•m'li'-'i'.'ii- ■ 
 
 iil 
 it'
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 I <u.<L _ —
 
 A HISTORY OF 
 
 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 
 
 IN ENGLAND, 1 500-1800
 
 l.ONUOiN : VOKK hlKlil-.r, COVE.NT GAKDliN 
 NEW YORK : 66, FII'TH AVENUK, AND 
 B11M11AY: 53, KSIM, ANADK K O A I> 
 lAMIIKIlllIK : lllUr.IIION, liEI.I. AMI CO.
 
 A HISTORY OF 
 
 RENAISSANCE 
 ARCHITECTURE 
 
 IN ENGLAND, 1^00-1800 
 
 Hv REGINALD BLOMFIELD, ma. 
 
 EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD, ARCHITECT. 
 AUTHOR OF -THI': FORMAL GARDEN IN 
 ENGLAND." WITH DRAWINGS BY THE 
 AUTHOR AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 VOL. I 
 
 LONDON 
 GEORGE BELL AND SONS 
 1897
 
 iHlsUItK PRESS :—CIIARI.lCS WHITTI.NOHAM AND CO. 
 TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY I.ANE, LONDON.
 
 Art 
 Librarv 
 
 V.I 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 In the following pages I have attempted to give a consecutive account 
 of Renaissance architecture in England from its first experimental 
 efforts, through its mature expression, to its ultimate decay. So far as 
 my opportunities have allowed, I have endeavoured to make this survey 
 complete ; but my object has been, not to present a catalogue raisonne 
 of English architecture during these three hundred years, but to classify 
 the immense amount of material included in this period, to show how 
 one phase of its development followed inevitably from another, and to 
 trace the intimate relation which from first to last binds toeether a 
 series of historical facts which have been generally regarded as out of 
 relation to each other. It has not been possible in such an endeavour 
 to obtain absolute verification in every detail. Where I have been able to 
 do so, I have verified by comparison with the actual building, but there 
 still exists a great amount of documentary evidence in regard to private 
 buildings which is not yet accessible, and which may possibly modify 
 some of the statements as to details advanced in these pages. Neither, 
 again, would it be possible within the limits of this book to mention 
 every interesting building, domestic or otherwise, erected during the 
 period. England is exceedingly rich in examples of Renaissance 
 architecture, and I have confined my selection to those buildings which 
 are of historical importance, or, in my opinion, best illustrate the main 
 lines of development of English architecture from the sixteenth to the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 A word of explanation may be necessary in regard to the title 
 " Renaissance Architecture." By the Renaissance is generally under- 
 stood the Humanist Revival of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, 
 and the term has not been extended to its subsequent phases. Vet no 
 other term exactly covers the ground in regard to architecture. The 
 
 1 29905 i?
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 term Classical is too wide in its application, for it would include Greek 
 architecture and such modern architecture as has attempted to imitate 
 it in this century. The term, moreover, might with equal propriety be 
 applied to the monumental architecture of the Assyrians and Egyptians, 
 and Classical is a term of wider significance, in so far as it expresses the 
 fundamental distinction which underlies all art. as between Classical and 
 Romantic. By Renaissance architecture is to be understood the art that 
 derived its first impulse from the revived interest in scholarship at the 
 end of the fifteenth centur)', — particularly in the remains of Roman 
 architecture in Italy, — and which ran its course through successive and 
 clearly traceable stages until the original inspiration was superseded bj- 
 other motives. It is for this reason that I have begun my account with 
 the first attempts by Italian workmen iii Flngland, and closed it at the 
 end of the eighteenth century, when architects abandoned the models of 
 Roman and Italian architecture, and applied themselves to the more or 
 less literal revivalism of various other styles. 
 
 I have, so far as possible, avoided controversial questions in the 
 following pages. They are out of place in a history, which is less 
 concerned with theories than with facts. Moreover, the point of view 
 of students of architecture has changed. Forty years ago, architects, 
 whose training should have given them a wider outlook, accepted with 
 enthusiasm Mr. Ruskin's passionate advocacy of Gothic art, and his no 
 less passionate condemnation of the art of the Renaissance. This 
 attitude of mind has yielded to a more critical and intimate study of 
 architecture. The dispute, as between Gothic and Classical architecture, 
 is about as much out of date as the controversies of the schoolmen, and 
 we have learnt to look upon both forms of architecture as expressions 
 of the human intelligence, without regard to the ethical valuations intro- 
 duced by the most intolerant and uncritical of amateurs. Both Gothic 
 and Renaissance architecture — I should say both Romantic and Classical 
 art — are admirable, but each within its own limits and in regard to its 
 ultimate intention ; and it is unphilosophical to argue from one to the 
 other, or, because one's personal predilection inclines to the one, to 
 contend that the other is wholly damnable. There are certain con- 
 siderations of fact which tend to show that the peculiar qualities of 
 Gothic art are no longer attainable, the conditions from which they 
 sprang no longer exist, Init though it has been necessary to point this
 
 PRKFACH vii 
 
 out, I share to the lull the admiration which every intelligent artist 
 must entertain for mediaeval architecture. The amateur and archso- 
 logical Gothic of this century is, of course, another affair. 
 
 I must express my obligations to the Warden and Fellows of All 
 Souls' College, and the Provost and Fellows of Worcester College, 
 Oxford, and to the Trustees of the Soane Museum, for permission to 
 reproduce drawings by Wren, Inigo Jones, and others in their collections, 
 also to Mr. Birch, the Curator of the Soane Museuin, Mr. Oman and 
 Mr. Pottinp'er, Librarians of All Souls' and Worcester Colleges, for 
 their courteous assistance. I have also to thank Mr. Gotch and 
 Mr. Batsford for permission to reproduce four plates published in 
 Mr. Gotch's " Architecture of the Renaissance in England," and 
 Messrs. Belcher and Macartney and Mr. Batsford for the opportunity 
 of seeing the photographs now being published by them in their 
 "Later Renaissance Architecture in England," 1897, and for permis- 
 sion to reproduce the view of Somerset House. The plates issued 
 in both these publications are invaluable in illustration of the entire 
 period covered in this history ; and I would particularly call the 
 attention of the reader to Messrs. Belcher and Macartney's series as 
 illustrating a period of English architecture little understood and im- 
 perfectly appreciated, as yet, by the general public. I have also to 
 thank Mr. Batsford for permission to reproduce the view of St. Paul's 
 from Mr. Birch's "City Churches," and Messrs. Varney and Son of 
 Buckingham, Mr. Ault of Aldbourne, Wilts, and other photographers 
 for permission to make use of their work. The plans, of Christ 
 Church, Spitalhelds, and the Club House at Eltham, Kent, have 
 been prepared from measurements taken by Mr. P. Bauhof, and that 01 
 Groombridge from measurements by Mr. G. Streatfield. A list of the 
 principal works consulted will be found at the beginning of the book. 
 
 Nkw Court, 
 
 Temple.
 
 CONTENTS OF VOL. I. 
 
 CHAI'TKR PACE 
 
 I. The Italians in England. Henry VIII. — Edward VI. . i 
 
 II. The German.s in England. Elizabeth. James I. . . 25 
 
 III. The English Builders 42 
 
 IV. Sixteenth Century House Planning and Architectural 
 
 Treatises 67 
 
 V. Inigo Jones 97 
 
 VI. John Webb, Marsh, and Gerkier : the last Survivals of 
 
 Gothic 123 
 
 VII. Sir Chrlstopher Wren 149 
 
 I.
 
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Wood Panel in Upper Gallery. The Vvne . 
 
 Head from Frieze. East Barsiiam 
 
 Terr.v-Cotta Plaque. Wolsey's Arms, Hampton Court 
 Panel, Christc[iurcii, Hants. Wolsey, Campegciio, and C. 
 
 rine of Arragon 
 
 Screen to G.vrdiner's Chantry, Winchester . 
 
 Chests on Screen to Choir, Winche.ster 
 
 Panel over Door in Burgate Street, Canterbury 
 
 Chimney-Piece, South Wraxhall 
 
 A Gable at Knole 
 
 The Triangular Lodge at Rusiiton 
 
 Detail of Doorway to Triangular Lodge, Rushton . 
 The Tower of the Schools, Oxford .... 
 
 Gateway at Cobham College 
 
 Porch at Weobley in Herefordshire .... 
 
 Carving in Butcher's Row, Hereford .... 
 
 The Grange, Leominster . . . . . 
 
 The School and Almshouse, Corsham .... 
 
 Plan of Buckhurst House in Sussex. (Soane Collection 
 
 Audley End in Essex. (Soane Collection) . 
 
 Plan of Holland House. (Soane Collection) 
 
 Plan of the Fishing House at Meare .... 
 
 Garden House at Amesbury ...'... 
 
 Plan of Garden House at Amesbury 
 
 Unnamed Plan in Soane Collection .... 
 Thornton College, Sir Vincent Skynner's. Second St 
 showing the Gallery. (Soane Collection) 
 
 W^'mbledon (Soane Collection) » . 
 
 Wollaton Hall. (Soane Collection) .... 
 Plan and Elevation from Soane Collection 
 
 Stairs, Wye College, Kent 
 
 Staircase to House in Whitecross Street as exi.sting in 
 
 Staircase at Hawkhurst, Kent 
 
 Stairs, Christ's College, Cambridge 
 
 A Design, by Inigo Jones, for the Scenery of a ^L\S(jue 
 
 Ceiling, Wilton 
 
 Door, Whitehall 
 
 \THE- 
 
 REY, 
 
 1 888 
 
 PAGE 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 1 1 
 
 20 
 22 
 25 
 
 37 
 44 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 55 
 59 
 61 
 62 
 63 
 65 
 G8 
 
 71 
 73 
 75 
 77 
 7S 
 79 
 
 81 
 «3 
 S5 
 87 
 8y 
 
 91 
 93 
 
 95 
 
 lOI 
 
 105 
 107
 
 Xll 
 
 Lisr Uh' ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Greenwich HosriTAi 
 
 Eaves, Cornice, and Quoins, C'ramsorm; .... 
 
 Porch, West Woodhav 
 
 Capital to Porch, West Woodhav 
 
 Panelling in Double Cuue Roo.m, Wilton 
 Entrance Front, Ravniiam Parr, Xorkolk 
 Sketch for Chi.mnev Piece, isv Inigo Jones . 
 Entrance Pier, A.mesuukv 
 
 DOOKWAV .\T THE VVNE, NEAR B.ASINGSTOKE, liV JOHN WEUI 
 
 Stone Mantelpiece. The Vvne, near Basincjstoke 
 
 Entrance Porch, Thorpe Ik\i.i 
 
 The Stahles, Thorpe Hali 
 
 Part oe a Design for a Ceiling at Greenwich, nv John \Vi;i;i 
 
 Design for a Mantelpiece at Greenwich, rv John Wehu . 
 
 South Porch of GROoMiiRiixn; Church, Kent, huii.t 1625 m 
 William Ca.mfield. "Oh Imki.icissimum Caroi.i Pkixcipis kx 
 HiSPANIS Redditum" 
 
 Niche at West End of Petfrhouse Chapfl, C.\miiriik,e 
 
 The Chapel, Lytes-Carv 
 
 The Chapel, Burford Priorv, Oxfordshire . 
 
 The Chapel, Brazenose, Oxford 
 
 The Ashmolean Museu.m, Oxford 
 
 Font, Christchurch, Newgate Street .... 
 
 Interior of St. Stephen's, Walbrook .... 
 
 St. Bride's 
 
 St. Benet's, Upper Thames Street 
 
 Font, St. Stephen's, Walbrook 
 
 Chapel to Bishop's Palace, Wolvesev, Winchester 
 
 Hampton Court, North-East Corner .... 
 
 Detail of G.\tes, East Front of Hamptun Court 
 
 The Entrance, Kensington Palace 
 
 Groombridge Place in Kent 
 
 Plan of Groombridge Place 
 
 I'AGE 
 I 1 I 
 
 Hj 
 114 
 
 "S 
 
 119 
 
 121 
 124 
 125 
 126 
 127 
 129 
 
 ■3> 
 ■3.5 
 
 35 
 39 
 41 
 43 
 45 
 51 
 57 
 59 
 63 
 65 
 71 
 74 
 75 
 77 
 79 
 83 
 84 
 
 LIST OF SEPARATE PLATES. 
 
 Terra-Cotta Roundel, Hampton Court . . . To faa- page 2 
 
 The Palace of Nonesuch „ 16 
 
 Countess of Salisbury's Chantrv, Christchurch, 
 
 Hants „ 18 
 
 Countess of Salisbury's Chantry, Christchurch. 
 
 Details 20
 
 LlSr Ol- ll.LUSl RATIONS 
 
 xiu 
 
 Ceiling of Bishop West's Chapel, Ely 
 
 Gateway, Montacute House, Somerset 
 
 The Royal Exchange, as built by Sik T. Gresha.m 
 
 Doorway at Tenteruex, Kent 
 
 From a Plate in Vriese's " Architectura" 
 
 The Hertford Monument, Salisbury Cathedral 
 
 St. John's College, Oxford, Gate of Gardens 
 
 Sir T. Bodley's Monument, Merton College, Oxfori 
 
 Chimney Piece, Cobham, Kent 
 
 Barrington Court .... 
 
 Knole, Sfvenoaks .... 
 
 KiRBY, Xorthants .... 
 
 AuDLEY End 
 
 Bolsoyer Castle, the Terrace 
 
 Oriel College, Oxford 
 
 Screen, Abbey Dore Church, Herefordshire 
 
 St. John's College, Cambridge 
 
 Newel, Hatfield House . 
 
 Whitehall. Part P2ley.\tion . 
 
 The BaN(jueting House 
 Details .... 
 „ Ground Plan 
 
 „ Plan of First PToor 
 
 „ „ Second Floor 
 
 Design FOR A Church (probably Sketch for St. Paul's 
 
 Coyent Garden) .... 
 St. Mary's Church, Oxford 
 Somerset House. "Upright of V- Palace 
 Old Somerset House. Details 
 Design for a Ceiling (Countess of Carnaryon 
 
 Bedchamber 
 
 Chimney Piece, Wilton .... 
 Wilton, Centre Bay of South P'ront . 
 
 Stoke Park 
 
 Kirby, Northants, Doorway and Balcon\ 
 AsHDO\YN House, Berkshire 
 St. John's Church, Leeds 
 Trinity College Chapel, Oxford . 
 Emmanuel College, Cambridge 
 Wren's Plan for Re-building London [^Double plate) 
 St. Paul's Cathedral. West Eleyation 
 „ Lnterior 
 
 (Wren's Drawing) 
 {Double plate) 
 
 To face 
 
 page 20 
 
 )» 
 
 22 
 
 „ 
 
 34 
 
 „ 
 
 34 
 
 n 
 
 36 
 
 M 
 
 3« 
 
 „ 
 
 38 
 
 ,, 
 
 38 
 
 ., 
 
 38 
 
 I) 
 
 40 
 
 ») 
 
 44 
 
 »» 
 
 46 
 
 t) 
 
 50 
 
 M 
 
 52 
 
 M 
 
 56 
 
 » 
 
 60 
 
 >• 
 
 60 
 
 )l 
 
 82 
 
 n 
 
 106 
 
 »» 
 
 106 
 
 )? 
 
 108 
 
 n 
 
 108 
 
 n 
 
 loS 
 
 » 
 
 1 10 
 
 » 
 
 1 10 
 
 n 
 
 1 12 
 
 n 
 
 I \2 
 
 Tt 
 
 114 
 
 
 116 
 
 
 116 
 
 )l 
 
 116 
 
 »| 
 
 118 
 
 )> 
 
 I30 
 
 n 
 
 120 
 
 n 
 
 130 
 
 )> 
 
 136 
 
 »> 
 
 152 
 
 » 
 
 >.i4 
 
 ») 
 
 154-5 
 
 1) 
 
 166 
 
 1) 
 
 16S 
 
 168-170
 
 .\IV 
 
 LIST Ol- II.Ll'STRATIONS 
 
 St. Paul's Catmedrai.. Plan (nearly as executed) . 
 St. Paul's Cathedral. Wren's rejected Design, 
 
 Section and Elevation 
 Sr. 1'aul's C.vthedral. Rejected Plan and Wakkani 
 
 Design 
 
 'rRi.xiTv College, Ca.mbridge. Neville's Court . 
 „ „ „ The Lii'.rarv : Plan 
 
 and Elevation by Wren 
 
 Trinity College, Camuridge. Details of Liurarv 
 Greenwich Hospital. Plan laid before the House 
 
 OF Commons 
 
 Greenwich Hospital. Elevation . 
 
 » }i H ■ • 
 
 Hampton Court 
 
 Plan and Elevation in Wren's Drawings 
 Design for a Monument .... 
 
 To face page i68 
 
 170 
 
 170 
 174 
 
 176 
 176 
 
 180 
 182 
 182 
 184 
 186 
 186
 
 AUTHORITIES CONSULTED. 
 
 Adam, Rop.ert and James, Works of. London, 1778. 
 
 Adam, Robert. Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Spalatro. 
 
 London, 1764. 
 Adam.s, M. B. Examples of Old Enj^dish Houses. London, 1<S88. 
 Aldricii, Henrv. Elementa xArchitecturcX Civilis. Oxford, 1789. 
 
 Belcher, Joiix. Later Renaissance Architecture in England. By John 
 
 Belcher and Mervyn Macartney. Part I. Batsford, 1897. 
 Birch, G. H. London Churches of the 17th and iSth Centuries. Batsford, 
 
 1S96. 
 BlooME, Hans. Five Orders. Zurich, 1550. London, 1608. 
 BOXNEV. Cathedrals, Abbeys and Churches of England and Wales. 2 vols. 
 
 London, 1888-91. 
 BOORD, Andrew. A boke for to cause a man to be wyse in buildynge of his 
 
 house, etc. 1549- 
 Brayley and Herbert. Lambeth Palace. London, 1806. 
 Brettingham, Matthew. Plans, Elevations, and Sections of Holkham. 
 
 London, 1773. 
 Brittox and PUGIX. Illustrations of the Public Buildings of London. London, 
 
 1825. 
 Builder, The. Vols. xiii. 2, xxxvii. 20, and passim. 
 BULMER, G. B. Architectural Studies in Yorkshire. London, 1887. 
 
 Campbell, Colin, Architect. Vitruvius Britannicus. \'oIs. i., ii., 1715 ; vol. iii., 
 1725 ; vols. iv. and v. continued b)- Wolfe and Gandon. London, 1767-71. — 
 Vols. vi. and vii., continued by Richardson, 1S02-8. 
 
 Calexdars of State Papers (Domestic series) and Venetian State Papers, 
 passim. 
 
 Carter, John. Gentleman's Magazine. Sec The Gentleman's Magazine 
 Library : Architectural Antiquities, part ii., edited by G. L. Gomme. 
 London, 1891. 
 
 Chambers, Sir WILLIA^L A Treatise on the Decorative Part of Civil .Archi- 
 tecture. London, 1791. 
 
 Castell, Robert. Villas of the Ancients. Illustrated. London, 1728. 
 
 Cunningham, Allan. Lives of the most eminent British Painters, Sculptors, 
 and Architects. London, 1829-33. 
 
 CUNXIXGHAM, Peter. Inigo Jones, London, 184S.
 
 xvi AUTHORITIES CONSULTED 
 
 DU'TIONARIUM POIA'GRAPIIICUM ; or, The \Vh<ilc ]?ofly of Arts Rcnjiilarl)- 
 
 niijcstcd. 2 vols. London, 175S. 
 Dictionary Oi' .\i<riirTi:cTURK. Architectural Publicaticm Societ)', 1852-87, 
 
 ftrsshn. 
 Dictionary of National Biocraphy, 1 885-97, /(^.w'w/. 
 Dll'.TTKKI.IN, Wendkl. Dc nuinquc cohunnarum, etc. 1593. — Architcctiira. 
 
 1594. 
 Drake, Francis. Eboracum. Lonckm, 1736. 
 
 Elmes, J.\MES. Memoirs of the Life and Works of Sir Christopher Wren. 
 London, 1823. — Sir Christopher Wren and his Times. London, 1852. 
 
 English Architecture ; or, The Public J5uilclings of London and West- 
 minster, with plans of the streets and squares, with a succinct review of their 
 history, and a candid examination of their perfections and defects. London, 
 for T. Osborne in Gray's Lin. 123 folio plates. Date about 1755. 
 
 I'lx i;lyn, John. The Whole Body of Ancient and Modern Architecture, with 
 L. B. Aiberti's Treatise of the Statues. London, 1680. (This is the title to 
 Evelyn's translation of A Parallel of Architecture, both Ancient and Modern, 
 by Roland Freart, Sr. de Chambraw 
 
 FergUSSON, James. History of the Modern St\-les of Architecture. Third 
 edition, 2 \oIs. John Murra\-, London, 1891. 
 
 Gl'Rl'.lKR, ]?altiiazar. Counsel and Advice to all liuildcrs. London, 1663. — 
 15rief Discourse Concerning Three Chief l-'rinciples of Magnificent Ikiilding. 
 London, 1662. 
 
 GiBBS, James. Bibliotheca Radcliviana. London, 1747. — Rules for Drawing 
 the Several Parts of .Architecture. London, 1733. — A Book of .Architecture. 
 London, 1728. 
 
 GiDDE, Walter. Booke of Sundr)- Draughts. iCn^. Republished by Hen r\- 
 Shaw, I'.S.A. 
 
 Godwin, George. The Churches of London. 2 vols. London, 1838. 
 
 GoTCil, J. Alfred. Complete Account of ]5uildings erected b)- .Sir T. 
 Tresham. Northampton, 1883. — Architecture of the Renaissance in Eng- 
 land, I 560-1635. 2 vols. Batsford, London, I S94. 
 
 Gnyilt, Joseph. An I''.nc)-clop;edia of Architecture, ist edition, 1S42. New 
 edition, revised b_\- W. Papworth, London, 1876. 
 
 Hakewell, a. W. Plan and ICxternal Details, etc., of Thorpe Hall, Pctcrboro'. 
 
 London, 1852. — .Architecture of the Seventeenth Centur\-. London, 1856. 
 Handmaid to the Arts, The. 2 vols. London, 1764. 
 Harrison, Frederick. Annals of an Old Alanor House. Macmillan, 1893. 
 H.WDOCKE, RlCH.\RD. Tract Containing the Arts of Curious Painting, etc. 
 
 1598. 
 
 Indekwp K, !•". .A. Calendar of Inner TeiTiplc Records. London, 1896.
 
 AUTHORITIES CONSULTED xvii 
 
 IXIGO Jones. Architecture of: by W. Kent. 1727. (See also Vardy and 
 Ware.) 
 
 Jackson, T. G. A History of Wadham College, O.xford. Oxford: Clarendon 
 Press, 1893. 
 
 James, John. Thcor)- and Practice of Gardening. London, 1712. — Translation 
 of Pozzo's Rules and Examples of Perspective. 1707. — Translation of 
 Perrault's Treatise of the Five Orders of Columns in Architecture. 1708. 
 
 Jewett, Orlando. On the late Gothic Buildings of Oxford. London, 1850. 
 
 Kip and Knvfi". Noblemen's Seats. London, 1709. 
 
 Labor.\TORV, or School of Arts. London, 1738. 
 
 Langlev, Batty. A Sure Guide to Builders. London, 1729. — The Builder's 
 
 Complete Assistant. London, 1738. — The City and Country Builders' and 
 
 Workmen's Treasury of Designs. London, 1740. — The Builders' Director 
 
 or Benchmate ; being a Pocket Treasury of the Grecian, Roman, and Gothic 
 
 Orders of Architecture. London, 1767. — Ancient Architecture. London, 
 
 1742. — Gothic Architecture. London, 1747. 
 Laud. Autobiography of Oxford, 1839. Articles exhibited in Parliament 
 
 against William, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1640-43. {See also Harleian 
 
 Miscellan}-, vol. iv., 1744.) 
 L.wv, Ernest. A History of Hampton Court Palace. London, 1885-91. 
 Le Muet. The First Book of Architecture : by Andrea Palladio, with an 
 
 appendix containing doors and windows. 1668. — The Art of Fair Building, 
 
 etc. Published by R. Pricke. London, 1675. 
 Leoni, Giacomo. Alberti, etc. 1726. (5rt' rt/jti Palladio, below, editions 17 15, 
 
 1725, and 1742.) 
 Lethaby, W. R. Leadwork. Macmillan. 1893. 
 Leyburn, Wm. The Mirror of Architecture : from Scamozzi. London, 1700. 
 
 — The City and Country Purchaser : enlarged from Primatt. London, 1680. 
 LOFTIE, W. J. Inigo Jones and Wren. Rivington, Perceval and Co. 1893. 
 Longman, W. A History of the Three Cathedrals dedicated to St. Paul. 
 
 Longmans, Green and Co. 1873. 
 LysoNS, Daniel. Environs of London. 4 vols. London, 1792-96. — Magna 
 
 Britannia. Vols, i.-vi. London, 1806-22. 
 
 Macartney, Meryyn. Later Renaissance Architecture in England. {See 
 Belcher, above.) 
 
 Mackerell, B. Histor)-, etc., of King's L)-nn. London, 1738. 
 
 MauclERC, Julien. Le Premier Livre d'Architecture. La Rochelle, 1600. 
 
 Millar, W. Plastering, Plain and Decorative. Batsford. 1897. 
 
 Morris, Robert. Architectural Remembrancer. London, 175 i. — Rural Archi- 
 tecture. London, 1750. — An Essay in Defence of Ancient Architecture. 
 London, 1728. — Lectures on Architecture. London, 1734. 
 
 Mulvaney, Thomas. Life of J. Gandon. 1846. 
 I. c
 
 xviii AUTIIORITII'S CONSULT I'D 
 
 Nash, Joseph. Mansions of England in the Olcicn Time. I^'olio, 1839. 
 Nichols, John. History and Antiijuities (jf Lambctli Palace. l,ondon, 17S2. 
 
 Pain, William. The Practical House Carpenter. London, 1794. — The Prac- 
 tical Builder. 1774. 
 
 1\\IM-:, Jamks. Plans, lilevations, etc., of Noblemen's and Gcnllcnien's 1 louses, 
 etc. 2 vols., 2nd edition. London, 1783. 
 
 Palladio, Andrea. Four books translated by I. Ware. (5t't' WARE.) — The 
 First Book of Architecture: by A. Palladio, after Le Muet, by Richards. 
 London, 1668. — Architecture of: by Leoni. London, 17 15. 2nd edition, 
 1725. 3rd edition, 1742. — Fabbriche antichc designate da A. Palladio, etc. 
 London, 1730. 
 
 i'.M'WORTII, WvATT. A List of Dated Examples of the Renaissance and Italian 
 Styles of Architecture in Great Britain. Batsford. 1883. 
 
 Peach, R. E. M. Bath, Old and New. London, 1888. — Historic Houses in 
 Bath. London, 1883. 
 
 Pini.LIMORE, Lucy. Sir Christopher Wren, his I-"amil)' and his Times. London, 
 1 88 1. 
 
 Primatt, Stephen. City and Country Purchaser. 1667. {See Levburn.) 
 
 Richardson, George. Treatise on the Five Orders. London, 1787. — A Book 
 
 of Ceilings. London, 1776. — The New Vitruvius Britannicus. London, 
 
 1802-8. 
 Rich.\rdson, C. J. Architectural Remains of the Reigns of Elizabeth and 
 
 James. Vol. I. London, 1840. — Observations on the Architecture of 
 
 England, etc. London, 1837. 
 Rye, Wm. Brenchley. England as Seen b)- Foreigners in the Da>-s of 
 
 Elizabeth and James I. London, 1865. 
 
 Serlio. Five Books on Architecture: translated by Robert Peake. 161 1. 
 
 Shaw, Henry, F.S.A. Details of Elizabethan Architecture. London, 1839. 
 
 Shute, John. First and Chief Grounds of Architecture. 1563. 
 
 Stevenson, J. J. House Architecture. Macmillan, 1880. 
 
 Stony, John. A Survey of London, etc. ist edition. London, 1598. And 
 A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, brought down from the 
 year 1633 to the present time by J. .Strype. London, 1720. 
 
 Taylor, Wm. Antiquities of King's Lj-nn. Lj-nn, 1844. 
 
 Taylor. Old Halls in Cheshire. Manchester, 1884. 
 
 TiJOU, John. A New Booke of Drawings Invented and Desincd b\- John 
 
 Tijou. 1693. Reproduced by B. T Batsford, 1896. 
 Transactions of the Royal Institute of British .Architects. Passiui. 
 
 Vardv, John. Some Designs of Inigo Jones. Published by J. Vardy, 1744. 
 
 Vetusta Monu.menta. London, 1747. 
 
 VriesE. Perspective. 1559. — Fountains. 1568. — Architectura. 1577.
 
 AUTHORI'IIES CONSULTED xix 
 
 Walpole, Horace. Anecdotes of Painting, etc. Ed. Wornum. 
 
 Ware, Isa.\C. A Complete Body of Architecture. London, 1756. — The Four 
 Books of Palladio's .Architecture. 1738. — Plans and L.levationsof Mou^^hton 
 in Norfolk. London, 1735. — Designs of Inigo Jones : by I. W. 1757. 
 
 Willis, R., and Clark, J. W. The .Architectural History of the University of 
 Cambridge. Cambridge, 1886. 
 
 Woon, AnthoN'V. Athen;e O.xoniensis. 2nd edition, 1721. { ist edition, 1691.) 
 
 WOTTON, Sir Henry. Elements of Architecture. 1624. 
 
 Wren, Chrlstopher (Son of Sir C). Parentalia. London, 1750.
 
 / tin 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <*/u.<-H 
 
 WOOD PAXEI. IN UPI'RR C.ALL]^R^'. THK VVXK. 
 
 A HISTORY OF RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 
 
 IN ENGLAND 
 
 1 500 — 1 800. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Italians in England. Henry VHI. — Edward VI. 
 
 FOR the purposes of this history the Renaissance in England will 
 be taken to mean that fresh departure in architecture which began 
 with the tentative efforts of imported workmen in the reign of 
 Henrj' VIII., which reached its highest development in the hands of 
 Inigo Jones and Wren, and eventually ran itself out in the uncertainties 
 induced by the literary eclecticism of the end of the eighteenth century. 
 The remarkable expansion of the English people in the sixteenth and 
 seventeenth centuries, and the strong conservative instinct of the race, 
 constitute the two contending influences which struggled tor the mastery 
 in this new movement, and finally united to give it a distinctly national 
 
 1?
 
 2 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 character. The two factors to be considered are, on the one hand, tlie 
 constant importation of foreign ideas, and, on the other, the tenacious 
 tradition of a people with a great historic past in architecture. From 
 first to last the process of fusion and adjustment between these two 
 elements occupied rather over lOO years, and it was the work of the 
 oreatest architect this country has possessed, perhaps our one architect 
 of quite commanding genius, to gather up the broken threads and weave 
 them together into one splendid and harmonious architecture. 
 
 For various reasons the Renaissance was slow to gain a permanent 
 footing in England. Brunelleschi died in 1444, Alberti in 1472, forty 
 years before the first Italian artist of importance had set foot in 
 Eno-land, and both of these men had done work such as could not 
 even have been conceived of in England till at least 150 years 
 later. Of all the Northern peoples the English were the most tenacious 
 of the past, the slowest to accept these foreign ways. Though com- 
 mercial relations with the Italian States had existed since the thirteenth 
 century, the influence of Italian intelligence was confined to the popula- 
 tion of London and the principal seaport towns ; moreover, in the reign 
 of Henry VTIL, the people, as opposed to the nobility, were poor, and 
 evidently hampered by a certain old world inaccessibility to ideas. The 
 consequence was that the first eftorts of the Renaissance in England 
 were abortive, they merely glanced off the strong habit of tradition 
 without affecting the organic structure, and in fact several false starts 
 were made before native builders took up the running, and though 
 they blundered egregiously, cleared the way for the abler men of the 
 seventeenth century. 
 
 Broadly speaking, there are four main divisions, four groups of 
 facts to be considered in dealing with the development of architecture 
 in England since the days of the Renaissance : (i) the various isolated 
 attempts of foreign workmen, in nearly every case Italians, to introduce 
 their own methods of workmanship; (2) the efforts of half-instructed 
 native builders, and of Flemish and German workmen ; (3) the mature 
 Palladianism introduced by Inigo Jones, a method so modified and 
 adapted by his genius as to be the foundation of all subsequent 
 architecture in England for the next 200 years. These three 
 types are so distinct that there is, as a rule, little difficulty in distin- 
 guishing instances. The third type is so clearly marked off from its 
 predecessors, and so much more permanent in its results, that the first 
 two can only be regarded as byways of history, interesting indeed, and 
 pathetic as the efforts of men groping in the dark, but off the main
 
 fa.cf. 2. 
 
 TERRA-COTTA ROUNDEL, HAMPTON COURT.
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 3 
 
 track of the Renaissance movement, and least of all to be taken as 
 typical models of its methods. All three, however, bear on the history 
 of the Renaissance in England, but besides, and outside these three 
 groups, there are buildings which there is no reason to identify with 
 Renaissance rather than with Gothic architecture, buildings which fairly 
 represent the continuous building tradition of the country. This fourth 
 group is illustrated by such houses as Lake House near Salisbury, and 
 on a smaller scale by cottages in every part of the country, and ranging 
 down to the beginning of the present century. Farm buildings, erected 
 since iSoo, may yet be found in remote country districts, which show 
 distinct traces of the mediaeval tradition. 
 
 The first memorable introduction of foreign workmen into England 
 was due to Henry VIII. and Wolsey. By an indenture dated Jan. 1 1, 
 1 5 15, Wolsey leased Hampton Court for ninety-nine years, and he at 
 once set to work to transform it into a palace of unexampled magni- 
 ficence. His architect is unknown. Mr. Law (to whose excellent 
 history of Hampton Court I must refer the reader for a complete 
 account of the buildings) inclines to think it might have been " Mr. 
 Williams, a priest surveyor of the works." There were also on the 
 works James Bettes, "master of the workes," and Nicholas Towneley, 
 "clerk comptroller of workes." But it is probable that, as was the 
 common custom, the general design was directed by Wolsey himself, 
 and the work was carried out by workmen who contracted for each 
 trade, and designed and executed their own details. Wolsey's work, 
 probably the west front and the outer court, was more or less com- 
 pleted by 1520. The fabric was built by Englishmen, but Italians 
 were employed for some, at least, of the ornament. The terra-cotta 
 busts of emperors over the entrance are now known to have been made 
 by Giovanni de Majano, whose name appears in the state papers in all 
 sorts of distorted forms, and to whom we shall have to return later. In 
 the state papers of Henry VIII.' is a letter from Joannes de Majano to 
 Wolsey, dated June 18, 1521, requesting payment of balance (^"21 i^s. 
 4.d.) for the ten medallions of terra-cotta (" rotundae imagines ex terra 
 depictae") which he had supplied for the palace at " anton cort." The 
 price was ^2 6s. S(/. a-piece, and three "histories" of Hercules at ^4 
 each. In January, 151 1, the king had paid ^10 for "an image of 
 Hercules made of earth," and while the Italian influence lasted in 
 England terra-cotta busts and figures seem to have been in demand 
 
 ' Brewer, Calendar of State Papers, Henr) \"1II., 3. i. 1355.
 
 4 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 for the outside of buildinos the niches and hollow circles which are now 
 empty having; probably been designed to receive these decorations. 
 There is one instance of this on the entrance front of Cranborne in 
 Dorsetshire, and a complete example of a bust surrounded by a double 
 wreath of foliage at St. Donat's Castle in Glamorganshire; but the 
 most perfect instance is undoubtedly the terra-cotta placjue of Wolsey's 
 arms supi^orted by two amorini under a cardinal's hat, which is set on 
 the wall above the gateway of the clock tower at Hampton Court. 
 
 
 HEAD FROM FRIEZE. EAST BARSHAM. 
 
 This is dated 1525. The most famous example of the use of terra- 
 cotta for large figure work in England is the tomb of John Young, 
 Master of the Rolls, in the Rolls Chapel. This was executed by 
 Torrigiano in 1516, and consists of a recumbent figure on a sarcophagus 
 under an arch, with a figure of Christ and two angels at the back. 
 Though the modelling of the Christ is rather coarse, and the colour 
 truculent, the design as a whole is very fine. 
 
 Under the stimulus thus given, ornamental terra-cotta came into 
 use in England for about forty years, 1500 to 1540. Terra-cotta as a 
 building material is only a species of brickwork burnt extremely hard
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGl,ANI) 5 
 
 and moulded, and in this form, as D\ghy Wyatt points out, it had been 
 in use in England before the Italians came, particularly along the east 
 coast. It is by no means clear, however, that it was used except in a 
 very rudimentary way. At East Barsham, where terra-cotta is used with 
 great freedom and complete mastery of the material, there is distinct 
 evidence in the detail that the artist had some acquaintance with Italian 
 art. The greater part of the detail is ordinary Perpendicular, but inter- 
 spersed with it are little plaques cast from a mould, with heads of a man 
 and woman alternately. They measure about 10 in. by 8 in., and are 
 unmistakably Italian. This influence is even more marked in Great 
 Snoring Rectory about three miles distant. Here the upper frieze is 
 formed by a series of heads divided by balusters, which are ornamented 
 with acanthus leaves and surmounted by small heads. Both East 
 Barsham Manor House and Great Snoring Rectory date from the end 
 of the fifteenth or very early part of the sixteenth century, and it seems 
 probable that the English workmen were ver}- much helped by the 
 Italians in their manipulation of terra-cotta, or that the work was 
 actually cast by Italians to English directions. The Italians who were 
 familiar with the work of the Delia Robbias introduced " terra-cotta 
 invetriata, that is terra-cotta covered with a stanniferous glaze, and 
 susceptible of receiving colour at \vill," though here again they found in 
 the rough green ' encaustic tiles of the country a crude anticipation of 
 their own glazed and coloured terra-cotta. The ruined house of Layer 
 Marney in Essex, begun in 1500 and left unfinished in 1525, is a well- 
 known example of the use of terra-cotta detail. Other instances are 
 Sutton Place in Surrey, built between 1 521-1527, the tomb of Lord 
 Henry Marney at Layer Marney, 1525, and the tomb of one of the 
 Earls of Arundel in the Fitz-Alan Chapel at Arundel. After the 
 Italians left Eno-land the use of terra-cotta ornamentation died out 
 almost entirely. It was still used in the seventeenth century for copings, 
 as at Abbot's Hospital, Guildford, and for pierced balustrades and similar 
 details, as at Hatfield, but I do not think any instances exist of its use 
 in the elaborate manner practised by the Italians alter the end of the 
 sixteenth century. With good reason, the sound taste of the English 
 rejected it as harsh and discordant with the beautiful texture of their 
 brickwork. The charm of the work at East Barsham is due to its 
 disintegration ; — where it remains in its original state and unimpaired 
 
 ' Green glazed earthenware pots were in use in the Inns of Court in the si.xteenth 
 centuf)', the clay from which they were made being dug in Farnham Park. Sic- JNIr. 
 Inderwick's introduction to the "Collection of Inner Temple Records,' pp. Ixxxvi-lwxvii.
 
 6 RENAISSANCE ARCnrn-CTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 by the weather, it is quite as unpleasantly hard as modern work. More- 
 over, as its manufacture must always be mechanical, no alteration could 
 
 
 
 ^/^ 
 
 TERKA-COTTA PLAQUE. WOI.SEV S ARMS, HA^n'^O^I COURT. 
 
 be made in it, no slip of the chisel could be converted into some happy 
 fancy. Notliing more was heard of terra-cotta in tliis country as a
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 7 
 
 building material until it was revived as a commercial speculation in the 
 latter half of this century. 
 
 There is no record of the names of other Italians employed by 
 Wolsey at Hampton Court, but there is further evidence of their 
 handiwork in the ceiling of Cardinal Wolsey's closet, and Mr. Law 
 suggests that the paintings in this room below the frieze may have been 
 by Luca Penni or Toto del Nunziata, Italians subsequently in the 
 service of Henry VIII. Wolsey was a munificent patron of art, and 
 had all that keen enjoyment of beauty characteristic of the most gifted 
 minds of the Renaissance, for the great statesmen and scholars of 
 the Renaissance were men of all-round attainment — their whole life 
 was in scale, at every point it was touched by some ray of genius, and 
 Wolsey, magnificent in his statesmanship, loved to surround himself 
 with beautiful works of art, carpets from the East, and sumptuous 
 hangings, and was by no means scrupulous as to the steps he took to 
 gratify this desire. He did not hesitate to use his position as a means 
 of extracting from the Venetian senate si.xty fine Damascene carpets for 
 his palace in 1521,' and Sir Richard Gresham in 1522 bought for liim 
 twenty-one complete sets of tapestry in a hundred and thirty-two pieces, 
 with various scriptural subjects, and classical and other pieces, such as 
 Hercules and Jason, Dame Pleasaunce, the " Storye of L'Amante or 
 the Romaunte of the Rose " ; many of these tapestries had borders 
 specially designed for the Cardinal.- Their titles alone suggest the 
 strange mixture of ideas, characteristic of Tudor England, its curious 
 interest in the New Learning, side by side with its invincible affection 
 for the fancies of medicevalism. Again and again the spirit of the old 
 world and the new assert themselves side by side, in the work of this 
 time, at first without conflict and yet without fusion, much in the manner 
 of two different types of beauty, each setting oft" the other, unlike but 
 yet in harmony. Wolsey's subtle and highly-cultivated intelligence was 
 quick to assimilate this feeling, and his enormous wealth and com- 
 manding position enabled him to realize his dreams in the magnificent 
 patronage of the best artificers of his time. 
 
 In this, however, he was far outdone by the king. Henry VIII. 
 inherited a vast accumulation of money from his parsimonious father,^ 
 
 ' Law, i. 71. 
 
 ^ Wolsey's wealth was enormous. In 1527 the Venetian ambassador estimated his plate 
 to be worth 300,000 gold ducats, which Mr. Law puts at one and a half million sterling. 
 
 '' Sebastian (liustiniani, in a report to the \'enetian senate, dated September lotii, 
 1 5 19, gives the following particulars of Henry's resource.s. His father left him ten millions
 
 8 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 and nothing- less than tlicsc resources could have met his prodigal ex- 
 penditure on dress, uniforms, and goldsmiths' work, and the large staft'of 
 foreign artists more or less permanently in his pay. In the king's book 
 of payments there are constant entries of payments to Italians and others 
 for costly stuffs. Thus, in i 5 1 3, Amadas and Mortimer, " the brawderer," 
 were paid ^887 8s. 6d. for gold and silver stuff, and _^2,ooo for horse 
 harness and trappings of goldsmith's work. In 15 14 Amadas is paid 
 /^i,9o6 85-. 4^/. for goldsmith's work. These instances are sufficient to 
 show the scale of Henry's expenses in simple ornament, and besides 
 these there are constant entries of pensions to artists and musicians, and 
 of payments for work done. The most famous of these artists was 
 Torrigiano, or Peter Torrysany as the English used to call him. His 
 career in England was as chequered as all the other episodes in the life 
 of this furious artist. He came to England in the company of some 
 Florentine merchants before 15 12. The tomb to John Young, 15 16, 
 in the Rolls Chapel (now destroyed), was his first completed work in 
 England,' but while making this he must also have been employed on 
 the tomb of Henry VH. in Westminster Abbey, the indenture for which 
 is dated October 26th, 15 12. The indenture bound Torrigiano to 
 
 of ready money in gold, of which he spent half on his three armies when at war with France. 
 His revenues amounted to about 350,000 ducats per annum, derived from the following 
 sources : estates, forests and meres, customs, hereditary and confiscated properties, the 
 duchies of Lancaster, York, Cornwall, and Suffolk, the county palatine of Chester, the 
 principality of Wales, e.Kport duties, the wool staple, the great seal, annats of Church 
 benefices, court of wards, and new year's gifts, from which the king received much more 
 than he gave. To this must be added the farming out of exchanges and the like. Thus, 
 in 1508, Peter Corsey, of Florence, was appointed warden of exchange in England on 
 paying to the king ;^240 a year. Giustiniani reckoned his annual expenses at 100,000 
 ducats. Wolsey's income he put at 42,000 ducats, the Duke of Buckingham's at 30,000, 
 the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk at 12,000 each. Henry was a large creditor with the 
 Florentine merchants, who sometimes owed him as much as 300,000 ducats. This 
 explains his payment of Torrigiano and others by bonds and drafts on Italian merchants. 
 The value of the ducat between 1442 and 1512 is put by Mr. Rawdon Browne as 
 varying between yyi</. and 56^^/. Daniel Barbaro, in his report to the Venetian senate 
 in 1550, says that Henry VHI. was master of all the gold and silver of his realm, 
 which was the cause of its ruin, and he calculates that he amassed 20,340,000 ducats, 
 of which 5,000,000 ducats of gold came from the plunder of Cliurch plate alone between 
 
 1537-1547- 
 
 ' Mr. Alfred Higgins, however, considers that the monument to the Countess of 
 Richmond was Torrigiano's earliest work in England, and that this led to the monument 
 to Henry VH. Sfe Mr. Higgins's paper on the work of Florentine sculptors in England in 
 the early part of the sixteenth century, "Archaeological Journal,'" September, 1894, for a 
 very complete account of these monuments.
 
 THE ITALIANS IN KNGLAND 9 
 
 complete the tomb' by 15 19, for ;^ 1,500, but it appears to have been 
 completed by I5r8, as it is referred to in the indenture for the making 
 of Henry \ III.'s tomb. The tomb of Henry YII. consists of a 
 sarcophagus of black marble divided by gilded bronze pilasters, on 
 which rest the effigies of the king and Elizabeth of York, his queen, in 
 bronze. In the panels are bas-reliefs in bronze of the Virgin and Child, 
 the Archangel Michael, the two St. Johns, SS. George of England, 
 Anthony of Padua, Christopher and Vincent, the Magdalene, and 
 SS. Barbara and Anne. These bas-reliefs are set in wreaths carved 
 out of the black marble. At the ends of the tomb are the armorial 
 bearings of England, France, Wales, and Mortimer. All the details 
 of this beautiful work, executed in bronze, are unmistakably Italian, 
 and probably executed by Torrigiano himself; but it is almost certain 
 that, in carrying out the accessories, Torrigiano employed English 
 workmen. Their names are not known, but it is probable that some 
 of the men who gave estimates for " Master Pagenj's" rejected design 
 were employed on Torrigiano's tomb, namely : Laurence Ymber, 
 carver ; Humphrey Walker, founder; Nicholas Ewer, coppersmith and 
 gilder; John Bell and John Maynard, painters; Robert Vertue,- Robert 
 Jennings, and John Lebuis, master masons. The grille is probabh' 
 English both in design and workmanship. Mr. Higgins has pointed 
 out that Henry \^II. had begun a monument at Windsor in 1501, in 
 which year a payment of ,{. 10 was made to " Master Esterfelde for the 
 Kinge's tombe," and in 1502-3 £\o more was paid him for moving the 
 tomb to Westminster, and further payments were made him, amounting 
 to ^68 y. 2d. By his will, dated 1509, Henry \TI. directed that " the 
 grate in manner of a closure " already begun was to be completed. Mr. 
 Higgins thinks that the grille which surrounds the tomb is the actual 
 " grate " begun by Master Esterfelde, which was intended to inclose 
 Master Pas^env's monument — the monument ' f(ir which Ymber and 
 others gave estimates. Torrigiano also made some ima^jes, " a oarnish- 
 ment and an avvlter," for Henry \'Il.'s Chapel. The contract for this 
 high altar was made March nth, 1516-17. but Torrigiano did not 
 actually begin work till 1520, on his return to England from I'lorence, 
 
 ' "A tombe or sepulture of uhit niarbill and of black touch stone wt ymags, figures, 
 beasts and other things of coppure gilt." Si\- " Arclix-ologia," \oL \\ i.. p. 84. quoted by 
 Mr. Higginsr 
 
 " \'crtue was the king's master mason. 
 
 ' Mr. Micklethwaite has identified " Master Pageny " with Guido Ma/zoni of Modena, 
 sometimes called Paganino, who made the tomb of Charles VIII. in the choir of St. Denis. 
 
 C
 
 lo RENAISSANCE ARCIlITECrURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 and appears to have completed it by about 1522. It consisted of an 
 altar with a reredos and a flat baldachino of white marble over it, carried 
 by four detached columns of gilt bronze on pedestals of black and white 
 marble. Above the baldachino were set the royal arms, with four terra- 
 cotta figures of angels at each of the angles, holding emblems of the 
 Passion. The reredos was flanked by two pilasters, all in bronze-gilt, 
 and the altar consisted of a black marble slab, supported by square 
 white marble piers at the angles, with gilt bronze balusters between, and 
 within was " a bakyn image of erthe coloured of Christ dede." This 
 altar was destroyed in 1643 by the notorious Sir Robert Harlow, who 
 also broke up the fittings of Hampton Court Chapel in 1645. Vasari, 
 in his free manner, states that Torrigiano executed " infinite works in 
 marble, bronze, and wood " in England. In the south aisle of Henry 
 VII.'s Chapel is his monument to Margaret, Countess of Richmond, 
 who died in 1509. Burges supposed that this was the earlier work of 
 the two ; the figure is possibly even finer than those on Henry VII.'s 
 tomb, and the conspicuous ability displayed in both these works led to 
 the next contract which Torrigiano undertook — that for the tomb of 
 Henry VIII. In the Calendar of State Papers (Brewer, 3. i. 7.) the 
 abstract of the contract is given as follows : " Form of indenture 5 Jan. 
 1 5 18. between A. B. and C. D. on behalf of the King, and Peter 
 Torrysany of Florence, graver, now resident in the precinct of St. 
 Peter's, Westminster, for the making of a tomb in white marble and 
 black touchstone for Henry VIII. and Queen Catherine, one fourth 
 larger than that which he has already made for Henry VII in pursuance 
 of his indenture with the late King's executors, dated 26. Oct. 1512. 
 This tomb is not to cost more than 2,000 £, and to be completed in 
 4 years under the direction of Wolsey, a model to be sent in . . . .' 
 months. On notifying the completion of the work, Torrigiano will be 
 informed where it is to be placed, and shall then set it uja. On 
 fulfilling the contract, he shall receive back the following obligations, 
 viz. 2 of John Fraunceis and Reyner de Baud, amounting to 600 £, 
 3 of John Cavalcanti and other merchants of Florence for 400 £, and 
 another of the same for 1,000 ^." ' The history of this tomb is 
 obscure. It is doubtful if it was ever begun at all, as soon afterwards 
 Wolsey ordered his own monument, and after Wolsey's fall this monu- 
 ment was appropriated by the king for his own use. The history 
 
 ' Blank in MS. 
 
 ' Another draft of this indenture is given in " Archreologia," vol. xvi., p. 84, and is 
 r|UOted in Mr. Perkins's " Italian Sculptors."
 
 ThUl ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 
 
 1 1 
 
 of the Wolsey monument will be described later. After signing his 
 contract, Torrigiano returned to Italy to engage workmen, and tried to 
 induce Cellini to come, but Cellini could not forgive Torrigiano's attack 
 on Michael Angclo, and declined to go anywhere near "those beasts 
 the English." In September, 1519, Torrigiano entered into agreements 
 with Antonio di Piergiovaimi di Lorenzo, sculptor of Settignano, and 
 Toto del Nunziata, painter, and in October, 15 19, with Jacopo da 
 Verona, binding these artists to work with him for four and a half years, 
 in France, Italy, Flanders, England, Germany, or any other part of the 
 world, for three gold florins a month for the first year, and forty ducats 
 a year for the remainder, with cost of living and horse hire.' Torrigiano 
 seems to have returned with his three men in 1519-20, and to have at 
 once begun the work for the high altar, which he appears to have com- 
 pleted by 1522. Vasari says that he went to Spain, and died in the 
 
 PANEL, CHRISTCHURCH, HAXTS. WOLSt;\', CAMPEGGIO, AND CATHERINE 
 
 OF ARRACON. 
 
 dungeons of Seville in 1522, but Milanesi has pointed out that he 
 actually died in 1528. 
 
 Vasari says that Baccio Bandinelli "prepared a very beautiful model 
 in wood, with the figures in wax, for the sepulchral monument of the 
 King of England. The work was, nevertheless, not executed by 
 Bandinelli, but was given to Benedette da Rovezzano, who cast it in 
 metal." This, however, is inexact ; for it was on Wolsey's monument 
 that Rovezzano was first employed, and the immediate successors of 
 Torrigiano in England were Rovezzano and Giovanni da Majano. The 
 latter has already appeared as the modeller of Wolsey's terra-cotta 
 medallions at Hampton Court. He came of a well-known Florentine 
 family of artists," and was, perhaps, the nephew of Girolamo (died 1490), 
 
 ' Authorities quoted in Mr. Higgins's paper. 
 " Mr. Higgins considers tliis very doubtful.
 
 12 RENAISSANCE A RCIII Tl-XTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 and Benedetto di Nardo da IMajano, the famous intarsiatore, who died 
 in 1497, and of whom Vasari says that he carved a likeness of Henry 
 VII. from a drawing supplied him by certain Elorentine merchants. 
 Rovezzano appears to have come to England about 1520. In the 
 Calendar of State Papers (Brewer, 4. 3. 5743.) is a letter dated June 
 30th, 1529, from " Benedictus Sculptor Florentinus " to Wolsey, in 
 Latin. The writer says that at command of Thomas Cromwell, he will 
 narrate the history and sums received for an altar (erected soon after 
 at Christ Church, Oxford), and a tomb for the cardinal on which he 
 is at work, lie had agreed with one Antonio Cavallari, thai the tomb 
 should not be less magnificent than that of Hcnr) \ II. The price was 
 to be equivalent, paid by instalments on outlay, the balance due to be 
 valued by experts; the gilding to be extra. From June 1st, 1524, to 
 May, 1529, he received from Cavallari and Antonio Bonvisi about 4,250 
 ducats. Besides this he had advanced money himself and borrowed ol 
 friends in London and Florence. Meanwhile Cavallari had died, and 
 the debts were outstanding. He points out that he had been so suc- 
 cessful in transport of marble, bronze, founding, and obtaining ot good 
 workmen, that the cost would be much less than was to be expected 
 pro tain operosd mole. The gilding was very expensive. For Henry 
 VII. 's tomb ;^200 had been enough: for this, close on /,8oo was 
 wanted, thus showing its greater importance, tcstorquc in siiiiplicitatc 
 niea, id tuuiii scpiilchruni in diiplo rcgiwn snpcrarc, ant plus ro, 
 sumptic arte, dccorc. Knowing this, Cavallari had promised that he 
 should soon go to Oxford to make the altar, and on behalf of Wolsey 
 that he should have the king's monument. He is anxious to serve 
 his grace in everything ; but not having seen his wife or children 
 for ten years, he is compelled to go and see them, and maybe bring 
 them over to England. He therefore begs Wolsey to instruct Crom- 
 well to take the matter up and settle his accounts. This letter 
 was accompanied by one written before his death by Cavallari to 
 Wolsey, stating that he had paid out .1^380 135-.' for gilding, and praying 
 that if the tomb was not to be finished the gilder might return to 
 Antwerp, and Benedict, the carver, to Italy. Wolsey, whose fortunes 
 were now shattered, was near his end, and probably powerless to do 
 anything ; and Rovezzano must have referred the matter to the king 
 who, with indecent haste, had alread)- seized the cardinal's monument 
 for himself. Rovezzano obtained his leave of absence, and before 
 leaving drew up a list of what he had done for Wolsey's tomb. 
 
 ' About ^^'4,000 of our money.
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 13 
 
 " For the King's Highness. 
 
 " 4 graven copper pillars, 9 feet long. 
 
 " 4 angels to kneel at the head and ft)ot of the tomb ready gilt and 
 burnished. 
 
 " 4 angels with candlesticks to stand on the said pillars. 
 
 " 4 naked children to stand at the head and foot of the tomb with 
 the arms. 
 
 " 2 pieces of copper with epitaphs. 
 
 " a tomb of black touchstone 7 ft. by 4 ft. and 2-i- ft. high. 
 
 " 4 copper leaves for the corners of the tomb. 
 
 " 12 pieces of black touch, and 8 of white marble for the base of 
 the tomb. 
 
 " a step of black touch. 
 
 " 7 pieces of copper wrought like clolh ol gold. 
 
 " 4 small pillars for the corners of an altar. 
 
 " Things to be ordered at the King's pleasure. 
 
 " The image of the Cardinal gilt and burnished. 2 griphins to be 
 at his feet. The Cardinal's hat with i 2 buttons and strings, 2 scutcheons 
 with his arms and 14 small scutcheons of his Churches, 12 images of 
 saints, a cross, 2 pillars." In another list is added a white marble 
 " chaminaye, and 6 clay figures, 7 feet high, which should have served 
 for Oxford." For the above work he had received 4,250 ducats, at 
 4^. 6d. a ducat. "And moreover for to leave an inv-entory of all that 
 doth appertain to the King's most noble grace, or ever I go to Florence, 
 it rests in the house 4 pillars which was left of the altar ot K. Henr\'\ II. 
 which were not sufficient to stand to the weight of the said altar which 
 Master Peter Torrygan had made of the said pillars, which appertaineth 
 to the King's most noble grace." After Rovezzano's return from 
 Florence, he resumed his»work on the tomb, and John da INIajano was 
 associated with him. Entries of receipts for payments by Cromwell on 
 the king's account, for labour on the king's tomb, occur in 1531-32-33 ; 
 Rovezzano being variously described as "Rovessanne" and "Rovesham." 
 and Majano as " John de INIanns, " "John Demans," and " f ohn Demyans." 
 The entries continue in 1536 "to Benedict and John, gravers working 
 upon the King's tomb at Westminster in May, June, July and .August, 
 ^■38. 37 1- 2040 lbs of copper for the tomb, ^,22. 17/4. I have not 
 been able to discover any entries relating to the tomb, or any mention ot 
 Rovezzano or Majano after 1536. The history of this monument is a 
 strange one. As alread)- stated, it was originally begun for Wolsey ; and 
 Rovezzano appears to have more or less completed it as fust designed, at
 
 14 RENAISSANCE ARCl IITECTU R]': IN ENGLAND 
 
 the time of Wolsey's fall. At this date, it seems to have consisted of a 
 recumbent figure of the cardinal in j^ilt bronze, resting on a sarcophagus 
 of black touchstone with gilt bronze enrichments at the angles. The 
 sarcophagus stood on a rectangular base of black and white marble, and 
 at each angle were tall square pillars of gilt bronze 9 ft. high, supporting 
 angels 3 ft. .( in. high with candlesticks. At the ends of the tomb 
 were figures of boys supporting the cardinal's arms, and at the sides 
 were scutcheons for the inscriptions fixed to the base, with kneeling 
 figures of angels at either end. Twelve small images of saints, i ft. 
 high, were ranged along the top of the base to the sarcophagus. When 
 Henry annexed this monument, he determined that it should be a much 
 more magnificent aftair. The sarcophagus and base of Wolsey's tomb 
 were taken, but Wolsey's effigy was replaced by one of the king, and 
 the tomb placed on a second base which, in its turn, stood upon a 
 podium 14 ft. 6 in. by 10 ft. 6 in. by 5 ft. high, of black marble ornamented 
 with bronze.^ Round this podium were placed ten square pillars of 
 bronze, 1 2 in. by 1 2 in. and 10 ft. high, supporting figures of apostles 4 ft. 
 6 in. high, with three smaller figures, 2 ft. i in. high, set round the base 
 of each pillar. Between the pillars were ranged eight great candlesticks 
 9 ft. high. The whole was surrounded by an inclosure of bronze, 
 4 ft. 6 in. high, set in a framing of black and white marble, of a total 
 height of 5 ft. The latter end of this splendid monument was as 
 melancholy as the beginning. It was left unfinished in the Lady Chapel 
 of Henry VII. at Windsor, when Henry VIII. died, and never com- 
 pleted, though a survey was made for the purpose in the reign of 
 Elizabeth. Charles I. intended to be buried in it ; but after his execution 
 Parliament ordered the sale of all the bronze work to the monument, 
 and it was sold in 1646 for something over /'400, four of the candle- 
 sticks finding their way to the Church of St. Bavon at Ghent. Between 
 1 806- 1 S 10 the marble sarcophagus and upper base were removed to 
 form Nelson's tomb in the crypt of St. Paul's; and about 181 1 the 
 whole floor of the Chapel at Windsor was taken up to form the 
 royal vault for George HI., and with this disappeared the last trace 
 of this monument, which had occupied some of the best years of 
 Rovezzano's life. 
 
 Vasari says that Rovezzano returned to Italy about 1540, his sight 
 having failed through his standing too near the furnaces while founding 
 
 ' The reader will find full particulars and a conjectural restoration of this monument 
 in Mr. Higgins's paper. Mr. Higgins also gives a restoration of the chantry altar, which 
 stood to the east of the tomb.
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 15 
 
 metal. He died about 1550. Vasari particularly praises the lightness 
 of his sculpture, the skill with which he detached his figures and foliage 
 so that they seemed to flutter in the air. Da Majano probably left 
 England at about the same time. His name also appears in the 
 accounts for building a banqueting house at Greenwich on May 7th, 
 1527,' evidently a temporary pavilion. "To John Demyans, for 6 
 antique heads, gilt silvered and painted at 26/ each," and on November 
 19th, 1527, for preparing two of the arches "For John Demanyanns 
 Italian graver and his company 56/S." b'or 1528, ^5 paid to "John 
 Demayns graver." In the same account for work at Greenwich - 
 occur items for various paints and oils spent by " Mr. Hans and his 
 company and of payments to Italian painters and gilders, " Nicholas 
 Florentine at 23'', and Domyngo at 16'', day and night; to Vincent 
 Vulp and Ellys Carmyan (also Italian painters) at 20/ the week." 
 Holbein's work was a temporary arch for the pageant of " the Father 
 of Hevin." Vincent V^ulp painted the banners for the great Harry 
 in 1 5 14, "a streamer with a dragon 45 yards long." The names of 
 other Italians and foreigners in the employment of the king are given 
 in a paper by Digby Wyatt." The most important were Luca I'enni, 
 Gerome da Trevigi, and Toto del Nunziata, all men of independent 
 reputations, apart from their employment in England. On June 26th, 
 1537, letters of denization were granted to Anthony Toto, painter of 
 Florence, and he was made sergeant painter to the king, but his name 
 occurs seven years earlier, in 1530. In the privy purse accounts ' is an 
 entry of ^18 15.9. paid as wages to Anthony Toto and Bartholmewe 
 Penni, painters of Florence at the rate of £2^ a year apiece. Their 
 names occur in November, 1531 ; after this, Toto is mentioned alone.' 
 He was employed by Henry in continuing the w'orks at Hampton 
 Court. In 1530 he received for five "tables" (pictures) for the king's 
 
 ' Brewer, 4. 2. 31 07. 
 
 ■ Ibid., 3104. 
 
 '' Transactions of R.I.I!. A., May i8th, 1867. This paper, however, is not quite 
 accurate in one or two points, such, for instance, as the reference to Cavallari's letter, 
 described in the text. Wyatt, following; W'alpole, identifies Cavallari with the I'lemisii 
 gilder. Cavallari appears to have been an Italian merchant who acted as middleman. 
 Walpole's account, based on the notes left by Vertue, is, I need hardly say, readable, but 
 untrustworthy. ^Vyatt also gives Anthony Toto, and Toto del Nunziata, as names of two 
 separate artists. There is no doubt, however, that they are only different versions of the 
 name " Antonio, called Toto del Nunziata." 
 
 ' Brewer, Calendar of State Papers, vol. v., p. 319. 
 
 ' His name occurs in the Losely .MSS. as "drawing patrons for the masks."
 
 i6 renaissaxcp: arcihtixturk in England 
 
 library " by a bargain in gret, £(i 13/4/ and for 4 others for the king's 
 closet, ^20." Gerome da Trevigi, or Girolamo Penacchi, of Treviso, 
 was employed by Henry cliielly as a military engineer. Vasari sa)s 
 that he was a poor designer but a pleasant colourist in the manner of 
 Raphael. He left Bologna in anger at the unfairness of a competition 
 for the decoration of the Spedale del Monte, and came over to England, 
 where he was employed by Henry at a salary of 400 crowns a year and 
 a house. In 1544 he was cut in half by a cannon ball while directing 
 the formation of some batteries round Boulogne. Anthony Toto or 
 Toto del Nun/.iata is said by Vasari to have built for Henry VHI. 
 his principal palace. This palace was probably Nonesuch. In point of 
 fact it is most unlikely that Toto del Nunziata designed this building, 
 but he may very well have been employed on its decoration with many 
 other foreigners. 
 
 Nonesuch seems to have been the most important building erected 
 in Eno^land in the reign of Henry VIII. It was built on a manor 
 bought by Henry from Richard de Codington in 1537. .After Henry's 
 death it passed into the hands of Lord Arundel, " who, for the love 
 and honour he bare to his old master," bought it from Mary, and com- 
 pleted the works " for the honour of this realme as a pearle thereof." 
 In 1591 Elizabeth bought it back from Lord Lumley, Arundel's .son-in- 
 law. In 1670 Charles II. gave it to Barbara, Lady Castlemaine, and 
 this attractive but unprincipled person had tlie manor disparked, and 
 ordered the building to be pulled down and sold as old materials. In 
 1650 a commission had been appointed by Parliament to survey the 
 buildings, and their report (given in full " Archasologia," vol. v.) gives 
 a vivid idea of what Henry and his men understood by a royal palace. 
 The palace consisted of two courts ; an outer court paved with stone 
 150 ft. long by 132 ft. broad, inside, surrounded by a two-storey building 
 of freestone roofed with slates. This was entered through a gatehouse 
 three stories high, with turrets at the four angles. Opposite this gate- 
 house was a second gatehouse similar to the first, except that it was 
 surmounted by an elaborate clock turret. Through this gatehouse a 
 flight of steps led to an inner court, wliich measured 116 ft. long by 
 
 ' The extract iVniii the Chapter Mouse accounts gi\en by Law, " History of Hamijton 
 Court," i. 129, contains the following list : " Firste, one table of Joachyn and Saint Anne. 
 "Then another table how Adam dylffed in the grounde. 
 "Then the third table how Adam was driven ought of Paradise. 
 "Then the fourth table of the buryinge of Our Lord. 
 "Then the fifth table, being the last table, of the buryinge of Our blessed Ladye."
 
 § -I- 
 
 c - 
 
 to 
 
 to
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 17 
 
 137 ft. broad. The level of this court was <S ft. higher than that of 
 the outer court. The lower storey of the inner court was of stone, but 
 the upper of half timber work, " richly adorned and set forth and 
 garnished with a variety of pictures and other antick forms of excellent 
 art and workmanship, and of no small cost." This ornament was 
 executed on plaster by Italians. Evelyn, who saw the place January 
 3rd, 1666, was astonished at the perfect state of preservation of the 
 " plaster statues," and he noted " some mezzo relievos as big as life. The 
 storie is the heathen gods, emblems, compartments, etc." The puncheons, 
 or wooden uprights, were, he says, covered with scales of slate ; l)ut 
 Pepys, a not less accurate observer, says (September 21st, 1668), " one 
 great thing is that most of the house is covered, I mean the posts and 
 quarters on the walls, with lead, and gilded." At the east and west outer 
 angles of the inner court were two great towers, facing the Privy Garden, 
 five storeys high. These were covered with lead, and " battled round 
 with frames of wood covered with lead." In the middle of the inner 
 court stood a fountain of white marble and bronze on a flight of three 
 steps. In front of the house was a balustrade of freestone, inclosing 
 the forecourt, and round the three outer sides of the inner court was the 
 Privy Garden, surrounded by a wall 14 ft. high, and divided into 
 several " allyes, quarters, and rounds, set about with thorne hedge," 
 and adorned with a fountain of a pelican, and " two other marble 
 pinnacles or pyramids, called the Faulcon perches, betwixt which is 
 placed a fountaine of white marble with a lead cisterne, which fountaine 
 is set round with 6 trees called lilack trees, which trees bear no fruit 
 but only a very pleasant flower."- The banqueting house, a square 
 half timber building, three storeys high, containing a hall and eight 
 rooms, with windows on every side, stood on the highest part of the 
 park. Above the third storey was a lantern covered with lead, and 
 at each corner a balcony for the view. The Commissioners of 1650 
 estimated the gross value of the materials only, after allowing for cost of 
 taking down, at _;^7,020, and they reported that the building was in 
 very good repair. There is a view of the house in Speed's map of 
 England, but the best print of it is Hoefnagle's large folio made in 15S2, 
 for George Braun's " Urbium Pra^cipuarum Mundi Theatrum quintum." 
 This print tallies pretty closely with the report of the Commissioners, 
 though the bulbous cupolas on the towers are probably a fancy ot the 
 German draughtsman. The description in the text says : " Diversarum 
 nationum prrestantes opifices architectos sculptores et statuaries, Italos, 
 Gallos, Hollandos, et patriotas sumptu regio eo invitavit, qui mirabile 
 
 1)
 
 i8 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 artis sure experimentiim, in hac arce ornanda ediderunt, statuis earn intus 
 et foris condecorarunt magnilicis, qua; Romanas antiquitatcs partim 
 apprime referunt partim superant." It will be noticed that this descrip- 
 tion expressly limits the work of the foreigners to decoration (" in hac 
 arce ornanda "), they did not design the architecture as a whole. The 
 mention of Frenchmen is also remarkable. The names of French 
 artists or workmen scarcely ever occur in the State Papers, and there arc 
 few instances of Renaissance work in England which can be attributed 
 to them. The capitals to the arch between the More chantry and the 
 chancel of old Chelsea Church arc an unusual instance. They closely 
 resemble French work of the early sixteenth century, such as is found 
 along the banks of the Seine, between Paris and Rouen. The monument 
 in the Oxenbrigge chapel in Brede Church, Sussex, dated 1537, is 
 another rare example. It is of Caen stone, admirably carved, and was 
 probably made in France and shipped to the port of Rye, some nine 
 miles distant from Brede. 
 
 Besides the Italians already mentioned, a certain John of Padua 
 has obtained a jjosition of undue prominence from the fact that his name 
 occurs in a grant from the king, dated June 30th, 1544, of 2^-. a day 
 for his services in architecture and music, which grant was renewed by 
 Edward \T on December 13th, 1547, and June 5th, 1548. No building 
 can be attributed to him with any certainty. He is said to have designed 
 Protector Somerset's palace in the Strand in 1549 (old Somerset House, 
 destroyed 1776-1784), and Longleat in Wiltshire, begun by Sir John 
 Thynnc in 1 567, but there is no evidence whatever to prove this tradition. 
 With the exception of the additions made by Inigo Jones in the following- 
 century, the architecture of old Somerset House appears to have 
 followed the methods habitual in England in the middle of the sixteenth 
 century. The stonework of Longleat shows knowledge of Italian 
 detail, but it has none of the distinctive character which marks the 
 work of the Italians imported by Henry YIII., and, to hazard a guess, 
 it is more probable that it was the work of an Englishman who had 
 travelled in Italy, such, for instance, as John Shute. Holbein, who 
 designed architecture and everything else, must be reckoned with the 
 Italians. Besides his innumerable designs for plate and jewellery, he is 
 said to have designed two gatehouses at Whitehall, pulled down in 
 1770. These resembled Wolsey's gateway at Hampton Court, and are 
 said to have had terra-cotta busts in niches, and other ornaments in 
 terra-cotta. There is a small building in the garden at Wilton, which 
 is called a gateway, but is much more probably a garden house. It is
 
 
 Face/'. 1 8. 
 
 COUNTESS OF SALISBURY'S CHANIKV. CH RISTCHURCH. HANTS.
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 19 
 
 in two storeys, with a room above a small open loggia. The Tudor 
 rose appears in the pedestals to the lower order. Between the columns 
 are heads, rather German in feeling, in roundels. Except for tradition, 
 and certain peculiarities of the design, such as a distinct suggestion 
 of goldsmith's work, there is no evidence for assigning this to Holbein. 
 As Holbein died in 1543, and the abbey lands of Wilton were not 
 conferred on Sir William Herbert till 1544, the porch, if it was designed 
 by Holbein, must have been a posthumous work, or brought from some 
 other place. In the Cathedral of Chichester there are some pictures of 
 the kings of England and of the bishops of the see, supposed to have 
 been painted for Bishop Shurburne about 15 19 by an Italian named 
 Bernardi. Shurburne died in 1536, but he had his monument put up 
 for him in Chichester Cathedral during his lifetime. It consists of a 
 recumbent effigy on an altar tomb, with a small figure of an angel by 
 the head and two angels holding a mitre. The architectural details 
 are English, but the treatment of the figures, which closely resembles 
 similar work at Hampton Court, make it almost certain that all the 
 figures were carved by Italians, and it is probable that Shurburne 
 employed the Bernardis for the work. The Bernardis settled in 
 Chichesfer, and Dallaway thought it probable that they executed the 
 curious paintings in Cowdray House, destroyed by fire in 1793. 
 
 That the Italians were present in England in considerable num- 
 bers in the early part of the sixteenth century is evident, but in spite of 
 Henry's lavish employment of Italian artists, we cannot point to a 
 single instance of a building of the sixteenth century designed and 
 carried through by any one Italian in England. The evidence on 
 every hand points to the conclusion that they were employed as work- 
 men, and in no sense as architects. At Hampton Court the fabric of 
 the building is purely English in design and execution, and the names 
 of the English workmen are known. So too with Holbein's gateways 
 at Whitehall. Terra-cotta plaques and medallions were merely inserted 
 into the brick walls of an ordinary English building, which indeed 
 architecturally might have been very much better without them. 
 When the English masons had built the screen or the chantry after 
 their own fashion, the Italian carver was called in, and he set to work 
 in his way and incontinently covered the surface with arabesques and 
 cherubs' heads and other fancies brousrht from his home in the south. 
 Thus in the Chapel built for Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, at 
 Christchurch in Hampshire, probably about 1520, the fan vaulting, 
 mouldings, tracery, cusping, and crockets, are ordinary late Perpendicular,
 
 20 RKNAISSANCE ARCH ITiiC TURI-: IN ENGLAND 
 
 of a ratlicr feeble sort, whereas the sides of the engaged shafts, the 
 spandrels and other details, are distinctly Italian not only in design, 
 but in the extreme finish and delicacy of their execution. The screen 
 in the south chapel of the choir is another instance. So too in the 
 chantry and tomb of Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester (died 
 1535), there is a similar mixture of English Perpendicular masonry and 
 Italian surface sculpture. The vaulting of the chantry is Perpendicular, 
 but at the east end is a little reredos of three niches with Ionic pilasters. 
 
 SCREEN TO Gardiner's chantrv, Winchester. 
 
 This instance is even more remarkable than that at Christchurcli. 
 Above the four light windows with Perpendicular tracery in the heads, 
 runs an entablature of the Doric order, with triglyphs, discs, and oxens' 
 heads in the frieze. All the work is clearly of one date, but two sets 
 of men must have been employed on it, with the result of a curious 
 uncertainty as to which set of details was to be followed. The ceiling 
 and details of Bishop West's chapel at Ely (about 1533) illustrate 
 clearly this struggle between the old tradition and the new detail, and 
 I think it is evident that Henry and other princely patrons of art
 
 Face /■. 20. 
 
 FROM THE SALISBURY CHANTRY, CHRISTCHURCH, HANTS.
 
 <,
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 21 
 
 treated the Italian as a very humble person, not to Ije intrusted with 
 large designs, but as fit only to take his place with other workmen in 
 the execution of one particular piece of ornament. Torrigiano, Rovez- 
 zano, or Holbein, might be allowed more freedom, or the whole 
 contract for a magnificent piece of work, such as the screen at King's, 
 Cambridge, might be given to an Italian carver of admitted reputation ; 
 but the panels at St. Cross, near Winchester, and those round the 
 choir at Christchurch, represent the ordinary employment of the Italian 
 under Henry. In the latter instance the Italian carver appears to have 
 competed with Flemish, and possibly French, workmen, probably all 
 three coming out from Southampton to pick up any work they could in 
 the neighbourhood. 
 
 Another noticeable point about this early work of the Italians in 
 England is its local character. With exceptions in the east of England, 
 it was pretty well confined to the districts that lay between London 
 and the south coast ports, particularly Hampshire, and the prevalence 
 of Italian work in this part of England is no doubt to be attributed to 
 the settlement of the Italian merchants' at Winchester, and the constant 
 passage of foreigners between that town and the port of Southampton. 
 Italian merchants had resided and traded in Winchester since the 
 middle of the fifteenth century, whereas the Londoners never liked 
 them, and on "the evil Mayday" of 15 17, rose upon the foreigners. 
 The rising was summarily suppressed by the king, but the jealousy of 
 the foreigner which it revealed was likely to deter the Italians from 
 going far out of Hampshire, and this part of England is richest in 
 specimens of their work. The models for the terra-cotta detail at Sutton 
 Place were probably supplied by Italian workmen. Italian carvers were 
 employed by Lord Sandys for his new buildings at the Vyne," near 
 Basingstoke. Round the canopy above the stalls in the chapel there is a 
 running band of foliage on which are amorini blowing horns, shooting 
 at stags, hunting goats, and owls playing flutes and drums in and out of 
 a branch of pomegranate. This, though on a very small scale, is a 
 charming example ol the mixture of Italian motives with the traditional 
 Gothic feeling. The so-called mortuary chests placed on the top of the 
 north and south screens to the choir at Winchester are clearly Italian, 
 with the exception of the two at the west end, which are copies made in 
 1 66 1 to replace those destroyed by the Puritans in 1649. These chests 
 
 ' I am indebted to Mr. Herbert Horne, who has made a special study of the Italians 
 in England under Henry \'ni., for this reference to the Winchester merchants. 
 
 Lord Sandys married the niece and heiress of Sir Reginald Bray, and died in 1540.
 
 22 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 arc oblong boxes about 5 feet long, 2 wide, and 2 feet 6 inches 
 deep. The front is panelled with a cartouche containing the inscription, 
 supported by cherubs and griffms. Above this is a frieze of arabesque, 
 or to use the language of the Hampton Court accounts, " a frieze of 
 antick work.' The details are in low relief, either in gesso or lead, 
 and are painted in green, red, white, and gold. The original chests 
 probably date from the end of the fifteenth and early part of the six- 
 
 um"^ 
 
 
 CHESTS ON SCREEN TO CHOIR, WTNXHESTER. 
 
 teenth centuries. Mr. Rawdon Browne ' suggests that some of the 
 painted Italian chests at South Kensington may have been the cases 
 in which presents of confections and the like were sent over by the 
 Venetian Republic to the kings of England. Thus in 1458 the 
 seigneury sent to Henry VI. four butts of malmsey and two painted 
 chests containing liqueurs. Similar presents were made him annually 
 from 1459 to 1468, the total number of these painted chests amounting 
 
 ' Introduction to vol. vi., I'art I., ''Calendar of \'cnclian State Papers."
 
 GATEWAY, MONTACUTE HOUSE, SOMERSET. 
 
 ce p. ZZ.
 
 THE ITALIANS IN ENGLAND 23 
 
 to twenty-two, and the specimens of old glass and majolica to several 
 thousands. It is quite possible that the Winchester chests may 
 have had a similar origin, and, apart from their intrinsic beauty, their 
 interest lies in the indication of one possible means by which the 
 English may have gained some knowledge of the details of the Italian 
 Renaissance. 
 
 The conclusion to which a survey of existing evidence leads, is 
 that the direct influence of this first advance of the Italian Renaissance 
 on the development of architecture in England was not considerable. 
 Its area did not extend far beyond the southern counties, and it was an 
 affair of detail of all sorts, of ornamentation of surfaces, of delicate 
 arabesque and dainty plaster modelling, of terra-cotta medallions, and 
 beautiful carving in low relief and absolute drawing, rather than of 
 architecture in a large and comprehensive sense. Possibly the Italians 
 were not given the chance, but it is hardly a matter for regret that the 
 solid tradition of English building was not abandoned as yet for an 
 architecture which in its pure Italian form was unsuited to the condi- 
 tions of our climate. At the same time the indirect influence of the 
 Italians must not be underrated. The mere fact that men of the 
 ability of Torrigiano, Rovezzano, and Majano, were working in 
 England for several years, must have had its effect on the native 
 workmen among whom they worked, and families of Italian artists, 
 such as the Bernardis at Chichester, must have done something to 
 familiarize these workmen with Italian detail and its very high standard 
 of workmanship. The plaster work on ceilings and friezes which 
 became so common towards the end of the sixteenth century is usually- 
 assigned by local tradition to travelling companies of Italians. The 
 inferiority of workmanship and the character of the design show 
 clearly that it was executed by Englishmen long after most of the 
 Italians had left this country. But that it was inspired by the 
 specimens of plaster work executed by the Italians in the time of 
 Henry VIII. is very probable, and some of the Englishmen very early 
 picked up the new manner. For instance, when Henry \'III. built 
 the hall of Hampton Court, Richard Ridge of London carved the 
 great pendants under the hammerbeams of the roof and, though the 
 roof is of ordinary late Gothic construction, the details of these 
 pendants are of comparatively pure Renaissance character, and here, as 
 in the carving at the Vyne, we see how the influence of the humanist 
 was winning its way over the harsher fancy of the later Gothic 
 tradition. This influence was as yet solvent rather than synthetic.
 
 24 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGEANH 
 
 It broke up the ground for new ideas; at its higher level it prepared 
 the way for the maturer architecture of Inigo Jones, at its lower, for 
 all that charming play of simple fancy which marks the best English 
 craftsmanship of the sixteenth century, for the new half pagan delight 
 in all rare and beautiful things which gives to th(; Renaissance its 
 undying interest as one of the recurring outbreaks of humanity against 
 the tvrannv of another world.
 
 PANEL OVER DOOR IN BURGATE STREET, CANTERBURY. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Germans in England. Elizabeth. James I. 
 
 The death of Henry VIII. marks a turning point in English history. 
 The end of his despotism was as the end of a long nightmare ; and 
 when, after the brief reigns of Edward VI. and Mary, Elizabeth ascended 
 the throne, the long repressed energy of the English began to realize 
 itself with all the delight of recovered liberty, with something of the 
 joyous carelessness of children turned out to play. Henceforward the 
 English instinct asserts itself with increasing strength, not so much in 
 the details as in the substantial forms of architecture. 
 
 For various reasons the Italians gradually retired from this country 
 after the death of Henry VIII. The change of religion in 1536 does 
 not appear to have immediately affected the commercial relations of 
 Venice with England. In 1548 Daniel Barbaro, wlio subsequently 
 translated " Vitruvius,"^ was appointed Venetian ambassador in England, 
 
 Printed at \'enice, 1567.
 
 26 RENAISSANCE ARCI I ITKC'ri' R !• IN liNGLAND 
 
 but he only stayed in England eighteen months, and was ordered to 
 return to Venice towards the end of 1550. It is probable that Barbaro 
 who was in touch with the court, and a distinguished amateur, helped 
 to stimulate the interest of the nobility in Italian architecture, and 
 perhaps induced them to send over students to Italy, partly as agents 
 and partl\- to educate themselves. From the date of Elizabeth's acces- 
 sion to 1570, the Venetian traders in London were represented by a 
 vice-consul. Between 1570 and 1575 there were no regular diplomatic 
 relations with Venice, and though the Venetians in London offered to 
 defray the cost of an embassy, the proposal was defeated in the senate, 
 and in 1578 the Papal Nuncio extracted from the Doge a public 
 declaration that the idea of such an embassy had never been enter- 
 tained, and regular diplomatic relations with Venice were not resumed 
 till the accession of James I. Pius V. in fact made every effort to 
 induce all Roman Catholic powers to break off relations with England, 
 and in spite of Elizabeth's caution, her sympathy with the Protestants 
 on the continent was an open secret. Cavalli (the Venetian Ambassador 
 in France) wrote, in 1573, that the heretics of La Rochelle, of Germany, 
 and of England, were solid, and thus, owing to the drift of political 
 affairs, the Venetian trade with England gradually disappeared. The 
 patronage of the Bardis and Cavalcantis passed into the hands of 
 Flemish merchants, and after Edward VI. we find little trace of Italian 
 artists. The numerous foreigners who came to Enoland during the 
 reigns of Elizabeth and James I. were nearly all natives of Germany 
 and the Low Countries. 
 
 Another reason for the disappearance of the Italians was the 
 poverty of Edward VI. Whereas Henry VIII. had begun Nonesuch, 
 and the palaces of St. James's and Whitehall, and had spent vast sums 
 in completing Hampton Court, neither Edward VI. nor Mary ordered 
 any new building of importance. The utmost that Edward was allowed 
 to do, was to maintain his father's iDensIons and keep his palaces In 
 repair. His father had left him burdened with debts, and a coinage so 
 debased that plated copper was circulated as silver. Instead of 
 prodigal orders for goldsmiths' work, the .State Papers record warrants 
 of discharge by the king and council for the melting down of royal 
 plate.' There was therefore little likelihood of employment for the 
 Italians, and the small outlay made to rehabilitate the old religion 
 
 ' In 1550 warrants of discharge were signed by the king and council to Sir Ednumd 
 Pecham and Sir Anthony Auger, of the value of gold, parcel gilt and silver plate, melted 
 down and delivered by them to the Lord High I'reasurer.
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGLAND 27 
 
 under Mary was hardly a sufficient inducement to them to stay. We 
 have now to turn our attention to the invasion of German and Flemish 
 workmen who succeeded the Italians in England, and to the native 
 builders who at first worked side by side with the foreigners, and 
 eventually superseded them. 
 
 When Elizabeth began to reign, the architect, as we now understand 
 him, had not yet detached himself in England as an independent 
 designer from the general body of craftsmen. He was still in the 
 position of the master mason or carpenter who contracted for his own 
 particular trade, and in this capacity provided his own details, either 
 designing them himself or using stock patterns, such as " the broadlcaf 
 and the rose, the rose and the garnet, the leaf the double ring, the 
 double flower, the great pillar, the little flower, the two dolphins and the 
 little pillar."' The building owner, the "client," to use the modern 
 term, gave general directions as to what he wanted, probably including a 
 rough ground plan, though many of these were made on the spot by the 
 foreman, as in the old accounts occur "skins for making platts " (plans). 
 The work was carried out partly by contracts with separate trades, 
 partly by day work, the owner usually providing all materials," and the 
 workmen being employed by agents, who are called variously "surveyor 
 of the works," " comptroller of the works," clerk overseer of works," 
 " clerk of accounts," and " clerk of the check," who appear to have 
 divided among themselves the work now done by the builder's clerk, 
 the builder's foreman, and the clerk of tJTC works.' The one person 
 who is never mentioned at all is " the architect," for Sir Reginald Bray, 
 sometimes referred to as architect of Henry YII.'s chapel and other 
 buildings, though a person of much consideration, was not an architect at 
 all, but a fiehtingr man and an agent of the king. To modern notions 
 the business of building operations in the sixteenth century seems to 
 have been conducted somewhat loosely. Rough contracts were made 
 with the different trades, and after that, the trades w^ere left to themselves 
 to supply the designs and to execute the work, though there was often 
 a foreman designer, such as Arnold at Wadham, or Cecil's man at 
 
 ' Accounts for tlic lianqueting house ,Tt (Ircfiiwich. Calendar of State Papers, 
 Brewer, 4. 2. 3104. 
 
 - For instance, in the accounts for building the hall at Hampton Court, 1530-1532. 
 " Pencelling (pointing) the two gabul ends of the Haull, with 3 vyces (turrets) adjoining to 
 the same, the Kynge fyndyng all manner of stuff and scaffolding, 14^-" Similar entries 
 occur for " Empcion of painter's stuff." 
 
 ■' The question is discussed exhaustively by Mr. Wyatt Papworth in a papur contained 
 in the Transactions of the Institute of British Architects for 1.H87.
 
 28 R1-:XAISSANCE ARCH ITliCTU RK IN l^NGLAND 
 
 Burghley, and each trade was directly responsible to the employer. 
 No drawings, except the roughest possible sketches, were prepared, 
 and the specifications, beyond giving general dimensions and naming 
 materials, tended to leave the rest to that convenient clause of the 
 modern specification, "everything to be the best of its kintl." In regard 
 to materials, the practice varied : sometimes these were found by the 
 trades, sometimes by the employer. At Clare, Cambridge, for instance, 
 in 1635, the Bursar bought brick earth and had bricks made for the 
 college, at a price of sixpence per M for the brick earth, though later 
 on he bought the bricks at five shillings per M. Wainscot, deal, and fir 
 were bought from King's Lynn, stone from Ketton and Welldon, slates 
 from Collyweston, and lead from Derbyshire. All these were supplied 
 by the college, and the " work was carried on either by day work, or by 
 small bargains for particular jobs" (Willis and Clarke). John Westley 
 was the principal workman, and the works included the inner quadrangle, 
 when they were interrupted by the Civil War. The history of Clare 
 shows how tenaciously the system was adhered to. The buildings were 
 resumed in 1669, after the Restoration, and the beautiful river front of 
 Clare and the bridge were completed under Robert Grumbold, Free- 
 mason, who, it appears, not only made the designs, but was employed 
 on the works as a working mason. In 1685 he was receiving twenty 
 shillings a week for designs and for his work as mason, the college still 
 finding all materials. The pay certainly seems small, for it is the exact 
 amount that was paid to William Arnold for similar work at Wadham, 
 1610-1 1. 
 
 Where the trades found their own materials some form of contract 
 was always made. In Messrs. Willis and Clarke's History ' there is 
 given in full the contract between the Master and Fellows of St. 
 Catherine's Hall, Cambridge, and John Atkinson, dated April i8th, 161 1, 
 to erect a good and substantial range of buildings as below specified : 
 the house to be two storeys high, each 9 feet from floor to ceiling, 
 the studs to be 12 inches apart, and the width " 18 feet from the 
 inside of the brickwork unto the outside of the groundsill ; " the case of 
 stairs to be large enough to contain " a fair paire of staires up to every 
 of the 6 roomes," each room to have a fair bay on the college side, with 
 one at the end, and convenient lights on the other side, " the windows 
 to have fourteen iron casements placed in the most convenient places, 
 and all to be coloured with white lead and oil ;" each room to be divided 
 
 ' "Architectural History of the University of Canibridge," vol. ii., p. 90.
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGLAND 29 
 
 into a study and bed-chamber, " with sufficient doares, locks, hingells 
 and stapells ; " the floors to be of good oak or deal, the rooms to be 
 ceiled with lime and hair. Jo. Atkinson is to make two chimney-stacks 
 with three fires in each stack, and to remove the old buildings, the 
 whole to be completed within twenty days after next Michaelmas, and 
 the builder to be paid ;/^6o at the time of sealing, and a hundred marks 
 on October 22nd, or ^^126 13.?. 4^/. in all, and to have the old materials, 
 and " the said Jo. Atkinson covenanteth that all and every the timber wh. 
 shall be used in the said buyldynge shall be sound, firm, stronge and of 
 a good scantlinge, and all the stone tyle glasse iron mortcr brick and 
 whatsoever thing else is necessary shall be of the best for continuance, 
 and to make it a strong seemly buyldynge and habitable." No drawings 
 were given, antl no other specification than what is contained in the 
 above, and the building lasted till 1673, when it was rebuilt by Grum- 
 bold. The contract made between the Master and Fellows of St. John's 
 and Ralph Symmons and Gilbert Wigge, August 7th, 1598, for the 
 second court, is more formal. The indenture refers to the "platts and 
 uprights drawn by the said Symmons or Wigg or their assignes," and 
 specifies the bricks and stones, the accommodation, length, height of floors, 
 thickness of walls, size and height of lights, water tables, cornices, crests, 
 and gables, floors, roofs, and stairs ; the old details of the upper court 
 to be followed in all respects — the work to be completed in four years, 
 each part having its time limit, and the sides are not to be carried up 
 simultaneously. Payment is to be made by instalments for work done 
 and materials delivered, but the college to be free to repay either in 
 money or in materials on three months' notice on either side. In case 
 of disagreement, the matter was to be referred to the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury and the Bishop of London, whose decision was to be final 
 and binding; ' and the builders to give two bonds of ^^500 each. The 
 "platts" referred to in this indenture consisted of three plans of the three 
 floors drawn to one-sixteenth scale, and three " uprights " or elevations. 
 The latter are little more than rough geometrical sketches, not to scale, 
 with washes of colour sufficient to indicate the materials, and it is probable 
 that no other drawings were used in carrying out these buildings. When 
 Dr. Nevile began his important additions to Trinity, Cambridge, early in 
 the seventeenth century, rather more care was taken. Ralph Symmons 
 made a model of the Great Hall, but before proceeding to carry it out, 
 the Bursar, accompanied by John .Symmcs, P'reemason, went to London 
 
 ' As usual, this clause was disregarded, for the business ended in a law-suit.
 
 30 RENAISSANCE ARCl Hl'l- ClURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 to examine and measure various halls,' and the work was ultimately 
 carried out by Symmes. 
 
 It is evident that as jet no necessitj- was felt for a trained de- 
 signer in building, and this method of designing and executing buildings 
 continued in common use till the end of the sixteenth century, and 
 was not abandoned generally till the middle of the eighteenth. So long 
 as son succeeded father with an uninterrupted tradition of methods of 
 workmanship the system answered admirably, but when, as was the case 
 in the latter part of the sixteenth centur)', all kinds of new motives were 
 introduced, there was clearly need of some person of wider knowledge 
 and more discerning taste to control the aberrations of the workmen. No 
 such person had yet emerged, and the consequence was that though the 
 work of this period is nearly always picturesque, it is marked by extreme 
 ignorance of the scholarship of architecture, the orders are grouped 
 and separated and inverted with a singular disregard of the recognized 
 canons, and the proportions followed no rule but that of the builder's 
 inner consciousness. Where the builders dispensed w'ith ornamentation 
 they were still capable of doing excellent [)Iain work, such as parts of 
 Knole, some of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, and many a quiet 
 manor house. Occasionally one comes across instances which display 
 greater learning but less originality, such as Longleat, but most of the 
 important buildings carried out in the reign of Elizabeth are wanting in 
 distinction. Though picturesque in outline — the legacy of the Gothic 
 tradition — they are overcrowded with abominable ornament, they bear 
 evident marks of having been designed by men without any great 
 knowledge of architecture, men who were destitute of a taste sufficiently 
 mature to save them from the silly extravagance of the Germans. The 
 result would probably have been even worse, except that the nobleman 
 of that time had actually some knowledge of architecture, and there did 
 exist a <renuine likiuQ- for art, and a gfeneral level of taste whicli was 
 certainly higher than it is at the present day. 
 
 The building schemes of Protector Somerset were cut short by his 
 execution in i=;S-- His palace, afterwards .Somerset House, was begfun 
 about 1547-48, and it appears that between April, 1 54S, and October, 
 1550, ^10,091 95. 2d. had been expended on the building, and it was 
 charged against Somerset as early as October, 1 549 ; that he was heaping 
 
 ' The IJursar measured the halls of Westminster, (luildhali, Hampton Court, Lambeth, 
 Lincoln's Inn, Ooshv Hall, and Christ Church, Oxford. The hall actually st-Iected as a 
 model was the Middle Temple Hall, built 1562-72, measuring 100X40X 50.
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGLAND 31 
 
 up money and buildiny- himself great houses, and " leaving tlie King's 
 poore souldiers unpaid of their wages." 
 
 Little was done in the reigns of Edward \'L and Mary, though 
 perhaps the faith of the latter may have arrested for a time the slow • 
 decay of Gothic architecture. Charlecote in Warwickshire, begun in 
 1558, the year of Elizabeth's accession, is the earliest of the famous 
 Elizabethan manor houses. The first record,' however, of any con- 
 siderable undertaking, after Edward's death, is the letter from Roger 
 Warde, mason at Burghley, to Sir William Cecil, desiring instructions as 
 to the building of three " lucan " windows for the inner court, and for the 
 stairs from the base-court to the terrace, and for the gate at the end of 
 the terrace. In 1561-62, Peter Kemp sends Cecil a plan of the brew- 
 house, and various building accounts to be settled. In August, 1561, 
 John Shers writes to Sir William Cecil that he has purchased for him at 
 Venice the statues of twelve of the emperors. Under date February 
 19th, 1567 (State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth), there is a note of certain 
 "works of art, of marble jasper," brought into England for Sir William 
 Cecil and the Earl of Pembroke by Dominique Troisrieux, a French- 
 man, those unsold to be returned duty free. In 1570 Sir T. Gresham 
 is writing to Cecil that his pillars of marble have arrived in good order 
 from Hamburg, and on April 5th, 1571, Casper Vosbergh reports the 
 progress of the works at Stamford. These entries enable one to form 
 some idea of the manner in which such a house as Burghley was built in 
 the time of Elizabeth. There is no mention of any architect or general 
 contractor. The work began with the English mason who applied 
 directly to Cecil for instructions. Meanwhile Cecil had his agents 
 abroad, on the look-out for choice marbles and statuary, and finally, 
 after fifteen years of building, the German appears on the scene, probably 
 for carving and ornamental detail, and perhaps accompanied by a staff 
 of German workmen, for in 1572 Vosberg joetltioned Cecil (now Lord 
 Burghley) for privileges for a German Church to be founded at Stam- 
 ford.''^ The noticeable points are: (i) the absence of any trained 
 designer to control the whole; (2) the leisurely manner of building: 
 these men thought nothing of spending fifteen to twenty years over a 
 house — Longleat, for instance, begun in 1567, was not finished in 15S0; 
 
 ' Calendar of State Papers, Mar)-, vol. ix., June, 1556. 
 
 ■ The design of Burghley has been attributed to John Thorpe, some aci-ouiu of whuin 
 is given below. The only evidence bearing on the point are the two plans in the Soane 
 Museum ; as the plans are not signed, and Thorpe's name appears nowhere else in connec- 
 tion with the house, this evidence is not conclusive.
 
 32 RENAISSAXCK ARCH 1 Tl'X TURl': IN ENGLAND 
 
 (3) the introduction of German workmen to ornament the buildiny^, 
 where Wolsey would have employed Italian workmen, Burt^hley 
 employed German. 
 
 About this period the Germans and I'lemings came over to 
 England in considerable numbers. The powerful corporation known 
 as the Steelyard had been in existence since i 296, and, in spite of the 
 protest by the English merchants in 1552, these merchants of the 
 Steelyard continued to flourish till the end of the century, and it was 
 not till 1 60 1 that Elizabeth finally ordered their expulsion. Various 
 settlements of Flemish weavers were started about the middle of the six- 
 teenth century with special privileges. There was one at Glastonbury, 
 under special articles entered into with Protector Somerset ; another at 
 Barcheston in Warwickshire ; and at Colchester and other places along 
 the east coast of England there were colonies of Dutch and Flemish 
 artisans. In 1580 the town of Halsted and eight adjoining towns sent 
 a petition to the Council praying that twenty families of Dutchmen who 
 had moved to Colchester might be made to return to continue their 
 trade of bay-making, as heretofore. There were similar settlements in 
 the Isle of Thanet and In the Weald of Kent. In 1561 a warrant was 
 issued to Sir Nicholas Bacon for a grant to the Mayor of Sandwich, 
 allowing the settlement of a limited number of foreigners in Sandwich. 
 The wording of this warrant is significant. The settlement was 
 permitted " as well for the helpe, repaire, and amendment of our said 
 town and porte of Sandwich by plantynge in the same men of knowledge 
 in sundry handycrafts, as also for the relief of certaine strangers now 
 resyding in our said citie of London being verye skilful therein." The 
 number was limited to twenty-five households of from ten to twelve each,' 
 
 ' Boys, " History of Sandwich," p. 747, gives the following list of foreign traders 
 settled in Sandwich in 1582 ; 
 Apothecaries ... 2 Cardniakers .... 2 
 Aqua vitje seller . 1 Carpenters .... 3 
 
 Bay makers . . . <S6 Coblers 3 
 
 Bayweavers ... 74 Coopers 2 
 
 Baybroker i 
 
 Bakers 4 
 
 Basket maker . . . i 
 Beater of mill- 
 stones I 
 
 Bookbinder . . . . i 
 
 Bounes Clark . . . i 
 
 Brewers 3 
 
 Cowkeepers .... 4 
 Crier of the lieu 
 
 cope* 1 
 
 Denizen i 
 
 Dier i 
 
 Fullers 17 
 
 Gardners .... 13 
 Goldsmith . . . 
 
 I 
 
 Grogram weavers . 4 
 
 Hatcheler i 
 
 Joiners 5 
 
 L. (linsey) weavers 24 
 
 Linen weavers . . . i 
 Li n se y-w'o 1 s e y 
 
 weavers 2 
 
 Laborers 6 
 
 Loder to mill . . . i 
 
 Merchants .... 7 
 
 Millers 4 
 
 MillwriKht i 
 
 Packmaker . . . . i 
 
 Painter i 
 
 Potter I 
 
 Post into Flanders i 
 
 Sawyers 3 
 
 Schoolmasters. . . 3 
 
 Sealer of baycs . . i 
 
 Shipwright . . . . i 
 
 Smiths 5 
 
 Spinners 3 
 
 Spoler for ba}'s . . i 
 
 Spoiler of yarn . . 2 
 
 * Auctioneer; the word " liscoup" was in use in Sandlmrbt when Boys wrole.
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGLAND 33 
 
 and all the names given are Dutch. All these men were industrious 
 artisans, and undoubtedly hatl some influence on the vernacular archi- 
 tecture of the districts in which they settled, as is evident from the 
 resemblance of the brick buildings of the Isle of Thanet and the eastern 
 counties to Dutch architecture of a rather earlier date. This, moreover, 
 was no new thing. It seems certain that the e.xtreme richness and 
 delicacy of detail found in many of the mediceval churches of the eastern 
 counties, had its origin in the constant intercourse between the traders 
 of King's Lynn and the east coast seaports, and the great cities of the 
 Netherlands. 
 
 In spite of their skill in painting and carving, the influence of the 
 Italian workmen was confined to a somewhat narrow field, and they 
 had left the technical industries of England pretty much where they 
 found them. When Elizabeth wished to develop the mineral resources 
 of the country she had to import German miners and metal workers 
 for the purpose. In 1564 Daniel Hechstetten made an indenture for 
 mining with the queen. In 1565 a grant was made to Humfrey, 
 paymaster of the mint, and to Christopher Shutz, "an Almain born,", 
 authorizing them to search for mines, and smelt minerals in England 
 and Ireland. These Germans seem to have had a monopoly of the art 
 of " battery and batten work," and showed no inclination to part with 
 their secrets, as Humfrey complained to Cecil in 1565,^ in spite of the 
 fact that Christopher Shutz "was bound in ,2^10,000 to communicate 
 his art in working metals." So again in glass work, after the eradual 
 withdrawal of the Italians," glass and pottery work had to be renewed 
 under the guidance of Flemings. In 1565 Armigall Waade, in a 
 report to Cecil on the progress of the glass works under Cornelius de 
 Lannoy, dwells on the clumsiness of the English glassworkers. Thomas 
 Larke and Galyon Hoone and the glaziers of Southwark, who desio-ned 
 and executed the windows of King's, Cambridge, seem to have carried 
 
 Strykers of bays. . 2 Maker of teazle Upholsterer . . . . i ^\■oolbeater . . . . i 
 
 Surgeon and wool- handles i Wagoner i \\'oolcombers . . 24 
 
 comber i Tiler i Wood carrier . . . i Occupations not 
 
 Tailors 6 Turners 3 \\'heel\vright . . . i mentioned ... 6 
 
 ' Domestic State Papers, vol. xxxvii. 
 
 - In 1550 Edward \T. contracted with certain Venetian glass makers that they should 
 start glassworks in London, and leave was given them to extend their stay from .six to 
 eighteen months. Mr. Rawdon Browne (Cal. Ven. State Papers, vol. v. 669) thinks 
 that this establishment was the one at Belsize, from which Waade wrote to Cecil in 1565. 
 Stow says the first making of \'enice glasses in England was begun at the Outrhed 
 Friars, " by one Jacob \'enulinni, an Italian."
 
 34 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND. 
 
 away their secret with them. There were, indeed, some rare survivals 
 here and there. When the chapel of Trinity, Cambridge, was built in 
 1 556-1 560, the white glass and heraldic and other devices for the 
 windows were supplied by William Blithe, of Thackstcd in Essex, and 
 Miles Jugg;' but it is to the Flemings that we must attribute most of 
 the characteristic glass of the early part of the seventeenth century. 
 Bernard and Abraham Van Ling carried out windows for St. Paul's, 
 London, Christ Church, Oxford (the well-known window with Jonah 
 sitting under a gourd), and for Lincoln, Balliol, and University Chapels, 
 between 1620 and 1640. Native artists were also to be found, such as 
 Robert Rudland of Oxford, who made some of the windows in Wadham 
 Chapel. But for more important work recourse was had to the Flemings, 
 and Bernard Van Ling was employed to execute the great east window 
 of the chapel at Wadham. Mr. Jackson, in his history of Wadham, gives 
 a full account of the agreement made between the college and Bernard 
 Van Ling of Emden, July 6lh, 1621. 
 
 This large importation of foreign craftsmen had its effect on the 
 details of Elizabethan work. Not only were designs obtained from 
 abroad, or from foreign pattern books, Jjut Flemish or German workmen 
 were often brought over for important buildings, as at Burghley and Sir 
 Thomas Gresham's Exchange. Sir Thomas Gresham, who was a 
 general merchant in a large way of business, imported not only the 
 design, but the stone paving from Flanders.- The design is said to 
 have been supplied by Henry de Pas, who subsequently designed the 
 Hotel des Villes Hanseatiques at Antwerp. Gresham's building was 
 begun on June 7th, 1566, and was not completed in 1570.^ There 
 are two views of it by Hollar. It consisted of a square quad- 
 rangular court of two storeys and an attic, with a colonnade of 
 semicircular arches on the inner side, and was paved throughout with 
 
 ' Willis and Clark. These windows were broken up on the accession of Elizabeth, 
 November 17th, 1565-66: "Item for repairinge of the places which wer broken forth in 
 all the windoes whearin dyd appearc superstition, idd." 
 
 ■ Harrison, after referring to the abundance of building stones in England, says : 
 " Howbeit for all this, we must fetch them still from far, as did the Hull men their stones 
 out of Iceland, wherewith they paved their town, for want of the like in England; or as 
 Sir Thomas Gresham did, when he bought the stones in Flanders wherewith he paved the 
 Burse. But as he will answer (peradventure), that he bargained for the whole mould and 
 substance of his workmanship in Flanders." 
 
 ^ Cal. Domestic State Papers, Eliz., vol. Ixxiv., on October 26lh, 1570, Gresham 
 requested leave for "a special license for a ship to go to Flanders with alabaster, as he had 
 a special license for transportation of hi» stones from Antwerp for his Burse." Gresham 
 probably exchanged English alabaster for the stone and marble he inijiorted from Antwerp.
 
 < 
 o
 
 ^-'4;/•42$^ 
 
 JtvV J-im . I 'i-'k-iQ/y^^ici^ i-'t-^i 
 
 /"*'•/• 34- 
 
 DOORWAY AT TENTERDEX, KENT.
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGEAND 35 
 
 black and white marble. Over each arch was a niche, with a life-size 
 statue of a king or emperor. To the right of the entrance was a lofty 
 clock tower, with two projecting galleries and an open cupola, sur- 
 mounted by a gigantic grasshopper. Grasshoppers, probably in lead or 
 copper gilt, and suggested, no doubt, by the magnificent vanes of Holland, 
 were placed as finials at the ends of the roof ridges. The building was 
 of brick, with stone dressings, and, on the whole, of a reasonable and 
 unpretentious character, rather Dutch than German in feeling. The 
 lofty clock tower closely resembled the towers of many a Dutch town- 
 hall of about the same period. The building was consumed in the fire 
 o( London, and was replaced by a sumptuous building of Portland stone, 
 which was also burnt in 1838. Had all the buildings in England which 
 were built under German influence been equally sane there would be 
 less reason for regretting this element in the development of English 
 art ; as it is we have to attribute to the Germans the invention of the 
 meaningless ornament and ugly proportion which usually disfigured the 
 work of the Elizabethan builders. 
 
 But throughout the reign of Elizabeth the German influence was 
 in the air and predominant. The screens and mantelpieces of old 
 Charterhouse, of Longleat, and of Hatfield, the ponderous entrance porch 
 of Audley End, the strapwork gables to the towers of Wollaton, the 
 barbarous notion of using Tuscan and other columns as chimneys, 
 the shapes of men and women ending in balusters, all show the heavy 
 hand, the merely mechanical instinct, of the German workman ; and 
 architectural design being at a low ebb at this period, or being rather, 
 one should say, in an undeveloped state, people who built houses had 
 recourse to that last refuge of the destitute, the pattern book, that is, 
 folio pages of design done into space, designs not made in relation to 
 specific conditions, but made as merely academical or commercial 
 exercises by some facile designer of tailpieces and title-pages. Such 
 was the " architectura" of that exuberant draughtsman, J. V. Frisius, or 
 Vrese, of Antwerp, published in 1563, a book which was used with 
 disastrous readiness by the English builders of this period. It was 
 unfortunate that the treatises most in use in England at this time were 
 German rather than Italian. Such obscure persons as Cammermayer 
 and Wendel Dietterlin were preferred to Alberti and Palladio ; and the 
 various superb Italian editions of "Vitruvius" seem hardly to have 
 been known in England till the end of the sixteenth century. It is 
 evident, in fact, that the English builder-architect of the time of 
 Elizabeth was a somewhat ignorant and ill-educated person, and did
 
 ;,6 RF.NAISSAN'CE A RTI I ITF.CTr RF. IN l^NGLAND 
 
 not follow better models for the simple reason that he was unconscious 
 of their existence. 
 
 The " porta honoris " at Caius, Cambridge, is a good instance of 
 the confusion in which this practice resulted. In itself it is not a bad 
 design, but in the position in which it stands, it is mean and disappoint- 
 ing, being totally out of scale with the surrounding architecture. It has 
 even been suggested that the builder mistook the scale. The design of 
 this was long attributed to Theodore Haveus of Cleves, "artifex 
 egregius et insignis architectune professor," as he is called in the college 
 books, acting under the direction of Dr. Caius. But Messrs. Willis and 
 Clark say that there is no foundation for this, and that the only work 
 which can certainly be assigned to Haveus was a curious stone column 
 having sixty facets to act as sundials, and adorned with the names of 
 all the gentlemen then in residence at Caius, and a figure of Peeasus as 
 a weather-cock at the top. This column has been destroyed. There 
 is a similar monument on a smaller scale in the quadrangle of Corpus 
 College, Oxford. In 1573-75, "Theodore" and others were paid 
 '^33 i6.y. 8(/. for carving to Dr. Caius' tomb. Mr. Lionel Cust has 
 discovered the name of Theodore Haveus as a settler with his family 
 at King's Lynn, and he was probably summoned to Cambridge by Caius 
 while residing there. 
 
 Another instance of German influence is Longford Castle in Wilts, 
 now so much enlarged and modernized that it is difficult to disentangle 
 the original design. The centre facade of the entrance front is a 
 regular German composition, and a very bad one. It bears no relation 
 at all to the angle towers which flank it. The latter, as will be pointed 
 out later, are probably part of the original building by John Thorpe, 
 and this centre facade is most likely from a design bought by Sir 
 Thomas Gorges either in German)' or from a German in England, and 
 carried out wholesale, without any regard to the architectural features 
 of the older building. 
 
 The Germans continued to find employment in England till they 
 were routed by Inigo Jones, but towards the end of Elizabeth's reign 
 their principal work consisted in the making of monuments and chimney- 
 pieces. Instances of the latter are to be found in nearly every 
 Elizabethan house of any importance. There are elaborate examples at 
 Hatfield, South Wraxhall, Loseley, Cobham, Blickling, the Charter- 
 house, and elsewhere. The finest series in any house in England is 
 probably to be found at Knole. Several of these chimney-pieces show 
 undeniable vigour and originalit}' in design, and a sense of scale and
 
 FROM A PLATE IX VRIESE S " ARCHITECTURA. ' 
 
 Face f. 36.
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGLAND 
 
 n 
 
 proportion not conimoii in German work. The marbles arc well com- 
 bined, and the general effect is sumptuous and magnificent, if lacking 
 in the well-ordered simplicity of fine Italian work. The Knole series, 
 however, is exceptionally fine, and by no means represents the average 
 
 CHIMXEV-PIECE, SOUTH WRAXHAI.I . 
 
 In this example the architrave of the entablature is put above the frieze 
 instead of below it ; the architrave is also turned upside down. 
 
 level of the Elizabethan mantelpiece. The details of the latter are 
 frequently coarse, and even ridiculous, and the incessant repetition of 
 the same trick of design suofi/est the hand of the tradesman rather than 
 of the artist, the German pattern book, rather than the fresh spon- 
 taneous fancy of the Enylish designer of the sixteenth centurw The
 
 38 RENAISSANCE ARCl 1 ITl'C lU Rli IN ENGLAND 
 
 chimney-pieces usually consist of marble columns of various orders 
 superimposed, and separated by bold projecting mouldings, with rich 
 carvino-s of arabesques and armorial bearings on the panels and entab- 
 latures. The tombs have also a strong family resemblance. When 
 detached, they begin with a marble pedestal tomb on wliich the elligy 
 rests surrounded Ijy niarlile columns, usually of the Corinlliian order, 
 carrying a rich entablature with an open arcade in the centre. Where 
 the monument was fixed against a wall, the back of the arched canopy 
 was filled with a cartouche containing the inscription, and fruit, flowers, 
 ribbons, and other conventional ornaments. The chief difficulty with 
 the designer seems to have been where to stay his hand, for he 
 continued above the cornice with shields, and cartouches, heraldic 
 beasts and obelisks in unrestrained prodigality. The figures and the 
 armorial bearings were usually gilt and coloured. In spite of the 
 narrow range of their design, these monuments are certainly fine pieces 
 of workmanship. The marbles and alabasters are skilfully managed, 
 the details of the carving and the low relief of the arabesques are often 
 executed with admirable delicacy, and in some instances, such as the 
 monument to Lord and Lady Dacre (died 1595), in Chelsea Parish 
 Church, the figures are carved with restraint and genuine feeling. The 
 most inqjortant instances are : the monument to Elizabeth in West- 
 minster Abbey, erected in 1604 by Maximilian Powtram, or Colte, with 
 the help of Patrick the blacksmith, and John de Critz, painter; the 
 monuments to Mary, Queen of Scots, Westminster, and to Radcliffe, 
 Earl of .Sussex at Boreham Church in Essex, executed by Richard 
 Stevens, a Dutchman ; ' that of Carey, Lord Hunsdon, at Westminster, 
 the Hertford monument in the Lady Chapel at Salisbury, and the tomb 
 of Sir Laurence Tanfelde (1625) in Burford Church. In fact, most of 
 our English cathedrals possess sumptuous monuments of marble, black 
 touchstone and alabaster, designed in this manner which continued in 
 use down to the Restoration. The small seventeenth century mural 
 monuments of alabaster and other marbles, to be found in most parish 
 churches, are in some ways the most admirable examples left in 
 England of this particular branch of design. The very beautiful 
 monument to George Broke, Lord Cobham, in the church of Cobham 
 in Kent, is in a different manner. It consists of an oblong pedestal 
 tomb, 7 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 6 in., divided into five bays at the sides, and 
 
 ' This monument was erected after 1583, when the Earl of Sussex died, leaving 
 ;^i,5oo for tiic tomb and ctfigics of himself, his father and grandfather.
 
 /. U. C. Mil Jit, /luiU\ 
 
 THE HERTFORD MONUMENT, SALlSliURV CATHEDKAl.. 
 
 '■""•/• ji-
 
 
 Til ii ¥,*^Hf 
 
 
 .<s? 
 
 v%i 
 
 k%A-J'''f% ,^M f^^^. ^^-'j 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^/^ -^ 
 ^^> 
 
 r 
 
 
 .K 
 
 :i«f;-;k#* 
 
 
 :u 
 
 rb:^ 
 
 >VgSi. 
 
 DOORWAY TO GARDENS, ST. JOHN'S, OXFORD. 
 
 Face p. 38.
 
 1l If > ' 
 
 It- 
 
 
 -?*» 
 
 /■*-^/. 3S. 
 
 MONUMENT OF SIR THOMAS BODLEY, MERTON COLLEGE CHAPEL, OXFORD. 
 
 BY NICHOLAS STONE.
 
 Face p. 38. 
 
 CHIMNEY-PIECE, COBHAM, KENT.
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGLAND 39 
 
 three at the ends, by small detached Ionic cohimns, supporting a slab 
 of black marble, on which lie the figures of Lord Cobham and his wife. 
 Smaller figures of their ten sons and four daughters occupy the bays at 
 the sides and ends. The peculiarity of this monument is its lavish use 
 of niello. The whole of it, except the black marble slab, is of alabaster, 
 and the armour of the figures and all the armorial bearings, have their 
 surfaces graved out and filled in flush with a composition of wax and 
 mastic, coloured red, black, yellow and other colours. This was rubbed 
 down smooth to the adjacent surfaces, and though it has blistered 
 here and there, the face is still very hard and firm, and the colour 
 permanent. Lord Cobham died in 1561. In the Groote Kirk of 
 Nymegen there is a splendid monument to Catherine of Bourbon (died 
 1469), executed in a similar method, and the Cobham tomb was no 
 doubt made by a Fleming. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, 
 a certain Giles de Whitt ' was employed by Henry, Lord Cobham, on 
 chimney-pieces in the Hall, and on a tomb to Lord Cobham's father. 
 It is possible that we have in De Whitt the artist who made this 
 admirable monument. 
 
 Bernard Jansen, a Fleming, is said to have been employed at 
 Audley End and at Northumberland House. He certainly worked 
 with Nicholas Stone on Sutton's monument in the old Charterhouse 
 Chapel, probably supplying the architectural details while Stone did the 
 figures. The last of these foreign designers, whose work was based 
 on German models, was probably De Caux, a Gascon, and drawing- 
 master to Prince Henry. De Caux did a good deal of work till 
 superseded by Inigo Jones. He built a picture gallery for Prince 
 Henry at Richmond, and laid out the gardens at Wilton as appears 
 from his book of folio designs, published in 161 5, and certainly had 
 something to do with the buildings, but what he actually did is obscure. 
 Aubrey, who is not always to be trusted, states that De Caux designed 
 the south front of the house " al Italiano" about 1635, "with the advice 
 and approbation of Mr. Jones." This front was burnt down soon 
 afterwards and rebuilt from Inigo Jones's designs under the superintend- 
 ence of John Webb. Of De Caux's work at Wilton all that remains 
 are the niches on either side of the archway on the east side - which 
 used to form the main entrance, and possibly a clumsy garden-house of 
 stone. The niches are meanly designed, and instead of being "al 
 
 ' State Papers, Elizabeth, Dom., vol. cclxxvi., No. 37. quoted hv Mr. Cotrh. 
 That is, on the side facing towards Salisbury.
 
 40 RENAISSANCE ARCI I ITECTU RH IN ENGLAND 
 
 I taliano " are very clearly in the German manner. De Caiix was also 
 employed at Heidelberg. Aubrey says he died about 1656. 
 
 The inducncc of German art in England had run itself out nearly 
 twenty years before. The effect on E.nglish architecture was greater for 
 the time than that of the Italians, but it was less permanent in its results. 
 German motives were freely adopted by English builders in regard to 
 the elevations and architectural details of important buildings. Their 
 crudeness and the mechanical method of their ornamentation made 
 these motives peculiarly easy to reproduce in large quantity at an 
 inconsiderable cost. They were accordingly taken up for much the 
 same reasons as those which have led to their repetition in the last few 
 years. In consequence of this, for one piece of ornament that can be 
 traced to an Italian motive, there are twenty that are clearly due to 
 German influence, in Elizabethan and early Jacobean buildings. That 
 this influence, however, had not sunk very deeply into the minds of the 
 English is evident from the ease with which Inigo Jones threw it 
 overboard, and it did not reappear again in England so long as the 
 development of architecture was spontaneous, and traditional, and 
 though not unconscious, was not the result of deliberate eclecticism. 
 Moreover, the earlier Italian influence was not wasted. Houses were 
 built in England by gentlemen of less degree, but superior taste, 
 which in the main adhered to the traditions of English house building, 
 and in their ornamentation deliberately followed Italian models. The 
 beautiful panel above the entrance porch to Montacute House (1580- 
 1600), Sir Thomas Tresham's buildings in Northamptonshire (1575-80), 
 the details of the entrance garden door to Shaw House near Newbury 
 (1571), show no trace of the Germans at all; and indeed, the refine- 
 ment of details, the all-pervading simplicity and reserve of such a 
 design as the entrance front of Montacute, or Harrington in Somerset- 
 shire, are plain evidence that the saner traditions of English building 
 were not materially affected by the eccentric German. The elevations 
 of Litdecote (about 15S0), with its sober brick front running up unin- 
 terrupted to the great eaves course, and its multitudinous gables on the 
 garden side are absolutely and solely English. They might, indeed, 
 have been built a hundred years earlier, and, as will be pointed out, the 
 essential parts of the English house, its plan, and the blocking out of 
 the building, were as yet not modified at all by either Italians or 
 Germans. The traditional English house plan, attained by slow 
 development through successive phases of civilization, held its own alike 
 in the palace and the manor house, in spite of the fantastic foreign
 
 sc^ 
 
 
 C'^ 
 
 
 
 H 
 as 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 u 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 a; 
 
 <
 
 THE GERMANS IN ENGLAND 41 
 
 dress, with which the builder's ambition clothed it. Tlie real and 
 essential change in EnoHsh archit(jcture, the change which altered not 
 merely its detail, but its whole intention in building, is not to be found 
 in these experiments of the sixteenth century, but in the far-reaching 
 revolution introduced by Inigo Jones, the first Englishman to grasp in 
 its full significance the art of the Italian Renaissance.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The English Builders. 
 
 Of the English master builders themselves, of the men, that is, who 
 were not quite what we now understand by builders, and still less, what 
 we understand by architects, very little is known. The name most 
 frequently referred to is that of John Thorpe, yet, for any certain 
 knowledge about him, John Thorpe is not very far removed from that 
 other ignis fatiiiis of archaeology, John of Padua. The history of his 
 life is almost entirely conjectural, and is based on the miscellaneous 
 collection of drawings now in the Soane Museum, and if, as was at one 
 time asserted, John Thorpe was really the architect of all the buildings 
 included in that collection, it is almost incredible that a man who must 
 in that case have been widely known at the time should, so far as 
 is known, be referred to only once in contemporary literature. The 
 collection comprises some two hundred and eighty sheets, consisting 
 mainly of plans of various houses, a few full-sized sections of stone- 
 work, a few elevations, a sheet of the five orders, and a diagram of 
 perspective, with IMS. directions for making perspective drawings. As 
 these drawings contain the whole of the material available for any 
 account of John Thorpe, it is necessary to consider them in some 
 detail. The plans include several of the most notable houses built in 
 Elizabeth's reign. Somerset House, Buckhurst in Sussex, Copthall, 
 Wollaton Notts, Burghley juxta Stamford, and Burghley-on-the-Hill, 
 Sir Walter Cope's house at Kensington [that is Holland House], a 
 great house at Wimbledon for Sir T. Cecil, Longford Castle, Holdenby, 
 Audley End, "Ampthill old house enlardged by J. Thorpe," " Kerby 
 whereof I laid the first stone 1570," Loseley in Surrey, Aston Hall 
 Birmingham, and other less famous houses. There are various reasons 
 which make it improbable that Thorpe had anything to do with any 
 but a few of these houses. In the first place, as already mentioned, 
 if Thorpe really designed all these buildings, he must have been 
 better known, whereas his name was first mentioned by Horace 
 Walpole, who saw this collection of drawings when it belonged to the
 
 THE ENGLISH BUILDERS 43 
 
 Earl of Warwick, and without further inquiry, jumped to the conclusion 
 that he had found in Thorpe the architect of all the great Elizabethan 
 houses. In the second place, so far as has at present been ascertained, 
 in no case where documentary evidence, apart from drawings, exists in 
 regard to the building of the house, does Thorpe's name occur. Thirdly, 
 very few of the drawings are signed, and there are wide differences of 
 writing and draughtsmanship in the various drawings of the collection. 
 Lastly, there is the internal evidence of Thorpe's own manner, in so far 
 as it can be gathered from the few drawings in the collection which can 
 be assigned to him with any certainty. If, for instance, Thorpe designed 
 Kirby in Northamptonshire, it is most improbable that he also designed 
 a house of such a very different kind as Wollaton — for though it is easy 
 nowadays for a designer to imitate any quantity of styles, at the end of 
 the seventeenth century neither the necessary knowledge nor the inclina- 
 tion existed for such e.xtreme versatility of design. 
 
 Buckhurst in Sussex, an immense house which was finished in 
 1568, and is now entirely destroyed, may or may not have been designed 
 by Thorpe. Buckhurst was built by Sir Richard Sackville, who after- 
 wards, as Earl of Dorset, carried out extensive alterations and additions 
 at Knole between 1603 and 1605, the dates on the rainwater heads. 
 The gables and treatment of the south side of the inner court at Knole 
 rather resemble an undoubted design of Thorpe's, and it is possible 
 that he may have had something to do with both these buildings. Mr. 
 Gotch ' has, I think, established the probability that Thorpe designed 
 the plan of the original house at Kirby in Northamptonshire (not Kirby 
 House, London, as stated by Dallaway). This house was built between 
 1570 and 1575 for Sir Humphrey Stafford, and on his death it was sold 
 to Sir Christopher Hatton. The plan in the Soane Museum varies 
 considerably in detail from the plan as actually executed ; for instance, a 
 spacious loggia with a colonnade in nineteen bays is shown in Thorpe's 
 plan running along the west side. This was never built. A somewhat 
 similar loggia on a very much smaller scale was afterwards carried out 
 at Holland House. Then, again, Thorpe's plan is rectangular, whereas 
 the actual plan is irregular, but the general resemblance between the two 
 is unmistakable, and so far is valuable as enabling us to form some sort 
 of conjecture as to the kind of work which Thorpe actually did. 
 
 Holdenby in Northamptonshire, built for Sir Christopher Hatton 
 
 " Architecture of the Renaissance in England," an in\aluable series of views uf build- 
 ings erected between 1560 and 1630.
 
 44 Rl'lXAlSSANCE ARCllITKCTURK IN ENGLAND 
 
 before 1580, is, with the exception of part of the front, destroyed. 
 The only reason for assigning it to Thorpe is that there is a plan and 
 elevation of it in the Soane IMuseuin, but the research of the late Mr. 
 VVyatt Papworth has proved that Thorpe only surveyed this building 
 after it was huilt. Mr. Papworth found an entry in the State Papers, 
 
 
 A G.^BLE .\T KNOLE. 
 
 June 4, 1606, of payment to John Thorpe " for his charges in taking 
 the survey of the house and land by plots (.'' plans) at Holdenby, with 
 the several rates and values of both, particularly with his own pains, and 
 three others a long time employed in drawing down and writing fair the 
 plots of that and of Ampthill House and the Earl of Salisbury's . . . 
 ^70 Ss. Sd." Devon Issues, "Pell Records," James I., 1836, p. 2,7-
 
 ^ 
 ^ \ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 z
 
 THE ENGLISH BUILDERS 45 
 
 The words " enlardged by J. Thorpe," on the plan in the Soane Collec- 
 tion, therefore probably mean, drawn to a larger scale by J. Thorpe. 
 Confining ourselves to work which has been assigned to him on some 
 reasonable authority, we are reduced to the Lyveden new building, 
 erected before the end of the sixteenth century on a very curious plan, 
 Longford Castle, some unknown work at Paris, the earlier part of 
 Holland House, and another freak of design, the monogram house 
 made on the plan fl" and explained by a rhyme, 
 
 " Thes 2 letters | & T 
 Joyned together as you see. 
 is meant for a dwelling house for me." 
 
 This plan is accompanied by a perspective elevation of the house, which 
 is of an unpretentious character, three storeys and an attic, with octagon 
 buttresses at the angles, such as are common in the plainer sixteenth 
 century houses, and simple gables not unlike those at Knole. The 
 whole rather resembles a brick house at Wrotham, in Kent, and many 
 of the smaller brick houses of about this date. This design, the plan 
 of Kirby, the drawings for Sir Walter Cope's house, the house for 
 the Queen Mother at Paris, and the plan of Ampthill, are the only 
 drawings in the whole collection which can be assigned to Thorpe 
 with any degree of certainty, and as such, throw some light on the 
 authenticity of other buildings which have been attributed to him — 
 assuming, that is, that Thorpe was an architect — for the weight of such 
 little evidence as there is, points to the conclusion that he was not a 
 designer, but a surveyor and a draughtsman, a man whose profession it 
 was to measure up and place on record plans of buildings after they had 
 been completely finished by other men. 
 
 Lyveden new building is still standing, though dismantled. It is a 
 two-storey building, at the level of the first floor runs an entablature, in 
 the frieze of which are triglyphs with emblematic symbols carved in the 
 metopes, and round the frieze of the upper entablature runs an inscription. 
 The profile of the mouldings and all the details are executed with much 
 refinement. Now a plan very similar to the plan of this house exists 
 in the Soane collection, and Mr. Gotch thence infers that Thorpe was 
 the architect of this house, and that Sir Thomas Tresham, who built it, 
 also employed Thorpe for the Rothwell market house, now dismantled, 
 for the triansjular lodee at Rushton, and for Rushton Manor. The first 
 two of these are almost certainly by the same hand, but whether that 
 hand was Thorpe's is by no means certain. The delicacy and reserve
 
 46 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGEAND 
 
 of the designs of the Lyvcilen and Rdilnvcll huikhngs are entirely 
 wantino- in the picturesque and exuberant but rather ignorant work of 
 
 r < 
 
 
 
 
 ,,,t^-:faK#^;^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ( V(C^^^ 
 
 „<.*. 'li-<V' '^i-/''to" 
 
 THE TklANca I.AR I.OlKlE A I KISIITON. 
 
 the architect who designed Kirby. An artist of any attainment usually 
 has his earlier and later manner, but unless he is a simple copyist, one 
 distinct individuality underlies them both. Now the work assigned to 
 Thorpe at Kirby shows a good deal of invention, but a somewhat florid
 
 o
 
 DETAIL OF DOORWAY TO TRIANGULAR LODGE, RUSHTON.
 
 48 RENAISSAN'CE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 taste, as for instance, in the fantastic gables of the west elevation, and 
 the fussy design of seven small Corinthian columns above the entrance 
 bay on the south side of the courtyard. The details of Lyveden on the 
 other hand are of singular severity, and the builder of this house and of 
 the Rothwell market house evidently had more knowledge of Italian 
 architecture than the builder of Kirby. To take one instance, the great 
 pilasters at Kirby have no entasis or diminution, whereas the pilasters 
 to Rothwell market house have both. Neither the plan of Lyveden 
 House, nor that of Kirby in the same collection, is signed. The 
 evidence therefore is internal, and rests with the buildings themselves, 
 and if we take as our standard the monogram house, the most probable 
 conclusion is that Thorpe may have had something to do with the 
 design of Kirby, and possibly part of Rushton Hall, which is not unlike 
 it, but that he had nothing to do with Lyveden new building, Rothwell 
 market house, or the triangular lodge. The designs of these three 
 latter buildings, which are very unusual, were probably due to Sir 
 Thomas Tresham himself 
 
 Longford Castle, in Wiltshire, presents a similar difficulty. There 
 is a plan and elevation of it in the Soane Collection. The building 
 itself was begun in 1580 by Sir Thomas Gorges on the site of an older 
 house, and at the desire of Lady Gorges, who was a Swede, the house 
 was to imitate the castle of Uraniberg. It was probably finished by the 
 beginning of the seventeenth century, since which date it has been 
 considerably altered and enlarged. The peculiarity of its plan is that 
 it is based on a triangle. At each apex stands a circular tower 
 with buildings connecting the towers and inclosing a small triangular 
 court. The three angle towers (or rather two of them, for the third 
 has been rebuilt) are plain buildings of stone, and the wall face is 
 divided into oblong panels by bands of white stone and black flints 
 alternately. The towers are in three storeys, divided by string courses 
 with a parapet wall above. The centre string course has a frieze with 
 triglyphs set about four times their width apart. So far this work was 
 English, and even local English, for the pattern formed by the mixture of 
 stone and flint is characteristic of this part of Wiltshire. Moreover, the 
 curious parapet course, and the profiles of the strings are not uncommon 
 in English work of this date. But after the building of these towers 
 there must have been an abrupt change in the plans. For instead of 
 
 ' These buildings will be referred to again in the following chapter. A full account 
 of them will be found in Mr. Gotch's " Buildings of Sir Thomas Tresham."
 
 THP: ENGLISH BUILDERS 49 
 
 the simple gabled front of flint and stone which would have naturally 
 
 followed these towers, Sir Thomas Gorges indulged himself in an 
 
 extravagant stone facade of arches and pilasters and terminal figures in 
 
 the worst manner of the Germans. This facade was built without any 
 
 regard to the angle towers, the heights and mouldings of which are 
 
 entirely ignored. It is known that there is a break in the history of the 
 
 building. Sir Thomas Gorges' money having run out ; but after the 
 
 defeat of the Armada Lady Gorges obtained a grant of the wreck of one 
 
 of the Spanish ships, which happened to contain a quantity of bullion, and 
 
 on the proceeds of this the building was resumed, and very probably a 
 
 fresh design was obtained on a more extravagant scale. The plan and 
 
 elevation of Longford Castle in the Soane Collection do not tally with 
 
 the present building. Either they were never carried out as shown in 
 
 the drawings, or they have been altered in one of the many modifications 
 
 of the building which have since been made, but in the original elevation 
 
 the discrepancy between the design of the angle towers and the facade 
 
 between is quite as glaring as in the building itself, and an examination 
 
 of the building and comparison with these drawings leads one to the 
 
 conjecture that John Thorpe, or at least an English designer, did 
 
 actually design the ground plan, and that the towers and possibly the 
 
 greater part of the fabric, were executed from this design, but that he 
 
 had nothing to do with this entrance facade, which is later in date, ami 
 
 the design tor which may have been made in Germany, or by one of 
 
 the Germans then residing in England. On this view of it, the plan 
 
 and elevation in the Soane INIuseum must be taken not as the designs 
 
 for a new building, but as surveyors' drawings made after the building 
 
 was completed. 
 
 Burghley House has already been referred to. No mention of 
 John Thorpe occurs in any of the documents relating to this house, 
 whereas Germans are mentioned in connection with the building, and 
 I think their influence is distinctly indicated by the curious clock tower 
 in the courtyard, with its unusual and quite foreign feature of a high 
 square steeple above the clock. Burghley also shares with Kirby the 
 absurdity of using the Doric order to form chimney-stacks, an aftectation 
 characteristic of the later work of the sixteenth century. If Thorpe 
 was employed on this building, it could only have been in a subordinate 
 capacity and not as architect. 
 
 Audley End was built for Thomas, ist Earl of Suffolk. It was 
 begun in 1603 and completed in 16 16, and was one of the largest 
 buildings of the kind in England. It is said to have cost ^190,000 (in 
 
 H
 
 50 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 the money of the time), mainly procured from Spanish bribes, and to 
 have been built on a model obtained in Ital)-. As against this latter 
 story we have the evidence of all the detail, which is obviously German 
 where it is not English, and the evidence of the plan not only as it is, 
 but as it was before two-thirds of it were pulled down, when it comprised 
 three courts, the forecourt, the quadrangular court, and the three-sided 
 court to the gardens. Moreover, it is doubtful if an Italian design 
 would have included the great gallery, 226 feet long by 32 wide, and 
 2^ high, which ran along the outer court. The house as it was before 
 the destruction of the two courts (either in 1700, under Vanbrugh, or 
 in 1749) is shown in tlie rare view by Winstanley. The details of the 
 two entrance porches, and of the screen in the hall, are clumsy and 
 vulgar, and resemble the designs given in De Vriese's pattern book. If 
 Thorpe had anything to do with the design of this house, it is another 
 piece of evidence against his having been the architect of Sir Thomas 
 Tresham's buildings. 
 
 The collection also contains a plan and part elevation of Wollaton. 
 This, however, was probably designed by Smithson. Thorpe seems to 
 have spent some time in Paris about 1600. One of the drawings is 
 inscribed " Oueene mother's house, Faber St. Jarmin alia I'arie, altered 
 per J. Thorpe;" and there is also a drawing of Monsieur Jammet's 
 house in Paris. Thorpe's employment as surveyor at Ampthill old 
 house, which belonged to the Crown, may have led to this work in 
 Paris. The only other drawing which can be assigned to Thorpe with 
 certainty is a plan drawn in different inks, with title "Sir Walter Coap 
 at Kensington, perfected by me, J. T.," and it is probable that Thorpe 
 had to do with the original design of Holland House, as built in 1606 ; 
 but even here the phrase, " perfected by me," leaves it uncertain what 
 part he actually took in planning the house as a whole. In the Cottonian 
 MSS. (August I. I. 75.) there is a survey of Theobald's Park, drawn 
 on vellum and tinted, said to have been made by Thorpe in 161 i. The 
 only other references as yet ascertained in regard to this obscure 
 draughtsman are to be found in a MS. note by the late Mr. Wyatt 
 Papworth appended to the Soane Collection. Mr. Papworth found 
 mention of a plan of the Palace of Eltham made by Thorpe in 1590 
 (Calendar of State Papers, No. 78, p. 706), again in 1609 (Calendar of 
 State Papers, No. 83, p. 515), where he is named as the King's 
 Commissioner for surveying the Duchess of Suffolk's land, and, in 
 161 I, of a warrant for the payment of ^52 t,s. to Thorpe, for certain 
 repairs to the fencing of Richmond Park, which had been carried away
 
 Z : 
 
 < ^ 
 
 5 :^ 

 
 TFiE ENGLISH BUILDERS 51 
 
 by the flood. Cunningham discovered an important reference to 
 Thorpe in Peacham's "Gentleman's Exercise," 1612. In describing 
 a certain coat-of-arms, Peacham says, "it is now born by Master 
 John Thorpe of the parish Saint Martins in the Fields, my especiall 
 friend and excellent geometrician and surveior, whom the rather I 
 remember, because he is not only learned and ingenious him selfe, 
 but a turtherer and favourer of all excellency whatsoever, of whom our 
 age findeth too (qw, and lastly the aforenamed master John Thorpe 
 his Sonne, to whom I can in words never be sufficiently thankfull." 
 Cunningham also mentions another unimportant reference to Thorpe. 
 No other mention of him is known, and the net result of our examina- 
 tion is that he remains an almost unknown man. Indeed, it is not 
 even certain that he was an architect at all. It is probable that most of 
 his authentic drawings were made after the buildings were completed, 
 instead of before, and that they are in the nature of surveys rather than 
 working drawings, and if this was so, Thorpe would have to be classified 
 with Norden rather than with Smithson. There is little doubt that 
 the Soane volume is a collection of miscellaneous drawings by many 
 different hands, such as Smithson tor Wollaton, Bernard Janssen for 
 Audley End, and other men connected w'ith the buildings of this time, 
 and it by no means follows that such drawings as that of Longford 
 Castle were made by Thorpe. This drawing may have been made by 
 the man who, on the theory given above, designed the facade in the 
 centre. It is not likely that the designer of the angle towers would 
 have drawn them with the string courses in the wrong place. The 
 only drawings which can certainly be set down to Thorpe are the ones 
 which he sis^ned or initialled. Besides these, there are the drawings 
 which m.ay probably be his, such as Kirby, and from these it would 
 appear that if Thorpe was a designer, he adhered to the English tradi- 
 tion of planning strictly, as, for instance, in the arrangement of courts, 
 in the E-shaped plans, and in the relative position of hall and ofifices, 
 and, with the exception of certain aberrations due to German influence, 
 that he was fairly faithful to the idea of the English gabled house, with 
 its plain sobriety of detail. North Mymms in Hertfordshire, though it 
 is not known to have been designed by Thorpe, represents this phase 
 of English architecture pretty closely, and Thorpe himself, assuming 
 him to have been the architect of the older parts of Kirby and Holland 
 House, may be taken as a fair instance of the class of men who worked 
 in Engrland, durino^ the transition sta^je from the builder-designer of 
 mediaeval days to the academic architect of the following century. He
 
 .1- 
 
 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURI-: IN ENGLAND 
 
 docs not appear to have travelled abroad, with the exception of one 
 visit to Erance, and his acquaintance with the Renaissance details of 
 other countries was uncertain and probably derived mainly from pattern 
 books. He seems, indeed, to have seen these details through mediceval 
 spectacles,^ yet he used them with much adventurousness, and the 
 result was a manner of design of a somewhat informal character, which, 
 though picturesque and lovable in a way, missed the essential quality 
 of architecture — the distinction of severe restraint and single-minded 
 purpose. 
 
 Smithson has already been referred to as the architect of Wollaton 
 in Nottinghamshire." His fame rests chielly on the inscription in 
 Wollaton Church to " Mr. Robert Smithson, gent., architect and sur- 
 veyor unto the most worthy house of Wollaton with divers others of 
 great account" (ob. 1614). Wollaton in Nottinghamshire was begun in 
 1580 for Sir Francis Willoughby, Camden says, "at great expense, for 
 a foolish display of his wealth," and this criticism is justified by the 
 building, which is one of the very ugliest and clumsiest of those erected 
 in England during the reign of Elizabeth. The front is overloaded 
 with stale repetitions of the orders, and the great block of the hall which 
 rises above the rest of the front overpowers the facade, and its general 
 topheaviness is emphasized and insisted on by pepper-box turrets at the 
 angles. The chimney-stacks, with their pediments on columns, are 
 even worse than those of Audley End and Burghley. Smithson may 
 have been an ingenious man and a skilful mason, but as a designer he 
 was heavy handed, and seems to have had an instinctive leaning to 
 ugliness and vulgar ornament. The idea of placing the hall in the 
 centre of the house, and lighting it by windows above the adjacent 
 roofs, shows a certain originality, but the eftect is not satisfactory, inside 
 
 ' It is curious that on the sheet of the five orders in the Soane Collection the titles 
 "Corinthia," "Ionica,"and "Composita" are written in black letter type, while "Tuscana" 
 and " Dorica" are in ordinary Roman type. 
 
 - Mr. Gotch (vol. ii., p. 59-63) assigns this design to Thorpe on the strength of the plan 
 and elevation contained in the Soane Collection. These, however, are not signed, and 
 though generally they resemble the actual building, Mr. Ciotch admits the existence of 
 "considerable discrepancies" between them. The account of Cassandra Willoughby, 
 Uuchess of Chandos (1702), is that Sir Francis Willoughby sent for the master workmen 
 that built the house out of Italy. There are thus three accounts of the designers. Smith- 
 son's name occurs in the building accounts as a mason, and as the work at Wollaton is 
 very different in feeling from Thorpe's work, in so far as the latter can be identified, it 
 seems probable that not Thorpe, but Smithson, was actually the designer of the house, and 
 that, as in the case of Arnold at Wadham, and Grumbold at Clare, he not only supplied 
 the designs, but worked himself on the building.
 
 '^
 
 THE ENGLISH BL H.DERS 
 
 oj 
 
 or out. Smithson's name occurs in the buildin"' accounts of Loneleat 
 as " Free master mason " of the works/ and there is indeed some 
 resemblance in the use of orders above orders in both houses, which 
 shows at least a common influence. It is probable that Smithson applied 
 to Wollaton the lesson in ornament that he had learnt at Longleat, and 
 by no means improved on the original. The pilaster treatment at 
 Wollaton imitates that at Longleat. but at Wollaton an irrevelant band 
 is introduced above the middle of the pilaster, and the sunk roundels 
 for bust, which are comparatively plain at Longleat, are enriched at 
 Wollaton with some florid cartouches. The designer of Longleat 
 followed Italian models, and Smithson thought to improve on this by 
 the later light of German ornament. But the natural man very soon 
 shows himself in architecture, and the tradition of masonry on which 
 Smithson must have been trained is evident in the outline of the hall 
 block, and his constant tendency to slip back into Gothic terms of 
 expression, as, for instance, in the tracery of the hall windows. There 
 is a contemporary drawing of Wollaton in the Soane Collection. 
 
 Huntingdon Smithson, who died November 27th, 1648, and was 
 buried in Bolsover Church, was probably a son of Robert ; his epitaph 
 calls him " g-entleman." Huntingdon Smithson clesio-ned the "new 
 house " at Bolsover, that is, the existing square castle and courtyard 
 begun in 161 3, and possibly the long gallery block," begun in 1629- 1630, 
 alone the brow of the hill which connects the castle with the ridin'-'- 
 school. The riding-school is later, and is evidently by another hand. 
 Bolsover Castle has many points of interest in regard to the develop- 
 ment of English architecture." Its details show a singular mixture of 
 Gothic tradition, of classical ideas inspired by German examples, and 
 of the individuality of Huntingdon Smithson himself, who, though 
 evidently of a thoughtful and inquiring turn, was not able enough to 
 fuse these three into a consistent and complete architectural design. 
 The three elements lie side by side in unassimilated confusion. The 
 pillar room, for instance, has a vaulted stone ceiling, the construction of 
 which is Gothic in principle, and the section of the groining ribs is such 
 
 ' " History of Longleat," by Canon Jackson. Devizes, 1868. 
 
 " Mr. Gotch thinks it doubtful whether these buildings were by the same man. 'I'here 
 is, however, no very great difference of manner between the gallery and the castle, in spite 
 of the variations of detail. The clumsiness of design referred to in Robert Smithson's 
 work reappears in both these buildings by Huntingdon, whereas the riding-school, which 
 is finely designed, suggests an altogether different influence. 
 
 ' The peculiarities of its plan will be referred to in the next chapter.
 
 54 RENAISSANCl' ARC! I ITF.CTURK IN I'XGLAND 
 
 as is fouiul in lalt; rillcc-nth ci'iUui')- \vi)rk. The pendants, corliels, and 
 capitals to the pillars are of the ordinary German pattern book type, 
 and the disproportion of scale and the combination of heaviness in 
 design, with meagreness and tenuity in detail, are the personal failures 
 of the architect himself. These faults reappear, though in a less degree, 
 in the gallery block. Here, too, there is an evident effort after size, but 
 the effect is only dullness, due to the absence of a tine architectural 
 sense in the designer, and to his inability to realize that size in itself is 
 nothing, proportion everything. The actual construction of the keep is 
 by no means good ; a piece of masonry corbelled out next the right hand 
 corner of the court has given \va)-, and never ct)uld have stood lor long, a 
 defect in knowledge of building, by no means compensated for by a some- 
 what extensive acquaintance with German methods of ornamentation. 
 
 The work of both the Smithsons shows knowledge of archi- 
 tectural detail and a gtjod deal of ingenuit}'. Where they failed was in 
 attempting ambitious architecture, and it is in this regard that they, 
 and such men as Thorpe and the builder-designers of the time, fall 
 so immmeasurably below their great successor. The builders of such 
 delightful houses as Littlecote, or Sydenham, or Ragdale old hall, 
 were content with the slightest ornamentation ; they adhered to the 
 local tradition of building as handed down from father to son ; their 
 buildings entirely answered the purpose for which they were built, 
 and hence they possess a quiet reasonable beauty, due to the well- 
 considered use of materials, and the evident absence of any desire to 
 amaze by technical dexterity. These buildings were the result of the 
 work of many generations of simple-minded men, and as such they have 
 the characteristic less of a single personality, than of a collective body 
 endowed with the accumulated results of years of labour along familiar 
 paths. As a result, we find in them the happy unconsciousness, the 
 excellent fitness of buildings which have grown to their purpose, instead 
 of the forced effort of men working with full consciousness on the one 
 hand and inadequate capacity on the other. It is on this ground — on 
 the ground of their reasonableness and distinct beauty of a humble 
 order — that such buildings are more valuable, and more suggestive of 
 the possible lines of development in architecture, than such essentially 
 unartistic buildings as Wollaton or Audley End. 
 
 A few other names besides those of Thorpe and the Smithsons 
 have reached us. Thomas Holt was a carpenter, and a native of York, 
 and is believed to have come to Oxford about 1600, when .Sir Thomas 
 liodley was beginning his new schools. He seems to have passed the
 
 
 
 V. 
 
 
 XT} '^^"?fT"3_.o^^f)^ 
 
 
 
 jH fll' '-ilii^^j 1_^ I ; 
 
 --4 
 
 I ^. ".^.^; «^ tf 1^^ 'jT^^ 
 
 -ii--. 
 
 ^ 
 
 , »—-w^ j 
 
 THK TO\VKR OF THE SCHOOIN, OXFORD.
 
 56 RENAI.SSAXXP: ARCKl rr-CTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 remainder of his life at Oxford, where he died, September 9th, 1624, 
 and was buried in Holywell Churchyard. His epitaph, which has since 
 disappeared, is given in Sir John Peshall's edition of Wood's "Antiquities 
 of Oxford." ' It is on the strength of this epitaph that Holt has been 
 credited with the design of the schools, that is to say, of Bodley's work 
 there, and more particularly of the great tower. This remarkable 
 composition shows, on the west side, the five orders ranged one above 
 the other, without the slightest regard to the elevations on either side, 
 which consist of a plain three-storey building with a moulded plinth, and 
 a single string course below the battlements of the parapet. On the 
 third storey of the tower was a seated figure of James I. under a canopy, 
 supported by figures of Fame and the University kneeling.' The 
 Bodleian as a whole was not completed till 1636, but this tower was 
 finished earlier. Anthony Wood calls it an " eminent and stately tower," 
 and it has a certain picturesque richness, though it can hardl)- be con- 
 sidered as serious architecture. The orders may perhaps be justified as 
 buttresses, but they are little adapted for the purpose, and might probably 
 be shorn off from top to bottom without affecting the fabric ; and the 
 desio'ner certainly does not get over the difficulty inherent in this kind 
 of composition, for when he got to the top of his Composite order there 
 was nothing more for all this elaborate pile of columns to do, and they 
 terminate tamely in a feeble little pediment. Moreover, the excessive 
 and nearly equal elaboration of the four top orders defeats its own 
 end, for the effect is not that of a building sumptuously ornamented, 
 
 ' The epitaph is as follows : 
 
 "Thos. Holt. Ebor. Scholarum rublic. Architecti 
 
 obt. Sept. 9. 1624. 
 " Mirare fclix umbra felices domes, 
 Et mira tandem cernis jetemi fabri 
 Laqueata tecta, ubi non recisas Africa 
 Magno paratas suspicis sumptu trabes, 
 Ebore lacunar nee superbit indico — 
 
 Hie videmus omnia. 
 Olim arte avita regiis Palatiis 
 X'estrce hfec (beate pulvis) aptarunt manus, 
 ■Sed tecta tantae glorise qua; jam colis, 
 Cum struere tua diffideret mortalitas 
 Recte excolebas semper ad amussim omnia, 
 Erasque colere ut posse fortun.-e fata." (sic.) 
 Wood's MS. must have been imperfect, for the last line is unintelligible. 
 2 Anthony Wood states that these figures were at first double gilt, but that when 
 King James came over from Woodstock to inspect the schools he declared that the glare 
 dazzled his eyes, and ordered the sculpture to be painted white.
 
 THE ENGLISH BUILDERS 57 
 
 but of a building covered with a confusion of sumptuous ornament. 
 The quatrefoil tracery whicli appears in the parapet, in combination 
 with strap-work, and the crocheted finials, show how fictitious was this 
 assumption of classical architecture. The latter was not yet grasped as 
 a broad principle of design, but its detail was arbitrarily adopted as a 
 new fashion in ornament. 
 
 The tower of the schools has been referred to on the assumption 
 that Holt was the architect ; but the whole story of Holt's connection 
 with the schools rests entirely on the words of the epitaph, and is other- 
 wise doubtful. It is at least remarkable that in the whole of Bodley's 
 correspondence with Dr. James, his first librarian, a correspondence 
 relating entirely to the business of the library, and written while the 
 buildings were in progress, there is no mention of Holt at all. Yet 
 Holt survived Bodley by twelve years, and if connected with the 
 Bodleian building at all, Holt must have been employed by the university 
 to carry on Bodley's work. The latter had already employed York- 
 shire masons for his building, John Acroyde, and J. and Michael 
 Bentley whose names appear in the O.xford register of deaths in 161 3, 
 161 5, and 1618 respectively, and the business details of the building, 
 including such matters as the provision of wainscot oak for the library 
 fittings, were directed by Bodley himself, though the design was left to 
 the workmen. Thus in Letter "]•] he writes: "In the fashion of 
 the antikes and pendents, I refer myself wholly to the workmen, 
 together with yourself, Mr. Gent, Mr. Brent, and Mr. Principal (Hawley) 
 having herewith returned your patterns again, which I can like of well 
 enough if they be to your liking." The contracts were made by Bodley 
 through his workmen; thus he writes : " If Bal — College lead be very 
 good, and a reasonable peniworth to be had, I pray you speak to Jo. 
 Acroyde to bargain for it." No reference is made to any system of 
 architect's certificates, and it appears that Bodley kept the entire finance 
 of the business in his own hands. Thus, when the work got behindhand, 
 Bodley would have none of the workmen's "lewd excuses," and writes 
 in Letter 138, "I pray God Jo. Bentley keep touch in amending the 
 building, whereof I stand the more in doubt for that I am informed he 
 maketh that which was naught a great deal worse with his very un- 
 rightly daubing, which I trust Mr. Brent or Mr. Gent will cause him to 
 forbear or else I will forbear to him his wages." The inference sug- 
 gested by these letters is (i) that Bodley had nothing to do with the 
 design of the building, (2) that Holt had nothing to do with it in 
 Bodley's lifetime, (3) that during the hitter's lifetime the only design 
 
 I
 
 58 RKNAISSANCK ARCl 1 iriCCTURI' IN ENGLAND 
 
 there was of the building was given 1)\- ihi.; masons, Acroyde and the 
 Bentleys, who submitted to Bodley patterns, or rough models, of what 
 they proposed to do. The whole character of the work suggests a 
 mason's idea of architecture, rather than the work of a trained designer. 
 John Acroyde also contracted for the new stonework in the south 
 quadrangle at Merton, in 1608, for ^570. Here, as at the schools, he 
 probably supplied the designs as well, and Holt made a separate 
 contract on his own behalf for the woodwork, for which he was paid 
 ;^430 and the expense of his journey. 
 
 To Holt is also attributed the design of buildings at Exeter, 
 including probably the old chapel,' Oriel, and Jesus, and the charming 
 library of Merton. All this work was done at about the same time. 
 He has also been credited with the design of Wadham. The facade 
 opposite the entrance to the quadrangle at Wadham resembles the 
 tower of the schools in the use of the orders above orders. Wadham, 
 however, was designed before the schools, and Mr. Jackson has 
 shown conclusively" that though Holt was employed at Wadham, he 
 was only employed as a carpenter, fabcr lipiarins, on the roofs of 
 the hall and library, and did not appear on the scene at all till tliree 
 sides of the quadrangle were practically finished. Probably all that 
 Holt did at Oxford was to contract for the design and execution of 
 the woodwork in the buildings mentioned above ; and his work, to 
 judge by the panelling of Merton Library, and the woodwork of the oUl 
 Exeter Chapel, was fair Jacobean, reasonable in design and excellent 
 in workmanship. 
 
 Ralph Simons was employed at Cambridge about the same time as 
 Holt at Oxford. Simons was a native of Berkhampstead in Hertford- 
 shire. At Emmanuel he adopted the remains of the Dominican Convent 
 and built the Founders' Range. (The charter of foundation is dated 
 1593.) At Sidney-Sussex, he built the three-sided court, forming the 
 original building. At Trinity he was employed by Dr. Nevill in the 
 
 ' The old chapel was built by the rector of the college early in the seventeenth 
 century. It was destroyed to make way for the present chapel designed by Sir (Gilbert 
 Scott. The chapel was full of fine oak panelling, and in excellent preservation ; but the 
 rector and fellows were informed at the time that the fabric was unsafe. When, however, 
 its destruction was begun, the walls were found to be so solidly constructed that they had 
 to be blown up with gunpowder. 
 
 " Mr. Jackson, in his history of Wadham College, has shown that the real designer 
 of Wadham College was a certain William Arnold, a Freemason, who worked on the build- 
 ings, and carried out the work by verbal instructions to his men, rather than by any 
 drawings to scale.
 
 ;.. r^ 
 
 
 
 GATEWAY AT COBHAM COLLEGE.
 
 6o REXAISSANCl' A RCH rnX TU Rl'. IN ENGLAND 
 
 scheme of alterations, begun in 1593 and carried on till 1615, which 
 resulted in the great court and the dining-hall. Simons gave the design 
 for the latter in 1604, but docs not appear to have been employed in 
 carrying it out. The inscription on his picture in Emmanuel College 
 calls him " architectus sua (state peritissimus, qui i^prceter pluri7na cedijicia 
 ab eo prceclarc facta) duo collegia, Emmanuelis hoc, Sidneii illud Extruxit 
 integre, viagnuni ctiani partem Trinitalis rcconciiinavit aiiip/issime." 
 
 Emmanuel was finished by Sir Walter Mildmay in 1584. Sidney 
 Sussex, by Erances, Countess of Sussex, in 1588. It is probable that 
 in every case Simons supplied the design besides contracting for the 
 work ; and in the case of St. John's, Cambridge, the original drawings, 
 consisting of three " plotts " (plans) and three " uprights " (elevations), 
 signed " Raf. Simons " and " Gilbart Wigge," still exist in the college 
 library. The building at St. John's consisted of a court 137 ft. by 165 ft., 
 but it was an unfortunate affair for both of them. Simons lost a hand 
 on the works, and was involved in a lawsuit about the winding 'up of 
 the accounts, which lawsuit eventually landed Wigge in prison in 
 1605. Simons appears to have left Cambridge, and is not heard of 
 after this date. Wigge, who was released from prison on petition and 
 humble amends to the college, afterwards built a range of buildings 
 in Walnut Tree Court, at Queen's College, 16 16-19. Both men 
 w^orked in a plain unambitious manner, with little affectation of Renais- 
 sance detail. 
 
 The designs of buildings seem to have been supplied indifferently 
 by carpenters, masons, or bricklayers. Simons, Acroyde, and Arnold 
 were masons; Westley, of Cambridge, died 1656, who built part of 
 Clare and the new buildings of Emmanuel at Cambridge, in 1634, was 
 a bricklayer ; Holt was a carpenter ; and about the time of Holt's death, 
 a young Herefordshire carpenter was already making his reputation 
 in the west country. The development of building crafts naturally 
 followed the staple building material of the district. Yorkshire was a 
 stone country and consequently abounds in characteristic masonr)-, 
 whereas Lancashire, Cheshire, Shropshire, and Herefordshire, were at 
 one time thickly wooded, and accordingly developed a half timber style 
 with well marked peculiarities. John Abel was a Herefordshire man, 
 born in 1597. So far as his buildings can be identified he worked 
 entirely in half timber, and is said to have designed and built the 
 market-halls of Hereford, Leominster, Kington, Brecon, and Weobley. 
 The market-hall at Weobley was pulled down about forty-five years 
 ago and sold as old materials. It is described as having been built in
 
 o 
 a: 
 o 

 
 \
 
 TIIK ENGLISH 111' 1 IJ )i: KS 
 
 6r 
 
 half timber, with a lar^c ujjper hall carried on wocjden pillars, richly 
 carved. The ground lloor was open, and it no doubt followed the 
 
 PORCH AT WLOliLEV IN' HEREFORDSHIRE. 
 
 regular treatment of west country market-halls. The building stood 
 at the head of the triangular square in the centre of the village, but not 
 a vestige of it remains except the weather-cock on the turned oak
 
 62 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN I'NGLAND 
 
 baluster, which was transferred to the half timber house close by. 
 The wooden porch at Weobley, which closely resembles the detail at 
 Abbey Dore, was probably by Abel. The Shire Hall at Hereford was 
 destroyed about thirty-five years ago. Duncombe, writing in 1804, 
 says: "The old Shire Hall of Hereford was constructed mainly of 
 wood, and rests on three ranges of pillars, having nine pillars in each 
 range ; the length is 84 feet, the breadth 34 ; at present it consists 
 of one floor only. . . . In its original state there was a second floor 
 divided into apartments for the accommodation of the fourteen trading 
 
 CARVING 1\ P.UTCHKR.S ROW, HEREKORD. 
 
 companies of the city. . . . The Shire Hall was built in the latter part 
 of the reign of James I. by John Abel." After the second floor was 
 taken down, the first floor was covered in with a three-gabled roof, and 
 it is so shown in old drawings. There are now no remains of it what- 
 ever. In fact the only half timber building now standing in Hereford is 
 the old house which once formed part of Butcher's Row, built in 1621, 
 which is not unlike Abel's work. The old hall at Leominster has fared 
 rather better. It was built in 1633, and was pulled down in the present 
 century, but rebuilt as "The Grange," and is now inhabited as a 
 private house. Unfortunately, the intercolumniations on the ground
 
 THK ENGLISH BUILDERS 63 
 
 floor have been filled in with windows, which make it impossible to 
 form any adequate opinion of the value of the original design. The 
 details are not without a certain ingenious fancy, but they are very 
 coarse in execution and show a merely rudimentary acquaintance with 
 the models they professed to imitate.' 
 
 THE GRANGE, LEOMINSTER 
 
 In 1634, John, \'iscount Scudamore, having some misgivings as to 
 his right to the tithes of his estate, and acting under the influence of 
 Laud, obtained a special licence to restore the Church of Abbey Dore, 
 and employed the famous west country carpenter to carry out the work. 
 No architect appears in the transaction at all.^ Scudamore supplied 
 the wood, .A.bel the design and labour. About ^1,000 (money of the 
 time) was spent on the work, which included a new roof with oak 
 
 ' A more complete account of this building will be found in the Portfolio for 1888. 
 The accounts and contract for this work have been discovered by Mr. Blashill.
 
 64 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 rafters and brackets, a new gallery, seats, reading desk, and pulpit, 
 some painted glass, and the great oak screen under the chancel arch. 
 The latter is in five bays, divided by columns with rough Ionic capitals, 
 carrying a frieze with a curious Latin inscrijition : " Vive Deo gratus, 
 toti mundo tumulatus, crimine niundatus, semper transire paratus." 
 This inscription also occurs at Leominster. Above the frieze are the 
 royal arms, with two small coats-of-arms on either side, set in open 
 strapwork and divided by pierced obelisks. The general design of the 
 screen is bold and effective, and the scale is well preserved throughout, 
 but the workmanship is exceedingly rough. The marks of the axe and 
 the chisel are everywhere apparent ; even the carpenters' numbers 
 scratched on the different pieces of wood were never removed, and the 
 columns and pedestals are made out of one solid baulk of oak from top 
 to bottom. 
 
 Abel was employed once more by Scudamore, when the Civil 
 Wars had put a stop to building. In 1645 Hereford was besieged by 
 the Scotch army, and Abel was employed to keep their mills in order. 
 Scudamore, who was governor of the town, writes of him to Lord 
 Digby as an expert carpenter, and " the only man in all the county 
 to make mills." He died in 1694, at the age of ninety-seven, and 
 was buried at Sarnesfield in Herefordshire. Abel's buildings, in their 
 rude vigour of design and coarseness of execution, closely resemble 
 the half timber work of Lancashire and Cheshire to the north, and of 
 Somerset and Devon to the south. Nearly all this west country work 
 is crude as compared with the half timber work found in the east of 
 England, in the home counties, and particularly in the Weald of Kent ; 
 and the superior refinement of the latter, a superiority found also in 
 brick and stone buildings, is probably due to the presence of Flemings, 
 who taught the English builders some of their own unexampled skill in 
 craftsmanship. We have already seen how local was the influence of 
 the Italian artists introduced by Henry VIII., and it is probable that 
 the immaturity of west country work is due to the absence of any such 
 influence, and to the comparative inaccessibility of this part of England. 
 
 Work such as Abel's is interesting as showing the result of the 
 new movement in out-of-the-way districts. Abel, it is clear, had 
 received no training in architectural design. The details of his work 
 abound in blunders of scholarship and errors of taste. His acquaint- 
 ance with Renaissance detail appears to have been entirel)- at second- 
 hand, and derived from those insidious pattern books to which I have 
 already referred. These pattern books never gave working drawings
 
 THE ENGLISH GUILDERS 
 
 6s 
 
 of details, and very seldom any intellit^dble scale. The country carpenter 
 was therefore left to his own devices, and the results of his mother wit 
 and the atrocious models given in his pattern books were something 
 
 a" 
 
 
 
 
 THE SCHOOL AND ALMSHOUSE, COKMIAM. 
 
 altogether childish. On the other hand, the actual construction is good, 
 the immediate result of local tradition. It is honest and straightforward, 
 and essentially wood construction, not a construction borrowed from 
 stone or metal. We thus have the two streams meetino-, that of the
 
 66 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 building tradition of the country side, and that of the new fashion ot 
 ornamentation, filtered throu<4h hardly intelligible pattern books ; the 
 two run side by side at present, not yet fused into a complete and 
 reasonable method of design. So far, what is good in this Heretortl- 
 shire carpenter's architecture was the result of the older Gothic tradition. 
 What is ba«l, and the ornament as a rule is wholly bad, was the result of 
 fashion ill-understood. It by no means follows, however, that anything 
 more could have come of the old tradition by itself. The various 
 attempts made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to rehabili- 
 tate Gothic design were failures, and the facts of history show that the 
 spirit which had hitherto expressed itself in Gothic art had e.xhausted 
 the ranye of its lanouaye and had to find vent in some new idiom of 
 architecture. For it seems sounder, both on historical and philosophical 
 ground.s, to consider the actual details of the architecture of any given 
 period as so much language, capable of expansion or modification 
 amounting almost to a total change of expression ; and it by no means 
 follows that, because a fashion of language can be superseded, the spirit 
 which once expressed itself through that language is dead. Gothic 
 architecture, as a language, was dead, but the keen artistic spirit which 
 had once expressed itself in mediaeval architecture, and inspired its 
 admirable craftsmanship, was as vital and active as ever, only it was 
 finding its course in new channels, and seeking fresh methods of 
 expression for its ever-varying thought. This motive power, this 
 creative and informing spirit, was neither Gothic nor Renaissance, but 
 simply the instinct of the nation and the race, and as such we shall find 
 it re-asserting itself with a vigour as characteristic, as entirely national, 
 as any that it had ever displayed in mediaeval times. Within a hundred 
 years from the date of the screen of Abbey Dore we shall find the 
 tradition of sound and skilful handiwork re-established in England, and 
 country workmen capable of executing woodwork, masonry, and brick- 
 work of delicate refinement and unsurpassable workmanship; we shall 
 find in work of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the independ- 
 ence of thought, the sober taste and kindliness of manner which has 
 throughout stamped our architecture, whether mediaeval or Renaissance, 
 with a character unmistakably English.
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 Sixteenth Cfntlrv House Planning and Architectural 
 
 Treatises. 
 
 Abel was not the last of the builder-designers, or master builders, as 
 they might fairly be called. John Westley and Thomas and Robert 
 Grumbold carried on the tradition at Cambridge throughout the seven- 
 teenth century, but meanwhile a race of architects had sprung up, 
 perhaps of less practical knowledge of building materials, but of wider 
 scholarship and greater attainment as designers ; and before discussing 
 these forerunners of the modern architect with his complete professional 
 equipment, it will be desirable to consider the state of English archi- 
 tecture before this new era was started by Inigo Jones. 
 
 Throughout the sixteenth century rapid strides were taken towards 
 the perfecting of house planning.' Few important churches were built 
 in that century, and no attempt was made to depart from the traditional 
 methods in this regard, but the whole ingenuity of the builders of the 
 sixteenth century seems to have been concentrated on the house. 
 Owing to the decay of feudal power, and to the proportionate increase 
 in the strength of the monarch)-, the necessity for strongly fortified 
 houses had ceased to exist by the beginning of the sixteenth century, 
 and we find two main types of 'house in common use. On the one 
 hand, for larger houses, there was the house built round one or more 
 courts, and on the other, what we may, for convenience, call the 
 yeoman's house, consisting of a hall in the centre, with kitchen and 
 offices at one end and a solar and living rooms at the other. This 
 second and smaller type of house was the direct survival of the 
 smaller mediseval dwelling-house. It was altered and adapted in many 
 ways, but throughout the sixteenth century it continued to be the 
 typical form for small and moderate sized houses, and can easily be 
 
 ' The plans given in this chapter, with the exception of the plans of the fishing house 
 at Meare and the garden house at Amesbury, have been traced from the originals in the 
 Soane Museum. They have been hatched to make them clearer, and to avoid confusion, 
 owing to the considerable reduction necessary, the original writing has been replaced by 
 lettering and printed descriptions of the rooms.
 
 I ' 
 
 I'l.AN OF lUICKHURST IIOIISK IN Sl'SSEX. (sOANR rOI.r.F.CTION.) 
 
 A. Kytehen. 
 ]!. Dry larder above wett 
 under. 
 
 C. Scullery, 
 
 D. Bolting. 
 
 K. Bakehou.se. 
 
 I-' I'. 
 
 t; 
 
 Lodgings heare. 
 
 Offices. 
 
 A noblemans lodging. 
 
 .V noblemans lodging. 
 
 A noblemans lodging. 
 
 Porters. 
 K. Lodg. 
 L L L."A noblemans lodging. 
 ifTff,. A noblemans lodging. 
 .M. Servants lodging. 
 
 H H H. 
 
 M 11 M. 
 
 H II II. 
 
 I. 
 
 N X. A noliknians lodging. 
 
 n. His ante camera. 
 
 p. Parlour great cham- 
 ber over. 
 
 Q. Wayters chamlier. 
 
 R. This chapell is below, 
 [AWc. The part fig- 
 ured r is probalily the 
 gallery, the chapel 
 floor for the servants 
 being below.] 
 
 s. Hall' 
 
 T. A\'ine cellar under- 
 neath terrace above 
 throughout. 
 
 u. Buttry. 
 
 w Breakfast room, 
 w. Butlers lodging. 
 X. Pantry. 
 V. Pantlers lodging. 
 z. A tennis court 65 fo. 
 long. 
 I I. i'he garden and or- 
 chard syde. 
 2. Woodyard heare, bake- 
 house, brewhouse, &c. 
 3 3 3. 'I'he gallery over these 
 lodging.s. 
 
 4. For my ladys s\'de. 
 
 5. For my lords syde. 
 
 6. Terrace heare. 
 
 7. Carden house.
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY HOUSE PLANNING 69 
 
 traced in their various modifications. From these two sources the 
 characteristic features of the Elizabethan house were developed by a 
 double process, that is to say, the plans of the larger houses resulted 
 from the gradual modifications of the earlier house with inclosed courts, 
 and the plans of the smaller houses from the natural extension of what 
 has been called above the yeoman's house. 
 
 Of the courtyard house, which speedily developed into the simple 
 quadrangular house, the earlier part of Haddon Hall, or .South W'ingfield 
 Manor House, built in the reign of Henry \T. by Ralph, Lord Cromwell, 
 are good examples. These houses must be taken as the immediate 
 precursors of the Tudor house in historical development. They were 
 built with a view to defence, yet with some regard to comfort of living. 
 Instead of the grim impassable keep, there were courtyards, with solid 
 walls, it is true, on the outer side, but with sufficient space within the 
 court to admit of some reasonable amount of light and air to the rooms 
 of the surrounding buildings. The necessity of a symmetrical court 
 was as yet unthought of The inclosing buildings followed the con- 
 ditions of the site, with the result that the court was seldom exactly 
 rectangular, and as the idea of defence was still urtrent enoufdi to induce 
 the builder to place his house on a rock, differences of level and all 
 kinds of irregular angles were accepted with indifference. But under 
 the long " King's Peace" of Henry VIII. this necessity of treating the 
 house as a fortress disappeared, and when houses were placed on level 
 sites and on low-lying ground, there was no occasion for an)^ awkward 
 angles, and the rectangular court was adopted as a matter of course. 
 Layer Marney and Sutton Place (152 1- 15 27) are good early instances of 
 the quadrangular arrangement.' Generally speaking, the quadrangular 
 house of the early part of the sixteenth century consisted of an inclosed 
 court with an entrance under a tall gatehouse, rising higher than the 
 adjacent buildings, as at Hampton Court and Nonesuch. To one side, 
 or on the side opposite the gatehouse, were the hall and offices, with 
 living and sleeping rooms round the remaining sides, which rooms, 
 except when arranged en suite, could only be entered from the court." 
 
 ' The court at Sutton was originally quadrangular, measuring internally Si ft. 3 in. by 
 81 ft.3 in. It was entered by a gateway on the north side under a tower flanked by hexagonal 
 turrets. This tower is said by Mr. Harrison (" Annals of an old Manor House," Macmillan, 
 1893) to have been about 70 ft. high. It was standing in 1 750, but has since been destroyed. 
 
 - The instances given above were, however, anticipated in a certain sense by 
 Wykeham at Oxford more than a hundred years before. The earliest example of a quad- 
 rangular plan, designed without any idea of defence, is Wykeham's buildings at New College, 
 Oxford, 1379-1393, aprecedent which was followed at Lincoln, 1456-1475, St. John's, 1436,
 
 70 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Out of this quadranprular plan speedily grew the various types of 
 the larger Elizabethan house. In these houses the quadrangular plan 
 with one or more courts was adhered to through the sixteenth centur)-, 
 as at Kirby, Hurghley, and Audlf y End. Tin- plan ot liuckliurst in 
 Kent (since destroyed), and which is preserved in the Soane Museum, 
 is a characteristic example of the arrangements of a great nobleman's 
 house in the middle of the sixteenth century. Buckhurst was completed 
 about 1568. The plan, as shown in the drawing in the Soane Collec- 
 tion, was rectangular, about 270 ft. in front by 214 ft. at the sides. The 
 entrance was under a projecting gateway, with my lord's lodgings on 
 the right and my lady's on the left, and opened on to a principal court 
 about 105 ft. by 105 ft., with a raised terrace and balustrade on the 
 opposite side, and entrance to a lobby communicating with the screens 
 and the great hall, about 70 ft. by 38 ft., with the kitchen and multifarious 
 offices to the left of the screens, and the chapel beyond the upper end 
 of the hall. On either side of the main courtyard were ranges of 
 buildings occupied by noblemen's lodgings ; to the right was a small 
 internal court, 55 ft. by 28 ft., with parlour and other rooms on the 
 outer side. To the left of tlie court, beyond the noblemen's lodgings, 
 a tennis court, 65 ft. by 25 ft., occupied the whole of the internal court, 
 and beyond this, on the outer side, were offices and lodgings. Newel 
 staircases, at each of the four external angles, communicated with the 
 upper floor. An additional newel staircase in the centre ol the left 
 hand fa9ade, and four internal staircases, were provided, at least two of 
 the latter appearing to be grand staircases. A corridor led past the hall 
 to a broad passage-way and llight of stairs 15 ft. wide, going across to 
 
 All Souls', 1437-1442, Magdalen, 1473-1479, and in the following century by Wolsey in 
 his great (juadrangle at Christchurch. These buildings, however, were based on the idea of 
 providing distinct sets of tenements, attached, but each provided with its own separate 
 access, a theory of collegiate building which was tenaciously adhered to at both universities. 
 As such they are distinct from conventual houses of the same date, which provided series 
 of cells, communicating with a common corridor, and from domestic buildings. Gradually, 
 however, the collegiate buildings approached the domestic type ; towards the end of the 
 sixteenth century the college and the country house were planned on very much the same 
 lines, and there can be little doubt that, as Professor Willis maintained, the quadrangular 
 collegiate plan was directly connected with that of the contemporary manor hou.se". The 
 ground plan of Queen's College, Cambridge (1448), nearly resembles that of Haddon Hall, 
 and the plan of Sidney-Sussex (1596-1598), with its hall and screens, offices and kitchens 
 occupying the centre, and sets of rooms in the wings, is hardly to be distinguished from 
 that of an ordinary Elizabethan manor hou.sc. Professor Willis has been so far followed 
 that in this general survey of sixteenth century domestic architecture colleges are classified 
 with the larger country houses of the period.
 
 AUDLEY END IN ESSEX. (SOANE COLLECTION.) 
 / 
 
 A. Parlour 57 feet long. c. Chaple. E. Kytchen 52 feet long. 
 
 B. Hall. I). .Survery. i'. Dry larder.
 
 72 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 the chapel and grand staircase, and above this corridor was a terrace 
 the full length of the side of the great court. A broad terrace, 55 ft. 
 wide, ran along the whole length of the main faqadc. I-'or smaller 
 houses a quadrangular i)hin was sometimes employed, with a small court 
 in the centre merely for purposes of light and air, and in no way as a 
 means of architectural effect. Instances of this are found at Chequers' 
 Court, near Tring, Godinton in Kent, Burton Agnes and liarlborough 
 in Yorkshire, and Chastleton in Oxfordshire. 
 
 The tendency, however, was to break away from the cjuadrangular 
 plan inclosed on all four sides. When Dr. Caius built his New Court at 
 Caius College, Cambridge, in 1565, he expressly forbade the closing in of 
 the court on the south side, " lest the air from being confined within a 
 narrow space should become foul ;"' and it was probably on this ground 
 that the plan of a three-sided court came into general use. Tiiis meant 
 the removal of the gatehouse side with its tall tower. The entrance 
 was set back, either as a projecting bay in the centre of the main 
 fa9ade which gives the familiar E-shaped plan, or towards one end of it, 
 with a corresponding bay at the opposite end, and was usually carried 
 up the full height of the building. The side left open was treated in 
 various ways. At Rushton a corridor of one storey was built between 
 the two wings ; elsewhere the front was fenced in with a simple balus- 
 trade of stone, as at Charlton House in Wiltshire, before the alteration 
 of 1779, or the side walls of the wings were extended and returned 
 opposite the house to inclose a forecourt with a gatehouse, in one or 
 more storeys, in the centre, opposite the main entrance. As part of this 
 change, the gatehouse had now detached itself from the house, and had 
 become a separate building of more or less importance. The most 
 famous instances are the gatehouses of Tixall in Staffordshire (1580), a 
 three-storey building of stone, with four octagonal turrets at the angles, 
 and a remarkably correct design of the orders above the entrance arch- 
 way ; Burton Agnes in Yorkshire (1610), a three-storey building of 
 brick and stone, with two octagonal turrets at the sides ; Lanhydrock 
 in Cornwall (1651); Charlecote, Cranborne in Dorsetshire, and the 
 remarkable instances of Westwood in Worcestershire, and Stanway in 
 Gloucestershire. The Westwood gatehouse consists of two two-storey 
 pavilions of brick with a gateway between, surmounted by a cupola on 
 a boldly designed framing of open timber work. The Stanway gate- 
 house stands at one end of the forecourt, instead of in the centre, owing 
 to peculiarities of the site. 
 
 Thus, by the removal of one side of the court, the re-arrangement
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY HOUSE l'LANXE\G 73 
 
 of the porch in the centre of the arm connectinef the two side wings, and 
 the shortening of the side wings, all of which resulted from the trans- 
 formation of the quadrangle into a three-sided court, open in front, we 
 arrive at the E-sha|)C(] |,]an, frc(|uentl)- fduml in large Elizabethan 
 houses, as, for instance, North Mjnuns in I liillMidshii-e (early seven- 
 teenth century), and Corsham Court, near I'.ath. That the E-shaped 
 plan had nothing at all to do Avith any fanciful compliment to Elizabeth 
 
 PLAN OF HOLLAND HOUSE. (sOANE COLLECTION. 
 
 A. Wet larder. 
 
 B. Kytchen. 
 c. Dry larder. 
 
 D. Bolting house. 
 
 E. Pastry. 
 
 F. Winter parlour. 
 
 G. Pantry. 
 
 H. Hall — great chamber 
 
 n\-er. 
 I. Walk terrace above. 
 
 K. Lodg. 
 
 L. Terraceand gallervabove. 
 
 M. Parlour. 
 
 N. Parlour. 
 
 o. Bed. 
 
 is proved by houses built on this plan before she came to the throne, or 
 was even within sight of it, such, for instance, as Barrington, built by 
 Sir Thomas Phelips, probably the man who was appointed by Henry 
 Vin., in 1539, chief supervisor of the buildings in the town and 
 marches of Calais. By extending the side wings to the back as 
 
 L
 
 74 ri:x.\issancl: architectukl l\ England 
 
 well as the front, another common form of sixteenth century plan was 
 obtained, the 11 plan, as at Shaw House, near Newbury, 15S1, and the 
 plan of Holland House L;i\(n in the text. 
 
 All thr |)laiis lliat \vr ha\'c ronsidcrcd so far ix-lou'^ to the class of 
 the larger Elizabethan house, and are, in ni) opinion, directly descended 
 from the larger fortified iiouscs with intiTual courts of the Middle Ages. 
 The court was extended and made symmetrical, and finally one of the 
 inclosing sides was abandoned in order to gain increased light and air. 
 At this stage of development their characteristic is their complete 
 and deliberate symmetry. Gable answers to gable, even chimney-stack 
 to chimney-stack ; and this quality, and their more intricate planning 
 and greater scale, seem to me to differentiate them from houses which 
 Vnight also be classified as belonging to the E plan, but which, probably, 
 have arrived at the result in another wa)-, such as the manor houses of 
 Lancashire and Cheshire, and buildings in which, thouyfh the eeneral 
 plan is symmetrical, or nearly so, there is no obvious and deliberate 
 attempt at symmetry in detail. The plan of these houses seems to be 
 directly derived from the yeoman's house, which, to all intents, is 
 identical with the small unfortified mediaeval dwelling-house, consisting 
 of a common hall in the centre, with offices and one or two small rooms 
 ranged at either end, or at one end only. Instances exist in the original 
 part of Cranborne, the priest's house at Muchelney, the fishing house at 
 Meare, and in the ordinary plan of the half-timbered yeoman's house in 
 the Weald of Kent, such as Beavor House, or Singleton, near Ashford. 
 This plan, being in fact about the simplest arrangement of rooms and 
 offices possible, was derived from remote antiquity, and survived with 
 extraordinary pertinacity in England. It appears again and again under 
 varying forms. The plan of Fountains Hall, for instance, in Yorkshire 
 (161 1), consists of a hall, dividing the two sets of apartments at either 
 end, with two separate staircases thrown out at the back. Except for 
 the position of the staircases, the general outline of this plan, on the first 
 floor, very nearly resembles the ordinary plan of a small fifteenth century 
 house, and there can be little doubt that the smaller E and H-shaped 
 houses of the sixteenth century were merely modifications of this tradi- 
 tional plan. By bringing forward the buildings at either end of the 
 hall, an E or H, or half E or H, plan is obtained ; and the process of 
 development is so natural that Mr. Taylor (" Old Halls of Lancashire 
 and Cheshire") inclines to think that this modification of the small 
 mediaeval house is the real and only origin of the E-shaped plan. This 
 appears probable enough in the case of smaller houses. A very shallow
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY IIOUSI:: I'EANNING 
 
 /:) 
 
 form of H plan is actually to be seen in some of the sixteenth century 
 half timber houses in the Weald of Kent. And plans such as that of 
 Montacute (1580-1601), which might be classified as either of the E or 
 the H plan, rather bear out this view. Here the hall, which occupies 
 half the centre block, separates the wing containing the living rooms of 
 the family from the kitchen offices and servants' rooms, and so far the 
 derivation from the media;val dwelling-house seems direct. But though 
 there can be little doubt that the smaller houses built on an E or 
 H -shaped plan were deri\ed by direct development from the small rect- 
 angular mediaeval dwelling-houses, the weight of evidence makes it 
 probable that the more elaborate Elizabethan plans were arrived at by 
 a gradual modification of the old inclosed courtyard. 
 
 This opening-up of the house, the importance attached to the 
 
 PLAN OK THE FISHING HOUSE AT MEARE. 
 
 admission of light and air, were not the only advances in planning made 
 in the sixteenth century. In the earlier houses built on a courtyard 
 plan the builders appear to have been content if they got separate access 
 to each room on the ground floor, directly from the courtyard, and on 
 the upper floor either by doors from room to room or by long galleries 
 running all round the court, and usually open on the courtyard side. 
 The last survivals of this method were to be found in the old inns, 
 such as the "White Hart," the " Georg-e," and the " Queen's Head " in 
 Southwark, and in many an old coaching inn. This manner of building 
 was, however, found to be intolerable, and the next step forward was to 
 provide corridors and passages for purposes of communication between 
 the different rooms without going in and out of the house. In order to 
 reach the upper rooms, staircases were provided in every part of the 
 building, much on the system that may still be seen in the seventeenth 
 century college buildings at Oxford and Cambridge. An attempt to
 
 76 RENAISSANCE ARCl 1 11 !• CTU RE IN I'NGLAND 
 
 deal with this problem is fouiul in the south block of Kirby Hall, as 
 shown in John Thorpe's plan, though the inmates of the rooms on 
 either side the court had to be content to cross the court to get to the 
 hall, or else go through each other's rooms, and, in fact, nt) serious 
 attempt was made to grapple with the difficulty in the sixteenth century. 
 People were content, apparently, to pass from room to room, with such 
 additional assistance as miirht be rained from an occasional narrow 
 passage or newel staircase. It was not till Inigo Jones introduced an 
 entirely new system of house design that the problem was squarely met 
 and the lines laid down on which modern house planning has proceeded 
 more or less steadily ever since. 
 
 Inconvenient, however, as some of these plans appear to be, the 
 ingenuity displayed is sometimes very great, more especially in the less 
 common examples and those eccentricities of jjlanning which were 
 probably either experimental or due to some caprice on the part of 
 the owner. Besides the quadrangular, the E and the H-shaped plans, 
 there are occasionally found houses planned as a solid square, such as 
 Barlborough (1583-4) and Bolsover (1613). The latter may have been 
 due to a desire to fit the house to the lines of the Norman keep, as is 
 suggested by Mr. Gotch, or may have been suggested by Barlborough. 
 The hall is reached by a small corridor from the porch, and the principal 
 stairs occupy a square tower in one corner on the opposite side to the 
 porch. The plan is picturesque, but exceedingly inconvenient. Barl- 
 borough Hall in Derbyshire was built by Francis Rodes in 1583-4. 
 Considering the date, the plan is very remarkable. The kitchen and 
 offices were placed on the ground floor, and the hall and principal living 
 rooms on the floor above ; a small staircase led up from the kitchen, but 
 the chief entrance to the principal floor was reached by a long external 
 flight of stairs. In the centre of the house was a small court, or rather, 
 well, for purposes of light and air, measuring about 26 feet by 22 feet.' 
 The noticeable point in this plan is that the architect has simply turned 
 his back on the traditional arrangement of the hall as a common living 
 room, dividing the offices from the rooms of the family. The hall here 
 is planned specifically as an entrance hall, and nothing more, with the 
 great dining chamber beyond it, the latter having separate access from 
 the hall and from the stairs from the kitchen. The plan has a singularly 
 modern feeling, and though it can be traced to the courtyard tyjDC, the 
 court here is little more than a well, and we get an approximation to the 
 
 ' This has since been covered in and converted into the principal staircase.
 
 SIXTEEN 111 CENTURY llOUSIi PLANNING 
 
 11 
 
 next advance in planning, when architects grasped the idea of combining 
 under one roof two or more sets of rooms, with a corridor between. 
 
 There is no doubt that the house builders of the latter part of the 
 sixteenth century were quite as fond of experiments in [jlanning as they 
 were of unholy and inordinate combinations of the orders. The sym- 
 bolical plans of Longford Castle and the triangular lodge at Rushton 
 Hall are instances in point. Both plans seem to have been intended 
 
 ^f^iUy' Jte Aw^-twv^ st^ .i f^^^'- Ums 
 
 GARDEN HOUSE AT AMESBURY. 
 
 as an exposition in stone of the doctrine of the Trinity. A key plan is 
 attached to the plan of Longford Castle in the Soane Collection, which 
 is almost exactly similar to a diagram given in Sir John Peshall's edition 
 of Wood's "Athena;," 1773, as then existing in one of the windows of 
 St. Peter's Church, Oxford. This diagram has words running to the 
 various points, which concisely state the doctrine of the Trinity. The 
 resemblance to the plan is singular, and whether the key plan attached to 
 the drawing in the Soane Collection is merely an ingenious after-thought
 
 78 RENAISSANCE ARCl I ITECTU RIC IN ENGLAND 
 
 of some seventeenth century mystic, or actually represents the intention 
 of the original designer, it would have been (juite in accordance with 
 certain phases of thought in the early part of the seventeenth century to 
 make a house or a building symbolical of some recondite idea. There 
 can be no doubt that such was the intention of Sir Thomas Tresham 
 when he built the triangular lodge at Rushton. The curious garden 
 house at Amesbury, designed on a system of pentagons, is another 
 instance.' In Northamptonshire there are examples of buildings 
 planned as a cross, such as Gayton Manor House and Lyveden new 
 building ; but these, and other vagaries of planning, have mainly an 
 archaeological interest, and had little or no influence on the develop- 
 ment of English house planning. 
 
 r5y the end of the sixteenth cenlur)- the idea of the hall as a common 
 living room was going out of fashion." It was 
 used for Christmas revels and great entertain- 
 ments, but the master and mistress had their 
 private dining-room, and even as early as 1460 
 a " privy-parlour " was attached to the hall at 
 Wanswell Court in Gloucestershire. More- 
 over, the long galleries, characteristic of the 
 Elizabethan house, tended to diminish the im- 
 portance of the hall, and the latter gradually 
 came to be used rather as a means of com- 
 munication between the different parts of the 
 house than as a place in which the household 
 lived. What the hall lost in importance the 
 grand staircase gained. The fact that the gallery and the chief living 
 rooms of the house were on the upper floors suggested that the staircase 
 should become one of the most important features of the house, and the 
 fancy of the Elizabethan nobleman indulged itself here in a profusion of-- 
 carving, mouldings, balusters, and plaster work, which remain as monu- 
 mental evidence of their exuberant taste in ornament. 
 
 The' long gallery, the great staircase, and a superabundance of 
 windows were the main contributions of the sixteenth century to 
 domestic architecture. The gallery was placed on the upper floor and 
 usually ran the whole length of the house or of one side of the court. 
 
 ' It is built of stone and dressed flints. Over the entrance is inscribed " Diana her 
 house 1600." 
 
 " See plan on page 79, in which a dining parlour and a winter parlour are provided, 
 in addition to the hall. 
 
 PLAN OF GARDEN HOUSE AT 
 AMESDUKV.
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY HOUSE I'LAXXING 
 
 79 
 
 The original idea must have been little more than an inclosed walk for 
 use in bad weather. Professor Willis considered it to be directly 
 derived from the mcdia-val cloister. Beyond, however, a possible 
 identity of Innclion, it is (h'tlH-nlt to s(;e any connection between tlv 
 two, and It is inon- prolialilc tliat the L^allcrv was siiggestt'd 1)\- the long 
 covered pas.sage devised for internal coiumunication !)(-tw(;en the various 
 parts of the house. Probably the earliest instance was the gallery at 
 Hampton Court. This was begun by Wolsey, and was completed in 
 1536. It was destroyed by Wren in 1689. It measured 180 ft. long by 
 
 A. I )yning p.irlour. 
 
 P.. Haull.'^ 
 
 c. Wynter parlour. 
 
 n. Kytchen. 
 
 E. I'astry. 
 
 F. Larder. 
 
 c. Woodyard. 
 
 H. Garden 
 I. Orchard. 
 K. Court. 
 
 25 ft. broad, and had a large semicircular bay in the centre. Mario 
 Savorgnano,' a Venetian who visited England about the date of this 
 building, was struck by these galleries, "which are long porticoes or 
 halls, without chambers, with windows on each side, looking on gardens 
 or rivers, the ceilings being marvellously wrought in stone with gold, 
 and the wainscot of carved wood representing a thousand beautiful 
 figures." No galleries of this date with stone roofs e.xist, and the writer 
 must have mistaken plaster for stone. Later in the century galleries 
 
 ' Quoted by Mr. Law in his "History of Hampton Court.'' Calendar of Venetian State 
 Papers, 1527-1533, No. 688.
 
 8o RENAISSANCE A RCl 11 ll'C TU Rli IN ENGLAND 
 
 were nearly always provided, even in moderate sizetl houses. The 
 gallery at Audley End (destroyed in the last ccntur)), which John 
 Evelyn pronovuiced to be "most cheerful, and one of the best in 
 England," measured 226 ft. long 1)\ j; j ft. \\ i<K- antl 24 ft. higli. Tlu; gallery 
 at Montacutc is 170 ft. long by 20 it. 6 in. wide, and runs die whole 
 length of the building, with semicircular oric-Is al each end. The 
 gallery at Hardwick (1590-1597) measures 166 ft. long, 22 ft. 5 in. wide, 
 and 26 ft. high ; that at Parham in Sussex, 1 60 ft. b)- 1 8 ft. by 1 3 ft. high ; 
 the gallery at Bolsover (1629) was 220 ft. long ; and the plan of th(; old 
 Royal House at Ampthill, in the Soane Collection, .shows a gallery 
 243 ft. long and 26 ft. wide. Of smaller galleries that at Charlton in 
 Wiltshire measures about 130 ft. by 22 ft. ; and the gallery at Haddon 
 Hall 109 ft. by 18 ft. wide. The gallery of Queen's College, Cambridge 
 (1537- 1 541), measures 80 ft. long by 12 ft. broad by 9 ft. high ; that of 
 St. John's, Cambridge, is now 93 ft. long, but was originally 148 ft., with 
 an oriel at one end. This formed part of the building by Simons and 
 Wigge. The gallery of Asdey Hall, near Chorley in Lancashire, 
 measures 72 ft. by 12 ft. 6 in. by 9 ft. high ; that of IMoreton Hall 
 (1559) 75 ft. by 12 ft. 6 in. Oriel windows were commonly placed at 
 the ends, and two or more bays at the sides, carried up from the ground 
 floor ; where the gallery was open on both sides, the bays, as a rule, 
 were not set opposite each other. The sides were wainscoted, and the 
 ceilings, whether flat, or coved, or segmental, were usually enriched 
 with elaborate plaster work. 
 
 At Old Wimbledon House, built by Sir Thomas Cecil in 1588, and 
 destroyed by the Duchess of Marlborough, there were two galleries, 
 which are described in the survey of the Commissioners of 1649. One 
 was of stone, 108 ft. long, " seeled over head (with parge work), pillored 
 and arched with gray marble, waynscotted round with oak, varnished 
 with green and spotted with stars of gold." The great gallery on the 
 second floor was 109 ft. 8 in. long and 21 ft. i in. wide, "floored with 
 cedar boards, casting a pleasant smell, seeled and bordered with fret 
 work well wrought, very well lighted, and waynscotted round with well- 
 wrought oak, 13 ft. 6 in. high, garnished with fillets of gould on the 
 pillars, and Starrs and cross-patches on the panes, in the middle whereof 
 is a very fayre and large chimney piece of black and white marble, 
 engraved with coates of arms, adorned with several curious and ,well 
 guilded statues of alabaster, with a foot pace of black and white 
 marble." 
 
 The galleries and principal rooms in the greater houses were
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY IIOUSI- PLANNING 
 
 8i 
 
 profusely decorated with colour. Wallop, writing to Henry VI H.,' 
 November 17th, 1540, mentions that F"rancis I. had told him that he 
 " heard saye that your majestic did use much gilding in your said houses, 
 and especially in the rooffs, and that he in his building used little or none," 
 preferring the natural colours of wood, such as ebony, brasel wood, etc., 
 as " more rich than gilding, and more durable." " The antike work," 
 that is, modelled ornament, at Hampton Court, was covered with gold 
 and byse (light blue). The ceiling of the hall at Theobalds was decorated 
 
 THORNTON COLLEGE, SIR VINCENT SKYNNER'S. 
 SECOND STOREY, SHOWINO THE GALLERY. (SOANE COLLECTION.) 
 
 with the signs of the zodiac, and by means of some ingenious mechanism 
 the sun performed its course across the ceiling, and the stars came 
 out at night. Another hall at Theobalds was painted with designs of 
 the towns, mountains, and rivers of England ; and most of the ceilings 
 were painted blue, with gilt roses. At Boughton Malherbe in Kent (1573), 
 there were, till recently, considerable remains of red, blue, and yellow 
 colour on the plaster work, and heraldic bearings were emblazoned to the 
 full wherever used. Perhaps the most remarkable example of coloureil 
 
 ' "State Papers," Henry \I1I., Yiii. 523. 
 M
 
 82 RENAISSANCE ARCl I IT I'.CTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 and modelled plaster work in England is the exceedingly beautiful frieze 
 in the state room at Hardwick Hall. The taste, however, for colour 
 decoration, as opposed to painters' painting, seems to have lost ground 
 in the first half of the seventeenth century. The plaster work of about 
 that date, as used by Inigo Jones, was not as a rule coloured at all. 
 Instead of modelled and coloured plaster, large panels of painted 
 allegorical figures became the accepted method of decorating interiors ; 
 and it is a fact which throws a suggestive side-light on the brotherhood 
 of the arts, that in proportion as the painters advance, the other arts 
 have to quit the field. The taste was lost for that exquisite craftsman- 
 ship which made the rooms of Henry VIII.'s palaces the admiration 
 even of the fastidious Venetians ; and with it disappeared that fine sense 
 of decoration which was satisfied with the harmonies of the tapestries 
 of Hardwick, and with the quiet play of light and colour over the 
 soft modelled surface of its plaster work. The magnificent audacity of 
 Rubens's brushwork seems to have bewitched the taste of the Court. 
 It was forgotten that each art has its limits, and not yet realized that 
 the instinct of the painter, in so far as it is simply graphic, is the most 
 insidious enemy of architecture. Though Rubens's genius could carry 
 all before it. Nemesis was not slow to follow in the blatant allegories 
 of \^errio and Laguerre, and the rapid degeneration from their art to 
 the pitiful nonsense of Kent and Zucchi, and Angelica Kauffmann, in 
 the following century. 
 
 The ofreat staircase, with its carved oak newels, is another familiar 
 feature of sixteenth and early seventeenth century domestic work. 
 The abandonment of the stone staircase in favour of wooden stairs of 
 twice the width, easier ascent, and adequate light, shows the higher 
 standard of comfort which accompanied the growing wealth of England. 
 Stone ceased to be used as the inevitable material for staircases, and 
 wooden stairs of solid and elaborate construction were built in most new 
 houses, and were often added to old ones. The position of the stair- 
 case varied. It was usually in close proximity to the hall, but the 
 use of the hall as a living room was still sufficiently important to keep 
 the staircase distinct from the hall. At Littlecote the main staircase 
 is to the right of the hall as you enter, and separated from it by 
 the entrance passage. At Canons Ashby the staircase is to the right 
 hand further corner of the hall ; but it was more commonly placed 
 to the left of the hall as you entered, as at Aston Hall, Hatfield, 
 and Sydenham. At Fountains Hall there are two staircases, placed 
 in square projecting bays at the back of the hall ; and at Godinton
 
 Face p. S2. 
 
 NEWEL, HATFIELD HOUSE.
 
 1 
 
 WVMBLEDON. 
 
 'An house standiiii' on vc vdii of an hie hill 
 
 A. Great chamber above. 
 
 i;. Chapel. 
 
 c. Garden. 
 DD. This wall coped with stone leaning height. 
 E E. This wall coped with brick leaning height.
 
 84 RICNAISSANCK A RCl 1 1 IIX'TU RE IX ENGLAND 
 
 in Kent the staircase is placed in a square bay at the back, and separated 
 from the hall by an open wooden screen. Blickling- is a somewhat 
 unusual example : the hall and staircase are placed in the central 
 range that divides the two courts from each other, and instead of being 
 detached from the hall a broad llight of stairs leads directly out of 
 it to the half landing, and thence by returning flights on either 
 hand bringing up on the first floor landing. Of the treatment of the 
 stairs in detail there were two main variations. First, there were the 
 cases built in a quadrangular compartment, with a well of con- 
 siderable size in the centre, and detached newels, as at Aston Hall 
 (1618-1635) and Hatfield (1607-1611); secondly, the staircase built in 
 narrow oblong spaces, with either single newels, or newels coupled 
 together with wooden arches or brackets, as at Burton Agnes ( 1 602-1 610), 
 Audley End, Cranborne, and the single newel staircase of Sydenham. 
 The newels and strings were elaborately carved, and small figures 
 instead of terminals were often placed on the newels, as at Hatfield 
 and Blickling,' and the example from the old college at Wye in Kent. 
 However picturesque these staircases may be, and in spite of the 
 historical interest of their associations and vicissitudes, their artistic 
 value is small. In the larger examples, every inch of the newels, 
 strings, and balusters, is covered with carving or mouldings : the 
 carving is ill-considered, and seldom shows much regard for the structural 
 intention of the member it decorates. The whole work shows an evident 
 inability in the designer either to stay his hand or to conceive of a large 
 architectural effect, apart from elaborate details. It is probably this 
 absence of idea, this entire confidence in mere detail for effect, that has 
 commended this particular form of staircase as an easy model to the 
 modern copyist. No considerable deviation was made from it till the 
 introduction of Palladianism by Inigo Jones more or less revolutionized 
 buildino- desicrn in England. 
 
 The architecture of the hundred years, from 1520 to 1620, was in 
 fact tentative. The builders were losing their old tradition, and had 
 not yet replaced it by a new one, and on the other hand a certain 
 sense of expansion and intellectual enfranchisement in the air at the 
 time tempted them to bold experiments for which they were ill- 
 equipped. So long as they adhered to jilain building their work was 
 admirable, but directly they attempted what they probably considered 
 
 ' It is evident, however, from the costumes, that several of the figures at BHckling 
 were added later.
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY HOUSE PLANNING 85 
 
 to be serious art they were on uncertain ground, and the result might 
 be an elaborate and costly building, but it was seldom architecture. 
 The specialization of building had already begun : the builder, instead 
 of being an artist who built and designed in one and the same process, 
 
 °F 
 
 3. 
 
 A. Gallery above loo feet. 
 
 B. Hall — 35 feet to the sills of the windows 
 c. Pantry. 
 
 D. Buttery. 
 
 WOI.L.\TON H.MX. (SOANE COLLECTION.) 
 
 E. Kytchen under the servery. 
 
 F F. Porter's lodgings. 
 G. Orchard heares. 
 H. Garden heares. 
 
 was already becoming a person who built buildings, and then thought 
 it necessary to adorn them with ornamentation borrowed at random. 
 This conclusion is borne out not only by the buildings themselves, but
 
 86 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 by the rapid increase in architectural treatises and pattern books, a 
 sure sign of the increased demand for novelty, and of the recognized 
 inability of the builder to meet it. Soon after the middle of the 
 sixteenth century, a vague consciousness of the orders, as some terrible 
 mystery at the root of all architecture, had begun to present itself to the 
 mind of the English builder-designer. It is indeed at once comic and 
 pathetic to think of some good mason, who could build a building well, 
 but sign his name with difficulty, wrestling laboriously with all the 
 intricate terminology involved in the system of the five orders, as 
 elaborated by scholarly Italians. 
 
 The first systematic attempt to deal with architecture as a fine art 
 was John Shute's " First and Chief Grounds of Architecture," published 
 in 1563. Dr. Andrew Boord, who died in 1549, had already written 
 " A Boke for to lerne a man to be wyse in buildyng of his house for the 
 health of his body, i to holde ciuiyetncss for the helth of his soule 
 and body. The Boke for a good husband to lerne." Boord describes 
 generally the arrangements of the house of the time (which, he takes it 
 for granted, is to be " quadryngall "), but, much in the manner of Bacon's 
 subsequent essay, makes no attempt to treat of architecture as the art 
 of beautiful building, and only professes to deal with his subject as a 
 layman. John Shute's "First and Chief Grounds of Architecture" 
 was an attempt to handle the matter from a technical standpoint, and 
 with such special knowledge as the writer had gained by personal study 
 in Italy. Shute, who is described as a painter and architect, was one 
 of the first English architects to study in Italy, and he mentions 
 incidentally that " there are many which name this order of building to 
 be of the new fashion." In the dedication of his book he says that he 
 was sent to Italy by the Duke of Northumberland about 1550, "to 
 confer with the doings of the skilful masters in architecture, and also to 
 view such ancient monuments hereof as are yet extant." The notes 
 which he made were submitted by the Duke of Northumberland to 
 Edward VI., and were finally published by Shute in 1563 in a collected 
 form, consisting of translations from Vitruvius, with extracts from 
 Sebastian Serlio and Philander, and observations made by Shute him- 
 self in Italy. The book contains an account of the five orders, with 
 rules for their proportions and use, and diagrams. Subsequent editions 
 appeared in 1579 and 15S4, but only two copies of the first edition are 
 known to exist. Shute died in 1563. His work is by no means 
 original, being, in fact, mainly a series of translations from Vitruvius ; 
 but it is interesting in the quaintness of its style, as, for instance,
 
 PLAN AND ELEVATION FROM SOANE COLLECTION.
 
 88 RF.NAISSANCE ARCHITECTURK IN ENGLAND 
 
 in this admirable paraphrase of the famous passage in \^itnivius, ncc 
 ninsiats u/ /Irixioxciuis scd noii ai)iousos, ncc picto- ut ApcUcs,scd graphidis 
 non Impei'ittis, etc. Here is Siiute on architecture : " Surely such is 
 the amplitude and largeness, I may well say perfection of this facultie, 
 that without some acquaintance with many other artes ye shall not 
 enter into ye deepe secrets ... by reason of its kinship to the mathe- 
 matical it is the basis of all the arts ... so that without a meane 
 acquaintance or understanding in it, neyther paynters, masons, gold- 
 smyths, embroiderers, carvers, joyners, glasyers, gravers in all manner 
 of metals, and divers others more can obtayne any worthy praise at all 
 ... all these arts are only branches of that aforesaid stock." The 
 next English treatise was Richard Haydocke's " Tracte containing the 
 arts of curious paintinge, carvinge and buildinge," translated from 
 Lomazzo's treatise. This was printed at Oxford in 1598, and is 
 described as " Englished by R. H., student in physick." Haydocke, 
 who was educated at Winchester, and a fellow of New College, refers 
 to Shute as a painter in tempera. His translation deals with the 
 orders in much the same manner as Shute's " F"irst and Chief Grounds." 
 More important than either of these books was the translation of 
 Serlio's five books on architecture, translated from Italian into Dutch, 
 and from Dutch into Englisli, " at the charges of Robert Peake, book- 
 seller," in 1611. The book is folio, printed partly in black letter and 
 partly in Roman type, with fine illustrations taken from the Italian 
 original. The first book deals with geometry, the second with per- 
 spective, the third with " Antiquity," very fully illustrated, the fourth 
 with the orders in detail, the fifth with " diverse formes of Temples." 
 This translation is important in the development of English Renaissance 
 architecture. It must have largely extended the knowledge of genuine 
 Italian detail, and helped to put a stop to the disastrous aberrations 
 introduced by the German pattern books, which pretty well held the 
 field from the middle of the sixteenth century till the time of Inigo 
 Jones. 
 
 The best known of these German treatises are Hans Bloome's 
 folio on the five orders, published at Zurich, 1550, and translated in 
 London, 1608; Vriese's " Perspective," 1559; "F"ountains," 1568; "Archi- 
 tectura," Antwerp, 1577; Rivius' " Oder Architectur aller Furnensten 
 Baukunst," Basle, 1582, of whom Wotton says that, besides his notes 
 on Vitruvius, he published " the most elaborate translation that I think 
 is extant in any vulgar speech of the world ; " and Wendel Dietterlin's 
 " De Ouinque Columnarum," etc., 1593, and " Architectura," 1594.
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY HOUSE PLAXXIXG 89 
 
 Dietterlin was a mason of Strasbiirg; his book on architecture contains 
 a few exp]anator\- remarks, and thirty-nine plates illiistratinf( the five 
 
 
 mMi)lllilli:%. 
 
 rt^X;- ''/i II ;■ ' ill I I 
 
 :~^^:M^'%'Miiijiiii.,! 
 
 I' 
 
 a«>v« >a/^ cvtA*<, ^vw|- 
 
 STAIRS, WNF, CdllKia-:, KK.NI. 
 
 orders, accordinsr to Dietterlin's notion of them, with a good deal ol 
 bizarre and heterogeneous ornament. The designs are freely drawn, but
 
 90 KI'IXAISS.WCI". AKCIII riiCTURI' 1\ KNGLAXD 
 
 none of them show any refinement, and the majority are extraordinarily 
 ugly. Their relation to what is usually called Elizabethan work is 
 clear. Most of the ornamentation of buildings erected between 1550 
 and 1610 was borrowed directly from the illustrations to these publica- 
 tions, though here and there may be found details of much refinement, 
 evidently based on Italian examples. Fortunately this German fashion 
 was abandoned as easily as it was assumed ; and the value of Peake's 
 translation was that it put within the reach of English designers some 
 account of Italian architecture, drawn direct from the fountain head, and 
 not filtered through the impurities of German taste. In 161 5 Walter 
 Gidde published his " Booke of Sundry draughts,"' "principally serving 
 for Glasiers and not impertinent for Plasterers and Gardeners, besides 
 .Sundr)- otlu.T professions." This book was reprinted by Henry Shaw 
 in 1848. It is practically a pattern book of designs for glazing, and a 
 builder's price book, "giving choice to the Builder, both for price and 
 draught of work, which by no understanding can the Glasyer so securelj- 
 demonstrate his feat as by having his examples of Draught," and so on, 
 for Gidde, having got into a sentence, finds very great difficulty in getting 
 out of it. Bacon's essay is too well known to need description. 
 Scarcely inferior in literary charm, and far more valuable in its sound 
 sense and practical insight into the subject is " The Elements of 
 Architecture, collected by Henry Wotton, Knight, from the best authors 
 and examples," published in 1624. This is not a mere precis of 
 Vitruvius, but an attempt by an amateur of much experience to set 
 down concisely the result of his reading and observations on architecture 
 in Italy. Wotton never affects to be an authority on the subject. He 
 calls himself a "speculative writer," and "a plain Kentishman ;" details 
 " must be committed to the sagacity of the architect ; " and all he offers 
 is " the wisdom of the ancients, with such reasonable notes of his own 
 as are likely to help his fellows and countrymen." Wotton's work, 
 however, is truly original. He classifies his subject with precision, and, 
 though fully alive to the necessity for scholarship in architecture, he 
 never lost sight of the basis of architecture in reasonable building. His 
 robust common sense declined to be daunted by the pedantry of pro- 
 fessors, " as if the very terms of architraves and friezes and cornices, 
 and the like, were enough to graduate a master of this art." The book 
 begins with a statement of the object of architecture, namely, " to build 
 well, both for commoditie, firmness, and Delight." The site must be 
 chosen with care and reason, and in the placing of the parts, use is to 
 be followed. Tims, " the Principle chambers of Delight, all studies and
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTURY HOUSE PLANNING 
 
 91 
 
 Libraries" should face east, " for the morning is a friend to the Muses." 
 Offices which require warmth (in which, by a curious sUp, he includes 
 
 
 STAIRCASE TO HOUSF. IX WHITECROSS STREET AS EXISTINC. IX 18S8. 
 
 the kitchen) should face south ; those which have to be cool, north. In 
 regard to actual building, the two points to be considered are— first, the 
 materials ; secondly, their use. The knowledge of materials is very
 
 92 RENAISSANCE ARCl 1 riEC'll! KIC IN ENGLAND 
 
 necessary, but Wotton, having in his consciousness the Italians, wlu) 
 were scholars first and architects afterwards, inclines to think that this 
 knowledge is rather the business of the ""officinator," or clerk of the 
 works. As to the form or disposition of materials, circular plans should 
 be avoided, "as of all most chargeable" and "fanciful figures, such as 
 pentagons, and the like, do more aim at rarity than conunoditie" (a sly 
 hit at Sir Thomas Tresham). Enormous heights of six or seven storeys 
 are on no account to be allowed. Entering into detail, Wotton then deals 
 in order with foundations, walls, openings, compartition {plan and 
 elevation), and roofs. For foundations he quotes Vitruvius, the practice 
 of the Italians, rules of Philibert de I'Orme, and Palladio's rule that they 
 should be carried down one-sixth of the total height of the building. 
 Under the head of walls he includes piers or pillars, which gives him 
 occasion for a general discourse on the five orders and their usual 
 proportions. He condemns " licentious inventions of wreathed and 
 vined and figured columns," and " the practice, grown too familiar, of 
 making pillars swell in the middle as if they were sick of some Tympanie 
 or Dropsie." The entasis to which Wotton refers was often used at 
 the time in complete ignorance of its true intention; and, in fact, owing 
 to a misunderstanding of Alberti's, there was some authority for its 
 misuse even among the Italians ; but if Wotton had been familiar with 
 Greek architecture he would hardly have written so disrespectfully of 
 this most delicate refinement of abstract form. Though eifted with 
 sound sense and considerable power of observation, Wotton was quite 
 uncritical in regard to history. For instance, in his next section, dealing 
 with arches, he says that three-centred or four-centred arches " ought to 
 be exiled from judicious eyes, and left to their first inventors, the Goths 
 or Lombards, among other reliques of that barbarous age." In point of 
 fact the four-centred arch had only come into use about 150 years 
 before Wotton wrote. As to openings, notes from Alberti and 
 Vitruvius are given on doors and windows, and some "vulgar cautions" 
 in regard to staircases, as that they should have liberal light, plenty of 
 headway, half paces at comfortable intervals, and a fair width— say 10 
 feet — the treads to be 12 to 18 inches wide, with 6-inch risers. Chimneys 
 and drains are classified under openings. Some practical remarks as to 
 smoky chimneys are quoted from De I'Orme, and it is suggested that 
 drains should be put in the lowest part of the foundations, with secret 
 shafts in the walls for ventilation, "to the wild air aloft." 
 
 Wotton's remarks on "compartition," that is planning, are interest- 
 ing, in view of the change which was shortly to be introduced from
 
 STAIRCASE AT HA\\KlirRsr, KI.Nl.
 
 94 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Italy into the system of English house-planning. He describes the 
 Italian plan of collecting the offices in a basement, with the principal 
 rooms on the floors above, and further of arranging the rooms en suite. 
 He points out several disadvantages of this, as, for instance, that the 
 butteries and kitchen would be too far removed from the dining place, 
 the rooms would be draughty, and there would be very little accommo- 
 dation for guests. Dealing with " lodging chambers," he takes leave 
 to reproach a fashion prevalent in Italy, namely, " that they so cast 
 their partitions as when all doors were open a man may see through the 
 whole house, which doth necessarily put an intolerable servitude upon 
 all the chambers save the inmost, where none can arrive but through 
 the rest." Notwithstanding Wotton's protest, the very plan which he 
 condemns "as unsuitable to the natural hospitality of England," became 
 the established practice within a few years of his death. There is much 
 good sense in Wotton's criticism, but it is evident that, though fully 
 sensible of the beauty of Italian architecture, he regarded it merely as an 
 affair of detail, to be plastered on to the traditional plan, where a fine 
 porch or a showy facade were considered desirable. i''rom insufficient 
 acquaintance with the practical conditions of architecture, he did not 
 know that a given plan necessitates a particular treatment. Inigo 
 Jones was the first English architect to realize that, if justice was to be 
 done to Italian architecture, plan and elevation must go together as a 
 homogeneous whole. A few remarks on roof coverings complete the first 
 part of Wotton's treatise. The second part deals briefiy, but shrewdly, 
 with the ornaments within and without the building, painting and 
 sculpture, and their allied arts, mosaic, and plaster work. Wotton would 
 admit no painting outside, except in black and white, and figures at 
 least 9 or lo feet high. He seems to have had a wholesome fear 
 of the \-agaries of the decorator, and intended his limitations to be 
 more or less prohibitive. As to "grotesques" or " antique work," he 
 would confine "such medley and motley designs" to friezes and borders. 
 For internal decorations, he still contemplated pictures rather than 
 frescoes, and offers as rules: (i) That no room be furnished with too 
 many ; (2) that rooms lighted at both ends, or double-lighted, are bad 
 for pictures ; (3) that the point of sight intended by the painter should 
 be considered; (4) that pictures be arranged in rooms according to their 
 subject. Sculpture should be used with reserve and regard to its 
 position. In regard to proportion in general, Wotton adds, " Let me 
 only note this, that the least error or offence that can be committed 
 ao-ainst sight is excess of height, yet that fault is nowhere of small
 
 SIXTEENTH CENTTRY HOUSE PLANNING 
 
 95 
 
 importance, because it is the greatest offence against the purse." 
 Wotton was the first English writer to attempt a practical manual of 
 architecture ; and, on the whole, and within his very limited scope, he 
 succeeded better in his attempt than any subsequent writer. The 
 
 S'lAlK-^, t'HRIM ^ ( (ll.l.l-.l.h-. (_ \MI!Klln,l:. 
 
 writers of the Restoration tended to become entirely academical, without 
 the redeeming humour and penetration of this plainspoken, keen-witted 
 Englishman.' 
 
 ' For the convenience of the reader I give the dates of tlie principal architectural 
 treatises published in Italy before the time of Inigo Jones.
 
 96 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Editions of Vitruvius, Latin Text. 
 
 " Editio princeps," Rome, about i486, printed by Cieorge Herolt undor the supervision 
 of John Sulpitius. Second edition, 1496. 
 
 Next edition, Florence, 1496, with a '" pancpistcmon " and an essay entitled " Lamia," 
 by Politian. 
 
 Next edition, Venice, 1497. Jocundus' edition, Venice, 1511, the first with wood- 
 cuts. Small edition of the same, called the Oiunta edition, 1513 ; and reprint of same at 
 Florence, 1522. 
 
 Translations and Commentaries on \'itruvius. l-'irst translation by Cresar Cffisarianus, 
 Como, 1521, with plates. 
 
 1544, Philander's notes, published at Rome. The 1-yons edition of 1552 was brought 
 out under Philander's own directions ; the edition of 1586 has good but rather florid illus- 
 trations. Daniel Barbaro's Commentaries, published at Venice, 1567, with excellent 
 woodcuts. Barbaro was Venetian Ambassador to England, 1 548-1 550. Fresh editions 
 were published in 1584, 1629, and 1641. 
 
 Vitruvius was also translated by Jan Martin, Paris, 1547, by Rivius, Nuremberg, 
 1548, and into Spanish, 1602. A list of subsequent editions of \'itruvius will be found in 
 Gwilt's translation. 
 
 Othkr Treatises. 
 
 Alberti's " Architettura," Florence, 1485. 
 
 Seb. Serlio, "Architettura," Venice and Bologna, 1540; Paris, 1545 ; London, 1611. 
 "Perspectiva," 1547. 
 
 Antonio L'ibacco, " Apiiartenente all' architettura," etc., Rome, 1552. 
 
 Pietro Cataneo, "i quattro primo libri d'architettura,"' etc., \'enice, 1554. 
 
 Vignola, " Le due Regole delli A', ordini d'architettura," Siena, 1563. 
 
 A. Palladio, "i quattro libri dell' Architettura,'' \'enicc, 1570 : Paris, 1642 ; London, 
 1663. 
 
 Lomazzo, "Trattato, dell' arte, della Pittura, scultura, e architettura," etc., Milan, 1588. 
 
 Scamozzi, "L'idea dell' architettura Universale," A'enice, 1615. 
 
 French Writers. 
 Philander, "Notes on \itruvius," Lyons, 1552. (See above.) 
 Jean Cousin, "Perspective," Paris, 1560. 
 
 Philibert de I'Orme, " Nouvelles inventions," Paris, 1561. " Le Premier Tome de 
 I'architecture," Paris, 1568. 
 
 Jean Bullant, " Regie Gene'rale d'architecture," 1564. 
 
 Jacques Androuet de Cerceau, " Desplus excellens Bastiments," Paris, 1576 and 1579. 
 
 Tulien Mauclerc, " Le premier Livre d'architecture, " Rochelle, 1600.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Inigo Jones. 
 
 Inigo Jones was born on July 15th, 1573, in the parish of St. Bartholo- 
 mew's, Sniithfield. His father, also named Inigo Jones, was a cloth- 
 worker, and though his name does not occur in the Freedom Book of 
 the Clothworkers' Company, I\Ir. Home' suspects that the name Hugo 
 Jones, entered in 1569, is probably a clerical error for Inigo. The 
 father was not in very prosperous circumstances, as appears not only 
 from his suit in the Court of Requests, 1589, in regard to the repay- 
 ment of a loan, but more especially from his will, dated 1596, whereby 
 he left to his son Inigo, and his three daughters, Joane, Judith, and 
 Mary, "all the debtes, Billes, Bondes, and Bookes that I leave in 
 wrytinge to receave and to paye my debtes so farre forth as they 
 maie be receaved." It would seem from this that he left little or no 
 ready money to his children, and no light is thrown on the education 
 of his son, and it is not known by what means he was enabled to travel 
 and to reside in Italy, as he certainly did between the date of his father's 
 death and the year 1604. 
 
 Little in fact is known of the first thirty years of Inigo Jones's life. 
 The anonymous memoir prefixed to "the Most Notable antiquity of 
 Great Britain, vulgarly called Stonehenge," etc., 1735, states that he 
 was "early distinguished by his inclination to drawing and design, and 
 w'as particularly taken notice of for his skill in the practice of landscape 
 painting." There is a picture attributed to him at Chiswick, a classical 
 landscape, not unlike a Caspar Poussin, which shows some feeling for 
 style, and a considerable mastery of the brush, and among the drawings 
 at Chiswick there are some vigorous pen-and-ink sketches of landscapes 
 drawn for the scenery of masques. These, however, he more probably 
 made during his second journey to Italy ; and the only clue to his early 
 trainingisatradition which Vertueheard from Dr. Harwood, who received 
 
 ' I am indebted to Mr. Herbert Home for several particulars, hitherto unpublished 
 in regard to the life of Inigo Jones. 
 
 O
 
 98 RENAISSANCI-: ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 it of Sir Christopher Wren, th.it Iniyo Jones was apprenticed to a joiner 
 in St. Paul's Churchyard, a tradition wliich is supported by Ben Jonson's 
 allusions to his humble antecedents : 
 
 "And he nani'd me In-and-Inn Medlay: which serves 
 
 A joiner's craft, because that we do la)- 
 
 Things in and in, in our work. But I am truly 
 
 Architectonicus Professor rather.: 
 
 That is, as one would zay, an architect." — 
 
 Tale of a Tub, Act IV., Scene i. 
 
 Towards the end of the si.\teenth century he paid his first visit to 
 Italy. The first paragraph of his " Stonehenge Restored" (1655) 
 opens with th(> words " Being naturally inclined in ni)- younger years 
 to study the arts of design, I passed into foreign parts to converse with 
 the great masters thereof in Italy." The anonymous memoir says that 
 " he travelled over Italy and the politer parts of Europe," at the expense 
 of William, Earl of Pembroke, Sir Christopher Wren says, of the Earl 
 of Arundel. Both these noblemen employed him on his second journey, 
 but their connection with the first is uncertain. In the " Vindication of 
 Stonehenge Restored" (1665) Webb states, that " Christianus IV., 
 King of Denmark, first engrossed him to himself, sending for him out 
 of Italy, where, especially at Venice, he had many years resided ;" and 
 there is a tradition that while in the service of the Danish Court, he 
 designed several important buildings, such as the Castle of Fredericks- 
 borg, the Rosenberg Palace, and the Bourse at Copenhagen. There are, 
 however, several suspicious points about this story. Andersen Feldborg ' 
 ascribed the design of Fredericksborg to Inigo Jones on the ground of 
 its resemblance to the inner quadrangle of St. John's, Oxford, and to 
 Heriot's Hospital. In point of fact there is little reason to suppose that 
 Jones had anything to do with either St, John's or Heriot's Hospital, 
 and there is very little resemblance between the three buildings. The 
 Fredericksborg Castle is in much the same manner as Cronenburg 
 Castle, of which the architect was a certain G. F. Stahlmann, as 
 appears from two drawings at Chiswick. In one point Webb's account 
 is clearly inaccurate. He says that Inigo Jones accompanied Christianus 
 to England in 1606, whereas it is known he was in England in 1604-5 I 
 for on Twelfth Night, 1605, " the Masque of Blacknesse," composed by 
 Ben Jonson, was performed at Whitehall, " of which the bodily part was 
 of Master Inigo Jones's design and art." At this time he would have 
 been thirty-one years of age ; if, therefore, as W^ebb states, he resided 
 
 ' " Denmark Delineated."
 
 INIGO JONES 99 
 
 many years in Italy before he was summoned by Christianiis, not many 
 years are available for his stay in Denmark. Webb wrote in a large 
 manner without any too particular regard for accuracy. At the same 
 time he would hardly have made an absolute misstatement of a fact 
 which must have been within the knowledge of his contemporaries, and 
 we may take it from his account that Jones was in the service of 
 the Danish Court for some time previous to 1604, but probably 
 was employed in a subordinate capacity, perhaps as draughtsman to 
 Christian, who had a weakness for designing himself. 
 
 It seems clear that when Inigo Jones returned to England in 1604 
 he had some reputation as a traveller, but was not yet known as an 
 architect. For instance, when in 1605 the University of Oxford 
 desired to entertain King James with three plays in the hall of Christ 
 Church, they obtained the assistance of two of "his Majesty's master 
 carpenters" and of the controller of his works for the construction of 
 the stage. "They also hired one Mr. Jones, a great Traveller, who 
 undertook to further them much, and furnish them with rare Devices, 
 but performed very little of that which was expected. He had for his 
 pains, as I heard it constantly reported, ^50." ' It is evident from the 
 account of the fee paid that Jones already enjoyed a considerable repu- 
 tation as a man of knowledge and resource, but there is no evidence 
 that he was employed on any building at all prior to his appointment as 
 Surveyor to Henry, Prince of Wales, in 16 10. Up to that date he 
 seems to have been regarded as a man of ready invention and versatile 
 capacity, and when he was not engaged in designing and superintend- 
 ing the scenery for the constant succession of masques at Court, he was 
 employed on miscellaneous duties, such as that of a King's Messenger. 
 Thus in 1609 he was employed to carry the King's letters into France. 
 After his appointment as Surveyor-General to Prince Henry in 1610, he 
 superintended certain repairs and alterations at St. James's, Richmond, 
 and Sheen, and in May, 161 1, together with Francis Carter, Prince 
 Henry's clerk of the works, he drew up an estimate "of the charge of 
 the pyling, plancking, and brickwork for the three islands at Rich- 
 mont," in order to carry out the design of Solomon de Caux, so that as 
 late as the middle of 161 1 it appears that he was not yet employed 
 purely and simply as an architect." Walpole's speculation that to the 
 
 ' As a matter of fact this was thu first occasion on which shifting scenery was used in 
 England. 
 
 - Mr. Home, who discovered this estimate, signed by Inigo Jones, and Francis 
 Carter and others, in the Record Office, has printed it in full in " The Hobby Horse '' for
 
 loo RENAISSANCE ARCH llEC r U RE IN ENGLAND 
 
 period between his first and second journeys to Italy are to be assigned 
 "those buildings of Inigo which are less pure, and border too much 
 upon that bastard style which one calls King James's Gothic," is not 
 sujjported b)' any evidence whatever. The earliest signed architectural 
 design by Inigo Jones in existence ' is dated 1616, and there are drawings 
 in the Worcester Library, dated 1617, for certain works in the Star 
 Chamber ; and the conclusion suggested by all the evidence at present 
 discovered is that he did not setde down to the practice of architecture 
 as his one absorbing art till after his retm-ii from his second visit to 
 Italy. 
 
 Meanwhile he had already established his position at Court. He 
 was on intimate terms with the Earl of Shaftesbury and other noble- 
 men, and with most of the men of letters of the time," who were mainly 
 dependent on him for the setting of their masques. The important 
 work done by Inigo Jones in this regard hardly belongs to a history of 
 architecture ; but the fact that the best part of his energies for nearly 
 ten years of his life (1604- 16 13) was devoted to designing for masques 
 is a sufficient reason for a short account of his work,'' and of the entirely 
 new departure which he introduced into stage scenery and management. 
 
 The masques played at Court and elsewhere in the early part 
 of the seventeenth century were on a scale of great magnificence. 
 The most brilliant noblemen and ladies of the Court were the 
 actors, and the pieces were mounted at prodigal cost. In the " Hue 
 and Cry after Cupid," by Ben Jonson, with scenery by Inigo Jones 
 (1608), the actors were such men as Lord Arundel, Lord Pembroke, 
 Lord Montgomery, and the IDuke of Lennox; and in 1630 the king 
 himself acted in the masque of " Love's Triumph through Callipolis," 
 and the queen returned the courtesy by acting the principal jjart in 
 the masque of " Chloridia " in the same year. Shirley's " Triumph of 
 Peace," presented by the Societies of the Middle and Inner Temple, 
 Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn, at Whitehall, on February 3rd, 1634, 
 
 October, 1893. Mr. Home says that he has been unable to discover any evidence that 
 Inigo Jones had carried out any considerable architectural work prior to the death of 
 Prince Henry in 161 2. 
 
 ' In the Duke of Devonshire's collection. 
 
 - I am indebted to Mr. Home for reference to a Latin poem by Tom Coryat de- 
 scribing a supper at the Mitre, where, among the list of distinguished guests, occurs, "nee 
 indoctus, nee profanus, Ignatius architectus." 
 
 ^ For more detailed information I must refer to Mr. Home's study of Inigo Jones in 
 "The Hobby Horse" for 1893 ct seq., and to three papers contributed by myself to "The 
 Portfolio" in 1889.
 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 o
 
 102 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 was estimated by Whitelock, a contemporary, to have cost _;^ 20,000. 
 A good deal of this money went on sumptuous dresses, usually dcsi^^ned 
 by Inigo Jones, but the greater part must have been spent on the 
 scenery. The masques were played on improvised stages, and it 
 is probable that on each occasion fresh mechanical appliances were 
 furnished by the ingenuity of Inigo Jones, for he completely revolu- 
 tionized the scenery of the stage. As is well known, the mechanical 
 resources of Shakespeare's stage were quite primitive. No such thing 
 as movable scenery existed. Its place was supplied by the "nun- 
 cupations, only in text letters," and the very form of the playhouse, in 
 which the stage projected into the house, with galleries in front and at 
 each side carried up to the back line of the stage, made such scenery 
 impossible. The great improvements made by Inigo Jones were 
 all developed from his initial change in the form of the stage itself. 
 The stage which he used for the masques was set back behind the 
 extreme ends of the side seats, and inclosed by an architectural or other 
 border, much in the manner of the gigantic picture-frames which inclose 
 the stages of modern theatres. Behind this, and out of sight of the 
 spectators, he was able to provide the necessary room for scene-shifting. 
 He worked his changes by means of painted slips, or, as he calls them, 
 " shutters," with a large painted scene filling in the background. There 
 are several sets of designs for these shutters at Chatsworth, all in sets 
 of four, and each shutter carefully drawn in perspective in relation to 
 the rest. Amonsf the Lansdowne IMSS. in the British Museum are 
 eight drawings by Inigo Jones of the machinery for shifting his scenes, 
 including a plan and section with written directions for the machinery of 
 " Salmacida Spolia," Whitehall, 1639-40. It appears from these that the 
 shutters were rolled backwards and forwards on runners fixed at top and 
 bottom, and pulleys were arranged at the sides to raise and lower the 
 clouds. The floor of the stage was raised at the back eight feet above 
 the floor of the house, with a fall of one foot to the front, and under the 
 stage were placed windlasses and other contrivances for raising platforms, 
 on which the masquers were introduced. Movable scenery was the 
 most important improvement brought by Inigo Jones from Italy, and 
 there can be little doubt that he greatly developed the mechanical 
 resources of the stage all round. Lighting, for instance, was very 
 carefully considered. Instead of the hanging candles and half-a-dozen 
 footlights of the public playhouse, the stage for the masques was 
 brilliantly lighted. In " The Masque of Queens " the friezes both above 
 and below were filled in with various coloured lights "like emeralds,
 
 INIGO JONES 103 
 
 rubies, sapphires, carbuncles, etc., the reflex of which, with our lights 
 placed in the concave upon the masquers' habits, was full of glory." ' 
 The sumptuous magnificence of the Renaissance, its pride of colour and 
 glory of display, is surely indicated in this account. The years which 
 Inigo Jones spent in Italy were not in vain. He returned to England 
 filled with the very spirit of the great Italian artists of the Renaissance, 
 and lifted the art of his country on to an altogether different plane. 
 The homely fancy, the lovable humility, as one might say, of its 
 traditional art were laid aside ; the art of this country was to be no 
 longer an affair of happy instinct, but completely conscious, dependent 
 on scholarship almost as much as on capacity in design. Henceforward 
 abstract thought, and imagination under rigid restraint, were to supersede 
 the poetry of mediaeval fancy. 
 
 Inigo Jones was employed to design the scenery of the masques at 
 
 ' The following list includes most of the masques in which Inigo Jones was 
 employed : 
 
 "The Masque of Blacknesse," by Ben Jonson, 1604-5. 
 
 Three plays at Christ Church, Oxford, 1605. 
 
 " liymenffii,"' Ben Jonson, 1605-6. 
 
 " The Hue and Cry after Cupid," Ben Jonson, 1607-8. 
 
 "Masque of Queens," Ben Jonson, 160S-9. 
 
 " Tethy's Festival," by Daniel, 1610. 
 
 "Love freed from Ignorance and Folly," Ben Jonson, 1610. In this masque, for the 
 first time, Jonson omitted any mention of Inigo Jones, and so began their lifelong enmity. 
 
 " Oberon," Ben Jonson, 16 10- 11. 
 
 "The Lord's Masque," Thomas Campion, and a Masque by George Chapman, 1 6 1 2 1 3 
 
 "Christmas Masque," Ben Jonson, 161 7. 
 
 "Masque of Augurs," Ben Jonson, 1622. 
 
 "Time Vindicated," Ben Jonson, 1622-23. 
 
 "Neptune's Triumph," Ben Jonson, 1623-24. 
 
 " Pan's Anniversary,'" Ben Jonson, 1624-25. 
 
 "Pastoral Play," Ben Jonson, 1625-26. 
 
 "The Fortunate Isles," Ben Jonson, 1625-26. 
 
 "Albion's Triumph," Aurelian Townsend, 1630-31. 
 
 " Love's Triumph through Callipolis " and " Chloridia," Ben Jonson. 1631. 
 
 "Tempe Restored," Aurelian Townsend, 1631-32. 
 
 "Triumph of Peace," James Shirley, 1633-34. 
 
 "CeIuhi Britannicuni," Thomas Carew, 1633-34. 
 
 "Temple of Love," Davenant, 1634-35. 
 
 " Florimen," 1635. 
 
 "Love's Mistress," Hey wood, 1636. 
 
 "The Royal Slave," Thomas Cartwright, 1636. 
 
 "Britannia Triumphans," Davenant, 1637-38. 
 
 " Liminalia," 1637. 
 
 "Salmacida Spolia," Davenant, 1639-40.
 
 I04 RKNAISSANCE ARCHITECTURl' IN IINGLANO 
 
 Court ill each )car from 1605 to 16 12, the year of Prince I lenry's death. 
 Except possibly in 16 17, he was not employed again till 1 621, after 
 which he was regularly called upon to design the scenery whenever a 
 masque was presented at Court. It is possible that his quarrel with 
 Ben Jon.son may have had something to do with the neglect of him 
 between 1612 and 162 1. Ben Jonson was irritated by the increasing 
 interest attached to the scenery, and the consequent diminution in his 
 own importance, and Inigo Jones, who seems to have considered the 
 poetry as an occasion for magnificent spectacle, is not likely to have 
 been content with anything less than complete control of the viisc en scene. 
 Ben Jonson showed his resentment by omitting any mention of Inigo 
 Jones in the description of his masques, and by satire so virulent that 
 it was suppressed by order. The last masque for which Jones designed 
 was the " Salmacida Spolia," by Davenant, 1639-40, the object of this 
 masque being to express the king's anxiety "by all means to reduce 
 tempestuous and turbulent natures into a sweet calm of civil concord." 
 On September 2nd, 1640, appeared the ordinance of both Houses of 
 Parliament for " the suppressing of public stage-plays through the 
 kinijdom during these calamitous times." 
 
 After the death of Prince Henry in 161 2, Inigo Jones's appointment 
 of Surveyor of the Works lapsed, and early in the following summer 
 he started on his second journey into Italy. The dates of his visit 
 to Italy are surrounded with uncertainty. The only authorities are 
 the entries in his annotated copy of " Palladio " in Worcester College 
 Library. In Book I., folio 52, is an entry "London, Jan. i8th, 1614," 
 and in Book II., folio 8, " \'icenza, Jan. iSth, 1614," and by a com- 
 parison of the dates and places entered in his " Palladio," it would appear 
 that he was in Rome on January 2nd, 1614, in London, January i ith, in 
 London or Vicenza on January 1 8th, and in London, January 26th. This 
 confusion of dates casts some doubt on the meaning of these entries. 
 However, there is little doubt that he stayed in Italy from the middle 
 of 1613 till the autumn of 1614, chiefly at Rome, Vicenza, and Tivoli, 
 with perhaps a flying visit to England in January, 1614. His second 
 visit to Italy was taken partly in the service of the Earl of Arundel, for 
 whom he collected works of art, and he was also employed in this 
 capacity by the Earl of Pembroke and Lord Danvers ; but the main 
 object of his journey was further training in painting, and a thorough 
 study of classical architecture. He spent long days amid the ruins of 
 Rome, with his " Palladio " in hand, verifying illustrations, correcting 
 errors, making notes on the buildings, and bitter comments on the
 
 INIGO JONES 
 
 '05 
 
 Vandalism of the time. It is evident from his notes that he had studied 
 the writings of Serlio, Vignola, Fontana, Labacco, and PhiHbert de 
 rOrnie, and was acquainted with the most famous architects then Hving 
 in Rome. He mentions a conversation he had with Scamozzi on August 
 1st, 1614, in reference to a point in Palladio. He had, however, a very 
 
 
 
 i4;jL^ci 
 
 CEILIN'G, WILTON. 
 
 poor opinion of Scamozzi, for in another note he accuses liim of ignorance, 
 and malice against Palladio, and notes that " in this, as in most other 
 thines else, Scamozzi errs." In the Worcester Collection there are some 
 leaves of a MS. treating of windows numbered 162 ^/ scq., and studies 
 of the orders and temples, executed with a degree of care which makes 
 it probable that they were intended for publication. There is, however, 
 no record that Inigo Jones ever carried out this intention. 
 
 p
 
 io6 RENAISSANCE A RCHlTiXTU RE L\ ENGLAND 
 
 In 1615 Inigo Jones succeeded Simon Basil as Surveyor-General 
 ol the \\^)rks, at a fee of 8^-. a day for his entertainment, /"So per 
 annum lor his "recompense of availes," and 2^. 8^/. a day for riding and 
 travelling expenses. A warrant for his living at ^12 15^. \od. is dated 
 March i6th, 161 5, and in 1629 a yearly grant of ^46 was made him for 
 the rent of his house in Scotland Yard.' Out of these fees he aereed to 
 forego his fee of entertainment owing to the embarrassed state of the 
 exchequer. In 161 7 he prepared designs and a model for a new Star 
 Chamber, and began the Queen's House at Greenwich. In the same 
 year he began the niiw Chapel of Lincoln's I nn,^ which was consecrated 
 in 1623. This chapel is the one certain instance of a design by 
 Jones in Gothic architecture, and Mr. Home thinks it likely that 
 the design was made in 16 10, when the old chapel was pulled down, 
 that is before Inigo Jones had arrived at his mature manner. There 
 is no evidence beyond a vague tradition that he had anything to 
 do with the Church of St. Catherine Cree (1628-30), but St. Albans, 
 Wood Street, which was burnt in the Great Eire, is known to have 
 been in the Gothic manner,'' and this has always been attributed to 
 Inigo Jones. 
 
 In 1 618 he was appointed one of the commissioners to lay out 
 Lincoln's Inn Fields, with instructions to prepare a plan for this purpose. 
 The picture at Wilton is a view of Lincoln's Inn Eields in the eighteenth 
 century, and is certainly not Inigo Jones's original draft. It shows, 
 however, Lindsa)- House and the houses on the west side, with the 
 rose and fleur-de-lis which were designed by Inigo Jones some years 
 later, and which are now the best examples left of his street architecture. 
 Shaftesbury House (No. 55, Aldersgate Street, now destroyed) was 
 another example. In the year 16 19 he was ordered to design the new 
 buildings at Whitehall. There are several variations in the published 
 designs. Campbell published his set of plates in the " Yitruvius 
 Britannicus," 1717-1725, and states that he obtained the originals, which 
 he dates 1639, from Mr. William Emmet of Bromley. These drawings 
 are now in Worcester College Library. Campbell, however, is by no 
 means to be trusted, for he also says that the Banqueting Hall was 
 built in 161 7, that is, two years before Jones was commissioned to make 
 the designs. Moreover, it is pretty certain that the drawings from 
 which he published his plates were not by Inigo Jones, but drafts by 
 
 ' Authorities quoted by Mr. Home in Article Ini^o Jones. 
 ' Since altered by Lord Grimthorpe. 
 ' Wren's " Parentalia."
 
 
 ■■■Ji 
 
 .^->-=*! 
 
 ITS 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 o C 
 
 ^- -.; -jas. 
 
 It\i-- • ■ 1^' -"J^^- 
 
 \P>'" ,':;'"& 
 
 .JMr;:; .--r:^ 
 
 :iaiij ;^ 
 
 
 J ' laj |E3 
 
 
 iai! jrai 
 
 !es 
 
 
 \M iira| |E3 
 
 
 1'^': !ta| fea 
 
 
 
 -,;.s?^ 
 
 3'*;l i«a| lis 
 
 
 
 E'iB,: CD '.asa 
 
 GtT!
 
 ISP.-M! 
 
 .nc- 
 
 jLSi'^iisJi, 
 
 ■^W ; ■■■- 
 
 frik^ 
 
 'J 
 
 ,_£»*',«<e!rT-il^^'*v>' 
 
 
 
 i,-; :e33 :;■ 
 
 ^^i&feJSfe^^iBil' 
 
 ^^j T ^-rS - 
 
 
 
 i;^=-_^3L*^3''& 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 Ij.8i¥a.--r^t-. 
 
 
 O C 
 
 > !! 
 
 
 ■,.s=: 
 
 
 
 . .1^-1 .[flKl 

 
 INIGO JONES 
 
 lO^ 
 
 John Webb from the original designs made by Inigo Jones in 1619.' 
 William Kent published a set of plates in 1727, from drawings in the 
 possession of the Earl of Burlington ; these drawings also appear to 
 have been made by Webb, and many of them are now in the collections 
 at Chiswick and Chats- 
 
 ic.-i. 'f •"» 
 
 worth. Besides the nu- 
 merous variations in 
 detail, two distinct sets of 
 designs appear to have 
 been made by Inigo 
 Jones. The first (1619), 
 and this is the set figured 
 in Campbell from the 
 drawings in W^orcester 
 College Library," was 
 only about half the size 
 of the subsequent de- 
 sign, the total dimen- 
 sions being 630 ft. by 
 460 ft. The second, 
 which is given by Kent 
 from originals now at 
 Chatsworth, was to be 
 double the size, 1,280 ft. 
 long by 950 ft. wide. 
 The Chatsworth draw- 
 ings are entitled " The 
 ground plant for the 
 palace of Whitehall for 
 King Charles ye first 
 taken. John Webb,'' 
 architect," and the elevation, "upright for the palace of Whitehall, for 
 King Charles the first taken, but the front is to be arranged (?) 
 
 . ' Several of the Whitehall drawings are signed "John Webb, architect," and were 
 evidently made up by Webb from Inigo Jones's sketches. With the e.\ce[>tion of a drawing 
 entitled " Skizo of the great door. Ban. Ho. 1619," there is no drawing for Whitehall which 
 can with any certainty be assigned to the hand of Inigo Jones. 
 
 " The large plan on a folding sheet in the chest at \\'orcester, signed "Jolm Webb," is 
 a plan of the larger (and in my opinion later) scheme. The other drawings in this chest 
 belong to the earlier design. 
 
 ^ John Webb was pupil to Inigo Jones, and assisted him in most of his later works. 
 
 DOOR, WHITKHAI.I..
 
 loS RENAISSANCE ARCH ITIXTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 according to ye ground Plott. John Webb." The meaning of this 
 last provision was that it was to include Inigo Jones's Banqueting 
 House, which was already built. It seems certain from this express 
 reference to Charles I. that the original design was almost exactly 
 doubled in size when Charles I. took up the Wliitehall schemes.' For 
 instance, the great central court was 392 ft. by 198 ft. in Jones's original 
 design for James I., whereas in the plan prejjared by him for Charles I., 
 and accepted, this court becomes about 800 ft. by 400 ft. So again, the 
 circular court which in the first design had a diameter of 140 feet, has a 
 diameter of about 280 feet in the later design preserved at Chatsworth. 
 The astonishing thing is that, in spite of this heroic increase in scale, 
 the original plan was to be preserved throughout. Roughly speaking, 
 the site was to occupy the whole of the space from Whitehall Gardens 
 to the ground at the back of the Treasury ; the north side passing 
 through the Horse Guards ; the south following a line through the 
 middle of the Home Office; and the plan was to consist of a huge 
 rectangular block, 1,280 ft. long by 950 ft." wide. This was divided into 
 three parts, the central division was to be occupied by an immense 
 court, 800 ft. long by 400 ft. wide,' running north and south ; the division 
 to the west was subdivided into three courts, of which the centre was 
 the famous circular or Persian court, 280 feet in diameter, with oblong 
 courts on either side ; the division to the east, with front to the 
 river, was also divided into three courts, the centre one square 
 corresponding to the circular court, and the two end ones oblong. In 
 one of the alternative schemes, the central court was to be occupied with 
 buildings, but this idea was abandoned. The elevation was symmetrical, 
 the composition consisting of a regular facade, with projecting blocks in 
 the centre and at the ends, carried up above the intermediate range of 
 buildings. The height to the top of the centre block was to be about 
 I 10 feet. 
 
 The work was begun in haste. The old Banqueting House had been 
 burnt in January, 16 19. Inigo Jones's design for the new hall and estimate 
 
 ' Mr. Loftie, in liis able account of Inigojones ("I.Jones and C.Wren," 1S93), following 
 the hasty summary of Ferguson, exactly reverses this, no doubt on the evidence of Campbell, 
 who describes his set of plates " as it was presented to his Majesty, King Charles I., by the 
 famous Inigo Jones, 1639." Campbell, however, is quite untrustworthy as to dates, and 
 the definite inscription by Webb on the drawings of the larger design, quoted in the text, 
 seems to place it beyond doubt that Charles, instead of reducing the original design proposed 
 for James I., very greatly enlarged it. 
 
 '■' These dimensions are taken by scale from the drawings at Chatsworth. 
 
 ^ Parliament Street runs over the site marked out for this court.
 
 wr^m: 
 
 
 U-.J/ ''Mi 
 
 
 h^^: ^ ifmM 
 
 o 
 
 OS 
 
 n- 
 
 O 
 Z 
 
 
 s 
 
 — ^ 
 
 2
 
 hsss-. 
 
 < a 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 5^ 5->" 
 
 ^ 4:*^^^;*^***r
 
 
 
 a 3 
 
 :t
 
 INIGO JONES 109 
 
 of cost (^9,850) were completed in thft spring, and tlic first stone was 
 laid on June ist of the same year. The new IJanquetinj^ House was 
 completed March 31st, 1622, at a cost of ^15,653 3^. 3^'. This building, 
 sumptuous as it is, was only intended as a subordinate feature of a vast 
 facade,^ but it is the only part of the design that was ever carried out. 
 Charles I. revived the scheme on a colossal scale, apparently between 
 1630 and 1640, but there was no money available, and the increasing 
 difficulties in which the king became involved, put a stop to any 
 possibility of carrying out this magnificent design. 
 
 The boldness and originality of Inigo Jones's conception is amazing. 
 It has appeared, from our survey of English architecture in the si.xteenth 
 century, how utterly wanting this art had been in what may be called 
 architecture in the grand manner, that is, architecture on a great scale, 
 and depending for its effect upon proportion and orderly distribution, 
 that is, on the abstract and essential qualities of architecture, rather than 
 on the accidents of detail. Throughout the Elizabethan age costly 
 palaces had been built, such as WoUaton and Audley End, but not one 
 of these great houses can be said to embody any large architectural 
 idea. They are more or less picturesque masses of building, tricked 
 out with adventitious ornament, which might be shorn away without 
 materially injuring the architecture ; the detail itself is usually wanting 
 in refinement and distinction, and though these houses arrest our 
 sympathy by their associations, considered from a purely critical stand- 
 point they only rank as second-rate work. There was, in fact, no 
 precedent whatever in England for such a building as Inigo Jones 
 desig-ned for Whitehall. The force of his genius is shown in the fact 
 that almost at one effort, and without previous failures, he was able to 
 create a finished masterpiece of design in a manner that was as yet 
 quite unfamiliar in England. The Banqueting House, mere fragment 
 though it is of a stupendous design, is to this day the most accomplished 
 piece of proportion in England, and not inferior to the finest work of 
 Palladio and the great Italian masters. 
 
 From this time forward till the outbreak of the Civil War, Inigo 
 Jones was constantly employed by the king. Mr. Home has dis- 
 covered in the Record Office an account of money disbursed for his 
 riding expenses, which shows that much of his time must have been 
 spent in the saddle, travelling up and down p]ngland in the superintend- 
 ence of his work. In 1620 he was made a member of a commission to 
 
 ' The exact position it was to occuiiy was on tiie east side of the great central court.
 
 no RENAISSANCE ARCl 1 ITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 inquire into all new buildings erected in London since the beginnino- of 
 the rei<Tn of James I., and to enforce compliance with certain building 
 reoulations. In 1623, on the occasion of a visit to Southampton to 
 prepare for the reception of the Infanta, he was made a burgess of the 
 town, and in 1630 a justice of the peace for Westminster. In 1626 he 
 designed the water-gate of old York House, which w^as executed by- 
 Nicholas Stone. The gateway is still standing in an obscure hole at the 
 foot of Buckingham Street, Strand, but its fine proportions are con- 
 cealed by the alterations in the ground. A fine gateway, designed for 
 Lord Weymouth, in Oatlands Park, near Weybridge, was pulled down 
 about thirty years ago. The gateways of the Botanical Gardens at 
 Oxford were designed, as well as executed, by Nicholas Stone ; but it 
 is possible that Inigo Jones gave the design for the south entrance 
 porch of St. Mary's at Oxford. 11 is next important work was the 
 Church of St. Paul's in Covent Garden, and the laying out of the 
 square. This church was begun in 1631, and consecrated by Juxon in 
 1638. It was burnt to the ground in 1795, but rebuilt on the old lines, 
 and though it has been tampered with since, we have to this day, sub- 
 stantially, the original elevation ; and, in fact, no architect but Inigo 
 Jones could have made such an extremely powerful design. The 
 elements are very simple. A plain Doric portico, with a triangular 
 pediment and a cupola above it, form the east elevation ; but, as usual 
 with Ini>''o Jones, his genius is shown in his superb treatment of these 
 simple elements. Hawksmoor, with the same problem before him, 
 would have blundered into clumsiness, but, as handled by a master, the 
 great shadows of this portico, and the exact proportions of its parts, 
 make it one of the most impressive facades in London. Historically, it 
 is interesting as anticipating the great porticoes to churches, introduced 
 by Hawksmoor, Gibbs, and James in the eighteenth century, though, 
 as Mr. Loftie points out in the case of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, the 
 portico, owing to the necessity of placing it at the east end, belongs to 
 the square rather than to the church. 
 
 A comparison of this authentic building with such buildings as the 
 inner court of St. John's, Oxford, and St. Catherine Cree, make it very 
 improbable that the latter can have been designed by Inigo Jones. 
 At St. Catherine Cree the south doorway is the only detail that bears 
 any resemblance to his manner. The work at St. John's, Oxford, was 
 first attributed to Inigo Jones by P. Heylyn (" Cypriacus Anglicanus," 
 1688, quoted by Willis and Clark, iii. 277), who describes the new 
 buildings at St. John's, begun by Laud in 1631, as "fashioned in an
 
 L,, ,11. _. 
 
 
 o a 
 Q ^ 
 
 ^ JTMlLfiKM2EWl|i^£X7J.n3: 
 
 
 ^^,*«. -»* - 
 
 £>===;^
 
 --^ 
 
 o i 
 
 55 & 
 
 O ^ 
 
 
 
 4Xf 
 
 I f 

 
 GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
 
 112 RliNAlSSANCE ARCl 1 1 IHC 1 I' Ri: L\ luNC.RAN I) 
 
 excellent symmetry according to the exactest rules of modern architec- 
 ture." St. Catherine Crec was consecrated by Laud in 1630. The two 
 buildings have one feature in common : the arches are brought down 
 direct on to the abacus of the columns ; but th(;re is no evidence what- 
 ever, beyonil a vague tradition, that Inigo Jones had anything to do 
 with either of these buildings. In regard to St. John's, there is no 
 reference to Inigo Jones in the college books, whereas Lesueur, who 
 made the two bronze figures, is mentioned, and it seems most unlikely 
 that an architect so steeped in Palladianism as Inigo Jones could have 
 had anything to do with the detail of the St. John's work, which is 
 evidently Memish in feeling. It is possible that the work was designed 
 and e.xecuted by Lesueur himself, or some foreign artist about the court. 
 It is essentially sculptor's work, that is to say, the central frontispiece 
 of the inner court has no relation to the main architectural lines of the 
 rest of the building.' The detail is rather exuberant, but exceedingly 
 well executed, and approaches in feeling the details on the Weston 
 tomb at Winchester by Lesueur. The architecture of the east quad- 
 rangle of .St. John's (excepting the arcade) is ordinary English work, 
 such as might have been done by Acroyde or Arnold of Wadham, and 
 the garden front is almost Tudor in its low simple lines. The only 
 features that differentiate it from ordinary Jacobean work are the arcade 
 and the elaborate ornamentation of the east side of the quadrangle, 
 which is blemish, and rather rococo in character, and of an order which 
 Inigo Jones rarely used in any of his buildings. This legend may, 1 
 think, be dismissed with the equally unauthenticated tradition that he 
 made the designs of Heriot's Hospital and the Bourse of Copenhagen. 
 It is singular that, with the possible exception of two gateways, there 
 is no evidence that Inigo Jones was employed at either Oxford or 
 Cambridge. It is almost certain that the buildings at Christ's, Cam- 
 bridge, erected in 1642, are not by him. 
 
 Somewhere about 1620 Jones was ordered to survey old St. Paul's. 
 The cathedral was in a state of disgraceful dilapidation, but nothing was 
 done till Laud became Bishop of London. In 1631 a commission was 
 issued for the repair of the building. Laud succeeded in raising 
 .1^101,300,- and the works were begun in 1633, and continued till 
 the outbreak of the Civil War, when the balance in hand was 
 annexinl by the Parliament. The schcmie, it appears, was to gradually 
 rebuild the cathedral, and Inigo Jones got as far as the south transept 
 
 ' There is an excellent plate of this building in Mr. (lotch's series (plate 133). 
 ' See Note p. 122.
 
 
 
 
 
 ^;4#% ^^ ^^' .iJ-' 
 
 o , ^ 1^ :N r ^1 f^l r^ feg 
 
 '■4>*-^-e --ae^-^ -ii 
 
 ■^ p''j'i^i*fc.'Jfai.l^j.,^^-<g^nii u iii»i^ T^ ■ Cfrv^-'yg'SJ' 
 
 
 
 ?-■ ^ ^ m -^ m li ^' i 
 
 IS,y-^\ . £r 1^'«-.] 
 
 i-U 
 
 r 
 
 n iff! 
 
 DESIGN FOR A CHURCH, liV INIUO JONKb 
 
 (probably a sketch kok ST. Paul's, covent garden) 
 
 (IVorccslcr College Colkclion\
 
 
 ■51! 
 
 '' f» ?r 1 
 
 Valentine, Photo. 
 
 I-jlc t. ii:; 
 
 ST. Mary's church, oxford, gatkwav carvki> i;v .Nicholas stone. 
 
 THE DESIGN .\TTRIBUTED TO INIGO JONES.
 
 INIGO JONES 
 
 113 
 
 when the works were stopped. There is a view of the west front by 
 Hollar, and a drawing- of it at Chiswick. The design is inferior to 
 Wren's, but it was much admired at the time, and Webb is enthusiastic 
 over his " magnificent portico." It must be pointed out, however, that 
 the steep-pitched pediment, flanked by two obelisks which terminated 
 the nave, was necessitated by the pitch of the old nave roof It is to be 
 noticed, moreover, both in regard to Wren and Inigo Jones, that there 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 r%' 
 
 
 EAVES, CORNICE, AND QUOINS, CRANEORNE. 
 
 is always a vast improvement in the building" as executed, com[)ared 
 with the building as shown in their drawings. There can be little doubt 
 that both men trusted far more to their actual supervision of the work, 
 and to directions to be given as the building proceeded, than to their 
 original draughts ; and further, that they possessed a more intimate 
 knowledge of building materials, and a keener insight into their artistic 
 possibilities than is possible to a modern architect, who, by the nature 
 of his callinor and the exigrencies of contracts, is prevented from standinp^ 
 over his building from start to finish, and, so to say, shaping and 
 
 Q
 
 114 RI'-NAlSSANCi: AK( 111 riXTURl-: IX ENGLAND 
 
 moulding it on the spot into what he believes to be the most perfect 
 form attainable. Jones's designs for the rebuilding of St. Paul's involved 
 the destruction of St. Gregory's Church, and, in spite of the protest of 
 the parishioners in 1637, he pulled down part of the church, and 
 
 PORCH, WEST WOODHAY. 
 
 threatened that they should be laid by the heels if they did not take 
 down the remainder. He was summoned for this conduct before the 
 House of Lords, and had to hand over his materials to the parishioners 
 for the rebuildincr of their church. 
 
 The Queen's House at Greenwich was finished in 1635, the date
 
 ■1*;. M. 1^1 
 
 M: 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 v\0 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 v: 
 
 ^x 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 D 
 
 
 a 
 
 to 
 
 
 3
 
 INIGO JONES 
 
 1 1 
 
 carved on the building. Some of the designs for Greenwich at Chis- 
 wick are dated 1637, but most of these drawings were made by Webb 
 tor Charles II. In the Soane Museum there is a large folio of mis- 
 cellaneous designs by Inigo Jones, Wren, and others, containing designs 
 for Greenwich, which will be referred to in my account of Wren. 
 Folios 8 and 9 show the river front and side elevation of what is called 
 King Charles block, which were undoubtedly designed by Inigo Jones, 
 and these drawings may ha\-e been by his own hand. The masterly 
 completion of this superb building is due to Wren, but to Inigo Jones 
 belongs the credit of the 
 original designs, and of 
 
 having initiated a scale, 
 which Wren alone was 
 able to follow. In the 
 same year (1637) the 
 chapel of Old Somerset 
 House was finished from 
 designs by Inigo Jones, 
 and in 1638 he prepared 
 designs for additions and 
 alterations to "the palace 
 at Somerset House," three 
 of which are preserved 
 in Worcester College 
 Library. One of the de- 
 signs, which is marked 
 " not taken," shows a fine 
 elevation in three orders, 
 each order including two 
 storeys ; the total height to the top of the cornice being 1 10 feet. At 
 Chiswick there is a drawing for " the chimney-piece," for the gallery of 
 Somerset House, dated 1636, which shows that he had already designed 
 the great gallery. In Kip's view of Somerset House,' Inigo Jones's block 
 occupies the centre of the river facade, and behind it stood the older 
 building of Protector Somerset, which seems to have resembled in style 
 Wolsey's buildings at Hampton Court. There are two drawings at 
 Chiswick for the gateway at Temple Bar, dated 1636 and 1638, which 
 do not appear to have been carried out. The older parts of West 
 
 CAPITAL TO PORCH, WEST WOODHAV. 
 
 Britannia Illustrata.
 
 I 16 RI-XAISSANCE ARCH ITl'TTT RF. IN ENGLAND 
 
 Woodhay House, including the entrance porch, built 1635, arc: jirobably 
 by loncs. In 1636 he designed the Barber Surgeons' Hall in Monk- 
 well Street, the greater part of wliich is now destroyed, including the 
 oval lecture theatre, shown in the drawing in the Worcester 
 Lil)rary. This theatre was pulled down in 17S2. In 1637-S he de- 
 signed the choir screen of Winchester Cathedral, since destroyed. One 
 of his latest works in London seems to have been Lindsay House in 
 Lincoln's Inn Fields, a fine stone built house, completed in 1640. Two 
 of the piers in front of the forecourt remain, but Hatton says 
 that four of "the fine spacious brick piers" had been removed in his 
 time, 1708. The date given for Shaftesbury House in Aldersgate 
 Street is 1644, but Inigo Jones was then at Basing House, and it was 
 probal)ly completed at about the same time as Lindsay House (1640- 
 1642). Shaftesbury House is now destroyed. It resembled Lindsay 
 House in its general design, and consisted of a basement storey support- 
 ing a single large Ionic order in five bays, which included two storeys. 
 The centre bay was flanked by coupled pilasters, and had a broken 
 circular pediment above the first floor window. The house was built 
 for the Earl of Thanet, but was sold by him to Anthony Ashley 
 Cooper, I'"arl of Shaftesbury. 
 
 On the outbreak of the Civil War, Inigo Jones left London, having, 
 according to the tradition, buried his money in Lambeth marshes, with 
 the help of his faithful sculptor, Nicholas Stone. He was attached to 
 the Royal Cause, and his arbitrary action in the matter of .St. Gregory's 
 Church made him exceedingly unpopular with the citizens. In 1643 
 "he was thrust out of office for his loyalty, and fled to Basing House 
 in Hampshire, where he remained with Peake and Faithorne, Hollar, 
 and Robinson the player, till the house was taken by Cromwell in 1645, 
 after a siege of over two years. Inigo Jones was taken prisoner with 
 the others, and in 1646 was condemned to pay a fine of .2^545, and a 
 further sum of .;^500 for his fifth and twentieth part."' 
 
 After this stormy passage in his career he seems to have resumed 
 his work unmolested, and to this period belongs his work at Wilton. 
 Aubrey's account is that Charles I. persuaded Philip, ist Earl of Pem- 
 broke to build the garden front, intending Inigo Jones to design it, but 
 as the latter was at this time (1633) occupied with the work at Green- 
 wich, "he recommended it to an ingenious architect, M. Solomon de 
 Cau.x, a Gascoigne, who performctl it very well," — that the south side of 
 
 ' Mr. Home, "Diet. Nat. Hiog.," Art. Inigo Jones.
 
 CEILING, COUNTESS OF CARNARVON S BKDCHAMBER 
 ( Wni-ces/er Cnllcgc Colkclinii) 
 
 DETAIL OF ELEVATION OF OLD SOMERSET HOUSE 
 (Worccslcr College Collcclioii\
 
 
 li^ 
 
 
 ^ '.V^.* 
 
 
 
 
 -w-'T.'.- 
 
 ^ 
 
 Fa<e f. 1 1 6. 
 
 CHIMNEV-PIECE TO THE DOUBLE CUBE ROOM, WILTON.
 
 INIGO JONES 
 
 117 
 
 
 this house was burnt about 1647, and that it was then rebuilt from the 
 designs of Inigo Jones, under the superintendence of John W^ebb. 
 The fine drawing at Chiswick of the ceiHn"- of the Cabinet room is 
 dated 1649, and is undoubtedly by Inigo Jones, and there can be little 
 doubt that the interior of the south block was entirely designed by him, 
 for Webb, as appears by his other work, was quite incapable of such 
 admirable proportion and exquisite detail. There; is a view at Wilton 
 of the house as it was left 
 by Inigo Jones, which 
 shows a rectangular block 
 of building with an oblong 
 court, and towers at the 
 four corners raised above 
 the adjacent building. The 
 sixteenth century gateway 
 tower on the east side was 
 preserved by Jones on ac- 
 count of its excellent work- 
 manship, but brought into 
 his design by a Hat steeple- 
 roof, so that the elevation 
 of this east side, which 
 faced the forecourt and the 
 principal approach, con- 
 sisted of a raised block 
 in the centre, joined by a 
 lower rano-e of buildinirs on 
 either side to the two raised 
 blocks at the angles, a 
 favourite composition with 
 Inigo Jones. De Caux's 
 work on this east facade 
 was allowed to remain. Fart of the building was burnt down earh' 
 in the eighteenth century, and a great part of it destroyed towards 
 the end of that century, when James Wyatt rebuilt the north front 
 and a great part of the east and west sides in an abominable travesty 
 of Gothic. The position of the forecourt appears to have been shifted 
 to the north side before this date, probabh' when Chambers built 
 the triumphal arch as an entrance from the north. As the building 
 now stands, the onlv remains of De Caux's work are two niches on 
 
 rANELI.ING IN DOUBLE CUBE ROOM, WILTON.
 
 ii8 RENAISSANCE A RC 1 IITECTU RI' IN ENGLAND 
 
 either side of the east gatewa)', aiul prohaM) llie grottoes and garden 
 houses, in his barbarous German manner. Aubrey also assigns him 
 the stables, a good reasonable piece of architecture which is more 
 probably by Inigo Jones or Webb. Of Inigo Jones's work there 
 remains the south block (partly altereil on the south faqadc), including 
 thc! suite; of rooms on the first lloor, which appear to be in much the 
 same state as they were left by him, for there is no finer example of his 
 mature manner in existence in I'Lngland. The great room, a double 
 cube of 60 ft. by 30 ft. by 30 ft., with its superb mantlepiece, and panelling 
 designed by Jones to receive Vand) kc's portraits, is probably the most 
 beautiful room in any house in this country; as the Banqueting Hall, 
 also a double cube, of 1 10 ft. by 55 ft. is unquestionably the finest state 
 room. Even Wren could never match their surpassing dignity and per- 
 fection of [jroportion. Wilton is a peculiarly valuable example, inasmuch 
 as [)arts of it, at any rate, iivc undoubtedly b)- Inigo Jones. Tradition 
 assigns to him a great ciuantity of buildings in England, but for many 
 of these there is no authority, and the internal evidence of the actual 
 design of the buildings is the only test which it is possible to apply. 
 Raynham Park, in Norfolk, is an instance where the tradition is verified 
 by the building itself, and the design of it is indeed the most distin- 
 guished example of seventeenth century domestic architecture in 
 England. It is peculiarly refined and accomplished. Ouiet, reserved, 
 and dignified in the highest degree, it stands by itself, apart alike from 
 the mere picturesqueness of Jacobean work, and from the genial yet 
 coarser manner of Wren. The house was built about 1636. The out- 
 side starts with a basement storey above ground of Portland stone ; 
 above this the walls are of brick with stone quoins, strings, cornices, and 
 dressings. An unusual entablature with engaged balusters in the frieze 
 is carried across the central block between the wings on the west side. 
 The plan consists of an oblong block with slightly projecting wings at 
 the sides. The principal floor is raised on a basement above ground, 
 and a grand flight of stairs on the west side leads to the front entrance 
 to the hall, round which are ranged the living rooms r« s/a7t\ with 
 several staircases to the right and left communicating with the upper 
 floors, and there is no grand staircase at all inside. On the second 
 floor on the west side is the grand salon, a superb rectangular room, 
 very lofty with a rich plaster ceiling, lighted by a Venetian window on 
 the east side. Towards the end of the seventeenth century certain 
 alterations were made in thc internal decoration, overmantels were 
 added to the chimney-pieces, and it is possible that the central pediment
 
 face p. 1 1 8. 
 
 CENTRE BAY TO SOUTH FRONT, WILTON.
 
 m^u^-'^'}' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^\r 
 
 
 '•M"'^' \ 
 
 '^W 
 
 
 I J 
 I j 
 
 
 1™"^ 
 
 1 i 
 
 h /
 
 I20 RENAISSANCE A RCI I ITF.CTl ■ RE IN ENGLAND 
 
 and Corinthian ortlcr on the cast side was added about this date ; 
 but the house is substantially unaltered, and abounds with refniements 
 of design which show the strong unfaltering touch of a truly great 
 master in architecture. 
 
 About 1647 Iiiigo Jones designed certain additions to Kirby, which 
 closely resemble his work at Wilton in their austerity of manner; and 
 he [prepared designs for re-building Durham House, of which there are 
 draughts by Webb in Worcester College Library. There is also in 
 this collection a drawing by Webb, entitled " Purfyle of ye Duke's 
 Pallace at Cobham, 1648," which is probably the origin ol the story 
 which attributes to Inigo Jones the centre bay of the garden court of 
 Cobham.' It is possible that Inigo Jones did some work at Cobham, 
 but this particular facade as it now stands cannot have been designed 
 by him. It is a poor piece ol work, coarsely designed, and was perhaps 
 by Webb ; the explanation ol much unsatisfactory work throughout 
 the country which vague tradition has assigned to Inigo Jones. There 
 is no doubt that he did design many additions and alterations to 
 existing houses, of which no documentary record exists, but in the 
 case of such traditions the evidence of the building itself is the only 
 clue. This at once eliminates the Jacobean work at Cranborne Manor, 
 executed for Cecil soon after 1604, but will include among the list of 
 his works the west wing with its great quoins and boldly projecting 
 eaves, which in scale can only be compared with St. Paul's, Covent 
 Garden. This wing was built in 1647, and is almost certainly by Inigo 
 Jones. It is also probable that he designed the stairs and some of 
 the ceilings at Ford Abbey," Coleshill in Berkshire (1650), and the 
 Grange in Hampshire, since entirely altered by Wilkins. Castle Ashby 
 in Northamptonshire was begun by Inigo Jones, but interrupted by the 
 Civil War. He is also said to have superintended the building of 
 Stoke Park, Northamptonshire (1630- 1634), but the design was brought 
 from Italy by Sir Francis Crane. Brympton, Amesbury, and Gunners- 
 bury were by Webb, the two last possibly from designs by his master. 
 
 ' Mr. Gotch, ii. 37, says this part "was rebuilt in 1662, under the direction of Inigo 
 Jones," but the latter had died ten years before. The date on the pediment is 1667. The 
 Worcester drawing has no sort of resemblance to any part of the existing garden court at 
 Cobham. 
 
 - Woolfe and Gandon (" X'itruvius Britannicus," vol. v., p. 86-7) say : " It is jierhaps 
 the most perfect work now remaining of that great architect Inigo Jones, having undergone 
 no alteration since the year 1650, when it was compleated." Ware, who measured up this 
 house for Lord Burlington, published sections of the hall and staircase in his "Complete 
 Body of Architecture," plates 70, 71.
 
 I, 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 2 ^• 
 
 a 
 
 o
 
 Face t. 1 20. 
 
 KIRBY, NORTHANTS. THE DOORWAY AM) BALCONY, PROBABLY BY IXIGO JONES.
 
 INIGO JONES 
 
 121 
 
 The admirable staircase and other details at Ashburnham House were 
 probably designed by Jones, but carried out by Webb with variations 
 just sufficient to miss the distinctive quality which Iniyo Jones impressed 
 on all his work. ' His latest design is probably one for the re-building 
 of the College of Physicians, now preserved in Worcester College 
 Library, dated 1651, and marked "not taken." lie died June 21st, 
 1652, and was buried by the side of his father in the Church of St. 
 Bennet, Paul's Wharf. 
 
 Inigo Jones was on the 
 whole the greatest archi- 
 tect and one of the most 
 accomplished artists that 
 this country has ever 
 produced. No man has 
 mastered more completely 
 the scholarship of his art ; 
 but to this range of know- 
 ledge he added a power of 
 and a quality o! 
 which place 
 him, as an artist, higher 
 even than his great suc- 
 cessor Wren. "It was z'ox 
 E?eropa'," says Webb, "that 
 named Inigo Jones Vitru- 
 vius Britannicus, being 
 much more, than at home, 
 famous in remote parts, 
 where he lived many years, 
 designed many works, and 
 discovered many antiquities, before unknown, with great applause." 
 The "antiquities" refer to his studies at Rome, for his theory of 
 Stonehenofe is not amoncj his most memorable achievements. His 
 extraordinary capacity is shown by the success with which he freed 
 English architecture from the imbecilities of the German designers, 
 and started it on a line of fresh development, borrowed it is true from 
 Italy, yet so successfully adapted to English traditions, that it was at 
 
 design 
 
 miagmation 
 
 SKETCH FOR CHIMNEY-PIECE, liV INIGO JONES. 
 
 ' A list of Other buildings which have been assigned to Inigo Jones is given by Mr. 
 Home in his article in the " Dictionary of National Biography." 
 
 R
 
 122 Ri:.\.\ISSANCK ARCHITFXTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 once accepted and followed by the best intelligence of the country for 
 the next hundred and fifty years. His especial strength lay in his 
 thorough mastery of proportion, his contempt for mere prettiness, and 
 the rare distinction of his style. I lis own theory of architecture was 
 that, in his own words, it should be "solid, proportional according to the 
 rules, masculine and unaffected." No man has ever more completely 
 realized his own ideal of his art. 
 
 Note p. 112. 'I'lie figures given by Mr. I.ongman in "Tlie Three Cathedrals 
 dedicated to .St. raul," p. 72, are as follows :— Up to Oct. 29, 1639, ;^89,489 4^-. ^d had 
 been received, and between this date and 1643 a further sum of about _;^i4,ooo was 
 raised. In this year Paul's Cross was pulled down, and all work sto|)ped by order of 
 Parliament. It appears that of the sums received, about ^79,080 was spent on the 
 Cathedral, and in compensation "unto several persons for houses demolished and other 
 necessary charges."
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Joiix Webb, Marsh, and Gerbier : tiie last Survivals ok Gothic. 
 
 There can be little doubt that an architect of the reputation and con.stant 
 practice enjoyed by Inigo Jones, must have had some sort of staff of 
 assistants. His only known pupil, however, is John Webb, and, in fact, 
 with the exception of Webb, and the doubtful work of Gerbier and 
 Marsh, the period of the Commonwealth is practically a blank in the 
 history of architecture. A few houses were built, but, with the excep- 
 tions mentioned in the text, they were probably designed by the builders, 
 and indeed it is clear that, in spite of the brilliant example of Inigo 
 Jones, the architect had as yet hardly disentangled his calling from that 
 of the builder. 
 
 John Webb was born in i6i i,' and educated at Merchant Taylors' 
 School. He seems, on leaving school in 1628, to have been apprenticed 
 to Inigo Jones, with whom he worked as assistant till the death oi the 
 latter in 1652. How far he also worked on his own account during any 
 part of this period is uncertain. There is no doubt that he superintended 
 the execution of many of the designs of Inigo Jones both during his 
 lifetime and after, as at Ashburnham House (probably between 1650 
 and 1660), Wilton, Amesbury (rebuilt), Gunnersbury, and Greenwich. 
 The brick houses on the south side of Great Queen Street have been 
 assigned to Webb by Walpole, who mentions that Gerbier condemned 
 the lions' heads on the pilasters. There are no lions' heads on the 
 pilasters in their present state, but the houses are of about this period, 
 and were probably built by Webb while he was still working with Inigo 
 Jones. Though by no means badly designed, they have none ot the 
 distinction of his master's work, and the capitals are very careless. The 
 front is divided into five bays by Corinthian pilasters on a basement 
 storey, the order including the first and second storeys ; a bold modillion 
 cornice terminates the order. The roof is brought right down to the 
 
 ' In the registers at Butleigh, in Somerset, the home of the \\'ebbs, there is a. doubtful 
 entry : " John, filius ThoniK Webb (?) baptizat fuit 24 die Augusti, 1603.^' The surname 
 is almost illegible, and is possibly Webb.
 
 124 ki:naissance aki iiiii;ltlri-: in kngland 
 
 cornice without either parapet or blocking course. Whether this was the 
 original intention or not, the effect is very picturesque, but it is hardly- 
 orthodox, and the curious brick cartouches suggest the fancy of John 
 Webb rather than that of Inigo Jones. During the Civil War Webb 
 sent plans of the fortifications of London to the king, at Oxford, a 
 
 servicewhich might 
 f^;^^^^^^^r?^^;^^^.s=.-c^iv^i^:^^-^—r:pxfrF-r have cost him his 
 
 head, but he was 
 able to resume work 
 with Inigo Jones 
 a f t e r 1645, '^ " *^^ 
 during the latter's 
 lifetime he mar- 
 ried his niece, ami 
 was appointed his 
 executor. In 1655 
 he edited Jones's 
 notes on Stone- 
 henge, and in 1665 
 wrote "A Vindica- 
 tion of Stonehenge 
 Restored," a loyal, 
 if ineffectual de- 
 fence of his mas- 
 ter's archajologfical 
 theories. In 1653 
 he designed some 
 mantelpieces for 
 Drayton, and in 
 1 654 a large portico 
 and summer-house 
 with some other al- 
 terations, including 
 the removal of the 
 base-court at the Vyne near Basingstoke, for Chaloner Chute, Speaker 
 of the House of Commons. One or two of the mantelpieces of this 
 date at the Vyne show plainly the influence of Inigo Jones, and are well 
 designed, though poor in detail, but the portico is very ugly. The pro- 
 portions are bad, and the pediment heavy without being impressive, a 
 fault which is also seen in the entrance piers to the park at Amesbury. 
 
 E.NTRANCE rUiU, AMESIiUKY.
 
 JOHN Wl'Lli;, MARSH, AND GKRBIER 
 
 I 2' 
 
 In 1656 he 'designed Thorpe Hall, near Peterborough, for Oliver St. 
 John. The date on a lead head to die stables is 1656, and the house 
 was jjrobably begun soon after the death of Inigo Jones. Standing on 
 rising ground above the Valley of the Nene, Thorpe Hall is a singularly 
 dignified building, and the most perfect instance now existing of that very 
 interesting phase of 
 architecture which 
 extended from 
 about 164010 1670, 
 an architecture di- 
 rectly inspired by 
 Inigo Jones, and as 
 yet uninfluenced 
 by Wren. On the 
 northside is the fore- 
 court, approached 
 by an avenue. To 
 the left are the 
 gardens, all walled 
 in, and extending 
 alonof the south side 
 of the house till they 
 meet the kitchen 
 garden to the south 
 
 and west. To the 
 west of the house 
 are the stables. A 
 raised terrace runs 
 alone three sides of 
 
 the srardens, with 
 
 a gateway m 
 
 the 
 
 DOORWAY AT THE VYNE, NEAR BAS1NC.ST0K.E, KV JOHN WEBB. 
 
 centre. The house, 
 which is constructed 
 entirely of stone up 
 to the cornice, is very boldly designed. In plan it is oblong, divided 
 into four quarters by wide corridors, running north and south, and east 
 and west. The grand staircase occupies the eastern arm oi die corridor 
 and leads to the principal rooms, which are, as usual, on the first floor, 
 and arranged en stiitc. The north elevation is in seven bays, and has 
 three storeys up to the cornice, above a basement store)' with windows
 
 f-^cr^^a - V^-irj*^ M<^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ENTRANCE PORCH, THORPE HALL.
 
 128 RHXAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 in the plinth. The ground floor windows have plain architraves, and 
 the chief ornament is reserved for the first floor windows, which have 
 alternate straight entablatures and pediments, the centre light over the 
 entrance porch having a segmental pediment. Square windows with 
 stone architraves on the second floor bring up under a heavy 
 modillion cornice executed in wood with plaster soffit. Above this is a 
 steep pitched roof with dormers, covered with CoUyweston slates. The 
 interior of the house is richly decorated with panelling and plaster work ; 
 the latter is coarse, but extremely vigorous, and the tine carved open 
 work balustrade to the staircase anticipates the delicate panels by Grinling 
 Gibbons, used afterwards by Wren for his internal woodwork with such 
 admirable eftect. This staircase has been partly restored and altered. 
 The stables are more plainly designed than the house, but the same 
 masculine scale is maintained throughout. The big centre gable closely 
 resembles the gables of the riding-school at Bolsover, a resemblance 
 which makes it probable that the designer of the latter was also a 
 pupil of Inigo Jones. Thorpe Hall shows Webb's peculiarities in every 
 detail, such as his affection for returned and mitred architraves, and other 
 variations on the simpler methods of design. He had learnt from his 
 master the value of bold simple details, the necessity of avoiding 
 fussiness of design, even at the cost of ugliness, but he had not attained 
 that clear-headed strength of intelligence which can see its way through 
 a design from start to finish, and, in consequence, his work is sometimes 
 violent without being strong. Yet Thorpe Hall is a fine design ; in 
 spite of a certain heaviness, it has the rare quality of maintaining its 
 scale throughout, and that in a very exacting style. The extent of the 
 advance, or if it is preferred, the alteration in English architecture 
 brought about by Inigo Jones can be gauged by comparing Thorpe 
 Hall with the charming little manor house of Stibington about six miles 
 off, finished in 1625, where the scale is, by comparison, that of a cottage, 
 and the detail, in so far as it is intended for classical detail, is quite 
 rudimentary. In 1657-8 W^ebb was doing work for the Earl of 
 Northumberland at Northumberland House. There are drawings at 
 Chiswick for some of the mantels, and a drawing for a house at Bishop's 
 Burton in Yorkshire. In June, 1660, Webb made a petition for the 
 place of surveyor of works, which the late king had designed for him 
 in succession to Inigo Jones.' The post, however, was given to Sir 
 
 ' A summary of this petition is given in the Calendar of State Papers, ] )omestic, 
 1660-1661, p. 76 : 
 
 " 1660, June. Petition of John Webb, architect, to the King, for the place of
 
 I30 RI'NAISSANCE ARCHITI-XTURK IN ENGLAND 
 
 John Denham, and the reversion granted to Webb. In 1666 he was 
 appointed assistant-surveyor to Denham, but on the latter's death in 
 1668, Wren was appointed surveyor, and Webb, perhaps in disgust 
 at this discreditable abuse of patronage, seems to have retired soon 
 afterwards to Butleigh in Somerset, where he built himself a house, 
 since destroyed, and died on October 30th, 1674.' His principal works, 
 besides the above, were Gunnersbury, from designs by Jones, 1663 
 (rebuilt by Smirke in 1834), Burlington House, 1664- 1666 (remodelled 
 for the Earl of Ikirlington in 1720), Horseheath Hall, Cambridgeshire, 
 1665, destroyed in 1777, Bedford House, on the north side of Blooms- 
 bury Square, since destroyed, Lamport Hall, Northamptonshire, 
 Ramsbury in Wilts, Ashdown Park (shown in Kyp), and the execution 
 of I nigo Jones's designs at Greenwich (1661-1666), forming the western 
 part of the river front." There are at Chiswick numerous drawings by 
 John Webb for the details and plaster work of Greenwich, dated 1663- 
 66-68. These designs are freely drawn in Indian ink and cross-hatched, 
 and, as executed by the admirable plaster workers trained by Inigo Jones, 
 would no doubt have been effective, but Webb's taste was uncertain. 
 In some i in. scale details of capitals to the doors of the king's cabinet 
 at Greenwich, lions and unicorns are substituted for the volutes under 
 the abacus, an anticipation of what Adam called his Britannic order, 
 and a piece of originality which would have been intolerable to the 
 stricter Palladians. The atrocious design ' for an alcove for His 
 
 surveyor of works, designed for him by the late King, (he) being brought up under Inigo 
 Jones in the study of architecture, and appointed his deputy, till thrust out for loyalty in 
 1643, is "ow by instruction of Parliament preparing a survey of his Majesty's houses for his 
 reception, the cost of which will be ^8,140 5^. 2d., for which he is engaged in credit, 
 having received only ;^5oo." Annexed to this is a paper containing "arguments in behalf 
 of Mr. Webb, that under his uncle, Inigo Jones, he not only studied architecture, but 
 masques and triumphs — was his deputy and e.xecutor, and has ^1,500 due to him in 
 Jones's board wages. He sent to the King at O.xford designs of all the fortifications in 
 London, with instructions how they might be carried, — prepared ^^'hitehall in a fortnight for 
 his Majesty on his own credit — and though Mr. Denham may, as most gentry, have, some 
 knowledge of the theory of architecture, he can have none of the practice, but must employ 
 another, whereas Webb has spent 30 years at it, and worked for most of the nobility." 
 
 ' The entry in the registry is " John Webb, Esq., was buried the 4 day of 
 November, 1672," but a note at the bottom of the page says, " John Webb, esq., dyed the 
 30 of Oct. 1674." 
 
 " It is not known who was the architect of the Town Hall at Abingdon. The design 
 is a very fine one, and marked by certain qualities which are also found in Thorpe House 
 and Ashdown. It is possible that this building was designed by Webb. 
 
 " This design is given by Kent as the work of Inigo Jones, but the original drawing 
 is dated 1663.
 
 JOHN WEBB, MARSH, AND GERBIER 131 
 
 Majesty's bedchamber at Greenwich shows how impossible it is for the 
 greatest of masters to instill into their pupils their own essential 
 qualities, unless the latter are exceptionally able men. 
 
 Webb appears to have been a conscientious architect, intelligent, 
 but not profoundly original. He worked in the manner he had learnt 
 from Inigo Jones, a manner admirable in itself, but most difficult to 
 handle, and there is little trace in his work of the learning and consum- 
 
 PART OF A DESIGN FOR A CEILING AT GREENWICH, BY JOHN WEBB. 
 
 mate reticence of his master. Yet he came of a splendid school, and 
 nowhere is the saving influence of tradition more clearly seen than in 
 the work of pupils of great masters in architecture. 
 
 Vertue, in Walpole's "Anecdotes" (ii. 175), mentions an archi- 
 tect of the name of Marsh, who designed the "additional buildings 
 at Bolsover, erected after the Restoration," and Nottingham Castle. 
 The "additional buildings" are the riding-school block at Bolsover, by 
 far the finest part of the building, and a very powerful design. The 
 bold rustication of the archways, the quoins to the dormers, and the
 
 132 RENAISSANCK ARCHITFXTURK IN ENGLAND 
 
 breadth and vimnir o( the entire faqade, suggest the influence of Inigo 
 Jones, in spite of certain lapses here and there ; and it is possible that 
 this architect may have worked with Inigo Jones, though hitherto 
 nothing further has been discovered about him. 
 
 Sir Balthazar Cic^rbier credited himself with a fine building near the 
 York Stairs water-gate, and published a small treatise on magnificent 
 Iniildings, and another with the title of " Counsel and Advice to all 
 Builders," both in 1662. In the preface to "The 3 chief principles 
 of Magnificent Building," Gerbier says that the place of Surveyor- 
 General was intended for him after the death of Inigo Jones. Walpole 
 says that he gave the designs for I lempstead Marshall (since destroyed), 
 begun in 1662, and finished by his pupil, Captain Wynne; but this 
 appears to be inaccurate, as Gerbier was in utter disgrace at the 
 Restoration, and died in 1662. Gerbier is said to have designed the 
 original house for Lord Craven in 1620, in imitation of Heidelbergr. 
 This house was burnt, and it is not known that he had anything to do 
 with the second house, which was designed and carried out by Wynne. 
 Gerbier's work, however, is unimportant, and only of interest in so far 
 as Gerbier, who was employed under both James and Charles I., lived 
 till after the Restoration, and in this way forms a link between the times 
 of Inigo Jones and Wren. He died in 1662.' 
 
 Meanwhile the Gothic style had lingered on in the country, in spite 
 of the example set by the Church of St. Paul's in Covent Garden. 
 Bath Abbey Church, which was begun in 1499, was not completed till 
 1616, without any deviation in style from the original design. The 
 best traditions of the style were lost before the end of the sixteenth 
 century ; yet almost down to the time of the Restoration, a mason, when 
 called upon to build a church window, fell naturally into the ways of 
 late Perpendicular Gothic. It is, indeed, possible that the disappearance 
 of Gothic as a distinct style was partly due to the check given to all 
 church-building by the Reformation. Very few churches were built in 
 the last half of the sixteenth century, and the records of any of the 
 larger parish churches indicate clearly the tendency of national feeling 
 
 ' Some interesting details of CJerbier's career are given in W'alpole's "Anecdotes," 
 i. 273-282. He was a restless hut unsuccessful adventurer, who handled architecture 
 merely as one among his many other methods of speculation. He was deprived of his 
 post of Master of the Ceremonies, and died in 1662 (not iMj, the date given in the 
 " Dictionary of Architecture," art. Clerhier). On .Xugiist 24th, 1663, a petition for relief was 
 presented by his three surviving daughters, in which they state that they were left in 
 extreme poverty ; that ^4,000 of arrears had been owing to tluir father from Charles I., 
 and that they had been praying for relief for the last six moiitlis.
 
 JOHN WEBB, MARSH, AND GERBIER 
 
 in this regard. At Rye, Sussex, for instance, in 1547, there was 
 expended, "for cleaning the Church from Popery," £\ 15^. A,d.; this 
 consisted of the removal of all the images, altars and rood lofts, and the 
 sale of the church plate for ^99 14^-. \od. An ordinance of Edward \'I. 
 enacted that the Royal 
 Arms were to be sub- 
 stituted for a cross 
 above the rood lofts of 
 parish churches, and 
 though at Mary's ac- 
 cession, in 1553, an 
 attempt was made to 
 restore the old re- 
 ligion, money was 
 short, and the shabbi- 
 ness of the outlay is 
 almost pitiful. When 
 Elizabeth came to the 
 throne, in 1558, the 
 church at Rye was 
 again adapted to Pro- 
 testant notions, that 
 is, texts were painted 
 on the walls, and 
 pews were made for 
 the mayor and jurats 
 and their wives. The 
 days of that lavish 
 self-sacrifice, which 
 gave to this country 
 churches which are 
 still among its most 
 beautiful achieve- 
 ments in architec- 
 ture, were past for 
 ever ; and though churches were still to be built in the older manner, 
 they were built with rigid parsiiuony, as a necessity, no longer as an 
 occasion for the enthusiastic devotion of pious men. The artistic value 
 of this later work is in consequence very slight. Its interest is mainly 
 historical, as showing how intimately Gothic architecture was associated 
 
 DESIGN FOR A MANTELPIECE AT GREENWICH, 
 r,Y JOHN WEBB.
 
 134 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 with the older religious motives, and how deeply rooted this tradition 
 was in the minds of the English people. 
 
 During the reign of Elizabeth the money, which a hundred years 
 before would have been spent in building new chapels and chantries, or 
 in rood loft and reredos, was, so far as church-building was concerned, 
 devoted to sumptuous monuments of marble and alabaster. The ex- 
 isting churches were probably sufficient for the population, and the 
 question was rather that of preserving the old than of building any 
 new. In 1560 a proclamation was issued at Windsor' against breaking 
 or defacing monuments of antiquity set up in churches, and convertino- 
 church bells to private uses;' and, in consequence of the fire of June 4th, 
 1 561, a commission was appointed' to consider the repairs of St. Paul's, 
 and to procure funds. A considerable sum of money was raised, and 
 the roofs were restored and covered with lead, but the steeple was not 
 rebuilt ; in fact, the church work of this lime consists chielly in repair 
 and maintenance. Sometimes specific additions were made, such as 
 the gallery at the west end of St. Peter's, Wolverhampton, built at the 
 cost of the Merchant Taylors' Company in 16 10, but of actual church- 
 building very little was done in the reigns of Elizabeth or James. The 
 porch of Sunningwell Church, near Oxford, with Ionic columns and 
 Gothic tracery, was built in 1562, and the tower of Probus Church in 
 Cornwall, in 1570; Brancepath, Durham, in 1577, and Lower Peover 
 Church in Cheshire in 1580. Ouarendon Church in Bucks was restored 
 by Sir Henry Lee about 1600; and Fulmcr in Bucks in 1610. In all 
 these churches Gothic details were used, though often intermixed with 
 strange variations of Renaissance motives, faint echoes of that far-away 
 movement of which the country builder had heard, but as yet had no 
 understanding. 
 
 On the other hand, the Puritan ideal was rapidly gaining ground 
 throughout the country ; the meaning of the great Gothic churches was 
 becoming a sealed book to the majority of Englishmen. The archi- 
 tecture, which had once been the familiar language of a people with 
 faith and imagination, was already regarded by the Puritan as mysterious 
 and incomprehensible, the symbol of a doctrine which he hated, no 
 longer as the centre of all the most sacred and intimate associations of 
 life. Moreover the Court of James I. was greedy, and indifferent to 
 religion. In 161 7 and 161S licences were granted to search for 
 treasures in abbeys and priories, such as St. Albans, Glastonbury, and 
 
 ' Cal. Dom. State Papers, 13 Eliz., September 19th, 1560. 
 " Cdh Dom. State Papers, 17 Eliz., June 241)1, 1561.
 
 JOHN WEBB, MARSH, AND GERBIER 
 
 00 
 
 Romsey ; and probably much of the injury to shrines and monuments, 
 attributed to Cromwell's soldiery, was actually done by the persons who 
 
 SOUTH PORCH OF GROO.MBRIDGE CHURCH, KhXT, KUILT 1625 BV WILLIAM CAMFIELD. 
 "OB FdLICISSIMUM CAROLI PRINCIPIS EX HISPANIS REDDITUM." 
 
 obtained these licences. The poetry and mysticism of relioion was lost 
 to all but a few devoted men of exceptional imagination, and it was only
 
 'o 
 
 6 RENAISSANCH ARCI I ITRCTURK IN ENGLAND 
 
 the singular pertinacity of one great churcliman which breathed fresh 
 Ilk into this (-lying- spirit. This is not the place to discuss Laud's views 
 of government, ecclesiastical and temporal, but there is no doubt of his 
 sincere desire to make the services of religion orderly and comely, and 
 to make the church a building worthy of such services, hy the Puritan 
 mind, intolerent of ideas and insensible to beauty, this was interpreted 
 as a desire to introduce superstitions ; but it is clear to us that nearly 
 everything that was done to keep churches in decent maintenance, and 
 whatever activity there was in the way of church-building during the 
 twenty years that preceded the Civi IWar, must be attributed mainly to 
 the personal inlluence of men such as Laud and Matthew Wren. In 
 1 62 1 Laud was appointed Bishop of St. David's, and in 1626 Bishop 
 of Bath and Wells, and between these years several of the west country 
 churches were added to and repairetl. Stalls and a new aisle roof were 
 added to Sandhach Church in Cheshire, in 1620- 1633 and 1638. A new 
 roof was constructed in Astbury and Barthomley Churches in Cheshire 
 about 1620, and galleries were put up in Nantwich Church in 1624. 
 About the same time some of the midland churches were repaired. 
 In 1626 Sir R. Banastre restored the chancel of Passenham Church, 
 Northamptonshire, and added fresh seats and screens. The Church of 
 Leighton-Bromswould in Huntingdonshire was built for George Herbert 
 in 1626 ; and when the spire and part of the tower of Higham Ferrers 
 Church, in Northamptonshire, were blown down in 1631, they were 
 rebuilt to the old design, and even, so far as was possible, with the old 
 materials. The immense quantity of Jacobean woodwork, screens, pulpits, 
 and seats, still existing in English county churches, show the renewed 
 activity of the Church in the twenty years preceding the Civil War. In 
 Northiam Church, Sussex, there is to this day a complete altar-piece, 
 including the table, altar-rails, marble paving, even the faded green 
 cloth cover with its silk fringe, unaltered since the date at which they 
 were put up (about the year 1625). In St. John's Church at Leeds, 
 we have a rare and very interesting example of an entirely new church. 
 In 1632-3, the old parish chiirch being too small for the congregation, 
 John Harrison, a citizen of Leeds, built the Church of St. John's, and 
 endowed it with /'So per annum and /lo for repairs. The church was 
 consecrated by Archbishop Neill in 1634. In plan it consists of two 
 aisles of the same size, treated throughout exactly alike, with a square 
 tower at the west end of the north aisle. The aisle arcade has pointed 
 arches, and both aisles have square-headed windows with cinquefoil 
 lights. The two east windows have geometrical tracery of very fair
 
 JOHN WEBB, MARSH, AXD GKRBIER 137 
 
 design, but rather wiry in execution. The parapets have battlements. 
 With the exception of the semicircular arch to the porch, and the 
 curious capitals to the pillars of the arcade, all the details of the masonry 
 are late Gothic, with slight technical variations, which will be noticed in 
 dealing with the Oxford seventeenth century Gothic. When, however, 
 the carpenters, joiners, and carvers were turned into the church, Gothic 
 detail was abandoned. The framing of the roof with its square plaster 
 panels, the richly carved screen, running across the whole width of the 
 church, with the two great semicircular arches and open strap-work 
 spandrels, the details of the wainscot pews, the pulpit and the reading 
 desk, are all of the ordinary Jacobean type, that is, based on German 
 models, with variations according to the fancy of the workman. The 
 probable explanation of the capitals, which, though Gothic in outline, are 
 Renaissance in detail, is that a carver was set to work upon them at 
 some little interval after they were built. It is clear from this church 
 and from similar instances, such as W^ater-Eaton, Lytes-Cary, and 
 Rycott, that the Gothic tradition was preserved in masonry long after 
 it had died out in the other building trades. The same peculiarity is 
 noticeable in the library of St. John's, Cambridge, built 1623-4, for 
 Williams, Bishop of Lincoln. The windows, and particularly the great 
 oriel at the end, have fair decorated tracery in the heads, and the 
 buttresses have crocketted pinnacles, but all the details of the wood- 
 work are ordinary Jacobean. The windows are the more remarkable, in 
 that the wall to the court has two entablatures of ordinary Renaissance 
 sections. 
 
 It is probable, from the heterogeneous character of the details, that 
 no architect was employed to design this church at Leeds. John 
 Harrison may have given general directions, but the building as a 
 whole represents the unaided efforts of different craftsmen working 
 together without the control of a single mind. The result is undoubtedly 
 very picturesque, and the building is planned with excellent good sense in 
 regard to the particular form of service contemplated. It has however 
 the defect of its virtues. Though in the days when there was but one 
 inevitable style, it was possible for workmen to produce homogeneous 
 architecture without the control of an autocratic designer, this has 
 not been possible since the Renaissance. In a less degree the men of 
 the seventeenth century laboured under much the same disabilities 
 as the modern architect. They had to select their manner of ex- 
 pression instead of having it ready to hand, and as much a matter of 
 inheritance as their mother tongue. The consequence was that where 
 
 T
 
 138 RKXAISSANCE ARC! i 11 IX lU RK IN ENGLAND 
 
 several men worked together, as it were all upon one plane, and )Lt 
 independently, there was a certain confusion of speech and lack of 
 cohesion, and such a result could not be avoided unless a single mind 
 supplied the idea and controlled its execution tlown to the minutest 
 details. A liltK- later in the century, when the great school of the 
 seventeenth century architects was in full swing, this happy-go-lucky 
 system disappeared ; and though with it much that was interesting was 
 lost, the greater lucidity of idea which accompanied the change was a 
 distinct gain on the hazy thought of the unassisted workman ; a tradition 
 of sane and reasonable architecture was established which lasted in this 
 country down to the beginning of this century. It is on these grounds, 
 and in view of the exceedingly complex conditions of modern archi- 
 tecture, that the idea of abolishing the architect and revertine to the 
 combined work of independent craftsmen, seems to me to be little more 
 than an archaeological fad, the last piece of cant of the Gothic revival. 
 
 In 1628 Laud was translated to London, and in the same year the 
 re-building of the Church of St. Catherine Cree was begun. It was 
 consecrated by Latid in January, 1630, with an elaborate ceremonial 
 which was misinterpreted at the time, and afterwards formed one of the 
 grounds of his indictment.' The uncertainty of purpose noticed in St. 
 John's Church, Leeds, is found in St. Catherine's in an aggravated 
 form. The nave arcades consist of semicircular arches brought down 
 on to Corinthian columns without an intervening entablature, anil the 
 details of the external cornice, and the two southern doorways, are more 
 or less based on Renaissance models ; but the roofs are groined with 
 ribs of a rough Perpendicular section, the clerestory and side windows 
 have cinquefoiled heads, and the east window has five lower lights 
 cinquefoiled, with a Catherine-wheel rose in the upper half and more 
 or less orthodox cusping. As has been pointed out in the last chapter, 
 there appears to be no foundation for the tradition that Inigo Jones 
 designed this church, and it is unlikely that any architect pure and 
 simple was employed. The church was probably designed as well as 
 executed by masons who worked indifferently in either style. The 
 Church of St. Paul's, Hammersmith, consecrated by Laud in 1631, and 
 since destroyed to make way for the present church, showed a similar 
 mixture of styles, and Laud's additions to St. John's, Oxford (1631- 
 
 ' 'I'he charge agaiiibt Laud of subverting the reUgion of the country, was partly based on 
 this and similar ceremonials. No specific instance, however, is mentioned in the articles of 
 impeachment exhibited by the Commons against him in 1640, or in tlic further articles of 
 impeachment of 1643.
 
 JOHN WEBB, MARSH, AND GERBH^^ 
 
 139 
 
 1635) show certain resemblances to St. Catherine Cree, in the hetero- 
 geneous details, and the arcades, which make it possiI)!c that he 
 employed the same man 
 in these two buildings. 
 There is abundant evi- 
 dence of Laud's activity 
 in the city churches, most 
 of which were destroyed in 
 the Great Fire. Thus, in 
 
 1 63 1, ^'2,400 was spent' 
 in the repairs of St. Dun- 
 stan's in the East. In 
 1632-3 the roof t)f the nave 
 of St. Olave's, Hart Street, 
 was rebuilt on the old 
 lines, and probably the 
 clerestory windows. In 
 1633, St. Alban's, Wood 
 Street, was rebuilt by Inigo 
 Jones, apparently on the 
 old desisrn. Matthew 
 Wren, no less zealous than 
 Laud, in his desire to re- 
 form the service of the 
 Church, completed the 
 chapel and cloisters of 
 Peterhouse, Cambridge, in 
 
 1 632, as shown in Loggan's 
 view before the alterations 
 of 1709. The details of 
 the cloisters somewhat re- 
 sembled those of Laud's 
 work at St. John's, except 
 that the arches are four- 
 centred, but the windows 
 have late Perpendicular 
 tracery, and the whole 
 building is a curious mi.x- m^iu'.atw. knimu^ pltkrhousechai-kl, cambkux.k. 
 
 ture of Gothic intention and classical details ill-understood. George 
 Thompson was the mason, but no name of any designer is given in the 
 
 ' Strype's^" Survey."
 
 I40 RKNAISSAXXE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 account. Cosin, afterwards Bishop of Durham, who succeeded Wren, 
 gave ^390 towards the fittings, and introduced a crucifix on the high 
 altar. Prynne says that he made a regulation that none of the fellows 
 or scholars should turn their backs on the altar, either in entering or 
 leaving the chapel ; and it is evident that the interior was richly 
 decorated, for Dowsing, the iconoclast, reported that, in 1643, he and 
 others purified Peterhouse Chapel in his usual way. In his Diary (for 
 December 21, 1643), Dowsing notes "we went to Peterhouse, 1643, 
 December 21, with officers and souldiers and .... we pulled down 2 
 mighty great angells with wings, and divers other angells, and the 4 
 evangelists and Peter with his Keies over the chappel door, and about 
 a hundred Cherubims and angells and divers superstitious letters in 
 gold, and at the upper end of the chancel, these words were written as 
 followeth : ' Hie locus est Domus Dei, nil aliud, et Porta coeli,' witness 
 Will. Dowsing. Geo. Long." The glass of the east window was saved 
 by being taken down and hidden away in boxes. 
 
 Abel's work at Abbey Dore Church (1634), which has been 
 already described, is a good example of restoration as understood at 
 the time. No attempt was made to replace the old work with copies, 
 yet it is evident that Abel was conscious of its existence. The ceiling 
 of the chancel, as rebuilt by him, is flat, carried by great oak rafters with 
 carved brackets. These brackets spring from a slender shaft with an 
 Ionic capital ; but the proportions of this shaft are evidently based on 
 the small engaged shafts of the original Early English work, and the 
 shaft itself starts from the springing of the old groining. The effect is 
 not very incongruous, and this method of dealing with old buildings has 
 the advantage of preserving every fragment of the old work possible, 
 and of avoiding the falsification of history, which has resulted from the 
 church restorations carried out in England during the last fifty years. 
 Abel had at least sufficient respect for the work of his forefathers to 
 leave it alone, whereas the modern architect, with full ecclesiastical 
 sanction and encouragement, has been in the habit of arbitrarily select- 
 ing one particular period in the history of the Church, and sweeping 
 away all subsequent work to make room for his own inaccurate version 
 of the style selected. The result, however gratifying to the architect 
 and his client, is simply desperate for the historical student. 
 
 So again, where an addition was made to an existing church, no 
 attempt was made to design the new work in laborious imitation of the 
 old. The problem was met squarely and without affectation, and the 
 new stalls, or pulpit, or panelling, were carried out according to the
 
 JOHN WEBB, MARSH, y\ND GERBIER 
 
 141 
 
 methods of woodwork prevalent at the time, with a richness and origin- 
 ahty of which this generation can hardly form any conception, since 
 most of our churches have been swept and garnished by eminent church 
 
 
 ^\yy^v.^ 
 
 ""•>?' 
 
 mMmp\i-''--:J»ik 
 
 
 r^ • T- T 
 
 
 
 THE CHAPn:i,, LVTES-CARY. 
 
 restorers. At Cartmel Church, for instance, in 1640, George Preston, 
 "out of his zeale to God, at his great charges, repaired this Church, 
 being in greate decay, with a newe roof of tymber, and beautifyed it 
 within very decently with fretted plaister work, and adorned the chancel
 
 142 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTT kl' IX i:.\( '.I.AX D 
 
 with curiously carved wood- work, and i>laccd therein a pair of organs of 
 greatc vakie." The screens have detached oak columns, carved with 
 vines, and Corinthian capitals. In the cornice are the emblems of the 
 Passion, with launches of fruit interspersed. The naivete of this work, 
 and its entire freedom from self-con.sciousness, are a refreshing contrast 
 to the archaeological pedantry of modern restorations. 
 
 There is some uncertainty alxnit the charming little domestic 
 chapel of Lyte's-Cary in Somersetshire. This is of stone, with an open 
 timbered roof, and excellent Perpendicular tracery to the windows. 
 Round the building, immediately below the plate, runs a frieze of the 
 shields and armorial bearings of various families. There are thirty-nine 
 of these shields painted in red, blue, black, and yellow, but the chapel 
 being in a ruinous state, the shields are nearly perished. There is no 
 doubt that llie roof, and wainscoting, and this decoration were put up 
 by Thomas Lyte in 1631, and I incline to think that the whole chapel 
 was added by him to the house in that year, as there is a straight joint 
 at the west end, where the north and south walls abut against the 
 house, and an incised tablet in the .south side bears an inscription, 
 " This chapel being founded by William Lyte ..." and the date 
 163 1 ; the rest is illegible.' The little church of Rycott, near Thame, is 
 another remarkable instance of a private chapel. Whether built by the 
 Berties or not, about 1620, it served as the private chapel to the great 
 house of Rycott, now entirely destroyed. It consists of a single nave, 
 covered by a pointed barrel roof of wood painted blue, the ribs painted 
 red. The chancel is paved with black and white marble tiles, and at 
 the footpace to the chancel are inclosed pews on either side. That on 
 the north side is in two storeys, with an open arcade above panelling, 
 and above is a gallery with open-work panels. The whole of this wood- 
 work is picked out with gilt, the cohmms to the arcade painted black, 
 
 ' Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his account of the Lytes of Lytes-Cary, says "the existing 
 chapel unquestionably dates from the middle of the 14th century," but he admits that 
 " there is no direct evidence as to the foundation or endowments of the chapel." The 
 only documentary evidence appears to be the inscription in the chapel and an entry in 
 Thomas Lyte's common place-book. The inscription in 1889 was almost illegible, but 
 Mr. Lyte gives it in full : "This chapell beinge founded by William Lyte. sergeant at law 
 temp. Ed. i was in the vii. yere of K. Charles newely repayred by Thomas Lyte and Dame 
 Constance Sydney his wyfe an", do. 1631." The entry in Thomas Lyte's common place- 
 book is as follows : " Ten foot and a halfe of glass sett up in the chappie windoe at Lytes 
 Cary by Henry Lyte Esqr. a. d. 1567. whereby yt. appeareth that the chappie at Lytes 
 Cary 7oas statidi7ige in his tyme and by him lett dov'/ie." The last words seem to me con- 
 clusive evidence that Thomas Lyte rebuilt the chapel in 1631, and that it therefore dates 
 not from the fourteenth, but the seventeenth century.
 
 144 RHNAISSANCE ARCl I ITECTU RI-. IN ENGLAND 
 
 and arabesques in white paint fill the panels. The panelling by the 
 stairs to this gallery was all gilt, except little oval portraits in the 
 panels. The pew on the south side has an elaborate baldachino on 
 Ionic columns. The windows have good Perpendicular tracery, and all 
 the details of the stonework are Gothic, but I think it highly probable 
 that the whole building was built by the Berties early in the seventeenth 
 century.' Another well-known instance is the ruined chapel of Burford 
 Priory in Oxfordshire, built after 1634 by Speaker Lcnthall. The 
 styles are mixed in this building with the most complete audacity. The 
 chapel measures about 36 ft. by 12 ft., and appears to have been covered 
 in with a stone segmental roof, the springing of the flat enriched ribs 
 still remaining, though the roof itself has fallen in. A regular entabla- 
 ture with eec-and-toneue moulding runs round the interior, and the 
 architrave is returned down the sides of the windows, the heads of 
 which are filled in with tracery with no cusping. At the east end is a 
 three-light window, with the Ten Commandments carved on stone 
 tablets on either side. The adjacent north and south windows have 
 wheel tracery. At the west end are remains of a wooden gallery on 
 stone spiral-fluted columns ; antl on either side of the doorway two 
 angels standing on pilaster balusters support a carving of the burning 
 bush, with inscriptions " Exue calceos nam terra sancta est" and "quasi 
 per ignes salvabimur." The building is in a most ruinous state, the 
 gallery is half destroyed, the roof fallen in, and fragments of the stone 
 carving and tracery lie scattered about among the nettles. 
 
 The Gothic tradition was tenaciously maintained at Oxford. When 
 Sir Thomas Bodley built his schools he probably intended his tower to 
 be a fine Renaissance composition, but the Gothic tradition creeps in at 
 every point : in the groining of the gateway, the cusping to the windows, 
 and the crockets to the pinnacles ; and when a new college chapel was 
 built, the Gothic method of fenestration was habitually followed. Wad- 
 ham (1610-1613) is a characteristic instance. The windows to the choir 
 and the east window have very fair Perpendicular tracery, but a curious 
 variation is introduced into the windows of the ante-chapel : the tracery 
 above the heads of the three lower lights has no cusping, but the oval 
 in the centre has key-blocks, and the mouldings run out into scrolls. 
 Jewit suggests that this was probably done in order to make the ante- 
 chapel windows uniform with those of the hall ; the remarkable thing is 
 that the Perpendicular windows of the choir are actually the later of the 
 
 ' This most interesting little building is in nn out-orthe-way place, and was, when I 
 examined it in i8go, in a very neglected and dilapidated state.
 
 lOHX \vp:bb, marsh, and geri;ii:r 
 
 145 
 
 two. Mr. Jackson has proved from the building accounts of the college 
 that the windows of the hall and antc-chapel were completed by William 
 
 THE CH.\1>EL, BK.\ZENOSl;, OXFORD. 
 
 Arundel in 161 i to 1612, whereas John Spicer made the eleven windows 
 of the choir in the spring and summer of 1612. Mr. Jackson remarks 
 with justice : " John Spicer little thought what a pitfall he was digging 
 
 u
 
 146 RI'XAISSANCE ARC! ! ril". C Tl' Kl' IN ENGLAND 
 
 lor many an archceological reputation." At Jtisus Chapel the c;ast 
 window (1636) has good geometrical tracery, but no subordination in 
 the mouldings, and in the side window of the Chapel of St. Mary's 
 Hall (1632-1644) the tracery starts from the mullions like cusping, and 
 the fillets of the tracery do not meet. In Lincoln Chapel (1631) antl 
 Oriel (163 7- 1 642) the filletof the tracery has a hollow channel sunk on the 
 face. The famous staircase to the hall at Christ Church (1640) was 
 
 built by Dean Fell, " by the help of Smith, an artificer of London." ' 
 
 The fan tracery and the central shaft are so good that, except for a 
 slight attenuation of detail, this might easily be mistaken for work a 
 hundred and fifty years earlier. The most remarkable instance at 
 O.Kford is the latest. Brazenose Chapel was completed in 1666. The 
 north window of the ante-chapel has flowing geometrical tracery, but is 
 framed into an architrave with a broken pediment above, and the side 
 windows of the chapel have pointed heads and geometrical tracery, but 
 are Hanked by pilasters with Corinthian capitals, supporting a regular 
 entablature. Indeed, this Oxford seventeenth century Gothic is the 
 most curious in England. It persistently peeps out through Renais- 
 sance ornaments and classic frontispieces — cusps and crockets mix 
 indiscriminately with orders and entablatures. Oxford, in fact, remained 
 essentially mediaeval till the rude clash of the Civil War broke in upon 
 her dreams. 
 
 A similar mixture of styles occurs in the Church of Bervvick-on- 
 Tweed, built by Colonel Fenwicke, the governor, 1648-1652. This church 
 has a nave, and north and south aisles. The nave arcade has plain 
 semicircular arches, brought down without any entablature on to the 
 abaci of Tuscan columns ; but the clerestory windows have three lights 
 with cinquefoiled heads, the centre light stepped up above the two side- 
 lights, as at St. Catherine Cree's. There is no tower, but two octagonal 
 turrets with cupolas at the west end. In this case it almost seems as if 
 the church was begun by a mason with classical tastes, and finished by 
 one who preferred the Gothic. The latest example of a complete Gothic 
 church is Charles Church at Plymouth, Iniilt in about 1657, though the 
 upper part of the tower was rebuilt in i 708, and some atrocious wood- 
 work was added at the end of the last century. With these exceptions, 
 the church is entirely Gothic, and all its details were copied from those 
 of St. Andrew's, Plymouth, which was completed in 1460. The nave 
 and the north and south aisles have barrel roofs, divided into square 
 
 ' Peshall's edition of " Wood."
 
 JOHN WEBB, MARSH, AND GERBHLR 147 
 
 panels by wooden ribs, with flat, square bosses at their intersection. 
 The arches to the nave arcades are just pointed, and Ijoth the mouldins^s 
 and the piers, which are very slender, are of ordinary Perpendicular 
 section. The three east windows have elaborate geometrical tracery, 
 which is much too crowded, and has the fault of having all the spaces 
 of the tracery about equal in size. It is carried out, however, in the 
 orthodox manner, with some attempt at subordination in the mouldings. 
 Though the workmen evidently had difficulty in executing the details 
 in granite with any precision, the general effect of the interior is good, 
 and there is more of the feeling of late fifteenth century work in this 
 church than in any other of so late a date. 
 
 The instances given above of the survival of Gothic could easily be 
 added to. Bishop Hacket's work at Lichfield, for example, and Bishop 
 Cosin's at Bishop-Auckland were inspired by the same motives and 
 followed the same methods as the work undertaken by Laud and 
 Matthew Wren, and the impulse lasted down almost to the end of the 
 seventeenth century. The tower of Warborough Church near Shillingford 
 bears the date 1666, but might easily be mistaken for work a hundred 
 years earlier. It is short and square, with engaged octagonal buttresses 
 at the angles, the walls are composed of coursed rubble, with bands of 
 knapped flints at intervals, the parapet has battlements, and the west 
 door and tower windows, flat four-centred heads. In every detail it 
 exactly resembles an early sixteenth century tower, and it is very 
 probable that, in some cases, work which has been assigned without 
 hesitation to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was actually done at 
 least one hundred years later. The latest examples of Gothic are said 
 to be Welland Church, 1672, and the chancel and tower of Hanley 
 Church, 1674, both in Worcestershire. Gothic details of a sort were of 
 course used in the eighteenth century; these, however, were deliberate 
 revivals and copies, and are entirely different in character from these last 
 survivals of Gothic, the work of the country builder who, more or less, 
 consciously adhered to the old tradition. 
 
 I have traced this curious chapter of architectural history, not so 
 much on account of its artistic importance as on account of its intrinsic 
 interest. Artistically, this late Gothic is inferior work, the detail 
 mechanical, the execution ignorant and slovenly : it was the expression^ 
 not of men working freely in the full enjoyment of their traditional craft, 
 but of workmen behind the time — of men brought up on a past tradition, 
 who clung tenaciously to a half-forgotten art. On this ground alone it 
 is profoundly interesting. It is clear indeed from this dying effort that
 
 148 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 Gothic architecture was still most intimately associated w'ah the religion 
 of the English Church. The magnificent freedom of Renaissance art 
 had no attraction for such men as Herbert and Crashaw, and so \vc fnul 
 in this last tlicker of mediieval art the fit architectural expression of 
 that religious mysticism, which flamed out in dying brilliancy to resist 
 the approach of Puritanism, and which, indeed, from one point of view, 
 might itself be taken as the last serious effort of the mediaeval world. 
 But the energies of that world were now finally scattered. The con- 
 ditions under which Gothic architecture had grown to its splendid 
 maturity had long since ceased to exist, and could never be recalled. 
 Some attempt was made in the last century, though, indeed, but half in 
 earnest, to revive mediaeval art, and in this present century the attempt 
 has been made again with a devotion as intense as it was uncritical. 
 It is, perhaps, not premature to say that this second endeavour is 
 sharing the fate of the first. History follows its own irresistible course, 
 and enthusiasm, however amiable, is fore-doomed to failure unless it 
 can place itself within the lines of the inevitable development of facts.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Sir Christopher Wren. 
 
 The extreme gravit)- of the historical events which occurred in 
 England between 1640 and 1660 threw architecture and the arts into 
 the background, and it is owing to this apparent check that an undue 
 distinction has been made between Wren and Inigo Jones. The stream 
 of development was never in fact arrested. Webb, the pupil of Inigo 
 Jones, was in full practice after the Restoration, and came into collision 
 with Wren on the question of the Surveyorship. Captain Wynne, the 
 pupil of Gerbier, did not complete Buckingham House till 1705, and the 
 versatile Gerbier himself managed to get employment after 1660; but 
 the most important evidence in regard to the continuity of the English 
 Renaissance is to be found in the fact that, the more Wren advanced in 
 mastery of his art, the more nearly he approached to the manner of 
 Inigo Jones. The reason for the divergence of Wren's earlier work 
 from the models left by his great predecessor is to be found not in any 
 change of ideas, but in Wren's training, or rather, in the absence of it ; 
 for it was only by slow degrees and large experience of work that Wren 
 attained to certainty of taste, and the full maturity of the accomplished 
 manner of his later years. 
 
 Christopher Wren was born at East Knoyle in Wiltshire on October 
 20th, 1632. His father, the Rector of East Knoyle, and afterwards Dean 
 of Windsor, w^as brother to Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely, and was 
 a man of some attainments as a herald, and possessed of some of that 
 practical ingenuity which was perhaps the most striking characteristic of 
 the genius of his son. As Dean of Windsor, he drew up an estimate 
 amounting to ;!f 13,305 for a new building for the queen, which was 
 never carried out, and it is evident that both Christopher (the elder) 
 and Matthew Wren had some knowledge of building. Willis and 
 Clarke suggest, on the strength of a passage in the " Parentalia," that 
 Wren's father devised the arrangement of the Chapel of Peterhouse, 
 Cambridge, with open cloisters on either side, which was built 1628- 1632. 
 
 After four years at Westminster, under Dr. Busby, Christopher 
 Wren entered at Wadham College, Oxford, as a Fellow Commoner in
 
 I50 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENCEAND 
 
 1649, and very early gave evidence of his sinoular al)ility. He trans- 
 lated into Latin a mathematical treatise by W. Oughlred, who speaks 
 of him as "a youth generally admired for his talents, who, when not yet 
 sixteen years old, enriched astronomy, gnomics, statics, and mechanics, by 
 brilliant inventions, and, in truth, is one from whom I can not vainly look 
 for great things ; " and throughout his career Wren showed an extra- 
 ordinary capacity for assimilating knowledge, and reducing it to practical 
 shape. His theoretical speculations were never of any very great value. 
 In spite of his wide mathematical knowledge. Wren did not approach 
 scientific problems from the point of view of a thinker such as Newton. 
 His intellect was in this regard of a different and inferior calibre. 
 Instead of seeking to establish any of those far-reaching principles 
 which lay the ground-work for new departures in scientific discovery. 
 Wren used his knowledge as a means of reducincf to clear and logical 
 shape the discoveries of others, and of extracting from those discoveries 
 mechanical inventions which might be of immediate practical use. Such, 
 for instance, were the weather-clock, and a pavement " h,u-der, fairer, and 
 cheaper than marble," or the piece of white marble, presented to Evel)'n 
 in 1654 by "that prodigious young scholar, Mr. Christopher Wren .... 
 which he had stained with a lively red, very deepc, as beautiful as if it 
 had been natural." Throughout his life Wren employed his very scant)- 
 leisure in these ingenious, if rather futile, inventions, which have long 
 since ceased to be of the slightest importance. Wren's practical con- 
 sciousness and extreme fertility of resource would, under modern con- 
 ditions, have made him one of the most consummate engineers that have 
 ever existed, but in this very comprehensiveness lay the single weakness 
 of W^ren as an artist. His interest in the various aspects of building 
 was so evenly balanced, that he sometimes found himself unequal to the 
 restraint of those costly sacrifices in art, without which the highest 
 qualities of architecture are unattainable. 
 
 In 1653 Wren was elected to a fellowship at All Souls', and for 
 the next few years was busy with the meetings at Wadham and 
 Gresham College, which led to the foundation of the Royal Society. 
 In 1657 he was appointed Professor of Astronomy at Gresham College, 
 and when the charter of incorporation was granted to the Royal Society, 
 in 1663, Wren drafted the preamble in a somewhat exuberant and 
 involved style. In 1661 he was appointed Savilian Professor of 
 Astronomy at Oxford, and in the following year he declined an offer 
 from the king of a commission to survey the fortifications at Tangiers, 
 and to superintend the building of the new works. This offer was due
 
 7^ ,i.k_<-»^.. •._„.^_— ■•^■f^ 
 
 IHK ASH.MOLEAN MUSKUM, OXFORD.
 
 152 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 to tlie innuence of Evelyn and Matthew Wren, whose steadfast loyalty 
 had its reward ; otherwise it is remarkable tliat John Wl-IjIj should 
 have been passed over, and such an offer have been made to a man 
 whose reputation rested entirely on his scientific attainments : for 
 Wren had as yet no training in architecture or practical acquaintance 
 with building, and though in the end he more than justified the favour 
 which led to his becoming an architect, his early works distinctly suffer 
 from this absence of any sufficient training, and the fact that he was 
 nearly thirty before he turned his attention to architecture. 
 
 In 1 66 1 Wren was appointed assistant to Sir John Denham, the 
 Surveyor-General of Works, from whom he can have learnt very little, 
 and his first work was Pembroke Chapel at Cambridge for Matthew 
 Wren (1663-4), a simple and well-proportioned design, though quite 
 incongruous with the adjacent buildings ; and in the same year he 
 began the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford, which was completed in 
 1668. Wren's knowledge of construction found its opportunity in the 
 roof, which has a flat ceiling with a span of 68 feet ; ' but as yet he had 
 not attained to the suavity of manner found in his later work. The 
 inside is uninteresting, and the details of the exterior coarse and heavy. 
 The Sheldonian compares very unfavourably with the Ashmolean 
 (1677) - immediately to the west of it, on the whole the most charming 
 example of work of this date in Oxford. This building is of considerable 
 interest in regard to the development of English architecture, for with 
 all the advance in scholarship shown in the design of the east elevation, 
 there is a distinct reflection of the work of the Jacobean builders in the 
 mullioned windows of the facade towards Broad Street. 
 
 ' Thu roof was carried out by Richard Frogley, carpenter, and, considering the 
 somewhat unscientific methods hitherto in use, is a skilful piece of construction. The 
 scantlings of the timbers used are as follows : span, 68 ft. ; height of queen posts, 8 ft. ; 
 tie-beam out of 21 in. by 20 in. ; head, 18 in. by 12 in. ; braces, 12 in. by 8 in. and 12 in. 
 by 6 in.; principal rafters, 13 in. by 12 in. ; queen posts, 12 in. Ijy 9 in. ; all the timbers are of 
 pine except the queen posts, which are of oak. The principals are set 1 2 ft. centre to centre, 
 and the iron straps at feet of queen posts and principal rafters are 3 J in. by ^ in. thick. 
 
 - The Ashmolean has always been attributed to Wren ; on an old print, however, of 
 the Ashmolean, by Burghers, reproduced in the O.xford almanack for 1895, the name of the 
 architect is given as " T. Wood, architect " — an otherwise unknown man. It is possible 
 that Wood's share in the architecture was confined to making the drawing of the building 
 for the engraver. But the inscription on the print also says : " Sold, drawn, and engraved 
 by Mr. Burghers," and if this is to be trusted, Wood, and not ^V^ren, must be credited with 
 the design of the Ashmolean, and Wood must rank with Bell of King's Lynn as one of 
 those many able architects whom, it seems, the mere accident of history has consigned to 
 oblivion.
 
 Vaknthu; Pholo. 
 
 TRINITY COLI.KGK CHAPEL, OXFORD. 
 
 Face p. 152.
 
 SIR CIIRISTOPllKR WREN 153 
 
 In 1665 Wren designed the inner court of Trinity College, 
 Oxford,' and in the summer of this year started for Paris, where he 
 stayed till the following Christmas, " Surveying the most esteemed 
 fabrics in Paris and the country round " and making it his business "to 
 pry into trades and arts." No better school of architecture was to be 
 found in Europe at the time. The Louvre was then being built from 
 the designs of Bernini, and Wren had introductions to the brilliant 
 group of artists brought together by the intelligence of Colbert. That 
 he made full use of his time is proved by his subsecjuent work. Wren 
 never went to Italy, and this six months' stay in P" ranee was the only 
 period of studentship that he ever went through. On his return to 
 England, he was at once immersed in the business of a most laborious 
 career which allowed him no leisure till he reached extreme old age, 
 and his rapid advance in technical skill was gained by the experiments 
 in actual building which his exceptional opportunities allowed him. In 
 all the earlier work of Wren's middle period, the influence ot the 
 French decorators is very marked, but it gradually disappeared towards 
 the end of the seventeenth century, and in his later work he shook 
 off the exuberant ornament which disfigures some oi his earlier 
 designs." 
 
 It is evident that Wren's connections, and his distinguished reputa- 
 tion as a scholar and mathematician, brought him quickly into promin- 
 ence as an architect. As early as 1662 he was consulted on the 
 repairs of Old St. Paul's.' Only part of the scheme proposed by Inigo 
 Jones had been carried out, when the works were stopped bj' the Civil 
 War; and the building was now in a very dangerous condition. The 
 tower was unsafe, and the nave roof was thrusting out the walls. Wren 
 proposed to build " a light thin shell of stone very geometricalh" made" 
 as a roof, and to replace the tower with " a dome or rotunda, and upon 
 the cupola for outward ornament, a lantern with a spring top to rise pro- 
 
 ' His clients insisted on a quadrangle, though, as Wren pointed out, it was quite the 
 wrong thing : " but," he added, " if any body will pay for a quadrangle, there is no dispute 
 to be made ; let them have a quadrangle, tho' a lame one, somewhat like a three-legged 
 table" : apparently his astuteness gained the point, for the court is a three-sided one to 
 this day. 
 
 " Wren, however, seems to have kept his head amid the splendours of the French 
 Court. He wrote from Paris : " The women, as they make here the language and fashions, 
 and meddle with Politics and Philosophy, so they sway also in architecture ; works of 
 Filgrand and little knacks are in great vogue : but building certainly ought to have the 
 attribute of eternal, and therefore the only thing incapable of new fashions." " Parentalia," 
 p. 261. 
 
 ' Letter from T. Spratt to Christopher Wren, 1662. 
 
 X
 
 154 Kl'XAlSSAXCl': A RCl 1 11 I'X'l L' Rl' L\ K.XuLAM) 
 
 portionatelj." 1 1 is evident that his secret intention must have been to 
 oradually rebuild the cathedral on the lines begun by Inigo Jones, 
 leaving certain portions of the old work inside. The question was 
 raised in canic'sl in i666, and Wren got out his designs. Four of the 
 drawings, dated i666 and signed, are preserved in the Library of All 
 Souls', Oxford. The old choir was to remain, with the exception of the 
 end bay westward ; and the outline of the steep lead roof of the nave 
 was to be preserved, but pilaster buttresses with obelisks as terminals 
 were to be added. Over the crossing was to be the- new dome, con- 
 sisting of an inner dome of masonry and an outer dome covered with 
 lead with a lantern at the top surmounted by a huge open-work pine- 
 apple, 68 feet high, of monstrous and horrible design. The only 
 attractive feature in this scheme was the double flight of eighteen semi- 
 circular steps, leading from tlu; crossing under the dome to the old 
 choir. The fire of London, which began September 2nd, 1666, saved 
 Wren from attempting to realize this impossible idea. 
 
 The Great Fire was Wren's opportunity. The city was "a ruinous 
 heai);" and Wren, who had succeeded .Sir John Denham as -Survejor- 
 General in 1668, had the field pretty well to himself He at once drew 
 up a masterly plan for laying out the city, which the king accepted ; but 
 the necessity of immediate re-building, difficulties of compensation, and 
 the want of money, prevented the scheme being carried out. The area 
 covered extended from the Temple Gardens on the south, to the end of 
 Fetter Lane on the north, and ran north-east by Hosier Lane, inchiding 
 Newgate, Aldersgate, and Cripplegate in the east. It stopped short of 
 Broad Street and Leadenhall Street, but extended south-east in an 
 irregular line to the east of Billingsgate, the Custom House occupying the 
 extreme south-east corner. The three main features, going from west to 
 east, were to be, (i) a circular space on the crown of Fleet Street Hill, 
 about on the site of St. Dunstan's Church, from which eight streets 
 radiated in straight Hnes, connected by cross streets laid out on an octagon 
 plan in relation to the circular space ; (2) a triangular space, to include 
 St. Paul's and Doctor's Commons, gradually widening out eastwards as 
 it ascended Ludgate Hill ; (3) the Royal Exchange, on the old site, 
 but placed in an open space, surrounded by the Post Office, the Excise 
 Office, the Goldsmiths' Insurance Office, and the Mint. Wren intended 
 this to be the centre of the City, and from it were to radiate ten streets 
 each sixty feet wide. A broad quay was to run down the river bank, 
 and, by means of straight streets, the Exchange would be seen from 
 three separate points on the quay. Opposite the end of London
 
 CU"' *"* 
 
 >y 
 
 ■-■TM \ 
 
 
 «fl ^ 
 
 
 liF 1 L 
 
 N,--"^v. 
 
 
 ■^\ V 
 
 ^fe^f^i 
 
 D 
 
 r 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 U-Ji- -J 
 
 Rf 
 
 naDOOo r 
 
 u 
 
 I 
 
 L 
 
 WKEN S PLAN FOR 
 {.All Hauls Co
 
 VT- 
 
 
 "W 
 
 5: 
 
 nip 
 
 s*^ 
 
 
 V^*^' 
 
 y^. 1^ ij^..-. 
 
 
 ,.},.■:•..,-.,.. 
 
 iUILDING LONDON 
 ColUctioti)
 
 SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN 155 
 
 Bridge there was to be a large semicircular space, with arms radiating 
 outwards to join the other streets. The scheme was indeed worthy of 
 Wren's genius, and, had it been carried out, would have made the City 
 of London one of the most beautiful in th(' world. Wren's fine intelli- 
 gence grasped the full architectural possibilities of vistas of broad 
 straight streets, linked together by groups of public buildings, the 
 importance of a commanding site for these buildings, and the absolute 
 necessity of a complete and consecutive scheme to the dignity of a great 
 city, as opposed to a mere farrago of houses. Where any such scheme 
 has been attempted in this century it has been spoilt by the poverty of 
 average modern design. In London, the largest area of buildings in 
 the world, the attempt has never been seriously made, and the various 
 schemes that have been proposed from time to time have, in nearly 
 every case, the defect of timidity. They lack comprehensiveness, the 
 unflinching audacity of the autocrat, who might, for example, draw 
 straight lines from St. Paul's to the British Museum, and from the 
 British Museum to Somerset House. Wren saw at once that mere 
 tinkering was worse than futile, and that it was a question of a 
 large idea or nothing; unfortunately, his scheme was never even 
 attempted. 
 
 Wren next turned his attention to the re-building of the City 
 churches and St. Paul's. The two occupied him concurrently for the 
 next thirty-eight years ; but though the latter is far the more important 
 work, it will be more convenient to deal with the churches first, as these, 
 to some extent, represent W^ren's tentative eftbrts, the mature results of 
 which are to be found in the details of St. Paul's. In dealing with the 
 City churches Wren had an exceedingly difficult problem. A great 
 many of the sites were very irregular, the resources available were 
 limited, and Wren had to adapt his buildings to severely Protestant 
 requirements. Moreover, he had no precedents to refer to, from the 
 conditions of the case. Wren, however, surmounted these difficulties 
 with conspicuous success ; and probably in none of his works is his 
 extraordinary fertility of resource more evident than in his City churches. 
 The problem before him was to provide the most practical and economical 
 church possible for a Protestant congregation, and Wren had very clear 
 ideas as to the proper way to set to work. In the report which he 
 wrote as one of the Commissioners of Queen Anne's .A.ct of 1708, for 
 building fifty new churches, Wren says, " It would be vain to make a 
 Parish Church larger than that all who are present can both hear and 
 see. The Romanists, indeed, may build larger churches, it is enough if
 
 156 RRNAISSANCl': ARCl I ITFXTURR IN ENGLAND 
 
 they hear tin; murmur of lh(^ mass and sec the Elevation of the Host, 
 but ours are to be fitted for auditories." This end Wren held steadily 
 in view, and account of it must be taken in criticising his churches. 
 The interiors are, with few exceptions, rather bald, and destitute of the 
 mystery and play of light and shade to be found in ihi' mediaeval church; 
 but Wren deliberately sacrificed these effects to practical considerations. 
 He insisted that, if possible, everyone must both see and hear the 
 preacher, and when that was provided for, he was less careful about those 
 subtle qualitic;s ol architrcturL' which a[)[)ea] to emotions that lie less 
 close to the surface. Wren was throughout his career thoroughly 
 conscious of what he was doing, and though an architect of extraordinary 
 capacity, he possessed little of the abandon oi the purely artistic genius. 
 On the other hand, the strong point about these churches is their 
 extreme reasonableness, and their skilful adaptation of means to ends. 
 W'rcn was essentially an architect, perhaps a little careless in detail, but 
 most dexterous in emergency, and the ingenuity with which he met the 
 difficulties of his sites has never been surpassed. To an)one but Wren, 
 the site of the Church of St. Benet Fink' would have seemed almost 
 hopeless. The external walls described a decagon, of an internal length 
 of 63 ft. and width of 49 ft. Wren met the difficulty with an elliptical 
 cupola in the centre, supported on six columns, with arched recesses 
 from the columns to the outer walls, and the tower was attached to one 
 of the shorter cants. 
 
 The remarkable variety of treatment shown in these churches 
 makes them difficult to classify. Mr. Taylor has classified them by 
 their towers or steeples, a method which has the merit of calling 
 attention to their most attractive and successful feature. The tower, 
 however, is not the church ; and an examination of Wren's designs 
 shows that he had three ways of covering in his churches. The 
 sites with which he had to deal were usually irregular parallelograms, 
 varying from 60 ft. by 30 ft. (St. Basil's, Gracechurch Street) to 114 ft. 
 by 81 ft. (Christchurch, Newgate Street). The churches built on these 
 sites had either (i) a single flat ceiling with a deep plaster cove ; or, (2) 
 domes with arched recesses, with or without detached columns ; or, 
 (3) naves covered with waggon ceilings, with flat or groined ceilings to 
 the aisles. Under the first head will also have to be classified churches 
 of the meeting-house type, but with a single aisle, such as St. Laurence 
 [ewry. Mr. Loftie, in his admirable account, has pointed out how Wren 
 
 ' .Since destroyed. See " London Churches of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth 
 Centuries," by Ceorge Bircli, F.S.A. Batsford, i8g6.
 
 
 FONT, CHRISTCHUKCH, NKWCATK STREET.
 
 158 RI'XAISSANCK AkCHl ri' C TU RI". IN ENGLAND 
 
 had recourse to all sorts of shifts in order " to work in every available 
 morsel of space." He was not afraid of single aisles, or of interiors 
 which were neither square nor parallel, as in the Church of All Hallows 
 the Great ; and whereas, in several modern London churches, architects 
 working in the Gothic style have sacrificed parts of very costly sites in 
 order to get their buildings symmetrical, Wren, who designed in a 
 manner which is supposed to be rigid and unelastic, worked up to the 
 very last inch of his site.' St. Benet's, Gracechurch Street (1685), and 
 All Hallows, Lombard Street (i6;)4), are good examples of the single- 
 room type. Other instances are St. Mary Somerset, St. Nicholas Cole- 
 Abbey, St. Michael's, Oueenhithe, and St. Edmund's, Lombard Street. 
 Of the second type of church the most familiar instance is St. Stephen's, 
 Walbrook (1672- 1679), a church which has been extravagantly praised, 
 but which is undoubtedly one of the most original of all Wren's interiors. 
 The plan consists of a parallelogram, 82 ft. 6 in. by 59 ft. 6 in.,- divided 
 into five aisles of varying widths by rows of columns in six bays. The 
 third and fourth columns from the east end in the centre aisle are 
 omitted, leaving a square space which is covered in with a circular 
 dome, springing from a heavy entablature on eight arches. The east 
 bay of the centre aisle, and the two bays to the west, are groined, and 
 the aisles have flat trabeated ceilings. The result is, that out of a rect- 
 angular room, Wren has got the effect of a church with a nave, aisles, 
 and crossing. Mr. Fergusson has sought for the origin of this mast(-rl)' 
 conception in certain eastern domes. But Wren had certainly never 
 seen such domes, even if he knew of their existence ; and it is more 
 probable that he arrived at his result by pure ingenuity and constructive 
 skill. In fact, the fault of the design, apart from its details, is that it 
 leaves the intellectual scaffolding too much in evidence. The re-enter- 
 ing angles of the square under the dome are rather bald and monotonous 
 in treatment, and the suQorestion of the constructive skeleton is un- 
 pleasant. Wren, with the instinct of an engineer rather than that of an 
 artist, having broken the back of the difficulty, was a little careless 
 about its ultimate form, for the details of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, are 
 coarse and irrelevant. But taken as a whole, St. Stephen's is a most 
 
 ' Mr. Birch (" London Churches," 1896, [lagc 2) points out thai in most casts the 
 churches were built on the old sites, and often actually on the old foundations. 
 
 - The general dimensions given in Godwin and Britton's " Churches of London " are : 
 length, 82 ft. 6 in., width, 59 ft. 6 in., height to ceiling of aisles, 36 ft., diameter of 
 dome, 45 ft., height to top of dome, 63 ft. 'I'he dome is constructed of wood. Mr. Birch 
 gives the date 1676-78.
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 INTERIOR OF ST. STEPHEN'S, WALISROOK..
 
 i6o RENAISSANCE A KCl I ITECTU kl-: 1\ ENGLAND 
 
 impressive interior. It is the more interesting in that it is one of 
 Wren's earlier works, and that in this church he made his first venture 
 in the treatment of domes, one of the noblest expressions of architecture, 
 and one in wliich lie \v:is probably more successful than any arcliilect 
 before or since. 
 
 Wren used cupolas at St. Antholin's, St. Mary i\bchurch, St. Henet 
 Fink, and St. Swithin's, Cannon Street, and employed a charming 
 variation in St. Mildred's, Bread Street. The plan is a parallelogram, 
 62 ft. by 36 ft. Wren tlivided this into three parts, the centre covered 
 by a dome the full width of the building, and the two end spaces by bold 
 semicircular arches. His usual treatment of such a space was to form a 
 bold cove cornice with a flat ceiling. It is probal)le that the success of 
 St. -Stephen's, Walbrook, tempted him to this fresh experiment at .St. 
 Mildred's. St. .Stephen's was building from 1672-1679; and St. Mildred's, 
 Bread Street, was built between 1677 and 1683. 
 
 For larger sites Wren generally adopted the ordinary nave and 
 aisle treatment, usually with galleries round the west, north, and south 
 sides. On the whole the finest e.xamples of this class are St. Bride's, 
 Fleet Street, and Christ Church, Newgate Street; and Wren's versatility 
 is clearly shown in these two interiors. St. Bride's is as light and 
 cheerful as Christ Church is austere and almost forbidding. Both 
 churches have galleries, but the treatment is more satisfactory in Christ 
 Church than in .St. Bride's. In the latter the columns are coupled, and 
 small pilasters at the side of the columns carry the gallery front, with 
 the unhappy result that the columns are divided half way up by the 
 gallery front. At Christ Church the columns carrying the entablature, 
 irom which springs the waggon ceiling, stand on a lofty pedestal 
 reaching up to the soffit of the gallery. The effect is to increase the 
 apparent stability of the columns, and this impression is further 
 heightened by the continuous entablature which they carry, instead of 
 the detached fragments of an entablature used at St. Bride's. In St. 
 Clement Danes (1684) solid rectangular piers support the gallery, the 
 front of which is returned above these piers, and the Corinthian columns 
 supporting the arcade start clear above the gallery front. The idea 
 which Wren had in view in Christ Church is still further developed in 
 the Church of .St. Andrew by the Wardrobe. Wren was evidently 
 striving to bind the gallery and tlie piers supporting the nave roof into 
 a homogeneous composition. He failed to do so in St. Bride's (1680), 
 and St. James's, Westminster (16S3), was partially successful in Christ 
 Church (1687), and finally realized his idea in St. Andrew by the
 
 SIR CHRIS rOFHER \VRP:X i6i 
 
 Wardrobe (1692). In this church he again used the high pedestals up 
 to the gallery, but instead of columns he used square panelled pillars, 
 and dispensed with an entablature altogether. This interior is, notwith- 
 standing, one of the least attractive of Wren's designs. A fault almost 
 inevitable in Wren's treatment of his waggon ceilings is conspicuous in 
 the ceiling of St. Andrew's. Wren introduced in each bay large 
 circular wreaths of flowers on the arched soffit of the ceiling, and the 
 conflict of the circle on plan, with the curve in section, is exceedingly 
 unpleasant. The same fault occurs in the ceiling of St. Peter's Cornhill. 
 St. Andrew's Holboni, St. Magnus, St. James's Westminster, .St. 
 Nicholas Cornhill, St. Mary Aldermary, St. Mary-le-Bow, are the 
 most important examples of the waggon roof and side aisle type ; but on 
 the whole the interior of Christ Church, Newgate Street, is the strongest 
 and most impressive of any of the churches ot this class. 
 
 Though some of his interiors are attractive, and nearly all of them 
 eminently reasonable, Wren's design is seen to greater advantage in the 
 outside than in the inside of his churches. He selected the position of 
 his towers and determined their general outline with fine judgment. 
 He foresaw that in course of time most of his churches would be hidden 
 away by adjacent buildings, and he accordingly concentrated his orna- 
 ment on his steeples and the upper part of his towers. Here again 
 Wren's fertility of invention is astonishing. With obvious ease, and 
 without affectation, he varied his design for each fresh steeple, only 
 adhering to two fundamental principles: (i) that the tower should, if 
 possible, stand clear of the building, so that nothing should be lost ot 
 the full effect of its height and proportions ; and (2) in view of the 
 adjacent buildings, and also to emphasize the effect of the richer work 
 above, he kept his lower storeys simple and almost entirely free from 
 ornament. The tower and steeple of St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, is an 
 almost perfect example. Wren proposed to erect an arcade to the east 
 of the tower, which would have shown up the rest of the church, and 
 separated the tower from the adjacent houses. This was never carried 
 out, but Godwin and Britton say it is shown in engravings from a 
 drawing by Hawksmoor. The tower and steeple of St. Mary-le-Bow 
 are peculiarly fine in the nice determination of the quantities of ornament, 
 and the curious finials which surmount the pilasters at the angles of the 
 tower are, for their purpose, an inspiration of genius. They are just 
 sufficiently weighty in mass and fanciful in form to effect the transition 
 from the square tower to the circular stylobate which begins the steeple, 
 and are happier than the urns which have to answer the purpose 
 
 \"
 
 i62 RENAISSANCE AKCl 11 ri'AT U RI- IN IlNCiLAND 
 
 at St. Bride's, Fleet Street. In both these steeples Wren depended 
 larj^ely on the repetition of forms, adjusting their dimensions with an 
 extremely delicate proportion. St. Mary-le-Bow is less monotonous in 
 outline than St. Bride's, but it has the advantage of site ; and at any 
 point from which the tower and steeple of St. Bride's can be seen as a 
 whole, the repetition of, one might almost say the insistence upon the 
 dark spaces of the arched openings of the steeple, are entirely justified. 
 St. Bride's is less picturesque than St. Mar)-le-Bow, but it is the stronger 
 design of the two, and in its stern simplicity shows a finer quality of 
 imagination than is generally fountl in Wren, whose work, though always 
 graceful and ingenious, is not always entirely masculine. 
 
 St. Mary-le-Bow was completed in 1680, whereas the steeple ol 
 St. Bride's was not built till 1 701-2 ; and this bears out a remark made 
 earlier in the chapter, that, as Wren advanced in e.xperience and 
 mastery of his art, he gradually shook off" the insincere and artificial 
 manner which he learnt in France, and returned to the purer models of 
 Palladianism, and the strenuous architecture of Inigo Jones. The latter 
 might have designed St. Bride's, whereas in St. Mary-le-Bow there is just 
 the faintest reminiscence of the work of the Jacobean architects.' In 
 spite of certain details which are open to criticism, these two steeples, 
 and the exquisitely simple and perfect steeple of St. Margaret Pattens, 
 are of their kind the most perfect specimens of Renaissance architecture 
 in England. Scarcely less beautiful is the tower and steeple of St. 
 Magnus, London Bridge, built in 1705, the upper part of which seems 
 to be borrowed from the lantern and cupolas designed by Inigo Jones 
 for Whitehall. The tower of Christ Church, Newgate Street, completed 
 in I 704, is less happy, the parts do not grow out of each other, and the 
 architect must have been hard put to it when he had to complete his 
 steeple with a baluster. 
 
 Of the smaller steeples, that of St. Martin's, Ludgate Hill, is one 
 of the most beautiful. Though his scheme for the re-building of London 
 was not realized. Wren never lost sight of his great conception of the 
 city as a whole, and kept in full consciousness the relations of his 
 buildings to each other. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 
 grouping of St. Martin's steeple with St. Paul's. Its tall slender 
 oudine, poised in the middle distance from the foot of Ludgate Hill, at 
 once throws back the tremendous mass of St. Paul's, and at the same 
 
 ' The height of the steeple of St. Mary-le-Bow is 225 ft., that of St. Bride's as left by 
 Wren was 234 ft. high, but in 1764 the spire was injured by lightning, and Sir William 
 Staines, who repaired it, for some unknown reason, lowered it 8 ft.
 
 mm WW 
 
 f'Wm 'U< ■ 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 ST. HRIDES.
 
 r64 REXAISSANCK ARCH 11 KCTURl': IX F.Xr.LAXD 
 
 time calls attention to its magnificent silhouette. The steeple of 
 St. Martin's is covered with lead, a material for which Wren had a 
 special liking, on account of its durability, and because it was 
 produced in this country. No English architect ever more thoroughly 
 understood his materials, in regard not only to their permanence, but 
 also to their possibilities of colour and their decorative qualities. The 
 contrast of lead with the silvery white of Portland stone is the most 
 beautiful colour effect to be found in any building in London, and 
 Wren, by preference, always employed these materials, or, if economy 
 was necessary, he reserved his Portland stone for quoins and dressings, 
 and used for his walls the fine old London brick, or red gauged brick 
 work of most excellent quality. 
 
 For reasons which he has not explained, Wren occasionally 
 designed his towers in what he supposed to be the Gothic style, even 
 when he designed the rest of the church in his habitual manner. St. 
 Dunstan in the East (1698), St. Mary's Aldermary (1 71 1), and St. 
 Michael's, Cornhill (1721), are well-known examples. Whether Wren 
 made these designs under pressure, or merely as academical exercises 
 for the entertainment of his h-iends, is unknown, Init it is very evident 
 that he had not the least sympathy with Gothic architecture, or taken 
 any trouble to master its most rudimentary features. His great archi- 
 tectural capacity saved him from gross faults of outline and proportion, 
 and the lantern of St. Dunstan's is a skilful piece of construction, but 
 the details are preposterous. They are obviously insincere, and that 
 Wren could have tolerated such work shows either that his taste must 
 have been uncertain, or his artistic conscience somewhat lax. His 
 addition to the gateway of Christchurch, Oxford, is perhaps the most 
 successful instance of his Gothic. Ikit the coarseness of its detail is out 
 of scale with the delicate sixteenth century work below, and here, as at 
 Westminster Abbey, Wren seems to have paid the very scantiest 
 attention to the nature of the older work with which he had to deal. 
 
 Meanwhile Wren had devoted his best energies to the new 
 Cathedral of St. Paul's. The first idea had been to patch up the ruins 
 left by the Fire, and some work was actually begun at the west end, but 
 as Wren foretold, it was lost labour, for in 1668 the work fell down 
 about the workmen's ears,' and Wren was summoned in haste to advi.se 
 
 ' Sancroft, in his letter to Wren (quoted in Miss Phiiliniore'.s "Life of Wren," p. i66), 
 attributed this to Inigo Jones's mistake in not bonding in his new work to the old. It is 
 known, however, that the old fabric had been thoroughly shaken by previous fires, and, as 
 Wren pointed out, the apparently massive piers were merely cases of ashlar filled in with
 
 
 '^\Ciu^ 
 
 >T. I'.ENfn S, fPPKR THAMES STREET.
 
 i66 RENAISSANCF. A RCI IITKCTr RE IN ENGLAND 
 
 the Commissioners. He was at once instructed to clear the site of the 
 ruins, a difficult task whicli he carried out with his usual address, and 
 to prepare designs for an entirely new cathedral. Wren prepared 
 several designs, only three of which, however, are of historical import- 
 ance. The first is the famous design on which Wren had set his heart, 
 but which was rejected owing to the obstinacy of the; Duke of York, 
 and the timidity of the clergy, who were aghast at the novelty of its plan. 
 The second is the design which was declared in Charles's warrant to be 
 "very artificial!, proper, and useful;" the third, the design actually 
 executed. The plan, elevation, and section of the rejected design 
 are preserved in All Souls' Library, and the model which Wren 
 had made of it is now in the South Kensington Museum. The plan 
 roughly speaking, consisted of a square, 300 ft. by 300 ft., with the four 
 angles cut oft" on a cjuadrant described from the four points of the 
 square. Over the central space there was to be a dome of i 20 ft. 
 diameter, and 1 80 ft. high from the floor, with four smaller domes at the 
 north-east, south-east, north-west, and south-west angles of 45 ft. 
 diameter. The north, south, and west arms of the cross were to be 
 square in plan, and the east arm, forming the choir, was circular in 
 plan, but the east and west ends of the circle were to be cut off, and the 
 choir stalls were ranged on the north and south sides on the segment of 
 a circle. A screen with a flight of five steps separated this choir from 
 the space under the dome.' An outer and inner dome over the centre 
 is shown in the drawing, both constructed in masonry, and the whole 
 building was to stand on a podium or platform raised some 10 feet high 
 above the ground level, with entrances on the north, south, and west 
 sides approached by flights of sixteen steps. The nave was carried 
 westward by an extension- with a secondary dome, which was to have a 
 narthex and portico at the west end with detached colonnade. Instead of 
 the double order of the design executed, the exterior consisted of a single 
 
 rubble work. Wren'.s own words in his report to the Commissioners are : " The portieo is 
 nearly deprived of that excellent beauty and strength which time alone and weather could 
 have no more overthrown than the natural rocks ; so great and good were the materials, 
 and so skilfully were they laid together after a true Roman manner." 
 
 ' I have drawn up this description from the drawing in All .Souls' Library, and it will 
 be found to vary in detail from the accounts of Ferguson, Loftie, and Miss Phillimore. 
 
 - This extension is not shown in the plan reproduced from the All Souls' Collection, 
 in which all four facades have the same treatment. It is shown, however, in another of 
 Wren's studies for this design, and in a print by B. Cole, a reproduction of which will be 
 found in Longman's "Three Cathedrals dedicated to .St. Paul," pp. iio-iii, the best 
 authority on all the details of Wren's designs for St. Paul's. \'ery full illustrations will be 
 found in Mr. Birch's " London Churches."
 
 lioDt Binh's '•City Ciiuniiis. 
 
 I-'iUi p. 100. 
 
 ST. IWUI.S C.\THEDR.\L.
 
 SIR CHRIS roi' HER WREN 167 
 
 order on a lofty stylobate, with an attic storey over, surmounted by a 
 balustrade. Tlie design was in many ways an exceedingly fine one, 
 but the plan would have been ill-suited for service, as from more than 
 half the points of view the high altar would have been invisible, and it 
 is probable that, seen from outside, the great central dome would 
 have looked overpowering. Wren's idea, in the quadrant walls uniting 
 the points of the cross, may have been to free the dome ; but it is 
 probable that he would have overreached himself in this; anyhow, in 
 the design actually executed he did the exact opposite, and instead of a 
 hollow recess, put square projections at the angles with most satisfactory 
 results. 
 
 The design accepted by the warrant of the 14th of May, 1675, was 
 very inferior to this.' In its general plan it was not so very unlike the 
 plan actually executed, though there are many variations in detail ; but 
 its main feature was a most grotesque design for the central dome. 
 This was to consist of a lower dome, ot i i 2 feet diameter, of masonry, 
 partly covered with a lead roof, but instead of forming a complete dome, 
 this was stopped about half way up by a drum of 56 feet diameter, 
 covered in with a semicircular dome, above which rose the false outer 
 dome terminating in a steeple in six stages, like St. Bride's. The 
 height to the crown of the upper internal dome was to have been 215 
 feet, and to the top of the cross 390 feet. This e.xtraordinary freak 
 has been a stumbling-block to all Wren's admirers. IVIiss Phillimore 
 explains it by worry and overwork. Mr. Loftie maintains that it was 
 a mere hoax to pacify the Court, and that Wren reserved to himself the 
 design which he meant to carry out. There are, however, considerations 
 which make this improbable : (1) In the first place, Wren was a gentle, 
 amiable man, quite devoid of the grim humour, the Icn-ibilita neces- 
 sary to carry off this ferocious practical joke ; (2) and in the second 
 place, his enemies on the commission thirty years later would certainly 
 have brought this up against him, if Wren's attitude throughout had not 
 been bona-fidc. It must be remembered that at the time this design 
 was made Wren was still young as an architect, and by no means sure 
 of himself. He advanced /^r saltictii through the experience of actual 
 practice, and his increasing knowledge led him to reject this design as 
 
 ' The five drawings which accompanied the warrant are preserved in the All Souls' 
 Library, and the description in the text is based on these drawings. Mr. Longman, in his 
 "Three Cathedrals, etc." refers to the rejected design of 1673 as the warrant design. It 
 seems, however, clearer to refer to the design of 1675, which was finally sanctioned, as 
 "the warrant design," and to the rejected design as "the model design.''
 
 i68 RKXAl.SSANCE A KL 1 1 1 liaiT Rl' IX F.NCI.AXD 
 
 the work went on ; but he probably designed it in all good faith in the 
 first instance, and that he did so ma)' be taken as further evidence that 
 the faults and inferior technique of Wren's earlier work were the result 
 of inadequate training. It was not, in fact, till middle age that Wren 
 shook off this amateurishness, and, in point of fact, there is little to 
 choose between this design and the pineapple scheme which Wren 
 suggested immediately before the Fire. In the warrant of 1675 Wren 
 was authorized to make some variations, rather ornamental than essential, 
 "as from time to time he should see proper." The variations actually 
 made are so essential that it is almost iniijossible that Wren could have 
 slipped' them in without obtaining the consent of the commissioners.' 
 He entirely abandoned his nightmare conception of two domes and a 
 telescope steeple, and made a fresh design (the one actually executed), 
 ot which the most conspicuous characteristic is its magnificent sanity. 
 In this, his final design. Wren avoided that excessive multiplication of 
 parts which had been the weak point in all his previous attempts. 
 
 In regard to the ground plan, Wren adhered to the general con- 
 ception of the warrant plan (1675), consisting of choir and aisles, 
 transepts and nave with aisles, with a dome over the crossing, which, in 
 its genera! arrangement, was based on Gothic precedent. The chief 
 variations which he introduced as the work went on were : (i) an 
 entirely difterent dome over the crossing; (2) the circular recesses to 
 the north and south windows of the choir aisles ; (3) the north and 
 south transepts were contracted by one bay, and a circular peri-style 
 added on north and south fronts ; (4) the nave was considerably altered. 
 In the 1675 plan the nave consisted of five bays, with a narrower bay at 
 the west end. In the actual plan, going west from the crossing, there 
 are three oblong bays, then a wider bay, covered in with a circular dome, 
 with oblong chapels " on either side, and projecting beyond the north and 
 south aisles. Beyond these chapels are the two west towers with the 
 
 ' It is not known how ^\'ren got round the authorities. Mr. Birch quotes an ex- 
 ceedingly significant note from the " Parentalia," p. 283 : " From that time the surveyor 
 (Wren) resolved to make no more models, or publicly expose his drawings, which, as he 
 had found by experience, did but lose time, and subjected his business many times to 
 incompetent judges." Notwithstanding, versions of his designs, probably pirated, appeared 
 from time to time. In the volumes of \Vren's drawings, now in the Vestry of St. Paul's, 
 there are various engravings of the building which appeared during the progress of the 
 works, probably without Wren's authority. It is evident, from the number of these prints, 
 that the public took the keenest interest in the building of the great cathedral, and further, 
 that from first to last the design was constantly being modified. 
 
 " These chapels were insisted on by the 1 )ukc of York, in spite of Wren's protests 
 that they were most injurious to his design.
 
 z. 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 D 
 
 u 
 
 Id 
 X 
 
 a 
 
 2 g 
 
 > < -5 
 
 J m fts 
 
 ^ g ^ 
 
 i I I 
 
 S ^ (3 
 
 •/T u a 
 
 J g :? 
 
 3 H :j, 
 
 H ^ 
 
 Q 
 < 
 
 s 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 S 
 H
 
 PLAN OF ST. Paul's, nlarly as lxlcutld 
 
 ^A/l Hauls Colleec Collection)
 
 SIR CIIRISTOPHF.R WREX 169 
 
 entrance ways to the aisles, and a recess behind the three centre bays of 
 the great west portico. (5) In the warrant design the north and south 
 walls of the nave aisles terminated in a parapet course, showing the 
 upper walls of the nave behind them. In the actual building the north 
 and south walls of the aisles were carried up the full height, concealing 
 the external upper walls of nave, and a double order was adopted, 
 because Wren found himself unable to get stones of sufficient size for 
 the diameter (more than 4 ft.) of the columns of a single order. Among 
 other variations in detail, it is to be noted that, in execution. Wren 
 largely increased the area of the detached piers under the central tlome, 
 beyond what was shown in the warrant plan. He was evidentl\- anxious 
 about the tremendous weight and thrust of his dome, and as an 
 additional precaution he built round the base of the inner brick cone 
 which he constructed to carry the Portland stone lantern a course of 
 large Portland stones, in which was imbedded a massive iron chain.' 
 
 St. Paul's as actually executed was, in fact, the result of many 
 experiments. The one fundamental idea with which Wren started was 
 the great central dome, and from the very first, as early as 1 666, Wren 
 hit on the happy constructional expedient of an outer and inner dome, 
 the only possible solution to the problem of making a dome beautiful 
 both from within and without. Starting with this, and restrained at 
 once by his own practical sense and the incessant limitations imposed 
 on him by the commissioners, Wren gradually worked out the present 
 superb design ; and it is interesting to notice how again and again he 
 went back on his own ideas. The second internal dome at the west end 
 is a reminiscence of the west extension of the nave of his rejected plan. 
 So, again, there is a drawing at All Souls' (No. 39, vol. ii.) showing 
 the treatment of the dome. In this drawing only eight lights are shown 
 in the drum, and the dome is divided by eight external ribs, with small 
 lucarnes in each bay of the dome. In the dome as executed, all the 
 windows are kept below the springing, and there are no lucarnes to 
 intercept the grand outline of the dome. In spite of Wren's own pre- 
 dilections for his rejected design, one cannot escape the impression that 
 the design actually executed is far better than any of those shown in his 
 previous drawings. Wren, like all great architects, had an extraordinary 
 aptitude for bringing his work along in the actual process of building. 
 He was a poor draughtsman, but he was the last man in the world to 
 be deceived by his own drawings, and there can be no doubt that the 
 superiority of the actual building to any of the designs on pajjer was 
 
 ' See ■■ Parentalia," p. 292.
 
 ijo Rl'NAISSANCE A RCl 1 IP !• CTU RI' IN ENGLAND 
 
 due to Wren's constant care and minute supervision of detail. Leaving 
 St. Peter's out of account, as differing Ijoth in scale and intention, the 
 result is unquestionably the finest church in Kurope produced by any 
 architect of the Renaissance. Various amateur criticisms have been 
 made on St. Paul's, more particularly on the internal and external 
 domes, and on the screen walls of the north and south aisles. In regard 
 to the first, as has been mentioned already, there is absolutely no other 
 way of forming a dome which shall be satisfactory both inside and 
 outside. If the outer dome were taken, its effect from inside would be 
 that o( a chimney, and if the inside dome were taken, its external out- 
 line would be little more than a hump over the centre of the building. 
 The brick cone which supports the lantern and cupola is an extremely 
 skilful expedient, and an architect is not bound to show every detail of 
 his construction, however ugly it may be. The ultimate justification of 
 architecture is that it should be stable and beautiful. It is in the 
 architect's discretion to choose his means of impressing the imagination, 
 and, provided he attains his result, he is not to be bound by any pedantic 
 and irrelevant criticism as to his means — criticism, moreover, which 
 assumes an intention which never existed in the architect's mind. As 
 to the second objection, that to the screen walls, Mr. Loftie suggests 
 that, for all his critics know. Wren may have considered the additional 
 weight of these walls necessary as a counterpoise to the transverse 
 thrust. 
 
 The first stone of St. Paul's was laid in 1675 by Henchman, 
 Bishop of London, who died the same year. The .Strongs, father and 
 son, were the chief masons, Richard Jennings the chief carpenter, the 
 wood-carving was by Grinling Gibbons and his assistants, and Caius 
 Gibber and Thomas Bird did the external figure carving. The last 
 stone to the top of the lantern was laid by Wren's son in 1710. 
 Godwin and Britton state that the total cost was ^^747, 954 2s. gd.^ This 
 probably does not include the cost of Thornhill's painting, which was 
 paid for at the cost of /\.os. a square yard." In the exquisite ironwork 
 
 ' Mr. Longman, however, says that up to September, 1700, a total sum of 
 ;^i, 167,474 17.?. iirt'. had been received, the whole of which had been expended except 
 ^49,384 OS. 31/. remaining in hand. Of this balance in hand ^it,ooo was spent up to 
 
 1723- 
 
 "' In vol. iv., p. 98, of the All Souls' Collection, there is a drawing showing AWen's 
 plan of the pavement to the apse and part of the choir, a side elevation of the altar-piece, 
 and part elevation of the rails which AVren intended to run across the chord of the apse : 
 " The Rayle of wainscot with brass ornament and ballaster of hard wood, or marbel with 
 open carved pannell, or pannells of brass and rail and pillaster of Timber." Whatever the
 
 SECTION OF wren's KKJECTED DESIGN EOR ST. PAUl's 
 {All Soiih College Colled ion) 
 
 wren's rejected design for st. i>aul's 
 
 (All Souh Collegt Collection)
 
 t'^^ 
 
 THE WARRANT DESIGN FOR ST. PAUL S 
 \Al/ Souls CriUc^^e CnUecUo7i) 
 
 PLAN OF WREN S REJECTED DESIGN FOR ST. PAUL S 
 iAIl Soiih College Collection)
 
 
 
 < ' ' i , V.^ > .-rj!»-'-'''-'tT'" 'J hV- ' ,--4r- i<?^'t^^ ^-^V.-- (»"-?>*,«? 
 
 
 *«f 
 
 
 
 
 
 FONT, si. bTEPHEN S, WAl.llRUOk.
 
 172 RENAISSANCl': ARCniTl'J Tl ' RIC IX ENGLAND 
 
 of the screens Wren employed Tijou, a I-'rench smith of unsurpassed 
 abihty, who designed the beautiful gates of Hampton Court, since 
 removed to South Kensington.' 
 
 Wren's career was one of incessant labour. Besides St. Paul's, 
 and the fifty-three City churches built between 1670 and 171 1, Wren 
 designed three palaces, two hospitals, and a vast quantity of less im- 
 portant work, and in his capacity of Surveyor-General had to deal with 
 constantly recurring questions of alignment of sites, and compensations, 
 and compliance with such building regulations as were then in force. 
 Miss Phillimore and Elmes assign to him the design of some thirty- 
 seven of the City halls built between 1666 and about 1700. There is 
 no mention of these in the list of Wren's works, drawn up by his son 
 and collated by Wren in 1720, though the City churches are mentioned 
 generally ; and it is probable that several of these halls were designed 
 by Mills, the City Surveyor, and by Edward Jarman (who also designed 
 the new Exchange), though the designs were doubtless submitted to 
 Wren for his approval. In 1671 Wren designed the Monument, by no 
 means a masterpiece ; and Temple Bar,- a graceful design, though a 
 little wanting in weight. From 1674- 1684 he was engaged in re- 
 building the greater part of the Temple. The work is quite plain, only 
 enriched with quoins and well-proportioned cornices, and a few charming 
 doorways ; and Wren reserved his ornament for the chief entrance in 
 Fleet Street, completed in 1684, of Portland stone and gauged brick. 
 The design consists of a single order on a high stylobate with an 
 entablature and pediment, and suggests generally Inigo Jones's houses in 
 Lincoln's Inn Fields. Its fine proportion and colour make this design 
 one of the most beautiful instances of Wren's domestic work in London. 
 The entrance to Christ's Hospital, built in 1682, is another good 
 e.xample of his treatment of gauged brick. 
 
 In 1678 Wren prepared designs for a mausoleum to Charles I. 
 The drawings,^ now at All Souls', show a dome of 60 feet diameter, with 
 a total height of 90 feet from the floor, within which was to stand a 
 large allegorical group of Charles I., and other figures in bronze and 
 
 merits of the modern reredos, it is something very different from what Wren conceived to 
 be appropriate. 
 
 ' Tijou, who was father-in-law to Laguerre, published in 1693 a " Nouveau Livre de 
 desseins, inventes et dessines par Jean Tijou," in French and English. He made the gates 
 on the north side of the Long Walk at Hampton Court. In making these gates (which 
 are now at South Kensington) Tijou was helped by Huntingdon Shaw. (See chapter xv.) 
 
 ■ Since destroyed and re-erected as the entrance to Theobald's Park. 
 
 ' They are numbered 89-95, ^'o'- ''-, i" the All Souls' Collection.
 
 SIR CIIRISIOIMII'R WRKN 173 
 
 marble. The top was to be surmounted by a bronze figure, 10 feet 
 high, whicli Wren estimated at / 1,000. He intended to ornament the 
 interior with bronze, marble and mosaics, and to inlay the pilasters with 
 " incrustations with various marbles," and estimated the total cost at 
 ^43,663 2s. od. Seventy thousand pounds was voted by Parliament for its 
 execution, but this money was taken by the king for his private purposes, 
 and the scheme was quietly dropped. In the same year Wren designed 
 the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, and in 1682, the Library 
 of Queen's College, Oxford, a reminiscence of the Trinity Library, but 
 on a smaller scale. Robert Grumbold, who rebuilt the fountain in 
 1715-17 16, and was himself an architect of much capacity, was master 
 mason for the Library at Trinity, Cambridge. The " classes," or book- 
 cases, were executed by Cornelius Austin, of London, from Wren's 
 designs. The iron gates in the cloisters and stair-rails were made by 
 " Mr. Partridge, the London smith," for ^400 ; the carving in lime- 
 wood was, as usual, by Grinling Gibbons, and the stone-carving by 
 Gibber and his men. 
 
 Wren was evidently very much taken with the idea of square, 
 octagon, or circular buildings, covered in with domes. His first design 
 for the Library of Trinity, Cambridge, consisted of a circular building 
 of 65 ft. diameter, and 90 ft. high' from the floor to the crown of the 
 dome, pretty nearly the dimensions of the mausoleum design. This 
 design was rejected in favour of the design actually executed, which 
 consists of a magnificent room, 150 ft. long by 38 ft. wide inside, with 
 cloisters underneath. In order to bring the floor of his library on to the 
 same level as the adjacent floors, and to get his fittings below the sills 
 of the windows. Wren had to fill up the tympana of the arches to the 
 cloisters with solid stonework, an expedient to which he also had 
 recourse with less success in the Courtyard of Hampton Court." 
 Wren, in his report on Trinity Library, says he had " seen the effect 
 abroad in good buildings," and liked it. He also says, " I chose a 
 double order rather than a single, because a single order must either 
 have been mutilated in its members or have been very expensive, and 
 would have made the solids too grosse for the openings ; " — considera- 
 tions which never seem to have entered the heads of X'anbrugh and 
 Hawksmoor. 
 
 ' These dimensions are given l>y Willis and Clarke. The original drawing, however, 
 in All Souls' Library scales 79 ft. internal ilianieter, and 97 t't. from floor to the top of the 
 lantern. 
 
 " See a/i/e. p. 118.
 
 171 RENAISSANCE A Rr I UTE.CTrKE IN ENCLANO 
 
 Wren's next iniijoriaiu huildiiio- was tlic Royal Palace at Win- 
 chester, begun in 1683, since liiriu-d into barracks, and so altered as to 
 convey little idea of Wren's ori_L;inal intention ; and to this date 
 belong the episcopal palace ol Wolvesey at Winchester, rebuilt by 
 
 //'< 
 
 CHAPKL TO I'.ISIIOI'S I'AI.ACK, WOLVKSEV, WINCHESTER. 
 
 Morley in 1684, and the schoolroom at the College, 1684-1687. The 
 Royal Palace at Winchester was intended to rival V^ersailles, but the 
 king's death suspended the works, and the scheme was never completed, 
 only the central part and wings were Ijuilt. The grand staircase was to 
 have had marble columns sent over from Italy by the Grand Duke of 
 Tuscany. This, however, was not carried out, and the columns were
 
 vn 
 
 D 
 O 
 
 o 

 
 Ill 
 
 
 .TTv.*-* f^Li-^i i_^^J\V rs c«^«.^ 
 
 HA\rPTON COURT, NORTH-EAST CORNi:!.;.
 
 176 REXAlSSANCli ARCI 1 rri^crr RR IX ENGLAND 
 
 afterwards given by George 1. to the Duke of Bolton, who used them at 
 Hackwood. The pouit of interest in Wren's design is the large scope 
 of his conception. Wren had intended to carry a broad street in 
 a direct line from the east front of the palace to the west front of the 
 cathedral; hi- would thus have brought the two great ImiKlings of the 
 city into dirtict relation, and made one ot those superl) vistas such as he 
 had proposed in vain for the re-building of London, and afterwards 
 suggested at Hampton Court. 
 
 The special strength of Wren's genius lay in this largeness of idea, 
 in this power of conceiving a great architectural scheme as a whole, of 
 grasping it in complete perspective, and keeping his purpose proof 
 against all the temptations of unncccssarydctail. Wrenwas a true child of 
 the Renaissance in this, fairly claiming kinship with Bramante and Michael 
 Angelo, with the French architects of Louis Ouatorzc, and with his great 
 forerunner, Inigo Jones. The inevitable result of the Renaissance has 
 been that the individual ideal has taken the place of the collectivist. 
 Whereas generations of mediaeval craftsmen could go on building a 
 great cathedral without material check or abrupt transition, since the 
 days of the Renaissance a great work has had to be the conception of a 
 sino^le mind, clearl\- foreseen from the first, and dependent for its full 
 realization on the permanence of its initial impulse. In this regard 
 Wren was a master among architects. The details of his work, his 
 actual methods of expression, are sometimes open to criticism, but for 
 rano-e of idea, and comprehensiveness of view, he stands unrivalled. In 
 the vestry of .St. Paul's there is a design by Wren showing his idea for 
 the rir>-ht sitting of his building. He proposed to surmount it by an 
 arcade, leaving a free space round the cathedral, wider at the east end 
 and drawing in towards Ludgate Hill ; at some distance from the west 
 end, but on its axis line, was to be a baptistery. This design was never 
 carried further. So again at Hampton Court, Wren's addition, noble as 
 it is, was only a fragment of his complete design. Besides the court 
 actually built at the south-east corner. Wren proposed and designed a 
 mao-nificent forecourt, 300 ft. long and 230 ft. wide, on the north side of 
 Hampton Court. The great hall was to be the centre, with a double 
 flio-ht of stairs to the entrance. The east and west sides of the court 
 were to consist of buildings with an open colonnade to the court. From 
 the entrance to the forecourt a straight road was to be drawn across the 
 moat and through the wilderness, connecting the forecourt with the great 
 Chestnut Avenue of Bushey Park, which was to be a mile long and 60 
 yards wide. The avenue, which was planted about i 700, was the only
 
 W miwM 
 
 7'r.$iM if 
 
 ■' ''|tt"''|l'''Vl 1 '■ 
 
 
 |/i*V 
 
 
 
 
 DETAIL OF GATES, EAST FRONT OF HAMPTOX COURT. 
 A A
 
 178 RENAISSANCE ARriHTECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 part of this gigantic scheme which was ever attempted, and this was 
 carried out not from Wren's, hut from Tahnan's designs. 
 
 Wren's original plan, dated 1699, is preserved in the Office of Works, 
 and there is also a drawing in the All Souls' Collection, vol. iv., show- 
 ing the avenue coming straight up to the hall. The whole conception 
 was most masterly ; it would have given the palace a satisfactory 
 approach, and brought the new buildings into compact relation with the 
 rest of the palace. Defoe says' that William had intended to have 
 rebuilt the whole palace, but his death put a stop to the works. It does 
 not appear that Wren said a word in defence of the charming old 
 buildings of Henry VIII. These were destroyed without remorse, and 
 the old gardens, with one small exception, entirely re-modelled. The 
 mount in the Privy Garden, which contained 10,000 cubic yards of earth, 
 was levelled to the ground, and the old water gallery destroyed, because 
 they obstructed the view from the new state rooms. Wren, indeed, had 
 a heavy hand on an old building. Though he dealt tenderly with the 
 spire of Salisbury, he showed a ruthless disregard for the west front of 
 Chichester, for he proposed to remove the ruins of the north-west tower, 
 to pull down the south-west tower, "for symmetry," to shorten the nave 
 by one bay, and to substitute a new west end of his own design, 
 proposals which were not carried out. 
 
 Wren's work at Hampton Court was begun in 1689, and the 
 decorations were not completed in 1700. He again employed Gibbons 
 and Cibber for the carving, and Tijou for the smith's work. The 
 building is of red brick and Portland stone, simple in composition and 
 beautiful in colour. In spite of the jealousy of Talman, and the 
 extreme obstinacy of William, Wren was completely successful with his 
 design, except in one or two points of detail, such as the segmental 
 arches in the tympana of the arches to the cloister arcade, and even 
 here it is stated in the " Parentalia" that this was done by his majesty's 
 express order. About the same time Wren made considerable ad- 
 ditions and alterations to Kensington Palace, including probably the 
 orangery. The building is very plain, but characterized by the solidity 
 of taste and entire reasonableness which marks all Wren's later work. 
 Chelsea Hospital, 1682- 1692, is another fine example: in spite of a 
 certain lankiness in the cupola, the building is dignified and impressive. 
 Its freedom from pretentiousness, and the restful feeling which pervades 
 the whole design, should have made this building the model for future 
 
 ' "Tour through Great Britain," ([uoted by Mr. Law.
 
 
 THE ENTRANCE, KENSINGTON PALACE.
 
 iSo RHNAISSANCE ARCl 1 ITKCTUR1-: IN liNGLAND 
 
 hospitals and asylums. Unfortunately, other precedents have been 
 followed, and modern buildings of this kind, though often admirably 
 arranged, have been built with an anxiety for picturesqueness and orna- 
 ment which shows a total disregard for the architectural conditions of 
 the case. 
 
 Wren's masterpiece, however, in public buildings, is undoubtedly 
 Greenwich Hospital. When WVen began this work there were two 
 buildings on the spot: (i) the house facing the park, designed by Inigo 
 Jones for Henrietta Maria, and built under his superintendence with 
 the assistance of John Webb ; and (2) the unfinished palace, begun by 
 John Webb, from designs by Inigo Jones, for Charles H. This building 
 forms the left hand, or western block,' facing the river ; it was already 
 partially completed, and Mr. Loftie thinks that Wren only added the 
 attic storey. His work, however, must have been begun below the 
 entablature, as the date on the frieze is Carohis II., Rex. a. reg. xvi. 
 (1676). Wren's ultimate object was to include both the existing 
 buildings as part of his general scheme ; he made the Queen's Palace 
 of Inigo Jones the centre at the extreme end on the landward side, and 
 starting from this point he designed two courts with colonnades facing 
 each other, and running northwards towards the river till lliey joined 
 the great court, the west side of which was already occupied by King 
 Charles's block. The junction with the great court is marked by two 
 beautiful domes, surmounting the entrances to the chapel on the east 
 side and the hall on the west. The court to the south of the hall and 
 west of the colonnade is called King William's block, the court to the 
 south of chapel and east of colonnade Queen Mary's block, and the 
 block begun by Wren on the river front, ranging with King Charles's 
 block, is called Queen Anne's block. 
 
 Wren thus brought his buildings up to Charles II. 's palace, which 
 was already in situ facing the river on the west or upper side, going up 
 stream. Opposite this palace he now built another block, in exact 
 imitation of the original design of Inigo Jones, which was completed in 
 I 715, and named after Queen Anne. In this masterly manner he suc- 
 ceeded in working in the old buildings, and in planning at the same time 
 the noblest palace in England.- Along the east and west fronts of King 
 
 ' Dallaway, quoting Lysons, says tliat \\'ebb's building is tiiat on liic cast side of the 
 court ; this part, however, was carried out under Wren, following the design of Inigo 
 Jones. 
 
 ^ It is significant of the extreme malice and untrustworthiness of Colin Campbell that, 
 when describing the plates of Greenwich Hospital in his "Vitruvius Britannicus," he men-
 
 
 ^?^•^^IIT^I^J^■p ^ 
 
 
 n 
 I I 

 
 SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN i8i 
 
 William and Queen Mary's blocks, and facing each other on either side 
 of the space leading up to the Queen's House, Wren built a colonnade of 
 pairs of Tuscan columns on detached blocks, supporting an entablature 
 and balustrade ; at the north or river ends of these blocks come the 
 domes. The drums of the domes start from square pedestals with 
 canted angles. These angles are filled u\) with bold projecting but- 
 tresses, faced with columns of the Composite order. The entablature is 
 returned round these buttresses, and above is a short, circular attic, 
 from which springs the lead-covered dome, with an open lantern at the 
 top. Seen from close at hand, the domes are disappointing, and the 
 outline is a little too precipitous ; but at any distance, the grouping of 
 these domes with the general composition is superb. 
 
 Thus the general design and arrangement of the building was due 
 to the genius of Wren. He was, however, ultimately superseded by 
 Vanbrugh and others, and it is not always easy to disentangle the 
 additions by other hands. In 1696 the river side of the north-west, or 
 King Charles's block, was already completed, with probably part of the 
 remaining three sides to this block. Wren's work consisted of the river 
 front of the north-east or Queen Anne's block, the north and south sides of 
 King William and Queen Mary's blocks, including the hall and chapel, 
 the return angles of the west side of King William's Court (date on rain- 
 water heads, 1706), the colonnades, and the two domes. In this w'ork 
 he was assisted by Hawksmoor, who was appointed clerk of the works 
 in 169S and deputy-surveyor in 1705, and who seems to have been 
 allowed to design part of the work himself such as the east front of 
 Queen Anne's block, and probably the interior of this court as well. 
 The point of junction between Wren's work and Hawksmoor's can be 
 seen in the re-entering angle on the east side. It is also probable that 
 Hawksmoor is responsible for the sides of the colonnades facing the 
 courts with square rusticated piers, the great flat pediments over the 
 five centre bays, and the bell turrets, which are hardly in Wren's manner. 
 Wren w^as superseded as surveyor in 1716 by Vanbrugh, who added 
 the west front of King William's block and the projecting centre bay 
 on the east side (the side to the court). On Yanbrugh's death, in 1726, 
 Campbell was appointed surveyor, and to Campbell is probably due the 
 south sides of King Charles and Queen Anne's blocks, the Venetian 
 windows to these facades, and the exaggerated severity of the wide, 
 bare wall spaces, introducing an element quite foreign to Wren's design. 
 
 tions Inigo Jones, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Thornhill who did the ceihng in the hall, but never 
 makes the slightest reference to Sir Christopher Wren.
 
 i82 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 In 1729 Campbell was superseded by Ripley, to whom may be attributed 
 the extremely ugly west front of Queen Mary's block. It partly recalls 
 the baldness of the worst parts of the Horse Guards': and Ripley was on 
 familiar terms with Kent. Ripley prepared a report on the state of the 
 building up to date, with plans and estimates for its completion, from 
 which it appears that up to September, 1727, ^210,761 i^s., and a 
 further sum of ^41,864 it,s. had been expended on the building, and 
 the estimate for completion was ;^ 13 1,7 50. On March 6th, 1734, a plan 
 was laid before the House of Commons, showing the building complete, 
 but with Queen Mary's court not yet Ijuilt. Ripley's estimate for this 
 was ^80,444 i6s., and he appears to have carried out the work soon 
 afterwards.' Finally, in 18 14, the west front of King Charles's block 
 was completed for George III. by Stuart, who, in re-building the chapel, 
 introduced his own exceedingly barren ideas of design into the interior. 
 In the collection in All Souls' Library there are several plans for 
 large houses, including a large sketch design for a house for the Duke 
 of Norfolk, on the site of old Arundel House in the Strand, which was 
 destroyed in 1678. This plan, which was never carried out, consists of 
 a quadrangle about 90 feet square inside, surrounded by buildings, with 
 four square pavilions at the angles projecting beyond the facade. A 
 forecourt with stables to the right and left led to the main entrance. 
 Marlborough House, built for the Duke of Marlborough in i 709, since 
 altered by the addition of a storey, is a well-known instance of Wren's 
 domestic work. The elevation is plain, and probably was inspired by 
 the elevation of old Montague House, built by Pouget, a French 
 architect, in 1678, which it follows rather closely from the ground line 
 up to the cornice. The chapel, in its extreme simplicity and fine pro- 
 
 ' These drawings are in the .Soane Museum. This collection contains about forty- 
 nine original drawings of Greenwich Hospital of very great interest. The two elevations 
 reproduced in the text are not signed, but I think it very probable that they are the original 
 designs made by Inigo Jones for King Charles's palace at Greenwich, the design which was 
 actually executed in the river front. It is evident from certain drawings in this collection 
 that when Wren was called in he prepared an alternative scheme. Drawings 4 and 5 
 in the folio of designs by Jones, Wren, and others, show a large building with a portico 
 in three bays, and a dome over, and flanked by quadrant colonnades occupying the open 
 space between the existing hall and chapel, and it would appear from this that Wren's first 
 idea was to ignore the Queen's Palace by Inigo Jones, and to terminate the great front 
 river court at a line drawn east and west through the present hall and chapel. This idea 
 must have been abandoned in favour of the larger scheme actually executed. It is 
 probable that the design of a series of six detached blocks or pavilions shown in drawing 
 No. 1 2 belongs to this rejected scheme. It anticipates in a remarkable manner the general 
 idea of St. Thomas's Hospital.
 


 
 ml ' -<■ . ■ 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 z 
 2 
 z 
 
 o 
 o 

 
 i84 RFNAISSANCE ARCIirrF.CTURI'. IN ENGLAND 
 
 portion, suggests the best work of Inigo Jones. The collection also 
 contains the plans of some new barracks for Hyde Park, of a total area 
 of 1,590 ft. by 430 ft., which were never carried out. Of Wren's smaller 
 buildings, Morden College, Blackhcath, 1694, probably Groombridge in 
 Kent, and the house in West Street, Chichester, are good examples. It 
 is not known that Wren had anything to do with I'.ninianucl Hospital, 
 or the Trinity Almshouses, and it is not necessary to assign directly to 
 his design all the charming brick and stone houses built between the 
 Restoration and 1700 ; such, for instance, as the beautiful interior of the 
 
 PLAN OF GROOMBRIDGE PLACE, KENT. 
 
 house at Eltham, now used as a club-house by the Eltham Golf Club, 
 or the dainty little school-house in the Close at Salisbury. On the 
 other hand, it would be idle to attribute buildings at once so simple, 
 lovable, and dignified, to academical designers such as Talman or Hawks- 
 moor, and if not by Wren, they were certainly inspired by his work. 
 
 The end of W^ren's splendid career was clouded by the intrigues 
 and jealousy of inferior men. George I., from whom he had hoped 
 much, turned out to be stupid and unintelligent, and the German clique 
 at Court had no sympathy with the man who, alone among his con- 
 temporaries, adequately represented the noblest tradition of English art. 
 In 1 71 7 the Commissioners for St. Paul's insisted on the balustrade
 
 SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN 185 
 
 above the entablature, in spite of Wren's protest, and in 1 7 18 a complaint 
 of mismanagement was preferred against him by Colin Campbell and 
 a person named Benson, and Wren was dismissed from the post of 
 surveyor-general, which he had held for fifty years, in favour of Benson's 
 brother, an entirely incompetent and unscrupulous adventurer.' The 
 complaint was sent by the Lords of the Treasury to Wren to report 
 upon. He replied that the charges were groundless, and that as he was 
 only one member of the board, he referred them for fuller explanations 
 to the other members. Wren's closing words are pathetic : " As I am 
 dismissed, having worn out by God's mercy a long life in the Royal 
 • service, and having made some figure in the world, I hoiae it will be 
 allowed me to die in peace." He spent the few remaining years of his 
 life in quiet at his house near Hampton Court, and died on February 
 25th, 1723. 
 
 By unwearied labour and indomitable effort after a high ideal, 
 Wren had grown to be an artist of first-rate genius, superior in skill 
 and imagination to any architect of his time in Europe. He began 
 almost as an amateur, rich in friends and opportunity, and buoyed 
 up by the confidence of his brilliant career at Oxford and his own 
 extraordinary inventiveness. As yet he was ignorant of the technique 
 of his art, and the results were seen in artistic fiascoes, such as 
 the Sheldonian. But Wren was a man who picked up knowledge 
 on every hand, and he was rarely fortunate in his school, for he 
 was allowed to learn his art on the scaffoldino- of his own buildings, 
 and so gained a practical mastery of planning and construction never 
 since equalled. Moreover, Wren's own instincts led him this way. 
 From the very first he was an inventor — keen, alert, and quick to 
 make immediate use of actual observation and discovery ; he had 
 none of the dreamer's disease of inactivity ; he seems indeed to have 
 possessed a fertility of invention which sometimes tempted him to turn 
 out work before it was mature, and to shirk the labour of fastidious 
 finish inevitable to the scholar and the artist. For in fact Wren's taste 
 was always a little uncertain. The fine design of St. Stephen's, Wal- 
 brook, for instance, is seriously impaired by its ornament. Nor, again, 
 is it easy to understand how a man of concentrated purpose and refined 
 
 ' Benson was dismissed from his post in the following year for a dishonest report on 
 the state of the buildings of the House of Lords. A house which he designed for himself 
 in Wiltshire is given in "Vitruvius Britannicus," vol. i. In spite of Campbell's fulsome 
 compliments, the house is at best a bad adaptation of other people's ideas, and one of the 
 worst planned houses in the whole series. 
 
 B B
 
 i86 RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND 
 
 taste could have allowed himself such experiments as Wren indulged in 
 at St. Michael's, Cornhill, and his other designs in Gothic;- not, of 
 course, that Gothic architecture is anything but beautiful, but the fact 
 th:it Wren should have deliberately designed in a style of whicli he 
 i<nevv nothing except that he disliked it, tends to show that in his 
 earlier practice Wren's artistic convictions were at least indefinite. Mis 
 taste, however, acquired a firmer fibre as he gained in experience ; and 
 the distance that separates his noblest works, such as St. Paul's and 
 Greenwich, from his early designs, is one of the most remarkable 
 features of his development. His strong practical sense saved him from 
 the absurdities of his successors. He might occasionally make slips of 
 grammar, but would never have been guilty of such pretentious jjcdantry 
 as Colin Campbell, who, as a commendation to a church of his own 
 designing, advises his subscribers that "the aspect of this Church is 
 Prostyle, Hexastyle, Eustyle, which by Vitruvius, Palladio, and the 
 general consent of the most judicious architects, both ancient and 
 modern, is esteemed the most beautiful and useful disposition."* Wren's 
 work in its main features was eminently sane and reasonable, and this 
 not from lack of ideas, but from a clear insight into the limits and 
 intention of architecture. Where he had the opportunity Wren designed 
 with a largeness of conception rare among English architects. His 
 great schemes for Winchester and Hampton Court, and his magnificent 
 achievements at Greenwich, are at the highest level of architecture ever 
 attained in this country. His earlier work was influenced in detail by 
 P^rench contemporary architecture, yet Wren maintained his individuality 
 throughout, and one finds in his later manner a singularly direct and 
 unaffected method of expression, free from pedantry and foolishness, 
 and, above all, eminently English in. its sober power. The men who 
 succeeded him were undoubtedly able, but they lacked the warm 
 humanity of Wren. Their work was not spontaneous, and their 
 inferiority appears in their conscious effort after academical correctness 
 and their attempts to systematize architecture into a mere grammar of 
 ornament. They sheltered their weakness under the genius of Inigo 
 Jones, but in spite of their laborious imitation. Wren was the true 
 successor of that great architect in all that makes architecture vital, in 
 all the qualities that gave to the English Renaissance its sterling 
 masculine character. 
 
 ' On examining the drawings it appears that Campbell proposed to light this church, 
 measuring 74 by 54 by 54 ft. high, with a single Venetian window at one end, placed 
 below the springing of the vaulted ceiling.
 
 
 
 PLAN AND ELEVATION. WREN S DRAWINGS 
 (AU Smls College CollecUoii)
 
 DESIGN FOR A MONUMKXT BV WRliN. TROBABLV DRAWN BY 
 (jRINLlXG GIBBONS
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 I I 
 
 D 000 189 469 o 
 
 KATsi-ownra