anxaf 83-B 2289 "■■ Vr HE Life, Work, and Influence of Sir Christopher Wren. » A " I 1 7 \ SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN THE LIFE, WORK, AND INFLUENCE OF 5IR CHRISTOPHER WREN AN ESSAY BY ARTHUR STRATTON, Arch^ ASSOCIATE OF THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS DEMONSTRATOR OF ARCHITECTURE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, VICTORIA UNIVERSITY LIVERPOOL PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION FOR THE AUTHOR BY D. MARPLES & CO. LIVERPOOL MDCCCXCVII I I 1 I ’ ■' •' ,■ 'H. 31 r p« CERTIFICATE. \ *** This is to certify that only two httndred copies of this Essay have been printed^ all of which are numbered; this being No. /X Ih Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Getty Research Institute https://archive.org/details/lifeworkinfluencOOstra COPIES ALLOTTED ON PUBLICATION TO SUB¬ SCRIBERS, ETC., AS FOLLOWS:— Nos. 1-8 inclusive. Reserved for Public Libraries, etc. 9 The Architectural Association, London. 10 The Royal Institute of British Architects. 11 The Architectural Society, Liverpool. 12 The Architectural Library, University College, Liverpool. 13 The Editor of Architecture. 14 The Editor of 7 he Architectural Review. 15 Thos. Aldwinkle, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London. 16 Charles J. Allen, Esq., Liverpool. 17 Henry Allen, Esq., London. 18 C. J. Anderson, Esq., Liverpool. 19 Bradley T. Batsford, Esq., London. Francis W. Bedford, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Leeds. 22 John Belcher, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London. R. Anning Bell, Esq., Liverpool. 25 George H. Birch, Esq., F.S.A., A.R.I.B.A., London. 26 George Bradbury, Esq., Liverpool. 27 R. A. Briggs, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London. 28 J. M. Brydon, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London. Michael Bunney, Esq., London. . 31 Arthur Cates, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London. 32 Professor Richard Caton, M.D., F.R.C.P., Liverpool. 33 J. P. Clark, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., London. 34 Miss Cole, East Sheen, Surrey. 35 W. H. Collins, Esq., London. 36 R. P. Crawford, Esq., Liverpool. Vlll Nos. 37 G. M. Davey, Esq., Kingston-on-Thames. 38 W. Glen Dobie, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Liverpool. 39 James Dod, Esq., Liverpool. 40 Stanley Dunkerley, Esq., M.Sc., Cambridge. 41 Harald Ehrenborg, Esq., Liverpool. 42 James Gandy, Esq., East Sheen. 43 J. Alfred Gotch, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., Kettering. 44 C. de Gruchy, Esq., London. 45 The Guildhall Librar}% London, per CharlesWelch, Esq., F.S.A 46 Henr}" Hartley, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Liverpool. 47 Charles W. Harris, Esq., A.R.LB.A., Liverpool. 48 O. Ormerod Harrison, Esq., B.A., Fordwich, Kent. 49 Professor R. J. Harvey Gibson, ALA., F.L.S., Liverpool. 50 R. T. Hewlett, Esq., M.D., A.K.C., London. 51 Gerald Horsley, Esq., London. 52 Alatthew Honan, Esq., Liverpool. 53 Charles B. Howdill, Esq., Leeds. 54 H. Brice Hobbs, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Liverpool. 55 Herbert Jackson, Esq., Liverpool. 56 T. Graham Jackson, Esq., M.A., R.A., London. 57 Charles E. Jones., Esq., B.Sc., Liverpool. 58 Oliver W. F. Lodge, Esq., Liverpool. 60- The Liverpool Public Libraries, per Peter Cowell, Esq. 64 Professor J. M. Alackay, AI.A., Liverpool. 65 Philip J. Marvin, Esq., London. 66 Walter Millard, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Hitchin. 67 Alfred F. Milligan, Esq., Liverpool. 68 R. T. Miller, Esq., London. 69 E. W. Alountford, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London. 70 J. Alilsum, Esq., Wonston Manor, Hants. 71 Segar Owen, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Warrington. 72 M. G. Pechell, Esq., London. IX Nos. 73 Francis C. Penrose, Esq., M.A., F.R.S., F.R.I.B.A., London. 74 Edwin C. Pinks, Esq., London. 75 Robert Priebsch, Esq., Ph.D., Liverpool. 76 Professor W. Raleigh, M.A., Liverpool. 77 Professor Rendall, M.A., Litt.D., Liverpool. 78 Alfred J. Roddis, Esq., London, 79 James Rhind, Esq., Liverpool. 80 G. P. Sheridan, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Dublin. 81 Professor F. M. Simpson, Liverpool. 82 Arthur E. Street, Esq., M.A., F.R.I.B.A., London. 83 R. Phene Spiers, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., London. 84 Leonard Stokes, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London. 85 Robert Weir Schultz, Esq., London. 86 John Slater, Esq., B.A., F.R.I.B.A., London. 87 J. C. Stockdale, Esq., London. 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101] 102 ) 103 Frederick Stratton, Esq., East Sheen. F. W. Stratton, Esq., Thames Ditton. F. Stratton, Esq., Junr., East Sheen. T. E. Stanton, Esq., M.Sc., Liverpool. F. Steward Ta}dor, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., London. W. H. Thorp, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Leeds. F. W. Troup, Esq., London. University College, Liverpool, per John Sampson, Esq. Messrs. Valentine & Sons, Dundee. W. E. Willink, Esq., M.A., F.R.I.B.A., Liverpool. Bernard M. Ward, Esq., Glossop. The Wakefield Book Society, per H. Bennington, Esq. Alexander Wood, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., London. E. W. M. Wonnacott, Esq., London. b CONTENTS. PART I. THE LIFE OF WREN. His appearance and early years. University career and scientific attainments. Appointed assistant to Sir John Denham. His first Commission. Restoration of Old S. Paul’s. Trip to France. The Fire of London. Plan for re-building London. Designs for St. Paul’s. One Accepted. Sources of Income. Sheldonian Theatre. Greenwich Hospital. Chelsea Hospital. Temple Bar. The Monument. Wren Married and Knighted. Designs never Executed. Windsor Mausoleum. Winchester Palace. Whitehall Palace. Hampton Court. Treaty of Ryswick. Westminster Abbey. Troubles at S. Paul’s. Wren’s Salary Suspended. Dismissal from Office. Retirement and Death ... PART II. THE WORK OF WREN. Chronological Lists of the Works of Sir Christopher Wren Characteristics of the Early Renaissance. His Work as Influenced by the Times. His Genius. The Construction of S. Paul’s. The Cit)' Churches. A General Classification according to Plan. Towers and Steeples. Interiors. Fittings. Galleries and Pews. Palatial and Domestic Work. Use of the Orders PART III. THE INFLUENCE OF WREN. Chronological Lists of the Successors of Sir Christopher Wren, WITH their Chief Works . Characteristics of his Successors. Influence felt immediately. Nicholas Hawksmoor. Sir John Vanbrugh. James. Gibbs. Influence diminishes correlatively to lapse of time. Sir William Chambers. Our own eclectic times ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . LIST OF PLATES. I. Old Temple Bar. As rebuilt .... .... .... To face page 6 II. Greenwich Hospital .... .... . ,, 12 III. The Western Towers of Westminster Abbey ,, 16 IV. The Great Schoolroom, Winchester College .... ,, 29 V. St. Paul’s Cathedral . ,, 31 VI. The City Churches. Typical Plans, etc. ,, 34 VII. Do. DO. Towers and Steeples .... ,, 38 VIII. The Hall of the Brewers’ Company, London ,, 42 IX. The Chimney Piece and Panelling in The Brewers’ Hall.... .... .... .... .... ,, 42 X. The Work of Gibbs . ,, 46 BLOCKS IN TEXT. St. Paul’s Cathedral. Plan of Wren’s favourite design Page Do. DO. Plan at the Crossing .... >> Ely Cathedral. Plan at the Crossing .... >> St. Paul’s Cathedral. Plans of old and new contrasted Do. DO. Plan of precincts as originally designed Do. DO. Section through the Nave J J Do. DO. Ground Plan Castle Howard, Yorkshire, General Plan 9 10 10 11 19 32 33 50 AUTHOR'S PREFACE. HIS Essay was awarded the Silver Medal of the Architec¬ tural Association, London, for i 8 g 6 , and a limited Edition is now published at the request of many friends. No atte^npt has been made to expand it to the fuller development which the subject so well merits: it is necessary to state this, because the limitations imposed directly defined the length of the Essay, and are responsible for the curtailment of many trains of thought, and more especially for the brevity of the last part, and for the scant reference to the Domestic Work of Sir Christopher Wven. Eor facilities offered me of studying original drawings, manuscripts, and standard works, I am particularly indebted to Mr Q. H. Birch, Curator of Sir John Soane s Museum, London, and to Mr. Peter Cowell, Chief Librarian of the City of Liverpool, who have never failed to allow me fill access to the very valuable collections of Architectural Works in their respective Libraries, and whose personal help and kind¬ ness I am glad to have this opportunity of acknowledging. In ma 7 ty other ways, great consideration has been shown me, and I am greatly indebted to Mr. R. Anning Bell for the delightful set of chapter headmgs and tail-pieces which adorn these pages, and which were specially designed by him for this work. The same applies to the initial letters, which have beeit kindly contributed by Mr. O. W. E. Lodge, a Student in the School of Architecture. The preparation of the Plates of the City Churches entailed much study and investigation on the spot, and it is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the supple^nentary help rejtdered 7 ne by Mr. T. Geoffry Lucas, of Hit chin, and by Mr. J. P. Clark, of Lotidon. Nor must I omit to thank all who have facilitated the publication by becoming private subscribers. Should my efforts some day stimulate so^neone to undertake a monurnental work, in some degree worthy of the subject, they will not have been in vain. University College, Liverpool, February, 1897. ARTHUR STRA TTON. ‘Slight those who say, amidst their sickly healths, Thou livest by rule. What doth not so but man ? Houses are built by rule, and commonwealths. Entice the trusty sun, if that you can, From his ecliptic line; beckon the sky. Who lives by rule, then, keeps good company.” —George Herbert. HE early years of the life of Sir Christopher Wren always seem to be enshrouded in a certain amount of mystery to an architect, because they were devoted to a study apparently so opposite to that with which his name is now universally associated. He was about twenty years of age when his great fore¬ runner, Inigo Jones, died. Inigo Jones fell upon evil times; frustrated, it would seem, Inigo Jones, at almost every move, his masterly designs were, for the most ^572-1653. part, but idle dreams, doomed to be known to posterity as great possibilities only. He played his part, nevertheless, and was still playing—^his last act, maybe—^when one appeared on the scene who was destined to carry on his work, and to carry it on with such brilliancy that all the world should shade their eyes and yet be dazzled by the mere reflection which should suffice to keep his own name bright for all time. We might well picture Christopher Wren in those days as an enthusiast devoted solely to the study of Architecture, but he was known rather as a young man possessing altogether exceptional powers of acquisition, interested in anything intellectual, but especially addicted, not to the fine arts at all, but to the higher branches of science. Born at the quiet country Vicarage of Knowle, in Wiltshire, Birth and early on October 20th, 1632, he early exhibited great mental powers, of Wren. U Diversity career and scientific research. apparently to the detriment of his physical strength, for we find that his father, Dean Wren, a man of high culture and under¬ standing, deemed it advisable to supplement such attention as he could himself bestow upon his promising offspring by the services of a private tutor at home. However, in 1646, when in the fourteenth year of his age, he was at Wadham College, Oxford, astonishing ever}^one there with his bright intelligence and persistent study, having at that early age not only laid the foundation for a sound classical education, but also exhibited a strong bent for the experimental philosophy of the “ New Learninof.’' His university career was one succession of marked successes. He took his B.A. degree in 1650, followed in due course by that of M.A. in 1653, in which year he was also elected Fellow of All Souls. At this time, as well as for many years subse¬ quently, we know him to have been deep in scientific research, writing learned tracts on the “Hypothesis and Theory of Comets” and patenting inventions of all sorts from “ Diplographic Pens” and “Instruments of use in Gnomonicks ” to “New Designs tending to Strength, Convenience, and Beauty in Building,” whilst the discovery of Mezzotint engraving should probably be attri¬ buted to him rather than to Prince Rupert. Nothing seemed to dismay- him, and before many years had passed away this “ miracle of a youth,” as John Evelyn called him, in his Diary of 1654, was known in scientific circles all over Europe. At home the highest honours were conferred upon him. He was Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Gresham College when only twenty-five; Savilian Professor of Astronomy in the University of Oxford in 1660, and elected both D.C.L. and LL.D. at Oxford and Cambridge respectively in the following year. In 1673, owing to pressure of other work, he was compelled to resign his Professorship, but he maintained his connection with the Royal Society, which had received its charter in 1662. His name as one of its originators occurs again and again in the Proceedings of the Society, together with those of all the leading 3 men of science of the day, to say nothing of the names of King Charles himself, the Duke of York, and Prince Rupert. In 1680, and again in 1681, he was elected to the Presidency, and we marvel that he found time to carry through his multi¬ farious duties in that capacity to the satisfaction of all and apparently not to the detriment of other occupations which were rapidly increasing around him. Having hastily followed him thus far to the zenith of a scientific career, we must retrace our steps to glance at events which had been taking place outside the Universities; events which, in course of time, were to react upon him and to alter the course of his whole life to such an extent that it might seem that so far he had missed his true calling in life, if such a master mind can be said to be restricted to any one sphere alone. All through the earlier years of his college life the country had been convulsed by civil wars ; on one occasion, at least, it is recorded that the disorder actually affected his own movements, for in 1658 the Professors of Gresham College were driven from their class-rooms, and the place was garrisoned by the rebels. Amidst one long succession of tumultuous scenes and vicious uproar was his character firmly moulded. During these stirring times, for the Church and State alike, young Wren must many a time have turned towards the Tower, where for eighteen weary years, lay his uncle, Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely, who was cast there for his supposed Popish tendencies, a victim along with Archbishop Laud in the wholesale demolition which was brought about by the temporary ascendancy of Calvinistic prin¬ ciples in the land. The Church was no less corrupt than the State, and as an outward sign of its inward baseness the erection of religious houses was not only stopped, but those which already stood were subjected to every infamy of abuse and disuse. Little reverence was shown to the great Cathedral of St. Paul, which was already tottering, whilst the work of Inigo Jones, as being associated with Laud, was undisguisedly hated by the Puritans. President of the Royal Society. His uncle, the Bishop of Ely, cast into the Tower. 4 Desecration of Architecture during the Common¬ wealth, 1649- 1660. Charles II, 1660-1685. Works to the mole and harbour at Tangier. Wren turns his attention to matters architectural. The peaceful arts could hardly flourish at a time when bands of marauders scoured the country^ wishing to destroy anything that could in any way be construed into an embodiment of the Papist religion,—no matter how beautiful, its profanity was only enhanced thereby. The Restoration alone could produce order, and the people weary of self-rule, or no rule, and smarting under sores inflicted by themselves, gladly welcomed it. It was well for Art that in Charles II she found a patron at such a time; his long exile had not been spent in vain, and he came back alive to her claims and to the disgraces which had been inflicted upon the religious structures of his country. St. Paul’s, as it then appeared, stung him to the quick, and one of his first acts was to appoint Wren, who, most likely, was well known as an amateur architect, assistant to Sir John Denham, the Surveyor- General ; a man whose name is now rather associated with poetry in words than with poetry in stone. Thus, early in 1661, was Wren connected with the Metropolitan Cathedral, partly, no doubt, through the influence of John Evelyn. Charles, who had received the fortress of Tangier as part of the dower of Queen Catharine, wanted Wren, as one of the best geometricians of the day, to leave St. Paul’s to Denham, and to go himself to Tangier to superintend extensive works there to the mole and harbour. Wren, however, excused himself, and we rejoice that he did not throw away some of the best years of his life, and possibly his life itself, for a mere caprice of his whimsical King. The works were never carried out; the whole place was a terrific strain upon the exchequer, and a few months before the close of the King’s reign the work was abandoned and the garrison brought to England. In spite of his high position in the scientific world, and the incessant demand upon his time which it occasioned. Wren now began seriously to turn his thoughts to matters architectural. That he had always an inclination that way, and that he was far from ignorant of its principles from his boyhood, no one will 5 doubt. We are told that his father, the Dean of Windsor, was His father, the not only a good mathematician, but that his knowledge of the art of architecture was by no means inconsiderable. He produced several designs, but it is now very difficult to prove that any were ever executed. His son would naturally have seen them, and, whether good or bad, they most likely whetted his appetite. In i66i, when he probably had no idea of the future which was before him, he suggested “Designs in Architecture” as part of his contribution towards a royal entertainment on the occasion of the King’s visit to Oxford. Before long, however, he was to have an opportunity of showing that his knowledge of architecture was not merely theoretical. His uncle, the Bishop of Ely, who had been released from the Tower at the Restoration, bethought him to make some thank-offering, and to benefit his old college at the same time, by giving it a chapel. He consulted his nephew, and found him so ready to further the work that the old man lived to worship in the Chapel of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and to know that he had paved the way for the young archi¬ tect’s future career in giving him his first commission. The Wren’s first foundation stone was laid on May 13th, 1663, which was about four years prior to the death of his patron, and five years sub¬ sequent to the death of his father. Further work at Oxford and Cambridge soon followed. It would be interesting to learn how his designs, strongly imbued with the Palladian spirit as interpreted to him by Inigo Jones, were regarded by the people at large at these centres of learning. At Oxford, Gothic traditions, owing to Laud’s influence, had lingered later than anywhere else in England, and had produced the won¬ derful Christchurch staircase as late' as 1640, and may still have been persistent in Wren’s college days. In other parts, workmen Spread of were acquiring a sound knowledge of classic forms and details, and were speaking in stone the language of the time. In the course of his work at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1665, Wren, in a letter sent with his small scale plans and general directions, seems to half apologise for venturing to suggest detail drawings 6 Contemplated restoration of St. Paul's. Wren makes his one Continental tour. such as now-a-days it would be fatal to leave unsupplied. He says; “ I suppose you have good masons; however, I would willingly take a further pains to give all the mouldings in great; we are scrupulous in small matters, and you must pardon us, the architects are as great pedants as critics and heralds." Charles had put the restoration of St. Paul’s into Wren’s hands since his refusal to go to Tangier, for he was anxious to remove all evidence of the havoc wrought there by the Puritans during the long years of the Commonwealth. The central spire had long fallen, and the fabric was much defaced, but Wren had no idea of pulling it down ; he wished, rather, to carry on the work of Inigo Jones, whose portico he greatly admired, by the substitution of Italian for Gothic forms, and more especially by the addition of a central cupola. He early laid great stress upon the effect of a cupola, and we cannot doubt but that the possibilities of such a scheme were fore¬ shadowed in his mind by the work of Alan-de-Walsingham, at Ely, with which he was well acquainted. It was whilst this matter was engaging his attention, and whilst the buildings at Oxford and Cambridge were in progress, that he took his one foreign tour. Stimulated very likely by the prevalence of the plague which was then raging in London, and by a desire to study his art abroad, he took advantage of the interval of peace between France and England before the Wars of the Netherlands, to go to France. A glimpse of his doings there is afforded us by a letter to a friend in England : he met Bernini, who was busy on the Louvre, and was greatly impressed, not only with the magnitude of that work, but also with its excellence, and with the large number of crafts repre¬ sented, “ which make a school of architecture the best, probably, at this day in Europe.’’ We may feel sure that he was far from lacking enthusiasm from the following: “ Bernini’s design of the Louvre I would have given my skin for. but the old reserv’d Italian gave me but a few minutes’ view.’’ He cer¬ tainly made the most of his opportunities, and went wherever Plate 1 t Fiom a Photo, by Messrs. Valentine & Son. .■=3 7 there was anything architecturally grand to be seen in the district. His sketch-book, too, must ever have been in use; he wrote to his friend, “ That I might not lose the impressions of them, I shall bring you almost all France in paper.” It is worthy of note that he never reached Italy; whether he intended to extend this journey is now unknown ; certain it is that, as events turned out, he could never be spared from his native land again, and he had to be content with the descrip¬ tions which, no doubt, John Evelyn, and, in after days, his eldest son, were able to give him. This tour, without doubt, imbued him somewhat with the style of Louis XIV. He turned back to England either at the end of February or early in March, 1666, so that any alterations in his plans cannot be attributed to the Fire of London, as is so often erroneously stated. On August 27th of that eventful year, he presented his design for the restoration of St. Paul’s. It met with favour at once, and the order was given for its ^ execution without delay—but a fate not so kind awaited the venerable pile. Within a week, the Great Fire had laid the City low; London, which had boasted its hundred ’and twenty churches and more, its stately mansions, and its picture^ue streets, was but a smoulder¬ ing ruin. The work of destruction was complete. Houseless and churchless, scarcely recovered from the horrors of the Plague, it is difficult even to imagine what must have been the dejection of the people when they awoke to their deplorable condition. It is at such times, however, that the indomitable English courage prevails ; London was not to be deserted if human agency could set it up again. Never, perhaps, in the world’s history have such calamities,- one after the other, .befallen a city; never has such an opportunity been afforded any master mind capable of grappling with them. The opportunity came, and Christopher Wren, nothing daunted, realised the immensity of it. The last smoke had scarce blown away, the smouldering ddbris was not yet disturbed, when - he busily engaged himself with a survey in order to produce a plan for the rebuilding of Returns to England without visiting Italy. The Great Fire of London. Wren presents his plan for the rebuilding of the city. 8 Attempts to restore St. Paul’s after the [•'ire. Wren commissioned to produce an entirely new design for St. Paul’s. the cit)'. This plan came in time, and shows us what a model city he would have given to the world, with its streets of uniform width, and “ as near parallel to one another as possible, avoiding all acute angles; ” its groups of public buidlings, and its well disposed churches. Such a scheme was possible then, and only then, but already there were too many interests to be considered to make it practicable, and, in spite of Wren’s eftbrts, the city gradually rose again on its old irregular lines. With the return of quiet and order, attention was once more centred upon the great Cathedral, now, alas ! a mere wreck of its former self. The design for the cupola, which was in the act of being carried out before the Fire, was now cast aside as quite out of the question, and for two years ever^'thing that could be devised was done to restore the structure, and to retain the work of Inigo Jones at the west end. The east end and the choir were patched up and made fit for divine service, but on April 25th, 1668, Dean Bancroft wrote to Wren, at Oxford : “ What you whisper’d in my ear at your last coming hither, is now come to pass. Our work at the west end of St. Paul’s is fallen about our ears.” The uselessness of carrying on the work thus should then have been quite apparent, but tentative efforts till 1670 are recorded, by which time the necessity for either rebuilding altogether, or leaving the whole to its fate, was fully realised. We must ever be thankful that the former course was decided upon, and that Wren, who had been on the commission from the first, was appointed to make designs for a completely new structure. With what eagerness he must have set about them, full of hope and noble aspirations; but great trials and disappointments awaited him. Little progress seems to have been made till, for the more speedy procedure of the undertaking, the King issued his Letters Patents, under the Great Seal, in 1673, authorising Wren, who was then Surveyor-General of the Royal Works, to make a large model of one design which had met with special favour. This was Wren’s favourite design, the 9 one to which he would most willingly have set his name, but it survives only in the splendid model to be seen in the Cathe¬ dral to this day. The preparation of the site for its reception had actually commenced, but objections arose which outweighed any probability of its ever being carried out. It will be seen from the plan that His favourite the long accepted Cathedral arrangement had been quite ignored—that features always before associated in England with the plan of a cathedral, and the outcome of her ritual, had been set at nought. The Court, in their inner conscience, looked for¬ ward to the day when this ritual might be recalled, and obviously to them such a cathedral would be ill-fitting Ground Plan of St. Paul’s, according to the first for the SayiUg of ^^aSS and Design (after the Great Fire) of Sir Christopher Wren. the Ordering of PrOCeSSionS. Was it not possible to erect one which might answer all the purposes of the present by affording ample space for the gathering of congregations and the hearing of sermons ; and yet, if ever the time came again, still be available for the change of ritual ? The unfortunate architect found himself thus confronted, and there was no course but to turn his attention to the accepted type of plan, and to'vest it as only he knew how. His acquaintance with Ely Cathedral served him again, we The may feel sure, for henceforth certain resemblances are quite at the crossing of noticeable in his plans about the crossing. Designs were pro- the Cathedrals duced one after another, but no one met with the approval of all . . Paul’s parties concerned. At last Wren, who well knew that his critics contrasted, were ignorant and worthless upstarts in matters architectural, B A design accepted. Plans of the Cathedrals of Ely and St. Paul about the crossing. Methods of raising funds. Old St. Paul’s cleared away. lO produced a design which, to a cultured eye, is too fearful to be taken seriously; nevertheless, his critics fell into the trap thus skilfully laid. It was universally pronounced excellent, and on the 14th May, 1675, the King granted his Royal Warrant for the execution of this “ very artificial, proper, and useful ” design, with permission to make certain small deviations as considered necessary from time to time. Wren no sooner saw himself thus in authority than. ^ y ¥ V _: 5CAIX or PTET FoR BoTM PLANS with admirable tact, he refused to publicly expose any further drawings or models, and proceeded to i' carry out the work after pr his own bent. Supplies had been gradually accumu¬ lating, and, exclusive of other .sources, the tax imposed upon sea-coal since 1670 had brought in a large sum of money. Every chance to raise funds was seized, and later, in 1678, Bishops on their Consecration, “instead of making great' enter¬ tainments and feasts wherein much money was neces.sarily spent,” were ordered to pay towards the rebuilding of St. Paul’s, and sometimes another ^^50 in lieu of gloves, which were given by the Bishops to all who attended the Consecration dinners. The clearing of the site was no small matter, considering the masses of masonry yet left standing. Various means were resorted to for bringing down the walls, necessitating great expenditure of money and labour, till Wren very skilfully em¬ ployed gunpowder with most satisfactory results. These difficulties would soon have been at an end had he not been forbidden its further use, through a slight accident one day during his absence. His ingenious mind then suggested the battering-ram, and he watched its effect with keen interest. Large quantities of the stone were sold for building purposes and for road paving, and the excavations were proceeded with clear of the old foundations; at the same time the axis of the Cathedral was slightly altered for the better adjustment to the site. Much trouble was experienced at the north-east corner, where some six or seven feet of the walls unexpectedly came over an old pit long before dug out for its pot-earth. It was necessary to sink a shaft and to build up a solid pier of masonry, from which an arch, thrown across to the main foundation, carries the superin¬ cumbent load. Wren met with more than one surprise in the course of his underground work in London; in Cheapside he came across a solid Roman brick road, sufficiently sound for him to erect his famous tower upon. Throughout the early years after the Fire, when so much controversy was going on about St. Paul’s, Wren had his hands full enough with designs of all sorts, sometimes for completely new structures, ecclesiastical, palatial, monumental, and domestic; sometimes for rebuilding and repairs only. It is quite inconsistent to attempt to separate the life of such a man from the labours which played so great a part in it, and it will be well here to glance at a few of his works, confining all critical remarks and technicalities to the section of this Essay devoted to them. Oxford had long been in need of a Theatre for public cere- Plans of Old and New St. Paul’s contrasted. A axis of New; B axis of Old St. Paul’s. Trouble at the north-east corner. Wren occupied with architectural work of every description. The Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. Wren repairs the spires of Salisbury and Chichester C'athedrals. Greenwich Palace remodelled and converted into a Seaman’s Hospital. monies; the “Comitia” and “Encaenia” had been held in St. Mar)'’s Church, and the usual proceedings at such times ill became the sacred walls. By the munificence of a single donor, Archbishop Sheldon, the want was liberally met. Sheldon had many a time met Wren in conference at St. Paul’s, and he willingly entrusted his scheme to the great scientist, though, as yet, inexperienced architect. The building, still known as the Sheldonian Theatre, was ready for a grand opening ceremony on July 9th, 1669, and pleased all concerned, not only for its design, which is said to be based upon that of the Theatre of Marcellus at Rome, but more especially for its construction. The roof, over a span of 70 feet, is accomplished without any intermediate supports, and unquestionably is a masterpiece of scientific con¬ struction. About this time the spire of Salisbury Cathedral was struck by I ightning, and Wren was commissioned to repair it; he had many times to deal with the mediaeval structures of England, and more than once found difficult problems to solve. He was fairly successful at Salisbury, but his treatment of Chichester spire could not save it ultimately from destruction ; he suspended within it from the apex a huge balk of timber to act as a pendulum, and so restore equilibrium under great wind pressure, but it was blown down in 1861. A large number of his more important works cannot be spoken of in strict chronological order, for they were spread over so many years of his life. Greenwich, for instance, was always more or less on hand. Originally a Tudor palace, it was quite transformed by Inigo Jones and Webb, and although very far indeed from completion, was at one time inhabited by Charles, who, early in his reign, placed it in Wren’s hands. He was instrumental, in after years, in its conversion from a Royal Palace to the uses of a Seaman’s Hospital, and, when called upon, he so adjusted his new portions as to conform to the work of his predecessors, and make one harmonious composi¬ tion. The imposing river front, and the glitter of its two Plate II. GREENWICH HOSPITAL FROM THE RIVER, From a Photo, by Messrs. Valentine & Son. j V e. SKETCH PLAN OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL, A QUEEN'S HOUSE BY INIGO JONES. B QUEEN MARY'S BLOCK. D QUEEN ANNE'S BLOCK. C KING 'WILLIAM'S BLOCK. E KING CHARLES' BLOCK. 13 domes, must ever keep in the minds of all who pass on that great highway of commerce the consummate talent and generous benevolence of the man who thus converted it to such good use, and gave those talents absolutely gratuitously for the innate love of doing good. Another riverside institution of not unsimilar purport now, is also closely connected with his name. Chelsea Hospital, originally a Royal College, founded by James I, was afterwards acquired by the Royal Society, but abandoned about 1667; re¬ granted by Charles II, in 1680, for the purposes of a military hospital. Wren took it in hand in 1682, and by the simplest means possible produced a building which has never failed to charm all who ponder awhile to learn the great lesson it teaches so well. The Custom House, the Royal Exchange, and Temple Bar, all now removed, were built shortly after the Fire; nor must the Monument be omitted, which the inhabitants thought fit to erect as a memorial of the great calamity which had befallen % them. It took seven years in all to erect—a long time — but delays must have occurred owing to the difficulty of procuring stones of sufficient size *from Portland. Evelyn contended, with reason, that it would have been most fittingly placed at a point where the Fire ceased, and not, as is the ^ case, where it originated. It was intended, at one time, that a figure of Charles, a “Coloss Statue, in Brass Gilt,” should have crowned the summit, but the emblematical flaming vase found more sympathy with the people. To an astronomer, an erection over 200 feet high must have commended itself; and, certainly, Wren intended that it should have been at the service of the Royal Society, but the oscillation was found to be so great that the idea was abandoned eventually. These must have been the busiest years in the life of one of the most energetic men' who ever lived The organisation necessary to start so many schemes, and to fill a post with such a complexity of details and demands to satisfy, must at times indeed have tried him sorely. Chelsea Hospital. The Custom House, Royal Exchange, and Temple Bar built; all now removed. The Monument. 14 Wren married to P'aith Coghill. Greenwich selected for the site of the Royal Observatory. Wren’s strong inclination to a scientific career, and his lack of training as an architect. A glance at some designs which were never executed. The Royal Mausoleum at Windsor. On December 7th, 1669, he was married to a lady of long- acquaintance, named Faith Coghill, but he was not destined long to enjoy the solace of her society. For awhile she must have shared with him the joys attendant upon his numerous successes and the honours showered upon him in all directions, including that of Knighthood, which was conferred at Whitehall in 1673; but soon after the birth of his first son, Stephen — the compiler of the Parentalia — in 1675, she was taken from him, to his very great bereavement. In that same year, Wren was appointed on a Commission to determine a suitable place for the Royal Observatory. Greenwich had long commended itself to him for such a purpose, and, his suggestion being approved, he forthwith set about the design, working in conjunction with Flamsteed, the great astro¬ nomer. All this while, in spite of his enormous duties as Surv'eyor, he never seems to have abandoned completely his favourite science. Circumstances over which he had little control were combining, and forcing him into another sphere; had the Fire never happened, it is not improbable that he would have devoted his life almost entirely to scientific investigation. The mere fact, however, of his having appeared as architect before that event, points to his having naturally inherited broad sym¬ pathies with the art, but of his own free will he would scarcely have practised it ultimately, to the exclusion of all else. This trait, so strongly marked in his character, linked with the fact that his training—using the word as we know it now, or even to some extent as Inigo Jones knew it—was practically nil, could not fail to evince itself in his work in after years. A few words must be said of some of the long list of designs prepared at large, which were either never completed, or not even commenced at all. Charles II, through his Com¬ mons, ordered that a Mausoleum should be erected at Windsor to the memory of his father, “ The Royal Martyr; ” and on Januaiy 30th, 1678, the sum of £^']o,qoo was voted for the purpose. A design was produced, most magnificent, according 15 to all accounts, circular, with a dome, after the fashion of the Temple of Vesta, and most ornate both within and without. It met with the King’s approval, but nothing had been done at the time of his death, in 1685, when other matters pressed forward, and nothing more was ever heard of it. Another undertaking, commenced under favourable auspices about the year 1683 also fell through, Charles had taken a great fancy to the glorious old city of Winchester, not only for its own sake, but for other considerations which possibly appealed more forcibly to him. Situated in the midst of peaceful, rural scenery, surrounded on all sides by undulating stretches of mossy down, and yet within easy reach of the New Forest, it seemed to him to be an ideal centre for a hunting resort. Wren pro¬ duced a design for a large country seat, to be perched on the higher ground overlooking the city, and in an immediate line with the axis of the Cathedral. This was to have been made a special feature of, and the avenue of tall elm trees, which gives the cathedral so great a charm at present, would have given way to a still longer and statelier one. The works were pushed on, and the main wdng was roofed in, within two years, when a sudden check was given by the death of the King, and none but tentative efforts were ever made afterwards to complete it. It has long been used as a barrack, but little has survived a destructive fire which wrought great havoc quite recently. Whitehall must have been full of gloomy recollections, and after the experiences of Inigo Jones, can scarcely have had a favourable prestige for an architectural successor. Wren may never have looked for great things there ; certain it is that his designs for the completion, produced about 1697, shared no better fate. That the talents of such men should have been so recklessly imposed upon is no credit to the times in which they lived. In the case of the first, it is little short of a national disaster that his life should have been so frittered away; in the case of the second, it is true that, with such a glorious list of completed works, the omissions are not of so Charles II commences a Palace at Winchester. Designs of Inigo Jones and Wren for Whitehall Palace. W ren’s stipend for the whole of the city work. W^-en loses his second wife. St. Paul’s in progress. James 11 , 1685- 1689. 16 great moment, but it points to a tendency so fully developed in our own day, to think lightly of, and to treat with actual indifference, the claims of the architect for support and consideration. The year before King Charles died, still another public appointment was conferred upon \\Ten. Already Surveyor- General, in succession to Sir John Denham, he was now made Comptroller of the Works, a post which required much attention, and which brought with it many harassing little disputes and the handsome remuneration of 2s. 6d. per annum. His stipend for the rebuilding of St. Paul’s and the whole of the city churches had already been fixed at £,2.00 per annum—a mere pittance really—conclusively shewing that he worked with the highest possible motives with which a man can work, for the ennoblement of his art and the welfare of his country, and not just for the sake of his own advancement and the glitter of his name. In the meanwhile he had suffered another loss in the death of his second wife, Jane Fitzwilliam, in 1679, after a married life of only two years. Although in Charles, Wren certainly lost a good and tolerant patron, he was so handicapped, and under such strict supervision that, at any rate, as regards St. Paul’s, his decease must have come as rather a relief. Undoubtedly, he had quite exceeded the limits of the license granted him to depart from the approved design in small matters, but the work was not far enough advanced for any but a practised eye to detect the deviations, and nothing seems to have been remarked during the progress of the works. James II was careless of such things, and Wren was now free to follow out his own conceptions so long as the demands upon the exchequer were not excessive. The short reign of James passed away without leaving any monu¬ mental works to record his name. Restorations and rebuildings were going on all around him, and he issued a new commission for the continuation of the work at St. Paul’s, but little heed did he pay, and, at least, cannot be blamed for interference. Plate 111. THE WESTERN TOWERS OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By permission of '^Architecture." 17 On the other hand, one of the first acts of William and Mary, on their accesssion, was to commission Wren to make extensive alterations and additions to Wolsey’s Palace, at Hampton Court, in order to fit it for a royal residence. The delightful red brick and stone wing, facing the Home Park, and enclosing the Fountain Court, erected from his designs between 1689 and 1694, is deservedly well known, and has met with better treat¬ ment than Kensington Palace, built by the same sovereign, about the same time. After being released, as it would seem, from the ties im¬ posed upon him whilst holding the Presidency of the Royal Society, Wren appeared as a Member of Parliament; firstly, for a borough in Devonshire, and, later, in 1689, he sat in the Convention Parliament, which ratified the ascendancy of William and Mary, as a representative of the borough of New Windsor. Nowhere is any mention made of his political opinions, but, considering the influence of his father, who was a staunch Royalist, and the school in which he was brought up, we may safely conclude that he too was a strong supporter of the crown. Many a tower was ere this to be seen above the long dull rows of bricks and mortar which everywhere lined the city thoroughfares. St. Mary-le-bow, the queen of them all, was finished, and the graceful little St. Martin’s, on Ludgate Hill, was already waiting for the great giant whose strength it was intended to emphasise by inviting comparison with its own subtle forms— a service fully reciprocated in due course. St. Paul’s had been steadily progressing under the immediate supervision of the Master Builder, but records are scarce, and only a glimpse of his doings there is aflbrded from time- to time. The coal tax, which was in force till 1700, still largely helped to defray the enormous expenses which, up to 1684 alone, had amounted to close on 100,000. In 1686 the old west end was entirely cleared away, and two years later the new choir was ready for roofing. An excellent opportunity for throwing this portion open, when quite completed, was afforded by the day of Thanksgiving, William and Mary, 1689- 1702. Hampton Court and Kensington Palaces. Wren as a Member of Parliament. The choir of St. Paul’s opened. C i8 The city fast reappearing. The dome of St. Paul’s. Queen Anne, 1702-1714. The Act for fifty new churches. December 2nd, 1697, appointed to commemorate the Treaty of Ryswick. Two years more were spent in steady labour, during which the finishing touches must have been put to many of Wren’s works. Productions of his own mind must have encountered his eye at every turn within the city walls, gladdening his heart, no doubt, but ever kindling bitter reflections at the recollection of the opportunities which had been denied him—of an ideal becoming, day by day, more and more remote from realization. Then the Morning Chapel, which is said to have caused him so much grief, was opened, and for a long time nothing is hinted at beyond the interest which was fast kindling, and the speculations which were becoming rife, as to the effect of the great dome now towering aloft, which was to excite the envy of the world for generations, in spite of ruthless criticism. How should it be covered externally was soon the question, with copper or with lead ? Wren seems to have inclined to the latter, but there was much argument on the subject in 1708; it was probably on the score of expense that finally lead was decided upon, at a cost of ;^2,500, or some six hundred pounds less than it would have cost to execute in copper. We have no cause for regret; the beautiful silvery hue of this material lending itself more readily to the London atmosphere than the uncertain effect of copper under similar conditions. Another change of sovereign had meanwhile taken place, and Queen Anne’s reign was destined to give much encouragement to the art of architecture. “ The Act for fifty new churches ” was passed in 1708, and Wren was placed upon the Commission to superintend their erection. Apart from the fact that so many years of hard, and, latterly, of unappreciated labour, were fast telling upon his physical strength, he could hardly, in his official capacity, have been eligible to carry out any himself. Accord¬ ingly, he addressed a lengthy epistle to certain of his brother architects, in which he endeavoured to give them such advice 19 with regard to church planning and arrangement as his excep¬ tional experience enabled him to do with all discretion. Westminster Abbey was, at this period, in his care; he would have done much there, and a design for a central spire, twelve sided, in “ a truly Gothick fashion,” was produced. He remodelled the North Transept Front, since pulled down, and, from his designs and models, the Western Towers were, for the most part, brought to their present state, but he was not directly responsible for them. Living now in comparative retirement at Hampton Court, which he loved for its quiet peaceful situation beside the glistening Thames, he paid frequent visits to this saintly pile as well as to the new-born Cathedral. The busy throng of workers there at last showed some sign of cessation in their labours : the din and clamour gradually melted away, leaving the mighty structure, in all its fulness of repose and strength, most forcibly shadowing forth the approaching end of its Master Builder, whose long life of turmoil and strife awaited now its consummation at the hand of Death. But both were yet to be maltreated and harassed—the victims of a ruthless and ignorant monarchy. There was nothing now in which the narrow-minded Commissioners did not endeavour to thwart him. Firstly, they insisted that the poor, mean, iron rail ” of the architect should be supplanted by a heavy cast iron one, which suffi¬ ciently obscured the structure to mate¬ rially affect its pro- Wren and Westminster Abbey. Wren retires to Hampton Court. Troubles at St. Paul’s. Plan shewing the precincts of the Cathedral as originally designed. portions. This altercation took place about 1711, or shortly after the last stone of the lantern crowning the cupola had been laid by his son Stephen, and Strong, his master mason, in his own presence. Then arose a quarrel about the balustrade: Wren never Altercation about the balustrade. 20 Wren’s salary in arrears. George I, 1714 - 1727. Wren dismissed from office. intended that there should have been more than a blocking- course, and he protested most strongly, declaring that such a feature would be contrary to the principles of Architecture, as he under¬ stood them. He admitted that something of the kind was admissible in Gothic work, and “ ladies think nothing well without an edging.” On the whole, it is difficult to see the force of his argument. This was in 1717, and the treatment which was now accorded him was equalled only in any measure by the gross insult and injustice preferred him a few years previously with regard to his stipend. As far back as 1697, a clause had been inserted in the “Act for the completion and adornment of St. Paul’s,” “ to suspend a moiety of the Surveyor’s salary until the said church should be finished,” as the opinion was be¬ coming general that Wren was prolonging the work for the sake of his paltry ;^200 a year. He protested again and again, in vain, that the delay was no fault of his, if, indeed, there can have been much delay at all. He petitioned the Queen later, for his salary was getting much in arrears, and he was paid in full by Royal Order on Christmas Day, 1711, and the building was declared finished so far as he was concerned. It is almost incredible that such insults should have been showered upon him at the crowning point of his life. He had lived to serve five Sovereigns, and had passed through the troublesome years of the Commonwealth with still no stain upon his honour, when the climax was reached in his dismissal from office. It must have come as a great relief to him, nevertheless, when on April 14th, 1718, King George, to his everlasting shame, was induced to supersede his Patent in order to confer it upon a mere court favourite in the person of Benson. It is worthy of note that Wren, who was preceded in his appoint¬ ment by a poet, was also succeeded by a poet, although one of very minor calibre, and one who lived to reap just retribution for his ill-adjudged pretensions to architectural skill. Wren, now free from taunts, rose high above his ignoble persecutors, and his calm and dignified demeanour show us all 21 the more plainly what a truly noble character, what an ideal citizen, London had driven from her midst. ''Nunc me jubet for tuna expeditius philosophari" were the words which escaped his lips, and the good old man, full of righteousness and honour, betook him to his meditations from things of this earth. Earthy, to things of heaven, Heavenly,—in a few short years to pass away, and to be laid within the walls of the one temple which had cost him so much—his very life soul’s work. He died at his house in St. James’s, on February 27th, 1723, in the ninety-first year of his age, when on one of his periodical visits to London. “ Thin and low of stature ” is a sufficiently full description of his personal appearance. We can imagine what force of character must have emphasised his every gesture; what purity of thought must have stamped his every word ; well has it been said “His knowledge had a right influence on the Temper of his Mind, which had all the Humility, graceful Modesty, Goodness, Calmness, Strength, and Sincerity of a sound and unaffected Philosopher.” His retirement. Wren dies at St. James’s. His personal appearance and character. “ Heroic Souls a nobler Lustre find, Even from those Griefs which break a vulgar Mind ; That Frost which cracks the brittle common Glass, Makes Crystal into stronger Brightness pass.” 22 THE EXECUTED WORKS, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, OF SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN, 1632-1723. When two dates are given for any one work, they define the approximate period occupied in the erection of the same. Those works printed with an asterisk against them have since been destroyed or removed from various causes. ■ - ■ Pembroke Hall Chapel, Cambridge. Since Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford Trinity College Chapel, Oxford . Trinity College, Cambridge, Library . *The Royal Exchange ..... ‘The Custom House . . . . Emmanuel College Chapel, Cambridge *Temple Bar. Removed 1878 The Monument ...... *St. Christopher-le-Stocks. Rebuilt 1696; St. Mary-le Bow, Cheapside. Steeple 1680 St. Mary-at-Hill ...... St. Michael, Cornhill. Tower 1721 . St. Stephen, Walbrook. Tower 1681 *St. Benet Eink, Threadneedle Street *St. Olave, Jewry ...... *St. Dionis Backchurch, Lime Street St. George, Botolph Lane .... "'Drury Lane Theatre ..... enlarged 1663 1664- 1669 1665- 1692 1665-1679 . 1668 . 1668 1669- 1677 1670- 1672 1671- 1677 Repaired 1671 . 1671-1673 . 1672-1677 . 1672 . 1672-1679 1673-1676 1673-1676 1674 & 1684 . 1674-1677 • 1674 23 Greenwich Observatory .... St. Paul’s Cathedral. St. Michael, Wood Street .... St. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge. Steeple *St. Mildred, Poultry ..... St. Stephen, Coleman Street St. Lawrence, Jewry ..... St. James, Garlick Hithe .... St. Nicholas, Cole Abbey, Queenhythe *St. Michael, Queenhythe .... St. Mary, Aldermanbury .... St. Mary Woolnoth, Lombard Street. Repaired St. Swithin, Cannon Street St. Michael, Bassishaw, Basinghall Street *St. Bartholomew-by-the-Exchange St. Anne and St. Agnes, Aldersgate St. Bride, Fleet Street .... St. Clement Danes, Strand. Steeple 1719, by Ashmolean Museum, Oxford Christ Church, Campanile, Oxford *A 11 Hallows, Bread Street .... St. Peter, Cornhill . . *St. Antholin, Watling Street St. Mary, Aldermary. Roof 1705 ; Tower rebuilt Chelsea Royal Hospital .... Winchester Palace. Never completed St. James, Piccadilly. Tower later . St. Mildred, Bread Street .... St. Augustine and St. Faith, Watling St. Tower St. Clement, Eastcheap .... *A 11 Hallows-the-Great, Upper Thames Street Queen’s College Chapel, Oxford St. Benet, Paul’s Wharf .... Middle Temple Gateway, Fleet Street The Great Schoolroom, Winchester College 1675 1675- 1710 1675 1705 1676 1676- 1677 1676 1677 1677 & 1683 1677 1677 1677 1677 1678-1679 1678- 1679 1679 1679- 1680 1680 & 1700 Gibbs 1680-1682 1681-1683 1681-1682 1681-1684 1681- 1682 1682 1711 1682 1682- 1692 1683- 1685 1683 1683 1695 1683 1683-1686 1683 1683 1683- 1684 1684- 1688 1684 24 Fawley Court, Oxfordshire ...... 1684 St. Martin, Ludgate Hill ...... 1684-1685 St. Alban, Wood Street. Repaired .... 1685 *St. Mary Magdalen, Knightrider Street . . . 1685 ‘St. Benet, Gracechurch Street ..... 1685 ‘St. Matthew, Friday Street ..... 1685 St. Mary Abchurch, Abchurch Lane . . . 1686 Christ Church, Newgate Street. Steeple 1704 . . 1687 St. Margaret Pattens, Rood Lane .... 1687 St. Andrew, Holborn. Tower refaced 1704 . . 1687 ‘St. Michael, Crooked Lane ..... 1688 Windsor Town Hall ....... 1688 ‘Library for Arch. Tenison, St. Martin’s Lane . 1688 ‘College of Physicians, Warwick Lane . . . 1689 St. Edmund-the-King, Lombard Street . . . 1689-1690 Hampton Court Palace. Additions .... 1689-1694 St. Margaret, Lothbury ...... 1690 Kensington Palace, Banqueting Hall and Alcove . 1690-1706 ‘The Mint in the Tower ...... 1691 St. Andrew Wardrobe ...... 1692 All Hallows, Lombard Street ..... 1693 St. Michael Royal, College Hill .... 1694 St. Mary, Warwick. Tower only .... 1695 St. Vedast, Foster Lane ...... 1695 ‘St. Mary, Somerset. Tower remains . . . 1695 Greenwich Hospital ....... 1696-1705 Marlborough House ....... 1698 ‘North Transept Front, Westminster Abbey . . 1698-1722 St. Dunstan-in-the-East. Tower only . . . 1698-1699 All Saints, Isleworth ....... 1701-1705 See., Sec., Sec. 25 MISCELLANEOUS WORKS, MOSTLY UNDATED. Greenwich Palace for Charles II. Additions . . 1663 Ely Cathedral and Palace. Repairs .... 1663 Tower of London, additions, including ‘Store House Tomb of the Princes, Henry VII Chapel, Westminster 1674 Lincoln Cathedral, Library in Cloister . . . 1674 Monument to Charles I at Charing Cross. Restored with new Pedestal ...... 1678 •Hunting Seat for Charles II at Newmarket. The Deanery and Chapter House, St. Paul’s . . 1684 ‘Chichester Cathedral. Repairs to Spire . . . 1684 Salisbury Cathedral. Repairs to Spire. Lichfield Cathedral. Repairs to Spire. *A Marble Altarpiece for Whitehall. Dartmouth Chapel, Blackheath ..... 1695-1702 Morden College, Blackheath. Bohun’s Almshouses, Lee. Merchant Taylors’ Almshouses. Trinity Almshouses. *Sion College, London. ‘The Admiralty, Whitehall. Interiors remain. Windsor Castle. Alterations, &c.1698 Windsor. The Court House and one other house. ♦The Duke’s Theatre, Salisbury Court. Halls of the City Companies. Numerous, but much altered since. House for Duke of Buckingham. St. James’. Do. Lord Oxford. St. James’. Do. Duke of Newcastle at Clumber. Do. Lord Allaston, and another for Lord Sunderland. D 26 House for Madam Cooper, St. James’. Nos. 35 and 36 Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Doric Court, Council Chamber, etc., St. James’ Palace. *Easton Neston for Earl Pomfret. Wings only. Chatsworth. Additions. 'Royal Mews, Charing Cross. ^Barrack in Hyde Park. New Road from Hyde Park Corner to Kensington. &c., &:c., &:c. DESIGNS NEVER EXECUTED, SURVEYS, TREATISES, ETC. Designs for the Restoration of St. Paul’s, with Cupola, before the Fire. Designs for the Rebuilding of the City of London after the Fire. Designs for Royal Mausoleum at Windsor . . . 1678 Do. Theatre and Library at Trinity College, Cambridge ......... 1678 Designs for Winchester Palace. Part only executed. Do. St. Mary, Warwick. Tower only executed . 1694 Do. Whitehall Palace ...... 1697 Do Western Towers and Central Spire to West¬ minster Abbey. Designs for Baldacchino, etc., St. Paul’s. Survey of Salisbury Cathedral ...... 1669 Do. Audley End ....... 1695 Do. Westminster Abbey. Treatises on scientific research, very numerous. Do. Architecture (incomplete) published in The Parentalia. &c., &c., &c. 27 N all ages, the Art and the Literature, the highest expressions of feeling and thought of a People, have been the outcome of the con¬ ditions imposed upon them by the times in which they lived. Inseparably interwoven as they are, a most sure index of the mental activity of an age is afforded by their several productions: any intellectual advance being simultaneously recorded in each. The great awakening in the minds of men The to their high estate—to the divinity of man it may almost be Renaissance of . _ Art the result said—which was an inevitable result of the Revival of Letters of the Revival in the xvth and xvith centuries, could not fail to create a mode of Letters. of expression commensurate to some degree in both arts : one, at least, more amenable to the strivings after a newly conceived human ideal, since the once powerful but now feeble efforts after a divine ideal no longer sufficed. The works of the Ancients afforded the only nucleus about which to generate the new movement, and forthwith attention was almost exclusively centred upon them. The freer forms and aspiring spirit, however, of the indi¬ genous art of our land, which, unrestricted, had progressed for so many centuries to an unknown standard of perfection — untrammeled by any save nature’s laws—had become so firmly characteristics rooted in men’s minds that strong influence was sure to be yet °f Early {^6n^lSS£LFlC0 felt. Works, Gothic in spirit and Classic in detail, necessarily 28 Inigo Jones visits Italy a second time to study architecture. Sir Christopher Wren the direct successor of Inigo Jones. Wren’s work as influenced by the times. followed, full of vigour it is true—as works of a transitional period always must be—but sadly lacking the purity of taste and refinement of expression which constitute the wealth of a fully developed artistic growth. Such was the state of architecture in England when Inigo Jones turned his attention to other things than scene painting. Working at first on the lines of his contemporaries, his early works render him one of the latter Elizabethan architects; but, in after years, realising the debaseness of his art, he set himself to raise it from the mire into which it had fallen, and to free himself from being the slave to half lost traditions. With this end in view, he visited Italy a second time, in i6i6, and sedulously studied her ancient architecture, his copy of Palladio ever by his side. Thus he laid in a stock of knowledge which was to produce a bountiful harvest in England—albeit he was not to know—for someone else to reap. It was as a prime mover in the introduction of Palladian modes of design, which characterized the true Renaissance in England, that the influence of Inigo Jones was most felt. Sir Christopher Wren did not willingly acknowledge his obligations, but he must be considered as the direct successor of Inigo Jones, not only in the school of design founded by him, but also in the methods in which that school worked: methods very far removed from those of the mediaeval craftsmen who took part in the actual execution of their designs. By Wren’s time they were so far remodelled that we may consider that he worked under conditions analogous to those with which we are acquainted to-day. Individualism was henceforth to be deeply associated with art, and it was a very potent factor in the work of Wren. Profiting by a study, as complete as it was possible for him to make it, of all that had gone before, he nevertheless stamped everything with his own genius, and left it essentially English. The use of scale drawings and models, firmly established by his time, indispensable to him, and already the race of men who was Plate IV IHE GRE-AT" ScHcx)LI\ooM. Wnchestee- BYVvf^.1684. Sket'ch Puan. The mat'erial^ ARE RED BRICK AND STDNE. "Be main roof is COVERED wnn RED TILES: PEDIMENTS WITH EEAD. Internal paneiung OF OAK. Arthur Stratton Delt. 1896. JAkermau.Pljoto-litii. London.. 29 contract to carry out other men’s designs entirely from such drawings and models had sprung up. The knowledge of classic forms was fast increasing, but Wren practically had no traditions to work upon. He found plenty of mechanical labour at his command, but workers in the arts accessory to architecture had often to be sought out diligently. It was easy to build a wall, but to clothe it was often a serious matter. Accordingly, except when special facilities offered, Wren gave up the attempt, and, borrowing still from the ancients, fell back upon proportion, and beauty of line, and balance of mass, as a means to a no less noble Proportion the end. His mathematical skill told him that such properties must ^ ^ design. be at the root of all good design: by making everything sub¬ servient to them, he produced designs which were readily executed from drawings by the ordinary artisan of the time, but which, nevertheless, must always rank high as works of art. When he came across such men as Grinling Gibbons and Tijoue, we have ample proof that he gave them every scope for the unfettered play of their genius; but it is all characteristic of his work that, although its value was greatly enhanced by their decorative treatment, yet, had their enrichments never been applied the Enrichments architecture would still have remained intact, and still would indispensable. remain intact were they swept away. Wren, of all men, best realised that an architect should ever strive after an ideal, but that it is most expected of him that he should achieve the possible. His genius owed much to his irrepressible faculty of The genius of • Wren painstaking; he never spared thought, but lavished it as freely upon the smallest undertaking as upon the most pretentious. Art, in fact, to him was a reality: he deduced the beautiful by a system of logical reasoning.. The inspirations which had produced, and the sentiments which pervaded the art of the religious enthusiasts of the middle ages, could only be seen by him through a deep mist which nothing but an innate reverence for the works of the past helped him to pierce. His constant reliance upon his scientific knowledge has some¬ times been considered to be sufficient ground for accusing him of 30 Wren essentially an Architect. His architectural career beset with obstacles. (Irinling Gibbons and Cibber. The principles t)f design as set forth in the Parentalia. being an Engineer rather than an Architect: such an accusation, unquestionably, only reflects upon the minds of his accusers, who could in no way distinguish between mere construction and construction beautified. If, sometimes, his architecture falls below a certain standard usually associated with his name, it should only be a wholesome reminder to us that he, too, was human. In the non-acceptance of his scheme for the laying-out of London after the fire, as well as in the countless obstacles placed in his way throughout his architectural career, we see plainly that he worked for the most part under very great difficulties: in no way dissimilar from those which beset the path of the more modern practitioner: a fact too often discredited. Me was particularly fortunate, however, in having such trusty and capable workmen under him as Strong, his master-mason, and Jennings, his master-carpenter; whilst in Grinling Gibbons and Cibber he had with him always the two most skilful sculptors of the day. They were both foreigners, the one a Dutchman and the other a Dane, but so great was their influence that they created quite a school of carving amongst Englishmen, still noted for its fanciful and luxuriant design and marvellous execution. The principles which everywhere underlie the designs of Sir Christopher ^Vren are distinctly laid down in his few archi¬ tectural treatises which remain to us. They resolve themselves into a few golden rules, safe for all time. “ There are two causes of beauty,’’ he says, “ natural and customary. Natural is from geometry, consisting in uniformity and proportion. Customary beauty is begotten by the use of our senses to those objects which are usually pleasing to us for other cau.ses, as familiarity or particular inclination breeds a love to things not in themselves lovely. . . . Geometrical figures are naturally more beautiful than other irregular. . . . The square and the circle are most beautiful, next, the parallelogram and the oval.” These few aphorisms, chosen at random from the Faren- rv ic Plate V. ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL FROM S.W., SHOWING THE DOME AND THE WESTERN CAMPANILE From a Photo, by Messrs. Valentine & Son. ojf □(l 1 □1 P B SECTION AND ELEVATION OF THE DOME OF ST. PAUL’S. 31 talia, suffice to give some idea of the basis of his architectural creed. He attached very great importance indeed to the study The study and and application of perspective. To quote again; '‘An architect ^ 1 o Perspective. ought, above all things, to be well skilled in perspective. . . . The Romans guided themselves by perspective in all their fabrics, and why should not perspective lead us back again to what was Roman ? ” Words of deep significance, coming, as they do, from one who was essentially of a post-Roman type. His own work evinces abundant proof that when he designed in plan and elevation, the perspective representation was always uppermost in his mind’s eye. This is quite apparent in the corrections made for foreshortening, and for the loss of height resulting from the use of projecting members when they occur considerably above the level of the eye. It was, however, above all in the reliance upon orderly horizontal repetition that he realised the inevitable laws of Perspective, and turned them to his own use with such marked success. We see this again and again, but perhaps nowhere so pronouncedly as in the Fountain Court at Hampton Court, where a simple composition assumes a constantly-varying and ever-satisfying series of forms, graduated and tempered by Nature’s own peculiar laws. So much has been said, and so much has been written, from time to time, about the group of churches and about the Cathedral of S. Paul to which they one and all owe deep st. Paul’s and relationship that, in a general Essay, such as this purposes to churches. be, space will not allow of more than a few critical remarks, ■ and a few heartfelt words of admiration. In considering, firstly, the construction of S. Paul’s, we must uphold the rational though much maligned treatment of the central dome. Wren boldly accepted the fact that the same The domical covering could not be made of pleasing proportions both internally and externally, and solved the problem before st. Paul’s, him with great common-sense and consummate skill. Whatever scruples may exist in the minds of many as to whether de- 32 A comparison often enforced between the Dome of the Ijaptistery, Pisa, and S. Paul’s Dome, Section through the Nave of S. Paul’s. The aisle walls as screens. ception is practised by the triple arrangement or no, all must agree that the result is one of the most perfect domes, at least externally, ever erected. For his own part, Wren contended that a lead-covered roof over a dome was no more deceptive than an outer roof over a vaulted nave, and, apart from sen¬ timent, he felt justified in resorting to such a method of gaining increase of height and bulk, which the people clamoured loudly for, seeing that they had been long used to the lofty towers and spires of the mediaeval cathedrals. The actual construction of the inner dome of brick, of the cone, also of brick, which carries the stone lantern, and of the external dome built up around the cone, of carpentry, is too well known to require full description here, and their relative positions and shapes are shown by the section on Plate V. It is not unusual to quote the Baptistery at Pisa as a precedent for, or, at any rate, as having suggested, the idea for this arrangement. Considering that Wren never visited Pisa, and that in all probability he was c]uite ignorant of the construction of this particular building—for the facilities for the study of buildings in other lands then must not be confounded with those of the present day—it seems to detract from the credit due to him for having mastered the situation without extraneous aid, which is by no means incompatible with evidence deduced from the solution of many other equally difficult problems ; and, surely, there is little need to go such length to vindicate what, after all, is no more than a perfectly sound and legitimate expedient! The flanking walls of the nave are possibly open to certain objections, for, on reference to the above section, it is plain that they are little more than huge screens to conceal from below the 33 clerestory windows, the flying buttresses which support the main vault, and the roof-covering over it, but it must not be ignored that by their weight they serve to counteract the outward thrust of the flying buttresses. We must remember, moreover, that it was part of Wren’s teaching, that in buildings other than those of a “private” nature, “ no roof can have dignity enough to appear above the cornice but the circu¬ lar,” i.e., spherical; and most certainly his design required the solidity aflbrded by the extra mass and severity of line so easily obtained. The use of the double order was necessitated by very practical considera¬ tions : stones could not have been ob¬ tained from Portland, or from any other suitable quarry in England, of sufficient size to carry out the portico and other portions in due proportions had one giant order been adopted. Such objections as these only tend to strengthen the claims which the building has to greatness. The two faults which might have been most easily remedied originally are the most E The ground plan of St. Paul’s. The double order adopted for practical considerations. 34 The western chapels. The oblique sides of the octagon not satisfactory. Mosaic decoration always intended. The organ often moved. The one chance of erecting a typical Protestant Cathedral lost. flagrant. The Western chapels may have been forced upon Wren, as is so often stated, but without doubt they give to the plan of the cathedral a proportion and beauty of form which it would have much lacked without them. The plan of Lincoln Cathedral affords a similar instance. They also were the means of procuring the grand treatment internally, in the shape of the narthex or vestibule, which so adds to the im¬ pressiveness of the principal entrance. Externally only are they to be regretted, because their outer walls are in the same plane as those of the campanili ; had they been recessed ever so slightly, the vertical lines of the campanili would have been unimpeded, and much more interest would have been imparted to that portion of the structure, as seen in perspective. The one eyesore, however, will be found in the treatment of the oblique sides of the octagon carrying the dome: it is hard to imagine how WTen could have perpetrated such a medley, but one instinctively shrinks from too freely criticising such a master¬ piece, and it must be looked upon rather as a freak of design than as a deliberate blunder when, in the “ Kensington ” Model, we see a similar difficulty so skilfully overcome. Mosaic was advocated from the first for the decoration of the dome and roofs throughout, but the privilege of fulfilling Wren’s desires has been left to our own day, and slowly, but adequately, is it being done. The organ, too, after more than one move, now' stands in the position probably originally allotted to it. It stood for years upon a screen at the entrance to the choir, after the manner of the mediaeval cathedrals, but the screen, and the columns supporting it beneath in the crypt, are clearly an insertion not provided for from the first. The columns still remain in the crypt, in situ, but the organ, with its screen, was removed in i860. In St. Paul’s, through no fault of Wren’s, the one chance of erecting a typical Protestant cathedral was thrown away. He planned to meet the requirements of the day, which necessitated that a church should be as much a place for preaching in as Plate VI 35 anything else. In 1603, James I was asked, in the Millenary Petition, that none should be allowed ordination unless tho¬ roughly competent to preach, and enough of the Puritan spirit yet remained to exert considerable influence. The churches which had been destroyed by the Fire were, of one accord, of the mediaeval type, adapted to a certain ritual, and when the necessity arose for rebuilding them under the new dispensation, curious anomalies arose. The demand for broad processional aisles and unlimited altar accommodation no longer existed; it had given way to spacious central area and galleried aisles, primarily for the gathering of large congregations. In many instances, for practical reasons. Wren thought fit to build upon these old foundations, and, sometimes, to incorporate portions of the old walls, which then dictated the plan minutely. For the most part, the sites allotted to the new churches were of very irregular shapes, and many problems, which were ingeniously solved, were presented to Wren, for he always set himself to bring every foot within the rc^ofing area. These were the main influences to govern the type qf plan, and it is very instructive to notice the variety which he evolved : considering that they are a group of buildings erected by one man for one object, they are quite unique in this respect. He never lost sight of the requirements of the “ preaching-house,” with its large central space; and, when at liberty to make a choice, he adopted either the stunted Basilican plan, which is arranged along a central axis, or the Byzantine plan, which is arranged about a central point. It is quite impossible to draw hard and fast lines between certain types, but forty-one may be considered to belong to the first-mentioned class, whilst nine belong to the latter. These may be subdivided, as is shown in the annexed classification; and examples, drawn to the same scale, may be studied on Plate VI. The plans of the City churches. The “ Preaching House.” 36 WREN’S CITY CHURCHES GROUPED ACCORDING TO THE ARRANGEMENT OF PLAN. The names of the Churches in each group are arranged in the order in which they were commenced. Churches repaired only, after the Fire, are omitted. Those printed with an asterisk against them have since been removed or destroyed from various causes. s. denotes Stone Steeple or Lantern. L. ,, Lead Spire or Lantern. T. ,, Tower Central Area Plan DOMED. s. St. Stephen, Walbrook. *T. St. Benet Fink, Thread- needle Street. L. St. Swithin, Cannon Street. *s. St. Antholin,Watling Street. L. St. Mildred, Bread Street, L. St. Mary Abchurch, Ab- church Lane. Greek Cross Plan. INTERSECTING BARREL VAULTS. T. St. Mary-at-Hill. L. St. Anne and St. Agnes, Aldersgate. L. St. Martin, Ludgate Hill. only. ■®-'--—‘ Simple Apartment. No Aisles. VAULTED OR CEILED THROUGHOUT. I I *T. St. Olave, Jewry. L. St. Michael, Wood Street. *T. St. Mildred, Poultry, i s. St. Stephen, Coleman Street. I L. St. Nicholas, Cole Abbey. I *T. St. Michael, Queenhythe. : »T. All Hallows, Bread Street. ! *s. St. Mary Magdalen, Knight- rider Street. *L. St. Benet, Gracechurch St. *T. St. Matthew, Friday Street. I L. St. Edmund-the-King, Lom- ! bard Street. T. All Hallows, Lombard St. I s. St. Michael, College Hill, i *T. St. Mary, Somerset. 37 Basilican or Axial Plan, WITH Side Aisles. VAULTED OR CEILED THROUGHOUT. *T. St. Christopher-le-Stocks. s St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside. T. St. Michael, Cornhill. *T. St. Dionis, Backchurch. s. St. George, Botolph Lane. L. St. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge, s. St. James, Garlick Hithe. L. St. Mary, Aldermanbury. L. .St. Michael, Bassishaw. *T. St. Bartholomew, Exchange, s. St. Bride, Fleet Street. St. Clement Danes, Strand (Apsidal). L. St. Peter, Cornhill. T. St. Mary, Aldermary. L. St. James, Piccadilly. L. St. Austin and St. Faith, Watling Street, s. Christ Church, Newgate Street. T. St. Andrew, Plolborn. T. St. Andrew, Wardrobe. Basilican or Axial Plan, ONE Aisle only. VAULTED OR CEILED THROUGHOUT. L. St. Lawrence, Jewry. T. St. Clement, Eastcheap. *T. All Hallows-the-Great, Upper Thames Street. L. St. Benet, Paul’s Wharf. L. St. Margaret Pattens, Rood Lane. *L. St. Michael. Crooked Lane. L. St. Margaret, Lothbury. s. St. Vedast, Foster Lane. The mode of roofing grew out of the necessities of each case, and it is in the manipulation of domes and vaults that the The one charm of the interiors is often to be found. The fact of domes and their being entirely of wood and plaster in several instances vaults always must not, in fairness to Wren, detract from their merits. It successful, was through no fault of his that a more noble construction was not employed. The body of the church is often uninteresting, and the impression conveyed is far from elevating ; but the exquisite handling of the fittings, and the delicate carving which bedecks them, go far towards relieving the depressing monotony. To quote a recent writer,* “The churches were what is called ‘ugly,’ i.e., they were built by Wren or by imitators of his style. The * Sir W. Besant. 38 St. Stephen, Walbrook, a masterpiece. The living charms of the City churches to be found in the Towers and Spires. people sat in pews, each family to itself. All the churches had galleries, and the ser\dce was conducted from a three-decker.” These remarks, which apply fitly enough to many of the pewed and galleried basilican churches, are altogether out of place with regard to those designed on the central area principle, or those in which the dome, or some modification of it, is the dominant note. It is impossible to describe in words the charms of St. Stephen, Walbrook, for instance. By simple means, an un¬ rivalled variety of perspective and beauty of proportion is obtained—a work which alone would have established its de¬ signer for all time. Canova said that if ever he revisited England, it would be to see St. Paul’s, Somerset House, and St. Stephen, Walbrook. The system, so successful here, and carried to such great length at St. Paul’s, of carrying a dome on eight pendentives, is also found at St. Mary Abchurch and St. Swithin, Cannon Street; but whenever the necessities of the case demanded any other figure than the octagon. Wren freely evolved it. St. Benet Fink, and St. Antholin, Watling Street, once stood as admirable examples of geometrical skill applied to architectural design. It is, without doubt, in the towers, with their great variety of superstructures, that the living charm of the City churches mainly lies. Owing to the irregular, crooked streets, and the chaos of brick walls everywhere lining them. Wren knew that in the majority of cases it would be simply throwing work away to lavish detail upon the lower portions of his designs, and he accord¬ ingly concentrated his whole attention upon the upper stages of the towers, and often surmounted them with elegant lanterns, or spires of wood or stone. He felt that the one opportunity left him of imparting individual interest, and, at the same time, of redeeming the city from the commonplace, was here. It was a stupendous opportunity, and, putting forth his whole strength, he made them burst into every exuberance of design, characteristic, to a remarkable degree, of the versatility of his own genius. Before his time, the highest development of the tower in Plate VII. 39 England was a square, surmounted by a spire, tapering to a point, and broken only by dormers and crockets. The much- felt awkwardness at the junction of the two forms was masked by the introduction of pinnacles of all sorts. The Ancients, content with the tremendous grandeur of the horizontal line, had never striven skyward. Wren, in spite of his strong classic predilections, could never free himself from the secret workings of the Gothic art of his native land within him. Seizing upon the perfections, and avoiding the defects of the works of the tower and spire builders of the Middle Ages, by a stroke of genius, at one step he advanced far beyond them. He did not return to a Romanesque style, but, taking the fully- developed Gothic one as a basis, he entirely remodelled its detail without attempting to obliterate its unmistakable origin. It must be claimed for him that, by the free use of Roman detail and by constant reliance upon his mathematical skill, he evolved an entirely new epoch in the history of spire building, as beautiful as it is strikingly original. The accompanying Plates, VI and VII, shew some typical examples of his designs for towers and spires, etc., together with the fa9ades to which they belong. These are all drawn to the same scale, |specially for the purposes of this Essay; it is hoped that, shewn thus, they will be of greater value, and will allow of their true merits being judged of better than would be possible by perspective sketches alone. In St. Mary-le-Bow, a succession of cleverly-designed stages rise one above another in perfectly natural sequence, altogether making a composition absolutely unrivalled for elegant flow of line, and exquisite proportion of solids to voids, whilst a glance at the section exhibits the constructive skill displayed. St. Bride’s spire lacks the spontaneity which gives the great charm to St. Mary’s; it is more a result of deliberate calculation, and owes its success to the graduated rhythmical repetition of one com¬ position. In St. Vedast, with great cunning, are solids of contrary curvature superposed, producing a daring and effective Wren’s work unconsciously much influenced by Gothic Art. St. Mary-le- Bow. St. Bride, Fleet Street. St. Vedast, Foster Lane. 40 St. Martin, Ludgate Hill. Neglect of the City churches. St. Dunstan-in- the-East St. Michael, Cornhill. play of light and shade. St. Martin’s, especially, cannot be spoken of without reference to St. Paul’s. One prevailing idea underlies the whole group of these spires : each is related to one or other of the remainder, and, directly or indirectly, leads up to the great centrepiece. Nowhere is this so strongly marked as in the case of St. Martin’s, midway up Ludgate Hill. From base to summit it is one sucession of graceful profiles and delicate proportions, made even more graceful and more delicate by the forced comparison with the grandeur of the mass hard by. Did space permit, a whole essay might easily be devoted to these specimens of the work of Wren. In spite of their just claims to a foremost place amongst the art treasures of England, they are day by day in peril, and already has their number been sadly diminished through pure vandalism and gross utilitarianism. It is impossible to over estimate what the City gains in picturesqueness of effect and in majesty of expression from this cluster of ever varying forms, gaining grace and beauty at every stage, shooting above the dull unbroken mass and piercing the sky, in the words of the late George Edmund Street, R.A., “ so as to afford unending delight.” Their construction, sound from the first, has stood the ravages of time unharmed; they defy all still but the ravages of men. At St. Dunsian-in-the-East, Wren indulged his fancy, and gave us the well-known Gothic spire, which boasts resemblance to the original St. Mary-le-Bow spire and the much larger example, still extant, at Newcastle-on-Tyne. In this, as in nearly all, the safety largely depends upon the use of pen- dentives, which carry the thrust well down the walls, sometimes as low as the belfry floors. They are shown on the sections of the towers, in the Plates. Possibly the latest of all to be built was the tower of St. Michael, Cornhill, which strictly follows a Gothic type. Wren may have worked with ease and with pleasure after such models, but it cannot be allowed that he ever obtained such mastery over them as will entitle him to be considered a great Gothic architect; in fact, it is one of 41 the main endeavours of this Essay to shew that the Spirit of the age was adverse to any such development on his part, and that he expressed the sentiments of the times in the phase of classic art which he made his own. His know¬ ledge of Gothic forms was complete, but it can never be given to any man to excel at one and the same time in two dia¬ metrically opposite branches of art. He treated all examples which came in his way with reverence and with care, and, when circumstances demanded it, he deliberately laid aside his own convictions, but he would willingly have recased the best of them in “ a good Roman manner,” nevertheless. His details, not at any time over refined, owing to his lack of artistic training, quite miss the true Gothic spirit, as may well be expected. It is, however, only right to assert that the present excellent state of preservation of most of his work in London is largely due to discretion displayed in the design of external details,—a more delicate handling would surely have led to their decay through atmospheric influences. None but the best of materials ever entered upon his works. The stone was nearly always from Portland, for Wren, as Sur¬ veyor of the Crown lands, had full control of the quarries there; the timber was sound English oak; and the roofs were covered with lead such as now-a-days is never afforded. The glazing remains intact frequently. A few words must be said as to the internal arrangement of the Churches. As the plan itself, so also did this grow out of the requirements. The chancel arch distinctly defining the limits of nave and sanctuary is lost sight of, and a screen fulfils its functions. The altar, or rather “ table,” was always enclosed within a rail; it was generally of wood, but occasionally of marble, raised a few steps only above the body of the church. Wren did not use lofty flights of steps within his churches. The greatest care and skill were bestowed upon the East wall, which was panelled in oak and elaborately enriched: the panelling often ran all round the church. The pulpit was F Wren as a Gothic Architect. Details generall)'^ coarse but suited to the climate. Materials always of best description. The internal arrangement of churches. 42 Ecclesiastical fittings. Galleries and high pews forced upon Wren. Staircases. Domestic Architecture. Wren’s “ favourite Doric.” naturally given great prominence, and with its sounding board was made an exquisite piece of ecclesiastical furniture. The fonts, too, with their covers, are unique specimens of the carver’s skill, generally of the baluster type. The system of pews and galleries which was forced upon Wren never received the artistic handling which should have resulted from a necessary provision: in fact, with few exceptions, notably S. Bride, Fleet Street, they offend by their ugliness. He advocated benches, but the columns in so many cases standing high upon pedestals, shew that he had to design so that their bases would not be hidden by the high pews. The staircases within the towers are very cleverly arranged and almost seem to suggest a study of conchology: they never appear as external excrescences. The line of the nosing of the treads always runs to the face of the newel, and not to its centre, giving the best tread. The open well staircase to the Library at S. Paul’s is particularly beautiful, but many examples on a smaller scale are to be found in his works, both ecclesiastical and domestic. His domestic work is perv^aded with a truly English feeling, and nothing can excel the quiet simplicity and homely character of all that is left to us: with the greatest diffidence only can many existing examples be directly ascribed to him, so scarce are authentic records, and so numerous have been alterations and demolitions, for these, too, like the churches, are in daily peril. In London the Halls of the City Companies were mostly rebuilt by Wren in conjunction with Jarman, after the Fire, but so many have since been entirely removed or altered that it is difficult to know now how much may safely be attributed to them. The Brewers’ Hall, one of the most delightful, has escaped fairly well, and, if not the work of Wren and Gibbons themselves, sufficiently shows their influence to merit a place here. The date is about 1670. Wren’s "favourite Doric” occurs again and again, sometimes with coupled columns as at Greenwich. He never allowed him- Plate VI11 HET --a__ ^ _>J f-t'er ELEVATION OF PRINCIPAL FACADE. Arthur Stratton. Del LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH THE HALL. THE HALL OF THE BREWERS’ COMPANY, LONDON. By permission of “ The Architectural Review. ^ ’ '' J"- f* ' rr # Plate IX tii a z o 1- H < K H U 1 B 3 I H a < 1—1 1-1 CO D=: w w Pi CQ W Pi PL, o o o Pi I- a Pi fts pp « o = O S W I Pd E- ^ s:; = CP ►—4 *-l w ■ C 'V ii ' -1?“ I 43 self to be fettered by changeless rules of proportion in the use of the Orders, but evolved his own with a nicety which never fails to please. The sense of security is never lacking, and his knowledge of graphic statics always saved him from violating Nature’s laws; on the contrary, he recognised them to the full, and never failed to turn her unerring precepts to good account. At all times his Architecture was dependent for its effect upon purely structural methods, and not merely upon applied enrich¬ ments, although he not in the least underestimated their value when properly used. It may be that many of his most striking compositions, which charm and fascinate us by their wondrous simplicity, were only produced after extreme mental effort. “ Little trinkets are in great vogue : but building ought certainly to have the attribute of the eternal, and therefore the only thing incapable of new fashions,” he once wrote, and “ Architecture Architecture aims at Eternity ” was always a maxim with him. We have ^he^attributrof but to study his handiwork, and to endeavour to unravel the the Eternal, great truths and to learn the great lessons embodied in it, to see how grandly he lived and worked up to an ideal, high amongst ideals, and far beyond the reach of the ordinary mortal. 44 THE SUCCESSORS OE WREN AND THEIR CHIEF WORKS. NICHOLAS HAWKSMOOR, PUPIL OF WREN, 1661-1736. Queen’s College, Oxford, new quadrangle 1710 St. Anne, Limehouse ...... . 1712-1725 St. George-in-the-East ...... . 1715-1723 St. Mary Woolnoth, Lombard Street 1716-1719 St. George, Bloomsbury. ..... 1720-1730 Christ Church, Spitalfields ..... . 1723-1729 All Soul’s College, Oxford, new quadrangle . - 1734 Castle Howard, Yorkshire. The Mausoleum only Easton Neston, Northamptonshire. Completion . Westminster Abbey. Western Towers after Wren Beverley Minster. Restorations .... Works at Greenwich Hospital .... SIR JOHN VANBRUGH, 1666-1726. ■ >736 Castle Howard, Yorkshire ..... . 1702-1714 Blenheim Palace ....... 1705-1722 * King’s Theatre, Hay market ..... ■ 1705 Seaton Delaval Hall, Northumberland . • 1707 Claremont, Esher ....... 1710 Clarendon Buildings, Oxford. .... . 1711-1713 Duncumbe Hall, Yorks ...... . 1713-1718 King’s Weston, near Bristol ..... • 1713 "Mansion, etc,, at Eastbury in Dorsetshire 1716-1718 Works at Greenwich Hospital and Two Houses . 1716-1726 Oulton Hall, Cheshire ...... 1716 Stowe, Buckinghamshire ... . 1719 Audley End, Essex. Alterations 1721 Grimsthorpe, Lincolnshire ..... 1722-1724 Gilling Castle, Yorkshire. Additions . 45 JAMES GIBBS, OF ABERDEEN, 1682-1754. Canons, Middlesex ....... 1712-1720 St. Lawrence, Whitchurch ...... 1715 St. Mary-le-Strand ....... 1713-1717 St. Clement Danes. Spire only ..... 1719 St. Martin-in-the-Fields ...... 1721-1726 St. Peter, Vere Street ....... 1721-1724 Fellows Buildings, King’s College, Cambridge 1724 All Saints Church, Derby ...... 1725 St. Bartholomew’s Hospital ...... 1730 Radcliffe Library, Oxford ...... 1737-1749 Sudbrook, Surrey ........ Orleans House, Twickenham. Additions THOMAS ARCHER. PUPIL OF VANBRUGH, Died 1743. Heythorpe, Oxfordshire ...... 1705 Garden Pavilion, &c., at Wrest, Bedfordshire 1709 St. Philip, Birmingham ...... 1711-1719 St. Paul, Deptford ....... 1712-1730 St, John, Westminster . ...... 1721-1728 Cliefden, House, Bucks, quadrant colonnade . Umberslade, Warwickshire ...... 1740 WILLIAM KENT, 1684-1748. With the EARL OF BURLINGTON. Burlington House, Piccadilly ..... 1717 Kensington and Hampton Court Palaces. Additions . 1717-1727 Holkham Hall, Norfolk ...... 1729-1764 Design for rebuilding Houses of Parliament . 1730 The Treasury Buildings, Whitehall .... 1733 Devonshire House, Piccadilly ..... 1734 The Horse Guards, Whitehall. With J. Vardy . 1742-1752 Stowe, Buckinghamshire. Additions .... Published Designs of Inigo Jones ..... 1727 THE EARL OF BURLINGTON, 1695-1753- Burlington House, Piccadilly, with Kent . . . 1717 Dormitory, Westminster School.1722 House for General Wade, Great Burlington Street 1723 St. Paul, Covent Garden. Repairs .... 1727 Villa at Chiswick ........ 1729 Assembly Rooms, York ....... 1731 COLEN CAMPBELL, Died 1734. *Rolls House, Chancery Lane. ..... 1718 *Wansted House, Essex. Towers ..... 1720 Houghton Hall, Norfolk ...... 1722 Mereworth, in Kent . . . . . ' . . 1723 Works at Greenwich Hospital ..... Published Vitr2iviiLs Britannicus .... 1715-1725 JOHN JAMES, OF GREENWICH, Died 1746. St. Alphege, Greenwich ...... 1711-1718 St. George, Hanover Square ...... 1713-1724 *Mansion at Blackheath ....... Orleans House, Twickenham. Additions THOMAS RIPLEY, Died 1758. Houghton Hall, Norfolk in conjunction with Campbell . 1722-1735 The Admiralty, Whitehall. Screen by Robert Adam . 1724-1726 Wolferton House, Norfolk ...... 1724-1721 Works at Greenwich Hospital, &c. .... Plate X. PuAN ofS^Mapctin- -IN-THE- FTeLLXUS. TFeWoKK of Gi 5 E) 5 . Successor ofWrek ATYPICAL EXAMPLE OF HIS TREATTMENToF CHURCH FACADES and STEEPLES: WITH PLANS. Plan of a proposed CIRCULAR Church . *5t NKro'in - IN - THE.- Heards . ScVAUC DrTcET'P f r 1° y ? T 5ca.i.e orTfer I _- - f ■ I 1° = __—___! 3 iroS^,'R-A^ 4 s. ^ For, E\jrVATl 0 N . Arthnr Stxa'-'.on Edt 1897. Ptioto-Liliografhpd⪻!!'.?!!^? snec-AKernian S Queec, Squ 47 HENRY FLITCROFT, 1697-1769. St. Giles-in-the-Fields .... St. Olave, Southwark ..... St. John, Hampstead ..... Wentworth House, Yorkshire Wimpole Church, Cambridgeshire Prepared Drawings for Kent’s Inigo Jones 1731-1733 1737-1739 1745-1747 GEORGE DANCE, Senior, 1695-1768. St. Luke, Old Street . • 1732-1733 St. Leonard, Shoreditch . . 1736-1740 The Mansion House . • 1739-1753 St. Botolph, Aldgate . . 1741-1744 Guy’s Hospital . . 1764 CEORCE DANCE, Junior, 1741-1825. All Hallows, London Wall . 1765-1767 Newgate Prison . . . 1770-1778 St. Alphage, London Wall . 1774-1777 St. Luke’s Hospital .... . 1782-1784 St. Bartholomew-the-Less. Rebuilt . . 1789 The Mansion House. Alterations • >795-1796 Stratton Park, Hampshire 1803-1804 JOHN WOOD, OF BATH, 1704-1754. Queen’s Square, Bath . . Prior Park, Widcombe . . The Exchange, Liverpool .... Published Baalbec and Palmyra with Dawkins 1729 1736-1743 1748-1755 48 The influence of Wren immediately felt. The union of the Arts fostered. Characteristics of the successors of Wren. T the time of the death of Inigo Jones, and even later, when the Great Fire laid London low, it is quite probable that there was not one man to be found within the City seriously following the craft of Architecture. The influence of Inigo Jones brought about no immediate results. Wren, on the other hand, owing to his exceptional opportunities, and the unflagging energy with which he availed himself of them, became the centre of a body of men willingly acknowledging him as their master, and eager to carr}^ on the traditions which he, single-handed, had firmly established. A school of vigorous and consistent design, unequalled in the pages of history alike for its productions and for the period of its duration, was the natural outcome. In common with his predecessor, Wren assimilated more nearly to the great Italian masters than any who had preceded them in this land, in the blending together of the sister arts and the welcoming of the craftsman into the one great fold of Architecture. We now find a brilliant succession of savants, who were possibly attracted more by the prosaic than by the poetic aspect of architecture, vying with one another in emulation of their master’s works. For a long time great similarity is noticeable in their methods, but a lack of refinement and nice artistic feeling is evident, and certainly no one of them can be said to 49 have excelled his master, whilst few approached within measurable distance of him. Wren had far from built all that was required, and the “ Act for 50 New Churches ” gave ample scope for the display of their originality and individuality. Hawksmoor, who must have enjoyed exceptional facilities, Nicholas came in for a share of them, and in S. George, Bloomsbury, one Hawksmoor, of the best, set the fashion for huge porticoes to churches, which long prevailed. He was born in 1661, not 1666 as is often stated, and was articled to Wren when in his 17th year. He became a skilful mathematician, and besides working for years with Wren as “Domestic Clerk,” he was employed as “Supervisor” on several important buildings, and it fell to his lot to complete certain works after Wren’s death. Thus were the Western Towers of Westminster Abbey remodelled. He set his churches high upon crypts, and entered by imposing flights of steps which alone vest them with a degree of dignity. His numerous works include the Mausoleum at Castle Howard, which is said to be “ the earliest specimen of sepulchral splendour in England unconnected with an ecclesiastical building.” Gibbs was very successful as a designer, and in his beautiful James Gibbs. S. Clement’s spire, and in the Church of S. Martin’s-in-the-Fields has done much to beautify the outskirts of the city. He made the one fatal mistake which Wren always avoided, of impeding the vertical lines of his towers so that they appear to rest upon the porticoes or other features. He is famed for his conception of the Radcliffe Library at Oxford, which, however, bears close resemblance to Wren’s design for the Windsor Mausoleum, which was never executed. The most powerful and original of the trio was Sir John Sir John Vanbrugh, dramatist and. architect, “ a man of wit and a man of honour.” He is said to have refused the Surveyorship “ out of tenderness to Sir Christopher.” His practice was almost confined to domestic work, and he fostered the type of mansion-design in which symmetry must be attained at all G 50 Sir Joshua Reynolds eulogises Vanbrugh. Wren’s later successors as church builders. costs. He deliberately set accepted rules at defiance in his attempts to Anglicise foreign modes of composition: his window- treatment is particularly obtrusive, and a cumbrous impression generally pervades the whole of his larger works. This has GROUND PLAN OF CASTLE HOWARD. YORKSHIRE. SIR JOHN VANBRUGH. Archt. been construed into a legitimate striving after a sense of Eternity, but called forth the bitter epitaph— “ Lie heavy on him, earth, for he Laid many a heavy load on thee.” It was left for Sir Joshua Reynolds to first discern the true merits of his work, and to proclaim them unstintingly to a people already prejudiced against them by the taunting quips of Pope and Swdft. Had he been called upon to erect religious monuments it is highly probable that his genius would have far outshone its present lustre. Churches were still building in all quarters, and at the hands of Archer, “ the groom porter” as Horace Walpole called him, James, Flitcroft, Hakewill—to whom we probably owe St. Anne, Soho—and the Dances, father and son, they assumed all manner of forms, often more 51 remarkable as grotesque and inconsistent adaptations than as praiseworthy efforts after perpetuating sound precepts. To treat at all fully of the long succession of men who were influenced directly or indirectly by Sir Christopher Wren would unnecessarily extend this Essay. It must suffice here to refer to the foregoing schedule, wherein the more prominent are duly classed, together with their chief works. The influence of Wren diminished correlatively to the lapse of time after his decease, but is discernable to the end of the i8th century, when Sir William Chambers gathered the scattering threads and gave us the fine river front of Somerset House. Other Palladian designs would surely have resulted from this fresh impetus but for the divergence of the Brothers Adam, followed soon after by a powerful movement essentially Grecian in motif. “ An architect,” Wren said, “ should think his judges as well those that are to live five centuries after him as those of his own time.” Not half that period has yet passed away since his hand ceased to work, and through widely differing epochs his influence, however slight, has scarcely been quite unfelt, whilst in these, our own eclectic times, there are manifest strong classic tendencies on all hands which it is not altogether unlikely may some day culminate in faithful and fervent allegiance to Wren and his work once more. Influence diminished correlatively to lapse of time. Our own eclectic times. THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES AND WORKS OF REFERENCE HAVE BEEN CONSULTED. Manuscripts and Original Drawings in Sir John Soane’s Museum John Stow. Survey of London ... Published 1633 John Evelyn. Architects and Architecture do. 1706 James Gibbs. Designs do. 1728 Colen Campbell, Woolfe, and Gandon. Vitruvius Britannicus do. 1731-1771 James Gibbs. Bibliotheca Radcliviana do. 1747 Stephen Wren. The Parentalia do. 1750 George Richardson. The New Vitruvius Britannicus do. 1802-1808 Londina Illnstrata ... do. 1819-1825 James Elmes. Memoirs of Wren do. 1823 Britton and Pugin. Public Buildings of London do. 1825-1828 John Clayton. Parochial Churches of Sir Christopher Wren... do. 00 M Longman. Three Cathedrals of St. Paul Publications of the Society for Photographing Relics of Old do. 1873 London do. 1875-1886 The Dictionary of the Architectural Publication Society do. 1881-1887 Andrew Taylor. Towers and Steeples ... do. 1881 Miss Phillimore. Sir Christopher Wren do. 1881 Arthur Maemurdo. City Churches do. 1883 W. J. Loftie. Windsor ... do. 1887 Kitchin. Winchester do. i8go Eergusson. Modern Architecture do. i8gi Sir W. Besant. London do. 1892 W. J. Loftie. Inigo Jones and Wren ... do. 1893 Gvvilt. Encyclopcedia G. H. Birch. London Churches of the XVII and XVIII do. C^ CO M Centuries do. 1896 Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects Numerous articles, papers, &c., in The Builder, The Portfolio, ... The Contemporary Review, The Art Journal, etc., etc. ... ...