Hatfield house (1611) is the sister house of Blickling Hall (1624). Both were designed by the same architect and have many common architectural features; most notably the very characteristic “Tower of London” style lead domed turrets. However unlike Blickling Hall, a National Trust property, Hatfield House is still owned by its hereditary peerage. It does, moreover have a very significant place in British history; tradition has it that in the grounds of Hatfield house Elizabeth I received news of her accession to the throne.
Entry to the hall for touring visitors is literally by the backdoor. Naturally enough the back of the house, although not unattractive, is not as grand as the front. In fact the rear of the building with its sheer plain sides presents a rather forbidding impersonal aspect, an aspect that makes few concessions to the eye and a restrained conscious boast to the visitor. We were not, unfortunately, shown the front of the house and so I could only imagine the view of the privileged visitor who approaches from this side. As with Blickling the frontal façade of Hatfield was clearly designed to speak silently about the wealth, status and taste of the owner.
When approached from their fronts both halls have the shock effect of making a sudden appearance as if revealed by magic, heightening the drama of the approach. Not to be upstaged by a huge surrounding landscape seen at a distance Blickling shields itself with a bank of trees until a turn in the road suddenly reveals the hall in all its glory. Likewise, the very long drive of Hatfield House goes over the horizon of a gentle hill whose crest when mounted has the same effect of providing a sudden shock appearance*. As the visitor continues to draw closer to the front of both houses they find themselves ultimately surrounded and embraced by the wings thus filling their vision on three sides.
The builder of Blickling hall had the disadvantage of being limited by the moated footprint of the previous structure it replaced and was thus unable to present its long side to the visitor; unlike Hatfield house whose long gallery is perpendicular to the line of approach and joins together two large wings. The immediate impression of Hatfield is that it is bigger than Blickling, although I don’t think it is as big as it looks. However, unlike Hatfield house the Blickling visitor is privileged to enter via its main door and thus can experience all the fanfare intended in the traversal of a succession of carefully partitioned spaces. In times past this was reserved only of a rich peer group; they were the people the owners of the house were trying to impress – the servants, who used the back way, weren’t worth impressing.
The people you were trying to impress – yes, that’s what made a place like Hatfield House tick and in fact, because it is owner occupied, it still does. During our tour of Hatfield House I thought of other owner occupied mansions I have visited – Holkam, Athelhampton, Somerlayton: some grand, some less grand. Strange to think that even in these days when the mystique of social position has lessened somewhat, the heredity aristocracy who go back to Norman times along with the Yeomen Gentry who rose to prominence after the back death are still amongst us. They are now a hidden class of people whose signifiers of social status, even today, take the average man into an entirely unimaginable scale of wealth. Most of us compare differences in our houses, estates, vehicles and employment, if only unconsciously, but these differences are absolutely minute compared to the scale the remnant aristocratic and gentry class are still working with. The differences in the estates of say Althelhampton and Hatfield are measured in hundreds of acres and millions of pounds. These estates have no need for strenuous genealogical research because that information is probably in the public domain anyway, sometimes embedded with characters of historical significance. To survive however, the great estates have often had to forge links (perhaps through marriage) with the owners of capital and production. Moreover, they have moved from the exalted position of an institution claiming a divine right to be served to one that assumes a more egalitarian position in the economic nexus of the nation by become a service provider; mostly through tourism.
During our tour of Hatfield House I was struck by the atmosphere of belonging, collection and ownership that pervaded the place, an atmosphere that needless to say is entirely absent in a National Trust property. Being owner occupied the stewards seem less nervous and far more relaxed about their charges than the staff of a National Trust property who do not own the property. Moreover, there is perhaps less evidence of visitor control. Even so the interior of Hatfield house is trove of priceless treasure – not least the original rainbow painting of Queen Elizabeth. But the collection is alive as it changes and grows under its owners. The owner occupied estates have a living and dynamic feel that the NT, almost by definition, cannot easily achieve. In fact chief exhibit in these owner occupied homes are the aristocrats themselves; a remnant who connect us with a bygone age thus giving us a sense of what things used to be like.
The National Trust performs a kind of house clearance service for aristocrats and gentry who are strapped for cash and decide to sell up. But the original owners are inclined to take away or sell the best pieces of their collection, as did the Marquis of Lothian at Blickling when he sold his copy of the ‘Blickling Homilies’, a book that now resides at Princeton University in America. When it comes to artifacts the job of the NT is rightfully described as preservation, preservation, preservation; that and Tourism. In contrast an owner-occupier still has an active interest in his collection in a way that only an owner can have – this gives the heredity estates a going concern and less fossilized feel about them. However, what else can the NT do but hold a priceless collection in suspended animation for the nation?
What role do the treasured artifacts in our stately homes play in the economy? Unlike assets such as an oil field or a factory they don’t appear to do anything. They don’t assist production in anyway, so whence comes their value? One role seems to be that of acting as a kind of currency. Looking at them is like looking at a million dollar bill and just like currency their value is in what people agree and believe they represent. But they are more than just the representation of wealth. They are less a paper money stash than a gold reserve, an end in themselves. It is wrong to think that valued things only have a value by virtue of the end they serve. There are some objects that we regard as an end in their own right rather than a means. The end of the production line has been reached when we value an object for its own sake.
So why do we value historical artifacts so much? Being beautiful one-offs they are, of course, a demand in short supply. But why is it so breathtaking to come close to an artifact like the rainbow picture of Queen Elizabeth? She herself would have seen and commented on the picture and so it is an artifact with which we can connect with the past, a means by which we can come within one link of a prestigious character from history. And history Matters. Why? Because we care about and work for futures that will ultimately become history. We will be judged by the history we create. The passing of all human doings into the resin block of history is part of the human predicament.
* I'm not sure if this is correct as it is a conclusion is based on a half remembered observation.
No comments:
Post a Comment