Nonsuch Regained: 2012 Lamas Presidential Address
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NONSUCH REGAINED: 2012 LAMAS PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS Martin Biddle Nonsuch, the most flamboyant and celeb- the palace left a rich finds assemblage (Biddle rated of the royal palaces of Tudor England, 2005), including the fragments of many wine is gone. Built by Henry VIII, Nonsuch was bottles (Biddle 2013). Today the site of the demolished between 1682 and 1688/90 by vanished palace is an area of parkland sit- George, Lord Berkeley, the last keeper of uated within the London Borough of Sutton the house, who in 1682 had purchased its and the Borough of Epsom and Ewell. materials from Charles II’s former mistress, Begun on 22 April 1538, the first day of the Barbara Villiers, Baroness Nonsuch. Even the thirtieth year of Henry’s reign, the structure exact site of the palace was uncertain until its was substantially complete by the end of foundations were revealed by archaeological 1540, but the external decorations, includ- excavation in 1959 (Biddle 1961; Biddle & ing stuccoes of Roman emperors, gods, Summerson 1982). The later occupation of goddesses, the Labours and Adventures of Fig 1. Joris Hoefnagel, ‘Nonsuch Palace, the south front’, watercolour (dated 1568) (In private possession/Christies) 1 2 Martin Biddle Fig 2. Plan of Nonsuch Palace as revealed by excavation in 1959, showing in red the extent of the decorative scheme around the inward- and outward-facing walls of the Inner Court (Martin Biddle) Nonsuch Regained: 2012 LAMAS Presidential Address 3 Hercules, and the Liberal Arts and Virtues the Cities of the World, published in 1598, this took another six years, and were only com- became the iconic view of Nonsuch. Another pleted shortly before the king’s death in view of the south front, engraved by Jacobus January 1547 (Fig 1) (Biddle 1984; 2010). Hondius (Josse de Hondt) in 1610, possibly Two years earlier John Leland, the King’s after a drawing made by him during his time Antiquary, had written of Nonsuch in his in England in 1583—93, was published by Latin poem about a swan’s journey down the John Speed in 1611 in his Theatre of the Empire Thames from Oxford to Greenwich: of Great Britain (Fig 3). The north front appears in two oil paint- How great an emulation there of Roman antiquity? How much of very beautiful ings. That in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cam- painting? How much of gold? How much bridge, perhaps painted in 1610—12 for indeed of every kind of ornament? Henry, Prince of Wales, shows Nonsuch from the north-west. The other, painted by The name ‘Nonnesuche’ is found for the Hendrik Danckerts in 1666—79 and showing first time in English in the building accounts the palace from the north-east, is in Berkeley for July 1538, six weeks or so after the start Castle; a second version is in the care of the of works. It was soon in common parlance. Borough of Epsom and Ewell. In 1565 Nicholas Chytraeus of Rostock, There are also three vital pieces of inform- one of the earliest of many foreign visitors, ation about height. The royal apartments on lauded the palace in Latin verses memorably the first floor of the Inner Court are recorded translated by Richard Bentley for Horace as 18ft high. And great timbers 80ft long Walpole: for the twin towers flanking the south front were searched for throughout the southern This which no equal has in Art or Fame, Britons deservedly do Nonesuch name. counties in 1538 and brought to the site in a specially-made cart, ‘the king’s great wain’. A The excavation showed that the palace was third indication of size is provided by the one arranged around two courtyards, each en- complete stucco panel, found in fragments tered by an imposing gatehouse (Fig 2). at the foot of the south-west tower (Fig 4). John Evelyn in his diary for January 1666 dis- This panel is just under 4ft 5in high and 2ft tinguished between the two courtyards, ‘the 9½in wide. Because most of the stuccoes were first is of stone Castle like … the other of set within the regular timber framing of the Timber a Gotique fabric, but … incomparably Inner Court and appear to have been of a beautified’ (Biddle & Summerson 1982, 196). standard size, this panel provided the crucial Here is the key contrast: the Outer Court module for reconstructing the decorative entered by its broad gatehouse, crenellated, facades. with the kitchen court to the east, was a typ- Using the ground plan, the pictures, and ical piece of Tudor domestic architecture, the indications of height, Simon Hayfield of rather grand, very like Hampton Court or St Hayfield Studio drew twelve scale elevations, James’s. The taller Inner Gatehouse was also one for each of the four outer faces of the ‘gotique’, but opened up a flight ‘not of one palace and one for each of the four inward- or two as in the Pantheon at Rome, but of facing walls of the two courts. Constant cross- eight steps’ into another world. The palace reference was needed to resolve the many was surrounded by gardens and park land problems of the sometimes conflicting visual (Biddle 1999). evidence, and to evaluate the written accounts How was it possible to recreate Nonsuch, of visitors, the Parliamentary surveyors of ‘incomparab1y beautified’, as a model? The 1649, and a long Latin description, written ground plan revealed by excavation provided perhaps 1582 by Anthony Watson for John, accurate measurements. There are also four Lord Lumley, then owner Nonsuch. pictures. A watercolour of the south front The greatest problem was how to settle flanked by twin towers was drawn by Joris within the given dimensions of length and Hoefnagel in 1568 (Fig 1). Reworked, per- height the arrangement of the stucco decor- haps in the same year, with Queen Elizabeth ation on the inward-facing walls of the Inner in her coach in the foreground and en- Court. One of the ironies of the evidence graved by Franz Hogenberg for the Theatre of for Nonsuch is that we have pictures of the 4 Martin Biddle Fig 3. Jodocus Hondius, Nonsuch Palace, a bird’s eye-view, from ‘Surrey Described and Divided into Hundreds’ (1610), engraving in John Speed, ‘Theatre of the Empire of Great Britiaine’ (London, 1610), above, compared with Simon Hayfield’s reconstruction of the same view based on archaeological and architectural evidence, below (Biddle/Hayfield) Nonsuch Regained: 2012 LAMAS Presidential Address 5 Fig 4. William Kendall(?) and his company, reconstruction by David Honour of a stucco panel (136.8 by 89cm) showing a Roman soldier seated on his shield, found in fragments at the foot of the south-west tower (Honour/English Heritage) 6 Martin Biddle stucco decoration of the outward-facing Similar problems are presented by the walls of the Inner Court but no written paintings of the north front. The detail of accounts; and detailed written descriptions the early 17th-century painting from the of the decoration of the inward-looking walls north-west is simpler but its geometry is but virtually no pictorial evidence, only a more accurate and not influenced by a wish glimpse over the roof of the south front on to show more than would in fact be possible de Hondt’s engraving of 1610 (Fig 3). from a single point. The later painting Difficult too was the resolution of the from the north-east, when compared with differences between Hoefnagel’s and a photograph of the new model (built on de Hondt’s views of the south front. In a dimensionally accurate plan), shows that Hoefnagel’s watercolour the whole ground Danckerts elongated his view to show a de- floor is hidden behind the Privy Garden wall tailed (and highly important) view of the (Fig 1). He also shows five sides of each of east facade of the Inner Court, something the twin octagon towers, whereas one can unobtainable from the point from which his only see three sides of an octagon from any painting appears to have been taken. Like one point. By contrast Hoefnagel shows Hoefnagel’s, his painting must depend on the central bay straight on. He must have bringing together in the studio field sketches sketched from at least three, perhaps from as (‘painting notes’) taken from more than one many as five points, and combined sketches point of view. in the studio. The result is that Hoefnagel’s In the summer of 2010, the Friends of view, made famous throughout Europe by Nonsuch, appointed Ben Taggart of Model the engraving of 1598, makes the south front Houses to build the model. Ben’s first quest- look lower and the twin towers fatter than ion was: ‘Have you made a roof plan?’ We they actually were. had not. As Ben explained, the roof of a De Hondt’s engraving of 1610, at first model is the first thing anyone sees. Making sight naive, is more accurate overall. Direct a roof plan proved difficult (Fig 5). The comparison between his engraving and a excavated plan showed exactly where the photograph of the new model taken from fireplaces were at ground level, but on the same high-level shows this to remarkable Danckerts’ painting the chimneys were out effect (Fig 6). The figures on the south front of kilter compared with other high features, and twin towers, over-simplified and dressed such as the twin towers or the turrets of in later sixteenth-century costume, serve the gatehouses. He had clearly put his view only to show that the building was decorated together from sketches taken from different from the ground up with superimposed points, but it also emerged that on the two registers of human figures.