1 DECEMBER 1849, Page 14

BIG BL . tj 43 , , ER OF SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN. h 'less

utilitarian in its devices, but not inferior . tip() LENEnecesritymianyfe-reti.ity of invention. If free to roam, the mind

bjects of engagement, and in its desultory spontaneously seeks

range may light on d soy-cries. that have:long escaped observers in the absorbing rodtin Of a fixed occupation. The present sea- lency to -throw upon native resources a son, too, has a strongte vast aggregate of tine •ployed talent and physical activity. ca\men, dealers in furs, mantles, wrap-

. With the exceptions of sp

pers, -spicy cordials, ox-tail \ r turtle soup, and the numerous purveyors to the ice-cellars, orie-half the residue of the European . • . -hat is still more unpalatable to "world is p on or me, or a animation. November—dread November—in consequemee, cold though it be, is .the very hotbed of imaginings, and more thaz any .month teems with thick-coming fancies, -visions, schemes, real or unreal discoveries, with all the other eteeterse wont to conglomerate pending a somniferous or half-conscious entity of


Under one or more of these influences may possibly have ger. mioated the novel piece of information we are about to:conneenh cate, and -which has been submiteed as the original•detection et an enormous blunder in thenoblest work of -the great Sir Chris. topher Wren. Obedient AO -the Avell-kncrwn challenge of this illustrious builder's epigraph—" Si monumentum -requiris, dr. cumspice."— our modern Columbus seems to have " looked -round," and -to have been thrown into unexpected amazement at -what appears to his apprehension the -contrasted presentment of the 'two extremities of 'St. Pours 'Cathedral.

" Is-there any valid reason," he pressingly inquired, " for this antagonism of structure ? is there any distinction in nature or art, in the climate, or the celestial aspects of the building, in its sital position, or -the allocation of the inhabitants around it, to warrant the elisting architectural disparities ? If none such can be urged, why-then should 'thearchitect have lavished all the resources of his genius in rendering superb the West entrance, and then from that point on both sides -suffered a progressive de. clension in beauty and elaborateness till it terminates in the opposite extreme—in that meaningless, revolting, denuded abut. meat —that " other -shape," as Milton calls it,

"If shape it may be called, that shape has none 'Distinguishable in member,joint, or

Surely, if labour, skill, -and ornament were impressive and ate gust .on the West exterior, why not in an equal degree in the East, or the North, or the South? In the erection -of a private mansion or a street shop, offices, out.bouses, and -other con- veniences are requisite that may be best thrown into the-shade, and the distinction of /rent and-back is allowable; -butwhy this should be .followed in a temple of worship, which has no such -business or domestic-uses—that ought to be one perfect th7solite, an elaborated gem throughout—passes-all comprehension. , In reply to-these interrogations, we shall not -resort for -escape to the common apophthegm on the facility of asking questions-.- -it might savour of rudeness; but if -the alleged big blunder he -one, it is certainly net uncommon. 'Most other religious 'fund, ancl.even-public buildings, have the same peculiarity of cantrastea -adornment—all -eyes, intelligence, and embellishment in frost, likes dolphin, with nought behind. it has doubtless resulted, it many instances, from mere imitation, -without need fromnse, put. -pose, -or situation-; -though in -respect of -sacred edifiees.-it may have been-partly occasioned by a preference-for the crucial form in churches as the normal type of Christianity.