“At a committee of the Schooles in Christ’s Hospitall, the 30th November, 1692, ... Mr. Treasurer acquainted the committee that he had two letters one from Sir Christo. Wren and the other from Esq. Pepys declaring their opinions concerning the introducing the art of drawing among the Boyes.” Wren’s letter, which Mr. Nathaniel Hawes read aloud to the Committee, is as follows: “Nov. 24th, 1692. “SIR, “... It was observed by somebody there present [at his house] that our English Artists are dull enough at invention but when once a foreigne patterne is sett they imitate soe well that commonly they exceed the Originall, I confess the observation is generally true, but this showes that our natives want not a Genius but education in that w^{ch} is the foundation of all Mechanick Arts, a practice in designing or drawing, to w^{ch} everybody in Italy, France and the Low Countries pretends more or less. I cannot imagine that next to good writing anything could be more usefully taught your children especially such as will naturally take to it, and many such you will find amongst your Numbers who will have a naturall genius to it, which it is a pity should be stifled.... It is not Painters, Sculptors, Gravers, only that will find an advantage in such Boyes, but many other Artificers too long to enumerate. Noe Art but will be mended and improved; by which not only your Charity of the House will be enlarged but the Nation advantaged.... “Your affectionate friend and humble servant, “CHR. WREN.” This is a strong plea for the teaching of drawing in schools, but there is, as always, the same practical comment. Draughtsmanship is of value as the foundation of the “mechanick arts,” but it comes next to “good writing.” CHAPTER XIII STUDENT AND SCHOLAR Before attempting some sketch of Wren’s position in the world of English Architecture, in which will be set down his own outlook on his art, mainly in his own words, it seems reasonable to describe his attitude towards the past and the views of others. The liveliness and modernity of his mind did not blind him to the lessons of antiquity, and his essays in the “restoration” of classical buildings show him to have been an earnest antiquary. Criticism of his conclusions must carry with it the remembrance that the _apparatus criticus_ was exceedingly limited in his day, when the book was everything. The spade had not yet revealed a superior authority and opened out a vast prospect of boundless antiquity and tradition.