in this part of Eikenrode for a period of about 30 years. After that, the care apartments and adjacent grounds should apparently return to the current owners of the estate.
We at HGblog expect RACM has worked with the owners to develop these new plans. A final decision is expected in the near future.

This looks like a practical solution for the owners of Eikenrode, who saw a vital source of income go down the drain when the orangery caught fire. And given the efforts they have put into the restoration of the house and park up till now, we’re certain the decision was made with pain in their hart. But still: what a shame of that fine orangery.