A ROMAN TEMPLE (THE 17th CENTURY)

Although few people during the 17th century accepted Inigo Jones’ hypothesis that Stonehenge was a Roman temple, his tenure as the King’s architect meant that it attracted widespread interest throughout the century.40 Born in 1573 London, not much is known about Jones’ early life until he travelled to Italy in 1613, spending the winter in Rome studying antique ruins and works of modern architect masters. In Inigo Jones, Stanley C. Ramsey suggests he was disappointed with the “full tideway of the Baroque” that he currently saw in Italy, being particularly enamoured instead by the work of Andrea Palladio (1508-80).41 Palladio, an Italian architect inspired by the ideals of Vitruvius, led the revival of classical architecture in Italy. This movement promoted the Roman ideals of harmonic proportions, symmetrical planning and focused on aesthetic simplicity and purity.42 After returning, Inigo promptly introduced the English Classical tradition led by his first major commission in 1616; The Queen’s House in Greenwich, the first Palladian building in England.43 This style was a stark contrast to all of the latticework and fretwork of the Gothic period that preceded it and similarly was the anthesis of the contemporary over-the-top Baroque of the continent.44 However, his Palladian style was mostly a lone star during the 17th century, with the majority of buildings still being designed in an exuberant Gothic style. Subsequently replacing it came the English Baroque movement after the English Civil War, with Palladian finally finding itself in the zeitgeist during the first quarter of the 18th century.45

Fig 14. Photograph taken in 1970 of the Queen’s House, Greenwich.

Fig 15. Jones’ depiction of what he thought Stonehenge looked like when the Romans first built it.

Fig 16. Jones’ representation of Stonehenge as it actually appeared.

Fig 17. The five classical orders of architecture as depicted by Isaac Ware in 1756. Jones believed that Stonehenge was made in the Tuscan order.

So, firstly in the context of Jones’ architectural philosophy, when asked by the King to survey Stonehenge in the early 1620’s, it seems quite fitting that he could see it only as work of the Romans in a Vitruvius manner. Secondly, one could hypothesise that just as Jones’ Palladian style wasn’t met with widespread acceptance, neither was his Stonehenge theory. The two arguments against were practically associated, firstly due to the monarchy’s need to reassert authority after the Civil War a heavy and rich Baroque style supplanted Jones, and secondly the prevailing belief before and after his book that Stonehenge was built by an ancient Briton tribe not Romans.46 Whatever the success, it can certainly be seen that Stone-Heng functioned as a tool of “operative criticism” for Jones. Manfredo Tafuri describes the term as “an analysis of architecture [that] has as its objective the planning of a precise poetical tendency … [that] plans past history by projecting it towards the future.”47 Ryan Roark in his 2018 article for the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians voices it quite clearly when he states “Jones’s (sic) primary goal in arguing that Stonehenge was Roman was almost certainly the promotion of classicism in England, where it was still mistrusted as a style that went against native tendencies.”48

Caroline Van Eck in Inigo Jones on Stonehenge: Architectural Representation explains that Jones’ book represents a strange and recurring inclination in histories written by architects; whilst the primary object of study is obviously the building/design, the relationship of the architect to it is often evident as highly individual and subjective, occasionally being the central element.49 Expounding upon this, Jones’ use of Vitruvian geometry is fundamentally flawed as the precedent he uses is for a theatre, not a temple. Knowledge of this can be seen by Jones’ marginal annotations in his copy of Daniele Barbaro’s illustrated edition of Vitruvius’s Ten Books on Architecture (1556), where he states that there’s a relationship between the two spaces.50 Regardless of the merits of this observation, it reveals a deceitful strategy by Jones to omit that the grounding of his theory relies on a theatre space. Building further upon Ecks idea reveals that Jones’ interpretation, as a temple to Coleus Roman god of the sky, can be read as “Christianising [the ruin] in a very Protestant way.”51 Jones reached his conclusion from Pierio Valeriano’s popular handbook Hieroglyphica (1556), where he learned that the Egyptians believed the circle represented Coleus, however this meant he had to omit mention of the dozen other meanings it’s also given. Jones has Christianised it because Coleus was never worshipped but rather a ‘personification of the heavens’, wrongly seen by those who believe in a continuous Christian civilisation as an imperfect version of God.52

Fig 18. The Vitruvian precedent that Jones uses (on the left) and his plan of Stonehenge with plans for both the monopteros and peripteros over it (on the right). Upon inspection Jones’ geometry is questionable. Although two of the regulating triangles hit outer ‘columns’ at each of their vertices and define the edges of the inner trilithons with each of their edges, the other two seem to do little but echo the Viturvian precedent.

Fig 19. For Jones, Stonehenge may have represented a prototype for his first Protestant church in Covent Garden, a simple and unadorned house of God.

Jones’s revolutionary Palladian ideas in English architecture with it’s perceived mythical link to Stonehenge and Roman influence can only be seen in four of his buildings which survive today: the Queens House (1616–19); the Queen’s Chapel (1623–27); St Paul’s Church (1633); and his greatest achievement, the Banqueting House (1619–22) at Whitehall.53 The Banqueting House exemplifies his Vitruvian modus operandi where it was conceived as a basilica without aisles, using equally spaced out superimposed columns set against the walls to support the flat, beamed ceiling. The exterior reflects the arrangement of the interior, with pilasters and regular columns set against the rusticated walling.54 Due to widespread rejection of Jones’ Palladianism, his influence wasn’t widely felt during this period. It did, however, influence the work of another famous contemporary, Sir Christopher Wren and his magnum opus St. Paul’s, the only English cathedral in any permutation of the Classical tradition. 55

Wren was born in East Knoyle, Wiltshire in 1632, roughly 15 miles away from Stonehenge.56 It’s believed he spent time on the site in his youth as there are two etchings on different stones of ‘WREN’ with a cross before it, thought to represent his first name.57 It’s interesting to speculate whether the proximity of Stonehenge growing up and Jones’ assertion of it being Roman, made him amenable to the ideas of Classical architecture so much earlier than anyone else. Due to perceived lack of serious endeavour combining Royal Society thought with architectural theory since Jones death 10 years prior, in 1662 his path down architecture began58; Four years later, the Great Fire of London provided a great opportunity for him to strike while the iron was hot. With 2/3rds of the city reduced to a smoking dustbowl, 87 churches including St. Paul’s, was destroyed.59 This provided an ample canvas for Wren to pursue his Classical teachings and once he became the King’s Surveyor of Works he began re-building. His designs embodied a ‘distinctively English approach’ to church-building in the Classical manner and mostly rejected the domes that were so popular in Europe’s Baroque movement. Furthermore, he employed a broad range of various forms of steeple that were used as a Classical substitute to the former Gothic spire.60 St Paul’s was built in a restrained Baroque style that reflected Wren’s rationalisation of England’s traditional Gothic cathedrals with the inspiration of Jones’ Palladianism and his previous design for it.61

Only part of a model and a single drawing remains of Wren’s first design, however it appears that he planned for it to have a domed vestibule and a basilica creating a rectangular church. Furthermore, a unique feature at this time would have been the inclusion of the Roman loggia around the base of the building.62 This motif was especially popular in Rome and Bologna during the designs development and was particularly favoured by Palladio. In fact, about 30 years prior in 1635, Inigo Jones had used one for the first Palladian building in England, the Queen’s House. It’s very possible that Wren felt inspired by this to design something that was so reminiscent to the Pantheon in Rome. However, The Church of England committee rejected it as it wasn’t “stately enough”, resembling the antithesis of the cathedrals previous design.63

Fig 20. On the left: The church as it stood before the Great Fire of London. On the right: Jones’ design for the reconstruction.

Fig 21. What survives of the model for his first design, showcasing the loggia.

Fig 22. The floor plan for Wren’s second design with a Greek cross floor plan, a simple associated with the early days of Christianity. The Church of England uses the Latin cross, so it didn’t fufil the requirements of an Anglican liturgy.

Fig 23. A watercolour illustration depicting what Wren’s “Great Model” design would have looked like. It was his favourite, thinking of it as a “reflection of Renaissance beauty.” However, the committee disagreed and denounced it again as being too different to other English churches to suggest any correlation to the Church of England.

Fig 24. On the left: West elevation of Wren’s fourth design. On the upper right: South elevation of Wren’s fourth design. On the lower right: Floor plan of Wren’s fourth design.

Wren’s fourth design finally received the Royal warrant to commence construction, after capitulating to reconcile the perennial Gothic with a “better manner of architecture.”64 Things like the external buttresses and spire are clearly not classical elements and were changed when it was finally built, taking great advantage of permission by the King to make “ornamental changes”.65 He made the walls thick enough to avoid the need for external buttresses and also swapped out the spire for a double-shelled dome, similar to St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Compared to his previous designs, the floor plan drastically changed for this iteration as well, yielding instead to the traditional medieval cathedral style; the Anglican Latin cross.66 However some notable initial classical features remained, such as the porticos on the west and transept ends. The portico was tweaked a bit, creating instead a two storied entrance in the final design, a choice that was influenced by Jones’ designs for the Old St. Pauls.67

St Paul’s was built on Ludgate Hill; a site that ancient legend says was the location of an ancient stone circle, before a Roman temple dedicated to the goddess Diana was built around 604 AD. Today, reviewing all known evidence of the site, it’s believed that a temple didn’t exist and finds of Roman origin around the area only suggest Roman occupation.68 However, this wasn’t known in 1750 when Wren published his memoir, Parentalia, writing that underneath the cathedral he found old foundations of “Kentish rubble stone, artfully work’d and consolidated...in the Roman manner.”69 It’s also worth noting the discoveries of his peers that will have influenced his opinion: John Conyers in 1677 found Roman pottery kilns around St. Pauls; and John Woodward, sometime in the 17th century, found a statuette of Diana.70 These factors likely led Wren to give some thought to the notion and it’s revealing that his designs would try emulating the Classical architecture that may have stood before the Gothic reincarnations. In addition, the dome of St Paul’s is constructed to the same diameter as the outer ring of sarsens at Stonehenge, perhaps a reference to the stone circle and/or an acknowledgment of Jones’ Roman theory. It’s also interesting that he chose to rotate the plan so it aligned with Easter sunrise of the year construction began, a choice informed by Wren’s interest in astronomy71 and perhaps its context once again.

Fig 25. Painting of the north west view of St. Paul’s, showing the main entrance portico obscured by the foregroundof Ludgate Hill.

40 “British Library.” [n.d.]. Www.bl.uk <https://www.bl.uk/picturing-places/articles/inigo-jones-and-the-ruins-of-stonehenge> [accessed 18 January 2023]

41 Ramsey, Stanley Churchill. Inigo Jones. United Kingdom, E. Benn, Limited, 1924.

42 Boucher, Bruce. 2007. Andrea Palladio: The Architect in His Time, 2nd edn (New York, NY: Abbeville Press)

43 “Inigo Jones and the Queen’s House.” [n.d.]. Rmg.co.uk <https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/inigo-jones-queens-house> [accessed 18 January 2023]

44 Ramsey

45 Watkin, David. 2000. English Architecture: A Concise History (London, England: Thames & Hudson)

46 Roark, Ryan. “‘Stonehenge in the Mind’ and ‘Stonehenge on the Ground’: Reader, Viewer, and Object in Inigo Jones’s Stone-Heng Restored (1655).” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 77, no. 3, 2018, pp. 285–99. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26502572. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.

47 Manfredo Tafuri, “Operative Criticism,” in Theories and History of Architecture, trans. Giorgio Verrecchia (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 141.

48 Roark

45 Watkin, David. 2000. English Architecture: A Concise History (London, England: Thames & Hudson)

46 Roark, Ryan. “‘Stonehenge in the Mind’ and ‘Stonehenge on the Ground’: Reader, Viewer, and Object in Inigo Jones’s Stone-Heng Restored (1655).” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 77, no. 3, 2018, pp. 285–99. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26502572. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.

47 Manfredo Tafuri, “Operative Criticism,” in Theories and History of Architecture, trans. Giorgio Verrecchia (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 141.

48 Roark

49 van Eck, Caroline. 2009. Inigo Jones on Stonehenge: Architectural Representation, Memory and Narrative (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Architectura & Natura Press)

50 Hille, Christiane. 2013. Visions of the Courtly Body: The Patronage of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, and the Triumph of Painting at the Stuart Court, 1st edn (Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter) <https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050062556>

51 Harris, John, and etc. 1973. King’s Arcadia: Inigo Jones and the Stuart Court; Exhibition Catalogue (London, England: Arts Council of England)

52 van Eck

53 Summerson, “Inigo Jones”

54 Ibid

55 Loftie, W. J. 2019. Inigo Jones and Wren: Or the Rise and Decline of Modern Architecture in England (Classic Reprint) (London, England: Forgotten Books)

56 Summerson, John. 2022a. “Christopher Wren,” Encyclopedia Britannica

57 “The Stones of Stonehenge.” [n.d.]. English Heritage <https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/things-to-do/stone-circle/stones-ofstonehenge/> [accessed 18 January 2023]

58 Summerson, “Christopher Wren”

59 Tinniswood, Adrian. 2016. The Great Fire of London: The Essential Guide (London, England: Vintage Classics)

60 Jardine, Lisa. 2002. On a Grander Scale: The Outstanding Career of Sir Christopher Wren (London, England: HarperCollins)

61 Loftie

62 Jardine

63 Campbell, James W. P. 2020. Building St Paul’s (London, England: Thames & Hudson)

64 Downes, Kerry, and Guildhall Library. 1988. Sir Christopher Wren: Design for St.Paul’s Cathedral (London, England: Trefoil Publications)

65 Barker, Felix, and Ralph Hyde. 1982. London as It Might Have Been (London, England: John Murray)

66 Downes

67 Ibid

68 Schofield, John. 2011. St Paul’s Cathedral before Wren (Swindon, England: Historic England)

69 Wren, Christopher. Parentalia Or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens Viz. of Mathew Bishop of Ely, Christopher Dean of Windsor ... But Chiefly of --- Surveyor-general of the Royal Buildings ... Now Published by Stephen Wren. United Kingdom, Osborn, 1750.

70 Schofield

71 Lang, Jane (1956), Rebuilding St Paul’s after the Great Fire of London, Oxford: Oxford University Press