sign in sign up
<<
Home , 10 Downing Street, Palace of Westminster, Somerset House

ROLE REVERSAL?

The unexpected significance of the influence of Burghley House on the

architecture of

Since at least the middle of the twentieth century it has been widely accepted that the architecture of Burghley House, especially the courtyard architecture, developed by William Cecil Lord Burghley in the 1570s and 80s, was directly inspired and influenced by that of Somerset House in the Strand as built by the , Edward Seymour, , between 1547 and 1552. In his seminal work on Architecture in Britain, Sir John Summerson asserted that Somerset House was ‘unquestionably one of the most influential buildings of the English Renaissance’1. Summerson’s claim is based principally on John Thorpe’s drawing of the North Strand front of the house and ground plan of the outer courtyard (which he dates to 1603) (see Fig. 3 ). Figs. 1 and 2 show the exact correspondence of the cresting over the north and south courtyard pavilions of Burghley House and over the window bays on Thorpe’s drawing, including the shell niches and fire balls.

Figure 1. Cresting over north courtyard pavilion Figure 2. Detail of John Thorpe’s drawing, Burghley House (photograph Jill Husselby) Elevaion of the Strand front and ground plan of thr first courtyard of Somerset Place c.1610-11 (Sir ’s Museum)

1Architecture in Britain 1530-1830 John Summerson ( 1983) pp45-46 (first published 1953) In 2009 Simon Thurley turned this claim completely on its head. In his book on Somerset House he argues that Thorpe’s drawing:

‘seminal for the interpretation of Somerset Place, [as it was known in the sixteenth century] has too often been uncritically accepted as being first a record of what Protector Somerset built, and second a drawing produced speculatively by John Thorpe in 1603. There is good reason to believe that neither is the case.’2

Based on a forensic re-examination of the drawing and related documents as well as discovery of new ones, Thurley makes a convincing argument that the drawing does NOT show the front as built by the Protector, but rather is a survey drawing of proposals for alterations to the Strand front, dating from 1610/11 (Fig. 3). The drawing (of which Thorpe’s drawing may be a copy), was on the contrary designed to be presented to Queen , wife of James I. Somerset House traditionally belonged to the queen by right as royal consort from the beginning of James’s reign in 1603,3 but it was only in 1610 that alterations to the outer (north) court and its Strand front were first being considered by her4.

Figure 3. John Thorpe’s drawing, Elevaion of the Strand front and ground plan of the first courtyard of Somerset Place c.1610-11 in John Thorpe’s Book of Drawings (Sir John Soane’s Museum)

Some of what is shown in the drawing, including the central triumphal entrance, already existed as built by Protector Somerset, but an estimate dated

2 Somerset House: The of ’s Queens 1551-1692 Simon Thurley with contributions by Patricia Coote and Claire Gapper (London 2009) p 98 3Ibin, p31 4Ibin.98 16th March 1610 details other significant changes to be made to this Strand front, which concur with what Thorpe shows on the drawing:

‘The north side towards the streete to be raised higher with ashlar cornish railes and ballesters’ (i.e. the whole main body of the front to be made higher)

The ‘square windows’ (forming the bays at either end of the facade, (see Fig. 2))were ‘to be raised higher with ashlar and other open worcks, pedestals, architrave freize cornice’.

The central frontispiece was ‘to be clensed and the railes and ballesters amended’5.

Thurley continues that the lead downpipes, evident in a drawing of 1755, bearing the initials of James and Anne and dated 1612, further strengthen the case for the work having been undertaken for Queen Anne. So too does the reference to the ‘faire structure...whose roofs you raised of late’ made in ’s masque performed at Queen Anne’s great celebration at Somerset House in 1614.6

What this means, as Thurley points out, is that the design of the open work crests on the pavilions at Burghley (see Fig. 1) are not copies of Protector Somerset’s architecture, but quite the reverse. The proposals presented to Queen Anne are lifted directly from what we can still see at Burghley House today, right up to the pyramidal finials which are pencilled in on Thorpe’s drawing (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Detail of John Thorpe’s drawing, Elevation of the Strand front and ground plan of thr first courtyard of Somerset Place c.1610-11 (Sir John Soane’s Museum)

5Ibin 98(TNA SP14/62, no. 33) 6Ibin 38

The square and circle motif (known as square and cipher) of the cresting is a unifying feature at Burghley House. It appears also on the central frontispiece on the south facade, as shown in the cartouche in the border of Vanderbank’s tapestry, made for the house at the end of the 17th century, as well as throughout the interior including the chimneypiece and hammer beam roof details and the vaulting of the Roman stair (Figures 5 6 7 & 8).

Figure 5. Cartouche from the border of John Vanderbank’s Elements tapestry Fire commissioned for Burghley House by the 5th Earl of Exeter (photograph Jill Husselby)

Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Photographs Jill Husselby

In June 1606 a warrant was issued on behalf of the King’s Works for payment to John Thorpe for ‘drawing down and writing fayre plattes of Holdenby, Ampthill and Burghley.’7 The first two were already royal properties and there seems no reason to doubt that the plans of the ground and first floors of Burghley House in John Thorpe’s book of drawings, now at the Soane Museum, are the result of this important commission of 1606.8 (see Fig.14 below)

Thorpe must have spent a good deal of time at Burghley in order to make these complex surveys and could not have failed to take in the details of the architecture of what he was recording. By 1610 he would have been well aware that Queen Anne of Denmark was already thoroughly familiar with, and was known to admire, William Cecil’s architectural style from his vast house of Theobalds where she and the king were lavishly entertained by William’s son Robert Cecil, King James’s Principal Secretary. So taken were they with the property that in 1606 they took possession from Robert in exchange for some prime royal estates, including Hatfield. Officially Theobalds now belonged to Queen Anne since Hatfield had been hers.9

Theobalds became James’s favourite palace. It is hardly surprising that proposals for Somerset House, where the queen was intent on making her principal London residence into a magnificent independent and rival court of her own, should draw upon features common to both Burghley and Theobalds (although the square and cipher cresting is particular to Burghley). Especially so on the public Strand front which faced onto the ceremonial route between the palace of and the .

It is not so much the stylistic ‘renaissance’ details of the Strand facade proposals gleaned from Cecil’s architecture that are interesting, but the manner in which they transform it from a passive ‘closed’ front to one designed for interaction with the human presence. Such interaction is a frequent trope in Italian paintings of the period (particularly Veronese) and is clearly illustrated by the anonymous portrait of the Earl of Surrey (Fig. 9).

7The History of the King’s Works H. Colvin (London 1982) Vol !V p46; E413/2726 8The Book of Architecture of John Thorpe T57 and T58 (Sir John Soane’s Museum) 9Theobalds, Hertfordshire: The plan and Interiors of an Elizabethan Country House' Emily Cole (Architectural History Vol 60 2017 p 105

Figure 9. Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey by an unknown Italian artist c 1546 Oil on Canvas (NPG 5291)

The real life features proposed for Somerset House adopt this characteristic ‘see and be seen’ architecture, the balustraded roof walks, raised terraces and open loggia balcony, so evident, especially in the courtyard, at Burghley. William Cecil may have taken the idea of the triumphal arch from Protector Somerset, but the transformation of the first-floor into Palladian-style open loggia balconies was an entirely new introduction in English sixteenth-century architecture (Fig. 10).10 All these features are designed for live human appearance, performance and display, the ‘beautiful Scenery’ as described the courtyard in 176311 (Fig. 11)

10Strictly speaking, these are , not ‘balconies’ in that the surrounding architecture also project from the main body of the building, but they function in exactly the same manner, while providing extra protection from the weather and came to be known as ‘Juliette’ balconies, (although the word ‘balcony’ was never used by Shakespeare himself) 11 Architecture at Burghley House: The Patronage of William Cecil 1533-1598Jillian Husselby (doctrinal thesis University of Warwick 1996) p228,published online by the University of Warwick -wrap.warwick.ac.uk/view/theses/ The Politics of Pleasure Jill Husselby in Patronage Culture and Power The Early Cecils ed. Pauline Croft (London and New Haven 2002) pp32-33

Figure 10. North Pavilion Burghley Figure 11. Perspective View of the Inner Court taken from the Courtyard (Photograph Jill West End under the Arch near the Golden Gates John Haynes 1755 Husselby) (Burghley House)(Photograph Warwick University)

Figure 12. Detail of John Thorpe’s Drawing, Elevation of the Strand front and ground plan of the first courtyard of Somerset Place c 1610-11 (Sir John Soane’s Museum)

The proposals for Somerset House create a magnificent level roof walk where the walls are raised, bounded overall by the balusrading, and above the end square window blocks, decorative frames for the human figure as would be seen from the Strand below. The upper storey of the central entrance bay, which originally would have towered above the ranges to either side as a traditional entrance gatehouse, now becomes a ‘prospect room’ leading onto the lead walks. The ‘clensing' of the frontispiece suggests removal of some kind, so the ‘amended’ balusters and rails were perhaps those as shown forming a balcony loggia in the centre of the prospect room. Again, this would provide an ideal framed stage for a paired royal appearance, and, indeed, in May 1615 King James came and viewed the important procession ‘of the newly-created Knights of the Garter from a vantage point at Somerset House’.12

The ground plan of the courtyard behind the Strand front as shown on Thorpe’s drawing ( Fig. 13) also has marked similarities to the courtyard at Burghley in Thorpe’s 1606 plan (Fig. 14).

Figure 13. Detail of John Thorpe’s Drawing, Elevation Figure 14. John Thorpe’s plan of the Ground of the Strand front and ground plan of the first Floor of Burghley House 1606, T58 in The courtyard of Somerset Place c 1610-11 (Sir John Soane’s Book of Architecture of John Thorpe (Sir John Museum) Soane’s Museum)

The inscriptions on Thorpe’s Somerset House drawing read :

‘This court 120 fo longe and it should be 90 fo wide’(to Burghley’s 115‘ x 80’) ‘All ye sides round abouts are leadyd/ &ballistes after ye order of ye front;’. The north and south ranges were just two stories high and above the loggia walk on the north side were windows looking onto ‘this terrace and leaddyd round... 10 fo’ wide’,13 exactly as can still be seen on John Haynes drawing of the courtyard at Burghley made in 1755 (Fig. 11).

Again, as at Burghley, the courtyard would have made an ideal setting for staging performances,14 the spectacular masques and , often presented by

12 Thurley p100 13 Ibin.98 14 see Husselby 1996 Vol 2 chapter 5 ‘Beautiful scenery’: The Courtyard as Stage’ pp 193-238 , that Queen Anne was so fond of and did so much to promote. Although the courtyard had been considerably altered by 1776 and all balustrading removed, the loggia on the north side, that was so similar to Burghley’s, can still be seen in William Moss’s watercolour of that date (Fig 15).15 the viewpoint is as it would have been experienced from the new roof walks at the opposite end of the courtyard.

Figure 15. The Outer Courtyard of Somerset House William Moss1776, pen ink and watercolour (Ashmolean Museum) Thurley 2009 Cat. No 36 p132

William Cecil was the youngest and most politically astute member of Protector Somerset’s inner circle (Fig 16). Like Somerset, he had a passionate interest in architecture. He was the mastermind of his own great houses at Burghley Theobalds and Cecil House in the Strand. Like Somerset too, he became involved with every aspect of the Office of the Royal Works. He was consulted over planning, appointments, design and financial decisions concerning military installations and civil engineering as well as domestic architecture. He could read plans and even draw up rudimentary ones himself.16 He became the leading architectural patron of his age, and while may be deemed the most sophisticated of the Somerset circle’s houses, unlike Burghley or Theobalds it has little of the drama of architecture designed to emphasise and magnify the human presence.

15 Thurley Cat no 36 pp 131-2 16 Husselby 2002 p 25

Figure 16. William Cecil, Ist Baron Burghley c. 1565 oil on panel (The Marquess of Salisbury )

The Cecil presence itself was all over the Strand. William Cecil’s London Burghley House, inherited by his elder son Thomas, together with Burghley House in Northamptonshire, stood on the north side, almost opposite Somerset House. Thomas was created Earl of Exeter by King James on the same day as his half brother, Robert Cecil, became the Earl of Salisbury. Like their father, both were leading patrons of architecture. Robert was made keeper of Somerset House and High Steward of the Queen Anne’s courts from 1603. His New Exchange building which had a similar silhouetted-skyline to the proposals put to Queen Anne for Somerset House, was just down the street on the south side, as was his own magnificent mansion, Salisbury House.

The proposals detailed in John Thorpe’s drawing of the Strand front of Somerset House would have transformed it from a rather uneventful and easily overlooked facade, sandwiched between low-status tenement buildings to either side, into a clearly defined palace building. Its exciting skyline with the sun behind it on the south side would have stood out dramatically from the street below. Further interest would have been engaged by figures, possibly the queen and king themselves, who might be glimpsed promenading on the roof walk or framed by the decorative cresting at either end or appearing on the balcony loggia of the frontispiece as they watched the frequent ceremonial spectacles passing from Westminster to the City of London and back again. What these new features achieve is to combine two vital presentational strategies; visual access and safe physical distancing.

Although the proposals for Somerset House in 1610/11 were all prominent features of the buildings of William Cecil dating from the 1570s onwards, there novelty still to the wider public audience in the early seventeenth century is evident in that the word ‘baluster’ is only first recorded only in 1602, ‘balcony’ in 1618, and ‘balustrade’ in 1631 (OED).

It is easy to overlook this habitual ‘lag’ in the public consciousness of new design, but in this case it is well illustrated by Thomas Coryat’s popular account of his 1608 travels in Europe published in 1611.17 Coryat was a member of Prince Henry’s court from 1603 to 1608, so would have been familiar with the most up- to-date buildings in London. Nevertheless, ‘Coryat’s difficulties in trying to convey to his untravelled fellow-Englishmen an idea of the balconies and balustrades that skilfully break the flatness of Venetian facades’ which he had ‘very seldom seen in England’ are evident.18 Without the appropriate words, he has to explain a balustraded balcony as ‘a very pleasant little terrace that jutteth or butteth out of the main building the edge whereof is decked with many pretty little pillars either of marble or freestone to lean on’ from which people ‘may contemplate... the parts of the city around them’.19

The role reversal whereby the architecture of Burghley House influenced that of Somerset House surely marks a significant shift in our understanding of the uptake and development of the renaissance vocabulary in architecture in England, and especially of William Cecil’s role in that development. Of wider significance, however, is his introduction to the country of architecture designed directly to interact with the human presence, in the case of balconies for instance, even to be completed by it. It was an idea enthusiastically taken up by Inigo Jones a under the patronage of King James and Queen Anne of Denmark, following his Italian tours,

17Coryat’sCrudies: Hastily gobbled up in Five Moneth’sTravels Thomas Coryat (London 1611) 18Tom Caryat and Juliette’s ‘Balcony’ B. Sprague Allen PMLA Vol 8, no. 3 (Sept.1933) p946

19Ibin. but it is Cecil who should be credited with the introduction of this little-studied aspect of architecture into England some forty years earlier.

It is an important idea. The royal ‘appearance on the balcony’ at is still the most effective means of displaying them directly (and safely) to a huge crowd of onlookers who clamour for this experience; a phenomenon that Hitler exploited to rather different ends. By contrast, the Prime Minister standing at a temporary lectern outside number 10 has far less visual impact. Contact to a wider public is only possible, and perhaps now acceptable, through the medium of television. Today, it is the sculptor Anthony Gormley’s work, rather than that of architects themselves, that draws our attention to this idea. By placing his human figure sculptures in unexpected architectural situations he highlights the possibilities of this .

The first Elizabethan age was one of supreme visual awareness. Its impact still resonates with us today through the magnificent portraits of the queen and her glamorous courtiers. William Cecil undoubtedly exploited the vital political role visual access to the queen, and control of that access could play. He strove for state jurisdiction over the queen’s portrait image from very early in her reign. Through his architecture he created the ideal settings for safe controlled display of the monarch in person and for the crucial two-way visual dialogue with her audience.

Dr Jill Husselby, FSA

I gratefully acknowledge that the idea for this article stems directly from Simon Thurley’s discoveries from his new research in Somerset House: The Palace of England’s Queens 1551-1692 (Simon Thurley with contributions by Patricia Coote and Claire Gapper (London 2009). Responsibility for the conclusions I draw with regard to the nature of William Cecil’s architecture and its influence is, however, all my own.