New Insights into 16th-and 17th-century British Architecture: ten years and counting
In early 2010, Maurice Howard – then the President of the Society of Antiquaries – asked Claire Gapper if she and I would organise a conference to be held at the Antiquaries. We decided to concentrate on our own period – the architecture of the 16th and 17th centuries in Britain. There are societies devoted to other periods – the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society and others – but not to the Tudor and Stuart periods. In many ways, the excellent conferences organised by Malcolm Airs had filled this gap and his January weekends at Rewley House were a much-anticipated fixture in our diaries until his retirement. So, a date in January seemed perfect.
From the very beginning Claire and I agreed that we wanted to concentrate on ‘new insights’ from recognised scholars in our field, but also from younger scholars. We wanted material that was ‘in progress’, as yet unpublished. The hope was that both audience and presenters would benefit. To be honest, we weren’t sure how many people were working in our field and were somewhat surprised when we got so many responses to our first call for papers in the spring of 2010. The deadline was August and Claire and I met (as we would for the next nine years) around the first of September to put together a cohesive programme and one that combined experienced speakers with those just starting to work in the field. In our first year, four speakers were recent PhDs or still completing research.
There are lots of concerns with organising a first conference: you must put together a mailing list (for calling for papers and later for attracting delegates); you must deal with the venue and catering – and here we were blessed with the help of Jola Zdunek at the Antiquaries, who took charge of both; and you must figure out how much to charge for the day. Claire approached the SAHGB, who generously supported us from the very beginning by subsidising ten student places per year. In 2014 we also received a small grant from the Paul Mellon Centre. After sending out the programme and booking form in September of 2010, we waited somewhat anxiously for the bookings to come in, but by January we were full (105 people). In later years we had a waiting list by early December. The delegates included most of the best-known scholars in the field, as well as historians of other periods, interested amateurs and a good number of students (at many levels) of architectural history. That first year went so well that we were asked by departing delegates whether we would do it again. ‘Why not?’, we said.
Interestingly enough, very little changed over the next nine years. The plan to have thirty-minute papers in pairs, followed by questions and discussion, worked very well. Claire and I let speakers know that we ran a very ‘tight ship’ and hardly anyone over-ran. One terrified speaker finished 10 minutes early, but then had time for more discussion (which he much appreciated, as he was writing a book on the subject and benefitted from constructive criticism). While most papers were devoted to buildings, we also encouraged those working in related fields – the decorative arts (including, of course, plasterwork), sculpture (both ornamental and funereal), cartography, archaeology, and landscape history. Similarly, some papers were highly theoretical (architecture and rhetoric, for example); many others were more building-based and analytical. Buildings in England predominated, but we had papers on architecture in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and even one on English colonies. The types of buildings ran the gamut from royal palaces (and tents) to grottoes and a weaver’s house. Speakers were mostly British but others came from America, Denmark, Belgium and Canada. After the first year, we said that we would not accept proposals from those who had spoken before and we kept this rule until about the seventh year. Still, only a few people gave papers more than once. At the beginning we couldn’t have imagined that we would eventually have more than seventy contributors – evidence that there are many scholars in the field and, surely, grounds for the establishment of a Tudor Stuart ‘society’? Even if this doesn’t happen, ‘New Insights’ will continue to bring all those interested in this wonderful period together. As Claire and I bow out, we are delighted that Dr Jenny Saunt and Dr Olivia Horsfall Turner have agreed to take over from 2021. We are sure they will invigorate ‘New Insights’ and take it to even greater heights. Claire and I look forward to attending as delegates, when we can socialise with friends and colleagues, as well as be inspired by new research in the field.
Paula Henderson
January 2020
In early 2010, Maurice Howard – then the President of the Society of Antiquaries – asked Claire Gapper if she and I would organise a conference to be held at the Antiquaries. We decided to concentrate on our own period – the architecture of the 16th and 17th centuries in Britain. There are societies devoted to other periods – the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society and others – but not to the Tudor and Stuart periods. In many ways, the excellent conferences organised by Malcolm Airs had filled this gap and his January weekends at Rewley House were a much-anticipated fixture in our diaries until his retirement. So, a date in January seemed perfect.
From the very beginning Claire and I agreed that we wanted to concentrate on ‘new insights’ from recognised scholars in our field, but also from younger scholars. We wanted material that was ‘in progress’, as yet unpublished. The hope was that both audience and presenters would benefit. To be honest, we weren’t sure how many people were working in our field and were somewhat surprised when we got so many responses to our first call for papers in the spring of 2010. The deadline was August and Claire and I met (as we would for the next nine years) around the first of September to put together a cohesive programme and one that combined experienced speakers with those just starting to work in the field. In our first year, four speakers were recent PhDs or still completing research.
There are lots of concerns with organising a first conference: you must put together a mailing list (for calling for papers and later for attracting delegates); you must deal with the venue and catering – and here we were blessed with the help of Jola Zdunek at the Antiquaries, who took charge of both; and you must figure out how much to charge for the day. Claire approached the SAHGB, who generously supported us from the very beginning by subsidising ten student places per year. In 2014 we also received a small grant from the Paul Mellon Centre. After sending out the programme and booking form in September of 2010, we waited somewhat anxiously for the bookings to come in, but by January we were full (105 people). In later years we had a waiting list by early December. The delegates included most of the best-known scholars in the field, as well as historians of other periods, interested amateurs and a good number of students (at many levels) of architectural history. That first year went so well that we were asked by departing delegates whether we would do it again. ‘Why not?’, we said.
Interestingly enough, very little changed over the next nine years. The plan to have thirty-minute papers in pairs, followed by questions and discussion, worked very well. Claire and I let speakers know that we ran a very ‘tight ship’ and hardly anyone over-ran. One terrified speaker finished 10 minutes early, but then had time for more discussion (which he much appreciated, as he was writing a book on the subject and benefitted from constructive criticism). While most papers were devoted to buildings, we also encouraged those working in related fields – the decorative arts (including, of course, plasterwork), sculpture (both ornamental and funereal), cartography, archaeology, and landscape history. Similarly, some papers were highly theoretical (architecture and rhetoric, for example); many others were more building-based and analytical. Buildings in England predominated, but we had papers on architecture in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and even one on English colonies. The types of buildings ran the gamut from royal palaces (and tents) to grottoes and a weaver’s house. Speakers were mostly British but others came from America, Denmark, Belgium and Canada. After the first year, we said that we would not accept proposals from those who had spoken before and we kept this rule until about the seventh year. Still, only a few people gave papers more than once. At the beginning we couldn’t have imagined that we would eventually have more than seventy contributors – evidence that there are many scholars in the field and, surely, grounds for the establishment of a Tudor Stuart ‘society’? Even if this doesn’t happen, ‘New Insights’ will continue to bring all those interested in this wonderful period together. As Claire and I bow out, we are delighted that Dr Jenny Saunt and Dr Olivia Horsfall Turner have agreed to take over from 2021. We are sure they will invigorate ‘New Insights’ and take it to even greater heights. Claire and I look forward to attending as delegates, when we can socialise with friends and colleagues, as well as be inspired by new research in the field.
Paula Henderson
January 2020