See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339984953

The Gardens of Peleș Castle - History, Intentions and Interventions

Article · March 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 240

1 author:

Alexandru Mexi

6 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandru Mexi on 17 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE GARDENS OF PELEŞ CASTLE – HISTORY,
INTENTIONS AND INTERVENTIONS
Alexandru Mexi*

Keywords: Peleş castle, Carol I, terraces, garden history, garden restoration.

Abstract: Since the start of their construction in the late 19th century, the terraced gardens of the Peleş castle underwent,
over time, various stages of transformation starting with their architectural image, iconographic programs and vegetal composition. By
these means, this study will analyse their past, a number of intended consolidation projects that were never implemented and also some
historical plans for the construction of new terraces, and will offer a series of principles and possible ways of restoring the landscaping
complex so as to highlight and upgrade this important part of the Romanian national immovable heritage.1
Rezumat: Începute de regele Carol I încă de la sfârşitul secolului al XIX-lea, grădinile terasate de la castelul Peleş au trecut
de-a lungul timpului prin numeroase etape de transformare a imaginii arhitecturale, a programelor iconografice şi a compoziţiei
vegetale. Pe această cale, prezentul studiu urmează să analizeze trecutul acestora, proiectele istorice de consolidare şi chiar cele de
construcţie a unor noi terase, precum şi să ofere o serie de principii şi posibile direcţii de restaurare peisagistică care să repună în valoare
un patrimoniu imobil de importanţă naţională.

Peleş castle in the history of the Kingdom of Romania

After several visits to the Sinaia Monastery, Carol I decided, in the early 1870s, to build a private
residence in the heart of the Bucegi mountains. The new building was to be made in accordance with the
European trends of the mid and late nineteenth century since it was to be used for leisure but more importantly
it would represent a symbol of the birth of a new dynasty.2
Many architects and decorators were hired during the construction process of the castle. The first
one was renowned architect Wilhelm von Doderer whose projects were too ambitious to match the budget
allocated by Carol I. Immediately after his dismissal in 1876, Johannes Schulz was hired. The architect built a
monarchic edifice bearing a great resemblance to a Swiss chalet, but after Romania won its State Independence
in 1877-1878, Carol I employed Czech architect Karel Liman and French architect André Lecomte du Noüy
in 1890 to remodel the building so that its new image and architectural form would match the new political,
cultural, military and economic status of the Romanian kingdom. Thus beginning with 1890 and up until
1914, the year King Carol I died, the two architects remodelled and expanded the castle and turned it into a
dynastic symbol.
Also, in this short period of time, the main terraced gardens of the castle were designed, the image of
which complemented and enriched the range of symbols that Peleş had been invested with.

A brief history of the terraces

The history of the terraced gardens of the Peleş castle follows an architectural program which was
politically and symbolically meant to certify and legitimize the young German monarchy in the political
and geographical space of both Romania and Europe. The landscaping principles and concepts of Peleş are
anchored in the symbolic construction philosophies specific to the European Modernity,3 and the image
resulting from their eclectic composition served the aims and aspirations of the royal family. The terraces’
history is quite complex, but vaguely described in the historical monographs of the castle. On another hand,
the study of the plans and archive images as well as of the memories and notes of the members of the Royal

* The Vasile Goldiş Western University, Arad, Romania, e-mail: [email protected]

1
Aknowledgements. Research for this paper has been supported by The Peleş National Museum, The Royal House of His Majesty
King Mihai and by UEFISCDI, PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-0694, Collaborative research, technological advancement and experimental
philosophy in the seventeenth century: The Hartlib Circle and the rise of „the new science.”
2
Popa et alii 1995, p. 5.
3
We will define the European Modernity as an historical epoch between Renaissance and the late 18th century. In accordance with:
Scully 1991; Turner 2005; Iliescu 2014.

Caiete ARA 8, 2017, pp. 205-214

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

206 Alexandru Mexi

Fig. 1. Planting design (work in progress), signed by Wilhelm Knetchel, dated 1883 (Peleș Museum Archives).

House or of the architects and gardeners that were involved in the construction and decoration of the terraces
revealed the main stages of construction of the architectural landscape steps surrounding the royal building
on all its sides:
Phase I (1880-1890). The building of the terraced gardens of Peleş began, as is the case of the park,
since 18814 and have undergone many transformations over time; they’ve been expanded and enriched both
in terms of their architectural structure, plant composition and planting designs, but especially in terms of
statuary works.
The first earthworks at the Peleş castle started in 1881, preparing the land behind and in front of the
building.5 In this first stage, an architectural composition was carried out on the land south of the castle: “and
the terrace that lies before the castle, wonderfully well placed in the sun, was soon changed into a luxurious garden of
the most elegant ones, adorned with a lovely fountain with water that rises to a dizzying height”.6 This “luxurious
garden” was more of a ground with trimmed vegetation than a terrace in the true sense of the word. However,
although there are some planting plans from that period, it is difficult to discover what projects have been
implemented and if a single architectural and vegetal composition was preferred for the decoration of the
ground floors, or whether it was modified every year, according to the concepts and visions of the royal family,
of the gardener or even depending on the available materials. For the architectural and vegetal composition of
this floor, numerous projects have been designed, some of which were signed by renowned gardener Wilhelm
Knechtel (Fig. 1).7
Regarding the decorative objects, in addition to a large circular fountain there can further be included
two cannons that were seized from Plevna in the Independence War and also a sculptural bench inspired
by the architecture of the Renaissance, a decorative object that served as an ending point on the west-east

4
“Land levelling and staking fillings to mark the park around the castle began in those moments. (note: May 1881)” (Haret 1924, p. 29).
5
“They first began increasing, in the front and in the back, the place on which they would build the castle, and broadening the plateau on which
it lies. This could make entry for coaches, and down under the façade, a terrace that would be wide enough to allow seeing well the whole
edifice” (Bachelin 1893, p. 40).
6
Ibidem, pp. 40-41.
7
Wilhelm Knechtel is one of the most prolific gardeners of nineteenth century Romania, carrying out numerous works at the
Cişmigiu garden, Kiseleff garden, Cotroceni palace garden, the garden of the Royal Palace in Calea Victoriei, Peles, terraces and
park etc. (taken and completed after Marinache 2016, p. 163).

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

The gardens of Peleş Castle – history, intentions and interventions 207

perspective axis,8 but which was, unfortunately, radically changed in the early twentieth century.
Phase II (1890-1910). With the completion of the main works undertaken by architect Karel Liman
to remodel the castle,9 the first construction projects for new terraces to be built around the royal residence
began. Among the first changes to the surroundings of the castle can be included the removal of a former
interior garden to create the prestigious Hall of Honour. The architect also removed the walls surrounding
one of the patio type of gardens east of the residence and created a first terraced garden for the castle, a
terrace that would bear the name “The terrace of busts” because of the many copies made after ancient busts
of Roman emperors that were used to decorate it. Liman did not completely abandon the former walls of the
patio garden, but their structure was used in part to create two important corridors which were symbolic for
the exterior iconography of the castle: the “Corridor of the Gladiators” and the “Corridor with putti-seasons”.
Also, the architect created a series of architectural steps to the north. They covered an old round used for
turning around royal carriages upon leaving the formal entry on the north and created a gradual transition
towards the forest in the background.
The entire group of emerging terraces next to the eastern façade of the castle were in the shape of
an amphitheatre with asymmetrical steps and were decorated with floral arabesques, vases, statues, pavilions,
pergolas, fountains etc.10 These new gardens were dedicated, as described in the monograph by Mihai Haret,11
exclusively to the royal family, and access to the premises could only be achieved through the castle, or through
intermediary access routes. At that point no connection between the old terrace with floral embroidery on the
southern side and the terraces from the east and northeast side of the castle was created.
Immediately after the construction of the amphitheatre terraces east of the castle, Carol I decided to
carry out a new suite of architectural stages north and northwest of the royal residence. In this phase the newly
built terraces were also restructured so as to express, together with the new image of the castle, Romania’s new
political status.
At the turn of the 20th century all these terraces surrounding the Peleş castle on all its sides were executed
and not only did they complete its image through architectural decoration objects, vegetal compositions,
register of symbols and iconographic program, but also made a gradual transition from the architecture of the
monarchal building to the park and forest that bordered it. However, although this created a symbolic dialogue
between the forest, the park, the terraces and the castle, a direct link between the southern embankment and
the suite of architectural steps in the eastern, northern and western side of the castle was still missing.
Phase III (1910-1914). Between 1910 and 1914, new terraces were built next to the main façade, giving
up the old terrace with vegetal embroideries in favor of steps that accentuated the architectural link between
the park and castle and entered the iconography of the castle via the numerous sculptural objects, most of them
inspired by originals from the baroque gardens of Louis XIV at Versailles. Around this time, a small terrace was
also built at the southwestern corner of the castle, and the two cannons captured at Plevna, weapons of war that
were symbolically placed at first at the entrance in the Court of Honor of the castle, were relocated there.
On another hand, in this short period of time, the design of one of the rounds from an eastern terrace
was changed by leaving out a vase with flowers in favour of a fountain inspired by an original from Villa Albani

8
“A very beautiful bench in the style of the “renaissance” is placed on an edge and a terrace warming it up with its beautiful roundness and
increasing the romanticism of the site, with a touch that is as classic as it is delightfully discreet. [...] However – with a pair of cannons taken
from the Turks in the war for independence and laid as trophies in the court of honour – they form a whole, which is diverse in colours and
beautiful in appearance.” (Bachelin 1893, pp. 45-46).
9
”The changes to the Peles Castle, since 1890, involve a financial investment amounting to almost double the previous one. This proves the
symbolic-political plan, the new position enjoyed by Romania in Europe, confirming the state’s Independence (1878) and proclamation of the
Kingdom (1881).” (Popa et alii 1995, p. 9).
10
“Let us return to the southeast corner of the castle [...]. From this terrace, another long terrace starts at a right angle, paved with slabs of
marble, leading to a summerhouse, wrapped in greenery, where through underground passages and stairs one goes to the bottom or top terraces.
To the left of the terraces there is a courtyard with a fountain, which throws water at a dazzling 18 m height.” (Haret 1924, p. 43).
11
„The visiting public’s indiscretion [...]. King Carol then had the idea of building the first terraces that were prohibited to the public during the
Sovereign’s stay in Sinaia.” (Ibidem, loc cit).

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

208 Alexandru Mexi

in Italy. Moreover, a homage column received by king Carol I during the celebration of his 25-year reign, was
removed from the park and relocated on the northwest circular terrace.12 At the same time, a direct link was
also established between the eastern group of terraces and the new terraces in the south.
Stage IV (1914-1938). After 1914, the terraces somewhat fade into obscurity, being used only
occasionally by Queen Mary to cultivate different species of flowers. The sovereign’s notes, although stay silent
on the philosophical structure and on the architecture and the sculptures of the terraces, do offer valuable
insight as to the extremely rich flower decor that the sovereign changed or added to the original.13
Queen Mary received help from some famous gardeners and landscape architects in the creation of
a new vegetal decor on the terraced gardens at Peleş. Of all those who contributed to the change in the plant
compositions and planting displays, probably the best known was Friedrich Rebhuhn.14 He seems to have
worked at Peleş in the ‘20s and apparently has made a series of planting plans for Queen Mary, taking care not
to intervene in the architectural structure or in the sculptural and iconographic ones of the castle.
Phase V (1938-1950). After the death of Queen Mary there is no more information on the evolution of
the terraces, but most likely, during this time changes were made on the sculptural decoration only occasionally,
perhaps only regarding the vegetal decoration.
Phase VI (approx. 1950). In the early ‘50s, most likely due to technical problems involving the soil and
the hydrological structure of the land, architect Jean Ernest performed a series of proposals to consolidate the
terraces (Fig. 2). It dealt specifically with the north terraces as they had been, still are and will remain the most
fragile terraced gardens of the castle, as they serve not only as an open air living room for wandering, but also
as a sustaining wall for the top of a slope. For reasons still unclear, Jean Ernest’s projects were not implemented.
Phase VII (1950-1989). During the communist period, the terraces’ architecture remained unchanged,
while the floral curtains and the entire vegetal composition of the castle terraces entered into a planning
program specific to this age. Simple floral borders were preferred, most often single species groups or small
shrubs, especially roses. In this regard, postcards of the Communist era in Romania present a very simple, almost
absent plant design. On another hand, during the same period of time, due to the considerable degradation

12
“Also in the north, up on the terrace, they placed in the centre, the column which King Carol received as a gift, on the 25-year reign anniversary,
from his closest relatives. Before this radical change of the park, this column was situated on the right on the alley that links the castle to the
guardhouse.” (Haret 1924, p. 46).
13
“Friday, September 23, 1921 - [...]. I went on the terraces to see what flowers survived the cold. The dragon flowers, the salpiglossis, the asters,
the clematis vines and part of marigolds survived, while the dahlias, wild vanilla, sage and dumplings are all black, a very sad image. In
places where they are more protected the common vetch survived.” (Maria, Regina României 2004, pp. 296-297).
“Tuesday, July 8, 1924 - [...] I went out early to pick a few flowers. The roses are beautiful this year, the pink and the white Druschke, the
wonderful La Tosca and Abel Chatenay also some great red roses. [...]”
“Monday, July 28, 1924: [...] I spent an hour making large bouquets, Lady’s slipper are irresistible [...] Rebhuhn planted between the dahlias
on the large front terrace (note: the south terrace) a smaller kind, with a more intense colour, dark red, that I do not yet have at Bran [...]. “
(Ibidem, p. 324).
“Wednesday, July 30, 1924: A divine day. The flowers had three days of uninterrupted sunshine, so that the red vanilla orchid, a gift from
Doc. Madge, has stretched and began to be very beautiful indeed. “ (Ibidem, p. 325).
“Sunday, August 24, 1924: [...] I was very disappointed with my flowers on the terraces. The dahlias are beautiful, but above them, both the
marshmallows and the daisies have died. [...] “ (Ibidem, p. 356).
“Saturday, August 30, 1924: [...] I wanted to show that we too have wonderful dahlias here and I did parade with incredible huge dark red
dahlias that looked like a splendid colourful carpet. [...] “ (Ibidem, p. 363).
“Sunday, September 7th, 1924: I went together with Rebhuhn to see the garden. The bulbs of lilies have already blossomed [...] 600 for Sinaia
[...]. “ (Ibidem, p. 372).
“Sunday, September 14, 1924, [...] A new beautiful dahlia has bloomed here [...] an enormous species, pale yellow and white, which multiplies
itself, so to speak, without seedling. Rebhuhn is very proud of it and gave it my name, it is a true achievement [...]” (Ibidem, p. 381).
“Wednesday, September 2, 1925: [...] lilies, flox, lobelias, nasturtiums are Rumo, as well as some begonias. The Snapdragon does not look good.
There are some beautiful flowers and asters.” (Ibidem, p. 282).
14
“Sunday, October 9, 1921 - We have absolutely ridiculous problems with these damned terraces and everyone involved comes to me to explain
their views and they all collide and each of them complains about the other and nobody understands how little time I have available. Since
Rephuhn is going to take and plant them, I believe that it is best to listen to him, especially since the terraces are still in the design phase, so
they can be modified […]” (Maria, Regina României 2004a, pp. 341-315).

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

The gardens of Peleş Castle – history, intentions and interventions 209

Fig. 2. Project version for the consolidation of one of the northern terraces. Author Jean Ernest, approx. 1950 (Peleș Museu Archive).

of numerous architectural vessels or small statuary objects from the terraces of the castle, faithful copies were
created in order to replace the originals. All of the copies were made by the Plastic Fund Company from
Bucharest.
Phase VIII (1989-2016). After the change of political regime in Romania, the only significant changes
made on the terraces of the castle are from the ‘90s, when the statues of the two sovereigns were returned from
the Posada village (King Carol I and Queen Elizabeth) and were placed on the southern terraces. Although
initially these two statues made for the 50 year celebration of the castle were placed on the lawn in front of
the castle (Carol I) and before the architectural niche under the south-eastern terrace (Queen Elizabeth) for
symbolic purposes, this time they were placed on the lower terraces after their recovery from the storehouses
where they were sent to by the communists.
In terms of planting designs used after the Revolution there can be mentioned some planting works
carried out without first having a planting design and strategy. In this regard, worth mentioning are the
hedges of box (Buxus sempervirens) from the southern terrace, the groups of juniper and thuja (Juniperus
horizontalis and Thuja occidentalis) on the south-eastern terrace, the bushes of thuja, box and cupresociparis
(Thuja occidentalis, Buxus sempervirens and Cupressocyparis nana) on the north terrace, laurels and magnolias
(Laurus nobilis and Magnolia kobus) on the west terrace, etc.
Currently, the lack of accurate and consistent maintenance of the terraces gradually led to their
degradation. Unfortunately, they are currently in an advanced stage of degradation (Fig. 3), preserving and
restoring them being necessary not only to preserve a heritage building crucial for the history of the Kingdom
of Romania, but also to prevent possible significant damage that may arise after a possible collapse of the
northern terraces.

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

210 Alexandru Mexi

Intentions and incomplete projects

For almost every terrace of all those
completed around the Peleş castle, a great
number of projects were designed during the
reign of Carol I, and even when one of them
was implemented, the sculptural design and
plant composition went through a long series
of other changes and redesigns. Among
the most interesting of these are those that
foresaw the creation of large fountains and
mirrors of water on the terraces south and
south-east of the castle, the projects for the
Fig. 3. Improvised means of conservation.
main end of the west-east axis perspective
or the plans for some pergolas with ancient
Greek-Roman inspired columns on the
eastern terraces. During the reign of Queen
Mary one cannot know for sure what and
how many planting plans were made, but
what is known is that the queen had intended
to create genuine collections of flowers in all
the gardens she owned in Romania.
A very important detail regarding
the way the architecture of the terraces
should have evolved is specified by Alexander
Samurcaş in his monograph in 1933, and in
the “Boabe de grâu” magazine. He mentions
Fig. 4. Terraced gardens extension proposal (approx. 1914) (Peleş Museum that King Carol I had intended that the “rich
Archives). terraces would have still continued [...] reducing
the long green lawn”.15 If until recently it was
thought that these new terraces had never
passed the drawing board, to support his allegations, a plan and a series of sketches that foresee the realization
of a group of architectural steps covering much of the castle’s meadow, but also an artificial waterfall and a
small lake next to the bridge of Carmen Sylva (Fig. 4) have been found in the archives. It is not known when
these plans were made, but it is assumed that they date from the early ‘10s. However, perhaps because of
the king’s death in 1914, but also due to Romania’s joining World War I in 1916, work on the projects for
changing the structure of the terraces was permanently abandoned.

The symbolic importance of the terraces

Thanks to all these features of the history of the terraces of the royal residence in Sinaia, it can be said
that the castle has never had an original vision nor did it benefit from a constantly evolving architectural and
landscape design. Starting with the ground floors with floral embroidery and finishing with the plans for the
expansion of the terraces to the south and east of the castle, the history of these asymmetric architectural steps
went through many processes of redesign, and architectural, sculptural and vegetal remodelling. These actions
from the late nineteenth century, and especially from the beginning of the twentieth century, aimed to create a
true microcosm of allegorical symbols to wrap up the trails that led to the forest and the park and to complete

15
Tzigara-Samurcaş 1933, p. 98.

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

The gardens of Peleş Castle – history, intentions and interventions 211

the “legitimizing and civilizing”16 work that the first monarch of Romania tried to create in order to legitimize
the new monarchy and attest his/its political, military, cultural and artistic actions in a décor offered as a gift
to posterity.
Even if they have not been completed, the result of the last stage of the terraces’ architectural
transformation (note: Phase III. 1910-1914) is the culmination of the entire iconographic program from the
royal landscape complex in Sinaia. Every element has, by now, been invested with a significant symbolic role
as intended by the royal family, and their arrangement on the landscape was designed in such a way so as to
create, as it happens at most of the royal courts of Europe, a series of thematic trails that speak of, predict or
attest the monarchy’s actions. On another hand, although they have gone through nearly half a century of
Communist politics, the terraces of the castle are not only not destroyed but they even benefited from punctual
restoration or replacement works (Note: with quite accurate copies) of the sculptural objects.
Currently, the conservation state of the terraced gardens of the Peleş castle is alarming, and in this
respect, a number of constructions, conservation and restoration projects are required to maintain a heritage
of national importance.

Between conservation, restoration and new extensions

This chapter aims to describe several sensitive issues, some of which are very important in terms of
the efforts that have to be made in order to preserve the way some of the most complex architectural and
landscape design landmarks in Romania look like. To this end the aim of this chapter is to try to tackle the
issue of restoration of the castle’s gardens and also the possible addition of new embankments that Carol I
intended to build before his death.
Since the architectural and landscape structures of the terraces is quite well defined due to many plans,
images and archive documents that attest, from both a visual and literary perspective, the most important
changes in the architectural structure, a restoration project is strongly required to preserve and to restore a
valuable cultural heritage with deep symbolic meanings.
According to the already presented historical study, it can be seen that the architectural structure of
the royal gardens of Sinaia did not undergo significant changes over time. On another hand, regarding the
statuary assembly and its placement one may notice some more or less important changes. Following the line
of thought that the most coherent and complex image of the castle’s terraced gardens is the one from mid-
1910 and due to King Carol I’s desire to keep Peleş unchanged after his death, a possible restoration strategy
should be based on the image of the terraces before the first World War.
Starting from this premise one can preserve the current plan and the current image of the terraces,
apply punctual conservation and restoration work on architectural structures and sculptural ornaments and
sometimes even relocate the sculptures to their original places (example: the statues of King Carol I and
Queen Elisabeth).
Regarding the gardens’ vegetal composition, this is a theme that must be dealt with separately, but still
linked to the history and compositional patterns specifics for each epoch.17 However, a number of measures
such as partial deforestation are needed in order to protect the terraces from future damage and also to preserve
their architectural structures. Thus it is necessary to first remove all the trees of medium and large height that
are in close proximity to the supporting walls of the terraces due to the fact that the roots of these trees may
affect the resistance structure of the wall embankment and also because of their actual image.18 Following the

16
“[...] Peles Castle is the living image of the political and “civilizing” mission, including through art, assumed by Carol 1866.” (Beldiman
2011, p. 213).
17
Regarding the plant selection and planting patterns, it is recommended to implement annually, by rotation, different designs
characteristic to all historical periods mentioned above, ensuring this way that no historical design will be preferred in detriment of
others and thus no historical period will be favoured at the expense of another (according to article 16, Florence Charta).
18
The magnolias on the western terrace do not bring any esthetical contribution due to their blooming process, weak vitality and low
density of the tree crown.

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

212 Alexandru Mexi

same principles and the same technical and

construction arguments, it is necessary to cut
down the vegetation to a tree line, from a
depth of 5-7 meters into the woods, from the
whole north side and northwest terraces and
to replant these areas with plants related to a
gradual scale depending on the height of the
trunk, with species of trees and indigenous
shrubs with a lower index of slenderness
but with the capacity of consolidating the
land (eg. Sorbus torminalis, Taxus baccata,
Sambucus nigra, Corylus Avellana, Viburnum
opulus, Lonicera xyloteum, Spiraea ulmifolia).
The buffer space between the terraced
gardens and the forest can be seen in the
archive footage, this detail working as both
an historical argument and also being valid
in terms of forestry engineering (Fig. 5).
On another hand, a more detailed
discussion should be commenced concerning
the planned extension of the terraces which
were mentioned earlier and which appear
partially described in the monograph written
Fig. 5. The north and north-western terrace and the forest edge, approx. by Alexandru Tzigara-Samurcaş in 1933.
1910 (Peleş Museum Archives). The possibility of resuming and possibly
executing new terraces in the southern part
of the castle is a very complex and delicate
issue that must be carefully considered in
advance.
To this end, a first discussion regarding this project must start from the analysis of the historical
data. Thus, if until recently no one knew exactly whether the references in Alexandru Tzigara-Samurcaş’s
monography from 1933 were based on a historical truth or on a series of assumptions and / or personal
observations of the author, researching the National Archives, but especially the archives of the Peleş National
Museum, revealed a drawn plan and a series of sketches that shows a possible option of extending the terraces
south and southeast of the royal residence in Sinaia.
The lack of historical information certifying the origin, the author and the period in which these plans
and sketches were made, and the lack of other possible versions of the project might suggest that the drawings
discovered in the archives are a possible alternative project that might have been approved by King Carol I, but
which, for various reasons that cannot be certified, had not been implemented.
So, in terms of the historical study and in accordance with all the documents that were researched
and analysed so far, King Carol I’s intention was real and to achieve it at least one project was drafted, but for
reasons one can only guess it was not implemented.
Moreover, by carefully analysing the plans and drawings from the archives of the Peleş National
Museum, it can be seen that the plans and drawings listed seem to fit the logic after which the terraces
were built and seem to enrich and amplify the image of the royal residence at the bottom of the Carpathian
Mountains. Regarding the possible functions of these terraces that were proposed but never implemented,
the possible continuation and enrichment of the existing iconographic universe that was partially discussed
previously and maybe even some socio-cultural outdoors activities can only be inferred. Another possible
argument for extending the terraces can refer to the technical sphere and thus to a possible role of land

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

The gardens of Peleş Castle – history, intentions and interventions 213

Fig. 6. Digital model of the intended new southern and eastern terraces. 1. New southern terraces, 2. New eastern terraces, 3. New
pedestrian roads, 4. Artificial grotto with spring, cascade and lake (A. Mexi, I. Mihuţ).

consolidation by creating new terraces towards the south and southeast of the castle (Fig. 6).
From an aesthetical point of view, the discussion becomes subjective. However, by judging the image
of the castle’s terraced gardens in terms of their link with the compositional, structural and iconographical
features of 15th and 16th century gardens in Europe, it can scientifically be argued that an extension of the
terraces is part of a similar logic.
One last matter regarding this project is based on King Carol I’s will to maintain the castle’s image
unchanged after his death. Now this request must be discussed in the spirit but also in the terms of the will.
If one chooses to interpret the information literally, then one would probably not allow any kind of changes,
no matter how small or big, inside or outside the castle. In this sense, in the case of the castle’s gardens one
should give up, for example, the bronze statues of the two first sovereigns of Romania (note: King Carol I
and Queen Elizabeth), statues made and placed at the Peleş Castle on the occasion of its 50 years anniversary
(1933‑1934). On another hand, considering the spirit of the law, one could interpret the different shades of
meaning of Carol›s desires and could argue that his original intent was to extend the terraces, but for various
reasons, the project was not implemented. If the current heirs of the Peleş Castle wanted to fulfil this ancient
desire of the first sovereign of Romania, they would face a number of issues related not so much to architecture
and details of the way it would be executed but rather to the composition of the landscape and sculptural
decorations that would adorn the new terraces.

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

 214 Alexandru Mexi

The sketches and projects discovered so far do not offer insight into the sculptural and vegetal design of
the new terraces. However, the set of planting design options for all other terraces can offer insight into how these
new terraces could be planted. Regarding the sculptural decor, in light of the contemporary vision of the processes
of conservation and restoration, it would be a mistake to make exact replicas after the statues, vases and fountains
from Peleş and other historic gardens from which the architects, sculptors and landscape designers who created
the terraces from the royal castle in Sinaia got inspired. In this sense, one cannot enrich the iconographic program
that King Carol I configured, but could fill it with contemporary artwork showing the history and role of the
monarchy after the death of the first sovereign. These sculptural decorations can be made in several ways, but in
the same logic and contemporary perspective applied in the case of interventions made on historical monuments,
they must differentiate themselves by at least one detail that can be represented, for example, through new
sculpting techniques, new materials, new sources of inspiration, new colours, new polishing techniques etc.
In conclusion, it is possible to take into consideration a possible expansion project of the terraces,
but the design and execution should be conducted only after reviewing and exhausting all possible archive
documents, and only after a comprehensive study of land improvement, soil studies, hydrography, architectural
resistance, landscape design and fine arts, and only after their approval by all concerned ministries.19

Bibliographical abbreviations

Bachelin 1893 L. Bachelin, Castel Pelesch – residence d’ete du roi Charles Ier de Roumanie a Sinaia,
Paris, 1893.
Beldiman 2011 R. Beldiman, Castelul Peleş – expresie a fenomenului istorist de influenţă germană,
Bucharest, 2011.
Condinescu 1933 N. N. Condinescu, A. Tzigara-Samurcaş, Castelul Peleş, Boabe de grâu 9, 1933,
pp. 513-538.
Haret 1924 M. Haret, Castelul Peleş, Bucharest, 1924.
Maria, Regina Romaniei 2004 Maria, Regina României, Însemnări zilnice, II, Bucharest, 2004.
Maria, Regina Romaniei 2004a Maria, Regina României, Însemnări zilnice, III, Bucharest, 2004.
Marinache 2016 O. Marinache, Familia Bibescu – Basarab Brâncoveanu: între Paris şi Bucureşti,
Bucharest, 2016.
Popa 1995 G. Popa, R. Rotărescu, R. Beldiman, M. Hortopan, 125 de ani de la punerea pietrei de
temelie a Castelului Peleş, Sinaia, 1995.
Tzigara-Samurcaş 1933 A. Tzigara-Samurcaş, Castelul Peleş, 1883-1933, Bucharest, 1933.
Iliescu 2014 A. F. Iliescu, Istoria artei grădinilor, Bucharest, 2014.
Scully 1991 V. Scully, Architecture – the natural and the manmade, New York, 1991.
Turner 2005 T. Turner, Garden history, philosophy and design 2000 BC – 2000 AD, London and New
York, 2005.

Archives
Peleş National Museum archives, image archives
Peleş National Museum archives, plans
Peleş National Museum archives, written documents
ANIC (Arhive Naţionale Istorice Centrale): image archives; Castele şi Palate folder; R.E.A.Z. folder; F. Rebhuhn folder

19
The envisioned structure for the restoration and extension project of the southern terraces was established after several discussions
with prof. dr. habil. arh. Hanna Derer.

Excerpt from ARA Reports 8, 2017.

View publication stats