subdivision of duties and the general convenience of arrangement (by
means of back stairs, among other things), and to allot more rooms
to the principal servants. At the same time special provision was
made for state occasions in the state rooms and presence chamber.
It must be remembered that these plans of Durham House were made in
1649, although they were never carried out. They indicate a desire to
increase at once the convenience and the stateliness of the house, and
although it was designed on strictly classic lines, everything was not
yet subordinated, as in later years, to the supposed necessities of
architectural grandeur. In some of his other plans, many of which were
studies in design rather than practical work, Webb was almost as great
a sinner as his successors of the early eighteenth century.
The external appearance of houses had changed even more than their
plans. Gables had almost disappeared; dormer windows no longer
rose from the walls, wrought in stone or brick, but from the roofs
and made of wood; the roofs themselves assumed a flatter pitch and
generally started from widely projecting eaves. Windows were no longer
mullioned and transomed into many small lights, but consisted of one
large opening enclosing a wooden frame, which at first was divided
by wood mullions, but later was filled with sliding sashes. The
general appearance of the house was more compact than of old but less
picturesque; it was more regular, and depended largely upon the nice
spacing of the windows, upon its proportions, and its more scholarly
detail.
This scholarly detail gradually ousted the naive design of the
Jacobean craftsmen. To be scholarly you had to be correctly Italian,
and therefore the quaint mixtures and the quaint native growths that
sprang from an imperfect acquaintance with the true gospel of Italian
design were discountenanced. Fancy was to be smothered by knowledge.
Nevertheless it is odd to find how long the strapwork _motif_
survived, which we are apt to think of as Dutch; it is found in work of
Charles II.’s time and even later; Webb made use of it, and even Jones
himself did not disdain it, as may be seen from some of his designs for
chimney-pieces (Figs. 91–94).
Staircases had also changed in the character of their detail; they
were still arranged in straight flights, but we have already seen at
Coleshill that they sometimes formed a more imposing feature than in
Jacobean days; in that instance the staircase is doubled, each portion
being of equal importance, and they occupy a considerable part of the
entrance hall. This double arrangement was by no means of universal
adoption, it depended upon the space at command, and at Ashburnham
House, Westminster, for instance, where space was restricted, a single
staircase was ingeniously planned, but was treated in a monumental
manner. The design is attributed by some to Inigo Jones, and it is
almost certain that it must be either by him or by Webb. The house was
originally fashioned out of some of the old monastic buildings, and had
been used as a dwelling for many years before the time of Elizabeth.
It was known as the Dean’s House, and was occupied by a succession of
tenants. In 1621 a lady became the tenant; she was succeeded in 1628 by
Sir Edward Powell, who obtained a lease in 1629. The question of the
tenancy is important as it sets limits to the number of those who would
be likely to embark on considerable alterations. In 1640 the house was
transferred to trustees for the benefit of Sir Edward’s wife. Then came
the Civil War, and the next tenant who appears is William Ashburnham,
who, already in occupation, obtained a forty years’ lease in 1662. As
he was an ardent royalist, it is supposed that he could not have taken
the house previous to the Restoration.[44]
The choice of the individual who caused the new work to be done appears
to lie between Sir Edward Powell and William Ashburnham, for Lady
Powell’s trustees of 1640 would not be likely to undertake anything of
such magnitude, and it is improbable, although not impossible, that it
was done during the Civil War or the Commonwealth. The reasonable dates
lie, therefore, between 1629–1640, and 1662–1672, in which latter year
Webb died. On the whole, the character of the work points to the later
period; it looks as though it were the outcome of longer experience
than the earlier period could have supplied. It should be borne in
mind that the treatment of the ceiling, with the open cupola above it,
resembles that of one or two drawings made by Jones and Webb for Wilton
and elsewhere.
[Illustration: FIG. 74.--ASHBURNHAM HOUSE. CEILING OVER
STAIRCASE.]
[Illustration: FIG. 75.--“Cieling of y^e passage Roome in to
y^e Garden,” at Wilton, by Inigo Jones.
Worcester College Collection, i. 14.]
[Illustration: FIG. 76.--“Ffor y^e Seeling of y^e Cabinett
Roome, 1649, Wilton,” by Webb.
From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the R.I.B.A.]
[Illustration: FIG. 77.--CEILING AT GREENWICH PALACE, BY
WEBB.
From a Drawing in the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the
R.I.B.A.]
In any case, and whoever designed it, the detail of the work is of
interest as showing the departure from Jacobean ideals. The staircase,
it is true, retains the solid newels, the massive handrail, and the
stout balusters hitherto in vogue (Fig. 73); but the ornament has
changed, and the balusters are almost as stout as if intended to be
of stone. The panels on the wall are larger in size and in scale than
those of Jacobean design, and they are marshalled with more pomp. The
ceiling has no affinity with the busy and intricate ceilings of the
departing style. The framework is large, and its members are adorned
with foliage in high relief; the open cupola, with its balustrade and
detached columns, is a new idea in English work (Fig. 74). If it was
executed between 1629 and 1640, it would be the first example of its
kind; if between 1662 and 1672, it would have had predecessors among
the drawings of Jones and Webb. It is perhaps worthy of note that in
Jones’s designs of ceilings the ornament is usually confined to the
ribs, the intermediate spaces (that is, the ground of the ceiling
itself) being plain. Here the ground is covered with foliage as well
as the ribs, and curiously enough, those of Jones’s designs which
include cupolas are similarly treated. His drawing for the “cieling of
y^e passage Roome in to ye Garden” (at Wilton) is illustrated in Fig.
75. and Webb’s drawing “ffor y^e Seeling of y^e Cabinett Roome, 1649,
Wilton,” in Fig. 76. Although the perspective treatment of the cupolas
is a somewhat special feature, the general design of these and of that
at Ashburnham House gives a good idea of the manner in which ceilings
of the period were managed.
Another and more ambitious design for a ceiling by Webb is that for
“his Majesty’s Presence at Greenwich, 1666” (Fig. 77), preserved at
the Royal Institute of British Architects. The outer border represents
a bold cove filled with modelled plasterwork in high relief; the four
angles are occupied by lions and unicorns, emblematic of England and
Scotland. If this design was ever carried out, it has disappeared, and
there is no example to be found of modelling treated on so large a
scale; the cove would have been some eight feet on the curve, and the
effect of its plaster ornament would have been rather overwhelming.
Returning to the consideration of staircases, there is one at Can
Court, in Wiltshire (Fig. 78), which is earlier in feeling, if not
in date, than the Ashburnham House staircase. It retains many of the
characteristics of Jacobean work, particularly in the stoutness of
the newels, the handrail and the string. In the balusters, however, a
later touch is apparent, as well as in the upper part of the newels. It
is obvious, nevertheless, that the two staircases belong to the same
type.
[Illustration: FIG. 78.--CAN COURT, WILTSHIRE.
THE STAIRCASE.]
[Illustration: FIG. 79.--Staircase at Dawtrey Mansion,
Petworth, 1652.]
An interesting staircase both as to date and detail is one at Dawtrey
Mansion, Petworth (Fig. 79). It is dated 1652, and while it retains
the Jacobean form of finial, not gracefully designed, it has twisted
balusters of the kind usually associated with work of fifty years
later. It is one of the numerous links which connect the old and the
new forms.
Of the same type as these in essence, although differently treated,
is that kind of balustrade already mentioned in connection with Thorpe
Hall (Fig. 49), where the balusters are replaced by scrolls of foliage.
There was a very interesting example of this fashion at the Castle Inn,
Kingston, now destroyed (Fig. 81), and there is another at Ham House
(Fig. 80), where, however, the panels display flags, armour, guns, and
other martial emblems, which may perhaps have some reference to Thomas
Talmash, a brother of Lord Dysart (the owner) and a general in the time
of William III.
[Illustration: FIG. 80.--Ham House, Surrey. The Staircase.]
[Illustration: FIG. 81.--The Staircase, Castle Inn,
Kingston-on-Thames.]
There was an ancient house at Greenwich called the “Old Palace,” but
distinct from the building which was at one time the royal residence,
sometimes known as Crowley House. It has been destroyed, but some
sketches by C. J. Richardson of the interesting work it contained have
survived, and among them is one of a staircase with foliated balustrade
(Fig. 82). The character of the detail suggests a date in the middle
of the seventeenth century, and the general treatment recalls the work
which was being done by Webb at that period. There is a slight survival
of the earlier style, but the design is handled in a more refined
spirit than was usually the case with sumptuous examples of Jacobean
work. This is particularly observed in the door (Fig. 83).
[Illustration: FIG. 82.--The Staircase at the “Old Palace,”
Greenwich (now destroyed).
From a Sketch by C. J. Richardson.]
[Illustration: FIG. 83.--“OLD PALACE,” GREENWICH.
STAIRCASE DETAILS AND DOOR.]
In the hands of Inigo Jones and Webb both doorways and windows assumed
a correct Italian appearance, but in less learned hands there were
intermediate stages of development between the Jacobean type and the
full classic. Such a one may be seen in the library door at St John’s
College, Oxford (Fig. 85), and in an external door at Brasenose College
(Fig. 84), part of the work already referred to. The library at St
John’s was built in 1631 by Archbishop Laud, who was at that time
Bishop of London and Chancellor of the University of Oxford. It is said
that he obtained the help of Inigo Jones, but the detail of the work
is so unlike anything which remains of Jones’s own draughtsmanship,
that the correctness of the attribution is very doubtful. The stonework
of this particular door, however, is not unlike some of the doorways
with which the name of Jones is connected, now preserved at the Royal
Institute of British Architects. The woodwork has no counterpart among
his designs.
If we want to see the scholars idea of what a doorway should be, we
must turn to Jones’s drawing of one for the Banqueting House (Fig.
86), or to Webb’s design for one in the palace at Greenwich, the block
which he designed for Charles II. (Fig. 87). The former is entitled in
Jones’s writing, “Scitzo for the Great Doore Ban. Ho. 1619.” It has the
logically indefensible broken pediment, making room for an unfinished
cartouche which was doubtless to receive the royal arms. On the panel
in the frieze is indicated an inscription commencing with the first
letters of Jacobus Rex Magnæ Britanniæ; below it is an ornament in
which the strapwork _motif_ lingers. The whole effect is strong,
handsome, and well proportioned. If it was ever actually carried out,
it has now disappeared. Webb’s drawing is entitled in his own writing,
“Greenwich, ffor the dore going out of the Cabinet into the gallery
1663.” The whole composition is not unlike Jones’s, but it is larger,
although the door itself is smaller. The draughtsmanship in both is
somewhat alike, but the difference is just that which distinguishes
the work of the one man from that of the other. Jones’s is the more
virile and direct. The figures on the pediment at Greenwich are named
as “Liberality and Magnanimity,” at the other end were to be “Religion
and Justice.” It must be admitted that their different attributes are
not clearly indicated. A note at the side shows that this doorway was
Webb’s own design; it reads “M^e I must alter these measures and make
them thus,” then follow the altered dimensions.
[Illustration: FIG. 84.--Doorway at Brasenose College, Oxford,
1656.]
[Illustration: FIG. 85.--Doorway at St John’s College, Oxford,
1631.]
[Illustration: FIG. 86.--Banqueting House, Whitehall. “Scitzo
of the Great Doore, Ban. Ho., 1619,” by Inigo Jones.]
[Illustration: FIG. 87.--Doorway at Greenwich Palace, 1663, by
Webb.]
[Illustration: FIG. 88.--Banqueting House, Whitehall, “The
upper windowe of y^e Modell,” by Inigo Jones.]
It has already been pointed out how the mullioned window was gradually
altered by the introduction of a wider light surmounted by an arch
(Fig. 66), or by the introduction of an elliptical light (Fig. 70). But
the mullioned window in any form was out of place in a truly classic
design. Jones has an early drawing of 1616 in which he makes use of it,
as well as of other Jacobean features, but it is doubtful whether any
executed work of his can show a stone mullioned window. The type
employed in the Banqueting House is that which he favoured, and it is
probable that a drawing entitled “The upper windowe of y^e modell”
(Fig. 88) is a sketch by him for the windows in the upper story of this
building. By comparing this sketch with that of the Banqueting House
(Fig. 36) the similarity will be apparent. Jones, like Webb after him,
was a student of Serlio, and he has a sheet of sketches of windows
taken from Serlio with notes of his own appended. He and Webb do not
seem to have concerned themselves with the filling of the window space,
all they troubled about was the proportion and embellishment of the
main opening. Yet the filling is of considerable interest. Mullioned
windows were filled with lead lights, which only required glass of
small size. Their successors, where the main opening was large, appear
to have been filled with wooden frames having mullions and transoms
of the same material, which reduced the actual openings to a size
suitable for glazing in the old way. Later on the lead which held the
glass was replaced by thick wooden bars holding glass of a larger size.
But the opening part of all these windows was a casement, that is a
framework (generally of iron) which was hung at the side and opened
like a door. Then, from somewhere--but nobody knows exactly whence
or when--came the ingenious sliding sash, which was hung with cords
and counterbalanced by concealed weights, so that it could be moved
up and down. This was really a remarkable change, although we are so
accustomed to sash-windows as to take them for granted as part of the
universal scheme of things. Their effect on the architectural treatment
of windows was of the first importance. They made mullions impossible,
they compelled window spaces to be of large size, and these large
spaces necessarily influenced the design. They also rendered small
bay-windows impossible, as well as large bay-windows with a narrow
canted side. They practically put an end to any attempt at modified
versions of the Jacobean style, but they were excellently adapted to
the larger, plainer, and more regular classic. Considering the effect
they had on design it is to be regretted that we know nothing of
their origin, or the date of their introduction. At present only one
authenticated instance of their use can be cited before the time of
William III. If they appear in earlier buildings caution would have
to be exercised to ascertain whether they were not later insertions.
Anyone who can settle this point would render a singular service in the
byways of architectural history. The instance mentioned above occurs
in the accounts for work done at Windsor Castle in 1686–88:--[45]
Sarah Wyatt for a Sash Window and Frame with Weights Lynes and
Pullyes and a Wainscott Window-board done in the Governor of the
Castles Secretaryes office 70^s
[Illustration: FIG. 89.--ST JOHN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD.
THE PRESIDENT’S DRAWING-ROOM.
Henry Tanner, _del._]
[Illustration: FIG. 90.--Chimney-Piece in the Jerusalem
Chamber, Westminster.]
[Illustration: FIG. 91.--A Chimney-Piece for the Queen’s
House, Greenwich, 1619, by Inigo Jones.
From a Drawing in the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the
R.I.B.A.]
[Illustration: FIG. 92.--A Chimney-Piece for the Queen’s
House, Greenwich, by Inigo Jones.
From a Drawing in the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the
R.I.B.A.]
The kind of panelling which covered the walls of Jacobean houses was
retained in the houses of less importance till about the middle of the
century, but there was a tendency for the panels to grow larger. Inigo
Jones and Webb generally used large panels, and discarded the small
oblongs still favoured by local joiners. In the detail of woodwork
generally greater refinement and simplicity became apparent, and more
successful endeavours were made to adapt classic profiles. At St John’s
College, Oxford, the work of 1631 illustrates this tendency (Fig. 89).
The wood chimney-pieces in the same building are also handled with more
restraint than in earlier examples, and a similar kind of treatment
marks the fine chimney-piece in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster
(Fig. 90), which must have been the work of John Williams, Bishop of
Lincoln, who was Dean of Westminster during a large part of the
reign of Charles I. The excellent panelling by Webb at Thorpe Hall has
already been illustrated (see Fig. 48). It embodies a still greater
departure from the old manner.
[Illustration: FIG. 93.--A Chimney-Piece for “D^{rs} Price his
Great Chamber,” by Webb.]
[Illustration: FIG. 94.--Chimney-Piece at Drayton, by Webb.
From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection.]
This departure is also very noticeable in the designs of chimney-pieces
which Jones and Webb have left behind them. Fig. 91 shows one of those
designed for the Queen’s House at Greenwich in 1637: in the panel below
the pediment is inscribed “Henrietta Maria Regina.” Fig. 92 is “for
Greenwich,” and bears the cipher H.M.R. It is very characteristic of
Jones’s way of sketching his details; he has bestowed more care (and
more affection) upon the little children at the side than upon the
principal object itself. It is evident that the large panel over the
chimney-piece was to be occupied by a picture, as also perhaps was that
in the preceding example. In Jacobean times such a space would have
contained the owner’s arms. Webb’s chimney-pieces follow those of his
master in general conception, and they are the precursors of the type
prevalent in the eighteenth century, largely used by Kent, who had
access to these very drawings. Of the examples selected, one was for
Drayton House, in Northamptonshire, and it is signed by Webb and dated
1653 (Fig. 94); the other was for “D^r George Price his great chamber”
(Fig. 93). The whole series affords a good idea of the style of the
period as compared with that of earlier times.
It is interesting to compare with these drawings of Jones and Webb a
contemporary chimney-piece at Ford Abbey, in Dorset, attributed to
Jones (Fig. 95). It must be confessed, however, that the treatment is
widely different in the two cases. This is not to say that the Ford
Abbey example has no merit; on the contrary, there is a refreshing
playfulness about the way in which the staid classic detail is bent
from its usual austere lines.
[Illustration: FIG. 95.--CHIMNEY-PIECE IN THE DINING-ROOM,
FORD ABBEY, DORSET.]
[Illustration: FIG. 96.--BELTON HOUSE. THE CHAPEL.]
VI
SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN
When Charles II. was restored to his inheritance in 1660, he evidently
contemplated indulging in the royal pastime of fine building. At this
time John Webb was not only the veteran of architecture, but the
most notable exponent of the art then living in England. His claims
on the favour of the king were founded on his long and intimate
connection with Inigo Jones, a name to conjure with both in relation
to architecture and to the less stable factor of court influence.
They were supported on the practical side by the work he had done,
although fruitlessly, for Charles’s father in the preparation of the
great schemes for the palace at Whitehall, and by the assistance he
had given both in architecture and the artistic hobbies of the time
to many of the nobility and gentry. They were supported on the human
side by personal services rendered to the late king, especially in
furnishing to him, while at Oxford, full designs and particulars of
all the fortifications round London, with instructions how they might
be carried; and in conveying to the king, whilst at Beverley, his
majesty’s jewellery, which he took, concealed in his waistcoat, through
the enemy’s quarters, suffering, in consequence of the fact being
discovered, close imprisonment for a month.
These claims, as we have seen, failed to gain for him the coveted
post of surveyor to the king’s works, but Charles employed him in
resuscitating the idea of a new palace at Whitehall, which never came
to fruition, and in actually erecting a considerable part of the
projected palace at Greenwich.
Webb never succeeded in obtaining the official appointment for which
he longed, for which he appears to have had the best qualifications,
and of which he was actually promised the reversion on the death of
Sir John Denham, who was preferred before him at the Restoration. The
reasons for his failure are obscure, but it may be that his active
employment during the Commonwealth told against him, for his clients
of that period were obviously not such devoted adherents of the royal
cause as to be in exile, or suffering other great hardships. It may
be that he lacked the support and patronage of John Evelyn, whose
influence with Charles II. in all matters of culture was enormous.
It may be that his age was against him, for when Wren was appointed
on the death of Denham, Webb was fifty-seven years old. But whatever
the cause, his failure was complete, and he eventually retired to his
home at Butleigh where he died in 1672. Although he missed the goal
of his ambition, although the men who have had the ear of the world
have not sounded his name in high notes, he was a remarkable man. The
work conceded to him by general consent is noteworthy, and he probably
did more to influence domestic architecture in England than any other
man of his time, Inigo Jones not excepted. For any student, divesting
himself of established prejudices, who will examine his original
drawings, can hardly fail to come to the conclusion that it was his
imagination and his hand which developed and prepared most of the
designs which, published as the work of Inigo Jones, had so wide an
effect upon English houses in the eighteenth century.