The present essay is mainly concerned with the coronation entries staged for James I and Charles II by the City of London in 1604 and 1661, and especially with the temporary arches made out of wood and canvas and erected to mark nodal points along the routes. These events have been the subjects of scholarship keenly attuned to their place in accessions more than usually demanding upon representations of the king’s majesty, in as much as James was the first Stuart king of England and, by the terms of hereditary monarchy, his grandson’s reign began twelve years before his coronation, at the moment Charles I’s head was severed from the neck. Here, however, the arches will explain, or emblematize, a particular way of conceiving architecture: as an assemblage of readily-dismountable parts like Lego bricks, or like a trophy, the ornamental group of symbolic or typical objects arranged for display. In this kind of architecture ‘classical’ ornament comprises, not the material realization of a stable, rational, and universal intellectual system elsewhere promoted by the early Stuarts’ patronage of Inigo Jones, for example, but what Sir Balthazar Gerbier in 1648 called a ‘true History’ of destruction and triumph, the result of more or less random despoliation and reassembly. What follows is not, therefore, directly concerned with majesty, nor with the arches’ iconography or their audiences, their place in London’s ceremonial geography, nor even their elaboration of the ‘complex relationships between two distinct but interconnected political domains’, the City that built them and the monarchy that graced them.
1 Charles II’s was the last entry of its kind. I believe the City’s only seventeenth-century welcome for a foreign monarch (as opposed to such dignitaries as royal brides, or mothers-in-law like Marie de’Medici [in 1638]) was that for Christian IV of Denmark in July 1606, for which an arch was built in Cheapside: The King of Denmarkes Welcome: Containing his Arrivall, Abode, and Entertainment, Both in the Citie and other Places (London, 1606), pp. 22–23. The entire contents of this and other ‘festival’ books in the British Library are now freely available as digital images via the Library’s web-site.
2 New Shorter OED, CD-ROM version (1997), s-v. ‘trophy’.
3 My sketch of classicism conventionally understood is indebted to Barbara Arciszewska, ‘Introduction. Classicism: Constructing the Paradigm in Continental Europe and Britain’, in Articulating British Classicism: New Approaches to Eighteenth-century Architecture, ed. Barbara Arciszewska and Elizabeth McKellar (Aldershot, Hants, 2004), pp. 1–33 (pp. 1, 2).
4 Gerbier, Balthazar, The Interpreter of the Academie for Forrain Languages, and All Noble Sciences, and Exercises … ([n.p.], 1648), p. 175.
5 Manley, Lawrence, Literature and Culture in Early Modern London (Cambridge, 1995), p. 214.
6 Stow, John, A Survey of London written in the Year 1598 …, 1603 edn (Stroud, Glos, 2005), p. 31 ; compare pp. 47, 53–54/244.
7 In what follows ‘City’ refers to the City of London and its government, as opposed to the larger metropolitan area, including Westminster.
8 Burke, Peter, ‘Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century London’, London Journal, 3 (1977), pp. 143–62.
9 Smyth, Adam, ‘Profit and Delight’: Printed Miscellanies in England, 1640–1682 (Detroit, 2004), p. 54 (‘readers” thoughts; the emphasis is his); see also Manning, John, The Emblem (London, 2002), p. 47 on the emblem, literally the thing made from inserted or grafted objects, or fragments / spolia. Among students of late antique spolia, Dale Kinney has argued (‘Spolia, damnatio, and renovatio memoriae’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 42 [1997 (1999)], pp. 117–48 [pp. 118–19]) for an expansion of the range of practices subsumed by the word to include all manner of recarving, recycling, and re-use.
10 Manning, Emblem, p. 47. See Stocker, David, ‘The Archaeology of the Reformation in Lincoln: a Case Study of the Redistribution of Building Materials in the Mid Sixteenth Century’, Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, 25 (1990), pp. 18–32 , for the ‘new “architecture” of salvaged stone’ (quotation p. 27) at St Mary’s conduit head (early 1540s) and the new south porch (1550s or 60s) at St Mark’s parish church, both in Wigford, Lincoln; and Stocker, David and Everson, Paul, ‘Rubbish Recycled: a Study of the Re-use of Stone in Lincolnshire’, in Stone: Quarrying and Building in England, AD 43–1525, ed. Parsons, D. (Chichester, 1990), pp. 83–101 , especially pp. 97–98, on the ‘iconic’ re-use of older ecclesiastical fragments at nineteenth- and twentieth-century parish churches.
11 Brenk, B., ‘Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 41 (1987), pp. 103–09 (p. 105); see also Saradi-Mendelovici, Helen, ‘Christian Attitudes towards Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 44 (1990), pp. 47–61 (pp. 52–53). ‘Descriptions of Byzantine churches praise the πoικιλíα [variety, diversity] as a basic characteristic of their decoration.’ (ibid., p. 53). Moore, Derek A. R., ‘Notes on the Use of Spolia in Roman Architecture from Bramante to Bernini’, in Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, ed. Striker, Cecil L. (Mainz, 1996), pp. 119–22 , finds the same aesthetic in early modern Rome: see especially p. 122.
12 In addition to those adduced by Kinney, ‘Spolia’, pp. 137–40, see the more or less hypothetical instances in Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, trans. Ingrid D. Rowland, ed. Thomas Noble Howe, Ingrid D. Rowland and Michael J. Dewar (Cambridge, 2001), p. 136 (the inclusion of caryatids in the Forum Augustum, Rome, were meant to indicate that it had ‘been built “ex manubiis” [from the spoils of war]’); Stocker, David, ‘Tons Et Origo. The Symbolic Death, Burial and Resurrection of English Font Stones’, Church Archaeology, 1 (1997), pp. 17–25 (p. 20: bases of medieval baptismal fonts carved to imitate the ‘upturned, earlier font bowls’ that actually served in this way); and Pierre de la Ruffinière du Prey, Hawksmoor’s London Churches: Architecture and Theology (Chicago and London, 2000), pp. 78–79, 90 (ornaments on Nicholas Hawksmoor’s early eighteenth-century London churches were meant to evoke the ‘primitive’ Christian habit of recycling pagan stone).
13 For modern architecture, see Vidler, Anthony, The Architectural Uncanny: Essays in the Modern Unhomely (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1992), quotation p. ix ; see also Vesely, Dalibor, ‘Architecture and the Ambiguity of Fragment’, in Architectural Associations: The Idea of the City, ed. Middleton, Robin (London, 1996), pp. 109–21 , and Middleton, Robin, ‘Soane’s Spaces and the Matter of Fragmentation’, in John Soane Architect: Master of Light and Space, ed. Richardson, Margaret and Stevens, Mary Anne (London, 1999), pp. 26–37.
14 Gerbier, Interpreter, p. 175; see also note 23 below. On the date of publication, which may have been 1649, see Harris, Eileen and Savage, Nicholas, British Architectural Books and Writers 1556–1785 (Cambridge, 1990), p. 208 ; on the school, which opened in July 1649 and closed a year later, see Webster, Charles, The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform 1626–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 219–20 , and Wood, Jeremy, ‘Gerbier, Sir Balthazar (1592-1663/1667)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, accessed 15 October 2004 at <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10562>.
15 Gerbier, Interpreter, p. 165, his point being that books and medals (the latter subject to theft and / or melting down) are frail by comparison. On medals as historical evidence, see Christine Stevenson, ‘Robert Hooke, Monuments, and Memory’, Art History, 28 (2005), pp. 43–73 (p. 63).
16 I.i.5-6: Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture, trans. Morris Hickey Morgan (1914), reprint edn (New York, 1960), pp. 8, 6.
17 I am paraphrasing Jones, Mark Wilson, ‘Doric Figuration’, in Body and Building. Essays on the Changing Relation of Body and Architecture, ed. Dodds, George and Tavernor, Robert (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 2002), pp. 64–77 (p. 75).
18 Payne, Alina A., The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture (New York and Cambridge, 1999), p. 45.
19 Watkin, David (ed.), Sir John Soane: the Royal Academy Lectures (Cambridge, 2000), p. 69 . See Burroughs, Charles, ‘The Building’s Face and the Herculean Paradigm: Agendas and Agency in Roman Renaissance Architecture’, Res, 23 (1993), pp. 7–30 on the use of caryatids, etc., to inscribe ‘power relations in architectural formations, even against the background of assertions of the transcendent basis and universal validity of the classical architectural system’ (p. 8).
20 Phillips, John, The Reformation of Images: the Destruction of Art in England 1535–1665 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1973), pp. 77, 82, 88–89 . Gerbier’s alertness to the theological problem of images is evident in the preceding section of the Interpreter, ‘Of Carving or Sculpture’ (pp. 165–70). While he did summarize two other ‘opinions concerning the origine of Column’s’ (p. 174), these explain them as representations of persons (the Tuscan is/as Hercules) or plants (Corinthian leaves).
21 Shute, John, The First and Chief Groundes of Architecture, facs. edn. with an introduction by Weaver, Lawrence (London, 1912), sig. Biii. Vitruvius (I.i.6: Ten Books, trans. Morgan, p. 7) wrote that the porch was built with money raised from the sale of the ‘spoils and booty’, and hence its connexion to the real spoils was literal as well as mimetic: Kinney, ‘Spolia’, p. 120 comments on the general practice.
22 Hersey, George L., The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture: Speculations on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1988), pp. 149–50, 181 n. 1, 75 (quotation); on Palladio, see Payne, , Architectural Treatise, pp. 175–81 . Carpo, Mario (Architecture in the Age of Printing: Orality, Writing, Topography, and Printed Images in the History of Architectural Theory [Cambridge, Mass., 2001], p. 100) has similarly described the Cinquecento’s ‘reinvention of Vitruvius as a strict rationalist, a severe censor of all superfluous decoration, a Puritan’. Soo, Lydia M. (ed.), Wren’s ‘Tracts’ on Architecture and Other Writings (Cambridge, 1998) pp. 128, 156–57, 158–59, 157. The orders were the ‘fruit of constructional logic mediated by aesthetic experience’: Jones, Wilson, ‘Doric Figuration’, p. 68 (not writing about Wren specifically, but it is a good summary of Wren’s position).
23 Gerbier, Balthazar, A Brief Discourse Concerning the Three Chief Principles of Magnificent Building. Viz. Solidity, Conveniency, and Ornament (London, 1662), pp. 7, 2, 4. The architectural distinction, such as it is, becomes muddled in his Counsel and Advise [sic] to All Builders, first published 1663: see pp. 4, 108–09 in the edition appended to the 1664 edition of the Discourse. Gerbier used his discussion of ‘ornament’ in the latter to rehearse, with minor changes (columns now explicitly represent ‘the number of slaves which they had taken’ [my emphasis], and the reference to medals is omitted) the passage he had published in the Interpreter of 1648 (or 1649), quoted at note 14, above. Harris and Savage have suggested (British Architectural Books, p. 206) that the Brief Discourse and Counsel and Advise represent the architecture lectures that Gerbier failed to publish along with his others in 1649–50.
24 Moxon, Joseph, Mechanick Exercises on the Whole Art of Printing (1683-84), ed. Davies, Herbert and Carter, Harry, 2nd edn (1958), repr. (New York, 1978), p. 8 . He was describing typesetting, as opposed to the older practice of ‘carving whole Pages in Wood’.
25 Strong, Roy, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450–1650 (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 21–22 , and Purkis, H. M. C. (ed.), La Magnifique Entrée de François d’Anjou en sa ville d’Anvers (1582), facs. ed., Triumphs, Renaissance series, ed. McGowan, Margaret (Amsterdam, ), pp. 23–24.
26 Harrison, Stephen, The Arch’s of Triumph Erected in Honor of the High and Mighty Prince James the First of That Name, King of England, and the Sixth of Scotland, at His Maiesties Entrance and Passage Through His Honorable Citty & Chamber of London Upon the 15th Day of March 16031/4] ([London]: Harrison, Stephen, 1604), ‘Lectori Candido’ (‘to the honest reader’) , sig. K. On Harrison’s book, see Griffiths, Antony, with the assistance of Gerard, Robert A., The Print in Stuart Britain 1603–1689 (London, 1997), pp. 44–45, cat. 3; Adams, Bernard, London Illustrated 1604–1851: A Survey and Index of Topographical Books and their Plates (London, 1983), pp. 3–6, no. 1 ; and Harris, and Savage, , British Architectural Books, pp. 229–31.
27 Ogilby, John, Africa. Being an Accurate Description of the Regions of/Egypt, Barbary, Lybia, and Billedulgerid … (London, 1670), ‘Preface’. Many copies of the Entertainment and Ogilby’s other books had burned in the fire of 1666.
28 Ogilby, John, The Entertainment of His Most Excellent Majestie Charles II in his Passage through the City of London to his Coronation (1662), repr. edn. (Binghamton, NY, 1988), p. 25.
29 Dates henceforth will be given in the modern way (as if the year began on 1 January: 1604, that is, not 1603/4) but without conversion to the modern (Gregorian) calendar.
30 Jonson and Dekker, but not Harrison, describe this structure, for which Jonson wrote the programme: Dutton, Richard (ed.), Jacobean Civic Pageants (Keele, 1995), pp. 107–08, 113.
31 The Netherlandish arch: ibid., p. 58.
32 Ibid., pp. 23–25. The best introduction to the day’s events is Graham Parry, The Golden Age Restor’d: the Culture of the Stuart Court, 1603–42 (Manchester, 1981), pp. 1–21.
33 Hood, Gervase, ‘A Netherlandic Triumphal Arch for James I’, in Across the Narrow Seas: Studies in the History and Bibliography of Britain and the Low Countries presented to Anna E. C. Simoni, ed. Roach, Susan (London, 1991), pp. 67–82 ; Grell, Ole Peter, ‘Tribute and Triumph: Dutch Pageants and Stuart Coronations’, in Calvinist Exiles in Tudor and Stuart London (Aldershot, Hants, 1996), pp. 163–90 (pp. 165–74 ); Hood, Gervase, ‘The Netherlandic Community in London and Patronage of Painters and Architects in Early Stuart London’, in Dutch and Flemish Artists in Britain. Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek XII, ed. Roding, Juliette et al. (Leiden, 2003), pp. 43–56 (pp. 46–51).
34 Dugdale, Gilbert, The Time Triumphant, Declaring in Briefe, the Ar[r]ival of our Soveraigne lieage Lord, King James into England … shewing also, the Varieties & Rarieties of a[l]l the Sundry Trophies or Pageants, erected by the Worthy Citizens of the honorable Cittie of London: and by Certain of Other Nations, Namely, Italian, Dutch and French … (London, 1604), sigs B3, B4V.
35 Harrison, Arch’s of Triumph, on the supporters for the arms on the Italian’s arch (sig. *D) and the Temple of Janus (sig. *I); alternatively, perhaps, ‘in great’ (the corner figures on the Italian arch). Compare Dekker’s ‘satyrs carved out in wood’ at the Garden of Plenty (Dutton, Jacobean Civic Pageants, p. 78).
36 Ibid., p. 45.
37 Illustrating arches’ plans also served to align them with classical antiquity, in so far as Serlio had done the same for their Roman prototypes: Serlio, Sebastiano, Tutte l’opere d’architettura et prospetiva, di Sebastiano Serlio … (1619), repr. edn (New York, 1964), in, e.g. fols 101v, 105v. But illustrative convention was also at work, in as much as, at least in the sixteenth-century Netherlands, the same printers and publishers produced treatises and entry books: Becker, Jochen, ‘“Greater Than Zeuxis and Apelles”: Artists as Arguments in the Antwerp Entry of 1549’, in Court Festivals of the European Renaissance: Art, Politics and Performance, ed. Mulryne, J. R. and Goldring, Elizabeth (Aldershot, Hants, 2002), pp. 171–95 (pp. 175–77). Adams, oddly, identifies the plan illustrated in my Figure 3 as ‘a diagram of the tenon and mortise used in construction’ (London Illustrated, p. 5). The present essay, however, owes much to his note of the interest of the relationship between Harrison’s training, the ornament on the title-page, and the naming of the ‘arches … as “pegmes”, that is jointed scaffolds’.
38 Harrison, Arch’s of Triumph, sig. *C.
39 Dutton, Jacobean Civic Pageants, p. 58; Dugdale, Time Triumphant, sig. B3V. Grell, ‘Tribute and Triumph’, p. 168 gives the dimensions as 87 feet high, 37 broad, and 22 deep, presumably on the authority of Jansen’s Beschryvinghe.
40 Dugdale, Time Triumphant, sig. B2V.
41 Ibid., sigs B2V, B3V.
42 Grell, ‘Tribute and Triumph’, p. 174.
43 Dutton, Jacobean Civic Pageants, p. 46.
44 Gent, Lucy, ‘The “Rash Gazer”: Economies of Vision in Britain, 1550–1660’, in Albion’s Classicism: the Visual Arts in Britain, 1550–1660, ed. Gent, Lucy (New Haven and London, 1995), pp. 377–93 (p. 381); see also Arciszewska, ‘Classicism’, pp. 14–15. For the cost of the arches, see Grell, ‘Tribute and Triumph’, p. 168.
45 Harris and Savage, British Architectural Books, p. 230 summarize Per Palme’s argument to this effect.
46 Colvin, Howard, ‘Pompous Entries and English Architecture’, in Essays in English Architectural History (New Haven and London, 1999), pp. 67–93, quoting John Peacock on p. 75.
47 Payne, Architectural Treatise, pp. 119–20; Payne, Alina, ‘Reclining Bodies: Figural Ornament in Renaissance Architecture’, in Body and Building, ed. Dodds, and Tavernor, , pp. 94–113 (p. 99).
48 Tn Fenchurch Street was erected a stately Trophie or Pageant …’ (phrasing repeated in the pamphlet’s title): Dugdale, Time Triumphant, sig. B2v; see ibid., sig. B3V for the variety. For the etymology of ‘pageant’, Christine Stevenson, ‘Antimasque, Pageant: Restoration and Bethlem at Moorfields’, Res, 47 (Spring 2005), pp. 19–37 (p. 21).
49 Harrison, Arch’s of Triumph, ‘Lectori Candido’. Jonson also used ‘pegme’ for the first arch, on which he had worked: Dutton, Jacobean Civic Pageants, pp. 37, 45.
50 Adams, London Illustrated, p. 3; by extension, the word could also mean the inscriptions the structures often bore. Harrison used ‘pegme’ or ‘arch’ in contradistinction to ‘Scaffold’ (Arch’s of Triumph, ‘Lectori Candido’).
51 As Jansen’s Beschryvinghe explains: Hood, ‘Netherlandic Community’, p. 49.
52 Nicolson, Adam, Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible (London, 2003), pp. 68–69 ; thanks to Jane Kromm for this reference.
53 The canvases made for the Dutch arch at Charles I’s abortive entry of 1625 were sold at public auction a couple of years later (Grell, ‘Tribute and Triumph’, p. 180) and in ordering the carver Gerard Christmas to demolish the City’s arches in 1626 the Court of Aldermen granted him the materials as part payment ( Bergeron, David M., ‘Charles I’s Royal Entries into London’, Guildhall Miscellany, 3 , pp. 91–97 [p. 93]). In 1635 the Antwerp contracts specified that the arches and pegmata (stages) were to be left standing for six weeks: Held, Julius S., The Oil Sketches of Peter Paul Rubens: A Critical Catalogue, 2 vols (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), n, 225. The London arches of 1661 stood for a year or so before being sold off: Knowles, Ronald, ‘Introduction’ to Ogilby’s Entertainment, p. 41 ; Eric Halfpenny, ‘“The Citie’s Loyalty Display’d” (A Literary and Documentary Causerie of Charles II’s Coronation “Entertainment”)’, Guildhall Miscellany, 10 (1959), pp. 19–35 (p. 34). Compare, however, Loach, J. D., ‘Pageant and Festival Arts’, Grove Art Online, accessed 21 November 2005 via <http://www.groveart.com>, sect. 2, which, in discussing the dispersal of the materials, emphasizes the speed with which festival structures were dismounted, and its implications: ‘Speed of erection and ease of demountability were … more crucial than economy, since the architectural supports of the idealized world should be able to appear and then disappear.’
54 Johnson, Matthew, Behind the Castle Gate: From Medieval to the Renaissance (London, 2002), p. 127 ; Eaton, Tim, Plundering the Past: Roman Stonework in Medieval Britain (Stroud, Glos, 2000), especially pp. 11, 134–36 . The Gdansk city council re-used entire arches: Dmitrievna-Einhorn, Marina, ‘Ephemeral Ceremonial Architecture in Prague, Vienna, and Cracow in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries’, in Court Festivals of the European Renaissance, ed. Mulryne, and Goldring, , pp. 363–90 (p. 383); see also Loach, ‘Pageants’, sect. 2. Peter Howell’s forthcoming book on triumphal arches (from which he has kindly given me extracts) discusses the way in which entire arch frameworks for the seventeenth-century possesso, the newly-elected pope’s ceremonial progress from the Vatican to the Lateran, were not only re-used but hired out, too; ornamental parts from another arch, designed by Carlo Rainaldi, went into a temporary high altar in the church of Gesù e Maria on the Corso in 1675. Although dealing with a programme from the 1520s, David Starkey’s demonstration (‘Ightham Mote: Politics and Architecture in Early Tudor England’, Archaeologia, 107 , pp. 153–63) of Sir Richard Clement’s recycling at Ightham Mote, Kent, of painted wooden panels from some kind of occasional, royal structure is highly pertinent. Such materials were customarily held in the Revels stores prior to their re-use, adaptation, or disposal as gifts to favoured courtiers like Clement.
55 Held, Oil Sketches, 1, 225. Davidson, Peter, ‘The Theatrum for the Entry of Claudia de’Medici and Federigo Ubaldo della Rovere into Urbino, 1621’, in Court Festivals of the European Renaissance, ed. Mulryne, and Goldring, , pp. 311–34 (pp. 311–13), discusses late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century paintings surviving from comparable structures erected in Italy and Scotland.
56 Harrison, Arch’s of Triumph, sig. I*.
57 The connexion between ancient and modern arches was made explicit by the 1611 translation of Sebastiano Serlio’s Books of Architecture. While we no longer erect ‘Arches Triumphant of Marble or of other Stones’, a model for the more ephemeral kind, ‘adorned and painted in most curious man[n]er’, would interest citizens who might have to welcome ‘any great personage’. Sebastiano Serlio, The Five Books of Architecture: an Unabridged Reprint of the English Edition of 1611 (New York, 1982), iv, 8, fols 55V, 56.
58 Alberti, Leon Battista, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, ed. and trans. Rykwert, Joseph, Leach, Neil and Tavernor, Robert (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1988), VIII, 6, p. 265 ; compare Payne, Architectural Treatise, p. 279 n. 22.
59 Alberti, Art of Building, VIII, 6, p. 268.
60 Ibid., p. 402: editors’ note.
61 Jones alluded, in a marginal note in a copy of Palladio’s Quattro Libri, to ‘Constantines time when Architecture was much falen and they yoused to build wth fragmentes of Antike buildinges as in his Arch’: Harold Bruce Allsopp (ed.), Inigo Jones on Palladio, Being the Notes by Inigo Jones in the Copy of I Quattro Libri dell’architettura di Andrea Palladio, 1601, in the Library of Worcester College, Oxford, 2 vols, 1 Preface, Notes and Transcriptions (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1970), p. 55 (Quattro Libri, iv, 61); see Peacock, John and Anderson, Christy, ‘Inigo Jones, John Webb and Temple Bar’, Essays in Architectural History presented to John Newman, Architectural History, 44 (2001), pp. 29–38, on p. 33.
62 Kinney, ‘Spolia’, p. 120 (quotation); Alchermes, Joseph, ‘Spolia in Roman Cities of the Late Empire: Legislative Rationales and Architectural Reuse’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 48 (1994), pp. 167–78, on p. 167.
63 Serlio, Five Books, III, 4, fol. 49V. The translator, working from a Dutch-language edition, was perhaps Robert Peake, sen.: Rostenberg, Leona, English Publishers in the Graphic Arts 1599–1700: a Study of the Printsellers & Publishers of Engravings, Art & Architectural Manuals, Maps & Copy-Books (New York, 1963), p. 23 . His emphasis on what builders will get up to on their own accord is more revealing, for present purposes, than Serlio’s original emphasis on the licentiousness of architects, not workmen: ‘… ben è vero che gli ornamenti della maggior parte de li archi di Roma si allontanano molto da gli scritti di Vitruvio, & questo penso io procedere, che detti archi sono fatti di spoglie d’altri edifici, & ancofurse che gli Architettori furono licentiosi, ny havendo molto rispetto alle osservanze, per esser cose per uso di trionfi, & forse fatti con prestezza.’ Serlio, Tutte l’opere, III, fol. 99V.
64 He continued, ‘but as to outward appearance solid and very stately’: The Diary of John Evelyn Esquire F.R.S. (London and New York, n.d.), p. 120, for 23 November 1644.
65 From Webb’s 1660 petition for the Surveyorship. Bold, John, John Webb: Architectural Theory and Practice in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1989), p. 181 transcribes ‘A Breife of Mr Webbs case’ supporting the 1660 petition. See note 1 in the Appendix for Gerbier’s use of ‘Building’ this way.
66 E. Smith, Baldwin, The Architectural Symbolism of Imperial Rome and the Middle Ages (1956), repr. edn (New York, 1978), p. 22.
67 John Evelyn’s London Redivivum (1666), for example, proposes building a City gate ‘in manner [sic] of a triumphal arch, in honour of our illustrious Monarch’: Writings, ed. Guy de la Bédoyère (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1995), pp. 333–45 (p. 341).
68 Nicola Smith, The Royal Image and the English People (Aldershot, Hants, 2001), p. 97 (quotation), 103–07; see also Katharine Gibson, “‘Best belov’d of Kings”: the Iconography of Charles II’, 3 vols (Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, Courtauld Institute of Art, 1997), I, 168, and Walter George Bell, Unknown London, and More about Unknown London (London, 1951), pp. 112–13. Emily Mann, ‘The Gates of London in the Seventeenth Century’ (MA. thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, 2003), makes the point (p. 17) about the architectural differences between the gates and the 1604 arches. I am very grateful to Emily Mann for allowing me to cite her unpublished thesis.
69 Smith, Royal Image, pp. 104, 106, 107.
70 Colsoni, F., Le Guide de Londres pour les estrangers … (1693), facs. ed. Godfrey, Walter H. (London, 1951), p. 33 , ‘pour donner de la terreur aux Spectateurs, & de la crainte aux Medians’. Creighton, Oliver and Higham, Robert, Medieval Town Walls: An Archaeology and Social History of Urban Defence (Stroud, Glos, 2005) mention the display of heads (p. 171) as part of their illuminating discussions of the ‘social and judicial functions’ of English town gates and their ornamentation (pp. 139–43, 168–73).
71 A letter (not dated, but before 1592) from the Lord Mayor to the Privy Council explains that recent damage to Cheap Cross had been effected ‘by light persons who had pilfered a little lead … and not for any public defacement’ (my emphasis), which would have been directed to the images’ faces. Overall, W. H. (ed.), Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the Remembrancia. Preserved among the Archives of the City of London, AD 1559–1664 (London, 1888), pp. 65–66 . Pre-1640s attacks on the gates’ royal imagery were admittedly rare: see Stow, Survey of London, p. 54, and Smith, Royal Image, pp. 49, 101 for that on Ludgate.
72 Quoted (from the Repertory of the Court of Aldermen and the Journal of the Court of Common Council, variously) in Bergeron, ‘Charles I’s Royal Entries’, pp. 91–92, 93, 95.
73 Grell, ‘Tribute and Triumph’, p. 168; see also pp. 163–64 for such occasions’ importance to the Dutch community. Hood, ‘Netherlandic Community’, pp. 46, 48–49, 53. Although the Venetian ambassadors extraordinary wrote that three arches were erected ‘by divers other nations’ (Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collection of Venice, and in Other Libraries of Northern Italy 1625–26 [henceforth, ‘CSPVen’], ed. Allen B. Hinds [London, 1913], pp. 462–64, for 3 July 1626), the City’s own records (quoted Bergeron, ‘Charles I’s Royal Entries’, p. 93) refer to its three pageants.
74 Ibid., p. 92, quotes the letter written by the Earl of Pembroke on the king’s behalf on 25 May.
75 CSPVen 1625–26, pp. 462–64, for 3 July 1626.
76 Anthony Weldon, The Court and Character of King James whereunto is now added The Court of King Charles: Continued unto the Beginning of these Unhappy Times: with some Observations upon Him Instead of a Character (London, 1651), p. 177; see also Bergeron, ‘Charles I’s Royal Entries’, p. 93. Compare p. 194 in the anonymous The None-Such Charles His Character … (London, 1651), attributed to Gerbier by Wood, ‘Gerbier’.
77 Harris, John and Higgott, Gordon, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings (London, 1989), p. 252 . Peacock and Anderson have observed (Tnigo Jones’, p. 32) that Jones, ‘aware that the Arch of Constantine was a pastiche, used the same method in composing his modern imitation of it’. That is, roundels (‘enlarged paraphrases of Roman medals’) and ‘oblong panels bearing figurative imagery have been pasted into holes specially cut for them’ on the drawing, in at least one instance (the oblong at lower right) because the first version was rejected and excised.
78 Ibid., p. 29; on this design, see also Harris and Higgott, Inigo Jones, pp. 251–53, and Smith, Royal Image, p. 107, who notes the coin-medallions’ resemblance to those on Aldgate (Fig. 9), too.
79 Ibid., pp. 104, 106, 107. On the foundation myth, see Manley, Literature and Culture, pp. 26, 173, 182–85.
80 Overall, Analytical Index to the … Remembrancia, p. 499. It is not clear which party was to have paid for the rebuilding, on which see Smith, Royal Image, pp. 108–09; Peacock and Anderson, Tnigo Jones’, p. 33; Hart, Vaughan, Art and Magic in the Court of the Stuarts (London and New York, 1994), pp. 169, 171–72.
81 Harrison’s wording is not clear but the Bar probably formed the Temple’s base (ibid., p. 30).
82 Peacock and Anderson, Tnigo Jones’, p. 29; King of Denmarkes Welcome, p. 17.
83 For instances, Kernodle, George R., From Art to Theatre: Form and Convention in the Renaissance (Chicago, 1944), pp. 72, 73 ; Keene, Derek and Harding, Vanessa, ‘St Mary Colechurch 105/36: St Mary Colechurch: the Great Conduit’, Historical Gazetteer of London before the Great Fire: Cheapside. Parishes of All Hallows Honey Lane, St Martin Pomary, St Mary le Bow, St Mary Colechurch, and St Pancras Saper Lane, pp. 612–16, accessed 16 April 2005 at <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=2536>; Bergeron, David M., ‘Venetian State Papers and English Civic Pageantry, 1558–1642’, Renaissance Quarterly, 23 (1970), pp. 37–47, on p. 39.
84 Smith, Royal Image, pp. 51, 52; Keene, Derek, Cheapside before the Great Fire (London, 1985), p. 8.
85 See the map in Manley, Literature and Culture, pp. 226–27, and generally his Chapter 2, ‘Scripts for the Pageants: The Ceremonies of London’, pp. 212–93. The coinage ‘processional landscape’ is Dell Upton’s (Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia, paper edn [New Haven and London, 1997], p. 213).
86 In 1637 the Cross was also ‘deemed an appropriate spot to paste up an attack on the “Arch-Wolf” of Canterbury’, Archbishop Laud: Smith, Royal Image, pp. 54–58 (quotation p. 56). With Cressy, David, ‘The Downfall of Cheapside Cross: Vandalism, Ridicule and Iconoclasm’, in Travesties and Transgressions in Tudor and Stuart England: Tales of Discord and Dissension (Oxford, 2000), pp. 234–50 , and Budd, Joel, ‘Rethinking Iconoclasm in Early Modern England: the case of Cheapside Cross’, Journal of Early Modern History, 4, pp. 379–404 . Smith’s is the best introduction to the Cross’s vicissitudes.
87 ‘Ryhen Pameach’, A Dialogue Between the Crosse in Cheap, and Charing Crosse. Comforting each other, as Fearing their Fall in these Uncertaine Times ([London]: 1641), sig. A3r; The Downe-Fall of Dagon, or the Taking Downe of Cheap-Side Cross this Second of May, 1643 … ([London], 1643) (the title is ironic, Dagon being the idol that fell before the Ark of the Covenant: 1 Sam. 5). Evelyn, Diary, p. 30 (for 2 May 1643). See also Spraggon, Julie, Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War: the Attack on Religious Imagery by Parliament and its Soldiers (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2003), pp. 42–46, 60, 174.
88 Ibid., pp. 73, 83–98, quotation p. 84.
89 Smith, Royal Image, p. 168.
90 John Sutton, ‘Porous Memory and the Cognitive Life of Things’, accessed 6 April 2005 at <http://www.phil.mq.edu.au/staff/jsutton/CognitiveLifeOfThings.htm> (my warm thanks to Professor Sutton for guiding me to this essay, published in print form in 2002), and Stevenson, ‘Robert Hooke’, p. 45 (embodied memories); Forty, Adrian, ‘Introduction’, in The Art of Forgetting, ed. Forty, Adrian and Kiichler, Susanne (Oxford and New York, 1999), pp. 1–18 (pp. 1, 2, 10–12, 15: the destruction of the artefact that is the analogue of human memory).
91 ‘Pameach’, A Dialogue, sigs A2, A2r; Cressy, ‘Downfall of Cheapside Cross’, pp. 235, 242 comments on the gendering.
92 As well as from the ordinary practice of recycling construction materials whenever possible: see, e.g., Tinniswood, Adrian, Belton House, Lincolnshire (London, 1996), p. 11 on the preparations for building Belton in 1684. On Somerset House, see Higgott, Gordon, ‘The Fabric to 1670’, in St Paul’s. The Cathedral Church of London 604–2004., ed. Keene, Derek, Burns, Arthur and Saint, Andrew (New Haven and London, 2004), pp. 171–89 (p. 171); see Airs, Malcolm, The Tudor and Jacobean Country House: a Building History (Stroud, 1995), pp. 27–29 , 135 on the general re-use of ecclesiastical stone.
93 Collinson, Quoted Patrick, ‘John Stow and Nostalgic Antiquarianism’, in Imagining Early Modern London: Perceptions and Portrayals of the City from Stow to Strype 1598–1720, ed. Merritt, J. F. (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 27–51 (pp. 40–41), from the 1603 edition of Stow’s Survey of London.
94 A letter written ten days before the entry: ‘Just at His Majesty’s departure will arise the form of the old Crosse, which anciently stood at the same place, at whose appearance [the figure of?] Presbytery vanisheth’: Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Fifth Report (London, 1876), p. 175, also quoted Knowles, ‘Introduction’ to The Entertainment, pp. 17–18. Ogilby described nothing like this scene, but did explain the significance of the Temple of Concord’s site: Entertainment, p. 111.
95 Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm, pp. 235, 251.
96 Ibid., p. 81; see also pp. 209–10, on soldiers’ earlier targeting of royal images, including at Winchester, and pp. 262–63, summarizing the anti-Stuart orders passed by the House of Commons between 1649 and 1651. Phillips, Reformation of Images, pp. 194–95, describes comparable examples of the ‘erasure’ of secular images.
97 Spraggon, Puritan Iconoclasm, p. 176.
98 For examples, ibid., pp. 110, 131, 172, 244, 245–46, 249, and Phillips, Reformation of Images, p. 188.
99 Smith, Royal Image, pp. 69, 70, 73; Gibson, ‘“Best belov’d of Kings”’, I, 76.
100 Ball, R. M., ‘On the Statue of King Charles At Charing Cross’, Antiquaries Journal, 67 (1987), pp. 97–101 (with further references); and Lightbown, Ronald, ‘Isaac Besnier, Sculptor to Charles I, and his Work for Court Patrons c.1624-1634’, in Art and Patronage in the Caroline Courts: Essays in Honour of Sir Oliver Millar, ed. Howarth, David (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 132–67 (pp. 140–42). Other examples are Le Sueur’s bronzes at Winchester Cathedral (Smith, Royal Image, pp. 72, 79–80, and Phillips, Reformation of Images, p. 195) and Oxford (Howard Colvin, The Canterbury Quadrangle St John’s College Oxford [Oxford, 1988], p. 38), and the statue of Charles I on the façade of the Guildhall Chapel ( Gibson, Katharine, ‘“The Kingdom’s Marble Chronicle”: the Embellishment of the First and Second Buildings, 1600 to 1690’, in The Royal Exchange, London Topographical Society Publications 152, ed. Saunders, Ann [London, 1997], pp. 138–73 [p. 144]).
101 Interpreter, p. 165.
102 In Trafalgar Square. The present Charing Cross, in the forecourt of the train station, is a nineteenth-century replica commissioned by the South Eastern Railway Company.
103 Sawday, Jonathan, ‘Re-writing a Revolution: History, Symbol, and Text in the Restoration’, Seventeenth Century, 7 (1992), pp. 171–99 (pp. 175, 185–86); Keeble, N. H., The Restoration: England in the 1660s (Oxford, 2002), pp. 54–55.
104 Pepys, Samuel, The Diary of Samuel Pepys M.A., F.R.S. …, 8 vols in 3 (London, 1926), 1, 86 (16 March 1660).
105 Ibid., 1, 122, 127 (7 May and 13 May 1660).
106 In the Declaration of Breda of 4 April 1660, which became the ‘keystone of the Restoration policy’ initially followed: Keeble, Restoration, pp. 68–70. On the statues, destroyed in the fire of 1666, see Lloyd, David, Eikon Basilike, or, The True Pourtraicture of His Sacred Majesty Charles the II (London, 1660), pp. 67–68 , and Saunders, Ann, ‘The Organisation of the Exchange’, in The Royal Exchange, ed. Saunders, , pp. 85–98 (pp. 96–98); on amnesties, see Stevenson, ‘Robert Hooke’, pp. 47–48.
107 Pepys, Diary, 2: 5 (9 April 1661); see Tomalin, Claire, Samuel Pepys: the Unequalled Self (London, 2003), 124 . Batten had served as Surveyor of the Navy under both Charles I and the Commonwealth.
108 Keeble, Restoration, p. 56. On the law, see Coke, Edward, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Law of England concerning High Treason and other Pleas of the Crown and Criminal Causes (London, 1669), p. 211 : ‘quod caput & quarteria illa ponantur ubi dominus rex ea assignare vult’. Thanks to Georgia Clarke for her help with the Latin.
109 ‘Preparations for the Coronation of King Charles the Second, with Accounts of the Several Preceding Coronations’ (1660), BL Stowe MS 580.1, fol. 17; compare fol. 4V, where, at the first recorded Whitehall meeting about the coronation (26 September 1660), it is clear that the City parade was considered optional for the king.
110 Burroughs, ‘The Building’s Face’, p. 8; see note 19 above.
111 Hammond, Paul, ‘The King’s Two Bodies: Representations of Charles II’, in Culture, Politics and Society in Britain, 1660–1800, ed. Black, Jeremy and Gregory, James (Manchester, 1991), pp. 13–48 (p. 13).
112 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series (henceforth cited as ‘CSPD’) 1660–1661, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1860), pp. 500, 506.
113 Malcolm, Joyce Lee, ‘Charles II and the Reconstruction of Historical Power’, Historical Journal, 35 (1992), pp. 307–30 (p. 317).
114 Keeble, Restoration, pp. 56–57.
115 [Heath, James], Flagellum, or, the Life and Death, Birth and Burial of O. Cromwell the Late Usurper Faithfully Described: with an Exact Account of his Policies and Successes: Enlarged with Many Additions (London, 1672), p. 192 . On these events, see also Sawday, , ‘Re-writing a Revolution’, pp. 187–93 ; Hammond, , ‘The King’s Two Bodies’, p. 17 ; and Keeble, Restoration, pp. 56–57, who points out that the parliamentary Order makes no mention of decapitations or display.
116 An estimate calculated (at Kerry Downes’s suggestion) on the basis that in Figure 14 the woman is shown one-eleventh as tall as her height above the ground. Ogilby’s description (Entertainment, pp. 36–37) does not jibe precisely with this engraving: he has four ‘Figures’ in ‘Niches’ of which this one carries a ‘Shield’, not banner, symbolically representing the evil effects of the Solemn League and Covenant. The drawing does show sketches of niches, in pen and wash, where the engraving shows trompe l’œil paintings of ruinous structures.
117 Quoted Knowles, Introduction to The Entertainment, p. 17. Judi Loach tells me that many continental printed ‘treatises show arches, etc. with blanks where the designer was free to insert images and texts’ and drawings of early stages in arches’ designs often show such blanks too (pers. comm.).
118 Knowles, Introduction to The Entertainment, pp. 19–20.
119 Ogilby, John, The Relation of His Majesties Entertainment Passing through the City of London, to His Coronation, with a Description of the Triumphal Arches, and Solemnity (London, 1661), p. 3 ; Ogilby, Entertainment, p. 21 calls the painting ‘a Trophy with decollated Heads’.
120 Halfpenny, ‘“Citie’s Loyalty Display’d”’, p. 34.
121 Ogilby, Relation, facing title-page (reprinting the royal warrant granted to him on 11 April 1661, for which see also CSPD 1660–1661, p. 553) and p. 32.
123 See note 65, above, for Webb and note 1 in the Appendix for Gerbier.
124 Geoffrey Fisher, pers. comm. of 2 November 2005. In his judgement, with which I concur, the drawings’ status is that of ‘presentation drawings illustrating proposals, as distinct from drawings in which the designer is working out his ideas, or drawings made for the use of the makers of the arches, or drawings made after the event for the use of an engraver’.
125 Halfpenny, ‘“Citie’s Loyalty Display’d”’, pp. 19–20, discusses the time frame, on which see also BL Stowe MS 580.1, the records of the initial deliberations at court. Documentary evidence relating to the entry on 22 April 1661, as opposed to the next day’s coronation, is rather thin. That the first was considered the City’s prerogative is suggested by Sir Edward Walker, Garter’s, descriptions of the pageants: ‘Thus I have given a breife touch of all those Arches Triumphall, it being the worke of many sheets to discribe them, & no part my design or busines[s] …’: A Circumstantial Account of the Preparations for the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles II (London, 1820), p. 77. Halfpenny, ibid., closely summarizes the accounts (EXGL MSS 289, 290) now in the London Metropolitan Archives, in which Mills’s name does not appear, although Ogilby’s does. The latter’s Relation lists twenty-two members of the ‘Committee for the Coronation’ established by the Court of Common Council for supervising the ‘Entertainments’ (mentioning its fund-raising abilities in particular), but an initial search of the LMA, including the relevant Journal of the Court (LMA, vol. 41X) has yielded no trace of its activities.
126 Knowles, Introduction to The Entertainment, p. 17; Malcolm, ‘Charles II’, pp. 319, 321.
127 Gloucester, Coventry, Northampton, Taunton, and Leicester: ibid., p. 327.
128 Bowers, Fredson, ‘Ogilby’s Coronation Entertainment (1661-1689): Editions and Issues’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 47 (1953), pp. 339–55 (p. 350).
129 Ogilby, Entertainment, pp. 22, 2, 3.
130 Ibid., pp. 4, 5, 13.
131 The king had in January 1661 felt compelled to assure his citizens that the Act of Pardon was still in effect, blaming the ‘enthusiasm of his soldiers for their overstepping the bounds’: Malcolm, ‘Charles II’, p. 326.
132 Eisner, Jas, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: the Art of the Roman Empire AD 100–450, Oxford History of Art (Oxford, 1998), p. 82.
133 Downes, Kerry, The Architecture of Wren, 2nd edn ([Reading], 1988), p. 124 n. 143, part of a summary of the evidence for Wren’s authorship. See now, however, Emily Mann’s essay in the present volume.
134 The Swiss-roll comparison is copyright Tom Foxall. The resemblance is now even stronger as the restored Temple Bar at St Paul’s Churchyard has regained the sculpted heraldic supporters that originally stood where the flag-waving statues (which is what, this time, they seem to be) of the Continents stand on the 1661 arch.
135 In June 1667, for example, ‘de Gomme sent a letter to the Earl of Bath [Groom of the Stool and Governor of Plymouth] with the proviso that if his lordship had left town, Lord Arlington should open it and show it to the King, “because it concerns the Plymouth fortifications”’: Saunders, Andrew, Portress Builder: Bernard de Gomme, Charles II’ss Military Engineer (Exeter, 2004), p. 125 , part of an exhaustive account of the Plymouth refortification whose focus is not, however, the gate except in so far as it stood as a ‘symbol of royal power’ (p. 128). On the 1671 visit, see Weiser, Brian, Charles II and the Politics of Access (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2003), pp. 99–102.
136 Gibson, ‘“Best belov’d of Kings’“, I, 166.
137 Saunders, Fortress Builder, p. 82: de Gomme settled in the Bevis Marks area. Grell, ‘Tribute and Triumph’, pp. 182–84 explains the Dutch consistory’s wariness of arches, at least early in 1661: together with the French Protestants it agreed, after negotiation, to make the gift.
138 Kinney, ‘Spolia’, p. 140. Although Temple Bar’s upper central pilasters float over a void, the solecism seems to have been conventional for the City type (compare Moorgate, rebuilt around the same time) and appears to me less wilfully egregious than the dislocation of the upper Plymouth order.
139 The aesthetic of spolia might usefully be accommodated within Lucy Gent’s influential hypothesis of two ‘economies’ of architectural vision operating in early modern Britain, one seeking the immutability of ‘spaces created out of numerical proportion’, and the other, rich textures and other diversions. ‘The “Rash Gazer”‘, p. 390: ‘If you gaze into the spaces created out of numerical proportion, you are raised out of mutability into an immaterial sphere that is above change, like arithmetical proportion itself. … if you gaze at texture and the non-mathematical – tapestry, bricks, or flowers – you are in a way implicated in their decay’
140 Spurr, John, England in the 1670s: ‘This Masquerading Age’ (Oxford, 2000), pp. 133–34 ; Earle, Peter, ‘The Economy of London, 1660–1730’, in Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, ed. O’Brien, Patrick et al. (Cambridge, 2001), 81–96 (pp. 85–86, 91).
1 Gerbier, Balthazar, The Interpreter of the Academie for Forrain Languages, and All Noble Sciences, and Exercises ([n.p.], 1648), pp. 3–4.
2 Rubens painted Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (Washington, National Gallery of Art) in 1629–30. Useful recent accounts of Gerbier’s career are those in Colvin, Howard, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 1600–1840, 3rd edn (New Haven and London, 1995), s.v. ‘Gerbier, Sir Balthazar’; Keblusek, Marika, ‘Cultural and Political Brokerage in Seventeenth-century England: the Case of Balthazar Gerbier’, in Dutch and Flemish Artists in Britain. Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, xiii, ed. Roding, Juliette et al. (Leiden, 2003), pp. 73–82 ; Wood, Jeremy, Gerbier, , ‘Sir Balthazar (1592-1663/1667)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, accessed 15 October 2004 at <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10562>.
3 ([Paris, 1646]), sig. A2.
4 Gerbier, Balthazar, A Brief Discourse Concerning the Three Chief Principles of Magnificent Building. Viz. Solidity, Conveniency, and Ornament (London, 1662), dedication to the Lords and Commons. Colvin, Biographical Dictionary, pp. 397–98 summarizes debates over the York gate’s attribution.
5 Loach, J. D., ‘Pageant and Festival Arts’, Grove Art Online, accessed 21 November 2005 via <http://www.groveart.com>, sect. 4; idem, ‘François Cuenot (1610-1686): architecteingénieur savoisien’, in L’Idée Constructive en architecture, ed. Xavier Malverti (Paris, 1987), pp. 41–63 (pp. 50–52).
6 Ogilby, John, The Relation of His Majestie’s Entertainment Passing through the City of London, to His Coronation, with a Description of the Triumphal Arches, and Solemnity (London, 1661), facing title-page, a copy of the royal warrant entrusting Ogilby with this ‘part’.
7 Ibid., p. 32. Compare p. 9, where the composition of an ‘entertainment’ staged that day by the East India Company is credited to ‘a Person of Quality’.
8 The Note-Books of George Vertue Relating to Artists and Collections in England I, Walpole Society, XVIII (London, 1930), p. 49. Whitfield, Clovis, ‘Balthasar Gerbier, Rubens, and George Vertue’, Studies in the History of Art (Washington), 5 (1973), pp. 6–22 (pp. 27–31) transcribes Vertue’s draft letters of 1749 (in the British Library) about the Windsor Castle version of Rubens’s The Gerbier Family (see note 2 above), which mention Gerbier as the architect of ‘several works’, of which the only one specified, however, is Hampstead Marshall, Berks. Gerbier, Brief Discourse, p. 40.
9 On the last, see Harris, John, ‘Classicism Without Jones’, Country Life, 184, 4 October 1990, pp. 152–55 (pp. 154–55).
10 Gerbier, Brief Discourse, p. 40. On the true-hearts’ trope, compare the passage from John Evelyn’s Panegyric to Charles the Second (1661) quoted Stevenson, Christine, ‘Robert Hooke, Monuments, and Memory’, Art History, 28 (2005), pp. 43–73 (pp. 46–47).
11 Gerbier, Brief Discourse, pp. 42–43.
12 Biographical Dictionary, s.v. ‘Mills, Peter’. A bricklayer by training, Mills was by 1661 also an experienced architect, mostly of houses.
13 Keblusek, ‘Cultural and Political Brokerage’, pp. 77–78.
14 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series. 1660–1661, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1860), pp. 415 (16 December 1660), 522 (February 1661). Ibid., pp. 589–90, calendars a letter from the son, then in Venice, to Secretary Nicholas, 17 May 1661 (cited Ronald Knowles, ‘Introduction’ to Ogilby’s Entertainment, p. 13). ‘Is an exile and an alien, from being supposed to be the son of Sir Balthazar Gerbier, whose conduct is in such general odium.’ George, strongly hinting that he was really Buckingham’s bastard, announced that he was hoping to change his name to George St George (‘with the cross of England for his coat of arms’)!
15 Halfpenny, Eric, ‘“The Citie’s Loyalty Display’d” (A Literary and Documentary Causerie of Charles II’s Coronation “Entertainment”)’, Guildhall Miscellany, 10 (1959), pp. 19–35 (p. 22 n. 14).
16 John Harris raised doubts about the draftsman’s identity in 1960: Fraser, Prunella and Harris, John, RIBA Sir Banister Fletcher Library Drawings Collection. Burlington-Devonshire Collection, Part 1: the Drawings of Inigo Jones, John Webb, and Lord Burlington (London, 1960), p. 107 . He suggested Peter Mills, ‘although the sources and intellectual content are not supported by his architectural output; yet they cannot be by the engraver, David Loggan, since they are patently preliminary studies’. I return to the 1661 arches and their architectural context in a book with the working title of The Politics of Architecture in Restoration London.
17 Gerbier began working at Hampstead Marshall, Berks (destr.), some time after June 1660, when Craven recovered his extensive estate. Gerbier’s drawings for Hampstead Marshall in the Bodleian (MS Gough a.2) include the signed elevation of a rusticated gateway (fols 24–25), whose style provides a good comparison with the RIBA drawings, as well as with Pearce’s drawing of a gate-pier at the same house (fol. 36). Pearce’s work there and at Craven’s Combe Abbey, Warwicks, is not documented until the 1680s. On him see Eustace, Katharine, ‘Pearce, Edward (c.1635-1695)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, accessed 22 January 2006 at <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22223>; Colvin’s Biographical Dictionary, s.v. ‘Pierce, Edward’ (no longer the preferred spelling); and Edward Croft-Murray and Paul Hulton, Catalogue of British Drawings [in the British Museum], 1, XVI and XVII Centuries … (London, 1960), pt 1, pp. 451–55.
18 Colvin, Howard, The Canterbury Quadrangle St John’s College Oxford (Oxford, 1988), pp. 21, 23: e.g. Saint-Gervais-Saint-Protais (compl. 1621, probably to the design of Salomon de Brosse) and the church of the Feuillants (1623) in Paris. Specifically, Colvin suggests (ibid., pp. 48, 51–52), in an attribution maintained in Colvin, Biographical Dictionary, s.v. ‘Gerbier’, that Gerbier was the author of the ‘drafts of the fronts’ brought down from London in 1633 for the Quadrangle, presumably for the upper parts of the two frontispieces there.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed