and there, ceilings became merely large unbroken surfaces, save that
with the introduction of gas-pendants there came the tradesman’s
centre-flower from which they might depend. This and an equally
interesting cornice served for years as the principal decoration of
most houses; the plasterer’s art seemed to have died out. But for some
time past matters have been improving, and, given the requisite money,
ceilings can now be devised equal to anything that has been done in the
past.
Indeed English craftsmen have always been able to produce good work
when adequately guided. But modern conditions, among which one of the
most pressing is the supply of an enormous number of cheap houses, are
adverse to the display of that capacity for design and execution which
requires some amount of leisure and a great amount of wealth to bring
it forth.
[Illustration: FIG. 315.--Staircase from a House in Mansfield
Street.]
[Illustration: FIG. 316.--Doorway, Harewood House.]
There are indications that after the war a vast number of workmen’s
dwellings will have to be built, and, moreover, will have to be
built cheaply. A survey of the domestic architecture of the last
three hundred years is fruitful of suggestions for this undertaking,
although it will be one demanding little or no ornament. Such a survey
points towards a suitable placing of the houses on the site; avoiding
dreariness and monotony on the one hand, and on the other avoiding
attempts at the grandiose, and the imposing on posterity a scheme
too complete in itself to allow of those variations which time will
inevitably require. It points equally to treating the houses themselves
with a simplicity corresponding to the simplicity of the requirements.
It points further to the value of good, sound building. The smaller
Georgian houses, which we find so charming, furnish admirable
suggestions. No attempt at actual reproduction need be made; but the
means which produce the effect in the old houses can be applied to the
new. These means are simple enough. The general proportion, the size
and shape of the windows, and the shadow of the eaves will be found on
examination to be the chief causes of the pleasure which many of the
old houses arouse.
The past has not only its suggestions, but also its warnings, and
of these the most obvious is against the impairing of comfort and
convenience for the sake of appearance. The first canon of utilitarian
art is that an object should answer its purpose well. It is in availing
himself of these suggestions, and in profiting by these warnings, that
the architect is enabled to help his own generation and give pleasure
to those that come after.
The vast increase in population during the last two hundred years has
accentuated the division of the course of design into two streams;
one directed by the highly trained architect, the other by the
workman trained only in the use of his tools and the knowledge of his
materials. Could the two streams be brought into one channel they might
flow on into ideal conditions. But the very complexity of modern life
has a tendency to resolve itself into the simplicity of specialisation.
[Illustration: FIG. 317.--Chimney-Piece at Belcombe.]
[Illustration: FIG. 318.--Chimney-Piece in the Dining-Room, 25
Bedford Square.]
[Illustration: FIG. 319.--THE DRAWING-ROOM, KEDLESTON HALL,
DERBYSHIRE.]
Since the beginning of the eighteenth century the course of domestic
architecture has been conditioned partly by the nation becoming
too large and complex to admit of a single expression in national
architecture; partly by the tendency, common to all the arts, for ideas
to pass into excess in one direction and into tenuity in the other.
A wider outlook over the civilised world, a greater knowledge of the
achievements of foreign countries, led inevitably to the disappearance
of a truly national style, such as that which we call Gothic. On the
one hand the homes of the wealthy grew in splendour and in fidelity
to theories of architecture expounded in books, with the result that
use and convenience were largely subordinated to grandiose effects. On
the other hand, richness of architectural thought declined in smaller
houses through the stages of dignity and comfort down either to a
consistent plainness of character or one only marked by individual
caprice. Such caprice, schooled by a study of bygone styles, led to
the eclectic imitativeness of the nineteenth century. But the last
twenty years have seen many signs of a new beginning. Based upon actual
needs, and striving after beautiful expression, domestic architecture
is slowly progressing on lines characteristically English. Sooner or
later this movement will accelerate, and will eventually reach heights
as great as those upon which we now look back with admiration and
delight. Architecture, like other arts, is immortal; the qualities of
proportion, ornament, and fitness can never long be disregarded, for no
building is quite complete which is not beautiful to look upon.
APPENDIX I
SIR ROGER PRATT
The foregoing pages had already passed through the press when the
contents of the note-books of Sir Roger Pratt were placed at my
disposal by the courtesy of his descendant, Edward Roger M. Pratt,
Esq., of Ryston Hall, Norfolk.
Roger Pratt is mentioned in the text (p. 180) as the architect of
Clarendon House, built by the Lord Chancellor Hyde, and as one of the
men whom the great fire of London led into the pursuit of architecture.
But his note-books show him to have been a student and practitioner
of the art before that event. He was under no necessity to earn his
own living, as he appears to have been a man of means, succeeding
to his father’s property before he was of age, and in later years
inheriting from his cousin the estate of Ryston. Still his interest in
architecture was more than that of an amateur, for he clearly had a
good knowledge of building, and a practical acquaintance with the many
matters involved in the erection of large houses.
He was born in 1620, and entered Magdalen College, Oxford, when he was
nineteen; in the following year he became possessed of his father’s
property, and three years later, in 1643, he went to travel abroad. He
visited France, Italy, Holland, and Flanders, for the purpose, as he
states, to “give himself some convenient education”; his tour lasted
six years, thus keeping him away from England during the troubled
times of the Civil War. This education was evidently in architecture,
for although he became a member of the Inner Temple in 1657, there
is no record of his having followed the law as a profession. He had
rooms in the Temple from the time of his entrance until 1676, and
doubtless they enabled him to enjoy congenial society and provided
him with a convenient residence during his frequent visits to London.
For more than half his tenancy he was a bachelor, for he did not
marry until he was forty-eight, when he took to wife, in the year
1668, the eldest daughter of Sir Edward Monins of Kent, a lady of
good family--“descended,” as he said, “from ye second best famely in
hir county”--who brought him a fortune of £4,000. The same year saw
another notable event in his life, the conferring of a knighthood upon
him by Charles II.
A year before his marriage he had succeeded to the Ryston estate,
and thenceforward he appears to have followed the life of a country
gentleman, for we hear no more of him in connection with architecture,
save that he designed and built himself a new house at Ryston, which
remains to this day, and is the only example of his work left, unless
the attribution of Coleshill to Inigo Jones is a mistake. There is
no doubt that Roger Pratt had something to do with Coleshill, which
was built by a relative of his, Sir Henry Pratt; for he says, in
considering the proportions of cornices for ceilings, “all wh. 4 last
recited proportions have bin made use of by mee at Sr George Pratt’s at
Colsell.” Sir George was the son and successor of Sir Henry.
Most of the gentry at this time, as John Webb tells us, had some
knowledge of the theory of architecture, “but nothing of ye
practicque.” Roger Pratt bettered his fellows in this respect, for
not only had he a wide knowledge of the art, as understood in the
seventeenth century--of the architecture, that is, of modern Italy and
of Palladio in particular--but he was familiar with the qualities of
materials and the routine of building, not to mention tactful methods
of accounting for “extras.”
During his stay in Rome he met John Evelyn, who appears to have
acquired and preserved a high regard for him. Twenty years later, in
writing to Lord Cornbery on 20th January 1665, about his father’s
mansion of Clarendon House, Evelyn said that Roger Pratt, his old
friend and fellow traveller (co-habitant and contemporary at Rome),
had “perfectly acquitted himself.” The turn of events had brought them
together about this time, when both of them became commissioners for
the repair of St Paul’s Cathedral and for the rebuilding of London
after the great fire.
Pratt’s chief works were Horseheath in Cambridgeshire for Lord
Allington, and Clarendon House. The former was begun in 1663, and was a
magnificent mansion. There are many technical notes relating to it in
the note-books, but not much of general interest beyond its dimensions.
It was dismantled in 1760, and sold for the value of the materials.
The notes concerning Clarendon House, which was begun in 1664, are more
voluminous. They serve to show that Pratt was a practical architect,
that he was fully acquainted with the details of the various trades,
and was alive to the chances of crooked dealing by the workmen. He
deals with the levels of the site and the setting out of the house,
which was to be placed central with St James’s Street, truly parallel
with the frontage line, and set back 160 ft., whereby a court of that
depth and of a width of 214 ft. would be obtained. Another lively touch
is given by his instructions to the mason regarding the coat of arms in
the tympanum of the “frontispiece,” the central feature of the front.
The description which he incidentally gives agrees with what is shown
on the engraving. But more interesting and more entertaining are the
reasons he adduces in a draft letter of the 13th February 1665 (1666
new style) to the Lord Chancellor for the cost having exceeded his
estimate. The foundations were much deeper than was expected, an old
pond having been found on one part of the site, and a vast hole the
whole length of my lady’s pavilion on another. Severe frost rendered it
necessary to take down and rebuild some of the work. My Lord Cornbery
caused a foot to be added to the height of the first floor, much
increasing, it is true, the nobleness of the effect. The bricks cost
more; the Dutch war increased the price of timber, and the carpenter
threw up his contract, leaving himself to the mercy of his employer;
but the plague had infected the whole town, and workmen everywhere
died. It was agreed, therefore, that by fair words and promises the
carpenter should be encouraged to persist in his undertaking, which he
only consented to do on a fresh basis of pay, whereby his account was
increased by at least one-third more than his original price.
In addition to the notes relating to these two houses in particular,
there are Notes as to the building of Country Houses, dated 1660, and
Rules for the Guidance of Architects, dated 1662. These fill many
pages, and would have made a much more useful book, had they been
published, than Gerbier’s “Counsel.” Space forbids long extracts,
which indeed might prove tedious to all but enthusiastic students of
this period; but three matters are worth mentioning. First, it is
recommended that a house should be placed so as to take advantage
of existing trees in the approach and lay out, and to obtain a fine
prospect. This must be one of the earliest expressions of a deliberate
liking for natural scenery. Secondly, Pratt advises those about to
build a house “to get some ingenious gentleman who hath seen much
of that kind abroad and been somewhat versed in the best authors of
architecture, viz., Palladio, Scamozzi, Serlio, etc., to doe it for
you and give you a design on paper.” This will be far better than
trusting to a home-bred architect, who would be inexperienced in such
matters, as is daily seen. The paper design having been agreed upon, a
model of wood should be made, and as a final precaution, other houses
of a suitable kind should be visited and studied.
The third point of interest lies in his references to Inigo Jones’s
work. In dealing with fine examples of architecture he says that with
us in England there is nothing remarkable but the Banqueting House at
Whitehall and the Portico at Paul’s. Elsewhere he cites the Queen’s
House at Greenwich. As far as it goes, his testimony appears to confirm
the view taken in the text as to Jones’s work.
In addition to these notes on houses, there are others relating
to St Paul’s, and to the steps taken for the rebuilding of London
after the fire. In relation to the latter, he was asked by the other
commissioners to undertake duties which would now devolve upon the
Secretary. In regard to St Paul’s, he has a page or two of criticism on
the model designed by “Dr. Renne,” 12th July 1673, as it offered itself
upon a short and confused view of a quarter of an hour only. In 1673
Wren’s favourite design was approved by the king, who issued a warrant
for building in accordance with it on 12th November, and caused a model
to be made (illustrated on p. 146). The details of Pratt’s criticism do
not apply very aptly to this model, and we seem to be faced with two
alternatives: either that his criticisms, written from memory after a
hasty examination, were rather wide of the mark; or that they refer to
a design different from those which have so far come into prominence
from among the numerous drawings prepared by Wren in connection with St
Paul’s.
The later note-books are chiefly concerned with estate management, and
we gather that after the building of the house at Ryston, Sir Roger
Pratt settled down in the country. He died on the 20th February 1684–5,
and was buried at Ryston, leaving a widow and three sons. His widow
subsequently married again, and survived until 1706.
* * * * *
The note-books, of which there are eight, are mostly bound in
parchment, and by way of fastening, are tied with two sets of parchment
strips. They bear a strong family resemblance to the sketch-book of
Inigo Jones, preserved at Chatsworth.
APPENDIX II
THE ARCHITECTS OF COLESHILL, BERKSHIRE
Further interesting information regarding Sir Roger Pratt’s connection
with Coleshill has been supplied by the kindness of Mr. Pratt of Ryston,
and the Hon. Mrs. Pleydell Bouverie of Coleshill. It is derived in part
from Sir Roger Pratt’s note-books, and in part from a diary of Sir Mark
Pleydell (1692–1768), preserved in the muniment room at Coleshill.
The estate of Coleshill was bought from the Pleydells by Sir Henry
Pratt, a grandson through a junior branch of William Pratt, who was
Lord of the Manor of Ryston in 1628. Sir Roger Pratt was great-grandson
of the same William through the senior branch. The estate returned to
the family of Pleydell in 1699, by the marriage of a Pleydell with the
heiress of the Pratts of Coleshill.
Sir Henry Pratt died on 6th April 1647, and the old house at Coleshill
which he had bought was burnt down later in the same year, shortly
after the marriage of his son, Sir George. The present house was begun
in 1650, according to the tablet still preserved therein. Of this Sir
Mark Pleydell says in his diary that Sir Roger Pratt of Ryston in
Norfolk, knight, cousin to Sir George, was the architect in friendship
to him. He also observes that “Mr. Mildmay apprehended it was built
by Inigo Jones, and Lord Barrington says it was built by one Webb, a
disciple of the said Inigo.”
In the same diary it is stated that before the existing house was
commenced Sir George Pratt began to build a new seat in “the present
cucumber garden,” which he raised to one story, when Pratt and Jones
arriving, caused it to be pulled down and rebuilt where it now stands.
Sir Mark adds that Pratt and Jones were frequently here, and Jones was
also consulted about the ceilings. “John Buffin, who often saw them
both, frequently declared this to Wm. Pepal, who came to Coleshill in
1700, and carried him to the spot in ye cucumber garden. We found ye
remains of ye walls in ye cucumber garden ye 10th February 1746.”
It is interesting to find that Jones, Webb, and Pratt were all
concerned in the design, and it is tolerably clear that Pratt had a
large hand in the matter, not only from Sir Mark Pleydell’s express
intimation, but also from Sir Roger Pratt’s own note-books. It will
be remembered that Jones died in 1652, but the house was not finished
until some years afterwards, probably in 1664. Roger Pratt has entries
in his note-books that in December 1656 he gave Sir George Pratt’s man
a tip of two shillings, in April 1659 he gave to six maids and two
boys of Sir George two guineas, and in January 1662 he gave a dinner
to Sir George and his lady at a cost of £5. 9s. Such hospitality may
presumably be attributed partly to the ties of consanguinity, and
partly to those of architect and client.
Sir Roger Pratt has notes relating to Coleshill under the year 1664,
which, in addition to those concerning the ceilings mentioned in
Appendix I. deal with the proportion of the windows. These, he says,
seemed somewhat narrow, either because not sufficiently splayed on the
sides, or because the wooden frame and the iron one took so much from
the glass. The windows were at that time iron casements, not sashes as
they are now; and they were all alike in this respect, including the
dormers in the garrets and the turret. One remark is rather puzzling in
which he speaks of the heads of the windows of the dining-room being 5
ft. below the ceilings, for the vertical distance between the windows
of the ground and upper floors is only about 7 ft. from glass to glass.
The testimony that the windows were casements and not sashes is
interesting, so too is the detailed description of the casements and of
the devices to exclude the weather. The window-bars were ¼ in. thick
and ½ in. broad; the casements ¼ in. thick and 2 in. broad. They were
hanged upon three strong hooks, the opening-rod being ½ in. thick with
five rings to hold it; there was an iron plate with a pin let into the
wood to hold the hook of the rod. A little piece of iron was put over
the rebate of the casements to keep out the wind, and a little border
of lead was nailed close to the casements on the bottom and sides,
as well as a strip over the heads outside. Further there was another
border inside to prevent the rain, which beat up under the casements,
from flowing down upon the baseboard.
Let us hope these precautions were adequate, and that it was not
necessary to lay out another £5 on a dinner to placate Sir George and
his lady, and to drown the memory of reproaches urged with cousinly
freedom.
INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS AND TEXT
_Note._--The ordinary figures denote references to pages of
text; the illustrations, _which are referred to by their
figure numbers_, are denoted by the heavier type.
Acton, iron gate at, =269=
Adam, the brothers, 19, 21, 280, 381, 387
Adam, Robert, 280–85, 387–389
„ design for chimney-piece, =305=
„ illustrations of his work, =193=, =194=, =195=, =196=,
=197=, =198=, =315=, =316=, =317=, =318=, =319=
Addison, 3
Adelphi, The, 285
“Advice to Servants,” by Dean Swift, 115
Age of Romance, 23
Albemarle, Duke of, 180
„ House, 180, =118=
Allen, Ralph, 263–66
All Souls, Oxford, 143, 154, 176
„ drawings by Wren at, =99=, =100=, =101=, =102=,
=103=
Amelia, Princess, 231
Anne, Queen, 2
„ the mansion of her time, 5
“Arching galleries”, 171
Architect; the term seldom occurs prior to the seventeenth
century, 25
Architectural design, change in, 25
Artari, 255
“Art of Dialling”, 319
Art, utilitarian, 391
Artificiality in architecture, 3
Arundel, Earl of, 2, 42, 52
„ House, =21=
Ashburnham House, Westminster, the staircase, 118, =73=, =74=
Ashburnham, William, 118
Ashdown House, Berkshire, 97, =55=
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, staircase, 351, =277=
Aske’s Hospital, Hoxton, 180
Aston Hall, Warwickshire, 7, 8, 42, =2=
Astwell, Northamptonshire, gateway, 102, =59=
Aubrey, John, 63, 64, 65
Austen, Jane, 311
Avenues at Boughton, 200
Banqueting House, Whitehall, 6, 42, 43, 50, 52, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68,
73, 99, 162, =22=
„ „ Inigo Jones’s drawings for, 66, =36=, =37=
„ „ Smithson’s drawing, 66, =38=
„ „ Doorway, drawing by Jones, =86=
„ „ Window, drawing by Jones, =88=
Bakewell, Robert (Smith), 342
Barrow Gurney, Somerset, gateway, 329, =249=
Barry, Charles, 172
Basil, Simon, 46
Bath, Somerset, Milsom Street, 303, =211=
„ Pulteney Bridge, 267, =184=
„ Queen’s Square, Panels in house, 363, =289=
„ Ralph Allen’s house, 302, =214=
„ Royal Crescent, 268, =185=
Battle Abbey, Sussex, jamb of fireplace, =298=
Beaufort House, Chelsea, 324
Beckford, Alderman, 14
„ the younger, 17
Beckley, Sussex, Church House, 292, =202=
Bedford Square, London--
houses in, 307, =221=
chimney-piece, =318=
Belcombe, chimney-piece, =317=
Belton House, near Grantham, 157–160
„ plan, =105=
„ chapel, =96=
„ house, =104=
„ iron screen, =106=
„ carving, =107=
Bethlem Hospital, London, 180, =116=
Bignor, Sussex, chimney, =229=
Birmingham, lead rain-water head, =272=
Bishopsgate Street Without, London, ceiling, 386, =307=
Blaythwayt, William, 203
Blenheim Palace, 5, 152, 223, 224, 227, =155=
Blomfield, R., 216 (_footnote_)
Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire, 32, 33, =13=, =16=
Bond, Sir Thomas, 180
Books on Architecture, 2, 25–28, 212, 372
„ German, Dutch, and French, 28
Botolph Lane, London, house in, 185, =119=, =120=
Boughton House, Northamptonshire, 178, 196–203
„ plan, =132=
„ house, =133=, =134=
„ state room, =135=
„ bird’s-eye view, =136=
„ staircase, 352, =276=
„ panelling, 363, =286=
„ fireplace, 369, =294=
„ painted ceilings, 385, =310=, =311=
Bourdon House, London, doorway, 357, =284=
Bramham Park, Yorkshire, gardens, 232–236, =162=, =163=
Brasenose College, Oxford, 106, =63=, =64=
„ doorway, 127, =84=
Brettingham, Matthew, 276–278
Brewers’ Hall, London, 190, =125=, =126=
Bridge at Prior Park, =154=
„ at Bath, =184=
Bridport, Viscount, 387
Bristol, houses at, 307, =220=
British Museum, drawings at, 64, =19=
Broadfield Hall, Hertfordshire, 9, =3=
Brownlow, Sir John, 157
Buckingham (Villiers), Duke of, 60, 161
„ (Sheffield), Duke of, 168
„ House, London, 168, 171, 172, =113=, =113A=
„ „ staircase and ceiling, =308=
„ Street, Strand, doorway, =258=
Bulwick, Northamptonshire, date-stone, =235=
Burford, 43
„ Priory, 106, =62=
Burghley House, 385
„ Lord, 1, 212
Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland, 176, 329, =245=
Burlington-Devonshire, drawings, 52, 64, 65 (_footnote_), 83
(_footnote_), =42=, =43=, =44=, =45=, =76=, =77=, =86–88=,
=91=, =92=, =93=, =94=, =240=, =241=
Burlington House, 216
„ Lord, 2, 63, 64, 214–216, 271
Burney, Frances, 3
Butleigh, Somerset, 84, 142
Byron, Lord, 21, 32
Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepysian Library, 100, =56=
„ St John’s College, gate-piers, 325, =243=
„ Trinity Hall, cupola, 318, =233=
Campbell, Colin, 31, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 79, 80, 168, 171, 172,
176, 207, 240, 251–255
Campion, Thomas, 78
Can Court, Wiltshire, staircase, 122, =78=
Canons Ashby, Northamptonshire--
Gate-piers, 322, =238=
Gates, =239=
Ceiling, =312=
Canterbury, streets, 296
“Capability” Brown, 236
Carey Street, London, chimney-piece, =303=
Cariat (Coryat), Thomas, 44
Carlisle, Earl of, 216
Carr, of York, 271
Caryatides, 73
Castle Combe, Wiltshire, doorway, 333, =252=
Castle Howard, Yorkshire, 216–223, =149=, =150=, =151=, =152=
„ Mausoleum, 220, =153=
Castor, Northamptonshire, gate-piers, 329, =247=
Catherine Court, Tower Hill, London, =117=
Ceilings--
Seventeenth-century, 122, =31=, =34=, =54=, =74–77=, =112=, =120=
Eighteenth-century, 381, =144=, =174=, =180=, =283=, =288=, =306=,
=307=, =312–314=
Painted, 384, =293=, =308–311=
Chambers, Sir William, 274
Changes in house design, 99, 115, 117
Chapman, George, 78
Charles I., 7, 41, 66, 70, 87, 163
„ his influence on architecture, 41
Charles II., 10, 84, 141
„ his idea of rebuilding Whitehall Palace, 70
„ his interest in building, 142
Charleton, Dr., 50 (_footnote_), 52
Chatham, Lord, 231
Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, 204, 217, =140=