4 ■w 5k*-.. A HISTORY OF ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL, LONDON. LONDON : PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE AND PARLIAMENT STREET Frontispiece. (Prom a prmt in the ‘ Gardner Collection,' Drawn by J. Buckler, F.S.A., and Engraved by G. Lewis.) Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 : > l £ i https://archive.org/details/historyofthreecaOOIong i A HISTORY OF THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL IN LONDON WITH REFERENCE CHIEFLY TO THEIR STRUCTURE AND ARCHITECTURE, AND THE SOURCES WHENCE THE NECESSARY FUNDS WERE DERIVED. BY WILLIAM LONGMAN, F.S.A. AUTHOR OP ‘ THE LIFE AND TIMES OF EDWARD THE THIRD ’ : CHAIRMAN OP THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPLETION OF ST. PAUL’S. WITH 6 ENGRAVINGS ON STEEL and NEARLY 50 WOODCUT ILLUSTRATIONS. LONDON : LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 1873. All rights reserved. PREFACE. fTlHE present History of St. Paul’s Cathedral had its origin in the increased interest which I took in that building, in whose immediate neighbourhood I had spent a considerable portion of my life, when I became a member of the Com- mittee for its I * * 4 Completion.’ That interest was enhanced by the selection of St. Paul’s, according to ancient custom, as the fit and proper place for a National Thanksgiving in the early spring of last year. When I began my labours, how- ever, I had little intention of entering so deeply into archi- tectural details, but the subject expanded as I went on with my work. I could not have accomplished my task without the help of friends, and to Dean Milman’s valuable 4 Annals of St. Paul’s ’ I am greatly indebted. It was that work which, in addition to its own rich store of knowledge, furnished the key to other sources of information. It is hardly necessary to say that I have no idea of attempting any rivalry with that important volume. My aim is different. It has been my wish to furnish a more particular account of the cost and of the building of Old and New St. Paul’s than fell in with the scope of Dean Milman’s work, and more minute details as to their architecture grew naturally out of the object I had thus set before me. VI PREFACE. In thanking the various friends who have assisted me, I must assign the first place to Mr. Edmund B. Ferrey, whose restorations of Old St. Paul’s give, as I believe, a value to my book, to which it could not otherwise pretend. I have also to thank Mr. Penrose, Mr. Cockerell, and Mr. Wyatt Papworth for much help, and for many valuable suggestions. For many of the illustrations of Old and Modern St. Paul’s I am indebted to Mr. Gardner, of Park House, St. John’s Wood, whose remarkable collection of prints and drawings of London has been most liberally placed at my disposal. For the interesting composition of the interior of Wren’s second design for St. Paul’s — that of the 6 Kensington model ’ — I am indebted to Mr. J. E. GrOODCHiLD. Lastly, I must thank Mr. Pearson for the kind zeal he has shown in superin- tending the engravings on wood, and Mr. Adlard for his careful reproductions of Mr. Ferrey’s restorations of Old St. Paul’s. In conclusion, I wish to state that, although I have the honour of being Chairman of the Finance Committee for the Completion of St. Paul’s, my work has no official character, and I alone am responsible for the facts and opinions ex- pressed in these pages. London : May 1873. I have to thank the Warden and Fetlows of All Souls College , Oxford , for their kind permission to publish the Copies of Sir Christopher Wren s Original Drazvings which are included in this book. W. L. June 1873. CONTENTS. CHAPTER PAGK I. THE BUILDING OF THE FIRST AND SECOND CATHEDRALS, AND THE MODE OF RAISING FUNDS FOR THEIR COST . 1 II. THE SURROUNDINGS AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF OLD st. Paul’s — wren’s remarks on its architecture AND CONSTRUCTION . . . . . .13 hi. details of the architecture of old st. Paul’s . 27 IV. CURIOUS customs and incidents connected with old st. Paul’s ........ 41 V. THE SECOND CATHEDRAL NEARLY DESTROYED BY FIRE- QUEEN ELIZABETH ORDERS ITS RESTORATION, AND JAMES THE FIRST APPOINTS INIGO JONES ARCHITECT FOR THAT PURPOSE — CHARLES THE FIRST CARRIES THE WORK ON PROGRESS STOPPED BY THE CIVIL WAR ......... 63 VI. RESTORATION OF THE CATHEDRAL RESUMED BY CHARLES THE SECOND WREN APPOINTED ONE OF THE COM- MISSIONERS FOR CARRYING OUT THE RESTORATION HIS PLAN THE CATHEDRAL DESTROYED BY THE GREAT FIRE OF 1666. Vlll CONTENTS, CHAPTER VII. VlIL IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL— PLANS FOR RESTORATION ACCEPTANCE BY THE KING OF WREN’S DESIGNS FOR REBUILDING — MODE OF RAISING THE REQUISITE FUNDS . WREN’S FIRST DESIGN (AFTER THE GREAT FIRE) REJECTED HIS SECOND AND FAVOURITE DESIGN GENERALLY APPROVED, BUT OBJECTED TO BY THE CLERGY— ALTERED DESIGN ACCEPTED AND WARRANT ISSUED FOR ITS EXECUTION ON MAY 14, 1675 . THE BUILDING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL — THE GROUND CLEARED FOR NEW FOUNDATIONS — ENQUIRY INTO ITS GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE — DEFECTIVE SOLIDITY IN N.E. CORNER DANGERS FROM STRATUM OF SAND FIRST STONE LAID JUNE 21, 1675 — CHOIR OPENED FOR USE, DEC. 2, 1697 — LAST STONE LAID 1710 — ILL TREAT- MENT OF WREN— COST OF THE CATHEDRAL COMPLETION OF CATHEDRAL DISPUTES WITH COM- MISSIONERS AS TO WALL AND RAILING, AS TO PAINTING DOME, AND AS TO BALUSTRADE WREN’S DISMISSAL AND DEATH ...... THE ADORNMENT OF ST. PAUL’S . DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S . PAGE 89 107 117 135 147 161 179 XIV. THE FUTURE OF ST. PAULS 214 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. STEEL ENGRAVINGS. ENGRAVED BY H. ADLARD (FROM MR. FERRET’S DESIGNS). OLD ST. PAUL’S. PLATE PAGE A. Ground Plan (Old St. Paul’s) . . .To face 29 B. West Elevation „ si C. South Elevation 32 D. East Elevation ,, 36 E. Transverse Section „ 39 F. Longitudinal Section „ 4o FULL-PAGE WOODCUTS. ENGRAVED BY G. PEARSON. OLD AND NEW ST. PAUL’S. st. Paul’s cathedral (the present building) . Frontispiece From a Print in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’ drawn by J. Buckler, F.S.A., and engraved by G. Lewis. &OUTH-WEST VIEW OF OLD ST. PAUL’S . . . . . 3 Supposed to be taken from present Doctors’ Commons. Com- piled by F. Watkins, from Drawings by E. B. Ferrey, Architect. INTERIOR OF THE NAVE OF OLD ST. PAUL’S . . . .9 From a Print in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’ after Hollar. A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF OLD ST. PAUL’S, SHOWING THE SURROUNDING WALL, GATES, AND NEIGHBOURING STREETS . . . .15 Compiled by F. Watkins, from Drawings by E. B. Ferrey, Architect. X LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN’S UNEXECUTED DESIGNS. PAUK DESIGN FOR ST. PAUL’S MADE BY SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN IMME- DIATELY REFORE THE GREAT FIRE . . . . .97 From Sir Christopher Wren’s Drawiug in the All Souls’ Collec- tion at Oxford. VIEW OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST. PAUL’S, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST DESIGN (AFTER THE GREAT FIRE), OF THE ARCHI- TECT, SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN, KNT. (‘ KENSINGTON MODEL’) . 109 From a Print in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’ engraved by Schynvoet. GROUND PLAN OF ST. PAUL’S, ACCORDING TO THE FIRST DESIGN (AFTER THE GREAT FIRE) OF SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN . .110 From a Print in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’ engraved by B. Cole. GROUND PLAN OF EAST END OF ST. PAUL’S, ACCORDING TO A TENTA- TIVE DESIGN (No. 21 OF THE ALL SOULS’ COLLECTION) MADE BY SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN, SHOWING COMMUNION TABLE AND REREDOS . . . . . . . . .111 INTERIOR VIEW OF SIR C. WREN’S FIRST DESIGN (AFTER THE GREAT FIRE) . . . 112 Drawn by J. Goodchild from the Model now in the Kensington Museum. THE LAST DESIGN MADE FOR ST. PAUL’S BY SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN 113 From Wren’s Drawing in the All Souls’ Collection. ‘FORMER DESIGN’ FOR ST. PAUL’S BY SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN . 115 Original Title : — ‘ A section of the Cathedral Church of St, Paul, showing the Dome, according to a former Design by Sir Christopher Wren.’ From a Print in the ‘ Gardner Collection.’ SECTION OF THE DOME OF ST. PAUL’S 116 From Sir Christopher Wren’s ‘ former Design,’ with separate enlarged portion from another Drawing of the same, showing the continuity of the supports of the Dome according to the Indian method. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. MODERN ST. PAUL’S. GROUND PLAN OF THE CATHEDRAL From an original Drawing by Mr. Penrose, Surveyor to St. Paul’s, with (dotted) lines, from a former Drawing by Sir Christopher Wren, showing his intentions as to the position of the surrounding railing. PROJECTION OF OLD (SHADED) UPON THE PLAN OF NEW ST. Paul’s From Sir Christopher Wren’s Drawing in the All Souls’ Collection, Oxford. UNEXECUTED DESIGN. ground plan of st. Paul’s according to a design with SURROUNDING ARCADES AND A BAPTISTERY .... From a Drawing by Sir C. Wren in the Vestry of the Cathedral. MODERN ST. PAUL’S. PLINTH OF THE CATHEDRAL, WITH AND WITHOUT A BALUSTRADE Taken from original Drawings in the ‘ Gardner Collection.’ THOMAS bird’s SCULPTURE OF THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL, IN THE PEDIMENT OF THE WESTERN FRONT OF THE CATHEDRAL . From the Model preserved in the Cathedral Library. UNEXECUTED DESIGN. PROPOSED ORNAMENTATION ON SPANDRELS OF ARCHES AROUND THE DOME OF MODERN CATHEDRAL ...... From an old Engraving in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’ by William Emmett. MODERN ST. PAUL’S. dome of st. Paul’s . . . INTERIOR OF THE CATHEDRAL, LOOKING EAST GROUND PLAN OF CRYPT OF THE CATHEDRAL . From an original Drawing by Mr. Penrose, Surveyor to. St. Paul’s. ONE OF THE CAMPANILES OF THE CATHEDRAL . xi PAGK 119 125 140 142 144 149 163 168 177 . 185 XU LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. WOODCUTS IN THE TEXT ENGRAVED BY G. PEARSON. CLUSTERED PILLARS AND TRIFORIUM ARCADE .... st. Paul’s cross ......... inigo jones’s portico (from hollar) COPY OF A WOODCUT ON THE TITLE-PAGE OF ‘ MAROCCUS EXTATICUS’ sir Paul pindar’s house in bishopsgate street . old st. Paul’s cathedral on fire ..... LUD-GATE on fire . ....... model of baldachino preserved in st. Paul’s cathedral east end of st. Paul’s as altered by sir Christopher wren FROM THE ‘ KENSINGTON MODEL ’ DESIGN .... PHCENIX OVER SOUTHERN PORTICO ...... STEPS AT WESTERN ENTRANCE, AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED BY SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN, AND AS NOW INTENDED TO BE CARRIED OUT PENDENTIVES OR SPANDRELS CANTALEVER CORNICE ROUND INNER DOME .... SECTION SHOWING INNER AND OUTER DOMES, WITH THE CONICAL WALL . . ... STAIRS, AS THEY FORMERLY EXISTED, LEADING UP TO THE LAN- TERN, BETWEEN THE INNER AND OUTER DOMES From an original Drawing in the ‘ Gardner Collection.’ GROUND PLaN OF PRONAOS, SHOWING RECESS FOR THE GREAT DOORS UNDER WESTERN PORTICO . ' . SECTION SHOWING BUTTRESSES . . . PIER ARCHES OF THE NAVE, SHOWING THE ARCHIVOLTS, RISING ABOVE THE ARCHITRAVES COMPARATIVE SIZES OF ST. PETER’S AND ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRALS . DIAGRAM SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNAL DOME, CONE OF BRICKWORK, AND OUTER DOME CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABOVE THE ATTIC ORDER PAGE 20 35 52 71 83 84 110 111 127 166 170 172 176 177 182 186 191 195 197 200 DIAGRAM OF THE ARCH, TURNED FROM AN ATTIC ORDER 201 CHAPTER I THE BUILDING OF AND THE MODE THE FIRST AND SECOND CATHEDRALS, OF RAISING FUNDS FOR THEIR COST. B South-West View of Old St. Paul's (Supposed to be taken from present Doctors' Commons). (Compiled by F. Watkins, from drawings by E. B. Ferrey, Architect.) CHAPTER I. The Cathedral Church of St. Paul, in the City of London,, is, from its associations and the uses to which it has been put, more emphatically the National Cathe- dral of Great Britain than any other in this island, and a history of its fabric may therefore lay claim to national interest. Although, before the building of the present church, two Cathedrals, dedicated to St. Paul, each rising, Phoenix-like , 1 from the ashes of its predecessor, have successively stood on its site, it is impossible not to feel that there is a unity in the three, and in relating their history it seems quite natural to consider them as one Cathedral. Viewed in this light, the history of St. Paul’s Cathedral is not a little remarkable. A singular fatality seems to have awaited it. Destruction, or at least injury to such an extent that destruction seemed inevitable, has befallen it no less than five times. This fatality is the more striking when it appears that fire — and on two occasions fire from heaven — was always the enemy from whose attacks it suffered. A temple, built by the Romans, and dedicated to Diana, once existed on the spot where a Christian Cathedral has now stood for twelve centuries. At the beginning of the seventh century, the Pagan temple, all traces of which had, without doubt, long disap- peared, was replaced by a Christian Church, attached 1 1 Out of whose Ashes this Phoenix (new^t. Paul’s) is risen.’ — Evelyn's translation of De Chambray's Parallel of the Antient Architecture with the Modern, fol. 1707, 2nd edit. See Wren’s Parentalia, p. 276 CHAP. I. St. Paul’s the Na- tional Ca- thedral. Three Ca- thedrals. Singular fatality at- tending them. First Ca- thedral. 4 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. I. Founded about a.d. 597. Destroyed by fire a.d. 1087 or 1088. to a monastery founded by Ethelbert, King of Kent, during the time that Melitus, the companion of St. Augustine, was Bishop of London. He dedicated the monastery to St. Paul, 1 and endowed it with the manor of Tillingham in Essex, 2 which — the only piece of land once belonging to St. Paul’s Cathedral which has not been swallowed up in the mass of property placed under the administration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners — still furnishes part of the fund for the repairs of the fabric of the present Cathedral. Of this Church no record whatever remains. It lasted for nearly five centuries, and was then destroyed by a fire which devastated London 4 in the time of the Conqueror’s reign.’ 3 The next Church, or Cathedral, of St. Paul remained 1 Dugdale, p. 3. The edition of 1720 is always referred to unless Ellis’ is specially mentioned. 2 ‘iEdelbertus Rex, Deo inspirante, pro animse suae remedio, dedit Episcopo Melito terrain quae appellatur Tillingeham, ad monasterii sui solatium, scilicet, S. Pauli ; et ego Rex MSdelbertus ita firmiter concedo tibi praesuli Melito potestatem ejus habendi et possidendi, ut in perpetuum,’ &c., &c. Stow’s London, vol. i. p. 638. 3 Dugdale, p. 6. Dean Milman (pp. 21, 22) says that the fire hap- pened in 1087, and in a note adds, ‘ according to another authority, 1088.’ But Dugdale (p. 6) says ‘he (Bishop Maurice) in 1083 began the foun- dation of a most magnificent pile,’ to replace that which was burnt; and Matthew of Westminster (Flores Historiarum, Franeofurti, 1601, p. 229) says, ‘Anno Gratiae 1083. Eodem anno Mauricius Episcopus London, templum maximum quod necdum (circa 1307 P) perfectum est incepit.’ On the other hand, Roger of Wendover (Edition of English Historical Society, 1841, vol. ii. p. 27) says ‘Anno Domini 1087 rex Anglorum Willel- mus (if this is a correct statement, it is William Rufus of whom Roger is speaking) in natali Domini curiam suam apud Gloverniam tenens, tribus capellanis suis, Mauritio scilicet Londoniensem . . . dedit praesulatum.’ But the editor adds in a note, ‘According to the Saxon Chronicle, these bishops received their appointments in 1085.’ Wilkins, i. p. 368. There can be but little doubt that it was Bishop Maurice who laid the foun- dation stone, but this can hardly have taken place before 1085, as that is the earliest date named for his appointment as Bishop of London. As to the date of the fire, I take Dean Milman (p. 21) as my authority, but he gives no reference to the authority on which his statement is founded. OLD ST. PAUL’S. 5 standing until destroyed by the fire of 1666. It was begun by Maurice, Bishop of London, in 1087, the last year of the reign of William the Conqueror, who contributed towards its structure c the ruins of that strong castle then called the Palatine Tower, which stood on the west part of the city, towards that little river of Fleet,’ then a navigable stream. This castle was built 4 in the place where Robert Kilwarby, afterwards Arch- bishop of Canterbury, erected that House of Domini- cans, which is still very well known by the name of Black Friers,’ 1 and probably for the defence of the Fleet. Part of the stone of which the Cathedral was built was, however, ‘fetched from Caen in Normandy.’ 2 William of Malmesbury, 3 who, as Dean Milman says, must have seen the splendid buildings erected in Normandy by the Conqueror, describes it as a magnificent structure, and Hollar’s engravings of it, as it existed just before the Great Fire, justify his description, although in Hollar’s time the Cathedral was not exactly in the state in which William of Malmesbury saw it. Hollar’s plates clearly, however, did not represent the Cathe- dral even as it existed in his time with perfect accuracy, and the representations of Old St. Paul’s which accom- pany this history are attempts to bring that building before the eye with more exactness, and in the state in which it probably appeared about the middle of the sixteenth century before it was partially Italianised. They are by Mr. Edmund B. Ferrey 4 1 Dugdale, p. 6. 2 Stow’s London , yol. i. p. 638. 3 P. 22. 1 Tanta est decoris magnificentia, ut merito inter preclara numeretur edifitia. Tanta criptse laxitas, tanta superioris sedis capaeitas, ut quamlibet confertse multitudini yideatur posse sufficere.’ William of Malmesbury. Gesta Pontificum, lib. ii. p. 145. (Edition published by authority of the Master of the Rolls.) 4 See note to contents of Chap. III. CHAP. I* Second Ca- thedral, founded a.b. 1087 or 1088. 6 TIIE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. L Progress of building very slow. Nearly de- stroyed by fire a.d. 1136. Its plan altered. Quire rebuilt in a.d. 1240. The progress of building must have been very slow, for, as Dean Milman says, 1 4 The episcopate of Bishop Maurice, though it lasted twenty years, saw hardly more than the foundations and the commence- ment of the great edifice ; neither does it seem to have been completed during the episcopacy of his successor, Bishop Belmeis, who also ruled for twenty years.’ Seven years after his death the Cathedral was nearly destroyed by the usual fatality of fire. 4 It had great hurt by a dreadful fire, in the very first year of King Stephen’s reign (a.d. 1136), which began at London Bridge and raged as far as the Church of the Danes.’ 2 According to Matthew Paris and Matthew of Westmin- ster, 3 the Cathedral was totally destroyed ; but, although this is in all probability a great exaggeration, there can be no doubt that serious injury was inflicted on it, and, even supposing that total reconstruction was not re- quired, its progress must have been materially delayed. Nearly two hundred years, from the time of its foun- dation, elapsed before the structure was completely finished, and the plan on which it was originally built came in time to be considered unsatisfactory. 4 The Quire was not thought beautiful enough, though in uniformity of building it suited with the Church, so that, resolving to make a better, they began with the steeple, which was finished in a.d. 1221, and then going on with the Quire, according to the like 1 P. 23. 2 Dugdale, p. 7. 3 Matthew of Westminster. Flores Historiarum , p. 242. ‘Anno Gratise 1135. Eodem anno, Ecclesia Sancti Pauli combusta eat igne,.qui accensus fuit ad pontem London, et perrexit ad Ecclesiam Danorum. 7 ‘ Ecclesia quoque Sancti Pauli Londiniensis eodem anno (1136) ab igne^ qui accensus est ad pontem, est combusta qui debaccliando perrexit usque ad ecclesiam Danorum.’ Matt. Paris, Hist. Ang., edited by Sir F. Madden. London, 1866, vol. i. p. 253. / OLD ST. PAUL’S. form of architecture, perfected it in a.d. 1240.’ 1 Al- though to the eyes of the superficial observer the architecture of the Choir 2 appears to be all of the same CLUSTERED PIDLARS (No. 1) AND TRIFORIUM ARCADE (No. 2). date, yet a closer scrutiny at once makes evident marked differences in the details ; for example, in the variations in 1 Dugdale, p, 12. 2 These observations apply to Hollar’s plates, from which the details in the annexed woodcuts are copied. 8 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. ohap. the clustered pillars ; in their capitals, and still more - — r — ' evidently in the tracery of the Triforium Arcade. The wide bay 1 probably marks the junction between the first portion (the ‘Choir’ proper 2 ), commenced in 1222, and the compartments added eastward of it in 12 55. 3 The necessary repairs of the rest of the building must have made but little progress, being hindered seemingly by tempests, for in 1255, one hundred and twenty years after the fire, the Bishop of London issued ‘letters hortatory, to stir up the people to liberal con- tributions, because that the Church of St. Paul was in time past so shattered by tempests, that the whole roof thereof seemed very ruinous.’ 4 In consequence of this appeal, either the roof of the old structure was made new, or substantially repaired about this time, and the Cathedral Cathedral, as Dugdale says, was then lengthened east- ward ‘ by the whole extent of that which now bears the name of St. Faith’s Church,’ 5 which was, conse- quently, at that time pulled down. Sir Christopher Wren found traces of this alteration when he was making preparations for the new Cathe- dral. As his grandson says, ‘ Upon demolishing the ruins, after the last fire, and searching the foundations of this oid street Quire, the surveyor (Wren) discovered nine wells in a fished for tow, which no doubt had anciently belonged to a street pose pUr " h° uses that lay aslope from the High Street (then Watling Street) to the Boman Causeway (now Cheap- side), and this street, which was taken away to make room for the new Quire, came so near to the old Presbyterium that the Church could not extend farther that way at first.’ 6 It was probably also about this 1 See plate of ground plan. 2 B in preceding illustration. 3 A in preceding illustration. 4 Dugdale, p. 14. 5 Ibid. p. 14. 6 Parentnlia, p. 272. Interior op the Nave op Old St. Paul’s. (From a print in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’ after Hollar ) Description on original print. NAVIS ECCLESLE C ATHED RALIS S. PAVLI. PROSPECTVS INTERIOR. Sit rediviva mater Ecclefia, etpereant Sacrilegi ut navis Ecclefise temporum fluctibus immerfura falutaribns Dei anfpiciis confervetur. Majorum pietatern imitando mirentur pofteri, ut ltupenda htec Bafilica anfiquitus fundata, et jam jam collapi'ura tanquam factum Religion is Chrif Liana; Monumentum in aeternum fufflaminetur. OLD ST. PAUL’S. 9 time that the old Norman walls and piers received the chap. casing which Wren, in his report to the Commissioners > — i — < after the Great Fire, so strongly reprobated . 1 The following curious extract from Pepys probably alludes to this : — 4 It is pretty here to see how the late Church was but a case wrought over the old Church. You may see the very old pillars standing whole within the walls of this.’ At length, about the year 1283, the Cathedral must Completed have been nearly completed, for, as Dugdale says , 2 1233 . A ’ D ' 4 about this time it seems that the main brunt was over.’ The pavement of what was called 4 The New Work ,’ 3 viz., East from the Steeple, ‘made of good and firm marble which cost bd. the foot ,’ 4 was laid down in 1312, and 4 within three years afterwards a great part of the Spire of timber, covered with lead, being weak and in danger of falling, was taken down, and a new Cross, with a pommel, large enough to con- Descrip- tain ten bushels of corn, well gilt, set on the top thereof magidfi- he by Gilbert de Segrave, then Bishop of London, with ^i S d pire great and solemn procession, and relics of saints were st. Pauls, placed within it .’ 5 This lofty and most magnificent spire rose from the centre of a great stone tower. According to Wren’s measurements before the Great Fire, the tower was 260 feet in height, the basis of the spire 40 feet, and he adds, 4 therefore, according to the usual proportions of spires in Go thick fabricks, 1 The Nave of Winchester is a similar piece of incasing. In Glou- cester this work was begun in the Nave and carried through two bays at the west end : in the Choir the restorers contented themselves with leaving the fabric, and covering it over with a net- work of perpendicular tracery. 2 Dugdale, p. 15. 3 Ibid. p. 15. 4 About 1 Qd. of our money. See Lectures on Hist. Eng., by W. Longman, vol. i. p. 418. 5 Dugdale, pp. 16 and 17. 10 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. L The way in which the funds were raised. which was four diameters, or five at most, it could rise no higher than 200 feet, and make the whole altitude not to exceed 460 feet to the Ball of copper gilt and Cross, upon which after the first fire by light- ing was added a Weathercock representing an Eagle, of copper gilt likewise. The Ball was in circumference 9 feet 1 inch ; the heigh th of the Cross from the Ball 15 feet 6 inches, and its traverse 5 feet 10 inches. § The Eagle from the bill to the tail 4 | feet, the breadth over the wings 3 feet | and a half.’ 1 Wren’s measurement ^ makes the steeple considerably less in I _] J height than that given by Stow and Dugdale, 2 but probably it is more cor- rect, and even according to Wren’s re- duced estimate, the height exceeded that of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral by nearly fifty feet. Notwithstanding that the £ good people ’ contributed 4 most willingly,’ there seems to have been greater diffi- culty in raising funds for the building than has been felt in connexion with the recent efforts to provide means for £ the completion of St. Paul’s,’ although Scotland and Ireland as well as England were then laid under contri- o bution. £ I shall now,’ says Dugdale, £ demonstrate how most of the charge in carrying on so great a work became supported, which, in brief, was by the bounty of good people, throughout both the realms of England and Ireland, whose fervent devotion to the advancement of God’s service incited them most willingly to further all works of this nature.’ 3 The ‘bounty of the good 1 Parentalia , p. 274. 2 Ellis’ edition of Dugdale, p. 11. 3 Dugdale, pp. 12, 13. OLD ST. PAUL S. 11 people 5 was stirred up by letters of indulgence, 4 and chap. that this was the way by which they herein proceeded to * — ' r — raise monies, the sundry letters of the several Bishops B y indul - J m L gences. of both nations to the Clergy under their charge, for recommendation of the business to their par- ticular congregations, is most evident ; a multitude whereof I have seen and read : 1 by which letters there are indulgences extending to a certain number of days for such penance as they had injunction to perform, granted to all those as, being truly sorry for their sins, and confessed, should afford their helps towards this pious work.’ No stone was left un- turned to induce people to contribute, and even those who, without contributing themselves, persuaded others to do so were granted indulgences. 4 Nay, not only the contributors to this glorious structure were thus favoured, but the solicitors for contributions and the very mechanicks themselves who laboured therein.’ 2 No accounts remain of the amount of money thus raised, nor of the cost of the Cathedral. 1 A whole boxful of these is still preserved in the library of St. Paul’s, of which I may say with Dugdale ‘ a multitude I have seen ’ — but not read. 2 Dugdale, p. 15. CHAPTER II THE SURROUNDINGS AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF OLD m ST. PAUL’S— WREN’S REMARKS ON ITS ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION. Bird's-eye View of Old St. Paul’s, Showing the surrounding Wall, Gates, and Neighbouring (Compiled by F, Watkins, from drawings by E. B. Ferrey, Architect ) CHAPTER II. Old St. Paul’s was anciently encompassed by a wall — originally built in the. ditch of the Palatine Tower by permission of Henry the First, 1 — which extended from the North-eastern corner of Ave Maria Lane, eastward along Paternoster Row to the end of Old Change in Cheapside, whence it ran southward to Carter Lane, and thence to Creed Lane and Ludgate Street on the West. In the Cathedral wall were six gate-houses : the principal one stood in Ludgate Street, near the end of Creed Lane, opening on the Western front of the Cathedral ; the second was in Paternoster Row at Paul’s Alley ; the third at Canon Alley ; the fourth, called the Little gate, was an entrance from Cheapside ; the fifth, or St. Augustine’s gate, led from Watling Street into the Cathedral precinct by a street called High Street, which was considered to be the King’s Highway ; and the sixth gate-house fronted the Southern porch of the Church, near what is now called Paul’s Chain, from the ponderous chain which once hung across this passage to the entrance. The Bishop’s Palace stood at the North-western corner of the Churchyard, 2 and the Chapter House— built in 1332 — which was of very small dimensions, being only 32 feet 6 inches in internal diameter, was 6 on the South side of the body of the Church,’ in the very centre of the cloister- 4 garth,’ on the site of the garden belonging to the CHAP. n. The wall round Old St. Paul’s. The gates in the wall. Bishop’s Palace. Chapter House. 1 Dugdale, p. 7. 2 Winkle’s Cathedrals , vol. i. p. 66. 1(5 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. II. Charnel House. The citi- zens claimed a right to use parts of the Church- yard. Wall com- pleted in a.d. 1285. Pardon Church- yard. Dean and Chapter. 1 On the North side of the Church- yard was a Charnel House, over which a Chapel was built. 2 4 The Citizens claimed the East part of the Church Yard to be the place of Assembly to their Eolk motes, and that the great steeple there situate was to that use their Common Bell, which being there rung, all the inhabitants of the City might hear and come together. They also claimed the West side, that they might there assemble themselves together, with the Lord of Baynard’s Castle, for the view of their armour in defence of the City.’ 3 The Wall seems not to have been completed till the year 1285, for, as stated by Dugdale, 4 4 upon information made to King Edward the First, that, by the lurking of thieves, and other bad people, in the night time, within the precinct of the Church Yard, divers robberies, homi- cides, and fornications had been committed therein ; for the preventing of the like, for the future, the said King, by his patent bearing date at Westminster 10 June in the 13th year of his reign, to the honour of God and Holy Church, and of those saints whose bodies were buried therein, as also for the better security of the Canons and officers belonging thereto, granted unto the said Dean and Canons licence to include the said Church Yard with a wall on every side, with fitting Gates and Postern therein, to be opened every morning and closed at night.’ There were numerous beautiful chapels in and about the Cathedral, among which one in Pardon Church- yard, founded by Gilbert Becket, 4 Portgrave, and principal magistrate of this City in the reign of King Stephen,’ the churchyard of which was enclosed by a 1 Dugdale, p. 129. 2 Ibid. p. 131. 3 Stew’s Survey of London , vol. i. p. 639. 4 P. 18. OLD ST. PAUL’S. 17 cloister with painted walls, deserves particular men- tion. It is thus described by Dugdale : — 4 There was also one great cloister on the north side of the Church, environing a plot of ground of old time called Pardon Church Yard. About this cloister was arti- ficially and richly painted the Dance of Machabray, or Dance of Death, commonly called the Dance of St. Paul’s.’ It was destroyed in 1549 and turned into a garden by order of the avaricious Protector who coveted the materials. 4 In the year 1549, on the 10th of April, the said Chapel, by commandment of the Duke of Somerset, was begun to be pulled down with the whole cloister, the Dance of Death, the Tombs, and Monuments ; so that nothing thereof was left but the bare plot of ground, which is since converted into a garden for the petty canons.’ There was also a chapel at the north door, 4 founded by Walter Sherrington, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the reign of Henry YI. ; ’ 1 4 There was furthermore a fair chapel of the Holy Ghost in St. Paul’s Church on the north side, founded in the year 1400 by Eoger Holmes, Chancellor and Prebendary of St. Paul’s 4 then, under the choir of St. Paul’s is a large chapel, first dedicated to the name of Jesu, in a place called the Shrowds of the Cathedral, founded, or rather confirmed, the 27th of Henry YI.’ 1 2 The most remarkable appendage to the Cathedral was the extremely beautiful Parish Church of St. Faith, 3 1 1 The chapel and library attached to it were pulled down in 1549, and the materials carried into the Strand towards the building of that stately fabric called il Somerset House,” built by Edward, Duke of Somerset, on his appointment as Lord Protector to King Edward VI.’ — Dugdale, p. 134. 3 Stow, vol. i. pp. 640, 641, and Dugdale, pp. 132, 133. 3 This parish is now united to that of St. Austin’s, in Watling Street. C CHAP. II. The paint- ed cloister. The Dance of Death destroyed in 1549. Sherring- ton’s Chapel. Chapel of the Holy Ghost. Jesu Chapel. The Church of St. Faith. 18 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. II. TheChurch of St.Paith transferred to under- croft in a.d. 1256 . Church of St. Gregory. built under the choir. 4 At the west end of this Jesu’s Chapel, under the choir of St. Paul’s, also was, and is, a Parish Church of St. Faith, commonly called St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s, which served for the stationers and others dwelling in St. Paul’s Church Yard, Pater- noster Eow, and the places near adjoining.’ The Chnrcli of St. Faith the Virgin was originally above ground, and Jesus Chapel was attached to it. The four great bells belonging to this chapel were hung in a bell- tower on the eastern side of the churchyard. 4 The bells and the image of St. Paul on the top of the spire were all standing till Sir Miles Partridge, Knight, temp. Henry VIII., having won them from the King at one cast of the dice, pulled them down.’ 1 The Church of St. Faith was, as already related, 2 demolished about the year 1256, to enlarge the Cathedral, 3 and a portion of the undercroft was then granted to the parish- ioners as a place of worship, and converted into the New Church of St. Faith. 4 Jesus Chapel was still attached to it, although architecturally severed, and so continued until 1551, when it 4 was laid open to the Church, for the better enlargement thereof.’ 5 Fuller wittily describes Old St. Paul’s as being 4 truly the mother church, having one babe in her body — St. Faith’s, and another in her arms — St. Gregory’s.’ 6 The Church of St. Gregory, which was a parish church, was built up against the walls of the Cathedral at the South-west corner. The building shown in Hollar’s plate is of a debased style of architecture, and clearly was not the original church, which was pro- bably Norman, but there can be very little doubt 1 Dugdale, p. 130. 2 See p. 8. 3 Dugdale, p. 14. 4 Winkle’s Cathedrals , vol. i. p. 67. 5 Dugdale, p. 120. 6 Timbs’ Curiosities of London, p. 85. OLD ST. PAUL’S. 19 that it occupied the same position. To us it seems. cjeiap. strange that a church should be actually built up — — A- against the walls of a Cathedral. But it was not uncommon for parish churches to be built in close proximity to a Cathedral ; St. Margaret’s, for instance, is placed close to Westminster Abbey: there does not, however, appear to be any instance, at least in England, of a church being built against the very walls of a Cathedral. At length the position of St. Gregory’s Church was considered to be a mistake, and before 1645, notwithstanding a petition from the parishioners against its demolition, 1 the Church was 4 pulled down in regard it was thought to be a blemish to the stately Cathedral whereunto it adjoined.’ 2 In an account of Old St. Paul’s, the celebrated ‘Paul’s Paul’s Cross ’ must not be forgotten. 4 About the midst of this ^ SS * church yard,’ says Stow, 4 was a pulpit-cross of timber, mounted upon steps of stone and covered with lead, in stow s which were sermons preached by learned divines every ofTt™ Sunday in the forenoon. The very antiquity thereof is to me unknown. But I read that, in the year 1259, King Henry III. commanded a general assembly to be made at the cross, where he, in person, commanded the mayor, that on the next day following he should cause to be sworn before the Aldermen every stripling of .twelve years of age or upwards, to be true to the King and his heirs Kings of England.’ 4 Also, in the year 1262, the same King caused to be read at St. Paul’s Cross a Bull, obtained from Pope Urban IV. as an absolution for him, and for all that were sworn to maintain the articles made in Parliament at Oxford, 1 Calendar of State Papers , Domestic, pp. 218, 408. 1637, June 15, 3 Dugdale, p. 147. 20 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. H. Also, in the year 1299, the Dean of St. Paul’s cursed, at St. Paul’s Cross, all those which had searched in the Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields for an hoard of st. Paul’s cross. “ As it appeared on Sunday, 26th of March, 1620, at which time it was visited by King James I. and his Court, the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen being in attendance ; when a sermon was preached by Dr. John King, Bishop of London, recommending the speedy reparation of the venerable Cathedral of St. Paul’s, which with its unsteepled Tower, &c., appears in the back or side grounds.” From an original picture in the posses- sion of the Society of Antiquaries, London, which is engraved in Wilkinson’s Londina illuslrata, 1811. gold. This pulpit cross was, by tempest of lightning and thunder, much defaced ; Thomas Kemjie, then (1450-89) Bishop of London, new built this pulpit and cross. In foul and rainy weather these solemn sermons OLD ST. PAUL’S. 21 were preached in a place called the Shrowds, 1 which was, as it seems, by the side of the Cathedral Church, where was covering and shelter. Now ( i.e . about 1720), long since, both the Cross and the Shrowds are disused, and neither of them extant; but the sermons are preached in the Cathedral itself, though they are still called St. Paul’s Cross Sermons.’ 2 The style of architecture of Old St. Paul’s ranged from Early Norman to Early English Gothic, and Decorated. The Perpendicular Gothic was scarcely represented, except in the tombs and shrines, and interpolations of little importance. The 4 Debased Gothic,’ and the Italian style succeeded, and it was fortunate that the marks of the previous periods were not effaced by the 4 improvers.’ 4 The Church consisted of a nave and two aisles, running through- out the building, as well in the choir as in the transepts. Prom the western wall of the nave to its intersection by the transepts were twelve openings, separated by Norman pillars, and crowned with semi- circular arches. Above these was a triforium, in which the circular arch was also employed, but the clerestory windows and vaulting were in the Pointed Gothic. Each transept had five arches similar to those in the nave : over their intersection with the choir and nave rose the steeple tower. The entrance to the choir was distinguished by a screen richly ornamented, on each side of whose principal door were four canopies, and to the right and left, just beyond the range of 1 The Shrowds, or rather Crowds, were the crypts. ‘ This being a parish church, dedicated to the honour of St. Faith, the Virgin, was heretofore called Ecclesia S. Fidei in Cryptis (or in the Crowds according to the vulgar expression).’-— Dugdale, p. 119. 2 Stow, yoI. i. p. 644 see also Dugdale, p. 130. CHAP. II. The Shrowds. The second Cathedral partly Norman and partly Gothic. Mr.Gwilt's description of Old St. Paul’s. .22 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL CHAP. II. Wren’s remarks on the architec- ture and construc- tion of Old St. Paul’s. the great pillars, were two doorways, which led to the side aisles of the choir. The whole of the choir was in the most elegant Pointed Gothic, with a triforium and clerestory. Over the altar the view extended into the Lady Chapel, whose eastern wall was pierced with a beautiful circular window. On the south side of the Church (towards the West) was a cloister 90 feet square, in the centre of which stood a beautiful octa- gonal Chapter-house.’ 1 Wren had no love for £ Old St. Paul’s,’ and his criticisms on the style of its architecture, and on the technical defects of the building, however arbitrary they may seem to us, were perfectly consistent with the unbroken traditions of the school of which he was the representative. But his apparent dislike of all archi- tecture which can, in any way, be described as Gothic — or perhaps it would be more true and more just to say Norman— which might be inferred from the lan- guage of his son and grandson, is greatly contradicted by the evidence of his works, which show that, how- ever much he may have shared the prejudices of the day as regards minor forms and details, he had thoroughly mastered the principles of Gothic composition. On the other hand, his remarks charging the builders of Old St. Paul’s with faulty construction must be con- sidered overstrained when we reflect that the Cathe- dral had stood for four hundred years, and that many parts of its walls required gunpowder and battering rams to destroy them. It is true that mere massive- ness and lavish use of materials do not necessarily involve good construction, but the builders of Old St. Paul’s were not men to be contemptuously condemned. 1 An Account of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ity Joseph Gwilt, Architect, in Britton and Pugin’s Illustrations of the Public Buildings of London 1825, yol. i. p. 3. OLD ST. PAUL’S. 23 The author of the Parentalia, expressing — as he evi- dently believes— his grandfather’s opinions, says, 6 They made great Pillars without any graceful manner; and thick Walls without Judgement. They had not yet fallen into the Gothick pointed-arch, as was followed in the Quire of a later Date, but kept to the circular Arch ; so much they retained of the Eoman manner, but nothing else : Cornices they could not have, for want of larger stones : in short, it was a vast, but heavy Building. Adjoining to the South Cross was a Chapter House of a more elegant Gothick manner, with a Cloyster of two Stories high.’ 1 He then expresses his opinion that the Cathedral was badly built and had various defects, one of which was that it was 4 much too narrow for the Heighth ; ’ 2 but in this it is difficult to concur, the breadth including aisle walls being 104 and the external height of the nave 130 feet. In his Eeport to the Commissioners appointed to take in hand the restoration of St. Paul’s, before the Great Fire, Wren thus characterises the building - 4 The work was both ill design’d and ill built from the Be- ginning : ill design’d, because the architect gave not Butment enough to counterpoise and resist the weight of the Eoof from spreading the Walls; for the Eye alone will discover to any man that those Pillars, as vast as they are, even eleven Foot diameter, are bent outwards at least six inches from their first position. This bend- ing of the Pillars was facilitated by their ill Building, for they are only cased without, and that with small stones, not one greater than a Man’s Burden ; but 1 Parentalia , p. 273. The inconsistency of objecting to the t Gothick pointed arch/ (if 1 fallen into ’ means blame) and, immediately after- wards, speaking of ‘a more elegant Gothick manner ’ is obvious; but his remark on the Chapter House shows that Wren did not blame indis- criminately. 2 Ibid. p. 276. CHAP. II. Wren’s criticism on Old St. Paul's continued. 24 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. II. Wren’s condem- nation of Old St. Paul’s. Defence of Old St. Paul’s against Wren. within it is nothing but a Core of small Bubbish- stone, and much mortar, which easily crushes and yields to the weight.’ He then says that 4 the Boof is, and ever was, too heavy for its Butment,’ and that 4 the Tower leans manifestly by the settling of one of the ancient Pillars that supported it. Pour new arches were therefore of late years incorporated within the old ones, which hath straighten’d and hinder’d both the room and the clear thorough view of the nave in that part, where it had been more graceful to have been rather wider than the rest.’ 4 Besides this deformity of the tower itself within, there are others near it, as the next intercolumniation in the navis or body of the Church, is much less than all the rest. Also the north and south wings have aisles only on the west side, the others being originally shut up for the consistory.’ After this Wren makes remarks on the irregu- larity of the intercolumniations, with which modern architects — of the Gothic school at any rate — would not agree. He says, 4 Lastly, the Intercolumniations, or Spaces, between the Pillars of the Quire next ad- joining to the Tower, are very unequal. Again, on the Outside of the Tower, the Buttresses that have been erected, one upon the back of another to secure three corners on the inclining sides (for the fourth wants a Buttress), are so irregular that the Tower from Top to Bottom and the next adjacent part, are a Heap of Deformities.’ 1 Notwithstanding Wren’s criticism, however, this Ca- thedral must have been a magnificent building. The long perspective view of the twelve-bayed nave and twelve-bayed choir, with a splendid wheel window at 1 Wren’s Proposal to the Commissioners, Tarentnlia , pp. 274, 275. OLD ST. PAULS. 25 the East end, must have been very striking. The Chapter House embosomed in its Cloister ; the little Church of St. Gregory nestling against the breast of the tall Cathedral ; the enormously lofty and majestic steeple with its graceful flying buttresses, together with the various chapels and shrines filled with precious stones, must have combined to produce a most mag- nificent effect; and the number of tombs and monu- ments of illustrious men must have given an interest to the building, perhaps even more than equal to that now felt in Westminster Abbey. CHAP. ii. CHAPTER III DETAILS OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF OLD ST. PAUL’S. This chapter is chiefly •written from, and is entirely founded on, information given me by Mr. Edmund B. Ferrey, son of the eminent architect, to whom also, as already stated, I am indebted for the illus- trations . 1 1 The latter are reduced copies of the drawings submitted to the Royal Institute of British Architects, in 1868, which obtained the ‘ Silver medal of the Institute and five guineas ’ for the best restoration of Old St. Paul’s Cathedral, and were executed to the scale of eight feet to the inch. The length (on paper) of the ground plan consequently was 6 ft. 3 in., and the elevations, &c., of huge dimensions. The drawings show the building as it probably appeared about the year 1540. . ' ; ' ' J. V ■ -\ ; A A,'- , . --‘A- ■^A A 4V : - ■ •••■ \ ; . A A . / V, -t: A AA A > r- . . , * ’ .5 CHAPTEB III. Having endeavoured to give a general external picture of Old St. Paul’s, I shall now try to describe more minutely its architectural details ; but, before doing so, I must venture on the bold step of challenging the correctness of the old representations of the building, and of the dimensions assigned to it by contemporary authorities. The accompanying ground plan, drawn to scale by Mr. E. B. Ferrey, is founded on Hollar’s plan in Dugdale’s St. Paul's , which may, unquestionably, be taken as an authority. From this it appears that the total length of the building from east to west, inclusive of end walls, was about 596 feet. This is longer by sixty-six feet than Winchester Cathedral, the longest in the United Kingdom. But Dugdale, 1 with a minute and apparent exactness, states the length at 690 feet, and this measurement has been repeated by every subsequent writer to the present day. It is remark- able that this does not correspond with the plan, laid down to scale, which accompanies Uugdale’s description. Dugdale’s statement is taken from Stow, who gives for it what seems to be an indisputable authority. It is that of a survey taken in the time of Edward the Second, which in S tow’s time existed in Sir William Cecil’s collection of MSS. He says, ‘Let me add what a former very accurate observer had noted of CHAP. in. Architec- tural details of Old St. Paul’s. Length of Old St. Paul’s. 1 P. 17 30 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. chap, the same, in these words : Hoc tempore, scil. 7 Edw. v^-1 1 ^ < II., Campanile Ecclesise S. Pauli London reparatur. Length of Htec Ecclesia continet intra limites 626 virgas 1 quadra- Paul’s. tas, quae faciunt tres acras et dimid. unum ped. et dimid. In longitudine 690 pedes, quae faciunt 42 virgas. Altitudo corporis Ecclesias 150 pedes. Alti- tudo fabricse lapidete Campanilis k plana terra 260 pedes ; fabrics Lignese Campanilis 274. Et tamen in toto non excedit 500 pedes.’ 2 The only explanation of the difference between the length given in the Edw. II. survey and that in Hollar’s plate seems to be that 6 must have been printed in mistake for 5. It is fortunate that the original MS. gives the contents of the area, of St. Paul’s, within its boundaries, in ad- dition to the measurement in feet. This enables us to make a calculation which confirms the reduced estimate of the length of the building. The other dimensions given by Dugdale 3 are unreliable, and the following, as calculated by Mr. Eerrey, may, probably, be nearer the truth. 4 PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS OF MR. FERREY’s DRAWINGS. Breadth, 104 feet (including aisle walls). Height of roof, west part (i.e. up to ridge of vault- ing), 93 feet, 1 Always incorrectly translated yards, instead of poles. 2 Strype’s edition of Stow, vol. i. p. 640. 3 P. 17, quoting from Stow, ml. i. p. 638. 4 The following calculation, made for me by the Rev. John Hunter, of the area ABCD in the annexed diagram, confirms the reduced estimate of length. The diagram, as will be seen, includes the whole space contained in a figure formed by the prolongation of the lines of the building until they intersect. This space is taken as containing 626 square poles, which is shown to be = to 3 ac. 3 roods 26 poles. 40)626 sq. poles 4)15 roods 26 poles ITac. 3 ro. 26 po. = 3£ ac. and l.£ rood (not 1^ ft., as stated in Cecil’s MS.) FL.B. E.B.Ferrej delt. WEST ELEVATION. ./ (OLD S: PAUL'S )L 'I- 30 $ 9 11,0 2,0 3,0 J£ _ 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 0 ,0 I 90 A 10 EEET. L o iid.oir. I lOTLgmans & Co. THE ARCHITECTURE OF OLD ST. PAUL’S. 31 Height of roof ( i.e . up to vault ridge) to ‘choir proper/ 101 feet 0 inches. Height of roof at Lady Chapel , 98 feet 6 inches. External height (ground to ridge of outer roof to choir), 142 feet. External height (ditto ditto to nave), 130 feet. Height of tower steeple from level ground, 285 feet. Height of spire covered with lead, 208 feet (or 204 feet if calculated from top of tower parapet). The next apparent error in Hollar’s representations of St. Paul’s is, that he represents the Choir as of the same height as the Have. Mr. Eerrey has come to the conclusion that this was not so, but that it was higher. The following are some of his reasons. He says, ‘ Taking the diameters of the piers to the Have and Choir as data where the ground plan (the only plate 626 sq. poles each 272^ sq. ft. = 170428 sq. ft. An area 590 ft. in length and 290 ft. in breadth, contains about 170,428 sq. ft. : thus, length 590)170428(290 ft. nearly. 1180 ~52428 54 LOO B ri ct~ L i A Tb A B C D, total area of St. Paul’s, 626 virgse quadrat®, or square poles. Dotted lines, prolongations of the building. a b, supposed length (Q E. D.) of St. Paul’s, 590 feet. m n, width along transept 290 feet. The ground plan, made by Sir Christopher Wren, of New St. Paul’s superimposed up that of Old St. Paul’s, which accompanies this work, confirms these dimensions. c 6 CHAP. III. The true height of the Choir. 32 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. chap, showing the Cathedral, which is drawn to scale) aided — ^ — me, I endeavoured to build up the “ elevations,” i.e., Choir 11 ° f usin g the diameters of the piers (as also other ap- proximate means) in the same way as classicists calculate their proportions by “ modules.” Assuming the tolerable correctness of Hollar’s representations, the result of these researches was to prove that the Choir was higher than the Have . 1 In my restoration, therefore, I have made the Choir higher than the Have, and this agrees completely with Hollar’s inte- rior perspective view. There is, also, this further proof of the additional height of the Choir. In order to preserve the proportions indicated in Hollar’s internal views, it is necessary to raise the ridge of the vaulting considerably above that of the wall ribs. If the vault- ing had been treated in the more usual English man- ner, the Choir must have been made even higher than shown in the accompanying illustrations.’ 2 * The reason for giving this extra elevation to the Choir may probably have been to compensate for the effect produced by the elevation of the floor of the Choir over that of the main body of the Church. I will now describe more minutely the architectural details of the Cathedral, beginning with the interior. The gran- The interior had many peculiar characteristics. The deur of Grand Have of twelve bays, and the Choir, with the Choir, and like number of divisions, were, as compared with any to Tran- 8 English cathedral, unique and striking arrangements, septs. There were important entrances to the Horth and 1 The ridge roll of the Nave Roof is shown below the Cills of the lower tier of Windows of the Tower in the view of the Cathedral from the west, hut in the eastern prospect the roof runs into them for some distance above the Cills. 2 See the series of plates, engraved from Mr. Ferrey’s drawings, which accompany this work. fi:c. SOUTH ELEVATION. (OLD S* PAULS ) THE ARCHITECTURE OF OLD ST. PAUL’S. 33 South Transepts, which is seldom the case in English cathedrals. The transepts, too, had an unusually great projection, and, having aisles on both the eastern and western sides, formed prominent features in the whole composition. For such an extensive building the plan was remarkably simple and unbroken, and the form of the Cross was readily evident in its external aspects. The roof of the Nave had originally, in all proba- bility, the normal flat painted ceiling like Peterborough, and other Norman cathedrals and churches, but at a later period it was vaulted. This was probably done in 1255, when, as I have already stated, the roof was repaired. If reliance is to be placed on Hollar’s plates, the vaulting was originally of wood ; but in the curious view of St. Paul’s painted on a wood panel, now in possession of the Society of Antiquaries, 1 there are dying buttresses, which, in addition to other grounds for the supposition, seem to indicate that at one time there was stone vaulting. The Norman nave aisle windows were unusually large for the period, but, judging from one of Hollar’s interior views, they appear to have been of the original size and construction, though afterwards filled in with debased tracery. The accompanying copy of Hollar’s plate, representing the interior of the Nave, is very striking, and shows a considerable resemblance to that of Ely and Peterborough. There is every indication that the Central Tower was treated as a lantern internally, and was open up to the base of the Spire, or, at any rate, high enough to exhibit internally the effect of the first tier of windows. The view presented to a spectator standing under the crossing must have been very grand. 1 See woodcut on p. 20. D CHAP. III. The roof first flat and after- wards vaulted. Central Tower treated as a lantern. 34 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. III. The rose window at the east end. "Western towers. The magnificent rose window at the east end of the Lady Chapel was a noteworthy feature in the architec- ture of Old St. Paul’s, there being hardly any other such example in our English cathedrals, except that at Durham to the 4 Nine Altars.’ The trabeated arrange- ment of the seven-light window beneath the rose, too, is curious, and gives a French aspect to the composition. It is not evident whether the spandrels of the rose window — formed between the exterior of the circle and its enclosing square — were originally pierced. In Westminster Abbey the somewhat similar Transeptal windows were pierced, but this was probably done during the fifteenth century. The exterior now claims our attention, and the first question is, whether there were any western towers P Dugdale does not mention any, nor are there any in Hollar’s plates. But Stow describes them in a very minute manner. He says, 4 At either corner of this west end is, also of the ancient building, a strong tower of stone, made for bell towers ; the one of them, to wit, next to the palace, is at this present to the use of the same palace ; the other, towards the south, is called the Lowlarde’s Tow6r, and hath been used as the Bishop’s prison, for such as were detected for opinions in religion contrary to the faith of the Church. The last prisoner which I have known committed thereto was in the year 1573, one Peter Burcher, gentleman, of the Middle Temple, for having desperately wounded, and minding to have murdered a serviceable gentleman named John Hawkins, Esq., in the high street near unto the Strand, who being taken and examined was found to hold certain opinions erroneous, and therefore committed thither and convicted ; but in the end, by persuasion, he promised to abjure his heresies, and THE ARCHITECTURE OF OLD ST. PAUL’S. 35 was, by commandment of the council, removed from thence to the Tower of London, where he committed as in my Annales I have expressed. Adjoining to the Lowlarde’s Tower is the parish church of St. Gregory.’ 1 This passage is to be found in the early editions of Stow, but it is omitted in that of Strype. What can INIGO JONES’ PORTICO (FROM HOLLAR). be the reason of this? The turrets represented on each side of Inigo Jones’ portico do not deserve the description of 4 a strong tower of stone,’ and are hardly large enough to be used as a prison. They may, how- CHAP. HI. 1 Stow’s Survey, Thom’s ed., p. 318. 36 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. III. Bell Tower at east end. The spire of the Ca- thedral co- vered with lead. The flying buttresses. ever, have been rebuilt by Inigo Jones on the foun- dations of larger towers, but, it must be stated, there is no evidence of this. No drawings or plates are known to exist which would settle this question, and consequently no towers are given in Mr. Ferrey’s restorations. The Central Tower and Spire seem to have been made one of the culminating points of the composition, for they stood alone without rivals. The detached Bell Tower, at the east end, belonging to Jesus’ Chapel, must have added much to the picturesqueness of the neigh- bourhood of the Cathedral, but it can hardly have been originally planned with the intention of contributing to the general effect. The Spire of the Cathedral — as already stated— was covered with lead. There are very few examples now existing of spires of large pro- portion that retain their original lead covering, and these do not give us any idea of grandeur or great richness. But yet lead is even more capable of ornamentation than the stubborn material, stone, used by architects in such cases, and, from Dugdale’s remarks, it is clear that the lead-covered spire of St. Paul’s was much admired. On the Continent, steeples covered with lead are more common, and sometimes furnish beautiful examples of lead work. The pinnacles and bold flying buttresses attached to the Tower must have formed a very striking feature. It is not likely that they were parts . of the original design, but were added, as Wren intimates, during the progress of the building to strengthen the failing Tower walls ; and, if so, we must admire the skill with which the awkwardness of the 4 prop ’ was made an integral feature of the composition. At Gloucester, Salisbury, and in other examples, the flying arches pass through the Clerestories, without showing much outside. FI. D. E.B Ferrej clelt. H.Acllaxd. sc. EAST ELEVATIO'F OF CHOIR. (OLD S* PAULS'!' LoniloiL: Longmans h Co. THE ARCHITECTURE OF OLD ST. PAUL’S. 37 The very long, narrow windows in the Tower gave it chap. — architecturally speaking — a French tone, though the — — details are, evidently, pure Early English. Turret-like pinnacles crowned the apex of the Gables to the east end of the Choir and the South Transept. They were no longer in existence when Hollar made his views, but they are shown in the curious old painting at the Society of Antiquaries already mentioned. Such features were not common, but there are instances in the South Transept, York Cathedra], and the North Transept, Westminster Abbey. The two-storied Cloisters formed another remarkable The two- and unusual feature of Old St. Pauls. Wells Cathedral cSer. and Merton College, Oxford, have rooms over the Cloisters, which are used as libraries, but in St. Paul’s the peculiarity consisted in there being a second range of open archways over the lower ones. The open arcades render it probable that they were both used as ambulatories ; but, considering the conspicuous place in which they stood environed by a large city, it is not improbable that the exterior was designed in some more ornamental way than Hollar’s plates indicate. In the accompanying illustration 1 a treatment has been suggested externally, partially revealing the internal arrangement, that is to say, the division into bays, and the arcaded work internally is made to correspond with the supposed external ornamentation. In concluding the remarks on the architecture of Old St. Paul’s, it must be stated, in justification of the bold attempt to represent St. Paul’s more correctly than was done by Hollar, who actually saw the build- ing, that Hollar’s plates are full of evident inaccuracies. 1 See the series of Plates from Mr. Ferrev’s drawings. 38 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. III. One plate contradicts the other, and, indeed, scarcely two of them agree, as will be seen by the appendix to this chapter. No further information about the construction of Old St. Paul’s, and none whatever about its cost, seems dis- coverable ; and it will therefore be well to follow the example of Dugdale, who says, ‘in which glorious con- dition I shall for awhile leave this famous Church, and proceed in taking notice of what else hath , been most remarkable therein.’ FIE. TRANSVERSE SECTION THRO’ CHOIR & ST EAITR'S CH. (LOOKING EAST) ( old s? AkVl's ) ip . 2.0 3,0 •ya 5,0 . Y. M- , - London: liongmans & Co. THE ARCHITECTURE OF OLD ST. PAUL S. 39 LIST OF SOME DISCREPANCIES AND ERRORS IN CHAP. HOLLAR’S PLATES TO DUGD ALE’S OLD ST. PAUL’S. IIL By Mr. Edmund B. Ferre y. In the two views given by Hollar of different parts of the Choir there are several discrepancies. For instance, in one plate he shows the outer mouldings of the arches almost touching the triforium floor, and in another a considerable distance between. In Hollar’s ground plan the recumbent figure of Thomas Kempe is attached to the easternmost pier of the bay in which it stands. In the large detail perspective the effigy is placed centrally in the bay. In the external North and South general views of the Cathedral the Choir is shown with eleven bays. The ground plan shows twelve, which is much the more likely number. In the view of the Choir the first and second bays West from the steps at the end of the Presbytery have no groining shafts between them, and the two bays of the triforium seem to be coupled together. In the centre between the two bays is placed a four-light window. The external views of the Cathedral show no indication of this, but a wide bay is shown in the prospect from the North ; only this is east of the steps alluded to, instead of west. A wide bay is also shown in the internal view of the Choir, being the second one east from the steps beyond the stalls. Six steps to the Presbytery, over St. Faith’s Church, are shewn in the ground plan, but five in the internal view. Roger Niger’s tomb is shown in different positions in the ground plan and in the detailed perspective view ; in the latter the piers between which it stands are in very different proportions from those shown in the other internal views. In the view of North side of Choir, St. Faith’s Church seems to - occupy eight bays, but only four windows are shown, whereas in the ground plan there are seven windows on that side. The elevation of the buttresses to the Choir and Transepts does not agree at all with their projection as shown on the plan, which is excessive. I have, however, followed the elevation , and reduced the projection three or four feet. In the ground plan of St. Faith’s the buttresses are shown pro- jecting 9 feet 6 inches from the wall, whereas in the Cathedral above they project twelve feet. In Hollar’s ground plan of St. Faith’s the windows appear 40 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP III. considerably smaller than in the perspective view from the north ol the exterior of the Choir. In the ground plan the Choir screen is shown in the middle of the Tower piers. In the perspective internal view it is brought farther westward of Dugdale. At page 115, of Dugdale, Erkenwald’s shrine is mentioned as being in the Lady Chapel. But in Hollar’s plan the Lady Chapel only occupies the two eastern bays. Bishop Braybroke’s monument is mentioned at page 85 as ‘ in the middle of the Lady Chapel,’ whereas it is shown in the ground plan as at the entrance of the same. Pl.F, ONGITUIOTAL SECTIO t CHAPTER IV CUEIOUS CUSTOMS AND INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH OLD ST. PAUL’S. CHAPTEE IV. At the close of the last chapter I stated that Dugdale, after giving an account of the progress of the building of St. Paul’s, said, 6 in which glorious condition I shall for awhile leave this famous Church, and proceed in taking notice of what else hath been most remarkable therein.’ I propose to follow Dugdale’s example, and, leaving the old church 4 for awhile ’ at its most flourishing epoch, to gather up some curious odds and ends of facts connected with its social history, before relating that of its destruction. One of the most remarkable circumstances connected with the history of Old St. Paul’s is the extraordinary desecration to which it was subjected during the latter half of the fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth cen- tury. I suspect that other cathedrals were similarly desecrated, but I have no positive facts to support me in this surmise. The investigation of its causes would be a most interesting enquiry. The earliest notice, and condemnation, of the dese- cration, with which I am acquainted, is in the year 1554, or about twenty years after the Eeformation, and it seems to me not improbable that the ferment of men’s minds caused by that great event, and by the extraordinary ebb and flow of its progress, may have diminished the feeling of sanctity attached to a building which was one day devoted to one form of CHAP. IV. Odds and ends about Old St. Paul’s Its dese- cration. Cause of dese- cration. 44 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. IV. Cause of dese- cration. Manner of dese- cration. Paul’s Walk worship and another to one of an utterly different cha- racter. But it is singular that there was a mixture of seemingly authorised permission, or at least tolerance, and of authoritative repression, of this desecration. Thus, as will presently be seen, on the one hand, it was the recognised resort of wits and gallants, of men of fashion and of lawyers ; and, on the other, procla- mations and orders against brawlings and other mis- uses of the Cathedral were frequent. The desecration was of the most varied kind. St. Paul’s was turned into a gossip-shop, a rendezvous for the transactions of business, a place of meeting for secular amusements of every description, and, as Evelyn, lamenting £ the sad and deplorable condition it was in,’ says, it was c made a stable of horses, and a den of thieves.’ 1 But it wa§ deserted in the summer. Dudley Carlton, writing to John Chamberlain on July 26th, 1600, says, 6 These great matters put Ireland out of talk, and here is nobody to talk with, for Paul’s is as empty as a barn at midsummer.’ 2 The floor was laid out in walks, the South Alley for one purpose, the North for another ; but the Middle Aisle was the great place of gathering. It was called Paul’s Walk ; and there the hunters after news, the wits and the gallants, assembled themselves together. Greene the dramatist, in the introduction to his curious tract entitled 4 Theeves falling out, True-men come by their Goods : or, The Bellman wanted a Clapper,’ says, 4 Walke in the middle of Paul’s, and gentlemen’s teeth walke not faster at ordinaries than o 1 From Evelyn's Dedication of his An Account of Architects and Architecture , folio 1706, dated at Wotton, Feb. 169f. 2 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1598-1601, p. 457. CURIOUS CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH OLD ST. PAUL’S. 45 there a whole day together about enquiry after news.’ 1 2 * ciiap. Bishop Earle, in his 4 Microcosmography,’ which was ^ ^ — ✓ first published in 1628, says, 2 4 Paul’s Walk is the ^shop land’s epitome, or you may call it the lesser isle of account of Great Britain. It is more than this — the whole walk world’s map, which you may here discern in its per- fectest motion, jostling and turning. It is a heap of stones and men, with a vast confusion of languages ; and were the steeple not sanctified, nothing liker Babel. The noise in it is like that of bees, a strange humming or buzz mixed, of walking, tongues, and feet ; it is a kind of still roar or loud whisper. It is the great ex- change of all discourse, and no business whatsoever but is here stirring and afoot. It is the synod of all pates politick, jointed and laid together in most serious posture, and they are not half so busy as the Parlia- ment. It is the antick of tails to tails and backs to backs, and for vizards you need go no further than faces. It is the market of young lecturers, whom you may cheapen here at all rates and sizes. It is the general mint of all famous lies, which are here, like the legends of popery, first coined and stamped in the Church . All inventions are emptied here, and not few pockets. The best sign of a temple in it is, that it is the thieves’ sanctuary, which rob more safely in the crowd than in the wilderness, whilst every searcher is a bush to hide them. It is the other expence of the day after plays and tavern, and men have still some oaths left to swear here. The visitants are all men without exceptions ; but the principal inhabitants and possessors are stale knights and captains out of service, 1 London, 1637. Reprinted in Harleian Miscellany, vol. viii. p. 382. 2 Edition of 1811, edited by Philip Bliss, Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, p. 116. 46 CHAP. IV. Ben Jonson and Paul’s Walk. Bishop Earle again. THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. men of long rapiers and breeches, which after all turn merchants here and traffick for news. Some make it a preface to their dinner, and travel for a stomach ; but thriftier men make it their ordinary, and board here very cheap. e “ You’d not doe Like jour penurious father, who was wont To walke his dinner out in Paules.” Mayne’s City Match , 1658.’ As an illustration of Paul’s Walk being a place of resort for 4 captains out of service, men of long rapiers,’ Shakspeare makes Falstaff say that he bought Bardolpli in Paul’s : — - ( Falstaff. Where’s Bardolph P Page. He’s gone to Smithfield to buy your worship a horse. Falstaff. I bought him in Paul’s. ’ Henry IV. Pt. II. Act i. Scene 2. In the Dramatis Personae of Ben Jonson’s 4 Every Man in his Humour,’ Bobadil is described as 4 a Paul’s man,’ and in his 4 Every Man out of his Humour,’ the first scene of the third act is laid in the Middle Aisle of St. Paul’s : Orange asks Shift, 4 What has brought you into these west parts ? ’ and Shift answers, 4 Troth, signior, nothing but your rheum ; I have been taking an ounce of tobacco hardly here, with a gentleman, and I am come to spit private in Paul’s.’ When Fastidious enters, he says, 4 Come, let’s walk in Medi- terraneo ’ (the Middle Aisle). Again, in describing a courtier, Bishop Earle says 1 : — 4 If you find him not heere, you shall in Paules, with a pick-tooth in his hat, a cape cloke, and a long stock- ing.’ In his description 2 of 4 A Corranto-coiner,’ or Microcosmography, p. 259. 2 Ibid. pp. 284, 288. CURIOUS CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH OLD ST. PAUL’S. 47 Walk. manufacturer of news, he says, 4 Paules is his walk chap. in winter. . . . He holds himself highly engaged to ^ — . — - his invention if it can purchase him victuals ; for authors, he never converseth with them, unless they walke in Paules.’ Again he says 1 in his account of 4 The Tearme,’ which he describes as the 4 time when Bishop Justice keeps open court for all comers, while her Paul’s sister Equity strives to mitigate the rigour of her posi- tive sentence. It is called the Tearme, because it does end and terminate business, or else because it is the Terminus ad quern , that is, the end of the country- man’s journey, who comes up to the Tearme, and with his hobnayleshooes grindes the faces of the poore stones, and so returns again. It is the soule of the yeare .... it sends forth her bookes into the world, and replenishes Paule’s walke with fresh company, where Quid novi ? is their first salutation and the weekely news their chiefe discourse.’ Francis Osborn, in his 4 Traditionall Memoyres on the Baigne of King James ,’ 2 says, 4 It was the fashion of those times, and did so continue till these, for the principall Gentry, Lords, Commons, and men of all professions not meerely Mechanick, to meet in Paul’s Church by eleven, and walk in the middle lie till twelve, and after dinner from three to six, during which time some discoursed of Businesse, others of Newes.’ Weever, in his ‘Ancient Funeral Monu- ments,’ 3 says, 4 It could be wished that walking in the middle isle of Paules might be forborne in the time of dinner service,’ but probably this was a misprint for 4 divine ’ service. 1 Ibid. p. 291. 2 Printed for Thomas Robinson (Oxford), 1658, p. 64. 3 1631, p. 373. 48 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. IV. Decker’s account of Paul’s Walk. Decker, in his 4 Gull’s Hornbook ’ (first published in 1 60 9), 1 gives a most amusing account of the way in which St. Paul’s was misused, in his instructions as to the way in which 4 a Gallant should behave himself in Paul’s Walks.’ He says, 4 How for your venturing into the walk. Be circumspect and wary what pillar you come in at ; and take heed in any case, as you love the reputation of your honour, that you avoid the serving man’s log, 2 and approach not within five fathom of that pillar ; but bend your course directly in the middle line, that the whole body of the church may appear to be yours. . . . But one note by the way do I especially woo you to, that by no means you take more than four turns ; but in the fifth make yourself away, either in some of the semsters’ shops, the new tobacco office, or amongst the booksellers.’ He then goes on to say that if lie be 4 a gallant in the mercers’ books, exalted for satins and velvets,’ that is to say in their debt, 4 your Paul’s Walk is your only refuge : the Duke’s tomb is a sanctuary.’ The Duke’s tomb is that which was supposed to be the tomb of the good Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and which, like other parts of the Church, was a sanctuary. The Aisle in which it stood was called Duke Humphrey’s Walk, and 1 Edition printed at Bristol, 1812, p. 91 et seq. 2 The anonymous editor (J. N.) of the edition from which I have quoted says, 1 This, I should imagine, was the rendezvous of gossiping servants, who kept apart from the gentry, and seated themselves, for rest and convenience, on a block or bench affixed to some particular pillar. The following passage from Jasper Mayne would seem to favour sucb conjecture : — “■ Newcut. Indeed, they say, He was a monument of St. Paul’s. Timothy. Yes, he was there As constant as Duke Humphrey. I can shew The prints where he sate, holes i’ th’ logs.’ ” City Match, Act iii. Scene 3. CURIOUS CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH OLD ST. PAUL’S. 49 Decker says of it, 4 All the diseased horses in a tedious chap siege cannot show so many fashions 1 2 as are to be seen — A- for nothing, every day, in Duke Humphrey’s Walk. Duke If therefore you determine to enter into a new suit, ph^y's warn your tailor to attend you in Paul’s .’ 2 Walk * Old St. Paul’s was also the resort of lawyers who The Ser- met their clients there. Dugdale, in his Origines their* &t Juridicales 3 — speaking of what he calls a tradition — Plllars - says, 4 St. Paul’s Church, where each Lawyer and Serjeant at his Pillar heard his Client’s Cause, and took notes thereof upon his knee ; as they do in Guild- hall at this day: And that after the Serjeants’ feast ended, they do still go to Paul’s in their Habits, and there choose their Pillar, whereat to hear their Clyents’ cause (if any come) in memory of that old custome.’ Dugdale throws some doubt on the story, for he says, 6 But, if we may rely upon the testimony of Sir John Fortescue, this tradition will prove but a mere conceit.’ Notwithstanding Dugdale’s doubts, however, there seems to have been good ground for the 4 tradition ’ to which he alludes, for in the very curious * Diary of a Eesident in London,’ written above a century before Dugdale’s work was published, the facts of the case are stated, and are probably the origin of what Dug- dale calls the ‘tradition.’ 'This Diary was written by one Henry Machyn, 4 Citizen and Merchant Taylor of London,’ who, in his capacity of merchant taylor, was a furnisher of funeral trappings, and must, therefore, have been quite familiar with the manners and cus- toms connected with St. Paul’s. His Diary extends 1 1 Infected with the fashions / — Taming of the Shrew, Act iii. Scene 2 ; meaning farcy, see Decker, p. 42 (note 21). 2 Decker, p. 101. 3 London, 1680, p. 142. E 50 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. chap, over only fourteen years, from a.d. 1550 to a.d. 1563. - — ^ — * He says, ‘The xvij day of October (1552) was made Machyn r s vii serjeants of the coyffe.’ He then — with delicious Diary ‘ disregard of spelling— describes how ‘at ix. of the cloke ’ they 4 whent to Westmynster halle,’ and then returned ‘into Gray-yn to dener, and after dener they whent unto Powlls, and so whent up the stepes, and so round the qwere and ther dyd they ther homage, and so came unto the north-syd of Powlles and stod a-pone the stepes ontil iiij old serjeantes came together and feytchyd iiij new, and broght them unto serten pelers (pillars), and left them, and then dyd feyched the resedue unto the pelers.’ 1 In reference to this custom, Mr. Cunningham says that, when Laud consecrated the Church of St. Catherine Cree, he pronounced a curse upon all who should make a Law Court of it. 2 The Si Then there was a door which was called the Si Quis QuisD oor. ^ oor ^ Qn no tices of all kinds were placarded. Things lost, servants wanting places, parsons wanting livings, all made known their wants on this door. Decker says, 3 ‘ The first time that you venture into Paul’s, pass through the body of the Church like a porter, yet presume not to fetch so much as one whole turn in the middle aisle, no nor to cast an eye to Si Quis door, pasted and plastered up with serving-men’s sup- plications, before you have paid tribute to the top of Paul’s steeple with a single penny.’ The editor of Decker says that Si Quis has been defined ‘A paper set up in some open place to proclaim anything lost,’ 1 Edition printed for the Camden Society, edited by J. G. Nichols, F.S.A. (1848), p. 27. 2 Hand Book for London (1849), 2 vols., vol. ii. p. 629 (note). 3 P. 102. CURIOUS CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH OLD ST. PAUL’S. 51 and there can be but little doubt that these notices chap. were often prefaced by the words 4 Si Quis invenerit.’ 1 s — £3- — The following passage from 4 Hall’s Satires ’ points out where the Si Quis door stood : — 1 Sawst thou ever Si quis patched on Paul’s Church door, To seek some vacant vicarage before ? Who wants a churchman that can service say, Read fast and fair his monthly homily, And wed, and bury, and make Christian souls, Come to the left-side alley of Saint Paul’s.’ Virgidemiarum, Sat. V. Book II. Chaucer also alludes to the practice of hiring clergy- men at St. Paul’s : — ( He sette not his benefice to hire, And lette his shepe acombred in the mire, And ran unto London, unto Seint Poules, To seken him a chanterie for soules, Or with a brotherhede to be withold.’ Canterbury Tales, line 509. We now come to a strange story about a horse that The horse climbed up to the top of St. Paul’s. After telling his Mar0CC0, gallant that he must go 4 to the top of St. Paul’s steeple/ and cautioning him, when he gets there, to 4 take heed how you look down into the yard, for the rails are as rotten as your great grandfather ’ — in consequence of the neglect of the Cathedral at that time (circa 1609) — Decker says, ‘from hence you may descend, to talk about the horse that went up.’ 2 This refers to a horse called Marocco, which belonged to a man named Bankes. It is difficult to come to any conclusion as to the tricks performed by this horse, but they are alluded to by so many writers of the time that it is impossible to doubt that he performed many curious feats, although 1 Probably it was originally a door on which purely ecclesiastical notices were posted. 2 P. 104. e 2 52 CHAP. IV. The horse Marocco. THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. it cannot be imagined that he ever climbed up the steeple. Dr. Rimbault, the editor of the edition of Maroccus Extaticus , published by the Percy Society, in 1843, gives the following account of the horse and his master. He says, 6 The various accomplishments and exploits of “ Bankes’ horse ” are alluded to by almost every writer towards the close of the sixteenth and first half COPY OF A "WOODCUT ON THE TITLE-PAGE OF 4 MAKGCCUS EXTATICUS. of the succeeding century. At what period the horse was first exhibited in London must now be a matter of conjecture ; but we are led to conclude, from various circumstances, that it was not before the year 1590. The horse was named Marocco, and was the property of a person named Bankes, who, according to the author of the Life of Moll Cutpurse , 1662, was a vintner in Cheapside, who taught his horse to dance, and shoed him with silver.’ The earliest notice we find of Marocco ’s popularity occurs in a MS. copy of one of Dr. Donne’s Satires, 1 1 Dated 1593, and preserved in the British Museum (Harl. MSS., No. 5110). CURIOUS CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH OLD ST. PAUL’S. 53 but he must have acquired an immense share of public favour prior to the year 1595, when the Maroccus Extaticus was first printed. In 1600, the horse at- tracted considerable notice by ascending to the top of St. Paul’s Cathedral (P), a feat which, according to Owles Almanacke , highly delighted 4 a number of asses ’ who ‘stood braying below.’ This exploit was celebrated by Middleton in his Blache Booke , 1604, by Eowley in his Search for Money , 1600, and by numerous other contemporary writers. The horse is described in a French translation of Apuleius’ Golden Ass, by the translator who had seen the horse, as a middle-sized bay English gelding about fourteen years old. The horse is also mentioned in a letter, dated Feb. 3rd, 1601, from John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, who was then at the Hague. This letter, like all the correspondence between Chamberlain and Carleton, is very amusing. Among other gossip com- municated to his friend, he says that the Duke of Bracciano was on a visit in England, and that 4 the Queen graciously entertained him, and danced both measures and galliards before him, to show that she is not so old as some would have her.’ This, certainly, has nothing to do with St. Paul’s ; but he goes on to say, 6 Hew experiments are daily made ; last week one came hopping from Charing Cross to St. Paul’s in a sack, and another riding a horse on the top of Paul’s steeple.’ 1 Bankes unluckily took his horse to Pome, where, according to the author of Don Zaradel Fogo , 2 both man and horse were burnt, by order of the Pope, as wizards. In 4 Love’s Labour ’s Lost,’ Act i. Scene 2, Moth says to Arm ado, alluding to some other tricks per- formed by this horse, 4 How easy it is to put years to 1 Calendars, Domestic, 1598-1601, p. 541. 2 P. 114, CHAP. IV. The horse Marocco. 54 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. IV. Repression of dese- cration. Ears cut off. the word three, and study three years in two words, the dancing horse will tell you.’ The minor desecrations of St. Paul’s were enquired into and forbidden, but I cannot discover that the ‘gallants’ were interfered with. In March, 1632, Attorney- General Noy and Dr. Thomas Eives, the King’s advocate, were consulted as to the best way of remedying the abuse and profanation of St. Paul’s. The abuses were said to be, ‘ Walking there during Divine Service, and on Sundays and festival days the boys and maids and children of the adjoining parishes, after dinner, come into the Church and play as children use to do till dark night, whence comes that inordinate noise which many times suffers not the preacher to be heard.’ 1 Shortly after this were issued 4 Articles by His Majesty’s command to be observed by all persons in St. Paul’s. I. No man to walk in the Church during Divine Service. II. No man to profane the Church by carriage of burthens or baskets. III. Parents and masters to forbid their children and servants to play in the Church.’ 2 Brawling in the Church was punished with far greater severity, seventy years previously. Henry Machyn, the diarist and furnisher of funerals, tells us that on ‘the xv day of December (1561) was a pelere sett up in Powlles Chyrche-yerd agaynst the Byshope’s plase for a man that mayd a fray in Powlle’s Chyrche, and ys ere nayllyd to the post, and after cutt off, for a fray in Powlles Chyrche.’ 3 In 1554 the Lord Mayor issued the following pro- clamation ‘ For the preventing of Profanation and Abuses offered to St. Paul’s.’ 1 Calendars , Domestic , 1631-83, p. 300. 3 Machyn’s Diary , p. 273. 2 Ibid. p. 491. CURIOUS CUSTOMS CONNECTED WITH OLD ST. PAUL’S. 55 4 This Act of Common Council was made August the 1 st, Anno 1 and 2 of Philip and Mary. ‘ Forasmuch as the material Temples of God were first ordained for the lawful and devout Assembly of People, there to lift their Hearts, and to laud and praise Almighty God ; and to hear his Divine Service, and most Holy Word and Gospel, sincerely said, sung, and taught; and not to be used as Markets, or other profane Places, or Thorow-fares, with carriage of Things : And for that (now of late years) many of the Inhabitants of the City of London , and other People repairing thither, have, (and yet do) commonly use and acustom them- selves very unseemly and unreverently (the more the pity) to make their common Carriage of great Vessels full of Ale and Beer, great Baskets full of Bread, Fish, Flesh, and Fruit, and such other Things ; Fardels of Stuff, and other gross Wares and Things, thorow the Cathedral Church of St. Paul's. And some, in leading Moyles, Horses, and other Beasts through the same unreverently ; to the great Dishonour and Displeasure of Almighty God, and the great Grief also, and Offence, of all good People : Be it therefore, for remedy and reformation thereof, Ordained, Enacted, and Esta- blished, &c., That no Person, either Free or Foreign, of what Estate or Condition soever, do at any time from henceforth, carry or convey, or cause to be carried through the said Cathedral, any manner of great Vessel or Basket with Bread, Ale, Beer, Fish, Flesh, &c., or any other like Thing or Things, upon pain of forfeiture or losing for every such his or their first Offence, 3 s. 4 d., for the second 6 Cathedral. Pepys thus describes the destruction of St. accomit * Paul’s by its old enemy : — 4 Paul’s is burned and all Cheapside.’ 2 On Eriday, the 7th, he 4 is up by five 1 Evelyn’s Diary, edited by W. Bray, F.A.S., 4 vols, vol. ii. p. 10. 2 Pepys (London, 1848), vol. iii. p. 277. Gr 2 84 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL CHAP. yj. The Great Fire. Dr. Taswell’s account. o’clock, and, blessed be God ! found all safe, and by water to Paul’s Wharf. Walked there and saw all the town burned, and a miserable sight of Paul’s Church, with all the roof fallen, and the body of the quire fallen into St. Faith’s.’ 1 Another account gives fuller detail of the injury to St. Paul’s. A certain Dr. Taswell, then a boy at West- minster School, relates how that on Thursday, the XUD-GATE ON FIRE. The Great Fire of London, representing Lud-Gate having just caught fire and the Cathedral of St. Paul involved in flame. ‘ From an original Picture in the possession of Mrs. Lawrence, of Thames Street, London.’- — From Wilkinson’s Londina illustrata, 1811. 5th, he started soon after sunrise to try to get to St. Paul’s. He stopped on Fleet Bridge to cool his feet, which had been almost scorched by the heat of the ground, and then made his way to St. Paul’s. He there saw c the metal belonging to the bells melting ; the ruinous condition of the walls, with heaps of stones, of 1 Pepys (London, 1848), p. 281. For full account of the Great Fire, taken from the London Gazette , Sept. 10, 1666, and from Burnet’s Own Times, see Maitland’s History of London (ed. 1772), vol. i. p. 433. THE GREAT FIRE. 85 a large circumference, tumbling down with a great noise.’ 1 On Friday, the 7th, Evelyn visited St. Paul’s. He says, e I was infinitely concerned to find that goodly church a sad ruin,’ and concludes by saying, ‘ Thus lay in ashes that most venerable church.’ 2 The destruc- tion was complete. Of the absurd stories relative to the origin of the fire and its being the wilful act of foreigners and Roman Catholics, it would be apart from my purpose here to take notice. They are to be found detailed in super- abundant length in Maitland’s History of London. 1 Autobiography and Anecdotes, by William Taswell, D.D., sometime rector of Newington, Surrey, rector of Bermondsey, and previously student of Christ Church, Oxford, a.d. 1651-1682. Edited by George Percy Elliott, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Printed for the Camden Society, 1852. — Camden Miscellany , vol. ii. 3 Evelyn’s Diary , vol. ii. pp. 14, 15. Note (seep. 80). — Wren’s grandson represents him as radically opposed to Gothic architecture; but, especially when one recollects that Wren built the Tower of the Church of St. Dunstan’s in the East, and of St. Michael’s, Cornhill, in the Gothic style, it is doubtful whether he did so with sufficient information. However, it is only fair to quote Stephen Wren’s (the grandson’s) statements. In his report on Salisbury Cathedral, Stephen Wren, apparently putting forward his grandfather’s opinions, as collected from his MSS., begins with an account of the origin of Gothic architecture, which singularly agrees with Mr. Free- man’s views as expressed in the Fortnightly Review for October, 1872. He says, Hie was of opinion that what we now vulgarly call the Gothick, ought properly and truly to be named the Saracenick Architecture refined by the Christians, which first of all began in the East after the fall of the Greek Empire.’ He then goes on to give a most interesting account of the change from the horizontal and rounded forms to the perpendicular and pointed. After this he quotes Evelyn, who says, ‘ the Goths, Vandals, and other barbarous nations . . . introducing a certain fantastical and licentious manner of building, which we have since called modern or Gothick.’ His or his grandson’s dislike of Gothic architecture then follows, introduced however with a theory as to its origin inconsistent with what he had just put forward. ‘It was after the irruption and swarms of those truculent people from the North ; the Moors and Arabs from the South and East . . . soon began to CHAP. VI Stephen Wren’s statements as to his grand- father’s opinions on Gothic archi- tecture. 86 , THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VI. Stephen Wren’s statements as to his grand- father’s opinions on Gothic archi- tecture. Wren not the re- storer of the West- ern Towers of West- minster Abbey. debauch this noble and useful art. . . . They set up those slender and misshapen pillars, or rather bundles of staves and incongruous props, to support incumbent weights and ponderous arched roofs without entabla- ture, and though not without great industry, nor altogether naked of gaudy sculpture, trite and busy carvings, ’tis such as gluts the eye, rather than gratifies or pleases it with any reasonable satisfaction. Eor proof ot this I dare report myself to any man of judgment, and that has the least taste of order and magnificence, if after awhile he has looked upon King Henry 7th’s Chapel at Westminster (Sir Christopher Wren, in his Re- port on Westminster Abbey, calls this chapel “ a nice embroidered work”), gazed on its sharp angles, jetties, narrow lights, lame statues, lace and other cutwork and crinckle-cranckle, and shall then turn his eyes on the banquetting house built at Whitehall by Inigo Jones after the ancient manner, or on what his Majesty’s Surveyor, Sir Christopher Wren, has advanced at St. Paul’s,’ &c., &c. — Parentnlia, pp. 306-308. Stephen Wren correctly represented his grandfather’s opinions as to the Saracenic origin of Gothic architecture, although he may have exaggerated his dislike of it. In Wren’s Report to the Bishop of Rochester on the State of Westminster Abbey ( Parentalia , p. 296), Wren says, 1 This we now call the Gothic manner of architecture (so the Italians called what was not after the Roman style), though the Goths were rather destroyers than builders ; I think it should, with more reason, be called the Saracen style.’ Wren then goes on to account for the style they adopted by their use of small stones, their mode of carriage being by camels, and he intimates that we did the same because we had no marble. Afterwards he comments on * the Saracen mode of building.’ He says, 1 Nothing was thought magnificent that was not high beyond measure, with the flutter of arch-buttresses, so we call the sloping arches that poise the higher vaulting of the nave. The Romans always concealed their hutments, whereas the Normans thought them ornamental.’ ‘ Pinnacles are of no use, and little ornament.’ The following remarks on Wren’s supposed treatment of Westminster Abbey have been kindly communicated to me by Mr. Wyatt Papworth : — Wren has the discredit of building the two western towers of West- minster Abbey. Mr. Cunningham, in his Handbook (vol. ii. p. 379), repeats the accepted story. He says, 1 The western towers, erected from the designs of Sir Christopher Wren, are in a debased style of mixed Grecian and Gothic, utterly destitute of beauty.’ The architecture of the lower half of these towers is certainly as good as any of Wren’s Gothic works, perhaps better than many of them, for he endeavoured to restore the work he found, as may be readily per- ceived. But the upper portions of the towers deserve the comments above quoted. That Wren made a design for these towers is undoubted, as engravings are said to exist of his design • and in his Report he states, 1 I have made a design, which will not be very expensive, but light, and still in the Gothic form, and of a style with the rest of the structure, THE GREAT FIRE. 87 which I would strictly adhere to throughout the whole intention : to deviate from the whole form would be to run into a disagreeable mixture, which no person of taste could relish.’ It is conceded that Wren made a design for the whole front, but he could not have superintended more than the lower part (begun about 1713), as he died in 1723. The following extract from the Grub Street Journal , No. 271, March 6, 1735, explains that ‘the West front was never finished, and seems to have been by Providence reserved for the able hand of the judicious Mr. Hawksmore, whose design is to raise the two towers at the extreames of its fronts with spires thereon, which together will rise 140 feet above the present building, and make the total height equal to 260 feet, the height of the church being 120 feet.’ N. Hawksmore was first a pupil and then a clerk to Wren, and employed by him at all his great works. He died in 1736, and therefore we must look to some one else for the carrying out of the works between 1735-45. Perhaps it was John James, who was a well-known architect, employed after 1711 at St. Paul’s as 1 master carpenter,’ and in 1716 as ‘ assistant surveyor.’ On January 20, 1725, he succeeded W. Dickinson as surveyor at Westminster Abbey, and died shortly before May 30, 1746. The upper portions of the towers exhibit so little of the feeling of the Gothic style, that Wren’s name should be disconnected from them. The subjoined extracts from a paper read at the Architectural Exhi- bition, by Mr. Robert Kerr, and Mr. Ashpitel’s comments on it, reported in the Builder of May 18, 1873, have also a bearing on the question of Wren’s views as to Gothic architecture. He said, ‘Dr. Wren deter- mined to travel, for the sources of information and means of study at his command at home were very limited indeed. Critics of the modern Gothic school will remind me that he had the whole range of the fine monuments of Mediaeval England, and that the modern spire or steeple, a feature of his own origination, and its continual use in exquisite variety of perfection, proves how much he owed to the study of those remains. But there need be no disguise about the fact that our doctor of classical learning treated Mediaeval buildings with very much of straightforward disrespect, and would gladly have put “ new flagging ’’ to the best of them “after a good Roman manner” to conceal “the Gothic rudeness of their old design.” Doubtless the contemplation, with so keen an eye for grace and fitness as his, of the picturesque effects of that style of architecture, did much to form his taste. This is now universally admitted. But whether he was aware of it is quite another thing.’ On this, Mr. Ashpitel, who was in the chair, said, ‘ he ventured not exactly to differ from Mr. Kerr, as to what he had said on Gothic architecture, for there was no doubt that, in his early career , Sir Chris- topher Wren had proposed to classicise the nave of Old St. Paul’s. But it must be remembered that it was not long after that he steadfastly CHAP. VI. Wren not the re- storer of the West- ern Towers of West- minster Abbey. Mr. Kerr’s and Mr. Ashpitel’s remarks on Wren’s archi- tecture. 88 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL CHAP refused to do so with the west front of Westminster Abbey.' Wren was VI. not in the position we now are, with a perfect knowledge of Mediaeval ~ » detail, and with workmen ready to carry out our wishes in the most careful way. All old traditions had been worn out ; new fashions had come in ; new contours had been recognised as the only correct type for mouldings, and other detail ; and Wren was much in the same position as Wyatt and the other architects who endeavoured to revive Mediaeval art some fifty years ago. But when he looked at the general composi- tion, the general masses of the west front of the Abbey, and, still more so, the noble tower of St. Michael, Cornhill, the curious and able spire of St. Dunstan’s in the East, the front at Christ Church, Oxford, and many other works in the same style, which it would be impossible to detail at length, he believed that, had Sir Christopher lived at the present time, he would have been not only the greatest classic, but the greatest Gothic architect of the day.’ CHAPTER YII THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL— PLANS FOR RESTORATION— ACCEPTANCE BY THE KING OF WREN’S DESIGNS FOR REBUILDING— MODE OF RAISING THE REQUISITE FUNDS. CHAPTER VII. The history of St. Paul’s Cathedral has now reached the period which may be considered as belonging to modern times. It has arrived at the time when pre- parations were made for the building of that Cathe- dral whose completion, or rather 4 adornment ’ — to use the w r ord adopted in all Acts of Parliament relative to St. Paul’s — is now undertaken with a serious and active earnestness which bids fair to accomplish that long- neglected task. For nearly two centuries has our great national Cathedral been allowed to remain unadorned where its architect doubtless desired and intended adornment ; to stand disfigured by orna- mentation to which Wren objected, and must have objected with all his heart and soul ; to be surrounded and partially hidden by heavy iron balustrades, against which Wren protested ; and to present in the interior a cold, wretched, and comfortless appearance, where Wren intended warmth and brightness and cheerful solemness. But it is necessary to return to the day of destruction. Very soon after the fire, I)r. Wren, who had previously distinguished himself as a member of the Royal Society, 4 was appointed deputy surveyor-general and principal architect for rebuilding the whole city ; having been previously appointed architect and one of the Commis- sioners for the reparation of St. Paul’s .’ 1 He imme- diately set to work to fit up a portion of the dilapidated 1 Elmes’ Life , p, 219. CHAP. VII. The begin- ning of the New Cathedral after the Great Fire of 1666. 92 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VII. Wren fits upa part of the ruined Ca- thedral for temporary use. January 15 , 1667 . Wall round Ca- thedral. Cathedral for temporary use in divine serviced Having been consulted relative to the state of the Cathedral before the fire, “ he was prepared with plans, eleva- tions, and sections of every part, which he had but just finished to a large scale on vellum when that event occurred.” 2 He was also well acquainted with its ori- ginal defects of construction — which, however, he cer- tainly exaggerated — and was consequently unwilling to attempt its restoration, preferring now to rebuild it entirely. The damage caused by the fire certainly made this more desirable ; but, as will presently be seen, many parts of the waits which were still standing were of enormous strength. It was indispensable, in the mean time, to keep the building in some state of repair. Accordingly, on January 15th, 1667, the King issued an order, stating that 4 It being thought necessary in the mean time (till it shall please God to bless us with a more favourable juncture for doing something more lasting and magnificent) that some part of that venerable pile be forthwith restored to its religious use — it was this day ordered that a choir and auditory for present use be forthwith set out.’ 3 On the same day it was ordered that, for the ‘Sup- pressing and preventing of present and future annoy- ances and encroachments, the Churchyard be forthwith walled in, or otherwise enclosed at such distance from the Church on all sides, that the publique way without the said enclosure be left at least as broad in all places as the late Act of Parliament for rebuilding the City requires.’ 4 1 Dugdale, edition of 1716, p. 153. 2 Elmes, p. 220, and Parentalia , p. 294. 3 Dugdale’s St. Paid's, Ellis’ ed. p. 127. 4 Ellis’ Dugdale, p. 127 (note), ‘copied from the Book of Orders in the Muniment Room at St. Paul’s.’ SANCROFT AND WREN. 93 The whole management of this work was left to the chap. ° . VII. care and direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, ^ — the Earl of Manchester, the Lord Chamberlain, the Committee. Bishops of London, Bochester, Winchester and Ely, Sir Bichard Chaworth, Vicar-General of the province of Canterbury, and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s. 1 On the 5th of March following, a sub-committee was Sub- appointed for carrying the order into execution. Wren’s March 5 , name was not mentioned on either committee, but, as 1667 ' architect, he was of course consulted by Dean Sancroft as to the course to be adopted. Wren was convinced that a new Cathedral was necessary, although he saw the need of providing temporary accommodation. He consequently strenuously opposed all patching-up of the Cathedral, but the committee nevertheless appears to persist in have attempted to do this, notwithstanding his protests. ^P a , tchln s- About a year after the appointment of the sub-com- mittee, during which time the patching-up must have been going on, Dean Sancroft wrote to Wren at Oxford April 25 , (April 25. 1668), saying, 4 What you whispered in my ear, at your last coming hither, is come to pass. Our work at the west-end of St. Paul’s is fallen about our ears. ’ 2 And he then goes on to say that one of the pillars had fallen, that another, and that the largest of all, was in a dangerous state, and that the breach made by the fall of the pillar revealed the defects in Inigo Jones’ work. He therefore said that they could proceed no further with the Avork at the west-end ; and impressed with the fullest conviction that they, the amateurs who had failed because they had opposed his opinions, could do nothing without him, he asked, 4 What we are to do next is the present deliberation, in which you are so 1 Dr. Sancroft, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, nominated Dean of St. Paul's in 1664. 3 Elmes, p. 245. 94 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP VII. Dean San croft begs Wren to come to London. July 2, 1668. Bancroft’s repeated entreaties to Wren. absolutely and indispensably necessary to us that we can do nothing, resolve nothing, without you.’ 1 Dean Sancroft consequently begged Wren to come to London with 4 all possible speed,’ and to bring with him the drawings and designs he had already made. It is doubtful whether Wren came, and the patching still went on, 2 notwithstanding a remonstrance from him ; but on the 2nd of July the Dean wrote to Wren again, 3 to tell him that 4 yesterday my Lords of Canterbury, London, and Oxford met on purpose to hear your letter read once more, and to consider what is now to be done in order to the repairs of St. Paul’s. They unanimously resolved that it is fit immediately to attempt something, and that without you they can do nothing. I am therefore commanded to give you an invitation hither in his Grace’s name and the rest of the Commissioners with all speed; that we may *pre- pare something to be proposed to his Majesty (the design of such a Quire, at least, as may be a congruous part of a greater and more magnificent work to follow).’ Dr. Sancroft then goes on to make remarks well worthy of consideration at the present time when much debate has taken place as to the necessit}^ of preparing a defb nite plan for the completion of St. Paul’s, and much unworthy fear has been expressed that the nation would not provide the necessary funds. He says, 4 And then for the procuring Contributions to defray this, we are so sanguine as not to doubt of it if we could but once resolve what we would do and wdiat that would cost. So that the only part of your letter we demurr to, is the method you propound of declaring, first, what Money we would bestow ; and then designing some- thing just of that Expence ; for quite otherwise, the * Elme?, p. 245. 2 Ibid. p. 24G. 3 Parentolia, p. 279. BANCROFT AND WREN. 95 way their Lordships resolve upon is to frame a design chap. handsome and noble, and suitable to all the ends of it, and to the reputation of the City, and the Nation, and to take it for granted that Money will be had to accom-? in the plish it.’ 1 It seems probable that Wren came to ofpfe 7 London, in answer to this urgent solicitation, and that, £^ s s ; ary although the full determination to have an entirely new Cathedral was not yet arrived at in Wren’s mind, he was able, in conjunction with his faithful supporter, Dean Sancroft, to convince the committee that further patching up was inexpedient. This seems clear from the fact that, on the 25th of the same month, the King July 25, issued a warrant for taking down the walls and clear- 16<38 ' ing the ground to the foundation of the east end, the old choir, and the tower, so as to make room for a new choir, as part of a possible new Cathedral. 2 That Wren at that time thought it necessary to postpone the idea of building a new Cathedral, seems evident from wren pro his expressions in a report to the Commissioners (un- Oration dated, but probably presented at this time). He says and not x e . . . 7 J entire re- that by making a new choir and auditory he can with building, ease provide 4 a present Cathedral ; ’ and he adds, 4 there will be time to consider of a more durable and noble fabric, to be made in the place of the lower and eastern parts of the church, when the minds of men, now con- tracted to many objects of necessary charge, shall, by God’s blessing, be more widened, after a happy resto- ration, both of the buildings and wealth of the city and nation. In the meanwhile, to derive, if not a stream, yet some little drills of charitj^ this w T ay, or^ at least, to preserve that already obtained from being diverted, it may not prove ill-advised to seem to begin something of the new fabric. But I confess this cannot well be 1 Parentaliciy p. 279. 2 Elnies, p. 253 t 96 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. chap, put in execution, without taking down all that part of - r — ' the rum. necessity These works were carried on for nearly two years. Cathedral when at last the necessity for an entirely new Church atiength b eC ame evident. ‘Towards the latter end of which admitted. two years they fell to casing some of those great and a.d. 1670 . massy Pillars which stood betwixt the Middle Isle and the Side Isles ; beginning with those below the little North Door towards the West ; but before the third Pillar was perfectly cased, they were found to be altogether incapable of any substantial repair. It was therefore fully concluded, that, in order to a new Pa- brick, the Foundations of the old Cathedral, thus made ruinous, should be totally cleared ; and Preparations of Materials and all Things needful made ready, conducing to a hew Fabrick. WTiich work continued until the last of April, 1674, at a total cost of 10,909/. 7s. Sd .’ 1 2 There is no little difficulty in reducing to strict chronological order 3 the different plans made by Sir Christopher Wren for the rebuilding of St. Paul’s. It must be recollected that the Parentalia , the chief — if not only — authority on the question, was published by Wren’s grandson twenty-seven years after his grand- father’s death, and it cannot be denied that it is far from systematic in arrangement. 4 Thus much, however, seems clear. Just before the fire, Wren, being ordered ‘to provide a convenient quire, with vestibule and porticoes, and a Dome con 1 Elmes, pp. 252, 253, quoting ‘from the Antiquarian Repertory, com- municated by the late Thomas Astle, Esq.’ 2 Parentalia, p. 278, and Ellis’ Duc/dale, p. 127. 3 See note at end of Chapter, giving an attempted chronological arrangement of Wren’s designs. 4 The Parentalia was published in 1750. Sir Christopher Wren died in 1723. Design for St. Paul’s made by Sir Christopher Wren immediately BEFORE THE GREAT EIRE. Description of the above in Elmes’ Catalogue of Sir Christopher Wren’s Drawings at All Souls College, Oxford (Yol. 2, No. 7) : ‘ Section of the same (Orthography of the Dome and part of the Old Church, according to the same design, numbered 2 in the same volume), most elaborately drawn and finished in Indian ink. The choir, which is up 18 steps, remains Gothic, the other parts Corinthian — the upper windows resembling those of the present choir. Signed in the timbers of the roof, “ C. Wren, 166G.” ’ 98 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VII. Com- mission appointed by Charles the Second, November 12 , 1673 . Nov. 12, 1673 . Charles the Second’s Commis- sion. allowed Wren to make, and which he did make to an incredible extent, was carried out as the Cathedral now exists. A more particular account of the designs made by Sir Christopher Wren after the Great Fire will be given in the next chapter. I have introduced a brief and summary account of them in this place, as a necessary introduction to the following financial statement. The King issued a warrant, appointing a Commis- sion to superintend the building of the Cathedral ac- cording to the second design, on November 12, 1673, and in virtue of it — although the design was subse- quently rejected — preparations were made for the new building, by clearing the ground for a new founda- tion, on May 1, 1674. 1 The warrant is addressed to the Lord Mayor of the city of London for the time being (who in this matter takes precedence even of the Archbishop of Canterbury) and to 108 other persons, comprising various noblemen, the two archbishops, the bench of bishops, Sir Matthew Hale, Dugdale the his- torian of St. Paul’s, and c Dr. Christopher Wren, Doctor of Laws, and Surveyor-General of our works,’ 2 and other distinguished persons. The Commission begins by stating that King James the First and King Charles the First had granted several Commissions for c upholding and repairing ’ St. Paul’s, and that in 1663 he (Charles the Second) had issued a Commission to the same effect, but that 4 since the issuing of which Commission, the late dreadful fire hath de- stroyed and consumed the said Cathedral to such a degree that no part of the ancient walls or structures can with any safety be relied upon or left standing, 1 Ellis’ Dugdale, p. 140. 2 Parentalia, p. 280, and Ellis’ Dugdale, pp. 155, 159. WREN’S PROCEEDINGS. 99 insomuch that it is now become absolutely necessary totally to demolish and raze to the ground all the relicks of the former building, and in the same place but upon new foundations to erect a new church. We have caused several designs to that purpose to be prepared by Dr. Christopher Wren, Surveyor-General of all our works and buildings, which we have seen, and one of which we do more especially approve, and have commanded a model thereof 1 to be made after so large and exact a manner, that it may remain as a perpetual and unchangeable rule and direction for the conduct of the whole work.’ The Commission then goes on to say, that whereas the former Commission was only for upholding and repairing the Cathedral, and did not sufficiently authorise the Commissioners to begin a new fabric, he 4 nominated and appointed ’ certain persons to be 4 our Commissioners for the re- building, new erecting, finishing, and adorning the said Cathedral Church, according to the design and model above mentioned.’ 2 The undertaking was thus taken up as one of an entirely national character. Wren’s plan was the basis of everything connected with the building of the new Cathedral ; but six, 4 or more of you,’ were appointed as a committee for carrying out the details of the building, and for keeping the accounts. The terms of the Com- mission then went on to provide the means by which the necessary funds should be raised. The King confirmed his previous grant of 1 ,000Z. a year, which had been given only for 4 the reparation of the said Church,’ and then gave the Bishop of London and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s 4 full power and authority to ask, demand, 1 Viz. the Kensington model, as already stated. 2 Ellis’ Dugdale, pp. 132-136. H 2 CHAP. VII. Mode of raising funds. 100 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VII. King Charles’ contribu- tions and promises. Orders in Council for payments by Bishops. receive, and take the free and Voluntary Contributions of all such our Nobility, Bishops, Judges, and others of Quality and Ability, and of all such our subjects as shall willingly contribute to the said work.’ 1 ‘The Judges of the Prerogative Court and all others having and exercising Ecclesiastical Dominion within this our kingdom ’ were ordered to assign 4 some convenient proportion of such money as shall from time to time fall into their power for or by reason of Commutations of Penance ’ to the same purpose. 4 Letters patent, to be drawn in a more special manner than ordinary Briefs are wont to be, for publick Collections of the Charity of our loving and well-disposed subjects’ 2 were ordered to be issued. All classes contributed; various private persons gave handsome sums and left liberal legacies. The clergy were not behind the rest ; the Dean and Chapter were very generous, and collections were made over the whole country in the various parishes, and sums from this latter source as well as others flowed in annually for ten years. Among the private persons who contributed, it should be recorded that Christopher Wren gave 60/. But although Charles the Second had promised 4 1,000/. by the year to be paid Quarterly out of our Privy Purse, and to be continued during the Reparation of the said Church,’ there is no record of one penny of it having ever been paid ; and all we find is that he gave 527/. Is. 3 d . 4 out of Pines and Forfeitures, commonly called Green Wax money,’ and 1,627/. 9s. 8 d. 4 out of the arrears of Impropriations due to him and not pardoned.’ In 1678 there were issued the following remarkable orders in Council for raising funds for the rebuilding. The first, dated February 25th, stated that 4 Whereas 1 Ellis’ Dug dale, p 165. 2 Ibid. p. 156. RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE. 101 hitherto it hath been a Custome upon the Consecra- chap. x . vii tion of all Bishops to make great entertainments and feasts, wherein much money was unnecessarily spent,’ it was ordered 4 that for the future no more such feasts or entertainments shall be made, but that in lieu thereof each Lord Bishop, before his Consecration, shall hereafter pay the sum of Fifty Pounds, to be employed towards the rebuilding of the Cathedral Church of St Paul. And it was further ordered that his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury does not proceed to consecrate any Bishop before he hath payd the said summe.’ The second, dated October 23rd, ordered that a similar sum should be paid on like occasions in lieu of the Gloves which were given by the Bishops to all that came to the Consecration dinners. 1 In the same year, Henry Compton, Bishop of London, Bishop who witnessed the laying of the first stone of his Cathe- appeai°to & dral, and lived as Bishop of London to see its completion, the natlon * printed an address, exhorting all persons throughout the kingdom to extend their liberality towards the building, and endeavoured to remove certain objections which had been raised against it. The objections were, first, that 4 the sumptuousness and magnificence of churches is not at all suitable to the times of the Gospel, nor accord- ing to the simplicity of the primitive Christian worship.’ The second was 4 that the Church of St. Paul’s, belong- ing only to the city and diocess of London, ought to be rebuilt solely at their charge, without having re- course to so extraordinary a way of supply and con- tribution from others who are no way concerned in it.’ To the first objection he answered that, although His devotion must be inward and spiritual, yet that in its obj^tion^ 1 Ellis’ Dugdole , pp. 141, 142. 102 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VII. The re- building a National concern. Book of subscrip- tions. Receipts from 1663 to 1685. public manifestation 4 the circumstance of it should be not only decent but very solemn and magnificent ; ’ and, in the fashion of the time, he made use of some- what elaborate and what may now appear far-fetched arguments, drawn from both the Old and New Testa- ment, in support of his views. But they were suited to the times. In answer to the second he brought forward sound arguments and cogent facts. He said that the inhabitants of London were great sufferers by the fire, that they were put to great expense in re- building their churches, hospitals, and other public buildings, and that 4 the city of London had ever been found very charitable and bountiful on all occasions, towards the rebuilding of churches in town and country, and the repairing of the fortunes of particular persons, that have been ruined by the like calamity of fire ; that the rebuilding of this church is of very public concern- ment, and the whole nation, in some sort, interested in it, and that the glory of the work will redound to the whole nation, to which it will not only be a singular ornament, but likewise a standing monument of the public affection and zeal of this Protestant kingdom to piety and good works.’ 1 Another Book of Subscriptions, similar to that of 1664, and, like it, still preserved in the library of the Cathedral, was opened ; but the only names written in it are those of Charles the Second and of his brother James, Duke of York. The total sum collected from August 5th, 1663, to March 25th, 1685, amounted to 126,604/. Qs. 5c/., nearly one-half of which, 62,945/., was derived from the fourth portion of the tax on coals, which had been granted for the public buildings of the city by 18 & 19 Car. II. 1 Elmes’ Life of Wren, p. 373. RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE. 103 c. 8, sect. 34, and especially for St. Paul’s, by the Act chap. 22 Car. II. c. 11, sect. 36. - — - The expenditure, from the commencement of the Expen- • diturG restoration of the building in 1663, up to April 1684, during the amounted to 124,261/. 4s. 10 d. Of this, a portion was spent before the Great Fire, viz. 3,586/. 5s. Id ., being 6 the total of all the disbursements for Eepair of this Cathedral, after the Restoration of our present Sove- reign King Charles II., and before the dreadful Fire of London, by which the old Fabrick was ruined : viz. from the 1st of August, 1663, to the last of August, 1666, the Expendi- to Fire happening the second day of September follow- March ing.’ From the Great Fire to 1674 there was spent 1684 ‘ 10,909/. 7s. 8 d. } being 4 the total of the Disbursements after the Fire of London ; viz. from the 2nd of Sep- tember, 1666, to the last of April, 1674, for the Repair of the Ruins, and that not succeeding, in making Pre- parations in order to a new Fabrick.’ 109,765/. 12s. Id. was spent ‘upon the new Fabrick, which was begun in May 1674, until the last day of March 1684.’ The total expenditure during these three periods amounted, as I have before said, to 124,261/. 4s. 10 d} CHRONOLOGICAL VIEW OF WREN’S DESIGNS. First Design. — Before the Great Fire, a.d. 1666, Attempted 4 Wren being ordered to provide a convenient quire logical with vestibule and porticoes and a dome conspicuous ment of" above the houses, proposed to do this by cutting off the inner corners of the cross, making a dome in the See p- 96 - 1 Ellis’ Dugdale ) pp. 170, 171 ; and Parent alia, p. 292. 104 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VII. First Design. Quire and auditory. * Hand- some and noble,’ and ‘ for dis- course sake.’ middle, after a good Roman manner, with a new roof, either timbered or plastered, so as to reconcile the Gothic to a better manner, with a cupola, and instead of a lantern, a lofty spire ’ (see pp. 81 and 97, draw- ings Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the All Souls' Collection , dated 1666, and engraving). *** This design seems never to have been taken into consideration after the Great Fire. a.d. 1667, January 15. Wren was ordered to pre- pare the Cathedral for temporary use by the erection of a quire (p. 92) and auditory. Apparently there is no drawing of this. a.d. 1668, April 25. Dean Sancroft begged Wren to come to London with all possible speed (p. 94), and to bring with him the drawings and designs he had already made. a.d. 1668, July 2. Dean Sancroft begs Wren to prepare a plan handsome and noble (pp. 95 and 97). Before making this plan he made 6 several sketches merely for discourse sake ’ (p. 109). These are probably represented in the numerous contemporary engravings, which, most singularly, purport to be re- presentations of St. Paul’s as it actually existed. The Gardner Collection comprises a large number of these. There are also many (apparently) unengraved designs both in the All Souls’ Collection and. in the Vestry at St. Paul’s, which show the progress of Wren’s ideas. It is difficult to assign to each of these its proper place. Some probably are the 6 discourse sake ’ designs, and others alterations of the design of 1675. Second Design. — Patching went on for two years (p. 96), and nearly three years more elapsed before Wren made another design ; when, observing that the generality were for grandeur, he endeavoured to gratify CHRONOLOGICAL VIEW OF WREN’S DESIGNS. 105 ‘the taste of the Conoisseurs and Criticks with some- thing coloss and beautiful, conformable to the best stile of the Greek and Roman architecture ’ (p. 109). Wren submitted various designs to the King, and on a.d. 1673, Nov. 12, the King issued a warrant for the building of the Cathedral according to one of them — 4 one of which he approved, and caused a model to be made of it’ (pp. 97, 98, and 109). This is the model now preserved at the Kensington Museum, and was Wren’s favourite design (p. 110). a.d. 1674, May 1 (p. 98). The clearing of the ground for the foundations of a Cathedral according to this design began ; but the Chapter and others of the clergy thought it not enough of a Cathedral fashion, to instance particularly that the quire was designed circular, and that there were no aisles or naves (p. in). Third Design. — Wren now turned his thoughts (p. 113, and Parentalia , p. 282) to a Cathedral form, but so rectified as to reconcile, as near as possible, the Gothic to a better manner of architecture, with a cupola, and above that, instead of a lantern, a lofty spire, and large porticoes. a.d. 1675, May 14. — The King approved of one of Wren’s designs as being 4 very artificial (artistic), proper, and useful’ (p. 114). This seems unquestionably to be the design accord- ing to which Wren was authorised to build the Cathe- dral. But the King gave him leave to make variations in the design. 1 By this time Wren seems to have been annoyed at the constant interference with the designs he exhibited, and he declared 4 he would make CHAP. vn. Second design, Kensing- ton model. Third design, Cathedral form. 1 Elmes, p. 347, 106 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VII. no models, or publicly expose his drawings.’ 1 Armed with the King’s authority, therefore, he availed himself of the leave given him to an incredible extent, and transformed his approved designs into a totally different building. See Nos. 9 to 14 of the All Souls Drawings , of which series the engraving represents No. 11. No. 29 of the same series, and the 6 former design,’ both of which are hereafter described, are, in all probability, modifications of the design (No. 11) approved by the King. A useful list of Wren’s designs by Elmes is given in his Life of Wren , and accompanies the All Souls' Collection of Wren’s drawings. It is to be wished that there were a complete Catalogue raisonne of all the engraved and unengraved designs for St. Paul’s made by Sir Christopher Wren. 1 Tarentalia , p. 283. CHAPTER VIII WREN’S FIRST DESIGN (AFTER THE GREAT FIRE) REJECTED— HIS SECOND AND FAVOURITE DESIGN— GENERALLY APPROVED, BUT OBJECTED TO BY THE CLERGY -ALTERED DESIGN ACCEPTED AND WARRANT ISSUED FOR ITS EXECUTION ON MAY" 14, 1675. (From a print in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’ Engraved by Schynvoet.) CHAPTEE VIII. I have mentioned in the last chapter that the sug- gestion for preparing 4 a new plan, handsome and noble,’ for St. Paul’s came from Dean Sancroft. It was eagerly welcomed by Wren, and led to the making of a model, after he had ‘drawn several sketches meerly for discourse sake to find out what might satisfy the world .’ 1 At last he made another design, 4 and observing that the generality were for grandeur, he endeavoured to gratify the taste of the Conoisseurs and Criticks with something coloss and beautiful, con- formable to the best stile of the Greek and Eoman architecture.’ This met with general approval, and at the request of various 4 Persons of Distinction ’ a model of it was made, which, although in a lamentably dila- pidated state, is still preserved, and may now be seen in the Loan collection of the Kensington Museum. The design was in the form of a Greek Cross, and the style of architecture was Corinthian. There is hardly the slightest indication of any intention of using colour in the decoration, or rather 4 adornment ’ of the building. In the ground plan of this design, 4 which may be termed the Kensington model,’ there are no indications of a communion table or reredos, but in a more complete and somewdiat modified draw- ing 2 of the same design in the All Souls’ collection at Oxford, they are clearly shown. But 4 the Chapter and some others of the Clergy thought the model not enough of a Cathedral fashion, 1 Parentolia, p. 282. 2 No. 21. (See Illustration termed u Tentative design.”) CHAP. VIII. Wren’s second design approved of, but not eventually- adopted. Clergy want more of a Cathe- dral design 110 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VIII. to instance particularly, in that the Quire was designed circular,’ and that there were no aisles or naves . 1 It is clear, however, that this did not satisfy the clergy, for the whole design was given up, and, so far as the exterior is concerned, probably with advantage. Independently of any architectural defects, there is a SCALE OS FEET O S IO 20 SO EAST END OF ST. PAUL’S, AS ALTERED BY WREN FROM THE ‘KENSINGTON MODEL’ DESIGN. From an engraving in the Gardner Collection , inscribed ‘ Ichnographia Altaris (designati), et Partes Chori, from a print by Hulsbergh.’ This engraving was evidently taken from a drawing in the All Souls’ Collection. want of grandeur in the dome as compared with that of the present Cathedral, and a poverty in the diminutive dome over the narrow nave immediately behind the portico, which contrasts most unfavourably with the magnificent campaniles which now adorn the West end of the Cathedral. 1 Elmes, p. 319. Ground Plan op St. Paul’s, according to the first Design (after the Great Fire) of Sir Christopher Wren. (From a Print in the ‘Gardner Collection,’ Engraved by B. Cole.) Inscription on original print. A Plan of Sir Christopher Wren’s first Design of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in London — a large Model of which is deposited at the present Church, over the North Chappell. Ichnographia Basilicae D. Pauli Lond. ex Prima intentione Architecti D ni Christophori Wren Equitis Aurati — Cujus modelus asservatur Supra Capellam Septentrionalem Novae istius Fabricae. Ground Plan on East End ok St. Paul’s, showing Communion Table and Reredos, ACCORDING TO A TENTATIVE DESIGN MADE BY SIR C. WREN. WHEN’S SECOND DESIGN. It is stated by Wren’s grandson that his grandfather 4 always to seemed set a higher value on this design than any he had made before or since, as what was laboured with more study and success, and, had he not been overruled by those whom it was his duty to MODEL OP BALDACHINO IN ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL. obey, what he would have put into execution with more cheerfulness and satisfaction to himself than the latter .’ 1 Wren subsequently made another drawing, of which the annexed cut exhibits the East end por- tion. This design is very nearly that of the present Cathedral, but it has a plan of a Baldachino, resem- 1 Parent alia, p. 283. Ill CHAP. VIII. Wren’s favourite design. 112 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL CHAP. VIII. Mr. Fer- gusson’s criticisms. Mr. Fer- gus son’s unfavour- able criti- cisms on the exte- rior of Wren’s second design. Various opinions of the interior of Wren’s second design. bling, though not identical with, an imperfect model still preserved in the Cathedral . 1 Mr. Fergusson , 2 while admitting the excellence of one part of this design, points out the following defects in its exterior. He says that the proposed western portico would have been a very noble feature, but that its effect would have been spoilt by the attic which was to crown the order everywhere ; that the nearly detached vesti- bule would, except exactly in front, have been an ob- vious sham, designed to hide the narrow nave and the entrances behind it ; that the dome would have been as ineffective as is that. of St. Peter’s for any near posi- tion, in consequence of its rising through the roof and thus hiding the structure on which it depended for its solidity. Mr. Fergusson objects also to the hollow curve which connected the transepts with the nave and choir, as disturbing the repose or quiet grandeur of the building. In conclusion, Mr. Fergusson sums up his objections to the exterior by condemning the series of gigantic and useless Corinthian pilasters with which 4 the whole building would have been plastered ; ’ 4 the surmounting of the Order with a clumsy attic, and the arbitrary and purposeless variety in the size, position, and number of the windows and openings.’ As regards the interior, Mr. Fergusson expresses his opinion that it would 4 probably have been as superior to that of the present church as the exterior would have been inferior.’ Dean Milman 3 is of a somewhat different opinion. But he says that, 4 with all his admiration of the first design,’ he does not regret the expansion of the Greek into the Latin Cross. 1 This model was evidently designed for the present Cathedral, al- though never carried into execution. Wren describes it as ‘particularly one for the high Altar, to consist of rich marble columns writhed, &c., in some manner like that at St. Peter’s at Rome.’ 2 Modern Architecture , p. 268. 3 Annals of St. Paul's, p. 403. Interior of Sir C. Wren’s first Design (after the Great Fire) for St. Paul’s Cathedral. The Last Design made fob St. Paul’s, by Sir Christopher Wren. ( i COPY OF ROYAL WARRANT.) WREN’S LAST DESIGN. 113 With regard to the Latin Cross, Dean Milman seems to chap. think that Mr. Fergusson agrees with him, overlooking apparently Mr. Fergusson’s statement that c for the purposes of a Protestant Church, it cannot be doubted that this arrangement is superior to that of the pre- sent Church.’ Mr. Fergusson does not however by any means consider the design, as shown in the model still existing, as free from objection, for he thinks the wide arches too low and the narrow ones too high. The plan of the building, as shown in the accompanying illustra- tions, was that of a central dome, of the same diameter as that of the present Cathedral, viz. a little more than 100 ft., standing, like it, on eight arches, opening into eight compartments, each covered by a dome 40 ft. in diameter — not visible from the exterior — placed at varying distances from the central dome. As already stated, this design was rejected, and, on the whole, probably with advantage, although the interior, as shown in the engraving of Mr. Goodchild’s drawing, would unquestionably have been very beautiful. Wren now turned his thoughts to a Cathedral form Wren’s (as they called it), 1 4 but so rectified as to reconcile, as ^ near as possible, the Gothick to a better manner of Architecture ; with a Cupola, and above that, instead of a lantern, a lofty spire, and large Porticoes.’ With this object he made various designs, one of which was approved by Charles the Second, and on the 14th of Approved May, 1675, the King issued a Eoyal Warrant for be- the Second ginning the work. This warrant stated that the funds arising from the duty on coals amounted to a consider- ex ®f u " able sum, and that among the designs presented he i4 > 16 ?5. had 4 particularly pitched on one, as well because we found it very artificial, proper, and useful, as because 1 Parent aha, p. 282. I 114 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VIII. it was so ordered that it might be built and finished by parts.’ Wren was therefore required to begin 4 with the East end or Quire .’ 1 But the King gave him 4 liberty in the prosecution of his work, to make some variations, rather Orna- mental than Essential, as from time to time he should see proper, and to leave the whole to his management .’ 2 Wren availed himself of this permission to an incredible extent, and constructed a building almost as different from the present Cathedral as St. Paul’s Cathedral is from that of Salisbury. The accompanying engraving of Wren’s 4 approved ’ drawing at All Souls’ will make this evident at a glance, and will excite astonishment at the possibility of Wren making so poor and tawdry a design, and evidently so unsatisfactory to himself; at the want of taste which could cause the acceptance of such a design, and the rejection of one which was greatly its superior ; and at Wren’s fortunate audacity in venturing to make alterations, not merely 4 Orna- mental,’ according to the liberty which was given him, but ‘Essential’ from which he was precluded. There is a drawing in the All Souls’ Collection , 3 which probably shows one of the steps of the progress of alteration from the design approved by King Charles. The exterior elevation of the whole of the south side agrees tolerably exactly with the present building, but the dome is much larger in proportion, and very dif- ferent in form. It is more like St. Peter’s. The side chapels — that on the north used for morning prayer, and that on the south which became the Con- sistory Court — were intended for possible use as orato- ries, and formed no part of Wren’s original design. As related by Spence in his Anecdotes , 4 ‘The side 1 Parentalia, p. 281. 2 Ibid. p. 283. 3 Marked No. 29 in the 2nd volume. 4 Edited bv Singer, 1820, p. 256 ‘ Former Design ’ for St. Paul’s, by Sir C. Wren. Original Title : ‘ A Section of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, showing the Dome according to a former Design by Sir Christopher Wren.’ (From a print in the ‘ Gardner Collection.’; . WREN’S LAST DESIGN. 115 oratories were added by the influence of the Duke of York and his party, who wished to have them ready for his intended revival of the Papist service.’ 1 Spence adds that ‘it narrowed the building, and broke in very much upon the beauty of the design. Sir Chris- topher insisted so strongly on the prejudice they would create, that he actually shed tears in speaking of it ; but it was all in vain. The Duke absolutely insisted on their being inserted, and he was obliged to comply.’ The engravings of a print entitled 4 a former design,’ and of a section of the Dome, taken from another print of the same design, slightly altered, are particularly interesting and deserve especial attention. There are several impressions of the same plate in various stages, with progressive alterations, in the collection of Wren’s designs in the Yestry of St. Paul’s, but unfortunately none of them bear a date, and consequently it is im- possible to assign an exact date to this design. It is probably one of those for the important alterations which Wren ventured to make after the King’s approval, and should take its place before the design in the All Souls’ Collection (called No. 29), already alluded to. The Whispering Gallery was never before introduced into any of Wren’s designs, but is here present, and the treatment of the cornice underneath the quarter galleries is exactly that of the present Cathedral. In addition to this, the side chapels are here introduced. But the design has a far higher interest, and is a remarkable instance of Wren’s inventive genius. In the mode he proposed for supporting the Dome he adopted an eminently scientific principle, of the use or knowledge of which in Europe no known instance exists, and which seems peculiar to India. It is the 1 Elmes, p. 319. i 2 CHAP. VIII. 116 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. VIII. counteraction of the outward thrust by the suspension — if it may be so described — of an inward falling weight. In his account of the tomb of Mahmoud at Beeja- pore, Mr. Fergusson 1 thus describes the construction : — 4 The most ingenious and novel part of the construction of this Dome is the mode in which its lateral or out- ward thrust is counteracted. This was accomplished by forming the pendentives so that they not only cut off the angles, but that their arches intersect one another, and form a very considerable mass of masonry perfectly stable in itself, and by its weight acting inwards, counteracting any thrust that can possibly be brought to bear upon it by the pressure of the Dome. If the whole edifice thus balanced has any tendency to move, it is to fall inwards, which from its circular form is impossible ; while, the action of the weight of the pendentives being in the opposite direction to that of the Dome, it acts like a tie, and keeps the whole in equilibrium, without interfering at all with the outline of the Dome. In the Pantheon, and most European Domes, a great mass of masonry is thrown on the haunches, which entirely hides the external form, and is a singularly clumsy expedient in every respect, compared with the elegant mode of hanging the weight inside.’ The accompanying illustrations will make this de- scription perfectly clear; that on a larger scale, is given in order to prevent any misconception arising from an apparent want of continuity, in the section, which is produced by the position of the windows. It is interesting to add, that in St. Stephen’s, Wal- brook, Wren adopted another Indian principle in the plan of the building . 2 1 History of Architecture, vol. ii. p. 681. 2 See Fergusson’s Modern Architecture p. 275. Enlarged View, from another drawing of the above, showing the continuity of the supports of the Dome according to the Indian method. CHAPTER IX THE BUILDING- OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL— THE GROUND CLEARED FOR NEW FOUNDATIONS— ENQUIRY INTO ITS GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE— DEFECTIVE SOLIDITY IN N.E. CORNER— DANGERS FROM STRATUM OF SAND— FIRST STONE LAID JUNE 21, 1675— CHOIR OPENED FOR USE, DEC. 2, 1697— LAST STONE LAID 1710— ILL TREATMENT OF WREN— COST OF THE CATHEDRAL. Ground Plan op St. Paul’s. (From an original drawing by Mr. Penrose, Surveyor to St. Paul’s, with (dotted) lines, from a former drawing by Sir Christopher Wren, showing his intention as to the position of the surrounding railing.) CHAPTEE IX. The strength of much that remained of the old build- ing was very great — so great indeed that one cannot but sympathise with those who wished to 4 patch it up,’ and feel inclined to believe that a new Cathedral might have been built on the foundations of the old fabric, and much use made of parts of the old structure. But it was determined to have a new building, and the old Cathedral was doomed to total destruction. The work of demolition had gone on for several years ; it was still far from complete, but enough progress had been made to justify more active preparations for reconstruction. On the 1st of May, 1674, Wren began to clear the ground for the new foundation. 1 The first step was to pull down the walls of the Old Cathedral, which still remained to the height of 80 feet, and to get rid of the rubbish. The timber, rag, freestone and chalk, and the smallest and less service- able Portland stone and rubble, were ordered to be sold for use in rebuilding the parish churches, and the surplus rag stone for repairing the streets. 2 When Wren arrived at the middle tower, which formerly bore the steeple, and which still stood about 200 feet in height, he found it to be so strongly built, that he determined to blow it up with gunpowder as the safest way of proceeding. He used only 18 lbs. 1 Stow’s London , vol. i. p. 649, and Ellis’ Dugdale , p. 140 ( note) y quoting Bateman’s account of the rebuilding of St. Paul’s, MSS. Lambeth. 2 Elmes, p. 308. CHAP. IX. Strength of the old Cathedral. May 1, 1674, ground cleared for new foun- dation. 120 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. IX. Middle tower blown up by gun- powder. Accident Use of a battering ram in- stead of gun- powder. of powder, and with this charge he brought down not only the tower, with two great arches which rested upon it, but also two adjoining arches of the aisles and all above them. After this, being obliged to quit London for a short time, he left the next operation of a like kind to one of his subordinates, who, as Wren says, 4 too wise in his own conceit, put in a greater quantity of powder, and neither went low enough, nor sufficiently fortified the mouth of the mine.’ The result was that, although the desired effect was pro- duced, a stone was shot across the churchyard into the room of a house where some women were sitting at work. No harm was done, but the people were so much alarmed that Wren was ordered not to use powder any more. He determined, therefore, to make use of a battering ram instead. 4 He took a strong mast of about forty feet long, arming the bigger end with a great spike of iron, fortified with bars along the mast, and ferrels. This mast in two places was hung up to one ring with strong tackle, and so suspended level to a triangle prop, such as they weigh great guns with ; thirty men, fifteen on a side, vibrated this machine to and again, and beat in one place against the wall the whole day ; they believed it was to little purpose, not discerning any immediate effect ; he bid them not despair, but proceed another day ; on the second day the wall was perceived to tremble at the top, and in a few hours it fell.’ He used this machine for beating down the rest of the walls. Although the west end of the Church was not pulled down till 1686, 1 the ground was cleared sufficiently to allow of the new building being commenced, in but little more than a year from the time when the clearing 1 Far ent alia, p. 293. THE BUILDING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL. 121 began, and, as already related, tbe King, on May 14. 1675, ordered tbe work to begin. But before laying tbe first stone, it was necessary to look to tbe nature of the ground on which so immense a building was to rest se- curely. Wren therefore dug wells in several places for the purpose of ascertaining what it was. His statements as to the facts he discovered are unquestionably correct, and the conclusions he drew from them are perfectly sound; but the theories on which he based them are not equally so. His geology was faulty, for he mistook fresh -water for marine formations. Wren’s, or rather his grandson’s statement is, that he found 4 that the foundation of the old church stood upon a layer of very close and hard pot-earth (or brick-earth, as he sometimes terms it), and concluded that the same ground which had borne so weighty a building might reasonably be trusted again.’ But he wished to make sure, and he says that the greatest thickness of the 4 pot-earth ’ was about six feet, that below this was a bed of dry sand, then sand and water containing what he supposed to be sea shells, about the level of low- water mark, then what he imagined to be a hard sea beach, and below this again the 4 natural hard clay.’ He subsequently speaks of this beach as 4 a firm sea beach, which confirmed what was before asserted, that the sea had been in ages past where Paul’s now is.’ The 4 pot- earth ’ as described by Dean Milman 1 — on the authority of Sir C. Lyell and Mr. Prestwich, whom he consulted — is the loam or brick-earth which often forms the upper layer of the great bed of gravel covering the London clay ; the two beds of sand, the sea shells, and the old sea beach are not marine, but fresh-water formations resting on the London clay — Wren’s 4 natural hard clay.’ The latter 1 Annals of St. Paul’s, p. 406. CHAP. IX. Wren examines the nature of the ground. Descrip- tion of the ground on which the founda- tions were laid. 122 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL CHAP. IX. Difficulty of finding a good founda- tion. would have formed a good soil for the foundation of the building, but Wren apparently built on the 4 pot-earth ’ which he now calls 4 brick-earth,’ the 4 natural hard clay ’ lying too deep, probably at least forty feet down. This seems evident from Christopher Wren’s account of the failure of the ground at the north-east end. He says , 1 4 he began to lay the foundations from the west end, and had proceeded successfully through the dome to the east end, where the brick-earth bottom was yet very good. But as he went on to the north- east corner, which was the last, and where nothing was expected to interrupt, he fell, in prosecuting the design, upon a pit where all the pot-earth had been robbed by the potters of old time.’ He then goes on to say, 4 It was no little perplexity to fall into this pit at last. He wanted but six or seven feet to complete the design, and this fell into the very angle north-east. He knew very well that under the layer of pot-earth there was no other good ground to be found till he came to the low -water mark of the Thames, at least forty feet lower. His artificers proposed to him to pile, which he refused, for though piles may last for ever when always in water (otherwise London Bridge would fall), yet if they are driven through dry sand, though sometimes moist, they will rot. His endeavours were to build for eternity. He therefore sank a pit of about eighteen feet square, wharfing up the sand with timber, till he came forty feet lower into water and sea (?) shells. He bored through this beach till he came to the original clay. Being then satisfied, he began from the beach a square pier of solid good masonry, ten feet square, till he came within fifteen feet of the present ground, then he turned a short arch 1 Parentalia, p. 286, THE BUILDING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL. 123 under ground to the former foundation, which was chap. broken off by the untoward accident of the pit. Thus < — -r— * this north-east coin of the quire stands very firm, and no doubt will stand.’ Wren’s belief in the solidity of the ground for the foun- dations of the Cathedral has been fully justified by time, but yet there is danger still lurking in the bed of sand, which might become serious. If this bed of sand were pierced by a drain, there would be great probability of its running off, and leaving the pot-earth insuffi- ciently supported. Dean Milman tells us that this danger was nearly incurred. He says, c This cannot be Danger of too widely known, and the possible consequences of its founda- oozing out cannot be too jealously watched. It fully tlon- justifies the apprehension of our late accomplished and scientific surveyor, Mr. C. E. Cockerell, who, when a deep sewer was commenced on the south side of the Cathedral, came to the Dean in much alarm. On the representation of the Dean and Mr. Cockerell, the work was stopped by the authorities of the city. Even the digging of graves in the part of the crypt which be- longed to the parish of St. Faith (now happily at an end) was thought not altogether free from danger .’ 1 The ground, however, was not altogether suited Giving way for the support* of so great a weight, and shortly after °f 0 ^ unda ' the Cathedral was finished, it actually did give way, and considerable repairs were thereby rendered neces- sary. These were undertaken by Edward Strong, son Repairs of Wren’s friend, Edward Strong, hereafter to be men- taken by tioned. c He repaired all the blemishes and fractures in the several legs and arches of the dome, occasioned by the great weight of the said dome pressing upon the foundation ; the earth under the same being of an 1 A nnals of Si. JPauPs, p. 408. 124 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. IX. Change of site of Cathedral. unequal temper, the loamy part thereof gave more way to the great weights than that which was gravel ; so that the south-west corner of the dome and the six smaller legs of the other quarters of the dome, having less superficies, sank into the thinner part of the loamy ground an inch in some places, in others two inches, and in other places something more ; and the other quarters of the dome, being on the thicker part of the loamy ground and gravel, it did not give way so much to the great weights as the other did, which occasioned the fractures and blemishes in the several arches and legs of the dome .’ 1 The plans for the rebuilding of the city after the Great Fire, and the haste with which the owners of the ground carried them out, rendered necessary a slight change of the site of the Cathedral. As Wren says, 4 The reasons for changing the site of the church, and taking up all the old foundations, were chiefly these. First, the Act of Parliament for rebuilding the city had enacted that all the high streets (of which that which led round the south side of St. Paul’s was one) should be forty feet broad, but the old foundations streiglitened the street towards the east end to under thirty feet. Secondly, the churchyard on the north side was wide and afforded room that way to give the new fabric a more free and graceful aspect. Thirdly, to have built on the old foundations must have con- fined the surveyor too much to the old plan and form ; the ruinous walls in no part were to be trusted again, nor would old and new work firmly unite, or stand together without cracks.’ 4 It being found expedient, therefore, to change the foundations, he took the advantage of more room Ellis’ Dug dale, p. 173 (note). Projection op Old (shaded) upon the plan of New St. Paul’s. THE BUILDING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL. 125 northward, and laid the middle line of the new work more declining to the north-east than it was before, which was not due east and west ; neither did the old front of the Cathedral lie directly from Ludgate, as it does not at present, which was not practicable, without purchasing and taking down a number of houses and the aid of Parliament. This, though much wished for, he was not able to effect ; the Commissioners for re- building the city had, in the first place, marked and staked out all the streets, and the Parliament confirmed their report, before anything had been fully deter- mined about the design for the new fabric. The pro- prietors of the ground, with much eagerness and haste, had begun to build accordingly ; an incredible progress had been made in a very short time ; many large and fair houses erected ; and every foot of ground in that trading and populous part of the town was highly estimated. 1 2 ’ 4 Thus was lost,’ as Dean Milman says, 2 4 it is to be feared for ever, the opportunity of placing the Cathe- dral of London on an esplanade worthy of its con- summate design ; an esplanade which, we might almost say, nature, by leaving a spacious level on the summit of the hill, had designated for a noble and command- ing edifice.’ The first stone of the new Cathedral was laid at the south-east corner of the choir by Mr. Strong, the mason, and the second by Mr. Longland, on June 21, 1675. 3 CHAP. IX. Cramped for room. Opportu- nity of giving space lost for ever. First stone laid June 21 , 1675 . 1 Parentalia, p. 287 ; and see plate (opposite) of Projection of Old upon the plan of New St. Paul’s. The fact of the West front not exactly facing Ludgate Street is not without its advantages, as a perspective view is thereby presented to the observer coming up Ludgate Hill. 2 Annals, p. 410. 3 Stow’s London, \ ol. i. p. 649, and Ellis’ Dugdale, p. 140 (note), quoting Bateman’s account of the rebuilding of St. Paul’s, MSS. Lambeth. 126 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. chap. The plan of the building was not exactly wliat Wren » — ' had wished, and was not indeed altogether satisfactory ; but it was adopted after much deliberation : it was a noble design, and the gain was not small that the great work at length began. It is much to be regretted that the laying out of the streets were not delayed till the plan of the Cathedral was settled. The history of the progress of the building is meagre in the extreme. We are told that in 1678 4 the Cathe- dral of St. Paul continued with undeviating progress, the eastern part, or choir, being the principal care of its architect.’ 1 And again, ‘the next year, 1683, of Wren’s life, passed much the same as the last, super- Progress intending and designing for St. Paul’s Cathedral ; 2 and buiMing? W in 1684, 6 St. Paul’s continued with undeviating pro- gress towards completion.’ 3 6 This year, 1687, passed as the preceding. St. Paul’s was continued with un- abated activity.’ 4 The only incident related is that of the finding of a stone on which the word ‘ Ee- surgam ’ happened, with singular appropriateness, to be engraved. Elmes 5 thus tells the story : — 4 Some time during the early parts of its works, when Sir Chris- topher was arranging and setting out the dimensions of the great cupola, an incident occurred which some superstitious observers regarded as a lucky omen. The architect had ordered a workman to bring him a flat stone, to use as a station ; which, when brought, was found to be the fragment of a tombstone, containing the only remaining word of an inscription in capital Resurgam. letters, “ Eesurgam.” This has been asserted to have been the origin of the emblem — a phoenix on its fiery 1 Elmes, p. 884. 2 Ibid. p. 419 3 Ibid. p. 437. 4 Ibid. p. 445. * P. 384. THE BUILDING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL. 127 nest — sculptured by Gibber, over the South Portico, chap. and inscribed with the same word ; but the rising again — • of the new City and cathedral from the conflagration were quite sufficient hints for the artist.’ In 1685, on the death of Charles II., a new Com- James the mission was issued by James II. for continuing the i s e s c u 0 e n sa works at St. Paul’s ; from which it appears that the ruins of the old building were not entirely removed at PHCENIX OYER SOUTHERN PORTICO. that time, as it gives authority to c demolish and take down what is yet remaining of the old fabrick and carry on the new work.’ 1 The work done up to April, 1684, which, as Work done already stated, 2 cost the seemingly enormous sum ]° 6 ^ ri1 of 109,765/. 12s. 1 1697 - Paul’s had proceeded so far towards completion that the best mode of covering the cupola was taken into consideration, and it was finally decided by the Com- mittee to cover it with copper at the cost of 3,050/. This decision was however overruled, and it was covered with lead, at the cost of 2,500 1. 2 In 1710, when Sir Christopher Wren had attained Last stone the seventy-eighth year of his age, his son laid the 171 o! n highest stone of the lantern on the cupola in the pre- sence of his father, and 4 that excellent artificer Mr. Strong, his son, and other free and accepted masons, chiefly employed in the execution of the work .’ 3 The Cathedral was now nominally finished, but, as has been truly said by Sir Henry Ellis, 4 the execution of the Architect’s plan only could be said to have been carried into effect. Many decorations, as well as ne- cessary works, being required to embellish and finish this magnificent church .’ 4 The efforts subsequently made to complete and 4 adorn ’ the Cathedral will be related in another chapter ; but the history of the building would be 1 Ellis’ Dugdale, p. 172 (note). The continuator of Stow fixes the date of this fire on Feb. 27, 169§, while Bateman’s MSS. gives the date I have mentioned. It seems to me that Bateman’s date is preferable, for it is clear that the fire took place before the opening of the choir for Divine service, and this agrees with Bateman’s date, while the date given in Stow is after that event. 2 Elmes, p. 491. 3 Parentalia, p. 293. 4 Ellis’ JDugdale , p. 173. K 130 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. IX. Disgrace- ful treat- ment of Wren. Dean Milman’s defence of Wren. grievously incomplete, did I not here give an account of the melancholy meanness with which Wren was treated. 4 It was a common notion and misreport,’ as the author of the Parentalia says, 1 4 that the Surveyor re- ceived a large annual salary for the building of St. Paul’s, and consequently it was his interest to prolong the finishing of the fabrick for the continuance of this supposed emolument.’ In the Act 8 & 9 William III. (a.d. 1696-7), ‘for the completing and adorning the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London,’ a clause was consequently inserted 4 to suspend a moiety of the Sur- veyor's salary until the said Church should be finished ; thereby the better to encourage him to finish the same with the utmost diligence and expedition.’ Dean Milman 2 justly characterises this proceeding as 4 violent, wrongful, and insulting.’ But Wren had in various ways, some of which have already been mentioned, and of which more instances will be given in a future chapter, differed from and been forced to submit to the members of the Commis- sion, from which his friend Evelyn had unfor- tunately been removed by death, and they were consequently spitefully resentful against him. There was also, again to quote Dean Milman, 4 a notion that a vast building like St. Paul’s, with all its accessories, all its countless details, all its infinite variety of exte- rior and interior ornamentation, its works of all kinds and of every kind of material, might be finished off like an elegant Italian villa, or a small church like St. Stephen’s, Walbrook.’ 3 How utterly groundless was the imputation of selfishness, on the part of Wren, as 1 Parentalia , p. 343. 2 P. 436. 3 P. 437. THE BUILDING OF THE NEW CATHEDRAL. 131 the cause of the slow progress of the Cathedral, is at once made apparent by the fact that his salary was only 200/. a year — a payment not only totally in- adequate to the value of his services, but too small to afford reasonable ground for the ungenerous suspicion that in order to retain it for a few years longer he delayed the progress of the Cathedral. Wren protested, but protested in vain, against this iniquitous proceeding. He convinced the Attorney- General that his case was very hard, but the pro- visions of the Act of Parliament were clear, and could not be set aside. He petitioned the Queen, complain- ing that the arbitrary proceedings of some of the Com- missioners delayed the progress of the building, and that he consequently was deprived of the means of receiving the withheld portion of his salary. The peti- tion was handed over to the Commissioners, who replied in a series of excuses. He then addressed the Arch- bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, and they laid the matter before the Attorney-General, Sir Edward North ey. As above stated, North ey thought Wren was unfairly treated by the Commissioners, for he said that 4 the stopping of half of his salary was intended to encourage him to use his utmost diligence to finish the Cathedral , which , for all that appears , he hath done , and, the not finishing it is not his but others faults' But still the pound of flesh must be exacted. Wren then, as a last resource, appealed to the House of Com- mons, and was at last successful. An Act, 9 Anne, cap. 22, sec. 9, was consequently passed, in which it was declared that 4 the said Cathedral Church, so far as by the said Act (8 & 9 William III.) was required to be done and performed by the said Surveyor-General, is finished,’ and it was consequently ordered that the CHAP. IX. Wren protests against the harsh treatment. Tardy justice. 132 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. IX. Cost of St. Paul’s. Total receipts and expen- diture. Receipts and expen- diture. suspended moiety of his salary should be paid him in full on or before Christmas Day 1711. The questions which arose between Wren and the Commissioners about the railings and the adornment of the Cathedral will be more properly considered in the next and following chapters, in which the whole history of the efforts made for the completion of the Cathedral will be related ; but in order to finish the present portion of the history of the existing St. Paul’s, I must give an account of the cost of the building. As already stated, the cost of preparations for the new Cathedral was 10,909/. 7s. 8 c/., and of the re- building, from May 1674 to the end of March 1684, 109,765/. 12 s. Id. From that date up to September 29th, 1700, there was spent 615,986/. 9 s. 10c/., and from thence to 1723, in additional embellishments, 11,000/., thus making the total cost 747,661/. 10s. Sir Henry Ellis makes the total cost only 736,752/. 2s. 3c/., but he leaves out of the account the amount spent in preparations, some of which may have been money uselessly expended, but part was absolutely necessary, and it is evident that the whole should be added to the cost of the Cathedral. This amount does not, however, represent the whole of the receipts and expenditure. The total money received, including money borrowed, up to September 29th, 1700, amounted to 1,167,474/. 17s. 11 d. Of this sum the enormous amount of 83,744/. 18s. 9 d. was paid for interest on money borrowed, probably because the subscriptions and coal- tax did not come in fast enough. The sums borrowed amounted to 288,951/. 5s. 8 d., but when the account was made up, viz. on Sep- tember 29th, 1700, only 279,290 /. had been paid off. There was also paid the sum of 14,808/. 3s. 10 d RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE. 133 for the purchase of houses which it was necessary to demolish, which indeed ought to be considered part of the cost of the new Cathedral ; and lastly, there re- mained in hand the sum of 49,384 /. Os. 3 d. The receipts were derived from the following sources : — - the tax on coals produced 810,181/. 18s. 2d . ; the sub- scriptions, which unfortunately in this account are not kept separately, and money received from King Charles II. ’s gifts of arrears of impropriations, green wax fines and forfeitures, commutations on penances, and old materials, amounted to only 68,341/. 14s. Id . ; and the money borrowed was 288,951/. 5 s. 8 d. These three amounts make up the total sum of receipts, viz. 1,167,474/. 17s. 11 d. Of the balance in hand, 11,000/., as already stated, was expended, up to 1723, in 4 ad- ditional embellishments,’ and what remained was kept for future use. 1 1 Ellis Dugdale, pp. 179, 180 CHAP. IX. CHAPTEE X COMPLETION OF CATHEDRAL — DISPUTES WITH COM- MISSIONERS AS TO WALL AND RAILING, AS TO PAINTING DOME, AND AS TO BALUSTRADE— WREN’S DISMISSAL AND DEATH. CHAPTER X. The actual building of the Cathedral was now com- plete. The skeleton was formed, and a marvellous skeleton it was. But it was only a skeleton, and the bones required a lining. To this day the lining has not been supplied, although, from time to time, efforts — at length, we hope, about to be successful — have been made for this purpose. The indispensable adjuncts of the building were added during the lifetime of the great Architect. But how were these necessary additions to the structure made? In every detail Wren was thwarted by the narrow-minded Commissioners. There was nothing, however small, as to which they did not set up their opinion in opposition to his ; there was nothing, how- ever important, that they did not ‘wrest out of his hands.’ The first dispute was about the iron fence round the Churchyard, and the first question was, whether it should be made of hammered or cast iron. Wren was for the former, and a meeting was held at Lambeth to consider the question. The author of the 4 Answer to a pamphlet enti tul’d “ Frauds and Abuses at St. Paul’s,” ’ 1 says, 6 He was present indeed, but was overruled by a majority prepared for the purpose. He then, as well as several times before, gave his opinion that hammered iron was CHAP. x. The Ca- thedral finished but not completed. Wren thwarted by Com- missioners Dispute about wall and railing. > 1 London: printed for John Morphew, near Stationers’ Hall, 1718, Price Is. P. 17. 138 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. chap, much cheaper and more durable than cast : nor was it ' r ~ — ' barely an opinion, but a truth which he had been con- vinced of by long experience.’ Cast iron was chosen. The material selected was therefore chosen in direct opposition to Wren’s opinion. But the great dispute relative to this iron railing was probably on a much more vital question than as to the mere material. Dean , Dean Milman says, 4 It involved the full, or broken opinion. S and interrupted, view of the great west front of St. Paul’s,, or rather of the whole Cathedral. It was the design of Wren that it should be seen in all its height and breadth, with all the admirable balance and pro- portion of its parts. He therefore would have kept the fence low, and strongly objected to the tall, ponderous enclosure, which broke, obscured, or concealed the vestibule, the noble flight of steps, the majestic doors, the whole of the solid base or platform from which the building rose. But the Commissioners, utterly blind to the architectural effect, proud of their heavy, clumsy, misplaced fence, described Sir Christopher’s design as mean and weak, boasted that their own met with general approbation, and so left the Cathedral compressed in its gloomy gaol, only to be fully seen, and this too nearly, by those who were admitted within the gates, usually inexorably closed .’ 1 Want of With the fervid indignation thus eloquently poured evkience as forth, with which Dean Milman condemns the railing parMar round St. Paul’s, I sympathise most heartily ; and it is objections, probable that the Dean has correctly expressed the 1 feel- ings which burned in Wren’s soul, and that by a happy inspiration of genius he arrived at a correct conclusion from imperfect premises. But, with the exception of the expression, 4 a poor mmn iron rail on each side of 1 Annals , p. 439. WHEN’S DISPUTES WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 139 the great ascent at the west end,’ in the letter of the chap. Commissioners to the Duke of Shrewsbury, 1 which may 7 — be supposed to show what kind of railing Wren wished to put up, and Wren’s letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Commissioners, dated Jan. 25th, 1710 — 1711, 2 1 can discover no evidence show- ing the style of railing proposed by Wren, or what Wren’s objections to the railings put up by the Com- missioners exactly were, and there is absolutely no evidence whatever that he objected to the wall. 3 In the letter of the Commissioners there is the fol- lowing passage : — ; The following order of the Com- missioners, Feb. 1, 1710, that no rail be set up about the Queen’s statue, until a model of it be approved by the Commissioners, was only made that the fence might be noble and in some measure agreeable to the statue. And we were the rather induced to do this, because Sir Christopher had just before, without con- sulting the Commissioners, set up a poor mean iron rail on each side of the great ascent at the West End, dislik’d by everybody, and which we conceive ought to be taken down again.’ In Wren’s letter he says, ‘Nothing can be said wren’s now to remain unperfected, but the Iron Fence round the the Church and painting the Cupola, the directing of which is taken out of my hands, and therefore I hope that I am neither answerable for them nor that the said suspending clause can or ought to affect me any further on that account. As for painting the Cupola, your Lordships know it has been long under 1 Frauds and Abuses , p. 30. 2 Answer to Frauds and Abuses , p. 59. 3 The position of the railing, intended by the Architect, is shown in an original drawing by Sir Christopher Wrenpn the All Souls’ Collection. See Plate of Ground Plan of St. Paul’s. 140 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. X. The wall and railing now to be pulled down. The paint- ing of the Dome. consideration, that I have no power left me concerning it, and that it is not resolved in what manner to do it, or whether at all. And as for the iron fence , it is so remarkable and so fresh in memory by whose instance and importunity it teas wrested from me, and the doing it carry' d in a way that I may venture to say will he ever condemned. I have just this to observe further, that your Lordships had no hand in it, and consequently ought not to share in the blame that may attend it.’ That Wren most strongly objected to the iron railing, put up by the Commissioners, is thus most perfectly clear, and his prophecy as to its perpetual condemnation has proved strictly true ; but, with the exception of the words 4 poor, mean,’ as applied to another part of the railing, there is nothing to show what were the grounds of his objection . 1 We may congratulate ourselves, however, that the 4 heavy, clumsy, misplaced fence ’ and wall are now condemned — Dean Milman’s opinion doubtless contributed not a little to this result — and that shortly we shall be able to see the Front of St. Paul’s unencumbered by its enclosure. Another point of dispute, to which reference is made in Wren’s letter just quoted, was the painting of the Cupola or Dome, which, to his great annoyance, was taken out of his hands. Well may he have disclaimed being answerable for it ! As Dean Milman says, 4 The Cupola, instead of being brought down by dark and heavy figures, ought to have melted upwards into light. 1 It is very probable that Wren had in his mind some remembrance of a magnificent design which he had once prepared, with a circular Baptistery opposite the West front of the Cathedral, and the Church- yard itself surrounded by arcades. This design, of which the annexed engraving is a copy, is in the collection of Wren’s drawings in the vestry of St. Paul’s. (H* F F ◄ Q < C5 ie 5 o 5 6 tn (From a Drawing by Sir 0. Wren, in the Vestry of the Cathedral.) WREN’S DISPUTES WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. In truth, to paint a cupola, nothing less was required than the free, delicate, accurate touch, the brilliant colour, the air and translucence of Correggio. Instead of lifting the sight and thought heavenwards, Thorn- hill’s work, with its opaque and ponderous masses, oppresses and lies like a weight upon the eye and mind.’ It is not that the designs are bad in them- selves, the magnificent series of engravings of each compartment 1 furnish evidence, on the contrary, that they are of a high order of merit ; but the paintings were misplaced, and they were wrong in colour. It was Wren’s intention to have lined the Dome with Mosaic. 4 The judgement of the Surveyor was originally, instead of painting in the manner it is now performed, to have beautified the inside of the Cupola with the more durable ornament of Mosaick-work, as is nobly executed in the Cupola of St. Peter’s in Kome, which strikes the eye of the beholder with a most magnificent and splendid appearance, and which, without the least decay of colours, is as lasting as marble or the building itself. Por this purpose he had projected to have procured from Italy four of the most eminent artists in that profession ; but as this art was a great novelty in England, and not generally ap- prehended, it did not receive the encouragement it de- served. It was imagined also that the expense would prove too great, and the time very long in the execution. But though these and all objections were fully answered, yet this excellent design was no further pursued .’ 2 1 The following is a list of the engravers of these paintings : — One is signed — ‘ Baron, sculpt ConeV „ „ 1 Sihmoneau, Maj r , sculpsit, Paris.’ ,, „ 1 Beauvais sculp 4 , Lond.’ Three are „ ‘ Ger. V dr Gucht sculpsit, Bond,’ 2 Parentalici, p. 292 note (a). 141 CHAP. X. Wren intended Mosaic. 142 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. chap. There was one other great dispute between Wren s — $ and the Commissioners. It related to the Balustrade aboSf® crowns the upper cornices. Wren designed Baius- St. Paul’s without such balustrade ; but the Commis- sioners determined to have one, and peremptorily in- formed Wren 4 that a balustrade of stone be set up on the top of the Church, unless Sir Christopher Wren do, in writing under his hand, set forth that it is contrary to the principles of architecture, and give his opinion in a fortnight’s time ; and if he doth not, then the reso- lution of a balustrade is to be proceeded with.’ Wren Wren’s remonstrated. He wrote a letter to the Commissioners objections. Qn 28th, 1717, in which he said, 4 1 take leave, first, to declare I never designed a balustrade. Persons of little skill in architecture did expect, I believe, to see something they had been used to in Gothic structures, and ladies think nothing well icithout an edging . I should gladly have complied with the vulgar taste, but I suspended for the reasons following.’ These were that, in his plan, he made no provision for a balustrade; that its introduction would be inharmonious, because a balustrade may be considered to be a sort of plinth over the upper colonnade ; and that there was already over the entablature a proper plinth which regularly terminated the building. 1 In addition to these reasons, he said that a balustrade must have solid parts in the form of pedestals, at in- tervals, to enable it to resist the force of high winds ; that these solid parts should be placed over other solid parts, such as pilasters ; and that where the pilasters are doubled, they might properly be surmounted by a pedestal. This, he admitted, might be done, for he See Plate (opposite) showing the Plinth of St. Paul’s with and with- out the Balustrade. Plinth of St. Paul’s, with and without Balustrade. (Taken from original drawings in the ‘ Gardner Collection,’) WREN’S DISPUTES WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 143 says, 4 as in our case ; ’ but lie adds, that in some parts this could not be done, because the pilasters could not be doubled in the inward angles, as 4 the two voids, or more open parts, would meet in the angle, with one small pilaster between, which would create a very dis- agreeable mixture.’ Wren’s objections were disre- garded, and the balustrade was put up. Wren also objected to vases, or other ornaments, for much the same reasons. He says that, in the inward angles, there would hardly be room for one where there ought to be two, and that even for one the space would not have allowed it to be of a sufficient size to prevent its looking contemptible from below. He proposed, however, to have statues on the four pedi- ments for which he said he had laid pedestals in the building. 1 In this case his advice was followed. A new Commission had been appointed in May 1715, and among them appeared, for the first time, the name of Sir Isaac Newton ; 2 but, as Dean Milman says, 3 whe- ther Newton attended the meetings does not appear— let us hope not. The balustrade dispute was in 1717. After this, Wren had no more quarrels with the Com- missioners. He no longer had an opportunity of op- posing his experienced knowledge to their untutored ignorance of his art ; for, to his own eternal disgrace and to that of all concerned, King George in the fol- lowing year superseded the patent of the great Archi- tect. Five years afterwards he died. For Wren’s dis- missal there was no pretence of any reason. It was decided on, seemingly, only for the purpose of putting in his place William Benson, a favourite of the King, condemned to an unenviable immortality by Pope’s lines in the 4 Dunciad,’ and who was expelled ignomi- 1 Elraes’ Life of Wren , pp. 508-510. 2 Ibid. p. 507. 3 P. 442. CHAP. X. The Balus- trade. Wren’s dismissal and death. 144 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. Scanty materials for history of ‘ com- pletion,’not ‘ adorn- ment.’ Cross and Ball. Sculptures. Gri nling Gibbons’ carving. niously from his office, after holding it for only a year. The history of the details of the completion, as distinguished from the adornment, of St. Paul’s, now claims attention ; but the materials for this purpose are so scanty that it is almost impracticable to impart any great interest to its relation. After the last stone was laid in 1710, there were various works necessary for the completion of the Cathedral. This is clearly recognised in the Act of the 9th of Anne, in which it is provided that the 4 standing salaries to any officers employed only for the carrying on and finishing the said building ’ shall cease on December 25th, 1711 ; and Bateman, in his 4 State of the Coal Duty,’ says that 4 all works and orna- ments remaining unfinished about the Church may be supposed to be completed within that year (1711).’ This supposition is treated by the writer of 4 Frauds and Abuses ’ as an absurdity. 1 The works to be done externally were as follows : — First, the Cross and Ball were to be erected. Of the time when this was done, the way in which it was accomplished, and of its cost, singularly enough, no record seems to remain. The next point was to add the sculptures to the various parts of the building. These were : the Conversion of St. Paul, in the pedi- ment of the West front, the statues on the four pedi- ments, and the effigy of Queen Anne in the Court at the West end. They were all executed by Thomas Bird, an artist of no great reputation, who received for the 4 Conversion’ the sum of 650/. Internally, nothing of importance, and certainly nothing of value, was done, except the completion of 1 Pp. 39, 40. Copy of Inscription on the Model in the Cathedral Library : WHEN’S DISPUTES WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 145 the choir by the exquisite carved stalls by Grinling Gibbons, for the carving of which he was paid the moderate sum. of 1,333/. 7 s. 5 d., and the erection of Tijou’s beautiful ironwork gates and grilles. The organ was erected soon after the year 1700. The miserable painting of the East end of the choir, 4 in imi- tation of veined marble, at 4s. a yard, 5 and the wretched sham of 4 the fluted pilasters, painted with ultra- marine, and veined with gold, in imitation of lapis lazuli, at a cost of 160/,’ 1 were the work of this time ; but, in justice to Wren, it must be stated that 4 the Painting and Gilding of the architecture of the East end of the Church, over the Communion-table, was intended only to serve the present occasion, till such time as materials could have been procured for a magnificent design of an altar, consisting of four pillars wreathed, of the richest- Greek marbles, supporting a Canopy hemispherical, with proper decorations of Archi- tecture and Sculpture, for winch the respective draw- ings and a model were prepared.’ 2 A new Ball and Cross were erected by Mr. Cockerell in 1821 ; and, it may be interesting to state that, in 1848, a 4 crow’s nest’ was erected on the top of the Cross by the Ordnance Surveyors, as the best place from whence a survey of London could be made. The history of the attempts at 4 adornment ’ will be given in the next chapter. 1 Malcolm’s Lond. Rediv. vol. iii. p. 105. 2 Parentalia, p. 292, note (a). The Model is represented on page 110. CHAP. X. L CHAPTER XI THE ADORNMENT OF ST. PAUL’S. Ornamentation on Spandrels of Arches around the Dome of St. Paul’s. CHAPTER XL It has long been a question, and will long remain so, whether Sir Christopher Wren intended any 4 adorn- ment ’ of his Cathedral. We have hardly any mate- rials to assist us in answering the question. We have seen that it was Wren’s wish to line the Dome with Mosaic, and to place a splendid Baldachino in the Choir. Beyond this, we have absolutely nothing to guide us, except an engraving of the interior of the Dome, by William Emmett, of the date, probably, of 1702. 1 This, however, may be looked on as evidence of some value. Unlike Gwyn’s imaginative print, 2 it was published in Wren’s lifetime, while the building of the Cathedral was actively going on and approaching completion. It may therefore be concluded, with some reasonable amount of probability, that it was executed with Wren’s approval. In this print, the spandrels are filled with designs, as represented in the annexed illus- tration. Beyond this, we know nothing. The material of these spandrels is not Portland stone, 1 See annexed illustration. I am indebted to Mr. Gardner, to whom I have expressed my obligations in my Preface, for a sight of this print. At a meeting at his house Mr. Penrose’s keen eye discovered the indi- cations of adornment I have mentioned. 2 Said to have been designed chiefly from records in Stephen Wren’s hands. This print was engraved by Hooker, and published in 1755, thirty-two years after Wren’s death. As remarked by Mr. Wyatt Pap- worth, in a letter to the 1 Times,’ it is interesting to note that the en- graving was published only five years after the Parentalia , which does not contain the facts upon which the merit (if any) of the plate depends. CHAP. XI. Difficulty of ascer- taining Wren’s intentions. 150 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. XI. ‘ Adorn- ment’ always intended. like the rest of the structure, but a stone of a softer quality. It is therefore presumable that this choice of material had reference to some contemplated adorn- ment by painting or mosaic. It is however as impossible to decide whether Wren intended to leave the Cathedral in its naked coldness, as it is to determine in what way, if at all, he intended to introduce colour. But it is hardly possible to ima- gine that he contemplated — -as we know he did con- template — a gorgeous Dome and a magnificent Balda- chino, and, at the same time, proposed to leave the rest of the building without colour and without decoration of some kind. Moreover it is perfectly certain that the universal expectation was, that there would be an 4 adornment ’ of the Cathedral. The language of almost every Act of Parliament having reference to St. Paul’s is ample evidence of this. The first Act having relation to the completion of St. Paul’s, is that of 1 Jac. II. c. 15 (1685). In sec. 5 of this Act it is provided that a portion of the Coal Duty shall be applied 4 to the Re-building, Finishing, and Adorning the said Cathedrall of St. Paul’s.’ Again, that iniquitous Act, 8 & 9 Will. III. c. ] 4 (1696-7), which, under the pretence of 4 encourage- ment ’ to the Surveyor, with a grim sarcasm took away half his salary, is entitled 4 An Act for the Compleating, the Building, and Adorning the Cathedral Church of St. Paul.’ The same words are used in 1 Anne, stat. 2, c. 12 (1702). A further, though not so strong con- firmation of the belief that 4 adornment’ was intended is to be found in Bishop Newton’s account of his own life, prefixed to his works. After expressing his disapproval of allowing the Dome to be painted by Thornhill, he says, 1 He died Dean of St. Paul’s in 1782. THE ADORNMENT OF ST. PAUL’S. 151 4 They had better have been placed below, for there are chap. compartments which were originally designed for bas- . . reliefs or suchlike decorations, but the Parliament, as it is said, having taken part of the fabric money, and applied it to King William’s wars, Sir Christopher Wren complained that his wings were dipt, and the Church was deprived of its ornaments.’ 1 That 6 adornment ’ was therefore intended seems to be placed beyond a doubt ; and the use of that word would more correctly describe the efforts whose his- tory it is the purpose of this chapter to relate than the word usually used, viz. — 4 completion.’ The question, however, 4 In what way 44 adornment ” shall be carried out P ’ has hitherto received no answer ; but there is good reason to hope that it soon will be answered. For exactly fifty years after Wren’s death no attempt seems to have been made to effect the 4 adornment ’ of the Cathedral. At last, towards the end of 1773, a proposal was made by the Eoyal Academy of Arts, which, as Dean Milman justly observes, was fortunately not accepted. In his ‘Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds/ Northcote says proposal of ' that at one of the evening meetings it was proposed to ^clEmy paint the interior of Somerset House Chapel, with the in 1773 - view of convincing the public of the advantage of thus decorating churches. The proposal was well received, but Sir Joshua Reynolds suggested, 4 that, instead of the Chapel, they should fly at higher game, and undertake St. Paul’s Cathedral.’ It is somewhat re- markable that there is no indication of the way in which Reynolds proposed that this 4 undertaking ’ of St. Paul’s Cathedral should be carried out. It is nowhere stated whether the pictures were to be 1 4to. London, 1782, vol. i. p. 106. 152 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. XI. Its rejec- tion. wall paintings, or oil paintings hung against the wall, although the latter, from the expressions used, seems the more probable, and we do not know where they were to be placed. Reynolds’ proposal, however, was received with acclamation, and communications were immediately opened with Dr. Newton, Bishop of Bristol, who was then Dean of St. Paul’s. The Dean and Chapter were all equally pleased with the idea ; and the Academy then selected six artists to carry it out. These were Sir Joshua Reynolds, Benjamin West, Barry, Dance, Cipriani, and Angelica Kaufmann. Of these there were only two who possessed the qualities necessary for the execution of so great a work. It is needless to say that one was Reynolds, and the other Barry. The subj ect which Reynolds proposed to execute was that of The Nativity. If it was the intention to paint on the walls them- selves, as Dean Milman supposes, we must thoroughly sympathise with him when he says, 4 1 confess I shudder at the thought of our walls covered with the audacious designs and tawdry colouring of West, Barry, Cipriani, Dance, and Angelica Kaufmann.’ 1 If, on the other hand, it was intended that the pictures should be oil paintings, no great harm would have been done, for removal would have been easy. But although the Dean and Chapter favoured the plan, two of the Trustees of the Cathedral — the Arch- bishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London — opposed it. Bishop Terrick, especially, strenuously objected, and, from Dean Newton’s account, apparently for the absurd reason that the plan savoured of Romanism. Reynolds therefore informed the members 1 Annals , p. 471. THE ADORNMENT OF ST. PAUL’S. 153 of the Academy ‘that all thoughts of it must con- sequently drop.’ 1 The Dean, however, was not inclined so easily to give up the project, and endeavoured to persuade the opponents to try an experiment on a small scale of the effect of pictures. He therefore proposed that as, over the two doors, one opening into the north and the other into the south aisle, there are ‘proper compartments for two pictures,’ ‘Sir Joshua Reynolds and Mr. West should paint these two pictures.’ The subject proposed for that by West was the Giving the Tables to Moses, and for that by Reynolds The Nativity. But the Arch- bishop and the Bishop were inexorable, and the scheme fell to the ground. 2 For three quarters of a century after Reynolds’ pro- posal nothing more was done, except the restora- tion of Thornhill’s paintings by Mr. Parris, in 1853 — and this might well have been left undone. All at- tempts at adornment were given up ; St. Paul’s seemed absolutely forgotten, except as a place of burial for great soldiers and sailors, and as the National place for public thanksgiving. As for adornment, as for cheerful colour, the cold shade of a religious sentiment, which has now in great part passed away, forbade a renewal of any attempt to introduce it. At length, in 1858, the Bishop of London addressed a letter to Dean Milman (who had succeeded Bishop Copleston in the Deanery, on November 1st, 1849, and who had been in communication with Mr. Penrose two years previously), and to the Chapter, urging upon them the advisability of instituting a series of special evening services for the benefit of those large 1 Northcote’s Life of Reynolds, 4to, Lond. 1813, pp. 196-198. 2 Newton’s Works, vol. i. p. 106. CHAP. XI. The Dean in vain en- deavours to experi- ment on a small scale. Restora- tion of Thorn- hill’s paintings. Renewed attempts at ‘ adorn- ment,’ 1858. 154 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. XI. Proposed use of the Dome for congrega- tional worship. masses of the people whom it might be impossible to attract in any other way. The Dean had previously written as follows : — 4 Since the death of Sir Christo- pher Wren, nothing whatever, I believe, at least nothing important, had been done till the present day for the completion and decoration of the interior of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Even the windows are pro- bably the temporary windows introduced by Wren, till others more suited to the architecture and dignity of the building could take their place. With the exception of the restoration of Sir James Thornhill’s paintings in the cupola,- — under the circumstances, as I am now inclined to think, an injudicious application of labour and funds, — no work of any magnitude was undertaken. It would seem as if the immense sum required had appalled the imagination, and checked all desire, to embark upon any extensive scheme of improvement. The first light of a new day arose from the wish to render the Cathedral more available for its primary object, the worship of God.’ 1 Dean Milman elsewhere expresses the same feelings as to the restoration of Thornhill’s paintings. He says, 4 1 must acknowledge that, according to my present judgment, I deeply regret the cost and labour ex- pended on the. restoration of Thornhill’s work. But it was done when our only thought was to repair what was actually in existence, and to preserve the paint- ings, which were falling off in flakes, or hanging loose on the walls. The bolder thought of attempting to ornament the interior of the Church, rose afterwards with the determination to use the space under the Milman’s Annals , p. 495. THE ADORNMENT OF ST. PAUL’S. 155 Dome for public service. This use of the space under the Dome was no doubt contemplated by Wren .’ 1 Here, then, at last, was an idea which instantly became the parent of other thoughts, and quickly pro- duced actual and most important results. It has done so until the present day, and we may hope that it will continue to do so until the Cathedral of St. Paul’s properly takes its place, in an architectural point of view, among the noble Cathedrals of England. If the zeal of the present Dean and Chapter Hag not — and we have no reason to fear such a result — Prayer, Praise, and Thanksgiving will be offered up more worthily, and more nobly, in that Sacred Building than in any other in the United Kingdom. Dean Milman responded nobly to the Bishop’s appeal. He said, 4 It has been the dearest wish of my heart, since I have had the honour of filling the high station of Dean of St. Paul’s, to see not one narrow part alone of this great building applied to its acknowledged purposes, the worship of God and the Christian in- struction of the people ; but beside this, that instead of the cold, dull, unedifying, unseemly appearance of the interior, the Cathedral should be made within worthy of its exterior grandeur and beauty. That exterior, I presume to say, from its consummate design, in its style of architecture , is the noblest Church in Christian Europe, — the masterpiece of our great British Architect, Sir Christopher Wren ; the glory, it should be the pride, of the City of London, of the Christian people of the realm. I should wish to see such decorations intro- duced into St. Paul’s as may give some splendour, while they would not disturb the solemnity, or the exquisitely CHAP. XI. Dean Milman’s Letter. 1 Milman’s Annals , p. 441 (note). 156 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAR XI. Eormation of Com- mittee. harmonious simplicity, of the edifice ; some colour to enliven and gladden the eye, from foreign or native marbles, the most permanent and safe modes of em- bellishing a building exposed to the atmosphere of London. I would see the Dome, instead of brooding like a dead weight over the area below, expanding and elevating the soul towards Heaven. I would see the sullen white of the roof, the arches, the cornices, the capitals, and the walls, broken and relieved by gilding, as we find it by experience the most lasting, as well as the most appropriate decoration. I would see the adornment carried out in a rich and harmonious (and as far as possible from gaudy) style, in unison with our simpler form of worship.’ In a note to the above eloquent response to the Bishop’s appeal, the Dean adds, 4 After the experiments which have been made, to marble and gilding, Mosaics would now probably have been added.’ 1 4 In pursuance of the double motive indicated by this letter, an appeal was made and a Committee was appointed, which, from its first formation, was supported by many of the leading merchants and bankers of the City.’ The result was, that, in addition to special dona- tions, about 24,000/. was raised, and up to the death of Dean Milman, in 1868, about 10,000/. was spent on matters connected with the services, and about the same amount on the decorations. There can be no doubt that the sum spent on the preparation of the Dome for the vast congregations which now attend the services and on other matters connected with the celebration of Divine worship was well spent. But there may be a difference of opinion as to whether the money expended on the decorations has been equally 1 Annals, p. 496. THE ADORNMENT OF ST. PAUL’S. 157 well bestowed. The greatest question connected with chap. the latter subject is, ‘Whether it was desirable to > — fill the windows with light- obscuring painted glass P ’ Enquiry as especially in an atmosphere like that of London, windows. The answer must be that it is, at least, very doubtful. A building like St. Paul’s requires light. Windows filled with heavy painted glass seem hardly in accord- ance with this view of the requirements of the Cathe- dral. But there is yet another reason why such stained glass windows, as those now in the Cathedral, should be regarded as inappropriate. The great want of the interior of the Cathedral, after light, is — colour. Colour, in a Classical as opposed to a Gothic building, must, inevitably, be given by one of three methods, viz. either by painting, by marble, or by mosaic. It is not for me here to offer an opinion as to which of these three methods is the best ; but it is clear that colour must be given by two, and possibly, to some small extent, by all of the three. That is, colour must come from appliances to the interior, and not from the ex- terior. It seems necessarily to follow from this that no strong colour should be admitted from the windows, and that the light admitted through them should be lessened as little as practicable. Pure white unadorned glass in little squares is mean, cold, and wretched ; but it is probable that it would not be difficult to devise some delicate colour for the glass with which the windows are filled, that would harmonise with, and even heighten the beauty of the colours of the interior. Whether, in order to relieve them from the monotony of unadorned colour, it would be desirable to decorate them with figures, architecture, or some kind of ornaments, is a question for the architect. The fatal step of inserting heavily coloured painted 158 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. XI. Dean Milman’s death. windows was first finally decided on at a meeting of the Committee, on May 10th, 1861. On that day the Sur- veyor to the Fabrick was directed to go to Glasgow to inspect the windows in the Cathedral in that city. At the next meeting after his return, on May 31 st, 1861, he was instructed to communicate with Professor Hess and Messrs. Ainmuller, of Munich, and thus, the fate of the Cathedral, to be loaded with Munich glass, was sealed. Is it too late to retrace the fatal step P In justice to Dean Milman and his Committee, how- ever, it should be stated, as related by Mr. Penrose, the Surveyor to the Fabrick, that they most rigidly intended to limit the use of the Munich glass to the East and West Ends, and to the ends of the two tran- septs. They were of opinion, that the light from the side windows would be enhanced rather than dimi- nished by reducing the glare from the ends. 1 As" to other questions connected with the way in which the adornment of St. Paul’s was carried out be- tween 1858 and 1868, it is neither necessary nor desir- able here to enter into any discussion. Much was done well, but much might, perhaps, have been done better. The funds raised were utterly inadequate to the require- ments ; public enthusiasm was not raised to the requisite height; and finally, Dean Milman’s illness and death necessarily checked the promotion of his favourite scheme. Soon after Dean Milman’s death another Committee was appointed, the first meeting of which took place on May 14th, 1870, and on the 13th July following, a public meeting was held at the Mansion- House, at which a large sum was subscribed. From that time until Dean Mansel’s death, on July 31st, 1871, the time of the Milman’s St. Paul's, Appendix D, p. 524. APPOINTMENT OF AN AECHITECT. 159 Committee was occupied chiefly in preparations, but chap. nearly 40,000/. had been subscribed. V— > At length, soon after the appointment of Dean Appoint- Church, peculiar circumstances gave a new life to the 0 fDean adornment scheme, which has lasted in full vigour till Church ' the present day, and which promises, at length, to carry it to a successful accomplishment, and to render Dean Church’s tenure of office one of the most memo- rable of any from the foundation of the Cathedral. In the autumn of 1871, the Prince of Wales was nines* of tliG Prince struck down by a dangerous illness, from which of Wales, recovery seemed almost hopeless. The intense anxiety of the nation for his restoration to health, the eager- ness with which the daily bulletins were scanned, and the joy of the nation when his recovery was certain, can never be forgotten by the present generation. When the Prince’s health was at last restored, the national offering of thanks to God in the National Ca- thedral was the idea which naturally sprang up in the minds of the nation. It needed but a spoken word to insure its universal acceptation. The Queen having been consulted, expressed her hearty concurrence, and it was decided that a National Thanksgiving should be offered up, in St. Paul’s Cathedral, on the 27th of February, 1872. In accordance with the precedents of 1664 and 1678, a ‘Book of Subscriptions’ for the completion of St. Paul’s was opened, in which Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales inscribed their names as subscribers on the evening before the Day of Thanksgiving. The national gathering took place, and national sub- National scriptions poured in for the completion of the Cathedral. But next to the providing of funds for the cost of ‘ adorn- ^72 27, ment,’ the most important question requiring settlement 160 THE THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED TO ST. PAUL. CHAP. XI. Appoint- ment of an architect^ Appoint- mentofMr. Burges. was the appointment of an architect for planning and carrying it into execution. The surveyor, Mr. Penrose, had never been formally appointed to this responsible office, and consequently had never been in a position to put forward, in an authoritative manner, the views he entertained on the subject. It was therefore resolved, on the 21st March, 1872, ‘That it is expedient to ob- tain the highest professional advice upon the various works connected with the completion of St. Paul’s.’ It is unnecessary, and most assuredly unadvisable, here to relate the difficulties with which the carrying out of this resolution was surrounded. It is sufficient to state that on April 22nd Mr. William Burges was elected architect for the completion of St. Paul’s. The amount subscribed up to March 31st, 1873, is about 56,000/. CHAPTER XII DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S. M Dome op St. Paul’s Cathedral. CHAPTEE XII. The knowledge of the most accomplished architect, chap. combined with the descriptive powers of the most - eloquent writer, would be required to do justice to the grandeur and magnificence of St. Paul’s. I cannot justice to pretend to even any approach to the first, and with- ficeneeof out it, had I the graphic pen of a Macaulay, it would St,Pauls * be hardly practicable to paint in words a building the vast extent and noble proportions of which stand in the way of its appreciation by uninstructed minds. But I can supply my deficiencies by the knowledge of others ; and I can say for myself, that the almost daily view of the beautiful West front, with its grand flank- ing campaniles, towered over by the majestic Dome, surmounted by the sign and emblem of Christianity, ever resplendent and ever recalling high and noble thoughts, increases, in my mind, instead of diminishing, admiration of Wren’s masterpiece. I have therefore in the following description of the Descrip- Cathedral availed myself of the writings of accom- st° n paui’s. plished scholars, and I am indebted chiefly to those of Mr. Joseph Gwfilt, and of Sir Henry Ellis . 1 The form and dimensions of the building claim the first place in this account. 1 Sir Henry Ellis’ edition of Stow, and Mr. G wilt’s account of St. Paul’s Cathedral in the first volume of Illustrations of the Public Build- ings of London, by J. Britton, F S.A., and A. Pugin, architect, London, 1825. M 2 164 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XII. Porm, length, "breadth, and height. Mr. Wight- wick’s re- marks on the North and South Chapels. The form is that of the long or Latin cross. Its extreme length, including the Porch, is 500 feet ; the greatest breadth, that is to say, across the Transept but within the doors of the Porticoes, 250 feet ; the width of the Nave 118 feet. There are, however, at the foot, or western end of the Cross, projections north- ward and southward, which make the breadth 190 feet. One of these, that, namely, on the North side (marked B in the annexed plate), is used as a morning chapel, and the other, on the South side (marked a), contains the Wellington monument, and was formerly used as the consistory court. Independently of the use to which these projections are turned, they are considered by some critics as expedients for lengthen- ing and giving importance to the West front. It is curious, as a contrast to these opinions, to quote the remarks of Mr. Wightwick, in a paper com- municated by him to the Eoyal Institute of British Architects, 1 on the North and South projections at the West end : — - c It was by command of the Popish Duke of York that the North and South Chapels, near the Western end, were added to the reduction of the Nave aisles, and the lamentable injury of the return fronts of the two towers, which therefore lost in apparent eleva- tion, by becoming commingled with pieces of projecting fa 9 ade on the North and South sides. Thus were pro- duced the only defects in the longitudinal fronts of the Church. The independence of the towers is destroyed, their vertical emphasis obliterated, and a pair of ex- crescences is the consequence, which it were well to cut away. All that could be done to diminish the evil was accomplished : but no informed eye can view the perspective of the Cathedral from the North-west or 1 Sessional Papers, 1858-59, p. 122. DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S. 165 South-west, without seeing how no architect, who only admitted a 44 variety of uniformities,” could have intentionally formed a distinct component in an exterior of otherwise uniform parts, by a tower having only one wing, and that too flush with its face. With this ex- ception, the general mass of the Cathedral is faultless, i.e ., as the result of a conciliation between the archi- tect’s feeling for the Eoman style, and his compelled obedience to the shape prescribed.’ At the internal angle of the Cross are small square bastion-like adjuncts, whose real use is to strengthen the piers ^f the Dome, but they are inwardly serviceable as vestries and a staircase. The height of the Cathedral from the Street on the South side to the top of the Cross is 365 feet. 1 The Exterior consists throughout of two orders, the lower being Corinthian, the upper Composite. It is built externally in two stories, in both of which, except at the North and South Porticoes and at the West front, the whole of the entablatures rest on coupled pilasters, between which, in the lower order, a range of circular- headed windows is introduced. But in the order above, the corresponding spaces are occupied by dressed niches standing on pedestals pierced with openings to light the passages in the roof over the side aisles. The upper order is nothing but a screen to hide the flying buttresses carried across from the outer walls to resist the thrust of the great vaulting. 2 The West front has a magnificent Portico, divided, 1 The following are the corresponding dimensions of St. Peter’s at Rome^taken from Fontana’s plan : — Length, 630 ft. j breadth, 440 ; width of nave, 220 ; height, 437£. 2 The merits and demerits of this sham architecture are pointed out on a subsequent page. CHAP. XII. Vestries and Staircase. The Exterior two orders and two stories. West front. 106 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XII. Transepts. Cam- paniles. Steps. like the rest of the building, into two stories, one above the other. The lower consists of twelve coupled and fluted columns, that above has only eight, which bear an entablature and pediment whose tympanum is sculp- tured in bas-relief representing the Conversion of St. Paul. On the apex of the pediment is a figure of the Saint himself, and at its extremities, on the right and left of St. Paul, are figures of St. Peter and St. James. The Transepts are terminated upwards by pediments, over coupled pilasters at the quoins, and two single pilasters in the intermediate space. On each side of the Western Portico a square pedes- tal rises over the upper order, and on each pedestal a steeple, or campanile tower, consisting of a circular angle of Corinthian columns finishing in small domes, formed by curves of contrary flexure, very like bells. Lower down, in front of these campaniles, the four Evangelists are represented with their emblems. In the face of the southern campanile a clock is inserted ; in the northern a similar opening has been left, which has never been filled up . 1 STEPS AT WESTERN ENTRANCE, AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED BY SIR C. WREN, AND AS NOW INTENDED TO BE CARRIED OUT. A flight of steps of black marble, extending the whole length of the Portico, forms its basement . 2 1 It is to be regretted that it should still remain vacant : why should It not be utilised either as a wind dial or as an anemometer, or, perhaps better still, as a magnificent self-registering aneroid barometer? 2 The arrangement of these steps is not Wren’s, perhaps Benson’s. MODEKN ST. PAUL’S. 167 On the north side is a semicircular Portico, consist- chap. ing of six Corinthian columns, forty-eight inches in ■ - diameter, resting on a circular flight of twelve steps p^ 0 . of black marble, and finishing -in a semi-dome. Above is a pediment resting on pilasters in the wall, on the face of which are the Royal Arms, supported by angels with palm branches, and under their feet the lion and unicorn, the statues of five of the Apostles being placed at the top at proper distances. The South Portico answers to the North, except that, South on account of the lowness of the ground on that side of Portlco ‘ the Church, it is entered by a flight of twenty-five steps. In the pediment above is represented a Phoenix rising from the flames, of which an account has been given in a former page. On the top of the pediment are five other figures of Apostles. At the East end of the Church is a circular projec- East end. tion for the Altar. Under the lower principal window, beneath a Crown, and surrounded by the Garter externally, is the cypher of King William and Queen Mary. The Dome, which is by far the most magnificent and The Dome, elegant feature in the building, rises from the body of the Church in great majesty. 1 It is 145 feet in outward and 108 feet in inward diameter. Twenty feet above the roof of the Church is a circular range of thirty- two columns, every fourth intercolumniation being filled with masonry, so disposed as to form an ornamental niche, or recess, by which arrangement the projecting but- tresses of the Cupola are concealed. These, which form Those designed by Wren, as shown in the annexed woodcut, had the ends properly returned. In the improvement of the Church Yard now in progress, it is intended to restore the steps according to Wren’s design. 1 See annexed Plate. 168 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XII. Lantern. Ball and Cross. The Interior. Entrance doors. The Nave its arches. a peristyle of tire Composite order with an unbroken entablature, enclose the interior order. They support a handsome gallery, adorned with a balustrade. Above these columns is a range of pilasters with windows be- tween them forming an Attic order , 1 and on these the great Dome stands. As Mr. Gwilt says, it may be safely affirmed that, for dignity and elegance, no church in Europe affords an example worthy of comparison with this Cupola. The general idea of the Cupola, as appears from the Parentalia , was taken from the Pan- theon at Borne. On the summit of the Dome — which, as already stated, is covered with lead— is a gilt bal- cony ; and from its centre rises the Lantern, adorned with Corinthian columns. The whole is terminated by a gilt Ball and Cross. I now proceed to the Interior. On ascending the steps at the West end of the Church, we find three doors, ornamented at the top with bas-reliefs, that over the middle door representing St. Paul preaching tc the Bereans. The interior of the Have is formed by an arcade resting on massive pillars, and dividing the Church into a body and two aisles. The pillars which carry these arches are strengthened and adorned by two orders of pilasters (excepting the westernmost arch, where the smaller order is columnar). These consist of a larger Corinthian order restricted to the central nave, and which carries the main entablature and a smaller 1 An Attic is a small story above the cornice, or principal elevation of a building. An Attic order is an inferior order of architecture, used over the principal order of a building. It never has columns, but, sometimes, small pilasters. For illustrations of Attic Stories, see Somerset House, Strand front, and the New Treasury Buildings. Interior of St. Paul’s Cathedral. DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S. 169 Composite order, which is crowned by an architrave, chap. interrupted only by the larger pilaster, from which spring the pier arches and the transverse ribs of the vaulting of the aisles. The archivolts of the pier arches rise above the level of the great order, which is dis- continued between the pilasters in order to permit this impropriety. Of the main entablature, the cornice only reigns The Nave, throughout the Church. Over this order rises a tall Attic, which breaks with the entablature over each pilaster, and by its break makes an abutment pier for the springing of semi-circular arches, which form the transverse ribs of the main vault. In each severy, or portion from pilaster to pilaster (excepting the western- most), the length is not equal to the breadth ; and this circumstance introduces a complication into the vault- ing. The vault is produced by a portion of a sphere, of which the centre is level with the top of the Attic, and which is intersected by a true cylinder longitudi- nally and an elliptic cylinder laterally. The former intersection necessarily coincides with the simple semi- circular transverse arches, but the latter forms groins of double curvature, which are carved into continuous narrow ribs, or bands, of flowers. The spaces between these groins and the transverse ribs form pendentives for the support of the shallow dome which completes the surface. This dome, however, is really part of the same sphere as the pendentives, but is separated by a bold cornice, and has the appearance of being carried by the transverse ribs and groins already described. The cornice is adorned by shields and other ornaments. The western severy of the Nave is square on the plan, and consequently the regularity of the penden- tives is here preserved. Another difference in this 170 MODERN ST. PAUL'S. chap, severy ds, that the pier arches spring from isolated w-,— columns coupled with the pilasters attached to the . piers, and on the north and south open into the morning chapel and consistory already mentioned, w r hich are both parallelograms on the plan, and are terminated at the eastern ends by semicircular tribunes. The Nave. The eastern piers of the Nave serve at the same time for the support of the Cupola. They are wider than the other piers, and are flanked by pilasters at their angles and have shallow oblong recesses in the inter- columniations. The roof over these piers is a boldly coffered waggon vault, which contrasts very effectively with the rest of the vaulting. Clerestory. In the upright space on the walls, where intersected by the elliptic cylinders of the cross vaulting, a cleres- tory is introduced over the Attic order. To this Mr. DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S. 171 Gwilt strongly objects, as will be related in the next chap. chapter. . — ^ The Aisles, which are extremely low compared with The Aisles, the Nave, are vaulted from the small Composite pilasters which support the arcade of the Church. The penden- tives here are regular ; otherwise the treatment is analogous to that of the principal vault. , The Nave is separated from the Choir by the area Central over which the Cupola rises. From the centre of this Area * area, the Transepts, or traverse of the Cross, diverge to the North and South, each extending one severy, or arch, in length. The Choir, which is vaulted and domed over, like The Choir, the Nave and Transepts, from the top of the Attic order, is terminated eastward by a semicircular tribune, whose diameter is, in general terms, the same as the width of the Choir itself. The western end of the Choir has pillars similar to those at the eastern end of the Nave, uniform with which there are at its eastern end piers of the same extent and form, except that they are pierced for a communication with the side aisles. Above the entablature and under the Cupola is the whisper- Whispering Gallery, and in the concave above are 1 a n n ^ Gallery representations of the principal passages of St. Paul’s Cu P ola - life in eight compartments, painted, as already stated, by Thornhill. The eight large piers under the Dome are equal Central in size, but not equidistant. Mr. Gwilt remarks, c”poi£ deP that Sir Christopher Wren very judiciously gave the preference to an octagon in place of a square for the base of his Cupola in the area of the Church, as thereby the projection of the pendentives is con- siderably reduced. The four larger openings — 40 feet 172 MODERN ST. PAULS. CHAP. 1 XII. Its eight Arches all equal. wide — between the piers occupy the spaces where the Nave, Choir, and Transepts diverge from the great circle ; the lesser ones are between them. These latter are surmounted by arches 26 feet wide, which spring from the architrave of the main order ; but the eight upper arches which receive the cornice of the Whispering Gallery are all equal. This is effected by extending the springing point in the Attic so as to break over the re-entering angular pilaster below. The spandrels between the great arches are so wrought as to form the area into a circle, which is crowned CAXTAEEVER. CORNICE ROUND INNER DOME. by a large cantalever cornice, partly supporting, by its projection, the Whispering Gallery. Above the cornice of the Whispering Gallery a tall circular podium rises up for the reception of the order im- mediately under the Dome. The order is Composite. Its periphery is divided into eight portions of three intercolumniations each, pierced for windows. Each of these divisions is separated from that adjoining it by a solid pier, one intercolumniation wide, deco- rated with a niche. The piers so formed connect the The order wall of the inner order with the external peristyle, and Whisper- thus serve as counterforts to resist the thrust of the Gallery inner brick cupola, as well as of that of the conical w^all (which carries the stone lantern, reputed to be of the DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S. 173 enormous weight of 700 tons), neither of which are chap. more than two bricks in thickness. v — * — ' The podium and order just described, and which together form the 4 Drum ’ of the Cupola, incline in- wards as they rise, and it is worthy of remark, that their bearing is solely on the great arches and their piers, without any false bearing on the pendentives — a its precaution, says Mr. Gwilt, which evinces great judg- construc- ment. A plinth over the order receives the inner tlon ’ dome, which is of brick plastered. The plastering, as already stated, is disfigured by the dull-coloured work of Sir James Thornhill. The Dome is pierced with an Painting eye in its vertex, through which a vista is carried up to cupola, the small dome in which the great cone terminates. The construction of St. Paul’s now claims our Thecon- . . . n . . ... stmctionof attention, and, m the opinion ot competent critics, the st. Paul’s, engineering skill displayed in it is greater even than its architectural excellence. Mr. Gwilt, whose minute yet comprehensive and Gwiit’s • • • p tra (*,ti appreciating study of St. Paul’s is of the greatest f rom value, says that the mechanical skill and ingenuity J^iesL- exhibited by Wren in the construction of St. Paul’s, , . . . Polity. the due equipoise of the counteracting forces, and the proper adjustment of their opposite effects, call to mind the observations in Hooker’s 5th book of his 4 Eccle- siastical Polity : ’ — 4 All things are in such sort divided into finite and infinite, that no one substance, nature, or qualitie can be possibly capable of both. The world, and all things in the world, are stinted, all effects that procede from them, all the powers and abilities whereby they worke, whatsoever they doe, whatso- ever they may, and whatsoever they are, is limited, which limitation of each creature is both the per- fection and also the preservation thereof. Measure is 174 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XII. Greatest effects by slenderest means a test of skill. Superficial area of Three Churches. that which perfecteth all things, because everything is for some end, neither can that thing be available to any end which is not proportionable thereunto, and to proportion as well excesses as defects are opposite. Againe, forasmuch as nothing doth perish, but only through excess or defect of that , the due proportioned measure whereof doth give perfection, it followeth that measure is likewise the preservation of all things.’ As Mr. Gwilt adds, 6 A train of reasoning that is so appli- cable to the arts, deserves to be written in letters of gold over the doors of all academies that profess to nurture them.’ In considering the peculiarities of the construction of St. Paul’s, Mr. Gwilt begins by stating that it is obvious that that building deserves the greatest praise in which the greatest effects are produced by use of the slenderest means, and that from this point of view St. Paul’s claims our unqualified admiration. He com- pares it with St. Peter’s at Pome and Santa Maria at Florence, two churches whose plans bear some re- semblance to each other and to St. Paul’s ; and he says that the best method of comparison is to take the space of ground which each building covers, and compare it with the superficial area of the piers and walls which support their roofs or other coverings. The result is as follows : - Stands on an area of English square feet _ Of which area its points of support occupy English square feet The propor- tion of the latter to the former ! St; Peter’s . . . 1 Santa Maria . . . . St. Paul’s 227,069 84,802 84,025 i 59,308 17,030 14,311 I = 0-261 ; ! -0-201 -0-170. DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S. 175 Mr. Gwilt, however, adds that 4 it is curious to ob- serve that the proportional number which would be assigned to the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Paris would be 140, and that in all probability, on a comparison of the above with some of our own cathedrals, the low ratio at which they would appear would surprise and astonish us.’ This may be considered as a calculation of the amount of support required for the covered en- closure of a given space. But if, as the same eminent architect says, a comparison is made of a section from north to south through the transepts of these churches, the result will be very different. This is, in fact, a comparison of the amounts of material employed to give the necessary strength. The clear internal areas of these three churches, as compared with their ex- ternal areas, is as follows : — In Santa Maria as . . . 8,855 to 10,000 „ St. Peter’s . . . 8,325 „ „ „ St. Paul’s „ . . . 6,865 „ . „ In this comparison St. Paul’s comes out the least per- fect, and with reference to the principle involved, Mr. Gwilt says, 4 The same observation, in respect of the Gothic cathedrals, as was made on their horizontal areas, quite as strongly applies to their vertical areas. The builders of the Middle Ages seem to have found out the minimum of strength necessary for the pur- pose.’ Mr. Gwilt then goes on to express his admiration of the interior cone of the Dome. He says, 4 Among the most elegant applications of science ever perhaps in- troduced into a building, is the conical wall, between the inner and outer domes, upon which the stone lantern, of enormous weight, is supported. This was -CHAP. XII. Com- parative quantity of material in the same. The interior and outer Dome. 176 MODERN ST. PAUL S. chap, truly the thought of a master.’ The attendant defects ' are pointed out in the next chapter. SECTION SHOWING INNER AND OUTER DOMES, WITH THE CONICAL WALL. The iron Between the inner and outer Dome are stairs which chain ' ascend to the Lantern. With the object of giving addi- tional strength to the walls supporting the Dome, Wren inserted a strong iron chain in a channel in the stone. The author of the 4 Parentalia ’ says, 4 Altho’ the Dome wants no Butment, yet, for greater Caution, it is hooped with Iron in this manner. A channel is cut in the Bandage of Portland Stone, in which is laid a double chain of Iron, weighing 95 cwt. 3 qrs. and 23 lbs., strongly linked together at every ten feet, and the Ground Plan op Crypt op St. Paul’s. (From an original drawing by Mr. Penrose, Surveyor to St. Paul’s.) DESCRIPTION OF ST. PAUL’S. 177 whole Channel filled up with Lead .’ 1 The using of this chain, as Mr. Gwilt says, has been objected to, as breaking through one of Sir Christopher’s own maxims, namely, that such 4 a way of tying walls together, instead of making them of that substance and form that they shall, naturally, poise themselves upon their own abutments, is against the rules of STAIRS, AS THEY FORMERLY EXISTED, LEADING UP TO THE LANTERN, BETWEEN THE INNER AND OUTER DOMES. (From an original drawing in the 4 Gardner Collection.’) good architecture.’ Mr. Gwilt adds, however, that in this case superfluous caution may be pardoned, but, at the same time, he doubts whether the great weight of the chain does not render the thrust of the cupola more directly perpendicular than it otherwise would be. The only other point relative to the construction of St. Paul’s demanding consideration is the Crypt, on which, of course, the whole building rests . 2 4 To the architect 2 See annexed Ground Plan of Crypt. N CHAP. XII. The Crypt. 1 Parentalia, p. 292. 178 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. chap, who builds for posterity,’ says Mr. Gwilt, 4 its plan, compared with that of the superstructure, is peculiarly The Crypt, instructive and interesting. The large portion of solid allotted to the piliers of the dome, and the abutmental adjuncts thereto for guarding against horizontal failure, are not only remarkable but useful examples for the study of the scientific artist. Commencing with the foundation in the vaults (or crypt), the cupola may be described as rising from a square basement of 190 feet, of which the solid parts are more than equal to the vacant spaces, and their thickness upwards of 20 feet.’ 1 1 Edifices of London , vol. i. p. 33. CHAPTER XIII CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. CHAPTER XIII. In the last chapter I endeavoured to describe St. Paul’s, chap. x ... XIII I now propose to give an account of the opinions which have been expressed as to its merits and its defects. In treating this difficult subject I shall contrast the opinions of those who fail fully to appreciate St. Paul’s with those of others who do it greater justice, and I shall not shrink from pointing out those parts of the building which have been subjected to what may fairly be considered judicious criticism. 1 begin, naturally, with the exterior. This, as Mr. The ex- Eergusson says, ‘ surpasses in beauty all the other ^ nor * examples of the same class which have yet been Fergus- carried out; and, whether seen from a distance or option, near, it is, externally at least, one of the grandest and most beautiful Churches of Europe.’ 1 It is not a little surprising to contrast with this the opinion ex- pressed by Strype in his edition of Stow’s ‘ Survey of London.’ 2 He says, 4 This Cathedral is undoubtedly one of the most magnificent modern buildings in Europe . . . but still, with all these beauties, it Strype - s has yet more defects.’ He then points out these blem- criticisnx ishes, but it is not probable that the particular ob- jections he raises wdll meet with assent at the present time. He says, ‘However odd or new the first of these propositions may seem, let anybody take a view of St. Paul’s from any of the neighbouring hills, and 1 Modern Architecture , p. 274. 2 (Strype’s edition) vol. i. page 664. 182 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP XIII. Strype’s Criticisms on the Dome. The Portico. he will instantly discern that the building is defective, and that the form of a Cross is more favourable to superstition than to beauty; he will easily see, at least, that the Dome, in its present circumstance, is abun- dantly too big for the rest of the Pile, and that the West end has no rational pretence to finer or more splendid decorations than the East.’ In his opinion, there should have been 4 two corresponding steeples at the East,’ the 4 Dome should have been laid exactly in the centre of the whole,’ and 4 the Portico should have been further projected on the eye.’ Strype pro- bably knew but little of Byzantine architecture, but GROUND PLAN OF PRONAOS, SHOWING RECESS FOR THE GREAT DOORS UNDER WESTERN PORTICO. yet he seems to have had in his mind a Byzantine cupola, which is much lower than a Dome like that of St. Paul’s, but which is everything in the design, being itself, practically, not a part of the Church but the whole. With reference to the projection of the Portico, Mr. Gwilt agrees with Strype. He says, 4 The projection of the Porticoes from the general face of the front is about one diameter and three quarters, a circumstance that deprives them of the commanding effect which a Portico should always possess — witness that of the parish church of St. Martin’s in the Fields. Sir Christopher CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 183 seems to have been aware of the defect, and to have attempted a remedy for it by recessing the pronaos be- hind the three central intercolumniations, in order to produce a depth of shadow. But, as Evelyn would have said, its object is nevertheless meagre.’ The West Front is that which first presents itself to the eye when the Cathedral is approached by the only way from which a tolerably satisfactory view can be obtained of the building ; and when the obstructing wall, and the railing built up against Wren’s wishes, are removed, it cannot be doubted that the view then presented will be vastly improved. The West Front commands almost universal admiration. As stated by Mr. Fergusson , 1 4 Its dimensions, the beauty of its details, the happy outline of the campaniles, the proportion of these to the facade and of all the parts one to another, make up the most pleasing design of its class that has yet been executed.’ This description, however valuable as the criticism of an accomplished writer, never- theless does but scant justice to the beauty of the perspective view obtained on approaching the Cathe- dral by Ludgate Hill. The campaniles stand out like Alpine aiguilles, and it requires no great stretch of the imagination* — at least in a President of the Alpine Club — while gazing on the Dome of St. Paul’s to call up and contrast with it that of Mont Blanc ; but in the Alpine scene there are no aiguilles so picturesquely placed as to form outposts of the majestic mass in the background. Mr. Wightwick characterises the Dome as 4 indeed the very crown of England’s architectural glory.’ He then goes on to say The four projections which fill CHAP. XIII. Beauty of the West Front?. The Dome, 1 Modern Architecture ; p. 273. 184 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIII. Objections to West Front. Western Front, out the angles formed by the intersecting lines of the cross finely buttress up the mountain of masonry above ; and the beautiful semicircular porticoes of the transepts still further carry out the sentiment of stability. As to the Dome itself, it stands supreme on earth. The simple stylobate of its tambour ; its un- interrupted peristyle, charmingly varied by occasionally solid intervening masonry, so artfully masking the buttress work as to combine at once an appearance of elegant lightness with the visible means of confident security ; all these, with each subsequently ascending feature of the composition, leave us to wonder how criticism can have ever spoken in qualified terms of Wren’s artistic proficiency.’ Fault has been found with this magnificent West Front, o.n the ground that its external form has no con- nexion with, or relation to, the internal structure. It is remarked by Mr. Fergusson , 1 that there is no ‘sugges- tion externally of two stories, or two aisles of different heights;’ but this statement seems hardly consistent with the facts, inasmuch as there are two stories of columns forming the western portico, and these corre- spond exactly with the two external stories of the rest of the building. Strype’s objection 2 3 * * is of an exactly opposite nature, He says, ‘ In the next place, the dividing the Portico, and indeed the whole structure, into two stories on the outside, certainly indicates a like division within ’ Mr. Wightwick 8 says that ‘ the Western front must 1 Modern Architecture , p. 273. 2 Strype’s edition of Stow’s Survey of London, p. 664. 3 Papers read at the Royal Institute of British Architects, Session 1858-59 (pp. 119-128), on the Architecture and Genius of Sir Christopher Wren, by G. Wightwick, architect-. Mr. Wightwick’s general remarks V One op the Campaniles op St. Paul’s. CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 185 be criticised as illustrating, in great measure, a Gothic idea Romanised. Instead of twin spires (as at Lich- field), we have two pyramidal piles of Italian detail ; instead of the high pointed gable between, we have the classic pediment, as lofty as may be ; the coupled columns and pilasters answer to the Gothic buttresses ; and a minute richness and number of parts, with picturesque breaks in the entablatures (although against the architect’s expressed principles) are introduced in compliance with the general aspect and vertical ex- pression of the Gothic facade.’ It is perhaps unfortunate that the Western Front does not exactly face Ludgate Hill ; but, as already remarked, a perspective view is thereby obtained on approaching the Cathedral. It was Wren’s wish that it should face Ludgate Hill; but this was not practicable without taking down a great number of houses, which had been built up with eager haste as soon as the proprietors of the ground received the sanction of Parliament for so doing. The Commissioners for rebuilding the City had marked and staked out all the streets before any- thing had been determined about the new Cathedral . 1 The adoption of two orders of architecture, viz. the Corinthian below and Composite above, standing one above the other, attached to a perpendicular wall, has also been greatly objected to, and is styled by Mr. Fergusson 4 the great defect of the lower part of the design, that is of the nave, choir, and transepts.’ He says that there would nave been no objection to this part, had Wren, while adopting the general ground-plan of a Gothic cathedral, frankly adopted the on the genius of Wren and on St. Paul’s generally are so valuable and interesting, that I have added them at the end of this chapter. 1 j Parentalia, . 287. CHAP XIII. a Grothic idea Roman- ised. Does not exactly face Ludgate Hill Two orders of architec- ture on a perpendi- cular wall. 186 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. chap, mediaeval arrangement of a clerestory and side aisles ^ ' The projection of the aisle beyond the line of the and's^de 7 u PP er story would, he says, have been an obvious aisles reason for the adoption of two orders ; and he required. SU gg es t s were the interval between the pro- pylgea and the transept now filled up by a side aisle, apparently the whole would be reduced to harmony, the windows in the pedestals of the upper niches SECTION SHOWING BUTTRESSES . would be hidden, and by giving greater simplicity and breadth to the lower story the whole would obtain that repose which is now somewhat deficient. Wren, however, did construct a side aisle, with buttresses, as will be seen by the annexed illustration, although he thought proper to mask it by a screen wall. Mr. Gwilt seems at different times of his life to have CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 187 taken opposite views of the screen wall, which Wren erected to mask the buttresses. He said, 1 when writing as a young man, and referring to the illustration (of which a copy is here annexed), 4 By this print it will be seen how ingeniously Sir Christopher Wren has masked the flying buttresses, which (springing from the outer walls) resist the thrust of the main vaulting, by a screen wall wdiich extends the whole length of the north and south sides, and, exteriorly, forms the upper order of the building.’ Later in life, in his 4 Encyclopaedia of Architecture,’ 2 he expresses quite a contrary opinion. 4 We must here mention one of the most unpardonable defects, or rather abuses, which this church exhibits, and which must be learnt from reference to the an- nexed figure. Therein is given a transverse section of the nave and its side aisles. From this it will be seen that the enormous expense of the second or upper order all round the church was incurred for no other purpose than that of concealing the flying buttresses that are used to counteract the thrusts of the vaults of the nave, choir, and transepts, — an abuse that admits of no apology. It is an architectural fraud. We do not think it necessary to descend into minor defects and abuses, such as vaulting the church from an Attic order, the multiplicity of breaks, and want of repose, the general disappearance of tie and connection, the piercing, as practised, the piers of the cupola, and mitering the archivolts of its great arches, and the like, because we think all these are more than counterba- lanced by the beauties of the edifice. We cannot, however, leave the subject without observing, that not the least of its merits is its freedom from any material CHAP. XIII. The Screen Wall ; Mr.Grwilt’s first .opinion. The Screen Wall: Mr.Gwilt’s second opinion. 1 Edifices of London (published in 1825). 2 First published in 1842. 188 MODERN ST. PAUL S. CHAP. XIII. The Screen Wall, Mr.Wight- wiek’s opinion. Wren’s original intention was one order with an Attic. settlement tending to bring on premature dilapidation. Its chief failures are over the easternmost arch of the nave, and in the north transept, for the remedy whereof (the latter) the architect left written instructions. There are also some unimportant failures in the haunches of most of the flying buttresses, which are scarcely worth noticed Mr. Wiglitwick, to whose paper I have already re- ferred, defends the Screen Wall. He says that 4 the grand building must be judged ’ with the consideration that it was, as already stated, a work of conciliation. 4 This it is/ he says, 4 which excuses the application of the upper order as a mere screen to conceal the clerestory and flying buttresses ; for it must be ad- mitted that uninterrupted altitude of the bulk, in the same plane, is absolutely necessary to the substructure of the majestic Dome. It was originally Wren’s intention 1 to have imitated St. Peter’s at Eome in having one order with an Attic story. This is shown in all his first designs, and in particular by the Kensington model. The reason given for his abandonment of this plan is that he found a difficulty in getting a sufficient quantity of stone of the riolit dimensions for his columns. He had decided o that Portland stone was the best for his purpose, and even after he had resolved to limit himself to the four feet diameter, he found that it was difficult to procure stone enough that would cut into that dimension. With any larger diameter than tins he considered that he could not have kept 4 the just proportions of his Cornices, or must have fallen short of the height of the Fabrick .’ 2 1 Fnrentalia, p. 287. 2 Ibid. p. 288. CRITICISMS ON ST. RAUL’S. J 89 Other objections to the exterior were made soon after the Cathedral was finished. One was the doubling of all the pilasters of the outside, for which the reason given by Wren’s grandson 1 is that ‘they are of the same use as buttresses, allow of a larger size for the windows, and are necessary for the good regularity of the arcades within.’ The doubling of the columns of the West Portico was objected to, and Mr. Gwilt also condemns it. He says, ‘ Notwithstanding all the arguments that have been adduced in favour of the coupled columns, their use here is indefensible.’ 2 Wren defends himself by saying that in their greater works the ancients often did double their columns in order to make wider openings, and that ‘in the Portico of St. Paul’s two columns are brought nearer together, to make greater inter- columns alternately, and to give a proper space for three doors.’ 3 He adds that ‘ where there are three doors (the two side doors for daily use, and the middle one for solemnities), the columns are widened, to make a more open and commodious access to each.’ He de- fends this also on the ground of the graceful appear- ance produced by making the exterior pillars alternately Eustyle — that is, with a space between the columns equal to diameters of the lower part of the shaft' — and Pycnostyle, in which the space is equal to only li diameter. 4 These objections exhaust, apparently, all that could be said against the exterior of the Cathedral; and I shall 'CHAP. XIII. The Doubling of the Pilasters. Doubling of pilasters and of columns of West Portico. Wren’s defence. 1 Parentalia, p. 288. 2 Edifices of London, vol. i. p. 13. 3 Parentalia, p. 289. 4 The great success of Claude Perrault’s Eastern front of the Louvre, designed with coupled columns, could scarcely have been without in- fluence in guiding Wren’s judgment in this matter. 190 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP, XIII. Wren’s defence of incor- porating . lesser with greater pilasters. now take up those made against the interior, beginning with one which, to some extent, concerns both. Wren defends his grandfather from an objection to which, apparently, he thought he had laid himself open . 1 He says, 4 he seems to have varied from the ancients in that he has incorporated lesser pilasters with the greater, and that of the same Corinthian order and admits that in the ancient buildings, the imposts upon which the arches rested had a capital of a different order from that of the pillar, as may 4 be seen in the trium- phal arches and theatres which remain/ But he says they were careful that this capital should not project beyond the great pillar or pilaster ; and that this could easily be done on the outside of buildings, where there was room enough to advance the pilaster till it could receive the impost mouldings to lie against the side of the pilaster, but that in the inside of St. Paul’s it would have straightened the great nave, and made the breaks of the cornice above too heavy. He then says, 4 If any man thinks it improper to incorporate great and small pillars together, as is done in the aisles at St. Paul’s, let him consider the Basilica of the Co- lonna Julia, at Fanum, which is the only piece Vitruvius owns himself to be the author of ; he will easily per - ceive that there must be small pillars incorporated into the great, to bear the Galleries, and he will find that the whole Frize is taken up by Vitruvius to give light .’ 2 4 The Surveyor,’ he adds, 4 chose to make the little pilasters in the aisles of the same order with the great, because the opposite wall is beautified with the same smaller order, so the aisle of the whole length of the 1 Parentalia, p, 290. 2 Ibid. CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 191 Church is of itself a long and graceful portico without chap. being interrupted by the legs of the Dome.’ - — Another contemporary objection was that 4 the Ar- Architrave chitrave (a, a) within was cut off by the Arch.’ This was off by Arch, defended by Wren on the ground that the architectural origin of the portico was a structure of wood, and that, PIER ARCHES OF THE NAVE, SHOWING THE ARCHIVOETS, RISING ABOVE THE ARCHITRAVES. if a wooden portico of three aisles be supposed, the architraves must join the pillars of the aisles, and not be in range with the inner pillars, but cross to that line, so that nothing but the ends of the architraves will appear upon the pillars of the nave. Mr. Fergusson makes various objections to the in- Objections 1 to interior. tenor. 1 1 Modem Architecture , p. 269, &c. 192 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIII. G-reat arches supporting central dome, should have been four, and not eight. Suggested remedy. He says that the great arches supporting the central dome are not so well managed as in the first design. ‘ The intermediate arches lead nowhere, and the arclii- volts of all the eight being carried to the same height, the alternate arches are filled up by a series of con- structive expedients, destructive of architectural effect.’ Artistically — thus differing entirely from Mr. Gwilt’s opinion expressed in the last chapter— he considers that it was a great mistake to rest the dome on eight, instead of four arches, because they must necessarily be too narrow. He considers that for a dome ex- ceeding 100 eet in width, eight equal arches of forty feet diameter — even if such had been possible — would have been too small, and that ‘four great arches of sixty feet each would have been far nobler and better proportioned.’ With eight arches, he says, the naves to which they lead must always appear narrow and disproportioned, and the vista along the aisles is spoilt, because the eye, looking along them, never reaches beyond the great void of the Dome, and does not per- ceive that the little passage seen beyond is in fact a continuation of the aisle. Mr. Fergusson says 1 that 1 Wren’s own suggestion for getting over the awkwardness he felt he had intro- duced here was to place seated statues of the four Evangelists in the upper loggie, and with wooden curtains supported by cherubs to hide the cheeks of his opening. In addition to this, he proposed to place two figures of angels resting on each of the segmental cornices, like the Night and Morning in Michael Angelo’s tomb of the Medici.’ Mr. Fergusson suggests, however, a plan which he considers better, and which he says might be carried out now. This is, 4 to mask 1 Tage 269, on the extremely doubtful authority of Gwyn’s print. CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 193 the sides of the opening by real curtains, and to use the segmental cornices to support a balcony, which would give relief and meaning to the whole design.’ Mr. Fergusson then proceeds to point out what he considers to be the defects of the nave and the choir. He says, ‘As at St. Peter’s, the pier arches are too few to give perspective effect ; the architrave and frieze of the order are cut away to give them the required height, and the vaulting is singularly confused and inartistic, consisting of a series of small flat domes, twenty-six feet in diameter, each sur- rounded by a very heavy wreath of mouldings, which the little string of ornament along the arris of the sup- porting vaults seems painfully inadequate to support.’ He says that many of these defects might be partly remedied by judicious painting, but that the great and almost insuperable difficulty is to adapt Classical details to Gothic forms. It is remarkable that some of these are the very points defended by Wren’s grandson. The latter defends the leaving out some members of an order by citing the practice of the ancients, who used, .in the inside of Porticoes, to leave out the Frieze and Cornice . 1 With regard to the objection to the ‘small flat domes,’ he says, first, that the Cathedral being of necessity a three-aisled fabric must be vaulted, and next that the Surveyor followed the occasional example of the Eomans in using hemispherical vaultings, as being lighter. He then goes on to say, 6 So the whole vault of St. Paul’s consists of twenty-four Cupolas, cut off semicircular with Segments to join to the great Arches one way, and which are cut across the other way with elliptical Cylinders to let in the upper lights of the nave, but in the aisles the lesser Cupolas are both ways cut in serni- CHAP. XIII. Defects of nave and choir. Wren’s defence. Wren’s ex- planation of the interior construc- tion. 1 Parent alia, p. 290. 194 MODERN ST, PAUL’S. CHAP. XIII. Intro- duction of painting. Relative propor- tions of St. Peter s and St. Paul’s. Wren’s ex- planation of the con- struction of the Cupola. circular sections, and altogether make a graceful geo- metrical form, 1 which is the horizontal section of the Cupola.’ It is well worthy of mention here, in discussing this part of the building, that Wren’s grandson evidently con- templated the possibility of the introduction of paint- ing, for he speaks of the spandrels, having large planes between the stone ribs, as capable of further orna- ments of painting if required. He then further re- marks, in reference to the interior of the building : — ‘Desides these twenty-four Cupolas, there is a half Cupola at the East, and the Great Cupola of 108 feet diameter, in the middle of the crossing of the Great Aisles, In this the Surveyor has imitated the Pantheon in Pome, excepting only, that the upper order is there but umbratile, not extant as at St. Paul’s, out of the wall, but only distinguished by different coloured marbles,’ With reference to the proportions of St. Paul’s he remarks as follows : — ‘ The Pantheon is no higher within than its diameter ; St. Peter's is two diameters ; this shows too high, the other too low : the Surveyor at St. Paul’s took a mean proportion, which shows its concave every way, and is very lightsome by the Windows of the upper Order, which strike down the light through the great Colonnade that encircles the Dome without. . . . The Concave was turned upon a Centre, which was judged necessary to keep the Work even and true, tho’ a Cupola might be built without a centre ; but this is observable, that the Centre was laid without any Standards from below to support it ; and as it was both Centering and Scaffolding, it remained for the use of the Painter. Every storey of this scaffold- 1 Parentolia , p. 290, CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 195 ing being Circular, and the ends of all the Ledgers chap. meeting as so many rings, it supported itself.’ 1 r-^ Many persons entering the Cathedral suppose that The Dome the Dome over their heads is the actual lining of sheii. a the external Dome. They are not aware that it is a shell, of a different form from the outer structure, with a brick cone between it and the outer skin — COMPARATIVE SIZES OP ST. PETER’S (OUTLINE) AND ST. PAUL’S (SHADED). so to speak ; that this brick cone is supported by the main walls and great arches of the Cathedral, and that the brick cone supports the outer structure, the lantern, the upper Cupola, and the gilt cross and ball ; or that again between the brick cone and 1 Parent alia, p. 291, 196 MODERN ST. PAUL S. CHAP. XIII. The interior a brick cone. Mr. Grwilt’s objections. the outer skin is a curious network of wooden beams supporting the latter. The inner Dome is built of brick, 4 of two bricks thick, but as it rises every five feet high, has a Course of excellent brick of eighteen inches long, banding through the whole thickness.’ Wren seems rather to complain that his grandfather was compelled by public opinion to raise the outer Dome to a greater height than the inner cupola, and consequently to devise some expedient for its support. He says, 4 It was necessary to give a greater height than the Cupola would gracefully allow within, though it is consider- ably above the roof of the Church ; yet the old Church having had before a very lofty spire of Timber and Lead, the World expected that the new work should not in this respect fall short of the old (tho’ that was but a spit, and this a mountain). He was therefore obliged to comply with the Humour of the Age, and to raise another structure over the first Cupola, and this was a Cone of brick, so built as to support a Stone Lantern of an elegant figure, and ending in Ornaments of Copper gilt.’ He then says, 4 As the whole Church above the Vaults is Covered with a substantial oaken Roof and Lead (for no other covering is so durable in our Climate), so he covered and hid out of sight the Brick Cone with another cupola of Timber and Lead, and between this and the Cone are easy stairs that ascend to the Lantern .’ 1 Mr. Gwilt, whose admiration of the double Dome has already been stated, says, 4 But however admirable the science which directed the use of the expedient, it has induced two defects which are scarcely pardonable. The first of these is, that the exterior Dome, which consists of a system of timber framing of king posts, 1 Parentalin , p. 291. CKITIC1SMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 197 supporting hammer beams, the ends of which tail on to corbels worked into the cone, must necessarily decay within a comparatively short period, should even the carelessness of plumbers spare it. Tf e other defect is the immense waste of section which it has caused, and the consequent great loss of interior effect sustained. The carpentry is elegant, but misapplied, where a stone dome should have been employed.’ 1 The method in which the external dome of St. Paul’s is framed is described in Mr. Gwilt’s ; Encyclopaedia of Architecture.’ He says, 6 The internal dome A a is of brickwork two bricks thick, having, at every five feet, as it rises, a course con- sisting of bricks eighteen inches long, which serves to bind the whole thick- ness together. This dome was turned upon a centre, which rested upon the projection at its springing, without any support from below, and was afterwards left for the use of the painter. It was banded together with iron at the springing. Exterior to the brick dome (which has, indeed, nothing immediately to do with the sub- ject) is a cone of brickwork bb&, 1 foot 6 inches in thickness, plastered and painted, part whereof is seen from the pavement under the cupola through the opening a. On this cone bb& is supported the timber work which carries the external dome, whose hammer beams cc, dd, ee, ff are tied into the corbels g, h, 1 Edifices of London, yoI. i. pp. 22, 28. CHAP. XIII. 198 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIII. Mr. Pergus- son’s criti- cisms on the Dome. I, K with iron cramps, which are well bedded into the corbels with lead, and bolted to the hammer beams. The stairs which lead to the Golden Gallery on the top of the dome are carried between the trusses of the roof. The dome is boarded from the base upwards, hence the ribs are fixed horizontally at near distances to each other. The scantling of the curve rib of the truss is 10 in. by 11 \ at the bottom, and 6 in. by G at the top. The sides of the dome are segments of circles, whose centres are not marked in the figure, and which, if continued, would meet at top, and form a pointed arch. Above the dome rises a lantern of Portland stone, about 21 feet in diameter, and 64 feet high, standing on the cone. The whole of this con- struction is manifest from the figure, which exhibits the inner and outer domes with the cone between them. The combination is altogether an admirable example of the mathematical skill and judgment of Sir C. Wren/ Mr. Fergusson considers that the introduction of a cone to carry the lantern w^as a master-stroke of me- chanical skill, but that artistic effect was thereby sacrificed. The defect to which he objects is, ap- parently, a want of proper proportion between the dome and the building, and in the dome itself. He thinks it too -high for its width, and unnecessarily dark. The cupola, as it should be called to distinguish it from the outer dome, springs from a series of pilasters over a band above the Whispering Gallery. This gallery is exactly 100 feet from the floor; above it is a plain band of 20 feet high, on which stand thirty- two Corinthian pilasters. In Mr. Fergusson’s opinion, 4 the remedy for this w r as easy. It would have been to let the dome spring from the string course above the CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 199 Whispering Gallery, and light it at the base. Had this been done then — or were it done now — the construction of the whole would have been far easier and lighter, the proportion of height to width far more agreeable, and the proportions of the dome far more in harmony with the rest of the building.’ He then expresses an opinion that Wren 4 was evidently haunted with the idea that the whole of the external Dome, or at least as great a part of it as he could scoop out, ought — as at St. Peter’s and the Cathedral of Florence — to have been included in the church .’ 1 It seems to me rather that Wren was haunted with the idea that the external dome should be very lofty, and did his best to construct a cupola of proper dimensions. Mr. Fergusson suggests that the cupola would have been better had it been constructed 4 with an opening of half its width, as is done in the Invalides at Paris.’ With regard to the mode of lighting the interior of the Cupola, the author of the Parentalia says, 4 He took no care to make little luthern Windows in the leaden Cupola, as are done out of St. Peter’s, because he had otherwise provided for light enough to the stairs from the Lantern above, and round the Pedestal of the same, which are not seen below ; so that he only ribbed the outward Cupola, which he thoughtless Gothick than to stick it full of such little lights in three stories, one above the other (as is executed in the Cupola of St. Peter’s at Borne), which could not with- out difficulty be mended, and if neglected would soon damage the Timbers.’ The colonnade surrounding the Dome externally has a very fine effect. Mr. Fergusson says, 4 It is quite un- surpassed. By blocking up every fourth intercolumnia- 1 Modern Architecture , p. 272. CHAP. XIII. Lighting the Dome. Colonnade surround- ing the Dome 200 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIII. The Attic order. tion, not only is a great appearance of strength given, but a depth of shadow between, which gives it a richness and variety combined with simplicity of outline ful- filling every requisite of good architecture, and ren- dering this part of the design immensely superior to its rivals. Owing also to the re-entering angles at the junction of the nave and transepts coming so close to it, you see what it stands upon, and can follow its CLERESTORY WINDOWS ABOVE THE ATTIC ORDER. whole outline from the ground to the cross without any tax on the imagination .’ 1 The last objection deserving notice is that of Mr. Gwilt, with reference to the introduction of a clerestory over the Attic order. He says, 6 It may not be inex- pedient to advert to an abuse, which occurs in the design just described, viz. that of turning an arch from an Attic order. An arch, which is nothing more than a substitute for a lintel, can with propriety only spring from a shaft by the interposition of an abacus. 1 Modern Architecture , p. 273. CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 201 In the triumphal arches the archivolt can only be con- chap. sidered as a bent architrave instead of a straight one, * and the revivers of the art in Italy ventured generally ^rch^ no further than allowing it to spring from the entabla- from Atti ture of an order, as in St. Peter’s, for instance. There may be some excuse for this practice, inasmuch as the architraves may be viewed as connecting in that case DIAGRAM OF THE ARCH, TURNED FROM AN ATTIC ORDER. the inner and the outer walls only, and the great vault may be considered as the substitute of a wooden roof, which in St. Peter’s is in truth the case ; its timber tiled roof, which is open at the sides, being nothing more than an umbrella resting on the vault to protect it from the weather. But in St. Paul’s an Attic (always a crowning order) is used as an abutment, to all 202 MODERN ST. PAUL'S. UIJAP. XIII. Con- clusion. appearance incapable of resisting the pressure, or even supporting the weight of the vaulting.’ 1 It is difficult, however, to see how in St. Paul’s suffi- cient light could have been obtained for the interior without these clerestory windows. Perhaps Mr. Gwilt’s criticism is intended to apply to the Attic only, and not to the Clerestory. The preceding opinions and criticisms by no means exhaust the great subject of the extraordinary merits and few defects of Wren’s grand building. I believe, however, that the principal points of dispute, the great beauties of the various parts of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and the marvellous skill of the Architect, have been duly indicated ; and I hope that, by this means, ama- teurs, at any rate, may be induced to examine, and enabled to understand and appreciate the various details of this sublime structure. Edifices of London , vol. i. p. 10. MR. WIGHT WICK’S REMARKS OK WREN’S SECOND DESIGN (THE KENSINGTON MODEL) AND ON THE PRESENT CATHEDRAL. From a Paper on the 1 Architecture and Genius of Sir Christopher Wren.’ Read at the Royal Institute of British Architects, Maj 30, 1859. Iii contemplating the floor plan of the rejected model of St. Paul’s, we immediately see how its author has set at nought the influence of familiar custom as a cause of beauty. We have a general outline and internal disposition of parts perfectly original. Instead of the ordinary rectangular combination, we have the square, the curved, the polygonal, the concave, the convex, the recessed, the salient ; affording the most varied play of full light and half light, sharp in contrast with shadow and shade, or softly gradational the one into the other ; while the outline of the plan includes, within its full bodied expanse, the cross as the skeleton form, whose dome-crowned centre is the 4 heart of the mystery.’ In the existing Cathedral we see the old Gothic model Romanised, with a dome vice a central tower, and, instead of flying buttresses openly exhibited, a decorated screen, looking like an upper story, conceal- ing them ; but in the model we have a design not less original than magnificent, with artistic feeling far ex- ceeding what is displayed in any single building of ancient or modern times. The refined pictorial , of bulk and varied form, here presents itself in lieu of the Gothic picturesque , of attenuated length and transepta interruption. And now leaving the outline, let us contemplate the floor plan. Let the reader especially imagine the first long and narrow perspective from the West door ; the CHAP. XIII. Mr.Wight- wick’s re- marks on Wren’s second design (th Kensing- ton Mode and on th present Cathedral. 204 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. chap, forthright and divergent views, on his passing the arch next beyond the vestibule ; the view on just entering b eneat k t ^ ie g rea t cupola ; that from the centre of the marks on same ; and that from beneath one of the diagonal second cupolettas. All this justly considered, he may so con- Kens?ng- he ceive of the magical effects realised as to see, 4 with his and^n^he m ^ nc ^ s ey e ?’ how comparatively commonplace are the Cathedral e ^ ects P r °duced in the existing Cathedral. Well may we believe that its designer wept at the rejection of his model ; and well might we weep that it was re- jected ! In the model the portion for the choir is of a form much more adapted to the purposes of Protestant worship than in the building, and of a capacity equi- valent to what Wren pronounced the maximum size for an auditorium, in which all the sitters may dis- tinctly see and hear the preacher ; i. e. it is equal to a room of 80 feet long and 50 feet broad, exclusive of the space required for the organ and the communion recess. Wren was the last man in the world to design, a building without a full regard to its use. He rightly felt, however, that a cathedral is not a mere thing of practical utility ; but that it should be the offering of art’s best to the Giver of artist genius. Having commented on Wren’s own, we have now to examine St. Paul’s Cathedral as it exists ; a building whose beauties are equally his own, and whose defects (mainly occasioned by interference) still leave it un- equalled, as a model, by any structure in existence. In its general external mass it exhibits a wondrous combination of majesty and elegance ; the expression of amplitude in the cupola of its interior is without equal ; and if the architect’s doings had found co- operation in the sculptor and painter, the London CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 205 St. Paul’s would have yielded to the Eoman St. Peter’s only in size. Under the determined predilection of Wren’s dicta- tors for the old cathedral plan, his 6 genius was re- buked ; ’ and all he could do was to modify the pre- scribed form, so as to reconcile, as far as possible, a new body to an old habit. Even in this he was still beset by meddlers ; and it was by command of the popish Duke of York that the North and South chapels, near the Western end, were added, to the reduction of the nave aisles, and the lamentable injury of the return fronts of the two towers, which therefore lost in appa- rent elevation by becoming commingled with pieces of projecting faqade on the North and South sides. Thus were produced the only defects in the longitudinal fronts of the church. The independence of the towers is destroyed, their vertical emphasis obliterated ; and a pair of excrescences is the consequence, which it were well to cut away. All that could be done to diminish the evil was accomplished ; but no informed eye can view the perspective of the Cathedral from the North- west or South-west, without seeing how no architect, who only admitted a ‘variety of uniformities,’ could have intentionally formed a distinct component in an exterior of otherwise uniform parts, by a tower having only one wing, and that, too, flush with its face ! With this exception, the general mass of the Cathedral is faultless, i. e. as the result of a conciliation between the architect’s feeling for the Eoman style, and his compelled obedience to the shape prescribed. With this consideration the grand building under notice must be judged. This it is which excuses the appli- cation of the upper order as a mere screen to con- ceal the clerestory and flying buttresses ; for it must CHAP. XIII. Mr.Wight- wick’s re- marks on Wren’s second design (the Kensing- ton Model) and on the present Cathedral. 206 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIII. Mr.Wight- wick’s re- marks on. Wren’s second design (the Kensing- ton Model) and on the. present Cathedral. be admitted that uninterrupted altitude of the bulk, in the same plane, is absolutely necessary to the substruc- ture of the majestic dome, which is indeed the very crown of England’s architectural glory. The four projections which fill out the angles, formed by the intersecting lines of the cross, finely buttress up the mountain of masonry above ; and the beautiful semi- circular porticoes of the transepts still further carry out the sentiment of stability. As to the dome in itself, it stands supreme on earth. The simple stylobate of its tambour ; its uninterrupted peristyle, charmingly varied by occasionally solid in- tervening masonry, so artfully masking the buttress- work as to combine at once an appearance of elegant lightness with the visible means of confident security ; all these, with each subsequently ascending feature of the composition, leave us to wonder how criticism can have ever spoken in qualified terms of Wren’s artistic proficiency. The Western front must be criticised as illustrating, in great measure, a Gothic idea Bomanised. Instead of twin spires (as at Lichfield) we have two pyramidal piles of Italian detail ; instead of the high-pointed gable between, we have the classic pediment, as lofty as may be ; the coupled columns and pilasters answer to the Gothic buttresses ; and a minute richness and number of parts, with picturesque breaks in the entablatures, (though against the architect’s expressed principles), are introduced in compliance with the general aspect and vertical expression of the Gothic facade. The exception to this is, of course, shown wherever the entablatures continue their unbroken horizontally over insulated columns ; as in the great portico of the West front, the porches of the transepts, and the ORITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 207 peristyle of the dome. The architect has, however, ch-ap. well achieved the required compromise between two r differing modes of design ; and, as an harmonious ^ r -Wight- amalgamation of the vertical and horizontal, the West marks on front of St. Paul’s is not only a success, but a triumph, second The lower extended colonnade, and the upper part of KenTing^ the portico, contracted and pedimented, in their com- ^nd^nthe bination pyramidize, so as to prevent any feeling of present . V . ' . ' . f , n J & Cathedral. , excess either m height or width; and, whether we " regard the towers from base to apex as distinct com- positions, or as parts of the entire front, we recognise much beauty as well as ingenuity in the manner of their resolving themselves from a pure Roman begin- ning into a fanciful termination, not unsatisfactory even, to the Gothic steeple-lover. There is, however, one aspect under which the entire building would exhibit a perfection, scarcely yet contemplated, save by an architect : such an aspect would be represented at about 3 p.m. on a fine, clear, and sunny day, if the complete pyramid of the structure, from the outer steps of the transept porticoes to the ball and cross * could be seen in direct front from Temple Bar. At that distance the Western towers, instead of encroach- ing slightly on the peristyle of the dome, would be detached from it ; the transepts would be in an equal degree, but not injuriously, intruded on ; while the West front would just gain the apparent increase de- sirable. The floor plan of the church requires little comment. It exhibits no invention, for invention was forbidden. Excepting the projecting parts in the outer angles of the cross, where the transepts unite with the nave and choir, it has no arrangement not to be found in our old Gothic cathedrals. Even the absence of the four 208 MODERN ST. PAUL‘S. chap, great piers, which usually support a central tower, has its Gothic precedent in Ely Cathedral, where a lantern M* overhangs the great central octagon, just as the cupola marks on in St. Pauls. We have, therefore, only to estimate Wren’s . . J second the manner in which Wren has employed his Boman Kensing- 16 features and minor details, on a carcase presented to and on°the as ^ were > with no material permission of novelty ; present ^ saving in the application of his circular vault, and lantern, of brick and stone, in lieu of the octagonal vault and lantern, of wood and of smaller dimension, at Ely. It may be at once admitted that the nave, choir, and aisles, are, under all compulsory circumstances, unimprovable ; though strict taste may regret some things those circumstances occasioned. The vaulting, however, over the nave and aisles, formed by flat domes on pendentives, is truly beautiful. The great cupola, in its expression of expanse with elevation, has no equal. That of the Pantheon at Borne gives expanse merely, as it is not higher than it is broad ; that of St. Peter’s is in height more than twice and one-third its width, and we are therefore rather struck with its altitude than its horizontal capacity ; that of St. Paul’s is something less in height than twice its width, and, bearing also a much larger proportion to the rest of the building than in St. Peter’s, it has much greater apparent size. The proportional altitude of the cupola of Ste. Genevieve, at Paris, is still more than St. Peter’s ; that of the church of the Invalides something more than St. Paul’s. The effect produced by Wren’s cupola seems to indicate that its proportions are the best for producing, at the same moment, a sense of amplitude and loftiness combined. The whispering gallery of St. Paul’s, with all above CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL’S. 200 it, leaves nothing, in the way of architectural form, to be desired ; though there are many who think the character of painting adopted most injudicious. Below the gallery, however, criticism rests dissatisfied, if not offended ; the four diagonal sides of the octagon, be- neath the tambour of the cupola, evincing an aim at more than the artist has successfully accomplished. To obtain an appearance of open lightness, developing the architecture and vaulting of the aisles behind them, these diagonal compartments are woefully cut up, and finished with ingenuity at the cost of judgment. It had been better if these four compartments had simply exhibited repetitions of what is practised in the nave, choir, and transepts, so far at least as was possible. There is no occasion for more than simple reference to defects which have ever been obvious to the critical eye. The confusion of these parts is positively so distressing, that alteration would be justifiable, only taking scrupulous care that it be effected by that 4 re- petition’ of Wren’s own to which allusion has just been made. St. Peter’s had many architects. The substitution of a better piece of Wren for another, in the same building, would not disturb the oneness of itself or its designer. The partial, but too apparent, defect just noticed, very probably grew out of the meddling obstinacy that insisted on the old cathedral form ; but still it may not have been imperatively occasioned, for in the Cathe- dral of Ely no corresponding defect appears, and in the great church at Pome we feel no desire for other than the solidity of the four diagonal piers under the dome. In St. Paul’s, however, as at Ely, there was space for diagonal openings answering to those of the nave, &c., and so far it was advantaged beyond St. Peter’s ; for p CHAP. XIII. Mr.Wight" wick’s re- marks on Wren’s second design (the Kensing- ton Model) and on the present : Cathedral. 210 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. unquestionably, tlie means afforded by sucb openings ^ — ■ — ' for the uninterrupted perspective of tbe aisles from end St to end of the entire interior are valuable, marks on jf fp e architecture of Wren, as illustrated by St. Wren s ’ J second Paul's, be judged with generous allowance for compul- design (the . . ° , 6 _ _ _ . _ \ Kensing- sory restriction, the result can be nothing less than and^nl-he deferential admiration. Cathedral now a few words on the thoughtless cavils that have been raised on the subject of the double dome (we might as well say the triple dome) of St. Paul’s. The dome of the Pantheon at Pome, having nothing but itself to support, is a simple vault of masonry, so low in proportion, and so immensely buttressed, as to be prepared for an earthquake. The dome of the Florentine cathedral is so highly pointed as to approximate towards the cone, and it is therefore the more fitted to bear the stone lantern at the top. The dome of the Baptistery at Pisa is formed of a lofty internal cone, supporting the outer vault or hemi- spherical covering. The non-appliance of constructive knowledge in the dome of St. Peter’s at Pome was felt before it was finished. The lantern was made less than originally intended, but still it proved too heavy for the great vault that could hardly find safety for itself alone, and it has only been preserved to our wonder by hoops of iron ; the means taken by Wren to secure the safety of Salisbury spire. Our scientific architect had marked the failure of the Gothic architects in their deficient regard for late- ral thrust. He had observed how fearful might be vertical pressure on a domical vault. Whether he was acquainted with the Florentine and Pisan examples we CRITICISMS ON ST. PAUL'S. 211 know not ; but, if not, be bad intuitively tbe knowledge chap. they would have afforded him. * — r— ' He had to place upon tbe top of his dome a stone lantern, with its ball and cross measuring some ninety ™ a r r ^ g on feet in height. He therefore adopted the principle of second the Pisan Baptistery. He constructed his inner brick Kensmg- he cupola of the form and altitude he considered best for *nd wTthe internal effect. Over this he built a cone, just free P resen * from pressing on his cupola, and he carried it upward till it met the required width for the base of his lantern; finishing his cone with a domed top, as at Pisa. This being determined, the attic story of his tambour arose to press down upon the common springing of cupola and cone ; and, not to remedy a defect, but, c to make assurance double sure,’ he applied his hooping chains of iron. To protect the cone a roof was necessary, as that which covers the vaulting of his nave and aisles, and of the same material, i. e. wood and lead ; the purpose of protection and endurance being precisely the same in both cases. Apart from what Eoman design requires — apart from the majesty of the hemispheri- cal form — is there a man breathing who would cover a circular cell and its cupola-vault with anything but a hemispherical roof, as the best for affording the per- pendicular weight of leaded timber upon the buttress of the cone, with means for effectively confining from bulging, either in or out, the masonry of that cone P The high Gothic dome of Florence is not admissible in pure Eoman design ; but a lantern, ponderous as that of Florence, is required. The simple hemispherical dome will not safely support such a lantern. The Pisan mode of construction suggests the mode of secu- rity. So much for mere construction. Now for the matter of taste. Is there any reason 212 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIII. Mr. Wight- wick’s re- marks on Wren’s second design (the Kensing- ton Model) and on the present Cathedral. for such scrupulous honesty as shall shrink at the idea that the beholder may be deceived in thinking that the ceiling he sees within the building is the mere inside of the shell he sees without ? May he not separately think of what is beautiful without and within ; and contemplate distinctly the perfection of both, with a comfortable conscience as to the filling of the inter- vening space, especially when he knows that concealed work is necessary to his admiring in safety? If the spectator, amazed at the dignity of bulk and altitude without, gives to the expanse within the credit of equal size and altitude, is it not better than well P Is it not a fair illustration of the ars est celare artem ? There is surely no need to be argumentative on this absurd question any longer. In every sense, artistic as well as scientific, the dome of St. Paul’s (so far as the archi- tect is concerned) is the transcendent example of per- fection in its kind. Its cupola is the firmamental beauty of the Cathedral’s interior; its dome is the glory of its extern, and the fitting crown of the metropolis of England. It will be time enough to insist upon it that a church dome shall be simply an inverted cup of masonry, when all the remainder of the building shall have no roof but the vaulting which forms its ceiling. It may be lastly said, that the lead work of St. Paul’s dome is eminently beautiful in the form of its ribbed or fluted decoration, and that the lantern, with its iron gallery and gilded finial, has never been regarded but as deserving eulogy. CHAPTER XIV. THE FUTURE OF ST. PAUL’S. CHAPTER XIV. A FEW WORDS on 4 the future of St. Paul’s ’ seem a necessary conclusion to the present volume. Until Mr. Burges’ plans have been submitted to the Com- mittee, it is obviously impossible to state what will be clone towards the 4 adornment ’ of St. Paul’s ; but it may not be difficult to form an opinion as to the general principles on which it will be carried out. The first subject requiring consideration is the in- troduction of colour ; and, with reference to the general principles of 4 adornment,’ the question whether or not colour should be introduced is one which there cannot be much difficulty in answering. That colour (poly- chromy) is indispensable, is the very foundation of all the efforts which have been made to bring about the ‘adornment’ of St. Paul’s. But, in order to arrive at a correct practical conclusion in this matter, it is necessary to consider the purpose for which colour is required, and the means by which it should be obtained. A colourless flat surface produces a wearisome feel- ing of monotony, and even when it is varied in form, the same effect is often produced, though to a less extent. In many parts of a large building an out- line is only exceptionally presented to the eye, and in others there is no opportunity for the production of an effect by light and shade. Variety of colour pro- duces the required effect in both alternatives, and its necessity consequently becomes evident. CHAP. XIV. Probable principles of ‘ adorn- ment.’ Necessity of colour. Reasons for its intro- duction. 216 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIV. Means of giving colour. Trans- mitted light. Painting. Gilding. Marble, mosaic, and ma- jolica. How colour should be given is the next point. It can be given by transmitted light ; by external appli- cation in the shape of painting or gilding ; and by material. Transmitted light is obviously an important means of giving colour, but can be of only limited application, and, as it has already been considered in a previous chapter, it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it here. Painting, in the form of pictures on walls, according to our modern experience, is, at least in the present instance, unsuited to our climate. Even as an imitation of marble, notwithstanding Sir Christopher Wren’s use of paint for this purpose, his example would now find but few followers ; and the only way in which paint can be applied to stone seems to be as a coloured wash, in certain positions, where any other mode of obtaining the effect of colour is difficult. Gilding in certain parts of the building is obviously indispensable ; but, from the foregoing considerations, it seems to follow, that, in our climate, colour must, with some small exceptions, be given mainly by material. Here again the question for consideration does not appear difficult to answer, for the only pos- sible coloured materials are marble, mosaic work, and majolica, and of these some are suited to one condition, and others to another. That the use of mosaic is essential can hardly be a matter of dispute, for the application of marble to concave surfaces is by no means easy, and probably would be comparatively in- effective at any considerable height from the eye. It seems clear, therefore, that the Dome, and the Cupolas of the side aisles, to say nothing of other parts, should be treated in mosaic. Whether the form of marble incrustation intro- THE FUTURE OF ST. PAUL’S. 217 duced by Baron de Triqueti, which seems admirably <^p. adapted to flat and even to curved surfaces under " — > — ' certain circumstances, would be suited to St. Paul’s Triquetrs Cathedral, is a question for the architect ; but it can hardly be doubted that it deserves his consideration. The other mode of producing colour by material, namely by marble, has now to be considered. It may probably be taken as an axiom that no architect woidd make use of stone, at any rate internally, were marble Marble equally available ; and that the necessity of colour mended, consequently arises from the use of stone. The sub- stitution of marble for stone resolves itself, therefore, into a question of cost. But the entire substitution of one material for the other is not necessary. A surface of marble may be substituted for a surface of stone, and the cost be thereby greatly lessened. The extent to which this substitution should be carried is also a question for the architect. The terrifying spectre of 4 sprawling saints ’ and em- blematic figures thus entirely vanishes, for it is obvious that, as a general rule, it is only in mosaics that figures Designs can be introduced. It is true that the designs for the mosaics, mosaics, whether in the Dome, the Cupolas, or the Spandrels, w T ill require artistic skill of the highest ex- cellence for their production ; but it is equally clear that they will not easily give room for extravagances representing peculiar ideas as to worship or doctrine. There is another matter to which the architect will Pavement, naturally give his attention, and that is the pavement. On the proper treatment of this part of the building the general effect will greatly depend. It is obvious that the foregoing remarks by no means exhaust the subject, the question as to sculpture ex- 218 MODERN ST. PAUL’S. CHAP. XIV. ternally and internally, among others, being entirely omitted ; but they, probably to some extent, indicate the ‘general principles’ on which the ‘adornment of St. Paul’s’ may be carried out. I offer them with diffidence, and only as my own opinions. INDEX ACA CADEMY, Royal, proposal of the, for the adornment of St. Paul’s Cathedral, 151 Aisles, the, of St. Paul’s, 171 Albemarle, Duke of, his contribution towards the restoration of St. Paul’s, 79 Anglesey, Lord, his contribution towards the restoration of St. Paul’s, 79 Anthems sung in the steeple of Old St. Paul’s, 57 Ashpitel, Mr., his remarks on Wren’s architecture, 87, 88 Attics, and an Attic order, 168 note B AND, Sir William le, his gift to the Dean and Chapter of a buck and doe, and the consideration, 58 Bankes, his horse Marocco, 51. Burnt at Rome with his horse, 53 Barry, James, selected as one of the artists to adorn St. Paul’s Cathedral, 152 Bar wick, John, appointed by Charles II. to the Deanery of St, Paul’s, 77. Collects funds for the restoration, 77, 78. His ‘ Bookeof Subscriptions,’ 78. His death, 78 Bateman’s MSS. referred to, 129 note. His work on the * State of the Coal Duty’ referred to, 144 Becket, Gilbert, founds a chapel in Pardon Churchyard, 16 Bell tower at the east end of Old St. Paul’s, 36 Benson, William, put into Sir C. Wren’s place as architect of St. Paul’s, but expelled ignominiously from his office, 143, 144 CHA Bishop’s Palace, in St. Paul’s Church- yard, 15 Blomfield, Dr., Bishop of London, his letter to Dean Milman, 153. His proposed services under the Dome of St. Paul’s, 153, 154. Dean Milman’ s letter to the Bishop, 154 Books of Subscriptions opened, 77, 159 Bracciano, Duke of, entertained by Queen Elizabeth, 53 Burcher, Peter, imprisoned by the Bi shop for wounding, 34 Burges, Mr. William, appointed archi- tect for the completion of St. Paul’s, 160 C ARLTON, Dudley, on Paul’s Walk, 44. His correspondencelwith Cham- berlain, 44, 53 Catherine Cree, St., Laud’s curse re- specting the desecration of, 50 Causeway, the Roman, now Cheapside, 8 Central area of St. Paul’s, 171 Chamberlain, John, his correspondence with Dudley Carlton, 44, 53 Chapter House, the old, 15 Charles I. issues a new Royal Commis- sion for the restoration of St. Paul’s, 70 Charles II. resumes the restoration of St. Paul’s, 77* Appoints John Barwick Dean of the Cathedral, 77. Approves of Wren’s plans for a new Cathedral, 97. Appoints a Commission for the new building, 98. His contributions and promises, 100 Charnel House of Old St. Paul’s, 16 Chaworth, Sir Richard, one of the com- mittee for the restoration of St. Paul’s, 93 220 INDEX. CHE Cheapside, formerly the Roman Cause- way, 8 Choir of Old St. Paul’s, true height of, 21. The Choir described, 171. De- fects of the modern, 193 Cibber, Caius Gabriel, his phoenix over the southern portico of St. Paul’s, 127 Cipriani, G. B., selected as one of the artists to adorn St. Paul’s Cathedral, 152 Clarendon, Lord, his contribution to- wards the restoration of St. Paul's, 79 Clerestory, the, 170. Mr. Gwilt’s ob- jections to it, 2 Clergymen hired at Old St. Paul’s, 51 Common bell of St. Paul’s, 16 Common Council of London, act of, to prevent profanation and abuses at St. Paul’s, 55 Compton, Henry, his appeal to the | nation respecting the fund for re- building St. Paul’s, 101. His answers ! to objections, 101, 102 Copleston, Dr. .Dean of St. Paul’s, 153 Corbet, Bishop, his speech, 56, 58, 62 Corranto-coiner, or manufacturer of news, 46 Cross and Ball of St. Paul’s, erection of, 144. A new one erected in 1821, 145. A ‘ crow’s nest ’ erected on the top of the Cross, for the survey of London, 1 45 Crypt of St. Paul’s, construction of the, 177. Mr. Gwilt’s remarks, 178 Cupola, the, described, 171. Thorn- hill’s paintings, 171, 1.73. Central area under the cupola, 171. The order above the Whispering Gallery, 172. Its judicious construction, 173 D ANCE, Mr., selected as one of the artists to adorn St. Paul’s Cathe- dral, 152 Death, Dance of, or Dance of St. Paul’s, 17 Decker, his account of Paul’s Walk, 48 Diana, temple of, on the spot where the Cathedral now stands, 3 Dickinson, W., surveyor of Westminster Abbey, his works and death, 87 Dolben, John, Bishop of Rochester, one of the Committee for the restoration of St. Paul’s, 93 Dome of St. Paul’s, Wren’s intended mosaic for lining the, 141. William Emmett’s engraving of the interior, 149. Proposed use of the Dome for congregational worship, 154. De- scription of it, 167, 168. Mr. Gwilt’s FEE admiration of the interior and outer Dome of St. Paul’s, 175. Section showing the inner and outer Domes, with the conical wall, 176. The iron chain and its uses, 176. Stairs lead- ing up to the lantern, between the inner and outer Dome, 177. Strype’s criticisms of the Dome, 181, 182. Mr. Wightwick’s opinion of it, 183, 184. Only a shell of a different form to that of the external Dome, 195, 196. Mr. Gwilt’s objections, 196. Method in which the external Dome is framed, 197. Mr. Fergusson’s cri- ticisms on the Dome, 198. Mode of lighting the Dome, 199. The colon- nade surrounding the Dome exter- nally, 199 Durham Cathedral, rose window at, 33 A RLE, Bishop, on Paul’s Walk, 45, Edward I., his patent to the Dean and Canons to make gates and posterns in the Cathedral wall, 10 Elizabeth, Queen, entertains the Duke of Bracciano, 53 Ely Cathedral resembles the interior of the Nave of Old St. Paul’s, 33. Re- ferred to, 208 Emmett, William, his engraving of the interior of the Dome of St. Paul’s, 149 Erkenwald's shrine, 40 Eihelbert, King of Kent, founds the first church of St. Paul, 4 Evelyn, John, his ‘Account of Archi- tecture,’ 79 note. His history of the steps taken by the Commissioners, 82. His account of the Great Fire of London, 85. His remarks on Gothic architecture, 85 note F ERGUSSON, Mr., his unfavourable criticisms on the exterior of Wren’s second design for St. Paul’s Cathe- dral, 112. His remarks on the tomb of Mahmoud at Beejapore, 116. His opinion of the exterior of St. Paul’s. 181 ; and of the West Front, 183. His objection to the two orders of archi- tecture on a perpendicular wall, 185 ; and to the interior, 191. Suggested remedy, 192. His opinion of the defects of the Nave and Choir, 183 Ferrey, Mr. Edmund B., his drawings of details of Old St. Paul’s, 525. On an error in Hollar’s representations, INDEX. 221 FIR 28. His list of discrepancies and errors in Hollar’s views, 39 Fire, the Great, Pepys’s account of, 83. Dr. Taswell’s account, 84 Fleet river, navigable in the reign of William the Conqueror, 5 G ARDNER, Mr., his engravings, 149 note Gate-houses of Old St Paul’s, 1 5 Gibbons, Grinling, his carved stalls in St. Paul’s Cathedral, 145 Gloucester Cathedral, incasing of the nave of, 9 Gothic architecture, Sir C. Wren’s opi- nions respecting, 85 note. Evelyn’s remarks, 85 note Green, the dramatist, on Paul’s Walk, 44 Grigg, or Griggs, Mr., manages the re- storation of Old St. Paul’s, 72 Gwilt, Mr., his minute study of St. Paul’s, 173. His extract from Hooker’s ‘Ecclesiastical Polity,’ 173. The greatest effects by the slenderest means a test of skill, 174. Superficial area of St. Peter’s, Santa Maria at Florence, and St. Paul’s, 174. The interior and outer Dome, 175. His remarks on the Crypt, 1 77- Sis op- posite views of the screen wall, 187. His objection to the doubling of the columns of the West portico, 189 Gwyn’s imaginative print of the adorn- ment of the Dome of St. Paul’s, 149 H AWKINS, John, Esq., wounded, and his assailant punished, 34 Hawksmore, Mr., his works, 87. His death, 87 Henchman, Humphrey, Bishop of Lon- don, one of the Committee for the restoration of St. Paul’s, 93 Henry III., at Paul’s Cross, 19. Causes every stripling to be sworn at, 19. Causes a Bull of Pope Urban IV. to be read at, 19 High Street, now Watling Street, 8 Hittorff and Zanth, MM., their work, ‘Monuments de Segeste et de Seli- nonte,’ referred to, 68 Hollar’s plates of the second Cathedral, 5. His views, 37. Mr. Ferrey’s list of some discrepancies and errors in his views to Dugdale’s ‘ Old St. Paul’s,’ 39 MAL Holmes, Roger, his foundation of the Chapel of the Holy Ghost, 17 Holy Ghost, Chapel of the, founded at the North door of St. Paul’s, 17 Humphrey’s Walk, Duke, in Old St. Paul’s, 48, 49 J AMES, John, his works and death, 87 Jesu Chapel, founded and confirmed, 17, 18 Jews, their endeavours to buy St. Paul’s for a synagogue, 57 Jones, Inigo, view of his portico, 5. Appointed architect for the restora- tion of St. Paul’s Cathedral, 68. His mistakes, 69. Prevented from com- pleting the work by the civil war, 69 Jonson, Ben, on Paul’s Walk, 46 K AUFMANN, Angelica, selected as one of the artists to adorn St. Paul’s Cathedral, 152 Kerr, Mr. Robert, his remarks on Wren’s architecture, 87 Kilwarby, Robert, afterwards Arch- bishop of Canterbury, builds the Palatine Tower, 5. Erects the House of Black Friars, 5 King, Dr. John, Bishop of London, his sermon at Paul’s Cross, 20 ADY Chapel, 40 Lancy, Benjamin, Bishop of Ely, one of the Committee for the restoration of St. Paul’s, 93 Laud, William, his curse pronounced on all who should make a law court of St. Catherine Cree, 50. Becomes Bishop of London, and promotes the restoration of St. Paul’s, 70 London, Fire of, in the reign of William the Conqueror, 4. The Great Fire of, in the reign of Charles II., 83 Lottery, the first recorded, at the West door of St. Paul’s, 56 M ACHABRA Y, dance of, 1 7 Machyn, Henry, his diary, 49. Quoted, 49 Mahmoud, tomb of, at Beejapore, Mr. Fergusson’s remarks on, 116 Malmesbury, William of, his account of the second Cathedral, 5, and note INDEX. 222 MAN Manchester, Earl of, one of the Com- mittee for the restoration of St. Paul’s, 93 Mansel, Dr., Dean of St. Paul’s, his death, 158 Marble for producing colour recom- mended, 217 Marocco, the horse -which went up to the top of St. Paul’s steeple, 51, 52. Dr. Bimbault’s account of him, 52. Burnt with his master at Borne, 53 Matthew of Westminster, his account of the destruction by fire of the se- cond Cathedral of St. Paul’s, 6 Maurice, Bishop of London, begins the second Cathedral of St. Paul’s, 5 Mellitus, Bishop of London, 4 Milman, Dean, his account of a fire in the Cathedral in 1561, 66. Hisdefence of Wren respecting his ill-treatment, 130. His remarks about the iron railing round the Cathedral, 138. The Bishop of London’s letter to, 153, 154. His letter to the Bishop, 154. His death, 158 Morley, George, Bishop of Winchester, one of the Committee for the restora- tion of St. Paul’s, 93 "VrAYE of St. Paul’s, its arches, 168. JAl Description of it, 169. Pier arches of the, showing the archivolts rising above the architraves, 191. Defects of the, 193 Newton, Dr., Dean of St. Paul’s, enter- tains Sir Joshua Beynolds’s sugges- tion as to the adornment of St. Paul’s Cathedral, 152 Newton, Sir Isaac, one of the Commis- sioners of the new Cathedral of St. Paul’s, 143 Northey, Sir Edward, Attorney-General, Wren’s protest laid before, 131 Noy, Attorney-General, consulted as to the desecration of St. Paul’s, 54 0 BMONDE, Duke of, his contribution towards the restoration of St. Paul’s, 79 Osborne, Erancis, on Paul’s Walk, 47 P ALATINE Tower, given by William the Conqueror towards the struc- ture of the second Cathedral, 5 Pantheon at Borne referred to, 208 ST. P. ! Pardon Churchyard founded, 16. The painted cloister of, 17 ! Paul’s Chair, name of, 15 Paul’s Cross, Stow’s account of, 19. Events at, 19. Defaced by lightning and thunder, 20. View of it on March 26, 1620, 20. Pulled down, 73 ] Paul’s Walk, 44. Bishop Earle’s ac- count of, 45-47. Decker’s account, 48. A place of resort for ‘captains out of service,’ 46. Green the dramatist on, 44, 45. Ben Jonson on, 46 Penrose, Mr., his communication with Dean Milman, 153. Is surveyor. of St. Paul’s, 160 i Pepys, his account of the casing over the old Cathedral, 9. His account of the burning of St. Paul’s in the Great Eire, 83 I Peterborough Cathedral, flat ceiling of, 33 ; Pilkington, Bishop, scandalized at the practice of singing anthems in the steeple, 57 Pindar, Sir Paul, his house in Bishops- gate Street, 71. His contribution towards the restoration of St. Paul’s, 70,71 Portland stone used in the building of the new Cathedral of St. Paul’s, 128 EYNOLDS, Sir Joshua, his sugges- tion as to the adornment of St. Paul’s Cathedral, 151,152. Selected as one of the artists to carry out the idea, 152 Bives, Dr. Thomas, the King’s advocate, consulted as to the desecration of St. Paul’s, 54 Boof of Old St. Paul’s originally flat, and afterwards vaulted, 30, 33 S T. FAITH’S Church, 8, 17. United to St. Austin’s, 17 note. Trans- i ferred to the crypt, 1 8 St. Genevieve at Paris, cupola of, re- ferred to, 208 | St. Gregory, Church of, 18, 35. Pulled down, 19 | St. Martin’s, Ludgate Hill, struck by lightning, 66 j St. Paul’s, the national Cathedral, 3. The three Cathedrals of, and the fatality attending them, 3. Founda- tion of the first Cathedral of, 4. De- stroyed by fire, 4 . INDEX. 223 ST. P. St. Paul’s, second Cathedral, founded, 4, 5. Materials with which it was constructed, 5. Its slow progress, 6. Nearly destroyed by fire, 6. Its plan altered, 6. The Steeple finished, and the Quire rebuilt, 6. Letters hor- tatory of the Bishop of London, asking for contributions, 8. The Cathedral lengthened eastward, 8. Completed, 9. Description of the Spire, 9. How the funds were raised, 10, 11. The surroundings and general description of it, 15-21. Wren’s remarks on its architecture and construction, 22-24. Claim of the citizens to use parts of the Churchyard, 16. Grates and posterns in the walls, 16. Chapels in and about the Cathedral, 16. Style of architecture of Old St. Paul’s, 21. Mr. Gwilt’s description of it, 21. Wren’s remarks on its architecture and construction, 22, 23. His con- demnation of it, 23. Defence of the old building against Wren, 24. De- tails of the architecture of, 25-27. Stow’s measurements, 27, 28. True height of the Choir, 28. Dimensions of the building, 29. Grandeur of the Nave, Choir, and entrances to the Transepts, 32. The roof, 31, 32. Central tower treated as a lantern, 33. The rose window at the East end, 34. Western towers, 34. View of Inigo Jones’s portico, 35. Bell tower at the East end, 33. Central Tower and Spire, 36. Pinnacles and flying buttresses, 36. The two- storied cloisters, 37. Curious customs and incidents connected with Old St. Paul’s, 41-62. Its desecration in the 15th and 16th centuries, 43. Paul’s Walk, 44. The Serjeants at their pillars, 49. The Si Quis door, 50. Repression of desecration, 54. Pun- ishment for brawling in the Church, 54. Proclamation of the Lord Mayor for ‘the preventing of profanation and abuses,’ 55. Desecration of the exterior, 56. Endeavour of the Jews to buy the building for a synagogue, 57- Anthems sung in the steeple, 57. Custom of presenting a buck and doe to the Dean and Chapter, 58. Bishop Corbet’s speech, 58-62. Nearly de- stroyed by fire in 1444, 65. And again in 1561, 64. Queen Elizabeth orders the Cathedral to be repaired, 66. Public contributions towards the restoration, 66. James I. takes ST. P. the restoration in hand, 67. A Royal Commission issued, 68. Inigo Jones appointed architect, 68. His work and mistakes, 68, 69. A new Royal Commission issued, 70. The restora- tion considered a national object, 70. Sir Paul Pindar’s benefaction, 70, 71. Account of receipts and expenditure, 72. The restoration resumed by Charles II., 77. The ‘Booke of Sub- scriptions,’ and the contributors, 78, 79. Dr. (afterwards Sir Christopher) Wren called in to advise, 79. His report and proposals, 80, 81. A dome proposed by him, 81. Evelyn’s ac- count of the proceedings of the Com- missioners, 82, 83. View of the Cathedral on fire in 1666, 83 St. Paul’s, the New (or present) Cathe- dral, 91. The beginning after the Great Fire of 1666, 91. Wren fits up a part of the ruined Cathedral for temporary use, 92. The King issues an order respecting restoration of part of the pile for religious use, 92. Wall around the building ordered, 92. A Committee and sub-Committee appointed, 93. Wren convinced that a new Cathedral was necessary, 93. And therefore opposed to all patch- ing-up, 93. Proposes restoration, and not rebuilding, 95. Necessity for a new Cathedral at length ad- mitted, 96. Charles II. approves of Wren’s plans for a new Cathedral, 97. A book of subscriptions opened, 102. Recei pts and expenditure, fro m Aug. 5, 1664, to May, 1674, 102. Wren’s second design, 110-113. His last design, 113. Which was ap- proved of by Charles II., and an order issued for its execution, May 14, 1675, 113. The Whispering Gallery and the cornice underneath the quarter galleries, 115. Wren’s mode of supporting the Dome, 115. The ground cleared for the new Cathedral, 119. Danger of the foundation, 123. Which gives way, causing considerable repairs, 123. Change in the site of the building, how rendered necessary, 124. Cramped for room, and why, 125. The first stone of the new Cathedral laid, June 21, 1675, 125. History of the progress of the build- ing, 126. Discovery of a stone with the inscription, -‘Resurgam,’ 126. Cibber’s phoenix over the southern portico, 127. Accident by fire to 224 INDEX. ST. P. the new Choir, 128. The Choir opened for Divine service, 129. The Cupola covered with lead, 129. The last stone laid, 129. Cost of the building of the Cathedral, 132, 133. The building finished, but not com- pleted, 137. The wall and iron railing, 137-140. The wall and railing now to be pulled down, 140. Wren’s intention as to the Dome, 141. His objections to a proposed balustrade, which is put up, 142, 143. Wren’s dismissal and death, 143. William Benson, his successor, who is ignominiously expelled, 143, 144. Erection of the Cross and Ball, 144. The sculptures in the various parts of the building, and their artist, 144. Grinling Gibbons’ carvings of the stalls, 145. Difficulty of ascertain- ing Wren’s intentions as to adorn- ment, 149, 150. Adornment always intended, according to universal ex- pectation, 150. Proposal of the Eoyal Academy, 151, 152. Which is rejected, 153. The Dean endea- vours to experiment on a small scale, 153. Thornhill’s paintings restored by Mr. Parris, 153. Renewed at- tempts at adornment, 153. Forma- tion of a Committee, 156. Question as to painted windows, 157- The National Thanksgiving for the re- covery of the Prince of Wales, 159. Mr. Burgess appointed architect for the completion of St. Paul’s, 160. Amount subscribed up to the end of March, 1873, 160. Description of St. Paul’s, 161. Difficulty of doing justice to its magnificence, 163. Its form and dimensions, 163, 164. Mr. Wightwick’s remarks on the North and South Chapels, 164. The vestries and staircases, 165. The height of the building from the street to the top of the Cross, 165. The exterior, two orders and two stories, 165. The West Front, 1 65. Transepts and Campaniles, 1 66. Clock in the South Campanile, 166. Suggestions for the North one, 166 note. Flight of steps as planned by Wren, 166. Restoration of the steps according to the architect’s design, 167 note. The North and South Porticoes, 167. The East end and Dome, 167. The Lantern and Ball and Cross, 168. The interior of the Cathedral, 168. Entrance doors at SAN the West end, 168. The Nave, 168— 171. The Clerestory, 170. The Aisles, Central area, and Choir, 171. The Whispering Gallery and Cupola, 171. The cantalever cornice round the inner Dome, 172. The order above the Whispering Gallery, 172. The construction of St. Paul’s, 173. Its engineering skill, 173. Mr. Gwilt’s remarks, 173-175. Construction of the Crypt, 177. Criticisms on the building, 179. Mr. Fergusson’s opinion of the exterior, 181. Strype’s criticisms on the Dome, 181-1 82. The West Front, 183. Mr Wightwick’s opinion of the Dome, 183, 184. And of the Western Front, 184, 185. Two orders of architecture on a perpendicular wall, and objections to them, 185. Wren’s original intention was one order with an attic, 188. Objections made against the interior, 190. Wren’s defence of incorporating lesser with greater pilasters, 190. Objection to the architrave within being cut off by the arch, 191. Mr. Fergusson’s objections to the interior, 192. Wren’s suggested remedy, 192. Defects of the Nave and Choir, 193. Wren’s grandson’s defence, and his explanation of the interior construc- tion, 193. The possibility of the in- troduction of painting contemplated, 194. Relative proportions of St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s, 194, 195. Wren’s explanation of the construction of the Cupola, 194. The Dome only a shell, 195. An arch turned from an Attic order, 200, 201. Mr. Wightwick’s remarks on Wren’s second design and on the present Cathedral, 203. The future of St. Paul’s, 213. The probable principles of adornment, 215. Question of the introduction of colour, 215, 216. Of transmitted light, 216. And of painting and gilding, 216. Uses of marble, mosaic, and majolica, 216. The Baron de Triqueti’s marble in- crustations, 217. Marble recom- mended, 217. Designs for mosaics, 217. The pavement, 217. Question of sculpture externally and inter- nally, 218 St. Peter’s at Rome, compared with St. Paul’s, 208 St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, Wren’s adop- tion of an Indian principle in, 116 Bancroft, Gilbert, Dean of St. Paul’s INDEX. 225 SAN." (afterwards Archbishop of Canter- bury), his contribution towards the restoration of St. Paul’s, 78, 79. One of the Committee for the resto- . ration of St. Paul’s, 93. His corre- spondence with Wren, 93-96. Begs Wren to come to London, 94. San- croft’s confidence in the supply of the necessary funds, 95 Sandwich, Earl of, his contribution to- wards the restoration of St. Paul's, 79 Screen wall, Mr. Gwilt’s opposite views respecting the, 187 Segrave, Gilbert de, Bishop of London, his magnificent spire of Old St. Paul’s, 9 Serjeants at their pillars in Old St. Paul’s, 49 Sheldon, Gilbert, Archbishop of Can- terbury, one of the Committee for the restoration of St. Paul’s, 93 Sherrington, Walter, his chapel founded at the North door, 17 Shrowds of the Cathedral, 21. Sermons in foul and rainy weather preached in the, 222. Disused, 21 Si Quis door at Old St. Paul’s, 50 Somerset, Edward, Duke of, builds Somerset House, 1 7 note Southampton, Lord, his contribution towards the restoration of St. Paul’s, 79 Spence’s * Anecdotes ’ on the side ora- tories of St. Paul’s, 114, 115 Spire of the second Cathedral, 9. Its dimensions, 10. Covered with lead, 36. Anthems sung in the steeple, 57 Stow, his measurements of the Old Ca- thedral, 29, 30. His account of sums of money received and expended for restorations, 72 Strong, Edward, undertakes the repairs necessary for St. Paul’s, 123. At the laying of the last stone, 129 Strype, his criticisms on the Dome of St. Paul’s, 181, 182. And of the West Front, 184 rPASWELL, Dr., his account of the _L Great Fire of London, 84, 85 ‘Tearme, the,’ in Paul’s Walk, 47 Thanksgiving, National, for the recovery of the Prince of Wales, 159 Thornhill, Sir James, his paintings, 173. Hestoration of his paintings, 154. Dean Milman’s regret at the resto- ration, 154. His paintings in St. Paul’s, 173 WRE Tijou, his ironwork gates and grilles in St. Paul’s Cathedral, 145 Tillingham, the first church of St. Paul’s endowed with the manor of, 4 Towers, western, of Old St. Paul’s Cathedral, 34. The South one used as the bishop’s prison, 34. Bell Tower and Central Tower, 36 Triqtieti, Baron de, his form of marble incrustation, 217 Y ICTOPIA, Queen, signs the Book of Subscriptions, 159 ALES, Prince of, his dangerous ill- ness, and happy recovery, 159. The National Thanksgiving, 159. His name inscribed in the Book of Sub- scriptions, 159 Wall around the Cathedral built, 92. The wall and railing now to be palled down, 224 Watling Street, formerly High Street, 8 Weever on Paul’s Walk, 47 West, Benjamin, selected as one of the artists to adorn St. Paul’s Cathedral, 152 West Front, beauty of the, 183. Ob- jections to it, 184. Mr. Wightwick’s remarks upon it, 184. Does not ex- actly face Ludgate Hill, 185. Ob- jections to the doubling of thepilasters of the West portico, 189. Wren’s defence, 189 Westminster Abbey, transeptal windows of, 34 Whispering Gallery, the, 171 Wightwick, Mr., his opinion of the Dome of St. Paul’s, 183, 184. Of the West- ern Front, 184, 185. And of the screen wall, 188. His remarks on Wren’s second design, and on the present Cathedral, 203 William the Conqueror contributes the Palatine Tower towards the structure of the second Cathedral of St. Paul’s, 5 Winchester, Cathedral of, incasing of the nave of, 9 note Wren, Dr. (afterwards Sir Christopher), finds traces of the choir of the second Cathedral, 8. His condemnation of the casing of the Norman walls and piers, 9. Called in to report on the restoration of Old St. Paul’s, 79. His report and proposals, 80, 81. Pro- ceedings of the Commissioners, 82, 83, His opinions as to Gothic Q 226 INDEX. WRE architecture. 85 note. Wren not the restorer of the Western Towers of Westminster Abbey, 87. Remarks of Messrs. Kerr and Ashpitel on Wren’s architecture, 87, 88. Ap- pointed deputy surveyor-general and principal architect for rebuilding the whole city, and architect and com- missioner for the reparation of St. Paul’s, 91. Fits up part of the ruined Cathedral for temporary use, 92. Convinced that a new Cathedral was necessary, and therefore opposed to all patching-up, 93. Proposes restoration, and not entire rebuild- ing, 95. Necessity for a new Cathe- dral at length admitted, 96. At- tempted chronological order of the different plans for the rebuilding of St. Paul’s made by Sir C. Wren, 96, 103. The King approves of Wren’s plans for a new Cathedral, 97 ; and appoints a commission, 98. His second design approved of, but not eventually adopted, 109. This Wren’s favourite design, 110. Engraving of the East end of St. Paul’s, 111. The clergy want more of a Cathedral de- sign, 111. Wren’s last design, 113. This design approved by Charles II., and an order issued for its exe- cution, 113. Wren’s variations, 114, 115. His mode of supporting the Dome, 115. Clears the ground for WRE the new Cathedral, 119. Uses gun- powder for bringing down the middle tower, 120. Afterwards uses a bat- tering ram instead of gunpowder, 120. Commences the new building, 120. Examines the ground on which the foundations are laid, 121. His diffi- culty i n fi nding a good foundation, 122. The Choir opened for Divine Service, and the last stone laid, 129. Mean- ness with which Wren was treated, 130. Dean Milman’s defence of him, 1 30. Who protests against the harsh treatment, 131. Tardy rectification of the ill-treatment, 131. Wren is thwarted by the Commissioners, 137. Dispute about the wall and railing, 137, 140. His letter about them, 139. His intentions as to the adorn- ment of the Dome, 141. His dispute with the Commissioners about the balustrade crowning the upper cor- nices, 142. His objections, but the balustrade was put up, 142, 143. His dismissal and death, 143. His artistic proficiency, 184. His original intention was one order with an attic, 188 Wren, Mr. (grandson of Sir Christo- pher), his account of his grandfather’s opinions as to Glothic architecture, 85. His defence of his grandfather, and explanation of the interior con- struction, 193 LONDON : PRINTED BY erOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQL' ARE AND PARLIAMENT STREET By the same Author. HISTORY OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF EDWARD THE THIRD. With 9 Coloured Maps and Plans, 8 Plates, and 16 Woodcut Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo. price 285. ‘Parmi les oeuvres historiques recemment publiees en Angleterre, ces deux volumes tiennent a coup sur une des meilleures places ; ils doivent cet avantage non-seulement au talent avec lequel ils sont Merits, mais aussi a I’int6r6t qui s’attache a la mati&re qu’ils traitent .L’ann£e suivante (1337) survint ArTevelde, qui mit tout-a-fait en honneur l’alliance anglaise. L’ Auteur a parfaitement compris que la commence une des phases les plus interessantes des relations exterieures de son heros, et en memo temps une des plus importantes de son regne ; aussi suit-il pas a pas tous les evenements. Artevelde pour lui est ce qu’il est pour nous, il Fa juge comme nous le jugeons, et a puise ses renseigne- ments a bonne source.’ Messager des Sciences historiques de Belgique. ‘A reign more full of interest. and importance — and yet more strangely neglected by the student — could scarcely be better reduced to history than in the work to which we now would draw attention. It was a difficult task to create a living picture of an age so remote in time and character from our own ; so dependent for its adequate manifestation on a thorough knowledge of the collateral history of all the continental kingdoms of the day ; and requiring, at almost every turn, the happiest admixture of the social elements with the political and the religious. Mr. Longman has carefully reflected the spirit of the times of which he writes, while exhibiting always the research of the historian, and the justness and discrimination of the critic.’ The Examiner. ‘ In Mr. Longman’s work, which combines the requisite characteristics of history and biography to an extent and with an amount of skill rare among the writers of the period, we acknowledge with much gratitude a solid boon to English literature, a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the past and its illustrious dead. The Author’s endeavour to make his readers feel personally acquainted with the King, to realise him as a man, to remove him from the category of phantoms to which the far-distant actors in history belong, into the rank of those concerning whom we have distinct views and impressions, is singularly successful. The great soldier, the chivalrous prince, the man of marked character, and resolute if sometimes erring action, the splendid veteran, is made to live and move in these pages, no longer indistinctly picturesque, like the figures in ancient tapestry, but clear and individual like the modern photograph. While this book has all the strict and categorical accuracy of detail necessary to its authority as history, it is remarkably free from the fault of dryness. The picturesque, the illustrative elements, are never overlooked or omitted ; and the Author has gathered from all contemporary quarters materials for the enriching, the adorning, and the comple- tion of his picture. The wars with Scotland and France in which England was involved, the relations of England with the Holy See, the history of trade and of commercial legislation which received so much impetus and development under Edward the Third ; the characteristics and mutations of social manners and customs are set before the reader with such plainness of statement, and such ease, as few historical writers can boast. Round the central figure of the gallant Life and Times of Edward the Third. OPINIONS of the PRESS— continued. knightly King, are grouped the brave and romantic figures of the times, of which Mr. Longman gives a sketch, curiously vivid for its brevity, in a few lines of his preface A thorough examination of the serious effect on the political and private life of the nation produced by the Black Death, and an eloquent exposition of the influence of the institution of chivalry in time of war, are among the most remarkable features of this work, which can hardly be too highly commended for the width of its scope and the completeness of its finish. Mr. Longman has handled the difficult and complicated subject of the external affairs of England under Edward the Third, as thoroughly and as well as he has treated the domestic history of the period. He gives an account of the condition of all the component States of Europe, their mutual relations, the origin of the various sovereignties and dominions, and their influence on Edward’s wars and alliances. The sketch of the condition of Spain when the Black Prince undertook his fatal expedition in aid of Peter the Cruel, is perhaps the most remarkable of those descriptions for its vigour and conciseness. The Author regards Edward’s reign as representing, in the political life of the English nation, that period in the life of man when he first arrives at manhood, begins to feel his strength, and dares to use it. Since the reign of King John, and his unsuccessful struggle with the Barons, the people, by a continued opposition to attempted irresponsible power, which culminated in the establishment of a representative system of government, had been forging constitutional weapons for future use, and slowly learning their possible application. But it was not until this reign that they availed themselves of their knowledge and turned it to practical account. There is so much of the brilliant, the romantic, the picturesque, so much of war and chivalry, of pomp and poetry, in the life of Edward and that of his gallant, wrong-headed, reckless, famous son, that it must have been a sore temptation to dwell rather upon the features of the time than upon its political and commercial developments, to follow the King and the Prince to the stricken field, rather than to linger with the Parliament, and watch the action of the burgesses and the corporations. But Mr. Longman is a strictly just historian. “ Cloth of gold ” does not lord it over “ cloth of frieze ” with him. Another point deserving of notice is his manner of delineating the character and influence of the Queen, the due importance he assigns to Philippa of Hainault, and his recognition of the public calamity inflicted by her death on England It is not too much to say of Mr. Longman’s work that it stands alone in its treatment of this subject (Ireland) ; that the student of history who would know how the case of Ireland really stood in those old times will resort to this book. The warlike episodes of Edward’s reign are selected with striking effect, and with a sympathetic spirit which lends them a strong attraction ; and the concluding chapters, in which the Author sums up the incidents of the King’s reign, which rose in splendour, attained supreme glory, and declined in shame and failure — a reign which may be compared with that of Solomon for its promise, its performance, and its melancholy decadence — are remarkable for their power, their conciseness, and their judicial calmness of tone.’ The Dublin Review. By the same Author, in 8vo. with Maps, &c. price 15s. LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND, From the Earliest Times to the Death of Edward II. * - ' mm ■