A REAL ANTIQUE IN SOHO.
TO most of ns Soho is a place of cheap dinners and sham antiques. The antiques have become a little older as the years pass on, but in the main Soho maintains its old reputa- tion of the time when" Wardour Street poetry" was the fellest stroke dealt to Rossetti. Yet to those who love the spirit of Old London and woo her in her dingiest and queerest thickets of stone and brick there is no more exciting ground than this partly explored area that has for its centre St. Anne's Church, where lie the bones of the shadowy Theodore King of Corsica. Almost since its occupation tides of foreign refugees have filled its streets. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes brought thousands of Huguenots, whose descendants were joined a century later by descendants of their old enemies fleeing from the Terror (8,000 French priests came to Soho, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York raising a fund of £40,000 for their succour), and last century Italian Nationalists, German Socialists, and French Communists found harbour beside them. Soho has been a real home of lost causes, swarming with shadowy, often nameless, people from over the seas flying from their enemies. And the name of this place where they had chosen to live, the Soho historians say, is the cry of the hunter to his hounds—" So-hoe !" But the grandee life of the quarter continued from the time when Monmouth lived in Soho Square till the reign of the Georges was over. Dean Street in the eighteenth century was a street of notable painters, and the most prosperous of them all was Sir James Thornhill, the sergeant painter to George I., and the first native artist to be acknowledged the bead of the pro- fession in England. He is best remembered to-day as the father-in-law of the great painter Hogartb. At No. 75 Dean Street there still stands a stately house, long neglected and almost forgotten, which by a continuous tradition (recorded in Soho history for at least seventy years) has been known as the house of Thornhill, and its staircase is decorated by a curious and vigorously designed and painted composition of figures in an architectural setting which tradition gives as the work of Thornhill and Hogarth. Hogarth's connexion is certainly countenanced by the work itself.
Probably none of the half-million or so people who have gone to the Royalty Theatre to see Mr. Bennett's " Mile- stones " knew that the heavy-faced house next door was a comely and deeply interesting memorial of Old London, unsurpassed of its kind. It was built in the first half of the last century, possibly in the first ten years, and probably altered within the next twenty years or so. The staircase is a. noble piece of English carpentry in oak of the graceful period that arrived when the newel was reduced to a subordinate place ; and the finely modulated handrail descends graciously from the landing to end in a handsome swirl at the foot, while the twisted balusters, ending their procession down the treads, circle round its supporting newel like a figure in a stately measure. The consoles are handsomely carved, and the soffit of the landing is decorated in an unusual way. The hall is paved with black and white marble. Besides the staircase paintings the unique point in the old house is the high architectural quality of its decoration, which arouses the greatest curiosity as to the identity of the artist. It is clearly no piece of vernacular building, but the work of a scholarly and experienced designer who shows restraint and knowledge in his ornament and a sense of scale in his panelling and the striking decoration of his chimney-pieces, in which his whole decoration is concentrated. In the principal rooms the chief fireplaces, which project into the room with a double return, are enclosed in a pair of pilasters or columns with complete entablature, the frieze of which is carried round the walls, creating a delicate unity.
Until a few months ago the old house stood dirty and degraded as any in the district. It was a store for galvanized boxes and the debris of a workshop, yet over the stacks of such merchandize the tarnished gold of the pilaster capitals still glimmered their gentility through the darkened rooms, and the dim ladies in mantillas and farthingales and their gentlemen in bag-wigs still looked down over their classical balustrade upon the littered stairs and watched for better days. Now better days have arrived with the change of ownership. The paintings have sunk, and they have been considerably retouched, but the unconventional disposition of the figures and some forceful passages in the brush- work remain to argue the master band of Hogarth. The figure of a woman, evidently a portrait drawn with care, is expected to give the cue to identity and date, and as the problem is receiving the attention of our portrait experts, we may expect some definite evidence before long. Thornhill's name does not appear in the rate-books, but his may have been a sub-tenancy. An interesting piece of evidence, how- ever, appears in Dr. Remault's " Reminiscences of Soho and its Associations," where it is recorded that "in 1848, during some structural alterations made to the house, which was then occupied by Messrs. Allison and Allison, piano makers, an interesting discovery was made. Upon removing a marble chimneypiece in the front drawing- room, four or five visiting cards were found, one having the name 'Isaac Newton' on it." Isaac Newton, who died in 1727, was painted by Thornhill. A. tavern across the way, with the sign of "The Crown and Two Chairmen," is pointed out by Soho tradition as the place where Queen Anne's sedan-chairmen solaced themselves while their mistress was being painted by Thornhill; but on the other band the rate-books show that a lady of the bedchamber to Queen Anne was the owner of the house about that time, and two traditions may have telescoped into one another. Certain signs make the expert in these matters think that the house belongs to the beginning of the eighteenth century, but the beautiful chimney-figures, the panelling, and the costumes in the groups, point to about 1730. Possibly a reconstruction was made at that time. If the staircase was decorated by Thornhill in collaboration with Hogarth, the work must have been done between the reconciliation of the two in 1731 and the death of Thornhill in 1734. There are many points to be cleared up, but the comely old house and its decorations plead their own case too effectually for any evidence about names or dates to weaken their claim to be preserved and treasured. The ques- tion that we would most earnestly address to those who care for the few distinguished and worthy and unspoilt relics of old London that remain to us is whether something cannot be done to assure its future? The present proprietor has done his part in securing it for the present, but he does not wish to keep it, and we understand that he is willing to part with it for virtually what it has cost him, and the charge of setting it in order, so long as its future is secured. There are about twenty rooms, and one of the schemes proposed is to organize a responsible committee who will take over the house and let out the rooms to societies of a topographical, antiquarian, or architectural character, or to arts and crafts guilds, reserving admission to the staircase and to the chief rooms to the public. This would undoubtedly be the cheapest solution, but its disadvantages are many and obvious. If, however, a generous donor, or donors—and we believe that there are many such Londoners who care deeply for these things—do come forward to support such a scheme, London will indeed have reason to be thankful. If such a donor should go further and present it to the London authority or to the nation, he would be making a gift for which his name would long be remembered, for the time has almost come when there will be no such objects of art and memories as this to be bought at any price. People present pictures to the nation or to municipal galleries—they are the common currency of public generosity—but for some reason that is at the root of the decay and dearth of our applied arts nobody seems to think of the noble assembly of fine taste and skill expressed in the old house being a worthy object for acquisition and public gift.
Our suggestion, however, is a different one, and we venture to address it to those members of the present Government who have already shown a genuine interest in our art affairs. The London Museum's occupation of Kensington Palace is only temporary, and already there is talk of the purchase of a large site and the erection of an important museum building. We would suggest that the new London Museum should not be a single edifice, with the usual perplexing multitude of objects, arranged with slight divisions of time and character, but that it should consist of several such houses as Thornhill's House in Dean Street, furnished with exhibits of their own period. The whole tendency of modern museumsbip is towards the presentation together of the objects of a period in a contemporary setting. The Germans have been much praised for the development of this idea in their museums. The Swedes have gone further by re-erecting old houses with contemporary furnishings in their chief public park. Let us do better and show our exhibits in houses that are themselves exhibits in the situation and atmosphere that give them reality and significance. If for once in our rough island story we were actually to plan a scheme beforehand to deal with eventualities that everyone knows must happen very soon, the authorities ought to make preparations for the acquisition of Staple Inn, Holborn ; Queen's House, Chelsea ; and Thornhill's house in Soho, so that eventually we could have the last Tudor building in London for Tudor London relics ; an historical and beautiful Caroline building for Stuart London relics ; and this comely and deeply interesting eighteenth-century building for Georgian London relics. Moreover, each of these buildings (Queen's House especially) has space behind it for building an annexe. We question if this would not only be the best but the most economical way to create a permanent London Museum—one and divisible. The next point is that such museums in different quarters of the town, and of a size that would not intimidate the ordinary Londoner with an odd half-hour to spend, would have a communal use hitherto unknown. What is wrong with our great museums is that they are organized for foreigners and the provincial visitors rather than for the Londoner. The sight of these vast halls and innumerable exhibits kills the nerve of interest in the ordinary man, and he puts off from week to week and year to year his resolve to revisit them. An interesting house of modest size filled with things of one period would be a different matter. The Dean Street house which we suggest should be acquired in the first instance would be such a place. The habit of visiting a charming place like this would be easily formed, and casual interest would soon deepen into study. There are many aspects on which our scheme can be argued, but in the meantime we would strongly recommend it to the consideration of all who care for such things and can influence its consummation. Its advantages are so plain that everyone who thinks about it will himself be able to add to the argument.
Previous page
