A Report on Stowe and the Classical Orders, AR50227. A report submitted by 179432125 towards the degree of Master of Science in the Conservation of Historic Buildings at the University of Bath. Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Session 2017-18.

Page | 2

Contents 3..........List of Figures 4………..Introduction 4….…….The Classical Orders of Architecture 5………..Tuscan Order 5………..Introduction to the Greek Orders 6………..Doric Order 7………..Ionic Order 8………..Corinthian Order 9………..Composite Order 10………Examples at Stowe Gardens 10……...Temple of Venus 14………Temple of British Worthies 16…….. Summary 17………Bibliography

Page | 3

List of Figures

Cover Temple of British Worthies, photograph by the author

Figure 1 p. 4 Sketch of the Temple of Ancient Virtue, by the author

Figure 2 p. 4 Sketch of Lord Cobham’s Pillar, by the author

Figure 3 p. 5 Tuscan column and entablature, by the author

Figure 4 p. 6 Doric column and entablature, by the author

Figure 5 p. 7 Ionic column and entablature, by the author

Figure 6 p. 8 Corinthian column and entablature, by the author

Figure 7 p. 9 Composite column and entablature, by the author

Figure 8 p. 10 Photograph of the north elevation of the Temple of Venus. From Temples of Delight, John Martin Robinson 1990, p. 81

Figure 9 p. 11 Plan of the Temple of Venus at Stowe. From Stowe: The Garden & the Park by Michael Bevington. 1995, p. 85.

Figure 10 p. 11 South elevation of the central block, Temple of Venus, by the author

Figure 11 p. 11 Sketch of a secondary block, Temple of Venus, by the author

Figure 12 p. 12 Front elevation of a Palladian style villa, designed by Robert Morris. From Palladian Style by Steven Parissien, 1994, p. 92-93.

Figure 13 p. 12 Front elevation of the Temple of Venus at Stowe. Photograph by John D. Tatter, The Temple of Venus (2011). http://faculty.bsc.edu/jtatter/venus.html

Figure 14 p. 13 Sketch of a Palladian-style window, by the author

Figure 15 p. 13 Sketch of the south elevation of the Temple of Venus at Stowe, by the author

Figure 16 p. 13 Reconstruction of the Baths of Caracalla, Rome, Italy. From “Roman Athletics” by Donald White, Penn Museum Expedition, Vol. 27, Issue 2. August 1985. https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/roman-athletics/

Figure 17 p. 13 Entrance portico of the Temple of Venus, photo by the author

Figure 18 p. 13 Temple of Venus, Rome, Italy. Photograph by Lorraine Kerr, Italy (2010 – 2017). http://lorrainekerr.com/archaeological%20galleries/italy.html

Figure 19 p. 14 Visitors take pictures at the Temple of British Worthies, photo by the author.

Figure 20 p. 14 Plan of the Temple of British Worthies. From Stowe: The Garden & the Park by Michael Bevington. 1995, p. 95.

Figure 21 p. 15 Exedra at Villa Mattei, Rome, Italy. Published by David Bridgewater, Bath, Art and Architecture: Busts in the Temple of British Worthies at Stowe, 2015. http://bathartandarchitecture.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/temple-of-british-worthies-at-stowe.html

Figure 22 p. 15 Exedra at Villa Benzone, Lake Garda, Italy. Published by David Bridgewater, Bath, Art and Architecture: Busts in the Temple of British Worthies at Stowe, 2015. http://bathartandarchitecture.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/temple-of-british-worthies-at-stowe.html

Figure 23 p. 16 Nymphaeum at Villa Barbaro, Maser, Italy. Published by user Venetian Cat, Villa Barbaro – Paradise on Earth – Palladio & Veronese in the Veneto, April 6, 2016. https://venetiancat.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/villa-barbaro-paradise-on-earth-in.html

Page | 4

Introduction The sprawling country estate and garden of Stowe is considered the original example of the English Landscape style.1 As one wanders through the expansive grounds, structures reveal themselves. These monuments range from statues, to bridges, to large temples Although there are examples of styles besides classical in the gardens of Stowe, classical inspiration is the overarching theme of the structures and statues designed for the garden. By using classical designs the gardeners and architects of Stowe, under the supervision of estate owner Lord Cobham, encouraged visitors to make connections and draw associations through architecture. The popular use of the classical style has made classical features familiar, even into modern times. For people, there is comfort in the familiar and the recognizable.2 Therefore, a leisurely walk around the Stowe gardens, whether in the mid-18th century or today, was designed to provide scenes of pleasure as well as contemplation.

The Classical Orders of Architecture There are several characteristics of classical design, but none as recognizable as the Classical Orders. An order is defined as a cohesive set of column and superstructure (supported entablature), used structurally or decoratively in classical or classically inspired architecture.3 The modern understanding of the orders originated not with the origin of the styles in ancient Greek and Rome, but with Renaissance architects who published full studies and drawings of the styles.4 At the most basic level, the column and entablature that make up each order are based on the vernacular post and beam structural system which relies on stability and form created by vertical members supporting horizontal members.5 There are five agreed upon orders in classical architecture. Developed over time, these orders can be seen to become more ornate, taller, thinner, and more refined. The orders listed from least to most complex are: Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite. These orders are by no means strictly standardized, and when used may have slight variations or embellishments unique to a structure. Despite artistic liberties, these five orders emerged and are now identifiable and recognizable in architecture throughout the western world.

1 Harney (2014), p. 14 2 Porphyrios (1998), p. 23 3 Summerson (2001), p. 10 4 Cordingley (1959), p. 3 5 Summerson (2001), p. 32

Figures 1 (left) & 2: Vignettes of the Temple of Ancient Virtue (left) and Lord Cobham’s Pillar.

Page | 5

TUSCAN The Tuscan order is so named because of its use in Italy by the Etruscans before it was adopted by the Romans when they invaded the Tuscan region.6 Tuscan is the most plain of the orders, with little decorative carving or embellishment. The column itself sits upon a plain base, and is capped by a simple capital of an echinus (rounded section)7 below an abacus (flat member which rests between a column capital and the above entablature).8 The entablature is unadorned. The order is, one could say, “simply business,” acting structurally rather than decoratively. This straight forward order is associated with being “male” because it is not visually soft, or decorated.

The Greek Orders The Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders make up the Greek Orders. These three orders are the most popular orders in architecture, seeing consistent use and sequencing in classical architecture. These three orders sequence themselves naturally in terms of their associations and detail. The Greek Orders acted as the inspiration for further Roman refinement and use.9 There are differences between Greek and Roman designs within the same order, but the overall effect is the same.

6 Cordingley (1959), p. 7 7 This part of the column was found to be referred to as either the echinus or ovolo. 8 Ching (1995), p. 180 9 Cordingley (1959), p. 13

Figure 3: Tuscan Order

Cornice, top section of an entablature

Frieze, central block of an entablature

Architrave, lower section of an entablature

Abacus

Echinus (or ovolo)

Plain shaft

Base

Page | 6

DORIC

The Doric order is considered the masculine order. Proportions of the Doric column are simple, stalky, and concerned with strength and quiet dignity over embellishment.10 Doric columns are often decorated with a pattern of vertical groves, known as fluting. The carved flutes meet at the edges to form a point, which is not seen in other orders. The Greek Doric column has no base, while later Roman versions do. The column capital is comprised of an echinus and abacus.11 Besides identifying the Doric order by its column and capital, the Doric frieze (the center section of the entablature) is comprised of alternating triglyphs and metopes. Triglyphs are panels with carved flutes so that three small vertical sections of stone protrude. Metopes are the flat panels between triglyph panels, and can be decorated or plain. The Doric entablature is finished at the top with a horizontal cornice running the entire length of the elevation.12

10 Summerson (2001), p. 14 11 Ching (1995), p. 180 12 Cole (2005), p. 98

Figure 4: Doric Order

The Greek Doric column has no base, but bases do appear on Roman and Renaissance versions

Fluted shaft, where the flutes touch on the edges and create a point

Echinus

Abacus

Architrave

Triglyph. Alternating with metopes makes up the frieze.

Metope, either plain or carved with figures

Cornice

Raking cornice, not a defining feature of the Doric Order

Page | 7

IONIC Ionic is the next order in the sequence, although it developed chronologically alongside the Doric order.13 The defining detail of the Ionic column is either a two-sided or four-sided scroll. The Ionic order is associated with both masculine and feminine qualities. Therefore, the Ionic order is ultimately unsexed or neutral in terms of character.14 The scrolls signify knowledge, which in modern days we associate with citizens of all genders and socio-economic status. In antiquity they would have primarily been associated with intelligent male virtue. Conversely, the more slender and detailed aspects of the column are reminiscent of a woman, more so than the Doric column. Ionic columns have fluting, similar to the Doric, but the flutes are separated by a space, known as a fillet.15

13 Pothorn (1983), p. 28 14 Summerson (2001), p. 14 and Porphyrios (1998), p. 117 15 Ching (1995), p. 181

Figure 5: Ionic Order

Cornice

Frieze

Architrave with fascia (3 strips increasing in length)

4-faced volute (scroll form) found on Roman and Renaissance versions where scroll is visible on all four sides of the capital

2-faced volute found on Greek versions, where scroll can be seen on front and back

Base

Fluted shaft with fillets (space between flutes)

Echinus with egg and dart motif

Page | 8

CORINTHIAN The Corinthian order is the third and final Greek Order. Hypothetically, combining the masculine Doric and feminine Ionic orders produces a youthful, elevated, and delicate order: the Corinthian. When sequenced in architecture, the Corinthian is placed above the Doric and/or Ionic order(s). The Corinthian order is most readily identified by the delicate and floral acanthus leaves that fold out away from the column capital. As time progressed, columns became taller and thinner, and the Corinthian column is more slender than both of the other Greek orders.16 Other identifying features include a fluted column shaft with fillets, a relatively thin frieze, and decorative carvings and details along the cornice. Although the Corinthian order is seen in Greek architecture, the style was further refined and developed by the Romans into the style we recognize today.17

16 Cordingley (1959), p. 4 17 Cole (2005), p. 102

Figure 6: Corinthian Order

Usually features a detailed and decorated cornice

Frieze

Architrave

The defining acanthus leaf motif decorates the capital

Shaft with volutes and fillets

Base

Page | 9

COMPOSITE The Composite order is a combination of details from other orders. The Composite is constructed of a column identical to that of the Corinthian, with a capital made up of the lower two-thirds of a Corinthian capital below an Ionic scroll. Similar to the Ionic and Corinthian orders, carved details can be found in the cornice of the Composite entablature. The Composite order is a Roman creation, elaborated upon by Renaissance artists and architects.18 The Composite is slightly more masculine than the Corinthian, since the capital incorporates the scholarly Ionic, but the overall effect is still flowery and gentle.

18 Cordingley (1959), p.13

Figure 7: Composite Order

The Composite is almost identical to the Corinthian

column in style, but instead the capital features a top

third comprised of Ionic volutes, and the lower two-

thirds are made of Corinthian acanthus leaves.

Page | 10

Examples at Stowe Gardens Lord Cobham opened his estate to two groups of visitors at Stowe: his learned contemporaries, friends, and guests, and the general public. Both groups would have understood the beauty and, at some level, the iconography of the garden temples. Visitors would also know that the classical style was in vogue, and the controlled aesthetic was becoming associated with British virtues (as opposed to the excessive Baroque style and attitude of continental Europe).19 The following section looks at two temples from the Stowe Gardens, both of which use the classical style to communicate with visitors.

Temple of Venus The Temple of Venus was designed by William Kent in 1731.20 The Temple in plan is formed by three blocks, connected by curved quadrant arcades, enclosed on the backside (Figure 9). The front elevation faces north, and the structure curves back towards the south, butting up against a ha-ha wall. The central block is larger than the flanking two, and is fronted by an apsidal portico. This portico features four Ionic columns, two free standing (with four-faced capitals) in the center and two as thin pilasters attached to the walls on either side. The columns support a horizontal lintel beam below a coffered dome ceiling. The front elevation features four niches, each housing a stone carved bust of a Roman figure.21 The pediments are shallow, and hide a slightly steeper pitched roof. The secondary blocks are identical to each other, and feature shallow pediments on all four faces, in the center of which sits a domed roof (Figure 11). These secondary blocks feature regularly rusticated bases. The back elevation of the central block features two windows on either side of a large arched depression in the stone, in the center of which is a pedimented doorway. Vermiculated rustication is featured on the base and in bands around the top pediment (Figure 10). The interior of the building is a plain square room, but was brightly painted with murals when it was built.22

19 Parissien (1994), p. 17 20 Whistler, et. al. (1974), p. 29 21 Bevington (1995), p. 86 22 Robinson (1990), p. 82

Figure 8: View across the Eleven Acre Lake toward the Temple of Venus.

Page | 11

Figure 9: Plan of the Temple of Venus

Apsidal portico

Enclosed back wall of arcade

Arched open side of quadrant arcade

Secondary block

Central block with square interior room

Ionic column in antis

Ionic pilaster

Back entrance, facing ha-ha

Figure 11: Sketch of a secondary block of the Temple of Venus, with rusticated base, pediment, and domed roof.

Figure 10: The south elevation of the central block of the Temple of Venus. The central depressed arch houses a pedimented doorway. Bands of vermiculated stone can be seen on the top pediment.

Page | 12

Kent began his career in architecture in the early 1730’s, after several years as an unaccomplished painter.23 Not only would the Temple of Venus be Kent’s first work at Stowe Gardens, but it was also likely one of his first architectural commissions, based on this timeline. Kent was well read in the Palladian style,24 which was in vogue at the time, and did not lay claim to an architectural style of his own. The Temple of Venus is overall Palladian in design, with elements of Roman architecture. The strict lateral symmetry, blocked sections, central portico, and rusticated base are features typical of Palladian style architecture.25 Palladio is thought to have used porticos in his designs because he believed they were a feature of Roman homes.26 Figures 12 and 13 below show a Palladian-style villa design and the front elevation of the Temple of Venus for comparison. The blocking scheme and arched arcades are almost identical. On the south (rear) elevation, Kent’s arched doorway and flanking windows in the same shape, and lateral bands of raised stone, follow the shape of a Palladian window (Figure 14 & 15). Another source of inspiration for Kent’s design was ancient Rome.27 During the 18th century, it was in fashion for affluent families to commission works that mimicked features of Roman architecture and design, because Rome was seen as the ideal culture.28 Kent chose to use four-faced Ionic columns, a Roman development of the Greek Ionic column. The columns supporting a lintel beneath a coffered dome are almost identical to the design found at the Roman Baths of Caracalla, Italy (Figure 16). The apsidal entrance at Stowe (Figure 17) also references another Temple of Venus, this time in Rome (Figure 18), and was probably designed this way to make the structure as a Temple for the Goddess Venus easily readable, and strengthen the connection between the temple at Stowe and the classical world.

23 Parissien (1994), p. 75 24 Parissien (1994), p. 75 25 Parissien (1994), p .60 26 Curl (2011), p. 45 27 Bevington (1995), p. 33 28 White (2017), lecture

Figures 12 (top) & 13: A Palladian-style villa designed by Robert Morris (top) compared in proportion and layout to the Temple of Venus at Stowe.

Page | 13

FIGURES 14 (left) & 15: A Palladian window (left), with central arched section and two smaller windows on either side looks similar to the layout of the rear elevation of the central block of the Temple of Venus (right).

Figure 18: Temple of Venus at the Roman Forum, Italy.

Figure 17: Entrance portico of the Temple of Venus.

Figure 16: Reconstruction of the Baths of Caracalla, Rome, Italy.

Page | 14

Temple of British Worthies

The Temple of British Worthies is a segmental arch, comprised of a central block and slightly curved wings (Figure 20). Built in 1735 by William Kent, this temple was the first installment in the area of the garden known as the Elysian Fields.29 The ashlar stone temple sits on top of rough-cut stones which form a base of three steps. The central block, which sits below an ornamental pediment, is fairly plain except for a blank surface where a dedication inscription once existed. Above the pediment runs a denticulated cornice topped by a corbelled pyramid. A niche in the pyramid houses a bust of the Roman God Mercury. The central block creates a line of lateral symmetry between the two wings. Each wing is divided into eight sections, six of which curve with the structure, one which faces forward, and one which faces out to the side. Each section contains a niche with a stone bust, above which sits an engraved stone slab. The section is finished at the top by a denticulated cornice and plain pediment.

29 Robinson (1990), p. 84-86

Figure 19: Visitors take photographs of the Temple of British Worthies.

Figure 20: Plan of the Temple of British Worthies.

Page | 15

The Temple of British Worthies was designed as a strong political statement shortly after Lord Cobham lost his seat in Parliament.30 Designed as an opposition piece which aligned Cobham’s ideals with those of English heroes, the temple implied that those currently in power did not strive toward these same ethical standards. The bust of Mercury which sits in the central niche presents the God of travelers and merchants, looking out over the Elysian Fields, which he is said to have transported souls safely across to their final resting place.31 Mercury and the busts of the Worthies look over the Elysian Fields toward the Temple of Ancient Virtue, as if they are forever striving for historic notions of British values and liberty. Since Palladianism was the unofficial national style of England,32 and Cobham wanted to separate himself from the current British state of affairs, it is not surprising that this temple is a departure from Palladian design. With clear examples of similar structures in Italian garden design, the Temple of British Worthies is overall Italian Renaissance in architectural style.33 The temple samples heavily from Renaissance Italian Exedra designs (Figures 21 and 22) and the Nymphaeum at Villa Barbaro, (Figure 23) which Kent may have seen during the years he spent in Italy, before he became an architect.34 Renaissance architecture is a rebirth of specifically Roman designs, and is characterized by, among other traits, a return to the intimate human scale.35 The entire structure is not particularly long or tall, and is best viewed up close so as to read the engravings and admire the stone busts. Each bust is life-sized, and easily discernable poetic inscriptions sit just above head-height. The Renaissance in Italy was a time of rebirth, a movement which aligned with Cobham’s renewed determination to stand for, and communicate, his political beliefs.

30 Lamb (1996), p. 59 31 Robinson (1990), p. 90 32 Parissien (1994), p. 17 33 Robinson (1990), p. 90 34 Parissien (1994), p. 73 35 Pothorn (1983), p. 76

Figures 21 (left) & 22: Two examples of Italian Exedra designs, which are said to have inspired Kent in designing the Temple of British Worthies. The Exedra from the Villa Mattei in Rome (left), and the Exedra from Villa Benzone, Lake Garda, Italy.

Page | 16

Summary Each temple at Stowe is unique, but all share the dual purpose of bringing visual pleasure as well as provoking thought. At the height of Lord Cobham’s investment in his garden, architecture around England was rediscovering and refining classical styles. Cobham’s desire to be the height of fashion, while making his own statements though style, drove him and the architects he worked with towards classical inspirations. By translating designs from antiquity for his estate, Cobham chose a popular, recognizable style through which to communicate to visitors. The regular, structured, and orderly designs contrast both the plains and vegetated expanses of the gardens, making each a landmark in its own right. The natural beauty of the garden became the back drop for Cobham’s message: Although he was no longer in a position of power, his loyalties still lay with the people, and British moral and political ideals. Lord Cobham was but one of many designers breathing new life into the classical style in the 18th century. The constant revival of classical elements has only heightened the appreciation of the works of antiquity which inspired and defined so many architectural periods. Stowe, by using the classical orders and styles, remains an exemplar of architectural and garden design today.

Figures 23: Nymphaeum at Villa Barbaro, Maser, Italy.

Page | 17

Bibliography Bevington, Michael. Stowe: The Garden & the Park. Second Edition. Capability Books, Buckingham,

England. 1995. Ching, Francis D.K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA. 1995. Cole, Emily. The Grammar of Architecture. Metro Books, New York, USA. 2005. Cordingley, R.A. Normand’s Parallel of the Orders of Architecture. Sixth Edition. Alec Tiranti Ltd.,

United Kingdom. 1959. Curl, James Stevens. Georgian Architecture in the British Isles 1714-1830. Second Edition. Published

by English Heritage, Swindon, England. 2011. Harney, Marion. Gardens and Landscapes in Historic Building Conservation. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,

United Kingdom. 2014. Lamb, Jonathan. “The Medium of Publicity and the Garden at Stowe,” Huntington Library Quarterly,

Vol. 29, No. 1 (1996) p.53-72. Published online by the University of Pennsylvania Press, accessed November 11, 2017, 17:45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3817905.

Parissien, Steven. Palladian Style. Phaidon Press Ltd. London, England. 1994. Porphyrios, Demetri. Classical Architecture. Andreas Papadakis Publisher, England. 1998. Pothorn, Herbert. A Guide to Architectural Styles. Phaidon Press Ltd. Oxford, United Kingdom. 1983. Robinson, John Martin. Temples of Delight: Stowe Landscape Gardens. George Philip Ltd. for The

National Trust, London, England. 1990. Summerson, John. The Classical Language of Architecture. Thames & Hudson Ltd., London, England.

2001. Tatter, John D. “Stowe Landscape Gardens.” Website published by Birmingham-Southern College.

Last modified August 17, 2011. Accessed November 16, 2017, 14:00. http://faculty.bsc.edu/jtatter/stowe.html

Whistler, Lawrence, et. al. Stowe: A Guide to the Gardens. Third Edition. E.N. Hillier & Sons, Ltd.,

Buckingham, England. 1974. White, Lisa. “Classicism and the Georgian Interior,” lecture presented to the MSc Conservation of

Historic Buildings course at the University of Bath. November 24, 2017.