1- CJLIJ Ii-'\l..."|..."l...I.: t.lL.- ll'JL.l..‘_I'i.a‘_‘l .'&I.].ll bl.I:l.l]‘q,£]J.l.5 blJL.].l. (13 J. l£'a'.i JJCII. LUJI. Bifrons Palace 1600 1 624 1 B62 1 B94 1 75? 1775 1'.v'93 1324 -1830 1 830 1361 1B?5 1 B32 1939 1945 Thanks to Brian Montague Thomas First house on the site built by JOHN BARGRAUE who originally lived in Bridge and died in House left to son ROBERT and finally passed onto his son JOHN BARGBAVE who sold the house in to ARTHUR SLINGSEW Bought by JOHN TAYLOR on 29th September. He laid out the formal gardens. The property passed to his second son HERBERT and then on to the third generation the eldest son died in 1757 and it passed to the brother Rey. EDWARD TAYLOR. He died in 17:98. In The first house was pulled down and a new one started in the classical style (see Otdfield Drawing). The house then passed in to the eldest son EDWARD TAYLOR MP. for Canterbury who married Louisa Beolringham from Bourne Park and inherited that house and moved in 1824. House was let to (I) 2nd Marquess ot Ely {ii} Lady Byron House was sold to the 1st Marquess Conyngham (HENRY) and then passed down 2nd Marquess {FRANCIS} - major alterations in 1853 3rd Marquess (GEORGE FRANCIS} - further alterations 1373 4th Marquess (HENRY FRANCIS) who never lived at the house and It was let to a series of tenants: EDWARD WEINHDLT -.I.A. MILLER FRANK PENN from Upper Hardres - 1913 installed electric light Col Hon. MILO TALBOT. Mrs Talbot remained in the house until ‘I939 War US-E Lord Conyngham decided to demolish the house as it was too expensive to repair. July 1989 . - ' I . : . ' * . - '._ . - - I ' I .-. I - ' .5 _I.I I..- -I -I--.-'_ . .. ; , : ' 'I .. - I . " I _ .-«. _..,' ' '. .' ' " . - -. '-ul I _ _'.. ' ' ' I _'... - ' ' ' ' " "H-'2-'_-: ' . “‘ .- . I I - I‘-I"‘—\_I - _ ' I H. ' . ._ ..- _ I ''''II '.'.‘I ;‘ . " P _ - _ - ~ .- - .I - 1- 4' ' .- ' J __ -.IJ H 'l ": u ‘ 'I._—,_ _ _ . _ I . ' . _ ‘ "J '. ' E}! -I _ I . I ,__I . -. . II ‘II I ._III I -_ III II III_r III I .-.- n I _--u. I4-: I-'_II " L I" I -I .- an - _ T. From the Catalogue of The Paul Mellon Collection, The Center for British Art, Yale University, U. S.A..'— BIFRONS PARK, KENT, ca. 1705-10 Oil on canvas, 61 ‘/2 ” x 911/2” (86- 8cm x 132- 5cm) B1977. 14.83 Attributed to Jan Siberechts This painting shows the transition from the bird’s—eye view to the man’s—eye view. The artist stands on a hill above the house and looks down towards it. Bifrons House does not dominate, but is part of the landscape which includes the tall tower of Canterbury Cathedral on the left. The house was originally built by John Bargrave who died in 1600. It was called Bifrons because of the ‘bi- front’ arrangement of two projecting bays in a modified ‘E’ plan. It was acquired by John Taylor in 1694 and remained in the Taylor family throughout the eighteenth century. The most renowned member of the family was Dr. Brook Taylor, the author of two important books on perspective which were widely used by artists. The house was demolished in 1948. The painting was formerly attributed to John Wootton (?1686—1764) and was thought to have been an early 4 landscape executed under the influence of his Dutch teacher, Jan Wyck. Wootton’s earliest known works date around 1718 when he was about twenty-two, and the costume of the figures in the foreground of this painting cannot be much later than 1705-10. This seems to rule out Wootton as the artist. The treatment of the land- scape painting is also more precise than Wootton’s style. Jan Siberechts has also been considered as a possible artist, but there is insufficient evidence for this attribution. . . It has also been suggested that perhaps the figures are by a different hand. The painting does show an early and fresh view of the English landscape with effects of light and atmosphere in the Kent countryside. The artist may indeed have been Netherlandish. The garden is a more intimate and less contrived space than earlier examples in this exhibition (such as Hampton Court and Denham Place, and appears to represent an early trend towards a less rigidly constructed landscape mode. We are grateful to Miss Joan Carpenter of Patrixbourne and Canon John Packer of Bridge for noting the existence of this painting. A letter was sent to the Curator of the Yale Center for British Art, giving him some information about the location of the painting by enclosing a current map of Bridge indicating the sight-lines of the painting, and pointing out St. Mary’s Church, Patrixbourne on the right—hand side. Permission was asked to reproduce the painting for the benefit of the parish of Patrixbourne w Bridge and Bekesbourne, and this was readily given. A large transparency of the painting was specially taken, and it is from this that the prints have been prepared. You will note that Bell Harry Tower is visible top left in the painting. This is artistic licence since you would have to go thirty feet vertically in the air from the point near the Bridge By-Pass where the artist stood. However, St. Mary’s, Patrixbourne—with a large tithe barn(?) at its west end is clearly seen, as are several of Patrixbourne houses still standing such as The Barton. We would like to record our thanks to the Yale Center for their help, and their generous gesture in waiving all reproduction right fees since it is for the benefit of the local churches. Update on the notes below - The current view of the Yale curatorm is that this painting which is attributed to Siberechts, or possibly John Wootton, ‘could well turn out to be someone like Adriaen van Dienst (1655-1704) who worked nearby in Kent’. The idea expressed below that artist could not have seen the Bell Harry tower from his vantage point has been disproved and it is now believed that the tower would have been visible as it has been painted. 15" ~+ +.v<.»e»-.:~.—=--B--'—+.w .--1wm The entrance from: A photograph of Bi{r0n5 in the late nineteenth century. From the Catalogue o f The Path’ Melton Coftectfoat, The Cenrerfor British Art, Ynie Urrhrersity, U.S.A .:— BI_FRONS PARK, KENT, ca. 1705-10 _ 011 on canvas, 61 '/2" X 91%" {86- 8cm x 132- 5cm) Bl9'l”F.l4.83 Attributed to Jan Siberechts This painting shows the transition from the bird’s-eye view to the man’s-eye view. The artist stands on a hill above the house and looks down towards it. Bifrons House does not dominate, but is part of the landscape which includes the tall tower of Canterbury Cathedral on the left. The house was originally built by John Bargrave who died in 1600. it was called Bifrons because ofthe ‘bi- front' arrangement of two projecting bays in a modified ‘E’ plan. It was acquired by John Taylor in 1694 and remained in the Taylor family throughout the eighteenth century. The most renowned member of the family was Dr. Brook Taylor, the author of two important books on perspective which were widely used by artists. The house was demolished in 1948. — The painting was formerly attributed to John Wootton [?i686-1764) and was thought to have been an early landscape executed under the influence of his Dutch teacher, Jan Wyclr. Wootton’s earliest known works date around £718 when he was about twenty-two, and the costume of the figures in the foreground of this painting cannot be much later than l?{}5-10. This seems to rule out Wootton as the artist. The treatment of the land scape painting is also more precise than Wootton’s stylc. Jan Siberechts has also been considered as a possible artist, but there is insufficient evidence for this attribution. . . It has also been suggested that perhaps the figures are by a different hand. The painting does show an early-and fresh view of the English landscape with effects of light and atmosphere in the Kent countryside. The artist may indeed have been Netherlandish. The garden is a more intimate and less contrived space than earlier examples in this exhibition {such as Horitpron Court and Denhnm Place, and appears to represent an early trend towards a less rigidly constructed landscape mode. We are grateful to Miss Joan Carpenter of Patrixbourne and Canon John Packer of Bridge for noting the existence ofthis painting. A letter was sent to the Curator of the Yale Center for British Art, giving him some information about the location of the painting by enclosing a current map of Bridge indicating the sight—lines of the painting. and pointing out SI. Mary’s Church, Patrixbourne on the right—hand side. Permission was asked to reproduce the painting for the benefit oftlte parish of Patrixbourne w Bridge and Beltesbourne, and this was readily given. A large transparency of the painting was specially taken, and it is from this that the prints have been prepared. You will note that Bell Harry Tower is visible top left in the painting. This is artistic licence since you would have to go thirty feet vertically in the air from the point near the Bridge By-Pass where the artist stood. However, St. Mary’s, Patri>tbourne—with a large tithe barn(?) at its west end is clearly seen, as are several of Patrixbourne houses stili standing such as The Barton. ' CBC? .1 .F’' 3 9 ., /2,5".-.”».":fi;"+’.’J.-"5'. J‘, zfi» . /.»".«~//’ //'¢x'_JJ.“,;z:.r'."_,-»fjg,.wy-'_n 7/_°._;{;=j,5g2,_,{gF ("‘:I'J«‘w'i-;}K:'r;'.r’:z_d- /.".‘{£-fr"-J Afr -:"t}n.=-vI.rnu*. 4&?.;-;-{--£1-* J -/any-, /"a.n.¢‘a:;--Jar-y 4 =5 _ . _ _. _ alga. em 3;... . _ . 5. N ___;._____.___.::.: _. _ . ._.i. .. .... .. . . .. . . . _ ... . . . _ . . . T. .. ..~ . 4 .. 4 u. . L i I... J n Ir? I"'Ilir"|.."|.'I |'I.-12'4"‘ MT L1 --In Bifrons. ‘ W I? M“. " sh . 4' Wm ‘ . vmjmw-.1.»'S|. 1..,,«mm,W., ‘ fivmc ‘W, “ W ‘. Q, My ‘ m» mm mm vunmm ‘I wwM»gqqfu4«u:«.m}m:g ‘ ‘I1 Wlfi ,; zaxéaagaggasissiaiéismmfi» 2": “am” ‘_ V W _ , , V ,__ ,,~~—- """‘”§‘&-"_- ""““5' ‘E "N # '‘'4_‘m_A } [;;;1:£J:|i9 “J” m V .-I .- _,_.- ..e»-{'7 :3Rn:;_c-RE an IE .. Pa 'BR11§_GE_- , 3;E3cg_¢f':€S o “ vii-‘lira. Jf.,,M¢ :3: F” ' THE WHITE BRIDGE. PATRIXBOURNE. ieit-.=an2au.I!¢::_°:=!.'_!=_-‘~}“:u':!2"=iu‘;+’3f‘S"'3_ if‘-‘.3? ' . ‘cw. :al_y.:\|- .—.u.u r. p :11!!! r.-,_' * upv-m_w.n:.r_mnn-ump- rum GARI)ENS 01+‘ BIFRONS, NEAR GANTEI 'F{'\l)! :5. ‘T? V I'M 12 _/()/511 CT/orlervrzafl The Children of john Taylor of Bifrons Park 1898 >< 271.(7 I’mzw2.mre: almost certainly painted for john Taylor (1665-1729); by descent to B MC. Trench; his sale, Sotheby's, 9july 11281» (126); bought by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, November 1980. The portrait shows eight of the children of john Taylor, a wealthy Kent landowner, and his wife Olivia. Second from the left is Brook Taylor (1685-1731), their eldest son, later a celebrated mathematician, the inventor of Taylor’s Theorem. According to a memoir of Taylor published by his graridson in 1793, the portrait shows him aged thirteen; that is, on or after 18 August 1698. There are two objections to this First, Closterman was in Madrid by November of that year, allowing very little 1') . 4. time for so ambitious a commission. Secondly, one son, Bridges (1695—1727), would be missing. A date of 1696 for the portrait, when Brook was eleven, fits the circumstances better. The children would then be (left to right): Olive (b.1681), Brook, Margaret (b.1683), Mary (b.1690), Upton (b.1696), Nathaniel (b.1687),}ohn (b.1687) and Bridges (rather than Herbert, b.May 1698). Clostermarr is known to have painted two other family groups — The Seymour C/Jzldrm (Syon House) and T/ae Mar/ooroug/9 Frzmzly (Blenheim Palace) - but t.his highly finished group, with its assured, rhythmic composition, sumptuous . colouring and Frenchified elegance, is Cot‘l”lJef;-IQ Eb arguably his ..(fiSlCCI'p.lCCC. It is contrived as a play on the motto of the Taylor family, ‘Fama candida rosa dulcior’ (fame is sweeter than a white rose) (information from Professor]. Douglas Stewart). Olive and Margaret hold the traditional allegorical attributes of Fame: two trumpets and a wreath with which they crown Brook, who was evidently something of a child prodigy and an accomplished musician. The wreath appears to be of orange blossom rather than the more usual bay. Mary, seated at the centre of the group, dispenses from her cornucopia, symbol of the benefits of good fortune, a white rose. It is possible that the exquisite flowers were painted by a specialist flower painter, rather than by Closterman himself. National Portrait Gallery, London NP’? 5' 20 ‘I. 1/‘ _/ W \ in /T" /('//r//}/‘(,i/r/i°///<’/i'.i _ \_.J 13 R. W17/zkzmr dfierjobvz C/orterman Sir Richard Blackmore d.1629 34.3 x 25.1(13‘/z >< 97/s) Mezzotint, c. 1697 .. .fi.T.;.‘.‘.:-..Q ‘L _m¢' guts ~ ofima I73’ Moduli-x or-..,w . The portrait of the much satirised physician, poet and prose writer was perhaps painted about 1697, the year of his appointment as Physician in Ordinary to Williarn III. The original, which has been wrongly identified as the portrait in the Royal College of Physicians, is untraced. Tire Trustee; of tbe Bnfirb Museum 14 jo/an C/ortemzzm The Hon Alexander Stanhope 1638-1707 :231.2 x 160 (91 x 63) 1698-9 Provenance.‘ presented by the artist to the §sitter’s son, James Stanhope, later 1st Earl Stanhope; thence by family descent. This portrait of the English Resident in ‘Madrid, the father of Closterman’s patron James Stanhope, was begun on or before 12 November 1698, and is described as almost finished on 15 April 1699. It shows Stanhope ‘at length in golilla [formal Spanish starched collar] with other Spanish ornaments’, and was intended by both sitter and artist as a demonstration of Closterman’s powers. In one of several letters to his son in which he discusses the portrait, Stanhope writes: ‘I hope it will serve to introduce him where I cannot go myself, for his ambition is to make the Queen’s picture’. In this Closterman succeeded. Despite the characteristically baroque accessories of the tumbling curtain and attendant page, the sober ‘fancy dress’ and, rather stiff pose suggest that Closterman had quickly absorbed something of the exaggerated formality of Spanish court portraiture. T/Je Ao’7I2z'7zirtratz've Trustees of tbe Cbevening Estate 13 \ poses are conventional, the painting shows the artist’s abil- ity to group his sitters easily, and his disinclination to idealise features is reflected in the plain, jowly faces. The portrait of Henry Pur- cell of around 1695, is also lost, but a drawing from life (Fig 2), previously attributed to Kneller, gives an impression of the artist’s competence as a draughtsman. Other famous men represented here include john Dryden——whose long nose, hooded eyes and unsmil— ing face show Lely’s influence —and Christopher Wren. The portrait of Wren (Fig3), presen- ted to the Royal Society in 1750 and still in its possession, is characteristic of the painter’s earlier work: not adventurous, but dignified, informative and appropriate. Wren’s fame as a mathematician is commemor- ated by the drawing he holds; his architectural achievement by his most famous building. The painting dates from the mid-1690s, while St Paul’s was stfll-being built. The parts of the C. edral which were not com- plete—the west end, with the towers on either side of the portico, and the dome——differ interestingly from What was eventually executed. /“i As Clostern1an’s reputation grew he was , given commissions for increasingly elaborate ‘ portraits, and his talent as an organiser of figures into coherent groups emerged. His portrait The Children 0 john Taylor of Bzfions Park, Kent (Fig 4), anot er recent acquisition by the National Portrait Gallery, is a fine example of his abilities. , The picture presents an ambitious allegory, a play on the Taylor family motto: Fama candida rosa dulcior (Fame is sweeter than a white rose). One irl distributes roses, While two of the sisters ho d the wreath of fame over the head of the eldest brother, Brook, at the age of 11 when he was already celebrated as a (he was lmnerm become a wel_l-known ma « establishing a sense ofcuznnct be.-tw l and sitters. the relative status of the children and in the light touch with which the allegory is handled, ' In 1698 Closterman set out on a European tour, under the atronage of two young noblemen. One 0 these was James Stanhope, whose father was English Resident in Madrid, and it was to Spain, then seldom visited from England, that the artist went first. The exhibition includes a striking but stiff and strange portrait of Stanhope senior (lent from the family house, Chevening) which was intended to impress the Spanish Court with Closterman’s abilities... The resulting studies of the King and Queen are, unfortunately, lost. From lviadrid Clo-stctman travelled to Rome, where he spent two years, and apart from his study of ltalian painting gained experience for his later activities '6 ‘ti 5-—LADY ASHE, CLOSTER_MAN’S CLOSEST FRIENDS. p as Cecilia :. a , ~ THE SISTER OF ONE OF $116 is COUNTRY LIFE—SEPTEMBER 3,_ 1981 779 =l—THE CHILDREN OF JOHN TAYLOR, OF BIFRON S PARK as an art-dealer. He was back in England by July 1700. The artist’s second sponsor on his travels had been the brilliant young olitician and philoso hical writer Anthony Asliley, 3rd Earl of Sha tesbury, and it was in this nobleman that he found his most important patron on his return to England. He executed a number of works for Shaftesbury, of which three» oil paintings are included in this display. Lady Ashe (Fig 5), the sister of one of Closterman’s closest friends, is painted in a grand manner new to the artist: she is presented as Cecilia, patron saint of music, in an acidly—coloured ‘version of the Bolognese style. The very picture of the Earl and his brother Maufice Ashley (F-i 6) reflects the patron’s interest in planning t e work. The two young men, both of them classical scholars, are depicted Wearing something like Greek dress and standing in something like classical poses, in front of the Temple of Apollo. Intended as a statement of the neo—Platonic doctrine of the relationship between nature and the divine, the picture has a striking landscape background, and it is interestin that in his Second Characters Sléaftesbury refers to discussions about nature with Closterman in St Giles’s woods. All the same, the picture cannot be accounted a total success. Bold it may be, but it is also slightly absurd. Less is known about Closterman’s later years. He achieved great pros erity— though hardly, one feels, from such works as his lumpish portrait of Queen Anne-—and died in 1711. Though some of his works are recorded in country houses and public collections, others remain to be rediscovered. This ex- hibition should encour e r Iv-i I: Iy"_ < ?m/v'wt1v\fl -{TI The Children of John Taylor of Eifrons Fnrh (1 I — u -11 _;_ __ 93 ?) noon u_o.-er"nn _____________.___ The portrait shows eight of the children of John Taylor, a wealthy Kent lend- owner and his wife Clivie. Second from the left is Brook Taylor (163S—1T3l). their eldest see, later a celebrated mathematician, the inventor of Taylor's Theorem. According to a memoir of Taylor published by his grandson in 1793. the portrait shoes his aged thirteen; that is, on or arts: 15 August 1693. There are two objections to this. First, Clostermsn was in Hedrid by November of that year,.nllowin§ very little time for so ambitious a commission. Secondly, one son, Bridges (1695-1?2?), would be sissing. A date of 1696 for the fiertreit, when Brook was eleven, fits the cirousstances better: The children would then be (left to right): Olive (b.1681), E-rook, I-Lirgsret -,—'=_“{h_'.1633}, I-Lary (1:-.1e38eJ. Upton,(b.16E3I5}.. Faxtheniel (h.155?), John (b.1587)- end bridges (rather than-Herbert, b.Hny 1695]. -' Closternsn is known to here painted two other,fe:ily groups - “he Sevmour jb,=§g;;g5£g {Syon.EHouse} and The Narlhorounh Family {Blenheim Palace) — but -"F thisfhighlyufinished group, with itslassured, rhythmic compo5ition,Eumptuous. s _ culafigififiinndffrenchified‘elefinnce, is ergusbly his masterpiece. It is ".,. ' 5:; €hntrited-e§{s,fi1sf'on the notto'of the Eaylor femily,'Fsms chndida rosnf 3 57 'dulcior'.{fame-is sweeter than'a white rose) (information from Professor-J.- Dougles Stewsrt)L_Glive'and Ibrgeret hold the traditional allegorical _."httribntes:oI Esme: two trumpets end_e wreath with which_they crown Etook, —-?who~wns.evident1y.something of_s child prodigy and_an eceonplished musician. '1 "The wreath-appears_to be'of‘ornn5e blossom rather than the more usual bay..- ij Hoff,-seated st the centre of the group, dispenses from her cornucopia, ié;s§mbe1fof_the benefits of good-fortune, a white rose. It is possible that '"'7th9:EXfihiEitE flowers were_psinted by a specialist flower pointer, rnther "then by Closternsn himself. Provenence:_nlnost certainly gnizted for John Taylor [fi§§5~1?2 }; by descent to E.E.G.Treneh: his sole, Sotheby's, ? July 1930; bought by t.e Trustees of the Hationnl Portrait Gallery, Lesion, November 1950. On view in the K.P.G. Collection at Beningbrough Hall, Yorkshire. Swtofhvwv ' Mm WWW \ C‘CIUNTl1‘:’ L[FE—SEPTEM[3ER 3, 1931 "W :I—']‘]|l€ C1lII.I)il£'Il'\' IJI-‘ .I(JI-IN 'I':'LYl.{JII, fl!-‘ IJII-‘|H,J§‘-5'3 I’.-HER BI Trunu. 4|.-5 - Jam: Bnnaunn. == .£‘LI..II’.'E Kznxaun, } wfflsridvgm ea. Kan-1. rumar. Juhrl lukyn, : of Farclwiflu, 1.554. - g Platter! 13- , B1’ == Jsnnmh. nluqh-mr ' ‘ Bridge, 'nfa-rt:-au1L1. ml’ J-ahlu G1'Ihu+:,1al' §;§wE::h‘nn:I::-El‘ ..¢rI:n.—Bc, can gunk gm :1 man} enact nr. pa-mil and H11 1:1”-; mung gain}. nnvn. £1-flu! us. Hm.-n hlumuel. 1533g_ E'rau.—B.nnmu«m 1-L-rt, a gamma, [auhlu nlewnwunzh, gs. lnrhar. -fiamhnwnlma :5! Mann]. 1151:, I‘ J». i 3. '_ J 3‘ J: Misha-ml Jlulm :13-u-:g,%su-Ho, of Juan, nth. mmh-ae- Faisal Dar Gawgufinrgrmmuu I|v:seIn.,dhugh4era:.F I-nu: H-wgmr Eacgn:-.-2. Ct-‘nrr:.:infi|dmau;:uoo5 -M. heir ta-F Gilm gmws.,ni:1.-1'. (aha Jwhil i7¥3IH*H'.cI, 5'51 59“: —_- Hum, Em, main ‘D:-_ -Eemeha, ail? E.:cr.n.- -u.-adaw oi - - - - shun» ta-mm. R-flour: Cmduhuvry, 5 £9 fi-.au_u., den. ‘rflfimi. éluiuug’, 96' Math net. 5 _.q,1;mJ _m:-,5. -— _ Ie1ngq,u1\es1:,IfiE!'[!. .1n-m:,h-3.16!-9'. Tmamm gna- gamm, up new gyomm. 1I?a-r£I1q. uni; can. and heir, mild‘-. 53! ‘Tim-nuu15 «PI-1':-Ithula, I King‘: $I3:r'g. In Gina. LT. _ ' . . m'1.m _—r F.|ia:Lhv.-e1:L1a.a:' hgn, mm‘. .annu,mur7'-Inga. =54;..—..c.j...;.:1r;1-.:, Juhn—E1Fgm¢u. . rmm, m. of 13-nn=g-:9.-.'q'_-I 5-is fénam. 'F‘1_'}'— I-at. --.. u~|'1é1§ 7fl'I!vI.5I'l-}53a !1'!'|M'.. P‘arI'arirJ'g|; 13.1}. Prnbelieil ; S-iv Janka ‘E?-":iId. ncd"EiJ'mns. tan. fl-r.. lmon It-n.g,'~n1=u1n3., ‘H.131. Wrulliuafi ' ' ' Ham. and? flint. ¥'J'-run K.put.u.h-ururnm'. Ia. ‘Ifiv[h5. llii-1?, mun}-u.-|I., F329. M of Wguhufinww, J1-imlvalr-L. II‘ Snmnhn rmeir - - - - Dxbunm. ifilié, mfilw--'2! - - - - ¥I.ua— 11:». 1493!!‘ lfififia. flmfilprihavngat, ab. 15%; he Efliau-nah. ' any, 33-03‘. '— 1'5”. MI. in I15uEl'5LI:IrI.|:I par, funny. (11. M '01-Mia’: Eflnmnh. and was hue-. in iH.¢_'JIn.I. flhalnini Cflmmh. Jfllwb Bnrgmw, db. ifl-3:25. Ir.—I'I—" E . . I 153- .E| Efimlnct, iI.'d:H_I-cl,’ ab. flifimv-L .—_ ]§I!Lm1ia:flc~.mubg,r '!'henm+|u lfln-r- -—. H-um:-m, «I1-mghlaar a\fI.v|IJ.". max. I ab.;mm1g. ., tam H1?-'EE,M. nag, air-.:m_:pd1:-eér I~u gr-..'nu.I. «F 1233- act‘ Eflcsfl, Thnmu Cap Jam-, ah WEE find H1 Elnmwq. R31-must 'I‘I.umur, -try-Caumi, chi. rnmcw. Jaali. 119- link. 261;‘, 15:33.. 143551. . at’ Cmneo-It-Isry, 531154 IN.-rtsa, emf Ca1u1ser- H. Pnlner. an. 11%, am. 1.m.y,.:1... 1922, ; - at Elflfihuywn. .r F I F ' I —f * T B.-mra¢:, uh. l?1iII1#aus:rh,mn«r. 3H-J.'H£-org, bu. '1fi5i‘, Thamnu. -Chmleu Eufirmvzl, — EI1':n'h¢|I|_ d;;,_ e; yumg, - - - - '!‘L+¢1m\uiJ, SHIN. Fnm2ia"Fu»:- bqpr..16fi3. of Iilaatq.-—Ca1m, Wiflm-:'»:]:, died 1953. 13-Kimmie», «I1. nor, mi’ lamina, knfi. EM], ah. H32. — E. F. in». at Elmt huh H13. Hal-Iefl, Hug. Rem. - aln.g.-mng_. =.- 5... asm. Ellznl-u-ti. Imm-Sm!) Maw:-ha: mm. Enucih flu:-.n-rm: "mu-r. hut. lmlup, ...m.,._ W3], ‘T In “In, mm Eflwnpd 5;. L1:|:;na:, - ru't..1.m. 1714. E.‘-lmrk-it Knew.-rler, Ham Hcielgsun, If Imii Dun- af I3-(2:11, Smigl.-an, NH-313. 211.. Jusulm Ear1ul-u-1'-a:x1:,1'}1E. Tm HQE. fluiertn. F Inn: Bu. we. \ 1 1 [ 1 * -I IIIFAII -fllffl Jo-Inn -ii-rlsgmm, Tluanmu. Baarue. E|6mi+ull1. hum-. Jam, uh. fluhurt The-.. —— 3g,m{,_ I-L ‘NI filmy. uukl 'I16EI'-arn.:41nr. dis. 5. 1'. Milan F-ullrn-gov, u!’ 3.1‘. gnu-u, of 1}”. I9-llfl. S. I’. M Chin CII. In laegtny. Karl, IflI'fl|CflfiQfn3ngI Fru-ntnu Turner, 18%|. _ of London. I_ F-“‘3|1"U11|«€Ihl_‘;' = Iim1|m1I~n Cnuulr, ' Il=I..H.1.ur. mo. ' Ur Lulilluu, l."..-Jul. llltll 5, |'.iH| _i'Ii.._..a: g.‘ I |_:j,_ I.| "I ..|. |:..a:- .. _ . I:: :'I e. ..- . . .. u‘ .. ...I.-. !:III -1 II.--- u: g ..- I: . ....-a . 'I..-.... : .. .'_ .u .. n-.... i -..u. I. ,' I--Au. :- ~ :. . ....... I:..|._ I.‘ .. '...... _ .__ I 'e"-,-.. ...... ........ .. .. -:, . .-. . ' “I ~ H‘ H “I H x . '.' . . H1, . I I II I. .. . . ;: \_ In I , 'I n. .. mu. .... . . . -r . .: .. ' ..... .- ':|. . -'I~. . _.. early Georgian style the building. of three floors. isdepicted in an engraving of 1794 which also shows a central rising entrance over a semi-basement. The excavations exposed a large part. if not all, of the west wing indicating a rectangular plan for this building which probably had a frontage of about ' 36 rn. Internally. other features of this building were also recorded. These included the remnants of an intricate drainage system. two wells and a cheese or cold storage pit. - - EXCAVATIONS: KENT SITES c. r794 . . ;' in 1830 the Bifrorls estate passed by sale to the Conyngham family. Minor alterations to the house were probably undertaken both before and after its sale. The architect, Thomas Hunt (d. 1831) is known to have given Bifrons its "l'lldor‘ styie and his pupil G.H. Smith is also known to have carried out alterations to the house in 1835. None of these changes. however. were readily identified in the excavations. ' The major rebuilding of Bifrons occurred in 1863/61! when the early Georgian house was virtually demolished and the ground level to the north raised 2 m. by extensive dumping of sand. The majority of the structural remains exposed on the excavations date from this periodof massive rebuilding. At semi-basement level the Georgian windows and wall foundation of the north elevation appear to have been retained. but were pierced for the insertion of a pairof barrel-vaulted cellars which extended below the main driveway. Another barrel-vaulted cellar was also surveyed immediately to the west of the main central entrance. This may date from c. 1815. being constructed of bricks in a yellow sandy fabric comparable to types used in the Napoleonic period fortifications at the Western Heights. Dover. Awlde range of brick forms sizes and fabrics were. in fact. _ observed in the various building phases of Elifrons house. Some were obviously early. possibly late sixteenth century or early seventeenth century in date. but it is notoriously difficult to date brick types individually with any degree of certainty. Ataiarge and Important building T such as Bifrons there are the added complications of re-used earlier material and the use of large numbers of bricks procured at regular intervals from non-local sources. The predominant types used in the 1853/54 rebuilding were the soft red bricks probably from the Faversham brlciiyards. but use was also made of London Brick Company ‘yellows: with the exception of the entirely Victorian north portlco. the foundations of which were exposed. only the floors and wall partitions -- of the lower basement survived thgmolition of I948. These comprised 26p a ily. ind fen we rly rth Iral ive rail ere led {ed om Die em act. ere 1| ssssssesass \\ EXCAVATIONS: KENT SITE a range of rooms leading off a central east-west corridor. The domestic . ' “' - ' ‘- "' "' functions of these rooms which included both outside and inside larders. -. "'m""" scullery. kitchen. linen room, butIer's pantry and brushing room as well ' as a footman and halIl:oy‘s bedroom. reflect something of the way of life _ of not only aristocratic Victorian England. but also the living and working 9 , conditions of the servants necessary to run such large country houses as Q _ ,, . O Bifrons. Much of the complex sewerage. water and heating systems to -. iv‘ : .. __ the house was also recorded. but could not be directly related to individual 1‘; . ‘gs ' room function and use From the demolition deposits which infllled these .4; .' - rooms. however. a large number of architectuml mouldings togetherwith fr‘, '* a range of other building materials provide some indication of the ornate _ ~{ ,_~,-_ - and heavy Victorian internal decoration of the house. The recovery of a ",.—/' ° Pgtflhfbbume small Whitbyjet head and a ‘flat’ lead toy soldier from the slits of one drain " - -N -='-—-i - similarlyaliowagilmpse ofthe material possessions oftheoccupants of J’ . - ' Q on. the building in the nineteenth century. . . -- - ~. :_; 5“? Q - _.'’ W Demolished I E] Smndl-"9 " 0 ‘.5 J0 metre: D E"“"’”'d 3 1'9 So 50 tee! a ////i’ I9 COAL CELLAR 8‘ BARREL 'l#u/LTED STORAGE [WINE] CELLARS Slam I40 parnco comma: W. WDTMFW BRUSHINS ROOM 6 .Panrr.-‘es ' *rs¢‘:e.?%=i"'”°° D 4 sun moiwnlfiml F: in ”1. II.‘.‘,;)_'(L|g:l};<.”;'a.'.;F§fl-5 ' | 5”’! "4-1 BIFR '----'.:'_;_-1 NS CID-‘L CELLHR HKRRFL WIIULTEF STBRHQI _ _ _ HIlI"I'N£J' CELL!“-R5 'P:_"|1 5'” '_. y] P’: / ! . . — __j..._ Slmllrm '5 E " /f“—_m—/ fifl‘ I I T0xEma-1i,'- JD‘ - 1 ma Hau$£_ *—v~ % .~ E J I"-Ii]. 1'. =_ /// | fr E ’ i ! - .'.'_'__ fiwdrflmeflficf ; "' “‘l1:_.':...'T:;*‘*'1 l’ 1" “r ./4!r]V .' 5 I?!aI'cabt-eniitbtflll‘ fflrndsmr \ _ xx‘ ’-F£‘a'%‘}$‘§‘.?’»r?'?“ VA 3 I..d'J"I‘ Gccrfiidn W footing 4‘ 9&3-uf l'PJurJIl'|'I'T:7tl'FI'I-Ill I I I {Er metres | . r r . -0 Ia 2:: in feet I31 Fig. 16. Bifrons excavation plan. MT _ 1:'3E[.%(_:'1 ‘ ' /72:‘.-JJ .-191;?‘- L‘: SEIZTI; -.. om .3z1’s::.'r ‘ ‘#25 "J \_Az,§!_"f‘_ "17 .j__,_.,__; ,;]’A1i’L D ' ‘Bifrons Gate Lodge. . .9... _ mm W. : _P.fu-r...... m. _ ,m _. .1 _.. _ NJ l. H J E w m .W. E ..___.......m w u H-J. .u r F m ___.. m M W... MJ. m .5. F .m H _ THE {GUi$I§fiID "~‘~f'~E!’@'1f' ]I..@@1K.% AETEE THE 3- :2:-n-n-.~u|-L---an-n-a-L--rI="-m ' __,:a»:,;»t-Sshfim-r;.=f»u sovgnexcu M E |. I.|uInIu1 . .--nn_..— -1.: r_-_ - ‘t”‘V~‘:‘.h “M ,.' ‘xv. Bifrons Gage Lndq * - _e.