The Project Gutenberg eBook of Some famous buildings and their story
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Some famous buildings and their story
Author: Alfred W. Clapham
Walter H. Godfrey
Release date: December 6, 2025 [eBook #77412]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Technical Journals Ltd, 1913
Credits: deaurider, A Marshall and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS AND THEIR STORY ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of the paragraph.
A superscript is denoted by ^x, for example und^r.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS AND
THEIR STORY
SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS
AND THEIR STORY
_Being the results of recent research in
London and elsewhere._
BY
ALFRED W. CLAPHAM, F.S.A.,
AND
WALTER H. GODFREY
Author of
_A History of Architecture in London_,
_The Parish of Chelsea_, &c., &c.
ILLUSTRATED BY 108 PHOTOGRAPHS AND ORIGINAL PLANS
TECHNICAL JOURNALS, LTD.
CAXTON HOUSE, WESTMINSTER, S.W.
PREFACE.
Not the least interesting branch of modern research is that which opens
for us new chapters in the history of our own country and shows us the
character and ambitions in the lives of our ancestors. The public have
long been familiarised with the results of scientific inquiry into the
organic structure and the habits of Nature, but the labours of the
historian are too often hidden in treatises of too abstruse a form to
attract the general reader. And even where an attempt has been made to
present these subjects of human interest in a more palatable form we
too often have to lament a looseness of expression and an indifference
to historical accuracy which defeat every good purpose in view.
It is in the belief that a series of short papers, each embodying
some definite contribution to local or national history, may yet be
made of real interest to the average reader, that this collection of
studies has been compiled. The majority of the articles appeared in
the pages of the _Architectural Review_ under the title of “New Light
on Old Subjects.” (February, 1911, to March, 1912.) My friend Mr. A.
W. Clapham contributes those on the palaces of Nonsuch, Hertford,
Havering, and Queenborough, the Tower of London, the Origin of the
Domestic Hall, and the monastic buildings of Cockersand; Barking;[1]
St. John’s, Clerkenwell;[2] Blackfriars[3] and Whitefriars[4]
London. The reader is referred to the publications mentioned in the
footnotes for Mr. Clapham’s detailed archæological examination of all
the documentary evidences, and a full description of the excavations
superintended by him at Barking Abbey.
[1] The Benedictine Abbey of Barking. _Transactions_, Essex
Archæological Society. Vol. XII.
[2] St. John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell. _Transactions_, St. Paul’s
Ecclesiological Society. Vol. VII. Part 2.
[3] On the topography of the Dominican Priory of London. _Archæologia._
Vol. LXIII.
[4] Topography of the Carmelite Priory of London. Journal of the
British Archæological Association. March, 1910.
Of the remaining papers, I will merely add that they represent for
the most part some particular studies in the more general examination
of London buildings which I have undertaken. The articles on Chelsea
are an amplification of the material prepared for the Survey of that
Parish.[5] That on Crosby Hall is the substance of a lecture delivered
before the London and Middlesex Archæological Association, soon
after the Hall’s reconstruction. The interpretation of the original
Specification of Elizabethan date for the erection of the Fortune
Theatre was originally undertaken for Mr. William Archer, and the full
details as here presented were first published in the _Architectural
Review_. The only paper that deals with a subject outside London is
that on Abbot’s Hospital, Guildford, which provides an excuse for a
short account of the chief points of interest in the history of English
Almshouses and their plans. I am indebted to Mr. Clapham for details of
the building dates of Eltham Palace, which are preserved in the Record
Office.
[5] “Survey of London.” Vol. IV. Parish of Chelsea, Part 2. London
County Council.
Both Mr. Clapham’s and my thanks are due for the kind permission
granted us to reproduce old plans and drawings wherever these are in
private hands and also for the use of photographs. Care has been taken
to acknowledge the source of each drawing in the text, with the names
of those who have extended to us their courtesy and help.
WALTER H. GODFREY.
11, Carteret Street,
Queen Anne’s Gate,
S.W.
CONTENTS
AND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
I. THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH, SURREY 1
1. Nonsuch Palace, Garden Front—_Hofnagle_ 2
2. Nonsuch Palace, from the South—_Speed_ (1611) 7
3. Nonsuch Palace from the N.-W.—_Vetusta Monumenta_,
Vol. ii. (1765) 8
4. The Banqueting House—drawn by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 12
II. THE FORTUNE THEATRE, LONDON (1600) 13
5. View of Interior—drawn by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 14
6. Swan Theatre, Bankside—_John de Witt_ 16
7. The Fortune. Plan (ground floor)—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 19
8. The Fortune. Plan (upper floor)—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 20
9. The Fortune. Section through Stage—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 25
10. The Fortune. Section facing Stage—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 26
III. THE TOWER OF LONDON AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 29
11. Chapel of St. John—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 30
12. Plan of Tower and Roman Wall—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 33
13. Plan of Tower and its Bastions—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 33
14. Towers on Eastern Wall—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 34
15. Fireplace, Byward Tower—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 39
16. Blount Monument, St. Peter ad Vincula—Photograph
_Architectural Review_ 40
17. Pediment with Arms of William III.—Photograph
_Architectural Review_ 43
18. The Horse-Armoury—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 44
IV. THE ROYAL PALACE OF ELTHAM 47
19. The Hall from the South—Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 48
20. Bridge over Moat. Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 53
21. Complete Plan of Palace—drawn by _Walter H. Godfrey_,
from Plans in the _Hatfield MSS._ and the _Record Office_ 54
22. Interior of Hall—Photograph by _H.M. Office of Works_ 56
23. The Chancellor’s House—Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 61
V. THE ORIGIN OF THE DOMESTIC HALL 67
24. The Guildhall, York 68
25. Plans of Halls of Winchester Castle, York Guildhall,
and Oakham Castle—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 72
26. Plans of Halls of Ashby Castle, Hertford Castle, and
Warnford—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 73
VI. SIR THOMAS MORE’S HOUSE AT CHELSEA 77
27. Sir Thomas More’s Family at Chelsea—by _Holbein_ 78
28. Plan of the House (ground floor)—by _J. Symonds_ (c. 1595) 82
29. Plan of the House (first floor)—by _J. Symonds_ (c. 1595) 83
30. Plan for rebuilding (ground floor)—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 86
31. Plan for rebuilding (first floor)—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 87
32. Another First Floor Plan—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 88
33. Estate Plan (c. 1595) 90
34. Plan of House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 93
35. Key-plan of Estate—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 95
36. Bird’s-eye View of Chelsea Estate—by _Kip_ (1699) 97
37. Garden of Danvers House—by _J. Aubrey_ 98
38. Plans of Danvers House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 100
39. Elevation of Danvers House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 102
VII. COCKERSAND ABBEY AND ITS CHAPTER HOUSE 105
40. Interior of Chapter House 106
41. Plan of Abbey—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 109
42. Pier-capitals in Chapter House 111
43. Exterior from West 112
44. Exterior from East 112
45. Stalls from the Abbey (now in Lancaster) 115
46. Misericorde from Stalls 116
47. Another Misericorde 116
VIII. THE REBUILDING OF CROSBY HALL AT CHELSEA 119
48. The Roof—Photograph by _London News Agency_ 120
49. Plan of Hall in Bishopsgate—by _W. H. Godfrey_ 121
50. The Hall from the West—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 125
51. Interior of Hall—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 126
52. The Oriel, Exterior—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 129
53. The Oriel, Interior—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 130
54. Vault of Oriel—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 133
55. Detail of Roof and Window—Photograph _Architectural
Review_ 134
56. Section through Roof 136
57. Plan of Hall at Chelsea 137
IX. THE PALACES OF HERTFORD AND HAVERING 139
58. Gatehouse, Hertford 140
59. Ground Plan, Hertford (_Public Record Office_) 142
60. Plan of Fortifications—by _A. W. Clapham_ 143
61. Havering, ground plan (_British Museum_) 148
62. Havering, first floor (_Hatfield MSS._) 149
X. THE NEW EXCHANGE IN THE STRAND 151
63. Elevation of Building (c. 1610)—by _Smithson_ 152
64. Durham House and Salisbury House—by _Hollar_
(Pepysian Library, Cambridge) 155
65. Durham House—from _Faithorne’s_ map 156
66. West Central London—from _Hollar’s_ map 156
67. MS. Plan of Durham House and the New Exchange (1626) 158
68. Plan of New Exchange (c. 1610)—by _Smithson_ 161
69. The New Exchange—by _T. Hosmer Shepherd_ 162
70. Plan of Site of Durham House (_Stow’s Survey_, Ed. 1720) 162
XI. ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, CLERKENWELL 165
71. The Monastic Buildings—by _Hollar_ 166
72. Plans showing development of the Church—drawn by
_A. W. Clapham_ 169
73. The Crypt looking East—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 170
74. East end of Crypt—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 173
75. South Chapel, Crypt—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 173
76. West front of Church—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 174
77. West door of Church—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 175
78. Fireplace, St. John’s Gate—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 176
XII. NORTHUMBERLAND HOUSE, STRAND 179
79. North Front (before 1874)—Photograph _London
Stereoscopic Co._ 180
80. Plan in the _Smithson_ Collection 185
81. View from River (c. 1650)—by _Hollar_ 186
82. The same, engraved in _Londina Illustrata_ 191
83. North Front—after _Canaletto_ 192
XIII. THE ABBEY OF BARKING, ESSEX 197
84. Remains of South Transept—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 198
85. Plan of the Precinct 202
86. The Curfew Gatehouse—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 203
87. The Saxon Cross—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 204
88. Plan of Abbey—by _A. W. Clapham_ 207
XIV. ABBOT’S HOSPITAL, GUILDFORD, AND ITS PREDECESSORS 215
89. Front of Hospital 216
90. Plans of Infirmary Types— Beamsley Hospital, Yorks;
St. Mary’s Hospital, Chichester; The Bede House,
Higham Ferrers; Browne’s Hospital, Stamford 221
91. Quadrangle, Leicester’s Hospital, Warwick 223
92. Great Chamber, Whitgift Hospital—drawn by
_W. H. Godfrey_ 224
93. Leicester’s Hospital, Warwick, Plan 226
94. Leicester’s Hospital—drawn by _W. H. Godfrey_ 227
95. Whitgift Hospital—Plan by _W. H. Godfrey_ 229
96. Abbot’s Hospital, Plan 230
97. Abbot’s Hospital, Courtyard 231
98. Abbot’s Hospital, Lower Hall 232
99. Abbot’s Hospital, Upper Hall 232
100. Abbot’s Hospital, Detail of door—drawn by
_Sydney A. Newcombe_ 235
XV. THE FRIARS AS BUILDERS—BLACKFRIARS AND WHITEFRIARS, LONDON 239
101. Blackfriars, Norwich 240
102. Plan of Austin Friars, London—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 249
103. Plan of Greyfriars, London 251
104. Preaching Cross, Blackfriars, Hereford—from _Britton_ 252
105. Blackfriars, London—Plan by _A. W. Clapham_ 254
106. Whitefriars, London—Plan by _A. W. Clapham_ 264
XVI. QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE AND ITS BUILDER, WILLIAM OF WYKEHAM 269
107. Queenborough Castle—from a Drawing by _Hollar_ 270
108. Queenborough Castle—Plan from the _Hatfield MSS._ 273
THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH,
SURREY
[Illustration: FIG. 1.—NONSUCH PALACE, GARDEN FRONT.
_Drawn by Hofnagle._]
I.
THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH, SURREY.
The wanton destruction of the celebrated palace of Nonsuch, sacrificed
to the extravagance and consequent embarrassments of the first Duchess
of Cleveland, was probably the heaviest loss which English architecture
has suffered since the Dissolution of the Monasteries. As an example
of domestic architecture, just at the period of its transition, it
was unique in combining in one building the familiar and almost
unaltered features of the old English home with the most daring and
fantastic ideas of the Italian Renaissance. Any additional information,
therefore, which bears upon its character is of special value, not from
an archæological so much as from an architectural point of view. Hence
the discovery of an entirely new view of Nonsuch Palace is ample excuse
for marshalling once again the facts of its architectural history.
The building activity of the first two Tudor kings is a somewhat
neglected subject, since nearly all their greatest works have perished
and the modern mind refuses to visualise the gorgeous descriptions
of the chroniclers, even when illustrated by the somewhat bizarre
creations of contemporary artists.
And yet the more the subject is studied the more the conclusion is
forced upon one that the old-time historians were guilty of little
exaggeration, and that the Tudor palaces were amongst the remarkable
buildings of Europe. The Spanish gentlemen who accompanied Phillip
II. to England were amazed at the magnificence of the palaces of the
English kings, in comparison with which they admitted the Alcazar at
Madrid, the residence of Castilian royalty, was a thing of no account.
Henry VII.’s chapel fortunately remains intact as an example of the
structure which a Tudor king (otherwise noted for his excessive
parsimony) thought suitable for his tomb-house. His palace at Richmond
and his great hospital at the Savoy were on a corresponding scale of
profusion. With his son Henry VIII. the ideas of the Renaissance were
given a freer hand. The father had employed an Italian to design his
tomb, and the son, towards the close of his reign, invited Italian
architects to design his buildings.
The architectural works of Henry VIII. consist chiefly of a series of
palaces, no fewer than five, which he erected in the course of his
thirty-eight years’ reign, apart from a number of manorial residences,
such as his riverside mansion at Chelsea. Of these palaces, Bridewell,
Guisnes, and Nonsuch have entirely vanished, but the gatehouse and
other remains at St. James’s exist, and the mutilated remains at
Beaulieu, in Essex, are still remarkable.
It is with the latest (in point of date) and in every way the most
remarkable of these that we are at present concerned. The palace of
Nonsuch achieved a reputation throughout Europe which has never been
accorded to any other English building before or since.
Situated on the richly-wooded slopes of the Surrey hills, amongst the
fairest prospects in the Home Counties, the ancient manor-house of
Cuddington (between Cheam and Ewell) appears to have early attracted
the attention of Henry VIII. In 1538 he acquired the manor from Richard
de Cuddington, and with a delightfully Tudor directness proceeded at
once quietly to remove the church and village and divert the roads,
that nothing might interrupt the view from his windows or destroy the
symmetry of his house and grounds. The site being thus cleared of its
ancient buildings, the new palace was begun.
Many tons of stone quarried at Merstham, in the Reigate hills, were
used on the works, and the great priory church at Merton was destroyed
piecemeal to provide materials. The accounts still existing for the
year 1539 preserve the names of every man employed, from the clerk of
works to the labourers and apprentices, some 230 in all.
Although it had been in progress for nine years, Nonsuch was still
incomplete at Henry’s death in 1547, but was nevertheless far enough
advanced to be habitable.
The celebrated Sir Thomas Cawarden, Master of the Revels, was warden
of the palace and parks of Nonsuch during the final years of Henry
VIII. and in the time of Edward VI., but in 1557 Queen Mary granted the
building and parks to Henry, Earl of Arundel, and his son-in-law, Lord
Lumley, who eventually completed it by adding the outer courtyard.
Under Queen Elizabeth Nonsuch reached its zenith. For many years it
was her favourite residence, and after her death it rapidly declined.
Sold by the Commonwealth, it reverted to the Crown at the Restoration,
and finally came to an ignominious end at the rapacious hands of the
Duchess of Cleveland, who destroyed the house and cut up the park into
farms.
What is known of the building itself is derived chiefly from the
Parliamentary Survey taken in 1650 (which gives a detailed account of
the palace and grounds) and from two views—one by Hofnagel (published
in Braun and Hohenberg’s “Civitates Orbis Terrarum”) and the other an
inset in Speed’s Map of Surrey. Both of these represent the garden or
south front of the house, and the appearance of the north front and
sides has up to the present time been quite conjectural. I am able,
however, to reproduce a third view, taken from the north-west, showing
this front and the flank of the building. The original engraving (from
a picture then in the possession of Lord Fitzwilliam) was published by
the Society of Antiquaries in 1765, with the title “Richmond Palace
from the Green.” That this picture is not Richmond, but Nonsuch, is
capable of easy proof. The angle-turret on the extreme right at once
suggests this, and a careful perusal of the Parliamentary Survey leaves
not the slightest doubt on the point. The avenue, the bowling-green,
and the two gatehouses, the inner one with its clock-turret, are all
fully described, and one can only be surprised that this interesting
fact has never before been discovered.
The palace consisted of two main courtyards surrounded by buildings
and almost equal in size (the outer 115 ft.[6] by 132 ft., the inner
137 ft. by 116 ft.). The style employed in the first of these presents
nothing extraordinary. Built, according to Evelyn, by Lord Lumley,
but more probably by his father-in-law, the Earl of Arundel, early
in Elizabeth’s reign, it was constructed of stone throughout, with a
handsome gatehouse three stories high, with octagonal angle-turrets in
the centre of the north front. This gate stood on the axis of the great
avenue that led up to the house from the London Road.
[6] The transcript of the Survey in _Archæologia_, Vol. V., gives this
dimension incorrectly as 150 ft., an error copied by all succeeding
writers.
Nonsuch had the unusual arrangement amongst English Tudor plans of two
gatehouses, the one behind the other. This was probably due to the
outer courtyard not having been contemplated in the original design.
The inner gate stood between the two courts, and was, with the whole of
the buildings behind it, the work of Henry VIII.
The architect appears to have been a Florentine artist named Antonio
Toto dell’ Nunziata, upon whom Henry VIII. conferred a patent of
denization in 1538. He is referred to by Vasari (_Lives of the
Painters_), who asserts that he entered the service of the King of
England, for whom he executed numerous works, and more especially
the principal palace of that monarch, by whom he was very largely
remunerated.[7] His name occurs with some frequency in the records of
the later years of Henry VIII. He resided in the parish of St. Bride,
Fleet Street.
[7] Professor Blomfield throws doubts upon Toto as the author of the
design.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.—NONSUCH PALACE, FROM THE SOUTH.
_Drawn by Speed (1611)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.—NONSUCH PALACE, FROM THE NORTH-WEST.
_Vetusta Monumenta, Vol. ii. (1765)._]
In 1544 that much-discussed Italian, John of Padua, makes his
appearance as Devizer of the King’s Buildings, and as Nonsuch was the
most important then in progress, it is quite possible that he also
was employed upon the works.
This first building, the joint product of Italian design and English
craftsmanship, was entered from the north by an ascent of eight steps
under the inner gatehouse, which is described in the Survey of 1650
as “of free stone three stories high, leaded and turreted in the four
corners, in the middle of which gatehouse stands a clock case turreted
and leaded all over wherein is placed a clock and bell.” The remarkable
appearance of this gate is best shown in Speed’s view, which also shows
the charming oriel window (somewhat similar to that at Hengrave Hall,
Suffolk) over the inner arch, and the sundial above.
The remainder of the building was two stories high, of which the walls
of the ground floor, according to the Survey, were of stone and the
upper portions of timber. Externally, however, the garden or south
front was of timber construction from the ground up. Facing the privy
garden, with its marble fountains, obelisks, and pyramids, this front
was flanked by two polygonal turrets five stories high, carried up well
above the main building and finished with lead parapets and lanterns
with heraldic lions bearing standards, “the king’s beastes” of Tudor
documents, on every angle. “These turrets,” says the Survey, “command
the prospect and view of both the Parks of Nonsuch and of most of the
country round about and are the chief ornament of the whole house of
Nonsuch.”
In the centre of the front was a large oriel window, probably to the
Presence Chamber, which was on the first floor.
The building was a timber frame, the spaces between the studding being
occupied by pargetted panels bearing the celebrated series of “statues,
pictures, and other antique forms,” which aroused such universal
admiration during the century and a half of their existence.
Nonsuch appears to have been one of the earliest instances of this type
of work in England. Le Neve, who saw the house when half destroyed,
describes them as done in plaster-work made of rye-dough [_sic_],
very costly. “There are,” says Evelyn, “some mezzorelievos as big
as life—the story of ye heathen Gods, emblems, compartments, &c.”
On the garden front were represented the labours of Hercules. There
is evidence that these reliefs were painted, and to enhance further
the richness of the whole design the faces of the half-timber work
were covered with gilded scales of lead or slate nailed on, after the
fashion still to be seen in many Continental towns.
Apart from the abstract question of taste, it can easily be imagined
that a building so adorned must have presented an appearance of extreme
sumptuousness, and while it is impossible to regard it quite as a
serious essay in architecture, yet as an example of a rare exotic
grafted on an alien stem it is of extraordinary interest.
It can only be compared in the history of English art with that lordly
pleasure-house which King Henry VIII. erected near Guisnes in the
Calais pale on the occasion of the Field of the Cloth of Gold. That a
marked similarity existed between the two buildings is evident from
the minute description of the Guisnes palace to be found in Hall’s
Chronicle.
The existing remains of the palace consist solely of the base of a
chalk wall, faced with red brick in Old English bond, some 275 ft.
in length and lying at right angles to the great avenue leading from
the London Road. In all probability this formed a part of the wall
surrounding the privy garden, and the main building lay rather to the
north of it, on the axis of the avenue.
Some little distance to the west of the house was a building known
as the Banqueting House. It is described in the Parliamentary Survey
as “one structure of timber building of quadrangular form pleasantly
situated upon the highest part of the said Nonsuch Park commonly called
‘the Banquetting House’ being compassed round with a brick wall the
four corners whereof represent four half moons or fortified angles.”
The house itself was three stories high, with a lantern above and a
balcony placed “for prospect” at each of the four corners.
Considering the material, it is not surprising that it has quite
disappeared; but the artificial platform upheld by brick retaining
walls is in existence. The “fortified angles” which caught the eye of
the Parliamentary Commissioner are still preserved, and, with them,
remains of the double flight of stone steps leading up to the entrance.
“The Banquet House” figures largely in Elizabethan literature, though
its origin and date of introduction are somewhat obscure. There can
be little doubt that it was due to one of those vagaries of fashion,
combined with the sixteenth-century passion for the new and strange,
which attempted to transplant a custom from its native southern soil to
the uncongenial air of England. The fashion once started, however, held
its place with remarkable tenacity, and received its final form under
the hand of Sir Christopher Wren and his school in the Orangeries at
Kensington and Richmond.
The example at Nonsuch is one of the earliest in this country to
which a definite date can be assigned. It is mentioned as a completed
building in the first year of Edward VI., and consequently must have
formed part of the original work of Henry VIII. and his Italian
advisers.
A document preserved at Loseley Place contains an inventory of goods
received for furnishing the Banqueting House in 1547. They include
nine Turkey carpets and one carpet of green satin embroidered upon
with sundry of the king’s beasts, antique heads, grapes and birds, &c.
Evidently the interior decoration of Nonsuch fell little short of the
exterior in magnificence.
One other building deserves a passing mention. “The Standing” in the
park was used by Elizabeth as a convenient vantage ground from which to
view the hunting. No trace of it remains, but, fortunately, a complete
structure of this class is still standing in the Hunting Lodge in
Epping Forest, and it too is associated with the name of this queen.
The upper stories of the timber framing were left open between the
studding or uprights, forming a convenient gallery from which to view
the sport.
Fragments of the destroyed palace found their way to Gaynsford Hall,
Carshalton, to Durdans by Epsom, and to the vicarage at Ewell; but
these houses have since been rebuilt and all the authentic remains of
the most remarkable of Tudor buildings lie buried beneath the turf of
Nonsuch Park. The archæologist is apt to think that monastic houses
and feudal castles are alone worthy of his attention; but the recovery
of the ground plan of Nonsuch would be an achievement of even greater
architectural value, while its wealth of historic associations places
it far above them all in sentimental interest.
—A. W. C.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.—THE BANQUETING HOUSE.
_Drawn by Alfred W. Clapham._]
THE FORTUNE THEATRE,
LONDON (1600)
[Illustration: FIG. 5.—VIEW OF INTERIOR.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
II.
THE FORTUNE THEATRE, LONDON.
The original contract, dated 1599–1600, for the building of the
“Fortune” Theatre was brought under my notice by Mr. William Archer,
the well-known author and dramatic critic, to whose friendly criticism
and help this article chiefly owes its inspiration. The document is
preserved at Dulwich College, and was transcribed by J. O. Halliwell
Phillipps in his _Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare_, and it is from
his transcript that the quotations below are taken. Apart from its
interest to architects of the present day, as illustrative of building
methods of over 300 years ago, the contract has considerable value in
the light it throws upon that most controversial of all topics—the form
of the Elizabethan stage. It is not my intention here to consider in
detail any of the theories heretofore advanced, but I wish in as brief
a space as possible to place before the reader just sufficient of the
available _data_ to enable him to understand the reconstruction of the
Fortune Theatre which has been attempted in the accompanying plans.
The sources from which these _data_ have been drawn fall naturally into
two classes. The first, which has as yet by no means been exhausted,
although used almost exclusively by the literary critics, is to be
found in the internal evidence which the plays of the period afford,
partly in their text, but chiefly in their stage directions. The second
is to be found in the contemporary evidence of descriptions or drawings
made while the theatres still existed, of which the most important are
the “Fortune” and “Hope” contracts, the early maps, and the remarkable
drawing reproduced here of the interior of the Swan Theatre preserved
in the commonplace book of a certain Van Buchell, at the Utrecht
University Library, and purporting to be drawn from a sketch by a
traveller named Johannes de Witt, who visited London about the year
1600. The interpretation of this latter evidence falls as naturally
into the province of the architect as that of the former belongs to the
sphere of the literary and dramatic critic.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.—SWAN THEATRE, BANKSIDE.
_Drawn by John de Witt._]
Everyone familiar with Visscher’s beautiful drawing of London in the
year 1616 will remember seeing in the foreground, on the south side
of the Thames, three buildings resembling amphitheatres in form,
marked respectively (reading from east to west), the “Globe,” the
“Bear Garden,”[8] and the “Swan.” The correctness of the two former
inscriptions may very reasonably be questioned, but I do not think
there is any ground for doubting the veracity of the drawing, since
two theatres existed on Bankside in 1616—the Rose (1592) and the Hope
(1614), besides the more celebrated Globe, which lay probably beyond
the limit of the map. The Swan is correctly placed, as we know by
its position in Paris Garden. But whether depicted or not, the Globe
Theatre of 1616 could not be Shakespeare’s Globe, which was erected
in 1598–9 and burnt down in 1613, and it is important to bear this in
mind in considering the “Fortune” contract, which definitely states
that the new theatre is to follow the pattern of the “late erected
plaie-howse on the Banck ... called the Globe.” There are many other
early maps both anterior and subsequent to Visscher which show the
Bankside theatres, but their examination and collation are not as yet
sufficiently advanced to give us any trustworthy information, although
a valuable step towards this end has already been taken by Dr. William
Martin. (_Vide_ _Home Counties Magazine_, Vol. IX.)
[8] The “Bear Garden” was pulled down in 1613, and the Hope Theatre
erected “neere or uppon the saide place where the same game place [the
Bear Garden] did heretofore stande.”
[Illustration: FIG. 7.—THE FORTUNE. PLAN (GROUND FLOOR).
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
The “Fortune” document itself consists of rather more than a mere
contract, and possesses somewhat the character of a specification,
being not unlike the hasty compromise between the two which has been
known to be indulged in even in these days of careful architectural
practice. The portion which bears on the actual form of the building
reads as follows:—
This Indenture made the eighte daie of Januarye 1599, and in the
twoe and fortyth yeare of the reigne of our sovereigne ladie
Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queene of England, Fraunce and
Irelande, defender of the faythe, &c., betwene Phillipp Henslowe
and Edwarde Allen of the parishe of Sainte Saviours in Southwark,
in the countie of Surrey, gentlemen, on th’ one parte, and
Peeter Streete cittizein and carpenter of London on th’ other
parte.——Witnesseth that, whereas the saide Phillipe Henslowe
and Edward Allen the daie of the date hereof have bargayned,
compounded and agreed with the saide Peter Streete for the
erectinge, buildinge, and settinge upp of a newe howse and stadge
for a plaie-howse, in and uppon a certeine plott or parcell of
grounde appoynted oute for that purpose, Scytuate and beinge nere
Goldinge Lane in the parishe of Sainte Giles withoute Cripplegate
of London; to be by him the said Peeter Streete, or somme other
sufficyent woorkmen of his provideinge and appoyntemente, and
att his propper costes and chardges, for the consideracion
hereafter in theis presentes expressed, made, erected, builded,
and sett upp in manner and forme followeinge; that is to saie,
the frame of the saide howse to be sett square, and to conteine
fowerscore foote of lawfull assize everye waie square withoute,
and fiftie five foote of like assize square everye waie within,
with a good suer and stronge foundacion of pyles, bricke, lyme,
and sand, bothe withoute and within, to be wroughte one foote of
assize att the leiste above the grounde; and the said frame to
conteine three stories in heighth, the first or lower storie to
conteine twelve foote of lawfull assize in heighth, the seconde
storie eleaven foote of lawfull assize in heigth, and the third
or upper storie to conteine nyne foote of lawfull assize in
height. All which stories shall conteine twelve foote and a
half of lawfull assize in breadth throughoute, besides a juttey
forwardes in eyther of the saide twoe upper stories of tenne
ynches of lawfull assize; with fower convenient divisions for
gentlemens roomes, and other sufficient and convenient divisions
for twoepennie roomes; with necessarie seates to be placed and
sett as well in those roomes as througheoute all the rest of
the galleries of the saide howse; and with suche like steares,
conveyances and divisions, withoute and within, as are made and
contryved in and to the late erected plaie-howse on the Banck, in
the saide parishe of Sainte Saviours, called the Globe; with a
stadge and tyreinge-howse to be made, erected and sett upp within
the saide frame; with a shadowe or cover over the saide stadge;
which stadge shal be placed and sett, as alsoe the stearecases
of the saide frame, in suche sorte as is prefigured in a plott
thereof drawen; and which stadge shall conteine in length fortie
and three foote of lawfull assize, and in breadth to extende
to the middle of the yarde of the saide howse; the same stadge
to be paled in belowe with good stronge and sufficyent newe
oken bourdes, and likewise the lower storie of the saide frame
withinside, and the same lower storie to be alsoe laide over
and fenced with stronge yron pykes; and the saide stadge to be
in all other proporcions contryved and fashioned like unto the
stadge of the saide plaiehowse called the Globe; with convenient
windowes and lightes glazed to the said tyreinge-howse. And the
saide frame, stadge, and stearecases to be covered with tyle,
and to have sufficient gutter of lead, to carrie and convey
the water frome the coveringe of the saide stadge, to fall
backwardes. And alsoe all the saide frame and the stairecases
thereof to be sufficyently enclosed withoute with lathe, lyme
and haire. And the gentlemens roomes and twoepennie roomes to be
seeled with lathe, lyme, and haire; and all the flowers of the
saide galleries, stories and stadge to be bourded with good and
sufficyent newe deale bourdes of the whole thicknes, wheare
neede shal be. And the saide howse and other thinges before
mencioned to be made and doen, to be in all other contrivitions,
conveyances, fashions, thinge and thinges, effected, finished
and doen, accordinge to the manner and fashion of the saide
howse called the Globe; saveinge only that all the principall
and maine postes of the said frame, and stadge forwarde, shal be
square and wroughte palasterwise, with carved proporcions called
satiers to be placed and sett on the topp of every of the same
postes; and saveinge alsoe that the saide Peter Streete shall
not be chardged with anie manner of paynteinge in or aboute
the saide frame, howse or stadge, or anie parte thereof, nor
rendringe the walls within, nor seelinge anie more or other
roomes than the gentlemens roomes, twoepennie roomes and stadge,
before remembred. Nowe theereuppon the saide Peeter Streete dothe
covenaunte, promise and graunte for himself, his executors and
administrators, to and with the said Phillipp Henslowe and Edward
Allen and either of them, and the ’xecutors and administrators
of them, and either of them by theis presentes, in manner and
forme followeinge, that is to saie; that he the said Peeter
Streete, his executors or assignes, shall and will, at his or
their owne propper costes and chardges, well, woorkmanlike
and substancyallie make, erect, sett upp and fully finishe in
and by all thinges, accordinge to the true meaninge of theis
presentes, with good, strong and substancyall newe tymber and
other necessarie stuff, all the saide frame and other woorkes
whatsoever in and uppon the saide plott or parcell of grounde,
beinge not by anie aucthoretie restrayned, and haveinge ingres,
egres and regres to doe the same, before the fyve and twentith
daie of Julie next commeinge after the date hereof; and shall
alsoe, att his or theire like costes and chardges, provide and
finde all manner of woorkemen, tymber, joystes, rafters, boordes,
dores, boltes, hinges, brick, tyle, lathe, lyme, haire, sand,
nailes, leede, iron, glasse, woorkmanshipp and other thinges
whatsoever, which shal be needeful, convenyent and necessarie for
the saide frame and woorkes and everie parte thereof; and shall
alsoe make all the saide frame in every poynte for scantlinges
lardger and bigger in assize than the scantlinges of the timber
of the saide newe erected howse called the Globe....
[Illustration: FIG. 8.—THE FORTUNE. PLAN (UPPER FLOOR).
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
The remainder of this interesting document sets forth the conditions
under which the contractor is to be paid the sum of £440 “of lawfull
money of Englande,” the total cost of the works. In the absence of the
“plott” or plan mentioned in the document, we are fortunate in having
the main dimensions of the theatre so precisely laid down for us,[9]
and it is an easy matter to put them on paper. But beyond these main
dimensions of height and area we have really little indication of the
arrangement of the stage, or the disposition of the main features of
the theatre. We have, therefore, to draw our inferences from other
sources, and see that their application does not clash with the terms
of the specification.
[9] The “Hope” contract referred to above is a document second only
in interest to the one under consideration. Its deficiency, however,
in omitting all dimensions, prevents any satisfactory attempt at
reconstruction. The theatre was to be built on the model of the Swan,
and to be of similar “large compasse, forme, wideness and height.”
It must be first remembered that the prototype of the Elizabethan
public theatres was the old galleried innyard, of which London itself
possessed some of the finest examples in the land. In these inns the
companies of players first gave their performances, and several names
of the early theatres are reminiscent of these first associations.
The Fortune was, as far as we know, the only theatre that was square
on plan like the inns themselves. With the help of their analogy and
of our main dimensions we are therefore able to construct the “frame”
itself fairly safely, with its three tiers of open galleries supported,
towards the “yard,” with posts, “wrought pilaster-wise,” adorned with
carved satyrs—if thus we may interpret the description. But how is
the yard entered? Various documents bearing on the disputes between
proprietors and players regarding the profits of the theatres, make it
almost certain that the main body of the public entered at one door
into the yard, each person making the same payment, and that those who
wished could then proceed to the galleries, where an extra sum was
exacted from them by the “gatherers,” who made a circuit of these parts
of the house, probably hence described as the “twopennie-rooms.” There
was one other door, the “tyring-house door,” or stage door, through
which privileged members of the public were also admitted, but whether
these went thence to the gentlemen’s rooms in the galleries or whether
they were accommodated with seats on the stage itself, is still a
matter of much controversy.[10]
[10] These and many other points regarding the Shakespearian Stage have
been ably discussed by Mr. W. J. Lawrence in his two volumes entitled
_The Elizabethan Playhouse and other Studies_.
The staircases themselves are our next difficulty. It is quite clear
from the Fortune contract that some of these were within the yard,
since their roofs are distinctly specified, but their position must
remain the subject of conjecture. I am inclined to think that they
would be circular stairs placed in the angles of the yard nearest
the entrance, but in the accompanying plan they are shown on each
side of the stage, thus making use of a space for which any other
purpose is not easily conceived, and obviating the obstruction of
view which the first-named positions would entail. For information on
this point we naturally turn to the Swan drawing, but meet with some
disappointment, for the indication of “ingressus” there appears to
suggest an impracticable staircase, unless it were a temporary access
from the arena to the first tier of seats. This may be so, as it is
known that the Swan was used for wild beast shows as well as theatrical
performances, and indeed the whole appearance of the stage and _mimorum
ædes_ suggests a temporary or movable character.
So far our task has been comparatively simple, but the stage itself,
its “shadow” or roof, and the buildings behind, afford a problem
which is far from having been as yet finally solved. I have, however,
followed Mr. Archer’s views in these drawings, and must refer the
reader to his and Mr. Lawrence’s writings on the subject for more
detailed information. The following will indicate the idea in outline.
The contract specifies that the stage is to be 43 ft. wide and to
extend to the centre of the yard; it also definitely mentions the
“shadowe or cover” which is to be tiled, and provided with a lead
gutter brought back to the rear of the stage. This latter direction
certainly points to a roof similar to that shown in the “Swan” drawing,
and it is reasonable to suppose that in like manner it was supported
by independent columns. The lords’ boxes or minstrels’ gallery,[11]
in the centre of which is the upper stage, again merely follows Van
Buchell’s sketch, which is corroborated by such stage directions as
that in Marston’s _Antonio’s Revenge_ (v. 2): “while the measure is
dancing, Andrugio’s ghost is placed betwixt the music-houses.” This
upper stage fulfilled such separate functions as Juliet’s balcony,
Christopher Sly’s point of vantage in _The Taming of the Shrew_, or the
battlements of Angiers in _King John_. But in the Swan Theatre there
is no sign of an “inner” or rear stage beneath this gallery, and it
is here that we are bound to fall back upon the literary evidence. I
will quote Mr. Archer’s own words. Writing of a book by Dr. Wegener on
the subject he says: “Especially as it seems to me, does he establish
beyond dispute the fact that Elizabethan dramatists habitually counted
on and employed that rear stage which does not appear in the Swan
drawing. It served by turns as a bedroom, a cave, a shop, a study, a
counting-house, a tomb. It could be curtained off, and Wegener believes
that it could also be shut off by folding or sliding doors; but on this
point his evidence is scarcely conclusive. That the upper stage was
immediately over the rear stage is proved by the situation in Marlowe’s
_Jew of Malta_, in which Barabas is caught in the trap he had planned
for Calymath. He says to Ferneze:—
“‘Now as for Calymath and his consorts,
Here have I made a dainty gallery,
The floor whereof, this cable being cut,
Doth fall asunder, so that it doth sink
Into a deep pit past recovery.’”
[11] John Melton, in his _Astrologaster: or the Figre Caster_ (1620),
speaking of a visit to “the Fortune in Golding-lane,” says: “There
indeed a man may behold shagge-hayr’d deuills runne roaring ouer the
stage with squibs in their mouthes, while drummers make thunder in the
tyring-house, and the twelve-penny hirelings make artificial lightning
in their heauens.”
Ferneze, however, is so shocked by the atrocious plan that he cuts the
cable while Barabas, instead of his intended victim, is on the trap
door. At the same moment the curtains of the rear stage are opened
and a boiling cauldron is revealed, into which Barabas is precipitated.
It is manifest that this cauldron must have been on the inner stage.
Indeed the evidence for a rear stage is even stronger than Wegener
represents it to be. He says that we have no explicit mention of this
stage region; forgetting, it would seem, the direction in Greene’s
_Alphonsus, King of Arragon_, ‘Let there be a brazen head set in the
middle of _the place behind the stage_ out of which cast flames of
fire.’”[12]
[12] _Tribune_, Aug. 10, 1907.
[Illustration: FIG. 9.—THE FORTUNE. SECTION THROUGH STAGE.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
[Illustration: FIG. 10.—THE FORTUNE. SECTION FACING STAGE.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
“It is no exaggeration to say that the great majority of plays contain
evidence of the use of the rear stage, either as a curtained recess
or as an open corridor, supplementing the two doors by providing two
additional entrances. In many plays it is alternately a curtained
recess and a corridor. The plays are very few in which no use at all
seems to have been made of it.”[13]
[13] _Tribune_, Jan. 11, 1908.
From the body of evidence on this point we must conclude that the
Swan drawing does not correctly show the back of the stage; or, as I
would suggest, the rear wall as there represented is possibly merely
a temporary stage property with its imitation of heavy barred doors,
required for the one play, concealing in this exceptional case the more
usual inner stage.
This point considered, the remaining arrangements are more or less
a matter of detail. It would be quite unnecessary to go into the
reasons for the canted side walls, the railing to stage, the planning
of tiring-rooms, all of which must be to a great extent a matter of
opinion. The existence of one other feature alone is incontestable—it
is the turret from which the trumpeter gave the signal to the people
without that the play was about to commence. It appears clearly in the
“Swan” sketch, and also on nearly every external indication of the
theatres in the early maps, where it rises from the encircling roof,
being made the more conspicuous by the flag which bore the symbol of
the theatre’s name. In some drawings there appear to be three turrets,
but two of these are probably the terminal finish to the staircases.
As it rose above the stage of Shakespeare and the galleried courtyard
with its Elizabethan audience, this timber turret crowned with
picturesqueness a scene only second in dramatic interest to the ancient
hillside theatre of Athens, which nursed the Hellenic drama—a drama
unfolded in like manner beneath the open sky and the inspiring light of
the sun.
—W. H. G.
THE TOWER OF LONDON AND ITS
DEVELOPMENT
[Illustration: FIG. 11.—CHAPEL OF ST. JOHN.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
III.
THE TOWER OF LONDON AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.
Most of the great capitals of modern Europe are cities of comparatively
recent growth and importance. Berlin, Madrid, The Hague, and St.
Petersburg fill little or no space in the mediæval history of their
respective states, while Vienna and Brussels have been promoted from a
humbler position. Rome, London, Paris, and Lisbon may, however, claim
that exalted status which accrues only to the city that has been for
centuries the centre of the national life. Such a position inevitably
leaves its mark on the civic architecture, which, however, has been too
often expunged and obliterated by the varying fashions and fortunes
of more modern times. Thus it happens that London devastated by the
great fire, Lisbon by the earthquake, and Paris, to a less extent, by
the revolutionary changes of recent times, retain comparatively few
of the concrete monuments of their great past, and even Rome herself
is a memorial rather of the Renaissance than of the Middle Age. It
is not surprising, then, that in the great palatine fortress of the
Tower, London possesses a building, standing as it does largely intact,
which is almost without a parallel amongst the European capitals. The
mediæval military architecture of England generally can hardly be said
to approach, far less to rival, that of the Continent, for the more
settled condition and greater cohesion of the English state rendered
these huge defensive works unnecessary. Scores of English castles have
no recorded siege, and comparatively few of the English towns, save
those on the Scotch and Welsh borders and on the coast towards France,
were defended by walls. Nevertheless the fortress projected by the
Conqueror and built by his successor is perhaps the most important
example of military architecture which the country affords, and an
attempt to explain its origin and growth will not be without interest.
The Norman Conquest found London defended on the landward side by its
Roman walls, repaired in Saxon times, and by the remains of the wall,
also of Roman date, along the river front. These walls were protected
at intervals by semi-circular bastions more or less regularly spaced,
the positions of many of which are shown on Ogilby and Morgan’s survey
of the city taken in 1677. The south-eastern angle of the area thus
enclosed was the site chosen by the early Norman kings for their new
fortress, which was to overawe and keep in check the London citizens.
It has long been a matter for some surprise that, with the exception
of the White Tower or Keep and the basement of the Wakefield Tower, no
trace of Norman work exists in any other part of the fortress, all the
remaining towers and walls being of more recent date. The explanation
of the circumstance which I here offer appears to me, from its very
simplicity, to contain all the elements of probability.
[Illustration: FIG. 12.—PLAN OF TOWER AND ROMAN WALL.
_Drawn by Alfred W. Clapham._]
[Illustration: FIG. 13.—PLAN OF TOWER AND ITS BASTIONS.
_Drawn by Alfred W. Clapham._]
[Illustration: FIG. 14.—TOWERS ON EASTERN WALL.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
At the date of the building of the White Tower the Roman wall at this
angle was probably standing intact, and the Norman builders determined
to incorporate a portion of it in the defences of the castle. The
course of the Roman wall on the east side of the city is well known,
but the position of the southern or river front has been the subject
of much conjecture. The existing evidence is, however, in my opinion,
sufficient to establish this, at any rate with regard to the south-east
angle. The mediæval building known as the Wardrobe Tower, of which a
portion still remains standing, has been proved to stand on the base
of a Roman bastion. The line of the still existing city wall between
Aldgate and the Tower Ditch when produced southwards exactly strikes
this point, and a portion of its base adjoining the tower has been
uncovered. The lines of this fragment, however, prove that from here
the wall turned slightly and headed in a direct line for the centre of
the modern Lanthorn Tower, which stands partly on the foundations of
its predecessor destroyed in the eighteenth century. From this there
seems little doubt that the Lanthorn, like the Wardrobe Tower, was
built on the base of a Roman bastion. Now, the bastions to the north
and south of Aldgate shown on Ogilby’s map of London are spaced about
200 ft. apart, which is approximately the distance between the Wardrobe
and Lanthorn Towers. The wall must of necessity have turned at this
point, and the same dimension set off on a line running parallel to the
river gives the positions in succession of the Wakefield, the Bell,
and the northern bastion of the Middle Tower. It seems, then, almost
more than probable that we have here the river line of the Roman wall
and the position of the first four bastions on its southern face. It
may be further noted that all four towers are in perfect alignment,
and that each of them is or was of circular form. The Norman builders
probably found some of these towers still standing with the wall
between them, and constructed their Keep as near as possible to the
eastern line, without disturbing it, and leaving a considerable space
on the south side between it and the southern wall. By this proceeding
they obtained a bailey ready made enclosed on the north by the Keep
and on the east and south by the Roman wall and the bastions which
later became the Wardrobe, Lanthorn, and Wakefield Towers. All that was
needed to complete the defences was a protection on the western side,
and this was temporarily provided by a wooden stockade, the remains
of which were brought to light some years ago. Subsequently a great
gatehouse, called “Coldharbour,” and a strong curtain were erected on
its site. These buildings formed the whole extent of the early castle,
which was probably isolated by the destruction of a portion of the city
wall immediately outside its limits. There is no evidence that its
defences included either a fosse or mound, and thus two of the most
characteristic features of Norman castle-building were absent.
It may seem improbable that buildings still standing in the twentieth
century should have retained the exact positions, through successive
rebuildings, of their Roman predecessors; but the more one studies
the features of London topography the more one is struck by the
extraordinary persistence of ancient building lines. To mention two
instances only: the modern warehouse on the site of the old Barbers’
Hall in Monkwell Street reproduces exactly the lines of the Roman
bastion which formed its western termination, and the Apothecaries’
Hall in Blackfriars represents exactly, in position and dimensions, the
hall of the guest-house where the Emperor Charles V. lodged during his
visit to London in 1522.
The great Keep of the Tower of London, in spite of the unfortunate
repairs and alterations of Sir Christopher Wren, must always remain
amongst the finest examples of its class in the country. If it does
not cover so much ground as Colchester, and is less lofty than
Rochester, it possesses, in the Chapel of St. John, a feature which
is unapproached by any other Norman keep in the country; and here,
fortunately, the structure has been left largely in its original state.
The chapel at Colchester, which occupies the same relative position, is
also apsidal, but at the Tower alone is found the encircling ambulatory
and the aisled nave. In the stages beneath the chapel are two crypts,
the lower a gloomy vault, with massive walls and barrel roof, which
carries the mind back irresistibly to the early days of Norman rule.
The many writers on the Tower have found themselves unable to identify
the original entrance to the Keep, but once the early arrangement of
the castle is understood its position becomes quite obvious. In the
western bay on the south side, at the first-floor level, is a large
arched opening with a small niche cut in the thickness of the wall on
either side; this, now fitted with a modern window, is the original
door. It was approached by an external and probably roofed staircase
from the bailey, all trace of which is now lost. A similar arrangement
is found in most of the existing keep-towers of this period, the
examples at Newcastle and Rising (Norfolk) being perhaps the best
preserved.
The first great enlargement of the Tower probably took place in the
latter half of the twelfth century, when the great ditch was begun,
and the western half of the inner circle of fortifications projected,
which eventually transformed the castle from the early keep-and-bailey
type to the concentric form which it afterwards assumed. Here again
the position of the Roman city wall appears to have played a part, for
this enlargement consisted of that part only of the later fortress
which was within its limits, bounded outwardly by the Bell, Devereux,
and Bowyer Towers. The great ditch was begun by Longchamp, Bishop of
Ely and regent of the kingdom during the absence of Richard I.; but the
buildings—the curtain with its towers—appear to be of slightly later
date. It is evident from the remarks of Fitzstephen (_temp._ Henry
II.) that at this date the southern wall of the city was in great part
undermined and castdown by the action of the tides, and consequently
the Bell Tower, though on its line, presents no more ancient features
above ground than the time of John. It is, however, an exceedingly
massive work, being built solid for a considerable height, and may well
incorporate in its base the remains of a Roman bastion.
The line of the inner circle of defence was completed under Henry
III., when the eastern half, without the ancient city wall, was added,
bounded by the Martin, Salt, and the intermediate towers. Most of the
existing towers were rebuilt under this king, with the exception of
those already noted, but many have been marred by nineteenth-century
restoration, and the Flint, Brick, and Constable’s Towers have been
almost entirely rebuilt. It may be noted (if our theory be correct)
that where the position of these towers was not determined by the
pre-existence of the Roman works they are spaced much closer together.
The first of the later towers on the east, the Salt, is comparatively
close to the Lanthorn, and the straight line of the southern Roman wall
is at once abandoned when nothing in the shape of old foundations could
assist the thirteenth-century builder.
King Henry III. was also responsible for the second and outer line
of fortifications, and for the construction of the Tower Wharf.
The former is on the east, north, and west sides, little more than
a revetment to the great ditch. It is pierced, however, with loops,
and two sally-ports are observable on the north front. On the river
front this line also was defended by towers, which include the great
water-gate called St. Thomas’s Tower.
There is little doubt that a great hall of timber existed in the inner
bailey in Norman times, but it was not until the thirteenth century
that the hall of stone was erected against its southern curtain. This
building has now entirely disappeared, and even in Elizabethan times it
was in a ruinous state. It abutted on the west against the Wakefield
Tower, and an idea of its appearance is given in the well-known
fifteenth-century view of the Tower. The upper stage of the Wakefield
Tower was rebuilt with it, and communicated by a short passage with the
dais end, forming a feature corresponding in some respects to the oriel
of purely domestic work. The deep embrasure of the eastern window forms
a small oratory—one of the many that the Tower formerly contained.
One of the most remarkable features of the fortress is the elaborate
system of defences guarding the entrance from the outside world. To
reach the Keep from Tower Hill it was necessary to pass through no
fewer than six gatehouses—the Bulwark and Lion Gates, the Middle and
Byward Towers, the Bloody Tower, and Coldharbour. The other entrances
included two water-gates, and a small postern and bridge on the eastern
side, protected by the Irongate and Develin Towers.
To Henry VIII. must be assigned the final important changes to the
building—the construction of the two great bastions on the north
face, now called Legge’s and Brass Mount. They appear in a view of
Edward VI.’s coronation procession, and can hardly be earlier than his
father’s time. The Lions’ Tower, now vanished, was a work of similar
character, so called from the small zoological collection kept there by
the later kings.
[Illustration: FIG. 15.—FIREPLACE, BYWARD TOWER.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
[Illustration: FIG. 16.—BLOUNT MONUMENT, ST. PETER AD VINCULA.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
Turning now, more particularly, to the architectural part of our
subject, it will be found that the towers on the inner and outer
circuit, which have not been rebuilt, present an infinite variety
of form and construction, and each of them retains some feature of
interest. The Bell Tower, besides its early vaulting, possesses a
charming early eighteenth-century bell-cote; the fifth gatehouse,
called the Bloody Tower, has remains of a richly-ribbed vault of the
fifteenth century and a massive portcullis of timber still in working
order. The great water-gate, called St. Thomas’s Tower or the Traitor’s
Gate, has its little hexagonal vaulted oratory, while the water-gate
of the Palace, called, for some reason unknown, the Cradle Tower, is,
where unrestored, an excellent example of fourteenth-century work with
a graceful vault springing from embattled corbels. The Salt Tower
contains an original thirteenth-century fireplace with a massive stone
hood and a curious joggled arch; the Well Tower, though small, contains
an early vault; and the Martin Tower, with its eighteenth-century
patchwork, has an appearance equally picturesque and venerable. The
Devereux Tower adjoins a large Tudor casemate of brick, and the
Beauchamp is well known for the tragic list of noble names cut upon its
walls of those whom ambition or misfortune led to their final resting
place in the little chapel near by.
The two outer gatehouses, called respectively the Middle and Byward
Towers, are worthy of careful study. Both are of similar form—an
entrance flanked by two circular bastions, the ground floors of which
have groined and ribbed vaults of the fourteenth century. In addition
to this the Byward Tower contains a fine early fireplace with a stone
hood not unlike that in the Salt Tower, but rather more ornate.
The inner face of this tower was transformed in Tudor times into a
dwelling-house, and its half-timber walls and mullioned windows are
still intact. Another example of Tudor domestic work is to be found
in “The King’s House,” the lodging of the Lieutenant of the Tower. A
succession of picturesque gables with enriched bargeboards looks on
to the green, made pleasant in summer by a number of trees—a scene of
peace and retirement which needs the ominous presence of the two Tower
ravens to recall the fact that this was the place of private execution.
Not the least interesting building in the Tower is the Chapel of St.
Peter ad Vincula. Quite apart from the overwhelming associations of
the place that enshrines the bones of queens and would-be kings, the
victims of Tudor despotism or Stuart spite, there is sufficient in the
building to demand attention on its architectural merit alone. One
monument, that of the Blounts, father and son, is of quite unusual
excellence. The mouldings and enrichments, and especially the carved
masks which ornament the frieze, are of almost Italian delicacy and
charm, while the pomp of heraldry in the many quartered shields adds
considerably to the richness of the design. The armed alabaster effigy
of Sir Richard Cholmeley, Lieutenant of the Tower under Henry VIII.,
stands near by, and is an excellent example of the period.
Two buildings of considerable merit were erected within the precincts
during the second half of the seventeenth century. The earliest in date
is the horse-armoury built by Sir Christopher Wren, and reputed to be
his first work in London. It still stands against the inner eastern
wall between the Salt and Broad-Arrow Towers, and while marked by a
suitable simplicity of design its proportions with the roof brought out
over a broad projecting cornice are admirable.
The Great Armoury, begun under James II., and completed in the time
of his successor, occupied the site of the modern barracks. It was a
large building with projecting wings, and an enriched façade with a
sculptured pediment in the centre. It was unfortunately destroyed by
fire in 1841, and nothing was saved with the exception of the carved
pediment adorned with the arms of William III., now built into a wall
on the eastern side of the Tower.
[Illustration: FIG. 17.—PEDIMENT WITH ARMS OF WILLIAM III.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
[Illustration: FIG. 18.—THE HORSE-ARMOURY.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
The modern history of the Tower is a long record of destruction and
misguided restoration, and its position has sunk to the level of a
show. To the average Londoner it ranks with the Zoo and the waxworks,
and he regards a visit to the Tower as one of those childish things
which he has long put away.
—A. W. C.
THE ROYAL PALACE
OF ELTHAM
[Illustration: FIG. 19.—THE HALL FROM THE SOUTH.
_Photograph by F. W. Nunn._]
IV.
THE ROYAL PALACE OF ELTHAM.
If Eltham Palace were not overshadowed by the close proximity of London
it would undoubtedly receive a greater share of public attention, and
the lordly buildings that were for long the favourite resort of our
kings would, if situated in a more distant county, attract as many
visitors as numerous less interesting buildings receive as a matter
of course year by year. Eltham, once a fair village of Kent, is now
becoming rapidly swallowed up in the ever-widening geographical
expression “the suburbs of London,” and in that unsympathetic
atmosphere it is almost as completely buried as is Pompeii beneath the
dust and lava of a volcano, or Dunwich beneath the waters of the North
Sea. Yet the remains of the royal buildings are not only exceedingly
beautiful, but are of extraordinary interest as representing a palace
which must have been one of the largest and most elaborate of the
mediæval period. Its moat enclosed a building averaging 340 ft. by 300
ft. in area, and the total length of the courts of the palace probably
approached 1,000 ft., with a width of from four to five hundred.
This rivals Hampton Court, which is 720 ft. by 400 ft., and is not
insignificant even when compared with the great scheme of Inigo Jones
for Whitehall, which was to have measured 1,200 ft. by 900 ft.
A most remarkable plan of the whole of the apartments within the
circumference of the moat has just come under my notice, preserved
among the many treasures in the Hatfield papers, and with Lord
Salisbury’s kind permission I have used it in preparing the plan on
pages 54–55. The original drawing is in outline, and is endorsed
“Eltham House,” the second word being in Lord Burghley’s handwriting.
In the Public Record Office (State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth, Vol.
234, No. 78) is a plan of the outer courtyard of offices, _beyond_
the moat, of which Hasted publishes a reproduction and Mr. Gregory[14]
includes a copy, apparently from an engraving, in his book. This plan,
which has puzzled many earlier writers, including Pugin (who in spite
of the explicit wording seems to have supposed it to be of the main
court and was surprised at the absence of the hall), is signed by John
Thorpe, and has the date 1590, in pencil, on the back. The plan at
Hatfield is unsigned, but is to the same scale (20 ft. to the inch),
and may well have been also the work of Thorpe, although it is executed
with much greater care than the plan of the offices in the State
Papers. Together the two plans give us the whole extent of the palace
and the buildings within its precincts. (See pp. 54 and 55.)
[14] _The Story of Royal Eltham_, by R. R. C. Gregory.
The site at Eltham has never been properly investigated, and the
field is open for a very considerable amount of work in verifying or
correcting these plans and identifying the positions of the buildings
shown thereon. In presenting, therefore, the general arrangement as
outlined on the existing manuscripts I intend to do no more than
introduce the subject and place one or two considerations at the
disposal of those who may complete the work. By the courtesy of Mr.
R. R. C. Gregory and Mr. F. W. Nunn I am permitted to reproduce some
interesting photographs which were specially taken for the former’s
book on Eltham, showing a few of the remains as they stand at the
present day.
Although the two plans are full of detail, and evidently drawn with
great care, they share with practically all ancient plans a certain
inaccuracy which is often very puzzling. There can be no doubt at all
about the competence of the surveyors of the Elizabethan period to make
perfectly accurate drawings, and their draughtsmanship is surprisingly
similar to that of the present day, showing moreover a care which is
often above the modern average. Yet they fail us repeatedly, wherever
enough of the old work remains to test their accuracy, and their errors
are apparently so needless that we are quite at a loss to account for
them. Not a little controversy has been waged over the collection of
Thorpe’s drawings in the Soane Museum on this very point, and while
the draughtsman has incurred serious blame, and much scepticism has
been aroused as to the genuineness of the plans, the problem has been
left unsolved, and one continues to find at least as much evidence to
corroborate as to confute their author. Perhaps if the architect of the
present day would reflect upon his own experience he would find less to
surprise him in the work of his sixteenth-century predecessor. It is
not a rare but a frequent occurrence, even in these days of accurate
instruments and multiplied facilities for drawing, to meet with plans
that are hastily drawn and inaccurately set down. The surveyor has
often to make a rapid survey; he occasionally misreads his own notes
and figures; a few important dimensions are sometimes omitted, and when
the drawing is made at some distance from the site a little guesswork
intrudes; and so much is this so that even official surveys—though
absolutely trustworthy for their own purposes—are found to have their
percentage of mistakes. But if these lapses occur in finished plans,
how numerous are the errors in unfinished drafts or sketch-plans which
are made for general purposes only! And who is to say, when we come
upon an old drawing, often accidentally preserved in a parcel of MSS.,
that this is merely a first sketch—a rough draft of which the corrected
version has long ago perished? These considerations, I submit, should
make us less ready to blame the draughtsman, but at the same time will
prepare us for a greater vigilance in checking his work and taking his
evidence with the greatest caution.
The plan of the palace proper at Eltham, comprising the buildings
within the moat, is, as far as one can judge, very fairly accurate. The
foundations of the outside line of fortifications still exist, and
correspond in the main to those shown. This outer wall is apparently
of sixteenth-century date, and is not unlikely to have been partly
the work of Queen Elizabeth. It formed on three sides a broad terrace
between the moat and Bishop Bec’s original walls. That the palace was
first fortified by Bec[15] is made extremely likely by the general
resemblance of the plan to his castle at Somerton, where the area
enclosed by the moat has a square plan similar to that of Eltham, with
one side lengthened in the same manner, making one of the angles less
and one more than a right angle.
[15] Pugin gives the following note: “Somerton Castle in Lincolnshire
built also by Anthony Beke, was of a quadrangle plan with four
polygonal towers at the corners, and was encompassed by very strong
banks and deep moats beyond the walls.” Robert de Graystanes, an
ancient historian of the Church of Durham, in his account of Bishop
Bec’s works, says: “Castrum de Somerton juxta Lincoln, et manerium
de Eltham juxta London, curiosissime ædificavit; sed primum regi et
secundum reginae postea contulit” (Anglia Sacra i. 755).
The three principal towers at the angles and the one in the centre of
the south front are probably his work. The last-named tower evidently
guarded the south entrance, and it may have been the remains of this
that have been spoken of as “castle-like” in earlier descriptions of
the ruins. Some later hand probably inserted the fireplaces in these
towers.
A reference to the large-scale Ordnance map will show how accurately
the fortifications follow the line of the Elizabethan plan. The view
of the palace and moat published by Samuel and Nathaniel Buck in 1735,
of which there is a copy in the King’s Library (British Museum), shows
the north-east part of this wall fairly intact, and the eastern bastion
raised like a tower and covered with a shaped lead roof resembling a
cupola. It is probable that most of the building shown by Buck upon
the outer walls was erected after the palace was despoiled, and the
roofed bastion is not unlikely to have been but an eighteenth-century
summer-house, the work perhaps of one of the line of Sir John Shaw.
[Illustration: FIG. 20.—BRIDGE OVER MOAT.
_Photograph by F. W. Nunn._]
[Illustration: FIG. 21.—COMPLETE PLAN OF PALACE.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
[Illustration: FIG. 22.—INTERIOR OF HALL.
_Photograph by H.M. Office of Works._]
The western line of the outer wall is overhung by buildings evidently
of the Tudor period, and the fine range of bay windows shown on the
Elizabethan plan is borne out in all but a few minor particulars
by existing foundations. Further than this, a large portion of the
main block of buildings that crosses the fortified area from west to
east is here to corroborate the survey, and the great hall with its
apartments to the east is found upon the precise line indicated on the
drawing. The hall itself is correctly shown, except for the position
of one buttress and an adjoining piece of brickwork, and the beautiful
fifteenth-century bridge adds valuable evidence supporting the plan.
Of the things revealed by this plan, none will prove of greater
interest than the beautiful chapel which, to gain its right
orientation, was placed so picturesquely across the great courtyard.
In the Parliamentary Survey of Eltham in 1649 the “fair chapel” is
mentioned first in the list of royal apartments, before the hall
itself, and in this document we come upon a little bit of unexpected
news regarding London. Sir Theodore Mayerne, formerly physician to
James I.—he was seventy-six years of age at the time of the survey—is
found to be ranger of the park at a salary of £6 1s. 8d., paid from
the customs of the Port of London. The survey tells us, however, that
he no longer resided at Eltham, but at his house at “Chelsey,” thus
confirming the tradition that it was he who originally built the only
one of Chelsea’s old palaces that remains—the house which, rebuilt
by the Earls of Lindsey, still stands, although divided into several
dwellings, overlooking the Thames, just west of Battersea Bridge.
This survey goes on to relate that, beside the fair chapel and great
hall, there were forty-six rooms and offices on the ground floor, with
two large cellars; and on the upper floor, seventeen lodging rooms on
the king’s side, twelve on the queen’s side, and nine on the prince’s
side,—in all thirty-eight. Further research would no doubt identify
the position of these three suites of apartments, which are not, of
course, evident on a plan of the ground floor. The survey mentions the
outer “green court” with its thirty-five “bayes of building” on three
sides, which contained the offices to which we refer below.
It appears from the building accounts of the reign of Henry VI. that
the chapel was being completed in his reign, as mention is made of
the construction of a screen and of the two staircases to the gallery
above. But the “fair chapel” of the Parliamentary Survey, shown on the
Hatfield plan, was the work of Henry VIII. The accounts still exist of
the taking down of the old chapel, and of its rebuilding by Henry some
twelve feet nearer to the hall. The very massive wall standing west of
the chapel on the plan probably marks the position of the western end
of the former building. Henry VIII. has left detailed directions as to
the erection and furnishing of this chapel, which must have been one of
the most beautiful buildings of its time.
The accounts also fix the date of the great hall, which has so far
been only conjectural. One of the fortnightly returns of expenditure
when the roof was being framed together is headed “Coste and expence
don upon the bildying of the newe Halle wytn the manor of Elthm in
the charge of James Hatefeld from Sonday the xixth day of Septembr
the xixth yer of the reigne of our Sovreign lord King Edward the
iiijth unto Sonday the iiid of Octobr the yer aforeseid.” The wages
of the freemasons, hardhewers, carpenters (including chief warden and
underwarden) plumbers, smythes, labourers, and clerke are all given.
We also learn that thirty great iron “spykynggs” for the roof were
bought, such, no doubt, as were found in the framework of the roof of
Crosby Hall, and ten great “clampes of yron for the bynddyng of the
princyples.” Moreover there is a note of six loads of “Raygatestone” at
four shillings a load, the same stone employed at Crosby Hall, commonly
known as Reigate firestone. In all £140 13s. 6d. was spent in the
fortnight.
From this it appears that Crosby Hall, built in 1466, was started
some ten years or more before the hall of Eltham Palace; and yet the
former is of much later character in almost all its details, and
particularly in its panelled roof. The royal palace evidently clung to
the traditional methods of design, and they were certainly capable of
a more magnificent effect. It will be seen that the octagonal hearth,
about which there has been much conjecture, is shown clearly in the
plan in front of the throne.
The fame of Eltham will ultimately rest upon the exquisite beauty of
this great hall with its timbered roof, heavily moulded and adorned
with finely shaped pendants, its two rectangular bay or oriel windows
with their elaborate vaulting and the splendid range of windows along
both sides, which set the scale and still enrich the design in spite
of mutilation and decay. All these have been happily recorded with
infinite care and loving detail by Pugin, in the seven plates which
form almost the best work in his _Examples of Gothic Architecture_
(Vol. I.).
We are reminded by Mr. Arthur Stratton, in his notice of the hall
roof at Eltham, in _The Domestic Architecture of England during the
Tudor Period_, of an interesting point regarding the oak pendants.
Pugin, in the description which accompanied his drawings, quotes Mr.
J. C. Buckler’s book on Eltham to the effect that the long shafts of
the pendants, above the moulded drops, were originally surrounded by
delicate carved tracery, one example of which he measured and recorded
before it fell from the roof. The present bareness of the pendants
has often been noticed, and we are glad to see that Mr. Stratton has
included a copy of Buckler’s sketch in his work, Pugin having merely
shown it in dotted lines around his own detail of the roof. There is
little doubt that the mediæval carpenter regarded the timber roof as
the highest subject on which to exercise his skill, and both in vigour
of design and delicacy in carving and modelling his efforts at Eltham
met with wonderful success.
There has been much discussion as to the existence of one or more
courts on the south side of the hall, and the plan seems to show that
the space was gradually utilised for extensions of the kitchens and
offices, since considerable capacity was required from the royal custom
of keeping Christmas at Eltham. The outbuildings which are nearest the
hall were in all probability but single-story erections, and may have
been late in date.
The survey of the green or outer court gives greater difficulty. All
evidence of the courtyard has disappeared; its gatehouse has gone, and
what must have been a superbly picturesque approach to the palace, with
its timbered buildings on either side as it widened towards the moat,
is now a curtailed strip of greensward, occupied by lofty trees, and
traversed by a road which yet retains some reminiscence of its ancient
purpose in its name—“The Courtyard.” The only definite clue to the site
is a range of private houses along its western side, which chiefly date
from the eighteenth century, but of which the southern end is without
doubt much older, and is happily identical in plan with the building
described by John Thorpe as “My Lord Chancellor his Lodgings.” The
house is a most charming weatherboarded building with the upper floor
overhung, and has a fine stack of chimneys. Its southern end projects
into the courtyard and has a large timber gable which overshadows a
square bay-window below. The building is at present divided into two
houses, but Thorpe’s plan shows how complete an example it was of the
moderate-sized dwelling of the period. Its hall was approached by
the usual porch and screen, and had the accustomed oriel window and
fireplace. At the upper end was a private room or parlour, and behind
the screen was a larger room—the great chamber, whose square bay-window
overlooked the courtyard. From the screen again access was obtained to
the kitchen (which has disappeared, but is clearly shown on the plan)
and to the wooden newel staircase that still exists, furnishing an
excellent example of its type.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.—THE CHANCELLOR’S HOUSE.
_Photograph by F. W. Nunn._]
The houses to the north of the Chancellor’s Lodging continue the
frontage line, and appear to occupy the site of the rooms marked
“Buttery” and “Spicery” on Thorpe’s plan. If this is so, we have the
west side of our courtyard definitely marked out for us. The initial
difficulty, however, is that Thorpe has marked his western range at
a different angle to the moat, and the direction of his bridge does
not correspond with its relative position to the timber buildings.
But too much importance must not be attached to this, as the moat has
been apparently sketched in without the intention of placing it in its
proper position. A more serious matter is, that if the old plan be
placed so that the west side coincides with the existing buildings,
then the southern end of the eastern range trespasses on the area of
the moat as shown in the Hatfield plan of the main part of the palace.
Here, again, the draughtsman may simply have drawn the two sides
of the moat parallel to one another without measurement, and it is
possible that the present boundary of the ditch, at the western end
of its northern bank, represents the correct line, since if produced
it coincides with the southern wall of the “Privy Bakehouse,” and the
otherwise curious position of the “Scalding House” beyond becomes
explained by the return of the eastern side of the moat. Whether this
interpretation is correct or not, I have adopted it as the method
involving the least modification of Thorpe’s drawings, as I think it
is important that they should be put on record in this way before any
attempt is made to adjust any further inconsistencies.
Joined together thus, the two plans cannot fail to give us a very
fair idea of the palace, and it would be easy to construct a vivid
word-picture of the beauty and charm that must have belonged to the
whole scene which these old manuscripts can conjure up for us. Even
a cursory glance shows its infinite suggestiveness. The way up to
the gatehouse is flanked with converging walls and outbuildings of
picturesque form and disposition. The gateway itself, massively built
in contrast with the timber houses on either side, admits us to the
long green court, the irregular boundaries of which lead onwards to the
palace in a fair perspective. On each side are the low outbuildings
of half-timber work and plaster, and beyond rise the high walls of
the fortifications, Bishop Bec’s towers still amongst them, and the
gatehouse to the great court standing out in the centre. As the visitor
proceeds, he will see the waters of the wide moat, the banks of which
still show the unusual width of a hundred feet. Between him and the
gatehouse is the stone bridge, with its four beautiful pointed arches,
the last of which reaches the wall of the terrace, built probably over
the ancient place of the drawbridge (which Henry VIII. mentions) before
the porter’s gate.[16]
[16] Mr. C. R. Peers has confirmed this by discovering the actual
opening formed for the drawbridge.
Within the great court the scene is one of royal splendour. The
battlemented gable of the chapel is close at the visitor’s right hand,
and immediately opposite is Edward IV.’s great hall, which even now
is glorious in its ruinous condition.[17] Its coupled windows (like
the southern lights only of Crosby Hall) divided by buttresses, its
square oriel and doorway, its oak lantern, and Henry VIII.’s finial and
vane on the summit of the west gable, combine in this great central
feature of the mediæval palace a dignity and distinction worthy of its
purpose. And all around the court fine work in timber gives a pleasing
contrast and relief to the solidity of the masonry. For in a line with
the hall to the east were oak gables and bargeboards well moulded and
carved—three of which are yet to be seen—and King Henry VIII. himself
gave orders for the gallery from the hall to the chapel to have a
“clerestory” and to be embattled in timber, and the cloister (pentise)
on the opposite side to be likewise wrought and embattled in oak.
[17] H.M. Office of Works is now repairing the Hall, and has kindly
lent the photograph reproduced on page 56.
Henry VIII. spent much money at Eltham, and in his imperious way
effected great changes in the ancient palace, though nearly all his
work has since perished. If the visitor of the time of Thorpe’s survey
had passed through the door of the great hall and beneath the wonderful
roof of Edward IV., he would have found himself in the kitchen court,
where on the right was to be seen the “New Lodging” which Henry had
built for himself. In the south-west angle of the court a little door
gave access to the privy bridge across the moat and turning to the
right beyond this he could see the elaborate front of this building,
which was prepared with infinite care, as the king’s instructions show.
The succession of bay or oriel windows, the centre one of which was
of the elaborate form affected in his reign, must have pleased the
eye of a king who stopped at nothing in his ambition for truly royal
surroundings.
To return to Thorpe’s plan of the green court, there is one point which
requires explanation, and which presents the most serious obstacle in
the way of our accepting the precise disposition which he gives to
the buildings. Just outside the first gatehouse and to the north of
the bakehouse is a wall which bounds the outer courtyard to the east.
A portion of Tudor walling in this direction still exists, and in it
is a fine gateway in about the same relative position as the opening
shown on the plan. This wall and gateway, however, are much farther
west than those indicated on Thorpe’s plan, and should thus appear
where he shows an open space. Either he has omitted to show them, which
seems improbable, or his wall and gate are too far to the east. This
point affects the important matter of the position of the gatehouse
itself, and indeed if decided against the drawing would probably
modify the lines of the green court. The identity, indeed, of this
so-called “Tilt-yard” gate with that shown by Thorpe may prove to be
the key to the proper placing of his plan, but the evidence at present
is fragmentary, and, as I have already said, the subject invites
much careful investigation. The combined plans have been purposely
reproduced here to the scale of the Ordnance (88 ft. to the inch) to
facilitate comparison, and I have no doubt that it will not be long
before we have enough further information to give a corrected plan of
the whole building.
—W. H. G.
THE ORIGIN OF
THE DOMESTIC HALL
[Illustration: FIG. 24.—THE GUILDHALL, YORK.]
V.
THE ORIGIN OF THE DOMESTIC HALL.
The invariable and, indeed, the only essential feature of the English
mediæval house is the Great Hall. It is the centre alike of the castle
and the manor-house round which the lesser buildings are grouped. In
Saxon times the great or mead hall was, so far as the evidence goes,
almost always built of wood and closely resembled in form and structure
the great aisled barns, which have carried on the old tradition without
a break almost to the present day. Some indication of their remote
and semi-barbaric origin is to be found in the rude method of roof
construction, for while something in the form of a truss is always
visible, yet it is scarcely ever framed together to form a rigid whole.
On the other hand certain peculiarities, born of a long and intimate
acquaintance with the material used, are also observable, the most
striking being the constant practice of planting the posts or uprights
in the contrary position to that occupied when they were living trees,
and thus preventing the rise of the moisture from the damp earth. It
is a hall of this type that is described in the early Mercian poem of
Beowulf as the scene of the great struggle with the demon Grendel.
For some time after the coming of the Normans, the conquering race was
little more than an army of occupation, a state of affairs which was
unduly prolonged by the internecine warfare of the Great Anarchy. The
direct outcome of this unsettled and unnatural state was the erection
of the numerous Norman castles, built purely for defence, of which so
many were subsequently destroyed by King Henry II. The Norman castle at
this date consisted of a stone keep with a large enclosure or bailey,
surrounded by a wooden palisade or stone curtain and occupied by the
timber dwellings of the lord and his retainers. It cannot be too much
insisted on that the keep-tower hardly ever represents the ordinary
dwelling-house of the lord of the castle. It was, in fact, only made
use of for habitation when the stronghold was in a state of siege, and
it is probable that their enforced residence there was little relished
by its inmates, as the confined space and limited accommodation would
lead one to expect. It is consequently futile to attempt to trace in
the internal arrangements of the keep-tower the origin of the domestic
hall. Even at the Tower of London, where the Conqueror or his successor
built an immense keep, using the south-east angle of the Roman
fortifications to enclose their bailey, a great hall was erected at an
early date against the southern curtain.
In three of the early Norman castles the great hall still remains
standing, at any rate in part. At Richmond, Yorkshire, it adjoins the
curtain on the south side, and is apparently of earlier date than the
keep at Christ Church, Twynham which stands on the east or river front
of the castle; while at Wolvesley, by Winchester, the ruined Norman
hall is ascribed to Bishop Henry of Blois.
The comparatively small number of halls of this date remaining is some
evidence that the majority of these structures were of wood, and there
is documentary evidence that in several important cases, as at Hertford
and Pleshy, the halls were still of this material at the time of their
destruction in the seventeenth century.
The Norman conquerors of England brought with them their own
architecture, and must necessarily, at any rate at first, have
introduced their own masons and craftsmen to carry it out. The wealth
of the great Saxon abbeys was largely put to this use by their new
owners, for the Norman prelates, accustomed to the glories of Jumièges
and Caen, would not tolerate the insignificant proportions of Saxon
building, and the result was perhaps one of the greatest eras of local
building activity the world has seen. The great Benedictine houses,
whose numbers so largely increased in the first few decades succeeding
the Conquest, built not only large churches but also conventual
buildings on a corresponding scale. The conventual establishment
consisted of the claustral block, occupied by the monks themselves
and grouped round a central cloister, and a number of subsidiary and
outlying blocks of which the infirmary and guest-house were the chief,
quite detached from the main building. All except the very richest
monasteries found it impossible to reconstruct at once the whole of
these buildings in stone, and consequently we find in many instances
the claustral block only was erected in this material, while the
infirmary and guest-house, as a temporary expedient, were constructed
of timber. The truth of this is evidenced by the discovery in several
instances (_e.g._ Kirkstall and Waverley) of the original posts of the
early infirmary hall encased in later masonry.
Now, the domestic portions of a monastery fulfilled most if not all
of the functions of a mediæval house, or rather cluster of houses,
as in each case the claustral block, the infirmary, and guest-house
possessed its great hall, its separate kitchen, and the usual adjuncts.
At a somewhat later date in the abbot’s or prior’s lodging yet another
complete dwelling was added to the list. With regard to the guest-house
particularly, it was in intention and fact an ordinary dwelling-house
on a large scale. The inviolability of monastic property even in the
dark period of the Great Anarchy has preserved more trace of the early
arrangement of these buildings than is to be found in most of the
purely secular houses of the same early date. The superior wealth and
greater culture of the Church tended to make it the leader in domestic
architecture no less than in ecclesiastical. All through the Middle
Ages the purely secular-house plan showed a tendency to a closer
approximation to the monastic type, until the quadrangular dwelling
of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries becomes almost its exact
counterpart even to the cloister alleys on each side, the place of the
great church being taken by the gatehouse. It is consequently amongst
the monastic remains of the country, and not amongst the Norman keeps,
that we are most likely to recover the early type of the domestic hall.
The conventual plan affords examples of two very different types of
hall. The first is that almost always adopted for the great frater
or dining hall in the claustral block, and is a plain rectangular
apartment solidly built of stone; the second type is found only in the
infirmary or guest-houses, and is in the form of a nave with one or two
aisles.
We have shown that the frater was part of the block first rebuilt by
the Norman abbots and priors. It was consequently built in stone after
the Norman fashion by Norman masons. The infirmary and guest-halls on
the contrary were commonly first constructed of wood, and consequently
present all the features of native planning in that material. In most
cases this latter class of building was subsequently reconstructed in
the more durable material, but even then in many instances the original
form was preserved, and stone columns and arcades like the aisles of a
church took the place of the original barn-like structure of the Saxon
type.
[Illustration: FIG. 25.—PLANS OF HALLS OF WINCHESTER CASTLE, YORK
GUILDHALL AND OAKHAM CASTLE.
_Drawn by A. W. Clapham._]
Turning now to the contemporary castle-building, we find precisely the
same varying plans in common use. The three halls mentioned above, at
Richmond, Christchurch, and Wolvesley, follow the model of the monastic
frater, while the halls at Oakham, Warnford (Hants), and probably
Westminster are examples of the aisle type, which survived in isolated
instances right through the Middle Ages, one of the latest examples,
the Guildhall of York, being an interesting return to the timber
originals of this class of structure.
[Illustration: FIG. 26.—PLANS OF HALLS OF ASHBY CASTLE, HERTFORD
CASTLE, AND WARNFORD.
_Drawn by A. W. Clapham._]
The aisled hall is so uncommon a feature in purely domestic
architecture that a brief reference to the most important examples will
be of value in this connection. Four examples at least remain intact,
the well-known structure at Oakham (65 ft. by 43½ ft.) being the
earliest. The great hall of Winchester Castle is a thirteenth-century
building, five bays long (111 ft. by 56 ft.), and another example
of similar date is to be found at Bishop Auckland, where, with the
addition of a clerestory, it now does duty as a chapel. The Guildhall
at York dates from the fifteenth century, and its long ranges of oak
columns and handsome roof are exceedingly effective. (See p. 68.) The
ruined examples include the halls of Ashby-de-la-Zouche (56½ ft. by 38
ft.) and Warkworth (58 ft. long, with one aisle only), the latter a
thirteenth-century structure with a later porch and traces of a central
hearth. Lastly the timber hall of Hertford Castle, which has entirely
disappeared, bore a close resemblance on plan to the stone structure at
Ashby Castle. The hall of Nurstead Court, Kent, has been destroyed,
and that at Leicester Castle and at the “Savoy,” Denham, Bucks, have
been cut up into rooms and much altered.
These halls are, however, chiefly of interest as examples of an ancient
and discarded method of construction, and it is to the other type that
we must turn for the true origins of the domestic hall.
The finest remaining example of an early monastic frater is to be found
at St. Martin’s Priory, Dover. It forms a hall 101 ft. long by 27 ft.
wide, and is lit by a range of eight windows on each side. Though St.
Martin’s was never more than a cell of Christchurch, Canterbury, these
dimensions compare favourably with those of the secular buildings of
the same class. The hall of Christchurch Castle, Twynham, was 70 ft.
by 25 ft., and Scolland Hall, Richmond, 79 ft. by 26 ft. Wolvesley
Castle Hall was, however, larger, being 135 ft. by 29 ft. In the
internal economy of the monastic frater no less than in its plan we
may recognise the prototype of the domestic hall. At the east end was
the dais for the abbot’s table, at the west the screens masking the
entrance from the kitchen and cloister. It has been asserted that the
Norman builders placed the windows of their halls high in the walls for
fear of draughts, but in the monastic frater we find them in the same
position, for the adjoining pent-house roof of the cloister prevented
any other arrangement, and here again it seems likely that the secular
but copied the monastic fashion.
A characteristic feature of the later monastic frater-house is the
reader’s pulpit from which one of the brethren during meal time read
edifying extracts from the lives of the saints and similar works. In
the Norman fraters, however, this feature seldom appears in structural
form. There is no trace of it at Dover, and none likewise in the plans
of Lewes and Castle Acre. In the late twelfth century, however, it
became universal, and is generally enclosed in a square projection near
the dais end of the frater, approached by a flight of stairs in the
thickness of the wall.
In position and outward form it approximates closely to the domestic
oriel, and one is tempted to suggest it as the true original of this
much-discussed feature of the secular plan which, it may be noted
(like the pulpit itself), never appears in early work. In any case
the beautiful oriel formerly existing in the infirmary at Easby Abbey
is one of the earliest known examples of the feature, and implies its
monastic origin.
One other point may be noted in conclusion. According to monastic
rules, the frater was never supposed to be artificially heated,
and consequently it was left to the unaided secular mind to invent
something new, or to adhere to the ancient form of the central hearth.
The secular mind chose the easier course, and only in occasional
instances like that at Christchurch do we find a proper fireplace and
chimney in the great hall.
Even the final destruction of the monasteries, under Henry VIII.,
did not entirely terminate their influence on English domestic work.
Numerous abbeys and priories, of which Ford and Laycock are familiar
examples, were transformed into dwelling-houses by their first lay
proprietors. After the destruction of the conventual church, the
claustral block, with one or more of the cloister alleys retained, and
the chapter-house used as a private chapel, became the prototype of a
numerous class of houses which remained in general favour throughout
Elizabethan and Jacobean times; and even in the throes of dissolution
monasticism left a deep and lasting mark on the architecture of the
country.
—A. W. C.
SIR THOMAS MORE’S HOUSE
AT CHELSEA
[Illustration: FIG. 27.—SIR THOMAS MORE’S FAMILY AT CHELSEA.
_Drawn by Holbein._]
VI.
SIR THOMAS MORE’S HOUSE AT CHELSEA.
Sir Thomas More’s house at Chelsea, where he received the intimate
but fatal companionship of King Henry VIII., and held more congenial
intercourse with Erasmus, Holbein, and other of his friends, enshrines
perhaps one of the most familiar domestic scenes in English history.
Yet we have hitherto known little about the house itself beyond the
mere fact of its position, and the names of its more or less famous
owners until its destruction by Sir Hans Sloane in 1739. Led, however,
by a hint of Mr. Randal Davies, I have lately been carefully through
the MS. drawings in the possession of the Marquis of Salisbury, and
have been rewarded by finding a set of six plans (_circa_ 1595) which
undoubtedly relate to this house. Two of them are evidently surveys of
its earlier condition, and probably represent its arrangement during
the life of Sir Thomas More. The remainder embody some of Sir Robert
Cecil’s intentions regarding the refashioning of the house when it came
into his possession, intentions which were only partially carried out,
and were relinquished by him in favour of his more ambitious project
at Hatfield. The plans are beautifully drawn in ink, and throw a most
interesting light on the methods of drafting a building scheme, the
skill of which seems no whit behind the work of the modern architect.
The information available regarding the riverside estate of Sir Thomas
More is by no means slight, although it is lacking in many of the
details necessary for the completion of its history, and we have,
moreover, no remains of the house with which to compare the early
plans, beyond the long garden walls of Tudor brickwork which still
divide the rows of modern houses erected upon the site. The whole
property has a singularly interesting architectural history, for three
other houses were subsequently built upon parts of the estate, and all
have a different claim upon our attention. To the west of The Great
House, nearer the river, was the original “Farm House” which More had
bought and which was rebuilt by Sir Theodore Mayerne, physician to
James I., and afterwards altered by the Earl of Lindsey (_circa_ 1674).
This house remains, much mutilated and changed, divided into several
dwellings, but still retaining the name of Lindsey House and preserving
much of the appearance it had in the days of its occupation by Count
Zinzendorf and his Moravian followers (1751–1770). To the north of
Lindsey House was Gorges House, built probably in the last years of the
sixteenth century by the Earl of Lincoln for his son-in-law Sir Arthur
Gorges. Surrounding three sides of a courtyard open to the west, and
surmounted by a succession of Dutch gables, it eventually came into
the possession of the Milman family, and was pulled down about 1726 to
make way for Milman’s Row. The third house was to the east of The Great
House and its gardens, and was built in 1622–3 by Sir John Danvers,
who bought the land from the third Earl of Lincoln. Danvers House was
remarkable as being one of the earliest houses to take on the Later
Renaissance manner, and its planning and that of its gardens delighted
the heart of Aubrey and of Pepys, a detailed description by the former
being preserved at the Bodleian. John Thorpe has left us plans of the
house, and Aubrey a sketch of the garden. It was pulled down about
1720, and Danvers Street now passes over its site, the present position
of the rebuilt Crosby Hall marking roughly its distance from the river.
Before examining in detail the various features of these houses, it
may be useful to set out a table of the drawings which are so far
available:—
IN THE HATFIELD PAPERS (1595–6).
(1) and (2) Survey of The Great House: ground plan and first
floor, by J. Symonds.
(3) and (4) Proposed rebuilding: ground plan and first floor by
Spicer.
(5) First-floor plan of alternative scheme, also by Spicer.
(6) Estate plan showing house and gardens.
IN THE THORPE COLLECTION, Soane Museum.
(Early 17th century).
(7) Plan of The Great House and lodges.
(8) (9) and (10) Sir John Danvers’ house: ground plan, first
floor, and sketch elevation.
IN THE SMITHSON COLLECTION (Colonel Coke).
(11) Summer-house, Chelsea (shown also in Kip’s view).
There are also—
(12) Kip’s bird’s-eye view of The Great House, showing also
Lindsey House, Gorges House, and the garden of Danvers House,
dated 1699, drawn by Knyff.
(13) Danvers House: plan of garden, drawn by Aubrey (Bodleian).
(14) and (15) Lindsey House: drawings in the Moravian Archives at
Hernhutt; and engraving in Malcolm’s “Londinium Redivivum.”
From this list it will be seen that if there is not enough material to
satisfy the topographer and to enable him to plot the exact position of
these houses on the banks of the broad highway of the Thames, yet there
is more than enough to interest the student of architecture. Let us
first consider the earlier plans of The Great House, which I have the
kind permission of Lord Salisbury to reproduce.
[Illustration: FIG. 28.—PLAN OF THE HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR
_Drawn by I. Symonds (c. 1595)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 29.—PLAN OF THE HOUSE, FIRST FLOOR.
_Drawn by I. Symonds (c. 1595)._]
It was on the death, in 1595, of Anne, Lady Dacre—well known as the
foundress of the beautiful Emmanuel Hospital which used to stand in
Westminster—that The Great House at Chelsea came to the Cecil family,
Lord Burleigh, who is thought to have stayed here, giving it up to his
son Sir Robert in 1597. The house, as we have seen, had already had
historic associations, from its first builder, Sir Thomas More, who
lived here for about fourteen years until his attainder in 1535. It
had then passed successively to Sir William Paulet (first Marquis of
Winchester), his son the second Marquis, and in 1575 to Lady Dacre,
who was a daughter of the Marchioness of Winchester by her former
husband, Sir Robert Sackville. The possession of what must have been
a fine old house of the early sixteenth century, amidst the charming
Thames scenery just west of the picturesque village of Chelsea, fired
the future builder of Hatfield with a desire to remodel the building
and bring it up to date as his country seat. With this in view,
immediately upon possession Cecil had the house measured up, and
commissioned one or more of his “surveyors” to plan the additions and
alterations. In a letter dated September 3rd, 1595, from H. Maynard to
Sir Robert Cecil, mention is made of “the plattes of Chelsey house
made by Torrington, with the Controller of the Works’ additions.” This
seems to imply that Torrington had plotted the place as it stood, and
that the additions had been made by the Controller of the Works whose
identity is not disclosed. The drawings here reproduced do not seem,
however, to be the ones referred to in the letter, and it is difficult
to say how far any of them represent the form of the original house
as acquired by Cecil. To the historian this is unfortunate, but to the
student of architecture it will be a matter of congratulation that the
“sketch-plans” survived instead.
The two plans which seem most likely to represent the already existing
buildings have not the name of Chelsea attached to them, but they are
clearly of this house. They are each inscribed: “This Plat is after 10
foot in An ynch. p. J. Symands.” More roughly drawn than the others,
they represent less coherent planning, and show an earlier type of
house. Most significant of all, the figured dimensions are given in
fractions of feet or with inches, and the heights of the stories
are shown on the ground and first floors. This John Symonds was the
author of the remarkable plans of Aldgate Priory (also in the Hatfield
Collection), which Professor Lethaby published in the _Home Counties
Magazine_ (vol. ii, pp. 45–53). Professor Lethaby has established that
Symonds was employed by Lord Burghley on the harbour works at Dover,
and that he died probably in 1597. It is interesting to find another
set of plans which associates him again with the neighbourhood of
London. The early features of his plan will be seen to consist in the
numerous staircase and other projections upon both the north and south
fronts, the square porch with shafted angles (as in the western room),
and the oriel over the front door. The house had doubtless been altered
since Sir Thomas More’s time. Its front elevation is symmetrical
between the two slightly projecting wings, the porch being in the
centre; but towards the west a further wing had been built with a
width and projection similar to the others. This western wing is shown
on all the plans of the house, and it was evidently the intention of
Sir Robert Cecil to remove the projections between it and the eastern
wing, making a symmetrical elevation between them, broken only by the
porch. We see, therefore, in all the other plans that the porch has
been shifted westwards, and with it the Great Hall, and the planning
of the north side has been altered to correspond. This part of the
scheme was actually carried out by Cecil, as we can see by referring
to John Thorpe’s plan, and to Kip’s view of the house a century later.
The Great Hall in Symonds’s plan is of one story, and, beside the
usual screen, has posts to support the passage above, a feature which
suggests that this was once an open gallery. The hall is shown with
a dais, which communicated with a long wing leading northwards, in
which were the grand staircase, the chapel, and a cloister. This wing,
with its Long Gallery on the first floor, looks at first sight to be
of quite Elizabethan character, and may well have been an addition
by Lady Dacre. But the chapel, cramped though it is, with its window
to the east, is not unlikely to have been the private chapel of Sir
Thomas More, and the “Parte of ye Tarras” shows the commencement of his
favourite terrace, which appears in Cecil’s estate plan and in Kip’s
view, and is described with its “banqueting house” in the conveyance
to Sir Hans Sloane (1737). On the first floor may be seen the little
balustrade which surrounds the opening into the chapel below, and on
the two floors there are no fewer than four rooms having those internal
porches which are so characteristic of Elizabethan houses, and which
came in those days under the comprehensive term of “oriel.”
The closer one examines these two plans of Symonds the more evident
it becomes that they represent an early Tudor house which had been
enlarged in the latter part of the sixteenth century—if the north-east
wing were really in existence when the house was measured up, and was
not the draughtsman’s suggestions for an extension. If our deduction is
correct, we have here the substantial arrangement of Sir Thomas More’s
house, and one of the rooms, possibly the chapel, formed the background
for Holbein’s famous sketch of the family group.
Let us now consider the four other Hatfield plans, two of which are
marked “Chelsey,” while the remaining two—undoubtedly of the same
place—bear the name of the draughtsman, “Mr. Spicer,”[18] in Cecil’s
own handwriting. I do not think that any of these plans represent
accurately the actual changes which were made, although to the title of
one, “Mr. Spicer’s platt without a gallery,” Cecil has added the word
“allowed.”
[18] Of Spicer I have not been able to find any other mention than the
following reference in the Hatfield MSS. In a letter dated 9 December,
1598, written in Italian by Federigo Genibelli to Sir Robert Cecil, the
writer, in speaking of the wages due to himself and other workmen in
building fortifications in the Isle of Wight, refers to “Mr. Speicer”
as also employed. It is quite possible that he was the Surveyor of
Works at Chelsea.
[Illustration: FIG. 30.—PLAN FOR REBUILDING, GROUND FLOOR.
_Drawn by Spicer (c. 1595)._]
The plans are drawn with scrupulous care, and, like a fair proof that
they were not carried out. The dimensions are marked in whole figures
without fractions, and no heights of rooms are given. They exhibit
most complete and ideal plans of the period. The scheme for which the
ground and first-floor plans are drawn shows the south front reduced to
perfect symmetry, the western room already referred to being brought
out in a bold wing, and a corresponding projection being placed to
the east. This latter contains an imposing chapel with screen, and
two shaped balconies to the gallery over. Each wing is flanked by an
octagonal stair-turret. The hall (50 ft. by 21 ft.) which replaces the
larger Gothic hall (59 ft. by 31 ft. 6 in.) has been moved westward,
to allow of a central porch and the addition of an extra retiring-room
of important dimensions to the private apartments eastward. The hall
retains a screen, but loses its dais and oriel window. The porch is
treated with columns in the approved Renaissance manner, which are
repeated in the upper storey and take the place of the little oriel
that is shown over the earlier doorway. The old north-western wing
is modified a little, but to the east a repeat is shown, and in the
former, false windows are indicated against the oven walls to balance
the bay on the other side! Over the east wing is a long gallery (99
ft. by 19 ft.) overlooking the garden, with three bay windows. The old
octagonal projections on the north side are retained, and the plan is
noteworthy in having seven newel stairs, beside the principal staircase
and one other straight flight.
[Illustration: FIG. 31.—PLAN FOR REBUILDING, FIRST FLOOR.
_Drawn by Spicer (c. 1595)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 32.—ANOTHER, FIRST FLOOR PLAN.
_Drawn by Spicer (c. 1595)._]
An even more elaborate scheme is shown on the third plan, of which
we have the first floor, or “seconde storie,” only. Here the hall,
which is the same length as the old hall, _i.e._, 59 ft., goes up
two storeys, and a gallery is shown over the screen. The apartment
to the east of the hall is occupied by the grand staircase, and a
fine well-stair flanks each of the front wings, being brought out
as square towers behind the octagonal turrets. The chapel shows
further elaboration with three balconies, evidently forming private
pews, not unlike Queen Elizabeth’s pew in the chapel of the Croydon
Archiepiscopal Palace. The kitchen shares with the hall the dignity of
embracing two storeys, but the main feature of the plan is the range of
building which unites the two northern wings, and forms a magnificent
gallery 123 ft. long by 19 ft. wide.
The fourth plan is by far the most interesting from the topographical
point of view, for it gives the divisions of all the gardens and
forecourts and the outline of the riverbank. The northern boundary is
now the south side of King’s Road, and the stable-yard is the Moravian
Burial Ground. The open square to the north-east is Dovecote Close,
now largely occupied by Paulton’s Square. And down by the river may be
seen the quay, and the little street of houses (called Duke Street and
Lombard Street) whose picturesque buildings gave way to the making of
the Embankment. The lines of garden-wall running north and south are
still largely intact, and bear out the general accuracy of the plan,
although the measurements are wrong in many places. The terrace, with
its archway and steps, is to be seen; but the house is drawn more as
a feat of draughtsmanship than as a serious attempt to make it to
scale. It represents perhaps another of Sir Robert Cecil’s schemes, but
neither a comparison with Symonds’ earlier or Thorpe’s later plans will
be found to support its exact arrangement.
[Illustration: FIG. 33.—ESTATE PLAN (c. 1595).]
Dr. King, the antiquary, and rector of Chelsea, writing in the early
part of the eighteenth century, relates from his own observation how
“in divers places [in this house] are these letters, R.C., and also
R.C.E., with the date of the year, viz., 1597, which letters were the
initials of his [Cecil’s] name and his lady’s, and the year 1597 when
he new-built, or at least new-fronted it.” A letter in the Hatfield
MSS. from Roger Houghton to Sir Robert Cecil, endorsed “Mr. Steward
to my master,” and written “From your Honour’s House in the Strand”
(June 22nd, 1597), says: “The bed chamber and withdrawing chamber at
‘Cheallseay’ are matted, and this day they are about to hang them.
There wanteth your direction what stone you will that the ‘ffootpasses’
be made of to the chimneys in these two rooms, as also to the gallery,
also whether you will have the hangings in the great chamber to be hung
at their full length or tucked up.”
Sir Robert Cecil seems soon to have become tired of his new possession.
We find him desirous of selling the property in 1599, and on the last
day of February of that year it was bought by Henry, second Earl of
Lincoln. The new owner was father-in-law to Sir Arthur Gorges, upon
whom and his wife the estate was settled. Apparently at this time,
too, a site was found for a new house, behind Lindsey House, which was
occupied by Sir Arthur Gorges during the Earl of Lincoln’s lifetime.
There seem to have been very serious quarrels between the two families,
and much interesting and vigorous correspondence is extant concerning
their differences. Mr. Randal Davies, in his _Chelsea Old Church_, has
told the subsequent history of the house and of its notable tenants.
The Earl of Lincoln died in 1615, and the house and land which he
had purchased from Sir Robert Cecil passed to Sir Arthur Gorges.
This, however, was not the complete estate of Sir Thomas More, for it
appears that the property lying south of Dovecote Close and east of
the terrace and garden of The Great House, was in the hands of the
descendant of William Roper, who married More’s daughter and received
it in dowry, for which reason it is not shown on Cecil’s estate plan.
The Tudor home of the Ropers, Well Hall, is still to be seen, in part,
at Eltham, where its fine brick walls and chimney-stacks overhang the
ancient moat. Before his death the Earl of Lincoln reunited More’s
former property by purchase, but in 1615 the two portions were again
in separate hands, since he bequeathed his house and grounds to Gorges,
but left Roper’s land to his son, the third earl. This latter parcel
of the estate, which for a few years was thus a second time in the
same ownership as The Great House, has quite an interesting history.
It is specified in the grant of Chelsea to William Pawlet after More’s
attainder as “the house and one pightell or close of land.” Evidently,
therefore, there was already a building upon it, and Mr. Randal Davies
confirms a suggestion of Mr. Horne that this was the “place called
the new buylding wherein was a chappell, a library, and a gallerie,
which Roper tells us More built a good distance from his mansion
house.” To this I would add that it seems extremely probable, since
the high terrace from The Great House to this site was not a natural
one, but apparently built of brick and stone, that it formed a covered
way communicating with the “new building.” However this may be, the
association of the place with the name of More was so strong that it
is mentioned by Aubrey as “the very place where was the house of Sir
Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England,” and Aubrey adds that “he had
but one marble chimneypiece, and that plain, but indeed very good if
it be not touch, which remains there still in the chamber that was his
lordship’s.” These remarks are not inconsistent with the conclusions
arrived at above, but so fixed was the tradition as to this being the
site of More’s home, that even the clear evidence in favour of The
Great House was assailed. The misapprehension was probably strengthened
by the name of “Moorhouse,” perhaps bestowed upon it by Roper and
his wife, and mentioned by the third Earl of Lincoln in a letter of
1618. The property was sold by the last-named to Sir John Danvers
in 1622–3—three years after The Great House had again changed hands
through its purchase by Lionel Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex.
[Illustration: FIG. 34.—PLAN OF HOUSE.
_Drawn by I. Thorpe (c. 1620)._]
The general date of the drawings of John Thorpe in the Soane Museum
would seem to assign his plan of The Great House, Chelsea, to the
time of the Earl of Lincoln, or that of the Earl of Middlesex. The
plan, which bears no inscription, was identified by Mr. J. A. Gotch,
by a close comparison with Kip’s view. In its south elevation it
corresponds exactly with the engraving, and, most significant of all,
both drawings show the two square lodges set anglewise about the gate
that divides the two front courts. Assuming, as seems probable, that
Cecil did not alter the northern side of the original house very much,
that portion might well have become too antiquated for the Earl of
Middlesex, who, when pulling down the northern wing, may have modified
the south front and the other features of the house. It must be
conceded that the presence of the plans of the adjoining Danvers House
(built 1622–3) in the Soane collection renders it possible that Thorpe
was the architect, and in such case he may easily have been consulted
regarding The Great House itself. This theory would account for the
inclusion of both houses in the same collection of plans. Thorpe’s plan
of Chelsea House is disappointing in that the new arrangement appears
distinctly uninteresting when compared with the earlier plans in the
Hatfield MSS. But it has the corroborative evidence of Kip’s view,
and is therefore probably more accurate than some other of his plans
have been found to be. Mr. Gotch has pointed out the interesting fact
that in the plan we have one of the first examples of the corridor
or passage of modern times, attention to which is called by the
draughtsman in his quaint phrase “A long entry through all.”
The Earl of Middlesex added to the estate by the purchase of “Brickbarn
Close” and “The Sandhills,” two properties lying to the north of the
present King’s Road, and these he converted into the Park, shown in
Kip’s view. Till recently this district, though partly built upon,
retained much of its old character and a goodly number of its trees.
Its northern part, the Elm Park estate, was built over some years ago,
and more recently the remaining portion has been cut up into roads,
and, amid unavailing protests, is completely given over to the builders.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.—KEY PLAN OF ESTATE.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
As a result of the royal displeasure which Cranfield incurred, Chelsea
House was surrendered in 1625 to the Crown, and in 1627 Charles I.
bestowed it upon the Duke of Buckingham. After the assassination of the
latter his duchess continued to reside here, and Mr. Davies gives us
the interesting information that his daughter, the Duchess of Lennox,
decided to come in 1646 “to her house at Chelsea to be under Dr.
Mayerne’s hands for her health.” This brings under notice the other
house on More’s estate, now called Lindsey House, which was then in
the occupation of Sir Theodore Mayerne. Tradition says that it was he
who bought the original farmhouse which Sir Thomas More had purchased
and left standing, and that he rebuilt it for himself. On page 57 will
be found a quotation from the Parliamentary Survey of Eltham, to the
effect that Sir Theodore Mayerne, formerly physician to James I., and
ranger of Eltham Park, no longer resided there, but at his house in
“Chelsey,” which confirms the other evidence to be found in the parish
records. The house still stands as rebuilt by the Earl of Lindsey in
1674, and not much altered in appearance since its delineation in Kip’s
view.
After The Great House had been occupied during the Commonwealth by
the Parliamentary Commissioners (Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke and John
Lisle), the second Duke of Buckingham regained possession. Lost to him,
through his debts, the house ultimately passed (1674) into the hands
of the trustees for George Digby, Earl of Bristol, and his Countess
sold it in 1682 to Henry, Marquis of Worcester, afterwards Duke of
Beaufort, the house remaining in his family until 1720. It was during
this period, about the year 1699, that Kip’s beautiful view of the
mansion—then called Beaufort House—was published, a priceless record of
the property, so ruthlessly defaced and destroyed by Sir Hans Sloane
after he had purchased it in 1737.
[Illustration: FIG. 36.—BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF CHELSEA ESTATE.
_Drawn by Kip (1699)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 37.—GARDEN OF DANVERS HOUSE.
_Drawn by J. Aubrey._]
Mr. Randal Davies, whom I have followed in the account of the occupants
of the house, has printed[19] the interesting conveyance of the
property to Sloane, and if its description is carefully collated with
the information in Kip’s view one is struck by the wonderful accuracy
of the latter. Here is The Great House, as shown by Thorpe, its lodges
and its forecourts, the wharf with its brick towers east and west,
the orchard, and “one garden environed with brick walls ... and a
terrace on the north end, with a banqueting house on the east end of
the terrace,” as well as the “one great garden ... extending from the
terrace and banqueting house unto the highway on the north.”[20] The
“banqueting house,” as already stated, is alike in detail with the
sketch of “A Summer House, Chelsea,” in the Smithson collection of
seventeenth-century drawings now in the possession of Colonel Coke.
But, valuable as is the representation of The Great House, the print
has much more information to give us. The great park is there shown
in all its original beauty; the Duke of Beaufort’s stables and yard,
since converted into the historic chapel and burying-ground of the
Moravians, is to the west; and nearer the river are the beautiful
Jacobean House of Sir Arthur Gorges (our sole evidence of its character
and design) and the house and garden of the Earls of Lindsey. And to
the east, below the wide area of Dovecote Close, laid out as a large
kitchen-garden, are the beautiful pleasure grounds of Danvers House,
which had been destroyed but three years before the drawing was made.
[19] _Chelsea Old Church_, by Randal Davies, F.S.A.
[20] The gate into the King’s Road, shown in the engraving, is probably
that stone gateway now at Chiswick which was designed by Inigo Jones
and taken to Chiswick on the destruction of Beaufort House.
[Illustration: FIG. 38.—PLANS OF DANVERS HOUSE.
_Drawn by J. Thorpe (c. 1620)._]
As already described, Sir John Danvers bought the land shown to the
right of Kip’s view in 1622–3. That he built the house shown in the
Thorpe drawings is corroborated by John Aubrey’s minute description of
house and garden in his MS. “Natural History of Wiltshire,” preserved
at the Bodleian. His rough sketch of the garden is here reproduced
for the first time, to show how it confirms the general lines of the
drawing published by Kip. It would be interesting to quote Aubrey
in full, but a few sentences must suffice. He says: “’Twas Sir John
Danvers, of Chelsey, who first taught us the way of Italian gardens. He
had well travelled France and Italy and made good observations.... He
had a very fine fancy, which lay chiefly for gardens and architecture.”
There is no doubt that the plan of the house was greatly in advance
of its time. Pepys “found it to be the prettiest contrived house that
I ever saw in my life,” and Aubrey describes it as “very elegant and
ingeniose.” He adds that “as you sit at dinner in the Hall you are
entertained with two delightful Vistos: one southward over the Thames
and to Surrey, the other northward into that curious garden. Above the
Hall is a stately Roome of the same dimension, wherein is an excellent
organ of stoppes of cedar. Sir John was a great lover of musick, and
especially of J. Coparario’s Fansies.” Again of the garden he tells
of its “boscage of lilacs,” its “syringas,” its “long gravelled walks
margented with hyssop” and “several sorts of thyme.” “Sir John was
wont on fine mornings in the summer to brush his beaver hat on the
hyssop and thyme, which did perfume it with its natural essence and
would last a morning or longer.” He also tells of the “figure of the
gardener’s wife in freestone coloured,” and “the like of the gardener,
both accoutred according to their callings,” of which the King’s mason,
Nicholas Stone, notes thus in his diary: (1622) “Unto Sir John Daves
at Chelsey, I made two statues of an old man and a woman and a diall,
for which I had £7 a piece.” And finally Aubrey thus continues: “At
the four comers of the garden, about the ovall, are four low pavilions
of brick leaded flatt and some firre and pine trees, shumacks, and the
quarters all filled with some rare plant or other. On the east side of
the Hall is a neat little Chappele or oratorie finely painted; next to
it a Drawing room whose floor is chequered like a chesse board of Box
and Ewgh panels of about six inches square. At the east and west end of
the House (without) are two high fastigiated turrets the Fans whereof
are the Crest of Danvers _sc._ a golden Wyvern volant.” Aubrey says the
garden was 8 chains 9 yards by 4 chains 9 yards wide.
[Illustration: FIG. 39.—ELEVATION OF DANVERS HOUSE.
_Drawn by J. Thorpe (c. 1620)._]
From these descriptions we obtain a charming idea of the beautiful
little house which has gone the way of nearly all the buildings that
peopled this “Village of Palaces.” The Earl of Radnor was a tenant here
from 1660 till 1685, and after him Thomas Lord Wharton, who inherited
the property, lived there. The house was not demolished until 1720,
but in 1696 on the site of the garden were built the first houses of
Danvers Street by Benjamin Stallwood, as may still be seen recorded
on a little tablet at the corner of the street. The foundations
discovered when Crosby Hall was built on the site were sufficient to
determine the general position of the building, but were not sufficient
to plot it exactly.
I am indebted to Mr. Walter L. Spiers for his kind permission to make
the copies of the Thorpe plans that are here published.
—W. H. G.
COCKERSAND ABBEY AND ITS
CHAPTER-HOUSE
[Illustration: FIG. 40.—INTERIOR OF CHAPTER-HOUSE.]
VII.
COCKERSAND ABBEY AND ITS CHAPTER-HOUSE.
With but little variation the great majority of monastic establishments
follow the well-defined lines which custom and the exigencies of the
conventual life had laid down in the early years of the Church. It is
consequently only occasionally that an abbey or priory ruin in this
country presents any important deviation from the general plan of them
all, and it is in the endless variety of their detail that most of
their interest is centred. The Abbey of Cockersand is thus fortunate in
having possessed and retained a chapter-house of that polygonal form
which flourished in this island alone, and even here never became a
common feature. In addition to this, the abbey choir stalls, a unique
example of early wood-carving, have also been preserved, though removed
from their original position. The chapter-house at Cockersand, while it
does not challenge comparison with the great structures at Lincoln and
York, being indeed of comparatively small size, is yet a refined and
beautiful expression of “Early English” art which has hitherto almost
escaped notice. The stalls also, though a cast of part of them rests
in the Architectural Museum in Tufton Street, have hardly received the
recognition they deserve.
[Illustration: FIG. 41.—PLAN OF ABBEY.
_Drawn by Alfred W. Clapham._]
Situated on a flat tract of land lying between the estuaries of the
rivers Lune and Wyre, half-way up the coast-line of Lancashire,
the Abbey of Cockersand is remarkable for the dreariness of its
surroundings. The level meadows, intersected in every direction by
dykes that stretch for two miles inland from the ruins, were at one
time little better than a great salt-marsh, inundated by the spring
tides and fit for little else but pasture. The outer walls of the abbey
itself, built upon a slight eminence looking over the desolate sands
of Morecambe Bay, were again and again undermined by the attacks of
the sea. “St. Mary in the Marsh upon the Cockersand” was indeed, in
position and surroundings, no desirable retreat, and it is singular
that a convent of considerable wealth and importance should have risen
in so remote a spot. Founded first as a hospital towards the close of
the twelfth century, it soon rose to the dignity of an abbey, being
colonised by Premonstratensian canons from Croxton in Leicestershire.
Its history is chiefly a record of disputes with the neighbouring
priories of Lancaster and Cockerham, and presents few features of
interest to the general reader. At the close of the fifteenth century
the records of the successive visitations of Bishop Redman provide a
more intimate picture of the life of the inmates. Excessive drinking,
it appears, was indulged in, and two of the canons had to be exiled to
other houses for a more serious offence. When the abbey fell amongst
the greater monasteries in 1539, it was tenanted by twenty-three
canons. Their home soon after came into the hands of the lords of
Thurnham Hall, whose successors hold it at the present time. With the
exception of the chapter-house there is little of interest to be found
amongst the ruins. The accompanying ground plan (which is sufficiently
indicated by the remaining fragments of walls and the mounds of
fallen masonry) will show the general arrangement of the building.
The aisleless nave of the church, a feature of common occurrence in
convents of the Premonstratensian order, was no doubt similar to those
still partially standing at Bayham, Titchfield, and Egglestone. The
chapter-house was approached from the cloister by a vestibule, probably
divided into three aisles and vaulted in stone. Externally the building
has been refaced with a red sandstone, and consequently all the
features of interest it may once have possessed have now disappeared.
It is finished on the three eastern sides with an embattled parapet,
and has a low-pitched pyramidal slate roof. The original entrance on
the west face still remains, though the mouldings are much weathered.
It is a plain semi-circular arch, formerly springing from side shafts,
which are now missing, and probably dates from the foundation of
the abbey. Internally the chapter-house is an octagonal apartment,
27 ft. 9 in. in diameter, having a fine vaulted roof springing from
a central column and forming, on plan, four quadripartite bays. This
arrangement is very unusual, as it throws the window openings out of
the true centre of the vaulting cells above them. There is, however,
no apparent awkwardness in the result. The central pier is formed of
eight clustered and engaged shafts, keeled on the outward face and
having each a moulded capital, the bell of which is ornamented with
the stiff leaf foliage of the Early English period. The vaulting ribs,
consisting of three main members divided by deep hollows, are all of
similar section, except the wall ribs, which are formed with a simple
hollow only. At the intersections are foliage bosses, four in number,
of excellent workmanship. It is unfortunate that the building was
for long used as a burial-place for the owners of the neighbouring
Thurnham Hall, as this has necessitated the raising of the floor level,
which is now some distance up the central column and above the sills
of the windows, and has quite destroyed the original proportions of
the building. The window tracery, if any existed, has now entirely
gone, some portions of geometric work on the north side being of very
doubtful date. Each opening had two shafts on either side, one free and
one engaged, and the internal hood mouldings terminate in sculptured
heads, all much defaced.
The polygonal or circular chapter-house became a favourite feature
of English work in the thirteenth century. There is evidence of
the existence of some twenty-four of these buildings, and of these
ten still remain complete. The form was most popular amongst the
secular canons, amongst whom it received its highest development.
The Benedictines came second with five examples,[21] followed by the
Augustinians with five and the Cistercians and Premonstratensians
with two each. The example at Alnwick Abbey, which with Cockersand is
representative of the last-mentioned order, was a circular structure
some 25 ft. in diameter, of which only the foundations remain. In
regard to geographical distribution, these buildings were spread over
the whole of England from Tavistock in Devon to Carlisle, while
three instances occur in Scotland, at Elgin, Inchcolm, and Restalrig.
Elsewhere they are almost unknown. The earliest example and the
prototype of all the rest is the chapter-house of the Benedictine
cathedral of Worcester, which dates from _circa_ 1130. It was
originally circular, and still retains this form internally, and is
surrounded by a Norman wall arcade. It is possible that the form was
suggested by the earlier round churches, some of which, as at Ludlow
Castle, were aisleless and roofed with a timber pyramid “spire form.”
The close proximity of other monastic buildings, and the consequent
fear of fire, led to the insertion of the central column and the stone
vault. The column was, however, always looked upon as an incumbrance,
and was finally dispensed with and the building vaulted in one span.
Of the later examples of this class of building the best instance is
the beautiful little fifteenth-century chapter-house at Howden (Yorks),
which apart from the fall of its vault, is still practically complete.
[21] There were also doubtful examples at Belvoir Priory and St.
Margaret’s, Lynn.
[Illustration: FIG. 42.—PIER-CAPITALS IN CHAPTER-HOUSE.]
[Illustration: FIG. 43.—EXTERIOR FROM WEST.]
[Illustration: FIG. 44.—EXTERIOR FROM EAST.]
The traditional removal of fittings and furniture from the dissolved
monastic houses to neighbouring parish churches is generally found on
examination to be devoid of any foundation, the unusual richness or
lavish decoration of a screen, a roof, or a piece of tabernacle work
having alone given rise to the popular belief. There are, however, a
few instances of the genuine transfer of monastic “loot” to parish
churches, which are all the more surprising when one considers the
low repute into which the Gothic craftsmanship was rapidly falling at
that period. The choir stalls at Richmond, Yorks (brought from Easby
Abbey), and the still finer series at Whalley, Lancashire, are well
authenticated instances of this practice, while at Lancaster there is
every probability that the magnificent fourteenth-century stalls in the
parish church originally adorned the choir of Cockersand Abbey. It is
true that an alien priory was long attached to the church at Lancaster,
but the fact that the existing fabric is almost entirely of later
date than the confiscation of the alien houses makes it more than
improbable that the stalls were transferred from the earlier church. On
the other hand there is the persistent tradition of their Cockersand
origin and the neighbouring instance of a similar transfer at Whalley.
As at present arranged they stand on either side of the sacrarium,
the returned stalls (two on each side) being placed against the east
wall. The seats, fourteen in all and 2 ft. 5 in. from centre to centre,
are provided with misericordes more or less mutilated and carved with
grotesque figures. The canopies are supported on buttressed shafts
at the back and front, carried up in the form of crocketed pinnacles
and finished with carved finials of unusual form. Above each seat is
an ogee arch richly crocketed and filled in beneath with a pierced
panel of flamboyant tracery, each bay being of different design.
Rising slightly behind these arches are lofty gables filled with
similar panels, the crockets forming a nearly continuous edging of
carving and presenting an almost infinite richness and variety. The
comparative scarcity of “Decorated” woodwork adds largely to the value
of the present example, which is undoubtedly the richest specimen of
fourteenth-century wood-carving now remaining in this country.
The church of Cockerham is said to possess the Cockersand bells, and
at Mytton near Clitheroe is a rood-screen said to have been derived
from the same source. In the latter instance, however, the screen was
undoubtedly intended for its present position, and was erected at the
cost of the abbey, which then held the advowson of the church. Be this
as it may, the forgotten and inconspicuous Lancashire convent has
transmitted to the present day, in its octagonal chapter-house and
its splendid stalls, some indication of the beauty and originality of
monastic work even in the remoter parts of England, and has preserved
for itself two monuments of its days of prosperity, while the very
existence of so many of its greater fellows is rescued from oblivion
only by lingering tradition and their written records.
[Illustration: FIG. 45.—STALLS FROM THE ABBEY (NOW IN LANCASTER).]
[Illustration: FIG. 46.—MISERICORDE FROM STALLS.]
[Illustration: FIG. 47.—ANOTHER MISERICORDE.]
The foregoing notes, with the accompanying photographs, should
therefore be of value to all who take an interest in mediæval
architecture, more especially in those examples which are not rendered
familiar by constant illustration.
—A. W. C.
THE REBUILDING OF CROSBY HALL
AT CHELSEA
[Illustration: FIG. 48.—THE ROOF.
_Photograph by London News Agency._]
VIII.
THE REBUILDING OF CROSBY HALL AT CHELSEA.
The removal of Crosby Hall from Bishopsgate to Chelsea, regretful as
was the necessity, provides us with an excuse for investigating its
claim to our admiration. The vicissitudes of this noble fragment of
fifteenth-century domestic architecture have been told many times since
it was threatened with demolition, and since the day on which, after
escaping the Great Fire of 1666, and also a second outbreak a few years
later (when most of the mansion of Crosby Place was destroyed), it fell
finally, in 1908, to the business demands of our modern city.
[Illustration: FIG. 49.—PLAN OF HALL IN BISHOPSGATE.
_Drawn by W. H. Godfrey._]
Although known for many years, and still known, as Crosby Hall, it
must be remembered that the building was merely a fragment of the
City-merchant’s palace which was called Crosby Place from the name of
Sir John Crosby who built it. Shakespeare calls it Crosbies’ Place in
_King Richard III._, and we know that it was a house of great size
and magnificence—so much so, that it shared with other important
palaces of London the distinction of providing lodging for the noblest
ambassadors. This was the great Hall or principal apartment of Crosby
Place—the sole survivor of all the spacious rooms and galleries that
surrounded its many courtyards and overlooked its gardens.
Sir John Crosby rebuilt a large portion of an existing house in
Bishopsgate, which was formerly in the occupation of a wealthy Genoese
merchant named Cataneo Pinelli. This rebuilding was begun in the
year 1466, the sixth year of the reign of Edward IV., some twelve or
thirteen years before the king constructed his great Hall at Eltham
Palace, which offers many interesting points of comparison with Crosby
Hall. (_Vide ante_ pp. 58, 59.)
Now, the fifteenth century saw the third and last period of that unique
style of architecture which we call Gothic—a period which lasted from
the latter end of the fourteenth century to the dissolution of the
monasteries by Henry VIII., and which is generally known by the useful
and significant title of Perpendicular.
Although it is the third period only of Gothic architecture which is
known by the name of Perpendicular—and this merely from a detail of its
window tracery—yet the term might be applied with great truth to the
whole style in contrast to the strong preference which the classical
builders showed for the horizontal line. The Greek architects confined
all their buildings within the uncompromisingly horizontal limits of
their cornice or entablature, and even the Romans who had learned to
construct the most elaborate edifices with their semi-circular arches
were not content until they had imprisoned each row of arches beneath
the long cornice of the Greeks. It was not until the Byzantine builders
began to design great churches for the Christian faith, and when the
Western Church took up the work, that an attempt was made to free the
design from its horizontal limits and to encourage its growth upwards,
as a symbol of its religious aspiration. The consummation of these
efforts, continued for many hundreds of years, was the sudden birth of
Gothic art at the end of the twelfth century, and the wonderful forests
of vertical lines leading up to a thousand pointed or—as the French
say—broken arches, which we see in our great cathedrals. For a time the
classical idea was banished—architecture had broken away from the human
scale imposed upon it by the Greek artists, and it was striving to
express something superhuman, mysterious, and divine. This spirit could
not, however, last for long—it was of too ideal a nature—and just as
the finest period of Greek architecture is confined to at most a couple
of centuries, so in the case of Gothic the same number of years saw the
shadow of approaching change. The Renaissance, the great reversion to
classical conceptions, did not obtain a firm footing in England until
the sixteenth century, but in the fifteenth we can already see signs
of its coming if we look for them, and in no detail is it plainer than
in the enclosing of the fifteenth-century pointed arch within a square
frame. It can be seen most clearly in Crosby Hall in the case of the
fireplace, the north-west door, and the main arch to the great oriel
window. It appears also in the arches to the ordinary windows which are
confined by a square frame of woodwork, in those of the oriel window
in its lower lights and its panels, and in every little pierced arch
of the oak roof and cornice. The top lights of the oriel window alone
cling to the original idea of the Gothic arch, and point upwards amid
the curving ribs of the stone vaults, without any check. At the same
time that the arch was imprisoned within a square moulded frame, the
arch itself became flatter or more depressed, and assumed the familiar
shape which architects call four-centred from its being a composite
arch of four distinct curves. The arch over the oriel window and that
to the fireplace are two good instances of this in Crosby Hall.
This altered character of the arch is the chief architectural point to
notice, and the second is the introduction of panelling. Practically
all the design in the earlier and purer Gothic work was confined to
definite structural forms and to their adornment and enrichment. In
the fifteenth century, however, there began the custom of dividing
wall and other surfaces up into panels, again by the introduction of
horizontal lines among the vertical ones—and thus was started the
type of decoration which remained the most popular method from the
sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. First the long lights of the
windows were divided by transomes or horizontal bars as in the oriel
window, which is separated into three tiers. Then the vaults themselves
were no longer divided only by the structural ribs which carried the
weight of the stone roof, but were subdivided again by cross-ribs into
the delightful network of panels which is shown in the vault of the
oriel, where each intersection has a beautiful carved boss. From this
it was an easy matter to repeat the outlines of the windows in stone
upon the walls as is here done on those sides of the oriel that did not
admit of being pierced for light. The square frames round the arches
provided little triangular panels or spandrils, such as those above
the oriel and fireplace, and in other similar places. Above all, the
timber framing of the roof was specially suited to the panel treatment,
and whether we look at the long rectangular divisions into which the
great arched ceiling is divided, or at the succession of little squares
with pierced quatrefoils in the cornice and round the stone corbels,
we cannot fail to appreciate how completely this method of design had
gained favour with the fifteenth-century builders.
Let us now consider briefly what light Crosby Hall has to throw upon
the arrangements and planning of a mediæval house.
[Illustration: FIG. 50.—THE HALL FROM THE WEST.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
[Illustration: FIG. 51.—INTERIOR OF HALL.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the English country
house—apart from the castles and other fortified places—was a very
simple but most dignified building. Its main apartment was the Great
Hall, where the whole household lived, dined, and sometimes slept—a
room designed on such a scale as to give the necessary shelter to
all the servants as well as to the members of the family. To this
hall was generally attached, at the upper end, a small withdrawing room
or sleeping chamber for the master and mistress of the house, and to
the lower end a kitchen for the preparation of food. The system of the
family and its dependents, as assembled in their hall, constituted a
little hierarchy like that of the feudal State or that of the Church.
Privacy was discouraged; every man lived his life in the presence of
his fellows, and beneath the fine timber roofs of the great Gothic
halls the plan worked out well and produced good men and noble women.
Community of living was understood by the people of the Middle Ages in
a way that is hard for us to understand now; it was a familiar thing
to them, and it is illustrated over and over again in their social
customs. So much was this so, that when at the end of the fourteenth
and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries we find people adding
private apartments to their houses, we also meet with protests from men
like William Langland, who saw in this new practice a loss of interest
in the household and a consequent shirking of duty towards its members.
In his _Vision of Piers Plowman_ we read concerning the Great Hall:—
“Each day in the week
There the lord nor the lady liketh not to sit,
Now hath each rich man a rule, to eat by himself
In a privy parlour—for poor men’s sake.
Or in a chamber with a chimney, and leave the chief hall,
That was made for meals, for men to eat in,
And all to spare to spill that spend shall another.”
Now, by the time that Sir John Crosby came to build his mansion,
the privy parlour had become a settled institution, and with it a
multitude of other private rooms had found their way into the necessary
domestic equipment. But these new rooms had not yet completely ousted
the Great Hall, nor was this time-honoured and central feature of
the house superseded until well on into the seventeenth century. The
Hall was still used on many important family occasions it was still
the place for general meeting and the exchange of courtesies, and it
happily retained its mediæval plan and arrangement with scarcely any
modification of importance.
We have, therefore, in Crosby Hall the Great Hall of a fifteenth-century
mansion, which resembles those of two centuries before and two
centuries after its time, all of which followed the same pattern, if
with certain slight modifications in design.
[Illustration: FIG. 52.—THE ORIEL, EXTERIOR.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
[Illustration: FIG. 53.-THE ORIEL, INTERIOR.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
Let us imagine that we have entered the front courtyard of Crosby Place
through the gatehouse in Bishopsgate Street. We approach the Hall which
lies directly in front of us, passing the Chapel on our right and the
private apartments on our left. We enter at the chief door, and find
ourselves at the lower end of the Hall behind a beautiful oak screen
and beneath a projecting gallery. Every Hall was provided with a screen
to divide the entrance passage from the room. Here unfortunately we
have lost all trace of this end of Crosby Hall. Quite probably it
suffered in the fire that destroyed the southern part of the mansion
in the seventeenth century. We have not even the old doorway left to
us, for a large archway had been driven through the walls and under
the gallery to Crosby Square, and horses and carts passed to and fro.
Only when we came to pull down the building did we find some traces
of the original beams of the gallery still left in the ceiling over
this roadway. It can be seen that the gallery formed part of the hall,
and its windows were designed to harmonise with the long range on the
west side. The high roof of the hall, however, was not carried over
the gallery, and so its two windows were drawn together, there being
no need for a stone corbel between them. Some doubts have been cast on
the genuineness of this double window since it had been much restored,
probably when the archway was made. I have little doubt, however, that
it shows the original arrangement, and it may be noted in its support
that all the windows in Eltham Palace are grouped together in this way
in twos, the stone corbels and roof beams being divided by each
coupled window. The corresponding wall on the east side of the gallery
had long been destroyed, but from the presumptive evidence of the rest
of the hall and of its careful balance of features, we have ventured to
place a new counterpart of the double window here also. The oak roof
over the gallery is again a conjectural restoration, and it is hoped
before the rest of the buildings are completed that we shall be able to
replace the missing screen as well with one which will properly fulfil
its function and reflect in part at least the beauty of the hall roof.
Having passed through the screen into the hall, the visitor would be
at leisure to examine its various features. The windows on either side
are placed high in the wall, but towards the upper end a beautiful
bay-window or oriel is thrown out in order that the principal members
of the family might have the use of its space for comparative privacy
and from its lowered windows might look out upon the courtyard. Beyond
the oriel on the same side is the door to the great parlour or private
dining-room, above which was the great chamber—a reception room in much
favour in this and the succeeding century. Mr. Gotch reminds us that
Slender in _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ boasts of his Great Chamber.
The blank windows between the oriel and the end wall show the position
of this room which was misnamed the Throne Room while Crosby Hall was
still a restaurant, and it was felt advisable to keep up the legend of
Richard III. and his crown. These and the two windows on the east wall,
corresponding to the blank ones, are a smaller size than the others,
perhaps to allow loftier hangings to be placed round the dais. Opposite
to the oriel was the beautiful fireplace of a size and proportion
befitting this fine apartment. By it the upper end was well warmed, but
it was not sufficient to heat the lower hall where the servants were
gathered, and it is more than probable that the _louvre_, or opening in
the fifth bay of the roof, represents the position below of the central
hearth which would be used in addition to the fireplace.
Fireplaces had been known and used since Norman times, but they were
never so popular in the great halls as the open brazier, and we find
that even in the King’s Palace at Eltham there was an open hearth
provided to the exclusion of the fireplace, though, as we have seen, it
was built several years afterwards. This I think disposes to a large
extent of the popular assumption that the open hearth was primitive and
inconvenient.
[Illustration: FIG. 54.—VAULT OF ORIEL.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
[Illustration: FIG. 55.—DETAIL OF ROOF AND WINDOW.
_Photograph by Architectural Review._]
All these features above described constitute together the normal
arrangement in practically every mediæval domestic building of any
size. Whether one visits the halls of Hampton Court, Eltham, or Croydon
Palace, or the later halls at the Charterhouse, the Middle Temple,
Gray’s Inn, or Lambeth, one recognises the same scheme with such
slight variations as the two oriels at Eltham and the Temple, and the
occasional absence of the fireplace already noticed. But the greatest
glory of these mediæval halls was the timber roof which crowned
the whole building and which, here in Crosby Hall, constitutes the
most valuable part of the original work. This roof is of particular
interest, as it represents a transition from the open timber roof to
the later ceiling. The roof of Westminster Hall and those of Hampton
Court and Eltham belong to the former class and are among the finest
examples of the famous hammer-beam construction. The tradition of
the open timber roof remained, indeed, so strong that even in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the hammer-beam was still employed,
and the Halls of the Temple and Lambeth Palace show it in its later
treatment. But in the case of most of the buildings of the latter half
of the fifteenth century the curved and panelled ceiling had come into
vogue, and it became the most fashionable method of roofing our parish
churches. At Crosby Hall we have, as far as I know, a unique example of
this type, for its little forest of pendants—from each of which spring
four arches in different directions—make a most original design of
great charm. It has been likened to an attempt to gain the effect of
fan-vaulting in wood, and no doubt its elaborate detail prevented
its repetition in other places. It would have been a great loss to
students of architecture if this roof had perished. Happily it was in
beautiful preservation, and no single feature of any importance was
lacking when put together.
It should be noticed most especially how the roof governs the design of
the whole room, bringing each part into harmony with the rest. It is
divided into eight bays or compartments by seven arched principals. In
each of these compartments on the wall below is a window of two lights
brought beneath one deeply moulded arch. The oriel itself occupies two
bays. Each roof-principal is carried down to a fine stone corbel which
exactly fills the space between the windows and is an integral part
of the massive wall stones. Unfortunately one or two of these corbels
were replaced at the restoration of the building in the last century.
Between the windows and the roof runs the simple cornice of battlements
and quatrefoils, the spandrels, or triangular panels on either side of
the windows being filled with pierced tracery.
[Illustration: FIG. 56.—SECTION THROUGH ROOF.]
[Illustration: FIG. 57.—PLAN OF HALL AT CHELSEA.]
It remains now to state how much of this building is old and how
much new, for the visitor will notice a great difference between its
appearance here in Chelsea and its old aspect in its restaurant days.
It must be remembered that although the fine roof, windows, and other
features had remained intact, yet the old hall had suffered grievously
from various alterations and additions. Several architects of the
Gothic revival period had given it such features as a modern gallery
to the south, an organ loft, arch and screen at the north end, and
doorways which were not of its original plan. Besides these additions
in questionable taste, the west wall which fronted Bishopsgate had
been robbed of its original Reigate stone facing and covered with
perishable Bath stone, and the eastern wall had been disfigured to a
terrible extent by the modern buildings which adjoined it. The chief
aim in rebuilding the Hall was to set each original piece which had
form or beauty left to it in its proper relative position to the
main building. It was necessary, therefore, to use all that was left
and to discard the faulty modern reparation, supplying their place
with durable work to ensure the safety of what was genuinely old. The
walls were built of brick in place of the old rubble which was of
little use. The Bath facing stones were replaced with Portland, and
each window and door stone was carefully set in its place. Only on the
east wall had the external masonry to be entirely replaced, and the
stones of the windows severed to preserve the old work on the inside.
The two end walls were formerly internal walls of Crosby Place, but
they had completely perished. Their position is taken by what will be
similarly the internal walls of the College. The original walls were
plastered within, and the same treatment was followed here; in fact,
the old example was followed minutely in every particular, with the one
exception of the floor. There is evidence that the old floor was of
Purbeck marble unpolished—but it was decided that it would be unwise
to attempt to replace this, and an oak door has been made instead. The
Hall, therefore, is older on the inside than the outside, and this is
perhaps as it should be, for it may be claimed that wherever a building
be planted its interior can never lose its old associations, but its
removal destroys much of the historical significance of the external
appearance which rightly belongs to its old site in Bishopsgate.
The most interesting part of the work of rebuilding was not the roof
but the little vault over the oriel. No one who had not seen it would
believe the wonderful precision and delicacy with which each of its
numerous parts fitted into their places. The joints of each rib of
Reigate stone were so beautifully cut and had required so little
cement to join them together that the original lines drawn upon them
by the fifteenth century builders, in setting out, were still plainly
visible. Only one temporary support was required beneath the central
boss, which is richly carved with Sir John Crosby’s helm and crest.
This and one of the similar bosses, which bears an almost obliterated
coat of arms, are the only evidences left of the builder of the Hall,
since all the stained glass with its heraldic shields has perished. The
present glass, the best pieces of which were designed by Willement, is
all subsequent to the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Finally
Sir John Crosby’s armorial bearings have been used as a basis for the
design on the back of the fireplace.
—W. H. G.
THE PALACES OF
HERTFORD AND HAVERING
[Illustration: FIG. 58.—GATEHOUSE, HERTFORD.]
IX.
THE PALACES OF HERTFORD AND HAVERING.
The two palaces which are the subject of the present article differ
from most of those in the neighbourhood of London in being of very
early origin, their history in each case stretching back to Saxon
times. They differ also from each other, one, Hertford Castle, being a
fortress of no mean strength, and the other, Havering Bower, a country
retreat entirely without means of defence; while together they present
examples of early domestic planning on a large scale such as are,
perhaps, available in no other quarter.
The Castle of Hertford was one of a ring of strongholds, of early
Norman date, forming an advanced and outer line of defence to the
capital. This series began at Windsor and passed via Berkhampstead,
Hertford, Stortford, and Ongar to Rayleigh, and in most instances, save
for massive earthworks, has left comparatively little trace of its
existence.
The remains at Hertford consist at present of the red brick Tudor
gatehouse, the ruins of a small tower, and a long line of curtain
wall, enclosing broad lawns and gardens, by the side of the River
Lea. Hitherto there has been no available information with regard to
the internal arrangements of the castle, but amongst the State Papers
of Edward VI. is preserved a large scale plan of an important and
extensive building arranged for the accommodation of the courts of law.
During Tudor and later times the courts were housed at Westminster
Palace, and consequently the plan was assumed to represent some portion
of that building. I have been able to identify it, however, as a part
of the palace of Hertford Castle, to which the courts were temporarily
removed in 1582, and again in 1592, owing to the prevalence of the
Plague in London.
[Illustration: FIG. 59.—GROUND PLAN, HERTFORD.
_From the Public Record Office._]
The plan, unfortunately mutilated, is the work of H. Hawthorne, who
was also employed upon the alterations to Windsor in the early part of
Elizabeth’s reign.
Hertford Castle in its early days was evidently a place of considerable
strength and importance, for when besieged in 1216 by the forces
of Louis of France it held out for twenty-four days, while the
neighbouring castle of Berkhampstead (the elaborate earthworks of which
remain) was reduced by the same army in a fortnight.
Hertford was the occasional residence of the later Plantagenet and
Tudor kings, and was successively held in dower by the consorts of the
three Lancastrian sovereigns. Later it was found to be a convenient
residence for the children of Henry VIII.—Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth
having all resided there at various times during their father’s life.
[Illustration: FIG. 60.—PLAN OF FORTIFICATIONS.
_Drawn by A. W. Clapham._]
Five documents in the nature of surveys of the castle exist at the
Record Office, dated respectively 1327, 1523, 1559, 1589 and 1610. The
first of these is the most interesting. The castle then consisted of a
great inner ward surrounded by a double moat with a circular shell keep
at the north-east angle, and a massive curtain wall. The narrow space
between the inner and outer moats was defended by a wooden palisade,
and at the western end broadened out into a large outer ward.
Henry VIII.’s survey describes “a fair river running along by the north
side of the said castle and arear a very little garden ground, but
there is a fair courtyard and large, which is almost finished round
about with fair houses.”
By 1610 most of the buildings had been destroyed, and mention is only
made of “one fair gatehouse of brick, one tower of brick, and the old
walls of the said castle.”
This represents fairly accurately the present condition of the castle.
The brick gatehouse, though somewhat altered, is still entire, the
outer archway being obscured by a modern porch, while the inner one
is converted into a window. Above the former is a sunk panel with the
royal arms of the Tudors surmounted by a crown. The “tower of brick”
is the great angle bastion shown on the plan. It formed the segment of
a circle externally about 60 ft. in diameter, the chord of which is a
brick wall which is the only portion of the structure now standing.
On the outer face at the southern end are the remains of the circular
stair, including a ramped portion of the brick handrail sunk in the
wall.
The most noticeable feature of the plan is the extreme thinness of the
walls. This can hardly be ascribed to faulty draughtsmanship, as the
curtain and bastion walls, together with the fireplace backs, are all
shown of reasonable thickness. One is bound to conclude that the whole
structure was timber-framed on dwarf walls, the remains of which have
from time to time come to light under the present lawn. This would
largely account for the continual state of disrepair in which the
buildings are found on every occasion on which there is evidence of
their condition.
On the east side of the great courtyard, opposite the gatehouse, stood
the hall, a comparatively small building of very early type. The aisled
hall is now to be found only in comparatively few instances (as at
Oakham and Winchester Castle) and is almost certainly a survival of
the Saxon type of wooden structure whose form has been preserved in
use almost to our own times in the great timber barns, of which there
are numerous examples. The contemporary Norman type is preserved at
Richmond, Wolvesley, and Christchurch, and in a number of monastic
frater-houses, and was a plain rectangular structure of quite a
different character. (_Vide ante_ p. 70.)
The hall at Hertford was only three bays long, with screens and two
porches at the northern and a square oriel at the southern end. One
large fireplace appears at the back of the dais, and a small lantern in
the centre of the roof is shown on Speed’s bird’s-eye view of the town
(probably taken just before its destruction, 1610).
The lesser court on the south side was probably of early Tudor date,
and evidently had galleries on the first floor with projecting bays,
an arrangement similar to that of the second quadrangle of Queen’s
College, Cambridge. At the south-eastern angle was a small building
projecting into the court and clearly a chapel or oratory.
The arrangement of the kitchen and offices at the north end of the
great hall is by no means clear. The only apartment with a fireplace
of sufficient dimensions for the kitchen is that marked “Court
of Requests,” but the lack of direct communication with the hall
itself renders this identification doubtful. In spite of its lack
of completeness and the difficulty surrounding it, the plan is of
considerable interest both on account of its early form and the
importance of the building which it delineates.
The Manor, Palace, or Bower of Havering was, like Hertford, of Saxon
origin, but its early history is of far greater interest. It was
undoubtedly a retreat of King Edward the Confessor, and some of the
best-known legends of the Saxon saint are connected with the Bower
House. You may read in Caxton’s _Golden Legend_ of how St. John the
Divine appeared in the form of a beggar at the consecration of his
chapel here, and of how he received the celebrated ring as alms from
the king. It was here, again, at the prayer of the Confessor the
nightingales were banished without the pales of the park, lest they
should interrupt the royal devotions.
In later times it was a favourite hunting seat for the forest of
Hainault, and a long line of Chief Foresters of Essex—Mountfitchets, de
Clares, and de Veres—held the office of keeper of the park of Havering.
The place is also closely connected with the history of Richard II.’s
treacherous seizure of his uncle Gloucester at Pleshy. It was from
Havering he set out to decoy the doomed man from the midst of his
family to hurry him to Calais and his death.
During Tudor times the palace, with the neighbouring house of Pyrgo,
fell gradually into disuse and disrepair, and a visit of Charles I.
in 1637 is the last recorded occasion on which Havering received a
royal guest. In the time of the Commonwealth, some twelve years later,
we find it described as “being a confused heape of old, ruinous and
decayed buildings” of value only as materials. Since that time the
destruction has gone on till now no fragment of the old building
survives.
The situation of Havering Palace is amongst the most beautiful
round London. Some three miles north of Romford, it once crowned a
rounded hill about 300 ft. high commanding an extensive view, and
was surrounded by a park of 1,311 acres, many of the noble trees of
which yet line the lanes and hedgerows of the country-side. The quiet
village, with its broad green and ancient stocks, has the unusual
merit of being not only entirely unspoiled but almost untouched by the
modern builder. The royal demesnes of the Bower and Pyrgo are still
represented by the great parks and seats which hem the village in on
every side.
The plan of the ancient palace is preserved in its entirety in two
drawings here reproduced—one showing the kitchen court and offices and
published as long ago as 1814 in Ogborne’s “History of Essex,” and the
second, from the Hatfield MSS., now printed for the first time, showing
the main block of the palace buildings. The old royal manor-house was
chiefly remarkable for its extreme irregularity, and it is difficult to
determine its original form.
It is obviously a building of many dates and the subject of many
additions and alterations. The windows of the smaller or private
chapel with the bold buttresses appear to be indicative of a
thirteenth-century building, while the wooden galleries and stairs are
no doubt of Tudor date.
Most of the buildings shown are on the first-floor level. “The Presence
Chamber” (40 ft. by 22 ft.) may be taken to represent the original
hall with the screens at the west end. Running south from the dais end
is “The Great Chamber,” a large apartment (originally 61 ft. by 24
ft.) communicating on the south with the Great Chapel (45 ft. by 16½
ft.) used by the parish and dedicated, in reference to King Edward’s
adventure, to St. John the Evangelist.
This building was claimed by the tenants, at the time of the
Commonwealth, as the parish church, on the grounds that they had used
it time out of mind and, furthermore, that there was another chapel
within the palace. They apparently gained their point, and the old
edifice remained in part until the erection of the present building.
The plan shows a rectangular structure of three bays, the western one
being occupied by the Royal Pew approached by a wooden staircase.
A view of this building, much altered, is given in Ogborne’s “Essex,”
from which it appears to have been of fifteenth-century date and to
have retained the timber annexe at the western end shown upon the plan.
The modern church which has now replaced it contains a square
twelfth-century font and some leger-stones said to have come from the
chapel of Pyrgo Palace long ago destroyed. It stands approximately
on the site of its predecessor, and is consequently of value in
determining the precise site of the palace buildings, which extended to
the north-west, the Privy Garden adjoining Havering Green upon the west.
[Illustration: FIG. 61.—HAVERING, GROUND PLAN.
_From the British Museum._]
The Second or Private Chapel adjoins the south-west corner of the
hall, and is shown in considerable detail. It was lit by four or five
windows in the south wall and a trio of lancets with detached shafts at
the west end, the whole building being only 32½ ft. by 14 ft.
[Illustration: FIG. 62.—HAVERING, FIRST FLOOR.
_From the Hatfield MSS._]
The large block of buildings lying to the north of the Great Hall
formed the private apartments of the sovereign and are called “the
Queen’s Lodging.” They consist of a privy chamber, withdrawing chamber,
bedchamber, closet, and two other apartments, with a private stair
leading to the garden.
To the west of this range lay the courts and offices shown upon
the second plan. (The original is said to be in the Lansdowne MSS.
in the British Museum.) They include the privy kitchen and larder
with a small court adjoining, with a long range of timber lodgings
stretching southwards, and some of the ground-floor apartments of the
main block being also indicated. The whole group forms an example of a
large domestic plan of distinctively early type, uninfluenced by any
considerations of military defence, and can only be paralleled by the
buildings of old Westminster Palace.
The two plans are by the same hand, although the scales differ, for
both are signed J. S., presumably standing for John Symonds, the
well-known Elizabethan draughtsman, and the second is furthermore named
and dated 1578 in Lord Burghley’s hand.
—A. W. C.
THE NEW EXCHANGE IN
THE STRAND
[Illustration: FIG. 63.—ELEVATION OF BUILDING (c. 1610).
_Drawn by Smithson._]
X.
THE NEW EXCHANGE IN THE STRAND.
In reopening what to many readers may be a long-forgotten chapter in
London’s commercial history, I wish to call attention to a beautiful
little drawing from the Smithson Collection which has already been
published[22] but has not been identified with any known building.
It is apparently the original plan and half elevation (to a larger
scale) of the New Exchange which the first Earl of Salisbury built
in the Strand in 1608 as a rival to the Royal Exchange in the City.
The fine drawing and delicate detail of the design will speak for
themselves as an illustration of the work of the period, and its value
is increased in that the later drawings of the Exchange bear out its
general accuracy. The presence of the Cecil arms reminds us of that
indefatigable builder Sir Robert or “Mr. Secretary” Cecil, whose
activities were not exhausted by his work at Chelsea, Hatfield, and at
his neighbouring house in the Strand.
[22] The drawing appeared in a paper by Mr. J. A. Gotch in the Journal
of the Royal Institute of British Architects for Nov. 21, 1908. I am
indebted to the author and to the Institute for their kind permission
to use the block.
I shall not pretend to bring any new information, beyond the plan,
to the wonderfully interesting history of this building, for a most
exhaustive paper from the pen of Dr. T. N. Brushfield appeared as
recently as 1903, and was published in the Journal of the British
Archæological Association under the title of “Britain’s Burse or the
New Exchange,” wherein the reader will find a very large amount of
entertainment and instruction. It may, however, be of interest to
recall one or two of the historical facts regarding the site and its
surroundings, and to examine the available topographical material.
Sir Robert Cecil, who built his new house in the Strand in 1602 (where
now stands the hotel named after him), was naturally interested in the
adjoining property to the west—that occupied by the ancient courtyards
of Durham House. The Bishops of Durham had lived in this house for
many centuries until they were dispossessed by Henry VIII. Stow says
that the house was built by Thomas Hatfield, Bishop of Durham (from
1345 to 1381); but we know that Otho, the papal legate, lived here in
1238, and in the following passage the topographer Norden traces it
back to the famous thirteenth-century bishop who built and fortified
the manor-house of Eltham, afterwards the royal palace: “This howse,
called Durham or Dunelme House ... was buylded in the time of Henry
3 by one Anthony Becke, Bishop of Durham. It is a howse of 300 years
antiquitie, the hall whereof is stately and high, supported with lofty
marble pillars. It standeth upon the Thamese veriye pleasantly.” Norden
wrote in 1593, and he thus places the date of the aisled hall as the
latter part of the thirteenth-century, a period which would agree with
his reference to Purbeck marble shafts, and with the character of the
windows indicated on a sketch-plan of 1626, which we shall consider
later on.
The Bishops of Durham returned to the house for a brief period under
Mary, and were finally reinstated by James I., after which they
continued there until 1640. From 1584 to 1603, however, the house was
tenanted by Sir Walter Raleigh, who, says Aubrey, “lived there after he
came to his greatness.” He adds, “I well remember his study, which was
on a little turret that looked into and over the Thames, and had the
prospect which is as pleasant perhaps as any in the world.” During this
period, in 1600, the buildings of the outer courtyard facing the Strand
were destroyed by fire, and it was these ruins which Cecil replaced by
his New Exchange when he purchased the frontage in the first years of
the reign of King James.
[Illustration: FIG. 64.—DURHAM HOUSE AND SALISBURY HOUSE.
_Drawn by Hollar. (Pepysian Library, Cambridge.)_]
[Illustration: FIG. 65.—DURHAM HOUSE.
_Map by Faithorne._]
[Illustration: FIG. 66.—WEST CENTRAL LONDON.
_Map by Hollar._]
The principal apartments of Durham House lay right on the river bank
and occupied the position of the present Adelphi Terrace. The relative
position of this Gothic building and Salisbury House is well shown
in one of Hollar’s charming little riverside views, a facsimile of
which we reproduce here with the kind permission of the Trustees of
the Pepysian Library, Cambridge. The drawing shows the gables of the
New Exchange appearing over the top of the older buildings. Another
drawing of Hollar’s—that beautifully executed map of the west-central
part of London—gives us in its extreme south-west corner a good idea of
Salisbury House, and the three buildings are shown with less care in
Faithorne’s valuable panoramic map of London. A plan in Strype’s Stow
(ed. 1720) gives miniature drawings of the buildings of the Exchange
and Cecil’s house, and shows also the tower-shaped river gateway
which stood in the garden of the latter, and of which particulars are
preserved in the Record Office under date 1610, being a “Specification
of a plan by a Mr. Osborne, for making a portico at the south end of
the Earl of Salisbury’s garden in the Strand.”[23]
[23] _Vide_ Wheatley and Cunningham, _London Past and Present_.
[Illustration: FIG. 67.—MS. PLAN OF DURHAM HOUSE AND THE NEW EXCHANGE
(1626).]
Much, however, as we are helped by the skill of Hollar and Faithorne to
feel some little of the atmosphere of this historic site on the river
bank, we were fain to have some more detailed knowledge of the homes
of Sir Robert Cecil and Sir Walter Raleigh. Some fortunate chance may
perhaps yet bring more information in the course of further research.
Dr. Brushfield indeed has been able to take us one step in this
direction in his discovery of a curious sketch-plan of Durham House
and the New Exchange, made in 1626, and preserved in the State Paper
Office. “It was apparently made,” he says, “to assist the enquiry into
some tumultuary proceedings that took place on February 26th of that
year at Durham House, then the residence of the French Ambassador,
incident to the attempted arrest of some English Roman Catholics who
had attended service in the Ambassador’s private chapel there.” As
will be seen by the simplified tracing which is reproduced with this
article, it is of the rather tantalising form which combines elevations
with the plan, and which scarcely gives us accurate details of the
arrangements. We can see, however, that it was once a noble house with
two large courtyards and imposing gateways. Its great hall and lofty
range of apartments towards the east are clearly indicated, and the
position of the chapel is well shown, a building which we are just
able to distinguish in Norden’s well-known view of Westminster. This
plan of 1626, moreover, in giving us an idea of the fine thirteenth or
fourteenth-century windows of the great hall, enables us to understand
Hollar’s sketch of the river front more clearly. The arches, which
Wilkinson, in his interpretation of Hollar in _Londina Illustrata_,
took to be corbelled supports for the battlements, are clearly the
windows of the hall which appear over the low curtain wall against the
water’s edge. Wyngaerde’s view of London shows the river front[24] and
also the Great Gatehouse.
[24] Wyngaerde’s view of Durham House has been sometimes described in
error as the Hospital of St. Mary Rouncevall. The hospital is, however,
more probably the small building which he shows to the west.
Nor are the suggestions regarding the way in which the rest of the
site had been disposed less interesting. “Britain’s Burse” or the New
Exchange fills that part of the frontage to the Strand which lies
between “the Great Street Gate” and the boundary of the York House
property on the west, while the “Common Passage from the Water’s Side”
which passed along the rear of the Exchange and down the boundary to
the Thames is plainly if not accurately indicated. This passage, shown
also on the Smithson plan, led to the river stairs which Hollar places
beneath the western tower of Durham House.
Sir Robert Cotton’s house presents at first sight a difficulty. It is
shown on the plan of 1626 as lying westward of the boundary within the
York House property, but this appears to be a draughtsman’s error. Dr.
Brushfield cites the lease (1608–9) “to Thomas Wilson of the Strand” of
what is evidently this plot of land “lyeinge and beinge on the south
side of the new buildinge lately erected and new builte by the Lorde
Treasuror where Durham Stables did stande towardes the west ende of
the same new buildinge next to the wall which divideth Yorke garden
from Durham Yarde.” The plot measured 8 yards from the New Exchange
southwards, and 7 yards from the York garden wall eastwards towards
Durham Yard, and Wilson covenants not to build within 6 ft. of any
window of the new building. Wilson built his house on this diminutive
plot, and in 1618 he sold it for £374, the conveyance, as quoted by
Dr. Brushfield, giving further evidence of its exact position, thus:
“All that messuage or tenement with a garden ... together with one
little yard lying upon the west syde of Durham House ... abuttinge on
Brittaine Burse there on the North, the garden of the capital messuage
called York House on the part of the West and on the passage leadinge
from Brittaine’s Burse to the Ryver of Thames on the parte of the East
and South.” The last words show that the passage skirted Wilson’s
garden on two sides, and this is borne out by the break in the wall of
Durham Court shown in the Smithson plan, the site having evidently been
enlarged by purchase since the date of that plan at the expense of the
area of the outer courtyard. In the 1626 plan, Sir Thomas Wilson, who
was in the service of Cecil and was the first manager of the Exchange,
is shown as occupying another house near Durham House Chapel. He seems
to have built it before he disposed of his first house, which, as we
have seen, was occupied in 1626 by Sir Robert Cotton.
[Illustration: FIG. 68.—PLAN OF NEW EXCHANGE (c. 1610).
_Drawn by Smithson._]
[Illustration: FIG. 69.—THE NEW EXCHANGE.
_Drawn by T. Hosmer Shepherd._]
[Illustration: FIG. 70.—PLAN OF SITE OF DURHAM HOUSE (STOW’S SURVEY ED.
1720).]
As regards the fabric of the New Exchange itself, we can see by the
Smithson drawing that it was originally intended to be of two storeys
in height, with elaborate central and end gables (apparently having
false windows) and two small intermediate gables. The elevation to
the Strand was skilfully designed, the building having two open arcades
of six round arches on the ground floor placed between the end and
middle blocks. The front was decorated with two orders of pilasters,
superimposed, and the windows of the first floor were circular-headed
where they appeared over the arches below, but were square below the
gables. Entrances were arranged through the eastern and western arch of
the arcade and through a similar archway in the centre.
That this design was carried out is evident from the careful
water-colour drawing of T. Hosmer Shepherd, which, though drawn many
years after the destruction of the building, must have been based on
an actual view. The Exchange is here shown with an attic storey, and
the Jacobean gables have disappeared in the general remodelling of the
upper part, which, with its long cornice and dormer pediments, suggests
the early part of the eighteenth century. An intermediate stage is
represented in an engraving reproduced by Dr. Brushfield, where the
attic storey is also shown, but the first-floor windows are still with
circular heads, and the little medallions of the Smithson plan still
appear. The pilasters, however, are lacking above the arcade, and it is
possible that these were omitted from the first.
The internal arrangements of the Exchange show an inner and outer walk
which was repeated on both floors, each walk being occupied with small
booths or shops, the space allowed for the latter being 8½ ft. and for
the walk 10 ft. A large number of small traders, such as jewellers
and milliners, took advantage of this method of showing their wares,
which was already in vogue at the Royal Exchange, and James I. followed
Elizabeth’s precedent in regard to the latter building by opening it
in person, naming it at the same time “Britain’s Burse.” At one time,
notably at the Restoration, the place became very fashionable, and the
trade was extremely brisk. A basement (the steps to which are shown at
the back of the building in the 1626 plan, and are marked “the alehouse
where the priest was taken”) was let as a tavern, and here, too, it
seems that Pepys went for his daily glass of whey when that drink was
in fashion. The “taverne underneath” is referred to in a series of
verses entitled “The Burse of Reformation” (1658), written in alternate
praise and depreciation of both the old (Royal) and the New Exchanges.
The slope of the bank towards the river would probably raise this
basement largely above ground and give the Exchange the appearance of
an extra storey towards the south.
The New Exchange undoubtedly proved a great success, and its principle
of including many shops under one roof has been often imitated down
to our own day, although the great Stores are now doing the same
thing more completely under one ownership. We are told that it fell
in popularity after the accession of George I., and in 1737, after an
existence of 128 years, it was taken down. As one of the well-known
resorts of fashion of the seventeenth century it has an important place
in the contemporary dramatic and periodical literature, and several
books bear the imprint of publishers who hung out their signs at
Britain’s Burse. The Smithson drawings are therefore a welcome addition
to our information, and are interesting in giving us the architect’s
own draft of a Jacobean building of somewhat singular requirements.
—W. H. G.
ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM,
CLERKENWELL
[Illustration: FIG. 71.—THE MONASTIC BUILDINGS.
_Drawn by Hollar._]
XI.
ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, CLERKENWELL.
Of the numerous and varied by-products of the Crusading spirit, none
possess a greater fascination and interest than those extraordinary
associations known as the Military Orders. The combined influences
of fanaticism and military ardour succeeded in uniting in them the
ascetic and the soldier, with so marked a success that their vital
force was not finally extinguished until ages after the whole fabric
of mediævalism had crumbled away and the Knights of Malta were one
of those hoary anachronisms which, like the Holy Roman Empire, were
swept ruthlessly away by the new broom of the Napoleonic wars. Of
the two great orders the Templars, largely, perhaps, owing to their
early and tragic end, have always attracted a greater proportion of
attention, and in London their name and memory are kept green by the
church and precinct which are still with us. The Hospitallers, on the
other hand, are in great measure neglected, as comparatively little is
left of their London house to show the extent and magnificence of the
great dwelling in Clerkenwell of the Grand Prior of England, who took
precedence of all the temporal members of the House of Peers.
The loss that English architecture suffered by the destruction of this
building can only be appreciated when one considers that the Priory
of St. John of Jerusalem stood alone and unique. The requirements of
the order demanded a building equally apart from the usual monastic
plan and from the purely secular establishment, and the direct and
continuous connection of the order with the East would argue the
existence of ideas and arrangements more foreign and less insular than
are observable in contemporary English work.
Up to the present the information available as to the buildings of the
Hospitallers has been practically _nil_, a couple of drawings by the
indefatigable Hollar being the only record of their appearance.
Amongst the MSS. of Loseley Hall, that collection which has already
supplied so much information on London topography, is a short document
giving a complete list of the buildings with their approximate
dimensions. The survey is one of a numerous class taken at the time of
the general suppression in order to arrive at a valuation of the lead
from the roofs of the dissolved monasteries. That the surveyor did his
work with great care and accuracy is evident from the minute nature
of some of the entries, and even the gutters and down-pipes are all
included in the estimate. The survey, of course, fails us in regard to
the arrangement of the various buildings, and so little is known of
structures of this class that it is impossible to argue by analogy.
The buildings of the order at Rhodes have been the subject of a recent
monograph, but here the “auberge” of the English “langue” is amongst
the most fragmentary and ruinous, while the palatial dwellings and
gorgeous church at Malta have little bearing on the subject, as they
are of late construction and the English “language” was then extinct.
Schloss Marienburg in Prussia, the headquarters of the Teutonic order,
is perhaps the best preserved of these structures: and here the main
building follows the ordinary monastic plan, with such modifications as
were necessary to secure also a fortress of no mean strength.
The London church of the Hospitallers has passed through more
vicissitudes than almost any other building in the city. Founded during
the reign of Stephen, the first building had a circular nave 65 ft. in
diameter and a short choir, with a crypt under, probably terminating in
an apse.[25]
[25] The foundations of the “Round” have been partially uncovered, and
it must have been similar in character and dimensions to the Temple
Church. The remains of a third circular church, the first home of the
Templars in London, were discovered, many years ago, on the south side
of Holborn, so that the metropolis once possessed three buildings of
this class.
[Illustration: FIG. 72.—PLANS SHOWING DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH.
1. c. 1150
2. c. 1185
3. c. 1540
_Drawn by A. W. Clapham._]
[Illustration: FIG. 73.—THE CRYPT, LOOKING EAST.
_Photograph by H. W. Fincham._]
Towards the close of the century the proportions of the choir proved
insufficient, and a large aisled structure, four bays long, was
raised in its place, being duly consecrated by Heraclius, Patriarch
of Jerusalem, in 1185. The church remained in this form until the
rising of the commons under Wat Tyler in 1381, when the rebels, besides
murdering the prior, set the house on fire, “causing it to burn by
the space of seven days together, not suffering any to quench it.”
The round nave was never rebuilt, its successor being a rectangular
three-aisled building with a magnificent tower at the north-west
corner. At the dissolution in 1540 the house was not touched, but a few
years later the nave with the great tower fell a victim to Protector
Somerset. The choir was walled in and again applied to its original
purpose during Queen Mary’s reign, but once more desecrated under her
successor. It served in turn as a private chapel and a dissenting
meeting-house until 1721, when the remains, patched and repaired,
became the parish church of St. John’s, Clerkenwell.
The crypt under the present church is the finest of these structures
still standing in London. It is of two dates, the western portion
of the central aisle being contemporary with the foundation. The
quadripartite ribbed vaulting with broad responds and transverse
bands between the bays belongs to the simpler type of Norman work.
The two eastern bays with the flanking chapels were added when the
aisled choir was built above (1185). The pointed vaulting springs from
clustered shafts, and the whole is an elegant example of transitional
work of the same date and character as the still existing “Round” of
the Temple Church. Of the aisled choir above, the outer walls and the
bases of the columns remain, but this part of the building underwent
extensive alteration under Prior Thomas Docwra (1501–27), who inserted
the windows and constructed two buildings against the south wall. Both
of these can be identified from the Loseley Survey as the vestry on
the east and “My lord Dockerys chappell.” The latter was entered by
two wide brick arches piercing the side wall, the earlier buttresses
between being pared away at the angles to form semi-octagonal piers.
The nave of the church was also of three aisles, the length of the
leads being respectively thirty, twenty-nine, and twenty yards. The
discrepancy of the north aisle is accounted for by the presence, at its
western end, of the great tower, described by Stow as “a most curious
piece of work graven, gilt, and enamelled, to the great beautifying
of the city.” The tower was evidently about ten yards square, and its
position is still marked by a set-back in the existing building line;
the lead from the steeple was about the same in quantity (five fothers)
as that covering one of the side aisles.
The later work in the church all dates from the foundation of the
parish in 1721. The massive carved hood over the west door is an
admirable piece of woodwork of that date, the carved panel of the three
Saints John in the door-head being a modern addition.
The simple and unpretentious reredos is a no less satisfactory example
of early eighteenth-century work, but the remainder of the building
calls for little remark, the plain west front and galleried interior
presenting no features of special interest.
Turning now to the domestic portion of the “hospital,” we find an
extensive range of embattled buildings, with a pleasantly diversified
outline, depicted in Hollar’s view on the north side of the church, and
there is little doubt that the principal apartments occupied this side.
[Illustration: FIG. 74.—EAST END OF CRYPT.
_Photograph by H. W. Fincham._]
[Illustration: FIG. 75.—SOUTH CHAPEL, CRYPT.
_Photograph by H. W. Fincham._]
[Illustration: FIG. 76.—WEST FRONT OF CHURCH.
_Photograph by H. W. Fincham._]
[Illustration: FIG. 77.—WEST DOOR OF CHURCH.
_Photograph by H. W. Fincham._]
[Illustration: FIG. 78.—FIREPLACE, ST. JOHN’S GATE.
_Photograph by H. W. Fincham._]
Remains of vaulted substructures, on the opposite side of St. John’s
Square, prove, however, that the buildings extended far beyond the
destroyed nave in this direction. The Loseley Survey apparently starts
with the buildings shown by Hollar and passes westward. The first
building mentioned is a house called the Priests’ Dorter, 120 ft.
long, and evidently the dormitory of the knights; next follows the
“Armoury,” 54 ft. long, and very narrow, as the roof measures
only 9 ft. on either side of the ridge. The great chamber with other
apartments formed a block 120 ft. long, with the great staircase, 24
ft. by 18 ft., at one end of it. Connected with these buildings were
numerous smaller chambers, the use of which is generally unspecified,
but evidently offices, as they include a “stillitorne,” or distillery,
a “comptyng house,” and the wardrobe. The Prior’s Lodging contained a
parlour and “my lordes chamber,” and the great hall was a magnificent
apartment 105 ft. in length.
Towards the end of the list mention is made of “a tyled rooffe which
was called the Yeoman’s Dorter,” so that the house at Clerkenwell
contained definite accommodation not only for the knights but also
for a lower grade, the yeomen, who were perhaps body servants and
attendants.
The great gate of the precinct which still spans St. John’s Lane was
built by Prior Docwra, and though drastically restored is still in
outward appearance largely as he left it. The finely ribbed vault to
the gate itself is untouched, and the interior contains many remains
of ancient work. Chief among these is the handsome carved fireplace
originally in the “Baptist’s Head” tavern, and bearing the arms of
Sir Thomas Forster, who died in 1612. The carving on the frieze is of
considerable delicacy, and the design is quite unusual.
It is a singular fact that only two representations of members of the
order have survived in English monumental art, namely, an emaciated
figure to Prior Weston in St. James’s, Clerkenwell, and the effigy of
Prior Fresham at Rushton (Northants). The former died within a few
months after the suppression of his house, and the remainder of his
monument was removed when St. James’s Church was rebuilt.
The smaller establishments of the Knights Hospitallers in England have
suffered even more than the mother house, and their remains are few
and inconspicuous. The circular church of Little Maplestead, Essex,
is, however, an exception, and the building has suffered far more from
restoration than decay. The three “Early English” chapels at Moor Hall
(Middlesex), Swingfield, and Sutton-at-Hone, Kent, are also relics of
the order, and the little establishment at Chibburn, Northumberland, is
still almost complete; but though not lacking in individual interest,
they were at best but granges of the great dwelling at Clerkenwell,
which was the combined recruiting and receiving house of the order in
England.
—A. W. C.
NORTHUMBERLAND HOUSE,
STRAND
[Illustration: FIG. 79.—NORTH FRONT (BEFORE 1874).
_Photograph by London Stereoscopic Co._]
XII.
NORTHUMBERLAND HOUSE, STRAND.
Of olden time London’s great highway was the Thames, and this important
fact must be remembered when we would cast our minds back to the times
of Hollar, who portrayed our picturesque city with such infinite art.
So busy was the traffic that Stow tells us in the year 1598 “that,
omitting to speak of great ships and other vessels of burthen, there
pertaineth to the cities of London, Westminster, and the borough of
Southwark, above the number, as is supposed, of two thousand wherries
and other small boats, whereby 3,000 poor men, at the least, be set on
work and maintained.” Nor does this include, presumably, the barges of
state and those of the noblemen and rich citizens, to whom the barge
was as important a possession as the motor-car of to-day, and an object
of even greater pride. The changed position and character of the main
artery of the city’s life and movement is responsible—perhaps as much
as the passing of its ancient buildings—for the difficulty which we of
the present day experience in attempting to enter into the spirit of
mediæval and Tudor London.
As was natural, the northern bank of the great highway of the Thames
held the most coveted sites for the residences of kings, nobles, and
prelates. William FitzStephen, in his oft-quoted description of London
towards the end of the twelfth century, tells us that “nearly all the
bishops, abbots, and magnates of England are, as it were, citizens and
freemen of London, having there their own splendid houses to which
they resort, where they spend largely when summoned to Great Councils
by the King or by their Metropolitan, or drawn thither by their own
private affairs.” From the “Palatine Castle”—the Tower of London—in
the east, to the western limits of the city and its liberties, the
bank was furnished with fine buildings. “Also upwards to the west the
Royal Palace [Westminster] is conspicuous above the same river, an
incomparable building with ramparts and bulwarks, two miles from the
city, joined to it by a populous suburb.”
As early, then, as 1190 the Palace of Westminster was joined to
Temple Bar by a “populous suburb” of houses, described later by Stow
as “memorable for greatness,” that looked on to the fair “river of
Thames.” The Elizabethan chronicler gives us an interesting account
of them in his day. After the new Temple, going westwards, one came
upon Essex House, formerly built by the Bishops of Exeter and again
new-built by an Earl of Leicester before the Earl of Essex lodged there
and gave it the name which the street on its site still bears. Next
was Arundel House, first built by the Bishop of Bath, and increased
under the occupation of Lord Thomas Seymour, Admiral. Here again
the present Arundel Street preserves the name of the Earl who lived
there in Stow’s time. West of this was Somerset House, built first by
Edward Duke of Somerset in 1549—a building of princely size, upon the
site of which stood formerly an Inn of Chancery called Strand Inn—and
the three houses of the Bishops of Llandaff, Chester, and Worcester.
Beyond the Bishop of Worcester’s stood the great Hospital of the Savoy,
founded by Henry VII. on the ruins of the beautiful palace which had
had a chequered history since its erection in 1245 by Peter of Savoy.
Next came the Earl of Bedford’s house, formerly the London home of
the Bishop of Carlisle, and adjoining it the large and stately house
of brick and timber the work of Sir Robert Cecil, builder of Chelsea
House and Hatfield. The great hotels, the Savoy and the Cecil, still
witness to the importance of these river sites, the beauty of which,
however, has in such large measure departed. Another bishop, the Bishop
of Durham, had the next house to Cecil’s. (_Vide ante_ p. 154.) Then
came the house formerly of the Bishop of Norwich, but in Stow’s time
belonging to the Archbishops of York, and called of them York House. It
came later into the hands of the Duke of Buckingham, and the little
water-gate in the Embankment Gardens—still called York Stairs—together
with the names of Buckingham and Villiers Streets, commemorates its
vanished glories.
York House seems to have been the last of the great houses on the
riverside until one came to the precincts of the Palace at Whitehall,
but between it and the Palace we learn there were “divers fair
tenements lately built,” and also “an Hospital of St. Marie Rouncivall
by Charing Cross where a fraternity was founded in the fifteenth of
Edward IV., but now the same is suppressed and turned into tenements.”
Thus Stow describes the site on which, within seven years of the
date of his survey, was to rise the magnificent house of the Earl of
Northampton, afterwards occupied by the Percies, and since known as
Northumberland House. It remained the principal landmark at Charing
Cross until its ruthless destruction in 1874, when it followed the
fate of the old hospital, being in its turn “suppressed” and its site
disposed among the buildings of the new Northumberland Avenue.
Much as we may regret the sacrifice of this commanding building and all
the associations which clung to its fabric, we must remember that it
had suffered considerable rebuilding since its first erection in about
the year 1605, and even the famous front to the Strand was chiefly an
eighteenth-century restoration. The history of the mansion has been
hitherto far from clear, but the recent discovery of a contemporary
plan of what appears to have been its original arrangement affords an
opportunity for a new examination of the little evidence which we have.
The plan referred to, and reproduced here by the very kind permission
of its present custodian, belongs to the interesting collection of
drawings, attributed to one of the Smithsons (a well-known family of
architects of the reigns of Elizabeth and James), which was once in
the possession of Lord Byron and is now preserved by Colonel Coke
at Brookhill Hall, Alfreton. It will be remembered that Mr. J. A.
Gotch brought these drawings before the notice of the architectural
world some short time ago, by reading a most instructive paper upon
them before the Royal Institute. Mr. Gotch was kind enough to draw my
attention personally to this plan, which was entitled “The Platforme of
my Lord of Northampton’s house in London.” The plan was not dated, but
other drawings in the same collection bear dates ranging from 1599 to
1632, and it therefore seems pretty certain that it refers to the house
built in the Strand by Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, about the
year 1605. Since, on Northampton’s death in 1614, the house changed its
name to Suffolk House, we can safely refer the drawing to the period
between 1605 and 1614—and its careful delineation of the garden makes
it probable that it is a copy of a drawing prepared to show the design
for the general lay-out of the grounds. There is a MS. note by Inigo
Jones in his copy of Palladio which is preserved at Worcester College,
Oxford, to the effect that the frontage of Northumberland House towards
the Strand was 162 ft. long, and that the courtyard was 81 ft. square.
The former measurement is exactly borne out by the plan, but the
courtyard is drawn and figured as 90 by 86 ft. It is possible that
Inigo Jones’s figures were taken between the projecting bay windows and
porch.
Of the exterior of Northumberland House in its earliest days we have
no drawing, but among a very precious little collection of diminutive
drawings by Wenceslaus Hollar, preserved in the Pepysian Library at
Cambridge, is a delightful sketch of Suffolk House as it was then
called. Wilkinson in his _Londina Illustrata_ published an engraving
based on this drawing, but I do not know that the original has been
reproduced before. I have, however, been able to obtain by the kind
permission of the trustees a direct photograph of Hollar’s sketch,
which is reproduced here with Wilkinson’s engraving, and shows, even
with so slight a rendering, the charming delicacy and picturesqueness
of the artist’s work. Hollar seems to have made these and the
companion sketches with a view to his large panoramic drawing of
London which was published shortly after the Great Fire, and in which
one can easily see how the sketch has been utilised in regard to this
particular subject. It would represent the house, therefore, some fifty
years after its first building.
[Illustration: FIG. 80.—PLAN IN THE _SMITHSON_ COLLECTION.]
[Illustration: FIG. 81.—VIEW FROM RIVER (c. 1650).
_Drawn by Hollar._]
Before examining the plan and drawings in detail it may be as well to
state briefly the successive occupants of Northumberland House, as
we shall have something to say on the changes which certain of the
owners are credited with having made in the form of the building. The
builder of the house was, as already stated, Henry Howard first Earl of
Northampton, the son of Henry Howard Earl of Surrey the poet, and the
founder of the three hospitals dedicated to the Holy Trinity at Castle
Rising, Clun, and Greenwich. (_Vide_ p. 229.) Letters from the Earl
are known to have been written from the house in 1609, and in 1614,
at his death, the property passed by will to his nephew Thomas Howard
Earl of Suffolk, one of the heroes of the Armada. Northampton House
changed its name to Suffolk House during its occupation by himself and
his son the second Earl, and soon after the death of the latter it
passed by the marriage of his daughter Elizabeth to Algernon Percy,
tenth Earl of Northumberland. The new owner of the house—called by
Clarendon the proudest man alive—was a son of the “Wizard Earl” who
spent sixteen years of captivity in the Tower of London because of his
supposed connection with the Gunpowder Plot, and in 1612 the son had
joined his father in the Tower in order that his education might be
properly supervised. The ninth Earl had moved his home from Blackfriars
to Russell House, St. Martin-in-the-Fields (perhaps the same mansion
which was called by Stow “Russell or Bedford House,” formerly the
Bishop of Carlisle’s “Inn,” to which we have already referred),
and had also resided for some time in Essex House. Another river
residence, Syon House, Isleworth—still one of the seats of the Duke of
Northumberland—was also presented to the “Wizard Earl” by James I.,
the year after his accession; and when Lord Hay, the future Viscount
Doncaster and Earl of Carlisle, was courting Northumberland’s daughter
he took a little house in Richmond Park, and we read that his barge
came and went twice a day between Richmond and Isleworth.
The marriage settlement of 1642 between Algernon Percy, the tenth
Earl of Northumberland, and his bride, the Lady Elizabeth Howard—who
was, by the way, granddaughter of the Earl of Northampton—arranged
for the transference of Suffolk House to the bridegroom in return for
the sum of £15,000. Gerald Brenan in his _History of the House of
Percy_ states that the name of the mansion was straightway changed to
Northumberland House, but we have the evidence of Evelyn’s Diary and
Hollar’s inscription which testify to the persistence of the name of
Suffolk House for many years later. Algernon Percy was succeeded by
Josceline the eleventh Earl, who died in 1670 and left an only daughter
Elizabeth. The house passed out of the Percy family with her marriage
in 1682 to Charles Seymour, Duke of Somerset. Since there was already a
Somerset House in the Strand it is probable that the mansion was still
called Suffolk House, but in 1749 the Duke’s son Algernon, who had
succeeded his father the year before as seventh Duke of Somerset, was
created Earl of Northumberland with remainder to Sir Hugh Smithson, who
had married Lady Elizabeth Seymour, his only surviving child. Sir Hugh
on his succession to the earldom assumed the name and arms of Percy,
and in 1766 he was raised to the dukedom. From this time the house was
certainly called Northumberland House until the time of its compulsory
sale in 1873 and its demolition in the following year. Thus on three
occasions an heiress of the name of Elizabeth carried the mansion with
her dower.
With this historical framework before us, let us now examine briefly
the plans and drawings of the building. It has been freely stated that
the plan of “Northampton House” as first built constituted only three
sides of a quadrangle, and that Algernon Percy, the tenth Earl of
Northumberland, added the fourth side towards the river, employing as
his architect Inigo Jones. The reason given for this enlargement was
that the principal apartments formerly faced the Strand, but that the
Earl, desiring greater privacy, removed them to the river front. On the
face of it this story seems highly improbable, for a house of this size
and position would naturally be approached by a gateway on the north
side towards the Strand, and its great hall would be as certainly in
the southern range. The plan from the Smithson collection shows this
arrangement just as we might expect—the hall, a noble apartment of 73
by 43 ft., having the mediæval form and shape and being screened by
a loggia or “cloyster” quite in keeping with the fashion during the
opening years of James I.’s reign. It seems scarcely possible that the
planning of the southern range as shown here could be by Inigo Jones,
especially at so late a date in his career as 1642, and indeed all
the evidence of the plan, besides its inscription, tends to support a
much earlier period. It remains only then for the sceptic to suggest
that the original design of the house was not completed, but we must
remember that we have Hollar’s evidence for the southern staircase
towers, and it seems more than probable that any work by Inigo Jones
must have taken the form of a rebuilding or merely a new facing to the
front. The Strand elevation became so famous that Walpole attributes
its design to Bernard Jansen and Gerard Chrismas. It must originally
have been as fine a composition as any Jacobean building could show.
The centre or gatehouse of four storeys, flanked on either side by bold
double pilasters, each pair separated by niches, was furnished with a
fine oriel window over the archway like those at Burghley and Bramshill.
At the extremities of the front rose the two characteristic towers,
carried up two storeys above the roof and furnished with fine lead
cupolas; and between the towers and the gateway the intervening wall
was divided into three storeys, the upper two being pierced with
windows and the ground floor having recessed niches set in square
frames. Above was a parapet formed of letters, for Evelyn tells us,
when on a visit to Audley End (August 31st, 1654), that “instead
of rails and balusters there is a border of capital letters as was
lately also on Suffolk House, near Charing Cross.” From the register
of burials in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields we learn, too, that at the
funeral of Anne of Denmark a young man was killed by the fall of the
letter S from this parapet. It has been stated that part of the letters
C Æ remained after the removal of the rest, and Vertue, and Walpole
following him, interpreted them as standing for “Chrismas ædificavit.”
It is quite possible that in 1642 the Earl of Northumberland employed
Inigo Jones to design some alterations in the house, the more so as
we find the general dimensions figured in the famous architect’s own
handwriting in his copy of Palladio already mentioned. But I very much
doubt whether he really rebuilt the garden front. Inigo Jones died in
1652, and on June 9th, 1658, we find the following note in Evelyn’s
Diary: “I went to see the Earl of Northumberland’s pictures, whereof
that of the Venetian Senators was one of the best of Titian’s.... This
was in Suffolk House: the new front towards the gardens is tolerable,
were it not drowned by a too massy and clumsy pair of stairs of stone
without any neat invention.” Evelyn is evidently referring to work
which had just been executed, and not to an alteration of some fifteen
years before. Hollar’s view, too, suggests that the earlier design had
been little altered, and his drawing was probably not executed until
after Inigo Jones’s death.
[Illustration: FIG. 82.—VIEW FROM RIVER (c. 1650).
_Engraved in Londina Illustrata._]
[Illustration: FIG. 83.—NORTH FRONT, AFTER _CANALETTO_.]
We have now to come to eighteenth-century records. An engraving by J.
Maurer of Charing Cross in 1740 is the earliest view of the Strand
front. The very beautiful drawing by Canaletto, an engraving from which
is reproduced on p. 176, shows the same view in 1753, apparently
after the front had been rebuilt by Daniell Garrett in 1748–50. The
famous lion of cast lead appears here over the centre of the building.
It was erected in 1752, and is now preserved at Syon House. On March
18th, 1780, the street front was badly damaged by fire, and was again
rebuilt. Its final appearance can be seen from the photograph, with
its towers lowered one storey and its whole appearance reduced in
picturesqueness, save perhaps where some lingering suggestion remains
of its past beauty, within its central group of bold pilasters.
Of the house and its courtyard Seymour, following Strype, wrote in
1735: “A noble and spacious building, having a large square court at
the entrance, with buildings round it, at the upper end of which court
is a Piazza with buildings over it sustained by stone pillars, and
behind the buildings there is a curious garden which runneth down to
the Thames.” There is a view of the south front by S. Wale (1761),
which if it shows anything of the work which Evelyn criticised will
explain the half-hearted praise which it met with from this competent
critic. In it we miss the southern towers, which had no doubt been
destroyed, but two ungainly wings extend themselves at either side
towards the river. A pavilion and wings were designed by Mylne, and a
drawing-room by Robert Adam. From Skinner’s _History and Description of
London and Westminster_ (1795) we learn that the two wings extending
towards the river were 100 ft. long or over; indeed, the left wing
was “a state gallery or ballroom, 106 ft. long, the breadth being a
fourth part of the length and the height equal to the diagonal of the
square of the breadth”! This room had nine windows towards the garden,
and over the cornice another row of lights. Altogether the house had
140 rooms, and the last disposition of its buildings may be seen
on Horwood’s large plan of London (1799). The pretty garden of the
Smithson plan, which afterwards Evelyn commended for its tastefully
arranged terraces and copses, had become but a “fine lawn surrounded
by a neat gravel walk and boarded next the walls by a border of curious
flowers, shrubs, and evergreens.” It was this garden which Evelyn
specially mentioned as the occasion of his quaint little work entitled
_Fumifugium_, where he speaks of its flowers as “wrapped in a horrid
cloud of smoke, issuing from a brewery or two, contiguous to that noble
palace.” We fear the smoke, in spite of his serious protest, is still
with us, but the more substantial palace has disappeared and is but a
memory.
Robert Adam’s contribution to the sumptuous design of the various
interiors of Northumberland House must have been of a very important
character. We owe to the painstaking and minutely particular drawings
of the Adam brothers, and to the care of Sir John Soane, the fact
that the substance of the chief designs executed there remains in
safe keeping. Adam was employed by the Duke of Northumberland on very
extensive schemes, both at Alnwick and at Syon, and it was evidently
intended that his London residence should not be overshadowed by either
of his country seats. At the Soane Museum are drawings of the ceilings
of both the drawing-room and the dining-room, from which we may see
that the former apartment measured 35 ft. 10 in. by 21 ft. 9 in., and
the latter 45 ft. 4 in. by the same width. The designs for the ceilings
are very elaborate—there being two drawings for the drawing-room, the
richest of which is marked as executed. In addition to the last-named
there are internal elevations of the drawing-room, showing on one side
four lofty windows with mirrors between, and on the other side an
elaborate fireplace. Three other drawings for this fireplace are also
included, showing quite a different design in considerable detail, even
to a complex pattern in marble for the hearth, and this is the one that
seems to have been carried out. The drawings show Adam’s fertility of
invention and deftness in arrangement at their best, and if any of the
features of these rooms have been preserved it would be interesting
to compare the charming character of the drawings with their actual
execution in marble.
One other relic of the house is said to exist in the East End. In the
gardens of Tudor House, Bromley-by-Bow, is a large stone gateway,
which, it is stated, was removed from Northumberland House at the time
of its demolition (_vide_ _The Parish of Bromley-by-Bow_, The Survey of
London, Vol. I.).
—W. H. G.
THE ABBEY OF BARKING,
ESSEX
[Illustration: FIG. 84.—REMAINS OF SOUTH TRANSEPT.
_Photograph by A. P. Wire._]
XIII.
THE ABBEY OF BARKING, ESSEX.
The Benedictine nunnery of Barking stood upon the eastern bank of the
river Roding, about a mile above its confluence with the Thames. The
precise date of its original foundation is a little uncertain, but
probably the correct date is that given in the Chertsey register,
namely 666.[26] In any case, it was before the founder, St. Erkenwald,
became Bishop of London in 675. The Venerable Bede gives the following
account of the circumstances:—
This man (St. Erkenwald), before he was made bishop, had built
two famous monasteries, the one for himself and the other for
his sister Ethelburga, and had established them both in regular
discipline of the best kind. That for himself was in the County
of Surrey, by the River Thames, at a placed called Chertsey: that
for his sister, in the province of the East Saxons, at the place
called Barking, wherein she might be a mother and a nurse of
devout women.
[26] Brit. Mus., Cott. MS., Vit. A. 13.
Bede makes but slight reference to the buildings of the convent, but
mentions “the narrowness of the place where the monastery is built,”
which hardly seems applicable to the present site. It is possible,
therefore, that the first position was subsequently abandoned. It may
be gathered, further, that the chapel of the convent was dedicated to
St. Mary the Virgin and that the nuns’ cemetery lay to the west of it.
The next event in the architectural history of the house is its
destruction by the Danes in 870. The pagan army had destroyed the
convents of Northumbria and, passing southwards, had devastated
the great Fen monasteries, Barking sharing the same fate shortly
afterwards. It lay waste for about a century, until the reign of Edgar
the Peaceable, when one of that monarch’s recurring fits of repentance
moved him to rebuild the abbey. He had taken, it appears, a certain
nun, Wulfhilda, by force from the abbey of Wilton; and, in reparation,
he refounded and endowed the convent at Barking, placing Wulfhilda at
its head. Probably, at this period, the name of the first abbess, St.
Ethelburga, was included in the dedication.
The house was almost certainly rebuilt early in the twelfth century,
when, under a succession of royal and distinguished abbesses, it
enjoyed the zenith of its prosperity. The final dedication of the abbey
church took place in the time of abbess Mabel de Bosham (1215–1247).[27]
[27] Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, i., p. 441: 1817.
From this time to the Dissolution, the architectural history of the
house is almost a blank, the only record of importance being a licence,
dated 24th April, 1319, to the abbess “to fell 300 oaks in her wood
of Hainault, for repair of the Church of her Abbey and divers others
houses of the Abbey, which are in ruins.”[28]
[28] Cal. Pat. Rolls (1317–1321), p. 327.
The abbey was surrendered into the hands of the King’s Commissioners
on 14th November, 1539, by Dorothy Barley, the abbess, and thirty
nuns. The house was then valued at £1,084 6s. 2¼d. gross and £862 12s.
5½d. net, making it the third richest in annual revenue of the English
nunneries.
In 1541, the destruction of the buildings was begun. Among the accounts
of James Needham (Surveyor General to Henry VIII.), preserved at the
Bodleian Library,[29] is a lengthy document relating to the undermining
and casting down of the abbey church and cloister, of which the
following is an extract:—
From Sunday xix. day of June to Sunday xvii. of July, 33rd Henry
VIII. Payments made & payd for o^r Souvraigne lorde the King for
work done by his graces comandement in undermynding & casting
downe the late Abbey Chyrche of Barking.
_Carpenters._—Working not onely in taking downe and breking uppe
the bordes of the cloyster w^t other tymber & not thus only
working but also making the handebarowes & whele barowes & in
like manr. helmyng of pyckaxes & other necessares for the myners
& laborers to occupie.
_Myners._—Working not onleye in undermynding and casting downe
ij. Rounde Towres but also taking uppe the benches in the
cloyster & in lyke man^r providing of the ffayrest coyne stones &
other coyne stone for the loding of lighters, to be ymployed at
the Kinges man. of Darteforde.
_Comyn Laborers._—Working not onelye in ridding & clering oute
the ffayrest & best coyne stone, casting the rubbyshe a syde &
not thus working onely but also making & mynding of the hey ways
& in lyke manr. leveling the grownde for the lande carr. of the
said stone from the late abbey to the water syde.
[29] Bodl. Lib., Cod. Rawl. D. 782.
The account is continued month by month, with little variation in
terms, and concludes on 10th December, 1542. In August, 1541, the
carpenters were engaged in “taking downe the tymber in the steple,”
and the miners “in undermynding the steple and other places of the
late Abbey Chyrch.” The lead of the roof was employed in repairs to
Greenwich Palace in 1541.
The site and the demesne lands of the abbey were granted by Henry VIII.
to Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, for life.[30] On his death
in 1550, they were given by Edward VI. to Edward, Lord Clinton, the
patent bearing date 27th May 6th Edward VI. (1552).[31]
[30] Pub. Rec. Office, Particulars for Grants, 1515.
[31] _Ibid._
The earliest view of the site of the abbey is a drawing by Mr. Smart
Lethieullier,[32] dating from about 1720–30, preserved in the British
Museum.[33] It shows that, at that time, little more of the abbey
remained above ground than is at present in existence, the only notable
difference being the presence of the north-east gate of the precinct.
In 1724 he carried out some excavations on the site of the abbey
church, and produced a plan purporting to show the results, which
was subsequently published by Lysons.[34] Another original drawing,
somewhat different in detail, is in the British Museum.[35] Both
plans are, however, so hopelessly inaccurate as to be almost valueless.
[32] Smart Lethieullier (1701–1760), F.R.S., F.S.A., of Aldersbrook,
in Little Ilford (where he lies buried), was in his day a well-known
antiquary and collector.
[33] Add. MSS. 27,350, fo. 123.
[34] _Environs of London_, iv., facing p. 71 (1796).
[35] Add. MSS. 27,350, fo. 124.
[Illustration: FIG. 85.—PLAN OF THE PRECINCT.]
[Illustration: FIG. 86.—THE CURFEW GATEHOUSE.
_Photograph by A. P. Wire._]
[Illustration: FIG. 87.—THE SAXON CROSS.
_Photograph by A. P. Wire._]
The limits of the precinct at Barking cannot now be fixed with any
precision, but the general lines are not difficult to ascertain. The
great gatehouse probably stood in the neighbourhood of the present
Heath Street or the Wharf; but no trace or record of its position is
known to exist. The Cemetery Gate, which still exists, and is now
commonly known as the “Fire Bell Gate” or “Curfew Gate,” was probably
first erected in the time of abbess Sybilla Felton (1349–1419) and
subsequently reconstructed (_c._ 1460). The first mention of it appears
in a Papal Indult of 1400, when the abbess and her nuns were granted
permission “to have mass or other divine offices celebrated by their
own or other fit persons in the Oratory called Rodlofte, situate upon
the walls of the cemetery of their church; in which Oratory is a
certain cross and to which a great multitude of people resorts.”[36] A
little later, in the time of abbess Catherine de la Pole (1433–1473),
it served as the belfry of the parish church, before the erection of
the present western tower. The parishioners petitioned the abbess to
be allowed to hang a new bell above the chapel of the “Holy Rood lofte
atte gate” and to repair the roof. They were allowed eventually to hang
the bell, but were not permitted to do the other repairs, evidently for
fear of weakening the rights of the convent over the structure.[37]
[36] _Cal. of Papal Letters_, v., p. 333.
[37] Lyson’s _Environs_, iv., pp. 71–72 (1796).
The gate, as it now stands, is a square embattled building, two stages
high, with diagonal buttresses at the corners and an octagonal turret.
With the exception of the parapet, it is unrestored, and is pierced
on the east and west by a large four-centered arch, above which is
a small canopied niche with an ogee-shaped head, much decayed. The
second stage of the gate is occupied by the chapel of the Holy Rood,
originally lit by four three-light windows, one on each side. The
eastern is now the only one left open, the rest being blocked with
brickwork.
Set in the east wall, below the window, is a remarkably fine carved
rood of stone, with the Virgin and St. John, of twelfth century date.
The carving of the drapery is unusually free and the figures well
designed. The cross itself is of the “raguly” form, to be seen in some
of the St. Albans paintings, and the ground-work is diapered fretty in
broad interlaced bands.
At a distance of about 350 feet further north there stood another gate,
destroyed about 1885.
The Roding undoubtedly formed the boundary on the western side.
The modern mill now standing close to Barking Wharf marks, in all
probability, the site of the monastic building; while a narrow
watercourse, branching off from the river above the abbey precinct,
preserves the line of the cutting which fed the great culvert or sewer
of the convent with water.
Owing to the treatment of the building at the Dissolution, when the
walls and towers were undermined and cast down, the remains of the
church itself are not extensive. Practically the whole length of the
south wall was, however, retained, up to a certain level, owing to its
forming the boundary of the parish churchyard. In addition to this,
a portion of the west front, with the walls and foundations of the
whole of the east end, have, fortunately, been preserved, so that the
complete plan has been recovered.
The twelfth century church (representing the first rebuilding after the
Conquest) consisted of a long nave with aisles and two western towers;
shallow transepts, with one apsidal eastern chapel in each arm; and an
aisled presbytery of five bays, terminating, in all probability, in
three graduated apses, as at Shaftesbury and Chertsey abbeys.
[Illustration: FIG. 88.—PLAN OF ABBEY.
_Drawn by A. W. Clapham._]
Traces were discovered of the southern of these apses terminating the
south aisle.
The bays of the presbytery were unusually narrow, measuring only
12 feet from centre to centre. According to some original pencil
notes by Mr. Smart Lethieullier,[38] the columns of the arcades were
cylindrical; and, judging from the existing remains of the south wall,
the aisles were vaulted in stone. One complete bay of this wall and
portions of those adjoining remain standing to about 5 feet above
the floor level. The responds supporting the vault are rectangular
projections and were apparently once finished with a half-column
against the face and two sideshafts. The wall between was recessed for
a wall arcade of three arches, resting on small shafts, 5 inches in
diameter. The moulded base of one of these remains _in situ_. It is of
Binstead stone, and appears to date from about 1150. The axis of the
Norman presbytery deviates south of that of the nave, a feature which
is still further accentuated in the later eastern additions.
[38] Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 27,350, fo. 124.
About the beginning of the thirteenth century, the east end of the
twelfth century church with its three apses was pulled down and an
important extension planned in its place. The object of this rebuilding
was, apparently, to provide a more honourable position for the
shrine of St. Ethelburga, together with those of her successors, St.
Hildelitha and St. Wulfhilda. The new portions may be compared to those
eastern extensions, erected at the same time, for a similar purpose,
at St. Albans and Winchester. The planning of the saint’s chapel at
Barking presents certain features in common with both these buildings,
together with one marked divergence. At both St. Albans and Winchester,
the chapel is of the same width as the presbytery and aisles; but, at
Barking, the width is reduced by 22 feet, the eastern arm being 64 feet
6 inches and the saint’s chapel 42 feet. Access to it was obtained
by carrying the Norman aisles one bay further east. Mr. Lethieullier
uncovered the foundations of a massive wall terminating the presbytery
on the east, which must have belonged to this rebuilding and was
probably carried up in the form of an open arcade supporting the east
gable of the high roofs.
The saint’s chapel was divided by columns into three equal aisles,
three bays long from east to west; and, from the centre aisle, a lady
chapel projected two bays still further east. The south wall of the
saint’s chapel remains standing for some three feet above the floor
level; and in the south-east angle is the circular base, in Reigate
stone, of a vaulting-shaft, with “holdwater” moulding and chamfered
plinth, all in fairly good preservation. The centre aisle of this
chapel was probably appropriated to the feretory of St. Ethelburga,
while the sides may have been occupied by those of St. Hildelitha and
St. Wulfhilda.
The lady chapel was excavated, some thirty-seven years ago. The walls,
some 3 or 4 feet high, remain on the east and south sides. The bases
of vaulting-shafts still exist, in the angles at the east end. Three
interments were found at the west end, one being in a chalk vault.
A list of interments of abbesses and others, dating from about 1420,
is preserved at the Bodleian Library; the names of the abbesses are as
follows:—
1. Dame Yolente de Sutton qe gist devant l’auter nostre dame de
Salue.
2. Dame Maude de Levelaunde qe gist apres lavaunt dce Yolente.
3. Dame Maud la file le Roy Henry qe gist en la chapele de Salue.
4. Dame Maud la file le Roy John qe gist en la chapele de Salue.
5. Dame Alianore de Westone gist devant la fertre de seint
Alburgh.
6. Dame Anne de Veer gist devant le fertre seint Hildelithe.
7. Dame Maud de Grey gist devant l’auter de la Resurexion.
8. Dame Alis de Merton gist en une arche devers la cimterre.
9. Dame Isabelle de Basing gist en une arche a la fenestre.
10. Dame Alimie gist en l’arche devant le haut auter qe ad vii.
psaumes en genulaut e messe capitale one kyrie par vers et
hominum plasmator et offiz.
11. Dame Marie soer seint Thomas le Martye gist en l’arch devant
l’auter et Seint Paul en la yle.
12. Dame Mabile qe fist dedier l’eglise gist en l’arche apres.
13. Dame Maud Mountague gist en quer.
14. Dame Isabella Mountague soer l’avant dite dame Maud gist de
la parte la prioresse en quer.
15. Dame Christine de Valoyns gist en mylieu del chapitre en la
pere du marbre.
16. Dame Katherine Suttone gist en la chapele de nostre dame de
Salue en l’arche.
17. Dame Christine de Bosham gist a l’entree del chapitre.
18. Dame Maud Mountague gist en l’arche devant le haut auter
encontre la hous del sextrie.
The chapel of “Notre Dame de Salut” is probably the eastern chapel,
which would identify the interments discovered as those of Abbesses
Maud (_c._ 1200), daughter of Henry II., Maud de Loveland (_c._ 1276),
and Yolande de Sutton (1341). The remains found in the chalk vault
probably belonged to the first of these. The note concerning Mabel de
Bosham (1217–1247) approximately dates the completion of the eastern
portion of the church.
The transept was internally 100 feet long by 31 feet wide. The core of
the walls of the southern arm is still standing for some few feet above
the floor level, but most of the facing is gone. At the south-east
corner is the chamfered base of an angle-pier, with traces of benches
against the south and west walls. From the eastern side projected a
small apsidal chapel, slightly horse-shoe in form and the inner face of
the walls retaining much of the original plastering.
The central tower was destroyed in 1541, but Mr. Lethieullier found
some portions of the piers remaining in 1724. His rough sketch
preserves the plan of one of them—the north-east. It was rectangular,
with a semi-circular respond to the choir arcade, and rectangular
projections with side shafts to the tower and aisle arches.
The nave with its aisles was 165 feet 6 inches long by 64 feet 6 inches
wide. There were, apparently, ten bays to the arcades, with two western
towers, making eleven bays in all. The south wall towards the parish
churchyard remains standing about 5 feet high for the six eastern bays
and is of somewhat unusual construction. The face of the wall remains
in places, and there are sufficient traces of three responds of the
aisle vault to show that the nave bays were 14 feet from centre to
centre.
The seventh bay from the east was occupied by an elaborate doorway
communicating with the parish churchyard. Only the base remains,
projecting some 6 feet from the external face of the aisle wall. It
was evidently of twelfth century work, with a large arch of three or
four recessed orders, and was probably surmounted by a lofty stone
gable of the type to be seen at Kirkstall, Brinkburn, Nun Monkton, and
elsewhere. Portions of the bases of the side shafts remain on the east
jamb; but, below this level, a plain raking plinth has been added at a
later date, following the line of the recessed orders. A step crossing
the porch proves that, in later mediæval times, there was a descent
from the churchyard to the floor level of the nave.
The three bays separating this porch from the south-west tower have
quite disappeared, and the foundations of the south-west tower are
somewhat fragmentary. The south-west angle of a great clasping
buttress, however, remains, projecting some 8 feet in advance of the
south aisle wall. The core of the wall has been removed, only the outer
face remaining. The two “round towers” mentioned in Needham’s accounts
probably refer to these western towers; but, as the foundations are
rectangular, a circular or octagonal upper stage is the most reasonable
interpretation of the expression he uses.
The total internal length of the church was 337 feet 6 inches, making
it the longest in the County of Essex of which there is any record.
It was some 24 feet longer than Rochester, and 13 feet shorter than
Chester Cathedral. The area within the walls was about 21,700 square
feet.
The cloister, about 99 feet square, lay upon the north side of the
nave, as at St. Radegund’s (Cambridge), St. Helen’s (London), and
other houses of Benedictine nuns. Indeed, in monastic houses in the
neighbourhood of London, this position is almost more the rule than the
exception. The chapter-house, a rectangular structure, 60 feet 6 inches
long by 23 feet 6 inches wide, projected from about the centre of the
east walk. In the chapter-house were probably buried most of the early
abbesses, the last being Christina de Valoyns (_c._ 1214) and Christina
de Bosham (_c._ 1258), both mentioned in the list of interments already
quoted.
Adjoining the chapter-house on the north, and continuing the eastern
cloister range, was a building 53 feet long by 24 feet wide, divided
into two unequal portions by the passage leading to the infirmary. In
the smaller and southern of these, a small fireplace of early sixteenth
century date had been inserted in the east wall. The jambs were of
brick and the hearth was laid with plain tiles 9 inches square, with a
Reigate stone curb.
The warming house forms the north end of the building. The fireplace,
which is in the east wall and is some 4 feet wide, has a hearth set
with tiles on edge and traces of a stone curb. In front is an outer
hearth, projecting 2 feet 6 inches from the face of the wall and also
paved with tiles set on edge.
The frater flanked the cloister on the north side, while the western
side was occupied by a long building, measuring 166 feet by 24 feet
wide, on the first floor of which was the dormitory. This position
(west of the cloister) is of very unusual occurrence, though it is
to be found at Durham, Worcester, and in a few other instances. The
southern end of this building, adjoining the church, has quite gone;
but, further north, the base of the outer or west wall was traced to
the end of the building and the northern wall duly located. In two
places, one course of ashlar facing in Caen stone was found _in situ_,
fixing the date of the structure as late in the twelfth century.
There is little doubt that the ground floor was vaulted, in two spans,
with a central row of columns, but no trace of these or of external
buttresses was found. The twelfth century piers and capitals in the
north aisle of the parish church were undoubtedly brought from the
abbey; and, in all probability, they belonged to this building.
The rere-dorter, a building of the same date as the dorter, was
situated a short distance to the west, on the line of the great culvert.
The infirmary lay to the north-east of the chapter-house and was
approached by a passage starting some 12 feet north of that building.
This passage ran in a north-easterly direction, the walls, 2 feet 3
inches thick, remaining just above the floor level. A considerable
portion of plain tile paving was found _in situ_. The arrangements
of the infirmary building are somewhat obscure, as half the site is
covered by the playground of the adjoining school, and could not be
examined.
The great hall stood approximately north and south. It was 38 feet wide
and a long stretch of the west wall was uncovered, terminating in a
massive square pier adjoining the angle-buttress of the chapter-house.
This probably represented the original southern termination of the
hall; but, in the fifteenth century, it appears to have been shortened
by a few feet, and traces of this later end were found. At the point
of its junction with the west wall, a small portion of a tile-on-edge
hearth was discovered. The opposite or east wall of the hall formed
also the west wall of the infirmary chapel, the floor of which was
about one foot lower than that in the hall.
The chapel was a fifteenth century building, 19 feet wide and about 45
feet long, though the east wall (being under the school-house garden)
was not precisely located. The south wall was heavily buttressed, being
divided into three bays. At the south-west corner, a large angular
buttress impinged on the area once covered by the original infirmary
hall. The chapel was paved with tiles; but, though the screeding and
bed on which they lay was practically intact, every tile had gone. The
stone altar-step was found _in situ_, but only a few fragments of the
north wall remained.
From the north-east corner of the warming house, a wall was found
running in an easterly direction and evidently communicating with the
infirmary hall. It was apparently the south wall of a small hall,
about 48 feet long, lying east and west, of which the north side had
been completely destroyed. At the west end was a screen-wall and,
immediately within it, there were traces of a large hearth. It is
probable that this building was the misericorde, which is generally
found in direct communication with the infirmary.
It is unfortunate that the position of the infirmary group lying
partially under the playground should render its complete examination
impossible, as the walls of these buildings were found to be in a
better state of preservation than those of any other part of the abbey.
—A. W. C.
ABBOT’S HOSPITAL, GUILDFORD,
AND ITS PREDECESSORS
[Illustration: FIG. 89.—FRONT OF HOSPITAL.]
XIV.
ABBOT’S HOSPITAL, GUILDFORD, AND ITS PREDECESSORS.
The close alliance which exists between architecture and national
history is a commonplace, and a review of its connection in each of
the several departments into which it is divided is an unfailing and
fruitful source of study. The larger classifications of domestic,
ecclesiastical, and military building will always absorb the energies
of our chief writers, and in them we can see the more important and
national movements portrayed, and in no small measure explained. But
there are many other ways of pursuing this interesting inquiry, and
one of the most attractive is by the examination of a single type of
building allocated to a special purpose, which can be traced through
succeeding periods, and in which we can see the effect of the larger
changes step by step. These sidepaths of architectural history differ
from one another in their relative interest and importance, and
some lead us only a certain distance, having been deserted by those
generations for whom they have had no further use—the blind alleys of
a former pilgrimage. Others, however, continue with us to the present
day, and furnish in their history a complete and connected story of
ancient and modern times.
One of the most complete series of buildings in our own country is
furnished by those familiar groups of cottages which we know as
almshouses, and which persist even at the present time, impatient
though we be of the early traditions with which they are linked. The
claims that the almshouse makes upon our attention and our interest
are very many. Yet beyond the occasional sketch or monograph, and the
modest note in a town or county history, these beautiful buildings have
received little of the study and appreciation which they deserve.
From the time of the Norman kings and in almost all the succeeding
years the almshouse, or its ancient precursor the hospital, has
handed down to us the most charming specimens of the domestic
architecture of each period. More than that, the almshouse, being
essentially a home for a number of people, furnishes us with examples
of the grouping of several units of building and of the methods of
composition and arrangement which were successively in vogue. Nor was
it merely a domestic structure even after the secularising influence
of the monastic dissolution, for in the majority of cases it had its
chapel—reminding us of the private chapels which were once in every
mansion—and again it partook of the nature of a public building with
its common rooms and dining hall. The very nature of the almshouse and
the perpetuity of its endowment was a safeguard against the careless
destruction to which private property is so often subject, and the
humble station of its occupants averted the ruthless hand of the
“improver” until the lamented advent of the Charity Commissioners.
This same humble conservatism has preserved for us in many cases that
most notable mediæval idea of community of living, which was of the
essence of monasticism, and the little families or societies, each
with its warden, brethren, and sisters, have not yet been wholly swept
away, but survive here and there in the very homes which saw their
first gathering. With the persistence of the idea remain also many of
the objects which were most intimately connected with its ritual or
ceremonial: the courtyard with its gatehouses to isolate and defend
it, the cloister and the chapel for common life and worship, beside
such insignia and furniture as its gowns and corporate seal, its plate,
stained glass, pictures, and books. In a hundred different details
we can recognise the wonderful story of the past which has not quite
died in the midst of the present. Here is the history of an important
institution which, in its successive modification or development,
and in the gradual secularisation of its early character, provides a
running commentary on English social life. It is also the history
of an interesting type of building which in the beauty and variety
of its forms provides a significant index to the changing modes of
architecture and the allied arts.
The pre-Reformation hospital, maison-dieu, bedehouse, or almshouse
has had a careful and generally well-informed historian in Miss R. M.
Clay, whose work entitled _English Mediæval Hospitals_ was published
by Messrs. Methuen in their Antiquary’s Library. Miss Clay’s work is
valuable in its examination of the typical life of the hospital and of
its status as compared with the monastic institutions of the Church;
but beyond the interesting glimpses which she gives into the customs
of this earlier period we are still without a proper comparative
study of the whole subject. As is so often the case with a settled
institution of this kind, the architectural problem contains the key
to many outstanding features of its constitution, and until a complete
collection of plans is available we shall not have the material for
an exhaustive history. Happily, however, enough is known to allow
an intelligible outline to be drawn, in which it is probable that
most of the examples will be found ultimately to have their place.
In the present paper I shall attempt to set down this outline only
in its barest form, making of it a slight introduction to a note on
the Jacobean hospital of Archbishop Abbot at Guildford, and a further
comment on the types which followed the buildings here illustrated.
The aim and purpose of the mediæval almshouse—to afford rest and help
to the needy traveller, the sick, and the aged—was an essentially
Christian idea, and was from the first definitely associated with the
Church. And, indeed, if it had not been officially identified with the
Church it could not have avoided the influence and direction of the
great spiritual organisation that absorbed the generous impulses of the
period. The monastic orders themselves were at first the chief vehicles
for charity, and the giving of alms being one of the first principles
of Christian life, the nobles and wealthy ecclesiastics seconded
the efforts of the monks by their liberal gifts and constantly open
tables, as we may read in the pages of John Stow and other writers. But
at the same time there were instituted societies of the poor alone,
following in a measure the monastic orders, and endowed by individual
philanthropists. It was not necessary for these men to subscribe to
the vow of poverty (though sometimes required of them), for they were
already destitute, and dependent entirely upon the charity of their
founders, and no doubt this very circumstance made their foundations
have a more deeply religious aspect in the eyes of the mediæval
Church. Thus we find the first hospitals formed into small companies
of brethren, each with a master or chaplain elected from their number,
each clothed with a special gown and under some rule of religious
observance.
F. T. Dollman in his _Examples of Domestic Architecture_ (1858) was
one of the earliest writers to point out the two chief models upon
which the hospital plan was formed. The original type, and that more
convenient for the sick and disabled, followed the plan of the monastic
infirmary—an aisled hall with a chapel generally at the east end,
looking for all practical purposes like the aisled nave of a church
with its chancel. The aisles, or, where they were absent, the two sides
of the nave, formed two dormitories along which were ranged the beds
for the sick, who could thus hear and enjoy the services without rising
from their couch or passing the door of their little cubicles. In large
hospitals the nave was divided into two floors, the chapel being taken
the total height of both, and being divided from them by a double
screen. This may be conveniently termed the dormitory plan, from its
central and distinguishing feature. The hall itself was not, however,
an isolated building, but, like its prototype the infirmary, had its
own outbuildings, its kitchen and stores, occasionally its cloister,
and sometimes a separate master’s house.
[Illustration: FIG. 90.—PLANS OF INFIRMARY TYPES:—BEAMSLEY HOSPITAL,
YORKS; ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, CHICHESTER; THE BEDE HOUSE, HIGHAM FERRERS;
BROWNE’S HOSPITAL, STAMFORD.]
The second method of arrangement was based upon the Carthusian plan
of separate dwellings or cells, generally grouped around a cloister
or courtyard, and this proved not only the most useful provision for
inmates who were not bedridden, but a popular compromise, as it were,
in that it afforded a way of dispensing with the stricter monastic idea
without losing the benefits of communal life. Thus arose the recognised
almshouse plan of post-Reformation days, which persists to our own time.
The dormitory plan seems at first sight a somewhat primitive method,
and the thirteenth-century building of St. Mary’s Hospital, Chichester,
where the almspeople still live under the one wide roof of their great
hall, is looked upon as a singular survival from another age. The idea,
no doubt, in its communal aspect, is a distinctly mediæval one, but a
little reflection will show that it was also a perfectly sound one. Our
hospitals for the sick of the present day have their wards with a large
number of beds side by side, and the up-to-date Rowton lodging-house is
composed of long apartments divided by dwarf partitions into cubicles
not dissimilar to those of the ancient hospitals. Mr. Edward S. Prior
has long shown that the Middle Ages had their own very sound ideas
on sanitation, and there is no reason to believe that these lofty
infirmaries were not perfectly clean and wholesome. For the sick, at
least, they formed practically the only satisfactory arrangement, and
we know that in many foundations the sisterhood was the nursing staff
for the aged and bedridden poor. The greater number of these infirmary
halls have been destroyed. Wigston’s Hospital, Leicester (1513), must
have been a building of wonderful size and beauty with its two storeys
and chapel to the east. Its sister establishment, Trinity Hospital
(“The Newarke”) reconstituted in 1355, the buildings of which still
exist, included a dean, 12 secular canons, 12 vicars, 3 clerks, 6
choristers, 50 poor men, 50 poor women, and 10 nurses. Examples of
surviving halls are to be found in the Bede House, Higham Ferrers
(1423); St. John’s Hospital, Northampton (founded 1140); Browne’s
Hospital, Stamford (c. 1485); St. John’s Hospital, Sherborne (1437);
St. Mary Magdalene’s, Glastonbury (thirteenth century); St. Nicholas,
Salisbury (1214); St. Saviour’s, Wells (1436). The beautiful hospital
of St. Giles, Norwich, called also the Great Hospital (founded 1246),
with its cloister and master’s house, is attached to the church of St.
Helen, part of the latter being divided up into wards after the ancient
manner, the women in the Eagle ward (the chancel) to the east, and the
men in the nave towards the west. Browne’s Hospital, Stamford, has a
fine “audit” room over the dormitory which occupies the usual position
west of the chapel. (See plan, p. 221.)
[Illustration: FIG. 91.—QUADRANGLE, LEICESTER’S HOSPITAL, WARWICK.]
[Illustration: FIG. 92.—GREAT CHAMBER, WHITGIFT HOSPITAL.
_Drawn by W. H. Godfrey._]
The examples of the second type of plan—the group of separate dwellings
round a courtyard—date chiefly from the fifteenth century and onwards.
Courtyards and quadrangular forms of building had, of course, been
connected with the dormitory type, for this was the recognised method
of mediæval planning (_cf._ Browne’s Hospital, Stamford, and St. Cross,
Winchester), but the new quadrangle was a departure in principle from
the older plan, and, as noted above, it followed the establishments
of the Carthusian order. An early instance of a new foundation with
quadrangle and cloister walk is the well-known hospital at Ewelme
(Oxon), founded by the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk—the latter a
granddaughter of Geoffrey Chaucer—in 1434. Here the almshouses are
situated close to the parish church, to which they are connected by a
passage at the tower, and, as the south aisle was specially allocated
to the brethren, the presence of a separate chapel was rendered
unnecessary. The second of the two foundations connected with the Great
Hospital of St. Cross seems to have been responsible for the beautiful
stone cottages which still stand, having been probably erected by
Cardinal Beaufort in 1445, and here the noble church of the older
hospital performs the function of the chapel. With St. Cross should
be compared such foundations as the Vicar’s Close at Wells (which has
many similarities to the almshouse or hospital) and the colleges of
chantry priests, one at least of which—the college at Cobham in Kent
(1362)—was in 1597 converted into an almshouse proper under the title
of New College. Occasionally the quadrangle was so small as to be
scarcely more than an “area” in the building, each room of which was
the home of a different occupant. Such is Ford’s Hospital, Coventry
(1529), commonly called the Grey Friars, a specimen of Gothic woodwork
which has often been illustrated on account of its great richness.
Timber-built almshouses are not infrequent, and the Earl of Leicester’s
fine hospital at Warwick (1571) has a quadrangular plan of two storeys,
each with a graceful cloister of wooden arcading.
[Illustration: FIG. 93.—LEICESTER’S HOSPITAL, WARWICK.]
[Illustration: FIG. 94.—LEICESTER’S HOSPITAL.
_Drawn by W. H. Godfrey._]
These hospitals with their separate dwellings show many minor
differences of plan. A dining hall, a “great chamber” or common room,
and a kitchen, were often included in the range of buildings or were
annexed to it. The gatehouse or simple gateway, the master’s rooms,
the muniment room, and the outside staircases, gave opportunity for
variation in grouping; and the hospital chapel, when present, invested
the whole block with its chief distinction. At Warwick the hospital
has the use of the old Guild Chapel over the west town-gate that still
survives.
The influence of the Reformation was most decidedly in favour of
those institutions which, like the last considered, adopted only
semi-monastic customs. Prejudice against the monasteries had sunk
too deep to allow of the older establishments remaining unharmed,
and many were reconstituted so as to conform to the later ideas.
The independence of thought fostered by the Reformation, and the
individualism which directed the Renaissance, both made for the
confirmation and extension of the system of separate dwellings.
Occasionally we get a reversion to the old type, as in the curious
little building of Beamsley Hospital, Yorks (1593), which is circular,
the chapel being in the middle and lighted by a clerestory, while seven
cubicles surrounding it form an ambulatory, very much like the circular
aisle of the nave to the Temple Church. (See plan, p. 221.) Exceptions
though there may be, the principle of community of interest remained
sufficiently familiar to the people in their trade guilds and companies
to prevent their dispensing with the hospital idea and substituting
what in modern times we call outdoor relief. So the incorporated
hospital continued, and quadrangles were still planned, but now in the
manner of the courtyards of the rapidly advancing domestic architecture
of the day.
[Illustration: FIG. 95.—WHITGIFT HOSPITAL.
_Plan by W. H. Godfrey._]
[Illustration: FIG. 96.—ABBOT’S HOSPITAL.]
The dissolution of the monasteries had made the necessity for
almshouses even greater than it had been before, and we find that
the problem of the poor had assumed serious proportions by the
reign of Elizabeth, and led to a great increase in the number of
hospitals. They continued to become augmented, and the records of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are crowded with the names
of the new foundations. The Whitgift Hospital, Croydon (1597); Jesus
Hospital, Lyddington (1602); Sackville College, East Grinstead (1608);
Weekley Hospital, Northants (1611); Chipping Campden (1612); the three
hospitals of the Earl of Northampton—Trinity Hospital, Greenwich
(1613); Trinity Hospital, Castle Rising (1614); and Trinity Hospital,
Clun (1614)—Coningsby Hospital, Hereford (1614); Eyre’s Hospital,
Salisbury (1617); Abbot’s Hospital, Guildford (1619); Wyatt’s Hospital,
Godalming (1622); Penrose Almshouses, Barnstaple (1627); and Jesus
Hospital, Bray (1627)—these are a few of the interesting buildings of
about the time of James I., and the Guildford example is in many ways
typical of them all, although the contemporary enthusiasm for design
found in them wide opportunities for variation. Archbishop Abbot
had before him the fine example of his predecessor, John Whitgift,
whose hospital at Croydon attracted wide notice, if we are to believe
the contemporary testimony of John Stow, and probably Whitgift’s
work inspired many of the later benefactors to imitate him. The two
buildings are curiously similar in plan, although there is a marked
difference in their architectural treatment, the work at Guildford
being more pretentious than that of the earlier hospital. In both cases
the administrative block or rather that containing the principal and
common apartments, was placed on the side opposite to the entrance with
its gatehouse, the cottages of the pensioners occupying the rest of
the courtyard. In this they were following in effect the usual plan of
the larger country houses of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
the same rooms being provided in the main block as were required for
private occupation, while the usual quarters of the domestic staff are
here transferred to the almspeople. The common hall or dining-room
occupied a position near the centre—at Croydon to the left, and at
Guildford to the right of the passage and archway into the gardens. In
each building the kitchen is placed in the extreme left-hand corner,
and the chapel in a similar position to the right. The house of the
warden or master, however, is at Croydon placed over the common hall
and kitchen, and contains the “audience” or great chamber as its
principal apartment, whereas at Guildford the master occupies a part
of the street front, the great chamber (called here the library) being
placed, as before, over the hall.
[Illustration: FIG. 97.—ABBOT’S HOSPITAL. COURTYARD.]
[Illustration: FIG. 98.—ABBOT’S HOSPITAL. LOWER HALL.]
[Illustration: FIG. 99.—ABBOT’S HOSPITAL. UPPER HALL.]
Abbot’s Hospital provides for some twenty-five inmates, including the
master, as compared with forty at Whitgift; but, as already remarked,
it is more ambitious in its architectural treatment. The quadrangle
is entered by a fine brick tower with four octagonal turrets, in the
centre of the street front. The tower is of three storeys, and like
the rest of the building is of brick with stone dressings, the turrets
being taken up a good height above the parapet, and finished with
excellent lead-covered cupolas, and vanes. The two opposite lateral
blocks which enclose the courtyard are projected towards the street to
form wings, and are finished with Dutch gables. The windows on the
ground and first floors vary from four to five lights in width and
are divided by transomes. The quadrangle itself is quietly treated; a
shallow stepped gable on the side opposite to the tower gives space for
a clock and a tablet below is inscribed with the name of the founder,
while an octagonal cupola is raised above the roof. Perhaps the finest
external features are the cut brick chimney-stacks with separate
octagonal shafts and finely moulded caps and bases. The internal
work in the chief rooms and in the master’s house is of a sumptuous
character, and points to the fact that Archbishop Abbot—like Whitgift
before him—intended as much to leave a “monument of his own time”
behind him as a noble work of charity. The Jacobean fan-treatment of
the doorways is very well executed, and all the woodwork is substantial
and well made. Both the hall and the great chamber above—the latter of
which is panelled—have good chimneypieces and overmantels, and there is
much excellent furniture.
In this self-contained and well-appointed building is housed a little
community which differs very slightly from those of the pre-Reformation
hospitals. The ideas of the early part of the seventeenth century
have relaxed the severity of the monastic rule somewhat, and have
given to the architectural features much of the new character of
the Renaissance. Enough, however, of the old conception, both of
establishment and of fabric, remains to link it definitely with its
predecessors, and to witness to the continuity of the old conception of
a charitable refuge for the poor.
[Illustration: FIG. 100.—ABBOT’S HOSPITAL, DETAIL OF DOOR.
_Drawn by Sydney A. Newcombe._]
Further illustration of this fact can be adduced from the large number
of similar examples found in the succeeding periods. In whatever
age the almshouse was built the idea was recognised as perennially
“old-fashioned,” and the style of its architecture is therefore
inevitably of a somewhat earlier character than seems warranted by its
actual date. Each builder in turn raised his building intentionally
in a somewhat antique manner, and as the seventeenth century advanced
the Jacobean detail gave way very slowly before the new fashions of the
later Renaissance. The gatehouse disappeared, but the gateway remained;
the street front and its two wings assumed the Queen Anne treatment
of heavy cornice and hipped roofs. The cloistered arcade, which in
Christ’s Hospital, Abingdon (1553), and Penrose Almshouses, Barnstaple
(1627), had been placed in front of the buildings, reverted to the
manner of Ewelme (1434) and surrounded the inner court as at Bromley
College (1666) and Morden College, Blackheath (1695). The chapel was
placed generally in the centre of the farther side of the square, and
projected from it, or stood alone at the end of the perspective of two
lines of cottages as at Trinity Ground, Mile End (1695). The simple row
of almshouses, too, which existed at all periods for smaller buildings,
was developed and often cleverly grouped on either side of the central
feature of the chapel, as at Colfe’s Almshouses, Lewisham (1664). The
variations in the style of the architecture are unending, and numerous
features such as heraldic shields, sundials, cupolas, stone terraces,
stained glass, statuary, furniture, are scattered about them, here in
profusion, there in fewer number, but none the less tasteful and in
keeping. A few examples occur to one at random in addition to those
just mentioned:—Ingram’s Hospital, York (1640); Smyth’s Almshouses,
Maidenhead (1659); Lucas’s Hospital, Wokingham (1663); Corsham
Almshouses (1668); Kirkleatham Hospital, Yorks (1676); Jesus Hospital,
Newcastle (1681); Collegium Matrarum, Salisbury (1682); Winwood’s
Almshouses, Quainton (1687); Hall’s Almshouses, Bradford-on-Avon
(1700); Fishmongers’ Almshouses, Yarmouth (1702); Trinity Almshouses,
Salisbury (1702); Collins’s Almshouses, Nottingham (1709); Christ’s
Hospital (second building, 1718) and Tompkin’s Almshouses, Abingdon
(1733); Somerset Hospital, Petworth (1746); and Millington’s Hospital,
Shrewsbury (1748). Several of these names are well-known, and will
recall to the reader’s mind the character of the almshouse that
obtained until the middle of the eighteenth century. There has been
no lack of similar buildings since, but they have suffered from the
general decline in the art of building. They have also revived with
the renewed interest of the present day in the old methods, and they
compete, and will still compete, successfully with the scattered
cottage homes which are for the moment in vogue. The virtue in the old
ideas, whether in the economy and beauty afforded to the buildings or
in the charm and usefulness of the little close community, has not
gone away. An institution that has stood the test of 800 years, and
has weathered the storms of such varied social changes, is bound to
live and flourish for many years to come, and it is to be hoped that
the original examples, weatherworn, but with the beauty of age and of
their time-honoured usefulness upon them, will be preserved to show the
future the triumphs of their modest excellence.
The foregoing is but an imperfect little sketch of a subject which
is of wide interest and endless fascination. Sir Christopher Wren
well understood the significance of the idea, and with his customary
skill he has given us a fine interpretation of its beauty in his Royal
Hospital at Chelsea. Here is a good starting point for the Londoner,
from which he may trace the story backwards.
—W. H. G.
THE FRIARS AS
BUILDERS
[Illustration: FIG. 101.—BLACKFRIARS, NORWICH.]
XV.
THE FRIARS AS BUILDERS.
THE LONDON HOUSES OF BLACKFRIARS AND WHITEFRIARS.
The mendicant orders as a factor in the history and development of
English Gothic have not only never received the recognition they
deserve, but their building activity has been left in the almost
complete oblivion to which the iconoclasts of the Reformation did their
best to consign it. The general interest in the friars has been centred
entirely in their history, in the eventful lives of their founders,
and in the vast influence which they exercised upon the main currents
of mediæval life. Consequently, while the general reader is well
acquainted with the figures of St. Francis or St. Dominic, he is often
entirely unaware of any connection between them and their followers on
the one hand, and the course of English architecture upon the other.
The nature and aims of the mendicant orders rendered it almost
essential for their convents to be placed either in or near the great
towns, and the presence of so many quarries of worked stone was a
circumstance unlikely to be long neglected by the townsmen of Tudor and
Stuart times, whose utilitarianism was no whit less developed than that
of the present day. Consequently the continued existence (with one or
two exceptions) of any fragment of friars’ architecture is as purely
fortuitous as the survival of any fragment of domestic architecture of
the same date.
As a whole the mendicants present so marked a divergence from the older
orders of monks and canons that their buildings are stamped with a very
definite and striking individuality. These divergences were, indeed,
so intimate as to make the study of them essential to the proper
understanding of the architecture they produced.
In sharp distinction to the Benedictines or Cistercians, who were
continually adding “house to house and field to field,” the friars were
forbidden by their rule to own any property. As their name “mendicants”
implies, they were to be beggars, receiving alms only in the form
of food, shelter, or clothing, the rule of St. Francis expressly
prohibiting the acceptance of money or land, and thus in its original
simplicity reducing their architectural opportunities to a minimum,
or, rather, rendering them non-existent. The severities of the rule
were, however, early evaded, the later practice being for the convent
and precinct to be vested in some outside authority, such as the
Corporation of the town or the Bishop of the diocese, to hold in trust
for the friars in perpetuity, thus keeping the letter while breaking
the spirit of the rule. How slight a check it was eventually to prove
upon their building activities was early evinced by the magnificent
convent of San Francesco at Assisi, which rose around the tomb of the
founder under the supervision of his immediate successor. Nevertheless,
the general system of non-endowment remained largely in force until the
end, and in Henry VIII.’s Visitation the majority of friaries returned
the estimated annual value of their convent site and buildings as their
sole possession.
Considering the fact that at the Dissolution of the Monasteries
the friars numbered over two hundred houses in England and Wales,
their architectural remains are neither important nor impressive,
and in most cases require searching for; but while they in no case
display the massive and imposing memorials of the earlier orders,
they are nevertheless of no mean interest to the student of mediæval
architecture.
Preaching, while pre-eminently the characteristic of the Dominicans,
nevertheless figured largely amongst the duties of the other three
orders, and was undoubtedly responsible for the imposing dimensions to
which many of their churches ultimately attained.
The mendicant orders being primarily preachers, the first building to
be erected (especially in England, where the climatic conditions were
inimical to regular open-air preaching) was the church built in the
main for that object, and consequently as near as possible to the main
street. Proximity to the chief thoroughfare bordering their site will
be found almost invariably to determine the position of the friars’
church. This is well exemplified in the convents of the London friars:
thus the Franciscan church adjoined Newgate Street with the cloister
on the north, the Carmelite was approached from Fleet Street with the
domestic buildings on the south, and the Austin Friars fronted Broad
Street with the cloister again upon the north. It will be seen that the
time-honoured custom of placing the cloister and domestic buildings on
the south of the nave for protection from the wind is no longer the
governing feature of the plan.
In the churches of the English friars a marked peculiarity is at once
apparent in the general absence of the transept—a large aisled nave,
an aisleless choir with a belfry between, is the usual and typical
form. In a few cases, such as the Austin Friars, Warrington, and the
Franciscans at Richmond (Yorkshire), a transept is added on the side
opposite the domestic buildings, but the presence of both arms of the
cross is very rare. In the Irish friaries the one-armed transept is
more the rule than the exception, but here again the complete cross is
almost unknown.
The nave of the average canons’ or monks’ church is divided into two
unequal parts by a solid screen or pulpitum, against which, on the
east, stood the choir stalls, occupying two, three, or more bays of
the structural nave, the rest being used for processions, chapels, and
as a general burial-place for the lesser patrons of the establishment.
In the friars’ churches all the available floor-space was required for
the congregation, and consequently the stalls were removed into the
structural choir, and in place of the solid stone screens of the older
orders a steeple was built pierced by two narrow openings at the base,
practically shutting the stalls off from the nave.
The finest remaining examples of the English preaching nave are
the Austin Friars, London (153 ft. by 83 ft.), and the Dominican
Church, Norwich, now St. Andrew’s Hall (124 ft. by 64 ft.). Both are
distinguished by great space and openness, the former being amongst the
broadest churches in the country.
In the centre of the typical English friars’ church stood the belfry,
which formed its most original and distinctive feature. The friars’
tower was apparently a spontaneous innovation amongst the English
mendicants, for there is no evidence that it was either borrowed from
Continental sources or copied from other orders at home.
It appears to have been customary for each house of friars to have but
one great bell, for though there are instances of two being hung in the
steeple, yet the friaries of London, according to Stow, had only one
each, and it is evident that this peculiarity was largely instrumental
in deciding the unusual form which the steeple assumed.
Situated between the choir and the nave, the steeple rested on two
parallel walls which ran north and south across the church, and were
pierced by two main arches opposite one another opening respectively
into the nave and choir; these walls were placed close together,
generally some ten feet apart, thus forming an oblong space under the
crossing. Between them and high above the arches before mentioned two
lesser arches were thrown across the open space (sometimes dying away
into the walls and sometimes resting upon corbels projecting from them)
to carry the north and south walls of the tower above.
The building in most cases was so arranged that the outside faces of
the north and south tower walls were in a line with the inside faces of
the piers of the two arches opening into the nave and choir, the lower
voussoirs of which thus supported the whole weight of the cross walls
above them. The oblong thus became a square, and by this arrangement
it was possible to raise a small stone tower in the centre of the
church, while at the same time retaining the two arched openings
between the nave and the choir.
Upon this base a light stone or brick lantern was raised, which in
England was generally octagonal in form, but in Ireland invariably
square, the additional number of worked quoin stones required for
the former plan being probably the reason for its rejection in the
poorer country. Occasionally the tower was finished with a stone
spire, but as a rule any addition in that direction was of timber
only. A good example, however, occurs at Coventry in the central
tower of the Franciscan Church (the sole remnant of that house), and
as now incorporated in the modern Christ Church, it forms one of the
trio of spires for which the City of Coventry is famous. The Grey
Friars’ tower at Lynn Regis, Norfolk, is again the sole remnant of the
convent of which it formed a part, and is a brick and stone building
of Perpendicular date, octagonal, and finished with a battlemented
parapet. This town is also singular in having formerly possessed two
parish churches, with octagonal central towers. Now, though octagonal
upper stages are comparatively common, especially in the eastern
counties, instances of the whole tower of this shape are very rare;
and since the Lynn examples were probably copied from one or other of
the four friaries of the town, it is not extravagant to surmise that
it was the mendicants who first introduced the octagonal form into
England. At Richmond, Yorkshire, stands the only other friars’ tower
which has survived; this, however, is of a more ordinary type. It is
a beautifully proportioned square structure, with belfry windows, and
a pierced parapet of Perpendicular work, and was evidently only just
completed at the Reformation, when the whole church was in course of
reconstruction.
Dunbar contains the only example of a typical friars’ steeple in
Scotland, the Carmelite tower of South Street, Queensferry, being of
the more ordinary type; but in Ireland a remarkable series is still
standing, including among its numbers the celebrated ruins of Quinn,
Ennis, Clare, Galway, Rosserk, Drogheda, and Athenry.
The space beneath the tower was commonly continued in the form of a
passage right across the church, and served as the chief means of
communication between the cloister and the outside world.
Turning now to the choir of the friars’ churches: they were usually
aisleless parallelograms, and almost always square ended. Their chief
feature will be found to be the magnificent proportions of the windows.
The choir of the Dominicans at Norwich has a magnificent Decorated east
window of seven lights; the Franciscans of Chichester another, with
five graduated lancets under one hood; and even a small house like the
Austin Friars at Rye had an east window (now built up) of imposing
dimensions.
The apsidal termination usual on the Continent has one example in
this country in the Grey Friars at Winchelsea, a fourteenth-century
structure, and a very graceful example of Decorated work. A wide
chancel arch, with banded sideshafts, opened from the nave (which has
now gone), into the choir of four bays, with a three-sided apse, each
face of which is pierced with a tall Decorated window. A Scotch example
of very similar type exists in the Dominicans at St. Andrews, but in
this instance the apse belonged to a side chapel and is much smaller
in all its dimensions. The stone vault remains in part, and, like its
Sussex counterpart, it is the sole remaining fragment of the church.
In both these instances the use of the apsidal end may be ascribed to
French influence, which was particularly strong in the Cinque Ports at
this time, owing to the French wars of Edward III.
Adjoining the church, in some instances, lay an open yard provided with
an outside pulpit either for overflow meetings or for more general
use in the heat of the summer. The space outside the Dominican Church
at Norwich was long known as the “Preaching Yard,” and the beautiful
octagonal stone pulpit cross formerly outside the west front of the
church of the same order at Hereford remains intact. It is, now,
perhaps, the only remaining example of such a structure in England—an
existing counterpart to the rich cross “y-tight with tabernacles” of
Pierce Ploughman’s Creed.
Two unusual features distinguish the planning of the domestic buildings
of a friary—the first an emphasis upon the secular nature of most of
the church, the second the result of a necessity for economy.
The cloister of a friary was placed without any general rule, but most
generally it partly adjoined the nave with a portion overlapping the
choir, and when the whole or any part adjoined the nave it was not
unusual to introduce a narrow open court between the church wall and
the cloister walk. The Cistercians had a somewhat similar arrangement
in the “lane” which, in many of their houses, separated the buildings
of the monks from those of the “conversi,” and, in the case of the
mendicant orders the court served to separate the domestic portion of
the house from their public preaching-place. In England this feature,
which occurs in the Black Friars at Norwich, the Franciscan houses at
London and Cardiff and elsewhere, is almost confined to the mendicant
orders, the only other existing example outside their ranks being the
secular cathedral of Salisbury, and here, as in the friars’ houses, a
short corridor communicates between the cloister and the church.
The second noticeable feature in the planning of the domestic buildings
is found in the general practice of building the first-floor apartments
over one, two, or more walks of the cloister, effecting by this means
an economy both in wall masonry and in the flat lead roofing of the
cloister alleys. Examples of this treatment are very numerous, and
occur in all parts of the country. Thus, at Hulne, Northumberland, two
alleys were built over—the east and west. At Norwich Black Friars and
Dunwich Grey Friars one or more walks are similarly treated, while
the Walsingham Franciscans apparently built their frater half over
the south walk of the great cloister and half over the north walk of
the little cloister. That lack of funds was the chief cause of this
somewhat niggardly arrangement is rendered more certain by the fact
that the only other order in which it occurs—the Gilbertine—was the
most poorly endowed of all the older communities.
Turning now from the subject of the actual structure and arrangement
of the friars’ houses the larger question arises: What influence, if
any, had all this mass of building upon the outside world, and upon
the architecture practised among the people at large? It may be safely
postulated at the outset that the influence exercised by the friars
will be found, firstly and most definitely, in the structure of the
parish church and, in its earliest manifestations, in the parish church
of _the towns_, for not only were they the nearest ecclesiastical
neighbours, but the objects served by each class of buildings were,
within certain limits, identical.
The great towns of England during the twelfth and early thirteenth
centuries were split up into a very large number of parishes, each
with its church, and as the town enlarged its borders or multiplied
its population, additional churches were built to supply its increased
needs. London, even in the time of Fitzstephen (_temp._ Henry II.),
had 120 parish churches; Norwich, at a little later date, had over
forty; Lincoln twenty or more; Winchester a dozen; and a small town
like St. Albans five. The practice was evidently at this period to meet
the demand for increased accommodation, _not_ by enlarging existing
churches but by building new ones. The average town church of the
Norman period was, comparatively speaking, of small dimensions and
limited accommodation, and in London, with hardly an exception, they
remained to the end architecturally insignificant, solely because their
numbers were such as to meet all possible demands that could be made
upon them.
[Illustration: FIG. 102.—PLAN OF AUSTIN FRIARS, LONDON.
_Drawn by A. W. Clapham._]
The period of the greatest architectural activity of the friars may be
dated to the last quarter of the thirteenth and the first quarter of
the fourteenth centuries, or, roughly, to the reigns of the first two
Edwards, and by about the middle of this period they had evolved a type
of church which for its purpose was as nearly perfect as experience and
experiment could make it. The comfort of the largest congregation was
secured by an ample floor-space, while the heavy piers of the older
buildings had given way to the lofty and slender columns of the Austin
Friars at London, only just large enough for structural stability and
leaving an almost uninterrupted view of the preacher from all parts of
the church.
The culmination and final expression of their views of what a
congregational church should be took form in the great Franciscan
church begun in Newgate Street, London, in 1306, and probably the
largest friars’ church in England. This building, with its 300 ft. of
length, its slender piers, its long range of clerestory, aisle, and
end windows, is a type which is without a parallel of its own date and
outside its own order as the expression of a new and original idea in
church building, departing equally from the insignificant dimensions
of the contemporary parish church and the massive and cavernous
construction of the monastic nave.
It is at this precise point that a radical alteration is observable in
the planning of the parish church, an alteration which, in view of its
ultimate results, was almost revolutionary.
The old idea of the multiplication of the small town churches is
suddenly and for no apparent reason abandoned, and the single church
of huge dimensions takes its place. It is not asserted that, previous
to this date, there were no large buildings of this class, but such as
already existed were almost entirely in country districts, and with
their cruciform shape and central tower they were evidently inspired by
the monastic churches of the older orders.
An examination of the plan of one of the towns which rose into
prominence in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries will reveal a
remarkable and striking contrast when compared with that of one of the
older towns. In the former case one or two parishes embrace the whole
city, while in the latter it is subdivided into ten, twenty, thirty,
or more, and while _the one_ has perhaps a single parish fane which
dominates the town, _the other_ has towers and spires rising on every
hand.
[Illustration: FIG. 103.—PLAN OF GREYFRIARS, LONDON.]
[Illustration: FIG. 104.—PREACHING CROSS, BLACKFRIARS, HEREFORD.]
The outset of the new regime may perhaps be definitely dated to the
foundation by Edward I. of several new towns, of which Hull in the
north, and Winchelsea in the south, are the best-known examples, and in
each of these places a single great church is deemed sufficient for the
needs of the whole town.
It would be easy to multiply examples. The great port of Boston or the
trading centre of Newark, whose prosperity dates from the fourteenth
century, each built for themselves a single church on an almost
cathedral scale, and in the same sequence are ranged most of the great
churches of East Anglia.
The new type of church is one having the great open nave, the long
ranges of windows, and the slender piers which became so general in the
Perpendicular period. They are, in fact, copies of the great friars’
churches which immediately preceded them. The friars originated and
perfected the type which in the fulness of time was accepted and
adopted by the parish church builder as the best and most suitable
structure for his purpose which had yet been evolved.
The church of the Holy Trinity, Hull, the forerunner of the new
movement, provides an additional element of probability to the theory.
Founded by Edward I., and built under the auspices of his son, it had
in both its royal parents a close relationship to the great Franciscan
church of London, erected through the bounty of the wife of the one
and the step-mother of the other, and it is not improbable that the
personal element was brought to bear on the design of the later
building with far-reaching results.
Once the new idea had taken root under royal patronage it rapidly
spread over England, and in the next century some even of the old town
churches were rebuilt in the then prevailing style, and it is perhaps
not too much to say that the great Perpendicular parish church, of
which there are so many noble examples, is the direct outcome and
lineal descendant of the friars’ buildings, which have unfortunately
so nearly disappeared.
[Illustration: FIG. 105.—BLACKFRIARS, LONDON.
_Plan by A. W. Clapham._]
BLACKFRIARS, LONDON.
Blackfriars to the modern Londoner is as familiar a title as that
of any part in the City, and to all frequenters of Fleet Street the
district of Whitefriars must be little less familiar. Yet the homes
of the Dominicans and the Carmelites, their churches and the numerous
buildings within their precincts, have disappeared so completely that
it is doubtful if the majority of people who daily use their names
have any intelligent idea of the origin of the terms. And even for
those who have given thought to the subject there has been no definite
description of the buildings such as would enable them to reconstruct
in their minds the great monastic establishments of the two orders. It
is possible, however, from various sources to draw out with tolerable
accuracy the plans of the houses of the Blackfriars and the Whitefriars
and to ascertain the accurate position of all their principal
apartments. The arrangements of the Blackfriars has an additional
interest in that the Guest House is still exactly defined by the Hall
of the Apothecaries’ Company, and the Upper Frater which lay across the
entrance to Printing House Square served not only as the Parliament
House in the reign of Henry VIII. but was later converted into the
celebrated Blackfriars Theatre.
The priory of the Dominican or Black Friars in London was founded in
1221 on a site to the south of Holborn and east of Chancery Lane. In
1274, however, a new site was given them on the north bank of the
Thames, just east of the Fleet ditch. This necessitated the pulling
down of that part of the city wall south of Ludgate, and a new wall was
built running eastwards from the gate and turning south to the river
within the Fleet. It appears that the church was not begun until 1279.
Although there is little documentary information regarding the
buildings before the Dissolution, it is some evidence of their
importance that the meetings of Privy Councils were held here during
the first part of Henry VI.’s reign, and that three Parliaments met
here in 1450, 1523–4, and 1529. The Emperor Charles V. lodged in the
Guest House in 1522, and a gallery was built by Henry VIII. to connect
his apartments with Bridewell Palace, where his train was accommodated.
In 1529 the King’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon was tried in the
“Parliament Chamber,” Henry VIII. and his queen being in residence in
Bridewell.
In an anonymous fourteenth-century Wickliffite lampoon upon the friars,
entitled _Pierce the Ploughman’s Creed_, there is a long passage which
refers almost certainly to the London house of the Blackfriars, since,
whenever the details can be tested, they are found to be accurate. As
the lines are not only of peculiar interest from their remarkably vivid
description of a great friary in its architectural prime, but also from
their containing the most graphic purely architectural description in
the whole range of English mediæval literature, a free rendering of
them is quoted below:—
Then thought I to question the first of these four orders,
And pressed to the Preachers to make proof of their will;
I hied to their house to learn more about them,
And when I came to their Court I gazed all about.
Such a boldly built pile on earthly heights
Certain, I have not seen for a long time.
I thought on that house and long thereon looked,
How the pillars were painted and finely adorned
And quaintly were carven with curious knots,
With windows well wrought, lofty and wide.
Then entered I in and went all about,
And everywhere there were walls around the dwelling
With posterns for passing privately whenever they list,
Orchards and arbours arranged with neatness,
And a curious cross craftily constructed
With tabernacles encircled facing all sides—
The price of a ploughland in pennies so round
To adorn that pillar were little indeed.
Then I gat me forth to look at the Church,
And found it well and wonderfully built,
With arches on each side, embellished and carven
With crockets on their angles and knots of gold.
The wide windows all wrought with numberless writings
Shining with shapely shields to make a display,
With merchants’ marks all figured between,
To the number of more than twice two and twenty
(There is no herald that hath half such a roll),
And newly set out as if by a Ragman.
Tombs upon tabernacles raised up aloft,
Railed in with iron, with many an effigy
In armour, of alabaster, seemingly clad;
Laid upon marble in divers manners,
Were knights now clothed in their martial dress—
All, it seemed, saints who were sacred on earth!—
And lovely carved ladies lay by their sides
In many gay garments that were beaten gold;
Though the taxes of ten years were truly gathered
It could not make half that church, I trow.
Then came I to the Cloister and gazed about
How it was pillared and painted and carved so well,
All roofed with lead low on the stones
And paved with painted tiles, one after another,
With conduits of clean tin, closed all about,
Washing basins wrought of shining latten;
I trow the price of the ground in a great shire
Would not apparel that place from beginning to end.
Then was the Chapter House wrought like a great church,
Carven and roofed and curiously constructed,
With a beautiful ceiling set up aloft,
Like a Parliament-house all painted about.
Then fared I to the Frater and found there again
A hall for a great king, to hold his household,
With broad tables and benches beautifully furnished,
And windows of glass, wrought like a church.
Then walked I further and went all about,
And saw halls full high and houses full noble,
Chambers with chimneys, and chapels gay,
And kitchens such as kings may have in castles,
And the Dorter furnished with strong doors;
Farmery and frater with many more houses,
All of strong stone walls raised up on high
With garrets, great and gay, and every window glazed;
And other houses now in which to lodge the queen,
And yet these builders will beg a bag full of wheat
Of a poor man that may, for once, pay
Half his rent in a year and half be behind.
Apart from the general description contained in these lines, the
sources of our information regarding the buildings of the Blackfriars
date from after the Dissolution and are contained in certain grants
of property, and some surveys of the time of Edward VI., the latter
preserved at Loseley, near Guildford. From these it is possible to
reconstruct the greater part of the Friary, an outline of which is
given below.
The position of the Church is determined by the Cloister, the east walk
of which is now marked by the passage called Church Entry, and its
western range of buildings by the Apothecaries’ Hall. The name “Church
Entry” points fairly conclusively to the usual passage between the nave
and chancel—passing north and south beneath the steeple—that has been
already referred to as characteristic of the friars’ plans. The nave
with its two aisles measured some 114 feet by 60 feet internally, and
alongside its northern aisle at the west end was the Lady Chapel, which
increased the width of the west front to 90 feet externally. There is
a record of this chapel as early as 1437; but from the will of Robert
Castell we gather that it had been rebuilt by Lady Ingoldsthorpe,
who died in 1494, sister of John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester (“the
Butcher”), who was executed in 1470. The occasion of the rebuilding may
have been the interment of his body, and beside him was later buried
the headless body of James Touchet, Lord Audley, who suffered death at
the hands of the executioner in 1497.
The steeple between the nave and choir, called in the grant to Sir
Thomas Cawarden (1550) “the Campanile,” is shown in the view of London
by Van der Wyngaerde. Polygonal in form, and with pinnacled parapet and
spire, it obviously followed the same model as those still to be seen
at Coventry and Lynn.
The choir, in all probability aisleless, measured 90 feet from east
to west, making six bays. The great cloister (110 feet square) lay to
the south of the Church, and, unlike the general practice among the
friars, its walks were roofed and not built over. The description in
_Pierce the Ploughman’s Creed_ is borne out by the surveys at Loseley,
and there is little doubt that the poet’s admiration was well founded.
Some curious particulars of burials in the cloister are preserved.
In the will of Sir Robert Southwell, Knight, dated 1514, is a desire
to be buried “in the Cloister of the Friars Preachers in the city of
London, under or near the Lavatory there nigh to the picture of the
holy Crucifix there set.” In his further directions he says: “I will
that that friar of the same place, appointed daily for the work to say
there the mass of the Trinity, by the space of xx years next after my
decease say every day a special collect in his mass for my soul, also
de profundis with a pater and ave and crede for my said soul ... at the
said lavatory immediately when the convent of the same place or the
most part of them shall go to dinner. Item I will that that friar being
a priest that first happen to come any day during the said xx years, in
the morning first to the said lavatory to wash his hands and then and
there to say de profundis for the souls before said, have for his so
doing 1d.” Besides this, he desires the prior and sub-prior to say “God
have mercy on my soul every day after dinner,” and awards them 13s. 4d.
a year for the purpose.
Another curious legacy is that of William Stalworth, a citizen and
merchant-tailor, who was also buried in the Cloister, and in his will,
dated 1519, says: “I will that there shall be distributed to the Friars
Preachers every Lent for ten years a barrel of white herrings, and
to the young friars of the same house for the same time a frayle of
fygges.”
The extensive buildings of the Friary lay round the Great Cloister,
and considerably to the south and east. The Chapter House stood in
the centre of the eastern range, and over its vestibule and various
rooms on the ground floor stretched the dorter (or dormitory), which
is described as having a stairway down into the Church. Behind the
northern part of the dorter was the Prior’s lodging,[39] and leading
eastwards from its southern part was a second or south dorter, built
over a vaulted undercroft, remains of which were discovered in 1900.
This last-named appears to have been the Provincial’s lodging, and the
whole building formed the northern range of the Infirmary or Inner
Cloister. The infirmary on the west, the upper and lower libraries on
the east, and the bakehouse and brewhouse on the south completed the
enclosure.
[39] To the prior’s lodging belonged two gardens, described as adjacent
to the lodging called the priory lodging on the east side, and
above the great royal garde-robe, vulgarly called “the King’s great
Wardrobe on the west side thereof, containing by estimation one acre
of land.” These gardens are of considerable interest, as it was in
this neighbourhood that Shakespeare’s house in Blackfriars formerly
stood.—_Archæologia_, vol. LXIII.
Of the Great Cloister the southern range was occupied by the Frater (or
dining hall), and on the east was the Guest House, which, even before
the Dissolution, was let out to tenants. This was the lodging prepared
for Charles V. in 1522, and the porter’s lodge behind marks the point
at which commenced the gallery built by Henry VIII. for the Emperor’s
convenience, between the Guest House and Bridewell. A window appears to
have been formed between the nave of the Church and the Guest rooms,
occupying much the same position as that to be seen at Westminster
Abbey. South of this range and communicating with the Frater were the
Buttery and Kitchen. The Guest House ultimately passed into the hands
of the Apothecaries’ Company (1632), who rebuilt it after the Great
Fire. In size and position, therefore, the present building follows
precisely that which gave shelter to the Emperor Charles V. To the
south of the Kitchen and Buttery was the Chapel of St. Anne, which,
though not a parish church, was no doubt erected for the benefit of the
various lay inhabitants of the precinct. Its site is now occupied by
_The Times_ printing office, and considerable remains came to light in
the course of rebuilding in 1872.
Regarding the “Upper Frater,” which stands still farther south, I will
quote from my contribution to _Archæologia_ (vol. lxiii.):—“The only
buildings now remaining to be noticed formed a block of considerable
size lying to the south-west of the cloister, and quite separate from
the ranges flanking it. The main structure of the group was a building
of such unusual size and obscure designation that it will be necessary
to consider it at some length. Hugh Losse describes it as ‘One house
called the upper frater containeth in length 107 ft. by 52 ft.,
abutting south and east to the Lady Kingston’s house and garden, north
to a hall where the King’s revels lieth at this present and west toward
the Duchy chamber and Mr. Portinary’s house. A void room being an entry
towards the little kitchen and a coal house containing in length 30 ft.
and in breadth 17 ft. One chamber called the Duchy chamber, with a dark
lodging thereunder containing in length 50 ft. and in breadth 16 ft.,
abutting against the north end of the said frater and abutting west
upon Mr. Portinary’s parlour.’
“The mention of Mr. Portinary’s parlour fixes the position of the
whole block, and shows that the Duchy chamber flanked the kitchen yard
(mentioned above) on the south side, for the same parlour is mentioned
as the southern boundary of the yard.
“Setting it out on these lines we find that the eastern wall of the
upper frater must have been the western building line of Printing House
Square, while its southern end is represented approximately by Huish
Court.
“A second description of this building is to be found in a rather
unexpected quarter. In 1597 Sir William More, of Loseley, as executor
to Sir T. Cawarden, sold to James Burbidge a certain great building
with yards and subsidiary structures adjoining, of which the
description in the deed of sale leaves no doubt that it was the upper
frater and its adjoining buildings of the earlier survey.[40] If any
further proof were needed beyond the similarity in description it is
found in the fact that the upper frater is the only available building
once belonging to Sir Thomas Cawarden that his executor could have
sold. The description in the deed is too lengthy and involved to be
quoted in full, but it describes a building three storeys high, the
top floor being formerly one great room with staircases leading up to
it, bounded on the north by the Pipe office and its yard (formerly the
kitchen yard). This was the structure that James Burbidge transformed
into the celebrated Blackfriars Theatre, and a document recently
discovered by Dr. Wallace gives its internal dimensions as 66 ft. by 46
ft.[41] It will be at once seen that the width 46 ft. internal agrees
admirably with the external width of the upper frater, 52 ft., allowing
some 3 ft. for each side wall. The difference in length is accounted
for by the fact that Burbidge did not make use of the whole building,
but divided off the northern part into ante-rooms and apartments for
the children of the chapel, &c., leaving 66 ft. out of 107 ft. for the
theatre itself.[42]
[40] Printed in full in Halliwell-Phillipps’s _Outlines of the Life of
Shakespeare_, Vol. II., p. 299.
[41] Dr. Wallace, _The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_, p. 39.
[42] A drawing in the Gardner Collection, supposed to represent the
front of the theatre, is reproduced in G. P. Baker’s _The Development
of Shakespeare as a Dramatist_. It indicates a classic building with an
open colonnaded portico, but the ascription is doubtful.
“With regard to the monastic use of this building it was obviously not
the common frater of the friars, which here flanked the cloister. There
is, however, one mediæval building, of the existence of which there is
documentary evidence—‘the Parliament Chamber’—which in all probability
is the structure in question. It was the great apartment used for the
sittings of two parliaments of Henry VIII., and which also witnessed
the trial for the divorce of Catherine of Arragon and Henry VIII.
before Cardinals Campeggio and Wolsey.
“The writ of summons for this trial describes it as the ‘Parliament
Chamber near the Friars Preachers.’ The fact that this name is used is
sufficient proof that the great frater of the priory is not referred
to, while the term ‘near’ implies that it was not one of the main block
of the priory buildings grouped round the cloister, but lay somewhere
within the precinct.
“The upper frater will be found to satisfy all the conditions required.
It was the largest hall in the precinct, and a large apartment would be
essential both for the ceremonial of the trial and for the sittings of
Parliament. Secondly, it was situated on the outskirts of the priory
buildings, suiting admirably the description. Thirdly, there is no
record of the existence of any other hall of sufficient dimensions in
a similar situation; and lastly, the small structure adjoining it was
called the Duchy chamber, which argues an official use at some time of
these apartments.
“All things considered, then, there is every likelihood of the identity
of the ‘Parliament Chamber’ with the house called the upper frater and
the Blackfriars Theatre of later times, and we may conclude that when
Shakespeare’s _Henry VIII._ was played at Blackfriars the celebrated
trial scene was acted within the actual walls that witnessed the real
drama that ruined the fortunes of the great cardinal and put an unhappy
termination to Queen Catherine’s married life.”
WHITEFRIARS, LONDON.
The London house of the Carmelites or the White Friars lay between
Fleet Street and the River Thames, their precinct being bounded on the
west by the Inner Temple—the present houses of King’s Bench Walk—and on
the east, roughly by the present Whitefriars Street. Bouverie Street
runs across the nave of their Church and traverses the site of the west
walk of the cloister.
[Illustration: FIG. 106.—WHITEFRIARS, LONDON.
_Plan by A. W. Clapham._]
Although little has been hitherto known concerning the buildings, it is
possible, with the assistance of a plan of seventeenth century date,
of documentary evidence of the period of the Suppression, and of the
evidence of remains discovered on the site, to present a very fair
idea of the general arrangements of the Priory of Our Lady of Mount
Carmel before its destruction.
The house of the White Friars in London was founded by Sir Ralph Gray
in 1241, and Stow tells us that in the fourteenth century their Church
was rebuilt by Hugh Courtenay, Earl of Devon, whose house adjoined the
precinct. Various additions were made to their property about this
time. Courtenay was succeeded as patron by Sir Robert Knolles, and the
choir, presbytery, and steeple were rebuilt by Robert Marshall, Bishop
of Hereford, in 1404–16. The precinct was extended to the Thames by the
year 1396.
The position of the cloister is accurately shown on the seventeenth
century plan already referred to. The Church lay to the north of it,
and the north-east angle of the nave was discovered incorporated in
some old buildings in Bouverie Street. It was a massive structure of
fourteenth or fifteenth century date, built of chalk and ragstone
with quoins of Godstone stone. The wall returned at right angles at
the east end of the yard at the back of the house, and apparently
continued westward right under Bouverie Street, the south having been
the internal face. Within the angle was a vault containing the remains
perhaps of Sir John Paston, who in his will, dated 1477, bequeaths “my
body if I die in the city of London [to the church] of our Lady in the
White Friars there, at the north-east corner of the body of the Church,
and there to be made an oratory ... to the value of xx ls.”
The height of the wall makes it almost certain that the aisle was
lighted by lofty windows similar to those to be seen at Austin Friars,
and that the clerestory was omitted, as indeed is distinctly shown
on Wyngaerde’s view of London. If this were so, it would have been
necessary to leave an open court between the cloister and the Church
to light the south aisle precisely as was done at the Grey Friars. The
nave would thus be some 80 ft. wide and apparently some 150 ft. or 9
bays long.
From the list of burials and other sources we learn that there was
the usual “walk between the choir and the church,” or passage way
beneath the steeple. The fifteenth century choir was almost certainly
aisleless, and to the south of it, separated by an open space, was the
“old quire” of Sir Ralph Gray’s thirteenth century building, which had
been left standing while the new church was in process of construction.
From particulars of the grants made at the Dissolution, and with the
help of the sixteenth century plan in the Print Room of the British
Museum, it is possible to extract the following information. The
cloister measured 97 ft. 6 in. from east to west and 91 ft. from north
to south, including the walks which were built over in accordance
with the general practice of the friars. The eastern range held the
dorter on the first floor and the southern range the frater, while the
western buildings perhaps contained the library (which is mentioned
in connection with the cloister), since the Guest Hall must almost
certainly be assigned to a long building shown on the plan extending
westwards from this side parallel with the nave of the Church. The
Chapter House was built out from the eastern range, and south of it
was the prior’s lodging, probably on the spot where still lies a
small vaulted crypt beneath the pavement of Britton’s Court—the sole
remaining relic of the Carmelite Priory. This vault, some 12 ft. 6 in.
square, has a small door at the north end of the west wall, and is of
a curious domed form with diagonal and intermediate ribs meeting at a
carved boss in the centre, which apparently represents a full-length
figure within a large Tudor rose.
Beyond this our information is uncertain; it is impossible to locate
the infirmary, and such names as “the Court Place,” “the Brewhouse,”
and the “Mill House” can only be approximately referred to any given
locality. It is to be feared that little further information is likely
to come to light unless some extensive rebuilding takes place upon the
site. With the means at our disposal, however, the main buildings have
been identified, although the little vaulted cellar under the prior’s
house and the nameless grave in the nave now filled with concrete are
the only existing relics of the great convent that stood for three
hundred years upon the Strand of the Thames between Temple Garden and
St. Bride’s Church.
—A. W. C.
QUEENBOROUGH
CASTLE
[Illustration: FIG. 107.—QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE.
_From a Drawing by Hollar._]
XVI.
QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE AND ITS BUILDER, WILLIAM OF WYKEHAM.
The existing architectural works of William of Wykeham are sufficient,
both in extent and magnificence, to place him in the foremost rank
amongst the great building prelates of the Middle Ages. His own
cathedral of Winchester bears ample marks of his munificence, but the
twin educational establishments of Winchester and New Colleges are
perhaps a finer monument of the foresight that warned him that the days
of monasticism were numbered, and that the founding of a college was a
more enduring work than the rearing of a minster.
The precise amount of personal control and guidance exercised by the
building prelates over the works that they initiated must always remain
a moot point, and modern criticism seems inclined to divest them of all
credit save that of patrons of the arts. Nevertheless, it is nowise
inconsistent with the extraordinary versatility of the mediæval mind
that the great statesman and ecclesiastic should also be an adept at
architecture, and this is more than likely in the case of William of
Wykeham, whose earlier years were spent in supervising the Royal works.
Born in 1324, he became surveyor, at the age of thirty-two, to the
works at Henley and Easthampstead (a Royal hunting-box on the skirts
of Windsor Park), and later was entrusted with the more important
operations at Windsor Castle. Alterations to Leedes (Kent), Dover,
and Hadleigh castles came in turn under his care, and in 1361–7 he
superintended the building of the entirely new castle of Queenborough.
In those days prolonged and valued service to the Crown was commonly
rewarded by ecclesiastical preferment, a form of recompense agreeable
alike to both parties; for, while it cost the donor nothing, it
provided a lucrative sinecure for the recipient. Thus Wykeham became a
noted pluralist, holding as many as a dozen prebends, besides numerous
other offices. He was for some years Dean of St. Martin-le-Grand in
London, and in 1366 became Bishop of Winchester, a position he occupied
for nearly forty years.
His ecclesiastical works at Winchester and Oxford have long received
their due meed of admiration, and it is not with them that we are now
concerned, but rather with the remarkable castle of Queenborough, the
erection of which he supervised.
[Illustration: FIG. 108.—QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE.
_Plan from the Hatfield MSS._]
The Island of Sheppey, on which it stood, is a dreary tract of country,
separated by a sluggish waterway from the mainland of Kent, and rising
on the north side in the low hills of Minster. Since the destruction of
the castle, its sole claims to architectural interest are centred in
the priory church of Minster and the fine parish church at Eastchurch.
The Castle of Queenborough, of which only the earthworks now remain,
was begun by Edward III. about the year 1361, and took about six years
to build; but from that time little is heard of it till it entered
into the extensive schemes of Henry VIII. for the defences of the
southern coast, when the building was repaired and brought up to date.
On the triumph of the Parliament, Queenborough, in 1650, was surveyed
by their orders, with the other Crown lands, with a view to its sale.
In this survey it is described as “lying within the common belonging
to the town of Queenborough and containing about twelve rooms of one
range of building below stairs, and about forty rooms from the first
storey upward, being circular and built of stone with six towers and
certain out-offices, all the roof being covered with lead. Within the
circumference of the castle was one little round court paved with
stone, and in the middle one great well, and without the castle was
one great court surrounding it, both court and castle being surrounded
with a great stone wall, and the outside of that moated round.” The
Commissioners speak of it somewhat contemptuously as having been
built in the time of bows and arrows, and it was almost immediately
sold and pulled down. Fortunately a careful ground plan, here
reproduced, is preserved amongst the Hatfield papers, and a drawing by
Hollar taken shortly before its demolition gives some indication of the
remarkable form and unusual appearance it formerly presented.
In the history of English military architecture the Castle of
Queenborough occupies an isolated position. It was almost the earliest
example of the fort, in the modern sense, as opposed to the fortified
dwelling-house, and was the immediate precursor of the “castles,” so
called, of Henry VIII. Castle-building under Edward I., as exemplified
in the great structures reared by that sovereign in Wales, is but
little altered in general form from the larger fortifications of the
Norman and Angevin kings, the rectangular keep and mound, however,
being abandoned. Conway, Carnarvon, and Beaumaris are familiar examples
of this period, which was followed by a rapid transition. The tendency
became all for compactness and centralisation, the result being a
great square block, with towers at the angles and a central courtyard.
Numerous buildings of this class, such as Bolton-in-Wensleydale,
Wressle, and Sheriff Hutton, were erected towards the close of the
fourteenth century, and form almost the latest type of domestic
combined with genuine military architecture which this country
produced. Queenborough, as we have said, stands quite apart from either
class. It provides no domestic accommodation worthy of the name, and
its fifty-odd rooms, while imposing in number, were insignificant in
size, being placed one above the other in the six lofty circular towers
that surrounded the central courtyard. The perfect symmetry of the
design is another unusual feature, in which the value of the circular
plan, in the defensive warfare of those days, is fully appreciated.
The building which approaches it most nearly in form is the castle of
Camber, built by Henry VIII. nearly two hundred years later, in the
flat saltmarsh on the seaward side of Rye. Here, however, we have a
circular keep in the centre, and the flanking towers are transferred
to the perimeter of the polygonal outer curtain; and, furthermore, the
danger of lofty towers in the face of artillery has reduced the whole
structure to a low, squat form, far different from the aspiring turrets
of Queenborough.
Attempts have been made, notably in the Winchester volume of the
_Archæological Journal_, to recover the plan of Queenborough, but the
drawing here reproduced for the first time sets at rest all question as
to its form, and provides another interesting landmark in the history
of architectural development.
—A. W. C.
[Illustration: (Triangle shaped decorative design with leaves and
vines)]
INDEX.
A.
Abbot Archbishop, 219, 230, 234
Abbot’s Hospital, Guildford, 215–237
Abingdon, Christ’s Hospital, 236
Abingdon, Tompkins’ Almshouses, 236
Adam, Robert, 194
Alcazar, Palace of, 3
Allen, Edward, 17, 18, 21
Aldgate Priory, 84
Almshouses, 215–237
Alnwick Abbey, 110
Castle, 194
Anne of Denmark, 190
Apothecaries Hall, 36
Company, 260
Archer, William, 15, 23, 24
Architects, Elizabethan, &c. _See under_ Chrismas, Jansen, John of
Padua, Hawthorne, Needham, Osborne, Smithson, Spicer, Symonds,
Thorpe, Torrington, Toto del’ Nunziata
Architecture, Domestic, 3, 7, 69–75, 124, 127, 128, 131, 132
Military. _See_ Castles
Mediæval Planning, 31
Arundel House, Strand, 182
Street, 182
Earl of, 5, 182
Ashby-de-la-Zouche, Castle, 73
Atheny Friary, 246
Audley End, 190
Aubrey, 80, 92, 99, 101
Augustinian, Canons, 110
Austin Friars. _See_ Friars
Austin Friars (Church), London, 243, 244, 250, 265
B.
Bankside, 17–18
Banquet House, 10, 11, 12
Baptist’s Head Tavern, 177
Barber’s Hall, 36
Barking Abbey, 197–214
Barley, Dorothy, 200
Barnstaple, Penrose Almshouses, 230
Bayham Abbey, 108
Beamsley Hospital, Yorks, 221, 228
Beaufort House. _See_ Chelsea
Henry, Duke of, 96, 99
Cardinal, 225
Beaulieu, 4
Beaumaris Castle, 274
Bede, 199
Bee, Anthony Bishop of Durham, 52, 64
Bedford House, 182
Earl of, 182
Belvoir Priory, 110
Benedictines, The, 70, 110, 242
Beowulf, 69
Bear Garden, The, 16
Berkhampstead Castle, 141, 142
Berlin, 31
Bishop Auckland, 73
Blackfriars. _See_ Friars
Blackfriars, London, 255–263
Blackfriars Theatre, 262, 263
Blackheath, Morden College, 236
Blois, Bishop Henry of, 70
Blomfield, Professor, 6
Blount (Tomb), 42
Bolton-in-Wensleydale, 274
Bradford-on-Avon, Halls Almshouses, 236
Bramshill, 185
Bray, Jesus Hospital, 225
Braun and Hohenberg, 5
Brenan, Gerald, 188
Brickbarn Close, 94
Brickwork, 10, 79
Bridewell, 4
Brinkburn Abbey, 211
Britain’s Burse. _See_ New Exchange
Bromley-by-Bow, Tudor House, 195
Bromley College, 236
Brushfield, Dr. T. N., 153, 157, 160, 163
Brussels, 31
Buck, Samuel and Nathaniel, 52
Buckler, J. C., 59
Burbidge, James, 261, 262
Burghley House, 189
Lord. _See_ Cecil
C.
Caen, 70
Camber Castle, 274
Cambridge, Pepysian Library, 157, 184
Queen’s College, 145
St. Radegund’s, 211
Campeggio, Cardinal, 262
Canaletto, 190
Canterbury Cathedral (Christ Church), 74
Cardiff (Franciscan House), 247
Carlisle, Earl of, 188
Carlisle, 113
Bishop of, 182, 187
Carmelites, The, 243, 245, 263–266
Carnarvon, 274
Carthusian Order, 220, 225
Castell, Robert, 258
Castle Acre, 74
Castle Rising, 36
Holy Trinity Hospital, 187
Castles, English (Fort), 31, 69, 70, 141, 274, 275
Cawarden, Sir Thomas, 5, 258, 261
Cecil, Lord Burleigh, 49, 81, 84, 150
Sir Robert, Earl of Salisbury, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 89, 91, 94, 153,
157, 160, 182
Chapterhouses, 107, 108, 110
Charles V., Emperor, 36, 256, 260
Charles I., 96, 146
Charterhouse, The, 132
Chaucer, Geoffrey, 225
Chelsea, 57
Henry VIII.’s Manor House, 4
Home of Sir Thomas More, 77–103
Park, 94
Royal Hospital, 237
Chertsey Abbey, 199, 202
Register, 199
Chester Cathedral, 211
Bishop of, 182
Chibburn, 178
Chichester, St. Mary’s Hospital, 222, 246
Chipping Campden, 229
Chiswick, 99
Cholmeley, Sir Richard, 42
Chrismas, Gerard, 189, 190
Christchurch, 75
Castle, Twynham, 70, 73, 74, 145
Christina de Bosham, 212
Christina de Valoyns, 212
Cistercians, The, 110, 242, 247
Clare (Ireland), 246
Cleveland, Duchess of, 3, 5
Clinton, Edward Lord, 201
Clun Hospital (Holy Trinity), 187, 230
Cockersand Abbey, 105–117
Colchester Castle, 36
Conway Castle, 274
Corsham Almshouses, 236
Cotton, Sir Robert, 159, 160
Coventry, Ford’s Hospital, 226, 258
Christ Church, 245
Courtenay, Hugh, Earl of Devon, 265
Cranfield, Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, 92, 94
Crosby Hall, 58, 59, 64, 119–138
Sir John, 121, 122, 127, 138
Croydon, Archbishop’s Palace, 89, 132
Whitgift Hospital, 229, 230, 233
Cuddington Manor House, 4
Richard de, 4
D.
Dacre, Anne, Lady, 81, 85
Danvers House, 80, 81, 94, 95, 99
Sir John, 80, 92, 99, 101
de Clare, Family of, 146
de la Pole, Catherine, 205
Denham, The Savoy, 74
de Witt, Johannes, 16
Digby, George, Earl of Bristol, 96
Dollman, F. T., 220
Dominicans, The, 242, 246, 255
Dovecot Close, Chelsea, 89, 91, 99
Dover, 84
Castle, 271
St. Martin’s Priory, 74
Drogheda, 246
Dulwich College, 15
Dunbar, 245
Dunwich, Grey Friars, 247
Durdans, Epsom, 12
Durham Cathedral, 212
House, Strand, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 182
E.
Easby Abbey, 75, 113
Eastchurch, 272
East Grinstead, Sackville College, 229
Easthampstead, 271
Edgar the Peaceable, 199
Edward the Confessor, 145, 147
Edward I., 249, 253, 274
Edward II., 249
Edward III., 246, 272
Edward IV., 58, 64, 65, 122
Edward VI., 5, 38, 141, 201, 258
Egglestone Abbey, 108
Elgin Abbey, 113
Elizabeth, Queen, 6, 52, 89, 142, 163, 228
Elizabethan Surveyors, 50. _See also_ Architects
Eltham Palace, 47–66, 96, 128
Chancellor’s Lodging, 60
Chapel, 57, 58
Great Hall, 58, 59, 122, 128, 132
Green Court, 60, 65
Ely, Longchamp, Bishop of, 37
Emanuel Hospital, Westminster, 81
Ennis, 246
Erasmus, 79
Erkenwald, Bishop of London, 199
Essex House, Strand, 182, 187
Earl of, 182
Ethelburga, St., 199, 208
Evelyn, 6, 10, 184, 188, 193
Ewell, Vicarage, 12
Exchange, The New, in the Strand, 151–164
Exeter, Bishop of, 182
Ewelme Hospital (Oxon.), 225, 236
F.
Faithorne, 157
Felton, Sybil, 205
Field of the Cloth of Gold, 10
Fitzstephen, William, 37, 181, 248
Fitzwilliam, Lord, 5
Ford Abbey, 75
Forster, Sir Thomas, 177
Fort. _See_ Castles
Fortune Theatre, The, 13–28
Franciscans, The, 241, 242, 243, 247
Fresham, Prior, 177
Friars, The, 239–267
G.
Galway, 246
Garrett, Daniell, 193
Gaynsford Hall, Carshalton, 12
Genibelli, Federigo, 86
George I., 164
Glastonbury, St. Mary Magdalene’s Hospital, 225
Globe Theatre, The, 16, 17, 18, 21
Gilbertine, The, Order, 248
Godalming, Wyatt’s Hospital, 230
Golding (Golden) Lane, 18
Gorges House, 80, 81, 91, 99
Gorges, Sir Arthur, 80, 91, 99
Gothic Architecture, 122
Gray, Sir Ralph, 265, 266
Gray’s Inn Hall, 132
Graystanes, Robert de, 52
Greene, 27
Greenwich, Holy Trinity Hospital, 187, 229
Palace, 201
Guildford, Abbot’s Hospital, 215–237
Guisnes, 4, 10
H.
Hadleigh Castle, 271
Hainault, Forest of, 146, 200
Hague, The, 31
Hall, The (in Domestic Architecture), 59, 84, 87, 124, 127, 132
Origin of, 65–75
The Aisled, 72, 73, 145
Hall’s Chronicle, 10
Hammerbeam Roof, 132
Hampton Court, 49, 132
Hatfield, Thomas, Bishop of Durham, 154
Havering Bower, 142, 145–150
Hawthorne, H., 142
Hay, Lord (Viscount Doncaster), 188
Hengrave Hall, 9
Henley, 271
Henry II., 69
Henry III., 37
Henry VI., 58
Henry VII., 3, 182
Henry VIII., 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 38, 58, 64, 65, 75, 79, 143, 197, 200,
201, 242, 255, 256, 260, 262, 272, 274
Henslowe, Phillip, 17, 18, 21
Heraclius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 171
Hereford, Coningsby Hospital, 230
Hertford Castle, 70, 73, 141–145
Higham Ferrers, Bede House, 222
Holbein, 79, 85
Hospitals, Mediæval. _See_ Almshouses
Hospitallers, The Knights, 167, 168, 177
Houghton, Roger, 91
Horwood (Plan of London), 193
Howard, Henry, 1st Earl of Northampton, 184, 187
Henry, Earl of Surrey, 187
Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, 187
2nd Earl of Suffolk, 187
Howden (Yorks.), 113
Hull, Holy Trinity Church, 253
Hulne (Northumberland), 247
Hunting Lodge (Elizabethan), 11, 12
I.
Inchcolm Abbey, 113
Infirmaries (Monastic), 72, 213, 220
Ingoldsthorpe, Lady, 258
Innyards (galleried), 22
Ireland (the Friars in), 243, 245
Isle of Wight, 86
Isleworth, Syon House, 187, 194
J.
James I., 57, 80, 96, 163, 230
James II., 42
Jansen, Bernard, 189
John, King, 37
John of Padua, 6
Jones, Inigo, 49, 99, 184, 189, 190
Jumièges, 70
K.
Kensington Palace, Orangery, 11
King, Dr. John, 89
Kingston, Lady, 261
Kip, 81, 85, 94, 96, 99
Kirkleatham Hospital, Yorks., 236
Kirkstall Abbey, 71, 211
Knolles, Sir Robert, 265
Knyff, 81
L.
Lambeth Palace, 132
Lancaster Priory, 108
Parish Church, 113
Langland, William, 127
Laycock Abbey, 75
Leedes Castle (Kent), 271
Leicester, Earl of, 182, 226
Leicester, Trinity Hospital, 222
Wigston’s Hospital, 222
Le Neve, 9
Lennox, Duchess of, 96
Lethieullier, Smart, 201, 208, 210
Lewes Castle, 74
Lewisham, Colfe’s Almshouses, 236
Lincoln, 248
Earl of (Henry Clinton), 80, 91, 92
3rd Earl of, 80, 92
Lindsey, Earl of, 57, 80, 96, 99
House (Dr. Mayerne’s), 57, 80, 81, 91, 96
Lisbon, 31
Lisle, John, 96
Llandaff, Bishop, 182
Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, 37
Loseley Hall MSS., 168, 172, 258, 261
Losse, Hugh, 261
_Louvre_, 131
Ludlow Castle, 113
Lumley, Lord, 5, 6
Lyddington, Jesus Hospital, 229
Lynn, Greyfriars, 245, 258
St. Margaret’s, 110
M.
Mabel de Bosham, 200, 210
Madrid, 3, 31
Maidenhead, Smyth’s Almshouses, 236
Malta, 168
Knights of, 167
Maplestead, Little, 178
Marlowe, 24
Marshall, Robert, Bishop of Hereford, 265
Marston, 24
Mary, Queen, 5, 143, 171
Maud, Abbess, Daughter of Henry II., 210
Maud de Loveland, 210
Maurer, J., 190
Mayerne, Sir Theodore, 57, 80, 96
Maynard, H., 82
Melton, John, 24
Merstham, 4
Merton, 4
Mile End, Almshouses, 236
Military Orders of Monks, 167
Milman’s Row, Chelsea, 80
Minster, 272
Monastic building, 71, 74
Moor Hall (Middlesex), 178
Moravian Burial Ground, Chelsea, The, 89, 99
Moravians, The, 80, 81, 99
More, Sir Thomas, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 92
More, Sir William, 261
Mountfichet, Family of, 146
Mylne, 193
Mytton, 114
N.
Needham, James, 200
Newark, 253
Newcastle (Castle), 36
Jesus Hospital, 236
Nonsuch Palace, 1–12
Norden, 159
Northampton, Earl of, 183, 184
Northumberland House, Strand, 179–195
Norwich, Bishop of, 182
Nottingham, Collins’ Almshouses, 236
Nun Monkton, 211
Nurstead Court, 74
O.
Oakham Castle, 73, 145
Ogilby and Morgan’s Map of London, 32, 35
Ongar Castle, 141
Oxford, 272
Bodleian Library, 81, 200
Orangeries, 11
Oriel, 9, 59, 65, 75, 85, 88, 131
Osborne, Mr. (1610), 157
P.
Pargetting, 9
Paris, 31
Paris Garden, 17
Paston, Sir John, 265
Paulet, Sir William, 1st Marquis of Winchester, 81, 92
2nd Marquis of Winchester, 81
Marchioness of Winchester, 81
Paulton Square, 89
Pepys, 80, 101, 164
Pepysian Library, Cambridge, 157, 184
Percy, Henry, 9th Earl of Northumberland, 187
Percy, Algernon, 10th Earl of Northumberland, 187, 188
Percy, Josceline, 11th Earl of Northumberland, 188
Percy (Smithson) Hugh, Duke of Northumberland, 188
Perpendicular Period of Gothic Architecture, 122–124
Petworth, Somerset Hospital, 236
Phillip II. of Spain, 3
Phillipps, J. O. Halliwell, 15, 261
Pinelli, Cataneo, 122
Pleshy, 146
Portinary, Mr., 261
Premonstratensian Canons, 108, 110
Pugin, 50, 59
Pyrgo Palace, 146, 147
Q.
Quainton, Winwood’s Almshouses, 236
Queenborough Castle, 269–275
Queensferry, 245
Quinn, 246
R.
Radnor, Earl of, 102
Raleigh, Sir Walter, 154, 157
Rayleigh Castle, 141
Redman, Bishop, 108
Reigate Stone, 4, 58, 135, 138, 209, 212
Renaissance compared with Gothic, 123
Restalrig Church, 113
Rhodes, 168
Richard I., 37
Richard II., 146
Richard III., 121, 131
Churches (Yorks.), 113, 243, 245
Richmond Castle (Yorks.), 70, 73, 145
Palace, 4, 5, 11
Park, 188
Rochester Castle, 36
Cathedral, 211
Rome, 31
Roofs, Timber, 59, 132
Hipped, 236
Rood (at Barking), 205, 206
Roper, William, 91, 92
Rose Theatre, The, 17
Rosserk, 246
Rushton, Northants, 177
Russell House, 187
Rye (Austin Friars), 246
S.
Sackville, Sir Robert, 81
Sandhills, 94
St. Albans, 248
Abbey, 208
St. Andrews (Scotland), 246
St. Bride, Fleet Street, 6
St. Dominic, 241
St. Erkenwald, Bishop of London, 199
St. Francis of Assisi, 241, 242
St. Helen’s, London, 211
St. Hildelitha, 208
St. James’s, Clerkenwell, 177
St. James’s Palace, London, 4
St. John’s Chapel. _See_ Tower of London
St. John, Clerkenwell, 165–178
St. John’s Square, Clerkenwell, 172
St. Martin-le-Grand, 272
St. Mary Rouncivall, Hospital of, 159, 183
St. Peter ad Vincula, Chapel of, 42
St. Petersburg, 31
St. Wulfhilda, 208
Salisbury Cathedral, 247
Collegium Matrarum, 236
Eyre’s Hospital, 230
St. Nicholas’ Hospital, 225
Trinity Almshouses, 236
Salisbury House, Strand, 153, 157, 182
Savoy, The, 4
Hospital, 182
Peter of, 182
Savoy, The, Denham, 74
Saxon Building, 69, 72
Scotland Hall, Richmond, 74
Seymour, Algernon, 7th Duke of Somerset, 188
Charles, 6th Duke of Somerset, 188
Lady Elizabeth, 188
Lord Thomas, 182
Shaftesbury Abbey, 206
Shakespeare, 17, 28, 122, 260, 263
Shepherd, T. Hosmer, 163
Sherborne, St. John’s Hospital, 225
Sheriff Hutton, 274
Shrewsbury, Millington’s Hospital, 236
Skinner, 193
Sloane, Sir Hans, 79, 85, 96
Smithson, 81, 99, 154, 159, 160, 164, 183, 193
Sir Hugh (Duke of Northumberland), 188
Soane, Sir John, 194
Somerset, Edward, Duke of, 182
House, 182
Protector, 171
Somerton Castle, 52
Southwell, Sir Robert, 259
Speed, 5, 9, 145
Spicer, 80, 86
Stage, The Elizabethan, 14–28, 263
Stallwood, Benjamin, 102
Stalworth, William, 259
Stamford, Browne’s Hospital, 225
Standing, The, _See_ Hunting Lodge
Stone, Nicholas, 101
Stephen, King, 168
Stortford Castle, 141
Stow, John, 172, 181, 182, 183, 226, 233, 244, 265
Strand Inn, 182
Streete, Peter, 17, 18, 21
Swan Theatre, The, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27
Suffolk House. _See_ Northumberland House
Sutton-at-Hone, 178
Swingfield, 178
Symonds, John, 80, 84, 85, 89, 150
T.
Tavistock, 110
Templars, The, 167
Temple Bar, 182
Temple Church, The, 168, 228
Temple, The Middle, 132, 168, 182
Theatres, Elizabethan, 13–28, 262, 263
Thorpe, John, 50, 51, 60, 63, 65, 80, 81, 85, 89, 92, 94, 99
Thurnham Hall, 108
Tiptoft, John (Earl of Worcester), 258
Titchfield Abbey, 108
Tombs, 42
Torrington, 83
Toto dell’ Nunziata, 6
Touchet, James, Lord Audley, 258
Tower of London, The, 29–45, 70, 181
Beauchamp Tower, 41
Bell Tower, 35, 37, 41
Bloody Tower, 38, 41
Bowyer Tower, 37
Brass Mount, 38
Brick Tower, 37
Broad Arrow Tower, 42
Bulwark Gate, 38
Byward Tower, 38, 41
Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula, 42
Coldharbour, 35, 38
Constable Tower, 37
Cradle Tower, 41
Develin Tower, 38
Devereux Tower, 37, 41
Flint Tower, 37
Great Armoury, 42
Horse Armoury, 42
Irongate, 38
King’s House, 41
Lanthome Tower, 32, 35
Legge’s Mount, 38
Lion Gate, 38
Lion’s Tower, 38
Martin Tower, 37, 41
Middle Tower, 35, 38, 41
St. John’s Chapel, 36
St. Thomas’ Tower (Traitor’s Gate), 38, 41
Salt Tower, 37, 41, 42
Wakefield Tower, 32, 35, 38
Wardrobe Tower, 32, 35
Well Tower, 41
White Tower (Keep), 32, 36, 38
Tower Wharf, 38
Twynham, Christchurch Castle, 70, 73, 74, 145
Tyler, Wat, 171
V.
Van Buchell, 15, 24
Vasari, 6
Vertue, 190
Vienna, 31
Villiers, Dukes of Buckingham, 96, 183
Visscher, 16, 17
W.
Wale, S., 193
Walpole, Horace, 189, 190
Walsingham (Friary), 247
Warkworth, 73
Warnford, 73
Warrington, Austin Friars, 243
Warwick, Guild Chapel, 228
Leicester’s Hospital, 226, 228
Waverley Abbey, 71
Weekley Hospital, 229
Wegener, Dr., 24
Well Hall, Eltham, 91
Wells, St. Saviour’s Hospital, 225
Vicar’s Close, 225
Westminster Abbey, 260
Henry VII.’s Chapel, 3
Royal Palace, 141, 150, 182
Weston, Prior, 177
Whalley (Lancs.), 114
Wharton, Thomas, Lord, 102
Whitefriars, The, 263–267
Whitehall Palace, 49, 183
Whitelocke, Sir Bulstrode, 96
Whitgift Hospital, Croydon, 229, 230, 233
John, 230, 233
Wilkinson, 184
Willement, 138
Wilton Abbey, 200
William III., 42
Wilson, Sir Thomas, 160
Winchelsea (Grey Friars), 246, 253
Winchester, 248
Castle, 73, 145
Cathedral, 208, 271
St. Cross, 225
Windsor Castle, 141, 142, 271
Wokingham, Lucas’s Hospital, 236
Wolsey, Cardinal, 262
Wolvesley Castle, 70, 73, 74, 145
Worcester Cathedral, 113, 212
College (Drawings at), 184
Bishop of, 182
Henry, Marquis of. _See_ Beaufort
Wren, Sir Christopher, 11, 36, 42, 237
Wressle, 274
Wriothesley, Thomas, Earl of Southampton, 201
Wulfhilda, 199, 200, 208, 209
Wykeham, William of, 271, 272
Wyngaerde, 159, 258, 265
PRINTED BY VACHER AND SONS, LTD. WESTMINSTER HOUSE LONDON, S.W.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs and
outside quotations.
Illustrations without captions have had a description added, this is
denoted with parentheses.
The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page
references.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a
predominant preference was found in the original book.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected
after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and
consultation of external sources.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and
inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg vi: ‘Archælogia’ replaced with ‘Archæologia’
xi: ‘Beamesley’ replaced with ‘Beamsley’
200: ‘Souvaigne’ replaced with ‘Souvraigne’
258: ‘Ingoldsthorp’ replaced with ‘Ingoldsthorpe’
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS AND THEIR STORY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
