- For an example of the use of Parentalia in this respect, see McKie D. The Origins and Foundations of the Royal Society of London Notes & Records Roy. Soc. Lond. 1960 15 28 30
- 1972 . Christopher Wren: the natural causes of beauty . Architectural History , 15 : 5 – 22 . See especially pp. 6–8.
- British Museum MS. Add. 25,071. References to these volumes in the secondary literature are as follows. The Wren Society editors deal briefly with the R.S. volume at Wren Society 19 121 2 and for an example of the value of consulting it, see D. McKie, op. cit., p. 19, note. See also C. R. Weld, A History of the Royal Society, London, 1848, vol i, p. 272, note 10; L. Weaver, Sir Christopher Wren, Scientist, Scholar and Architect, London, 1923, p. 135; L. Weaver, ‘The interleaved copy of Wren's Parentalia, with manuscript insertions’, J.R.I.B.A., 1911, 3 ser., 18, 569. H. W. Jones mentions the B.M. volume at ‘Sir Christopher Wren and Natural Philosophy: with a checklist of his scientific activities’, Notes & Records Roy. Soc. Lond., 1958, 13, 25. I have found no references to the volume at All Souls and am indebted to Mr. Webb, formerly assistant librarian there, for drawing my attention to it.
- These are as at Parentalia 1732 29 29 269 (1734); 294 (1734); 315 (1734); 318 (1734); 354 (1730). In addition, it has the endorsement by Christopher Jnr., dated 1733, as at Parentalia, p. 143.
- This is because in September 1734, Bateman (see below) received some material concerning Bp. Matthew Wren, from one Thomas Asaph. Asaph asked Bateman ‘to convey them to Mr. Wren, whose Habitation I know not’. Christopher Jnr. placed the two letters written by Asaph to Bateman directly into his working volume (R.S. volume), along with the material sent by Asaph. He inserted it as it was sent, without bothering to transcribe it, and nearly all of it was eventually printed in Parentalia (see note 9). However, it does not appear in the A.S. volume. Now we know (see below) that by 1737 the Wren papers, including a transcript of Parentalia, had been deposited with Bateman for safe-keeping. So it seems that by this time Christopher Jnr. and Bateman had been in contact with each other, concerning Parentalia, and thus it is very likely that the material from Asaph was added before this date. As we would expect, the A.S. volume does not contain Christopher Jnr.'s quotations from Ward's J. Lives of the Professors of Gresham College London 1740 (see Parentalia, pp. 142, 244–7, 334, 346).
- See Parentalia 29 29 (an insertion at f. 37). The letter from Asaph to Bateman, 14 September 1734 (see Parentalia, pp. 52–3) has been added (the original letter) at f. 69. (There is also a second letter, dated 17 September 1734, at f. 70. This was not printed.) The original material sent by Asaph has been added at ff. 66–8, 94–135, 136–162 (see Parentalia, pp. 48–52, 73–114, 115–132). See also Parentalia, p. 142 (an addition at f. 176v); p. 143 (an addition at f. 177). Note that this last example is not a quotation, but an endorsement, dated 1733, and since this is an addition, the original transcript must be of an earlier date. See also Parentalia, p. 144 (an addition at f. 180); p. 269 (an addition at ff. 305v–306). This last example is an interesting one, since the Wren Society editors (Wren Society, 14, p. x) dated Christopher Jnr.'s account of St. Paul's to after 1735, because of this quotation from Ralph's Review (1734). In fact all the quotations from this work are later additions and the account of St. Paul's is dated to 1728 by the note at f. 317 (see note 10). This illustrates the advantages of consulting the manuscript volumes. See also Parentalia, p. 294 (additions at f. 337v); p. 314 (an insertion at f. 424); p. 318 (an insertion at f. 427); pp. 322–3 (an insertion at f. 433); p. 334 (an addition at f. 455); p. 346 (an addition at f. 469); p. 354 (an insertion at f. 479). This last example was pointed out in Wren Society, 19, p. 121. For the catalogue of Wren's works, reprinted in Parentalia from Ward, op. cit., see note 16.
- At Parentalia 264 264 at the end of the introduction to Part II, we find: ‘A View (however short and imperfect) of the Surveyor's Proceedings…may be taken from the following Sections, put together out of some scatter'd Papers, and publick Accounts, such as the Collector hath hitherto met with’, and here there is a marginal note: ‘viz. Anno 1728’. This is in the R.S. volume at f. 298v. On p. 277 Christopher Jnr. says that Wren's original designs ‘propos'd for this Renovation of old Paul's, are still extant’, again with the marginal note: ‘viz. 1728’—see R.S. volume f. 317r.
- Parentalia , 239 – 43 .
- Referring to the printed catalogue Parentalia 239 ff 239 ff to III the MS. adds: ‘This Treatise in a new & concise Method comprehend'd under a few Rules the whole Theory of Spherical Trigonometry’ (compare the letter Wren to Dean Wren, 1647, Parentalia, p. 185); to IV it adds: ‘Reverendo Patri suo dicatae’; and to XXVI it adds: ‘Comptus Judaicus, omnium qui hodie extant Antiquissimus, Artificiosissimus, Elegantissimus, Castigatissimus. —Scal. Em: Temp: Lib. 7°. P. 294.’, with the note ‘MSS.’ in the margin. All of these are at f. 103. Also, under XXXI, at ff. 31v, 89v, 103v, we have the dates of the letters from Pascal to Wren and Wren to Carcavy, not given in Parentalia.
- For example, Ward's catalogue of Wren's works Parentalia 244 7 which is not in the A.S. volume, is displaced in the R.S. volume and follows the tracts on architecture at the end (at f. 502). This is in accordance with our dating of Christopher Jnr.'s original transcript in this volume. Also, it allows us to put a late date (after 1740) on the passage that follows (also omitted in the A.S. volume & displaced in the R.S. volume), containing Christopher Jnr.'s report that Wren had complained of Oldenburg's unfairness to him (but see also Parentalia, p. 199). Another example is that the R.S. volume has Christopher Jnr.'s copy of part of the letter from Flamsteed to Wren, 19 November 1702, at f. 280 (as in Parentalia, pp. 247–8), followed by the original at ff. 281–2 (as in Parentalia, pp. 252–3). This shows us the origin of the repetition in Parentalia. The second version is omitted in the A.S. volume. In addition, the original letter from Flamsteed to Wren on Cassini, which accompanied this letter, occurs (with diagrams) at ff. 506–9, 512 (as in Parentalia, pp. 248–52). Again, the letter from Matthew Wren to Wren (omitted in the A.S. volume) occurs at f. 286 in a hand other than Christopher Jnr.'s. However, the alterations and notes, which have been made to accommodate this letter, show that the addition was made by him. Some smaller examples are worth noting. Where Parentalia, p. 215, has ‘Three Years after he had brought this Invention to Maturity…’, the A.S. volume has ‘Some years after…’ (it also omits the marginal reference to Wilkins). The R.S. volume has ‘Some’ crossed out and replaced by ‘Three’. Also, in entry XXIX of the catalogue of Wren's works, the A.S. volume (p. 390) follows the R.S. volume (f. 275v), where both differ from Parentalia, p. 241. There are a number of small examples of this kind, but for a more interesting one, see notes 48, 49, 52. These examples indicate that the A.S. volume has indeed been copied from the R.S. volume. In addition, we can see that Christopher Jnr. had already done some editing on his transcript before the copy was made (compare, e.g., R.S. volume ff. 272v & 270 with A.S. volume pp. 381–2).
- Ward , J. 1740 . Lives of the Professors of Gresham College 102 – 102 . London Note that this is the origin of an error by J. Lindsey, who says that Wren's letter from Paris was addressed to Bateman. Cf. J. Lindsey, Wren: his Work and Times, London, 1951, p. 82.
- Ward , J. 1740 . Lives of the Professors of Gresham College 96 – 96 . London See Parentalia, p. 182. Alternatively, this may have been a ‘correction’ to Ward's transcript by Christopher Jnr. (see below). Either way, the source is the same.
- On p. 103, in connection with Wren's plan for rebuilding London, he says that ‘…in the year 1724 it was ingraven by H. Hulsbergh from the author's own draught, at the expense of his son Christopher Wron esquire, but never published’. This is not the engraving of the plan in Parentalia, but the early date confirms the period of Christopher Jnr.'s main activity. Ward also mentions a cataloguo of Wren's buildings ‘…placed in circles on one side of a pyramide … ingraven by H. Hulsbergh, tho not published, some years since’ (p. 105). This was included in Parentalia, opposite p. 308. Apparently Ward was not very impressed by what Hodgson had shown him, since he says (p. 105): ‘Several of which [Wren's buildings] have been already ingraven for that purpose; tho with less art and care than they deserve, for want of proper artists in designs of architecture’ (‘that purpose’ was Parentalia). For independent evidence of Hodgson's connection with Ward's work, see Lives of the Professors of Gresham College Ward London 1740 104 104 105. From his request, ‘Pray what do you make of the Longitude’, it seems that Christopher Jnr. also enclosed some of Wren's papers on the subject with his letter to Hodgson, and this seems to be the source of Ward's description on p. 109, where he says they are with Christopher Jnr.
- If we examine the letter from Christopher Jnr. to Ward, 24 January 1739/40, ibid., f. 217, in which Christopher Jnr. numbers and answers specific questions of Ward's, we can see that his answers appear in the Lives as follows: 1, p. 96; 2, p. 103 (here Christopher Jnr. says that he does not-know the exact time when Wren was knighted, but Ward follows his estimate of 1674—in fact it is incorrect, see ‘Brief Lives’, chiefly of contemporaries, set down by J. Aubrey … Clark A. Oxford 1898 ii 312 312 3, p. 103 (Christopher Jnr. does not know the dates of Wren's marriages, so Ward is appropriately vague); 4, p. 107; 5, p. 100, note a (Christopher Jnr. gives a reference to Sprat's Observations on Sobrière, 1708, saying that he does not have the 1665 edition: Ward, while saying that the book was published in 1665, copies the reference directly); 6, p. 110; 7 (Christopher Jnr. declines to answer this point); 8, pp. 103, 110; 9 (included under 8); 10, p. 110; 11 (no specific point); 12, pp. 110–111. Information from the letter, Christopher Jnr. to Ward, 14 February 1739/40, B.M. MS. Add. 6209, f. 207, on Wren's report on Westminster Abbey, appears on p. 109 (‘…the discourse itself is in the hands of Christopher Wren esquire’.) Compare also Christopher Jnr. to Ward, 27 October 1740, ibid., f. 211, with the Lives, Appendix, p. 30, line 40, and under ‘Corrections in the Appendix’, Appendix, p. 142. In addition, we can note that at p. 100, note a, Ward says of Wren's lunar globe, that it had been in the King's cabinet and that ‘Both the globe itself, and the letter signifying the king's pleasure for making it, are now in the possession of his son, Christopher Wren esquire’. The letter in question was printed in Parentalia, pp. 210–211, and the account agrees with B.M. MS. Add. 25,071, f. 97v, where Christopher Jnr. says of the globe: ‘…after the King's decease, it was again procur'd of the Closet-keeper Mr. Chiffins, & is stile extant’. For other information from Christopher Jnr., see the Lives, p. 107, no. 2 (compare Parentalia, p. 197) and no. 3; see also note 33.
- B.M. MS. Add. 6209, f. 218. Christopher Jnr. reprinted Ward's catalogue in Parentalia 244 7 (see note 16) with the note: ‘This Catalogue in Mr. Professor Ward's Work, compared and adjusted with the Catalogues recounted before, may be deemed the most perfect that at present occur’.
- B.M. MS. Add. 6209, f. 218. Ward had already told him about some interesting annotations in a copy of Wotton's Elements of Architecture see Christopher Jnr. to Ward, 11. August 1740, B.M. MS. Add. 6209, f. 209. From Ward's description, Christopher Jnr. decided that the notes had been written by his grandfather, Dean Christopher Wren, and Ward included this information in the Lives under ‘Additions and Amendments’ (p. 337), taking expressions directly from Christopher Jnr.'s letter. In 1911, Sir Laurence Weaver (op. cit., pp. 577, 580, 582) announced his discovery of an annotated copy of Wotton's Elements, 1624, in the Library of Shirburn Castle, attributing the notes to Wren. However, if we compare the illustration given by Weaver with the annotations in a copy of Sir Thomas Browne's Pseudodoxia Epidemica, 1646, in the Bodleian Library (0.2.26 Art. Seld.), which certainly were written by Dean Wren, we must conclude that Christopher Jnr. was right and that the notes in Wotton's Elements were written by Dean Wren and not by Sir Christopher. (This confirms E.F. Sekler, Wren and his Place in European Architecture, London, 1956, p. 26, note). In fact, one of the notes quoted by Weaver had been printed by Ward and copied into Parentalia (see p. 142 and note 9 above) by Christopher Jnr. In both works it is attributed to Dean Wren. According to one of his notes to Pseudodoxia Epidemica (p. 140), the Dean actually knew Sir Henry Wotton.
- Passages from Wren's letter to Brouncker Parentalia 224 7 also occur at pp. 217, 208, 213, 209, 216. Compare also passages from pp. 213 and 221.
- For example, if we compare Wren's letter to (?) Wilkins as at Parentalia 215 6 with B.M. MS. Add. 25, 071, f.40, we find that at line 11 the word ‘Moreover’ in the printed version replaces about 12 lines in the MS.
- We can compare the letter, Wren to Brouncker, Parentalia, pp. 224–7, with a copy by Oldenburg, R.S. MS. EL. W.3 no. 3. Also, the originals of Flamsteed's letters to Wren Parentalia 248 52 252–3, 253–4, are at R.S. MS. 249, ff. 281–2, 506–9, 283–4. Compare also Wren's report on Old St. Paul's in Parentalia, pp. 274–7, with Wren Society, 13, 15–17, and his report on Salisbury cathedral in Parentalia, pp. 304–6, with Wren Society, 11, 21–26. To take an example from the account of Dean Wren, we can compare Parentalia, pp. 144–5, with the note at p. 100 in Browne's Pseudodoxia Epidemica, Bodleian Library, 0.2.26 Art. Seld. (see note 33).
- We need not give the relevant references here, since there are a great many such comparisons, and in general the extracts are acknowledged in Parentalia To take one bad example, Christopher Jnr. makes full use of Sprat's account of Wren's scientific work and, on the whole, he reproduces it accurately. However, on p. 213, he inserts an item (‘He contriv'd a peculiar Instrument to draw Perspective with.’) which is not in Sprat, and while he gives this entry a (correct) marginal reference to Grew, it appears within a quotation from Sprat. This is an example of the kind of irregular practice we must continually suspect.
- To take the worst example from this survey, we can consider the letter from Flam-steed to Wren, 1 (?2) July 1696, at Parentalia 253 4 R.S. MS. 249, ff. 282–4, has both a copy by Christopher Jnr. (as in Parentalia) and the original by Flamsteed. The copy shows one small rearrangement, some small mistakes, a few minor insertions (of county names) and considerable omissions. (One of these concerns some Royal Society infighting, so was probably removed with the best intentions.) This degree of interference is exceptional. The other letters from Flamsteed are accurately given.
- See Parentalia 221 221 213; 225 & 217; 225 & 208; 226 & 213; 226 & 209. For another example of this kind of practice, see note 73.
- See Wilson L.G. ‘William Croone's Theory of Muscular Contraction’ Notes & Records Roy. Soc. Lond. 1961 16 176 176 note 8.
- See Bibliotheca Scarburghiana; or, A catalogue of the incomparable library of Sir Charles Scarburgh … which will be sold by retail … 8 Feb. 1694/5 … London 1695 92 92
- See note 73. For an example of an independent corroboration of Parentalia 143 143 see E.F. Sekler, op. cit.
- Parentalia , 247 – 247 . See note 16.
- Ibid., f. 101. Note the reference by John Evelyn in his Numismata. A Discourse of Medals … London 1697 230 230
- Christopher Jnr. dated Wren's double-writing instrument to 1650, on the basis of a letter printed in Parentalia 215 216 However, his argument is based on the arbitrary assumption that this letter was written at the beginning of the Protectorate, whereas it may have been written up to three years after this. The earliest reference to Wren's double-writing instrument occurs in a letter by John Lydall, written in May 1651, where he mentions ‘some late inventions with us of some new engines’, see R. G. Frank, Jr., ‘John Aubrey, F.R.S., John Lydall, and science at Commonwealth Oxford,’ Notes & Records Roy. Soc. Lond., 1972–3, 27, 215. In May 1654, Hartlib wrote to Boyle about Petty's method, saying that ‘Those that know the way, which Mr. Wren doth use, say his art of double writing is not worth a rush; for it can never be readily practised’, T. Birch (ed.), The Life & Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, 2nd edn., London, 1772, vol. vi, p. 88. The letter reproduced above seems to have been written in the early stages of Wren's publication of his invention and, according to Wren's own account (Parentalia, pp. 215–6) this publication was brief and informal.
- Hesse , M.B. 1966 . Hooke's Philosophical Algebra . Isis , 57 : 67 – 83 .
- The date is not given in B.M. MS. Add. 25,071, but when he came to write the R.S. transcript, Christopher Jnr. inserted a quotation from the letter (see Parentalia 228 228 giving the date as 1656. This agrees with the content of the letter. Wren says that the observations of Saturn are carried out with glasses of up to 36 feet, but not yet of 50 feet, which would date the letter to before December 1657 (see the letter, Wren to Sir Paul Neile, 1 October 1661, in Ronan & Hartley, ‘Paul Neile, F.R.S. (1613–1686)’, Notes & Records Roy. Soc. Lond., 1960, 15, p. 163, in conjunction with A. Van Helden, ‘Christopher Wren's De Corpore Saturni’, Notes & Records Roy. Soc. Lond., 1968, 23, p. 221). Also, Huygens admitted that Wren and Neile had seen Saturn's moon as early as 1655 but, he said, ‘… sans reconnaître cependant qu'il s'agissait d'une planète avant d'en avoir été informés par nous’ (Œuvres Completes de Christiaan Huygens, The Hague, 1888–1950, vol. xv, p. 254), i.e. before the publication of De Saturni Luna, 1656. In fact, Wallis had read this book in Oxford by April, 1656 (see Huygens, Œuvres, vol. i, p. 401). In 1657, Boyle told Hartlib that he was experimenting with Wren on variation (see G. H. Turnbull, ‘Samuel Hartlib's Influence on the Early History of the Royal Society’, Notes & Records Roy. Soc. Lond., 1953, 10, p. 112) and in September 1655, Wren told Hartlib of his work on a survey of the moon, ‘which will be far more accurate than that of Hevelius’, and his ‘Exercit [atio] de Librationae Lunae far more accurate than that of Hevelius’ (ibid., p. 114). Also, Clarke dated Wren's injection experiments to 1656 (see A. R. & M. B. Hall, eds., The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, Madison, 1965-, vol. iv, pp. 350–69, and vol. ii, p. 338, note 1). In view of all this, we can be fairly certain that the letter was written in 1656 (old style). Once again it seems that the MS. did not record to whom the letter was addressed. We know that it was sent to Ireland and Parentalia, p. 228, addresses it to ‘a Person of Distinction in Ireland’. At B.M. MS. Add. 25,071, f. 92, Christopher Jnr. wrote: ‘Extract—of a Letter to—Mr. Boyle in Ireland’, but this is obviously wrong, since Boyle was in Oxford at the time. The marginal note at Parentalia, p. 228, ‘Probably Sir William Petty’, is a later addition to the R.S. volume, since it is not in the A.S. volume. None the less, it does seem to be the most likely possibility from the internal evidence of the letter (i.e., a former member of the Wadham group, now holding an important position in Ireland).
- Birch . 1772 . The Life & Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle , 2nd edn. Vol. vi , 139 – 139 . London
- B.M. MS. Add. 25,071, ff. 92–3. Part of another copy of this letter has been preserved at f. 45, running from ‘a Kingdom. From these encouragements …’ to ‘But the most considerable Experiment’. There are only minor differences between the copies. The word ‘Experiment’ in the final paragraph, is omitted at f. 93, but appears at f. 45 (see also Parentalia 228 228 While only a small extract from this letter was published in Parentalia, p. 228, Christopher Jnr. did make considerable use of it in biographical passages (see pp. 209, 210, 227). However, in a practice similar to something we have noted before in his work, while he copies out Wren's account accurately, he inserts ‘he’ (i.e. Wren) where Wren writes ‘we’ (i.e., the Wadham group). Mr. Wood was Robert Wood (? 1622–85) of Lincoln College.
Annals of Science
Volume 30, 1973 - Issue 2