Zgryźliwość kojarzy mi się z radością, która źle skończyła.
//-->.pos {position:absolute; z-index: 0; left: 0px; top: 0px;}SAHGB Publications LimitedChristopher Wren: The Natural Causes of BeautyAuthor(s): J. A. BennettSource:Architectural History,Vol. 15 (1972), pp. 5-22Published by:SAHGB Publications LimitedStable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568327.Accessed: 26/04/2013 04:08Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..SAHGB Publications Limitedis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchitectural History.http://www.jstor.orgThis content downloaded from 212.182.33.50 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:08:17 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and ConditionsTheWren:Christophernaturalcausesofbeautyby J. A. BENNETTtwoDuring1971 new bookswereaddedto the immenseamountof publishedandworkon Wren'sonearchitecture, writtenbyMargaretWhinney' the otherThisevidenceof a continuinginterest the criticalinDownes.2apprai-by Kerryfromthe neglectedsalof Wren'sseemsto invitea contributionstudybuildingsonhavebeenpublished variousof hisnaturalA numberof articlesphilosophy.of Wren's'scientificwork',but we are still without a generalcriticalaspectsaccount and, as a result,this valuablesource of knowledgeabout WrenhasbutTheremainedlargelyuntapped. presentarticlecan only be a beginning, itthebetweentwo separateacademicwill aim at an understandingdisciplines,Ashistoriesof scienceand of architecture. such it riskscensureby either oristhenaturalphilosophy moreproperly subjectof a bookthanbyboth.Wren'sof an articleand we must be extremelyselective,drawingon examplesfromhis work which illustrategeneralconclusions.On the other handthereis, ofonmaterial Wrenthe architect.course,a greatdealof publishedAny attemptofthe 'results' thiswork,bygivingwhatpurportto be represen-to summarizetativeconclusions,will seem naiveto anyonewho has studiedthe changingofremarkabletalent.In orderto minimizethesedifficulties,expression Wren'sonwe will concentrate the solutionof one problem,namelythe interpretationinof Wren'stheoryof beauty,as it hasbeenpreserved his firsttracton archi-tecture.Thisis a singleproblem,but I will try to show that it is also a centralwork.towhich involveour whole approach Wren'sone, havingimplicationsIt also seemsto raisemore generalquestions,concerningthe historiographyof the historyof architecture.WrenJr(1675-One of the resultsof the devotedservicewhich Christopheronapparently1747)memoryis thatfive'tracts' architecture,gaveto hisfather'sFourof these wereprintedin Parentalia3writtenby Wren,havebeenpreserved.and another has survivedin manuscriptform.4Each one is undated,frag-inherentproblemsconcerningnot only interpretation,mentaryand carriesInbut also authenticityand editorialinterference. spite of these difficulties,tohavenaturallyturnedto thissource(particularlyhistorians architectureofTractI) for clues to the ideaswhich lie behindthe formsWrenemployedinhis buildings.However,the primaryconcern of these writershas been theWren'scriticism architecturaloftheorystyle,and they havetriedto interpretin the termsthey haveusedto analyse architecture.Theircriticalhisapparatusprovides a helpful approach to architecturalform, but it is largely external toWren'sown thought and not a suitable context for considering his ideas. Theconsiderableevidence we have about Wren'sown intellectual background hasbeen rather neglected. However, any reinterpretation of Wren's theory, de-rived from this background, should be able to find a correspondence with the5This content downloaded from 212.182.33.50 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:08:17 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and ConditionsARCHITECTURALHISTORY15:19726results of architectural criticism and to indicate an intellectual source forWren's architecturalpractice.One important preliminaryis a consideration of the primary material,parti-sincecularly the tracts printed in Parentalia, it is necessaryto give some justifica-tion for accepting that they are a fairly accurate record of Wren's ideas. Theoriginal manuscripts are not extant and the problem centres around the re-liability of Christopher Wren Jr as an editor of primary sources, since his un-reliability as a biographer is now well known. A full consideration of theevolution of Parentaliawould itself require a substantial article, since there is aconsiderable amount of relevant material. All we can do here is to outlinesome points which concern the printed tracts. There are three extant manu-scriptvolumes, representingthe progressof ChristopherJr'swork, from whichwe can learn much about his method of working and about the reliabilityofthe published version. One of these volumes is at the Royal Society,5anotherat All Souls College, Oxford,6 and the third, and earliest, is at the BritishMuseum.' The volume at All Souls representsParentalia a particularstage inatits evolution, but each of the other two spans a number of years and so cangive some detailed evidence about the process of editing.The British Museum volume is extremely interesting, being the furthestremoved from the published work (it actually contains unpublished primarywhilematerial). In fact it shows that Christopher Jr was working on ParentaliaWren was still alive. The title page is marked 'Collected, and Collated;Ano:1719',and in the text Christopher Jr more than once refers to the fact thatWren is still working on the problem of the longitude. This can only increaseour confidence in the final version, at least as far as primary sources are con-cerned. (What we learn about Christopher Jras a biographer is less encour-aging.) The volume does not contain the tracts themselves, but the variouscatalogues of Wren's manuscripts include references such as 'Of Architecturein general' and 'Divers Discourses of Architecture Ancient and Modern', andagain 'Discourses of Architecture, and Descriptions of Ancient Temples E:c:'.There are also specific references to the Temples of Peace and of Mars Ultor.8The tracts do appear in the volumes at All Souls and at the Royal Society.The All Souls volume (unlike the others) is not in Christopher Jr'shand, butin the hand of a copyist, and is marked 'From Authentick Memoirs, as wellManuscript, as Printed; Collected in the Year 1728'.However the passage inTract II,which is quoted from a book published in 1730,9appearsin this volumeand so the copy was made sometime after this date. In the Royal Societyvolume this passage is obviously a later addition, having been pasted in on aThe title page of this volume bearsthe date 'Iuly, 1741',but, as a pieceguard."?of work, it obviously covers a period of some years, the copy at All Soulshaving been made at some stage during its evolution. It seems likely, then,that the Royal Society volume was begun around 1728, as an attempt byChristopherJrto record the material in his possession. The copies of the tractsin this volume seem to belong to this early period. (The later addition fromthe book published in 1730is introduced by: 'In further Proof of this, we havenowa very remarkableAccount...'"1)At some stage Christopher Jr wantedto have a fair copy of the work, the result being the volume at All Souls. Anote at the beginning of the All Souls volume says that 'The first Intention ofThis content downloaded from 212.182.33.50 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:08:17 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditionsthe Collector was only to make Catalogues of all the Works of Sr: Chr: Wrenthat could be discovered, under the distant Heads and Branches of Mathe-maticks and Architecture for readier Use' (which corresponds well with theBritish Museum volume) and goes on to say that the copy is intended as astarting point for 'such Hands as may be willing to be at the trouble of furtherResearches in Records... and have Abilities to Methodize and finish theWork, as the Subject deserves'.It is more reassuringto know something aboutthe evolution of Parentalia to have simply to accept the published versionthanof 1750 and, further, it seems that the Royal Society volume contains fairlyearly transcripts of the tracts by Christopher Jr.As well as these manuscript volumes there are some letters of ChristopherandJr to John Ward"2 to JamesHodgson,'3 which also give an insight into hiswork, his materials and the progress of Parentalia."4 show him concernedTheyfor accuracy as well as for his father's memory. He describes himself as 'bestacquainted of any one with my fathers hand', an important asset since theparticular manuscript he was referring to here was 'a first Sketch, blotted,and interlin'd, (as my fathers Papersgenerally are)'.'5He later emphasized toWard that 'It is necessary to be Known, that many of my FathersManuscriptPapers were only the First rough Draughts, not perfected, nor intended byhim for the Press'.'6Indeed the presentation of the tracts in the publishedwork, where they are described as 'From some rough Draughts, imperfect'has an authentic ring, especially since both TractsI and II end in mid-sentence,with the note 'The rest is wanting'. (The BritishMuseum manuscript volumetells us that the account of the Temple of Peace had been damaged by 'someAccident of Moysture & dust'.)There are various ways to test the reliabilityof the Parentalia in general.textSeveral passagesappear in two places in the book, and we can compare theseas a test of internal consistency.'7 We can also compare the printed versionwith parts of the earlier manuscript volumes. On the whole the comparisonsshow a consistency where primary material is concerned. More importantthan these are the possibilitiesof external tests, from comparisons with originalmanuscripts or independent copies.'8Again comparisons are good, althoughHow-spelling is modernized and passagesare sometimes omitted in Parentalia.ever, we again see the unreliability of Christopher Jr as a biographer. Thereare several occasions, for example, when Wren has suggested that some experi-ment might be performed or some apparatus constructed and, while Chris-topher Jr has accurately copied out Wren's suggestion, he has presented it asthe report of a completed piece of work."9Where the tracts themselves areconcerned, external comparisons are more elusive. However, this article is anattempt to show that the ideas of Tract I can be fitted into a pattern whichincludes both Wren'sintellectual background and his architecturalpractice. Acorrespondence between the antiquarianinterests in the tracts and Wren'sdis-cussions with Hooke (as recorded in the latter's diary) has alreadybeen recog-nized.20However,the most important independent evidence for the authenticityof Tract I is the fact that Roger North records some remarks by Wren in adiscussion on beauty which compare very well with the Parentaliatext.21In view of the evidence which has been outlined here, we may conclude that,unless contrary evidence becomes available, the tracts may be cautiouslyBENNETT:WRENONBEAUTY7This content downloaded from 212.182.33.50 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:08:17 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and ConditionsARCHITECTURALHISTORY15:19728accepted as a record of Wren's ideas. Cautiously, since it must be recognizedthat ChristopherJris capable of omission and perhaps even rearrangementofpassages.22(It seems likely that the term 'tracts' and the numbering I-IV arealso due to him.) It is significantthat, while many writers have used and inter-preted these tracts, none have rejected their claim to authenticity.One remaining question concerns the importance Wren attached to thesewritings, and the importance we in turn ought to give them. Were they onlythe idle scribblingsof an old man, whose intellectual vigour and architecturalcareer were past, or do they represent a considered, working philosophy? Thequestion can only be answered in the context of a completed article but, as arecord of Wren's thought, the tracts have an intrinsic interest of their own,an interest which will be increased if they can be seen in a wider context.One of the most interesting features of the scholarly criticism of Wren'sarchitecture is the tension which is apparent in its conclusions. Pevsner'sremark in his Outline EuropeanArchitecture 'Wren'sstyle in churches andthatofsums uppalacesis classical,no doubt, but it is a Baroqueversion of classicism'23the uncertainty of this criticism,as well as indicating the fundamental dualismof its approach. Wren's buildings are analysed in terms of the conflictingclaims of the labels 'classical'(or sometimes 'Renaissance')and 'Baroque',andthe conclusion generally reached is that his style is not accommodated byeither with complete satisfaction.It is said to fall between the classicaland theBaroque and, if this is possible, can partake of both at the same time. Thishas led to many treatments, where the influence of the intellect is posed againstthe imagination, reason against fancy, rationality against freedom. Here weare concerned with something other than the mere fact that Wren's stylechanges and develops during his career. Summerson, in his classic essay onThe Mindof Wren,identifies 'a strain of inconsistency running through thewhole of Wren'swork'. He sees this inconsistency as the result of the intellectinhibiting imaginative expression, so that when Wren viewed Bernini'sLouvredesign, as Summerson tells us, with the eyes of an English intellectual, itfascinated him but he could not identify himself with it. Thus in his laterwork, when Wren had the opportunity to design buildings on a scale condu-cive to a dramatic treatment, 'his work falters between the static unity of theThe"high" Renaissanceand the dynamic, emotional unity of the Baroque'."z'tension', which is characteristic of studies of Wren's architecture, appearsagain in Summerson's essay, when he says: 'That Wren was not by tempera-ment in accord with the Baroque spirit is perfectly clear; but it is equally clearthat in such designs as Hampton Court and Greenwich he was handlingclassic forms in a loose, unconventional fashion which, allowing for a strongindividualtrend, can be called by no other name.'25Again, E. F. SeklerdescribesWren as 'a follower of a classicalideal forced by the artistic climate of his timeto achieve Baroque creations'.26While general surveys of architectural history may be content to includeWren among Baroque architects, both because of his period as well as theobvious 'impurity' of his style, more thoughtful and detailed studies are byno means so sure of themselves. Both Whinney and Sekler think that Wrenis more or less on the side of the ancients. The former tells us that the 'classicalbasisof all his thoughts can be seen in his finest architecture'.27Sekler identifiesThis content downloaded from 212.182.33.50 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:08:17 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditionszanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl hannaeva.xlx.pl