Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:56:09.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sir Christopher Wren, Edward Woodroffe, J. H. Mansart, and architectural history

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Kerry Downes
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the high summer of 1675 building work finally began on the new Cathedral of St Paul, after nine years of drawings and deliberation by its architect, Dr (and by then Sir) Christopher Wren. The history of those nine years does not need recapitulation, but the reader may be reminded that after the making of several distinct designs and the First and Great Models Wren had become secretive and had privately obtained the sanction of King Charles II to make ‘some Variations, rather ornamental than essential, as from Time to Time he should see proper’, that a royal warrant had notwithstanding been issued on 14 May 1675, approving the set of drawings now consequently known as the Warrant design, and that by a process of metamorphosis which can be only partly retraced, Wren distilled from that pragmatic but generally unloved design another, now known as the Definitive, on which work finally began.

Type
Research Article
Information
Architectural History , Volume 37 , 1994 , pp. 37 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 1994

References

Notes

1 Parentalia, p. 283. For the effective secrecy surrounding the design see below, section 3. Wren could have claimed, if challenged, that every essential feature of the Warrant design was incorporated in the Definitive, and that the differences were additions and improvements.

2 Summerson, ‘Penultimate’. Many of the extant drawings relate to the assembly of the Definitive design, first so named by Downes (1982), p. 78.

3 Summerson (1953), pp. 108-09. Parentalia, p. 286, says that Wren ‘began to lay the Foundations from the West-end, and … proceeded successfully through the Dome to the east-end’. This is one of several examples of the younger Wren’s naivety in logistical matters. Wren followed tradition in building from east to west, and for some time after 1675 large parts of the site were covered with ruins and rubble, and much of the old west end was still standing with the whole of the portico. The process described therefore cannot have been more than one of setting out the plan on site, or even on paper.

4 Wren Soc. 16, pp. 7-10, 200-13; 13 pp. 70-77.

5 In Wren Soc. 13, pp. 69-202. Whinney, M., St Paul’s Cathedral (London, 1947), p. 9 Google Scholar, suggested that the screen walls were conceived ‘perhaps as early as 1681’, apparently misreading ibid., pp. 152-54.

6 Comparable in style and quality to the signed pre-Fire designs for a new crossing in the old cathedral, All Souls II.4-8 (Wren Soc. 1, pis v-viii).

7 E.g. Webb, G. F., Wren (London, 1937), p. 104 Google Scholar; Sekler, E. F., Wren and his Place in European Architecture (London, 1956)Google Scholar—but probably written before Summerson’s book appeared — pp. 126, 128: ‘as late as 1687’. Fuerst, V., The Architecture of Sir Christopher Wren (London, 1956), p. 110 Google Scholar and n.493, specifically rejected Summerson’s dating as incompatible with ‘our interpretation of the evolution of St Paul’s’, and placed both this and the related drawing (Fig. 4 here) c. 1697.

8 Summerson (1953), p. 104 and pl. 6.

9 Believing the date of 1683 to be a new discovery, Summerson (1990) overplayed its significance. A connection between Hardouin-Mansart’s and Wren’s designs was sought a century ago by Loftie, W. J., Inigo Jones and Wren (London, 1893), p. 157 Google Scholar. On the other hand Sekler (Wren, p. 129) points out that the engraved design is less like Wren’s than the executed one, forcing a comparison between the arched windows in the attic of the drum (Fig. 11) and the segmental-headed ones in the corresponding position in Woodroffe’s drawing (Fig. 4).

10 Downes (1988), p. 35 n.8.

11 In correspondence with the writer, Paul Jeffery has identified an irreducible nucleus of factual information in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century literature.

12 Clutterbuck, T., History and Antiquities of the County of Hertfordshire (London, 1815), II, 168 Google Scholar. The MS now in Soane’s Museum was not part of Soane’s own collection. The first mention in print of the date of 21 June 1675 appears to be in Hatton, E., A New View of London (London, 1708), ii, 456 Google Scholar, according to which the second stone was laid by ‘Mr Longland’ (John Longland, master carpenter). The account given in Lang, Jane, Rebuilding St Paul’s (Oxford, 1956), p. 79 Google Scholar, is, like many passages in that book, an attempt to flesh out the known facts with reasonable assumptions. Since her use of printed sources was so thorough, it is perhaps neither unjust nor indiscreet at this distance in time to record a circumstance never widely known: for physical reasons Miss Lang’s research was confined to the resources of the Bodleian Library, and MS sources elsewhere were not accessible to her.

13 A century earlier John Thorpe laid the first stone of Kirby Hall, Northants, in 1570 at the age of seven: Sumitierson, J., ‘John Thorpe and the Thorpes of Kingscliffe’, Architectural Review, 106 (1949), 291–300 Google Scholar (reprinted in Unromantic Castle, pp. 17-40). Ritual is part of human life, and every trade has its share. A Yorkshire village builder told me recently, ‘No, we don’t do anything special when we start, but usually when we put the roof on a house we put a flag up, and we’re supposed to be given a drink — we don’t always get it’.

14 p. 292. That stone is commemorated, but not preserved, irt the tympanum of the south transept end. For the record, the date 21 June is nowhere given in Parentalia; however, it is to be found in a quite extraneous insert after p. 334 in the RIBA Heirloom copy (and the Gregg facsimile reprint): the thirty pages forming Book I of English Architecture, or the Publick Buildings of London and Westminster, which was a supplement added by the publisher Osborne to his second edition of W. Maitland, History of London in 1758 ( Harris, E., British Architectural Books and Writers (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 188–90)Google Scholar.

15 Wren Soc. 16, p. 201. For the site relation between the Great Model and the final building see Downes (1982), text fig. 11. The question of Wren and freemasonry would not be worth raising if it were not for the ‘historic Wren maul’. In October-November 1932 a loan exhibition was held in the Trophy room at St Paul’s to mark Wren’s tercentenary. The Lodge of Antiquity lent a ‘Maul. Used by Sir Christopher Wren when laying the Foundation Stone of the Cathedral’ (cat. 65). A silver plate was affixed to it in 1827 by the Duke of Sussex, Grand Master and younger brother of George IV, with the inscription ‘A.L. 5831-A.D. 1827. To commemorate that this being the same mallet with which His Majesty King Charles II levelled the foundation stone of St Paul’s Cathedral, A.L. 5677-A.D. 1673. Was presented to the Old Lodge of St Paul’s, now the Lodge of Antiquity, acting by Immemorial Constitution, by Brother Sir Christopher Wren, R. W. D. G. M., Worshipful Master of this Lodge and Architect of that Edifice’. The maul was mentioned, with other souvenirs, by Timbs, John, Curiosities of London (London, 1885), p. 359 Google Scholar, giving the accepted date of 21 June 1675.

The only serious question is whether the Duke of Sussex’s date of 1673 referred correctly to the setting out of the dome in that year. The introduction of Charles II to the story makes this less, rather than more, probable, and the supposition that there was a Masonic and therefore hidden ceremony is self-cancelling, since modern historians of Freemasonry have found no trace even of a tradition to this effect until some years after Wren’s death. Indeed they have expressed grave doubts about the extent of ‘speculative’ Masonry before the establishment of the Grand Lodge in 1717, and have traced most of what is supposed of Wren’s involvement ‘without foundation’ to the second (1738) edition of James Anderson’s Book of Constitutions and William Preston’s Illustrations of Masonry (1772). Although as early as 1620 non-tradesmen (Nicholas Stone being one) were ‘accepted’ into the Masons’ Company of London, acceptance was distinct from the Freedom of the Company. Knoop andjones conclude that Wren ‘probably joined the Fraternity in 1691’ but ‘took little or no active part in Freemasonry after his acceptance’ ( Knoop, D. and Jones, G. P., The Genesis of Freemasonry (Manchester, 1948), pp. 131–32, 146-47, 168-70Google Scholar; Pick, F. L., Knight, G. N. and Smyth, F., The Pocket History of Freemasonry, 8th ed. (London, 1991), pp. 50–51, 70)Google Scholar.

16 Downes, K., Sir John Vanbrugh, a Biography (London, 1987), pp. 293–94 Google Scholar, where the word ‘foot’ was omitted by a printing error. A stone of 8ft square is impractical. More recent practices are different: foundation stones with commemorative inscriptions are placed well above ground level, or alternatively the opening of a completed building is marked by the unveiling of a plaque.

17 Whistler, L., The Imagination of Vanbrugh (London, 1954), pp. 229–30 Google Scholar.

18 Guildhall Library MS 25622/1. This contemporary second copy of the Commission’s minutes was brought to my notice by Paul Jeffery. It largely duplicates the original book (Guildhall MS 11770) but records uniquely most of the meetings of 1674-76, which are missing from the latter volume. Neither MS was found by the Wren Society editors, although MS 25622/1 must have been in St Paul’s Library. MS 11770 came on to the market in 1965 (Ben Weinreb, London, Catalogue 10, no. 11) and was acquired for the Corporation of London.

19 Dugdale, W., History of St Paul’s, 2nd edn (London, 1716), p. 169 Google Scholar. Dugdale completed the revision of his text to include the new cathedral before his death in 1685.

20 Guildhall MS 25622/1.

21 Guildhall MS 11770.

22 Wren Soc. 16, pp. 206-08.

23 ibid. 16, pp. 209-12; 13, pp. 73-77. A drug is a low carriage for heavy loads.

24 ibid. 16, pp. 208-09.

25 Tillison’s Acquittance Book, which records payments made rather than debts incurred, shows this and, a week earlier, £15 for wheelbarrows (ibid. 13, p. 64).

26 Whinney, M., Wren (London, 1971), p. 102 Google Scholar.

27 Parentalia, p. 282.

28 ibid., p. 283

29 Guildhall MS 11770.

30 Both reproduced by V. Fuerst, op. cit. (inn.7), figs 112, 114. Fuerst was unwilling to accept their irrelevance to Wren’s thinking. It is the effectiveness of the information black-out, as much as the close agreement between the accounts of 1702-03 and the earliest authorized prints, that rules out Summerson’s suggestion (1990, pp. 34-36) that Wren commissioned the plates ‘soon after 1683 … to crystallize a new (and hopefully final) situation in the cathedral’s development’. Such a conjecture, derived entirely from the desire to involve the Invalides in the argument, supposes ‘several [other] sets of plates, engraved around 1700-03’ of which we have absolutely no trace; Summerson’s rhetorical question about Wren’s motivation will, it is hoped, be adequately answered below.

31 Wren Soc. 6, pp. 39, 41; Downes (1959), pp. 85-87. It is doubtful whether Gribelin’s ‘Large view’ of Greenwich was ever issued; the proof before all letters at All Souls (V. 3 3) was for long considered unique. Another impression was offered for sale by Paul Breman, London (Catalogue Jan. 1990, no. 58) with the unlikely inference from Wren Soc. 8, p. 22 that unlettered prints were sent to subscribers.

32 Wren Soc. 15, pp. 70, 71. In the present paper the term ‘engraving’ is used of copper plates without distinction between cutting with a graver and etching with acid. According to Vertue (I, 106), who was in the profession, Kip ‘was not over curious [careful] in his manner but expeditious … all his work were done with Aqua Fortis’.

33 Wren Soc. 16, pp. 97, 98.

34 This will be seen to mark a change from the design shown in engraving [E] and the All Souls drawing (Figs ie,2). Ned Ward’s highly satirical account (The London Spy (1700), p. 106) of a site visit in 1699 likens the Whispering Gallery to the ‘Embroider’d Hole in the middle of the Top’ of a goose-pie, and reports the intention of ‘a Spire to be Erected three Hundred Foot in height’. This suggests a source in the Warrant design rather than even Morgan’s 1682 map.

35 Wren Soc. 14, pis xiii, xiv, vii, xv, xxxvii, and xvi. PI. xxxvi shows the section re-issued with the west tower as built.

36 ibid. 15, pp. 84, 96.

37 ibid. 14, pi. xii. The term ‘last approved’ rather than ‘penultimate’ is used here in order to avoid confusion with the Penultimate design of 1674-75.

38 ibid. 15, p. 94. The fact that [D] and [E] as well as the first state of [C] (below, n. 44) were out of date suggests that Wren offered the engravers drawings that were to hand. The source of [D] is All Souls II. 36 and 37. Neither of the known west elevations All Souls II.39 or Guildhall (Downes (1988), cat. 205) exactly corresponds to Gribelin’s plate [A]; the All Souls drawing is heavily reworked with scissors and paste, the Guildhall one is endorsed in French and was very probably used by Gribelin. Comparable economy with the truth bedevilled the plan of Castle Howard in Campbell’s Vitruvius Britannicus; see K. Downes, Sir John Vanbrugh (as in n.16), p. 531.

39 Wren Soc. 14, pis 6, 10, 11 upper and lower, 9. A proof before all letters of the section [E] is in the Guildhall St Paul’s collection (Downes (1988), cat. 94); some at least of the notes on it are in a hand consistent with that of Hawksmoor in the early 1700s.

40 Summarized in Wren Soc. 14, p. xi, with some red herrings. The ‘framing’ of numbers of prints on several occasions does not imply wooden, let alone glazed constructions, and perhaps no more than card mounts or even ruled borders: see OED, s.v. ‘frame’. In December 1702 Colonel Ayres received £4.6. for ‘Writing & Engraving 3 Plates of St Paul’s’ (Wren Society 15, p. 89). It can safely be said that these belonged to a genre of plates which contained words, not images: John Ayres, an officer in one of the City bands, was a noted penman, writing-master and copper-plate writer, and lived in St Paul’s Churchyard (DNB; Vertue, I, 140). Early in 1736 (19 January) Hawksmoor asked the Dean of Westminster ‘to advance about 25£; that I may print in Copper, the West End of the Abby, to give to the Members of parlmt: I am sure it wou’d do us no harm, but the contrary. Sr: Chr. Wren did it, St Paul’s, to an Expence of 30o£’ (Downes (1959), p. 260).

41 Summerson (1990), p. 36. The section [E] was evidently unknown to Emmett (n. 35 above) whose imaginary version of 1703 (Wren Soc. 14, pi. xxxvii) incorporates the tapering inside drum but represents a structure in which diameters both inside and outside are consistently over-size.

42 The section is known in three states. (1) the proof before all letters (n. 39 above) with notes requesting additional hatching and amendments to several of the moulding profiles and other details. (2) an intermediate state in the Guildhall, titled and incorporating the hatching and a few other amendments, but with the hemispherical inner dome unbroken (cf. Fig. 4) and with the cross section of the drum left blank (Downes (1982), pi.59). (3) the final state (e.g. SP119) at the Guildhall, in which there are no further detail amendments but two major new changes have been made. The cross section shows the windows, piers and other details of the drum, and the inner dome is broken by a large eye opening into the outer one (Fig. ie). This opening goes back to an early design (Downes (1988), cat. 88) but it is difficult to see any warrant for re-introducing it in the engraving. These changes were perhaps made in the 1720s at the instigation of Hawksmoor, whose contributions to the Synopsis (see below) included drawings specially made for the prints of St Mary-le-Bow and the Monument.

43 Vertue (III, 136) says that ‘some disgust happend’; Samuel Johnson’s second meaning is ‘ill-humour, malevolence, offence conceived’. Hulsbergh died in May 1729 after an illness of two years or more (Vertue III, 38). The 15 plates are listed and described in Wren Soc. 14, pp. xii-xiv; those not reproduced in that volume appear in vol. 18, pis xvi-xxi; Hulsbergh’s title plate with a pyramidal catalogue of Wren’s works is pi. xix. The antiquary Gough, Richard described the set as ‘already become extremely scarce’ (British Topography, I (London, 1780), 611)Google Scholar. Several sets are known (E. Harris, op. cit. (n.14), pp. 503, 508).

44 SP105 in the old numbering (Wren Soc. 20); first published by Summerson (1990), Fig. 30. An old repair is pasted vertically through the westernmost choir bay, and a pilaster to the right of the transept window is damaged and laid down. The attached ‘as built’ fragments of the dome and peristyle, which Summerson calls ‘a late state (c. 1710) of Kip’s engraving of 1702-03’ (whatever that might mean) are to a larger scale and from a later print not so far identified. Good impressions of the authorized plate [C] confirm that it began life as SP105. Besides the identity of so many details, there are still traces of the podium and gate-piers, and of the wider profile of the earlier peristyle.

45 Downes (1988), cat. 95. The All Souls drawing shows eight segmental-headed windows, in pairs, on the diagonals.

46 Summerson (1961), fig. A; Downes (1988), cats 87-88.

47 Downes (1988), fig. xix. When this is compared directly with the All Souls drawing it is difficult to say either that they are by the same hand or that one of them is not in Wren’s hand.

48 Whitworth Art Gallery, University of Manchester, inv. D1926.363. Pen and brown ink and grey wash, 3 3.4 x 47.8 cm. I am grateful to Charles Nugent of the Whitworth for bringing to my attention this drawing, an exception in a large group of non-architectural drawings. It cannot be shown to have come from the Gardner Collection of London topography, which was broken up and sold piecemeal at Sotheby’s in 1924.

49 The details of plinths and steps to the transept porticoes, which differ north and south because of ground levels, were not handled consistently in the reversal process. A south elevation follows naturally on the drawing board from a plan with north at the top of the paper. Printmakers were, of course, able if required to produce a reverse image that would print in the same sense as the original. Hawksmoor’s perspective of St Mary-le-Bow (above, n. 42) is in the same sense as the print; that of the Monument is in reverse except for the bas-relief at the base of the column.

50 The discrepancy is too large to be the result of dimensional movement in the paper support.

51 For diagonal scales, which used to be found on the backs of better quality school rulers, see Hambly, M., Drawing Instruments 1580-1980 (London 1988), pp. 115–16 Google Scholar. This is what Pratt means by ‘the divisions made upon the brass rule of 200 parts to one inch’. He mentions (referring to Scamozzi) the use of ready-made paper scales, but his own method of making a scale is as follows: ‘Take an exact measure of the whole length of the paper between those two perpendiculars which are at the ends of it, and having found out the number of inches in it etc. set them in figures and multiply them by 200 according to the divisions made upon the brass rule of 200 parts to one inch, then divide that whole number so multiplied by the number of feet etc. intended by you, and the quotient will give you most exactly that part which is so to divide the whole length aforesaid, which part being afterwards most diligently taken off by a compass from the rule and reiteratedly set upon a line for that purpose till the whole be divided by it, the work is done.’ ( Gunther, R. T., The Architecture of Sir Roger Pratt (Oxford, 1928), p. 21)Google Scholar.

52 It is impossible to see how this was done; only a few significant points were marked with a stylus. Variable proportional compasses were available; for one in a set of instruments made for Roger North about 1680 see Hambly, Drawing Instruments, pl. 150.

53 In the print and the Whitworth drawing these are tall ovals, in the All Souls drawing they are conical.

54 The shading in Emmett’s pirated south elevation is reversed from that in the authorized north elevation.

55 Summerson (1990), p. 34 n. 4; Wren Soc. 14, pl. xxxii.

56 BM Crace xix. 161 (Wren Soc. 14, pi. xxxix, mislocated in caption). The deficiency of the Synopsis, as already mentioned, in respect of elevations of St Paul’s as completed, together with the fact that Hulsbergh engraved a new plan, suggests that the original plates [A]-[C] were either lost or unsuitable for alteration. The authorized plates were kept with great care in the early years; green baize bags were made for them in Sept. 1703 (Wren Soc. 15, p. 98). Lot 44 of the Wren sale on 5 April 1749, ‘Fourteen Copper Plates of Antiquity, Architecture etc’ was bought, according to one marked copy, by Stuck or Stack for £2.35. and at this price may well have been actual plates. Dr William Stack FRS was also the buyer of the drawings now at All Souls, but no conclusions can be drawn. For the sale catalogues see Wren Soc. 20, pp. 78-80 and Watkin, D., Sale Catalogues of Libraries of Eminent Persons. 4, Architects (London, 1972), pp. 41–43 Google Scholar.

57 BM Crace xix.162 is a good impression. The Guildhall also has both this and the skyless state signed by Hulsbergh.

58 Harris, op. cit. (n. 14), p. 227, cat. 310.

59 Some of the prints at St Paul’s, if ever part of this collection, had become detached from it before the Wren Society catalogue was made in 1924-25. SP105 and 106 had been framed by 1950 when they formed part of an exhibition in the Trophy Room (cat. nos. 57 and 114, both as ‘Engravings of dome studies. North elevation’).

The provenance of the St Paul’s drawings is now complete. Downes (1988), p. 11 traces them as far back asjohn Grover; as noted by Jeffery, P., Architectural History, 35 (1992), p. 133 n. 3Google Scholar, Grover was undoubtedly a buyer at the Wren sale in 1749, although details of buyers in the Bodleian and Soane Museum copies of the catalogue (above, n. 55) are at variance. It is not known when the drawings were arbitrarily mounted in two volumes (now dismantled) but it was in bound form that Somers Clarke (Consultant to the Fabric 1897-1906) found them in the Dean’s Vestry and had them transferred to the Library (Wren Soc. 3, p. 3).

60 RIBA Journal, ser. 3, 59 (1952), 126-29.

61 Downes (1959), p. 24 n. 31; the revised note in the 2nd (1979) edition gives an accurate summary of the true case.

62 All Souls II.22.

63 All Souls II.47; Wren Soc. 9, pl. 23.

64 Summerson, , Architecture in Britain 1530-1830 (London, 1953), p. 141 Google Scholar.

65 ibid., pls 81A, 84A; pp. 139-40, 141. In the latest edition (New Haven and London, 1993), p. 213, thedate 1683 is firmly stated and the matter of proof prints is further confused.

66 See Downes (1988), pp. 30-33.

67 note 61 above.

68 Whinney, M. and Millar, O., English art 1625-1714 (Oxford, 1957), p. 211 n. 1Google Scholar.

69 Summerson (1961), p. 88 n. 17.

70 Downes (1988), cat. 11-46 passim.

71 Letter to the present writer, paraphrasing one to Summerson, 8 March 1961. For Webb’s representation of the Banqueting House see Walpole Soc. 31 (1946), pls XVIII(b), XXI, XXII. Wren did the same in his 1698 Whitehall drawings (Wren Soc. 5, pl.v).

72 Downes, K., English Baroque Architecture (London 1966), pp. 28–30 Google Scholar.

73 Downes, K., Christopher Wren (London, 1971), p. 167 Google Scholar. In fact, Hooke was also considering St Peter’s in 1675 (Diary, 1 July 1675, 10 June 1677).

74 Saxl, Fritz, ‘The History of Warburg’s Library’, in Gombrich, E. H., Aby Warburg, an Intellectual Biography (London, 1970), p. 327 Google Scholar.

75 The shock of this revelation led me to imagine in retrospect that in the first and second editions there had been a footnote to this effect, but that was not so.

76 Downes (1988), cats 63-72.

77 Wren Soc. 13, pp. 137-46.

78 ibid. 16, p. 15. In all the engravings discussed the upper order is shown as Corinthian, which implies descent from drawings made before the start of building.

79 Lest this should appear to impose a modern spatial conception on a seventeenth-century architect, there is the example of Leonardo da Vinci’s bird’s-eye view of a centralized church in which he draws a transparent plane between the first and second storeys and notes that ‘this edifice would also do well if executed from the line a b c d upwards [questo edificio anchora starebbe bene affarlo dalla linja a.b.c.d. insù]’ ( Popham, A. E., The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci (London, 1946), pl. 312)Google Scholar.

80 Downes (1988), cats 86-91, 93, 95-100.

81 The same contract quoted by Summerson (above, n. 69); Wren Soc. 16, p. 9. The completed work of Marshall and Strong was measured and accounted in the works book for March 1676/7, and no masonry would have been set over the preceding winter months (Wren Soc. 13, pp. 86-89).

82 Summerson (1990), p. 36.

83 Jean Marot’s engraved elevation of the Invalides was published in Lejeune de Boullencourt (Boulencourt, Boulancourt), Description générale de l’Hôtel Royal des Invalides, Paris, 1683; the plate was engraved before Marot’s death on 15 December 1679 (R. W. Berger, ‘Wren and the Invalides’ (letter), Burlington Magazine, 132 (1990), 573). The identification and date appear in Mauban, A., Jean Marot, architecte et graveur parisien (Paris, 1944), pp. 116–19, 225-26;Google Scholar Colombier, P. du, Saint-Louis-des-Invalides (Paris, 1946)Google Scholar, and thereafter in Saxl, F. and Wittkower, R., British Art and the Mediterranean (London, 1948)Google Scholar, §46 and Reutersward, P., The Two Churches of the Hôtel des Invalides (Stockholm, 1965), p. 71 Google Scholar.

84 Whinney and Millar, op. cit. (in n. 68), p. 217 n. 1.

85 Another possibility in theory is a resemblance that is no more than generic. There are only so many ways in which, for example, the Madonna can hold up the Christ Child.

86 See below, Section 7 and notes 95-96.

87 Best reproduced in Braham, A. and Smith, P., François Mansart (London, 1973), esp. pl. 457 Google Scholar. The rhythm of two deep and one shallow piers occurs in one half of the plan on that sheet. The Bourbon Chapel is not mentioned by Summerson (1990), even in order to reject it, though the case is stated clearly in Downes (1988), p. 116.

88 Not mentioned by Summerson (1990) although it would have supported his case.

89 Braham and Smith, Mansart, pi. 454.

90 ibid., pis 285 (pointed out by Reuterswärd, op. cit. (n. 83), pp. 72-73), 446.

91 Downes (1988), cat. 88, 98.

92 How this works is shown in Bourget, P. and Cattaui, G., Jules Hardouin Mansart (Paris, 1960)Google Scholar, pls XXXIII and CXLVI, and Jestaz, B., L’Hôtel et l’église des Invalides (Paris, 1990), Fig. 62Google Scholar.

93 Bourget and Cattaui, pl.CXXXV; Laprade, A., François d’Orbay (Paris, 1960), pl. IX.8DGoogle Scholar.

94 Report on Salisbury Cathedral (Wren Soc. 11, p. 21).

95 Wren’s letter from Paris (Parentalia, p. 262).

96 Report to the Commission, May 1666 (Wren Soc. 13, p. 17).

97 Downes (1988), cat. 90.

98 Braham and Smith, Mansart, pis 175, 180, 182.

99 Greek Cross, All Souls II.23 (Downes (1988), fig. vi). Hulsbergh’s engraved section of the Great Model (Wren Soc. 14, pl.ii) shows a similar arrangement; in the model itself the eye is now covered by a wooden disc which is of some age. William L. MacDonald earlier came to the conclusion that the elder Mansart was the source (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects (New York, 1982), II, 311 s.v. ‘Hardouin Mansart’).

100 Brown ink and grey wash, 570 x 437 mm. Scale 16ft 8 ins to 1 inch.

101 BM 1848-8-5-1/4; Catalogue of British Drawings, 1 (1960), pl. 119.

102 Downes (1988), cat. 140, 148.

103 At least they did before an old tear and repair misaligned parts of the drawing. The semicircle is too faint to reproduce.