applied to sacred purposes, and as one among the last survivals of the
mediæval idea that it was necessary for a large house to have a chapel
within it. In the days when a household might be cut off for weeks from
the parish church and when a daily exercise of religious observances
was of the first importance, a chapel always accessible and close at
hand was necessary. But the time was approaching, if it had not already
arrived, when the religious fervour of distinguished people could
easily be satisfied by attendance at places of public worship.
VII
SOME FURTHER WORK OF THE TIME OF CHARLES II
It is needless to insist upon the fact that there was a large amount
of work executed during the seventeenth century by men other than
Jones, Webb, and Wren. Some of this has already been considered, in so
far as it illustrates the gradual change of style in small buildings.
But during the reign of Charles II. important work was done by men
little known to fame, and much else by others whose names have either
not survived or have not yet been disinterred from the ruins of the
past. So few architects contemporary with Jones are known that it will
be of interest to mention one who, if not intimately connected with
architecture himself, wrote a book about it, and trained a pupil who
merits more attention than his master.
This individual was Sir Balthazar Gerbier, to whom Horace Walpole
devotes several pages in his “Anecdotes of Painting,” where he treats
of him as a painter. But Gerbier does not appear to have pursued any
art with much application. He hung on the fringe of state affairs, and
was a versatile adventurer of indifferent character, if Walpole does
him no injustice. Among other things he dabbled in architecture. He
was surveyor to the Duke of Buckingham, for whom he is said to have
designed a temporary house on the site of old York House in the Strand.
According to Gerbier’s own account, in a letter to the duke dated 2nd
December 1624, Inigo Jones came to see this house, and “was like one
surprised and abashed ... he is very jealous of it.”[47] It may have
been so, but it is certain that Gerbier was jealous of Jones, for he
makes several slighting references to him in the little book which he
published, “Of Counsel and Advice to all Builders.” It is, indeed,
this book which gives him a claim to be mentioned in connection with
architecture, and that because of incidental allusions to matters of
interest. In his dedication to Charles II. (the book was published in
1664) he advises the king to set the main body of his contemplated
palace on the side of St James’s Park, and the gardens along the river.
This, no doubt, refers to the schemes upon which Webb, as already
mentioned, was then engaged. Gerbier has several oblique as well as
one direct thrust at Inigo Jones. He carps at those “who have marshald
colombs,” and have made them “like things patcht or glewed against a
wall, and for the most part against the second Story of a Building ...
as if their intent were, that the weight of the colombs should draw
down the Wall on the heads of those that passe by.” Doubtless this was
an allusion to the Banqueting House, about which he makes further and
more definite criticisms. After cavilling at the elaboration of stage
effects in masques, he roundly states that “Inigo Jones (the late
surveyor)” found the Banqueting House unsuitable for such purposes, and
that he “was constrained to Build a Wooden House overthwart the Court
of _Whitehall_.” He then takes exception to the height of the
room, alleging that the king and his retinue were lost in it because of
its vastness; and goes on to say that he does not undervalue any modern
works, “every good Talent being commendable,” including, presumably,
even the late surveyor’s. At the same time there were some alive who
knew that the king of blessed memory had graciously avouched, in the
year 1648, that a room near York Gate not above 35 ft. square (which
was the one Gerbier had designed himself) was as apt for masques as the
Banqueting House itself. Moreover judicious persons would not deny that
the excellence of the Triumphal Arches erected in London (which Gerbier
is said to have designed for the entry of Charles II.) consisted not in
their bulk.
The book abounds in malicious and egotistical touches of this kind,
both in the two treatises into which it is divided, and in the forty
dedicatory epistles which he deemed necessary to the launching of
his venture. But amid a deal of skimble-skamble stuff, he says a few
things worth noting. Chimneys need only be carried about 2 ft. above
the ridge; large and lofty stacks he deems unsightly and dangerous.
Staircases should be easy of ascent and wide. Anyone who has sound
limbs and a “gallant gate” naturally lifts his toes at least 4 inches
in walking; if, therefore, stairs be only 4 inches high and 18 from
front to back, the ordinary person can walk up them as easily as he
can walk on the level. His reasons for these proportions are hardly
convincing, but in regard to the width of staircases he is probably
nearer the mark, when he says they ought to be so wide that the
attendants on each side the noble person who is ascending may not be
straitened for room.
His advice to persons contemplating building, that they should employ
an architect and should not be constantly interfering with him, is
undoubtedly sound: and one reason advanced for employing an architect,
namely, that “the several Master-workmen may receive instructions by
way of Draughts, Models, Frames, etc.,” is interesting as showing
that architects were now accustomed to provide more minute details
than in the time of Elizabeth and James. One more reference and
this curious book, with its few noteworthy observations buried in
pages of involved verbiage, may be left. In speaking of such as were
concerned with building he says, “they may perchance have heard of
rare buildings, nay, seen the Books of the _Italian_ Architects,
have the Traditions of _Vignola_ in their Pockets, and have heard
Lectures on the Art of Architecture.” It is interesting to learn that
in addition to books on architecture there were opportunities, so long
ago, to hear lectures on the subject; but it is probable that, in his
usual egotistical way, Gerbier is here referring to lectures which he
himself had given at an academy which he founded in Bethnal Green,
in imitation, Walpole suggests, of another established by Charles I.
for instruction in arts and sciences, foreign languages, mathematics,
painting, architecture, riding, fortification, antiquities, and the
science of medals.[48]
The “Counsel” concludes with a lengthy schedule of prices at which all
kinds of building work could be executed.
Little, if any, architectural work can with safety be attributed to
Gerbier. Hamstead Marshall, which is said to be his, is more probably
due to his pupil, Wynne, to whom, as Master William Wine, he addresses
one of his numerous dedications.
Walpole says that Wynne, or Winde as he calls him, finished the house
which had been begun by his master, making several alterations in
the plan; but the history of the owner and of the house, as well as
the character of the work, renders it doubtful whether Gerbier could
have had anything to do with it. The house was one of the seats of
William, Lord Craven; it has been destroyed with the exception of some
fine gate-piers and part of the lay out, but Kip has an engraving of
it in “Britannia Illustrata” (Fig. 108). There are also a few drawings
of details in the Bodleian Library, including windows, gate-piers,
doors, and a ceiling. The windows and piers can be identified on
Kip’s engraving, as also can the general lay out, thus confirming the
accuracy of Kip’s view. His illustration shows the house with a front
of Jacobean design as to its two lower stories, but of later character
as to the third story and the return front. The windows of this later
work agree in general appearance with the drawing at the Bodleian,
which shows festoons above the windows and panels between them,
decorated with Lord Craven’s cipher, W. C., and a baron’s coronet (Fig.
109).
By examining Kip’s view in the light of the principal facts of Lord
Craven’s life, and of the dates on the Bodleian drawings, a shrewd
guess can be made as to the history of the house. In his youth William
Craven achieved such honour through “valiant adventures” in Germany
and the Netherlands under Henry, Prince of Orange, that in the year
1626, when he was eighteen years old, he was knighted by Charles I.
at Newmarket and was immediately afterwards created a baron, with the
title of Lord Craven of Hamstead Marshall. In 1631 he returned to the
scenes of his early glories, and continued to reside abroad until the
Restoration. Although absence prevented him from fighting for Charles
I. he was a staunch loyalist, and helped the king with considerable
supplies. This brought him under the notice of the Parliament, and his
estates were confiscated in 1651, and sold to different persons.[49]
After the Restoration, however, Charles II. created him an earl in
recompense for his services, and he must previously have regained
possession of Hamstead Marshall, since the drawings for the new work
bear a baron’s coronet and various dates, of which the earliest is 1662.
[Illustration: FIG. 108.--HAMSTEAD MARSHALL,
BERKSHIRE.
From Kip’s “Britannia Illustrata.”]
[Illustration: FIG. 109.--Hamstead Marshall. “The Ornament of
the Windows,” by Wynne.
From a Drawing in the Bodleian Library.]
[Illustration: FIG. 110.--“The North Piers at Hamstead
Marshall, 1663,” by Wynne.
From a Drawing in the Bodleian Library.]
It would appear, then, that the original house was a Jacobean building,
and from the fact that Lord Craven was a bachelor and was resident
abroad for the greater part of his life previous to the Restoration,
it is highly improbable that he did any building during that period;
he had neither family nor leisure to induce him. On the sale of the
property in 1651, it is quite possible that the house was partly
dismantled,[50] as were many others in similar circumstances, notably
Holdenby House. On his return in 1660, or as soon afterwards as he
could, he set about restoring his home. He preserved the Jacobean
front, but added a new top story and new sides. The drawing of the
portico, which would be at the back of the house shown by Kip, is
dated 1662; that of the gate-piers in the front wall is dated 1663
(Fig. 110), and those in the circular wall at the rear 1673; a ceiling
is dated 1686. The baron’s coronet indicates that the work was done
before the earldom was bestowed, which was in 1663. The dates on the
drawings suggest what one might expect, that the house itself was first
taken in hand, then the garden walls and lay out, and subsequently the
embellishment of some of the chief rooms.
[Illustration: FIG. 111.--Gate Piers at Hamstead Marshall.]
If the history of the house is rightly conjectured, there would be
no room for Gerbier in its design, for he is said to have died in
1662 when he was at least seventy years old, and there is no trace
of senility in the Bodleian drawings. They are vigorous in design as
well as drawing; the gate-piers (Fig. 111) are still in existence,
some scattered, as it were, in a field, others still leading into a
walled garden. It is only when the imagination restores the walls
that once connected them that an idea is formed of the size of the
original enclosures to which those piers were the noble entrances. The
ceiling (Fig. 112), dated 1686 on the drawing, is of the type prevalent
throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century, and usually
employed by Jones, Webb, and Wren.
As Wynne--“the learned and ingenious Captain Wynne” Campbell calls
him[51]--is the only other person whose name is connected with the
designing of Hamstead Marshall, the credit may fairly be placed to his
account. The character of the new work, as shown by Kip, accords with
the treatment usually adopted by Webb; that is to say, the walls are
fairly plain, there is a wide cornice at the eaves. The height of the
roof is proportioned to the walls (not merely determined by the span of
the building), it is crowned by cupolas and broken by dormers, and the
chimneys are short and solid--perhaps, in this case, in consequence of
the teaching of Gerbier, Wynne’s master.
It is evident that the restoration of Charles II. gave a great impetus
to building. Charles himself revived the project for a new palace at
Whitehall; he built a large wing of another at Greenwich; Lord Craven
was among those who endeavoured to redeem the time; and Gerbier thought
the occasion opportune to publish his “Counsel” to those who were
contemplating new houses.
[Illustration: FIG. 112.--A CEILING AT HAMSTEAD MARSHALL,
22ND JUNE 1686. “THIS DRAAFT FOR THE DINEING ROOME ATT
HAMSTEAD MARSHALL, MARKED A, ALLOWED OF BY ME W. WYNDE.”
From a Drawing in the Bodleian Library.]
[Illustration: FIG. 113.--BUCKINGHAM HOUSE IN ST JAMES’S PARK,
1705.]
Too little is known of this learned and ingenious Captain Wynne.
Campbell credits him with old Buckingham House in St James’s Park, for
the Duke of Buckingham, in 1705. This duke must not be confused with
either of the Villiers, Dukes of Buckingham. He was the first duke
of a new creation, his family name being Sheffield. He was, in fact,
the grandson of that “my lord Sheffield” whose house has already been
illustrated in Chapter II. as one of the designs of John Smithson.
To Wynne is also assigned Cliefden House for the same nobleman,
and Newcastle House in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as well as certain
additions to Combe Abbey for Lord Craven.[52] Hardly anything remains
of all this work, but if it was of a standard equal to the remnants
of Hamstead Marshall, Wynne would take a high place among English
architects. Newcastle House, originally called Powis House after
William Herbert, Viscount Montgomery and Marquis of Powis, for whom
it was built in 1686,[53] still stands at the north-west corner of
Lincoln’s Inn Fields, but it has been considerably altered; the loss
through fire of the original fine wooden cornice has much diminished
its effect.
Buckingham House (Fig. 113) stood where Buckingham Palace now is, and,
judging by Campbell’s elevation,[54] was of much greater architectural
interest than the present building before it was refronted. It was
considered “one of the great beauties of London, both by reason
of its situation and its building.”[55] It fronted the Mall--the
noblest avenue in Europe, according to Campbell--and at the back
was a fine garden and a noble terrace, whence the eye roamed over a
wide rural prospect, so free from obtrusive buildings as to justify
the inscription placed by the duke on this front, “Rus in Urbe.” The
description of the entrance court is interesting as giving a good idea
of the kind of lay out that went with all large houses of that time.
“The courtyard which fronts the Park is spacious; the offices are on
each side divided from the Palace by two arching galleries, and in the
middle of the court is a round basin of water, lined with freestone,
with the figures of Neptune and the Tritons in a water-work.”
Campbell’s plan agrees with this description save that he makes the
basin octagonal. The “arching galleries” were by this time a very
usual feature which will be further described presently. His plan also
conveniently illustrates the duke’s own description of the entrance
into the house itself. “After crossing the courtyard,” he says, “we
mount to a terrace in the front of a large Hall, paved with square
white stones mixed with a dark-coloured marble; the walls of it covered
with a set of pictures done in the school of Raphael. Out of this on
the right-hand we go into a parlour 33 feet by 39 feet, with a niche 15
feet broad for a Bufette, paved with white marble, and placed within
an arch, with Pilasters of divers colours, the upper part of which as
high as the ceiling is painted by Ricci.” The roof of the house was
flat and gave opportunity for obtaining a fine prospect: on the parapet
fronting the park were four statues of Mercury Secrecy, Equity, and
Liberty, and fronting the garden were the four Seasons. This particular
enumeration gives a touch of life and reality to the endless figures
which break the skyline of Campbell’s elevations, and of John Webb’s
before him. The view reproduced in Fig. 113A shows the house
as it appeared in 1790, when it was about a hundred years old. It not
only suggests the rural surroundings, but gives a lively idea of the
groups which frequented the Mall, down the length of which this front
faced. The Mall, it will be remembered, was the principal walk in the
royal park of St James, and apparently enjoyed the formality of being
guarded by sentries.
Cliefden House, in Buckinghamshire, was another of these noblemen’s
“palaces,” with “arching galleries” joining the offices to the house.
It stood upon an enormous terrace described by Campbell as 433 ft. long
and 24 ft. high, the front of which consisted of a series of alcoves
or niches, flanked at either end by a flight of steps (Fig. 114). The
original house has entirely disappeared, and has been replaced by one
of excellent design by Charles Barry. Merely the terrace, somewhat
altered, and the dwarf walls of the lay out remain, and Wynne’s work
can only be judged from Campbell’s elevations and from old prints.
The consideration of these two houses brings vividly before the mind
the completeness of the change that had come over domestic architecture
during the course of the seventeenth century. The description of
Buckingham House from contemporary pens (one of them that of the owner
himself) gives an air of _vraisemblance_ to Campbell’s cold
illustrations. The “arching galleries” indicate a disposition of plan
which was being adopted in many large houses, and was for another half
century employed in order to impart stateliness to what otherwise might
have been a rather bald design.
[Illustration: FIG. 113a.--BUCKINGHAM HOUSE, _St. James’s
Park_.
(_from a water-colour by Edward Dayes._)]
[Illustration: FIG. 114.--CLIEFDEN, IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
From an Engraving by Luke Sullivan.]
The idea of this arrangement was to have a central block containing
the principal rooms, and to flank it at some distance on each side
by a subsidiary block connected to the main structure by curved
colonnades--the “arching galleries” of Buckingham House. These
outlying blocks contained the offices, which were sometimes the
kitchens, sometimes the stables, and occasionally the library or
chapel. The inconvenience of the arrangement is obvious; under it
compactness was sacrificed to appearance. If these outliers looked out
on to the approach, their windows embarrassed the access to the front
door. If they looked the other way, they turned their dull backs upon
the main approach. Windows suitable for a kitchen had to be balanced
by similar windows in the stables which were not suitable; or, as an
alternative, sham windows were employed. Designers found themselves
obliged to resort to devices of one kind or another, which sacrificed
the convenience of one block in order to assimilate it in appearance
to the other. Nor did the sacrifice stop here; it affected more or
less the whole house. The mistaken claims of “architecture” led to the
external appearance being considered as of the first importance; the
internal convenience was modified to suit it. Not infrequently rooms
were wrongly placed, wrongly lighted, awkwardly shaped, given a bad
aspect, or otherwise ill-handled, in order to preserve the symmetry and
proportion of the exterior. The placing of the kitchen in a distant
block, connected perhaps by an open colonnade, must have been a great
inconvenience both to the family and the servants. But inconvenience
counted for little so long as an imposing edifice was secured.
[Illustration: FIG. 115.--Plan of Stoke Bruerne,
Northamptonshire.]
[Illustration: FIG. 116.--VIEW OF BETHLEHEM HOSPITAL.]
The introduction of this particular form of plan, with a central
block, two outlying wings, and connecting colonnades, is associated
with the name of Inigo Jones and the house of Stoke Bruerne, in
Northamptonshire. According to Bridges, the county historian, “the
house was built by Sir _Francis Crane_, who brought the design
from _Italy_, and in the execution of it received the assistance
of _Inigo Jones_. It consists of a body and two wings, joined
by corridores or galleries (see plan, Fig. 115). The pillars which
support the galleries leading to the wings, are red and of a different
colour from the house.... The house was begun about the year 1630 and
finished before 1636, during which interval he gave an entertainment
here to the King and Queen.”[56] Colin Campbell, however, says that
the building was begun by Inigo, who made the wings, colonnades, and
all the foundations, and that owing to the interruption caused by
the Civil War the front was designed by “another architect.” He puts
the date at 1640. Bridges’ account is circumstantial, and he was a
careful historian; but Campbell’s elevation shows the body of the house
treated in a different manner from the wings, and so far supports his
statement. Unfortunately this part of the building was burnt down in
1886, and the opportunity of comparing the differences in the work
itself is lost.
Both authorities concur in placing the date as early as somewhere
between 1630 and 1640, which was quite half a century before this type
of plan became at all popular. Nevertheless among Webb’s drawings,
which cover at least thirty years of the half-century, there are
several instances in which it is employed; and even the practical
and level-headed Wren has a plan of this type among his drawings
at All Souls College, Oxford (see Fig. 100). The genesis of this
particular form is of interest inasmuch as it was widely adopted in the
eighteenth century; so much so that Isaac Ware in his “Complete Body
of Architecture,” published in 1756, lays down various rules for its
disposition and proportions, and recommends its adoption as raising
a house out of the commonplace and making it handsome without being
necessarily pompous.
[Illustration: FIG. 117.--CATHERINE COURT, TOWER HILL, LONDON.
Drawn by F. L. Emanuel.]
Among the more notable examples of this type of plan may be mentioned
Burley on the Hill, in Rutland, where a low curved colonnade is thrust
out on each side to a great distance without serving any particular
object beyond that of obtaining an appearance of grandeur; this was
one of the earlier applications of the idea, dating from late in the
seventeenth century: Easton Neston, in Northamptonshire, dated 1702,
which will be described presently; Cottesbrooke, in the same county,
built in the early part of the eighteenth century; Kelmarsh, a not very
distant neighbour of Cottesbrooke, designed by Gibbs and replacing a
picturesque Jacobean house;[57] Seaton Delaval, in Northumberland,
designed by Vanbrugh about 1720, of which the two wings alone remain
in use; Houghton, in Norfolk, begun in 1722; Holkham, in the same
county, begun in 1734; and Kedlestone, in Derbyshire, dating from 1761;
the last three of which will be referred to at greater length in a
subsequent chapter.