Introduction/ synapsis
The report is a case study about Stowe and the classical orders as a part of MSc Conservation of Historic Building in the University of Bath. The site visit, New Inn Farm, Stowe, Buckingham, was visited on 09 November 2016. The coach left at 8.20 am from the campus and arrived Stowe House around 11.00 am. Between 11.00 and 12.00 o’clock, Stowe House then after lunch from 12.45 to 16.30 pm the garden had been visited with Dr Michael Forsyth, director of the course and Richard Wheeler, National Specialist in Garden History the National Trust.
In the report, initially, the classical orders and Classic Temple will be explained, then after a brief explanation about Stowe, three temples were chosen in the garden will be analysed to evaluate the classical orders.
The Classical Orders
An order:
An order composes basically of a column, its capital and base which has some exceptions. The capital rests the entablature, consisting of architrave, frieze and cornice from bottom to top. (Figure:1)
Figure 1: The entablature (Author, 2016) cizildi
Figure 2: The Greek order components (author, 2016)cizildi
The classical orders:
The orders began around 8th century B.C. to fulfil the structural needs. And the researchers showed that the process of the classical Greece had changed on not only the form of post and lintol architecture but also the material types from wood to stone. (Cordingley, 1951, p.3) (Figure: 4) The pure classical orders were only two; the Doric and the ionic orders. Because these were based on the two Greece racial identities which were the southern Italy and Sicily and the seaside of Asia. (ibid) The other versions influenced from the both.
It was the first-time Vitruvius had assessed them and clarified systematically in terms of their birthplaces. (Summerson, 1963, p.4) The four orders, the Doric, the Ionic, the Tuscan and the Corinthian were what he identified. However, the last order, the Composite order was added as the fifth by the Renaissance humanists. And in 1540, Sabestiana Serlio collected these five orders together and published it as well-known ‘The Five Orders’ since then. (Summerson, 1963, p.5) (Figure: 3-5)
Figure 3: The Five Order (author,2016) cizildi
Figure 4: The post and lintol architecture (author, 2016) cizildi
Figure 5: Vitruvius and Serlio descriptions for the orders (Summerson, 1963, p.5)
Although Vitruvius did not use proportions, Serlio’s studies included highly systematic ratios to describe the orders. And both thought also seriously the meanings and characteristics of the orders. (Figure: 6)
Then, despite parts of the architectural element, they were formed as an ornamental element over time, called ‘a pilaster order’. However, even if the function was changed in some circumstances, the classical order rules grammatically were not disregarded. (Summerson, 1963, p.6) And the ancient architects thought and aimed that the beauty and magnificence could be acquired with the symmetry and harmonious. (Jones, 1956a, p.115) Using the human body proportions was referred after Vitruvius studies.
Figure 6: The five orders (cdcarchitecture, 2011)
The Doric Order:
The Doric and ionic orders showed themselves the first in early temple buildings. In the fifth century, The Doric maturated at Paestum and Olympia Temples. (Jones, 1956a, p.28)
The Dorians who located in the southern Italy and Sicily performed basic rules and simplicity of the maleness form for the orders. And the height of the entablature became less when the columns lightened. (Cordingley, 1951, p.4) The Doric order was so minimal because of the perspective of ‘no nonsense’, but some such triglyphs were about visual concerns. (Jones,1956a, p.117)
The Doric influenced and added the frieze from Ionic form of Athens. Although the Doric frieze was ornate, the Ionic frieze was modest rather that its feature has much more decorative. (Cordingley, 1951, p.5)
The use of the base is identical whether it was Greek Doric or Roman Doric. Because the Greek Doric had no the base. (Figure 3-6: Roman Doric and Figure 2: Greek Doric)
The Ionic Order:
The unwritten rule of the classicism to perform in a free manner was more active for the Ionic. (Jones, 1956a, p.117) Because of that, being one of the earliest examples, the Ionic was more variable than the standard Doric. (Jones, 1956a, p.29).
The Ionians, the part of Greece from the seaside of Asia, performed delicate and ornamented forms. The mouldings location and ornaments of the base and entablature have several varieties. And like the Doric Order, the height of the entablature became less when the columns lightened. (Cordingley, 1951, p.4) The diversities and the measurements of the heights assists experts to clarify the building’s term.
The Corinthian Order:
The Corinthian order did not separate from the Ionic order because of using the same shaft and entablature of the Ionic. However, it was an order which had its own characteristics with ornamental style on the capital (Jones, 1956a, p.150). The capital was identical with the acanthus leaves decorations.
Partially, the Roman interested with the Corinthian because of the ornamental glory, the solutions of the corner problems and suitability for the plan performance. (Jones, 1956a, p.155) In addition, Augustus guided projects included the Corinthian as a political element, asserting the view of victorious and reformative meanings of the Corinthian order. (ibid)
The Tuscan Order:
Etruscans performed the Tuscan order as mixed material structure with wooden entablature and stone columns. (Cordingley,1951, p.7) But it was almost the same as the Roman Doric order.
The Composite Order:
Of the five orders, the most flamboyant order was the Composite which was designed by the Romans. The feature of that was integration of the Ionic and Corinthian.
Figure 7: Differences and similarities of Greek, Roman, Renaissance Orders (Cordingley,1951, p.14)
The Temple:
Temples, felt the need for the sanctuary, were regarding not only religious but also social, political reasons, and the need for the protection of the ritual materials required a shelter. (Jones, 1956a, p.21) When the need of temple which was just for protection not performing worship inside considered, how the plan of building was projected will be understood much more clearly.
The classic temple has a rectangular structure which included naos in the centre and the passageway surrounded colonnades. In addition, the anta column, formed not circular but rectangular shape, is the end of the naos walls. (Figure 8) And the pediment is the roof element. (Figure: 2) However, the early examples are identified how the columns strung and diversified as ‘in antis’, ‘prostyle’ and ‘peristyle’. (Jones, 1956a, p.43-50) In addition, the decorations of doors and windows became richer from Roman to Renaissance date, though the Greek temple usually did not have windows (Cordingley, 1951, p.12) Because the light was welcomed through the door when they organised ceremony. (ibid) (Figure 9) The reason why the windows were not used in Greek era was about the need of temple element, shelter as to protect the sanctuary materials, as mentioned above.
Figure 8: Temple plans (Wikiwand, 2013)
Figure 9: The interior of the Temple of Demeter at Sangri on Naxos (Jones, 1956a, p.74) taratilacak
Stowe Gardens and Parkland
In 18th century, the landowner of Stowe, Temple Family was eager to pioneer the garden trend. The garden has opened its guests, also from overseas, since 1730s. And it influenced other landscape gardens.
In the history, Stowe was sold due to bankrupt of 2nd Duke. And in 1990, National Trust owned it as a landscape garden, after Stowe School founded in 1923. (National Trust, 2016, p.3)
The garden includes various structures; monuments, temples, triumphal arches, cascades, statues, vases, wooden and Palladian bridges, Chinese house and so on. This variety was not only pointed out Cobham’s wealth, but also welcomed circles which were writers and politicians, known Cobham’s Cubs, and visitors. (Lamb, 1996, p. 62) The style of structures is also varied with Gothic, Palladian, Chinese and the classical architectures. Of all these styles, the classical orders will be studied in this report.
The garden was planned to show the sensitivity of Lord Cobham’s life, especially after 1933 when he weakened his power. (Lamb, 1996, p.59) After the power and its relationship with the politics are drawn attentions, Lamb (1996, p. 72) claims that Stowe shows not Cobham’s ideology but his political capabilities, since his perceptions on the political events was were not exactly displayed in the garden.
Whether it was or not, currently, it displays 18th century’s Georgian social values and properties as that of Prior Park. Both aimed a poetic landscape, using similar elements such as Palladian bridge, three arched pedimented bridge, a ha-ha wall, cascades, monuments, the house and its vista. However, it should be highlighted that Stowe gives political and social messages about personal identity, though Prior Park has an ideology about the state. In addition, on the one hand, the prior park differentiates from Stowe. Because Harney (2007) states that the Prior Park have an ideology about the sentiment of theatre with architect John Wood’s geometrical concept which is exactly fitting the topography of the site. (Harney, 2007, p.189) On the other hand, it is clearly seen that Stowe is more luxurious and showy.
Figure 10: Gothic Temple Figure 11: The Hermitage by W. Kent in 1731
Picture 12: The temple of British Worthies Figure 13: The Temple of Venus
Figure 14: The Queen’s Temple Figure 15: The Temple of Concord and Victory
Figure 16: Stowe House
Figure 17: The Eastern and Western Lake Pavillion and the Corinthian Arch (the middle)
Figure 18: The Cobham Monument Figure 19-20: The monuments in Stowe
Figure 21: The temple of Ancient Virtue Figure 22: The Rotondo
Figure 23: The Fane of Pastoral Poetry Figure 24: The Amelian Arch
Figure 25: Palladian Bridge
Figure 26: Arched pedimented bridge
The Queen’s Temple:
Figure 27: The Queen’s Temple
Timeline of the temple (National Trust, 2016, p.24):
1742: designed by James Gibbs as the lady’s Temple because of the dedication to female superiority.
1772-4: added the portico and steps
1790: renaming the Queen’s Temple as to honour Queen Charlotte
Figure 28: The front façade of the Queen Temple
The front and back façade has either two niches with vases in the first level and the upper level has the square blind windows on the line. (Figure 27-28) The dentils surround the pediment and all the roof edges. The mouldings between frieze and architrave continues all around the facades.(Figure 28- 30)
The architrave seems narrower than that of the earlier terms. Because the architrave height had been changed according to the columns height in Roman and Renaissance times. (Figure: 7) And it is clearly seen that the line continues from the entablature to the column as it seemed in Roman and Renaissance implemented. (figure: 28)
The Corinthian Portico has anta columns. The other columns have a fluted shaft called the ionic and the capital, characterised by the plant form ornaments, is known as the Corinthian. Augustus claimed that the Corinthian was suitable for the imperial projects because of its political meanings (Jones, 1956a, p. 155), as mentioned above. This view of order and the changing the name of temple to honour the Queen reminds visitors its simulations as political and imperial power.
Figure 29: The plan of the Lady’s Temple (before 1772) (Seeley, 1780, p.23)
Because the plan did not include the portico, as the history timeline said, it should be built later. (Figure 29) The colour of the columns of portico is also different from other parts. (Figure 27)
Figure 30: the façade of Queen Temple
The aesthetic concerns changed in progress of time. One of them, the frieze, being firstly only as a frontal element, surrounded around the temple. (Jones, 1956a, p.203) In this manner, Figure 30 shows that the back façade of Queen’s temple has also frieze. Besides, the modillions of the ceiling edges point out the later term types with the rectangular brackets which was were the famous in the Hadrian era. (Jones, 1956b, p.142) (Figure: 31)
The orders of the balcony composed of the Ionic capital and the Tuscan shaft. Because the early Doric column did not have the base, although the later ones had. (Figure: 7) And these orders have the base pointing out the later term of the Doric shaft. However, it is decided to the Tuscan order because of the feature of the shaft which have not maleness character. (Figure: 33) It should be stated that the lack of measurements and their certain characterise are the limitations of this report. All decisions includes visual comparison and the presence of the element or not. (like the base)
Figure 31: The detail of ceiling
Figure 32: The detail of corner Figure 33: The detail of balcony
The Temple of Concord and Victory:
Timeline of the temple (National Trust, 2016, p.26):
1747: built to honour Greece because of emerging the European liberty from there and named firstly the Grecian Temple.
1761-4: redesigned and renamed the temple of Concord and Victory to remember the triumph of the Seven Years War.
Figure 34: The plan of the Concord and Victory Temple (Seeley, 1780, p.23)
The rectangular shaped temple of Concord and Victory is a peristyle temple which 28 Ionic columns surrounding the naos. (Figure: 34)
Figure 35: The Ionic Columns
It is a typical classic temple. The reasons are that there are no windows but the door to welcome the daily light and the naos and the passageway locate as it should be. (Figure 8-9-35)
The two medallions are carved inner side of the pronoas. (Figure: 36) There is no doubt that The column is an Ionic column because it has volute capital and fluted shaft.
The ornaments of the pediment changed after it renamed. (Figure 37)
Figure 36: The concord and victory Temple
Figure 37: The pediment
Figure 38: The detail of the concord and victory temple
Figure 39: The door of the temple
The Temple of Venus:
Figure 40: The Temple of Venus
Timeline of the temple (National Trust, 2016, p.15):
1731: designed by William Kent
It was the first William Kent participation of the garden.
It located in the South-western side of the garden. The eleven-acre Lake also accompanies the temple in that corner.
The temple includes 3 blocks connected each other with arcades. As shown in the plan (Figure: gg), two curved quarter became a half circle and the centre block has also the apse and ionic columns.
Figure gg41: The plan of the Temple of Venus (Seeley, 1780, p.24)
The naos of temple to hide the sanctuary materials is behind the centre block. In contrarily to Greek temple, it has Victorian windows and doors. (Figure 47) And there are 4 niches with busts; 2 niches in the apse, 2 outer facades of the centre block. (Figure: 40)
Figure 42: the centre block detail (the niches with busts, Victorian door and Roman columns)
2 anta columns, resisted wall, have a rectangular shaped as they should be. The columns have ionic capital but Tuscan shaft which is not fluted, as the Roman term column system has. The entablature is not decorated, although the cornice has dentils. The base points out the unfluted shaft is not the Greek Doric.
It is clearly seen that the system has similarities to the Palladian bridges design system. (Tatter, 2015-2016) (Figure: 43)
Figure 43: The Palladian Bridge (Prior Park)
Figure 48: The detail of the apse
Figure 44: The left side of the concord and victory temple
Figure 45- 46: Victorian window and door
Figure 47: The back side of the concord and victory temple
Conclusion:
The report analysed the classic orders and temples in Stowe Landscape Garden. The process how they started to be built and why they needed to be explained and then the early and later term rules assessed respectively Greek, Roman, Renaissance orders. And Lastly, the rules were seen on the examples of Temples in Stowe Landscape Garden.
It is noticed that the orders were formed especially for their birthplaces and then diversified their own characterised and projected the new ones, integrating with the other states. After the five orders identified, they ornamentally became rich because of the social and political meanings. Yet, the Greek orders always stayed as pure examples.
Among temples, the ceiling ornaments of the concord and victory temple are richer than the Queen’s Temple and the entablature have a story to express a momentary to celebrate a triumph. And The last temple, the temple of Venus is separated from others, having the Roman ionic orders with the Palladian architecture.
Consequently, the temple of Concord and Victory are committed to the early classic temple rules, even though the ornaments are pointed out the later terms. In contrarily, the Queen’s Temple did not follow the early rules by opening the windows. However, its ceiling modillions with rectangular bracket might be seen in the same type earned reputations in the later term.
As an end, the limitation of the report is the lack of measurements to compare and identify the orders. All descriptions are made with visual comparisons. If the measurements of the orders evaluate, the definitions could be more accurate.