St. Paul’s stands second only to St. Peter’s as a great domical cathedral of Renaissance architecture. It falls far short of its great rival in actual size and internal effect, and is all but entirely devoid of that decoration in which St. Peter’s is so rich. On the other hand, the exterior of St. Paul’s (Fig. [82]) is far finer, and as the English cathedral had the good fortune to be erected entirely from the plans and under the supervision of one architect, it is a building consistent with itself throughout, which, as we have seen, is more than can be said of St. Peter’s.
The plan of St. Paul’s is a Latin cross, with well marked transepts, a large portico, and two towers at the western entrance; an apse of small size forms the end of the eastern arm, and of each of the transepts; a great dome covers the crossing; the cathedral has a crypt raising the main floor considerably, and its side walls are carried high above the aisle roofs so as to hide the clerestory windows from sight.
The dome is very cleverly planted on eight piers instead of four at the crossing, and is a triple structure; for between the dome seen from within, and the much higher dome seen from without, a strong cone of brickwork rises which bears the weight of the stone lantern and ball and cross that surmount the whole. The skill with which the dome is made the central feature of a pyramidal composition whatever be the point of view, the great beauty of the circular colonnade immediately below the dome, the elegant outline of the western towers, and the unusual but successful distribution of the great portico, are among the most noteworthy elements which go to make up the charm of this very successful exterior.
Fig. 82.—St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. (1675-1710.)
Wren may be said to have introduced to Renaissance architecture the tower and spire, for though many examples occur in Spain, there is reason to suppose that he was before the architects of that country in his employment of that feature. He has enriched the City of London with a large number of steeples, which are Gothic so far as their general idea goes, but thoroughly classic in details, and all more or less distinctive. The most famous of these is the one belonging to Bow Church; others of note belong to St. Clement Danes and St. Bride, Fleet Street.
The interiors of some of these churches, as for example St. Stephen, Walbrook, St. Andrew, Holborn, and St. James, Piccadilly, are excellent both for their good design and artistic treatment, and for their being well contrived and arranged for the special purposes they were intended to fill.
Wren’s secular works were considerable. The Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford, the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, and the theatre of the College of Physicians London (long since disused), are a group of special buildings each of which was undoubtedly a remarkable and successful work. Chelsea and Greenwich hospitals are noteworthy as among the first specimens of those great buildings for public purposes in which England is now so rich, and which to a certain extent replace the monastic establishments of the middle ages. At Chelsea the building is simple and dignified. Without lavish outlay, or the use of expensive materials, much ornament, or any extraneous features, an artistic and telling effect has been produced, such as few hospitals or asylums since built have equalled. Greenwich takes a higher level, and though Wren’s work had the disadvantage of having to be accommodated to buildings already erected by another architect, this building, with its twin domes, its rich outline, and its noble and dignified masses, will always reflect honour upon its designer. The view of Greenwich hospital from the river may fairly be said to be unique for beauty and picturesqueness. At Greenwich, too, we meet with some of that skill in associating buildings and open spaces together which is so much more common in France than in this country, and by the exercise of which the architecture of a good building can be in so many ways set off.