Building a Family: William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle, and the Construction of Bolsover and Nottingham Castles
IntroductionBolsover Castle, overlooking the Doe Lea valley in Derbyshire, and Nottingham Castle, overlooking its city, are among the most dramatic of seventeenth-century great houses. This article proposes an explanation for the re-building of these two medieval castles that is based upon the social circumstances of the family and household responsible for the work. Separated by sixty years, the two buildings appear to be very different yet share the same remarkable patron. William Cavendish (1593-1676) became Viscount Mansfield, then Earl, Marquis and finally Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.1 He is celebrated for his extravagant entertainments for Charles I in 1633 and 1634 and his governorship of Prince Charles, the future Charles II. In 1618, he married a local heiress, Elizabeth Bassett, who became the mother of his children before dying in 1643. William was commander of the king's army in the north during the Civil War and went into exile for fifteen years after losing the battle of Marston Moor in 1644. His second marriage took place in Paris in 1645, to Margaret Lucas, lady in waiting to Henrietta Maria and also a prolific writer.2 He lived in Antwerp, where he wrote his famous book on horsemanship, until 1660. At the Restoration, he returned to live mainly at his family home at Welbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire until his death in 1676. The Little Castle at Bolsover was begun by William's father Charles Cavendish (1553-1617) and William himself added interior decoration and further buildings on the site. He commissioned Nottingham Castle at the very end of his life: work began when he was over eighty.3 William's passion for building, as this article will suggest, was shared by his whole family.Bolsover Castle is well known to architectural historians, but a comparison with the less familiar work at Nottingham Castle provides a new explanation for the earlier project. Like many great houses, Bolsover and Nottingham Castles have been seen as bids to win courtly status. They illustrate a familiar story of the gradual arrival of classical ideas in English architecture. This suggests William Cavendish's growing erudition and signals his wish to move in the advanced circles of the court. Yet there is an alternative version of politics that exists alongside the expected story of magnificence and the struggle for court advancement. It will be argued here that the fruits of William's architectural patronage were consumed by his family and household, as well as by the great of the realm. His houses can be read as examples of court culture, but they also provide an archaeological record of the micro-politics of his household.Architectural historians have often made connections between building and political power. As long ago as 1899, Thorstein Veblen identified the phenomenon of 'conspicuous consumption' - the expenditure of money to win respect - and the links between a prince's magnificence and his policy are well known.4 In 1978, Mark Girouard memorably described the courtier houses of this period as 'power houses'.5William Cavendish's buildings can certainly be seen as fitting into this pattern: he was offered the Garter partly because of having 'Lived in his Contrey [county] in as great honour and splendour as any of the Nobility'.6 Yet his ambitions for winning power at court remained partly unfulfilled. Friends, enemies and historians have all occasionally treated him with derision and scorn, and his architecture does not seem to have 'worked' as straightforward conspicuous consumption. Cedric Brown has pointed out similar ambiguities in relation to William's famous royal entertainment at Bolsover in 1634.7 In architecture, William's intention may have been to produce courtly buildings. But he did not possess the control over the building process necessary to eliminate the local references introduced by the household members and craftsmen who were also involved. Although the decoration of Bolsover Castle can be linked to William's acquisition of a rich wife and a peerage, he built Nottingham Castle at a time when these things were less important to him. …
A critical edition of The triumphant widow, or, The medley of humours by William Cavendish and Thomas Shadwell
............................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ v List of Illustrations .......................................................................................................... viii Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... ix Note on Titles ................................................................................................................ xiii Preface ......................................................................................................................................... xiv Introduction The Authors ............................................................................................1 The 1677 Edition and its Probable Date of Composition ........................... 5 Description of the Copy-text .................................................................8 Probable Authorship and the Nature of the Collaboration between Newcastle and Shadwell ..........................................................................9 Newcastle's Life as a Writer and his Dramatic Canon.....................................20 Shadwell's Role as Newcastle's Client and His Early Writing Relevant to The Triumphant Widow ....................................................................34
Urban Identities and Catastrophe: Izmir and Salonica at the End of the Ottoman Empire*
Two huge fires dramatically influenced the urban development of Salonica and Izmir, in 1917 and in 1922, respectively. These catastrophes occurred after the Ottoman Empire fell, and Salonica and Izmir had shifted into new national contexts. The fires mainly destroyed the districts that were transformed during the late‐Ottoman period. These districts became the cosmopolitan façades of modern Izmir and Salonica. The post‐fires' tabula rasa provided an opportunity for Greek and Turkish politicians and European planners to change the urban identity of both cities. Moreover, the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 transformed their multicultural societies also. Reconstruction plans had been thought to de‐Ottomanize and remove the previous idea of the towns and their multiplicity, interpreting new cultural and nationalist feeling. Here, I emphasize how modernity was interpreted before and after the fires, and point out contradictions between ideological aspects of planning and how the first urban districts were built during the 1920s.