TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of the paragraph.
A superscript is denoted by ^x, for example und^r.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS AND
THEIR STORY
SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS
AND THEIR STORY
_Being the results of recent research in
London and elsewhere._
BY
ALFRED W. CLAPHAM, F.S.A.,
AND
WALTER H. GODFREY
Author of
_A History of Architecture in London_,
_The Parish of Chelsea_, &c., &c.
ILLUSTRATED BY 108 PHOTOGRAPHS AND ORIGINAL PLANS
TECHNICAL JOURNALS, LTD.
CAXTON HOUSE, WESTMINSTER, S.W.
PREFACE.
Not the least interesting branch of modern research is that which opens
for us new chapters in the history of our own country and shows us the
character and ambitions in the lives of our ancestors. The public have
long been familiarised with the results of scientific inquiry into the
organic structure and the habits of Nature, but the labours of the
historian are too often hidden in treatises of too abstruse a form to
attract the general reader. And even where an attempt has been made to
present these subjects of human interest in a more palatable form we
too often have to lament a looseness of expression and an indifference
to historical accuracy which defeat every good purpose in view.
It is in the belief that a series of short papers, each embodying
some definite contribution to local or national history, may yet be
made of real interest to the average reader, that this collection of
studies has been compiled. The majority of the articles appeared in
the pages of the _Architectural Review_ under the title of “New Light
on Old Subjects.” (February, 1911, to March, 1912.) My friend Mr. A.
W. Clapham contributes those on the palaces of Nonsuch, Hertford,
Havering, and Queenborough, the Tower of London, the Origin of the
Domestic Hall, and the monastic buildings of Cockersand; Barking;[1]
St. John’s, Clerkenwell;[2] Blackfriars[3] and Whitefriars[4]
London. The reader is referred to the publications mentioned in the
footnotes for Mr. Clapham’s detailed archæological examination of all
the documentary evidences, and a full description of the excavations
superintended by him at Barking Abbey.
[1] The Benedictine Abbey of Barking. _Transactions_, Essex
Archæological Society. Vol. XII.
[2] St. John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell. _Transactions_, St. Paul’s
Ecclesiological Society. Vol. VII. Part 2.
[3] On the topography of the Dominican Priory of London. _Archæologia._
Vol. LXIII.
[4] Topography of the Carmelite Priory of London. Journal of the
British Archæological Association. March, 1910.
Of the remaining papers, I will merely add that they represent for
the most part some particular studies in the more general examination
of London buildings which I have undertaken. The articles on Chelsea
are an amplification of the material prepared for the Survey of that
Parish.[5] That on Crosby Hall is the substance of a lecture delivered
before the London and Middlesex Archæological Association, soon
after the Hall’s reconstruction. The interpretation of the original
Specification of Elizabethan date for the erection of the Fortune
Theatre was originally undertaken for Mr. William Archer, and the full
details as here presented were first published in the _Architectural
Review_. The only paper that deals with a subject outside London is
that on Abbot’s Hospital, Guildford, which provides an excuse for a
short account of the chief points of interest in the history of English
Almshouses and their plans. I am indebted to Mr. Clapham for details of
the building dates of Eltham Palace, which are preserved in the Record
Office.
[5] “Survey of London.” Vol. IV. Parish of Chelsea, Part 2. London
County Council.
Both Mr. Clapham’s and my thanks are due for the kind permission
granted us to reproduce old plans and drawings wherever these are in
private hands and also for the use of photographs. Care has been taken
to acknowledge the source of each drawing in the text, with the names
of those who have extended to us their courtesy and help.
WALTER H. GODFREY.
11, Carteret Street,
Queen Anne’s Gate,
S.W.
CONTENTS
AND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
I. THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH, SURREY 1
1. Nonsuch Palace, Garden Front—_Hofnagle_ 2
2. Nonsuch Palace, from the South—_Speed_ (1611) 7
3. Nonsuch Palace from the N.-W.—_Vetusta Monumenta_,
Vol. ii. (1765) 8
4. The Banqueting House—drawn by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 12
II. THE FORTUNE THEATRE, LONDON (1600) 13
5. View of Interior—drawn by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 14
6. Swan Theatre, Bankside—_John de Witt_ 16
7. The Fortune. Plan (ground floor)—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 19
8. The Fortune. Plan (upper floor)—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 20
9. The Fortune. Section through Stage—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 25
10. The Fortune. Section facing Stage—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 26
III. THE TOWER OF LONDON AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 29
11. Chapel of St. John—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 30
12. Plan of Tower and Roman Wall—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 33
13. Plan of Tower and its Bastions—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 33
14. Towers on Eastern Wall—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 34
15. Fireplace, Byward Tower—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 39
16. Blount Monument, St. Peter ad Vincula—Photograph
_Architectural Review_ 40
17. Pediment with Arms of William III.—Photograph
_Architectural Review_ 43
18. The Horse-Armoury—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 44
IV. THE ROYAL PALACE OF ELTHAM 47
19. The Hall from the South—Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 48
20. Bridge over Moat. Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 53
21. Complete Plan of Palace—drawn by _Walter H. Godfrey_,
from Plans in the _Hatfield MSS._ and the _Record Office_ 54
22. Interior of Hall—Photograph by _H.M. Office of Works_ 56
23. The Chancellor’s House—Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 61
V. THE ORIGIN OF THE DOMESTIC HALL 67
24. The Guildhall, York 68
25. Plans of Halls of Winchester Castle, York Guildhall,
and Oakham Castle—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 72
26. Plans of Halls of Ashby Castle, Hertford Castle, and
Warnford—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 73
VI. SIR THOMAS MORE’S HOUSE AT CHELSEA 77
27. Sir Thomas More’s Family at Chelsea—by _Holbein_ 78
28. Plan of the House (ground floor)—by _J. Symonds_ (c. 1595) 82
29. Plan of the House (first floor)—by _J. Symonds_ (c. 1595) 83
30. Plan for rebuilding (ground floor)—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 86
31. Plan for rebuilding (first floor)—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 87
32. Another First Floor Plan—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 88
33. Estate Plan (c. 1595) 90
34. Plan of House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 93
35. Key-plan of Estate—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 95
36. Bird’s-eye View of Chelsea Estate—by _Kip_ (1699) 97
37. Garden of Danvers House—by _J. Aubrey_ 98
38. Plans of Danvers House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 100
39. Elevation of Danvers House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 102
VII. COCKERSAND ABBEY AND ITS CHAPTER HOUSE 105
40. Interior of Chapter House 106
41. Plan of Abbey—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 109
42. Pier-capitals in Chapter House 111
43. Exterior from West 112
44. Exterior from East 112
45. Stalls from the Abbey (now in Lancaster) 115
46. Misericorde from Stalls 116
47. Another Misericorde 116
VIII. THE REBUILDING OF CROSBY HALL AT CHELSEA 119
48. The Roof—Photograph by _London News Agency_ 120
49. Plan of Hall in Bishopsgate—by _W. H. Godfrey_ 121
50. The Hall from the West—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 125
51. Interior of Hall—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 126
52. The Oriel, Exterior—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 129
53. The Oriel, Interior—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 130
54. Vault of Oriel—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 133
55. Detail of Roof and Window—Photograph _Architectural
Review_ 134
56. Section through Roof 136
57. Plan of Hall at Chelsea 137
IX. THE PALACES OF HERTFORD AND HAVERING 139
58. Gatehouse, Hertford 140
59. Ground Plan, Hertford (_Public Record Office_) 142
60. Plan of Fortifications—by _A. W. Clapham_ 143
61. Havering, ground plan (_British Museum_) 148
62. Havering, first floor (_Hatfield MSS._) 149
X. THE NEW EXCHANGE IN THE STRAND 151
63. Elevation of Building (c. 1610)—by _Smithson_ 152
64. Durham House and Salisbury House—by _Hollar_
(Pepysian Library, Cambridge) 155
65. Durham House—from _Faithorne’s_ map 156
66. West Central London—from _Hollar’s_ map 156
67. MS. Plan of Durham House and the New Exchange (1626) 158
68. Plan of New Exchange (c. 1610)—by _Smithson_ 161
69. The New Exchange—by _T. Hosmer Shepherd_ 162
70. Plan of Site of Durham House (_Stow’s Survey_, Ed. 1720) 162
XI. ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, CLERKENWELL 165
71. The Monastic Buildings—by _Hollar_ 166
72. Plans showing development of the Church—drawn by
_A. W. Clapham_ 169
73. The Crypt looking East—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 170
74. East end of Crypt—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 173
75. South Chapel, Crypt—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 173
76. West front of Church—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 174
77. West door of Church—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 175
78. Fireplace, St. John’s Gate—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 176
XII. NORTHUMBERLAND HOUSE, STRAND 179
79. North Front (before 1874)—Photograph _London
Stereoscopic Co._ 180
80. Plan in the _Smithson_ Collection 185
81. View from River (c. 1650)—by _Hollar_ 186
82. The same, engraved in _Londina Illustrata_ 191
83. North Front—after _Canaletto_ 192
XIII. THE ABBEY OF BARKING, ESSEX 197
84. Remains of South Transept—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 198
85. Plan of the Precinct 202
86. The Curfew Gatehouse—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 203
87. The Saxon Cross—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 204
88. Plan of Abbey—by _A. W. Clapham_ 207
XIV. ABBOT’S HOSPITAL, GUILDFORD, AND ITS PREDECESSORS 215
89. Front of Hospital 216
90. Plans of Infirmary Types— Beamsley Hospital, Yorks;
St. Mary’s Hospital, Chichester; The Bede House,
Higham Ferrers; Browne’s Hospital, Stamford 221
91. Quadrangle, Leicester’s Hospital, Warwick 223
92. Great Chamber, Whitgift Hospital—drawn by
_W. H. Godfrey_ 224
93. Leicester’s Hospital, Warwick, Plan 226
94. Leicester’s Hospital—drawn by _W. H. Godfrey_ 227
95. Whitgift Hospital—Plan by _W. H. Godfrey_ 229
96. Abbot’s Hospital, Plan 230
97. Abbot’s Hospital, Courtyard 231
98. Abbot’s Hospital, Lower Hall 232
99. Abbot’s Hospital, Upper Hall 232
100. Abbot’s Hospital, Detail of door—drawn by
_Sydney A. Newcombe_ 235
XV. THE FRIARS AS BUILDERS—BLACKFRIARS AND WHITEFRIARS, LONDON 239
101. Blackfriars, Norwich 240
102. Plan of Austin Friars, London—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 249
103. Plan of Greyfriars, London 251
104. Preaching Cross, Blackfriars, Hereford—from _Britton_ 252
105. Blackfriars, London—Plan by _A. W. Clapham_ 254
106. Whitefriars, London—Plan by _A. W. Clapham_ 264
XVI. QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE AND ITS BUILDER, WILLIAM OF WYKEHAM 269
107. Queenborough Castle—from a Drawing by _Hollar_ 270
108. Queenborough Castle—Plan from the _Hatfield MSS._ 273
THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH,
SURREY
[Illustration: FIG. 1.—NONSUCH PALACE, GARDEN FRONT.
_Drawn by Hofnagle._]
I.
THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH, SURREY.
The wanton destruction of the celebrated palace of Nonsuch, sacrificed
to the extravagance and consequent embarrassments of the first Duchess
of Cleveland, was probably the heaviest loss which English architecture
has suffered since the Dissolution of the Monasteries. As an example
of domestic architecture, just at the period of its transition, it
was unique in combining in one building the familiar and almost
unaltered features of the old English home with the most daring and
fantastic ideas of the Italian Renaissance. Any additional information,
therefore, which bears upon its character is of special value, not from
an archæological so much as from an architectural point of view. Hence
the discovery of an entirely new view of Nonsuch Palace is ample excuse
for marshalling once again the facts of its architectural history.
The building activity of the first two Tudor kings is a somewhat
neglected subject, since nearly all their greatest works have perished
and the modern mind refuses to visualise the gorgeous descriptions
of the chroniclers, even when illustrated by the somewhat bizarre
creations of contemporary artists.
And yet the more the subject is studied the more the conclusion is
forced upon one that the old-time historians were guilty of little
exaggeration, and that the Tudor palaces were amongst the remarkable
buildings of Europe. The Spanish gentlemen who accompanied Phillip
II. to England were amazed at the magnificence of the palaces of the
English kings, in comparison with which they admitted the Alcazar at
Madrid, the residence of Castilian royalty, was a thing of no account.
Henry VII.’s chapel fortunately remains intact as an example of the
structure which a Tudor king (otherwise noted for his excessive
parsimony) thought suitable for his tomb-house. His palace at Richmond
and his great hospital at the Savoy were on a corresponding scale of
profusion. With his son Henry VIII. the ideas of the Renaissance were
given a freer hand. The father had employed an Italian to design his
tomb, and the son, towards the close of his reign, invited Italian
architects to design his buildings.
The architectural works of Henry VIII. consist chiefly of a series of
palaces, no fewer than five, which he erected in the course of his
thirty-eight years’ reign, apart from a number of manorial residences,
such as his riverside mansion at Chelsea. Of these palaces, Bridewell,
Guisnes, and Nonsuch have entirely vanished, but the gatehouse and
other remains at St. James’s exist, and the mutilated remains at
Beaulieu, in Essex, are still remarkable.
It is with the latest (in point of date) and in every way the most
remarkable of these that we are at present concerned. The palace of
Nonsuch achieved a reputation throughout Europe which has never been
accorded to any other English building before or since.
Situated on the richly-wooded slopes of the Surrey hills, amongst the
fairest prospects in the Home Counties, the ancient manor-house of
Cuddington (between Cheam and Ewell) appears to have early attracted
the attention of Henry VIII. In 1538 he acquired the manor from Richard
de Cuddington, and with a delightfully Tudor directness proceeded at
once quietly to remove the church and village and divert the roads,
that nothing might interrupt the view from his windows or destroy the
symmetry of his house and grounds. The site being thus cleared of its
ancient buildings, the new palace was begun.
Many tons of stone quarried at Merstham, in the Reigate hills, were
used on the works, and the great priory church at Merton was destroyed
piecemeal to provide materials. The accounts still existing for the
year 1539 preserve the names of every man employed, from the clerk of
works to the labourers and apprentices, some 230 in all.
Although it had been in progress for nine years, Nonsuch was still
incomplete at Henry’s death in 1547, but was nevertheless far enough
advanced to be habitable.
The celebrated Sir Thomas Cawarden, Master of the Revels, was warden
of the palace and parks of Nonsuch during the final years of Henry
VIII. and in the time of Edward VI., but in 1557 Queen Mary granted the
building and parks to Henry, Earl of Arundel, and his son-in-law, Lord
Lumley, who eventually completed it by adding the outer courtyard.
Under Queen Elizabeth Nonsuch reached its zenith. For many years it
was her favourite residence, and after her death it rapidly declined.
Sold by the Commonwealth, it reverted to the Crown at the Restoration,
and finally came to an ignominious end at the rapacious hands of the
Duchess of Cleveland, who destroyed the house and cut up the park into
farms.
What is known of the building itself is derived chiefly from the
Parliamentary Survey taken in 1650 (which gives a detailed account of
the palace and grounds) and from two views—one by Hofnagel (published
in Braun and Hohenberg’s “Civitates Orbis Terrarum”) and the other an
inset in Speed’s Map of Surrey. Both of these represent the garden or
south front of the house, and the appearance of the north front and
sides has up to the present time been quite conjectural. I am able,
however, to reproduce a third view, taken from the north-west, showing
this front and the flank of the building. The original engraving (from
a picture then in the possession of Lord Fitzwilliam) was published by
the Society of Antiquaries in 1765, with the title “Richmond Palace
from the Green.” That this picture is not Richmond, but Nonsuch, is
capable of easy proof. The angle-turret on the extreme right at once
suggests this, and a careful perusal of the Parliamentary Survey leaves
not the slightest doubt on the point. The avenue, the bowling-green,
and the two gatehouses, the inner one with its clock-turret, are all
fully described, and one can only be surprised that this interesting
fact has never before been discovered.
The palace consisted of two main courtyards surrounded by buildings
and almost equal in size (the outer 115 ft.[6] by 132 ft., the inner
137 ft. by 116 ft.). The style employed in the first of these presents
nothing extraordinary. Built, according to Evelyn, by Lord Lumley,
but more probably by his father-in-law, the Earl of Arundel, early
in Elizabeth’s reign, it was constructed of stone throughout, with a
handsome gatehouse three stories high, with octagonal angle-turrets in
the centre of the north front. This gate stood on the axis of the great
avenue that led up to the house from the London Road.
[6] The transcript of the Survey in _Archæologia_, Vol. V., gives this
dimension incorrectly as 150 ft., an error copied by all succeeding
writers.
Nonsuch had the unusual arrangement amongst English Tudor plans of two
gatehouses, the one behind the other. This was probably due to the
outer courtyard not having been contemplated in the original design.
The inner gate stood between the two courts, and was, with the whole of
the buildings behind it, the work of Henry VIII.
The architect appears to have been a Florentine artist named Antonio
Toto dell’ Nunziata, upon whom Henry VIII. conferred a patent of
denization in 1538. He is referred to by Vasari (_Lives of the
Painters_), who asserts that he entered the service of the King of
England, for whom he executed numerous works, and more especially
the principal palace of that monarch, by whom he was very largely
remunerated.[7] His name occurs with some frequency in the records of
the later years of Henry VIII. He resided in the parish of St. Bride,
Fleet Street.
[7] Professor Blomfield throws doubts upon Toto as the author of the
design.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.—NONSUCH PALACE, FROM THE SOUTH.
_Drawn by Speed (1611)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.—NONSUCH PALACE, FROM THE NORTH-WEST.
_Vetusta Monumenta, Vol. ii. (1765)._]
In 1544 that much-discussed Italian, John of Padua, makes his
appearance as Devizer of the King’s Buildings, and as Nonsuch was the
most important then in progress, it is quite possible that he also
was employed upon the works.
This first building, the joint product of Italian design and English
craftsmanship, was entered from the north by an ascent of eight steps
under the inner gatehouse, which is described in the Survey of 1650
as “of free stone three stories high, leaded and turreted in the four
corners, in the middle of which gatehouse stands a clock case turreted
and leaded all over wherein is placed a clock and bell.” The remarkable
appearance of this gate is best shown in Speed’s view, which also shows
the charming oriel window (somewhat similar to that at Hengrave Hall,
Suffolk) over the inner arch, and the sundial above.
The remainder of the building was two stories high, of which the walls
of the ground floor, according to the Survey, were of stone and the
upper portions of timber. Externally, however, the garden or south
front was of timber construction from the ground up. Facing the privy
garden, with its marble fountains, obelisks, and pyramids, this front
was flanked by two polygonal turrets five stories high, carried up well
above the main building and finished with lead parapets and lanterns
with heraldic lions bearing standards, “the king’s beastes” of Tudor
documents, on every angle. “These turrets,” says the Survey, “command
the prospect and view of both the Parks of Nonsuch and of most of the
country round about and are the chief ornament of the whole house of
Nonsuch.”
In the centre of the front was a large oriel window, probably to the
Presence Chamber, which was on the first floor.
The building was a timber frame, the spaces between the studding being
occupied by pargetted panels bearing the celebrated series of “statues,
pictures, and other antique forms,” which aroused such universal
admiration during the century and a half of their existence.
Nonsuch appears to have been one of the earliest instances of this type
of work in England. Le Neve, who saw the house when half destroyed,
describes them as done in plaster-work made of rye-dough [_sic_],
very costly. “There are,” says Evelyn, “some mezzorelievos as big
as life—the story of ye heathen Gods, emblems, compartments, &c.”
On the garden front were represented the labours of Hercules. There
is evidence that these reliefs were painted, and to enhance further
the richness of the whole design the faces of the half-timber work
were covered with gilded scales of lead or slate nailed on, after the
fashion still to be seen in many Continental towns.
Apart from the abstract question of taste, it can easily be imagined
that a building so adorned must have presented an appearance of extreme
sumptuousness, and while it is impossible to regard it quite as a
serious essay in architecture, yet as an example of a rare exotic
grafted on an alien stem it is of extraordinary interest.
It can only be compared in the history of English art with that lordly
pleasure-house which King Henry VIII. erected near Guisnes in the
Calais pale on the occasion of the Field of the Cloth of Gold. That a
marked similarity existed between the two buildings is evident from
the minute description of the Guisnes palace to be found in Hall’s
Chronicle.
The existing remains of the palace consist solely of the base of a
chalk wall, faced with red brick in Old English bond, some 275 ft.
in length and lying at right angles to the great avenue leading from
the London Road. In all probability this formed a part of the wall
surrounding the privy garden, and the main building lay rather to the
north of it, on the axis of the avenue.
Some little distance to the west of the house was a building known
as the Banqueting House. It is described in the Parliamentary Survey
as “one structure of timber building of quadrangular form pleasantly
situated upon the highest part of the said Nonsuch Park commonly called
‘the Banquetting House’ being compassed round with a brick wall the
four corners whereof represent four half moons or fortified angles.”
The house itself was three stories high, with a lantern above and a
balcony placed “for prospect” at each of the four corners.
Considering the material, it is not surprising that it has quite
disappeared; but the artificial platform upheld by brick retaining
walls is in existence. The “fortified angles” which caught the eye of
the Parliamentary Commissioner are still preserved, and, with them,
remains of the double flight of stone steps leading up to the entrance.
“The Banquet House” figures largely in Elizabethan literature, though
its origin and date of introduction are somewhat obscure. There can
be little doubt that it was due to one of those vagaries of fashion,
combined with the sixteenth-century passion for the new and strange,
which attempted to transplant a custom from its native southern soil to
the uncongenial air of England. The fashion once started, however, held
its place with remarkable tenacity, and received its final form under
the hand of Sir Christopher Wren and his school in the Orangeries at
Kensington and Richmond.
The example at Nonsuch is one of the earliest in this country to
which a definite date can be assigned. It is mentioned as a completed
building in the first year of Edward VI., and consequently must have
formed part of the original work of Henry VIII. and his Italian
advisers.
A document preserved at Loseley Place contains an inventory of goods
received for furnishing the Banqueting House in 1547. They include
nine Turkey carpets and one carpet of green satin embroidered upon
with sundry of the king’s beasts, antique heads, grapes and birds, &c.
Evidently the interior decoration of Nonsuch fell little short of the
exterior in magnificence.
One other building deserves a passing mention. “The Standing” in the
park was used by Elizabeth as a convenient vantage ground from which to
view the hunting. No trace of it remains, but, fortunately, a complete
structure of this class is still standing in the Hunting Lodge in
Epping Forest, and it too is associated with the name of this queen.
The upper stories of the timber framing were left open between the
studding or uprights, forming a convenient gallery from which to view
the sport.
Fragments of the destroyed palace found their way to Gaynsford Hall,
Carshalton, to Durdans by Epsom, and to the vicarage at Ewell; but
these houses have since been rebuilt and all the authentic remains of
the most remarkable of Tudor buildings lie buried beneath the turf of
Nonsuch Park. The archæologist is apt to think that monastic houses
and feudal castles are alone worthy of his attention; but the recovery
of the ground plan of Nonsuch would be an achievement of even greater
architectural value, while its wealth of historic associations places
it far above them all in sentimental interest.
—A. W. C.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.—THE BANQUETING HOUSE.
_Drawn by Alfred W. Clapham._]
THE FORTUNE THEATRE,
LONDON (1600)
[Illustration: FIG. 5.—VIEW OF INTERIOR.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
II.
THE FORTUNE THEATRE, LONDON.
The original contract, dated 1599–1600, for the building of the
“Fortune” Theatre was brought under my notice by Mr. William Archer,
the well-known author and dramatic critic, to whose friendly criticism
and help this article chiefly owes its inspiration. The document is
preserved at Dulwich College, and was transcribed by J. O. Halliwell
Phillipps in his _Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare_, and it is from
his transcript that the quotations below are taken. Apart from its
interest to architects of the present day, as illustrative of building
methods of over 300 years ago, the contract has considerable value in
the light it throws upon that most controversial of all topics—the form
of the Elizabethan stage. It is not my intention here to consider in
detail any of the theories heretofore advanced, but I wish in as brief
a space as possible to place before the reader just sufficient of the
available _data_ to enable him to understand the reconstruction of the
Fortune Theatre which has been attempted in the accompanying plans.
The sources from which these _data_ have been drawn fall naturally into
two classes. The first, which has as yet by no means been exhausted,
although used almost exclusively by the literary critics, is to be
found in the internal evidence which the plays of the period afford,
partly in their text, but chiefly in their stage directions. The second
is to be found in the contemporary evidence of descriptions or drawings
made while the theatres still existed, of which the most important are
the “Fortune” and “Hope” contracts, the early maps, and the remarkable
drawing reproduced here of the interior of the Swan Theatre preserved
in the commonplace book of a certain Van Buchell, at the Utrecht
University Library, and purporting to be drawn from a sketch by a
traveller named Johannes de Witt, who visited London about the year
1600. The interpretation of this latter evidence falls as naturally
into the province of the architect as that of the former belongs to the
sphere of the literary and dramatic critic.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.—SWAN THEATRE, BANKSIDE.
_Drawn by John de Witt._]
Everyone familiar with Visscher’s beautiful drawing of London in the
year 1616 will remember seeing in the foreground, on the south side
of the Thames, three buildings resembling amphitheatres in form,
marked respectively (reading from east to west), the “Globe,” the
“Bear Garden,”[8] and the “Swan.” The correctness of the two former
inscriptions may very reasonably be questioned, but I do not think
there is any ground for doubting the veracity of the drawing, since
two theatres existed on Bankside in 1616—the Rose (1592) and the Hope
(1614), besides the more celebrated Globe, which lay probably beyond
the limit of the map. The Swan is correctly placed, as we know by
its position in Paris Garden. But whether depicted or not, the Globe
Theatre of 1616 could not be Shakespeare’s Globe, which was erected
in 1598–9 and burnt down in 1613, and it is important to bear this in
mind in considering the “Fortune” contract, which definitely states
that the new theatre is to follow the pattern of the “late erected
plaie-howse on the Banck ... called the Globe.” There are many other
early maps both anterior and subsequent to Visscher which show the
Bankside theatres, but their examination and collation are not as yet
sufficiently advanced to give us any trustworthy information, although
a valuable step towards this end has already been taken by Dr. William
Martin. (_Vide_ _Home Counties Magazine_, Vol. IX.)
[8] The “Bear Garden” was pulled down in 1613, and the Hope Theatre
erected “neere or uppon the saide place where the same game place [the
Bear Garden] did heretofore stande.”
[Illustration: FIG. 7.—THE FORTUNE. PLAN (GROUND FLOOR).
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
The “Fortune” document itself consists of rather more than a mere
contract, and possesses somewhat the character of a specification,
being not unlike the hasty compromise between the two which has been
known to be indulged in even in these days of careful architectural
practice. The portion which bears on the actual form of the building
reads as follows:—
This Indenture made the eighte daie of Januarye 1599, and in the
twoe and fortyth yeare of the reigne of our sovereigne ladie
Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queene of England, Fraunce and
Irelande, defender of the faythe, &c., betwene Phillipp Henslowe
and Edwarde Allen of the parishe of Sainte Saviours in Southwark,
in the countie of Surrey, gentlemen, on th’ one parte, and
Peeter Streete cittizein and carpenter of London on th’ other
parte.——Witnesseth that, whereas the saide Phillipe Henslowe
and Edward Allen the daie of the date hereof have bargayned,
compounded and agreed with the saide Peter Streete for the
erectinge, buildinge, and settinge upp of a newe howse and stadge
for a plaie-howse, in and uppon a certeine plott or parcell of
grounde appoynted oute for that purpose, Scytuate and beinge nere
Goldinge Lane in the parishe of Sainte Giles withoute Cripplegate
of London; to be by him the said Peeter Streete, or somme other
sufficyent woorkmen of his provideinge and appoyntemente, and
att his propper costes and chardges, for the consideracion
hereafter in theis presentes expressed, made, erected, builded,
and sett upp in manner and forme followeinge; that is to saie,
the frame of the saide howse to be sett square, and to conteine
fowerscore foote of lawfull assize everye waie square withoute,
and fiftie five foote of like assize square everye waie within,
with a good suer and stronge foundacion of pyles, bricke, lyme,
and sand, bothe withoute and within, to be wroughte one foote of
assize att the leiste above the grounde; and the said frame to
conteine three stories in heighth, the first or lower storie to
conteine twelve foote of lawfull assize in heighth, the seconde
storie eleaven foote of lawfull assize in heigth, and the third
or upper storie to conteine nyne foote of lawfull assize in
height. All which stories shall conteine twelve foote and a
half of lawfull assize in breadth throughoute, besides a juttey
forwardes in eyther of the saide twoe upper stories of tenne
ynches of lawfull assize; with fower convenient divisions for
gentlemens roomes, and other sufficient and convenient divisions
for twoepennie roomes; with necessarie seates to be placed and
sett as well in those roomes as througheoute all the rest of
the galleries of the saide howse; and with suche like steares,
conveyances and divisions, withoute and within, as are made and
contryved in and to the late erected plaie-howse on the Banck, in
the saide parishe of Sainte Saviours, called the Globe; with a
stadge and tyreinge-howse to be made, erected and sett upp within
the saide frame; with a shadowe or cover over the saide stadge;
which stadge shal be placed and sett, as alsoe the stearecases
of the saide frame, in suche sorte as is prefigured in a plott
thereof drawen; and which stadge shall conteine in length fortie
and three foote of lawfull assize, and in breadth to extende
to the middle of the yarde of the saide howse; the same stadge
to be paled in belowe with good stronge and sufficyent newe
oken bourdes, and likewise the lower storie of the saide frame
withinside, and the same lower storie to be alsoe laide over
and fenced with stronge yron pykes; and the saide stadge to be
in all other proporcions contryved and fashioned like unto the
stadge of the saide plaiehowse called the Globe; with convenient
windowes and lightes glazed to the said tyreinge-howse. And the
saide frame, stadge, and stearecases to be covered with tyle,
and to have sufficient gutter of lead, to carrie and convey
the water frome the coveringe of the saide stadge, to fall
backwardes. And alsoe all the saide frame and the stairecases
thereof to be sufficyently enclosed withoute with lathe, lyme
and haire. And the gentlemens roomes and twoepennie roomes to be
seeled with lathe, lyme, and haire; and all the flowers of the
saide galleries, stories and stadge to be bourded with good and
sufficyent newe deale bourdes of the whole thicknes, wheare
neede shal be. And the saide howse and other thinges before
mencioned to be made and doen, to be in all other contrivitions,
conveyances, fashions, thinge and thinges, effected, finished
and doen, accordinge to the manner and fashion of the saide
howse called the Globe; saveinge only that all the principall
and maine postes of the said frame, and stadge forwarde, shal be
square and wroughte palasterwise, with carved proporcions called
satiers to be placed and sett on the topp of every of the same
postes; and saveinge alsoe that the saide Peter Streete shall
not be chardged with anie manner of paynteinge in or aboute
the saide frame, howse or stadge, or anie parte thereof, nor
rendringe the walls within, nor seelinge anie more or other
roomes than the gentlemens roomes, twoepennie roomes and stadge,
before remembred. Nowe theereuppon the saide Peeter Streete dothe
covenaunte, promise and graunte for himself, his executors and
administrators, to and with the said Phillipp Henslowe and Edward
Allen and either of them, and the ’xecutors and administrators
of them, and either of them by theis presentes, in manner and
forme followeinge, that is to saie; that he the said Peeter
Streete, his executors or assignes, shall and will, at his or
their owne propper costes and chardges, well, woorkmanlike
and substancyallie make, erect, sett upp and fully finishe in
and by all thinges, accordinge to the true meaninge of theis
presentes, with good, strong and substancyall newe tymber and
other necessarie stuff, all the saide frame and other woorkes
whatsoever in and uppon the saide plott or parcell of grounde,
beinge not by anie aucthoretie restrayned, and haveinge ingres,
egres and regres to doe the same, before the fyve and twentith
daie of Julie next commeinge after the date hereof; and shall
alsoe, att his or theire like costes and chardges, provide and
finde all manner of woorkemen, tymber, joystes, rafters, boordes,
dores, boltes, hinges, brick, tyle, lathe, lyme, haire, sand,
nailes, leede, iron, glasse, woorkmanshipp and other thinges
whatsoever, which shal be needeful, convenyent and necessarie for
the saide frame and woorkes and everie parte thereof; and shall
alsoe make all the saide frame in every poynte for scantlinges
lardger and bigger in assize than the scantlinges of the timber
of the saide newe erected howse called the Globe....
[Illustration: FIG. 8.—THE FORTUNE. PLAN (UPPER FLOOR).
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
The remainder of this interesting document sets forth the conditions
under which the contractor is to be paid the sum of £440 “of lawfull
money of Englande,” the total cost of the works. In the absence of the
“plott” or plan mentioned in the document, we are fortunate in having
the main dimensions of the theatre so precisely laid down for us,[9]
and it is an easy matter to put them on paper. But beyond these main
dimensions of height and area we have really little indication of the
arrangement of the stage, or the disposition of the main features of
the theatre. We have, therefore, to draw our inferences from other
sources, and see that their application does not clash with the terms
of the specification.
[9] The “Hope” contract referred to above is a document second only
in interest to the one under consideration. Its deficiency, however,
in omitting all dimensions, prevents any satisfactory attempt at
reconstruction. The theatre was to be built on the model of the Swan,
and to be of similar “large compasse, forme, wideness and height.”
It must be first remembered that the prototype of the Elizabethan
public theatres was the old galleried innyard, of which London itself
possessed some of the finest examples in the land. In these inns the
companies of players first gave their performances, and several names
of the early theatres are reminiscent of these first associations.
The Fortune was, as far as we know, the only theatre that was square
on plan like the inns themselves. With the help of their analogy and
of our main dimensions we are therefore able to construct the “frame”
itself fairly safely, with its three tiers of open galleries supported,
towards the “yard,” with posts, “wrought pilaster-wise,” adorned with
carved satyrs—if thus we may interpret the description. But how is
the yard entered? Various documents bearing on the disputes between
proprietors and players regarding the profits of the theatres, make it
almost certain that the main body of the public entered at one door
into the yard, each person making the same payment, and that those who
wished could then proceed to the galleries, where an extra sum was
exacted from them by the “gatherers,” who made a circuit of these parts
of the house, probably hence described as the “twopennie-rooms.” There
was one other door, the “tyring-house door,” or stage door, through
which privileged members of the public were also admitted, but whether
these went thence to the gentlemen’s rooms in the galleries or whether
they were accommodated with seats on the stage itself, is still a
matter of much controversy.[10]
[10] These and many other points regarding the Shakespearian Stage have
been ably discussed by Mr. W. J. Lawrence in his two volumes entitled
_The Elizabethan Playhouse and other Studies_.
The staircases themselves are our next difficulty. It is quite clear
from the Fortune contract that some of these were within the yard,
since their roofs are distinctly specified, but their position must
remain the subject of conjecture. I am inclined to think that they
would be circular stairs placed in the angles of the yard nearest
the entrance, but in the accompanying plan they are shown on each
side of the stage, thus making use of a space for which any other
purpose is not easily conceived, and obviating the obstruction of
view which the first-named positions would entail. For information on
this point we naturally turn to the Swan drawing, but meet with some
disappointment, for the indication of “ingressus” there appears to
suggest an impracticable staircase, unless it were a temporary access
from the arena to the first tier of seats. This may be so, as it is
known that the Swan was used for wild beast shows as well as theatrical
performances, and indeed the whole appearance of the stage and _mimorum
ædes_ suggests a temporary or movable character.
So far our task has been comparatively simple, but the stage itself,
its “shadow” or roof, and the buildings behind, afford a problem
which is far from having been as yet finally solved. I have, however,
followed Mr. Archer’s views in these drawings, and must refer the
reader to his and Mr. Lawrence’s writings on the subject for more
detailed information. The following will indicate the idea in outline.
The contract specifies that the stage is to be 43 ft. wide and to
extend to the centre of the yard; it also definitely mentions the
“shadowe or cover” which is to be tiled, and provided with a lead
gutter brought back to the rear of the stage. This latter direction
certainly points to a roof similar to that shown in the “Swan” drawing,
and it is reasonable to suppose that in like manner it was supported
by independent columns. The lords’ boxes or minstrels’ gallery,[11]
in the centre of which is the upper stage, again merely follows Van
Buchell’s sketch, which is corroborated by such stage directions as
that in Marston’s _Antonio’s Revenge_ (v. 2): “while the measure is
dancing, Andrugio’s ghost is placed betwixt the music-houses.” This
upper stage fulfilled such separate functions as Juliet’s balcony,
Christopher Sly’s point of vantage in _The Taming of the Shrew_, or the
battlements of Angiers in _King John_. But in the Swan Theatre there
is no sign of an “inner” or rear stage beneath this gallery, and it
is here that we are bound to fall back upon the literary evidence. I
will quote Mr. Archer’s own words. Writing of a book by Dr. Wegener on
the subject he says: “Especially as it seems to me, does he establish
beyond dispute the fact that Elizabethan dramatists habitually counted
on and employed that rear stage which does not appear in the Swan
drawing. It served by turns as a bedroom, a cave, a shop, a study, a
counting-house, a tomb. It could be curtained off, and Wegener believes
that it could also be shut off by folding or sliding doors; but on this
point his evidence is scarcely conclusive. That the upper stage was
immediately over the rear stage is proved by the situation in Marlowe’s
_Jew of Malta_, in which Barabas is caught in the trap he had planned
for Calymath. He says to Ferneze:—
“‘Now as for Calymath and his consorts,
Here have I made a dainty gallery,
The floor whereof, this cable being cut,
Doth fall asunder, so that it doth sink
Into a deep pit past recovery.’”
[11] John Melton, in his _Astrologaster: or the Figre Caster_ (1620),
speaking of a visit to “the Fortune in Golding-lane,” says: “There
indeed a man may behold shagge-hayr’d deuills runne roaring ouer the
stage with squibs in their mouthes, while drummers make thunder in the
tyring-house, and the twelve-penny hirelings make artificial lightning
in their heauens.”
Ferneze, however, is so shocked by the atrocious plan that he cuts the
cable while Barabas, instead of his intended victim, is on the trap
door. At the same moment the curtains of the rear stage are opened
and a boiling cauldron is revealed, into which Barabas is precipitated.
It is manifest that this cauldron must have been on the inner stage.
Indeed the evidence for a rear stage is even stronger than Wegener
represents it to be. He says that we have no explicit mention of this
stage region; forgetting, it would seem, the direction in Greene’s
_Alphonsus, King of Arragon_, ‘Let there be a brazen head set in the
middle of _the place behind the stage_ out of which cast flames of
fire.’”[12]
[12] _Tribune_, Aug. 10, 1907.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.—THE FORTUNE. SECTION THROUGH STAGE.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
[Illustration: FIG. 10.—THE FORTUNE. SECTION FACING STAGE.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
“It is no exaggeration to say that the great majority of plays contain
evidence of the use of the rear stage, either as a curtained recess
or as an open corridor, supplementing the two doors by providing two
additional entrances. In many plays it is alternately a curtained
recess and a corridor. The plays are very few in which no use at all
seems to have been made of it.”[13]
[13] _Tribune_, Jan. 11, 1908.
From the body of evidence on this point we must conclude that the
Swan drawing does not correctly show the back of the stage; or, as I
would suggest, the rear wall as there represented is possibly merely
a temporary stage property with its imitation of heavy barred doors,
required for the one play, concealing in this exceptional case the more
usual inner stage.
This point considered, the remaining arrangements are more or less
a matter of detail. It would be quite unnecessary to go into the
reasons for the canted side walls, the railing to stage, the planning
of tiring-rooms, all of which must be to a great extent a matter of
opinion. The existence of one other feature alone is incontestable—it
is the turret from which the trumpeter gave the signal to the people
without that the play was about to commence. It appears clearly in the
“Swan” sketch, and also on nearly every external indication of the
theatres in the early maps, where it rises from the encircling roof,
being made the more conspicuous by the flag which bore the symbol of
the theatre’s name. In some drawings there appear to be three turrets,
but two of these are probably the terminal finish to the staircases.
As it rose above the stage of Shakespeare and the galleried courtyard
with its Elizabethan audience, this timber turret crowned with
picturesqueness a scene only second in dramatic interest to the ancient
hillside theatre of Athens, which nursed the Hellenic drama—a drama
unfolded in like manner beneath the open sky and the inspiring light of
the sun.
—W. H. G.
THE TOWER OF LONDON AND ITS
DEVELOPMENT
[Illustration: FIG. 11.—CHAPEL OF ST. JOHN.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
III.
THE TOWER OF LONDON AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.