Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:36:04.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On William Kent’s Roman sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Cinzia Maria Sicca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

’At last I have come to Rome againe which I find is ye only place for a Painter’

In March 1946 Rudolf Wittkower read a seminal paper on ‘Lord Burlington and William Kent’ to the Royal Archaeological Institute. Whilst it paved the way for a reassessment of Lord Burlington’s achievements as an architect in his own right, it also unequivocally reduced Kent to a subservient role, denying him any real degree of autonomous creativity in the field of architecture. Kent was said to have turned his hand to architecture only relatively late in his career, thus his education in this field had taken place under the scrutiny of the Earl of Burlington, a purist and uncompromising disciple of Palladio and Jones. Wittkower, and after him all the major British scholars in the field have asserted that as a style British neo-Palladianism was entirely dependent upon Palladio, Scamozzi and Jones. It was in the works of these masters that the ‘academic’ architects of the Burlington circle believed they had discovered the eternal rules of architecture. So Wittkower, and those writing after him, postulated a privileged relationship between the British architectural innovators of the early part of the eighteenth century and the architectural tradition of sixteenth-century Veneto. Kent was forced into this straightjacket, even though many aspects of his work jarred with this overall interpretation of the period; indeed in 1945 Wittkower himself had acknowledged the presence in English architecture between 1720 and 1760 of elements which are not Palladian at all. But after this initial admission of complexity and contradiction Wittkower chose to concentrate on Burlington, on whom he planned to publish a monograph. Kent had vanished from his horizon.

Type
Research Article
Information
Architectural History , Volume 29 , 1986 , pp. 134 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Cf. Rudolf Wittkower’s paper ‘Lord Burlington and William Kent’ read to the Royal Archaeological Institute in March 1946, reprinted in a revised version in Wittkower, R., Palladio and Palladianism (New York, 1974), 115-32Google Scholar, and ‘Pseudo-Palladian Elements in English Neoclassicism’ also reprinted in the same volume, 155-74.

2 Talman’s Letter-Book, Bodleian Library, Eng.Lett.e. 34, fol. 59, letter to his father dated Leghorn, 15 October 1709.

3 Letter to Richard Topham (1671-1730) dated Florence, 18 November 1709 (Letter-Book, fol. 68).

4 Cf. Friedman, T., ‘Foggini’s Statue of Queen Anne’ in Kunst des Barock in der Toskana. Studien zur Kunst unter dem letzten Medici (Florence–Munich, 1976), 39–56 Google Scholar.

5 Letter to his father dated Rome, 12 April 1710 (Letter-Book, fol. 99).

6 Writing to his father on 9 May 1710 Taiman said ‘I do not live with my companions, we are all in separate lodgings, but agree very well, and every Thursday we spend in seeing fine palaces, as last Thursday we saw Borghese Palace . . .’ (Letter-Book, fols 109-10).

7 Talman’s domicile is deducible from his Letter-Book and Axer’s activities are described by Sebastiano Resta in his letters to Niccolò Gabburri; Kent’s presence in the house of Giuseppe Pesci is documented in the Stati delle Anime of the parish of San Lorenzo in Lucina, taken every Easter (Archivio del Vicariato, Rome).

8 William Kent to Burrell Massingberd, Rome, 16 April 1715 (Lincoln, Diocesan Archive 2MM, B19A).

9 On Chiari see Pio, Nicola, Le Vite di Pittori, Scultori et Architetti (Città del Vaticano, 1977), 108-09Google Scholar.

10 Letter to Burrell Massingberd dated Rome, 24 November 1714 (Lincoln, Diocesan Archive 2MM, B19A).

11 Letter to Burrell Massingberd dated Rome, 24 November 1714 (Lincoln, Diocesan Archive 2MM, B19A).

12 Holkham MSS 733, fol. 89.

13 Letter to Burrell Massingberd dated Florence, 8 October 1716 (Lincoln, Diocesan Archive 2MM, B19A).

14 Letter to Burrell Massingberd dated Rome, 24 November 1714 (Lincoln, Diocesan Archive 2MM, B19A).

15 The sketchbook (Codex 701) is still at Holkham; it was acquired by Kent for Thomas Coke during the summer of 1718 as documented by an entry in Coke’s Account book (MSS 734, fol. 159), headed ‘Sent to Mr Kent at Rome in June 25 1718 | a bill of two Hundered pound sterlin to Pay things as followeth ... A book of drawings by Raphael 50 Roman crowns’. References to the sketchbook are to be found in Michaelis, A., Marbles in Great Britain (Cambridge, 1882), 322 Google Scholar; Passavant, J. D., Raphael d’Urbin et son père Giovanni Santi, 2 vols (Paris, 1860), 11, 5, 17–22 Google Scholar; Schmitt, A., ‘Roemische Antikensammlungen im Speigel eines Musterbuchs der Renaissance’, Munchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst, xxi (1970), 99–127 Google Scholar.

16 The Bartoli drawings, gathered in two albums, are at Holkham Hall. They have been the subject of a study by Ashby, Thomas, ‘Drawings of Ancient Paintings in English Collections II–IV’, Papers of the British School at Rome, VIII (1916), 35–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The payment is recorded in Holkham MSS 734, fol. 159 under the heading’Sent to Mr Kent at Rome in June 25 1718, a bill of two Hundered pound sterlin to Pay things as followeth’. On Francesco Bartoli see Nicola Pio, Le Vite . . . 41; Ashby, T., ‘Drawings of ancient paintings in English collections’, Papers of the British School at Rome, VII (1914), 1–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on the Topham collection at Eton College) and Pace, C., ‘Pietro Santi Bartoli: Drawings in Glasgow University Library after Roman paintings and mosaics’, Papers of the British School at Rome, XLVII (1979), 117-55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 The contents of Kent’s library are listed in the catalogue of the sale which took place in Covent Garden on 14 February 1749 (Langford auctioneer), a copy of which is in the Bodleian Library (Mus. Bibl. III, 8. 20). Vittoria’s manuscript is entered as lot 61 ‘Indice dell’Opere di Rafaello Sanzio d’Urbino da Vittoria MSS Quarto’. On the MS at Windsor see Blunt, A., ‘Don Vincenzo Vittoria’, The Burlington Magazine, CIX (January 1967), 31–32 Google Scholar.

18 Manchester, Chetham MSS 8; I am grateful to Sir Brinsley Ford for kindly sharing this information with me.

19 Chatsworth 26a/19; cf. C. M. Sicca, William Kent: Architecture and Landscape, in Wilton-Ely, J. ed., A Tercentenary Tribute to William Kent (Kingston upon Hull, 1985), Cat. No. 17, pp. 48–49 Google Scholar.

20 Ibid., Cat. No. 29, pp. 58-59.

21 Cf. Talman’s letter of 25 April 1711 to Mr Wallop (Letter-Book fols 191-92). The two drawings are in the Lincoln, Diocesan Archive, MM 16/5/6 Elevation of the Grotto, and MM 16/5/14 Section through the Grotto.

22 Kent submitted a document in French entitled ‘La Proposition de Monsr. Kent pour peindre la voute de la Grand Chambre a Kensington’ which was shown to the King on 28 February 1722 (PRO, Work 6/7, fol. 272). His proposal was immediately accepted and preference given to the use of ultramarine, regardless of the greater expense involved. Payment of Kent’s work was finally warranted on 22 August 1722 despite the critical report produced by a commission of artists requested by the Office of Works to assess the work (PRO, Work 6/7, fol. 273; T 1/41, part II fol. 382-83). The commission ‘for painting the sides of the Cube Room’ dates to 1725 and was worth £324 2s. 7d. The relief was commissioned by the Office of Works from Michael Rysbrack on 22 January 1723/24 (PRO, Works 4/2, fol. 154v); the entry in the minute book reads Ordered that the Bassreleivo over the Chimney in the Cube Room at Kensington be sett up, pursuant to a draught & designe this day approved off by the Board’. No trace of this ‘designe’ can be found.

23 On the original design, which was rejected for reasons unknown, see Sicca, C. M., ‘A Kent drawing for the ceiling of the King’s Drawing Room at Kensington Palace’, Apollo, CXXII (October 1985), 310 Google Scholar.

24 Kent was paid £150 on 20 December 1723 for the ceiling of the King’s Bedchamber; his fee for the Council Chamber was again £150 and payment was granted on 20 May 1724; cf. PRO, Work 6/15, fols 15 and 28.

25 PRO Works 29/3358, reproduced in Colvin, H. M. ed., The History of the King’s Works, v, 1660-1782 (1976), pl. 61 AGoogle Scholar.