ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

In the foregoing pages examples have been given of the architectural work of the sixteenth century—examples taken from all parts of England, and illustrating all kinds of features. From these it will have been gathered that the same general character pervaded the whole country at any one time, but that there was a great variety of treatment. This variety arose not merely from a difference in arrangement of universally accepted features, or from different methods of handling the same kind of ornament, but from actual differences between the features themselves and between the kinds of ornament, and it points to the employment of men who varied to a considerable degree in the amount of their training as well as in its direction.

It will therefore not be without interest to glance briefly at what is known of the more prominent men who were employed in producing the architecture that has been under consideration, and at the methods which prevailed of supplying designs.

Unfortunately, little detailed information has yet been obtained, or is obtainable, concerning these men, and what we do know about them is neither so full nor so clear as to have emerged entirely from the perplexing mists of controversy and to have attained the serene heights of incontrovertible fact. We know, for instance, that Henry VIII. employed many skilled foreign workmen, especially Italians. But very little work exists at this day which can be pointed out as theirs. We also know that early in the second half of the sixteenth century many Dutch artizans found refuge in England from the rigorous measures of Alva, that licences were given to various towns to receive them, and that a number of other towns petitioned to have strangers allotted to them: most of these towns were situated in the counties bordering on the sea in the East and South. But masons, joiners, and artificers in the other trades connected with building, do not seem to have been a large proportion of those immigrating.

The most interesting piece of foreign work, inasmuch as it was the first done by Italians in England, can, luckily, be identified in all important particulars, because the contract for it still exists. It was Henry VII.'s tomb, designed, and largely executed, by Torrigiano.[33] But beyond this tomb, and probably that of Margaret, the mother of Henry VII., and possibly that of Dr. Young in the Rolls Chapel, no English work of Torrigiano's is known. After him came Benedetto da Rovezzano, who partly executed an even more splendid tomb for Cardinal Wolsey, which was to have been placed in the specially erected chapel in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, but which Henry VIII. took to himself on the Cardinal's fall. Wolsey petitioned the King for his own figure—which was to have lain upon the tomb, and could hardly be expected to answer the same purpose for its new owner—and for such other parts as it might please the King to give him. But Henry retained the materials and proceeded to adapt them for his own monument, whereon he and his queen, Jane Seymour, were to have reposed. His queen, however, was soon replaced, and the tomb was still unfinished at his death, and was never carried to completion. Its metal parts were finally melted down by the Parliament Commissioners a hundred years later, but the marble sarcophagus lingered on, and was eventually removed to St. Paul's Cathedral in London, and utilized in the monument of Lord Nelson. Another Italian who was employed by Wolsey, and subsequently by Henry VIII., was Giovanni da Majano, whose name appears in accounts of the time as being paid for certain work; but the work itself has disappeared, except the terra-cotta roundels, containing busts of Roman emperors, built into the walls of Hampton Court. Toto del Nunziata was another skilful Italian whose name appears in accounts, and he is said by Vasari to have built Henry VIII.'s principal palace. This is generally considered to have been Nonesuch, in Surrey, of which there is nothing left, but which, as already stated, must have presented examples of most admirable work in the way of sculpture and painting.[34] Nicholas of Modena, described as a carver, also worked for Henry, and remained in England for some years after his death, but the work attributed to him is only conjectural. Indeed, the share taken by the Italians of Henry VIII.'s time in the design of English work, is still a matter of controversy to be waged by the learned, and has not yet descended to the more certain level of the text-book. What we do know is, that Torrigiano executed Henry VII.'s tomb under a contract, and that a few other Italians of eminence resided for longer or shorter periods in England, together with a considerable number of their compatriots of less distinction. These men must have exercised considerable influence upon their English companions, and although their own style of ornament did not become universal, they must have prepared the way for the general adoption of the other versions of Italian detail which marked the second half of the sixteenth century.

The same remarks apply to Holbein, although the designs which he executed for work in England are much more numerous than those of any of his contemporaries, and have been identified beyond doubt as his. That is to say, in addition to his pictures, a large number of his drawings remain, principally for articles of goldsmith's work; but the objects themselves have mostly disappeared. One of the largest of his drawings, however, is that of a wood chimney-piece, which, from the initials upon it, was intended for Henry VIII. Some architectural work has been attributed to Holbein, but only on conjecture. Amongst it may be mentioned two gateways at Whitehall, now removed; part of a front at Wilton, in Wiltshire, as well as a little garden-house there; and the splendid screen at King's College Chapel, Cambridge. But there is no actual evidence to connect him with these works, and we should be mistaken in regarding him in any way as an architect in the sense in which we understand the term.

The architect, indeed, as a distinct individual, does not seem to have arisen in those early days: the architect, that is, who not only designed the plan and elevations of the building, but also the details of its various parts and of its ornament. Inigo Jones may be taken as the first Englishman who combined the functions of planner and designer of details; previous to his time the work entailed in the designing of a house was much subdivided, the plan and elevations being provided by the surveyor, and each trade producing its own special details as the work went on. Shakespeare only uses the word "architect" once, and then not in connection with building operations. He gives us, however, a sketch of how to set about building, in the Second Part of King Henry IV. "When we mean to build," says Lord Bardolph, "we first survey the plot, then draw the model; and when we see the figure of the house, then must we rate the cost of the erection.... Much more in this great work ... should we survey the plot of situation, and the model; consent upon a sure foundation; question surveyors." It was the surveyors, such as John Thorpe, who drew the model, which comprised the plans and an elevation, or a perspective view indicating the treatment of more than one front. These drawings were then carried out by the workmen on the spot, who provided their own details. In some of the simpler buildings no surveyor was employed, but rough plans were prepared by the builder himself, not so much to work from, as to indicate, for the purpose of a contract, the general extent and appearance of the building. In others, again, no plans were used, but the work was set out on the spot, and built to the requisite height under the supervision of the master mason. It is almost certain that in some cases only a plan was provided, without elevation; in the Thorpe collection a large proportion of the plans have no elevation to correspond; and Henry VII., in his will, orders his tomb to be placed in the midst of his new chapel at Westminster according to "the plat [i.e., plan] made for the same chapel and signed with our hand." At St. John's College, Cambridge, the contractors who built the second court were bound to erect it according to certain "platts and uprights" (i.e., elevations), thus showing that the "plat" did not include elevations as well as plan.

Such contracts as have been preserved relating to work of the sixteenth century, go to show either that the various tradesmen provided their own designs, or that they were to take some already executed work as a pattern. There were separate contracts for the separate trades, but most of them were with masons, joiners, and glaziers. The masons who built the second court at St. John's were to make the windows after the fashion of those in the court already built. The joiner who fitted up the chapel was to make his work like that in Jesus College and Pembroke Hall, "or better in every point." The joiner who executed the stalls and the fretwork of the ceiling in the chapel at Trinity College, was to make the stalls like those at King's College, while the frets, battens, and pendants of the ceiling were to be made "according to the pattern showed to the master and other of the said College for the said frets, battens, and pendants." The glazier who provided the windows of the hall and chapel at St. John's, was to make them of "good and able Normandy glass of colours and pictures as be in the glass windows within the College called Christ's College."

These contracts are useful because they state expressly the sources whence the design was to be taken; but where the work was not done by contract, such accounts as have been preserved point in the same direction. After the masons had finished the second court at St. John's, including the plastering of the walls and ceilings, there appears an entry in the accounts for the payment of one Cobb for "frettishing" the gallery and the great chamber—that is, for working the ornamental plaster ceiling; and another for the payment of the joiner for the wainscotting of the gallery and for the two chimney-pieces there. No mention is made of any particular design, and the presumption is that the workmen supplied their own. This presumption is stronger in the case of the panelling of the hall at Queen's College, where every item of cost appears, as well as the names of the various workmen employed.

It is interesting to see how the names of the workmen gradually changed. The first entry is on the last day of September, 1531, when Matthew Blunt and Robert Cave were paid for "working on the panelling of the College hall." In November they are joined by one Dyrik Harrison, who does the same kind of work; in December, one Lambert comes, and Matthew Blunt disappears; a few days afterwards a certain Arnold joins them, and subsequently a Peter. In January, Giles Fambeler, carver, is paid for nine capitals, and in February for thirteen more, and he then disappears. But his place seems to have been taken by Dyrik Harrison, who thenceforward is paid, not for ordinary joiner's work, but for carving capitals, shields, arms, and lines of "antique crest" and "antique border," up to the middle of July, when he receives his final payment "by order of the President." In the meantime Robert Cave's name has ceased to be entered, but Arnold, Lambert, and Peter still continue. After Harrison's departure Lambert seems to have done the special work, since in August he gets paid for certain columns and for the "extreme parts of the cresting." His is the last name of the joiners which appears, and in September the work was finished. It would almost seem as though Giles Fambeler, whose name looks anything but English, had been employed for some two months, just to show how the new carving should be done, and that from him Dyrik Harrison, whose Christian name suggests a Dutch connection, picked up a knowledge of the fashionable ornament sufficient to enable him to take Giles's place; and that Lambert in his turn succeeded Harrison. Even if this supposition is larger than the facts warrant, it must have been in some such manner as this that the new forms were disseminated through the country. It is worthy of note that the joiner employed at Hengrave, in 1538, six years after this work at Queen's, was named Dyrik, and it is pleasant to imagine (Hengrave being some five-and-twenty miles from Cambridge) that it might have been the same Dyrik Harrison who had picked up his first knowledge from Giles Fambeler.

In such matters as tombs it is beyond question that the workmen supplied the designs. In the year 1525 there is an entry in the accounts of St. John's of a small sum "given to the master mason of Ely for drawing a draught for my lord's tomb," meaning Bishop Fisher's. In 1533 "Mr. Lee the free mason" was paid for making and setting up the tomb. Upon the Bishop's execution, the monument was taken to pieces and thrown aside, but towards the end of last century the remains were discovered during the process of clearing away the rubbish in an "old disused chapel." A rough drawing was made of them, from which it is evident that the design was quite in the Italian style. It shows an altar tomb with a pilaster at each corner, ornamented with arabesques similar to those on Henry VII.'s tomb. The side is occupied by a large panel supported by two amorini, and surrounded with foliage and scrollwork; the end has a shield within a garland. The whole work is described by an eye-witness as being elegant, neat, and ornamented in great taste, from which we may gather that both in design and execution it was a worthy specimen of the style prevalent in Henry VIII.'s time. We have already seen that it was designed by the master mason at Ely, and executed by Mr. Lee, the free mason. If these two were not one and the same man, at any rate there is no reason to suppose that they were other than Englishmen.[35]

Some fifty years after Bishop Fisher's tomb was erected, there was drawn up a contract (in 1581) between the executor of Thomas Fermor, of Somerton, in Oxfordshire, and Richard and Gabriel Roiley, of Burton-upon-Trent, "tumbe makers." The latter agree "artificially, cunningly, decently, and substantially to devise, work, set up, and perfectly and fully finish" a very fair tomb of very good and durable alabaster stone and of certain specified dimensions. It is to have on it "a very fair decent and well-proportioned picture or portraiture of a gentleman representing the said Thomas Fermor," with certain specified accessories; and also "a decent and perfect picture or portraiture of a fair gentlewoman with a French hood, edge and habiliments, with all other apparel, furniture, jewels, ornaments and things in all respects usual, decent and seemly for a gentlewoman." There are also to be the "decent and usual pictures" of a son and two daughters with escutcheons in their hands—somewhat after the fashion, no doubt, of those on the Bradbourne tomb in Fig. 9. The son is to be in armour and as living; one of the daughters is to be "pictured in decent order and as living," the other "as dying in the cradle or swathes." There are to be four shields, one containing "the very true arms" of Thomas Fermor; two others his arms and those of his two wives, severally; and the fourth the arms of his second wife. They are all to be placed as most may serve for the "shew and setting forth of the said tomb." Once again, towards the end, it is stated that all the "devising, colouring, gilding, garnishing, workmanship, carriage, conveying, setting up, and full finishing of the said tomb," is to be done by the Roileys; but the executor will provide "wains, carts and cattle" to draw the parts of the tomb to Somerton. The price for the tomb is to be £40.

It is here expressly stated that the workmen are to do the "devising" as well as the making of the tomb. The features which it is to comprise are stated, but the designing and arranging of them are left to the workmen. It is interesting to notice that the male figure is to be the portraiture of a gentleman representing Thomas Fermor, but it does not seem to be implied that the likeness was to be very accurate. In the case of the lady, evidently no resemblance was expected, and we are left to conjecture whether it was the first or the second wife who was the more nearly represented. All those who are familiar with Elizabethan tombs will recognize the son and daughter holding escutcheons, and the child in "swathes," as well as the four shields bearing the arms of Thomas Fermor and his two wives. If additional proof were wanted that the design was left in the hands of the workman, it is to be found in the stipulation that everything is to be placed so as best to "set forth" the tomb. This important part of the business is not to be arranged by the executor or any one acting on his behalf, but by the contracting tomb-makers.

Tombs are comparatively small structures, and might possibly have been subjects of special custom; but the same custom prevailed in the building of large houses like Burghley House and Cobham Hall. When the latter building was in a suitable condition, the plasterer was sent for in order that he might submit patterns and models of the ceilings for Lord Cobham to select from. During a considerable part of the time occupied in building the earlier portions of Burghley, a number of letters passed between the foreman and Lord Burghley, in which the foreman sought instructions from his lordship about many minute particulars, which would certainly have been settled by the architect had there been one. Among Lord Burghley's papers is one showing the plan and elevation of a window, endorsed in Burghley's own hand "Henryck's platt of my bay window"; suggesting that, as occasion arose, his lordship applied to some skilful craftsman for drawings. It is certain that he made a point of studying books on architecture, for in August, 1568, he wrote to Sir Henry Norris, ambassador in France, asking him to provide for him "a book concerning architecture, entitled according to a paper here included, which I saw at Sir Thomas Smith's; or if you think there is any better of a late making of that argument." The enclosure containing the title of the book is not in existence, so we do not know what it was; but from this reference we gather that Sir Thomas Smith (who was a Secretary of State, and had been ambassador to France) was interested in architecture as well as Lord Burghley, and that Sir Henry Norris was sufficiently acquainted with the subject to be able to recommend the latest work dealing with it. Some years later Lord Burghley was again asking for a French book on architecture, but this time he gave the title, in phraseology indicating that he was something of a student of the subject. "The book I most desire," he says, "is made by the same author, and is entitled 'Novels institutions per bien bÂster et À petits frais, par Philibert de Lorme,' Paris, 1576." From these instances it would appear not improbable that had Lord Burghley lived in the days of Pope, he might have shared with Lord Burlington the reputation of being one of the foremost architects of the age; but as a matter of fact he did not pretend to that distinction: all that he did, apparently, was to direct the energies of others who had received special training in architectural matters.

The Henryk who provided the platt of Lord Burghley's bay window was a Dutch mason in the employ of Sir Thomas Gresham—who built the first Royal Exchange, or Bourse, as it was called—and he passed backwards and forwards between London and Antwerp as occasion demanded. Many of the materials for Gresham's Bourse came from the Low Countries, and were shipped thence under the superintendence of Gresham's agent, Richard Clough. Clough's letters from Antwerp, where he was stationed, give in quaint phraseology a good deal of information as to the progress of the work which was being prepared over there both for Sir Thomas Gresham and the more exalted "Sir William Cecil, the Queen's Majesty's principal Secretary," afterwards Lord Burghley. In July, 1566, Clough congratulates himself on Gresham's liking Henryk so well, and on the work being so well forward, that when Henryk returns to Antwerp he can get on with the rest. By the beginning of August Henryk had arrived, and "your carpenters also, whom I do mean shortly to return." In the next few letters he is greatly troubled about "Master Secretary's" paving stones. On the 29th September, he says that he calls daily upon Henryk, who is looking daily for them, and he has sent a man to the place where they are in making in order to hasten their departure. Notwithstanding this, on the 20th October Master Secretary's paving stones were not come, "but Henryk saith he knoweth well they will be here within a day or two," and then he will not fail to send them away out of hand, even if he has to "hire a small hoy of purpose." But delays in the delivery of goods vexed the souls of overlookers in as great a degree then as now, and still on the 10th November "Master's stones are not come, which maketh Master Henryk almost out of his wit, for I never fail a day but I am once a day with him, so that they cannot be long, unless they be drowned by the way." The hopeful expectation was fulfilled, for a fortnight later Clough writes, "and as touching Master Secretary's stones, I do not doubt but that you have received them long since; and that they have been so long—Henryk saith he could do no more and if his life had been upon the matter." So the paving stones were sent off at last, and at the same time Henryk sent a pattern how they should be laid; it was unnecessary to send a man, for he thought "that him that paved Master Secretary's house can so well lay those stones as any that he should send from hence."

The trying episode of "those stones" being closed, Clough returns to the subject of the Bourse, and promises to send off further materials; on the 5th December he says he has shipped a certain amount "in Cornelius Janson's sprett," and trusts that before Easter everything will be despatched. Soon after this, it seems, he went away to get married, and his letters cease; but in the following April (the 27th) an apprentice of Gresham's informs him of such matters as had passed in Antwerp since Clough's departure, among which was the discharge from the "Prince's men" of two of Gresham's retainers, whom he intended to send to London "in one of the ships laden with stone for the Bourse," of which there were three ready to depart "as to-morrow." As Easter Day fell on the 30th March in the year 1567, Clough's hope that everything would be despatched by then was not absolutely fulfilled.

Henryk was now apparently sufficiently at liberty to be allowed to turn his attention from Gresham's work to Cecil's, and on the 21st August, 1567, the former writes to the latter, "As for Henryk, you shall find him so reasonable as you shall have good cause to be content, and by this post I have given order for the making of your gallery, which I trust shall both like you well in price and workmanship." Four months later, on the 26th December, it was a door for Cecil which was in question, and as "Henryk my workman" intended to go over sea after the Christmas holidays, and to stay till April, Gresham desired to know whether Cecil would have his "port (door) set up before his departure, or else at his return." In the following February, Gresham again writes to Cecil reminding him that "Henryk hath lost the pattern of the pillars for your gallery in the country, so he can proceed no further in the working thereof until he have another." He urges Cecil not to fail to send the pattern at once, as Henryk would be back in London by the last day of March at the farthest. This inability of Henryk's to proceed without the "pattern" shows that in this case, at any rate, he did not supply the design. But already four years earlier (in January, 1563) there had been some correspondence between Clough and Cecil about a gallery and a pattern which the latter had sent; and if the two galleries were one and the same, it was probably the old pattern which Henryk had to work to, and there was no need for him to devise a new one. In the case in which Clough was concerned there was some discrepancy in the pattern or instructions sent by Cecil for the pillars and arches, which required correction; he therefore sent back the pattern, so that Cecil might confer with his mason at home. As to a mason going over from Flanders to England, there was no need for it, since the work would be so wrought that it could not be set amiss, besides which a pattern in paper should be sent. The Dutch mason's advice was that the pillars should be made all of one stone, and the arches accordingly, "for they must be made, to be well made, either antique or modern, and this, with the whole pillar, is antique; wherefore according as I shall hear from your honour, so I shall proceed therein." The difference intended to be conveyed between "antique" and "modern" is not very clear, inasmuch as "antique" was the term generally applied in describing work executed in the style which we call Renaissance. But this is a detail which does not affect the general conclusions to be drawn from the whole correspondence, which are, first, that there is no one concerned in these various transactions who acts in the capacity of the architect, but that when instructions are required by the workmen they are sought from the proprietor himself: second, that Dutch workmanship and design were procured by men of eminence in England: and third, that English workmen were thought to be quite as capable of dealing with the worked materials as any that could be sent from abroad.