as besides its heaviness, its uninterrupted horizontal length deprives the outline of the little variety, which the pediment would otherwise have given to it. The windows in this attic, some square, and some wider than they are high decorated with pedimented tabernacle frames, broken by monstrous shells in the centre, appear to the judicious spectator uncouth, ugly, and incongruous to the idea of a church; if this front pleases, it is more indebted to the imposing grandeur of such a mass, and the clean new, wrought appearance of the stone, than to the genius displayed in its composition and embellishments. The west front of St Paul's Cathedral has none of these defects: it has no attic with a line of windows like the upper story of an hospital, nor any half columns, of which the effect is always inferior to pilasters, and, still more than those substitutes for columns, betray a poverty of genius in the artist or a deficiency in the funds of his employer. The pediment is large and majestic. The deep recess of the loggia behind the columns of the upper order strongly distinguish the centre of the front; and the same depth be. hind the lower order gives the whole portico the appearance of an entrance; an effect which could not have been obtained by any arch or aperture that the rules of art would have allowed the architect to adopt. The towers at the angles, although their terminations are clumsy, and the decorations of the circular apertures are mean, add greatly to the variety of this front; and, by harmonizing in prospect with the dome, to the unity and magnificence of the whole

structure.

Sir Christopher Wren has been blamed for employing two orders in this fabric, one order being esteemed more simple and majestic; and such appears to have been the sentiment of the architect, as the first model still preserved in the church exhibits one order only. The design, however, was changed through necessity, not choice; the quarries of this country not producing stone of sufficient dimensions for columns of the requisite diameter; and it is said that, in the course of the building, the artificers were frequently obliged to wait many months, before blocks could be obtained large enough to carry the present columns into execution. Sir Christopher has been blamed also for coupling his columns and pilasters, but this was a necessary consequence of the former change of design; as an order of single columns, of the reduced dimensions, would not have allowed of piers sufficiently strong, nor of intercolumniations sufficiently large, for apertures proportionate to the extent of the structure. For this change, he therefore merits praise rather than censure, as he thereby added greatly to the strength, the variety, and grandeur of his work.

When we enter the church at the west door, the long perspective of the arcades, and the solemn gloom diffused through the whole fa bric, have an impressive effect, and, inspire a religious awe, which harmonizes with the sanctity of the place; but, when the first emotions occasioned by these circumstances have subsided, it must be acknowleged that we have little to admire, besides the extent of the

See an observation to this effect, which we made on this subject, Rev. Vol. xxxix. N. S. p. 297. note †.

fabric and the simplicity of the design. Nothing to awaken curiosity, or to charm the fancy, no splendour of decoration, no elaborate display of art in sculpture and painting, nothing but barren plainness, and drear vacuity; through which at intervals, a few wandering visi tants glide like spectres escaped from the tombs. Here the cathedral of St. Paul sinks to nothing in comparison with the church of St. Peter at Rome; where the profusion of architectural ornaments, the tombs, the monuments, the altars adorned with the choicest productions of sculpture and painting, and above all the high altar, with its superb canopy of bronze, illuminated by a hundred silver lamps constantly kept burning, produce an effect that realizes the fictions of Arabian tales, and calls forth the admiration of those who are most inclined to deride the pomp and parade of the papal worship. As the magnificence and splendour of this great edifice were well known in England, why was our principal fabric completed in a style so much inferior? It was no defect in the genius of Wren, no deficiencies in the funds appropriated to the work; we must then attribute this misfortune (for a misfortune it will ever be considered by an artist) to the religious prejudices of the times; which supposed that every production of sculpture or painting, displayed in a place of worship, not monumental, had a tendency to introduce popery and slavery.

In the representation of this view (Plate 52.), we perceive the want of decoration most offensive in the domes and spandrils of the ceiling, which gives an air of poverty to the whole, that must be sen sibly felt by every spectator. The entrance to the choir is mean; and the choir itself, in which, as the place exclusively appropriated to the worship of the Deity, we reasonably expect a greater display of decoration and splendour, is dull and dark, and not the least in har mony with the rest of the structure.

The omission of the frize and architrave over the arches has been censured, though Sir Christopher Wren would probably have justi fied the omission on the score of propriety; the architrave being a feature necessary to a colonade, but useless over arches. With equal reason he might have omitted the cornice, and every inside cornice, as having neither real nor fictitious propriety. A precedent might also be pleaded in the antient Temple of Peace, if a precedent, how ever antient, could justify a circumstance of art that offends the eye. But interior and fictitious cornices are employed as cordons, to bind the whole work together, and thereby give unity to the design; and however the fancy of an ingenious architect may sport with their forms, projections, and embellishments, they can never be omitted without injury to the effect as a whole.

In the view from under the dome, looking towards the west door, the want of decoration is still more striking. The nakedness of the pannels in the principal piers, undoubtedly intended to be filled with paintings or basso-relievos; the plainness of the semi-domes at the meeting of the lateral aisles, and of the recesses in the arches over them, with the meagre appearance of the spandrils between the great arches, are altogether a reproach to the national taste.

The dome is a stupendous work, that cannot be viewed without surprize and delight, as the happiest and boldest production of archi

tecture

tecture in England. By some it has been thought too large, to occupy too great a proportion of the building, and to engross too much of the spectator's attention: but, as the dome was intended to be the most distinguishing feature of the metropolis, the object to which every part of the design was to be subservient, and the point in which the taste and skill of the architect were to be concentered, this objection becomes the highest praise.'

We have given this extract at some length, for the sake of enlarging on Mr. M.'s apposite remarks. We thank him for leading our attention so particularly to the circular colonade above the cross roofs; which is, not improperly, called the tambour of the dome; and which forcibly evinces the beautiful consequence resulting from a strict attention to the useful application of parts for constructive strength. The projection above the corridore, which is formed by the circular colonade with its continued entablature, makes a real band; which, by the connection of its parts, tends to restrain the spreading of the wall beneath the springing of the dome :-a purpose which is also most judiciously assisted by the piers that are advanced to the columus, at intervals sufficiently near to produce all the good effect which could well arise from them; and without incumbring the substructure with more than the necessary weight. This may be deemed a model of architectural elegance, certainly not equalled by any modern work, and admitting in competition only its very antient prototype *; which, though differently circumstanced, produces a similar deduction from its constructive principles. It is yet a desideratum to assign a satisfactory reason why we are pleased through the medium of the eye, before the mind has had time to consider the effect of good forms. The judgment by the eye is prompt, and rarely deceives except in cases of prejudice from the habit of contemplating bad examples, or from a vi cious education. In the instance under observation," the is delighted with the elevated figure of the dome, springing from a broad base above the cross roofs, and elegantly tapering as it rises to its majestic summit.

eye

With regard to the exterior of the several fronts, we join with Mr. M. in thinking that our English architect has succeeded better than his precursor at St. Peter's: but his criticism on the want of a door in the west front of St. Peter's does not appear to us of much force as it relates to the archi tecture of the building. It is there the end of the church; which in St. Paul's is towards the east; and we have no doubt that, in each case, the aspect was directed by the superiors of

*The Pantheon at Rome.

the

the church. There is cause for lamenting the want of simple lines in both instances; and it is curious to remark that, since the pretended revival of the antient Greek and Roman architecture, the architects should have failed so much in that part of these great edifices. The fancied necessity of some imitation of what was then deemed orthodox must have occasioned the application of fronts not derived from the included structure: otherwise, the genius of Sir Christopher Wren was certainly capable of producing a composition strictly homogeneous in all its parts.

In comparing the inside of St. Paul's Church with that of St. Peter's, we cannot agree with Mr. Malton that it may equal, if not exceed' the latter: which, we think, has a decided superiority. It would however lead us to too great a length, were we to detail our observations on the interior; and the want of plates would render the discussion tedious. We shall therefore only remark, that the defects of Sir Christopher Wren arise from his having adopted proportions and forms not indicated by the general structure; or that species of design which by the French is significantly termed an applique, and by us ornamental architecture, when it is introduced without necessity. The consequence of the wall under the arches, at the side of the nave, in St. Paul's, is diminished by the small pilasters, columns, and pannels, into which it is divided. In St. Peter's Church, on the contrary, the whole substance of the wall makes but one pilaster (if it may be so called), which very much contributes to its grand effect. The repeated domical arches, over the nave, constitute the chief cause of the gloomy appearance within St. Paul's: while at St. Peter's the arched ceiling is, more judiciously, made cylindrical, and forms a better approach to the dome by having fewer distracting lines. The four arches under the dome, between those which open into the naves at St. Paul's, are falsely represented by the archivolts. Were those lines formed by the true supports, the immense dome would indeed have the tremendous appearance of resting on stilts: but the architect found it necessary to give more substance, making altogether a confused and incoherent composition by the interception of the horizontal cornice, which is strangely attempted to be uni ted by an arched one above. We wish to impress these remarks the more, because we have heard the contrivance to form these openings highly extolled for its ingenuity; though, at the best, it was obtaining a minor advantage by the sacrifice of the principal feature within the church.

As it is out of our power to follow Mr. Malton through the whole of his tour, we must be contented with the specimens and remarks already submitted to our readers, and close our 7

account

account of this truly elegant and useful production.-If any fault can be found with the plates, it consists in the deficiency of aerial distance; technically, a want of keeping. Many of them, however, are not objectionable in this respect; the internal views, in general, are excellent; and we can assure our readers that, on attentive examination, much more important merit will be discovered in them than the mere superficial show of light and shade.

ART. IX. A Walk through Southampton. By Sir Henry C. Englefield, Bart., F.R.S. & F.S.A. 8vo. pp. 100, and six Plates. 58. Boards. Stockdale.

IN

Na narrow compass, and without any parade, this ingenious Baronet has brought together many amusing particulars respecting the town of Southampton; and, though disclaiming the ambition of aspiring to the dignity of an historian of that place, he has examined with diligence, and described with accuracy, the curious objects which presented themselves within the circuit of his inquiry. As a matter of introduction, he discusses the probable etymology of the name, which he derives from the Anton or Ant, that beautiful stream which embellishes the central parts of the county:

The town of Andover, (he remarks,) the village of Abbots-An, the farm of Northanton and hamlet of Southanton, both near Overton and not far from the eastern source of the river Anton, or rather Ant, are abundant proofs of the probability of this etymology: and it may be said, that, by a very natural confusion of two words so similar (particularly in composition) as An and Ham, Northam, from its position with respect to Southampton, may easily have received its name, under the idea that Southampton was formed from Ham, not An.'

• When in the Saxon times Southampton became a place of consequence, the Ant again gave name to the new town, with the Saxon addition of tun or ton, and we accordingly find Antun or Hantun to have been the early name of the place; as Wilton, in the next county, was formed from the river Will or Willy: and this I conceive to be much more consonant to the Saxon mode of formation of names, than the supposition that the town was called Anton from the river Anton, without any adjunct, of which, I believe, there is scarce an example.'

After having settled the derivation of the name, Southampton, Sir Henry gives a description of the situation of the town; notices the beautiful entrance called the Bar (observing that this was the name of those edifices now termed Gates, the word gate signifying the street or road leading to the Bar); makes the tour of the antient wall, and, returning by the REV. JULY, 1803.

X

Bar,