DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.33484#0026
20
y&w 7
A'o/f.—The white it wiii never iose its vaiue as a noble account of the Architect, cannot be
reiied upon for exact technicai detaii. It must be regarded as a son's recoiiection of his father's tabie-taik, the
recorder not being himseif an architect and thus particuiarly iiabie to confusions of time and piace in his anec-
dotes. Hampton Court was begun eariy in 1689 and the work was abandoned rather than hnished in 1694
on the Queen's death. The destruction by Hre of Whitehaii Paiace on January 4, 1698, caused a resumption
of interest in the work. (See Wren's ietter to the King dated April 28, page 58.)
The story as to the cioisters must be a misapprehension of what reaiiy occurred. It seems practicaiiy certain
that Wren intended a fiat ceiiing at the spring of the arches, as recommended by him and buiit at Trinity Coiiege
Library, Cambridge. King Wiiiiam's objection must have been made whiie the work was actuaiiy in hand, as
it seems ciear that the fioor girders were raised, not iowered. No doubt Wren urged that, if raised, they must
be iifted above the arches. Apparentiy he faiied to carry his point, probabiy because the King wouid not take
off sufHcient height from the great rooms on the first floor. What we see in the cioisters is therefore a
compromise between these two alternatives, and no doubt the King's generosity of statement consisted in
a recognition, too iate, that his opposition to Wren's advice had been a mistake.
The alteration probabiy took piace before the King ieft Hampton Court for Hoiiand House, October 1689.
It is suggested that the disturbance to the girders may, by shaking the work, have contributed to the disaster
in December (see pp. 72-4).
This is beiieved, after a carefui study of the buiiding and the accounts, to be the true expianation of the
incident reiated in the
The special tribute to Queen Mary has a high personal interest. It is very doubtfui if Wren's reiations
with her successor were ever of the same character.
Readers interested in the history of the Paiace in Tudor and iater times shouid refer to Mr. Ernest Law's
weii-known three voiutnes (1883-91) and to the ' Short History' (1924).
B. HAMPTON COURT. PIPE ROLLS
Aj/'g Ao// ?M. 7 (pp. 20-3).
^r?/ 7, 7%&?, /o Aforc/t J7, 7697.
.Ptjf'g 7/o// ??o. 2 (pp. 23-6).
2/7?*?'/ 7, 7697, /o yiTdrc/? 97, 7699.
TT/x? 7?o// ??o. 9 (pp. 26-9).
yJT)?*?/ 7, 7dp9, /o yf/oro/? 97, 7696.
7-'?/'<-: 7?o// ??o. 9 (pp. 29-36).
A/ay 7, 7d<S'p, /o A/o?*c/? 29, 7696.
7**?^ 770// ??o. 9 (pp. 36-8).
Ti/orc/; 29, /hp<S', /o 7/gc. 72, 7699.
7wo(Deciared 21 Nov. 1699.)
7'Z7*^yga?*s. (Deciared 13 Dec. 1703.)
Twojyears. (Deciared 14 March 1703.)
-S)?vg7?Toa?*.s. (Declared 12 Oct. 1704.)
07?7a7?aQ/?r^-9?tar/7r,yga7*.s. (Declared i2 0ct. 1704.
AWc. See summary of cost of buiiding, as contained in the first three Pipe Roiis, which is piaced at the end
of the third roil (p. 29).
AU// //<?. 7. 7A&)-p7.
(Audit Ofhce, Declared Accounts, Works, RoII 293, Bundle 2482.)
[&og'7*7?s] The Duplicament of the account of 7V:o77?a.s Z./oy<7, Esq., Paymaster of their Ma^ Works
and Buiidings, of the money by him or his agent received and had as well out of ye Receipt of their
Mabes Exchequer as from ye price of Sundry provisions issued out of their Mat*"s Stores, or which
have any other way come to his hands for or by reason of ye said ofhce, for and towards ye
g?w/?77g' sgfg7*a// A7zu 7/???/;/??:^' a/ //:<'??* T/a^^ T7o7?o?*q777H77?7'/o7? Co??7*/.... Between //??' 7??*.s/ q7 2/Z?*?//
/d^9 in ye first year of ye Reigne of their Ma^es King William and Queen Mary over England &c.,
and /7c /%s/ ?/<?y o/ A7??7-r7 769/ . .. being ye space of two whole years then ended. As by one 7^76^7*
/jooZc q7TfcroT;?/'/ co;?/<r'?7??7?7'29 scfg?*;?/ 7???'/7rM/<'77*7'<:?y Tfoo/'rs s.M/.sc?*?/'??:/ K??/A yc /?<t7??A ofye .S7?7*z'qyo?*,
Co77?9'/?'o//<r:?', /f/os/o?* A/o.so;? and A/as/oT* Co7*7?'7?/<"7* of their Ma*"*s Workes for ye time being, and by ye
Clerke of ye Workes at Hampton Court, expressing the natures, quantities & prices &c. . . . hereupon
duly cast, tryed, examined & remaining appeares. Together with ye oaths of this Accomptant's
Deputy entered on ye declaration of this Accompt, remaining with their Majesties Auditors of ye
Imprests.
y&w 7
A'o/f.—The white it wiii never iose its vaiue as a noble account of the Architect, cannot be
reiied upon for exact technicai detaii. It must be regarded as a son's recoiiection of his father's tabie-taik, the
recorder not being himseif an architect and thus particuiarly iiabie to confusions of time and piace in his anec-
dotes. Hampton Court was begun eariy in 1689 and the work was abandoned rather than hnished in 1694
on the Queen's death. The destruction by Hre of Whitehaii Paiace on January 4, 1698, caused a resumption
of interest in the work. (See Wren's ietter to the King dated April 28, page 58.)
The story as to the cioisters must be a misapprehension of what reaiiy occurred. It seems practicaiiy certain
that Wren intended a fiat ceiiing at the spring of the arches, as recommended by him and buiit at Trinity Coiiege
Library, Cambridge. King Wiiiiam's objection must have been made whiie the work was actuaiiy in hand, as
it seems ciear that the fioor girders were raised, not iowered. No doubt Wren urged that, if raised, they must
be iifted above the arches. Apparentiy he faiied to carry his point, probabiy because the King wouid not take
off sufHcient height from the great rooms on the first floor. What we see in the cioisters is therefore a
compromise between these two alternatives, and no doubt the King's generosity of statement consisted in
a recognition, too iate, that his opposition to Wren's advice had been a mistake.
The alteration probabiy took piace before the King ieft Hampton Court for Hoiiand House, October 1689.
It is suggested that the disturbance to the girders may, by shaking the work, have contributed to the disaster
in December (see pp. 72-4).
This is beiieved, after a carefui study of the buiiding and the accounts, to be the true expianation of the
incident reiated in the
The special tribute to Queen Mary has a high personal interest. It is very doubtfui if Wren's reiations
with her successor were ever of the same character.
Readers interested in the history of the Paiace in Tudor and iater times shouid refer to Mr. Ernest Law's
weii-known three voiutnes (1883-91) and to the ' Short History' (1924).
B. HAMPTON COURT. PIPE ROLLS
Aj/'g Ao// ?M. 7 (pp. 20-3).
^r?/ 7, 7%&?, /o Aforc/t J7, 7697.
.Ptjf'g 7/o// ??o. 2 (pp. 23-6).
2/7?*?'/ 7, 7697, /o yiTdrc/? 97, 7699.
TT/x? 7?o// ??o. 9 (pp. 26-9).
yJT)?*?/ 7, 7dp9, /o yf/oro/? 97, 7696.
7-'?/'<-: 7?o// ??o. 9 (pp. 29-36).
A/ay 7, 7d<S'p, /o A/o?*c/? 29, 7696.
7**?^ 770// ??o. 9 (pp. 36-8).
Ti/orc/; 29, /hp<S', /o 7/gc. 72, 7699.
7wo(Deciared 21 Nov. 1699.)
7'Z7*^yga?*s. (Deciared 13 Dec. 1703.)
Twojyears. (Deciared 14 March 1703.)
-S)?vg7?Toa?*.s. (Declared 12 Oct. 1704.)
07?7a7?aQ/?r^-9?tar/7r,yga7*.s. (Declared i2 0ct. 1704.
AWc. See summary of cost of buiiding, as contained in the first three Pipe Roiis, which is piaced at the end
of the third roil (p. 29).
AU// //<?. 7. 7A&)-p7.
(Audit Ofhce, Declared Accounts, Works, RoII 293, Bundle 2482.)
[&og'7*7?s] The Duplicament of the account of 7V:o77?a.s Z./oy<7, Esq., Paymaster of their Ma^ Works
and Buiidings, of the money by him or his agent received and had as well out of ye Receipt of their
Mabes Exchequer as from ye price of Sundry provisions issued out of their Mat*"s Stores, or which
have any other way come to his hands for or by reason of ye said ofhce, for and towards ye
g?w/?77g' sgfg7*a// A7zu 7/???/;/??:^' a/ //:<'??* T/a^^ T7o7?o?*q777H77?7'/o7? Co??7*/.... Between //??' 7??*.s/ q7 2/Z?*?//
/d^9 in ye first year of ye Reigne of their Ma^es King William and Queen Mary over England &c.,
and /7c /%s/ ?/<?y o/ A7??7-r7 769/ . .. being ye space of two whole years then ended. As by one 7^76^7*
/jooZc q7TfcroT;?/'/ co;?/<r'?7??7?7'29 scfg?*;?/ 7???'/7rM/<'77*7'<:?y Tfoo/'rs s.M/.sc?*?/'??:/ K??/A yc /?<t7??A ofye .S7?7*z'qyo?*,
Co77?9'/?'o//<r:?', /f/os/o?* A/o.so;? and A/as/oT* Co7*7?'7?/<"7* of their Ma*"*s Workes for ye time being, and by ye
Clerke of ye Workes at Hampton Court, expressing the natures, quantities & prices &c. . . . hereupon
duly cast, tryed, examined & remaining appeares. Together with ye oaths of this Accomptant's
Deputy entered on ye declaration of this Accompt, remaining with their Majesties Auditors of ye
Imprests.