Adam, Robert ( 1728 – 1792 )
House plan and elevation, 1755 – 1756 , Sir John Soane’s Museum, Adam Vol. 9/33verso,
31.1 40. 5 cm, Pencil and brown inkRobert Adam was born in Scotland in 1728. His father was an architect, merchant, and primary
builder in Edinburgh. Young Adam attended the University of Edinburgh, receiving a classical edu-
cation, and in 1754 he embarked on the Grand Tour to Italy. There he explored antiquity, studying
with and befriending the French architect Jacques Louis Clerisseau and the architect and archaeologist
Giovanni Battista Piranesi. This education greatly influenced his approach to architecture and in 1758
he returned to London to practice, with his brother James, until his death in 1792. During their years
of practice they completed many domestic projects, a few of the most well known being Luton Hoo in
Bedfordshire ( 1766 ) and interiors for the houses Syon ( 1762 ) and Osterly ( 1763 ) (Rykwert, 1985 ).
The neoclassicism of Robert Adam was founded in archaeology, a method of looking at antiquity
from discoveries in Italy. Roman antiquity as the creative impetus was an alternative to the Palladian
style practiced in England. Traveling to Rome meant for Adam, and the other architects which
embarked on the Grand Tour, that he knew his models well and could reuse the language in his invent-
ive architecture (Kostof, 1985 ). Particularly known for his interior architecture, Adam made use of
neoclassical antiquity in the way he clustered rooms of various geometric shapes, utilized ‘interior
columnar screens,’ integrated Etruscan motifs, and employed aspects of sixteenth century Italian
Renaissance design, especially in the ‘movement’ or visual rhythm, of classical façades (Trachtenberg
and Hyman, 1986 ; King, 1991 ).
In this sketch (Figure 3.2) one can view a plan and an elevation of a country house. The sketch
does not appear to be preparation for a specific building. It is particularly revealing, however, because
it shows the intense way that Adam used his sketches as a method of design evaluation. The organ-
ization of the plan shows curved arms protruding from a central dome and an entrance screen (rem-
iniscent of the Osterly House) with four rows of paired columns. Each pavilion at the end of the
symmetrical arms reveals a different solution, possibly an indication that Adam was trying different
forms to see which best fitted his overall concept.
Adam does not erase or cross out rejected forms, but draws over the previous thought; such con-
stant reworking is displayed in the new niches by the dome, the changes in the shape of the porch, the
alternatives for the ends of the arms, and the variations of the entrance screen. He was checking and
reworking, watching for proportional and spatial qualities as he tried possible solutions. He needed to
reinforce the new lines and drew them darker, even using poché on a new wall for emphasis. His
interest in neoclassicism shows in his concern for symmetry, yet Adam seems comfortable working
each side differently to experiment with variations. For example, he may have extended the arms on
the left side of the sketch simply because the paper provided more room to draw. The elevation does
not correspond to any version of the plan exactly, which may suggest that it was an aspect of the design
process and not a conclusion. It may have acted as a ‘test,’ providing Adam a chance to pause and study
the design.
This sketch may have been meant for discovery, as it was not tied to any of Adam’s completed
work. As many of his later houses were organized with some version of ‘wings,’ notably the
Langside House of 1777 and the Jerviston House of 1782. His design for the Gosford House of 1791
also featured a large central dome similar to the one displayed in this sketch, along with paired
columns and a dominant pediment over the center space.H5719-Ch03.qxd 7/18/05 10:17 AM Page 77