|
In many ways the revised domestic plan
offered by Pendean and other houses like it is not radically different from
the way that space was used in its open hall predecessors, like Bayleaf,
although the rigid distinction between upper and lower ends is no longer
apparent. Matthew Johnson has offered the most detailed, and challenging,
interpretation of the social and cultural changes that produced the ‘closed’
house, seeing it (amongst other things) as a corollary of the ‘closure’ of
the landscape, with the enclosure of common land, and the increased
marginalisation of women and servants, reflected in their removal from the
open hall to enclosed service rooms. However, Woolavington experienced no
early enclosure and it is open to question whether one can talk about
increased social segregation in a house of the size and layout of Pendean,
leaving the relationship between historic ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ unresolved.
The less exciting, but still plausible, explanation that the ‘closed’ house
was simply more comfortable to live in should not be dismissed. |
