From the Dictionnaire de l'Architecture Francaise, par M Viollet-le-Duc, t. ii p. 473.

GENT. MAG. VOL. CCVII.

3 L

careful and correct compared with others of his drawings, such as the rose windows of Chartres and Lausanne. The reason is evident; the former were drawn as studies for his own work at Cambray; indeed, he tells us in one place,—

"In the next page you see the elevations of the chapels of the Church of Rheims on the outside, from the beginning to the end just as they are. In the same manner will be those of Cambray if they are rightly made. The upper tablement (or entablature) must have merlons." (p. 217.)

whereas, in the latter, he drew the original with his own improvements; thus at Chartres he turns the inner circle slightly round, so as to get more light, while Lausanne is so altered as scarcely to be recognised.

Among other things, we find drawings of a clock-tower, evidently a small wooden construction like that in Beauvais Cathedral; the labyrinth of Chartres Cathedral; a stall, and two elaborately carved ends called poupées; some tile-pavements from Hungary; a hand-warmer similar to those used in the East at the present day; a monumental or wayside cross, and a lectern; this latter is triangular in plan, and was re-drawn in good perspective, with a little alteration, by the late M. Lassus in his designs for Lille Cathedral, but the effect was not very successful, even with all the help of good perspective and colour. After all, we might imagine it to be a vagary of Wilars, like his machine for perpetual motion; but as he tells us,

"Whosoever desires to make a lectern to read the Gospel from, will see here the best form which I construct. Three serpents rest on the ground, and upon them is fixed a plank in the form of a trefoil. On this rest three serpents in a different direction, with columns of the same height as those serpents, and above is a triangle. Over all you see how perfect is the form of the lectern, of which you have the portrait. In the middle of the three columns there must be a stem to carry the pummel upon which the eagle is placed."-(p. 45.)

we must believe that he was actually in the habit of making lecterns of this shape, and approved of them.

As to the practical geometry, it would be impossible to give an idea of it without the plates, and the same indeed may be said of his masonry. As Professor Willis remarks, Wilars had here no intention of shewing the whole system of his day, but simply to collect a number of expedients for his own future guidance. This part of the work has received the particular attention of the English editor, and the result is exactly what might be expected from his antecedents: the explanations which in the French edition are confused and very often wrong, become as clear as they can reasonably be expected to be; but it cannot be said, when the reader has got through them, that his knowledge of mechanics or geometry is at all increased. The real truth is, that the nineteenth century is as far superior to the thirteenth in mechanical contrivances, as the thirteenth century was to the nineteenth in architecture and the arts.

The architect will regret the small space devoted to carpentry, more especially as so very few examples remain of woodwork of the epoch when Wilars flourished, but it is by no means unlikely that the missing leaves would have satisfied us upon this point, more especially as he mentions des engiens de carpenterie in the introductory sentence: these, however, may perhaps refer to the machines, such as the saw-mill, the screw to raise weights, the wheel for perpetual motion, the cross-bow, and the trebuchet, (the latter the subject of an excellent essay by Mr. Willis) :—

"For the comparison of this engine with the more common form, three illustrations from manuscripts of the fourteenth century are added below. The principal agent of the trebuchet is the verge, a long straight lever, to which is fixed an axis at a point that divides the length into two unequal parts, or arms. The short arm of the verge

Trebuchet, from the MS. of the Romance of Alexander, Bodl. 260 A.D. 1338.

is accordingly thick and strong, and the long arm gradually tapered from the axis to the extremity.

"From the short arm is suspended a chest, or other receptacle, roughly constructed of boards, and, as Honecort tells us, filled with earth, or, of course, with stones, gravel, or sand, as most convenient. In the vignette from the Roman d'Alexandre it resembles a tub with hoops. In nearly all the drawings it is wider below than above, and its bottom curved, in order to accommodate its form to the swinging motion which it must have assumed, and which would have brought the corners of a square-sided chest awkwardly into contact with the frame or other parts of the engine. Its sides would be best made parallel, as they are usually shewn.

"The sling by which the discharge of the missile is effected consists of a long rope, to the middle of which is attached a kind of mat formed of ropes, interwoven with the main rope in such a manner that, when the latter is doubled in half, the mat shall constitute a bag capable of embracing and retaining the missile, as the drawing shews. But if the main rope be stretched straight the stone will be released. This sling is suspended by both ends from the long arm of the verge; its inner end is attached to a staple fixed near the extremity of the arm. Its outer end is furnished with a ring, which is merely slipped over a metallic spike that terminates the verge."-(pp. 197, 198.)

Trebuchet, from a German Miniature of the fourteenth century.

Among the machines we find the machinery for a heliotropic angel, the said angel evidently being intended for the roof of a cathedral. Also an eagle who turned his head to the deacon when the Gospel was read, a Tantalus cup, and a dark lantern.

Such are the contents of the Sketch-book of Wilars de Honecort, of whom, if he had not drawn it, we should never have heard. Of his condition in life and social status we know absolutely nothing; it has even been attempted to deny the fact of his being an architect, on account of the figures being better drawn than his architecture, the supporters of this theory forgetting the minute directions and details occasionally written or drawn to the architecture. On the contrary, we see none to the figures and animals; the reason was, as an architect he occasionally took details for his further information, but was satisfied with the figure as he drew it; probably he did not paint or sculpture himself, but was simply called on for the general grouping and arrangement of the sculpture; to do this he was obliged to draw tolerably well, and yet not so well as a regular painter, otherwise we should have seen studies of hands, feet, and features in the Sketch-book, which we do not see. Wilars, it is true, drew his architecture badly and out of perspective, but we all know how the actual architecture of the age is esteemed, and how preciously we preserve it. We for the first half of the nineteenth century have drawn and coloured most beautifully, but how about our architecture, and how much of it will be preserved by a future age, if it ever comes down to them.