EARLY RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE
IN ENGLAND.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Architecture of the
Renaissance in England.

ILLUSTRATED BY A SERIES OF VIEWS
AND DETAILS FROM BUILDINGS ERECTED
BETWEEN THE YEARS 1560 and 1635, WITH
HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL TEXT....

The Illustrations comprise 145 Folio Plates, 118 being reproduced
from Photographs taken expressly for the work, and
180 Blocks in the Text.

2 vols., large folio, in cloth portfolios £7 7s. Net.
or half morocco, gilt £8 8s. Net.

Plate I.

HENRY VII.'S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

INTERIOR VIEW, SHOWING VAULTING AND SCREEN.

EARLY RENAISSANCE
ARCHITECTURE
IN ENGLAND

A HISTORICAL & DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNT OF THE
TUDOR, ELIZABETHAN, & JACOBEAN PERIODS,
1500-1625

FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS AND OTHERS

BY

J. ALFRED GOTCH, F.S.A.

AUTHOR OF "ARCHITECTURE OF THE
RENAISSANCE IN ENGLAND," ETC.

WITH EIGHTY-SEVEN COLLOTYPE AND OTHER PLATES AND
TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT

LONDON

B. T. BATSFORD, 94 HIGH HOLBORN

MDCCCCI

BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS,
LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.

PREFACE.

It should, perhaps, be observed that although this book is entitled Early Renaissance Architecture in England, it deals with much the same period as that covered by my former work The Architecture of the Renaissance in England, but with the addition of the first half of the sixteenth century. The two books, however, have nothing in common beyond the fact that they both illustrate the work of a particular period. The former book exhibits a series of examples, to a large scale, of Elizabethan and Jacobean buildings, with a brief account of each: whereas this one takes the form of a handbook in which the endeavour is made to trace in a systematic manner the development of style from the close of the Gothic period down to the advent of Inigo Jones.

It is not the inclusion of the first half of the sixteenth century which alone has led to the adoption of the title Early Renaissance: the limitation of period which these words indicate appeared particularly necessary in consequence of the recent publication of two other books, one being the important work of Mr. Belcher and Mr. Macartney, illustrating buildings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, under the title of Later Renaissance Architecture in England; and the other being Mr. Reginald Blomfield's scholarly book, A History of Renaissance Architecture in England, which, although it starts with the beginning of the sixteenth century, does not dwell at any length upon the earlier work, but is chiefly devoted to an exhaustive survey of that of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The value of a work on Architecture is greatly enhanced by illustrations, and I am much indebted to the numerous gentlemen who, with great courtesy, have placed the fruits of their pencil, brush, or camera at my disposal: their names are given in the Lists of Plates and Illustrations. More particularly I desire to acknowledge the kindness of the Committee of that very useful publication The Architectural Association Sketch Book, in giving permission for some of their plates to be reproduced; and among other contributors I have especially to thank Colonel Gale, Mr. W. Haywood, and Mr. Harold Brakspear; while to Mr. Ryland Adkins I am indebted for several valuable suggestions in connection with the text of the Introductory chapter. Mr. Bradley Batsford has rendered ungrudging assistance at every stage of the undertaking, which has particularly benefited from his broad and liberal views in regard to the illustrations. My thanks are also due to those ladies and gentlemen who allowed me to examine, and sometimes to measure and photograph their houses; and I am indebted to Mr. Chart, the Clerk of Works at Hampton Court Palace, for much useful information imparted during my investigations there.

Each illustration is utilized to explain some point in the text, but in many cases the reference is purposely made short, the illustration being left to tell its own story.

J. ALFRED GOTCH.

West Hill, Kettering.
August, 1901.

CONTENTS

LIST OF PLATES.

Note.—The letters "A.A.S.B." denote that the subject is reproduced from The Architectural Association Sketch Book, with authority of the Draughtsman and by permission of the Committee.

PLATE
I.	—	Henry VII.'s Chapel, Westminster Abbey, Interior View S. B. Bolas, London, photo.		[Frontis– piece.]
FACING PAGE
II.	—	Henry VII.'s Tomb in Westminster Abbey H. O. Cresswell, del.		[14]
III.	—	Details from the Tomb of Henry, Lord Marney, Layer Marney Church Fred Chancellor, del.		[18]
IV.		Fan Vaulting, Chapel of the Redmount, King's Lynn W. Galsworthy Davie, photo. Vaulting of Porch, Cowdray House, Sussex J. A. G., photo.		[18]
V.	—	The Countess of Salisbury's Chantry, Christchurch; View from Choir		[20]
VI.	—	The Countess of Salisbury's Chantry, Christchurch; Detail of Niches on North Side		[22]
VII.		Part of Screen, St. Cross, Winchester W. Galsworthy Davie, photo. Paulet Tomb, Basing Church J. A. G., photo.		[26]
VIII.	—	Screen in the Chapel, King's College, Cambridge		[28]
IX.		Title Paving from Lacock Abbey Harold Brakspear, del. Single Tiles from the same Pavement W. Haywood, del.		[38]
X.	—	Chest From St. Mary Overie, Southwark Victor T. Jones, del. [A.A.S.B.]		[40]
XI.	—	Compton Winyates; General View		[47]
XII.	—	Compton Winyates; The Entrance Porch C. E. Mallows, del.		[48]
XIII.	—	(DOUBLE)—Details from Layer Marney Tower Arnold B. Mitchell, del.		[52-3]
XIV.	—	The Entrance Gateway, Hengrave Hall J. Palmer Clarke, Bury St. Edmund's, photo.		[56]
XV.	—	The Entrance Porch, Moreton Old Hall Maxwell Ayrton, del.		[58]
XVI.	—	A Gable from the Front, Moreton Old Hall Maxwell Ayrton, del.		[58]
XVII.	—	South Side of Courtyard, Kirby Hall M. Starmer Hack, del.		[60]
XVIII.	—	John Thorpe's Ground Plan for Kirby Hall From the Soane Museum Collection.		[62]
XIX.	—	(DOUBLE)—Details of Porch in Court, Kirby Hall Arthur G. Leighton, del.		[64-5]
XX.	—	The Entrance Porch, Montacute House From a water-colour by W. Haywood.		[66]
XXI.	—	The Entrance Front and Gatehouse, Doddington Hall. By permission from Rev. R. E. G. Cole's History of Doddington		[69]
XXII.	—	The Gatehouse at Stanway		[78]
XXIII.	—	The Gatehouse at Westwood		[79]
XXIV.		Doorway at Chipchase Castle J. P. Gibson, Hexham, photo. Porch of the Manor House, Upper Slaughter W. Galsworthy Davie, photo.		[85]
XXV.		The Grand Staircase, Wardour Castle G. W. Wilson, Aberdeen, photo. Doorway in Court, Hatfield House Col. Gale, photo.		[86]
XXVI.	—	Arcaded Porch at Cranborne Manor House		[91]
XXVII.	—	Wollaton Hall; General View		[97]
XXVIII.	—	Burghley House; General View G. W. Wilson, Aberdeen, photo.		[98]
XXIX.		Exton Old Hall, Rutland J. A. G., photo. The Manor House, Glinton J. A. G., photo.		[100]
XXX.	—	Mount Grace Priory, Yorkshire		[106]
XXXI.	—	View of Front, Speke Hall		[107]
XXXII.	—	Part of the Front, Barrington Court Kotaro Sakurai, del. [A.A.S.B.]		[110]
XXXIII.		Astley Hall Bedford Lemere, London, photo. Kirby Hall; The Bay Windows Col. Gale, photo.		[112]
XXXIV.	—	Gables at Lilford Hall		[112]
XXXV.		Holmshurst, Burwash W. Galsworthy Davie, photo. Tudor House, Broadway W. Galsworthy Davie, photo.		[118]
XXXVI.	—	Chimney-stack and Window from Lacock Abbey Harold Brakspear, del.		[128]
XXXVII.	—	Blickling Hall; Part of Entrance Front		[130]
XXXVIII.		Steps to Terrace, Haddon Hall Terrace Wall, Claverton House J. L. Robinson, photo.		[133]
XXXIX.		Gateway, Highlow Hall, near Hathersage J. A. G., photo. Terrace Steps, Eyam Hall J. A. G., photo.		[136]
XL.		Side of Bay in the Dining Room, Haddon Hall J. A. G., photo. Panelling in the Dining Room, Haddon Hall J. A. G., photo.		[153]
XLI.		Woodwork in Chapel, Haddon Hall Bay Window in the Drawing Room, Haddon Hall J. A. G., photo.		[154]
XLII.	—	An Interior from Carbrook Hall, near Sheffield		[157]
XLIII.	—	Side of Room at Benthall Hall B. J. Fletcher, del.		[156]
XLIV.	—	Screen in the Hall, Wadham College, Oxford		[159]
XLV.	—	Screen in the Hall, Trinity College, Cambridge		[160]
XLVI.	—	Screen in the Hall, Woollas Hall Harold Baker, Birmingham, photo.		[160]
XLVII.	—	The Great Chamber, South Wraxall Manor House Ernest W. Gimson, del.		[162]
XLVIII.	—	Fireplace and Panelling in the Mayor's Room, Old Town Hall, Leicester		[162]
XLIX.	—	Side of a Room, the "Reindeer" Inn, Banbury John Stewart, del.		[162]
L.	—	Details of Panelling from Sizergh Hall F. Dare Clapham, del.		[163]
LI.	—	Interior Porch, Broughton Castle		[163]
LII.	—	The Presence Chamber at Hardwick Hall A. Seaman, Chesterfield, photo.		[164]
LIII.	—	Doorway in a House at Bristol		[164]
LIV.	—	A Doorway from Levens Hall F. B. Turner, Flamborough, photo.		[165]
LV.		Doorway, Gayton Manor House J. A. G., del. Doorway, St. Peter's Hospital, Bristol T. Locke Worthington, del. [A.A.S.B.]		[166]
LVI.	—	Chimney-piece from Boughton House		[168]
LVII.	—	Chimney-piece from Lacock Abbey Harold Brakspear, del.		[168]
LVIII.	—	A Chimney-piece from Barlborough Hall Col. Gale, photo.		[168]
LIX.	—	Chimney-piece in King James's Room, Hatfield House Col. Gale, photo.		[169]
LX.	—	Chimney-piece in the Great Chamber, South Wraxall Manor House W. Haywood, del.		[169]
LXI.	—	Chimney-piece from Hardwick Hall J. L. Robinson, photo.		[169]
LXII.	—	Chimney-piece from Ford House, Newton Abbot J. A. G., del.		[170]
LXIII.	—	Chimney-piece at Whiston, Sussex Col. Gale, photo.		[171]
LXIV.	—	Two Chimney-pieces From Bolsover Castle Col. Gale, photo.		[171]
LXV.	—	Chimney-piece at Bromley-by-Bow Palace		[172]
LXVI.	—	Chimney-piece from Castle Ashby Bedford Lemere, London, photo.		[172]
LXVII.	—	Ceiling and Frieze from Cardinal Wolsey's Closet, Hampton Court Palace J. A. G., photo.		[175]
LXVIII.	—	Ceiling at Deene Hall J. A. G., photo.		[177]
LXIX.	—	Ceiling from the "Reindeer" Inn, Banbury J. A. G., photo.		[178]
LXX.	—	Ceiling of the Great Chamber, Aston Hall From W. Niven's Account of Aston Hall.		[180]
LXXI.	—	Ceiling of King Charles' Bedroom, Aston Hall From W. Niven's Account of Aston Hall.		[180]
LXXII.	—	Staircase from Burghley House, Stamford After Richardson.		[187]
LXXIII.	—	Plans of Staircases from John Thorpe's Drawings In the Soane Museum Collection.		[189]
LXXIV.	—	Staircase, Audley End C. J. Richardson, del.		[194]
LXXV.	—	The Long Gallery, Haddon Hall G. W. Wilson, Aberdeen, photo.		[196]
LXXVI.	—	The Long Gallery, Aston Hall		[196]
LXXVII.	—	Glass Panel from Moreton Old Hall John West, del.		[198]
LXXVIII.	—	Four Examples of Lead Glazing from W. Gedde's "Booke of Sundry Draughtes," 1611		[199]
LXXIX.	—	Two Street Houses from Oxford and Stratford-on-Avon		[202]
LXXX.	—	The Village Cross, Brigstock Miss Dryden, photo.		[211]
LXXXI.	—	Details of the Chichester Tomb, Pilton Church		[218]
LXXXII.	—	Choir Screen from All Saints' Church, Tilney C. A. Nicholson, del.		[219]
LXXXIII.	—	Pulpit in Edington Church R. Shekleton Balfour, del.		[221]
LXXXIV.	—	John Thorpe's Drawing for Sir Jarvis Clifton's House From the Soane Museum Collection.		[231]
LXXXV.	—	Unnamed Plan and Elevation John Thorpe.		[234]
LXXXVI.	—	Plan "for Sir Wm.} Haseridge" John Thorpe.		[235]
LXXXVII.	—	Elevation of Plan Entitled "for Sir Wm.} Haseridge" John Thorpe.		[235]

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Note.—The letters "A.A.S.B." denote that the subject is reproduced from The Architectural Association Sketch Book, with authority of the Draughtsman and by permission of the Committee.

EARLY RENAISSANCE
ARCHITECTURE
IN ENGLAND

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

The progress of style in the mediæval architecture of England was regular and continuous: so much so, that any one thoroughly acquainted with its various phases can tell the date of a building within some ten years by merely examining the mouldings which embellish it. These successive phases, moreover, merge into one another so gradually, that although it has been possible to divide them into four great periods—called Norman, Early English, Decorated, and Perpendicular—yet the transition from one to the other is unbroken, and the whole course of development can be traced as regularly as the change from the simplicity of the trunk of a tree to the multiplicity of its leaves. For about four centuries (A.D. 1100-1500) this growth continued, English architecture finding within itself the power of progression. But about the beginning of the sixteenth century it began to feel the influence of an outside power—that of Italy—which acted upon it with increasing force until, after two centuries, its native characteristics had nearly disappeared, and Italian buildings were copied in England almost line for line.

The object of the following pages is to display the effect of this foreign influence upon our native architecture up to the point when it became predominant, and stamped our buildings with a character more Classic than Gothic. But it will be desirable first of all to glance shortly at the causes which led to Italy having this extraordinary influence, and at the general effect which that influence produced upon England.

England, in common with the rest of North-western Europe, was the home of Gothic architecture, instinct with the mystery and romantic spirit of the Middle Ages. Italy was the home of Classic architecture, which it had cherished since the great days of Rome. The Gothic manner was never thoroughly acquired in Italy, even in those parts which lay nearest to France and Germany, although it affected their buildings to a certain extent. The best examples of Italian Gothic hold a low rank in comparison with the masterpieces of the northern style. Classic forms were those in which the Italian designer naturally expressed himself, and it was these which he employed when that great revival of the Arts which took place in the fifteenth century, set him building. The earlier Renaissance in letters "the spring before the spring," of which the great figures are Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, heralded a great awakening of architectural energy, and Italian architects, in solving their new problems, mingled the results of a deep study of ancient examples with much of mediæval spirit and tendency. They set themselves resolutely to revive the architecture which had been one of the glories of ancient Rome; but they could not, even had they wished it, free themselves from the spirit of their own age, and the result was the development of a kind of architecture which used old forms in new ways, and which has gained the distinguishing title of the Renaissance style.

But the awakening in architecture was only one manifestation of the spirit which was abroad: in painting, sculpture, and all the applied arts, as well as in literature, the same vivifying tendency was at work. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, an event which flooded Western Europe with Greek scholars and Greek literature, a tremendous impulse was given to the new aspirations. A new world of history and poetry had been discovered, just as, forty years afterwards, a new world of fact and reality was discovered by Columbus and Cabot. The two events combined to excite men's imagination to an extraordinary degree, and their stimulating effect was visible in all branches of mental activity. There was a marvellous mingling of the old and the new. In the past there was an inexhaustible well of knowledge and suggestion; in the present a boundless opening for enterprise and fresh experiences. Just at this juncture the invention of printing was being perfected, and it came at the precise time to help the dissemination of the new ideas. The result was that great movement of the human mind known as the Renaissance, which in the space of a century altered the life of Western Europe. In politics it shattered the international fabric of the Middle Ages; in religion it brought about the momentous change which we call the Reformation; in art it wedded faultless execution with an extraordinary fecundity of design. There followed an age richer, perhaps, than any other in original genius and fertility of mental products. Italy was at the centre of this upheaval. To her were attracted students from all parts of Europe, not excepting England. She herself was teeming with men of talent in all branches of learning and the arts. It was inevitable that she should part with some of her superfluous energy to the surrounding lands, touched as they were, though less intensely, with the new spirit. So general was the enthusiasm that her neighbours were only too glad to welcome whatever Italy could send, even if not of her very best. The new movement eventually reached the distant shores of England, but as the stream flowed across Europe it became tinged with the peculiarities of the various lands over which it passed, and each country can show its own version of the Italian Renaissance in architecture as well as in other matters. Spain has one version, France another, Germany another, and England yet another; and there is this peculiarity about the English version—that it is coloured by the two channels through which it came, France and the Netherlands.

The whole circumstances of the time being conducive to the spread of Italian ideas and forms (which are only the embodiment of ideas), how did they affect English architecture? They found in England a style long established, and still endowed with considerable vigour. At no period of its history had this style been so peculiarly English in its more elaborate efforts, the special development known as fan-vaulting, for instance—of which the finest examples are to be seen in the chapel at King's College, Cambridge, and Henry VII.'s chapel at Westminster (see Plate [I.])—being found only in this country.

The Gothic style of England and the Classic style of Italy had next to nothing in common. Their modes of expression were essentially different. The former was elastic, informal, readily adapted to different needs. Like Cleopatra, it was of infinite variety; its component parts were small and manifold, its tendency was towards well-marked vertical lines. Its outward appearance expressed its inward arrangement: a window more or less, a buttress here, a chimney there—so long as they were wanted—offered no difficulty to the designer. Classic architecture, on the other hand, was formal and restricted by considerations of symmetry; its component parts were simple and less mobile than those of Gothic; its tendency was towards strong horizontal lines. The Gothic string-course, for instance, could jump up and down to adapt itself to a door or window; it broke round projecting piers or buttresses without hesitation. But the classic cornice continued in the same straight line, neither rising nor falling, and only breaking forward round a pier or column after due deliberation. Its projection was far greater than that of any similar feature in Gothic work: it was consequently much less ductile. Compared to Gothic detail, Classic was unwieldy, even that more pliant version of it which had recently been evolved in Italy. The ornament, however, with which the Italian designers so freely adorned their architectural work, unlike that of the ancients, was generally small in scale and elastic in character. Here, therefore, was a feature common to both styles, and we shall find that it is in the ornament of buildings that the change first took place. It will be seen that the progress of the new style was very gradual: it showed itself first in small objects, such as tombs and chantries, and in the unimportant detail of larger buildings; then it affected the more significant detail; and ultimately, after many years, it controlled the organic conception and expression: but this final development did not take place till after the close of the period which we are to consider. That which we are to watch is the struggle of the old and the new: the encounter of the new spirit steeped in classical learning, with the old Gothic traditions and methods.

The great monuments of English Gothic architecture are to be found in ecclesiastical buildings; those of the succeeding phase are domestic in character. The change of thought in religious matters, which was proceeding all through the sixteenth century, was not favourable to church building, and after the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. no more churches were built. But the new nobility, rich with the spoils of the dissolved houses and the traffic of the Indies, had acquired a taste for grandeur and dignity in outward life that required great mansions for its display. It is therefore primarily in the Elizabethan mansion that we must watch the contest between the old style and the new—a contest rendered more piquant by the fact that the new style had no experience of this particular kind of building in the land of its origin. The English house had developed on lines widely different from the Italian; it had to meet other wants, it had to contend with a different climate, it was subject to other traditions. The new style when it came, had to harmonize these strange traditions as well as its own, derived from a far distant past, with the original and fertile spirit of the age. The result is one of abiding interest. Almost any of the great houses built in the reign of Elizabeth will show to the casual spectator examples of crudity in detail and imperfect classical proportion, mingled with reminiscences of Gothic notions; but a deeper scrutiny will disclose the fact that in spite of these shortcomings there is a national individuality and sense of genius in the handling of materials sufficient to raise the result to the dignity of a distinct style. Just as the "Faërie Queen" shows a jumble of heathen gods and cardinal virtues, Christian knights and Pagan nymphs, and yet withal is a consummate work of art, so the buildings of the period—

"With many towers, and terrace mounted high,

And all their tops bright glistering with gold,"

in spite of their inconsistencies, have a fertility of fancy, a wealth of ornament, and a simplicity of treatment which raise them to a similar high plane. And just as the literature of the period, as it became more in accordance with rule, lost half its originality and more than half its fascination, so Renaissance Architecture, as it passed from the Elizabethan to the Jacobean, and so to the succeeding phases, became more homogeneous, more scholarly, more true to its classical origin, and yet withal lost vitality in the process. The full meaning of that great century which stretched from the divorce of Henry VIII. to the accession of Charles I. cannot be grasped unless it is always borne in mind that not only was a new style supplanting an old one, but that it was doing so at a time when the originality and richness of men's minds were at their height.

But while in England the new style was winning its way, in Italy it was passing the zenith of its vigour. The continued study of ancient monuments enabled architects to reduce the old methods of design to a system which could be acquired with ease, and architectural design became less a matter of invention than a capacity for adapting new buildings to old rules. In course of time the same state of things established itself in England. The invention of printing brought to the eye of English craftsmen not only plans and pictures of buildings recently erected in foreign lands, but also the rules which celebrated Italian architects had laid down for the proportion of buildings generally—rules founded partly on the study of ancient fabrics and partly on the august authority of Vitruvius. The application of these rules to circumstances and needs which had never been contemplated by their authors was the problem which English designers set themselves to solve. During the earlier years of their attempt they were almost baffled. Then came Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren, and by their commanding genius they made the rules bend to their will; but in the eighteenth century the rules triumphed completely, and, as already said, Italian buildings were copied in England almost line for line. It is the work of the men who were baffled that we are now to examine: work which, judged from the standpoint of their better tutored successors, may almost be regarded as a failure, but work which exhibits a vitality, a fancy, and a sense of romance for which we look in vain in the more correct architecture of the eighteenth century.

It is not surprising that England, in common with the rest of Europe, should have felt the influence of Italy. It is, perhaps, rather a matter for wonder that she should not have felt it earlier; that the architectural Renaissance should have continued for more than a century, and have reached its prime in Italy before it landed on our shores and began to touch the more susceptible places of our English stonework. But Brunelleschi, who crowned the cathedral of Florence with its dome, and reared the Pitti Palace, had been dead seventy years; the delicate sculpture on the façade of the Certosa of Pavia was five-and-twenty years old; and Venice was busy lining her canals with palaces, when Torrigiano brought the first Italian forms to England and applied them to the tomb of Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey.

But the way had been paved beforehand. For some fifty years it had been the custom of English scholars to repair to Italy to learn the humanities. They returned home familiar, if not in love, with Italian ideas and methods of expression, and if they themselves did nothing outwardly to hasten the impending change, it was their poverty and not their will which consented to inaction. Fine building requires money, and accordingly it is in the work of monarchs, noblemen, and great dignitaries of the Church that we find the first evidences of the Italian invasion. Henry VIII. was the outward and visible, although unconscious, agent who guided the new movement to our shores. His great Cardinal, Wolsey, was not less active in building, but Henry was the royal patron, vying with other monarchs in obtaining the services of distinguished artists to adorn his surroundings. Now most of the distinguished artists at that time were foreigners, hailing chiefly from Italy. There were plenty of excellent English workmen it is true, but it was the fashion to employ Italians. Henry's rival, Francis I. of France, had secured the services of several such men; why not he? So his efforts were frequent, although they met with comparatively small success. Italians were loth to leave their own sunny surroundings, where all men were in sympathy with them and their ways, for the chilly fogs and the barbarous manners of those "beasts of English," as Cellini called them. A few men complied with his requests; of these, Torrigiano was the most celebrated. To him Henry entrusted the making of his father's tomb, discarding the design approved by the dead monarch, and taking the work out of the English hands already engaged upon it. None of the other Italians whose names have been preserved have left any great or permanent mark in the country to which they came unwillingly, and which they left gladly. The other great foreign figure which stands out among those of minor importance is that of a German, Holbein. But though Holbein did much work in England in different branches of art, he left no school, nor can the influence of his manner be traced far, if at all, beyond his death. Names of Italians appear occasionally as being employed by the King, and among them John of Padua occurs most frequently; but no one knows who he was, nor what work he left behind him. His name has often been attached to different buildings, and he has been confused with John Thorpe, but no evidence has yet been adduced actually connecting him with work that still survives. One of the curious and provoking facts about the early years of the Renaissance manner in England is the way in which Italian names elude pursuit. Work which looks as though it must have been done by a foreigner has no name that can be attached to it. Other work, which is almost as foreign in appearance, is found on investigation to be that of an Englishman.

Henry's rivalry with Francis I., his friendship and his feuds with that monarch, seem to have had some effect on architectural ornament, for much that was executed during Henry's lifetime has a French flavour about it. It is curious, indeed, to observe how little hold actual Italian detail obtained upon the fancy of English workmen. It was not direct from Italy that they would take it. The Italians were not liked by the English people at large; protests were raised by the more thoughtful against the Italianizing of our young nobles. The popular conception of the subtle Italian was embodied by Shakespeare in Iachimo and the more infernal Iago. What Italian detail we find in Henry VIII.'s time is chiefly superficial ornament, and even that is by no means of universal application. It is to be found up and down the country in considerable quantity, but side by side with work which is still thoroughly Gothic in character. Islip, the Abbot of Westminster, who laid the foundation stone of Henry VII.'s chapel, and who saw the erection of that monarch's tomb—the great central feature for which the chapel was built—was not sufficiently enamoured of the new ornament to cause his own tomb to be of the same character. On the contrary, the screen which encloses his chapel is free from any touch of actual Renaissance detail, although erected some fifteen years after Henry VII.'s tomb.

It was through Dutch and German channels that the Italian manner came to stay. This was the result partly of ties of race and religion, partly of commercial intercourse, and partly of the general imitation of Dutch methods which prevailed in England during the latter half of the sixteenth century. In commercial and political as well as naval and military matters this imitation is well known to students of that period. The character of Renaissance work in England during Henry VIII.'s time inclined to Italian and the French version of Italian. After his death it inclined towards the Dutch version. In both cases it was strongly infused with English feeling; but there is this difference, that whereas the earlier phase ended abruptly, no merging of it into the latter being traceable, the second phase can be followed step by step into the pronounced Italian of Inigo Jones's mature manner. We can see how some features were dropped and others acquired, until, by the double process of shedding and assimilation, the style of Burghley House glides imperceptibly into that of the Banqueting Hall at Whitehall.

CHAPTER II.

THE INVASION OF THE FOREIGN STYLE.

In order properly to understand the position of the Elizabethan mansion in the story of architectural development, it is necessary to examine the work which intervenes between it and the last of the Gothic period.

1.— Tomb of Prince Arthur (d. 1502) in Worcester Cathedral.

The first work with Renaissance detail that was done in England was the tomb of King Henry VII.—the actual altar-tomb, not the metal screen enclosing it. There is no foreign influence to be detected either in the screen or in the wonderful fan-tracery vault that spreads itself above (Plate [I]). These are essentially English productions, and yet there are certain parts of them which would lend themselves readily to the new-fashioned detail which was about to invade our shores; parts which in subsequent buildings were actually affected by it. But so far, that is up to the year 1509, when the king died, the chapel being still unfinished, there is no Renaissance detail. Nor is there any in the fine chantry in Worcester Cathedral, wherein King Henry's eldest son, Prince Arthur, who died in 1502, lies buried (Fig. [1]). The utmost that can be said is that here, as in the chapel at Westminster, the Gothic work is preparing to succumb to the new influence. It has been suggested that the king's own tomb was erected subsequently to that of his mother, the Countess of Richmond, who also lies in the Abbey. But the question is one of little importance; no long period can separate the two, and the important point is that the actual invasion of the foreign style is a well-marked event, the circumstances attending it are on record, its results still survive in an excellent state of preservation.

2.— Tomb of one of the Cokayne Family, Ashbourne Church, Derbyshire. Fifteenth Century.

Henry VII. says in his will, dated 31st March, 1509, that he had arranged for his tomb to be made in a certain manner,[1] and from other sources we gather that the men who were to do the work were certain English craftsmen, of whom Lawrence Imber, carver; Drawswerd, sheriff of York; Humphrey Walker, founder; Nicholas Ewen, coppersmith; Robert Virtue, Robert Jenins, and John Lebons, master masons, were the chief. The last name is the only one with a foreign appearance, but it is a curious and rather significant fact that the design had been made by one "Master Pageny," as he was called by his English acquaintances, but whom his own countrymen called Paganino. No other work of Master Pageny's is known in England, but it seems tolerably clear that he is the same Paganino who designed the tomb of the French King Charles VIII. at St. Denis, and that Henry's tomb was to have been like it.[2] The project, however, fell through in consequence of the death of the king, and the passing of the control of affairs into the hands of his son, Henry VIII. The new monarch discarded the old design entirely, and entrusted the work to Pietro Torrigiano, or Peter Torrisany, as he became on English lips. Torrigiano's design departed widely from English traditions. The leading idea of recumbent figures upon an altar-tomb was retained—this idea indeed held the field for another three-quarters of a century—but the old practice of adorning the sides of the tomb with cusped panels, or figures of saints in niches, or angels holding shields of arms (Fig. [2]), was abandoned; and instead of the restrained architectural treatment of the English tradition, where the figures were solitary, and every fold of drapery harmonised with the main architectural members, Torrigiano gave us the free treatment of the Italian sculptors. The general arrangement of the panels is simple enough (Plate [II].). There are three circular wreaths on each of the longer sides of the tomb, divided by Italian pilasters adorned with arabesques, into which the rose and portcullis of the Tudors are introduced. A rose also fills each of the four spandrils formed by the circular wreaths. These wreaths were new to English eyes; so, too, was the treatment of the spandrils, where the flower is simply applied to the triangular space, instead of appearing to be a growth on the structure itself in the old Gothic way (Fig. [3]). The panels themselves contain figures in action, figures which have cast away conventional attitudes and stiffness of attire, and comport themselves in the most natural way imaginable. Henry's patron saints are there to the number of ten, but instead of standing in niches, statuesque and motionless, they are grouped in pairs, every pair seeming interested in a common subject, instead of each individual being rapt in solitary contemplation. As there are six panels, the ten patron saints are supplemented by two other figures—the Virgin with the Child, and St. Christopher. Another novelty appears in the shape of the four cherubs poised at each corner of the tomb; they have no niches or other architectural background; they are detached pieces of sculpture, self-reliant; their purpose, which they no longer fulfil, was to hold banners, but these have long disappeared.

[1]Britton's Architectural Antiquities, Vol. II.

[2]Archæological Journal, 1894, "On the work of Florentine Sculptors in England," by Alfred Higgins, F.S.A.

3.— Henry VII.'s Tomb. Detail.

4.— Tomb of John Harrington (d. 1524), Exton Church, Rutland.

5.— Tomb of Thomas Cave (d. 1558), Stanford Church, Northamptonshire.

6.— Tomb of Thomas Cave (d. 1558). End Panel.

7.— Tomb of Sir George Vernon (d. 1567), Bakewell Church, Derbyshire.

The change of idea is complete, but it is a change that never took hold of English craftsmen. They adopted the circular wreaths and the arabesqued pilasters, and so far as those features are concerned we see in this tomb the prototype of many that followed after. But the figures in action do not appear again. English tradition was too strong for the Italian influence to overcome it, and the principal way in which it was affected was that the panels became frequently divided by pilasters instead of by moulded members; and that the angels, which had hitherto been solitary and devout, took on the attitude of heraldic supporters, and assumed a more mundane appearance, or endeavoured to imitate the amorini of Italian craftsmen—an effort for which they were, as a rule, too elderly.

Plate II.

HENRY VII.'S TOMB IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY. SOUTH SIDE (1516).

8.—Tomb of Sir Thomas Andrew (d. 1563), Charwelton Church, Northamptonshire.

The dividing pilasters were sometimes nothing more than spiral columns, and such a column is occasionally the only sign of the new feeling. In the tomb of John Harrington, who died in 1524 (Fig. [4]), a spiral column at the angles and a certain stiffness in the cusped panels indicate the impending change. This change is still more marked in the Cave tomb (Fig. [5]) at Stanford Church, where (in 1558) the sides have three circular panels containing, however, shields of arms, not figures, and the upper end exhibits the family shield supported by two angels. On the other hand, the opposite end (Fig. [6]) shows the family of the deceased gentleman in a number of figures treated with a stiffness of pose and a conventionality of attire that still belong to the ancient style. There is a very similar tomb at Charwelton to Sir Thomas Andrew, who died in 1563 (Fig. [8]). In the tomb of Sir George Vernon (Fig. [7]), who died in 1567, the angle pilasters, with their vases and portcullises in low relief, recall those on Henry VII.'s tomb. The middle shield on the end is surrounded by a circular wreath, while the shape of the shield and the strange form of the dividing pilasters show a still further departure from the old detail. In the Bradbourne tomb of 1581 (Fig. [9]) panels have disappeared altogether, and the sides of the tomb are occupied by figures of the children, who hold in a stiff and tiring manner, shields setting forth their marriages. There is a rather curious survival in the tomb of Elizabeth Drury at Hawstead Church, in Suffolk, where, as late as 1610, a shield of arms is supported by two amorini (Fig. [10]). All these examples, selected from the tombs to be found in village churches, and covering a period of three-quarters of a century, tend to show that the Italianizing of the English workman, in this branch of art at any rate, was as incomplete as it was slow. The craftsman was, however, aware that a new influence was at work, and he was prepared to succumb to it where circumstances were favourable. In certain districts circumstances were favourable, and accordingly in parts of the eastern and southern counties, notably at Layer Marney, in Essex, there are tombs in which the detail is more decidedly wrought after Italian models (Fig. [11] and Plate [III].), although even here the difference is so great that any of them would look strangely out of place if transported to a church in Italy.

9.—Tomb of — Bradbourne (d. 1581), Ashbourne Church, Derbyshire.

10.—From the Tomb of Elizabeth Drury (d. 1610), Hawstead Church, Suffolk.

The eastern and southern counties appear to have been specially affected by the new movement, for we find considerable traces of it scattered over wide areas, and affecting not only small objects like tombs, but permanent structures. We shall presently see it at Layer Marney Tower, and among other places at East Barsham and Great Snoring in Suffolk; while in Wymondham Church, in Norfolk, the sedilia is made of what appear to be fragments of a tomb much resembling those at Layer Marney in character (Fig. [12]). In the southern counties, Sutton Place, near Guildford, abounds in Anglo-Italian detail; some of the woodwork at the Vyne, in Hampshire, is also affected by it. There is some very interesting work of the same nature at the Chapel of the Holy Ghost, at Basingstoke; while at Christchurch, in the same county, the chantry of the Countess of Salisbury is strongly touched with the Italian influence, and at St. Cross, near Winchester, are the very beautiful fragments of a Renaissance screen (Plate [VII].). Winchester itself has some good work in the choir of the Cathedral; and still further west, at Bingham Melcombe, in Dorset, there is a charming gable of mixed English and Italian detail. At Lacock Abbey, in Wiltshire, there is a considerable amount of Renaissance work, wrought when the abbey buildings were converted into a dwelling-house soon after the dissolution of the monasteries.

11.—Tomb of Henry, Lord Marney (d. 1523), Layer Marney Church, Essex.

Plate III.

DETAILS FROM THE TOMB OF HENRY, LORD MARNEY.

Some of this work is in stone and some in wood, but some of it is in terra-cotta, and it would be an interesting task to ascertain why this pronounced detail should have been largely confined to these particular districts. The stone and woodwork might have been carved by itinerant Italians wandering some distance from their ports of debarkation; but the terra- cotta must have been cast, and need not have been cast close to where it was fixed, but abroad, and thence conveyed to almost any part of the country. Nevertheless, none of the work entirely loses its English character, whether it was done abroad or not. Some of it must certainly have been wrought by Italians, but about much of it the general impression produced is that it was done by Englishmen with Italian proclivities, rather than by Italians under English orders.

Plate IVa.

CHAPEL OF THE RED MOUNT, KING'S LYNN.

FAN-VAULTING.

Plate IVb.

COWDRAY HOUSE, SUSSEX.

FAN-VAULTING OF PORCH.

12.—From the Sedilia, Wymondham Church, Norfolk.

13.—Cowdray House, Sussex. Vaulting Rib To Porch (cir. 1540).

Nor was the foreign detail on the stone simply added to the English work after the native craftsmen had finished. It was not that the Englishman completed his work and then invited the Italian to come and do the carving after his own manner, but the two influences are curiously mixed. Take the fan-vaulting of the porch at Cowdray (Plate IV.), for instance. In general appearance it is of the same family as other fan-vaulting, of which the roof of the Chapel of the Red Mount at King's Lynn may be taken as a specimen. But, as might be expected, it is in the susceptible parts of the stonework that the foreign influence first shows itself,—not in the construction, but in the ornament. The spandrils at Cowdray are filled with carving; some of it is foliage, treated in the Late Gothic manner, but in one appears the head of a winged cherub, clearly not of English but Italian descent. The main ribs of the vaulting, too, have an Italian arabesque worked on them, and the point to be observed here is that the section of the rib is not of the usual type, but is expressly designed to receive the arabesque (Fig. [13]).

14.—Chantry of the Countess of Salisbury, Christchurch, Hampshire, from the North Aisle (cir. 1529).

Plate V.

THE SALISBURY CHANTRY, CHRISTCHURCH.

VIEW FROM THE CHOIR.

15.—The Salisbury Chantry, Christchurch. Detail of Carving.

16.—Prior Draper's Chantry, Christchurch. Head of Doorway (1529).

17.—Christchurch, Hampshire. Miserere Seats.

In the Countess of Salisbury's chantry at Christchurch it is much easier to imagine the Italian carver following the English mason, and adding his ornament to the other's work, for nearly all of it lies in sunk panels, the highest parts of the carving being on the same face as the surrounding margin: that is to say, the Italian found plain surfaces between the moulded members left for him to carve, and one set of these plain surfaces, on the side next to the choir, he did not carve—they still remain bare. Take away the ornament, and the chantry in general design and treatment is Late English-Gothic (Fig. [14]), such as no Italian would have produced, if we except the topmost stage on the choir side, where there are two domed pinnacles of rather clumsy and unintelligible design (Plate [V].). One of these has a curious feature—the somewhat vulgar product of the later Italian carvers—namely, the lower drapery and the feet of a figure ascending into clouds, all executed in complete relief. On the north side, next to the aisle, are some shields in the spandrils between the niches (Plate [VI].), carved in the Italian spirit, and these can hardly have been added afterwards, but must have been an integral part of the design. The arabesques on the vertical shafts and in the horizontal bands might very well have been carved by a man put on for that purpose only (Fig. [15]). Altogether, it is difficult to adjust with any accuracy the claims of the English and Italian workmen; it would almost seem as though they worked together, or at any rate with a cordial understanding between them. The same may be said of the screen to Prior Draper's chantry (dated 1529) in the same church. The general design is Gothic, and while the arabesque enrichments may have been added afterwards, and the spandrils of the flat-pointed door, the same can hardly be said of the corbels to the niches over it (Fig. [16]). The cresting along the top of this screen exactly resembles that over the screens at the sides of the choir at Winchester Cathedral, except that the latter has not a battlemented finish (Fig. [20]).

Plate VI.

THE SALISBURY CHANTRY, CHRISTCHURCH.

DETAIL OF NICHES ON NORTH SIDE.

Although it is not difficult to imagine an Italian carving this stonework at Christchurch, it is not quite so easy to attribute the interesting choir-stalls to him or a compatriot, for the Gothic feeling is too pronounced, and the angel and cherubs are not lissom and graceful enough to have descended from an Italian sky.

The divisions between the miserere seats (Fig. [17]) are thoroughly Gothic in general treatment and in their mouldings, but in the carving the Italian hand shows itself, although subdued to the Gothic surroundings in which it worked. Some of the desk ends are traceried and cusped, and some have vases and foliage after the Italian manner. But here again the two putti which turn their backs in so unceremonious a way (Fig. [18]) can hardly be the work of Italian chisels.

18.—Christchurch, Hampshire. Bench-end in Choir.

It is equally difficult to assign the beautiful panelling in the long gallery at the Vyne to a foreigner (Fig. [19]); there is so much English feeling about it. The work conveys the impression that the carver was more at home with his linen panels than with the Italian flourishes with which he supplemented them; but the single panel over the door is evidently the work of a hand thoroughly familiar with the Italian method. We see the same mixed character wherever we look; we can point to no work—not even Henry VII.'s tomb—and say, "This is wholly Italian." There is always a strong English feeling, and sometimes it is only a touch here and there which shows the foreign influence.

19.—Doorway and Panelling in the Gallery at the Vyne, Hampshire (before 1530).

20.—Screen on North Side of Choir, Winchester Cathedral (with Mortuary Chest), 1525.

The same remark applies to the stone screens at the sides of the choir at Winchester (Fig. [20]). They are Gothic in general treatment, but a little Italian carving is introduced in the cresting along the top. They were the work of Bishop Fox in 1525, who evidently had a hankering after the foreign ornament in his life, although his own chantry, in which he lies buried, is free from it; for in the neighbouring church at St. Cross are the fragments of some very beautiful screens containing charming Italian work (Plate [VII].). The history of these fragments is not known, but from the occurrence in them of the pelican, which was Bishop Fox's badge, they seem to be due to him, and they may possibly have come from the cathedral itself. They do not belong to their present situation, and one of the main posts is worked with a return at a very obtuse angle, indicating some such polygonal disposition as the east end of the cathedral has. On the top of the choir-screens in the cathedral are placed six oak chests, called mortuary chests, procured by Fox, in which are deposited the bones of various benefactors. They are of Italian workmanship (except two which replaced the old ones in the seventeenth century), and are suggestive as being one of the sources of inspiration to native carvers. One of them is shown in Fig. [20], and just behind it can be seen the cornice of the chantry of Bishop Gardiner, who died in 1555. The portion visible is of well-developed classic character, and indicates how the use of the foreign forms had progressed during the thirty years that had elapsed since Fox's time. Even here, however, the pinnacle at the corner—the head of a heraldic animal on a pedestal—shows how the designer was unwilling or unable to shake off all the trammels of his native style.

21.—Canopy of Stalls, Henry VII.'s Chapel, Westminster.

At Basing Church, in Hampshire, there is yet another example of the same limited use of Italian detail in the Paulet tombs, which are constructed in the thickness of the side-walls of the chancel (Plate [VII.]). The arches over the tombs and the doorway in the wall are all flat-pointed, and the spandrils are filled with Renaissance carving, which, in the case of the large arches, surrounds the arms of the founder. Except for these touches, and for the cresting along the top, which recalls that at Winchester, the detail is all Gothic. The large panel in the wall over the doorway seems to be of later date.

Plate VIIa.

PART OF SCREEN, ST. CROSS, WINCHESTER

(PROBABLY DUE TO BISHOP FOX, WHO DIED 1528.)

Plate VIIb.

PAULET TOMB, BASING CHURCH, HAMPSHIRE.

Another interesting piece of work of this period is found in the stalls of Henry VII.'s chapel at Westminster. The canopies (Fig. [21]) are quite Gothic in character, but of a rather florid description, and although there is no actual Renaissance detail, there is a tendency towards it. The caps of the pilasters are also Late Gothic, while the columns are of that honeycomb pattern which is a sign of change towards the new fashion (Fig. [22]). There is woodwork of a somewhat similar character at Winchester in Langton's chapel, and in Prior Silkstede's pulpit (1520). The Spring pew in Lavenham Church, Suffolk, is another instance of the late treatment of woodwork. There are niches, canopies, fan-vaulting, and cusped tracery (Fig. [23]), but a closer inspection shows that the tracery has completely departed from the simple lines of Gothic work, and has assumed fantastic forms combined of twisted strands and foliage (Fig. [24]), while the columns are honeycombed or twisted into spirals.

22.—Detail from Stalls, Henry VII.'s Chapel, Westminster.

23.—The Spring Pew, Lavenham Church, Suffolk.

These examples all tend to show that the old traditions died hard. The new ideas were cautiously accepted, and were utilised to help the existing methods rather than to supplant them. Hitherto it has been fittings, or chantries, or tombs which have furnished examples—comparatively small and isolated pieces of work which naturally lent themselves to experiments. But we find the same general treatment in larger and more important efforts; the native tradition still holds the field, but traces of the new manner are to be found in the spandril of an archway, the termination of a label, or the pendants of a roof. Compare the roof of the hall at Eltham Palace (Fig. [25]) with that of the great hall at Hampton Court (1534-35). The roof at Eltham is still Gothic, without a touch of the Renaissance; the roof at Hampton Court is also still Gothic in conception and construction, but in the most susceptible parts—the pendants, the spandrils, and the corbels—the new influence makes itself felt (Fig. [26]). These pendants are quite in the new style, and yet were carved by an Englishman, named Richard Rydge, of London.[3] The spandrils likewise are filled with Renaissance ornaments carved by Michael Joyner, among which the King's Arms and the "King's beasts" appear, treated in the manner customary in Late Gothic work; the Tudor badges are also carved on the pendants and corbels, amid the cherubs and balusters and foliage which go to compose the Italian ornament (Fig. [27]).

[3]History of Hampton Court Palace, by Ernest Law, Vol. I.

24.—Detail from the Spring Pew, Lavenham Church, Suffolk.

Plate VIII.

KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

SCREEN IN THE CHAPEL (1532-6).

Another fine piece of woodwork, which was being executed contemporaneously with the hall roof at Hampton, was the magnificent rood screen in King's College Chapel, Cambridge (Plate [VIII].). There is no record as to who did this work, nor when it was done; but the evidence of the arms, initials, and badges upon it, which are those of Henry VIII. and Anne Boleyn, fixes its date between 1532 and 1536. It has been called the finest piece of woodwork this side the Alps, and its exquisite design and workmanship quite justify the description, and even incline one to omit the limiting line. It is more completely Italian in treatment than any other work of the time, and there is very little trace of Gothic influence. All the mouldings are classic, whereas in the roof at Hampton Court even the Italian pendants have a Gothic feeling in their mouldings. There is, however, a considerable similarity in feeling between the pendants in both cases, and it should be borne in mind that the work at the two places was being carried on simultaneously. Richard Rydge, of London, who carved the pendants at Hampton Court, may have had a hand in the King's College screen; but it is practically certain that the general design and most of the work must have been done by Italians, and the whole screen must be regarded as an isolated example, complete in itself, not growing out of anything that went before it, nor developing into anything afterwards.

25.—Roof of Hall, Eltham Palace, Kent.

26.—Roof of the Great Hall, Hampton Court (1534-35).

27.—Details from the Roof of the Great Hall, Hampton Court.

28.—Hampton Court. Head of Door to Great Hall.

The early work at Hampton Court, that is, the work of Wolsey and Henry VIII., executed between 1514 and 1540, is typical of the prevailing manner. This building was the most important one of its time. It was built by the magnificent Cardinal as his principal residence, where he could live amid quiet and healthy surroundings, and yet be in close touch with London, which was the centre of political activity. Wolsey lived in more than regal state, and the enormous size and extraordinary splendour of his palace is testified to by many foreigners of distinction who resorted to him on some of the innumerable matters in which he was the controlling spirit. This great palace he presented to the king some time before his fall, and the king altered and enlarged it still further, and made it, as was to be expected, one of his chief residences. Here, then, we may expect to find the best work that wealth and skill could produce; here we may fairly look for typical work of the time. What is the character of the work that was being executed between 1514 and 1540? In its essentials it is Gothic of a late type, with just such touches of Italian detail as have been already mentioned. The structure is of dark red brick, with stone dressings; the detail is of the simplest; the windows are generally small, and have flat-pointed heads. Whatever elaboration there is, is chiefly confined to central features, such as the gateways on the great axial line. The chimneys are of cut and moulded brick; the archways are vaulted with fan tracery vaulting; the large windows of the hall are traceried and cusped; everything in its main outline is Gothic. But in certain parts the ornament is of Renaissance character. There are a number of terra-cotta roundels built into the walls, which came from Italy, and were made to the Cardinal's order. There is a terra-cotta tablet of his arms supported by putti beautifully modelled—this was also probably an importation; it has no essential connection with its surroundings. The same may also be said of the more roughly modelled panels on either side of the doorway to the chapel, which contain the royal arms impaling those of Henry's third queen, Jane Seymour, supported by very mundane angels. But there is also, in other parts of the building, a little Renaissance detail, which is an essential part of the design, and could not have been brought from elsewhere and built in. Such is the carving in the spandrils of doorways (Fig. [28]), the pendants of the hall roof, and the ceiling decoration of certain rooms. This must all have been wrought on the spot, but it forms an extremely small part of the whole. While the spandrils of three or four doorways are carved with Renaissance detail, the doorways themselves are in other respects quite Gothic. The hall roof, as already said, is Gothic in conception, although much of its ornament is of the newer fashion. The same may be said of the chapel roof, which is an imitation in oak of some of the stone vaulting and pendants of the period. The ceilings will be referred to later, but it may here be said that most of them are derived from the wood-ribbed ceilings of Late Gothic work, and that only in the small room called Wolsey's Closet does the design decidedly follow Italian models. It will thus be seen that Hampton Court is essentially Gothic in style, and that only in its susceptible places has it been affected by the foreign fashion.

What happened at Hampton Court happened elsewhere, and in all the examples which have come down to us the same thing is to be seen—a Gothic structure with more or less of Italian ornament: more in such places as Sutton Court and Layer Marney Tower, less at Compton Winyates and Hengrave.

There was, however, one building, which has not come down to us, in which the Italian manner must have been much more in evidence, judging by such accounts as we have of the place. This was the palace of Nonesuch, in Surrey. It was built by Henry VIII. as a retreat, according to Paul Hentzner, the tutor of a young German nobleman who visited England in 1598.[4] It was in "a very healthful situation," he says, "chosen by King Henry VIII. for his pleasure and retirement, and built by him with an excess of magnificence and elegance, even to ostentation; one would imagine that everything that architecture can perform to have been employed in this one work; there are everywhere so many statues that seem to breathe, so many miracles of consummate art, so many casts that rival even the perfection of Roman antiquity, that it may well claim and justify its name of Nonesuch." The site was acquired by the king in 1538,[5] and as he died in 1547, he must have begun to build almost immediately. According to a statement in Braun's Civitates (1582), he "procured many excellent artificers, architects, sculptors, and statuaries, as well Italians, French, and Dutch as natives, who all applied to the ornament of this mansion the finest and most curious skill they possessed in these several arts, embellishing it within and without with many magnificent statues, some of which vividly represent the antiquities of Rome, and some surpass them."[6] About eight years after Henry's death the house was alienated from the Crown to the Earl of Arundel, and was thereby saved from the destruction contemplated by Queen Mary, who found it too costly to finish. The Earl, however, "for the love and honour he bare to his old master," completed the building and left it to his son-in-law, Lord Lumley, who added a second court. In 1591 it again came into possession of the Crown, and so continued until it was presented by Charles II. to his favourite, Barbara, Countess of Castlemaine, who pulled it down to help towards paying her debts. A few years before this happened Evelyn notes in his diary under date 3rd January, 1666: "I supp'd in Nonesuch House, whither the office of the Exchequer was transferr'd during the plague, at my good friend's Mr. Packer's, and tooke an exact view of the plaster statues and bass relievos inserted 'twixt the timbers and punchions of the outside walles of the Court; which must needs have ben the work of some celebrated Italian. I much admir'd how it had lasted so well and intire since the time of Hen. VIII., expos'd as they are to the aire; and pitty it is they are not taken out and preserv'd in some drie place; a gallerie would become them. There are some mezzo-relievos as big as the life, the storie is of the Heathen Gods, emblems, compartments, etc. The Palace consists of two courts, of which the first is of stone, castle-like, by the Lo. Lumlies (of whom 'twas purchas'd), the other of timber, a Gotic fabric, but these walls incomparably beautified. I observ'd that the appearing timber punchions, entrelices, &c., were all so cover'd with scales of slate, that it seem'd carv'd in the wood and painted, the slate fastened on the timber in pretty figures, that has, like a coate of armour, preserv'd it from rotting." Some two and a half years before this visit of Evelyn's, his lively contemporary, Mr. Pepys, had gone through the park to the house and, as he says, "there viewed as much as we could of the outside, and looked through the great gates, and found a noble court." In September, 1665, he was again there, and while waiting about he examined the house, which was, he says, "on the outside filled with figures of stories, and good painting of Rubens' or Holben's doing. And one great thing is, that most of the house is covered, I mean the post and quarters in the walls, with lead, and gilded."

[4]Hentzner's Travels, ed. by Horace Walpole

[5]Gentleman's Magazine, August, 1837.

[6]Archæologia, Vol. XXXIX., p. 32. Toto del Nunziata was probably one of the Italians.

Of all this beautiful work nothing has survived, except a painted panel or two preserved at Loseley, in Surrey, and possibly other fragments in other houses of the district. According to a statement of John Aubrey, the antiquary, some of the materials of Nonesuch went to the building of The Durdans near Epsom. Evelyn calls it a Gothic building, and we shall probably not be far wrong in placing it in the same category as other buildings of the time—English in conception, but adorned with foreign ornament, which in this case was of greater extent and better workmanship than that on any other contemporary house. It seems clear, however, that the work, important as it was, did not have any permanent effect upon English architecture. It was the culmination of the Italian movement prevalent throughout Henry VIII.'s reign; after his death, and before the newness of Nonesuch had worn off, the Italian influence gave way to the Dutch. Nonesuch was a large building, especially after Lord Lumley had added the second court; but it would seem that Henry VIII. actually built but one court, measuring 116 feet long by 137 feet wide.[7] Hampton Court had four large courts besides half-a-dozen smaller ones; the largest or Base Court, measuring 167 feet by 142 feet, still remains; so also do the Clock Court, measuring 160 feet by 91 feet, and the Chapel Court; the fourth, measuring 116 feet by 108 feet, has given way to Wren's buildings. Hampton Court, therefore, stood without a rival in point of size, but Nonesuch was more magnificently decorated, and we can but echo Evelyn's lament that the beautiful panels were "not taken out and preserv'd in some drie place."

[7]Archæologia, Vol. V., p. 429.

29.—Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire. Tower at South-East Corner (between 1540 and 1553).

Just about the time that Nonesuch was being built, Lacock Abbey in Wiltshire was being converted into a residence by William Sharington, who had bought it on the dissolution of the monasteries. He was lord of the manor in 1540, and he died in 1553,[8] so that all the work which he did must be comprised between those dates. One important part of his work is the octagonal tower at the south-east corner of the house (Fig. [ 29]). The detail of the stonework is simple, and, except for certain brackets, does not show much foreign influence, but in the tower are two stone tables (Figs. [30] and [31]), evidently made for their situation, which strongly display the new spirit. That one of them was expressly made for William Sharington is proved by his initials and crest being part of its ornamentation; and as a skilful mason named Chapman was working on the new buildings, it is just possible that he may have carved one or both of these tables. It is the table on the middle floor which has its base ornamented with Sharington's initials and crest; from this base rises a central pillar, against which squat four figures of satyrs carrying baskets of fruit and foliage upon which rests the table-top. The satyrs have that curious resemblance about their heads to North American Indians which characterises a number of such figures carved during the latter half of the sixteenth century. The second table (on the top floor) has nothing about it directly connecting it with Sharington. It was evidently intended for a banqueting house, as it is adorned with figures of Apicius, the first authority on the pleasures of the table, Ceres, Bacchus, and an unnamed personage of the same hierarchy.

[8]"Notes on Lacock Abbey," by C. H. Talbot, Wilts. Archæolog. and Nat. Hist. Mag. Vol. XXVI.

30.—Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire. Stone Table in Tower.

Sharington's work is of considerable interest, and includes, in addition to minor matters such as a chimney-piece, chimney-stacks, and panelling, a fine range of stabling (Fig. [32]), of which the detail is tolerably simple, and of a character closely resembling that which prevailed twenty years later, although here and there, in a chimney or a bracket, we get a touch more in keeping with what is usually associated with Sharington's own time. In addition to the Renaissance work in the tables there is some tile paving (Plate [IX].) which displays, amid the foliage, the vases and the dolphins that form the staple of Italian ornament, the initials of Sharington and his third wife, Grace, his arms (gu., between two flaunches arg. and az., two crosses formée, in pale), and his crest, a scorpion. As Sir William Sharington died in 1553, and it was during the life of his third wife that these tiles were made, they may fairly be dated about 1550.

31.—Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire. Stone Table in Tower.

Plate IXa.

LACOCK ABBEY, WILTSHIRE. TILE PAVING (About 1550).

Plate IXb.

SEPARATE TILES FROM THE SAME PAVEMENT.

With the close of the first half of the century we come to the end of pronounced Italian detail such as pervades the tiles at Lacock, and characterises other isolated features in different parts of the country. The nature of the detail in the second half of the century is different; it no longer comprises the dainty cherubs, the elegant balusters, vases and candelabra, the buoyant dolphins, and delicately modelled foliage which are associated with Italian and French Renaissance work, but it indulges freely in strap work, curled and interlaced, in fruit and foliage, in cartouches, and in caryatides, half human beings, half pedestals, such as were the delight of the Dutchman of the time. But the extreme heaviness of the Dutch work was lightened in its passage across the water, and the English workmen seem to have improved upon their later models as much as they fell short of their earlier. There is a fine carved and inlaid chest in St. Mary Overie, Southwark, which shows this change in detail (Plate [X].), but it is treated with more restraint than the woodwork of later years. It was the gift of Hugh Offley, and bears his initials and marks, as well as his arms and those of his wife's family: he was Lord Mayor in 1556, and is not unlikely to have given the chest in that year.

32.—Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire. The Stables (between 1540 and 1553).

In addition to the change in the character of the detail, we find a classic rendering of strings and cornices more prevalent; doorways became frequently round-headed instead of flat-pointed, windows became square-headed, and all accessories parted with what remains of Gothic character they may have possessed in favour of a classic treatment. But the general body of a building was less susceptible of change than were its particular features, and how the general body of such buildings as houses developed will be seen in the next chapter.

32A.—From the Sedilia, Wymondham Church, Norfolk.

Plate X.

CHEST FROM ST. MARY OVERIE, SOUTHWARK (Dated 1556

CHAPTER III.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOUSE-PLAN FROM ABOUT 1450 TO 1635.

Note.—The plans are drawn to a uniform scale of 50 feet to the inch.

The principal buildings erected during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries were houses, and it is mainly in connection with domestic architecture that we must seek to trace the development of the new style. There were but few churches built after the dissolution of the monasteries, and we have no examples of sufficient importance to show how ecclesiastical architecture would have been affected. There are chapels, chantries, and fittings, such as screens, pews, pulpits, and fonts, but nothing on a large scale. We have already seen how such comparatively small and isolated features were affected. It is necessary, therefore, to look to the numerous houses that were built in order to see what progress the new ideas made.

The character of a house is largely determined by its plan, and the plan is the expression of the wants and habits of the inmates. Accordingly we find that the wants and habits of English people, being far less susceptible of change than their taste in ornament and decoration, caused the plan of their houses to follow the old lines long after the superficial decoration had taken on itself the foreign fashion. The one quality which the Italian influence gradually introduced into the plan was symmetry, and this could be obtained without sacrificing the arrangements which seemed essential to English habits. In later days an Italian feature, the open loggia, was often made use of in the form of an arcade, but even this had its English precedent in the cloisters of the monks.

What were the essential points about the plan of an English house? The most important place was the hall, which was the nucleus of the whole series of apartments. Then there was the kitchen with its adjuncts; and there were the private apartments for the family, of which the chief was the "parlour." The arrangement which naturally established itself was that the kitchen should be located at one end of the hall and the parlour at the other. This relation of rooms had existed from a very early period, and it is in the developing of this idea with more or less elaboration and skill that house-planning consisted down to the time of Inigo Jones, when the hall gradually ceased to be the centre of household life, and became merely an entrance.

To the central group of hall, kitchen and parlour were added what other rooms were required for convenience or defence; but in regard to the latter, precautions against attack had already become less necessary in Henry VIII.'s time, and they were practically disregarded in Elizabeth's, when considerations of stateliness and display chiefly influenced the design, at any rate as far as the larger houses were concerned.

Nothing will help to show how the central idea of an English house developed, while tenaciously adhering to its essence, so much as a comparison of the plans of a number of houses built during the sixteenth century and the early part of the seventeenth. But in order to bring them into relation with what preceded them, the series commences with the plans of two houses that were built in the fifteenth century, before there was a trace of Italian influence to be found in English work. All the plans are those of fair-sized houses, chiefly of the manor-house class, and they are from examples scattered up and down the country; therefore whatever characteristics they possess may be taken to have been of fairly wide distribution.

33.—Great Chalfield, Wiltshire. Plan (temp. Henry VI.).

The first example is Great Chalfield, in Wiltshire (Fig. [33]), where the work is all of good Perpendicular character. The house was built towards the end of the reign of Henry VI., at a time when precautions against attack were still necessary; it was therefore surrounded by a moat. Much of the work has disappeared, and alterations have been made in what is left, but the arrangement of the hall is still plain, although the kitchen is not recognisable. The almost invariable disposition of the hall was as follows: it was an oblong apartment with one end cut off by a screen, which formed the entrance passage called "the screens." From this passage the hall was entered on one side, while from the other side access was obtained to the kitchen, the buttery, the pantry, and the rest of the servants' department. This arrangement may still be seen in use at many of the colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The hall itself was usually lighted from both sides, and was a lofty apartment with an open roof, that is, with all the timbers showing. The effect of this disposition was that the hall divided the house into two separate portions; there was no thoroughfare above it or around it, but only through it. At the end opposite to the screens was the daïs, a platform raised some few inches above the general floor level, where the family sat at meals, in the same way as the dons sit in many colleges at the present day. The daïs was usually lighted by a bay window, which formed a convenient recess for a serving table. There are still a few houses where the daïs survives, but in most cases it has been cleared away and the floor has been lowered to the general level. That it was of universal adoption is proved by its being shown on practically all contemporary plans. The fireplace was placed in one of the side walls, and was generally somewhat nearer to the daïs end than the other. It obviously could not be placed at the screen end, because the screen itself did not go up to the roof, but was covered by a gallery, usually known as the minstrels' gallery, though it may be doubted whether in many instances it was used by the votaries of the gaie science. Nor could the fireplace be conveniently set in the end wall on the daïs, since it would have interfered with the table; it was necessarily placed therefore in one of the side walls.

These features, then, may be looked for in every hall of the time—the screen, the daïs, the bay window, and the fireplace—and in some cases a good deal of ingenuity was displayed in contriving to obtain them in their due relation to each other.

From the daïs end of the hall access was obtained to the family apartments, which were few in number at first, but gradually increased with the ever-growing desire for comfort and refinement.

At Great Chalfield the hall conforms to the dispositions detailed above, but the bay windows serve rather as means of communication with other rooms than merely as windows.

34.—Oxburgh Hall, Norfolk. Ground Plan (1482).

35.—Oxburgh Hall, Norfolk. Entrance Tower (1482).

At Oxburgh Hall, in Norfolk (1482), we have another type of defensive house (Fig. [34]). It was built round a court, as well as being surrounded by a moat. The entrance was through a lofty tower into the court, on the opposite side of which was the hall of the usual type. The kitchen was to the right on entering, in the extreme south-west corner of the building—not exactly the aspect we should choose in the present day. So many changes have been made in the use to which the rooms in these old houses have been put, and in the way of approaching them, that too much stress must not be laid upon the details of the plan, but the relation of the hall and kitchen at Oxburgh must have been always the same. The rest of the building is made up of small rooms surrounding the court, not arranged on any elaborate plan, but put to whatever use was required. It will be seen that although there is a considerable amount of uniformity in the arrangement of Oxburgh Hall, there is no strict symmetry. The entrance tower is in the centre of the front, but the windows on either side of it do not tally with each other. The entrance to the hall is not on the axial line of the tower, nor is the setting of the windows and doors in the court by any means regular. As we advance in time, we shall find that all these points were very carefully attended to, especially towards the end of the sixteenth century. The plan here illustrated was made in 1774, and a few years subsequently the south side of the court, containing the hall and kitchen, was pulled down. Other alterations have been made since then, but there is still much of the original work left. The great entrance tower (Fig. [35]) shows still a certain hankering after defensive features; there is a curtain arch thrown across between the turrets, from behind which missiles could be hurled upon unwelcome visitors, and the openings in the turrets are of the smallest. The windows generally are of few lights, the heads are pointed and cusped, the parapets are corbelled out and battlemented, and the whole work is of Late Gothic character without any trace of the new style in its decoration.

36.—East Barsham, Norfolk. Ground Plan (cir. 1500-15).

At East Barsham (about 1500-15) we get indications of the new style in the treatment of parts of the ornament. The general feeling, however, is still Gothic. There is not much of the plan to be made out, but what there is shows a large entrance tower, with the porch of the hall exactly opposite to it (Fig. [36]). The hall has a bay window at the daïs end, and, contrary to custom, a fireplace in the end wall. The kitchen is to the right on entering, and is approached by a passage from the middle of the screens. The whole arrangement is in the main of the usual type, so far as it can be traced. The new feeling is indicated in one or two panels which bear a head, but most of the ornament is still of the Gothic type with cuspings, etc. At the neighbouring parsonage of Great Snoring, which resembles East Barsham in general treatment, some of the ornament is more decidedly Italian, with the characteristic balusters and foliage.

Plate XI.

COMPTON WINYATES, WARWICKSHIRE (ABOUT 1520).

GENERAL VIEW.

Compton Winyates, in Warwickshire (about 1520), is a very complete and charming example of its period. The plan conforms in its main features to the ordinary type (Fig. [37]). A certain amount of regularity is imparted to it by reason of its being built round a rectangular court, but of symmetry in it there is hardly a trace, and there is still less in the grouping of the structure. Everything is as irregular and picturesque as the most romantic could desire; the mixture of materials—stone, brick, wood, and plaster—lends a delightful variety of texture, tone, and colour, and makes the house, next to Haddon, one of the most alluring in the country (Plate [XI].). But our concern at present is more particularly with the plan. This shows a courtyard entered through a gateway which is opposite, though not exactly opposite, to the door of the screens. On the left of the screens are the buttery, the kitchen passage, and a staircase; on the right, of course, the hall, from the upper end of which access is obtained to the family rooms, the chapel, and—what previous plans have not shown—the grand staircase. Of course, with the lofty hall cutting the building in two halves, at least two staircases were necessary to get to the upper rooms; as a matter of fact there were usually more than two, as there are here: difficulties of planning being often removed, or at any rate lessened, by this rather costly expedient. It will be seen that the hall has a range of rooms at the back of it, and that its two side walls are not, as usual, both external. The sides of the court are formed, as they were at Oxburgh, of a number of small rooms, which originally (in all probability) led into one another, the passage being a later addition. The ornament, in which the house abounds, is all of Late Gothic character (Plate [XII].). There is no actual Renaissance detail in the external work, although much of it looks as though it were quite ready for the change.

37.—Compton Winyates, Warwickshire. Ground Plan (cir. 1520).

Plate XII.

COMPTON WINYATES, WARWICKSHIRE

THE ENTRANCE PORCH

38.—Sutton Place, near Guildford. Ground Plan (1523-25).

39.—Sutton Place, Surrey. Details (1523-25).

So far, although we have come to nearly the close of the first quarter of the century, we have seen but little effect from the new style. Just a suggestion in the ornament at East Barsham, and a slight tendency towards a symmetrical treatment of the plan; yet whatever symmetry there may have been at East Barsham was thrown to the winds at Compton Winyates. In the next example, Sutton Place, near Guildford, only a few years later in date (1523-25),[9] we find symmetry in plan and elevation, and ornament which is strongly marked with Italian character. The entrance was as usual through a tower, and faced the hall door exactly opposite, on the axial line (Fig. [38]). Such accuracy of alignment was so infrequent at this date, and it results in the hall door being placed so far from the end wall where the screens ought to be, that a feeling of doubt creeps in as to whether we see here the original arrangement unaltered. The hall, too, is of such a height as to embrace two tiers of windows, another most unusual treatment. In the ordinary way the windows would have been made lofty in proportion to the hall. If the existing dispositions have come down unaltered, they are a striking testimony to the manner in which routine of design was broken in order to obtain external symmetry. Apart from this point, the plan adheres to the usual lines. The hall connects the two wings, and the sides of the court are formed by a series of small chambers approached either through each other or from the outer air. The internal walls have either been removed or altered, but the external walls remain to show that the wings enclosing the court were only one room thick, and not of sufficient width to allow of a corridor.

[9]Annals of an Old Manor House, by Frederic Harrison.

There is, however, an important point to be noticed, and that is the symmetrical treatment of the court. Not only is there a little bay window halfway along each side, but the bay window of the hall, which comes in the angle of the court, is balanced by another bay in the other angle, although there is no important room to be lighted by it. Such an arrangement was often adopted in subsequent plans, but this is the first instance which we have seen of it.

40.—Sutton Place, Surrey. Part Elevation of Courtyard (1523-25).

While the plan adheres in the main to the customary lines, the ornamentation has taken quite a new departure. The windows are of Perpendicular type, and have the old-fashioned cusping in the heads, but the hollow of the moulding is occupied with ornament drawn from Italian, or perhaps Franco-Italian, sources (Fig. [39]). The house was built by Sir Richard Weston, and, in accordance with the custom of the preceding half century, his rebus, or an attempt at it in the shape of a tun, appears as a diaper in various places and in the horizontal string-course; but instead of being shrouded in vine leaves or other old and well-established devices, it occurs among ornament of the new type. This is a point worth noticing, inasmuch as it shows that this ornament was made for the place, and was not purchased out of ready-made stock. The amorini which are introduced over the doors have not the same individuality, nor have the half-balusters which divide them into their panels, but they were no doubt made by the same men who did the tuns and Sir Richard's initials, which also help to form a diaper in places. All this ornamental work is in terra-cotta, but there is nothing to show where the patterns were cast, whether in England or abroad. The battlemented parapet is not yet discarded (Fig. [40]), and the large octagonal shafts are crowned with a variation of the dome. Some of the panels are Gothic quatrefoils, and in the parapet of the central block over the front door the Italian amorini disport themselves (a little clumsily) in panels with Gothic cusping. The whole of the ornament is a curious and interesting mixture of the old and new forms.

Another house with many of the same characteristics is Layer Marney Tower, in Essex (1500-25). There is not enough left of the plan to enable us to draw any deductions from it, but the character of the work is very similar to that at Sutton, only a little more pronounced in its Renaissance feeling. The lofty entrance tower recalls that at Oxburgh; its general appearance, its pointed doorway and windows with their mouldings, and also the cusped panels of its string-courses are all distinctly Gothic (Fig. [41]). But closely associated with the Gothic panelling is the classic egg and dart enrichment. The large mullioned windows, though of Gothic descent, are Renaissance in detail, while the parapets, with their egg and dart strings, and their dolphins climbing over semicircular panels filled with radiating ornament, are thoroughly Renaissance of the French type (Plate [XIII].). In the moulded chimneys we go back to the ordinary patterns in vogue in nearly all houses of the time, whether touched with the foreign influence or not. The decorative detail here, as at Sutton Place, is in terra-cotta.

Plate XIII.

DETAILS FROM LAYER MARNEY TOWER, ESSEX.

41.—Layer Marney, Essex. Entrance Tower (1500-25).

Both these houses were built by men who had spent some time in France. Sir Richard Weston was there more than once, and was among those who were present at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Sir Henry Marney, who built Layer Marney Tower, was one of those attending upon Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, when he took a great army to France in 1522.[10] But whether they took advantage of these journeys to bring back French or Italian workmen with them is not known. Unfortunately there is no documentary evidence to produce, and any opinion that may be formed can only be speculative. One thing is clear; namely, that no school was established over here of men working in the new style. The instances of its use are too few and isolated for that.

[10]"Architectural Notes on Layer Marney Hall, Essex," by C. Forster Hayward. Trans. Essex Archæolog. Soc. Vol. III. pt. I.

42.—Hengrave Hall, Suffolk. Ground Plan (1538).

At Hengrave Hall, in Suffolk (1538), the main dispositions conform to the usual type, but without any attempt at exact symmetry (Fig. [42]). The entrance leads into a court, round which a corridor is taken. This feature adds much to the comfort and convenience of the house, but it is a refinement in planning which was very seldom introduced. On the opposite side from the entrance is the hall, with the old position of the screens still preserved; to the right of the screens lies the kitchen wing. There is the usual bay window at the daïs end of the hall, and the family apartments are on the left. Owing to alterations the minutiæ of the original plan cannot now be traced; the general disposition alone can be recognised. The accompanying plan is from one made in 1775, since which time the whole of the kitchen wing has been pulled down and other alterations have been made. The general disposition shown on it may be taken as being like the original, and we see that the entrance is not in the middle of the side of the court, and that in order to obtain a symmetrical façade a wing was carried out to the right, whereby the entrance comes nearly in the centre, though not quite, and is balanced on either hand by projecting turrets corresponding one with the other.

43.—Hengrave Hall, Suffolk. West Front (1538).

The house was originally moated, and beyond the moat was an outer court, surrounded by low buildings, used as offices and stables. It was entered through a gateway or lodge, where the keepers and falconers had their quarters. The general treatment of the architecture still follows the old lines (Fig. [43]). The windows, as a rule, have few lights, they have flat-pointed heads, and their total area is relatively small in proportion to the plain surface of brick wall. The chimneys are of cut and moulded brickwork of the prevailing type; the turrets are crowned with a dome-like finish, similar to that which had been used at Henry VII.'s chapel thirty years before. The parapets are battlemented, and the strings are narrow and not of classic profile. In the entrance gateway we find the new note struck (Plate [XIV].). The archway is Perpendicular in character, but above it is a triple bay window, supported on corbelling, full of Renaissance detail, while amorini in Roman armour carry long scrolls in their hands, and serve as supporters to a shield of arms (Fig. [44]). The whole of the corbelling terminates at the bottom in a foliated pendant. This inextricable mixture of the old-fashioned Perpendicular detail with the new-fashioned Renaissance ornament is quite characteristic of the period, and shows that the masons, while clinging to the style with which they had been familiar since their youth, were endeavouring to make closer acquaintance with the foreign forms so much in demand. The names of the masons who did this work are on record: they were John Eastawe and John Sparke, evidently Englishmen.[11]

[11]Hist. and Antiq. of Hengrave, by John Gage.

44.—Hengrave Hall, Suffolk. Corbelling of Bay Window over Entrance Archway.

Of the houses so far mentioned, Oxburgh Hall, East Barsham, Sutton Place, Layer Marney, and Hengrave are all built of brick. On the other side of the country, and in a house constructed of entirely different materials, we get—at Moreton Old Hall in Cheshire (1559)—the same kind of plan with which we have now become familiar (Fig. [45]). This house is of timber and plaster, as many of the old houses in that district are. It is surrounded by a moat, and has—at any rate on the ground floor—but few windows looking out over the country; they face into the court where possible. The relative positions of the hall, the kitchen, and the private apartments are here more clearly discernible than in some of the preceding plans, inasmuch as the family rooms have undergone but little serious alteration. The proximity of the two large bays of the hall and parlour is curious, and was the factor which caused the hall bay to be placed so far away from the daïs end.

Plate XIV.

HENGRAVE HALL, SUFFOLK (1538).

ENTRANCE GATEWAY.

The observations of contemporary writers are of much value when considering subjects of historical interest. It is therefore worth while to reproduce the advice of a certain Andrew Boorde, Doctor of Physicke, in regard to the arrangements of a house, which he offers in the fourth chapter of his Compendyous Regyment, or a Dyetary of Helth, published in 1542. In this chapter he proceeds to "shewe under what maner and fasshon a man shulde buylde his howse or mansyon in exchewyng thynges the whiche shulde shorten the lyfe of man." He dwells upon the necessity of a good soil and good prospect, which latter advice was frequently neglected, a great number of houses in those times being built in a hole. The air, he says, must be pure, frisky, and clean, the foundations on gravel mixed with clay, or else on rock or on a hill. The chief prospects are to be east and west, especially north-east, south-east, and south-west; never south, for the south wind "doth corrupte and doth make evyll vapoures." He holds it better that the windows should open plain north than plain south, in spite, he says, of Jeremiah's saying that "from the north dependeth all evil."

45.—Moreton Old Hall, Cheshire. Ground Plan (1559).

He then enters upon particulars of the plan, and it will be observed how exactly his suggestions, so far as they go, agree with the plans we are examining. "Make the hall," he says, "under such a fashion that the parlour be annexed to the head of the hall, and the buttery and pantry be at the lower end of the hall; the cellar under the pantry, set somewhat abase from the buttery and pantry, coming with an entry by the wall of the buttery; the pastry-house and the larder-house annexed to the kitchen. Then divide the lodgings by the circuit of the quadrivial court, and let the gatehouse be opposite or against the hall door (not directly), but the hall door standing abase, and the gatehouse in the middle of the front entering into the place. Let the privy chamber be annexed to the great chamber of estate, with other chambers necessary for the building, so that many of the chambers may have a prospect into the chapel." The necessity for these particular arrangements, so far as health is concerned, does not seem quite obvious, especially the directions not to have the hall door exactly opposite to the entrance gateway; and it may be supposed that this particular passage in his treatise was suggested by what he had frequently seen rather than by what science led him to prescribe. When he goes on to dwell upon the necessity for removing "fylth," he was probably taking a more original attitude, as also when he recommended the stables, slaughter-house, and dairy to be kept a quarter of a mile away from the house. The bakehouse and brewhouse should also be isolated, he thinks; but in all these respects his advice was not universally followed, for the whole of these particular places are to be found attached to the house on one or other of contemporary house plans. His next advice is applicable to Moreton Old Hall. "When all the mansion is edified and built, if there be a moat made about it, there should be some fresh spring come to it, and divers times the moat ought to be scoured and kept clean from mud and weeds. And in no wise let not the filth of the kitchen descend into the moat." Most of Dr. Andrew Boorde's advice is practical and to the point, and he is not so much in bondage to ancient authorities as many of his contemporaries were, in spite of his reference to Jeremiah. The rest of his chapter refers to the gardens and other surroundings of the house, which need not now be dealt with.

Plate XV.

MORETON OLD HALL, CHESHIRE.

ELEVATION OF ENTRANCE GABLE.

Plate XVI.

MORETON OLD HALL, CHESHIRE.

ELEVATION OF GABLE ON FRONT.

The prevailing treatment of the ornament at Moreton is still Gothic (Plates [XV]., [XVI].), in spite of its date being beyond the middle of the century. Nevertheless the influence of the new style is seen here and there, especially in the carved pendants of the overhanging work. The fine bay windows were made, as an inscription tells us, by Richard Dale, carpenter, in 1559, a further testimony to the fact that it was English workmen who did most of the work of the time, even when it shows signs of foreign ornament. Although the bulk of the house was built in 1559, considerable alterations were made nearly half a century later, in 1602; and to this date may be assigned the long gallery, with its continuous row of mullioned windows reaching from end to end almost without a break. The effect is very quaint, but the room must always have been uncomfortable, whether in summer by reason of the heat, or in winter by reason of the cold; and as a comment upon the effect of time on the stability of these timber houses, nothing can be more striking than an attempt to walk quickly down the seventy feet of billowy floor which the gallery presents.

With our next plan we enter upon the Elizabethan era, an era marked by an extraordinary amount of house-building, which led to a great degree of attention being bestowed upon the planning. This attention, it is true, does not seem to have been directed so much towards comfort or economy as towards magnificence and display. No doubt comfort of a kind was aimed at, but people did not then require comfort as we understand it, and designers were not likely to be much in advance of their clients. The sacrifices of common sense to architectural effect were nevertheless few. The relative positions of the principal apartments were settled by considerations of convenience, not of external grouping. The kitchens, for instance, were always fairly in touch with the hall, not, as in later days, when Palladian architecture was in vogue, located some hundreds of feet away in a detached wing, connected by a curved colonnade, and balanced on the other extremity by the stables or the remainder of the servants' rooms, in a similar wing. Nor were the servants' bedrooms hidden away in the roof with windows looking out on to the back of a solid pediment, or even looking inwards and only lighted by borrowed light. It was the architects of a more strict Italian school who were reduced to such expedients in the early part of the eighteenth century; but in the late sixteenth the prevalent style was sufficiently elastic to enable the dictates of common sense to be obeyed. No doubt bay windows were placed in useless situations in order to balance others that were useful. Lofty windows were sometimes divided by floors halfway up their height in order that the uniformity of the front should not be interrupted; but the rooms themselves were cheerful enough and had good prospects. The features which the Elizabethan designer had to marshal were smaller and more manageable than those which fell to the lot of his successor in the days of Anne and the Georges; and this was particularly the case with his windows. In a mullioned window an additional row of lights in the width, or even the height, can be managed without attracting undue attention, but the sash window has to conform to the size and situation of its brethren.

Economy of planning, in the sense of avoiding waste spaces, or saving the footsteps of the inmates, was not much studied. The only evidence we have of its consideration lies in the occasional lopping off of extravagant features, or the substitution of a reduced set of plans for one of more extensive area.

The real aim of the designers seems to have been magnificence and display—sometimes on a large scale, sometimes on a small. The principal means used for this end was symmetry—not so much a symmetry of detail as a symmetry of parts, of large features rather than of small. We shall find this quality in almost every kind of plan, and an extremely valuable quality it is if not carried to excess. The symmetry of the Elizabethans was generally under control. It was sometimes wasteful and its results were occasionally amusing, but they were never ridiculous or fatal to the comfort of the house.

Up to the present the plans we have examined have not—with the exception of Sutton Place—shown any determined attempt at a symmetrical treatment, only a certain hankering after it. With Kirby Hall (1570-75) we get a more resolute effort in this direction (Fig. [46]). The entrance gateway and the screens are on an axial line running through the house and its green court. The inner court is quite symmetrically treated, door answering to door, and window to window; but the exterior façades were left to take care of themselves, and no attempt was made to balance one mass by another.

Plate XVII.

KIRBY HALL, NORTHANTS.

ELEVATION OF SOUTH SIDE OF COURTYARD (1570-75).

46.—Kirby Hall, Northamptonshire. Ground Plan (1570-75).

The symmetry of plan was carried out in the elevations too, at least so far as the courtyard is concerned. The south side, in which the projecting porch stands, is quite symmetrical, the great windows of the hall on the right being exactly balanced by similar windows on the left (Plate [XVII].). The hall reaches from floor to roof, but the left wing had two storeys, and the floor of the upper one occupied one row of the glazed lights. This expedient cannot be justified on the principle of causing the exterior treatment to indicate the internal arrangement; but it can hardly be denied that the general effect would be marred were the left-hand windows divided into two tiers. The door below the windows to the left is a later insertion. A curious fact about this front is that the two outside gables, which contain much delicate detail, are partly blocked by the roofs of the side wings, which abut against them; yet it is quite certain, from the character of the detail, and from the badges which are used as ornaments in the wings, that the whole court was built at the same time, ends and sides, and it is equally certain that the whole building operations were comprised within the five years 1570 to 1575.

Plate XVIII.

KIRBY HALL. JOHN THORPE'S GROUND PLAN.

From the Soane Museum Collection.

Although no attempt seems to have been actually made to carry symmetry of treatment into the external façades, yet an examination of the plan made by John Thorpe, the surveyor, at the time that Kirby was built, shows that such a treatment was contemplated on each of the four faces (Plate [XVIII].). There are other points of interest which Thorpe's plan elucidates. Having entered through the principal doorway, in the north or upper side of the plan, and having traversed the length of the court, we find a projecting porch through which the screens are reached. The arrangement is the typical one which we have seen in all the plans yet examined, and which tallies almost exactly with Dr. Andrew Boorde's advice, already quoted (see [page 57]), with the exception that he was opposed to the hall porch being exactly opposite the entrance gateway. On the right (as the plan lies) are the buttery and pantry, and the passage leading to the kitchen department; on the left is the hall. The details of the kitchen department are shown more clearly than in any of the foregoing houses, which have all undergone alterations. They comprise the kitchen, with its large fireplace; "the pastry," where the ovens are; the dry larder under it; the surveying place; and the wet larder. Close to these, and approached by the kitchen passage, is the winter parlour, a room which occurs on many plans of the time in close proximity to the kitchen. This endeavour to get a living room conveniently situated for winter use is one of the refinements which were now creeping in. Returning to the screens, and passing into the hall, we find the daïs marked on the plan, the fireplace in the side wall, but no bay window: there is one indicated, but it was not carried out. From the daïs the family apartments are reached, together with a great staircase. Next to the head of the hall, as Dr. Andrew Boorde has it, is the parlour (pler); the other rooms are not named. The division of "the lodgings by the circuit of the quadrivial court" is shown on Thorpe's plan, but most of the cross walls are now gone. It will be seen that these lodgings consist of a number of groups of two or three rooms (which were called "lodgings"), each group being entered from the court by a door, and each room communicating with its neighbour, so that the complete circuit of the building could be made through them. The object of this grouping was to give a small suite of rooms to every guest, in which he could establish himself with his principal attendants; in the case of a large retinue it could overflow into the next group. It was necessary to traverse the open court to reach the places of general resort, such as the hall, the "great chamber of estate," and the gallery; but it is evident that this was not felt to be a drawback, since the practice was widespread. The next point to notice is that here we have the first instance of the open terrace, or arcade, or loggia. It occupies the north side of the court, thus being open to the full midday sun. The long gallery, which was one of the principal features of an Elizabethan house, and frequently affected the planning, inasmuch as endeavours were made to obtain a gallery of the greatest possible length, was over the western or left-hand side of the court: it was 150 feet long by 16 feet wide. The upper floor was to be reached, according to Thorpe's plan, by four large internal staircases, and two external ones on the west front. As a matter of fact, indications actually remain of five principal staircases, besides a subordinate one, and they are more conveniently placed than those shown on the old plan. The great extent of the rooms, and their being placed round a court, necessitated several means of access, and it must not be forgotten that the upper part of the hall interposed an impassable barrier between the two sides of the house on the upper floor. The time was soon to come when the height of the hall was to be restricted to that of other rooms on the same floor, but at Kirby the traditional lofty hall was still retained.

The detail at Kirby is thoroughly Elizabethan, but there are a few windows, dated 1638, 1640, which were inserted by Inigo Jones, and he remodelled the north wing. His work, however, is easily distinguished from that of earlier date. The house was built by a Sir Humphrey Stafford, the head of a family seated at Blatherwyck in the immediate vicinity. It was begun in 1570, and it bears on the parapet of the courtyard the dates 1572, 1575; in the latter year Sir Humphrey died, having practically completed his house, which was then sold by his heir to Sir Christopher Hatton. Not only are the parapets dated, but amid the ornament of the various bands which make the circuit of the courtyard, and in the gable over the porch, occur the Stafford cognizances. Their presence indicates the extent of the work of Stafford, and proves that practically the whole place was built between the years 1570-75, though the Hattons probably made some trifling alterations during the last ten years of the century, and subsequently employed Inigo Jones to partly modernise the house fifty years later. The detail is unusually free and fresh, and has more variety than Elizabethan masons generally bestowed upon their work. The gable over the porch in the courtyard has no counterpart in England; the coping of the parapet round the whole court has an unusual but effective wave ornament (Plate [XIX].).

Plate XIX.