architectural style and in methods of draughtsmanship, although the
latter collection is obviously later in feeling. There is a vast
difference in both respects between them and the drawings prepared by
Inigo Jones and John Webb, which will presently be described. There
are comparatively few details in the Thorpe and Smithson collections,
especially in the former. The designers concerned themselves primarily
with the mass of the building rather than with its particular features.
The plans in all the collections, both early and late, are drawn with
much care and many of them with singular neatness. But the elevations
and perspective views are not of equal excellence. The latter are
generally drawn by Thorpe as bird’s-eye views. They are in the nature
of diagrams. There are, it is true, hardly any perspectives among
the architectural drawings of Jones and Webb, but in the one notable
instance--the view of a front for Whitehall Palace, at the British
Museum--the spectator is supposed to be standing on the ground and
not floating in the air (Fig. 19). In Jones’s designs for the scenery
of masques there are many interesting architectural compositions,
and these are perforce drawn to satisfy the eye of a spectator on the
floor of the theatre. They show great skill in perspective drawing. The
difference between the two methods is best indicated by describing the
earlier as archaic and the later as modern. Indeed with the advent of
Inigo Jones we enter upon a new phase in architectural design; we are
leaving the ancient ways and turning into the modern.
III
INIGO JONES
The accession of Charles I. to the throne in 1625 marks a convenient
date in the development of architectural design to consider briefly
its condition and tendencies. The king and his court still exercised
an enormous influence over the life and habits of the people in
directions other than political. In mediæval times the king was the
centre of public affairs, the pivot upon which the State turned. His
own will, even his whims and fancies, counted for much. But for the
last three-quarters of a century this influence had been gradually
lessening, and the king’s personal power had been curtailed. It was
in opposing this tendency, in endeavouring to reassert his personal
ascendancy, in re-establishing his prerogatives, that Charles came
into conflict with his subjects and ultimately succumbed. But bearing
this state of things in mind, it will be more readily understood that
the influence of the king in relation to architecture, for instance,
would be very considerable; vastly more so than the influence of any
individual in the present day. Charles was a man of culture, and
without crediting him with an intimate knowledge of architectural
design, we may well believe that he would foster the growth of a
refined and scholarly version of the style at which English designers
had been aiming for many years. That is to say, since the tendency was
to adopt Italian ideas he would like to see them adopted thoroughly
and with full knowledge. The man to do this for him was there in the
person of Inigo Jones, who had already been employed by his father, and
who was the only man in England possessing really competent knowledge
of Italian detail. Here then was another powerful influence at work
tending to divert English design from the old traditional channels.
No doubt had Charles been blessed with leisure to gratify his refined
tastes, and to devote himself to the encouragement of the arts, had he
been in possession of funds commensurate with his artistic ambitions,
the Italianising of English architecture would have been more rapid
than it actually was. But his time was occupied with sterner matters,
and the huge palace at Whitehall which he is said to have contemplated
(and his father before him, according to many writers), but of which
the true history will be presently outlined, never went further than to
be committed to paper. What he did do, however, was to foster the seed
which had been sown by his father, and which bore fruit later in the
century.
The love of Charles for the fine arts was shared by many of his court.
Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, caused not only the marbles which
still bear his name, but many other fine relics of antiquity, to be
brought to England. Inigo Jones was frequently employed by the nobility
to purchase pictures and other treasures, and to see them suitably
displayed in the houses they were to adorn. John Webb made it one of
his claims to consideration that he had been commissioned by the “great
nobility and eminent gentry” to acquire for them medals, statues, and
other works of art.
Meanwhile, in the country generally, and outside the circle influenced
by Inigo Jones, the old habits still prevailed, and many houses
were built, including such important buildings as Aston Hall, in
Warwickshire, already mentioned, in which the old arrangements of plan
were retained, and all the old devices for obtaining architectural
effect were used--mullioned windows, steep or curved gables, large
and lofty chimney-stacks, turrets and bay-windows, with a strong
infusion of Italian detail in the form of cornices and pilasters; just
such devices indeed as had been employed by John Smithson and his
contemporaries.
When this is borne in mind, when it is remembered what Smithson stands
for, and that he lived until 1634; that Aston Hall, where Jacobean
methods were still paramount, was not completed until 1635; it will
be easier to grasp the significance of Inigo Jones’s Banqueting
House at Whitehall (Fig. 22), designed in 1619 and finished in 1622,
in which there is no trace of traditional English design, which
in fact approaches nearer to Italian models than any building of
the seventeenth century. No wonder, considering the goal at which
all designers were more or less aiming, that it was quoted as a
masterpiece, as the finest flower of modern architecture in England.
This position it held all through the century, and indeed still
holds in the opinion of many competent judges. At the time it was
built it was unique, and for thirty years afterwards travellers might
have searched England in vain for anything so thoroughly Italian in
treatment, unless they happened to see the Queen’s House at Greenwich,
or one or two other buildings by the same architect, such as Sherborne,
in Gloucestershire, between Northleach and Burford, which was described
in 1634 as a “stately, rich, compacted Building all of Free-stone,
flat, and couer’d with Lead, with Strong Battlements about, not much
unlike to that goodly, and magnificent Building the Banquetting House
at Whitehall.”[6]
[Illustration: FIG. 22.--The Banqueting House, Whitehall,
1619–22.]
The Banqueting House must not be regarded as a step in the normal
development of English design; it was something outside, the work of a
specially trained and exceptionally gifted man, who achieved in 1619
what less learned and less skilful men were striving after, consciously
or unconsciously, for nearly half a century afterwards.
The ultimate influence of Inigo Jones on English architecture was so
important that it is desirable to know something of his training and
of his history. He was born in 1573, the parish of St Bartholomew,
Smithfield.[7] The church register records his baptism: “Enego Jones
the sonne of Enego Jones was christened the xixth day of July 1573.”
His father was a cloth-worker in good circumstances at that time, but
when the lad was sixteen years old, the father was obliged to compound
with his creditors. There were other children, but it would seem that
only Inigo and three sisters survived their father, who died in the
early months of 1597; as he left his property to be divided among his
four children, he must, to a certain extent, have recovered from his
financial embarrassments. In any event it would appear that Inigo the
younger was left to make his own career. It is not known where he
received his education, nor how thorough, or otherwise, it was: but it
was apparently up to the average bestowed upon youths of his condition,
and probably of much the same character, _mutatis mutandis_, as
would be acquired by boys of the upper middle class to-day.[8] That he
was a man of culture is indicated by a copy of rhymes in Latin written
by Thomas Cariat (Coryat) of Brasenose College, Oxford, in 1611, and
preserved among the State Papers.[9] They describe a philosophical
feast, among the guests at which was Inigo Jones. There is a tradition,
but without evidence to support it, that he was apprenticed to a joiner
in St Paul’s Churchyard. If this were so, it would at least give him
an amount of practical knowledge which would be of material assistance
in his later career. But his early training is really a matter for
conjecture. He says in the preface to “Stone-Heng Restored”: “Being
naturally inclined in my younger years to study the arts of design, I
passed into foreign parts to converse with the great masters thereof
in Italy; where I applied myself to search out the Ruins of those
ancient Buildings, which, in despite of Time itself, and violence of
Barbarians, are yet remaining. Having satisfied myself in these, and
returning to my native country, I applied my mind more particularly to
the study of Architecture.”
At whose expense he passed into foreign parts, or in what year he first
did so, there is no record. But it is agreed that he paid two visits to
Italy, the first somewhere about the year 1600; the second in 1613–14.
Of the first visit little or nothing is known;[10] but of the second
there are definite records in the shape of his sketch-book preserved
at Chatsworth, and of his marginal notes on a copy of Palladio which
he carried with him from place to place, and which is now in Worcester
College, Oxford.
During his first visit he seems to have achieved such a reputation that
Christian IV., King of Denmark and brother of the queen of James I.,
invited him to enter his service. Here, again, there is no reliable
information as to his achievements; the only evidence indeed is of a
negative character and consists of the remark of a Danish gentleman to
the effect that “your great architect left nothing to my country but
the fame of his presence.”
On his return to England he seems to have been occupied chiefly in the
devising of masques and plays, among the earliest of which were some
given at Christ Church, Oxford, to entertain James I. Oddly enough the
comment of the chronicler in this case is that he “undertook to further
them much and furnish them with rare devices, but performed very little
of that which was expected.”[11] That this failure must have been an
exceptional case is sufficiently proved by the numerous drawings of
scenery by him preserved at Chatsworth.
Soon after his return to England he was appointed surveyor to the
queen (Anne of Denmark), and in the year 1610 surveyor of the works to
Henry, Prince of Wales, but there is no record of these appointments
having resulted in any architectural work. Prince Henry died in 1612,
and in 1613 Jones secured the reversion, after Simon Basil, of the
office of surveyor of works to the king.[12] In the same year he went
to Italy for the second time, where he studied the work of celebrated
painters and architects, as well as the splendid remains of ancient
architecture which were even more abundant in those days than in these.
His intercourse with living architects and painters shaped his own
methods of study and design, and there can be no doubt that he returned
not only fully equipped to undertake any work that might fall to his
lot, but deeply imbued with the spirit of Italian art and the prevalent
Italian methods of design.
He walked on a high plane, his outlook was wider than that of any of
his contemporaries at home. He had acquired conceptions of architecture
nobler than those engendered by its application to the ordinary needs
of daily life. He has left us very little record of his own opinions
on any subject; it is all the more interesting, therefore, to find in
his sketch-book, under the date, “Friday y^e 20 January 1614” (1615 new
style), a page of reflections of which the following is the gist. “In
all designing of ornament one must first design the ground plain as it
is for use, and then adorn and compose it with decorum according to its
use. To say true, all this composed ornament resulting from abundance
of design, such as was brought in by Michael Angelo and his followers,
does not in my opinion suit solid architecture but is more appropriate
to gardens, the ornaments of chimneys, friezes and the inside of
houses, where such things must of necessity be used. For as outwardly
every wise man carries himself gravely in public places, yet inwardly
has imagination and fire which sometimes flies out unrestrained, just
as Nature sometimes flies out to delight or amuse us, to move us to
laughter, contemplation, or even horror; so in architecture the outward
ornament is to be solid, proportionable according to rule, masculine
and unaffected.”
No epithets more suitable than the two last--masculine and
unaffected--could be applied to Jones’s own work.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.--St Paul’s Church, Covent Garden. West
Front.
From an Engraving by Thomas Sandby.]
[Illustration: FIG. 24.--The Piazza, Covent Garden.
From an Engraving by Thomas Sandby.]
[Illustration: FIG. 25.--Ground Plan, Queen’s House,
Greenwich, 1635.]
The amount of Jones’s own work in architecture is scarcely so large as
has hitherto been supposed. In regard to the various buildings with
which he has been credited, some of the attributions are supported
by contemporary evidence in the shape of drawings or of references in
letters and documents; others by the direct enumeration of his staunch
admirer, John Webb, who was his pupil and assistant, who married a
kinswoman of his, and was the executor of his will. Others rest upon
tradition or upon the opinions of critics. Tradition is not altogether
reliable, owing partly to a natural tendency to attribute any
outstanding piece of work to the most celebrated artist of the time,
and partly to the natural desire of owners to attach a well-known name
to their possessions. The value of a critic’s opinion obviously depends
upon that uncertain factor--the ability and equipment of the critic for
his task, and although the opinion of a competent critic will always
count for much, it cannot count for so much as direct evidence. The
evidence in this case consists of allusions in contemporary letters,
not very numerous or helpful; of architectural drawings by Jones, which
are helpful but not numerous; and of the testimony of Webb, who was
in the best position to know what his master actually designed. Webb
has occasion in his “Vindication of Stone-Heng Restored,” to mention
Jones’s principal works, which he thus enumerates: The west portico
of St Paul’s Cathedral, and the reducing-of the body of it “from
the steeple to the west end, into that order and uniformity we now
behold”;[13] St Paul’s, Covent Garden (Fig. 23), “built likewise with
the porticoes about the Piazza there by Mr. Jones” (Fig. 24)[14]; the
royal chapels at Denmark House and St James’s;[15] the Banqueting House
at Whitehall; the royal house at Newmarket;[15] and the queen mother’s
new building at Greenwich.[16] The inscription on Jones’s monument
which was put up by Webb, designated him as “architectus celeberrimus,”
and recorded merely that he built the Royal White Hall (Aul. Alb. Reg.)
and restored the Cathedral of St Paul.[17]
[Illustration: FIG. 26.--The Queen’s House, Greenwich,
1619–35.]
[Illustration: FIG. 27.--Elevation.]
[Illustration: FIG. 28.--Coleshill, Berkshire, 1650. Ground
Plan.]
This list need not necessarily be considered as complete, but Webb
evidently regarded the buildings he mentions as the most noteworthy
of Jones’s productions, inasmuch as he advances them as proofs of
his skill in architecture, upon which his fame would rest much more
securely than upon his literary and antiquarian effort in “Stone-Heng
Restored.”[18]
The authority for the attribution to Jones of other buildings, such
as the enlargement of Somerset House, the chirurgeon’s theatre, and
King Charles’s block at Greenwich, rests upon the Worcester College
and Burlington-Devonshire drawings, but these buildings should more
properly be credited to Webb, by whose hand they were drawn.
[Illustration: COLESHILL HOVSE:
FIG. 29.--ELEVATION OF COLESHILL.]
The largest design by far which has hitherto been ascribed to Jones is
that for the great palace at Whitehall, but it will be presently shown
that the ascription is wrong, and that here also the chief credit ought
to be given to John Webb.
But although in the interests of historical accuracy it is necessary
to throw doubt upon much of the work with which Inigo Jones has been
credited, what remains is sufficient to establish his fame, and it
is beyond controversy that he was regarded as the “Vitruvius of his
age.” What he undoubtedly did was to introduce into England a refined
and scholarly rendering of that Italian manner at which all designers
had been aiming for half a century. As Webb says in addressing Dr
Charleton, “I must tell you that what was truly meant by the Art
of Design was scarcely known in this kingdom, until he, under the
protection of his late Sacred Majesty, and that famous Mœcenas of Arts,
the Right Honourable Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey, brought it in
use and esteem among us here.” We can also agree with him when he says
that “Mr. Jones was generally learned, eminent for Architecture, a great
geometrician, and in designing with his pen (as Sir Anthony Vandike
used to say) not to be equalled by whatever great masters in his time,
for boldness, softness, sweetness, and sureness of his touches.”[19]
Of the buildings ascribed by Webb to Inigo Jones there remain but
three--the Banqueting House, St Paul’s, Covent Garden, which has been
much altered, and the Queen’s House at Greenwich, which was begun in
1619 and finished in 1635. It is quite as far removed as the Banqueting
House from the traditional type of English design. It is essentially
Italian both in plan and elevation (Figs. 25–27), and it indicates how
completely Inigo Jones had departed from the old ways. The original
drawings for the house itself have not been preserved, but there exist
several sketches by Jones’s hand of chimney-pieces and other details
connected with it.[20]
[Illustration: FIG. 30.--COLESHILL. THE STAIRCASE.]
Another house attributed to Jones on fairly good evidence is Coleshill,
in Berkshire, which stands on a steep hillside facing westwards across
the valley to Highworth. It is a striking embodiment of that cultivated
manner in architecture which was begun by Jones, continued by Webb,
and was destined gradually to supersede the traditional methods of the
countryside. Although thoroughly English in feeling it could never
have been devised without an intimate knowledge of Italian detail. It
is simple, dignified, and regular, depending for its effect upon nice
proportion and skilful detail, not at all upon picturesque variety
or broken grouping. It is a plain oblong in plan, without wings or
projections (Fig. 28); it is lofty in elevation, without gables or even
a pediment (Fig. 29); the corners are emphasised with bold quoins,
the roof springs from a widely projecting cornice, and is crowned
with a stout balustrade surrounding a spacious lead-covered flat, out
of which rises a large central cupola. The slopes of the roof are
diversified with dormers; the massive chimney-stacks are accurately and
symmetrically placed, each answering to each. There is nothing about
it haphazard or unexpected, nothing quaint or piquant; everything is
correct, regular, and stately. It cannot, however, be deemed, like
Tennyson’s Maud,
“Faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null,”
for its effect is both striking and attractive; it is noble without
being oppressively grand.
The simplicity of the exterior arises from the simplicity of the plan.
The ground floor, which is mainly occupied by the reception rooms and
the great staircase, is raised high above the ground, thus leaving
space for the windows of the basement, which is devoted to the kitchens
and servants’ quarters. The upper floor contains the grand saloon
and bedrooms; in the roof are commodious attics; a staircase in the
cupola leads on to the flat roof, whence fine views are obtained of the
distant Marlborough Downs.
Although the house is of considerable size, the accommodation is
not ample in proportion; the bedrooms are large and lofty, but few
in number. Homeliness is somewhat sacrificed to stateliness. It is
inevitable that these fine, regular houses should have the defects of
their qualities.
[Illustration: FIG. 31.--COLESHILL. CEILING OF THE
HALL.]
The plan is as different from the traditional plan of English houses
as are those in Kent’s “Designs of Inigo Jones,” a collection which
will be dealt with more particularly later on. There is no great hall
connecting the parlours with the kitchens, and serving itself as one
of the chief living-rooms. The servants are relegated to the basement,
the whole of the ground floor is given up to the family, the hall is
more of a vestibule than a living-room. In former times the staircase,
although often handsomely treated, consisted of a single series of
flights occupying a compact space. At Coleshill a vast hall is devoted
to the staircase, or rather to two staircases, each equally eligible,
starting from the same place and terminating at either end of the same
landing (Fig. 30).
Although the servants were sent half underground, some of the
stateliness followed them, and the approach to the back door is flanked
by two massive pillars, each of which contains a coved niche.
[Illustration: FIG. 32.--Raynham Park, Norfolk. Ground Plan.]
The building is attributed to Inigo Jones on the testimony of a tablet
in the house, and its date, according to the same authority, is 1650.
In the absence of any other evidence this assertion, although not
contemporaneous with the building, may be accepted;[21] but it should
be remembered that Jones died in 1652, and that the last years of his
life, or almost the last, were spent in the turmoil of the Civil War.
So much did the unrest disturb his life that he appointed John Webb
to be his deputy in the office of surveyor of the works.[22] In any
case it must have been either Jones or Webb who designed Coleshill,
for there was nobody else who had at that time received the training
necessary to produce it.
There are several fine ceilings (Fig. 31) wrought in Jones’s bold
fashion, which was as different from that which produced the busy and
slender patterns of Elizabethan work, as was the general treatment
of plan and elevation from that of an Elizabethan mansion. It is
interesting to find one of the smaller rooms panelled in an earlier
style, Jacobean in character, with panelling designed for its position,
not imported from elsewhere; and as it is difficult to suppose that
Jones would have departed from his usual manner in this particular
case, it is probable that the room was left to the unaided skill of
some local craftsman, who relied on his own traditions.
[Illustration: FIG. 33.--RAYNHAM PARK, NORFOLK,
_cir._ 1636. GARDEN FRONT.]
Of Jones’s connection with Raynham Park, in Norfolk (Figs. 32, 33),
there is no evidence beyond tradition and the style of the work itself;
but much of this has touches about it which are quite in his manner.
There are indications that the house was built at two periods, and
these make it difficult to attribute the whole work to one designer.
But the treatment of the front, with its two wings of decided though
slight projection, and its rather heavily-curved gables, serves to make
it a connecting link between the old and the new styles. The date of
this house is generally stated to be 1636, but further investigation is
required in order to arrive at its true history, and to account for the
two periods of building.