The Growth of the English House: A short history of its architectural development from 1100 to 1800Gotch, J. Alfred (John Alfred)
History
The Growth of the English House: A short history of its architectural development from 1100 to 1800
Gotch, J. Alfred (John Alfred)
Architecture -- England; Architecture, Domestic
One of the favourite devices of the time for producing a splendid group
was to place the principal rooms in a lofty central block, to flank it
on either side with a block of subsidiary rooms at some distance, and
to connect these outlying wings with the main building by colonnades.
As a rule one wing contained the kitchens and the other the stables.
Two inconveniences must have followed from this arrangement: the
stables were too near the house, the kitchens too far off. Sir Henry
Wotton had already uttered a warning against placing the kitchen
at a great distance from the dining-room, “or else, besides other
inconveniences, perhaps some of the dishes may straggle by the way.”
Inigo Jones appears to have been the first to adopt this wide-spreading
disposition at Stoke Bruerne in Northamptonshire, a house of which the
central block has been burnt down; his successors bettered his example,
followed it with frequency, and established a fashion which survived
till late in the eighteenth century.
In Isaac Ware’s “Complete Body of Architecture,” written for students
of the art, and published in 1756, several chapters of the third
book are devoted to explaining how a house of this kind should be
designed. The author supposes a gentleman with a moderate family to
be desirous of building a house in the country “without columns, or
other expensive decorations”; handsome, though not pompous. Having
selected a site in accordance with principles previously enunciated
by Mr Ware, the gentleman asks a builder how much ground the house
ought to cover to meet his requirements. The builder at once replies
that a 65 ft. frontage will answer the purpose. Although the steps by
which this rapid decision is arrived at are not indicated, it seems
to be satisfactory as well as inevitable. Sixty-five feet being the
correct length of the front, it follows that from 40 to 45 ft. must be
the depth. The intention being to achieve something handsome (though
not pompous), the kitchen is not to be put under the parlour, nor
the stable in the corner of the yard: “a bricklayer could do that.”
These offices are to be placed in detached wings, “so that from a
plain design, such as the vulgar builder would have proposed, here
shall arise, with little more expense, a centre, its wings, and their
communication.” The position of the detached wings is next to be
settled. In order to be proportionate with a centre of 65 ft. frontage,
it would appear that the wings should start 28 ft. away to the right
and left; as to their distance frontwards from the centre, the author
is not so certain, but he advises 13 ft. Then comes the actual size of
the wings, which must correspond exactly with one another, although one
is to contain the kitchen and the other the stables. The best measure
in proportion to the 65 ft. is 35: accordingly that is to be the length
of the front of each wing. As to their depth, “for a house of this
bigness and design, 48 ft. will be a good measure.” The size of the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account