1 For the tole played by Netherlandish craftsmen in England see especially Girouard, Mark, ‘Some Alien Craftsmen in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, xx (1958-64), 26–55 Google Scholar. For Bachecraig, Peter Howell, ‘Country Houses in the Vale of Clwyd I’, Country Life, 22 December 1977, pp. 1906 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 For Lleven de Key see chiefly Vermeulen, F. A. J., Handboek tot de Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Bouwkunst, 11 (The Hague, 1931), p. 242-61Google Scholar.

3 Ibid., p. 254. Professor J. J. Terwen of the Art Historical Institute, Leiden University, suggested to the author that two later Dutch masters: Arent van s’ Gravesande (c. 1600-62) — the architect of such important buildings as the Sebastiaansdoelen, The Hague (1636), and the Marekerk, Leiden (1639) — and his brother, Pieter Noorwitz (d.1669), the master carpenter in charge of the building of the Nieuwekerk, The Hague (begun 1649), may have come from a similar background. Their names suggest that their birthplaces could have been Gravesend and Norwich respectively, both important centres of refugee settlement in England, but no documentary evidence, to substantiate this claim has so far been found. For a contrary opinion see Kuyper, W., Dutch Classicist Architecture (Delft, 1980), pp. 89 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 See Neurdenberg, E., Hendrick de Keyser Beeldhouwer en Bouwmeester van Amsterdam (Amsterdam, 1929), p. 68 Google Scholar, for the date, which has been wrongly given as 1606 by some English authorities.

5 At that stage Nicholas Stone had just completed his apprenticeship and was working for Isaac James, a London sculptor of Dutch origin and former pupil of the Flemish sculptor Richard Stevens (d.1592). See Esdaile, K. A., ‘The Part Played by Refugee Sculptors 1600-1750’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, XVIII (1948-49), 258-59Google Scholar.

6 Hendrick de Keyser I held office, 1595-1621; Pieter I (eldest son), c.1625-45; Willem I (third son), 1647-53; Thomas I (second son), 1662-67; Pieter II (son of Thomas I), 1680-87.

7 See Spiers, W. L., ‘The Note-book and Account Book of Nicholas Stone’, Walpole Society, VII (1919)Google Scholar, passim.

8 Weissman, A. W., ‘De Schoonzoon van Hendrick de Keyser’, Oud Holland, 38 (1920), pp. 162-64Google Scholar; Idem, ‘De Engelsche Bloedverwanten van Hendrick de Keyser, Bulletin Nederlandsche Oudheidk. Bond (1911), pp. 52-55; Idem, ‘Het Geslacht de Keyser’, Oud Holland, 22 (1904), 83-87; Whinney, M., Sculpture in Britain 1530-1830 (Penguin, 1964), p. 240 Google Scholar, note 30.

9 Early in 1636 Stone contracted to make a chimneypiece of black marble and sundry other objects for Sir John Byron. The chimneypiece was eventually dispatched by ship via Hull to Newstead in July 1638 (Spiers, ‘The Notebook’, p. 110). At the end of this account there is an entry ‘More Receved of Brother Hendrek £10-00-0’ (misread by Spiers as Briget Hendrek), which is the first documented evidence of Hendrick de Keyser II’s involvement with this work. The chimneypiece does not survive at New-stead, where the only remaining seventeenth-century work dates from the period f.1631-33, i.e. before Stone and De Keyser became involved. Compare Jackson-Stops, G., ‘Newstead Abbey, Nottinghamshire’, Country Life, 9 and 16 May 1974, pp. 1122-25, 1190-93Google Scholar.

10 The marriage took place in the church of St Nicholas, Nottingham, on 6 July 1639. According to the marriage-bond, which is preserved amongst the Archdeaconry records in Nottingham University Library, both Hendrick de Keyser and his English bride were then living at Newstead. (She died in childbirth in Nottingham early in 1643.) De Keyser is first recorded as living in Nottingham in June 1641 (Nottingham Hall Book 1640/1, Nottingham City Archives, Cat. no. 3415 fol. 66). In March 1641/2 he signed the Protestation against the religious policies of Charles I (Protestation Returns, Nottingham City Archives, Z, 26). On 23 February 1642/3 he presented a child for baptism at St Mary’s Church, Nottingham (Baptismal Register in Nottingham County Record Office). In the Parliamentary Assessment of 28 July 1643 he is entered as living in Stoney Street in the parish of St Mary’s, Nottingham (Records of the Borough of Nottingham, V (1900), 214). According to a letter from Nicholas Stone II to his uncle Thomas in Amsterdam, Henrick de Keyser II was back in Amsterdam by 18 January 1647 (Nicholas Stone’s Italian Notebook, 1638-42, fols 41-42, Sir John Soane’s Museum, London).

11 He is definitely recorded as living in London up to 1674, but thereafter the records present a confused picture with more than one (possibly three) Willem de Keysers active simultaneously in Holland, London and Ireland during the late 1670s and early 1680s. See Colvin, H. M., Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840 (1978), p. 257 Google Scholar; Idem, History of the King’s Works, V (1976), 255, 266; Knoop, D. and Jones, G. P., ‘The London Mason in the seventeenth century’, Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge, XLVIII (London, 1938), 74 Google Scholar; Weissman, Schoonzoon, pp. 163-64; Loeber, Rolf, ‘Irish Country Houses and Castles of the late Caroline period’, Quarterly Bulletin of the Irish Georgian Society, January-June 1973, p. 43, nn. 353-55Google Scholar; Dictionary of National Biography, v (1908), 746-47.

12 It is unlikely that the Willem de Keyser recorded as active in Ireland in the period 1681-85 (Rolf Loeber, ‘Irish Country Houses’, ut supra) was Willem I, because of his age. It must have been someone from the next generation. Yet another De Keyser, Jacob, possibly a son or near relation of Willem I, imported building materials from Holland to London in 1668 together with the latter. (London Port Books, P.R.O. Class 190, 152/2 Vols 31, 34b, 68b).

13 Weissman, Het Geslacht, op. cit. p. 87. Hendrick de Keyser III was born c.1634, trained as a mason in Amsterdam and left Holland for England c.1659.

14 ‘The Correspondence of John Cosin D.D. Lord Bishop of Durham’, Publications of the Surtees Society, 5 5 (1872), 356-57, 362-63. For a discussion of the work done at Bishop Auckland in the 1660s compare Cornforth, John, ‘Auckland Castle, Co. Durham’, Country Life, 151 (3 February 1972), pp. 266-70Google Scholar.

15 This derivation was kindly drawn to my attention by Mr Howard Colvin.

16 Summerson, J., Architecture in Britain, 1530-1830 (Paperback Edition, 1970), pp. 177-78Google Scholar.

17 Blunt, A., ‘Rubens and Architecture’, The Burlington Magazine, CXIX (September 1977), fig. 26 and p. 261 Google Scholar, where attention is drawn to the fact tht Rubens began using these so-called Solomonic columns, which became such a favourite motif of the Baroque designer, in his paintings more than twenty years before Bernini gave them the final seal of approval in his Baldacchino, St Peter’s Rome (1624-33). Such twisted columns had, however, already made their appearance on the façades of buildings in the Netherlands and Northern France by the 1570s (e.g. Hotel de Ville, Arras (1572) ).

18 Despite the lack of documentary evidence the attribution of the south porch of St Mary the Virgin, Oxford, to Nicholas Stone is still fairly generally accepted. Likewise, although no real evidence to this effect has yet been found, circumstantial evidence makes it tempting to link his name to the St John’s College designs as well. It is known that he was working in the area at the time and two of his former assistants, Harry Ackers and Anthony Goor, were employed on the stonework of the Canterbury Quadrangle ( Lees-Milne, J., The Age of Inigo Jones (London, 1953), p. 143 Google Scholar). For a discussion of the various possible attributions for these two buildings see chiefly, Summerson, Architecture in Britain, pp. 177-78; Colvin, Dictionary, pp. 786-87; Pevsner, N. and Sherwood, J., Buildings of England: Oxfordshire (Penguin, 1974), pp. 198–200, 285Google Scholar.

19 The De Keyser family had many direct links with Antwerp. Hendrick de Keyser I’s wife, Barbara van Wildere, came from that city, and during the time that Nicholas Stone worked in Amsterdam the Antwerp sculptor Laurens van Steenwinckel’s two sons, Laurens II and Hans, were also working in De Keyser’s workshop (E. Neurdenberg, Hendrick de Keyser, pp. 91-92). For a discussion of Flemish influence on the work of De Keyser compare F. A. J. Vermeulen, Handboek, passim but especially pp. 213-16.

20 Hervey, M. F. S., The Life, Correspondence and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel (Cambridge, 1921), pp. 175-76Google Scholar.

21 R. Loeber, ‘Reciprocity in 16th and 17th century Anglo-Dutch Architectural Relations’, unpublished paper presented on 1 June 1976 at the annual conference of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Netherlandish Studies, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada.

22 See Jones’s copy at Worcester College, Oxford, of L. B. Alberti, L’ Architettura, translated into Italian by Cosimo Bartoli (1565). Against the last sentences of Book 8, Chapter 1, Jones noted: ‘and not as the fleminges breaking of orders to seme full of invention but have no reson of Proportion.’ Information received from Mr John Newman.

23 Summerson, Architecture in Britain, pp. 148-49; Colvin, Dictionary, pp. 335-37.

24 According to Hirschmann, Otto (‘Balthazar Gerbier’s eer-ende clachtdicht ter eeren van Henricus Goltzius’, Oud Holland, 38 (1920), 104-29Google Scholar). Gerbier was living in The Hague 1614-15. He left for England 1616 but returned to Holland in 1617 for another stay of about two years. It is therefore likely that he would have seen the Haarlem gate. From the above poem it is also known that he knew and admired Hendrick de Keyser.

25 Although Stone left Holland before the Haarlem gate was even commenced (1613) he almost certainly would have learnt about it from Willem de Keyser who was working for him from the early 1620s onwards.

26 Merens, A., Een dienaer der Oost Indische Compagnie te London in 1629: Journael van Abram booth en zijn descriptie van Engeland (The Hague, 1942), pp. 233-34Google Scholar. An English translation of Booth’s description of Caron House is given in Bachrach, A. G. H., Sir Constantine Huygens and Britain 1596-1687, 1 (London, 1962), 125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Blunt, A., Art and Architecture in France 1500-1700 (1973 ed.), p. 75 Google Scholar. One finds this arrangement in some sixteenth-century Flemish country houses as well, although here, as in the case of Baron de Rode’s Castle at Desselberghe, Flanders (illustrated in Sanderus, A., Flandria Illustrata (1641-44), 1: 171 Google Scholar), the house is surrounded by a moat.

28 Eastbury Manor House, Barking, Essex (1572-73), for example has this arrangement although the wall here encloses a backcourt and not a forecourt as at Caron House (cf. Summerson, Architecture in Britain, pls 71-72).

29 Information from the card index of the Amsterdam Gemeentearchief.

30 A. Merens, Journael, p. 194.

31 C. L. Cudworth’s two articles, ‘Dutch Influence in East Anglian Architecture’, Cambridge Antiquarian Society Proceedings, XXXVII (1937), 24-42, and, ‘The Dutch Gables of East Anglia’, Architectural Review, LXXXV (1939), 113-18, are the best early studies of the problem. Both Cudworth’s classification and his general dating, however, are open to criticism. For a more reliable classification of the Suffolk gables compare Sandon, E., Suffolk Houses: A Study of Domestic Architecture (Woodbridge, 1977), pp. 101-06Google Scholar. Sir Nikolaus Pevsner in the Glossary to the Buildings of England series, draws a distinction between the Dutch gable, that is, a gable with curved sides which is crowned by a pediment, held to be characteristic of the period c.1630-c.1650, and the shaped gable, with multi-curved sides, characteristic of c.1600-c.1650.

32 Pevsner, N., Buildings of England: N.E. Norfolk and Norwich (1962), p. 98 Google Scholar.

33 For further examples of this kind of gable in the Netherlands compare Hitchcock, H. R., Netherlandish Scrolled Gables of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries (New York, 1978)Google Scholar, especially figs. 36, 43, 49, 73.

34 van der Meulen, J., Die Europäische Grundlage der Kolonial architektur am Kap der Gute Hoffnung (Marburg, 1962)Google Scholar. For contrary opinions compare Lewcock, R. B., ‘Recent Research into Cape Architecture’, Bulletin Koninklijk Ned. Oudhk. Bond, Jg. 64 (1965), 159-71Google Scholar; G. Roosegaarde-Bisschop, ‘De oorsprongen van de Kaapse Bouwkunst’, ibid., Jg. 65 (1966), 21-47. Cape Dutch architecture of the eighteenth century indeed seems to have many gable forms that correspond with East Anglian types, and which scholars like Cudworth (‘Dutch Influence’, pp. 40-42) use to prove Dutch influence in East Anglia. However, as Van der Meulen points out, these forms occur rarely even in eighteenth-century Dutch architecture and are commoner in regions such as Germany and the Baltic coast.

35 For Dutch gable types see chiefly Vermeulen, Handboek, pp. 199 ff., III, 79 ff., Thiels, Ch., ‘Krulgevels in het Maasland . . .’, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, XXII (1971), 41–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Flemish ones Buis, Ch., L’Evolution du Pignon à Bruxelles (Brussels, 1908)Google Scholar, Baeyens, H., Het Burgerhuis van de 17e en 18e eeuw in de Provincie Brabant (Antwerp, 1950)Google Scholar, de Vliegher, L., Les Maisons à Bruges (Thielt, 1975)Google Scholar; for South African ones Van der Meulen, Europäische Grundlage, Fransen, H. and Cook, M., The Old Houses of the Cape (Cape Town/Amsterdam, 1965)Google Scholar.

36 Summerson, Architecture in Britain, pp. 155-70.

37 Ibid., p. 157.

38 Meischke, R., ‘Het Burgerweeshuis’, Geillustreerde Beschrijving van Monumenten van Geschiedenis en Kunst over de Stad Amsterdam, 1 (The Hague, 1975), 298 Google Scholar and passim, in particular stresses the important role played by Amsterdam in the formulation of the basic principles of Dutch classicism.

39 Jacobs, J. (ed.), The Familiar Letters of James Howell (London, 1890), p. 29 Google Scholar.

40 Gerson, H. and Terkuile, E. H., Art and Architecture in Belgium: 1600-1800 (Harmondsworth, 1960), pp. 14 ffGoogle Scholar.

41 The full quotation can be found in Murray, J. J., Antwerp in the Age of Plantin and Brueghel (Newton Abbot, 1972), p. 27 Google Scholar.

42 For a discussion of the development of the early to mid seventeenth-century country houses (buiten huisen) in close proximity to Amsterdam compare Meischke, R., ‘Het Amsterdamse Buitenhuis in de eerste helft der Seventiende eeuw’, Amstelodamum, Jg. 45 (June 1958), 133-41Google Scholar. The author stresses the pre-eminence of the country house in the development of the format of the Dutch classical house type of the seventeenth century.

43 Idem., ‘Het Klassicisme van 1620-1660’, in Delftse Studieën (Delft, 1967), 171-73.

44 Illustrated in Sanderus, A., Flandria Illustrata, 1: 274 Google Scholar. The House of Biscay was still in existence in 1837 but it was then in a poor state of repair and was demolished soon after. For a description and dating of the building compare de Vliegher, Les Maisons, p. 27.

45 Illustrated in Mortier, David, Brabantia Illustrata (London, 1693), 1, pl. 89 Google Scholar, and Sanderus, 11: 515.

46 Apart from those already cited, other buildings that would belong to this group are: the St Pieters pakhuizen, Amsterdam (1623); the Queen of Bohemia’s palace at Rhenen (see p. 15); several of the designs by Hendrick de Keyset I illustrated in Architutura Moderna (1631); the old Town Hall, Nieuwkoop, South Holland, and possibly even one of Philips Vingboons’s early designs : the house of Joan Huydecoper (1639) which formerly stood on the Singel, Amsterdam, illustrated in W. Kuyper, op. cit., pl. 218.

47 Summerson, Architecture in Britain, p. 170.

48 Hoogewood, G., ‘De Amsterdamse trapgevel in de Zeventiende eeuw’, unpublished Master’s degree dissertation, Art Historical Institute, Amsterdam University (1969)Google Scholar.

49 For an illustration of this gable compare H. R. Hitchcock, Netherlandish Scrolled Gables, fig. 29. The author, who refers to these gables as ‘Serlian’ gables, suggests that Pasqualini derived the gable at Buren from a similar one shown in the ‘scena tragica’ of Serlio’s second book published in Paris in 1545, but it may be a question rather of a common earlier source, since Pasqualini’s gable dates from the early 1540s.

50 Hitchcock, pp. 95-98; W. Kuyper, Dutch Classicist Architecture, pp. 4-5, sees the Holborn gable type as an independent English development.

51 Harris, J., Orgel, S. and Strong, R., The King’s Arcadia: Inigo Jones and the Stuart Court (London, 1975), pp. 104-05Google Scholar.

52 H. R. Hitchcock, Netherlandish Scrolled Gables, p. 96.

53 Ibid., pp. 97-98.

54 For a description of the house compare de Vliegher, Les Maisons, pp. 369-70.

55 Illustrated in Parent, P., L’Architecture des Pays-Bas Meridionaux (Paris/Bruxelles, 1926), pl. xi(i)Google Scholar.

56 Illustrated in D. Morder, Brabantia Illustrata, pp. 3 and 81 respectively. Wildre Castle, Kampenhout, can be dated to before 1629 (Bouwen door de eeuwen heen in Vlaanderen (Gent, 1975), p. 319). Nothing is known about Promelle Castle, but it must date from the same period. (Information from Mr Luc de Vliegher of Bruges.)

57 See especially de Vliegher, Les Maisons, figs. 169, 349, 591, 758, and 1008.

58 Summerson, Architecture in Britain, p. 161.

59 In the Visitation of London 1634 he is referred to as, ‘Forterie, Samuel, of London Merchant; Grandson of John F. of Flaunders’, Cooper, Durrant (ed.), ‘List of Foreign Protestants and Aliens resident in England 1618-1688’, Camden Society, Vol. 82, Old Series (1862), xvii and viiiGoogle Scholar. He received his letter of denization on 29 May 1633 where he is indicated as a stranger ‘born in foreign parts’ (Publications of the Huguenot Society, VIII (1893), 48).

60 Flemish stretcherbond (a variation on Flemish bond) was used in England as early as 1563 ( Brunskill, R. and Clifton-Taylor, A., English Brickwork (London, 1977), p. 16, note 2Google Scholar). It would still, however, appear as if the Dutch House is the earliest example of the use of ordinary Flemish bond, which in the course of the seventeenth century gradually came to replace English bond. The Dutch House is also cited (ibid., p. 26) as being the first case of the use of gauged (rubbed) brickwork in this country, but Mr John Newman drew my attention to the use of rubbed brickwork on the north portico of Houghton House, Bedfordshire, of c.1616-20.

61 Gunther, R. T., The Architecture of Sir Roger Pratt (Oxford, 1928), p. 280 Google Scholar. The entry (c.1660) reads as follows : ‘Brickwork, as to the manner of laying, is either after the old Roman way, laying one course of headers, the other of stretchers [i.e. English bond] or Flemish bond as they call it which is a header and stretcher’. In Belgium this bond is also known under the name Gotisch verband (Gothic bond), indicating presumably a medieval origin ( van Kiersbilck, J., Vak en Kunstwoorden: Ambacht van den Metselaar (Ghent, 1899), pp. 358-59)Google Scholar.

62 P. Parent, L’Architecture des Pays-Bays, p. 49, pl. XIII. For further illustrations of the other two buildings compare Plantenga, J. H., L’Architecture Religieuse dans l’ancien Duché de Brabant (The Hague, 1926), pls 3, 5Google Scholar, fig. 88.

63 Bricks and tiles were imported from both Flanders and Holland during the period under consideration. For an indication of the extent of the trade in this commodity between London and the Netherlands see Miliard, A. M., ‘The Import Trade of London 1600-40’, London University Ph.D. Thesis, 1956 Google Scholar (unpublished), passim, but especially Appendix Vol. 1.

64 The most detailed study of the extent of alien immigration into London at the time, and the role that the foreign craftsmen played in the affairs of the city, is still the unpublished M.Sc. thesis by MissScouloudi, Irene, ‘Alien Immigration into the Communities in London 1558-1640’, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, London University, 1937 Google Scholar. A breakdown of the various occupations held by these immigrants is given in her Appendix IX and this includes several of the building trades.

65 Serlio’s Sixth Book on domestic architecture, written between 1546-53 in France, but not published until very recently (Milan, 1966, London/New York, 1978), shows the extent to which he succeeded in finding a synthesis between the Italian and French traditions of domestic design. The steep dormered hipped roof figures prominently in many of the designs in the book, which range from proposals for palaces and country pavilions for princes to modest detached town-houses. Compare Rosenfeld, M. N. (ed.), Serlio on Domestic Architecture (London, 1978)Google Scholar.

66 Château de Charleval, begun 1570 after designs by Jacques du Cerceau I. This particular design, although published in Du Cerceau’s Les Plus Excellents Bastiments (1576-79), is, however, not likely to have been the source for Baulms House because the pilasters are of stone and fluted.

67 Some of De Brosse’s original designs for the façades of this square c.1609, still exist and are illustrated in Coope, R. and Grodecki, C., ‘La Création d’Henrichemont par Sully (1608-12)’, Cahiers d’Archeologie et d’Histoire du Berry, 41 (June 1975)Google Scholar, figs. 3 and 6.

68 The building contract made between Edward Alleyn, the founder of Dulwich College, and John Benson, a bricklayer from Westminster, is printed in full in Young, W., History of Dulwich College (London, 1889), pp. 18–21 Google Scholar. Young includes an early eighteenth-century engraving of the building showing these big brick pilasters. I am indebted to Mr John Newman for drawing my attention to this building.

69 King’s Arcadia, op. cit., p. 187, Item 351. This design which is described here as a ‘unique example of a rendition of an Italian palazzo-style house’, was probably not built. Constantine Huygens, who was lavishly entertained by the Killigrew family at their home in Lothbury during his first visit to the country (1618-24), remained a lifelong friend and assisted them on several occasions during exile in Holland in the 1650s. ( Worp, J. A., ‘De Brief-wisseling van Constantijn Huygens [1608-1687]’, Rijksgeschiedkundige Publicatiën, vols 15, 19, 21, 24, 28, 32 [The Hague, 1911 onwards] passim, but especially vol. 28, 244–45 Google Scholar). One of the family, Sir Thomas Killigrew, married a Dutchwoman of The Hague in 1655 (ibid.).

70 There is still an extant design of Inigo Jones’s for the entrance of this house and which is known to have been built. King’s Arcadia, ut supra, p. 106, items 190 and 191.

71 Dalton, C., The Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, 11 (London, 1885), 108, 288-89Google Scholar.

72 Professor Bachrach’s biography, Sir Constantine Huygens, of which only one volume has yet appeared, will eventually give a full account of Huygens’s contacts with Britain. The subject is far too complex to summarize here except to say that Huygens’s contacts ranged from members of the English aristocracy and gentry like Sir Edward Cecil, Lucy Countess of Bedford, Sir Robert Killigrew and family, all well-known patrons of the arts, to scientists/mechanics like Cornells Drebbel and artists like the Olivers.

73 Quoted in the original French by Fremantle, K., The Baroque Town Hall of Amsterdam (Utrecht, 1959), p. 102 Google Scholar and note 1.

74 Merens, Journael, p. 230. Entry for Newmarket (1629): ‘King James was famous for three things, namely the building of (1) The notable Banqueting House at Whitehall, Westminster, (2) the chapel at St James’s House ... (3) the Dog House at Newmarket’ [my translation]. For a discussion of the buildings at Newmarket compare Harris, J., ‘Inigo Jones and the Prince’s Lodging at Newmarket’, Architectural History, 2 (1959), 26–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 For this see chiefly, van Gelder, H. E., ‘Iets over Barthold van Bassen, ook als Bouwmeester van het Koningshuis te Rhenen’, Bulletin Oudheidkundig Bond (1911), pp. 234-40Google Scholar. The original design drawings for this building are in the archives at Hanover, W. Germany (front façade illustrated in Vermeulen, F. A. J., Handboek, III (1941), pl. 724 Google Scholar. Dr Rolf Loeber informs me that there is another set of drawings in the British Library (Kings MSS 108, 90, 1-8).

76 Quoted in Oman, C., Elizabeth of Bohemia (London, 1938)Google Scholar.

77 de Beer, E. S. (ed.), The Diary of John Evelyn (Oxford, 1955), 11, 35Google Scholar.

78 Several scholars have drawn attention to the correlation between the Coymans House façade and that of the Banqueting House, notably Terwen, J. J., ‘Vicenzo Scamozzi’s invloed op de Hollandse architectuur van de Zeventiende Eeuw’, Bulletin Nederlands Oudhk. Bond, Jg. 65 (1966), 129-30Google Scholar. See further W. Kuyper, op. cit., pp. 58-60.

79 R. Meischke, De Vroegste Werken, pp. 131-35, and fig. 2.

80 Kuyper, W., ‘Two Mannerist Theatres by Baroque Architects’, New Theatre Magazine, vol. 9 (1969), no. 4, 22–29 Google Scholar.

81 Already in 1957 Professor Michael Kitson drew attention to the similarity between Huygens’s house in The Hague and the preliminary design for the Banqueting House and suggested that Huygens must have seen this design when in London. (The Burlington Magazine, XCIX, 315.) The circumstantial evidence would seem to support this supposition even though the only reference to Inigo Jones amongst Huygens’s extensive literary bequest does not prove such an acquaintance with Jones’s work. For a discussion of this building and bibliography see W. Kuyper, op. cit., pp. 61-63.

82 I am grateful to Miss M. Post of the Art Historical Institute, University of Leiden, for showing me these designs by Pieter Post when I visited there in 1976.

83 J. Harris, ‘Inigo Jones and the Prince’s Lodging’, recognized this particular design as the one actually built and suggested it as the prototype for the red-brick, hipped-roofed house type which became the norm in English domestic architecture from the 1660s onwards (a type usually identified with Dutch influence). But see Kuyper, op. cit., p. 90.

84 Worp, J. A. (ed.), ‘Constantijn Huygens: Joernaal van zijn reis naar Venetië in 1620’, Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap te Utrecht (The Hague, 1894), vol. 15, 79 ffGoogle Scholar.

85 Mr Marcus Whiffen, on the basis of Inigo Jones’s notes (made c.1613-15 in his copy of Palladio’s Quattro Libri) suggests that Sir Henry Wotton must have owned at least five original drawings by Palladio which he obtained during his first embassy at Venice (1604-12). The author also stresses Wotton’s importance as the first English admirer of the architecture of Palladio ( Whiffen, Marcus, ‘Visitors to Vicenza’, Architectural Review, 114 (July 1953), 6 ff.)Google Scholar. Wotton returned to England in 1612 via France so it is unlikely that he would have had his Palladio drawings with him during his embassy in Holland. However, since he was on intimate terms with the Huygens family in The Hague (cf. Bachrach, Sir Constantine Huygens, pp. 64 ff.) it is quite possible that he may have inspired the young Constantine Huygens to visit Vicenza.

86 Constantine Huygens was in London from February to July 1624 and Wotton’s book was published in April of that year, so the 1624 copy of Wotton’s work in the Huygens’s catalogues (Bibliotheca Zuylickemiana, Leiden, 1701, item 710) was probably acquired at the time.

87 It is marked Synopsis Elementa Architectura Henr. Wotton and bears the date September 1639. Kamphuis, G., ‘Constantijn Huygens bouwheer of Bouwmeester’, Oud Holland, 77 (1962), 153, n. 9Google Scholar.

88 See the letter from J. Brosterhuizen to Huygens dated 6 February 1642 (Worp, Rijksgeschiedkundige Publicatiën, vol. 21, 264: letter no. 2942).

89 Sir Henry Wotton presented a copy of the first edition of his Elements to his friend William Boswell (now in the Berg Collection, New York Public Library, and reprinted by Frederick Hard as part of the Folger Shakespeare Library Series, 1968). From Boswell’s correspondence with De Laet it would appear that it is this copy which formed the basis for the 1649 Latin edition (British Library, Add. MS 6395, Boswell Papers II, letters dated 4 March 1648 and 14 August 1649). Boswell, who was English Ambassador at The Hague for several years after 1633, was on intimate terms with Huygens. In 1639, when Boswell was on a visit to Brussels, Huygens sent him two sets of prints of his house in The Hague, then recently completed, one set for himself and the other for another friend of Huygens’s in London, Lady Stafford (formerly Killigrew). See letter of Huygens to Boswell dated 17 June 1639 (Worp, Rijksgeschiedk. Publicatiën, ut supra, p. 205).

90 The most comprehensive study of this aspect is Kuyper, W., Dutch Classicist Architecture (Delft, 1980)Google Scholar.