50 



WEBB'S LIST OF JONES'S WORK 



A. The Hill. 



B. The Salon 



C. The Drawing- 



FlG. 28. Coleshill, Berkshire, 1650. 

 Ground Plan. 



Garden (Fig. 23), 

 "built likewise with 

 the porticoes about 

 the Piazza, there by- 

 Mr Jones" (Fig. 24) 1 ; 

 the royal chapels at 

 Denmark House and 

 St James's; 2 the 

 Banqueting House 

 at Whitehall ; the 

 royal house at New- 

 market ; 2 and the 

 queen mother's new 

 building at Green- 

 wich. 3 The inscrip- 

 tion on Jones's 

 monument which 

 was put up by Webb, 



designated him as "architectus celeberrimus," and recorded 

 merely that he built the Royal White Hall (Aul. Alb. Reg.) 

 and restored the Cathedral of St Paul. 4 



This list need not necessarily be considered as complete, but 

 Webb evidently regarded the buildings he mentions as the most 

 noteworthy of Jones's productions, inasmuch as he advances 

 them as proofs of his skill in architecture, upon which his fame 

 would rest much more securely than upon his literary and 

 antiquarian effort in " Stone-Heng Restored." 5 



The authority for the attribution to Jones of other buildings, 

 such as the enlargement of Somerset House, the chirurgeon's 



1 "A Vindication," p. 36. This work has been much altered. 



2 Destroyed. 3 "A Vindication," p. 119. 



4 Kennet, in Wood's " Ath. Ox.," by Bliss, iii. 806 ; quoted in Peter 

 Cunningham's " Inigo Jones." 



5 In the year 1620, King James I., being at Wilton on one of his pro- 

 gresses, sent for Inigo Jones, and instructed him to produce out of his own 

 practice in architecture and experience in antiquities abroad, what he could 

 discover about Stonehenge. The "few undigested notes " which Jones made 

 were amplified by John Webb and published by him as " Stone - Heng 

 Restored" in 1655. They went to show that Stonehenge was a Roman 

 temple. A Dr Charleton attacked this conclusion in a pamphlet called 

 " Chorea Gigantum," whereupon Webb retaliated in his " Vindication of 

 Stone-Heng Restored." From the antiquarian point of view the controversy 

 is of no value, but it is interesting because of the references to Inigo Jones. 



