of him had been published. We trust, however, that before long Mr. Cockerel, the present architect to St. Paul's, who has lately superintended its repairs with so much judgment, will carry into effect an intention he is known long to have entertained, of giving to the world a critical account of Wren's most important architectural works, accompanied by a selection from the large collection of drawings now in the library of All Souls' College. Till this shall be done, it can hardly be said that his professional merits can be duly appreciated. Mr. Cockerel's attain ments and talents afford a pledge that the work will be all that either the architect or the amateur can require. Wren was twice married; first to the daughter of Sir Thomas Coghill, by whom he had one son, Christopher. He afterwards married a daughter of William Lord Fitzwilliam, Baron of Lifford, in Ireland, by whom he had a son and a daughter. The family is not extinct : Mr. Elmes mentions two daughters, and the son of his grandson Stephen, and Christopher Wren, the son of their cousin, of Wroxhall-abbey, in Warwickshire, a seat of Sir C. Wren's, where his only son, Christopher, is buried. In considering the life of Wren we are struck with the splendour of his abilities, the greatness of his pereseverance and labour, the scantiness of his remuneration, and the ingratitude and injustice which he experienced towards the close of his long and arduous course. When the prices paid in these days to artists are called to mind, what must be the surprise at learning that the whole salary paid to the architect of St Paul's was only 2007. a year. Wren afforded all his services in the building of Greenwich Hospital, without any salary or emolument, preferring in this, as in every other passage of his life, the public service to private advantage. And it will be observed, that his salary of 2001. a year was not paid for his mere designs and time; it included the whole expense of models and drawings of every part, the daily overseeing of the works, the framing of the estimates and contracts, and auditing the bills. Without making any invidious comparison, it cannot be denied, that of late there have been few such examples shown of disinterested services towards the public by artists employed in situations similar to his. The scantiness of his pay was more than once noticed by the writers of the time; and Sarah Duchess of Marlborough, in a letter* respecting the charges of one of the persons employed to superintend the completion of Blenheim, who had made a charge of 300l. a year for his services, beside a salary for his clerk, complains bitterly at being compelled to pay this, "when," she observes, "it is well known that Sir C. Wren was content to be dragged up in a basket three or four times a week to the top of St. Paul's, and at great hazard, for 2007. a year."-Her Grace was perhaps but little capable of drawing any nice distinction between the feelings of the hired surveyor of Blenheim, and those of our architect in the contemplation of the rising of the fabric which his vast genius was calling into existence: her notions led her to estimate the matter by the simple process of the rule of three direct; and on this principle she certainly had good reason to complain of her surveyor. CHAPTER VI. His other Works. Paul's, Wren, who was appointed the In addition to the great work of St. architect for the rebuilding of the whole city, superintended the erection of all the churches, amounting to more than fifty; he was also the architect and contriver of Chelsea College, and the principal officer and comptroller of the works at Windsor. A considerable part of Greenwich Hospital was erected by him, and a splendid palace for a hunting seat of Charles II., now turned into a barrack, was commenced at Winchester. In addition to all these duties, a large proportion of his time was occupied, after the fire of London, in setting out and ascertaining the sites of the different houses destroyed-an employment little suited to his genius, and which involved him in endless al tercation. His pay as the architect for rebuilding the churches in the city, was not more liberal than for St. Paul's, being no more than 1007. a year; the parish of St. Stephen, Walbrook, however, appears, on his completing that admirable church, to have voted a present to his lady of twenty guineas! In a sketch intended merely for general readers, it is not necessary churches erected by him: those which to enumerate in detail the different • In the possession of W. Tooke, Esq. are most celebrated for the beauty and convenience of the interior, are St. Stephen's, Walbrook, St. Andrew's, Holborn, and St. James's Church in Piccadilly. St. Stephen's is, by many, considered as the most perfect specimen of Wren's genius; and it has not, perhaps, been surpassed by any modern edifice in elegance and unity of design. It is an oblong square of seventy-five by fifty-six feet; its peculiar beauty arises from the elegance of the vaulting, the form of the cupola, the disposition of the Corinthian columns, the lightness of the supporting arches, and the distribution of the light from above. A judicious and elegant writer on the Public Buildings of London observes, "that this building, so little known amongst us, is famous all over Europe, and is reputed the masterpiece of Wren. Perhaps Italy itself can produce no modern building that can vie with it in taste or proportion. There is not a beauty which the plan would admit of, that is not to be found here in its greatest perfection: and foreigners very justly call our taste in question for understanding its graces no better, and allowing it no higher degree of fame." Such is the reputation of this structure amongst foreigners, that an anecdote is told of an Italian architect who arrived in London and immediately returned after having visited St. Stephen's. The church of St. James, in Piccadilly, is divided, in the interior, into a nave and two aisles; the principal merit is in the formation of the roof, which is described from information furnished by Mr. Cockerel, as singularly ingenious and economical; and its simplicity, strength, and beauty, are represented as a perfect study of construction and architectural economy. Sir Christopher Wren, who himself conceived this to be one of the best contrived of his churches, observes in a letter "Churches must be large: but still, in our reformed religion, it should seem vain to make a parish church larger than that all who are present can both hear and see. The Romanists, indeed, may build larger churches: it is enough if they hear the murmurs of the mass, and see the elevation of the host; but ours are to be fitted for auditories. can hardly think it practicable to make a single room so capacious, with pews and galleries, as to hold above two thousand persons, and all to hear the service, and see the preacher. I en I deavoured to effect this, in building the parish church of St. James, Westminster, which, I presume, is the most capacious with these qualifications that hath yet been built; and yet at a solemn time, when the church was much crowd. ed, I could not discern from a gallery, that two thousand were present. In this church I mention, though very broad, and the nave arched up, yet as there are no walls of a second order, nor lanterns, nor buttresses, but the whole of the roof rests upon the pillars, as do also the galleries, I think it may be found beautiful and convenient, and, as such, the cheapest of any form I could invent." The interior of St. Andrew's, Holborn, after St. James's Church, affords one of the best specimens of arrangement; spacious, rich, and beautiful. It has a nave and two aisles divided into a basement and galleries: the length is a hundred and five feet, the breadth sixty-three, and the height forty-three. No architect ean come in competition with Wren in the construction of the steeple, which is considered a requisite in Christian churches, and in the composing of which it required his genius to combine the excellence of the Roman architecture, with the requisites of height and lightness, to which it had not before been adapted with any suc cess. The spire of St. Dunstan's in the East is admitted to be unrivalled for elegance, and is one of the finest monuments of geometrical skill in existence. That of Bow Church is also among the most elegant of Wren's works; the bottom is a plain tower till it rises over the houses; above this is a beautiful temple, and over it stand flying buttresses supporting a lighter temple, surmounted by a spire. Nothing can afford fuller evidence of his power to combine and adapt the elegant features of the Roman architecture, so as to suit the genius of the work. Wren has not fallen into the common error in building spires, of making the spire straddle across a Greek pediment and crush it with the weight; thus, the spire of Bow Church is built separately, and rises from the ground at an angle of the church. Another curious work of Wren was the pendulum stage in the upper part of the spire of the Chichester Cathedral, which he rebuilt, to counteract the south-westerly gales, which had forced it from its perpendicularity. (Fig. 6) A sketch to illustrate this has been added from the work of Mr. Elmes. To the finial is Fig. 6. fastened a strong metal ring, and to that is suspended a large piece of timber, 80 feet long, loaded with iron; at the bottom are two oak floors, the upper about two inches and a half, and the lower three inches less than the interior masonry of the spire. When the wind blows the spire out of the perpendicular, the pendulum floor touches the lee side of the spire, thus tending to restore the equilibrium of the ma sonry. The Doric column at the foot of London Bridge, (Monument,) the largest single column in existence, except the Wellington testimonial, at Dublin, was also designed by Wren; its entire height is 202 feet, being 42 higher than Trajan's column; the pedestal is 40 feet high, 20 feet square; the diameter of the base is 15 feet, and there is a staircase in the shaft of 345 steps. no The works of Sir C. Wren do not appear to have been all uniformly successful. Hampton Court and Winchester Palace are far from being favourable specimens of the art. The studies made by him from the buildings of Louis the Fourteenth had too visible an effect on his own designs of palaces and private buildings; and "it may be considered fortunate," observes Horace Walpole, “ that the French built only palaces and churches, and therefore Saint Paul's escaped, but Hampton Court was sacrificed to the god of false taste." Wren's failure at Hampton Court may, in a great measure, be attributed to his having worked under the directions of William, whose favourite residence it was, and whose taste in architecture was far below his merit as a patriot king; indeed, when the arrangement of the low cloisters was criticized, the monarch, with his wonted honesty, took the whole blame on himself, acknowledging that they had been constructed by his own particular orders. Nor is it unreasonable to infer that in his other buildings, the defects arose in some degree from the taste of his employers, and that he was compelled by them to adopt the French fashions, which at that time retained the powerful influence in this country, which the profligate and frivolous court of Charles II. had bestowed upon them. We have omitted to notice the College of Physicians,* built by Wren, which, in a particular department, was one of the most scientific of Wren's edifices. The exterior, indeed, was nowise to be admired; but in the interior, for the purposes of utility and convenience, it was considered perfect, as affording every facility both for seeing and hearing, in the display of anatomical operations and philosophical experiments. As a study of acoustic and optical architecture it was perhaps unrivalled, the peculiar character of the roof and form of the section being admirably adapted to the distribution of sound, and the form of the hall equally suited to the convenience of seeing. In the construction of theatres and of churches, the propagation of sound is one of the most important points to be attended to. The doctrine of acoustics is little understood by builders in this country, and yet, however hidden to us the subject may be, it is certain the ancients understood its principles with great accuracy; whilst in modern times this important object of architecture has been almost wholly neglected. Vitruvius describes the effects of the science as well understood by the Greeks. The method of producing the effect of the increase of sound in their theatres was singular; and from the mention of it in Vitruvius, as being of frequent use both in these and in the Roman theatres, it is to be inferred that the effect sought was produced. The arrangement, as described, consisted in placing bronze vases or jars in small chambers or recesses having an opening in front in the precinctio, between the first and second row of seats. These jars were inverted, having one end partially raised: they were of different sizes, and are said to have been arranged according to some principle of harmony. It has been a matter of considerable surprise that, with the number of travellers who have been of late so actively exploring the antiquities of Greece and Italy, no remains of this contrivance have been discovered. Mr. Banks, however, it is said, discovered at Scythopolis the remains of these chambers situated in the precinctio, This building is now dismantled. with doors at the back, apparently for the convenience of access to adjust the vases. This is an important subject of consideration in the construction of theatres, and more particularly in church architecture. In the present churches it not unfrequently happens that the architect ensures the congregation full opportunity of contemplating his edifice, by so building it that no articulate sound can reach half the persons present. There is another important point in the construction of churches, which has been hitherto mainly overlooked, namely, the advantage arising from what is termed hypethral light, or light from the roof. When this is adopted, the interior architecture has its own light and shade in the same way as the outside; and that solemn effect, so well adapted to sacred buildings, is attained by the appearance of seclusion and abstraction which the light coming from above instead of the sides is calculated to bestow. Wren did not publish any works in his lifetime, except his contributions to the Royal Society, and his answer to the attacks made against him. In the Parentalia, a few fragments of essays are printed, some of which contain very judicious observations on the science of architecture. The limits of this sketch do not, however, permit any very long extracts; the following are, perhaps, the most interesting: "Position is necessary for perfecting beauty. There are only two beautiful positions of strait lines, perpendicular and horizontal; this is from nature, and consequently necessity, no other than upright being firm. Oblique positions are discord to the eye, unless answered in pairs, as in the sides of an équicrural triangle; therefore Gothic buttresses are all ill-favoured and were avoided by the ancients, and no roofs, almost, but spheric raised to be visible, except in the front, where the lines answer in spheric in all positions the ribs answer. Cones and multangular prisms want neither beauty nor firmness, but are not ancient. "Views contrary to beauty are deformity, or a defect of uniformity: and plainness, which is the excess of uniformity: variety makes the mean. Variety of uniformities makes complete beauty. Uniformities are best tempered, as rhymes in poetry, alternately, or sometimes with more variety, as in stanzas. "In things to be seen at once much variety makes confusion, another vice of beauty. In things that are not seen at once, and have no respect one to another, great variety is commendable, provided this variety transgress not the rules of optics and geometry. "An architect ought to be jealous of novelties, in which fancy blinds the judgment; and to think his judges as well those that are to live five centuries after him, as those of his own time. That which is commendable now for novelty, will not be a new invention to posterity, when his works are often imitated, and when it is unknown which was the original; but the glory of that which is good of itself, is eternal. The architect ought above all things to be well versed in perspective, for every thing that appears well in the orthography may not be good in the model, especially where are many angles and projections and every thing that is good in model may not be so when built; because a inodel is seen from other stations and distances than the eye sees the building; but this will hold universally true, that whatsoever is good in perspective, and will hold so in all the principal views, whether direct or be observed, that regard be had to the distance of oblique, will be as good in great, if this only caution the eye in the principal stations. many members, be well furnished with ornaments, Things seen near at hand may have small and and may lie flatter; on the contrary, all this care is ridiculous at great distances; there bulky members and full projections casting quick shadows are commendable; small ornaments at too great dis tance serve only to confound the symmetry and to take away the lustre of the object, by darkening it with many little shadows. "There are different reasons for objects, whose chief view is in front, and for those whose chief view is sideways. are "Fronts ought to be elevated in the middle not the corners; because the middle is the place of greatest dignity and first arrests the eye; and rather projecting forward in the middle than hollow. For these reasons pavilions at the corners naught, because they make both faults, a hollow and depressed front. Where hollows and solids are mixed, the hollow is to be in the middle; for hollows are either niches, windows, or doors. The first require the middle to give the statue dignity; the second, that the view from within may be The ancients elevated the middle with a tympan direct; the third, that the visto may be straight. and statue, or a dome, The triumphant arches, which now seem flat, were elevated by the magnificent figure of the victor in his chariot with four horses abreast, and other statues accompanying it. No sort of pinnacle is worthy enough to appear in the air but statue. Pyramids are Gothic; pots are modern French. Chiminies ought to be hid if not well adorned. No roof can have dignity enough to ap buildings it is excusable. The ancients affected pear above a cornice but the circular: in private flatness. In buildings where the view is sideways, as in streets, it is absolutely required that the composition should be square; intercolumniations equal; projections not great; the cornices unbroken, and every thing strait, equal, and uniform, Breaks in the cornice, projectures of the upright members, variety, inequality in the parts, various heights of the roof, serve only to confound the perspective and make it deformed; while the breaches and projections are cast upon one another and ob scure all symmetry. In this sort of building there seems no proportion of length to the height; for a portico the longer the more beautiful, in inanitum; on the contrary, fronts require a proportion of the breadth to the height; higher than three tipies the breadth is indecent, and as ill to be above three times as broad as high. From this rule I except obelisks, pyramids, columns, such as Trajan's, &c., which seem rather single things than compositions; I except also long porticoes, though seen direct, infinitely repeated, and not easily finding the bounds, where the eye, wandering over the same members, makes no comparison of them with the height." "Modern authors, who have treated of architecture, seem generally to have little more in view, but to set down the proportions of columns, architraves, and cornices, in the several orders as they are distinguished into Doric, lonic, Corinthian, and Composite; and in these proportions, finding them in the ancient fabrics of the Greeks and Romans, (though more arbitrarily used than they care to acknowledge,) they have reduced them into rules, too strict and pedantic, and so as not to be transgressed without the crime of barbarity; though, in fashions of those ages wherein they were used; but their own nature, they are but the modes and because they were found in the great structures, (the ruins of which we now admire,) we think ourworks.", selves strictly obliged still to follow the fashion, though we can never attain to the grandeur of those CHAPTER VII. The School of Wren.- His Successors. Ir may be proper to close this treatise with a few observations on the successors of Wren,-on the present taste for architecture, and on the French school. Hawkesmore, Vanbrugh, Gibbs, and others, of the same date, followed in his footsteps, proceeding upon the foundations laid by the revived or Palladian school. Hawkesmore was amongst the most successful pupils; he was so considered by his master, and he certainly surpassed his contemporary, Vanbrugh. It is observable, that after the age of Wren, something beyond the pitch of the art was at tempted by his immediate successors, and amongst the foremost in this attempt was Hawkesmore. Something beyond the orders, something almost colossal appears to have been effected; but although there was a partial success, it seems as if something greater was intended than was, or indeed could be, attained. The works of Hawkesmore evince great beauties of conception, but mixed with so many caprices and so many defects, that he has perhaps never yet received his due share of credit. The steeple, as applied to a building on the plan of a Grecian or Roman temple, is always absurd, and even Wren himself could not always rescue it from deserved and contemptuous criticism: but Hawkesmore appears to have been the only one who has ventured to place this steeple on one side of the building, as in St. George's, Bloomsbury; by this means avoiding at least the incongruity of making a steeple rise out of a temple. St. George's, Limehouse, and St. Mary's Wolnoth's, may be considered as the best specimen of his style; and the beautiful portico of St. Martin's in the Fields, now again about to see the light, is the masterpiece of Gibbs. Amongst the succeeding class in the Palladian school, the most conspicuous were Ware, Sir William Chambers, and the Adams. Sir William Chambers's works are remarkable for their taste and elegance, and for a purer imitation of the antique of Italy. The Adams, with many defects chiefly from falling into the details of the Venetian school, produced works worthy of admiration, and were the first who investigated the Roman baths and the remains of the Roman villas, thus opening a new E source of architectural combination, of which they often took great and judicious advantage. The Library at Luton is one of the most striking examples of this happy adaptation. Without being entirely devoted to what is termed the Palladian school, or wishing to be supposed insensible to the beauty of the pure Grecian architecture, it must be admitted that the present taste for the pure Greek is carried too far. While we acknowledge the excellence of the great original, there is danger that some of the present professors may lose sight of the valuable additions which architecture has acquired from the labours of the Romans, and after them from the Revival school. These improvements are more adapted to utility than the Grecian architecture, which was besides deficient in some of the most important principles of magnificence, as for instance those obtained by the introduction of the arch, which opened a new field for grandeur, variety, and extent, and enabled the architect to cover a space beyond the power or combination of the Greeks to reach. It is almost impossible, by taking the very few existing examples of Grecian architecture (consisting only of sacred edifices) as models, to erect buildings calculated to serve the infinitely varied purposes of modern wants, without the risk of distortion and misapplication. The excellence of Greek architecture consisted in its principles of elegance and proportion, and what may be termed the detail, rather than its utility for the great purposes of construction. The shape of the Grecian temple admits of no change without the destruction of its beauty : add a side wing as a vestry, or let a tall spire shoot up above the low tympanum, and every principle of proportion and fitness is destroyed. Besides, the thing we produce has little resemblance to the original: the Grecian temple was designed to form a feature in the surrounding landscape, to be a vehicle for the exposition of sculpture, of the most exquisite and elaborate kind; it was radiant with gold, azure, and vermilion, laid on the pure marble; the delicate mouldings were to be seen under an unclouded sun, and to remain in a climate which conserved an unchanged appearance for ages. How different is the copy, cooped up in the smokes of a great city, composed of coarse materials, and without any aid of ornament, except a few mock stone vases or figures wretchedly executed! |