That the "manor house," as Thomas Oliver called it in 1771, was an
extraordinary building is both revealed in the Structure B foundation
and confirmed by the insurance-policy sketch of 1806. Long, low, and
narrow, fronted by a full-length veranda and adorned with stone trim for
which we can find no exact parallel in 18th-century America, it was as
individualistic as John Mercer himself. Yet, far from being a vernacular
anachronism or a mere eccentricity, it was apparently rich with the
Georgian mannerisms that made it very much an expression of its age.
[Illustration: Figure 36.--SOUTH WALL OF STRUCTURE B, looking east. Base
of veranda extends to bottom of picture at left. Molded-sandstone trim
appears through brick rubble that has been attached to it, evidently as
base for steps.]
The measurements made of the foundation when excavated, as we have seen,
show a length of 108 feet and a width of 28 feet for the main structure,
with an overall width, including the projecting Wall C, of 37 feet 6
inches. The insurance policy states a length of 108 feet 8 inches and a
width of 29 feet 6 inches for the main foundation, plus a separate width
for the "portico" (as the structure above Wall C was called) of 8 feet
4 inches. These small discrepancies probably lie in the differences
between measuring a standing house and a foundation.
Despite the fact that the foundation was far from fully excavated
because of the presence of trees and highway, it is clear, nevertheless,
that two cellars of unequal size were situated within the main
foundation, separated by sections where there were no cellars. These
findings correspond with the notation on the insurance-policy plan, "a
Cellar under about half the House."
[Illustration: Figure 37.--CELLAR OF STRUCTURE B, showing remains of
original cross wall at left and added cross wall at right. Mercer
probably referred to the latter in 1749 in his account with Thomas
Barry: "Underpinning and altering the cellar."]
The partly destroyed cross wall extends about midway across the
foundation, acting as a retaining wall. As described above, this cross
wall was found to be tied into the brick pavement that abutted it on the
south side.
The bricks in the main foundation walls and in the partly destroyed
cross wall and pavement, on the basis of sample measurements, show a
usual dimension of about 8-1/2 by 2-3/4 by 4 inches. An occasional
9-inch brick occurs--about 10 percent of the sample.
In contrast, the bricks in the second cross wall are all 9 inches long,
except two that are 8-1/2 inches and one that is 8-3/4 inches. Similar
sizes prevail in the bricks exposed in the "portico" foundation (Wall
C) at the south end. The significance of these brick sizes will be
discussed later.
It is clear that Wall C was the foundation of the "portico," and that by
"portico" the writer of the insurance policy meant veranda or loggia.
The policy also shows a "Porch 10 by 5 f." extending from the middle of
the veranda. The highway now covers this spot.
In the space between the two parallel cross walls within the main
foundation, the debris yielded a large section of a heavy, red-sandstone
arch, 14 inches wide, 9 inches thick, and 3 feet 2 inches long. This
arch was roughhewn on the flat surfaces and on about half of the outer
curved surface, or extrados. The inner surface, or intrados, and the
remainder of the extrados are smoothly dressed (fig. 38). At the south
end of the main foundation another curved red-sandstone piece was
recovered. This piece curves laterally and has a helically sloped top
surface. It is 25 inches long, 14-1/2 inches high at the highest point,
and 9 inches thick. Presumably, it was part of a flanker for a formal
outdoor stair or steps (fig. 39). Also at the south end was found a
cast-mortar block with grooves on the back for metal or wooden
fastenings (USNM 59.1823; fig. 40). This was perhaps part of a simulated
ashlar doorframe. A few gauged or "rubbed" bricks occur that are
slightly wedge shaped.
[Illustration: Figure 38.--SECTION OF RED-SANDSTONE ARCH found in
cellar, presumably from an arcade surrounding the veranda.]
Turning to the documentary evidence, one may recall that an item dated
September 1747, "By building part of my House," appeared in David
Minitree's account in Ledger G. Two years later, in 1749, several items
related to the house appeared in the account of Thomas Barry, "By
Building the Addition to my House/ By 22 Arches/ By 900 Coins & Returns/
By a Frontispiece/ By Underpinning & altering the Cellar." In 1749 and
1750 William Copein was paid for mason's work.
[Illustration: Figure 39.--HELICALLY CONTOURED red sandstone, possibly a
flanker for the steps at the south end of the veranda, near which it was
found.]
[Illustration: Figure 40.--CAST-CONCRETE BLOCK, probably part of a
rusticated door enframement. Found at south end of Structure B. (See
ills. 1 and 2.)]
[Illustration: Figure 41.--DRESSED RED-SANDSTONE SLAB (originally in one
piece), molded on both edges. Although last used as a doorstep in
Structure E, this slab was probably designed as trim for the sides of
steps connected with the main house (Structure B).]
[Illustration: Illustrations 1 and 2.--Front and back of cast-concrete
block, probably part of a rusticated door enframement (fig. 40).
One-fourth. (USNM 59.1823.)]
[Illustration: Figure 42.--FOSSIL-EMBEDDED black sedimentary stone, used
for hearths and fireplace surrounds in the mansion.]
There is a clear sequence here. "Building part of my house" referred to
the basic brick structure built in 1747 by Minitree on the main
foundation. The work of William Monday, the carpenter, followed in 1748.
This doubtless included building the roof, setting beams, laying floors,
and building partitions. Then in 1749 Barry built the "Addition to my
House"--almost certainly the veranda. The item for 22 arches is
difficult to understand unless one relates it to the veranda and divides
the figure in two. The veranda was probably an arcade having 11 arched
openings, with arched facings of rubbed brick both inside and outside
the arcade. Thus, for the bricklayer, each actual arch would have
required two arches of brick. The intrados, or undersurfaces, of the
arches were probably red sandstone, like the fragmentary arch found in
the site; the basic element of the arch was then faced on each side with
bricks also arranged in an arch formation. The arcade at Hanover
courthouse seems to have been built in a somewhat similar fashion,
except that there the brick facing appears on the exterior of the arch
only. The "900 Coins and Returns" probably are gauged bricks, that is,
bricks ground smooth on a grindstone to provide a different texture and
richer red color to contrast with the ordinary wall brick. They were
widely used in Virginia mansions of the 18th century for corner and arch
decoration. At Marlborough over 600 rubbed bricks would have been
required to trim the piers of 11 arches, while the remainder may have
decorated the porch. The porch, we may be sure, was the "Frontispiece."
[Illustration: Illustration 3.--Iron tie bar used to secure dressed
red-sandstone slabs to each other. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1833.)]
[Illustration: Figure 43.--FOUNDATION OF PORCH at north end of Structure
B, surrounded by flagstone pavement.]
The item for "Underpinning & altering the cellar" probably refers to the
knocked-out original cross wall and the added parallel cross wall,
although the reasons for the change will always remain a mystery. As has
been noted, the average brick sizes in the main foundation, on the one
hand, and those of bricks in the new cellar cross wall and in the
veranda were mostly different. Probably the distinctions represent the
differences between Minitree's and Barry's bricks.
[Illustration: Figure 44.--PLAN OF MANSION HOUSE drawn on a Mutual
Assurancy Society of Virginia policy of 1806 after the house was
acquired by John Cooke. (_Courtesy of Virginia State Library._)]
The detailed sequence of joiners', plasterers', and painters' work
during the 1748-1750 period has already been given attention in the
historical section, enough to indicate that the mansion was one of
luxurious appointments. The insurance policy describes it as a "Brick
Dwelling House one Story high covered with wood." In modern parlance
this would be called a story-and-a-half house with a wood-shingled roof.
The veranda, probably in the form of an arcade, was trimmed with dressed
red sandstone and perhaps paved with the squares and oblongs of this
material found scattered around the site. The small projecting porch
mentioned in the insurance policy provided a central pavilion. The
appearance of the house from here on must be left wholly to speculation
with only hints to guide us. We know, for instance, that a considerable
amount--three books--of gold leaf was employed. Was there, perhaps, a
small gilded cupola to break the long expanse of roof line? Were the 162
ballusters, purchased from George Elliott towards the time of
completion, made for staircases indoors or for a balustrade along the
roof? Or did they border the roof of the veranda? To these questions
there can be no answer. Another question is whether the house, described
as one story high, was built over a high basement or near ground level.
Here we have evidence pointing to the latter, since the foundation had
two separate cellars, equalling "a Cellar under about half the House." A
high or English basement, by contrast, would have been continuous.
Furthermore, the veranda was at, or near, the ground level. The ground
floor thus might have been as much as 3 feet higher, reached by steps
from the veranda--but not a whole story higher. The depth of the
cellars, ranging from about 4 to 5 feet below ground level, implies that
the first floor was not more than 3 feet above ground level.
Suggestions as to details of trim and finish are made here and there,
again in fragmentary hints. Several broken pieces of a dark-gray,
fossil-embedded marble survive from the "chimney-pieces" and hearths of
fireplaces (fig. 42). They may be the "hewn stone from Mr. Nicholson"
paid for in 1749. A piece of plaster cyma-recta cornice molding shows
that some rooms, at least, had plaster rather than wooden ceiling trim
(USNM 59.1829, ill. 4). Thomas Oliver's statement that "the Manor house
wants lead lights in some of the windows" suggests an unparalleled
anachronism, since the term "lead light" is an ancient one referring to
casement sashes of leaded glass. But it is inconceivable, in the context
of colonial architectural history, that this house should have had
leaded-casement windows, and it is very probable, therefore, that the
semiliterate Oliver was indulging in a rural archaism to which he had
transferred the meaning of "sash lights." The latter term was used
commonly to denote double-hung, wooden-sash windows, such as Georgian
houses still feature. In support of this inference is the complete lack
of archeological evidence of leaded-glass windows.
[Illustration: Illustration 4.--Cross section of plaster cornice molding
from Structure B. Same size. (USNM 59.1829.)]
The cellarless areas of the foundation may have provided the footings
for chimneys. These probably stood several feet from the ends, perhaps
serving clusters of four corner fireplaces each, for each floor. One may
surmise that there was a hip roof, with a chimney rising through each
hip. A porch at the north end had a rectangular brick base 4 by 6 feet,
surrounded by a flagstone area 16 feet wide and 8 feet 5 inches in
extent from the house. This evidence, however, differs from the figures
given in the insurance plan which shows a "Porch 8 by 6 feet."
The mansion embodied some characteristics which are traditional in
Virginia house design and others which are without parallel. The
elongated plan indicated by the foundation was more frequently
encountered in Virginia dwellings of the late 17th and early 18th
centuries than in the "high Georgian" mansions of the 1740's and 1750's.
Turkey Island, for example, built in Henrico County in the 17th century,
was 103 feet long, 5 feet less than Marlborough.[149] The additions to
Governor Berkeley's Green Spring Plantation, built during the late 17th
century, consisted of an informal series of rooms, one room in depth for
the most part. Waterman is of the opinion that Green Spring was "in a
sense an overgrown cottage without the real attributes of a
mansion."[150] The excavations conducted in 1954 by Caywood have altered
the basis for this opinion somewhat, but, with its 150-foot length,
Green Spring remains an early example of the elongated plan.[151]
Aside from being elongated, Marlborough derives from the ubiquitous
informal brick cottage of Virginia. So indigenous is this vernacular
form that it is often found in houses of considerable pretension, even
in the 18th century. Such are the Abingdon glebe house in Gloucester
County, Gunston Hall in Fairfax, and the Chiswell Plantation, known as
"Scotchtown," in Hanover. Robert Beverley noted the Virginians' fondness
for this style, commenting that they built many rooms on a floor because
frequent high winds would "incommode a towering Fabrick"--an explanation
as delightful as it is absurd.[152]
That these one-story houses could be completely formal is demonstrated
in the unique early 18th-century addition to Fairfield (Carter's Creek
Plantation) in Gloucester County, which burned in 1897. This dwelling
had a full hip roof, with dormers to light the attic rooms, and a high
basement. Its classical cornice was bracketed with heavy modillions,
while a massive chimney protruded from the slope of the hip.[153]
Gunston Hall, on the other hand, reverted to the gable-end form.
Although essentially a Virginia cottage, it is richly adorned with
Georgian architectural detail. Completed in 1758, only eight years after
Marlborough, and owned by Mercer's nephew George Mason, this building
may be more closely related to Marlborough than any other existing
house.[154]
[Illustration: Figure 45.--THE VILLA of "the magnificent Lord Leonardo
Emo" at "_Fanzolo_, in the _Trevigian_;" illustrated in _The
Architecture of A. Palladio_ (Giacomo Leoni, ed., 3rd edition,
corrected, London, 1742). Palladio's was one of the works owned by
Mercer and probably used by Bromley. The arcaded loggias of the
one-story wings of this building may have contributed to the inspiration
of Marlborough. (_Courtesy of the Library of Congress._)]
Of all the one-story Virginia houses that have come to our attention,
only Marlborough has a full-length veranda. To be sure, there are
multiple-story houses with full-length verandas, the most notable being
Mount Vernon. Elmwood, built just before the Revolution in Essex County,
is another, having a foundation plan similar to Marlborough's.[155] The
Mount Vernon veranda is part of the remodeling of 1784, so that neither
house reached its finished state until a quarter of a century after
Marlborough's completion. Marlborough may thus at the outset have been
unique among Virginia dwellings in having such a veranda. However,
full-length verandas on buildings other than dwellings were not unknown
in Virginia prior to the construction of Marlborough, for they occurred
in an almost standard design in the form of arcaded loggias in county
courthouses. Typical were King William and Hanover County courthouses,
both built about 1734 (figs. 5 and 61).
The arcaded loggia is Italian in origin and is traceable here to
Palladio, whose influence was diffused to England and the colonies in a
variety of ways. We know that _The Architecture of A. Palladio_ was one
of four architectural works acquired by Mercer in 1748 and apparently
lent to his "architect," joiner William Bromley. The direct influence of
this work on the overall plan of Marlborough probably was negligible.
However, Palladio illustrates the villa of "the magnificent Lord
Leonardo Emo" at "_Fanzolo_, in the _Trevigian_" (fig. 45), which may
have caught Mercer's eye. This building had a central, raised pavilion
with two one-story wings, each approximately 100 feet long. Each wing
had a full-length, arcaded veranda. The wings were intended for stables,
granaries, and so forth. Palladio commented:
"People may go under shelter every where about this House, which is
one of the most considerable conveniences that ought to be desir'd
in a Country-house."[156]
Mercer may have been impressed by this argument and by the arcade in the
design. He was already familiar with arcades at the capitol at
Williamsburg and at the College of William and Mary, as well as at
outlying courthouses where he practiced, the courthouse at Stafford
probably included. In any case, he did not have the veranda built until
1748 or 1749, after the main structure had been completed. It is
significant, in this regard, that it was not until March 1748 that he
settled accounts with Sydenham & Hodgson for the four architectural
books (including Palladio).
A formal garden apparently was laid out in the nearly square, walled
enclosure behind the mansion. It is perhaps wholly a coincidence that
Palladio, writing about the villa at Fanzolo, commented, "On the back of
this Building there is a square Garden."
[Illustration: Figure 46.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Structure E, looking
southwest.]