London Vanbrugh's London career was diverse and varied, comprising playwriting, architectural design, and attempts to combine these two overarching interests. His overlapping achievements and business ventures were sometimes confusing even to Vanbrugh himself.
The Kit-Cat Club A committed Whig, Vanbrugh was a member of the
Kit-Cat Club – and particularly popular for "his colossal geniality, his great good humour, his easy-going temperament". The Club is best known today as an early 18th-century social gathering point for culturally and politically prominent Whigs, including many artists and writers (
William Congreve,
Joseph Addison,
Godfrey Kneller) and
politicians (the
Duke of Marlborough,
Charles Seymour, the
Earl of Burlington,
Thomas Pelham-Holles,
Sir Robert Walpole and
Richard Temple, 1st Viscount Cobham who gave Vanbrugh several architectural commissions at
Stowe). Politically, the Club promoted the Whig objectives of a strong
Parliament, a limited monarchy, resistance to France, and primarily the
Protestant succession to the throne. Yet the Kit-Cats always presented their club as more a matter of dining and conviviality, and this reputation has been successfully relayed to posterity. Downes suggests, however, that the Club's origins go back to before the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and that its political importance was much greater before it went public in 1700, in calmer and more Whiggish times. Downes proposes a role for an early Kit-Cat grouping in the armed invasion by William of Orange and the Glorious Revolution.
Horace Walpole, son of Kit-Cat Sir Robert Walpole, claims that the respectable middle-aged Club members generally mentioned as "a set of wits" were originally "in reality the patriots that saved Britain", in other words were the active force behind the Glorious Revolution itself. Secret groups tend to be poorly documented, and this sketch of the pre-history of the Club cannot be proved but, as we have seen, young Vanbrugh was indeed in 1688 part of a secret network working for William's invasion. If the roots of the Club go back that far, it is tempting to speculate that Vanbrugh in joining the club was not merely becoming one of a convivial London "set of wits" but was also linking up with old friends and co-conspirators. A hero of the cause who had done time in French prison for it, could have been confident of a warm welcome.
The Haymarket theatre In 1703, Vanbrugh started buying land and signing backers for the construction of a new theatre, the
Queen's Theatre, in
Haymarket, designed by himself and managed by Vanbrugh along with
Thomas Betterton and his associate William Congreve. It was intended for the use of an actors' cooperative (see
The Provoked Wife below) and hoped to improve the chances of legitimate theatre in London. Theatre was under threat from more colourful types of entertainment such as opera,
juggling,
pantomime (introduced by
John Rich), animal acts, travelling dance troupes, and famous visiting Italian singers. They also hoped to make a profit, and Vanbrugh optimistically bought up the actors' company, making himself sole owner. He was now bound to pay salaries to the actors and, as it turned out, to manage the theatre, a notorious tightrope act for which he had no experience. The often repeated rumour that the acoustics of the building Vanbrugh had designed were bad is exaggerated (see Milhous ), but the more practical Congreve had become anxious to extricate himself from the project, and Vanbrugh was left spreading himself extremely thin, running a theatre and simultaneously overseeing the building of Blenheim Palace, a project which after June 1705 often took him out of town. Unsurprisingly under these circumstances, Vanbrugh's management of the Queen's Theatre in Haymarket showed "numerous signs of confusion, inefficiency, missed opportunities, and bad judgment". Having burned his fingers on theatre management, Vanbrugh too extricated himself, expensively, by selling the business in 1708 to
Owen Swiny., though without ever collecting much of the putative price. He had put a lot of money, his own and borrowed, into the theatre company, which he was never to recover. It was noted as remarkable by contemporaries that he continued to pay the actors' salaries fully and promptly while they were working for him, just as he always paid the workmen he had hired for construction work; shirking such responsibilities was close to being standard practice in early 18th century England. Vanbrugh himself never seems to have pursued those who owed him money, and throughout his life his finances can at best be described as precarious.
The College of Arms Vanbrugh's introduction and advancement in the
College of Arms remain controversial. On 21 June 1703 the obsolete office of Carlisle Herald was revived for Vanbrugh. This appointment was followed by a promotion to the post of
Clarenceux King of Arms in March 1704. In 1725 he sold this office to Knox Ward, and he told a friend he had "got leave to dispose in earnest, of a place I got in jest". His colleagues' opposition to an ill-gotten appointment ought to have been directed to Lord Carlisle, who as
Deputy Earl Marshal, arranged both appointments and against whose wishes they were powerless. Vanbrugh went on to make more friends than enemies at the College, however. The pageantry of state occasions appealed to his theatrical sense, his duties were not difficult, and he appears to have performed them well. In the opinion of a modern
herald and historian, although the appointment was "incongruous", he was "possibly the most distinguished man who has ever worn a herald's
tabard." In May 1706 Lord Halifax and Vanbrugh – representing the
octogenarian Garter King of Arms,
Sir Henry St George – led a delegation to
Hanover to confer the
Order of the Garter on
Prince George, later to become King George II. Vaughan Hart has shown how Vanbrugh's interest in arms and heraldry found expression in, and gave meaning to, his architecture.
Marriage and death in
Greenwich, south London In 1719, at
St Lawrence's Church, York (since rebuilt), Vanbrugh married Henrietta Maria Yarburgh of
Heslington Hall, York, aged 26 to his 55. In spite of the age difference, this was by all accounts a happy marriage, which produced two sons. Unlike that of the
rake heroes and
fops of his plays, Vanbrugh's personal life was without scandal. Vanbrugh died "of an
asthma" on 26 March 1726, in the modest town house designed by him in 1703 out of the ruins of
Whitehall Palace and satirised by
Swift as "the
goose pie". His married life, however, was mostly spent at
Greenwich (then not considered part of London at all) in the house on Maze Hill now known as
Vanbrugh Castle, a miniature Scottish
tower house designed by Vanbrugh in the earliest stages of his career. A Grade I listed building, and formerly a
RAF Boys' School, it is today divided into private apartments.
Playwright Vanbrugh arrived in London at a time of scandal and internal drama at London's only theatre company, as a long-running conflict between pinchpenny management and disgruntled actors came to a head and the actors walked out. A new comedy staged with the makeshift remainder of the company in January 1696,
Colley Cibber's ''Love's Last Shift'', had a final scene that to Vanbrugh's critical mind demanded a sequel, and even though it was his first play he threw himself into the fray by providing it. That new play,
The Relapse, did turn out a tremendous success that saved the company, not least by virtue of Colley Cibber again bringing down the house with his second impersonation of Lord Foppington. "This play (the
Relapse)", writes Cibber in his autobiography forty years later, "from its new and easy Turn of Wit, had great Success".
The Provoked Wife Vanbrugh's second original comedy,
The Provoked Wife, followed soon after, performed by the rebel actors' company. This play is different in tone from the largely farcical
The Relapse, and adapted to the greater acting skills of the rebels. Vanbrugh had good reason to offer his second play to the new company, which had got off to a brilliant start by premièring Congreve's
Love for Love, the greatest London box-office success for years. The actors' cooperative boasted the established star performers of the age, and Vanbrugh tailored
The Provoked Wife to their specialities. While
The Relapse had been robustly phrased to be suitable for amateurs and minor acting talents, he could count on versatile professionals like Thomas Betterton, Elizabeth Barry, and the rising young star
Anne Bracegirdle to do justice to characters of depth and nuance.
The Provoked Wife is a comedy, but Elizabeth Barry who played the abused wife was especially famous as a tragic actress, and for her power of "moving the passions", i.e., moving an audience to pity and tears. Barry and the younger Bracegirdle had often worked together as a tragic/comic heroine pair to bring audiences the typically tragic/comic rollercoaster experience of Restoration plays. Vanbrugh takes advantage of this schema and these actresses to deepen audience sympathy for the unhappily married Lady Brute, even as she fires off her witty ripostes. In the intimate conversational dialogue between Lady Brute and her niece Bellinda (Bracegirdle), and especially in the star part of Sir John Brute the brutish husband (Betterton), which was hailed as one of the peaks of Thomas Betterton's remarkable career,
The Provoked Wife is something as unusual as a Restoration
problem play. The premise of the plot, that a wife trapped in an abusive marriage might consider either leaving it or taking a lover, outraged some sections of Restoration society.
Other works •
Aesop (1697) •
The False Friend (1702) •
Squire Trelooby (1704) •
The Confederacy (1705) •
The Mistake (1705) he was transferred to
Château de Vincennes in the months he spent as a prisoner there he would have got to know the architect
Louis Le Vau's grand classical work (1656–61) in the château well. On his release from prison (he was at the Bastille by then) on 22 November 1692 he spent a short time in Paris, there he would have seen much recent architecture including
Les Invalides, the
Collège des Quatre-Nations and the
east wing of the Louvre Palace. His inexperience was compensated for by his unerring eye for
perspective and detail and his close working relationship with
Nicholas Hawksmoor. Hawksmoor, a former clerk of Sir
Christopher Wren, was to be Vanbrugh's collaborator in many of his most ambitious projects, including Castle Howard and Blenheim. This itinerary likely included many of the great
Elizabethan houses, including:
Burghley House,
Wollaton Hall,
Hardwick Hall and
Bolsover Castle, whose use of towers, complex skylines, bow widows and other features would be reinterpreted in Vanbrugh's own buildings. Though Vanbrugh is best known in connection with stately houses, the parlous state of London's 18th-century streets did not escape his attention. It was reported in the
London Journal of 16 March 1722–23: Vanbrugh's chosen style was the
baroque, which had been spreading across Europe during the 17th century, promoted by, among others,
Bernini and
Le Vau. The first baroque country house built in England was
Chatsworth House, designed by
William Talman three years before Castle Howard. In the contest for the commission of Castle Howard, the untrained and untried Vanbrugh astonishingly managed to out-charm and out-clubman the professional but less socially adept Talman and to persuade the
Earl of Carlisle to give the great opportunity to him instead. Seizing it, Vanbrugh instigated European baroque's metamorphosis into a subtle, almost understated version that became known as English baroque. Four of Vanbrugh's designs act as milestones for evaluating this process: •
Castle Howard,
North Yorkshire, commissioned in 1699; •
Blenheim Palace,
Oxfordshire, commissioned in 1704; •
Kings Weston House,
Bristol, begun in 1712; •
Seaton Delaval Hall,
Northumberland, begun in 1718. Work on each of these projects overlapped with that on the next, providing a natural progression of thoughts and style.
Castle Howard Charles Howard, 3rd Earl of Carlisle, a fellow member of the
Kit-Cat Club, commissioned Vanbrugh in 1699 to design his
mansion, The house was demolished in 1898 to make way for the
Old War Office Building.
Blenheim Palace (''"Vanbrugh's castle air"'') shows the unique severe towering stone
belvederes ornamenting the skyline. The
Duke of Marlborough's forces defeated King
Louis XIV's army at
Blenheim, a village on the
Danube in 1704. Marlborough's reward, from a grateful nation, was to be a splendid country seat, and the Duke himself chose fellow Kit-Cat John Vanbrugh to be the architect. Work began on the palace in 1705, though as Vanbrugh wasn't a trained architect he worked alongside
Nicholas Hawksmoor on the project. Blenheim Palace was conceived to be not only a grand
country house, but a national monument. Consequently, the light baroque style used at Castle Howard would have been unsuitable for what is in effect a
war memorial. It is in truth more of a
castle, or
citadel, than a
palace. As it was designed as a national monument first and a comfortable family home second, Vanbrugh had many arguments with the Duchess who wanted the Palace to be a comfortable country house for her family,
I made Mr. Vanbrugh my enemy by the constant disputes I had with him to prevent his extravagance As a result of these arguments Vanbrugh resigned before the palace was completed in November 1716.
You have your end Madam, for I will never trouble you more Unless the Duke of Marlborough recovers so far, to shelter me from such intolerable Treatment. The gate, its tapering walls creating an illusion of greater height, also serves as
water tower for the palace, thus confounding those of Vanbrugh's critics, such as the Duchess, who accused him of impracticability. and also from the 67 foot (20 m) high great hall, leading to the huge
frescoed
saloon, all designed on an axis with the 134 foot (41 m) high column of victory in the grounds, with the trees planted in the battle positions of Marlborough's soldiers. Over the south portico (
illustrated right), itself a massive and dense construction of piers and columns, definitely not designed in the Palladian manner for elegant protection from the sun, a huge bust of Louis XIV is forced to look down on the splendours and rewards of his conqueror. Whether this placement and design was an ornamental feature created by Vanbrugh, or an ironic joke by Marlborough, is not known. However, as an architectural composition it is a unique example of baroque ornament. from
Tournai in 1709, weighing 30 tons. The positioning of the bust was an innovative new design in the decoration of a pediment. At Blenheim, Vanbrugh developed baroque from the mere ornamental to a denser, more solid, form, where the massed stone became the ornament. The great arched gates and the huge solid portico were ornament in themselves, and the whole mass was considered rather than each facade. As the palace is still treated as an important part of English heritage, it became a
World Heritage Site in 1987.
Kings Weston House Kings Weston House in
Bristol was built between 1712 and 1719 for Edward Southwell on the site of an earlier Tudor house. A significant architectural feature is the grouping of all the chimneys into a massive arcade. The Kings Weston estate possesses one of the largest collections of buildings designed by Sir John Vanbrugh in the UK. Whilst the house and the majority of the estate buildings are still standing others have been demolished or been heavily altered. Bristol is the only UK city outside London to possess buildings designed by Vanbrugh. On 29 April Edward Southwell wrote in his journal at Kings Weston, "Upwards of 60 men preparing stones and digging the foundation of the new house," and on 16 June 1712 work formally began on building the new house by John Vanbrugh. His client, Edward Southwell, did not desire a house on a monumental scale. The result was one of Vanbrugh's smaller houses. It is also his severest in style, obtaining high architectural drama by the well judged disposition of elements that are few in number, and simple in their nature. The exterior of the house would have been at the point of completion in 1717, the date on the contract for one of the parapet vases. The interior would have been virtually complete by 1719, when the design for inlay on the stair landings was drawn up. Two of the façades have since been remodelled, by Robert Mylne, who remodelled the interior in the 1760s. The stone, which was quarried on the site, was originally ochre in colour but has weathered to an orange-pink. The arcade formed by linking the chimneys, which rises above the roof, is a notable external feature of the building, reminiscent of the
belvederes of Blenheim Palace and producing a 'castle air'.[18] It is square in shape and open on the northeast. The current structure is the result of a rebuilding in 1968, using Bath Stone. The entrance front, on the southwest, has a centre containing six Corinthian pilasters, with those at each side paired to produce three bays, each of which contains a round arched window. The pediment has a central
lunette, and each side consists of two bays in which the windows have wide flat surrounds. There are four parapet vases. The steps originally had low flank walls perpendicular to the facade, which were removed in the later remodelling. On the southeast facade, the centre has a Doric temple front with open pediment, which surrounds the doorway. The centre has an attic as its upper storey, topped by a blocking course with scrolled supports at each end. A design with a pediment was prepared for this front, but is thought never to have been built. Though the only decoration is the rustication on the Doric temple's pilasters, a remarkably rich effect is achieved. The northeast and northwest facades of Vanbrugh's original design were entirely undecorated, and a consequent lack of popular appeal may be the reason why they were largely destroyed in later remodelling. Vanbrugh's northwest facade consisted of a single flat surface, in which a
Venetian window on each floor filled the central space between two shallow projections. Perhaps to improve the view down to
Avonmouth, the centre was remodelled by Mylne with a canted bay window, at odds with the tautness of Vanbrugh's overall design of the house, in which all planes were parallel or perpendicular to the walls. On the northeast the wall was moved forward during nineteenth-century remodelling, destroying an aesthetically significant alignment between wall projections and the break in the roof arcade, which had been present in Vanbrugh's design.
Seaton Delaval Hall Seaton Delaval Hall was Vanbrugh's final work, this northern, seemingly rather bleak country house is considered his finest architectural masterpiece; by this stage in his architectural career Vanbrugh was a master of baroque, he had taken this form of architecture not only beyond the flamboyant continental baroque of Castle Howard, but also past the more severe but still decorated Blenheim.
Ornament was almost disguised: a recess or a pillar was not placed for support, but to create a play of light or shadow. The
silhouette of the building was of equal, if not greater, importance than the interior layout. In every aspect of the house, subtlety was the keyword. Built between 1718 and 1728 for Admiral
George Delaval, it replaced the existing house on the site. It is possible that the design of Seaton Delaval was influenced by
Palladio's
Villa Foscari (sometimes known as "La Malcontenta"), built circa 1555. Both have
rusticated facades and similar demilune windows over a non-porticoed entrance. Even the large
attic gable at Villa Foscari hints at the
clerestory of Seaton's great hall. The design concept Vanbrugh drew up was similar to that employed at Castle Howard and Blenheim: a
corps de logis between two flanking wings. At Seaton Delaval the wings have a centre projection of three bays, crowned by pediment, either side of which are 7 bays of sash windows above a ground floor
arcade. However, Seaton Delaval was to be on a much smaller scale. Work began in 1718 and continued for ten years. The building is an advancement on the style of Blenheim, rather than the earlier Castle Howard. The principal block, or
corps de logis, containing, as at Blenheim and Castle Howard, the principal state and living room, forms the centre of a three-sided court. Towers crowned by
balustrades and
pinnacles give the house something of what Vanbrugh called his castle air. Seaton Delaval is one of the few houses Vanbrugh designed alone without the aid of Nicholas Hawksmoor. The sobriety of their joint work has sometimes been attributed to Hawksmoor, and yet Seaton Delaval is a very sombre house indeed. Whereas Castle Howard could successfully be set down in
Dresden or
Würzburg, the austerity and solidity of Seaton Delaval firmly belongs in
Northumberland landscape. Vanbrugh, in the final stage in his career, was fully liberated from the rules of the architects of a generation earlier. The rustic stonework is used for the entire facade, including on the entrance facade, the pairs of twin columns supporting little more than a stone
cornice. The twin columns are severe and utilitarian, and yet ornament, as they provide no structural use. This is part of the furtive quality of the baroque of Seaton Delaval: the ornamental appears as a display of strength and mass. The likewise severe, but perfectly proportioned, garden facade has at its centre a four-columned,
balcony-roofed portico. Here the slight fluting of the stone columns seems almost excessive ornament. As at Blenheim, the central block is dominated by the raised
clerestory of the great hall, adding to the drama of the building's silhouette, but unlike Vanbrugh's other great houses, no statuary decorates the roof-scape here. The decoration is provided solely by a simple balustrade hiding the roof line, and chimneys disguised as
finials to the balustrading of the low towers. The massing of the stone, the
colonnades of the flanking wings, the heavy stonework and intricate recesses all create light and shade which is ornament in itself. Among architects, only Vanbrugh could have taken for his inspiration one of Palladio's masterpieces, and while retaining the humanist values of the building, alter and adapt it, into a unique form of baroque unseen elsewhere in Europe.
Architectural reputation Vanbrugh's prompt success as an architect can be attributed to his friendships with the influential of the day. No less than five of his architectural patrons were fellow members of the
Kit-Cat Club. In 1702, through the influence of Charles Howard, Earl of Carlisle, Vanbrugh was appointed
Comptroller of the King's Works. This entitled him to a house at
Hampton Court Palace, which he let out. In 1703, he was appointed commissioner of
Greenwich Hospital, which was under construction at this time, and succeeded Wren as the official architect (or Surveyor), while Hawksmoor was appointed Site Architect. Vanbrugh's small but conspicuous final changes to the nearly completed building were considered a fine interpretation of Wren's original plans and intentions. Thus what was intended as an infirmary and hostel for destitute retired sailors was transformed into a magnificent national monument. His work here is said to have impressed both
Queen Anne and her government, and is directly responsible for his subsequent success. Vanbrugh's reputation still suffers from accusations of extravagance, impracticability and a bombastic imposition of his own will on his clients. Ironically, all of these unfounded charges derive from Blenheim – Vanbrugh's selection as architect of Blenheim was never completely popular. The Duchess, the formidable
Sarah Churchill, particularly wanted Sir
Christopher Wren. However, eventually a
warrant signed by the
Earl of Godolphin, the parliamentary treasurer, appointed Vanbrugh, and outlined his remit. Sadly, nowhere did this warrant mention Queen, or Crown. This error provided the
get-out clause for the state when the costs and political infighting escalated. The great court, and state entrance to the palace. The Duchess of Marlborough felt the building was extravagant. Though Parliament had voted funds for the building of Blenheim, no exact sum had ever been fixed upon, and certainly no provision had been made for inflation. Almost from the outset, funds had been intermittent. Queen Anne paid some of them, but with growing reluctance and lapses, following her frequent altercations with her one time best friend,
Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough. After the Duchess's final argument with the Queen in 1712, all state money ceased and work came to a halt. £220,000 had already been spent and £45,000 was owing to workmen. The Marlboroughs went into exile on the continent, and did not return until after Queen Anne's death in 1714. The day after the Queen's death the Marlboroughs returned, and were reinstated in favour at the court of the new King
George I. The 64-year-old Duke now decided to complete the project at his own expense; The palace had been completed by Nicholas Hawksmoor. That Vanbrugh's work at Blenheim has been the subject of criticism can largely be blamed on those, including the Duchess, who failed to understand the chief reason for its construction: to celebrate a martial triumph. In the achievement of this remit, Vanbrugh was as triumphant as was Marlborough on the field of battle. After Vanbrugh's death
Abel Evans suggested this as his epitaph:
Under this stone, reader, survey ''Dead Sir John Vanbrugh's house of clay''.
Lie heavy on him, Earth! For he Laid many heavy loads on thee! Vanbrugh was buried in the church of
St Stephen Walbrook in the
City of London, but his grave is unmarked and the above epitaph is as yet unused. Throughout the Georgian period reaction to Vanbrugh's architecture varied.
Voltaire, who visited Blenheim Palace in the autumn of 1727, described it as 'a great mass of stone with neither charm nor taste' and thought that if the apartments 'were but as spacious as the walls thick, the house would be commodious enough'. In a letter dated 10 March 1740, the German Jacob Friedrich, Baron Bielfeld had this to say about Vanbrugh: This building (Blenheim) has been severely censured, and I agree that it is not entirely exempt from rational censure as it is too much loaded with columns and other heavy ornaments. But if we consider that Sir John Vanbrugh was to construct a building of endless duration, that no bounds were set to expense, and that an edifice was required that should strike with awe and surprise even at a distance; the architect may be excused for having sacrificed, in some degree, the elegance of design to multiplicity of ornament. All the several parts are moreover exactly calculated, all the rules of art are well observed, and this immense fabric reminds us, on the first glance, of the majesty and state of those of Greece and ancient Rome. When we behold it a distance, it appears not as a single palace, but as an entire city. We arrive at it by a stately bridge of a single arch, and which is itself a masterpiece of architecture. I have contracted a very intimate friend ship with the son of Sir John Vanbrugh, who has lately obtained a company in the foot guards, and is a young gentleman of real merit. He has shown me, not only all the designs of his father, but also two houses of his building, one near Whitehall, and the other at Greenwich. They are indeed mere models of houses, but notwithstanding their confined situation, there are everywhere traces of a master to be discovered in their execution. The vulgar critic finds too many columns and ornaments; but the true connoisseur sees that all these ornaments are accompanied with utility, and that an inventive genius is visible in every part. This architect was likewise author of several comedies, which are indeed written in a style that is rather licentious, but at the same time are resplendent with wit and vivacity. So true it is, that genius is not confined to one subject, but wherever exercised, is equally manifest. In 1766
Lord Stanhope described the Roman amphitheatre at
Nîmes as 'Ugly and clumsy enough to have been the work of Vanbrugh if it had been in England.' In 1772
Horace Walpole described Castle Howard thus: Nobody had informed me that I should at one view see a palace, a town, a fortified city, temples on high places, woods worthy of being each a metropolis of the Druids, vales connected to hills by other woods, the noblest lawn in the world fenced by half the horizon, and a mausoleum that would tempt one to be buried alive; in short I have seen gigantic places before, but never a sublime one.' Walpole was not as complimentary of Blenheim, describing it as 'execrable within, without & almost all round' and went on 'a quarry of stone that looked at a distance like a great house'. In 1773
Robert Adam and
James Adam in the preface to their
Works in Architecture wrote that: Sir John Vanbrugh's genius was of the first class; and, in point of movement, novelty and ingenuity, his works have not been exceeded by anything in modern times. We should certainly quote Blenheim and Castle Howard as great examples of these perfections in preference to any work of our own, or of any other modern architect; but unluckily for the reputation of this excellent artist, his taste kept no pace with his genius, and his works are so crowded with barbarisms and absurdities, and so born down by their own preposterous weight, that none but the discerning can separate their merits from their defects. In the hands of the ingenious artist, who knows how to polish and refine and bring them into use, we have always regarded his productions as rough jewels of inestimable value'. In 1786 Sir
Joshua Reynolds wrote in his 13th Discourse '...in the buildings of Vanbrugh, who was a poet as well as an architect, there is a greater display of imagination, than we shall find perhaps in any other.' In 1796
Uvedale Price described Blenheim as 'uniting in one building the beauty and magnificence of Grecian architecture, the picturesqueness of the Gothic, and the massive grandeur of a castle.' In his fifth Royal Academy lecture of 1810, Sir
John Soane said that 'By studying his works the artist will acquire a bold flight of irregular fancy', calling him 'the Shakespeare of architects'.
Sir Robert Smirke was less complimentary 'Heaviness was the lightest of (Vanbrugh's) faults... The Italian style...which he contrived to caricature...is apparent in all his works; he helped himself liberally to its vices, contributed many of his own, and by an unfortunate misfortune adding impurity to that which was already greatly impure, left it disgusting and often odious'.
Charles Robert Cockerell had this to say about Castle Howard: "great play & charm in Hall. I could not leave it. Vast effect, movement in staircases &c. good effect of long passages on entering." ==Legacy==