‘English Antecedents of Virginia Architecture’ – Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
“A link between Soulton, and Cound and Rosewell, perhaps may be established through… Richmond County, Virginia.”
There is mid C20th article ‘English Antecedents of Virginia Architecture’ by Thomas Tileston Waterman, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Jan. 20, 1939), pp. 57-63 (11 pages) which presents the intriguing possibility, of which some are already aware and which is sometimes discussed, that Soulton Hall, a Shropshire residence, may have exerted a tangible influence on the development of early American building styles.
The focus centers on a group of prominent houses linked to Robert “King” Carter and their striking similarities to structures in England. Notably, the study considers Soulton Hall, a Shropshire manor built around 1670 and associated with the Hill family, who had familial connections to influential Virginian families like the Carters. By examining the architectural characteristics of Soulton Hall, particularly its floor plan, and tracing the familial links to Virginia, this analysis investigates the possibility that this English estate contributed to the development of a distinct architectural idiom in the American colonies, exemplified in significant houses such as Rosewell.
In his exploration of early Virginian architecture, Thomas Tileston Waterman posits a significant influence stemming from England, particularly the informal building traditions. However, he keenly observes that the deeper connections between academic architecture in the colonies and its English counterparts have not been fully appreciated. His study delves into a specific cluster of buildings erected in Virginia during the initial quarter of the 18th century, under the patronage of Robert Carter of Corotoman, seeking to uncover their likely English origins. Waterman pinpoints Shropshire as the probable locale of these architectural prototypes and suggests that John Prince of Shrewsbury, an architect active in that region, might have been the guiding hand behind both the English and American structures. The unfortunate scarcity of surviving documents in Virginia, a consequence of fires and wartime devastation, has hindered definitive documentary proof of authorship. Nevertheless, Waterman argues that the architectural evidence linking the buildings across both Virginia and Shropshire is remarkably persuasive, holding out hope that future discoveries in archival collections might corroborate his conclusions.
Waterman begins by establishing the paramount influence of English tradition in Virginia’s initial century of building. He reasons that unless dictated by differing climates or novel materials, emigrants would naturally construct in the architectural style of their homeland. Yet, he notes that by the close of a century of separation, the more modest architecture of Virginia did indeed begin to develop its own distinct character. The 17th century was a period of transformation in both England and Virginia. While its outset saw grand English mansions and public buildings still rooted in late medieval styles, the ascendance of Renaissance influence by 1700 ushered in structures that were nearly Georgian in character. The builders of Williamsburg, Virginia’s capital, along with those responsible for the era’s great county houses, were acutely aware that the prevailing everyday architectural style in the colony was becoming outdated. Consequently, they looked to England for fresh building concepts, which arrived through publications, architects, or builders themselves.
Virginia, being fundamentally agrarian, found its truest architectural expressions in its grand country houses, rural churches, and courthouses. While numerous examples of the latter two categories endure, often with surviving vestry or county records aiding their study, the realm of mansions and lesser domestic buildings presents a more challenging field. A vast number were constructed, but while some remain (albeit often altered), many have vanished, sometimes without a trace of their existence or location. Within the sphere of early Virginia’s major domestic architecture, Waterman proposes a classification based on their relationship to English architectural types.
For his immediate focus, Waterman concentrates on a single Virginian group and its likely English antecedents, which he terms the “Shropshire School” due to its unmistakable adoption of Shropshire’s architectural idiom. He identifies Robert “King” Carter as the apparent sponsor of this school in Virginia, a figure Waterman deems one of the most intriguing personalities of the Colonial era.
The precise manner in which Shropshire’s architectural influence came to bear upon Robert Carter remains uncertain. However, Waterman finds it plausible given that Shropshire was a significant county in the English origins of many Virginia families. Referencing Swem’s Index of Virginia History, he points out that fourteen prominent families are documented as having originated from Shropshire, with many more hailing from the neighboring counties of Hereford and Cheshire. He cites Dr. E. J. Lee’s work on the Lees, tracing their American lineage to Coton in Shropshire, supported by surviving 18th-century correspondence between the American and English branches of the family.
Further suggesting potential Shropshire roots for other distinguished Virginia families with less clear English antecedents, Waterman notes two names found on a list of Chester, England mayors from the 16th and 17th centuries that later became prominent in Virginia: William Byrd and Matthew Page. These names appear on a panel in St. John’s Church, Chester, accompanied by armorial bearings similar to those of the Virginia families, with variations indicating senior and cadet lines. William Byrd is suggested as a possible ancestor of the Byrds of Westover, while Matthew Page was the father of Mann Page, who married Judith, daughter of Robert Carter.
Crucially for the context of the Hill family and Soulton, Waterman tentatively identifies the Hills of Court Hill, Shropshire, as the ancestors of Elizabeth Hill of Shirly, who became the wife of John, Robert Carter’s eldest son. This connection establishes a direct link between a Shropshire family and the Carter lineage. Regarding Soulton Hall, Waterman references Mrs. Stackhouse Acton’s book on Shropshire houses, which includes a drawing of Soulton Hall, located approximately ten miles from Shrewsbury. This house was built around 1670 by the Hill family, the very family with whom Elizabeth Carter’s ancestry is tentatively linked. The floor plan of Soulton Hall exhibits the same unique characteristics as those of Cound Hall and Rosewell, although it lacks the prominent end pavilions. The exterior features a similar three-story facade. While Soulton Hall utilizes banks of casement windows instead of the tall double-hung sash windows found in the later Cound and Rosewell, Waterman explains this as a reflection of the prevailing practice at the time of its construction, as sash windows were only first used in England in 1672. Thus, Soulton Hall, built by a family connected to the Carters through the marriage of Elizabeth Hill, displays architectural similarities in its plan to the other key buildings in Waterman’s “Shropshire School” theory, suggesting a broader regional influence.
Waterman then discusses Robert Carter himself, describing him as an indefatigable builder and an excellent conduit for disseminating Shropshire influence in Virginia’s architecture. Carter’s own grand mansion, Corotoman, was built during the first quarter of the 18th century. His will of 1726 mentions the “new house,” suggesting its recent construction. While the precise date remains elusive, a 1729 Maryland Gazette report confirms its unfortunate destruction by fire. Carter appears to have commenced building Corotoman around 1702, a period when his numerous public offices and his role as agent for the vast Fairfax estate provided him with substantial funds. Following the fire, Corotoman was seemingly not rebuilt, with the family possibly residing in a more modest frame building inventoried in Carter’s estate in 1732. Besides Corotoman, Carter is credited with building Sabine Hall, Nomini Hall, Cleve, and perhaps Carter’s Grove, although none were completed before his death.
One definitive construction by Carter, around 1725 or 1730, was Christ Church in Lancaster County. This was his parish church, and he reserved a section for his family and servants. Waterman emphasizes the church’s highly stylized design, featuring finely worked brick and stone trim, unlike any other church in Virginia in its overall layout and details. He considers it the only one with an undeniably English character. While hoping to find a prototype in England, particularly Shropshire, Waterman notes the rarity of church building of this period outside of cities due to England’s rich heritage of Gothic churches. Nevertheless, Christ Church’s cruciform plan, monumental doorways and windows, full entablature at the roofline, and tall hipped roof strongly suggest an English design origin.
The exceptional quality of the brick and stonework of Christ Church leads Waterman to connect it to another Virginia building: Rosewell, the magnificent mansion built by Mann Page for his wife, Judith Carter, between 1720 and 1730. Robert Carter bequeathed a hundred pounds towards its furnishing in his 1726 will. Waterman highlights the extraordinary parallel in the design of their great arched windows, arguing it indicates the same architect. He notes marked similarities in all details, including the molded stone sills, rubbed brickwork dressings, imposts and keys, dimensions, and sash treatment. Rosewell is described as the largest and most splendid house known in the American Colonies, so financially demanding that its builder’s heir had to break the entail in 1744 to sell land to cover the construction debts. The house remained in the family for over a century before being sold around 1835, subsequently stripped and modernized, and ultimately destroyed by fire in 1916, leaving only its massive brick walls. Fortunately, detailed descriptions and photographs, including of its mahogany stairway, offer insights into its former grandeur. Anne Page Saunders’ reminiscences of Christmas holidays at Rosewell, published in 1872, provide a vivid account of the mansion before its sale, detailing its three full stories, raised first floor, richly worked stone and brick trim mirroring Christ Church, intricate mahogany stair, tapestry-hung entrance hall, waxed mahogany wainscot, marble mantles, and damask hangings.
Rosewell’s unique plan, featuring a large entrance stair hall at one corner and a large room at each of the other three, finds a parallel, according to Waterman, only in Cound Hall in Shropshire. Built for the Pelham family in 1703 by John Prince of Shrewsbury, who signed and dated its preserved drawing, Cound Hall exhibits identical plan elements. While Rosewell features a hall separating the two rooms away from the entrance front, this space becomes a salon in the longer Cound Hall. The chimney placement inside the end walls, with closets in the space between them and the building corners, is another shared feature. Similar closets on the inner side of the chimneys at Cound evolve into small rooms due to great projecting end pavilions.
The striking similarities in the plans of Rosewell and Cound Hall, coupled with the resemblances in their exterior designs, lead Waterman to believe that John Prince was likely the designer of both. Despite a lack of other known works by Prince beyond Cound and limited biographical information placing him in Shrewsbury, an analysis of Cound suggests he was a country-trained architect whose knowledge was derived from published architectural works, potentially explaining design solecisms like the use of colossal stone pilasters.
Finally, Waterman connects these Shropshire influences to a painting on a paneled overmantel formerly at Morattico Hall in Richmond County, Virginia, not far from Corotoman. This house, built in the early 18th century by the Griffin family, who had close ties to the Carters, stood until around 1928. The crudely delineated but detailed painting on a long, narrow panel appears to be a portrait of a house resembling Rosewell and Cound, but with four stories and superimposed orders of pilasters on the middle floors, contrasting with Cound’s colossal pilasters and Rosewell’s lack of major ornament. Waterman speculates this could represent Corotoman or an intermediate work by John Prince.
In conclusion, Waterman argues that the strong architectural parallels between Rosewell and Cound Hall, combined with the Carter family’s Shropshire connections and the Hill family’s link to Soulton Hall, must, for the present, stand in place of direct documentary evidence. He remains hopeful that future research might uncover such evidence, definitively establishing John Prince as the founder of a distinctive Shropshire school of building in Virginia.
Williamsburg is mentioned early in the article as the capital of Virginia whose builders, along with those of the great county houses, were aware of the old-fashioned nature of the colony’s everyday architectural style and looked to England for new ideas. While not directly linked to the Shropshire School thesis in the same way as the Carter-affiliated houses, Williamsburg serves as a backdrop illustrating the broader awareness of English architectural trends in the colony during the period under study.
