TIE UNARY OF TIE iimesa cf jlu:;oi$ LUTYENS HOUSES AND GARDENSSir Edwin Lutyens, R.A., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.LUTYENS HOUSES AND GARDENS BY SIR LAWRENCE WEAVER COUNTRY LIFE LONDON PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICES OF “COUNTRY LIFE,” LTD., 20, TAVISTOCK STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C.2, AND' BY GEORGE NEWNES, LTD., 8-11 SOUTHAMPTON STREET, STRAND, W.C. 2. NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. M C M X X IThe Cenotaph. +ljKt c ' 5 Lutyens Houses and Gardens PREFACE TT THEN Houses and Gardens by E. L. Lutyens was \ VV first published in 1913, Mr. Lutyens, as he then i was, had lately been appointed architect of the Viceroy's y Palace in Imperial Delhi, and elected A.R.A. That survey & of his achievement in domestic architecture is now out of print, after passing through two large editions, and will be c; replaced in due course by what I trust will be a complete 3 record of all his work, including Delhi, and his essays in S ^civic and monumental design. / Meanwhile Sir Edwin has received the Royal Gold Medal | of the Royal Institute of British Architects, which is held by nine only of his fellows, and has become a full Academi- cian, the greatest honours that can be bestowed on an 1 architect by his brother artists. Both these distinctions have come to him at an age which is early without precedent, but that is not all. He has by one little work—-the Cenotaph—made joy in fine architecture a possession of the people. Wholly admirable as it is in its own right as a piece of austere design, it is much more. It was accepted forthwith by every one gentle and simple, by those who use strange jj phrases about Art and by those who have never thought of Art in terms of human life, as a perfect expression of the Nation's grief and thankfulness and of its pride in the p Glorious Dead. By that one work Sir Edwin Lutyens' - art has become an affair of national importance. T; I am tempted to believe that there are many who will Jp not care to follow a laborious estimate of his place in British architecture, but may like to see something of the t buildings that have set him where he stands. For the Cenotaph is something more than a happy incident : it is a normal development. English architecture to-day is supreme in the world if 1 7127462 Preface domestic work only be considered. In the field of civics, American architecture, broad based on the great traditions of France and drawing on the inexhaustible pride and wealth of a continent, has achieved and will achieve results in monumental design to which we must pay homage. But in the creation of the home, whether simple or stately, the pioneer work of Norman Shaw, Eden Nesfield, and Philip Webb, who re-created our domestic architecture in the nineteenth century, has been carried to its just con- clusion in the work of Lutyens. It is easy to observe in the houses of his younger brethren that he has, more than any man now living, recrystallized a sound tradition, and has given to it, by his personal genius, a new point and direc- tion. I believe that Lutyens houses and gardens are some- thing more than a fashion. They reveal the marriage of fine design with a just sense of materials. The first he learnt from Norman Shaw, the second from Philip Webb, but the fusion of the two is his own contribution to the architecture of to-day. In the preface to my larger 1913 volume I ventured to remind its readers that while I was Architectural Editor of Country Life, I had illustrated in its pages the work of two hundred architects. That was proof enough that my monograph on the work of one man did not mean any lack of appreciation of the great school of domestic architecture which England boasts to-day. I then wrote, “ the influence of Lutyens is good, strong and increasing/' Now that I look at domestic architecture from a somewhat wider angle, my conviction as to that influence ha;s rather deepened. Hence this little book. LAWRENCE WEAVER. Berneval, August, 1921.CONTENTS CHAP. I Introductory ...... PAGE 9 II Typical Early Works—(1890-1898) 27 III Three Surrey Houses of 1899 . 36 IV Two Houses Built in 1900-1 . 5° V More Houses in the Tudor Manner, 1901-3 59 VI The Reparation of Lindisfarne Castle 80 VII The Gardens at Hestercombe . 86 VIII Four Houses Built 1905-7 94 IX Heathcote, Ilkley, 1906 .... io5 X Three Altered Houses, 1906-9 . 119 XI Lamb ay Castle, 1908-12 .... 128 XII Temple Dinsley, Herts, 1909 138 XIII Three Smaller Houses, 1908-9 . I45 XIV Nashdom, Taplow, Bucks, 1909 . . . 156 ■ XV Two Large Houses in Kent, 1910-12 163 XVI Reparation of a Sussex Manor House and Irish Castle. ..... AN 170 XVII Folly Farm ...... I78 XVIII Designs for Furniture .... I89 Index . . . . . . 197 3Lutyens Houses and Gardens 4 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Portrait of Sir Edwin Lutyens . . Facing title page The Cenotaph ...... Facing page i Fireplace in Miss Jekyll’s House, Munstead Wood ...... Facing page g INTRODUCTORY 1. Garden at Woodside, Chenies ...... 2. Half Timber and Tile-hanging, Sullingstead 3. Loggia at Monkton, near Chichester ..... 4. Plan of Monkton, near Chichester ..... 5. Garden Front of Hill End, Preston, Herts 6. Plans of Mr. R. McKenna's House, South Square 7. View of Mr. R. McKenna’s House, South Square 8. Porch, 7 St. James’s Square ...... 9. The Late Sir Hugh Lane’s Garden, Chelsea 10. Lord Haldane’s Library . 11. Hampstead Garden Suburb, North Square .... 12. Library, 16, Lower Berkeley Street . , . . 13. Crooksbury House, Surrey ...... 14. ,, ,, Plan ....... 15. Ruckmans : in the Dining-room ..... 16. ,, Exterior View ...... 17. Munstead Wood : Plan ....... 18. ,, ,, From the South ..... 19. ,, ,, Paved Court and Steps . 20. ,, ,, Garden Tank ..... THREE SURREY HOUSES OF 1899 21. Orchards, Godaiming : Porch and Cloister .... 22. ,, ,, Ground Floor Plan 23. ,, ,, South-east Corner .... 24. ,, ,, Tile-built Fountain .... 25. ,, ,, Garden Archway .... 26. Goddards : Ground and First Floor Plans 27. ,, Brick Mullions and Horsham Heeling . 28. ,, Staircase. ....... 29. ,, Entrance Front ...... 30. Tigbourne Court, Witley : Ground Floor Plan . . 31. ,, ,, ,, Entrance Front. TWO HOUSES BUILT IN 1900-1 32. The Deanery Garden, Sonning : Ground Plan 33. ,, ,, ,, On Upper Terrace 34. ,, ,, ,, Canal and Terminal Pool . 35. ,, ,, ,, An Interior 36. Homewood, Knebworth : Entrance Front .... 37. ,, ,, Garden Front and Stoeps 38. The Hoo, Willingdon : Seat and Sundial .... PAGE 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 55 56 58List of Illustrations 5 PAGE MORE HOUSES IN THE TUDOR MANNER, 1901-3 39- Marshcourt : Ground Floor Plan 59 40. ,, Part of South Front 60 41. - Loggia 61 42. ,, Entrance Front .... 62 43- ,, In the Pool Garden 64 44. ,, Pergola and Pool .... 65 45- ,, Sundial . .... 66 46. ,, The Hall and its Screen 6 7 47. ,, An Upper Stair .... 68 48. Grey Walls, Gullane : Ground Floor Plan . 69 49- ,, ,, From the North 70 5°- Little Thakeham : Ground Floor Plan 71 5i- ,, ,, South Front and Pergola 72 52. ,, ,, Hall and Screen 74 53- ,, ,, Lily Pool and Iris Morass 75 54- Papillon Hall : Ground Floor Plan 77 55- ,, ,, From Porch to Basin Court 78 56. ,, ,, Lily Pool on South Side 79 THE REPARATION OF LINDISFARNE CASTLE 57- Lindisfarne Castle : From the North-west . 81 58. ,, ,, Plans .... 82 59- ,, ,, Ship Room 83 60. ,, ,, Entry Hall. 84 THE GARDENS AT HESTERCOMBE 61. Hestercombe : The Great Plat .... 86 62. ,, West Water Garden . 87 63* ,, Plan ...... 88 64. ,, Walled Pool Enclosure 89 65- ,, Orangery ..... 90 66. ,, Dutch Garden .... 92 FOUR HOUSES BUILT IN 1905-7 67. Millmead, Bramley : Entrance Door . 95 68. ,, ,, Plans .... 96 69. ,, ,, Upper Garden House 97 7°. Dormy House, Walton Heath : From the East . 98 71- Barton St. Mary : Plan ..... 99 72. ,, ,, Entrance Front 100 73- ,, ,, Drawing-room IOI 74- New Place, Shedfield : Entrance Front 103 HEATHCOTE, ILKLEY, 1906 75- Heathcote, Ilkley : Garden Front 106 76. ,, ,, South End of Billiard-room 107 77' ,, ,, South-east Pool 109 78. ,, ,, Staircase no 79- „ „ Hall in 80. ,, ,, Ground Floor Plan 112 81. ,, ,, Morning-room 113 82. ,, ,, China Cupboard . 114 83- ,, ,, Garden Plan 115 84. ,, ,, South Entrance from Garden 1176 List of Illustrations PAGE THREE ALTERED HOUSES, 1906-9 85. Copse Hill : Near Staircase ’ . . Wittersham House : Outdoor Parlour 120 86. 121 87. ,, ,, From the Garden 122 88. Whalton Manor House : Plans ..... . 123 89. ,, ,, ,, Dining-room 124 90. ,, ,, ,, Hall Fireplace . 125 91. ,, Road Front 126 LAMBAY CASTLE, 1908-12 92. Lambay Castle : From the South-west 129 '93- >} ,, Ground Floor Plan .... . 131 .94. ,, ,, New Kitchen Court • 133 •95- ,, ,, North Court . . . . • • 135 .96. ,, ,, Stone Stairway • 136 97. New Fireplace . . . . • 137 TEMPLE DINSLEY, HERTS, 1909 98. Temple Dinsley : Entrance Front .... • 139 99. >> ,, Ground Floor Plan . . . . 140 100. >> ,, A Study in Brick and Iron . 141 101. }J Bathroom ..... 142 102. ” South-west Corner and Upper Pool. • 143 THREE SMALLER HOUSES, 1908-9 103. Mount Blow : Entrance Front . 146 104. Ground Floor Plan . . . 147 105. ,, ,, Fireplace ...... 148 106. >> ,, Stair Pillar . 150 107. Chussex, Walton-on-the-Hill : Garden Front • 151 108. ,, >> ,, ,, Staircase . 152 109. ,, ,, ,, ,, Ground Floor Plan • 153 no. Knebworth Golf Club : Entrance Front . . NASHDOM, TAPLOW, BUCKS, 1909 • 154 in. Nashdom : The Porch . . ... • 157 112. ,,• Plans ....... . 158 ii3- „ A Wind Dial • 159 114. ,, From the Lower Lawn .... 161 II5- ,, A Fireplace in the Inner Temple TWO LARGE HOUSES IN KENT, 1910-12 . 162 116. Great Maytham : The Walled Garden . 163 117. ,, ,, Entrance Front . . 164 118. ,, ,, The Garden Front . 165 119. ,, ,, Ground Floor Plan . 166 120. ,, ,, A Gate ...... . 166 121. The Salutation, Sandwich : Entrance Front 167 122. ,, ,, Salon Door . 168List of Illustrations 7 PAGE 123. REPARATION OF A SUSSEX MANOR HOUSE AND AN IRISH CASTLE Great Dixter : Porch from the North-east 171 124. }> )} Ground Floor Plan ..... 172 .125. ) > > > The Hall : West End . . 173 126. Howth Castle : Granite Oriel ...... 175 127. ,, The Loggia . . 176 FOLLY FARM 128. Folly Farm : From the South, before the 1912 Additions . 179 129. ,, ,, Ground Plan . . , 180 130. ,, ,, Forecourt Wall and 1906 Wing 181 .131. ,, ,, South Side : 1906 and 1912 Wings 183 ■132. ,, ,, The Black Hall . ... 184 133- ,, ,, Dining-room Loggia and Tank 185 J34- ,, ,, Dining-room Fireplace 187 I35- ,, ,, Corner Fireplace in Chief Bedroom DESIGNS FOR FURNITURE 188 .136. Grand Piano at Marshcourt . . 189 137- Upholstered Bed at Great Maytham . 190 338. ,, ,, Temple Dinsley . 191 139. A Garden Seat ...... 192 a 40. Table with Cabriole Legs . . . . 193 :I4T- A Side Table ....... 194 142. “ Country Life ” Office : The Vestibule 196 :I43- ,, ,, ,, The Entrance 198 a44. Parliament Chamber, Inner Temple . 200:kyll’s House, Muns'Lutyens Houses and Gardens 9 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY A General Survey of the Development and Character of Sir Edwin’s Work—Early Picturesqueness—His Surrey Manner—Growing Restraint of Design—London Work—Treatment of Ancient Buildings—“ Styles ” and " Style ”—Invention and Humour. r I "'HE writing of a book about the work of a living artist X presents obvious difficulties, but one of them can be avoided by giving to it as little as possible the character of a biography. It will be enough, therefore, to set down here that Edwin Landseer Lutyens was born in London in March, 1869, the eleventh of a family of fourteen. His father, Mr. Charles Lutyens, after leaving the army, became a painter, whose pleasure in experimenting with various techniques marks an interesting point in artistic heredity, for his architect son has always been swift to try fresh combinations of materials. E. L. Lutyens was educated at a private school, studied for two years at South Kensing- ton, and was a year in the office of Messrs. Ernest George and Peto. As early as 1888 he did a little work on his own account in the alteration of a cottage at Thursley* Other small works followed until 1891, when he received his first serious commission from Mr. (now Sir) Arthur Chapman, for whom he built Crooksbury, his first house of any importance (Figs. 13 and 14). The development of his outlook had its starting-point in what may roughly be called the picturesque manner, derived in some sort from reminiscences of a childish love for the gabled houses in Randolph Caldecott's drawings. This studied picturesqueness is observed throughout his work of 1888-1900, but as a factor of lessening importance. The early reminiscences of gothic detail in the garden porch at Crooksbury were soon abandoned, as were also the broad10 ■GardenAssociation with Miss ii white barge boards (Fig. 13) which now look rather aggres- sive. One of the important happenings in his artistic career was his early acquaintance with Miss Jekyll. Her great gift for gardening served as a stimulus to his appreciation, and led him to give the large attention to garden design which has developed so notably, from Woodside, Chenies (Fig. 1) to Hestercombe (Chapter VII). It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of her influence. Architects find in gardens a just sphere for design, but they cannot be expected to have a wide know- ledge of horticulture. Miss Jekyll added to this knowledge an intimate sense of design, and Sir Edwin's association with her in the joint labour of design and planting led not only to splendid results in individual gardens, but also to the widening of his outlook on the whole question. It was an ideal partnership. It is in the main to Miss Jekyll that we owe the rational blending of the formal and the natural in garden design, which has harmonized the theories of two contending schools. It is enough to say that the gardens illustrated in the succeeding chapters would never have been created without her help. One of the results of this friendship was that he built for Miss Jekyll the house at MunsteadWood (Figs. 17 to 20). In Chapter II are illustrated some early works of the same type as Sullingstead (Fig. 2) which developed into the notable examples of Surrey building in the vernacular manner shown in Chapter III. Still picturesque, they show a growing breadth of treatment, a greater reticence in detail and an enlarging richness and variety in the management of the gardens. The work of the years 1900-1 (Chapter IV) was varied, and the two houses illustrated mark an all-round development and an increasing facility of design. The Deanery Garden was his last important essay in half-timber work and is one of the best, if not the best, of the modern houses built in this manner during last century. The garden also shows a growing skill in the treatment of water. Home- wood, Knebworth (Figs. 36 and 37), shows a rare surrender to a foreign influence. It owes a little to Cape Dutch architecture, but in spirit only, not in the letter, which is sui generis.12 The Tudor Mood The exterior of Marshcourt (Chapter V) shows a most characteristic Tudor mood. It is superb in its own manner, but the growing tendency to adopt a more restful basis for design is clear from the classical flavour of the interiors. Their treatment, however, is markedly immature when com- pared with later work, and shows a somewhat undisciplined richness and variety of material. Grey Walls, though less striking, is a very satisfying composition (Figs. 48 and 49).The Georgian Atmosphere 13 To the years 1902-3 belongs the exquisite house of Little Thakeham (Figs. 50-53), with its exterior in the late Tudor manner, but yet instinct with personal feeling. The interior is frankly Falladian'and shows a growing tendency towards austerity of treatment and a more visible-scholarship. The sun-trap type of house plan causes many problems, on which architects delight to test their ingenuity, and Papillon Hall (Figs. 54-56) shows how skilfully the many difficulties which beset this type of plan have been avoided. On the general question of planning it is fair to say that in the earlier houses convenience of arrangement was some- times sacrificed to a preconceived idea of exterior treat- ment. This was probably due to the fact that Sir Edwin began to practise without that grounding in the hard facts of design which is part of a regular and organized archi- tectural education. Impelled into architecture by a natural passion for the art, he gathered knowledge of some of its more practical aspects by experience rather than by training. His later work shows none of those rather irresponsible tricks of planning which are a defect of his earlier essays. This is the more notable because the later manner, with its reliance on symmetrical arrangements, presents far more difficult problems in the disposition of rooms than the less restrained type of picturesque and traditional buildings. Monkton, Singleton, is important as marking an increas- ing bias towards the Georgian atmosphere, and of necessity a lessened use of gables and casements in favour of hipped roofs and sliding sashes (Figs. 3 and 4). The influence of this house and others like it has been, and is, so increasingly effective that it is worth while to consider in some detail what is at the back of this return to the eighteenth century for inspiration. Perhaps the case for the demure type of house, such as Temple Dinsley and Hill End, Preston (Fig. 5), which may be regarded as a little Temple Dinsley, Mount Blow and Great Maytham, which take their spirit, though not necessarily their details, from the builders of the early eighteenth century, was never put better than in a letter of Robert Louis Stevenson. He had been at Chester visiting half- timbered houses redolent of gothic traditions. He liked the place, but says, “ somehow I feel glad when I get among the quiet eighteenth-century buildings, in cosy places with14 The Georgian Atmosphere 3.—The Loggia at Monkton, near Chichester.R. L. Stevenson’s Impressions 15 PLAN 4.—Ground Floor Plan of Monkton. some elbow room about them, after the older architecture. This other is bedevilled and furtive ; it seems to stoop ; I am afraid of trap-doors, and could not go pleasantly into such houses/' He goes on to wonder how much of this feeling was legitimately the effect of the architecture. He supposes that the most part of his sensations is due possibly to associations reflected from bad historical novels and to the disquieting sculpture that garnished some Chester facades. As was inevitable for a man in whose life literature filled so great a part, he was inclined to belittle the direct appeal to his emotions of the architecture itself, and to cast about for more subtle explanations. “ I do not know," he writes, “ if I have yet explained to you the sort of loyalty, of urbanity, that there is about the one (i.e., XVIII cent.) lO my mind; the spirit of a country orderly and prosperous, a flavour of the presence of magistrates and well-to-do merchants in big wigs . . . something certain and civic and domestic, is all about these quiet staid shapely houses, with no character but their exceeding shapeliness, and the comely external utterance that they make of their internal comfort. Now the others . . . are sly and grotesque, they combine their sort of feverish grandeur with their sort of secretive baseness, after the manner of a Charles the Ninth. . . . Dwarfs and sinister persons in cloaks are about them ; and I seem to divine crypts and trap-16 lden Front of Hill End, Preston, Her-“ Quiet staid shapely Houses ” 17 doors/" I have quoted at large from this letter because it reveals the effect of buildings on a mind singularly alert and sensitive. There is something boyish and a little over-strained in the vision of Chester as bedevilled and furtive, but a substratum of truth in the outlined effect of gothic even in its quieter domestic shapes, when compared with the broad quietude of Wren and his followers. Steven- son, without any particular knowledge of the art of building, was swift to appreciate its power of expression. It was perhaps the unconscious sense that the desire for mental shapeliness was represented by “ quiet staid shapely houses that endeared them to Stevenson, as much as the more obvious expression which they gave to urbanity and orderly prosperity. For good or ill, the days of crypts and trap- doors are gone. Buildings that are “ bedevilled and furtive ” represent no very real or enduring emotions to-day. If we have arrived at another eighteenth century in our domestic architecture, it is because it is the natural place for us. It may not be inappropriate, however, to sound a note of warning. The demure and balanced idea in house design slides with deplorable facility into timidity and dreariness. Unless it maintains a definite vitality by sheer effort of art AREA SERVERY SERVANTS! ROOM. SECOND FLOOR PLAi-i GROUND FLOOR PLAN 6.—Plans of the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna’s House in South Square. l.h.g. B18 Town Houses and mind, repose will have been secured at too heavy a price. Some of the Lutyens town houses in Westminster go perilously near dulness, and are saved only by a rightness of proportion which has no support from any other qualities save pleasant colour and texture. The plans of the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna’s house (Fig. 6) show what a fresh mind Sir Edwin brings to so restricted a problem as 7.—No. 36 South Square, Westminster.Hampstead Garden Suburb 19 the disposition of the rooms in a town house, and the porch of No. 7 St. James's Square, his handling of an ordinary and traditional composition (Fig. 8). In the Chelsea garden of the late Sir Hugh Lane (Fig. 9) he has by the simple elements of screen, steps, paving and statues given a personal character to a plain oblong patch of ground. Amongst many London interiors the cedar-lined library designed for Viscount Haldane (Fig. 10) and Lady Horner's library in Lower Berkeley Street (Fig. 12) are very attractive. Sir Edwin's most notable contribution to London archi- tecture is, however, suburban rather than urban. He was ^ entrusted with the general plan of the Central Square at I the Hampstead Garden Suburb including the Anglican I Church, the Free Church, the Institute and the enclosing 1 group of houses, some of which appear in Fig. 11. " An architect's judgment and sympathy as well as his knowledge may fairly be judged by his attitude to the work of his forbears in the art of building. One of Sir Edwin's earliest, as it is also one of his most important, works of repair and enlargement was Lindisfarne Castle, Holy Island (Chapter VI), and not the least successful part of his achievement has been in such work. It is a field in which the modern architect is most open to hostile criticism, and deservedly so. Reverence for ancient buildings as essential evidences of national development in art and manners was almost unknown until Ruskin, William Morris and others established it as a working theory. Up to the nineteenth century succeeding generations had altered freely in accord- ance with their changing standards of taste, but always on the lines of a continuous and developing tradition. We may regret that a house of Wren's time should have been remodelled in Adam's, but at least its new guise was authentic and good in its own right. Our quarrel with the restorers is that in most cases they replaced authentic work by mean and lifeless copies, in what they conceived to be more reputable, because earlier, styles. That these clumsy forgers made our national monuments ugly was an error in taste : that in the process they destroyed the evidences of national art was a crime. Sir Edwin's record in this matter is clean. His devotion to all authentic traditions of building is so sincere and knowledgeable that any works of simple repair are done with the smallest renewals consistent with20 Repair of Old Houses stability and always with materials that accord with the old work. His policy with regard to alterations and additions to old buildings seems to me wholly right, though it is by no means universally accepted. When he has built a new wing to an old house, he has not sought to copy the original exactly. While the addition has been in perfect harmony with the early work, it has revealed to the expert eye, though not necessarily to the casual observer, the fact 8.—Porch, 7 St. James’s Square.The Greek Spirit 21 that it is of the twentieth century. Because he exerts a sedulous care in the choice of materials that conform in texture and colour with old standards, and because he has established in his building a quality of craftsmanship that recalls ancient methods, the juxtaposition of new and old achieves a real unity. Chapters X to XII and XVI deal mainly with houses in which the right relation of new to old has been the testing factor of success. When considering the later development of Sir Edwin's work, seen in such houses as Great Maytham and The Saluta- tion (Chapter XV) it is to be noted that, austere though it be, it shows no sign of being influenced by that Greek revival which we associate with such names as Elmes and Cockerell. The Greek spirit is an affair of ideals rather than of mould- ings. Walter Pater, with his usual delicacy of insight, put the case with a fine appreciation of underlying facts when he said : “ Breadth, centrality, with blitheness and repose are the marks of Hellenic culture. Is that culture a lost art ? . . . Can we bring down that ideal into the gaudy, per- plexed light of modern life ? ” It is the function of the modern architect to secure for his buildings these four great qualities. Even in simple buildings we should not look in vain for breadth, centrality, blitheness and repose. Perhaps especial stress may be laid on the quality of blitheness. Its power is seen not only in many of the buildings described in this book, but in the large influence exercised by Sir Edwin on the work of the younger generation of architects. In all discussions about architecture the writer must sooner or later come to the question of “ styles ” and “ style." On the question of how far any architect may properly work in various styles it may be useful to put in here a claim for wide choice. More or less uniform traditions or fashions in the past have been the outcome of a fairly prevalent uniformity in the point of view of the average man about things in general. Opinion was more homo- geneous. The spread of education has fostered the spirit of individualism in all literary and artistic matters. A coherent tradition implies the existence of authority, a quality con- spicuously lacking in modern life. Tradition or fashion are due to the acceptance of a standard, but the increasing tendency is not to accept the standards set up by other22 “ Styles ” awd “ Style ” Late Sir Hugh Lane’s Garden at ioo Cheyne Walk, Che:A Note on Tradition 23 people. This individualism may or may not be a good or a healthy thing, but it is here, and has to be reckoned with. So long as opinion is free and diverse, and tending to show still sharper lines of cleavage, it seems unreasonable to expect that any one architectural tradition will be followed. We must be content if the threads of varying traditions are picked up faithfully and intelligently with due regard to changed methods of construction and new con- ditions of life and work. An architect, unless he is prepared to take the narrow view that the style he likes best should be imposed on all clients for all types of building, must show flexibility. Sir Edwin has never done “ Gothic ” building that follows text-book standards, because his mind does not work that way, but with that reservation he has expressed himself in a variety of styles, and impressed on all of them an individual quality of design. I feel strongly the difficulty of conveying by words the general impression in this relation which a broad yet detailed survey of his work has made on my mind. It is difficult to write fruitfully, for the usual phrases of architectural criticism are not very helpful. One generalization, however, may be made. The buildings now illustrated clearly IO-—Lord Haldane’s Library at 28 Queen Anne’s Gate.24 Walter Pater on Style present one outstanding quality—they are instinct with style, not in the usual meaning of the word that nails work to an historical period, but as Pater used it—■“ for there is style there ; one temper has shaped the whole : and every- thing that has style, that has been done as no other man or age could have done it . . . has its true value and interest." For all his faithfulness to tradition, Sir Edwin impresses on his work a personal quality that is unmis- takable and that eludes the copyist. “ A certain strange- ness," says the same critic, “ something of the blossoming of the aloe, is indeed an element in all true works of art; that they shall excite or surprise us is indispensable. But that they shall give pleasure and exert a charm over us is indispensable too ; and this strangeness must be sweet also—a lovely strangeness." It is precisely because Sir Edwin uses his power of artistic surprise with reticence that it never becomes antic. As soon as he has enlivened his composition with a gracious touch of strangeness, he retires into a gravity which retains our interest because it is uncon- scious, and never collapses, as grave designing is apt to do, into dulness. Through it all there runs the vein of a marked personality, ever busy in invention and full of humour. There will always be two broad tendencies in constructive art, the professional and the amateur. The former is best found in the work which in France and America is inspired by L’Ecole des Beaux Arts. Full of refinement and scholar- ship, as is much of it, it is yet apt to grow stiff in its reliance on formulas. The architecture of England has always been, on the whole, the art of the amateur (the word being under- stood in its best sense). Into this category must be put the work of Wren, for the life of that great master was a long-series of magnificent experiments. It is a kindred temperament, a like adventurous personality which Sir Edwin has stamped on scores of buildings up and down the country. So much for invention, but it is more difficult to put into words the qualities which are the expression of humour. They are the outcome of a rich changefulness of idea. That the work here illustrated entertains us, no one who studied the buildings, whether in being or in picture, can for a moment doubt. We come continually on little conceits which relieve the prevailing and even sometimes austere simplicity. It is not to be forgotten that the greatest2526 Invention and Humour artists of inventive temperament have relieved great con- ceptions by enchanting accessories, like Victor Hugo’s butterfly which alights on the bloodstained barricade in Les Miserables. Domestic architecture lives in an atmo- sphere of quieter and more gracious ideals, but none the less it needs its moments of relief, and these we find expressed, sometimes in a spirit of almost elfish charm, yet always without any strain on our sense of decorative proprieties. It is a happy gift to keep these touches of humorous fancy in strict subordination to the main conception of a building. The function of architecture is not to apply ornament to building, but to create, in building, an artistic unity so pervading that it shall be impossible to detach any one quality or detail without an inevitable sense of loss. In Sir Edwin Lutyens’ work, regarded as a whole, it is precisely the mastery with which he marshals the several elements of his art, without anything that can be called over-accentua- tion of parts, that touches us with a feeling of breadth and completeness.cc The Spirit of Place ” 27 CHAPTER II TYPICAL EARLY WORKS—(1890-1898) The Influence of Surrey—Crooksbury House—Ruckmans—Miss Jekyll’s Home, Munstead Wood. “ npHE spirit of place/' to use a phrase of Mrs. Meynell, JL has a marked influence on the work of any artist. It is idle to speculate on how Sir Edwin Lutyens' work would have developed if the early years of his practice had not been spent mainly in Surrey and the nigh counties, but it is certain that it would have moved on rather different lines. Crooksbury House was his first building of any size and importance. The plan is reproduced in Fig. 14. To the right is shown the original house built in 1890. The eastern block to the left and the connecting arm were added eight years later. I deal here only with the house of 1890, as being the first of any size which he designed. The client who gave Sir Edwin his first real chance of showing his mettle was Sir Arthur Chapman. The influence of the picturesque way of building characteristic of Surrey, and then very popular, is seen in the provision of an ingle-nook in the living-room and in the breaks in the lines of wall. There are some defects in planning such as are expected of inexperience, and the broad white barge boards on the west wing (Fig. 13) empha- size the dormers rather heavily, but the house is sufficiently notable as the work of a youth of twenty-one. Indeed, it showed already a distinction which gave promise of better things. I need not deal with the extensions of 1898 except to note that the first ten years of Sir Edwin's career were very appropriately closed by an addition to his first important building, for it marks his progress very decisively. It was characteristic of him then, as always, that he did not feel bound to do the new work at all in the manner of the old. A wing was wanted, and its east front shows a great develop- ment. It recalls the houses of the middle of the seventeenth century, but the sense of balance was not yet so strong in28 First Surrey House 13.—Sir Edwin’s first Surrey House, Crooksbury, 1890.Brick Fireplaces 29 PAVED GARDEN & PERQOLA HERE (FIQ COURT) LIVING ROOM TERRACE HATS : 58. Horne, Mr. Edgar, Building-owner of Tigbourne Court, 49. Houses : Barton St. Mary, East Grinstead, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102. Chussex, Walton - on - the Hill, 150, 151, 152, 153, 153, 154, 155. Copse Hill, Upper Slaughter (alteration), 119, 120. Crooksbury, Surrey (additions), 9, n, 27, 28, 29, 29. Deanery Garden, Sonning, n, 50, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54. Drew- steignton (additions), referred to, 59. Folly Farm, Sulhampstead (addi- tions), 178, 179, 180, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 188.144-—Parliament Chamber, Inner Temp:Index (i con) 201 Houses (contd.) : Goddards, Abinger Common, 40, 43 44, 44, 45, 45, 46, 47. Great Dixter, Sussex (repara- tion and additions), 170, 171, 172, 172, 173, 173, 174. Great Maytham, Rolvenden, 13, 21, 163, 163, 164, 165, 166, 166, 169. Grey Walls, Gullane, 12, 68, 69, 69, 70, 71. Hampstead Garden Suburb, Cen- tral Square, 19, 25. Heathcote, Ilkley, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, no, 111, in, 112, 112, 113, 114, 115, 115, 116, 117, 118, 145. Hill End, Preston, Herts, 13, 16. Homewood, Knebworth, 11, 55, 56, 57, 58. Howth Castle, Dublin (repara- tion), 174, 175, 176, 177. Lambay Castle (reparation and additions), 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 136, 137, 137. Lindisfarne Castle, Holy Island (repairs and addi- tions), 19, 80, 81, 82, 82, 83, 84, 84. Little Thakeham, 13, 71, 71, 72, 73, 74, 74, 75, 76, 105. Marshcourt, Stockbridge, 12, 59, 59, 60, 60, 61, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 66, 67, 67, 68, 68, 105. Middlefield (now called Mount Blow), Great Shelford, 13, 145, 146, 147, 147, 148, 148, 149, 150, 150. Millmead, Bram- ley, 94, 95, 96, 97. Monkton, Singleton, 13, 14, 15. Mount Blow (formerly called Middle- field), Great Shelf ord, 13, 145, 146, 147, 147, 148, 148, 149, 150, 150. Munstead Wood, 8, 11, 30, 32, 32, 33, 34, 34, 35, 35. Nashdom, Taplow, 156, 157, 158, 158, 159, 159, 160, 161, 162, 162. New Place, Shedfield (reconstruction), 102, 103, 104. No. 7, St. James's Square, London ; porch at, 19, 20. No. 36, South Square, West- minster, 17, 18, 18, 19. Orchards, Godaiming, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. Papillon Hall, near Market Har- borough, 13, 76, 77, 78, 78, 79. Ruckmans, Oakwood Park, 29, 30, 30, 31. Temple Dinsley, Herts, 13, 138, 139, 140, 140, 141, 141, 142, 142, 143, 144. The Saluta- tion, Sandwich, 21, 167, 168, 169. Tigbourne Court, Wit- ley, 47, 47, 48, 49. Whalton Manor, Northumberland (alterations and additions), 122,123,123,124,125,126,127. Wittersham House, Kent (alter- ations), 119, 120, 121,122, 122. Howth Castle, Dublin (reparation), 174, 175, 176, 177. Hudson, Mr. Edward, Building- owner of Deanery Garden, Sonning, 54. Building-owner of Lindisfarne Castle, Holy Island (reparation), 80. Jekyll, Miss, Association with Sir E. Lutyens in garden design- ing, 11, 54. Building-owner of Millmead, Bramley, 94. Building-owner of- Munstead Wood, 11, 30, 32. Her garden work at Lambay Castle, 134, and at Munstead Wood, 11, 32, 34, 35. KnebworthGolf ClubHouse,154,i55. Lambay Castle, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 136, 137, 137. Library : No. 16, Lower Berkeley Street, London, 19, 26. No. 28, Queen Anne’s Gate, London, 19, 23. Lindisfarne Castle, Holy Island (repairs and additions), 19, 80, 81, 82, 82, 83, 84, 84, 85. Little Thakeham, 13, 71, 71, 72, 73> 74, 74, 75, 76, 105. Lloyd, Mr. Nathaniel, Building- owner, Great Dixter, Sussex, 172. Loggia : Crooksbury, Surrey, 28. Folly Farm, Sulhampstead, 185, 186. Homewood, Kneb- worth, 56, 57. Howth Castle, Dublin, 176, 177. Monkton, Singleton, 14. Orchards, God- aiming, 23, 24. Lutyens, Sir Edwin, R.A., Biogra- phical details, 7, 9. Lyttelton, The late Rt. Hon. Alfred, Building-owner of Grey Walls, Gullane, 69, and of Witter- sham House, Kent, 119.202 Index (continued) Marshcourt, Stockbridge, 12, 59, 59, 60, 60, 61, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 66, 67, 67, 68, 68, 71, 73, 105. Middlefield (now called Mount Blow), Great Shelf or d, 13, 145, 146, 147, 147, 148, 148, 149, 150, 150. Millmead, Bramley, 94, 95, 96, 97. Mirrielees, Sir Frederick, Building- owner of Goddards, Abinger Common, 40. Monkton, Singleton, 13, 14, 15. Morning-room, Heathcote, Ilkley, 113, 114. Mount Blow (formerly called Mid- dlefield), Great Shelf or d, 13, 145, 146, 147, 147, 148, 148, 149, 150, 150. Munstead Wood, 8, 11, 30, 32, 32, 33, 34, 34, 35, 35. ' Music Room, Ruckmans, Oakwood Park, 29, 30, 31. Nashdom, Taplow, 156, 157, 158, 158, 159, 159, 160, 161, 162, 162. New Place, Shedfield (reconstruc- tion), 102, 103, 104. No. 7, St. James's Square, London. Porch at, 19, 20. No. 36, South Square, Westmin- ster, 17, 18, 18, 19. “Old House at Home,” Benenden, (now part of Great Dixter, Sussex), 173. Orangery at Hestercombe, 90, 93. Orchards, Godaiming, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 42. Oriel window, Howth Castle, Dub- lin, 175, 177. Outdoor parlour, Wittersham House, Kent, 120, 121. Papillon Hall, near Market Har- borough, 76, 77, 78, 78, 79. Pergola : Little Thakeham, 72, 76. Marshcourt, Stockbridge, 65, 66. Piano, Grand (Marshcourt), 189, 191, 193. Plan : Barton St. Mary, East Grinstead, 99, 99. Chussex, Walton-on-the-Hill,153, 153- Deanery Garden, Sonning, 50, 54- Folly Farm, Sulhampstead, 178, 180, 182. Goddards, Abinger Common, 43, 44. Great Dixter, Sussex, 172, 172. Great Maytham, Rolvenden, 166. Grey Walls, Gullane, 69, 69 Heathcote, Ilkley, House, 108, 112, Garden, 115, 118. Hes- tercombe, Gardens, 88, 88. Lambay Castle, 130, 131. Lin- disfarne Castle, Holy Island, 80, 82. Little Thakeham, 71, 73- Marshcourt, Stockbridge, 59, 63, 67. Monkton, Singleton, 15. Mount Blow (formerly* called Middlefield), Great Shelford, 147, 149. Munstead Wood, 32, 32. Nashdom, Taplow, 158. Orchards, Godaiming, 36, 38. Papillon Hall, near Market Har- borough, 76, 77. Temple Dinsley, Herts, 140, 140. Tigbourne Court, Witley, 47, 49- Whalton Manor, Northumber- land, 123. Plaster ceiling, Modelled : Marsh- court, Stockbridge ; the Hall, 67, 68. Pools and Water Treatment : Deanery Garden, Sonning, 52, 54. Folly Farm, Sulhampstead, 183, 185, 186. Heathcote, Ilkley, 109, 116. Hestercombe, 87, 89, 90, 91. Little Thake- ham, 74, 75, 76. Marshcourt, Stockbridge, 63, 64, 65, 66. Munstead Wood, 32, 35. Papillon Hall, near Market Harborough, 78, 79. Temple Dinsley, Herts, 143, 144. Porch: Nashdom, Taplow, 156, 157. No. 7, St. James’s Square, London, 19, 20. Ruckmans, Oakwood Park, 29, 30, 30,31. Ship room, Lindisfarne Castle, The, 83, 84.Index ( con 203 Side table: with Carbriole legs, 193, 195, with turned legs, 194, 195. Staircase : Chussex, Walton-on- the-Hill, 152, 153. Copse Hill, Upper Slaughter, 119, 120,. Goddards, Abinger Common, 45, 47. , Heathcote, Ilkley,io8, 110, Lambay Castle, 132, 136. Marshcourt, Stockbridge, 67, 68, Mount Blow, Great Shel- ford, 149, 150. Steps, Garden and Exterior : Great Maytham, Rolvenden, 163, Heathcote, Ilkley, 117. Howth Castle, Dublin, 176. Little Thakeham, 74, 75. Marsh- court, Stockbridge, 62, 63. Munstead Wood, 34. Nash- dc^n, Taplow, 159, 161, Pa- pillon Hall, near Market Harborough, 79. Sullingstead, 11, 12. Sundial : Deanery Garden, Son- ning, 51. Marshcourt, Stock- bridge, 66, 66. Monkton, Singleton, 14. The Hoo, 58. Temple Dinsley, Herts (additions), 13, 138, 139,140, 140, 141, 141, 142, 142, 143, 144. Tennant, Mr. H. J., Building-owner of Great Maytham, Rolvenden, 163. The Salutation, Sandwich, 21, 167, 168, 169. Tigbourne Court, Witley, 47, 47, 48, 49. Walton Heath Golf Club, Dormy House at, 94, 96, 98, 98. Whalton Manor, Northumberland (alterations and additions), 122,123,123,124,125,126, 127. Wind dial, Nashdom, Taplow, 158, 159'. Window, Oriel : Howth Castle, Dublin, 175, 177. Wittersham House, Kent (altera- tions), 119, 120, 121, 122, 123. Printed in Great Britain by BUTLER & Tanner, Frome and Londonjd Complete Catalogue of <2Joo£s in the “Country Life" Library will be sent post free on application to the (Manager, “ Country Life " Ltd., 20, Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, W^.C.2