The Life and Works of James Piers St Aubyn, Architect (1815-1895)

Newberry, Patrick John (2022) The Life and Works of James Piers St Aubyn, Architect (1815-1895). Doctoral thesis, The University Of Buckingham.

Text 1507089 Newberry, Patrick - Thesis .pdf - Submitted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (44MB)

Abstract

J. P. St Aubyn was a successful nineteenth century architect whose career spanned much of the nineteenth century. Much of his work was ecclesiastical, but he also designed a large number of other buildings ranging from country houses to a prison and including many edifices in the naval town of Devonport, Plymouth, which was developed by his aristocratic and land-owning family. Deemed to be a successful architect in his time (he designed nearly four hundred buildings and other structures), in the twentieth century he was vilified for adopting what was perceived to be a heavy-handed approach to the restoration and repair of historic churches. His most notable critic was Sir John Betjeman who particularly criticised St Aubyn’s large canon of work restoring churches in Cornwall, but others also criticised St Aubyn for a lack of originality. This thesis explores St Aubyn’s career and the development of his design abilities, analysing the nature of his work and the extent to which the extensive criticism can be justified. In so doing it provides an insight into the development of the architectural profession during the nineteenth century. Despite strenuous efforts, including discussions with his family (the St Aubyns of St Michael’s Mount), St Aubyn’s practice records have not been found. The approach adopted was, therefore, to build as complete a catalogue as possible of St Aubyn’s work so as to be able to carry out an objective assessment of his output. The catalogue has been developed from archival and published sources and lists nearly four hundred designs. To assess St Aubyn’s work objectively, the extent to which it met his clients’ expectations and needs and how it was regarded by his contemporaries has been considered. His work has been assessed against contemporary statements of good design principles such as those produced for churches by The Ecclesiological Society or for domestic architecture by Robert Kerr in The Gentleman’s House and contemporaneous assessments have been extracted from published material of St Aubyn’s time. Many of his surviving buildings have been visited to enable an examination of the designs and an assessment of their impact. The conclusions reached are that St Aubyn has been harshly judged, that his architecture has considerable merit and that where his ecclesiastical restorations or repairs were rigorous or extensive, there were good reasons, including the wish of the church’s officers to return their churches to what they saw as a ‘true’ version of the compete mediaeval church or practical considerations such as severe fabric failure. Too much of the criticism that has been levelled at St Aubyn ignores the standards and design principles of the time. Much of the criticism also fails to take account of the repair and restoration methods and technology available to St Aubyn and his contemporaries, which was much more limited than techniques available today. St Aubyn’s work showed diversity and he was capable of originality, although budgets often limited the extent of variety that could be introduced. St Aubyn’s apparent contemporary popularity has been decried by some modern writers on the grounds that he was successful largely because of connections of his aristocratic family. Whilst he did a lot of work for his family, particularly in the building of Devonport, there is little evidence that family connections or reputation generated much work for him. His work was spread throughout the south and midlands and was commissioned by a large number of clients, few of whom were connected to the St Aubyn family. A balanced assessment of St Aubyn’s life and work shows that, whilst not in the league of Pugin or Scott, he was an architect of merit and deserves to be better regarded and his work better valued.

Actions (login required)

View Item