work, and his connection with this house is established by a series
of designs for the ceilings preserved among the Worcester College
drawings. The south front, of which there is a sketch in the R.I.B.A.
collection, would hardly have served to make his reputation, but the
splendid suite of state rooms is unrivalled in any English house. One
of these is a double cube, being 60 ft. by 30 ft. by 30 ft. high, and
another is a single cube of 30 ft. The double cube, with its stately
panelling filled with Vandyke’s portraits of the family, deserves
its reputation as the finest room in the country (Fig. 34). A plain,
double cube of these dimensions would be unpleasantly lofty (as may be
realised by visiting one at St James’s Palace), but here at Wilton the
great height is lessened to the eye by the introduction of a large cove
which springs from a bold cornice some 9 ft. below the ceiling, thus
reducing the height of the walls to 21 ft.
The double cube and such precise proportions were quite new in English
architecture; so also were the careful proportions of the windows and
their relation to the wall space, the pervading refinement of the
mouldings, and the simplicity (almost amounting to baldness in some
cases) of the general treatment. These factors inevitably influenced
the plan of the house, which became much less elastic than of old, and
less adaptable to the wants of English life. They tended towards the
glorification of the house at the expense of its inhabitants and to
subordinate household comfort to architecture.
[Illustration: FIG. 34.--WILTON HOUSE, WILTSHIRE. THE
DOUBLE CUBE ROOM. About 1649.]
A small but admirable piece of work which may safely be assigned to
Jones is the water-gate of York House (Fig. 35). Its present rather
forlorn situation at the bottom of Buckingham Street, Strand, gives no
indication that it was an adjunct of the town house of the princely
Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, the “Steenie” of Charles I. York House,
for so the place was called, had belonged to the Archbishops of York,
but when it came into the hands of Buckingham, he pulled it down and
built a large and temporary structure, apparently for the purpose of
using it for state occasions. Within its walls he housed a magnificent
collection of pictures and other works of art, purchased from
Rubens.[23] Gerbier (who will be mentioned again later) was employed by
the duke to design some of the new work at York House, and hence the
water-gate has been attributed to him. But the fact that a drawing of
it by Webb is included among the “Inigo Jones” drawings precludes this
idea, for it is hard to imagine either Jones or Webb condescending to
delineate any work of Gerbier’s. Apart from this it is improbable that
Gerbier could have designed anything so good. That excellent mason and
sculptor, Nicholas Stone, was employed upon its execution, and he put
in a claim to the design, but Webb’s drawing is a sufficient answer to
this pretension also.
York House was sold in 1672 by the second duke, the “chymist, fiddler,
statesman, and buffoon” of Dryden, to a syndicate who pulled down the
house, and covered the site with new buildings, leaving the water-gate
as practically the sole relic of the old palace. Its appearance, backed
by its newer neighbours, is well indicated in a drawing by Thomas
Sandby, made about 1760 (reproduced as the frontispiece).
Inigo Jones died in June 1652.[24] His will is dated the 22nd July
1650, when he was “aged seaventy-seaven yeares.” He left in specified
sums the amount of £4,150, and he bequeathed the debt owing to him
from the late king and queen, of which the amount is not stated, in
equal shares to his executor, John Webb, and one Richard Gammon, a
carpenter, after deducting £50 for the paymaster of the works payable
within a month after the discharge of the debt. He disposes of one half
of his wearing apparel, but does not mention the other half, nor does
he dispose of the residue of his estate. He mentions no collection of
drawings (as did John Webb) nor any books. On the face of it he can
hardly be considered a wealthy man at his death. A really exhaustive
account of his life has yet to be written; one which shall be free
from the undemonstrable attribution of work to him; free from baseless
eulogy on the one hand and detraction on the other; one which shall
fairly balance tradition and evidence; which shall take account of him
as an artist and scene-painter, as a surveyor dealing from day to day
with prosaic details, and as an architectural designer. It has been no
part of the present purpose to enter minutely into these particulars;
it was outside the scope of this work to marshal all the evidence for
or against his authorship of every building with which he has been
credited. The aim has been to indicate the general influence he had
upon English architecture, particularly in respect of house design.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.--The Water-Gate of York House, London.]
He was the most notable figure that had hitherto appeared upon the
stage of English architecture, the most refined and scholarly, with an
exquisite sense of proportion. He was at heart an artist, just as Wren
was at heart a man of science.
[Illustration: FIG. 36.--Drawing by Inigo Jones for the
Banqueting House, Whitehall. This drawing was carried out, but with
slight modifications; the pediment was omitted, the roof being flat,
with a balustrade.
From the Chatsworth Collection, by kind permission of the Duke of
Devonshire.]
IV
THE DRAWINGS OF INIGO JONES AND JOHN WEBB
WEBB’S OWN WORK
Reference has been made more than once to the design for an immense
palace at Whitehall. The drawings for this, which are, most of them,
preserved at Worcester College, Oxford, were first introduced to the
public by William Kent, the architect, in the year 1727, under the
title of “Designs of Inigo Jones.” There are two volumes of this book,
the first occupied chiefly with the great palace; the second with
miscellaneous designs, principally houses. The drawings used by Kent
were in the possession of Lord Burlington, the well-known dilettante;
at any rate, some of them were, while others seem to have belonged to
Dr. Clarke of All Souls College, Oxford, who subsequently left them to
Worcester College.
The history of the drawings is not altogether free from obscurity,
but it appears to be as follows. John Webb had in his possession a
large number of drawings, mostly done by himself, but including some
by his old master, Inigo Jones. At his death in 1672 Webb left all
his “library and books, and all his prints and cuts and drawings of
architecture” to his son William, with strict injunctions that they
were to be kept together.[25] This injunction was not respected, and
it is said that the widow of William Webb disposed of the collection.
John Aubrey, writing between 1669 and 1696, says that “Mr. Oliver, the
City Surveyor, hath all his [Jones’s] papers and designs, not only of
St Paul’s Cathedral, etc., and the Banqueting House, but his designs
of all Whitehall suitable to the Banqueting House; a rare thing, which
see.”[26] It is almost certain that the drawings mentioned by Aubrey
were those left to William Webb by his father, for it is extremely
unlikely that there would have been two collections of the kind. There
is no record of how Mr. Oliver obtained them, nor of how he disposed of
them; the next thing that is known is that Lord Burlington had acquired
the larger half and Dr. Clarke the smaller, but in some respects the
more important. Lord Burlington’s portion descended to the Dukes of
Devonshire, and the seventh duke made a gift of a great part to the
Royal Institute of British Architects, in whose library they are
preserved. Some, however, he retained at Chatsworth, including a series
entitled “Designs for Whitehall,” which are, as a matter of fact,
mostly preliminary sketches by Webb for the various versions of the
great palace; and a large number of designs by Jones for the scenery,
setting, and costumes of masques, as well as some by Webb. Dr. Clarke
bequeathed his portion to Worcester College, Oxford, on his death in
1736. It is practically certain that the Burlington collection and
that at Worcester College were originally one collection, inasmuch as
each contains drawings which supplement some of those in the other.
At Worcester College are the “designs for all Whitehall suitable to
the Banqueting House,” together with a large number of miscellaneous
drawings. At Chatsworth are designs of the Banqueting House itself,
together with many preliminary drawings for the palace at Whitehall.
At the Royal Institute of British Architects is a drawing of the west
front of St Paul’s, together with many others, notably those of the
King Charles block at Greenwich, and almost the whole series which Kent
used for his second volume of “Designs of Inigo Jones.”
Besides these drawings there are yet others attributed to Jones at
the British Museum. Some of these are the originals of the design for
Whitehall Palace published by Campbell in his “Vitruvius Britannicus,”
which is quite different from that published by Kent. Others are
sketches of figures and drapery undoubtedly drawn by Jones. The
drawings used by Campbell were in 1717 in the possession of William
Emmett, of Bromley, an architect, but it is not known how he became
possessed of them, nor whether they once formed part of Webb’s
collection, but their style links them up with the rest of the drawings
of the palace.[27]
The whole of these drawings have until quite recently been regarded
as the work of Jones himself. Aubrey mentions them as his; Kent
published many of them as his; Campbell attributed to him those which
he used, presumably on the authority of Emmett. All subsequent writers
have taken the authorship for granted, although some have agreed that
Jones’s hand is not visible in the finished designs of the palace,
preserved at Worcester College. This acquiescence in established
opinion is not surprising. The drawings had not been thoroughly
examined and catalogued, and in particular those at one library had not
been collated with those at the others. But when recently the various
collections came to be catalogued and definitely arranged, when, by the
aid of photographs, they were brought together and compared one with
another, very interesting results were obtained. It soon became easy to
differentiate between Jones’s draughtsmanship and Webb’s. The result
was that it became apparent that nearly the whole of the drawings
should be assigned to Webb and very few to Jones. Nor would logic allow
a halt to be called there, and suffer us to say that Webb may have been
the draughtsman, but Jones was still the designer. For many of the
drawings are sketches with notes in Webb’s writing, which go to show
how he developed his ideas as he went along. It would be impossible in
the space at command to indicate fully which drawings are by Jones,
which are by Webb inspired by Jones, and which are of Webb’s own
design. But in the latter category the evidence constrains us to place
the designs for the palace at Whitehall, the designs in the second
volume of Kent, and those for King Charles’s block at Greenwich.[28]
Although the pursuit of truth compels us to credit Webb rather than
Jones with the bulk of the designs in both of Kent’s volumes, admirers
of the great master will probably not only survive the shock, but will
eventually be grateful to find that the indifferent pieces of design
which mar many of those excellent conceptions need not be attributed to
him.
It would be impossible to pursue the subject fully here, but the branch
of it which refers to the palace of Whitehall is sufficiently curious
to justify a brief account.
The generally received opinion was that two designs were prepared for
the palace, one of which was published by Campbell in 1722, and the
other by Kent in 1727. Authorities have differed as to which was the
earlier to be devised, but both are attributed to Jones. Both designs
include the well-known Banqueting House, and it has been taken for
granted that they must have been designed before that building was
erected. The date of its erection is on record. It was begun on 1st
June 1619, and completed in March 1622. The assumption, therefore, was
that James I. contemplated either the vast palace illustrated by Kent,
or the smaller version of Campbell, but that the only portion actually
built was the Banqueting House.
As a matter of fact, James can have had nothing to do with either of
these designs. Campbell states that the design which he published
was submitted to Charles I. by Inigo Jones in 1639. The accuracy of
this statement has been questioned, but it was evidently made on the
authority of a formal inscription written by Emmett on one of the
drawings. If true, it disposes of the idea that this design was made
prior to the building of the Banqueting House. But that idea is in
any case not tenable, for the Banqueting House was built to replace
an older building which was burnt down in January 1619; it was built
immediately after that catastrophe, and built on the same site. As only
some three months elapsed between the destruction of the old building
and the completion of the design for the new one, any idea of the
conception of so vast a scheme as the new palace in that space of time
must be abandoned. Moreover, there are preserved at Chatsworth Jones’s
own drawings for the new Banqueting House, which is there shown as
an isolated structure (Figs. 36, 37). Further, although the accounts
for the new Banqueting House are preserved, together with a detailed
description of it, and a record of a payment to Inigo Jones for the
“model” of it, there is no mention of any other buildings in connection
with it, contemplated or otherwise. Nor is there any contemporary
reference to the projected palace of any kind until the one presently
to be mentioned.
In the Smithson collection there is an interesting drawing which shows
a plan of the old Banqueting House previous to its destruction, and an
elevation of the ground story of the new Banqueting House (Fig. 38).
They are obviously not drawn to the same scale, inasmuch as the new
building was 100 ft. long as against 120 ft. for the old. The fact
that Smithson thought it worth while to draw the ground story, so far
as then built, suggests that he was struck by its novel treatment.
The rusticated stonework, the flat arched openings, and the unmoulded
plinth and stringcourse were unfamiliar features.
[Illustration: FIG. 37.--Drawing by Inigo Jones for the
Banqueting House, Whitehall. A preliminary sketch, subsequently
modified. The annexes were omitted.
From the Chatsworth Collection.]
[Illustration:
FIG. 38.--Plan of the Old Banqueting House which was
burnt down. Below is an Elevation of “The First Storye of the
Newe Banketinge house.”
From the Smithson Collection.]
There is so far nothing to connect Jones with the designs for the
palace, as distinguished from the Banqueting House, except the
assumption of Kent and Campbell. An examination of the various
drawings serves further to dissociate him from them. At Worcester
College are the finished drawings for the scheme published by Kent: but
in addition to those which he used are others which have not hitherto
been elucidated; some of them are, in fact, the elevations and sections
of a different scheme, while one is the isolated plan of a third. The
key to this part of the puzzle lies at Chatsworth in the shape of
the collection of drawings and sketches, bound together and entitled
“Designs for Whitehall.” These turn out to be almost entirely the work
of Webb, among them being, however, the drawings of the Banqueting
House by Jones himself. The drawings by Webb are the preliminary
sketches for the finished set at Worcester College, as well as some
for yet other schemes, and among them are the elevations, as well as
a plan, corresponding to the isolated plan at Worcester College. The
writing and the drawing, the thumb-nail sketches, the alterations,
variations, and corrections all go to show that here we have the
inception of several schemes, all by Webb, the ultimate outcome of
which was the well-known design published some eighty years afterwards
by Kent.
There are, in fact, not two, but at least seven different schemes for
the palace, more or less worked out. Of these two are by Webb, and are
preliminary to the third, which was published by Kent; a fourth is a
variant of the third; the fifth and sixth are undoubtedly by Webb; the
seventh is the British Museum design published by Campbell.
The conclusion forced upon the inquirer by a prolonged examination
of the drawings--that Webb was the real author of the designs for
the palace--is curiously confirmed by a document preserved in the
“State Papers,” an important passage in which has hitherto escaped the
attention it deserves. This is a petition, signed by Webb, presented
soon after the restoration of Charles II., wherein he seeks the office
of surveyor of the king’s works, which was about to be bestowed upon
Mr. Denham, afterwards Sir John.[29] The whole document is interesting,
but is too long to quote in its entirety. In the petition itself, Webb
says that he was by the especial command of “your Majesty’s Royal
Father of ever blessed memory brought up by Inigo Jones, Esq., your
Majesty’s late surveyor of the works, in the study of architecture, for
enabling him to do your Royal Father and your Majesty service in the
said office. In order whereunto he was by Mr. Jones, upon leaving his
house at the beginning of the late unhappy war, appointed his Deputy
to execute the said place in his absence, which your petitioner did,
until by a Committee of Parliament in the year 1643 he was thrust
out.” He then goes on to say that in preparing the royal houses for
His Majesty’s reception he has engaged his own credit to the amount
of £8,140. 5s. 4d., of which he has only received £500, and prays the
king to “settle upon him the surveyor’s office of your majesty’s work,
whereunto your Royal Father assigned him, and to that end only ordered
his education.” In the “Brief of Mr. Webb’s Case,” attached to the
petition, occurs the remarkable piece of testimony alluded to: “That he
was Mr. Jones’s Deputy and in actual possession of the office upon his
leaving London, and attended his Majesty in that capacity at Hampton
Court and at the Isle of Wight, where he received his majesty’s command
to design a palace for Whitehall, which he did until his majesty’s
unfortunate calamity caused him to desist.”
This striking statement supplies an explanation of the whole intricate
series of drawings, including those at the British Museum. It is the
culminating proof that they were the work of Webb and not of Jones.
It accounts for the absence of any reference in earlier documents to
a project which would have been vast enough to attract much attention
in court circles had it been in contemplation; and indeed it goes to
show that the project never had any real vitality, but was merely
an exercise on paper. Incidentally, it illustrates the inability
of Charles I. to perceive the real trend of events, for he gave
instructions for this huge palace when already the shadow of death had
almost enveloped him.
Webb’s petition did not serve to divert the gift of the coveted office
from Denham to himself, but it may have suggested to Charles II. the
idea of resuscitating the project of a palace at Whitehall; for there
is a block plan by Webb of a scheme differing from all the others,
dated 17th October 1661, and there are notes in Webb’s hand on some of
the drawings which show that he submitted to the second Charles some
of the designs which he had prepared for the first, and that they were
“taken,” or accepted. It is certain that Charles II. did entertain for
a time the idea of rebuilding the palace, for Evelyn relates, under
the date 27th October 1664, that being at Whitehall, the king took him
aside into a window recess, and having borrowed from him a pencil and
paper, proceeded to draw, using the window-sill as a table, a plan for
the projected palace, with the rooms of state and other particulars.
But in Webb’s case, as in so many others, the bright hopes inspired by
the Restoration were overclouded; the projected palace went no further
than to be a design on paper; the surveyorship was given to Denham, and
on his death, in spite of a promise of its reversion, Webb suffered the
mortification of seeing the young and wholly inexperienced Wren, who
was at that time not even an architect, passed over his head.
With regard to the design of the palace much has been written in
praise, something in dispraise. Nearly all that has been said has been
founded upon Kent’s version. The vastness of the scheme and the
belief that Jones devised it have acted and reacted upon each other in
stimulating admiration. Had the project been of ordinary dimensions,
or had not Jones been credited with it, it is conceivable that less
eulogistic language might have been employed.
[Illustration: FIG. 39.--PLAN FOR THE PALACE AT WHITEHALL.
From the Worcester College Collection.
This is the plan utilised by Kent, but reversed by him in the
printing of it. The Charing Cross front is at the top, the
Westminster front at the bottom, the River front on the right,
the Park front on the left. The Banqueting House, then already
built, was to have been incorporated in the scheme. It lies
between the large court and the small court in the right-hand
bottom corner.]
[Illustration: FIG. 40.--SKETCHES FOR PARTS OF THE PALACE AT
WHITEHALL, INCLUDING TWO FOR THE “PERSIANS.” The sketches and
writing are by Webb’s hand.
From the Chatsworth Collection, by kind permission of the Duke of
Devonshire.]
The scheme, however, is truly remarkable.[30] It is of vast size;
the buildings and courts would have covered an area of some 23 acres
(Fig. 39). They would have extended from the Charity Commission’s
offices, south of the Banqueting House, to within a hundred feet of
Craig’s Court on the north; and from Whitehall Court on the east, right
across the Horse Guards parade and up to the enclosure of the park
on the west. They are skilfully disposed, with great architectural
magnificence. The noble Banqueting House was to be incorporated, but
it was to be one of the minor features. There were to be seven courts;
the largest, in the middle of the building, was 732 ft. long by 370
ft. wide; the four corner courts, each 280 ft. by 180 ft.; one of the
courts was to be circular, 220 ft. in diameter, and its columns were
to be fashioned in the likeness of venerable men in flowing draperies,
called Persians, as distinguished from the female figures which,
fulfilling a similar purpose, were called Caryatides.
All these particulars can be gathered from Kent’s published version.
He gives plans, elevations, and sections, but he gives no internal
features save the insignificant matters inherent in the sections.
Webb’s drawings, on the other hand, include not only sketches for
the general plan and for detailed portions of it, not only sketches
for external features, and among them several alternatives for the
Persians, but also the working out of lobbies, staircases, chapels and
the like (Figs. 40, 41). It is true that these details are part of
one of the preliminary schemes, but they show how seriously he took
his work, and how thoroughly he had mastered the details of classic
design. These sketches are unmistakably Webb’s; there are none by Jones
relating to the designing of the palace. It is interesting to compare
Webb’s large plan for Whitehall with Philibert de l’Orme’s plan for
the Tuileries, which has two oval courts set within larger ones. Webb
may have got his idea of the circular Persian court from this source,
and indeed the whole plan may have been a help to him, possibly; but
his scheme is far larger and more elaborate than De l’Orme’s and is
treated in a different style.
The appearance which the building would have presented from the river
is well shown in Thomas Sandby’s drawing (Fig. 1), hitherto unknown.
The view is supposed to have been taken from the gardens of old
Somerset House previous, of course, to the erection of Waterloo Bridge.
It is the most poetic rendering of the great scheme which has been
attempted. It is founded on the version published by Kent, so far as
the river front is concerned, and on one of the other seven designs
in respect of the front facing to the right of the spectator. On the
original drawings this front is considerably longer than Sandby makes
it, the lower portion being more than half as long again; a good idea
may thus be obtained of the magnitude of the conception.