Do some more research if you can.

The practice of espaliering was done in Europe but not so much in the American mid-Atlantic and south (I don't know about New England) - why? It was a device to maximize production in a small space which was important in Europe, but not a consideration in America where there was plenty of land. Usually fruit production in the Americas was done in orchards.

Native plants were not really all that popular in early America as gardening plants. Some plants were grown as ornamentals, but usually most gardeners wanted the more "traditional" European plants. John Bartram, for example, lamented that most Americans did not appreciate natives. Interest in natives is a popular concept today, but not necessarily in the early Federal period.

Please don't do an "herb garden" - this is a colonial revival concept - most people did not have them.

There are lots of books coming out on historical gardens and plants. These could be useful for you to get some perspective of how to approach some of your projects.

Good luck

Gnomlet, it sounds like you have an interesting project to work on. I think knowing something about the history of the inhabitants gives an extra dimension of both fun and purpose to such work.

PucPeggyII, could you elaborate (for those of us garden-history-amateurs out here) on your comment about the herb garden? Something that one always reads is that prior to the mid-19th c. in the U.S., residential gardens were devoted more to plants with culinary and medicinal value, vs. ornamentals. I've always assumed that herbs played a big role, in addition to fruits and vegetables. Are you saying that herbs themselves were not grown so often in the early Federal period? Or rather that they were grown but not bunched together in special 'herb gardens'? Or something else entirely? I'm very curious to hear more.

Kate

PucPeggyII and Kate, Thanks for your comments. Research is of course the name of the game and we have done quite a bit of it and are always open for more. So, Garden Web friends, lets have lots of advise and comments. We know that our Hart family were well educated and well traveled and of high social standing in their community. They may well have seen methods and plant material not common in Ct and wished to astonish their neighbors as they astonished them with their lavish parties. During Jefferson's presidency the Lewis and Clark expedition may have excited some interest in local native plants as well as those from the west. The herb gardens we are growing are not extensive, nor laid out strictly in "colonial" style. Some of our herbs are interspersed in our perennial beds which also contain natives known to have been used for various purposes during our period. Our main focus is to have beautiful plantings, fitting the time period of the historical Hart house. We us the garden for functions relating to the house and as a teaching tool for interested gardeners and many school children.
Gnomlet

The answer to the question is, yes, it is an historical restoration. You need to go slowly though because I see a lot of guess work in your assumptions. For instance, sunken lawns would have been designed that way to avoid chasing a ball about but you have guessed at the game. Another aspect you will have to face up to is the social history that you touch ever so lightly upon. For instance assuming that an upper class military man was a control freak is pretty dangerous (how far do you want to go with that?)
You need to set your parameters (objectives) and work within them as thoroughly as you can.
You could assume that all colonialising influence was bad, or indeed good but what would give life to your project, that seems so connected with the Harts would be to find out who they really were and, if you dare, warts and all.

I second INkognito's comments. Find out as much about the owners and their interests before making grand assumptions about the landscape. Any records of money spent on the landscape. What sort of books were in the library? Letters to or from the family commenting on their activities.

Urbangardener - I was objecting to the device of a garden devoted exclusively to herbs. There is precedent for gardens such as these in monastaries and "physick gardens" which were for medical schools in Europe, but they were not commonly found in home garden settings. Many early efforts at historical garden restoration used these ideas because many references to plants were made in herbals - books intended for medical advice. It is as erroneous as assuming that someone kept cows since they wore leather shoes or grew mulberry trees since they liked to wear silk clothing. Most people didn't need an entire "drugstore" in their backyard. That is not to say that they didn't grow any herbs - some used for culinary purposes on a regular basis were kept in kitchen gardens and possibly a few medicinal herbs here and there, but I have yet to find many historical references to a garden devoted to herbs. Even on the frontier people most often gathered medicinal plants from the wild. Someone like General Hart would most likely go to the doctor or apothocary for medicine instead growing it in his home.

Vegetables, fruits and ornamentals would be the more likely items found in his garden - if he had much of a garden. For vegetables though, he probably bought most staples such as potatoes and grew only items that would be difficult to get transported such as strawberries or were quite unusual or expensive.

Going along with what PucPuggy is saying about "herb gardens," Bernard MacMahon in his 1806 book, _The American Gardener's Calendar_, differentiated between what was referred to as the "pleasure garden" or "flower garden," and the more utilitarian areas such as the "kitchen garden," in which would be grown all the sorts of plants that would be used in cooking: vegetables, fruits, herbs, etc. A good example of the two basic divisions are at Mount Vernon: the "Upper Garden" is flowers, the "Lower Garden" is vegetables, fruits, and herbs. By the way, McMahon also goes into some detail about espalier pruning of fruit trees and grapes. Not an uncommon practice around here in the late 18th and early 19thC, I had been led to believe.

To PucPuggyII and Fran: Thanks very much for all of the info--very interesting. My confusion stemmed from the popular use (or at least my own use) of the term "herb garden" to refer to a smallish section of the garden where one grows a handful of culinary herbs. I hadn't been thinking about the kind of large-scale historic prototypes that PucPuggy mentions; now I understand the basis of the objection. Thanks for adding some precision to my thinking!

One reason for training fruit on an espalier was as a space saver but the main reason was to take advantage of reflected heat from a south facing wall, a wall that also provided protection from the wind and aided ripening.

Yes, our espaliered pear tree is against a south facing stone chimney. It has lots of sun and wind protection. The guess at a bowling green is based on its original size, and the popularity of the game at the time. "American Gardens in the Eighteens Century" by Ann Leighton mentions it. From other sources we find that Williamsburg built one in 1632. The British built one in New York as soon as they took that city from the Dutch in 1664. Boston had a public bowling green in 1714, and Mt Vernon and Battery Park in N.Y. in 1732. It seems to have been a most popular pastime and fits the Hart's standing in the community.
I wish we were able to document the garden but though much has been found of the family Hart so far nothing concerning the garden has showed up. The Historical Society has been researching the house and family for many years. The present garden crew has inherited much of the layout and plantings from the old guard and are trying to refine and improve these to fit the needs of the Society today - to make a beautiful setting for this beautiful old house, to use the garden as a teaching tool for the time period (1760 - 1850), to provide a setting for Society functions.
Can this be considered historical restoration?

Hurrah! for your get-up-and-go, and you actually getting a garden made. I'm not remotely an expert, but I volunteer at a restored 18th-century site which also lacks anything in the way of garden documentation. The historic landscaper who designed the garden had to work from general knowledge of the family, and assumptions about their social class. Since wealthy New Englanders of that time tended to have conservative tastes, she made a more formal garden than the "Brownian" landscape sort, and planted a mix of flowers and herbs in all the beds, as typical of the day. The assumption is that houseservants would have used the herbs in the stillroom. It isn't exactly a restoration or recreation, so it gets called an 18th-century "style" garden. (Most visitors don't worry about the distinction.) N.E. patriots at the time liked to think of themselves as doing something distinctly American, and that probably followed through to their gardens. At the same time, they were very competitive. Your family would probably have hired a professional gardener, possibly one trained in Europe, since slavery would have been outlawed after 1783. The particulars of the garden, such as espalier, would have been handled by him, at the behest of the master of the house. General ControlFreak would probably not have done much of his own gardening, unless he was a "gentleman scientist." A Gentleman Scientist might well have had an interest in native plants. I think that you are right to devote at least part of the property to recreation, since about this time many upper-class families were following the fashion of doing a lot of their summer living out-of-doors. The paterfamilias at our site was known to love garden ornaments, which we can't afford to reproduce (a hermitage, a tea house, etc.), but any of those would be appropriate. So would a small selection of potted houseplants, such as geraniums, chrysanthemums,and citrus, which could be carried indoors for winter. It is impossible to satisfy everyone when trying to re-create one of these undocumented mysteries, and no matter what you do some visitor will know more than you and not be shy about telling you that it's all wrong ;-) Even if you're only a volunteer...

First, refine exactly what you are trying to do. The time range is going to muddy things considerably, and create conflicts. Pick one. Are you doing a Colonial garden, a Federal garden, an early Victorian garden? Which doesn't really matter, but the decision has to be made. Usually it's the best documented period by default, but not always.

Once you've decided on a period, then you can discuss including things that aren't necessarily a part of that particular site, but would be typical of the period. Keeping clearly in mind that they aren't necessarily a part of that particular site.