EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURY--COMING OF THE
ITALIAN INFLUENCE.
It was during the sixteenth century that took place the most remarkable
development in domestic architecture which occurred in England until
the middle of the nineteenth century; and especially during the
second half was this extraordinary advance particularly noticeable.
Several causes produced this effect, chief among them being that great
upheaval in thought which gave rise to the wonderful movement known
as the Renaissance. The Renaissance stands not only for a revival of
ancient forms in architecture, sculpture, and painting, but for a
vast awakening in all departments of human enterprise, and the final
abandonment of mediævalism with all its crude and crabbed methods
and ways of thought. New ways were followed in science, in learning,
in religion, in art; and the knowledge of these new ways was widely
disseminated by the new invention of printing. So far as architecture
was concerned, Italy was the fountainhead of the new stream of thought;
and so far as England was concerned, it was in the reign of Henry VIII.
that the stream first reached our shores, and affected our traditional
methods of design.
The dissolution of the monasteries was another cause of the change
which came over building, inasmuch as it transferred into private and
secular hands much of the vast possessions hitherto held by the Church.
The confusion into which religion was thrown put an effectual stop to
church building, and consequently opened the way to increased house
building. The abatement of civil strife and the general security of
life and property under the strong and sagacious rule of Elizabeth was
a further inducement towards the erection of comfortable homes. The
rise of the new nobility which sprang from her recognition of talent in
persons of comparatively obscure origin, led to the founding of some of
the finest houses of which the country can boast. Finally, the desire
for magnificence, which has already been noticed in a few instances in
the preceding century, became general, fostered as it was by rivalry,
the possession of wealth, and the sense of security from internecine
strife.
Italy, being the home of the new manner in art, communicated her
methods in course of time to her neighbours. Out of her superabundant
craftsmen she spared some for other lands. They settled in France, they
settled in England; at least they hardly settled here, but they visited
us for longer or shorter periods, and left us a legacy in design.
Our own craftsmen gradually, and with some reluctance, adopted their
methods, and having become accustomed to the strange forms brought from
the far south, they turned in later years with increased eagerness to
their near neighbours the Dutch, who had themselves learnt the new
lesson in their own stolid and unimaginative way.
The early steps in the change of design are of great interest. They
appear at first infrequently and tentatively in insignificant ornament;
then rather more freely; after a time they affect prominent features
such as cornices; then the pediment appears; the pointed arch gives way
to the semicircular, windows become square-headed; classic pilasters
are introduced, sparingly at first, but afterwards with more freedom;
symmetry of disposition in the plan of the house becomes more frequent.
Yet beneath all these Italian adornments the body of the house is
of the old English type; with all its foreign variations, the melody
itself is native. It is an endless delight to watch the struggles
of the English craftsman with his novel ornament. Sometimes they
resulted in quaint applications of misunderstood features; sometimes in
proportions which would have pained the eye of Palladio; but frequently
in charming little bits of design, refreshingly simple and unobtrusive.
Meantime the plan of the house was continued on the old lines,
and Henry VIII.’s reign saw no great or general development of
accommodation. A large number of houses were built during his reign
and that of his predecessor, and it is to this period that may be
attributed a great proportion of the domestic work of late Gothic or
Tudor character.
[Illustration: 92. Plan of Horham Hall, Essex.]
Horham Hall, in Essex, is a good example, moderate in size, of this
period. It was built in the early years of the sixteenth century by Sir
John Cutt, who died in 1520. The plan (Fig. 92) follows the ancient
lines, the great hall being in its traditional relationship to the rest
of the house. The old indifference to regularity is well illustrated
by the passage, treated as a kind of bay window, which leads from the
hall to the north wing. The windows in general have but one range of
lights, but in the bay of the hall and in the passage, the lingering
reluctance to adopt large windows is thrown away (Fig. 93), and we
get a foretaste of that vast array of lights which was presently to
become a distinguishing feature of domestic architecture. There is a
large fireplace in the hall and a contemporary louvre in its roof; a
somewhat curious combination, inasmuch as the louvre would be needless,
either for the escape of smoke or (in view of the large bay window) for
the admission of light.
[Illustration: 93. Horham Hall, Essex (early 16th cent.).]
[Illustration: 94. Kirtling Hall, Cambridgeshire.
The Gatehouse (early 16th cent.).]
There is a strange craving among dwellers in old houses to exaggerate
the antiquity of their dwellings. Imagination is fond of peopling with
monks halls which were built subsequently to the suppression of the
monastic orders, and probably with the wealth acquired in consequence
of that event. King John has been made to sleep upon a bed which was
constructed when King James was on the throne. A cusped window light
will carry its enthusiastic proprietor back two centuries earlier than
the facts warrant. But domestic work of a date earlier than Henry
VII. is not abundant, and it is probably within the mark to say that
nine-tenths of the Gothic stonework of ancient houses and ninety-nine
hundredths of the Gothic woodwork are attributable to the time of Henry
VII. and Henry VIII.
These new houses were evidently built for pleasure more than for
security, although defensive precautions were not entirely omitted.
They often occupied the site of an earlier house; but whether this were
the case or not, they were generally surrounded by a moat, crossed no
longer by a drawbridge, but by one of permanent character. Permanent by
comparison, that is to say, for even where moats still remain, bridges
of this date are rare; but as a rule the moats have been filled in and
the bridges removed, or in any case the moats have been so much filled
in as to give easy access to the front entrance.
Some sort of courtyard was contrived in the majority of instances, and
as a rule it was surrounded by buildings rather than by a simple wall
of defence. The entrance was through a gateway, generally emphasised
with a tower over it; indeed one of the characteristic features of
large Tudor houses is the lofty tower in which the entrance is set.
The bold projecting turrets which usually flank the gateway on each
side are a peaceful reminiscence of the defensive towers of earlier
times. These gatehouses sometimes rose to a great height. At Oxburgh in
Norfolk, Kirtling in Cambridgeshire (Fig. 94), and Cowdray in Sussex,
they are from four to six storeys; and the splendid tower at Layer
Marney in Essex has as many as eight. The gates were massive, and there
was a porter to keep guard, who passed his time in a room adjoining
the entrance. In smaller houses where there was no porter there was
sometimes a little window or opening commanding a view of the entrance
from an adjoining room. It is evident that the household was jealous
of strangers, but it was less the bold marauding neighbour whom they
feared, than the sturdy beggars who caused no little anxiety to those
responsible for the public peace, especially in the years succeeding
the suppression of the monasteries, where hitherto mendicants had found
shelter and help.
The old reluctance to have large windows in outside walls still
lingered; indeed most of the windows of this period (_i.e._, the
first thirty years of the sixteenth century) are composed of only
one row of lights; the majority of Tudor windows have no transome or
cross-bar. In many cases, it is true, the height of the rooms did not
call for an upper row of lights. Where, however, there was no reason
to restrict window space, particularly in the bay windows of the hall
or the principal living rooms, fine lofty windows of many lights were
introduced. The bay window and the oriel--by which is here meant a bay
window to an upper floor, springing from the wall and not carried down
to the ground, of which Kirtling has a fine example (Fig. 94)--were
very considerably developed, and may be reckoned among the most
striking characteristics of English domestic architecture of this and
the Elizabethan periods.
The window heads were still cusped, and, although tracery was very
seldom introduced, the upper part was sometimes emphasised by a row of
quatrefoils or some similar elaboration (Fig. 91). This obstructing of
the top of the window with solid stonework, where the greatest amount
of light is to be obtained, was gradually relinquished; then the simple
cusps, which also diminished the light, were dropped, and finally the
curved heads gave way to straight ones, and thus the maximum amount of
light was secured.
[Illustration: 95. Layer Marney, Essex.
Windows (_cir._ 1520).]
The upper range has cusping formed by floriated dolphins, and mullions
ornamented with arabesques. The lower range is treated in the customary
manner of the Tudor period. There is a row of egg-and-tongue ornament
above the cusped corbels over the lower windows.]
The new fashion in ornament which came in with the Italian influence
led to quaint adaptations of ancient features. At Layer Marney, for
instance, the cusping is obtained not by bending out a portion of the
mullion, a growth springing naturally from its parent stem, but by the
introduction of little floriated dolphins “counter-hauriant”--to
use a heraldic term. The mullions, too, are not the splayed or
moulded shafts of English tradition, but rectangular shafts with
faces elaborately carved with arabesques (Fig. 95). The effect at a
distance, where the eye cannot detect the detail, is very like that of
a cusped window. So, too, in still later years, where traceried windows
were used, as in some of the college halls, the forms of the tracery
were ingeniously contrived to accord with the new Italianised detail
rather than the old Gothic. At Layer Marney the mixture of the ancient
and the modern is further exemplified by the presence of the classic
egg-and-tongue ornament above a cusped corbel table, below which are
windows with the flat pointed heads characteristic of the Tudor style.
At Sutton Place in Surrey, the mixture is again seen. The windows with
their pointed and cusped heads are thoroughly Gothic, while the amorini
over the door and in the parapet are equally Italian in feeling, though
not in delicacy of modelling. The diamond-shaped panels are likewise
of southern origin (Fig. 96). Both these houses were built about 1520
to 1525. East Barsham in Norfolk (Fig. 97), which preceded them by
about ten years, and resembles them in general style, just misses the
Italian detail, although at first sight some of its ornament appears
similar to that at Sutton Place. All three houses are of brick with
terra-cotta embellishments, and are fine specimens of the brickwork
which was used with such excellent effect during the first thirty years
of the sixteenth century. A very prevalent custom at this period was to
diversify the red brickwork with a diaper of darker bricks.
But, as already said, the new Italian fashion, although it affected
the embellishment of the house, was long before it affected the plan.
In the reign of Henry VII., indeed, it is nowhere apparent, either in
plan or ornament. A few prominent dates are useful in fixing on the
mind important changes of style; and the advent of the Renaissance
manner into England can be fixed by remembering that it made its first
appearance in the tomb of Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey, which was
erected by the order of Henry VIII. in the year 1516. Any work with
Italian or Italianised detail, may safely be dated subsequent to that
year. There is a considerable amount of work of this kind to be found
up and down the country, but chiefly in the southern and eastern
counties. The only building which it actually dominated appears to
have been Henry VIII.’s house of Nonsuch in Surrey, now entirely
destroyed; but in such isolated features as screens, panels, tombs, and
doorways, it frequently occurs.
[Illustration: 96. Sutton Place, Surrey.
Part of the Courtyard (1523–25).]
[Illustration: 97. East Barsham, Norfolk.
The Gatehouse (_cir._ 1500–15).]
During the reign of Henry VIII., who was a munificent patron of the
arts, the new style did much to establish itself, but houses were
still arranged on the traditional plan, and were rather haphazard in
their disposition. The hall continued to be the principal room; it
lay between the family rooms and the servants’ quarters. But it was
supplemented by retiring rooms of greater size, greater comfort, and
greater number. East Barsham (_c._ 1500–15), Thornbury Castle
(_c._ 1511), Compton Winyates (_c._ 1520), the enlargement
of Lytes Carey manor house (_c._ 1525), Hengrave Hall (c. 1538),
Little Moreton (_c._ 1559), all these, and others that might be
named, show the same free and irregular disposition, which had always
been distinctive of the English house.
Hengrave Hall (Fig. 98) is a stepping-stone from the mediæval to
the Elizabethan type. It is full of irregularity, but it is planned
on much more regular lines than South Wingfield, for instance. The
entrance front is symmetrical, although not absolutely so; it has a
large central doorway flanked by turrets, and is broken at intervals by
other turrets--features quite familiar in sixteenth-century houses. It
has a courtyard, encircled on three sides by a corridor, and the hall
looks out on to the limited area of the court. The windows are small in
comparison with the blank wall spaces, and the detail is Gothic, except
for some quasi-Italian amorini supporting the oriel over the front
door. While many of the old haphazard arrangements are retained, there
is a certain attempt at orderliness and symmetry which points the way
to the more regular planning of later years.
[Illustration: 98. Hengrave Hall, Suffolk (_cir._ 1538).
Ground Plan.]
Wolsey’s great palace at Hampton Court, although planned with
considerable attention to symmetry round several rectangular courts,
and with an eye to an axial line--arranged, that is to say, with a
view to noble and dignified effect, was still very irregular both in
disposition and in grouping, with roofs of different heights, lofty
towers, turrets, and chimneys. Spenser incidentally sketches such
palaces in the “Faerie Queene.” The house of Pride was “a stately
Pallace built of squarèd bricke,” where
“High lifted up were many loftie towres,
And goodly galleries far over laid,
Full of fair windowes and delightful bowres:
And on the top a Diall told the timely howres.”
The red-cross knight passing through the gates which “stood open wide,”
although in charge of a porter, came to the hall, “which was on every
side with rich array and costly arras dight.” The house of Temperance,
too, was entered through a porch of hewn stone fairly wrought, provided
with a “fayre portcullis” and a gate, likewise under the charge of a
porter, who, unlike the careless guardian of the house of Pride, duly
kept watch and ward and saw that every one passed in good order and due
regard. The gateway passed, the visitors came to
“a stately Hall
Wherein were many tables fayre dispred.”
Thence their hostess led them to see the kitchen,
“A vaut ybuilt for greate dispense
With many raunges reard along the wall,
And one great chimney, whose long tonnell thence
The smoke forth threw”;
and later,
“Thence backe againe faire Alma led them right,
And soone into a goodly Parlour brought
That was with royal arras richly dight.”
The only other part of her house to which Alma took her guests was a
turret,
“Therein were divers rowmes and divers stages,
But three the chiefest and of greatest powre.”
No other rooms are particularly mentioned, but these glimpses at the
palaces of Spenser’s days bring before our vision their gatehouses,
their towers and turrets, their long galleries, and their many windows.
It is both interesting and curious to find that even to Spenser, who
wrote in the latter part of the sixteenth century (the “Faerie Queene”
was being written in 1580), the hall, the kitchen, and the parlour were
still the principal apartments. Except for the sumptuous hangings and
the other embellishments with which he adorns his rooms, and except for
the parlour and gallery, the houses which he pictures resemble those
of Chaucer. The parlour, however, stands for a good deal; it typifies
the extension which had taken place in the family apartments. Spenser’s
descriptions, too, although indicating no great advance in the
classification of rooms, point to a much more magnificent furnishing
and adornment than anything to be found in Chaucer’s.
During Spenser’s life, however, a very great advance was being made
in domestic architecture, and in particular the planning of houses
was receiving especial attention, and was being undertaken by trained
experts. Doubtless the growth of Italian ideas had something to do
with this. Symmetry of disposition, instead of being occasionally
adopted, had become universal, and it required more than the skill of
a home-bred mason, such as hitherto had devised houses, to arrange the
increased accommodation now necessary, within the requisite symmetrical
outline, and at the same time to ensure a workable relation of rooms
one to the other. In addition to this a considerable acquaintance with
the new fashion in detail was required of designers, and accordingly
not a few of them made tours abroad to France and even as far as Italy
in order to familiarise themselves with foreign methods and to bring to
their work the most novel ideas of the time.