character of the work. His connection with another Northamptonshire
house, Lamport Hall, is vouched for by Bridges, the county historian,
who says (writing in the early years of the eighteenth century): “Sir
Justinian Isham ... hath here a very elegant seat; part of which is
old, and part new built in his father’s time, by John Webb, son-in-law
to Inigo Jones. He hath several drawings of mouldings, architraves,
and freezes, made in the years 1654 and 1655, with some letters from
Mr. Webb dated in 1657, relating to the gate, and pilasters, and the
execution of an intended depository.” Owing to alterations which have
been made from time to time, there is little of the original work
left except the front (Fig. 52), which exhibits the simple, dignified
yet interesting treatment characteristic of Webb’s manner. Here the
whole of the architectural detail is in stone, there are two principal
stories which stand on a windowed basement; there are no strings nor
cornices between the basement and the main cornice which crowns the
walls; above this is a parapet which seems to have been altered from
its original design. The wall space is occupied by windows carefully
proportioned, and in the centre of the façade is a slight projection
according to Webb’s custom. The angles of the building are emphasised
with quoins. The whole design is simple in the extreme, but its
excellent proportions give it dignity and charm.
Illustration: FIG. 53.--RAMSBURY MANOR, WILTSHIRE.]
It must surely have been the old house to which the epithet “vile”
was applied by the charming Dorothy Osborne in one of her letters
to her future husband, Sir William Temple. The elder Sir Justinian,
forty-two years old and a widower, was a persistent but unwelcome
suitor of Dorothy’s, just about the time when he altered his house. He
was esteemed, according to a biographer, one of the most accomplished
persons of the time, and, doubtless, it was in that capacity that he
employed the hardly less accomplished Webb. But Dorothy put a different
reading on his character, and considered him a self-conceited, learned
coxcomb. Her letter, wherein she speaks of “a vile house he has in
Northamptonshire,” is assigned to January 1653, so it is just possible
that during the course of his wooing she may have indicated her
opinion of his home, and thus have been an unintentional agent in its
improvement.
Ramsbury, in Wiltshire, is another house attributed to Webb,[40] but
no date is given in connection with it. Its admirable proportion and
simplicity of detail ally it with other work of his (Fig. 53). Like
Thorpe Hall it is a simple oblong in plan, but the front and side are
broken by slight projections which give the opportunity of breaking
the roof with pediments as well as with the customary dormers. The
effect depends primarily upon the spacing of the windows, the extent of
roof in relation to the walls, and the bold cornice at the eaves. The
detail is refined, and a welcome change from uniformity of treatment
is afforded by the introduction of twin doorways in the middle of the
shorter front. The ground floor is kept up above the ground, as was
customary with Webb, and the servants are placed in the basement. The
drawbacks of this disposition are less than would appear from the front
view, as the ground at the other end is so much lower that the basement
floor is on the same level with it, and there is easy access from the
kitchen department to the outbuildings which are grouped some distance
away on the lower level.
The detail inside is not of striking interest; much of it looks rather
later than Webb’s time, especially the ceiling (Fig. 54); but the way
in which the cupola, which is almost buried between the roofs, is
made to light the attic landing, and, by means of a ceiling light, the
landing also of the floor below, is quite ingenious, and incidentally
produces a charming feature in the ceiling of the principal landing.
[Illustration: FIG. 54.--RAMSBURY MANOR. THE SALOON.]
[Illustration: FIG. 55.--Ashdown House, Berkshire.]
These are some among the houses that are attributed to Webb. Ashdown
House (Fig. 55) is another, a rather gaunt place, built high on the
downs in the extreme west of Berkshire, far away from everywhere, so
that the builder, it is said, might run no risk of infection from the
plague. Taken in conjunction with his dated drawings--such as ceilings
at Wilton in 1649; designs for Durham House, London, in the same
year; the Physicians’ College in 1651; a chimney-piece for Drayton
in Northamptonshire in 1653; and another for Northumberland House in
1660--they show that Webb was tolerably busy all through the time of
the Commonwealth. But it is probably the fact, confirmed by the absence
of dated drawings between 1638 and 1649, that he was not doing much
work, beyond the Whitehall designs, during the course of the actual
hostilities. This is only what might be expected, and indeed it is
likely that beyond what Webb did, there was very little important work
carried out during the period of twenty years from 1640 to 1660.
The consideration of Inigo Jones’s work and that of Webb has taken the
story down to about 1670; it is necessary now to go back a little in
order to look at work by less distinguished designers.
[Illustration: FIG. 56.--Pepysian Library, Magdalene College,
Cambridge.]
[Illustration: FIG. 57.--The Latin School, Warminster,
Wiltshire, 1707.]
V
THE TRANSITION IN MINOR BUILDINGS AND INTERIORS
There are numberless buildings in all parts of the country which
show in their external treatment how gradual was the supersession of
the old style by the new and more correct treatment, and how limited
in range was the influence of even so eminent an architect as Inigo
Jones. Indeed, throughout the seventeenth century it would appear
that architectural design followed two paths; one was that trodden
by trained architects who aimed at correctitude; the other was that
taken by less learned designers, whether architects or (as of old)
masons and artificers, who had not mastered the niceties of classic
design, and therefore mixed ancient methods with such of the new as
they could compass. The mullioned window was one of the old features
to which they long held fast. The new idea of large window openings
such as prevailed in the Banqueting House they seem to have disliked.
Their reluctance had, no doubt, a constructional basis, for the narrow
lights of a mullioned window are easily bridged, whereas a wide opening
requires either a deeper head to carry the weight above it, or else
an arch. The introduction of an arch or a deep head involved a more
serious departure from ancient ways, and a more complete committal to
new design than the ordinary man could face. He did not mind pilasters,
and he did not mind a heavy cornice, and consequently there are plenty
of instances in which the old mullioned windows are accompanied by the
more stiff and straight arrangement which a heavy cornice involves.
Such an instance is to be seen in the free school at Warminster,
founded as late as 1707 (Fig. 57).
Another feature to which designers clung was the gable. This, of
course, had been from time immemorial a dominant feature of English
houses; it was the simplest and most natural way of closing the end
of a roof, and as roofs were nearly always of a steep pitch, so, too,
were the gables. But there was no place in classic architecture for
steep gables, nor indeed for gables of any kind; the nearest approach
to them was the pediment. It was only by a determined effort that the
English architect could get rid of gables, and this effort was too much
for any but the most resolute to make. Gables survived even longer
than mullioned windows, and as our climate, with its rain and snow, is
better encountered by steep roofs than by flat, the roofs continued to
be steep.
An interesting example of the mixture of mullioned windows, gables, and
classic details is to be found in the Pepysian Library at Magdalene
College, Cambridge (Fig. 56). The precise date of this building is not
known. In many of the colleges accounts have survived from which may
be gathered the date, the cost, and even the names of the designers of
the various buildings which make both Cambridge and Oxford so extremely
interesting to architects. But unluckily in this instance there are no
accounts left, and it is only inferentially and vaguely that a date
can be suggested. Subscriptions for a new building were being asked
for in 1640,[41] and again in 1679, and the building was apparently
finished, or nearly so, in 1703 when Pepys made his will, by which he
left his library (after his nephew’s death) either to Trinity College
or Magdalene, but preferably to the latter, in which case it was to be
in the “New Building,” where, in fact, it was eventually placed.
It would appear from the plan, and also from the external treatment,
that the design was made when the project first started in 1640;
but if Professor Willis’s suggestion be accepted that the Civil War
interrupted the scheme and that, in view of the change in taste, a
fresh design was adopted on the resumption of effort in Charles II.’s
time, the survival of the old method’s becomes still more striking. But
a close examination of the work strengthens the supposition that the
front was designed as a whole when the project was started in 1640; and
that the pediments and cornices over the windows, together with the
carving, were inserted at the close of the century. The later mouldings
are larger and bolder in scale than the earlier.
When it is remembered that in 1640 John Webb was drawing none but
classic buildings, and that by 1679 St Paul’s Cathedral was already
rising above the ground, and that it was designed on fully developed
classic lines, the significance of the mixed taste in this building at
Magdalene College will be the more readily appreciated. But it must
be borne in mind that Webb and Sir Christopher Wren were members of
a learned confraternity, while the unknown designer at Magdalene had
evidently not had the same opportunities as they enjoyed for acquiring
familiarity with classic detail.
[Illustration: FIG. 58.--Doorway at Stanway, Gloucestershire.]
Stanway House, in Gloucestershire, belongs in its general treatment
to the Jacobean period, but there are numerous late touches about it;
among them are the front door and the window above it (Fig. 58). The
latter appears to be a later insertion, but the doorway is probably
original, as it agrees in its general character with the arch of the
fine gate-house, which is contemporary with the mullioned windows by
which it is encompassed. It was quite a usual custom to adhere to the
old ways in the general design of a house, but to treat some special
feature, such as a doorway, in the more modern and correct fashion.
This is easily intelligible when it is remembered that the books on
classic architecture confined themselves largely to details, and dealt
but sparingly with the designs of entire buildings. At this time, that
is about 1637, there was probably no one who gave himself up entirely
to the pursuit of consistent purity of detail, except Jones and his
pupil Webb.
[Illustration: FIG. 59.--Gateway at Astwell, Northamptonshire,
1638.]
At Astwell, in Northamptonshire, there are the remains of some gates
dated 1638 which were fitted into an old Gothic opening (Fig. 59). They
have traceried heads of a sort, in imitation of mediæval work, but the
mouldings are allied more nearly to the ordinary work of the time, and
the whole is an interesting example of the mixture of old and new ideas.
Swakeleys, near Uxbridge, which carries its date, 1638, on some of its
rain-water heads, is a good example of late Jacobean work, in which the
old treatment is more apparent than the new (Fig. 60). It has mullioned
windows and many gables, but the flat pediments which crown the latter
are evidence of its having been built towards the close of the Jacobean
period. The actual roofs behind the gables are quite steep and are
so complicated that some difficulty was found in getting rid of the
rain water. Part of it is taken in a trough in the thickness of the
attic floor; and in order to lessen the number of down-pipes, much of
it is collected into lead troughs which are carried along the inside
of the attic walls to the few pipes which are provided. The result of
these arrangements is that every heavy storm or fall of snow entails
an inspection by the plumber in order to prevent the accumulation of
debris and the risk of spoiled ceilings and walls. The whole of the
cornices and pediments are worked in cement, and not, as might be
supposed, in stone.
[Illustration: FIG. 60.--SWAKELEYS, NEAR UXBRIDGE,
1638.]
[Illustration: FIG. 61.--NEW WING AT SOMERSET HOUSE, 1638,
BY WEBB.
From the Worcester College Collection.]
[Illustration: FIG. 62.--The Chapel, Burford Priory,
Oxfordshire.]
If this house is compared with Webb’s drawing of a proposed new wing at
Somerset House (Fig. 61), made in the same year, 1638, the difference
becomes strikingly apparent between the style of the ordinary designer
and that of the learned student; and yet Swakeleys was less than
twenty miles from London, where the new methods were being sedulously
cultivated.
Perhaps the most remarkable attempt to weld Jacobean and classic
design into one consistent whole is to be found in the charming chapel
attached to Burford Priory, in Oxfordshire (Fig. 62). There is much
more here than a mixture of separate features, some in one style, and
some in the other. The general treatment is reminiscent of Jacobean.
There is a lofty story crowned with a cornice and an attic above it.
There are shafts at the angles round which the cornice breaks, and they
are terminated at the top with obelisks as pinnacles; there are also
curved gables. But the shafts are fashioned into classic pilasters;
the cornice not only breaks round them, but jumps up to make way for
a door. The traceried windows have a novel disposition of curves, and
the rose window is not a mere travesty of ancient methods, but has a
vigorous individuality of its own, and is set in a classic framework.
The whole work is consistent throughout, and the detail is refined and
carefully handled. It is the successful attempt of a clever designer
to solve old problems in new ways, and it is a pity that neither his
name nor any other work from his hand is known. The chapel, as well
as the house to which it is attached, was built by Speaker Lenthall,
subsequent to his acquiring the property in 1634.
[Illustration:
Side of Chapel. End of Chapel.
FIG. 63.--BRASENOSE COLLEGE, OXFORD, 1656–66.]
[Illustration: FIG. 64.--Oriel at Brasenose College, Oxford.]
The chapel and library of Brasenose College, Oxford, have escaped the
full amount of attention which they deserve, probably because they
lie outside the range of books dealing with the accepted division of
architecture into Gothic and classic. But for that very reason they
are of interest to the present inquiry. The detail on the whole is
more classic than Gothic, but it is dealt with in a manner reminiscent
of Gothic; the cornices break forward over the pilasters, and round
the slight projections caused by the advancing of alternate windows;
the windows have Gothic tracery; pilasters are used in the place of
buttresses (Fig. 63). Indeed the general design is Gothic in its
arrangement, but classic detail has been applied to it, which in its
turn has modified the Gothic handling. The whole effect is interesting.
The designer has not merely made a Gothic design carrying it out with
classic detail, nor has he made a classic design, giving his windows
Gothic tracery. But each style has influenced the other. The Gothic
treatment has modified the classic detail, the classic detail has
modified the Gothic treatment The detail itself is quite refined,
it is not the work of an ignorant man; the ornament is judiciously
introduced, and applied with knowledge and skill. The oriel window on
the external front (Fig. 64) adjoining the east end of the chapel is
a charming piece of design, and the work generally is so well done
that it has been attributed to Sir Christopher Wren; but although
the attribution is erroneous it shows that popular opinion held the
building worthy of being coupled with a great name. It would appear
that a Mr. John Jackson superintended the building operations, and as he
made a model for the chapel roof,[42] he may fairly be credited with
the whole design. The first stone of the chapel was laid on the 18th
June 1656, and the work was practically finished by 1666, in which
year, on the 17th November, the dedication took place.
[Illustration: FIG. 65.--House in Southgate, Gloucester, 1650.]
The old house in Southgate, Gloucester (Fig. 65), until recently the
City Tea Warehouse, is a curious mixture of the old and new styles.
According to the date on a chimney-piece it was built in 1650. The
projecting stories, the panels and brackets below the windows of the
top floor, and, indeed, the general treatment of the whole front,
belong to the order of things that was passing away. The wide windows
with their pediments, some straight and some curved, and the stiff
floral pendents are indicative of the new style then coming into vogue.
If the sash-windows were adopted from the outset, they would be a still
more decidedly modern note. But if, as in all probability was the case,
they merely replace the original mullions the native aspect of the
front would have been less classic.
[Illustration: FIG. 66.--Houses at Ipswich.]
[Illustration: FIG. 67.--Nixon’s Grammar School, Oxford, 1658
(now destroyed).]
Another type of the quaint mixture of the old and the new is to be seen
at Ipswich in the well-known Sparrow’s house, and in the less ornate
example shown in Fig. 66. Here the ancient practice of overhanging
the upper stories is utilised to obtain the strong horizontal lines
which are characteristic of the classic style; but instead of the
walls being full of windows, their blank spaces are larger in extent
than the windows, and they are panelled in a simple fashion. Above
the bold cornice spring three sharply pointed gables, which give
an old-fashioned appearance to the house. The original windows are
mullioned, but some of them (and probably all at first were alike) have
an arched central light of double the width of the others. No doubt
this treatment was introduced in order to vary the monotony of a series
of windows composed entirely of small rectangular openings. It was
very generally adopted, but the curved side lights are a variation not
often found; the more frequent form is that employed in the picturesque
Grammar School at Oxford (Fig. 67) which was built in the year 1658 for
the education of freemen’s sons, on the foundation of Alderman John
Nixon. The steep gables appear to be later additions, the original
arrangement was the flatter and more carefully devised gable over the
middle window. The arcade on the ground floor is quite Jacobean in
feeling.
At Saffron Walden, in Essex, there is a row of houses of ancient
aspect, with projecting corbelled gables. One of them is dated 1676,
which probably gives the period when the modelled plasterwork was
applied to an existing front, for some of the woodwork is Gothic in
character. They are interesting examples of the ornamental plasterwork
which at one time abounded in the eastern counties (Figs. 68 and 69).
The red brick inn at Scole, in Norfolk (Fig. 72), is another example of
the mixture of classic cornices and quasi-pilasters with curved gables,
and it gives a good idea of how local designers strove to modernise
their buildings and were yet unable to shake off the old fetters
which bound them to the traditions of their youth. There used to be,
stretching across the road, a very substantial and picturesque sign
attached to this inn, a wonderful piece of allegorical design.[43] It
was dated 1655, which may be taken as the date of the building itself.
[Illustration: FIG. 68.--House at Saffron Walden, Essex,
showing Ornamental Plasterwork.]
[Illustration: FIG. 69.--Saffron Walden. Detail of
Plasterwork.]
[Illustration: FIG. 70.--School at Witney, Oxfordshire, 1660.]
Another good example of the transitional stage between Jacobean work
and classic is the school at Witney, in Oxfordshire (Fig. 70). The
wings are still part of the main structure; the windows are mullioned,
but the larger ones have an oval light in the uppermost compartment;
the chimneys have square detached shafts set angle ways on their
base. All these are features of the earlier type. On the other hand,
the absence of gables, the widely projecting coved eaves, and small
detached dormers are characteristic of the new methods of design. The
date of the building, as stated on the panel over the principal door,
is 1660.
Of such houses as the farmhouse at Stanton Harcourt, in Oxfordshire
(Fig. 71), there are plenty of examples to be found. Here the mullioned
windows are still retained; but the absence of gables, the straight
front, the marked cornice at the eaves, the hood over the door, and
the plain, severe outline are all in keeping with the more pronounced
classic treatment which was being gradually adopted, even in remote
places, by the end of the seventeenth century.
Such are some of the smaller houses built during the years in which
Inigo Jones and Webb were working; links between the Jacobean style
and that purer version of Italian to which those eminent men devoted
themselves.
It has been shown how the general character of houses had changed
during the period between the accession of Charles I. and the
Restoration in regard to their arrangement and appearance; it will
be well now to show briefly how their decoration had also altered.
But before doing so, it will be useful shortly to recapitulate the
principal changes that had taken place.
[Illustration: FIG. 71.--House at Stanton Harcourt,
Oxfordshire.]
[Illustration: FIG. 72.--Inn at Scole, Norfolk, 1655.]
The old idea of the house-plan, derived from mediæval times, was to
provide a great hall for the daily use of the whole household, and
to supplement it by a group of rooms at each end, one for the use of
the family, the other for the servants. The relations between the
family and their retainers were then closer than they became in later
times. Gradually the custom of dining all together died out; the
family secluded themselves in their own apartments, the servants in
theirs. The great hall was deserted as a living-room and degenerated
into a vestibule leading to the rooms where the daily life was led.
The distinction between the family and the servants was emphasised
somewhat to the disadvantage of the latter; for when sacrifices of
comfort had to be made for the sake of architectural effect, it was the
servants upon whom discomfort was laid with the least scruple. They
were frequently relegated to a basement during the day, and to attics
during the night. The ground floor and the floor above it were reserved
for the use of the family and for state occasions. The increase in the
subdivisions of household work may be realised from Swift’s satirical
“Advice to Servants,” addressed to persons whose duties (many of them)
had not been specialised, even if they had come into vogue, in the old
days.
It is interesting to compare the names of the rooms on the plans in the
Thorpe collection, which dates from 1570 to 1620, with those on Webb’s
plans for Durham House, dated 1649. Many of them are identical, such
as the hall, the dining-room, the great chamber, the withdrawing-room,
the gallery, and the servants’ rooms--kitchen, pastry, larder, buttery,
and so forth. But Webb has a few new designations, such as the
secretary’s room, the apothecary’s lodging, the housekeeper’s room,
and the under-housekeeper’s, the baker’s and cook’s rooms, the page’s
room, the master of the horse, the receiver-general, and the surveyor’s
chamber. Then there are rooms of state, a presence chamber, a private
dining-room to serve both his lordship’s and lady’s apartments, his
lordship’s cabinet and his wardrobe, a dressing-room, and various
back stairs serving both his lordship’s rooms and those of his lady.
[Illustration: FIG. 73.--STAIRCASE AT ASHBURNHAM HOUSE,
WESTMINSTER.]