display and which prove that Webb was not unworthy of the august
influence which placed him under the tuition of Inigo Jones, it is
nevertheless no great matter for regret that the palace was never
built. It can hardly be held that the complete design maintains the
high standard of the Banqueting House. Much of it indeed verges on
the commonplace. So vast a building would have been a burden on any
monarch; it would inevitably have fallen from its high estate, and
would probably have drifted to being put to such ignoble uses as was
the much smaller palace of the Louvre in Paris. If fate had been less
relentless it might eventually have been devoted to some public use for
which it was ill-contrived--public offices or a museum. Architecture,
although apparently the most permanent of all the arts, suffers most
from change. Buildings may remain, but the uses for which they were
designed either cease or are so modified that the buildings become
unsuitable. Then follows degradation, decay, or even destruction: at
the luckiest, a diversion from the original purpose. The Banqueting
House itself is a case in point; for who among those who inspect the
interesting collection it now contains have any notion of why it was
built, or can picture, even faintly, the scenes enacted within its
walls?
[Illustration: FIG. 41.--SKETCHES FOR PARTS OF THE PALACE AT
WHITEHALL, BY WEBB.
From the Chatsworth Collection.]
[Illustration: FIG. 42.--ELEVATIONS OF A HOUSE, BY INIGO
JONES.
From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the Royal Institute
of British Architects.]
In addition to the direct evidence which goes to show that Jones was
not the designer of the palace at Whitehall, there is the evidence of
such architectural drawings as are either actually signed by him, or
such as can almost certainly be attributed to him. All told, these
amount to comparatively few, and they exhibit curious inconsistencies.
Some are almost puerile, although drawn when he was mature in years.
Others (and these are more numerous) are strong, simple, and noble,
full of restraint, and depending chiefly upon proportion for their
effect (Fig. 42). They are large in scale, and are mainly drawn with
a free hand. Indeed it is characteristic of Jones to draw to a large
scale and with little aid from instruments. He appears to have been
impatient of petty details, and it is extremely doubtful whether he
could have brought his wide-sweeping hand down to the working out of a
complicated plan on the small scale actually employed in the Whitehall
drawings.[31]
In the collections of earlier date, John Thorpe’s and Smithson’s, the
bulk of the drawings may safely be attributed to Thorpe and Smithson
respectively; which makes the absence of drawings by Jones all the
more remarkable. And it must be remembered that although there are few
architectural drawings by him there are many of other kinds, notably of
the scenery for masques and of the human figure.[32] Indeed, to judge
only by his drawings one would regard him as a painter rather than an
architect. His surviving architectural drawings may be reckoned by
dozens; those for masques, figure studies, and drapery by hundreds.
His figure studies and drapery are executed with great vigour and a
masterly touch. His sketches for the numerous masques, of which he
designed the setting, are spontaneous and bold (Fig. 43). Many of them
have an architectural character, and, needless to say, the architecture
is always classic in style. There is one, however, which represents a
scene near London; the wings are composed of old houses, the backcloth
is a distant view of London itself with old St Paul’s as the principal
feature.[33] It is interesting to see that the houses in the foreground
are Jacobean in treatment, yet Jacobean with a larger infusion of
classic detail than houses of the period actually exhibited. The
artist’s hand instinctively sought a classic expression.
[Illustration: FIG. 43.--Masque by Inigo Jones.
From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the R.I.B.A.]
Jones, indeed, designed most of the masques presented at court during
the reigns of James I. and his son, and collaborated with several
of the different poets who wrote the words of these fanciful plays;
with Ben Jonson, Samuel Daniell, Thomas Campion, George Chapman, and
Aurelian Townshend. One of his efforts was less successful than could
have been wished, although it was for an occasion when expectation was
particularly high--the masque on Twelfth Night 1618, when the prince
was to take a part for the first time. Gossiping letters dubbed it
poor, said that Inigo Jones had lost reputation, and that it was indeed
so dull that the poet, Ben Jonson, ought to return to his old trade of
brick making.[34]
But in spite of the gossips Jones was a skilful scene-painter, and owed
much of his facility in the art to the months he had spent in Italy
conversing, as he says, with the great masters in design. To him we
owe the first introduction of movable scenery into English theatres.
He was also a practical surveyor of some ability; already in 1613 he
had been appointed surveyor of his majesty’s works, and although in
those days it was not necessarily a practical man who was appointed to
such a post, yet a clever man, even if ill-equipped at first, would
soon acquire experience. The State Papers show that he was kept busy
with the duties of his office, duties which included many matters of
dull routine. It is perhaps worthy of note that in matters requiring
detailed reports and estimates he was generally commissioned along
with one or two others who may (or may not) have had more practical
knowledge than himself. It is also interesting to find that in several
cases where repairs or alterations were under consideration, special
stress was laid in the reports upon the probable result on the beauty
of the buildings they affected. This particular and uncommon touch may
certainly be credited to Jones.
In order fully to understand the subject of the so-called Inigo Jones
drawings and their influence on English architecture, it will be
advisable to set out again what and where they are.
Firstly, there are those for the palace at Whitehall. Of these the
finished designs, utilised by Kent, are at Worcester College, Oxford,
and the preliminary drawings are at Chatsworth. These, as already
shown, must be credited to Webb. There is also at the British Museum
another and much scantier set, utilised by Campbell.
Secondly, there are at Worcester College a number of miscellaneous
drawings, mostly by Webb, but including a few by Jones.
Thirdly, there are in the library of the Royal Institute of British
Architects a large number of miscellaneous drawings, also mostly by
Webb, but also including a few by Jones. The most important of these
are the series of designs utilised by Kent in his “Designs of Inigo
Jones,” and the drawings for the Charles II. block at Greenwich
Hospital. Practically all these are by Webb.
These drawings were unknown to the public until Kent published the
“Designs” in 1727. His two volumes comprise, as already mentioned, the
designs of Whitehall Palace, and a series of houses, large and small.
It was not until they were published that the public generally knew
anything about them, and it was accordingly not till then that they
affected architectural design. Walpole makes this quite clear: “It
was in this reign,” he says--that of George II.--“that architecture
resumed all her rights. Noble publications of Palladio, Jones, and the
antique recalled her to true principles and correct taste; she found
men of genius to execute her rules, and patrons to countenance their
labours.”[35]
But apart from their effect upon the public, the insight which these
drawings give into the inner working of the designers’ minds is of
great interest. Besides the finished drawings there are innumerable
sketches for plans, elevations, and details, as well as many scraps
copied from Italian books on architecture, notably from Serlio.
Comparing these and Jones’s own sketches with similar memoranda and
sketches by Italian architects of the period, it is curious to find
how thoroughly he adopted their particular methods of work, and after
him Webb likewise. Everything is classic in style, all the proportions
are carefully worked out. The lengths and heights of buildings are not
the result of caprice, or chance, or even primarily of convenience,
but of systems of proportion. So also in the plans: these are largely
adaptations of Italian models, not only in their formality and
symmetry, but also in the disposition of the rooms. There is nothing
haphazard, fortuitous, or rambling about them: they are the result of
carefully considered proportion. Every house was complete in itself,
and to be altered or enlarged afterwards was to be spoilt.
This sort of precision had a natural tendency to become mechanical, and
in later years, notably in the early part of the eighteenth century,
the tendency asserted itself strongly. But it is interesting to find
that the foibles of Campbell, Gibbs, and their contemporaries had their
justification in the work of Jones and Webb.
It was more particularly Webb who founded himself so carefully on
definite proportions. Jones had a natural instinct for good proportion.
His studies of the human figure and of drapery, his construction
of scenery for masques, gave him freedom of touch and sureness in
achieving the result at which he aimed not to be found in Webb.
Jones’s youth had been passed in that atmosphere of freedom and
joyous fancy in house design which was characteristic of Elizabethan
days. The intelligent ignorance with which Italian detail was treated
he set himself to correct; but he did not altogether crush out its
light-heartedness. His own work, although purer and more severe than
that of his predecessors, retained something of their freedom.
[Illustration: FIG. 44.--DESIGN FOR A HOUSE, BY JOHN
WEBB.
From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the R.I.B.A.]
The same, but in a less degree, may be said of Webb. Immersed though
he seems to have been in his endeavours to saturate himself with the
true rules of proportion, when he came to put his ideas into execution,
he showed a pretty play of natural fancy, and much of his detail has a
freshness and individuality sadly lacking in the work of fifty years
later.
Apart entirely from the question as to the authorship of the Inigo
Jones drawings, the ideas embodied in them are of the first importance.
For the purpose of grasping these, the second volume of Kent’s “Designs
of Inigo Jones” will answer almost as well as the originals. Comparing
them with Elizabethan or Jacobean houses, a complete change will be
seen to have taken place, both in the plans and the elevations (Fig.
44). There is no resemblance to the older manner. The time-honoured
arrangement which placed the great hall centrally between the
family wing and the servants’ wing has been superseded by one which
places the kitchens in a basement, devotes the ground floor to the
principal living-rooms, abolishes the great hall as a living-room,
and substitutes for it a central saloon of great height, which not
infrequently reaches from the ground floor to the roof. The orderly
straggling of the ancient plan has given way to a trim compactness in
the new. The plan, of course, controls the elevation, which is more
precise and far less picturesque than of old. There are few, if any,
gables; the chimneys are solid and staid; the windows consist each of
one large opening, instead of being a group of small lights formed by
mullions and transoms. It does not need an examination of the elaborate
proportions tabulated by Webb on many of the original drawings to
realise that here the old instinctive and even haphazard methods have
been superseded by a system of carefully calculated design. The change
is apparent at a glance, and one feels at once that the source of
inspiration is not English but Italian. Very few of these designs
appear to have been actually carried out, but they had a considerable
influence on domestic architecture after their publication. They
include practically none of the houses attributed to Jones or Webb
which still exist.
John Webb has hardly received his due as an architect, either from his
contemporaries or from posterity. Evelyn spoke of him as “Inigo Jones’s
man.” Most modern writers have regarded him as merely a pale shadow
of his master. But from what has just been said about his share in
the “Inigo Jones” drawings, this estimate of his position ought to be
revised, for there can be no doubt that he was the actual draughtsman
of the designs for the palace at Whitehall; of nearly all those in the
second volume of Kent inscribed “Inigo Jones, architectus”; and of
King Charles’s block at Greenwich (Fig. 45). It may be said, indeed
it has been said, that even if that be so, he was only carrying out
ideas which had been already devised in the rough by the older man.
To which the reply is that there is no evidence of this among the
drawings themselves, and that the evidence of contemporary documents,
preserved among the State Papers, confirms the presumption that Webb
was the designer of the Whitehall Palace and of the Greenwich block.
With regard to the series of house designs in Kent’s second volume,
no extraneous evidence is likely to be found, for they can only be
regarded as exercises in design; to transfer these works from Jones’s
account to Webb’s is to do no injustice to the former’s reputation,
it is rather to enhance it. It relieves a first-rate artist from the
weight of work which is not quite first-rate: and the same may be said,
as already pointed out, of the Whitehall drawings. With regard to the
Greenwich design, it has, with justice, been highly extolled; but
this is the less surprising when it is remembered that it is a clever
adaptation of an excellent Italian design to be found in the pages of
Palladio.[36]
Webb’s drawings of the Greenwich designs are fairly numerous, and they
include a plan for a complete scheme, as well as plans, elevations and
many details of King Charles’s block. They are dated 1663, 1665, 1666,
and one 1669–70. It is interesting, therefore, to find in the Audit
Office Enrolments[37] a warrant dated “the 21st day of November 1666,”
and directed “To Our Trusty and Wellbeloved John Webb, of Butleigh,
in Our County of Somerset, Esq^{re},” which begins thus: “Charles
R. Trusty and wellbeloved, wee greet you well. Whereas wee have
thought fit to employ you for the erecting and building of Our palace
at Greenwich, Wee doe hereby require and authorize you to execute,
act, and proceed there, according to your best skill and judgment
in Architecture, as our Surveyor Assistant unto S^{r.} John Denham,
K^{nt.} of the Bath, Surveyor General of Our Works, with the same power
of executing, acting, proceeding therein, and graunting of Warrants
for stones to be had from Portland, to all intents and purposes, as
the said Sir John Denham have or might have....” The salary is to be
£200 per annum with travelling charges. This appointment, together with
Webb’s drawings and the absence of any preliminary drawings or sketches
by Jones, seems to establish Webb as the actual designer.
It is not at all probable that Webb destroyed any sketches that might
have been in existence, with a view to his own reputation. For he
preserved several slight sketches by Jones, and whereas he nowhere
publicly pushes himself, he was extremely jealous of Jones’s fame, as
appears on page after page of his “Vindication of Stone-Heng Restored.”
Indeed, he subordinates himself completely to his old master, and
posterity appears to have taken him at his own valuation.
He must have been, nevertheless, a very clever man, an apt pupil, and
a most painstaking student, judging by the voluminous notes as to
proportions, and so forth, which he wrote on his drawings. He went
to Jones in 1628 at the age of seventeen; and according to the brief
attached to his petition, already mentioned, “he was brought up by his
Unckle Mr. Inigo Jones upon his late Maiestyes command in the study of
Architecture, as well that w^{ch} relates to building as for masques
Tryumphs and the like.” It will be remembered that Mr. John Denham, as
he then was in the year 1660, had been granted the post of surveyor of
the king’s works, although he had received no suitable training; the
brief concludes with the following apt remarks: “That Mr. Denham may
possibly, as most gentry in England at this day have some knowledge in
the Theory of Architecture; but nothing of ye practique soe that
he must of necessity have another at his Mai^{ties} charge to doe
his business; whereas Mr. Webb himself designes, orders, and directs,
whatever given in command w^{th} out any other man’s assistance.
His Mai^{tie} may please to grant some other place more proper for
Mr. Denham’s abilityes and confirme unto Mr. Webb the Surveyors place
wherein he hath consumed 30 years study, there being scarce any of the
greate Nobility or eminent gentry of England but he hath done service
for in matter of building, ordering of meddalls, statues and the like.”
[Illustration: FIG. 45.--ELEVATION OF THE RIVER FRONT,
GREENWICH PALACE, BY JOHN WEBB.
From the original Drawing in the Library of the R.I.B.A.]
[Illustration:
North-East View. North Front.
FIG. 46.--THORPE HALL, NEAR PETERBOROUGH, 1656.
From Engraving by Hakewill, 1852.]
The common sense of this contention, although not flattering to Mr
Denham, was vindicated by the appointment of Webb as assistant surveyor
at Greenwich. But the petition and brief are interesting in other
ways. They assert that Charles I. expressly caused Webb to be trained
in architecture and the preparation of masques, in order to succeed
Inigo Jones and carry on his work. They confirm roughly the date of his
apprenticeship: and the brief states that he had worked for most of the
great nobility and eminent gentry, thereby showing that he was a man
of large independent practice, and not merely “Inigo Jones’s man”--a
conclusion to which his drawings had already led.
The fact that Webb was actually trained in the preparation of masques
as well as in architecture has hitherto escaped notice, but recent
researches show that he made drawings for the scenery of some of those
devised by Inigo Jones, particularly in the case of the pastoral of
“Florimene” in 1635, and D’Avenant’s “Salmacida Spolia” in 1640. A
year or two after the death of Jones, namely in 1656, D’Avenant again
sought Webb’s help, and got him to design the scenery for his “Siege of
Rhodes,” the first opera produced in England. Webb’s drawings for this
work are preserved at Chatsworth.[38]
The illustrations in the second volume of Kent’s “Designs of Inigo
Jones,” give a good idea not only of Webb’s powers as a designer, but
also of the kind of house which was becoming fashionable. But it is
worth while to supplement them by others which were actually carried
out.
[Illustration: FIG. 47.--Thorpe Hall, near Peterborough.
Ground Plan.]
The best known of the houses attributed to Webb is Thorpe Hall, near
Peterborough (Fig. 46). It was built for Oliver St John, Lord Chief
Justice of Common Pleas, and a kinsman of Oliver Cromwell,[39] about
the year 1656, which date is on the stables. It is a fine massive house
of oblong shape, and, like Coleshill, it is without wings, gables, or
dominating pediments; the detail is large and simple, the principal
effect being gained by a widely projecting cornice at the eaves. The
roof is hipped at the four corners, and its slopes are broken by
dormers. The windows are carefully spaced, the angles of the building
are emphasised with bold quoins, there is an open columned porch in the
middle of each of the two principal fronts, and on one of the short
fronts there are two square bay-windows. These are the means adopted to
give interest to the design, and slight as they are, they achieve their
purpose. A plinth, and a bold string over the ground floor windows help
the general proportions, and a little liveliness is imparted by the
introduction of pediments over some of the windows. The whole effect
is refined and severe, widely different from the picturesque variety
of Elizabethan work. The open porches are probably the first examples
of their kind to be found in England. The bay-windows, it must be
confessed, are poor and meagre; they would not be out of place in a
suburban villa; they are a disappointing substitute for the noble bays
of earlier times. They appear to be original, but they may derive some
of their character from the restoration which the house underwent in
the middle of last century. The chimneys are well designed, massive
features, of the somewhat plain type which was supplanting the more
varied and ingenious designs of fifty years before.
[Illustration: FIG. 48.--Thorpe Hall. Panelling in
Dining-Room.]
[Illustration: FIG. 49.--THORPE HALL. THE STAIRCASE.
Henry Tanner _del._]
The plan of the house, as given by Hakewill (Fig. 47), is of the
modern order, although faintly reminiscent of the ancient arrangement
in respect of the hall, which is approached from the entrance passage
through a screen. The ground floor, containing the hall, library,
and dining-room, is raised well above the ground, and the servants’
quarters are in the basement. Subsequent to the making of Hakewill’s
plan, certain alterations were made which did away with the necessity
of passing through one room to get to the next, but they did not affect
the main dispositions.
Much of the detail inside is quite charming, especially the ceilings,
the panelling of the dining-room and the staircase. The sober yet
fanciful treatment of the dining-room is delightful (Fig. 48) and
strongly resembles that of some of Webb’s designs at Worcester College.
Indeed the detail throughout abounds in touches such as are to be found
in his drawings, and it has a freedom from pedantry which is quite
refreshing, and may be regarded as a legacy from his less learned
predecessors. The staircase has a carved and pierced floral balustrade
of a type which had a considerable vogue in England during the second
half of the seventeenth century (Fig. 49). The carving is particularly
vigorous, especially in the newels and the great scroll at the foot of
the stairs. The carved work is in lime, while the framework is in oak,
but time has coloured the whole to one tone. The newels are crowned
with fanciful vases full of flowers, another feature characteristic
of the period. Some of the doors have panels over them, filled with
painted landscapes, one of the earliest instances of a method of
treatment that became very general in later years. The fireplaces, with
one or two exceptions, are not fine examples of their kind.
The lay out is quite formal. The house stands in the midst of a large
oblong enclosure, some 700 ft. long by 350 ft. wide, containing between
five and six acres. The stables and garden houses occupy part of this
space, the remainder being devoted to a forecourt and gardens. The
enclosing wall is pierced with gateways of which the piers are of
varied and interesting design (Fig. 50). The stables themselves are
less formal and more picturesque than the house, but the same strong
and masterful treatment prevails throughout (Fig. 51). As within the
house so without, the detail has more individuality than was possible
in later times when the continued study of Italian models appears to
have made designers too fearful of committing solecisms to allow them
to give free play to their fancy.
[Illustration: FIG. 50.--Thorpe Hall. Gate-Piers.]
[Illustration: FIG. 51.--Thorpe Hall. The Stables.]
[Illustration: FIG. 52.--Lamport Hall.]