Polite architecture, like polite manners, was a means of making life in a commercial society

endurable, even pleasurable, while ensuring that inequalities of status and power were
maintained. (Green 2010, pp.1)
Politeness was a threshold that caused social polarisation in the late 17th Century, it was an
instrument that promoted upward social mobility - polite behaviour was sustained by those who
described themselves as gentlemen (Green 2010). As it was associated with gentility, it was
predominantly for gentleman of lineage and land who fit within the polite bracket (Klein 2002,
pp.876). This is where it segregated society, as upholding such a social position, or being polite
was impossible without having a stake in property of some form. This civility and sociability of
the 18th Century effectively separated the elite from the the general population, and
strengthened the internal bonds within the ruling class, rather than between that class and the
rest of society (Green 2010).
The distinguishing factor of the elite went beyond their stake in property, they started viewing
and buildings differently, with greater architectural knowledge. This arose from the the way the
literate classes at the time thought a gentleman should live. Influenced by Renaissance writers
on personal conduct forged new definitions of the elite man (Johnson 2010). These principles of
harmonious living were seen as the ideal way of life, and as Fry notes (2003, pp.185) Augustan
Rome was considered to be the golden age of enlightenment and their philosophies pervaded
all contemporary though.
Although aristocratic expenditure on the building of great houses was always large, they were
now becoming the subject of more conscious reflection. The emphasis on magnificence and
display were still there, but there was also the element of taste along with a design paradigm,
the knowledge of which defined a gentleman and separated him from the vulgar masses
(Johnson 2010, pp.124). As knowledge became the marker of an elite man, its inaccessibility to
the poorer classes added another layer of distinction between the elite and the generality,
widening the gap between the two.
One of the primary sources of this new architectural consciousness stemmed from Colen
Campbells Vitruvius Britannicus, first published in 1715. These illustrated volumes were on of
the primary vehicles through which ideas and motifs associated with the Palladianism were
disseminated (Johnson 2010). The book attracted over 900 subscribers, however most of them
were from the upper echelons of society. The direction of the architectural landscape was
heavily, if not completely directed by this elite class, and it illustrates Yerburys point (1926,
pp.5)that architectural taste was largely dependent on the idiosyncrasies of individual
aristocrats, and the architectural books they owned or could borrow. What followed was the
Palladian revival.
The ubiquity of neo-Palladianism was a direct result of the extensive links within these highest
social strata, connections within and between aristocratic 18th century families, wealthy
merchants and politicians (Fry 2003).

John Wood called the south east corner of Bath the theatre of the polite world (Berry 2002, pp.
397), as such the architecture had to reflect this, creating an inseparable duality between the
social culture and its built reflection. The remarkable thing about Palladianism, Cruckshank
(1975, pp.105) notes was the almost universal recognition and acclaim it won throughout
fashionable England. So clients, namely the elite, only hired architects who could adhere to and
knew about its classical principles (Yerbury, 1926).
While the interiors of 18th century houses displayed personal taste, the external fabric of
Georgian architecture was confined to a design matrix that exhibited a plainer version of 17th
century architectural classicism, and this applies to No.3 Church street. This homogeneity
however, should not be mistaken for a lack of taste or expression. There was a tendency, within
polite society, of conformity, as there was a weariness of appearing too singular(Green 2010,
pp.6).
The culture of the time tended towards being what Green called self and other-aware being
more deliberative and self-conscious about impressing others while pleasing oneself (Green
2010, pp.1). He classifies it as a universal human tendency, one that applies to all classes,
however with heightened senses within the domain of polite society. So this conformity arises
from the need for being socially acceptable and following the cultural authority.
As Bath was becoming increasingly popular among all classes in a position to travel there for a
cure or amusement (Richardson 1949), their buildings had to fulfill the demand of a
commercialized mass consumption housing market. Properties had to be interchangeable which
is another reason why there was a plainness to the external aspect of Georgian architecture.
This plain nature was about polite restraint rather than lacklustre design, it still exhibited a
sophistication which was very fashionable at the time.
The harnessing of classical principles can be seen in the ornamentation of the No.3 Church
Street, which is still relatively restrained. The doorway of the building (Fig.1) draws the most
attention through its ornaments, and this emphasis dates back to the Renaissance architects
who traditionally surrounded the door with a miniature temple front consisting of pediments and
columns. Although the popularity of these principles pervaded all classes of architecture, it is
important to remember they stem from classical precedents.
The spiral ornaments (volute) found in the capitals of the columns indicate that they are of ionic
order, one of the five orders of classical architecture. Similarly the triangular pediment
represents another staple of Palladian design. Although the pediment is Palladian, there is a
break in it, which could mean that baroque was still acceptable at the time (Cruckshank 1975).
Throughout Georgian architecture of the time, the design of the column and pedimented
doorcase remained relatively constant. Its parts and proportions were derived from solid
classical precedents and principles and there was little opportunity for structural invention and
novelty without deviating from what was classically correct (Maudlin 2010). Other classical
details such as dentils and cornice are evident too (Fig.3). These details were almost purely
ornamentation however they show the attention to detail in the quest for cultural authority of
polite culture.

Windows were one of the few elements of the facade of the building that combined functionality
with an ornate sensibility. On a large scale, they proportioned the Georgian house, while
emphasising the relationship between interior and exterior (Fig.4). The varying heights reflected
the piano nobile proportioning of the rooms, while simultaneously dividing the facade into
basement, column and attic sections. Another distinctive character of Georgian architecture was
the substitution of sash windows for the old mullioned form (Gotch 1909, pp.205-214).
Knowledge of these classical principles highlighted the fact that the distinction between polite
architectural knowledge and that of the common craftsman had a sharp social dimension to it .
Johnson (2010, pp.105) adds further that such architectural knowledge was considered to be
the preserve of the gentleman, and was deployed to explicitly direct, control and delimit the
activities of the mere artisan. Green concludes Georgian architecture contained many
contradictions but was ultimately about inequality. It was designed to satisfy the elite observer,
while distancing itself from the other classes of society.
No.3 Church Street expresses the universal principles of design and bespoke an ideal of polite
restraint as against the individualism expressed by excess ornamentation (Klein 2002, pp.7). Its
simplicity and restraint deeply associated it with Palladian design and brought it further into the
domain of politeness. The built environment lay at the heart of politeness in 18th Century Bath
and it displayed individual personalities, social roles and polite taste. Social identity was being
constructed around the way buildings were viewed, concretising and further distancing the
classes.