Site map
A History of Preston in Hertfordshire
The Rose Garden of Temple Dinsley: Part Two
1811c
1766
Further musings re: Gertrude Jekyll’s involvement with the gardens of Temple Dinsley (12/8/2024)
A trawl of the works of Lawrence Weaver (who made a
study of Temple Dinsley) to further investigate Jekyll’s
involvement with the gardens of Temple Dinsley is
enlightening.
There was a provable close relationship between Jekyll and
Weaver - in 1912, they collaborated on the book, Gardens
for Small Country Houses (see right).
In a key-note article in Country Life (22 April 1911), Weaver
described the history of Temple Dinsley and the renovations
to the house and garden. An accompanying photograph
included some detail of the rose garden:
These are Weaver’s only comments about Temple Dinsley’s rose garden in April 1911:
Less than two years afterwards, on 7 December 1912, Country Life magazine reviewed Gardens for
Small Country Houses. There can therefore be no doubt that Jekyll and Weaver were well
acquainted with each others work in April, 1911 - indeed their joint opus may have been in the throes
of being discussed and written at the time.
Yet Weaver does not associate Jekyll with the rose garden in his Country Life piece - and, certainly,
when he was being taken around the mansion, had Jekyll designed any of the gardens, it would have
been mentioned, and Weaver would have included those references in his article.
Now, we will examine Weaver and Jekyll’s
comments about Temple Dinsley in Gardens for
Small Country Houses. Here was a golden
opportunity to mention the Jekyll’s involvement
with the mansion’s gardens. This is his only
comment:
Weaver makes two references to Temple Dinsley in English Leadwork:
Jekyll is not mentioned.
When Weaver wrote Houses and Gardens by Sir Edwin Lutyens in 1926, he repeated his Country
Life article of 1911. This was the heading re: Temple Dinsley:
I began this article by mentioning that I had studied for a gardening qualification. Along the way (and
after frequent visits to Hay-on-Wye), I’ve assembled a large library of gardening books, focussing on
garden history. They include most of Gertrude Jekyll’s fourteen works and several books which
celebrate her gardens such as The Gardens of Gertrude Jekyll by Richard Bisgrove. One of my
favourite tomes is Gertrude Jekyll’s Lost Garden by Rosamund Wallinger.
I have consulted as many books about Jekyll as I can find, including Gertrude Jekyll by Sally Festing;
Gertrude Jekyll: a vision of Garden and Wood by Judith B Tankard; The Lost Gardens of Gertrude
Jekyll by Fenja Gunn and Lost Gardens by Jennifer Potter. Not one of them affirms that Jekyll
designed the rose garden, or any other garden for that matter, at Temple Dinsley.
So, let us return to exactly what Jane Brown wrote in Gardens of a Golden Afternoon.
(By ‘partnership’ she means Lutyens and Jekyll working together.)
Based on what she wrote, why did Jane Brown conclude that Lutyens and Jekyll designed garden(s)
at Temple Dinsley? We are simply not informed. There is no reference provided. Because one writer ,
even a qualified writer, says it was so, does not prove that it is true.
Finally, if we are dealing with a rural myth here, why might it have been perpetuated? Perhaps the
main reason is the kudos which has been attached to a house designed by Lutyens together with a
garden designed by Jekyll. For example, It would certainly be in the interests of Princess Helena
College (PHC) to perpetuate the story. As mentioned earlier, the PHC website stated (with perhaps a
careful choice of words), “The formal rose garden, where the influence of Gertrude Jekyll is plainly
evident, is a stunning location for girls and staff to relax and for parents to enjoy at key school
events”.
Alternatively, as Tom Stafford explains, ‘Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of
whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda…
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to
Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect.
If anyone can provide acceptable proof that Gertrude Jekyll designed the Temple Dinsley rose garden
and any other gardens, I will immediately acknowledge this on this web site and erase much of what
is written in this article. My email door is open…. (p.wray@hotmail.co.uk’)
Further food for thought
Earlier I commented that the pinnacle of high taste in the early twentieth century to which many
wealthy people aspired was a Luytens house with a Jekyll garden.
This is perhaps a misleading over-simplification. As well as his architectural work on buildings,
Lutyens was also lauded for his garden designs. This was highlighted when a trilogy of books was
published entitled The Architecture of Sir Edwin Lutyens, the second of which featured his gardens
together with his work at Delhi and Washington. Lutyens and Jekyll collaborated on creating many
gardens too - Lutyens designed the hard landscaping (the paths, steps, walls, pergolas, ponds, rills
and small buildings, for example) and Jekyll adorned his designs with her planting schemes. Looking
at her planting plans, one might be forgiven for the notion that she was ‘painting by numbers’, or rather
planting by numbers.
For example, this is her plan for Putteridge Park, which came with a key to varieties of roses:
It must be noted that usually Jekyll drew blocks of plants and wrote their names in her spidery hand
within the blocks - but that too is essentially ‘planting by numbers’. Her work in these instances was to
choose and place the plants while Lutyens drew the design for their framework.
This is well illustrated in their gardening teamwork at Hestercombe. The Encyclopedia of Gardening:
History and Design explains their modus operandi as follows:
Lutyens’ architectural contributions are described - The Great Plat, rotunda, steps, terrace, rill, ‘panels
of grass’ and retaining walls. Jekyll filled the gaps with her planting. This was how they worked. Note
how the Encyclopedia sums up this process:
This is a perfect description of how the two worked at Temple Dinsley. Lutyens provided the design
(his plans exist of the Magnolia Steps and the terrace paving near the mansion) and Jekyll painted it
with her planting.
This is how she contributed to the Temple Dinsley rose garden. Jekyll chose the varieties of roses,
ordered them from Harkness, who then planted them as they saw fit.
Armed with this background information, Jane Brown’s comments in the opening paragraphs take on
a more significant slant. She writes of ‘another good brick garden, with elaborate terraces at Temple
Dinsley’… and extols its ‘elegant brickwork’. She is referring, not so much to Jekyll’s planting but to
Lutyens architectural features.
Future re-incarnations of the rose garden at Temple Dinsley.
If the rose garden was re-created at Temple Dinsley, how should it be planted?
There is a wealth of relevant information available. Firstly, the image in the Harkness catalogue:
This (and other photographs) show the number of standard roses in each section and ground cover
provided by low-growing rose bushes.
Note the colour of the flowers - white, pink and a darker red. But a word of caution here: this image
from 1912 has been colourised. Has the colouriser been faithful to the scene? Fortunately, we have a
second painted image from around the same time which shows a wider palette of rose colours:
There are more darker red roses and even some yellow roses, which are not shown in the Harness’
colourised catalogue.
For further information, we might consult the fully documented and concurrent planting scheme by
Lutyens and Jekyll at Putteridge Park. This provides a listing of roses, which interestingly includes
three yellow varieties:
Although perhaps some of these roses are not available today, or maybe their names have changed,
at least this list is a possible starting point when choosing rose varieties for Temple Dinsley. During a
recent visit to Mottisfont Rose Garden in Hampshire, I saw most of these varieties.
To be faithful to the images that survive, ground cover such as stachys or lavender was not planted in
the Temple Dinsley rose garden.
A visitor to a made-over rose garden at Temple Dinsey who knows its history may well comment on
any aspect that was not faithful to the original garden.