'The Windows of This Church Are of Several Fashions' - Architectural Form and Historical Method in John Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica'

'The Windows of this Church
are of several Fashions':

Architectural Form and
Historical Method in John
Aubrey's 'Chronologia
Architectonica'
by OLIVIA HORSFALL TURNER
Thomas Rickman has been credited, perhaps for too long, as the first figure to
'discriminate' the styles of medieval architecture and create a chronological analysis of
Gothic architectural forms. Not only were there several authors who published on the
subject immediately before Rickman, but there was also, as early as the mid-seventeenth
century, considerable interest in the discernment and classification of periods in
medieval architecture. 1 One of the chief figures in this was John Aubrey, who pioneered
a method for deducing the date of a medieval building by analysing the shapes of its
windows. This intellectual initiative, 150 years before Rickman, has been either
overlooked or interpreted as a 'false start' in Gothic revivalism. It is, however, worthy
of fresh appraisal as a significant development in historical method and as an indicator
of one way in which architecture was understood in the seventeenth century. Aubrey's
idea was that objects of a given type, in this case medieval windows, had a particular
shape during a particular historical period, and that their morphology could be used to
create a system for establishing the date of any given building. The context for this
scheme was the innovative proposal of several early modern antiquaries that shapes in
themselves could convey historical information, and that specific historical periods had
their own distinctive forms. These scholars, many of whom were associated with the
Royal Society, took faltering steps towards taxonomies of historical form which
foreshadowed the methods of analysis that became — and arguably remain — central
to the discipline of architectural history. That their interest focused upon medieval
architecture at a time when the Gothic was largely rejected as irregular and barbarous is
also notable. Examining the origins of a technique for dating historic buildings through
171
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 11 Nov 2019 at 13:35:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066622X00004032
172 A R C H I T E C T U R A L H I S T O R Y 54: 2011
visual analysis reveals how an intellectual circle of the seventeenth century perceived
and understood architecture at a time when in England architectural commentary and
criticism were still in their infancy.
The most eloquent expression of seventeenth-century interest in the question of style,
and the chronology of medieval architectural form, is to be found in a manuscript by the
antiquarian scholar John Aubrey (1626-97). Today he is most widely known as the author
of the biographical sketches, Brief Lives, but his training was in natural and experimental
philosophy and, under this broad seventeenth-century banner of intellectual enquiry,
his interests included archaeology, linguistics, history, astronomy, astrology,
mathematics and applied science.2 He wrote books on all of these subjects, although only
one, Miscellanies (1696), was published during his lifetime; some were published
posthumously and yet others remained in manuscript. 3 Many of Aubrey's historically
minded interests, however, were brought together in his unpublished 'Monumenta
Britannica', an account of Britain told through history, topography and artefacts.4 This
prodigious work, nominally completed by 1693 but with much left in draft, includes
what is effectively a self-contained treatise, entitled the 'Chronologia Architectonica'
(Architectural Chronology). 5 It was compiled over a period of at least thirty years, having
a manuscript frontispiece dated 1671 but an internal dating range from 1656 to 1686.6 It
has two main parts, the first attempting to identify the changing styles of medieval
architecture in England from the Norman Conquest until the end of the Middle Ages by
means of a visual analysis of window forms (Figs 1, 2, 3 and 4), and the second
discussing, in a somewhat fragmentary essay, the changing forms of architecture from
before the Conquest u p to the reign of Charles II.7 It is, therefore, the earliest known
example of an attempt to write a history of English architecture.
The 'Chronologia Architectonica' was the subject of an essay by Howard Colvin
published in 1968.8 Colvin examined Aubrey's analysis of the chronological development
of medieval buildings in England, and rightly declared that he deserved recognition 'not
only as our first archaeologist, but also as our earliest architectural historian'. 9 In light
of the fact that Aubrey's schema was not entirely accurate, however, he concluded that
its major value was that it provided visual evidence of a number of buildings that no
longer exist.10 While its value as a record is indeed substantial, Colvin's focus on whether
or not its conclusions were correct underplays the pioneering nature of Aubrey's
methodology. This is best revealed when the 'Chronologia Architectonica' is related to
Aubrey's work as a whole and to the work of other near contemporary intellectuals, and
it is thus in order to draw out the wider significance of his work that this article revisits
the 'Chronologia Architectonica'.
Aubrey was by no means alone in his interest in architectural history. In fact, other
authors wrote about it at greater length, many with the added insight of being
practitioners, which Aubrey was not. In addition, architecture was regarded as an
applied manifestation of the mathematical sciences and so, at a time when the
disciplinary boundaries of particular subjects were yet to be drawn, it was a subject that
fell within the purview of many scholars. In fact, some members of Aubrey's immediate
circle were producing works of architectural commentary and guidance in the same
decades that he was collecting together his own thoughts on architecture. The writer and
diarist John Evelyn (1620-1706), one of Aubrey's close friends, for example, published a
THE WINDOWS OF THIS CHURCH ARE OF SEVERAL FASHIONS 173
\ i : U ^ ; 7 I - V "> \! ^ '- >
i74 A R C H I T E C T U R A L H I S T O R Y 54: 2011
f s's
S ^°
iT> « IT
J f-1 s
< .&
~ —; e
S 8 .S
^
•3&rr^»
X V $ 3 MS 3 - ^ j
******
i4 ^4^
,04
<H
translation of Roland Fr£art de Chambray's Parallele d'Architecture (1650) as A Parallel of

the Antient Architecture with the Modern (1664), and appended his own Account of Architects
and Architecture, which expressed some of his opinions about historical and
contemporary architecture. 11 Sir Christopher Wren (1632-1723) produced numerous
writings on architecture, including self-contained essays on the subject as well as fabric
surveys of particular buildings that also considered the historical trajectory of
architecture as a whole. 12 The lawyer and writer Roger North (1653-1734), in his
unpublished manuscripts on architecture, likewise demonstrated a deep engagement
with the practicalities of building and with such theoretical concerns as how architectural
style had developed over time. 13 Aubrey differed, however, from these practically
minded authors because he considered architecture principally as a historical source. In
order to exploit the historical potential of the buildings that he came across, he employed
an empirical, comparative and visual methodology, and was therefore precisely in line
with emergent historical method. 14
Empiricism was a central tenet of Aubrey's approach to understanding the world
around him. The principle of drawing conclusions from direct observation of phenomena
was grounded in a new type of scientific thought that was espoused by the members of
the Royal Society, of which Aubrey himself was a founding member. Such thought was
founded on the approach pioneered by the politician and philosopher Francis Bacon
(1561-1626), who had aimed to reform natural philosophy by rejecting unproductive
scholasticism and focusing instead on the practical application of knowledge. His
Advancement of Learning (1605) had set out principles for the implementation of this
renovation, or 'instauration' as he termed it, including the premise that accepted wisdom
should be questioned and that deductions should be based on material experience. 15 The
role of objects took on a particular importance within this methodology, as Bacon argued
that antiquities were 'remnants of History, which have casually escaped the shipwrack
[sic] of time'. 16 He believed that such objects offered unequivocal testimony, whereas
words were susceptible to interpretation. The impact of this thinking on historical
method proved to be the broadening of the legitimate corpus of sources; evidence was
no longer only textual, but material as well. 17 This is particularly clear in Aubrey's work.
In the dedication of his Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey, Aubrey stresses the
importance of drawing conclusions from the physical world, stating emphatically that
'to take no Notice of what is daily offered before our Eyes, is gross Stupidity'. 18 He was
equally aware of his method in the 'Monumenta Britannica', as indicated by his inclusion
of selected quotations from contemporaries who articulated the value of eye-witness,
noting, for example, that 'Dr Th[omas] Brown[e] saies, "Tis time to observe occurrences
and let nothing remarquiable escape us'". 19
Confidence in the power of the viewer to discern fact and truth in the physical world
was also expressed in the contemporary interest in, and growing understanding of,
optics, including the field of microscopy. 20 Having originated in the Low Countries
through the experiments of Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), microscopy was
inaugurated in England by Robert Hooke who published the Micrographia; or, Some
Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses, with Observations
and Inquiries thereupon in 1665.21 Hooke, one of Aubrey's associates in the Royal Society,
was not only a natural philosopher, but had also mastered the field of architecture, in
recognition of which he was appointed one of the official surveyors for the rebuilding
of London after the Great Fire of 1666. The revelations that the drawings and text of
Micrographia made about everyday objects observed through the microscope
compellingly demonstrated that the ability to see in greater detail could significantly
extend the boundaries of knowledge, and it lent new force to the importance of
inspecting objects for oneself, which was precisely the approach adopted by Aubrey.
After deciding to include a description of the form of 'the Windowes and Arches' at
Corfe Castle in his treatise but not having visited the building, he left a blank space and
made an emphatic note in the margin saying 'See it'.22
The necessity of personal inspection helps to explain why Aubrey's examples were
for the most part taken from buildings that he had visited either in his home county of
Wiltshire, or in Oxford, which was where he wrote a substantial part of the text. When
Aubrey was unable to see buildings with his own eyes, he made use of personal accounts
from valued correspondents. He reported, for example, the observations that William
Dugdale had sent to him on the location of certain churches, and he noted that Robert
Plot had given him details about the buildings of Dover Castle.23 In some cases, though,
he evidently wished that his correspondents had been more aesthetically minded in their
reportage. He relayed, for example, Thomas Browne's information that at 'Blibury'
(Blythburgh in Suffolk) there were tombs 'of some of the Kings of the East Angles', but
Browne had not described the appearance of the monuments or their surroundings.
Obviously lamenting the missed opportunity to pin down the characteristics of Saxon
architecture, Aubrey added, T wish I could have had the leisure to have gonne thither,
quare [query] somebody, what kind of architecture there.' 24 In a period when travel
demanded considerable time, inconvenience, and a certain amount of danger,
antiquarians often confined their enquiries to their immediate geographical area. The
local character of antiquarian study was therefore one of its strongest sources of
inspiration, as well as one of its greatest limitations. Aubrey's comments on the
importance of eye-witness testimony show that locally based studies also chimed with
an intellectual method that placed a premium on direct experience and observation.
The analysis in the 'Chronologia Architectonica' depended fundamentally on
comparison, and it was this principle, of taking groups of things and comparing them,
that marked a significant advance in analytical methodology. This was in keeping with
the tenets of a Baconian approach, though it also had its origins in epigraphy and
palaeography. It was only by contrasting one window type with another that Aubrey
could make clear the defining characteristics of each. To analyse just one feature — the
window — with regard to its shape and decoration, and to use examples from many
different buildings, are crucial to the invention and development of a viable comparative
method. Focusing on a single feature avoided the unnecessary complication of
considering multiple elements, and it also allowed Aubrey to map out a clear trajectory
of change over several centuries. Effective comparison, however, also depended upon
having a sufficient number of examples, and Aubrey therefore based his analysis on the
illustration of forty-four windows, and discussion of many more. The quantitative
requirement of a comparative method was specifically noted by the palaeographer
Humfrey Wanley (1672-1726) when discussing the analysis of manuscripts. He
commented that, with Greek manuscripts, it was hard to make remarks 'about the
Character, Illumination, Ink, Parchment, Paper, Binding, &c.', but said it might be done
'in some measure' for Latin manuscripts because there was 'greater plenty of them'. 25
As well as considering the window, Aubrey undertook some comparative
geographical characterizations of architecture, suggesting, for example, that 'the
Architecture of the Churches in th[e] West of England is much better than in the East',
and adding that 'from Salisbury plains (inclusively) to Middlesex and Surrey the
Churches are very mean'. 26 He even hinted at the possibility of stylistic dissemination
from centre to periphery when proposing that the window of Wimborne Minster was of
'an order of countrey ignorance'. 27 Setting aside the validity of such assertions, it is
notable that, in addition to constructing a chronological framework, he was interested
in finding various ways to understand patterns of architectural change and stylistic
spread.
The empirical underpinnings of the treatise are also observable in its illustration. By
providing images of the windows under discussion, Aubrey invited the reader to become
a viewer. He depicted each window by means of an ink sketch showing its overall shape
and tracery pattern, but not its particular mouldings (Figs 1,2,3 and 4). This lack of detail
is itself significant. The images were not rendered in order to record the appearance of
each specific window per se. Instead, they were intended to be schematic, indicating the
overall shape in such a way as to provide specimens of types that could then take their
place within a broad stylistic typology.
The abundance of the illustrations is a particularly remarkable feature of Aubrey's
empirical approach. To have both text and matching illustrations in an antiquarian work
of this date is exceedingly rare. Furthermore, had the 'Chronologia Architectonica' been
printed, as Aubrey intended, the profusion of engraved images would have made it a
very expensive publication both to produce and to purchase. This was evidently,
however, a cost that Aubrey believed was essential in order to prove his point. The
relation of the images to the text is also revealing, as the drawings sit alongside the
written commentary as integral parts of the analysis. In fact, the images are often more
eloquent than the textual commentary. The forms themselves were the evidence that
Aubrey had marshalled regarding the pattern of change over time.
The use of images is especially significant for the way that it addresses one of the
major challenges that faced architectural analysis, particularly of non-classical buildings,
in the 1600s: the lack of vocabulary. Aubrey's description of Gothic window tracery as
'bone lace' reveals that, paradoxically, for the first systematic analysis of tracery patterns,
the term 'tracery' was not even available. 28 An important function, therefore, of the
'Chronologia Architectonica' illustrations was not just to provide empirical, eye-witness
evidence. It was also to convey to the reader the appearance of each window without
the need for it to be described in words. In fact, rather than describe its appearance,
Aubrey repeatedly wrote that a particular window was 'as in the margin' or 'of the
fashion in the margent [margin]'. 29
It was precisely the lack of a standard lexicon for architectural commentary in the
mid-i6oos that prompted John Evelyn — another Fellow of the Royal Society — to
append his own Account of Architects and Architecture to his translation of Roland Freart
de Chambray's Parallele d'architecture. Evelyn and Aubrey were close friends and
intellectual interlocutors, and indeed Evelyn read and commented on the manuscript of
the 'Chronologia Architectonica', distinguishing his marginalia by the initials 'JE'. In his
Account, Evelyn described what he perceived as the inability 'to speak properly in
[architecture's] terms' as one of the greatest hindrances to the furthering of architectural
theory and practice in England. 30 In the introduction to his Account, he developed this
theme by lamenting that, in other countries, 'Workmen are generally more intelligent in
the proper expressions of the tearms [sic] of the Arts [...] than ours for the most part are'. 31
Not only that, but he feared that since Saxon times:
we have lost more than we have gain'd, and as to tearms of useful Arts in particular,
forgotten and lost a world of most apt and proper expressions which our Forefathers made
use of without being oblig'd to other Nations.32
It was, he concluded, both a matter of practical consequence and national pride that
England should be 'taught to speak properly' about architecture. 33
The visual nature of the 'Chronologia Architectonica' was in part, therefore, the
consequence of what Evelyn perceived as the 'defects and narrowness of our
Language'. 34 Evelyn's principal concern was the improvement of the contemporary
practice of architecture in accordance with classical tradition, and he was therefore not
interested in the nomenclature of medieval architecture per se, particularly as he thought
it full of indecorum and barbarity. Nevertheless, his comments on the language available
for architectural discourse were valid across stylistic boundaries. So, too, was his
recognition that a specific vocabulary was necessary for the improvement of architecture,
as it would standardize description and thus permit knowledge to be transmitted
accurately between architectural theorists and practitioners, and between the various
parties involved in a particular design process. The same qualities of standardization
and accuracy were necessary for the analytical system being developed by Aubrey, but,
again, the lexicon was lacking. It was therefore the inadequacy of the terminology that
allowed the illustration to play an active role in conveying the necessary information.
Using illustrations in this way, to avoid the mediation of language, and to bridge a gap
created by the limits of technical vocabulary, ties in with a preoccupation of other
scholars connected with the Royal Society, who were aiming to break the bonds of Babel
and create a universal language. 35 It was the Royal Society that published John Wilkins's
Essay towards a Real Character, and Philosophical Language (1668), and it was Aubrey
himself, alongside his friend Francis Lodwick, who later attempted to revise Wilkins's
text, although the project was finally to meet with insuperable philosophical challenges.36
The 'Chronologia Architectonica' should, therefore, be understood as part of the drive
to find reliable and standardized modes of expression that were transferable across time
and location.
One of the most striking features of the 'Chronologia Architectonica' is its focus on
medieval architecture. In a period when the architecture of ancient Rome was the
benchmark for taste in England — even though, as Evelyn noted, its forms were not
widely understood with sophistication — it is surprising to find a treatise concerned
principally with medieval architecture. Contemporary extended examinations of
medieval architecture were few and far between. In the 1660s, Wren surveyed the
medieval fabrics of Old St Paul's, Salisbury Cathedral and Westminster Abbey, which
led him to consider medieval architecture as a whole, and to identify four different
periods. These were the round-arched 'Saxon', round-arched post-Conquest, the 'more
modern Gothick-stile' with pointed arches (found, for example, in Salisbury Cathedral),
and Gothic 'of later date' exemplified by Henry VII's chapel at Westminster. 37 Roger
North, who was acquainted with Wren, also offered a periodization of medieval
architecture, although this time dividing it into three categories. The first, 'round work',
he considered to be Saxon and was distinguished by 'rough upright lumps for columnes,
with perfect semi-circular arches'. The second was defined by 'the birdsey [pointed] arch
and diagonall collumne', as at Westminster Abbey, and which North suggested Tasted
to the Edwards time'. The third was 'a still finer sort of building [...] which is exemplified
in the Cathedrall of New Sarum [Salisbury]'. 38 North illustrated his comments not only
with sketches of the arches and pier types, but also with plans of the piers and their
bases.
While scholarly analysis of Gothic architecture was infrequent, opinions about it in
general abounded, and were both varied and inconsistent. 39 John Evelyn, for example,
criticized Gothic architecture in general, describing it as 'a certain Fantastical and
Licentious manner of Building [...] without any just Proportion, Use or Beauty [...] not
Worthy the Name of Architecture', yet he wrote positively of individual Gothic
buildings, commending, for example, York Cathedral as 'magnificent'. 40 Likewise,
Aubrey's historical overview of architectural development in the 'Chronologia
Architectonica' was less than favourable to Gothic architecture as a distinct type,
declaring it 'degenerated', a 'barbarous fashion', and 'fantastick' in a negative sense.
When he visited churches for his chorographical researches, however, he found aesthetic
qualities in them, praising, for example, St Nicolas in Cranleigh as being Targe and
handsome'. 41 Although he was clear that the Gothic was inferior to the Classical, and
never to be preferred to the regular forms of Roman buildings, he did not carry out any
moralizing critique of Gothic in the 'Chronologia Architectonica'. Nor did he make
judgments about the stylistic merit of Gothic windows, either as employed in the past,
or used in contemporary building. Thus, when he noted that at Christ Church, Oxford,
simple bar-tracery windows were made in 'about 1638', he simply stressed 'the more
convenience of shewing the painted glass' therein. 42
One can attribute this impartiality, at least in part, to Aubrey's eschewal of
involvement in political issues. During the interregnum, he had attended the meetings
of the Rota Club that debated republican and commonwealth theories, but he still looked
nostalgically to the days before the civil wars, lamented the losses incurred in the unrest,
and condemned the iconoclasm of the puritans. He must have been well aware that the
associations of Gothic with issues of religion and rule could be powerful and provocative.
On the one hand, Gothic could be associated with parliamentary liberty, and on the other
it could be seen as the architectural embodiment of monarchical authority, but Aubrey
did not wish to use his studies to drive forward any particular political agenda. Instead,
he perceived medieval architecture as an untapped body of historical evidence that could
be analysed in a systematic way. His interest in Gothic architecture was therefore part
of the methodological espousal of material objects in history writing, rather than the
expression of a political or religious bias; indeed, his objective analysis was probably
facilitated by his non-doctrinaire stance on those matters.
Paradoxically, it was the same characteristics that had exposed medieval architecture
to criticism that made it ripe for chronological analysis. One of Classical architecture's
i8o A R C H I T E C T U R A L H I S T O R Y 54: 2011
qualities was its conformity to the orders, and its supposed immutability. In contrast,
Gothic architecture demonstrated a lack of order, and a seemingly uncontrollable variety
of shapes and motifs, for which it received censure. It was, however, the very variability
of its forms that allowed the Gothic to be analysed stylistically, and hence
chronologically. This meant that the purpose of the 'Chronologia Architectonica' was
not to judge medieval architecture, but, by suspending aesthetic preference, to
understand it, if not on its own terms, then at least in a historical context. Aubrey's
treatise, therefore, marks an important advance in the practical application of historical
relativism.
The major principle underpinning Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica' was, as has
been previously noted, that objects of a given type, in this case medieval buildings,
manifested themselves in different shapes over time. It meant that a particular time in
history corresponded to a particular form, and vice versa. In applying the principle to
architecture, Aubrey was unique but he did not establish the idea himself. One important
influence on the 'Chronologia Architectonica' appears to have been Meric Casaubon's
A Treatise of Use and Custome of 1638.43 In fact, Aubrey opened the section of the
'Monumenta' that contains the 'Chronologia Architectonica' by citing Casaubon's
statement that, when evaluating 'old things', their 'bare forms or matter' were 'both often
[...] very notable'. 44 Aubrey's focus on this idea suggests how he conceived of his
architectural analysis, namely as a scrutiny of 'bare forms', and reveals that, like so much
architectural criticism of the seventeenth century, it was deeply rooted in historical
discourse.
Meric Casaubon (1599-1671) was a scholar, antiquarian and divine, who was born in
Geneva but lived from a young age in England, where he benefited from the patronage
of James I, Archbishop William Laud, and the prominent lawyer and legal historian John
Selden. His Treatise of Use and Custome was a philosophical and historical examination of
habits, and considered how cultural practices were influenced by tradition, novelty and
truth. Casaubon argued that the 'mutabilitie and inconstancie of mans will' created
differences in behaviour and thought, but also that 'differences of places and times cause
different fashions and customes'. 45 He not only understood the notion of historical
relativism but also recognized it as a key component of historical analysis, concluding
that the 'varietie of fashions and customes, serve unto man for the Civill or politicke
distinction of the severall times and ages of the World, without which there would be
little certaine knowledge, and little or no truth amongst men'. 46 In this way, he provided
a precedent both for Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica' and also for Wren's
discussion of the 'two Causes of Beauty, natural and customary', by which he created a
theory of beauty that took account of culturally specific elements such as building type,
plan form and ornament. 47
Casaubon's treatise did not consider such matters in a solely theoretical way. For him,
the ability to discern the fashion of an object and its corresponding historical moment
had an important practical application, namely the possibility of detecting fraudulent
documents that masqueraded 'under the grey haires of authentick antiquity'. 48 A
document could enshrine claims to power and property and was therefore susceptible
to forgery, while a publication might be fabricated for political ends. Casaubon, in fact,
had personal experience of textual fraud, as a Puritan pamphlet was falsely put out under
his father's name, which prompted Meric to publish a defence of his father's reputation.
In his Treatise of Use and Custome, Casaubon recommended that
the surest way [...] to find out a counterfeit Author [...] is by his style, and by an accurate
examination of those particular fashions, and customes, that he doth either obiter, (which
can hardly be avoided in any booke of what subject soever it be:) or purposely speake of:
how well they fit and sute to the time and place that is pretended.49
To 'obiter' was to say something incidentally, and Casaubon was therefore suggesting
that unconscious expressions would indicate authenticity, or a lack thereof, in a
document. His method also presumed the existence of a distinctive 'style' in writing at
every historical moment and in every geographical location. For a document to be
authentic, he argued, it had to conform in both respects. Casaubon demonstrated the
forensic application of his technique in an appendix to his treatise, which exposed for
the first time in print the early seventeenth-century forger Curzio Inghirami, who had
fabricated a series of supposedly Etruscan documents. 50
Comparative textual analysis had been pioneered in the Renaissance through
epigraphy, as Casaubon himself acknowledged when he pointed out that it was 'this
way of studie' — the close examination of inscriptions and texts — that had been 'the
chiefest meanes of this [...] new birth of learning which begun [sic] not much above a
hundred yeares ago'. 51 In turn, his own technique foreshadowed that of the nineteenth-
century art-historian Giovanni Morelli whose method of artistic connoisseurship
distinguished the authorship of artists through their individual and incidental
conventions of rendering details such as noses, hands and eyes.52 Like Aubrey, Casaubon
placed empiricism firmly at the centre of his study, esteeming those 'men of judgement,
that would gladly make use of their owne eyes to see the way that leades unto truth,
and not altogether to depend from the abilitie both and fidelitie of others'. 53
Although Casaubon was primarily concerned with the application of these analytical
techniques to text, he also illustrated the phenomenon of stylistic change through the
fashion of clothes, explaining that
if men should but put on those clothes that they left of[f] but foure or five yeares agoe, and
use those fashions that were then in use, they would seeme, even unto themselves,
ridiculous; and unto many, little lesse then [sic] monstrous.54
He further elaborated the matter by stating that 'what I have said of the knowledge of
old customes and the use thereof, in matter of bookes, is as true in matter of old writings
and evidences of what kind soever'.55 It was thus his notion that his methods could apply
to 'evidences of what kind soever' that appears to have caught Aubrey's imagination,
as did his declaration that what was needed was for someone to take 'this kind of
learning' and 'to reduce it to some certaine Method and rules of art, as it were'. 56
It was this exhortation, entirely in keeping with the desire for systematization of
knowledge in the mid-seventeenth century, to which Aubrey responded by laying out
examples of how shapes changed over time — not only in architecture, but also in other
objects. The 'Monumenta Britannica' contained additional treatises on forms of
handwriting (the 'Chronologia Graphica'), of dress (the 'Chronologia Vestiaria'), and of
shields (the 'Chronologia Aspidologica'). His comments in these other chronological
treatises further illuminate his work on architecture. The opening of the 'Chronologia
Graphica', dated 1689 on the title page, posits that 'By a collection of those severall heads
(i.e. fashions of Characters) one may know prima facie the Kings Reigne of a Manuscript
(unless the Reigne were very short) It may also be usefall [sic] for detection of Forgeries'.57
This statement is obviously closely dependent on Casaubon's work, but Aubrey had
evidently assimilated it thoroughly and therefore commented in the margin that T was
led on to ye thought, by my Chronologia Architectonica'. 58 Elsewhere he makes it clear
that the arrival of the Goths in Europe was identified not only with a decline in
architecture but with change in all material objects, remarking that 'as the Incursion of
the Goths made an alteration in the Architecture, it did so likewise in Habits: as also in
the Sadlers and Upholsters Trades'. 59 This statement clearly indicates that Aubrey
perceived architecture as an historical object that could be approached in an analytical
way, quite separately from considerations of taste or morality that were the normal
parameters for its assessment.
Casaubon and Aubrey, however, differed in the emphasis they placed on the
application of an analytical framework of forms. Casaubon believed that his system was
particularly valuable for the detection of fraudulent documents, but Aubrey saw another
implication. He realized that if one established a schema of forms and their dates, then
an undated form could be assigned on stylistic grounds to a probable historical period.
For him, this was potentially useful because it enabled a date to be ascribed to an
otherwise undated building, which in turn could provide new historical information,
such as indicating the age of a particular institution, or documenting the patronage of a
particular individual. The use of buildings as historical sources was a new element in
historical analysis, and it would ultimately result in the mainstream acceptance of
buildings as historical sources, and as tangible 'evidences' of the past.
Aubrey himself demonstrated the practical use of his method in his topographical
writings, by using visual analysis and a chronological framework of types to suggest the
probable dates of buildings he encountered. Thus, when he visited Woodstock, he
concluded that the southern part of the manor 'was built by King Henry VII, as may
appear by the fashion of the Windowes: of that age', and went on to list comparable
windows at 'White-hall - Richmond house Hampton Court: [and] Corpus Christi College
in Oxford'. 60 This facility was desirable not so much for the study of the edifices in
themselves, but for the indications they provided for the dating of the institutions with
which they were associated. The material in Aubrey's county histories, like that in the
'Chronologia Architectonica', was gathered over extended periods of time during the
1630s to 1690s, and the two projects were mutually reinforcing. So, for example, at
Cranleigh he concluded that 'The Church here [...] was probably Collegiate, and the
Architecture of it is of the Time of King Richard II. or Henry IV, while at Addington he
said of the church that 'by the Manner of its Building, it seems to be at least 300 Years
old'. 61 In fact, when commenting on All Saints' Church, Kingston upon Thames, he
summarized the entire principle of the 'Chronologia Architectonica' by declaring that
'The Windows of this Church are of Several Fashions, which is as much as to say, they
are of several Ages'. 62
The premise originally articulated by Casaubon that 'evidences and old writings as
well as other things, have had their proper customes in almost all ages' can be found in
other contemporary writings both by associates of Casaubon and by members of the
Royal Society.63 Considered alongside these, Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica'

emerges not as a disconnected and short-lived curiosity, which is how it has been
characterized, but as part of a wider development in historical method.
The same principle that underlies the 'Chronologia Architectonica' is evident in the
writings of some of Aubrey's contemporaries who were, like him, compiling county
surveys and histories. For example, Elias Ashmole (1617-92), one of Aubrey's closest
acquaintances, used clothes as an indication of a specific historical moment in his
Antiquities of Berkshire.64 Describing the Pratt monument in All Saints', Coleshill, he noted
that Lady Pratt was 'habited and fashioned in the Dress of the Times wherein she lived'.65
Even though this was a relatively recent monument, Sir Henry having only died in 1647,
Ashmole was nevertheless able to identify a distinctive mode of dress and connect it, on
stylistic grounds, with a specific historical period, in the same way that Aubrey himself
documented the changing forms of clothes in his 'Chronologia Vestiaria'.
A similar approach can also be seen in the writing of William Somner (bap. 1598-
1669), an antiquarian scholar who also had a particular interest in architecture. 66 One of
his major works was The Antiquities of Canterbury; or, a Survey of that Ancient Citie, with
the Suburbs and Cathedrall, etc., first published in 1640, in which he explained that a
historian of a particular place should be interested in 'both materiall alterations (as in
respect of buildings, and the like) and historicall events, that have happened [...] for
divers ages before'. 67 In fact, his discerning eye was singled out for special comment by
his biographer, White Kennett, who described how Somner could be found in
Canterbury Cathedral:
walking often in the Nave, and in the more recluse parts, not in that idle and inadvertent
posture, nor with that common and trivial discourse [...] but with a curious and observant
eye, to distinguish the age of the buildings, to sift the ashes of the dead; and in a word, to
eternize the memory of things and Men.68
Of particular note is Somner's effort 'to distinguish the age of the buildings' through
observation, and it is at least possible that he had even discussed ideas about
architectural form and dating with Casaubon himself. Casaubon certainly regarded
Somner as his 'trustie friend' just as Somner described Casaubon in turn as his 'precious
friend'.69
Another individual with expertise in building was Aubrey's friend Roger North,
whose analysis of medieval architecture has been mentioned above. In his treatise on
architecture he also discussed cycles of fashion, noting that
It is most true that things which change seldomest are those that are seldomest renew'd.
For cloth[e]s that are renew'd quarterly change the fashion almost as often, so beds that
are renew'd once in 10 years change in about that period; houses are not renew'd in less
then 100 years, therefore the fashion is permanent accordingly; finishing somewhat
oftener.70
North was suggesting here that the material life of an object determined how often the
fashion of it changed. He estimated the life of a building at around a hundred years but
suggested that architectural 'finishing' needed renewal a little more frequently. In his
writings on the modernization of houses, however, he acknowledged the possibility of
the opposite dynamic, which was that fashion might limit the life of a building, noting
that 'Old houses will vary from moderne in some particular or other, and purchasers or
yong heirs, must needs be mending.' 71
Humfrey Wanley was a generation younger than Aubrey, and was not elected a
Fellow of the Royal Society until 1706, nine years after Aubrey had died, but he penned
an extended, and comparable, discussion of the notion of chronological and formal
dating techniques in a letter to an unnamed prelate, most probably the archbishop of
Canterbury, William Wake. 72 The letter was written in 1701 in response to a letter from
the archbishop and appeared in the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions in 1705. The
archbishop's original letter was not published, but much of what it must have said can
be deduced from Wanley's response. It had apparently suggested that when manuscripts
or books were examined, their age could be determined
only by observing the Shape and Figure of the Letters of the Book, which (as all other
things) have their fix'd Periods for their Duration: as being form'd this way in such a
Century, and such a way in the next; Time only (which alters the outward state of other
things) working this Change in Letters also.73
The archbishop's idea of shapes having 'fix'd Periods for their Duration' makes explicit
the presumptions upon which the efforts of Casaubon, Aubrey, and Ashmole were
based. His premise that 'Time only [...] alters the outward state of [...] things' follows a
similar train of thought, since it does not refer to things being aged by time, but to a point
in time determining the very form of things in the first instance, in other words, the
notion that it is a historical period that imprints a style.
Wanley agreed that a method for this type of deduction was possible and, although
sceptical about it being 'very easie', he explained his own technique for the dating of
manuscript according to handwriting style:
I have been careful to get all the Dates that I could, wherein 'twas said that such an
individual MS was written, at such a time, or by such a particular person; every Book with
a Date, being as a Standard whereby to know the Age of those Books of the same or a like
Hand, and of those that are not very much older or newer.74
Wanley, therefore, was using much the same principle as that employed by Aubrey for
architecture when he matched known dates of foundation with specific architectural
forms. Just as Wanley created for himself a 'Standard whereby to know the Age' of
manuscripts, Aubrey's drawings and descriptions of windows comprised a compendium
of stylistic benchmarks for dating buildings.
Wanley was only cautiously optimistic about the viability of judging the ages of
manuscripts, but he fundamentally accepted the premise that form inherently changed
over time, and that, if morphology could be charted, then objects could be dated. The
significance of Wanley's letter for an understanding of architectural culture on the cusp
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is that it places architectural theory within
the frameworks of historical endeavour and of analysing visual objects in general. In its
explicit references to style, the letter is unique amongst those published in the
Philosophical Transactions, but it meshes with the frequently manifested interest in
ascertaining dates and places of origin for traditions, practices, buildings and objects.
What is key to all such discussion is Wanley's strong affirmation that over time 'there is
a gradual and sensible alteration in the appearance of things'. 75
If one context for the 'Chronologia Architectonica' was history, the other was natural
philosophy. Natural objects were the corollary to man-made objects, and the new
learning embraced them both. While Aubrey's quotation of Casaubon's treatise shows
how the 'Chronologia Architectonica' emerged from the analysis of texts, his invocation
of the work of a pioneering scientist indicates that his methodology was also allied to
contemporary developments in the analysis of the natural world. In another marginal
note, similar to the one citing Casaubon, Aubrey commented that he was inspired to
write his treatise by the work of the Swedish scientist Olof Rudbeck (1630-1702).
Rudbeck's major discovery was the lymphatic system, but, in a way equally typical of
his English counterparts in the Royal Society, his interests extended beyond anatomy to
botany, linguistics, geology and archaeology, and he was both an architect and master
builder. 76
Aubrey's citation of Rudbeck appears on the front page of the 'Chronologia
Architectonica' and records that 'Rudbeckius in his "Monumenta Suecica", has old
Swedish Architecture, and thence collects the age'. 77 There is even a possible parallel
between the title of Rudbeck's 'Monumenta Suecica' and Aubrey's own 'Monumenta
Britannica', and the implication of Aubrey's reference to Rudbeck is that he hoped to do
with English architecture what Rudbeck had done with Swedish architecture. The
'Monumenta Suecica', however, is not to be found in Rudbeck's known published oeuvre,
and neither is it referred to anywhere else, so it may well be that, like Aubrey's treatise,
it was a manuscript. Since it is now lost, no methodological comparison can be made
between it and Aubrey's work, but Aubrey's acknowledgment of his Swedish
contemporary is still significant for placing the 'Chronologia Architectonica' in an
international context. Furthermore, the congruence of their approach is certainly
suggested by Rudbeck's discussion of historical alphabets, in which he observed that
the shapes used to express letters of the alphabet progressed over time from simple to
complicated forms. He argued that it was common knowledge that 'we all start as
children', meaning that simple forms are antecedent to sophisticated ones. 78 This
corresponds with Aubrey's identification of simple window forms with earlier stages of
architectural development, and greater historical age.
Rudbeck's published researches also offer an important insight into the origins of the
type of analytical enquiry that engendered Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica'.
Rudbeck's Atlantica (1679) was a large-scale patriotic work in which the author identified
Plato's Atlantis as the Scandinavian peninsula, vividly conveyed by the frontispiece
which depicts Rudbeck engaged in global anatomy by peeling back the skin of the world
to reveal Atlantis beneath. 79 Despite his speculative conclusions, however, Rudbeck's
methods were far from fanciful, and one of the historical techniques that he employed
was archaeological excavation, having learned it from his close friend Olof Verelius, who
was the first scholar in Sweden to undertake an archaeological dig. It was in this avenue
of enquiry that Rudbeck made one of his most significant innovations, namely a
technique to date archaeological layers based on the premise that humus, or decayed
vegetation, built up on the earth's surface at a given rate. By measuring the depth of an
archaeological layer he could therefore ascribe to it a particular date, and he even devised
a calibrated stick for calculating the age of any given strata. Rudbeck's idea of using
organic layers as a period clock is analogous, at least in a general sense, to Aubrey's
concept that different shapes were characteristic of different periods. 80

Rudbeck's contributions to archaeology and historical taxonomy were matched by his
investigations into botany, and they have all proved fundamental for modern science.
His son, Olof Rudbeck Jnr (1660-1740), advanced his father's studies and became a
botanist whose protege was, in fact, Carl Linnaeus (1707-78).81 It was Linnaeus who went
on to establish the formal system of the classification of living things that is still used
today. During the elder Rudbeck's day, however, botanical taxonomy was being
advanced by one of Aubrey's fellow Royal Society members, the naturalist John Ray
(1627-1705), who offered a method of ordering known natural things according to logical
rules. This framework, once established, permitted new discoveries to be classified,
thereby revealing more about that single specimen than could be known when it was
observed in isolation. It was for the same purpose that antiquarians, beginning with
Aubrey, wished to establish a chronological framework for architectural form. The
inspiration that he found in the writings of Olof Rudbeck thus implies that the origin of
Aubrey's technique for dating buildings lies, at least in part, in the taxonomic analysis
of natural history and botany, which antiquarians applied not only to natural things, but
also to man-made objects.
The 'Chronologia Architectonica' was the place where Aubrey gathered together his
thoughts about historical change in architectural form. By systematically analysing
window forms and mouldings, he offered a chronological and stylistic breakdown of
medieval architecture. Looking at his entire oeuvre, including the comments expressed
in his local surveys and the overarching principles outlined in his chronological tracts,
and considering this work in relation to comparable and connected enterprises, makes
for a strong case that Aubrey's pioneering treatise presented the distillation of a
methodology that had been very carefully thought out.
Yet, although the 'Chronologia Architectonica' was in the vanguard of contemporary
historical analysis, its direct impact was undeniably limited. The principal reason for
this was that it remained in manuscript. It was thus like so much other antiquarian
scholarship of the 1600s, inhibited from reaching the presses by factors ranging from the
interruption of the civil wars to the insurmountable scale of the authors' undertakings.
Some of Aubrey's writings were published posthumously, for example, his observations
on Surrey that were issued in 1718-19 as The Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey. In
fact, the editor of that volume noted that 'there remains an unfinished Piece, entitled
ARCHITECTONICA SACRA, which treats of the Manner of our Church Building in
England for several Ages, and is, as I am told, prefixed to one of his MSS. at Oxford'.82
This was surely a reference to the 'Chronologia Architectonica', but, despite singling it
out as a manuscript of interest, he did not pursue the possibility of its publication.
It was, in fact, not until 1762 that the 'Chronologia Architectonica' finally took printed
form in an adapted version produced by the engraver Francis Perry. It appeared under
the title Fashion of Windows in Civil and Ecclesiastical Buildings and was appended to
Perry's Series of English Medals (1762).83 Perry was skilled at fine engraving, and his
aptitude for detail was well suited to rendering the particularities of each window form
(Figs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). His version of the treatise, however, was a pale imitation of the
original. The text was abridged, and, presumably in order to economize on printing costs,
the illustrations and commentary were divided, thereby sacrificing the close relationship
it
If T3 J U
il
VI "B
^ j
IJM
* £ 4*
0 a- w£
^3 .. - ' T 3
• 5 a IB -2 c S
^1
indo ws in 1Civi
6o y
6. Engravin
logia Archil
ourte syofT
. 0
bC K £y
E • 8s
y
MH
O
,« c0
5
U- ^
Cfl
<N
^O
"5.
A (0 N> .-*->
5
S ft W
!--
nive
^ £> to
•5 6 din
•5
2 , 0c
, 3
775 w
s -s 3 >H
CD
Walpole bran/,
d Ecclesi, tical
i-S C/J
w 13 rcs • j
, publishe
dowform
•5 ^ c •K
CB
a -y s
aving of1
o/TTze Le
chitecton
in Civil
**- ^ en
O
f
ind
our
1*1?
.PHS > 1g £y
•s:
u
1 I, vv jgiiiiy—umu, „mi 11
>
o
H
n
H
r1
a
H
O

Fig. 7. Engraving of window forms 26-32 from John Aubrey's Fig. 8. Engraving of window forms 33-39 from John Aubrey's
'Chronologia Architectonica', published in Francis Perry, Fashion of 'Chronologia Architectonica', published in Francis Perry, Fashion of
Windows in Civil and Ecclesiastical Buildings (1762) Windows in Civil and Ecclesiastical Buildings (1762)
(Courtesy of The Lewis Walpole Library, Yale University) (Courtesy of The Lewis Walpole Library, Yale University)
III.
111111
Fig. 9. Engraving of window

forms 4.0-4.4. from John Aubrey's
'Chronologia Architectonica'',
published in Francis Perry,
Fashion of Windows in Civil
and Ecclesiastical Buildings
(1J62) (Courtesy of The Lewis
Walpole Library, Yale
j University)
between word and image that was essential to Aubrey's working method. Furthermore,
what had been a pioneering essay in historical method in the 1670s was not relevant to
historical enquiry in the 1760s. It did not even hold any interest for its illustration of
medieval windows, for by that date Batty Langley's publications and numerous other
pattern books offered suitable designs already adapted for use in modern settings.
Hidden away as an appendix to a numismatic publication, Perry's published version of
the 'Chronologia Architectonica' went unremarked.
Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica', however, despite not being an influential text,
should still be appreciated as a significant document in the development of historical
method in general, and architectural analysis in particular. Aubrey's over-arching aim
was to develop a chronological framework for his historical researches, and as part of
this he desired to establish accurate dates for buildings. The context for this was the
recognition that objects, as well as texts, were legitimate historical sources. In fact, in the
light of the scepticism about the authenticity of some supposedly historical texts, objects
were increasingly perceived as more difficult to forge, and therefore more reliable. This
190 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 54: 2011
shift from text to object coincided with what I have identified here as a philosophical
interest in the way in which material things expressed themselves in physical forms that
changed over time. The changing character of architectural form was therefore
recognized as a feature that could be employed as a diagnostic tool to attribute buildings
to a particular period. What was at the nub of Aubrey's manuscript, Casaubon's earlier
treatise, and Wanley's later letter, was the notion that material form was an expression
of history, which transformed both the writing of history, and the analysis of objects,
including buildings.
Paradoxically, the often-maligned variety of medieval forms was a prerequisite for
the ability to plot the changing shape of architectural expression. As Roger North wrote
in his consideration of architectural development, though change occurred in all things,
it was 'the Gothick' that was perceived as the most prone of all to 'truckle to mutability'. 84
In a period when Gothic was not a style of architecture that met with critical approval,
in Aubrey's hands it nevertheless provided grist for an important methodological mill.
Furthermore, as not only Aubrey's writings but also those of Wren and North show,
placing medieval forms within a chronology gave them the logic that they had
previously lacked, and began to infuse perception of them with the tolerance of historical
relativism. The 'Chronologia Architectonica' was intended as an essay in historical
methodology, not as a document that would rehabilitate the reputation of Gothic, but
the analytical shift that it signalled in architectural thought bears witness to an important
step in the understanding of Gothic as a specific style from a specific period in time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented here is drawn from my doctoral thesis, which was funded by the Arts
and Humanities Research Council. I gratefully acknowledge the support of my doctoral
supervisor, Frank Salmon, the encouragement and advice of Anthony Geraghty and Maurice
Howard, who both read earlier versions of this paper, and the editorial acuity of David Adshead.
I am also grateful to Simon Bradley and David Hemsoll for their constructive recommendations.
NOTES
1 For a discussion of Rickman and his precursors, see Simon Bradley, 'The Englishness of Gothic: Theories
and Interpretations from William Gilpin to J. H. Parker', Architectural History, 45 (2002), pp. 325-46. The
comments on the periodization of medieval architecture that appear in the writings of Roger North, John
Evelyn and Christopher Wren are discussed below.
2 The most comprehensive edition remains Brief Lives, chiefly of contemporaries, set down by John Aubrey, between
the years 1669 and 1696, ed. Andrew Clark, 2 vols (Oxford, 1898). For an overview of Aubrey's all-encompassing
intellectual endeavours, see Michael Hunter, John Aubrey and the Realm of Learning (London, 1975), and William
Poole, John Aubrey and the Advancement of Learning (Oxford, 2010).
3 John Aubrey, Miscellanies (London, 1696).
4 John Aubrey, Monumenta Britannica, ed. John Fowles and annot. Rodney Legg, 2 vols (Sherborne, 1980,1982).
5 Now Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Top. Gen. c. 25, ff. i5ir-i7or.
6 Bodl., MS Top. Gen. c. 25, f. 153V, where 'now' is clarified in brackets as 1656, and f. i59r, where 'now' is
clarified as 1686.
7 I am currently preparing a full transcript of the text for publication.
8 Howard M. Colvin, 'Aubrey's Chronologia Architectonica', in Concerning Architecture: Essays on Architectural
Writers and Writing, Presented to Nikolaus Pevsner, ed. John Summerson (London, 1968), pp. 1-12; also reprinted
in Essays in English Architectural History, ed. Howard M. Colvin (New Haven and London, 1999), pp. 206-16.
9 Colvin, 'Chronologia', p. 12.
THE W I N D O W S OF THIS C H U R C H ARE OF SEVERAL F A S H I O N S 191
10 Ibid.
11 Roland Freart de Chambray, Parallele d'Architecture Antique et de la Moderne (Paris, 1650); Evelyn's translation
and Account appeared in two editions: Roland Freart de Chambray, A Parallel of the Antient Architecture with
the Modern [...] To which is added an Account of Architects and Architecture, ed. John Evelyn (London, 1664); and
Roland Freart de Chambray, A Parallel of the Antient Architecture with the Modern [...] To which is added an Account
of Architects and Architecture. The Second Edition with Large Additions, ed. John Evelyn (London, 1707).
12 For transcripts and analysis of Wren's works on architecture, see Lydia M. Soo, Wren's 'Tracts' on Architecture
and Other Writings (Cambridge, 1998).
13 Of Building: Roger North's Writings on Architecture, ed. Howard M. Colvin and John Newman (Oxford, 1981).
14 On the study of the past in the seventeenth century, see David Douglas, English Scholars, 1600-1730
(London, 1951); English Historical Scholarship in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Levi Fox (London,
1956); Frank S. Fussner, The Historical Revolution: English Historical Writing and Thought 1580-1640 (London,
1962); Graham Parry, The Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of the Seventeenth Century (Oxford, 1995). On
Aubrey as an historian, see Hunter, Aubrey, pp. 148-208; and Poole, Aubrey, pp. 86-90.
15 Francis Bacon, The Twoo Bookes of Francis Bacon: Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, Divine and
Humane (London, 1605).
16 Ibid., II.2.3, 11.
17 On the shift from text to object in historical source material, see D. R. Woolf, 'The Dawn of the Artefact: the
Antiquarian Impulse in England, 1500-1730', Studies in Medievalism, 4 (1990), pp. 5-35; and Angus Vine, In
Defiance of Time: Antiquarian Writing in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2010), pp. 22-50.
18 John Aubrey, The Natural History and Antiquities of the County of Surrey. Begun in the year 1673 by John Aubrey
and Continued to the Present Time. Illustrated with Proper Sculptures, 5 vols (London, 1718-19), I, p. 404.
19 Bodl., MS Top. Gen. c. 25, f. 3V.
20 On the cultural context of microscopy, see Marian Fournier, The Fabric of Life: Microscopy in the Seventeenth
Century (Baltimore and London, 1996).
21 Robert Hooke, Micrographia; or, Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses,
with Observations and Inquiries thereupon (London, 1665).
22 Bodl., MS Top. Gen. c. 25, f. 17OT.
23 Ibid., f. 153L
24 Ibid., f. ljor.
25 Humfrey Wanley, 'Part of a Letter, Written to a Most Reverend Prelate, in Answer to One Written by His
Grace, Judging of the Age of MSS, the Style of Learned Authors, Painters, Musicians, etc. By Mr Humfrey
Wanley', Philosophical Transactions, 24 (1704-05), pp. 1993-2008 (pp. 1995-96).
26 Bodl., MS Top. Gen. c. 25, f. 153L
27 Ibid., f. 153V.
28 Ibid., f. i68v.
29 Ibid., ff. 152V, 154L
30 This appears in Evelyn's Account, appended to the first edition of Freart de Chambray, Parallel, ed. Evelyn,
p. 120.
31 Ibid., p. 113.
32 Ibid., p. 113.
33 Ibid., p. 114.
34 Ibid., p. 113.
35 On the creation of a universal language, see Rhodri Lewis, Language, Mind and Nature: Artificial Languages
in England from Bacon to Locke (Cambridge, 2007).
36 John Wilkins, An Essay towards a Real Character, and Philosophical Language (London, 1668). For an account
of the circumstances, see Rhodri Lewis, 'The Efforts of the Aubrey Correspondence Group to Revise John
Wilkins's Essay (1668) and Their Context', Historiographia Linguistica, 28 (2001), pp. 333-66.
37 Soo, Wren's 'Tracts', pp. 37-38.
38 North, Of Building, ed. Colvin and Newman, pp. 110-12.
39 See Alexandrina Buchanan, 'Interpretations of Medieval Architecture, c. 1550-c. 1750', in Gothic Architecture
and its Meanings 1550-1830, ed. Michael Hall (Reading, 2002), pp. 25-50; and Olivia Horsfall Turner,
'Perceptions of Medieval Buildings in England, c. 1640-c. 1720' (unpublished doctoral thesis, University College
London, 2009).
40 This characterization of Gothic appears in the extended version of Evelyn's Account, appended to the second
edition of Freart de Chambray, Parallel, ed. John Evelyn, pp. 9-10. See also Kerry Downes, 'John Evelyn and
192 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 54: 2011
Architecture: a First Inquiry', in Concerning Architecture, ed. Summerson, pp. 28-39 (PP- 34~35)-
41 Bodl., MS Top. Gen. c. 25, f. i68r; Aubrey, Surrey, iv, p. 84.
43 Meric Casaubon, A Treatise of Use and Custome (London, 1628).
45 Casaubon, A Treatise of Use, p. 80.
46 Ibid., p. 83.
47 Quoted in Soo, Wren's 'Tracts', p. 154, and dated by Soo to the mid-i670s.
49 Ibid., p. 86.
50 For details of Inghirami's hoax, see Ingrid D. Rowland, The Scarith of Scornello: a Tale of Renaissance Forgery
(Chicago, 2004).
51 Casaubon, A Treatise of Use, pp. 87-88.
52 On Morelli's method, see Carlo Ginzburg, 'Morelli, Freud, and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific
Method', History Workshop journal, 9 (1980), pp. 5-36.
54 Ibid., p. 81.
55 Ibid., p. 89.
56 Ibid., p. 88.
57 Bodl., MS Top. Gen. c. 25, f. i85r.
58 Ibid., f. i85r.
59 Ibid., f. i97r.
60 Quoted in Kate Bennett, 'John Aubrey's Oxfordshire Collections: an Edition of Aubrey's Annotations to
his Presentation Copy of Robert Plot's Natural History of Oxford-shire, Bodleian Library Ashmole 1722',
Oxoniensia, 64 (1999), pp. 59-86 (p. 77).
61 Aubrey, Surrey, iv, pp. 84,41.
62 Ibid., p. 19.
64 Elias Ashmole, The Antiquities of Berkshire, 3 vols (London, 1723).
65 Ibid., 11, p. 195.
66 The main source for Somner's life is White Kennett, 'Life of The Author', in William Somner, A Treatise of
Gavelkind [...] To which is Added, the Life of the Author. For a discussion of Somner's antiquarian activities, see
William Urry's introductory essay in William Somner, The Antiquities of Canterbury, ed. Nicolas Battely, 2nd
edn (London, 1703), facs. edn with a new introduction by William Urry (Wakefield, 1977), and Graham Parry,
'An Incipient Medievalist in the Seventeenth Century: William Somner of Canterbury', Studies in Medievalism,
9 (1997)' PP- 58-65-
67 William Somner, The Antiquities of Canterbury; or a Survey of that Ancient Citie, with the Suburbs and Cathedrall
[...] Also Mr. Somner's Discourse called Chartham-News [...] Illustrated and Adorned with Several Useful and Fair
Sculptures, ed. Nicolas Battely, 2nd edn (London, 1703), preface, unpaginated.
68 Kennett, 'Life', p. 10.
69 R. W. Serjeantson, '(Florence Estienne) Meric Casaubon', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography at
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/articIe/4852 (accessed on 1 October 2010).
70 North, On Building, ed. Colvin and Newman, p. 117.
71 Ibid., p. 142.
72 Wanley, 'Part of a Letter', p. 1993. The letter is addressed 'to a Most Reverend Prelate' who is referred to
as 'His Grace', which means that the figure, otherwise unidentified, must be an archbishop. It was probably
the archbishop of Canterbury, William Wake, as he was an active supporter of the Society for the Promotion
of Christian Knowledge, in which Wanley served as secretary.
73 Ibid., p. 1993.
74 Ibid., p. 1997.
j'j Ibid., p. 2006.
76 On Rudbeck, see Gunnar Eriksson, 'The Atlantic Vision: Olaus Rudbeck and Baroque Science', Uppsala
Studies in History of Science, 19 (Canton, MA, 1994). See also Ernst Ekman, 'Gothic Patriotism and Olof Rudbeck',
The Journal of Modern History, 34/1 (March 1962), pp. 52-63.
yj Bodl., MS Top. Gen. c. 25, f. 152V.
78 Quoted in Eriksson, 'The Atlantic Vision', p. 40.
THE W I N D O W S OF THIS C H U R C H ARE OF SEVERAL F A S H I O N S 193
79 Olof Rudbeck, Atlantis (Uppsala, 1679).

80 On geology in the early modern period, see Martin Rudwick, Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction
of Geo-history in the Age of Revolution (Chicago, 2005).
81 Sten Lindroth, 'The Two Faces of Linnaeus', in Linnaeus, The Man and His Work, ed. Tore Frangsmyr
(Berkeley, 1983), pp. 1-62.
82 Aubrey, Surrey, v, p. xiii.
83 Francis Perry, A Series of English Medals (London, 1762).
84 North, On Building, ed. Colvin and Newman, p. 114.

'The Windows of This Church Are of Several Fashions' - Architectural Form and Historical Method in John Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

'The Windows of This Church Are of Several Fashions' - Architectural Form and Historical Method in John Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

'The Windows of This Church Are of Several Fashions' - Architectural Form and Historical Method in John Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

'The Windows of this Church

are of several Fashions':

\ i : U ^ ; 7 I - V "> \! ^ '- >

translation of Roland Fr£art de Chambray's Parallele d'Architecture (1650) as A Parallel of

Royal Society.63 Considered alongside these, Aubrey's 'Chronologia Architectonica'

concept that different shapes were characteristic of different periods. 80

available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066622X00004032

Fig. 9. Engraving of window

79 Olof Rudbeck, Atlantis (Uppsala, 1679).

You might also like