Paul vecsei

Plate 1

L L A E H T I W H

Holbein Gate

Ban

que

t

Ho ing

use

E B L B P E R T U C O

Plan of Whitehall 1:500

Pa l a c e i n 1 6 8 0

Plate 2

Column of the First Order 1:70

Plate 3

Temporarily used as auction house before the adaptation as military chapel

Military Chapel

Museum of the United Service Institutions

Comparative Plans of the Interior of the Banqueting House 1:300

PLATE 1

The Banqueting House is well known for introducing the classical style to England. This style had been connected to catholic Italy, and for that reason had not been welcomed for almost a century, which changed only recently under James I. The context in which the Banqueting House was placed perfectly shows this: Whitehall palace is a structure built over centuries, most of the buildings are from the Tudor period. “Set as it was, as the entrance to the royal palace, it was a kind of manifesto of the newly purely classical style sponsored by the new dynasty from Scotland against the traditional Tudor work to which men had grown used.”1 After a quite unsuccessful reign, the Kingn was seeking to change his public image using architecture. Sorbière wrote down his impression of the Banqueting house some forty years after it was built: “looks very stately, because the rest of the Palace is ill Built, and nothing but a heap of Houses, erected at divers times, and of different Models, which they made Contiguous in the best Manner they could for the Residence of the Court” The previous Banqueting Houses have most likely stood at the same position, the Banqueting House from 1606 certainly has. At the front, there’s White Hall, which in the south is limited by Holbein Gate, and therefor almost takes on the character of a square. It is interesting to note that the following buildings, (houses in the south) and the newly built Horse Guards clearly increased the reading of the street as a square, further enclosing the space. At the Back, there’s the Pebble-, or Preaching Court. This space, because of the different styles of the surrounding buildings also took on the character of a square more than a court. It was closed off to the north by a gallery after the Banqueting House has been built. Inigo Jones work in Covent Garden clearly shows his interest in public space. The question that arises now is wether those two (public and semipublic) squares, which, with minor alterations, have existed before, can be attributed to Jones. To answer this question, it is essential to acknowledge how limited his possibilities were: A single building can’t make a square. Perhaps the only thing he did, could do and which was necessary to do, was to create the conditions for a square. If his work in Covent Garden emerged from the Place Royale in Paris, maybe what we find in Whitehall is a more Italian understanding of public space, one of constant negotiation. In this case, it is worth pointing out that this negotiation is taking place between different times rather than different parties, as it was owned by a single person. It seems unlikely that the squares (courts) simply happened to follow the ideals of Italian squares, in terms of proportions, enclosure and size and irregularities. From our knowledge of his travels to Italy, we can presume that he has studied Italian city-planning as well. Rules for creating these picturesque squares, as put down by Camille Sitte in the 19th century, were only laid out much later. At the time, there were no precise rules to follow, the understanding was much more intuitive. However, the extent to which the Banqueting House must have profited of the Squares to both sides becomes most obvious when one takes a look at the modern urban surroundings. Tucked in between busy Whitehall Street and disproportionally large Victorian buildings, it clearly loses lots of its impact.

1 Vaughan Hart, Inigo Jones, The architect of Kings

PLATE 2

Inigo Jones’ architecture is oftentimes about two extremes. The question of difference between outside and inside is one of them. The first obvious observation is the fact that the facade perfectly mirrors the inside of the building: The two stories and the gallery are clearly expressed, the choice of orders is only marginally different, each column on the outside has a counterpart on the inside. Within these similarities, however, he plays with opposites, which is related to Aristotle’s idea of the mean.

This is a common theme in Inigo Jones’ work: The difference between the rather plain room, and the very elaborate ceiling can be read as an example of this, so can the difference between the interior as such and the relatively unaffected exterior. This idea of appropriateness is taken from the Nicomachean ethics by Aristotle. In this work, Aristotle introduces the theory of the mean between virtues as moral guiding principle. For example: Neither cowardice nor rashness, it is courage which is desirable, neither undue humility, nor empty vanity, but pride is the virtue. It is worth noting that the mean is not meant as mathematically accurate, but instead a position somewhere in between on the spectrum. In aiming for this mean, one should choose one side which is slightly better, as the precise mean is difficult to achieve. One example of how Jones uses this theory is the question of decorum. This in part has to do with the cost of very elaborate decoration, a very obvious way to show wealth. In general, Jones preferred the simple over the affected. “I would conclude that elements which are simple but well conceived will always be more praiseworthy than things which are confused an affected.” It is for this reason, that most of his buildings are less decorated on the outside, “for as outwardly every wise ma carrieth a gravity in Public Places, where there is nothing els looked for, so in architecture ye outward ornaments oft ought to be solid proporsionable according to the rules, masculine and unaffected.”

To achieve a balance, however, the inside is always highly ornamental. The usage of the composite order in the Banqueting House is already exceptionally decorative within Inigo Jones work. One possible explanation for this unusually decorative facade is the King itself, for whom the building was built. His wealth was to be represented truthfully, in trying to find the mean between stinginess and vulgarity/tastelessness. Finding the right balance between the two can be seen as an excercise in accurately portraying the King and his position in society. Too little decorum could be just as inappropriate as too much.

Because Jones chose less feminine designs for other buildings of the royal families, this can only be part of the explanation. It seems like Jones is trying to achieve a balance, to find the mean within the facade itself. The ionic columns are presented as the mean between the rustication (a substitute for the first order) and the Composite (fifth order). Only the usage of the very simple first order allowed for the usage of the highly affected Composite order.

PLATE 3

The incredible range of programs since it was built 400 years ago—those intended and predicted by Jones and those not—is the result of a design which closely resembles the idea of the roman basilica. The main hall in the basilica in Fano by Vitrivius, has the exact same proportions and about the same dimensions as the Banqueting House. Even more important are the similarities in how both have been used and adapted to fit a whole range of different uses, which becomes obvious when you take a look at the history of the Banqueting House.

The Banqueting House was in 1619 was primarily built to house masques, a form of entertainment popular at the court in the 17th century. Jones had been designing costumes and stages for these masques, comparable today perhaps to a combination of Theatre, Opera and Dance performed by amateurs. However, only about a dozen of these masques were actually performed at the banqueting House, as the smoke from the many candles necessary for such an event threatened to damage the valuable ceiling paintings

by Rubens. A more temporary timber building was therefor set up in the preaching court behind the banqueting house. The banqueting House continued to be used for ceremonies, receptions and hearing petitions amongst other things, even though the lack of a heating system was a problem.

After the restoration of the monarchy, Charles the II used the banqueting House as the main ceremonial chamber of court, much like his father before. There were no alterations to be done, as it had been kept empty, furnished only for temporary occasions.

When in 1698, a Fire destroyed large parts of Whitehall palace, including the Chapel Royale, the Banqueting house was turned into a chapel, which is particularly interesting if you consider the sacred tradition of the basilica.

This made some alterations to the interior of the Banqueting House necessary: most noticeably seating and an organ were installed. The original banqueting house would even have had an apsis, giving directionality to an otherwise quite static space and further adding to the reading as a church.

To allow the military to attend services, a second gallery was added in order to accommodate more people in 1809. The military used the building for 20 years, it remained empty for 8 years thereafter. In 1837, after urgently necessary renovations of the roof and a restoration of the interior, it was reopened as a royal chapel. It was used as such for another 53 years. In 1891, Queen Victoria allowed the United Service Institution to use it as a museum.

Besides the Royal Chapel and the main hall, the banqueting house was the only large semi public space at Whitehall palace. After the fire, it was in fact the only ceremonial hall remaining.

To some extent, the different programs are due to limitations of King’s building budget, who simply couldn’t have afforded to build new structures of the same standing for every occasion. This means, that for many of the uses, there were simply no alternatives. Two other ideas play a role as well: 1. The Banqueting House was conveived as a large empty space. 2. It was intended as an architectural statement, for which a program wasn’t really necessary, which even had difficulties housing the programs it was built for.

The understanding of all the alterations done is that of a piece of furniture.

Even the most extensive changes made remained temporary in their nature.

This is apparent in all the images: the materiality and the building technique is different, the design of Inigo Jones was not or hardly affected by the infills. The real reason for the Banqueting House was something other than a program. This is apparent in the architecture, and perhaps even more apparent in the ceiling by Rubens—it’s a pavilion to praise the King and to prove his divine heritage. This was a message worth keeping even centuries after the Banqueting House had been finished.

Used as an auction house before the adaptation as a military chapel

Military Chapel

Museum of the United Service Institutions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J.A. Gotch; Inigo Jones Giles Worsley; Inigo Jones and the European Classicist Tradition John Charlton, The Banqueting House, Lees Milne, The Age of Inigo Jones John Summerson, Inigo Jones Isaac Ware, Designs of Inigo Jones and others Vaughan Hart, the architect of Kings