Windows for the world: Nineteenth-century stained glass and the international exhibitions, 1851–1900 9781526114730

Citation preview

i

Windows for the world

ii

also available in the series The matter of art Materials, practices, cultural logics, c.1250–​1750 EDITED BY CHRISTY ANDERSON, ANNE DUNLOP AND PAMELA H. SMITH

European fashion The creation of a global industry EDITED BY REGINA LEE BLASZCZYK AND VÉRONIQUE POUILLARD

The culture of fashion A new history of fashionable dress CHRISTOPHER BREWARD

The factory in a garden A history of corporate landscapes from the industrial to the digital age HELENA CHANCE

‘The autobiography of a nation’ The 1951 Festival of Britain BECKY E. CONEKIN

The culture of craft Status and future EDITED BY PETER DORMER

Material relations Domestic interiors and the middle-​class family, 1850–​1910 JANE HAMLETT

Arts and Crafts objects IMOGEN HART

The material Renaissance MICHELLE O’MALLEY AND EVELYN WELCH

Bachelors of a different sort Queer aesthetics, material culture and the modern interior JOHN POTVIN

Crafting design in Italy From post-​war to postmodernism CATHARINE ROSSI

Chinoiserie Commerce and critical ornament in eighteenth-​century Britain STACEY SLOBODA

Material goods, moving hands Perceiving production in England, 1700–​1830 KATE SMITH

Hot metal Material culture and tangible labour JESSE ADAMS STEIN

Ideal homes, 1918–​39 Domestic design and suburban Modernism DEBORAH SUGG RYAN

The study of dress history LOU TAYLOR

general editor Christopher Breward and Bill Sherman founding editor Paul Greenhalgh

iii

Windows for the world Nineteenth-​century stained glass and the international exhibitions, 1851–​1900 Jasmine Allen

Manchester University Press

iv

Copyright © Jasmine Allen 2018 The right of Jasmine Allen to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk Supported by the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, the Marc Fitch Fund, and the Glaziers Trust.

British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN  978 1 5261 1472 3  hardback First published 2018 The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-​party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Typeset by Out of House Publishing

v

For Emma

vi

vii

Contents

List of plates Acknowledgements

page ix xiii

Introduction

1

1 Exhibiting stained glass: classification, organisation and status

19

2 A multitude of displays

44

3 Stylistic eclecticism in nineteenth-​century stained glass

83

4 Competition and exchange: exhibitors and their networks

127

5 Stained glass as propaganda

152

Conclusion: reappraising nineteenth-century stained glass Appendix Bibliography Index

184 189 218 244

viii

ix

Plates

1 Eugène Grasset (designer), Félix Gaudin (maker). Le Travail, par l’Industrie et le Commerce, enrichit l’Humanité, 1900. Stained glass window in the Chamber of Commerce, Paris, France. (Author’s photograph, 8 July 2016, reproduced with permission of the CCI Paris) 2 Joseph Nash. The Stained Glass Gallery, Great Exhibition, 1851, London, 1852. Chromolithograph published in Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851 (London: Dickinson Bros, 1854), vol. 2, plate XXIII. (Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Exeter) 3 W. M. Prior (illustrator), G. Measom (engraver). The Medieval Court, 1851, Great Exhibition, London. Engraving published in J. Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor (London: Cassell, 1851), plate V. (Author’s collection. Photograph: Steven Jugg) 4 Giuseppe Bertini and Pompeo Bertini. Il trionfo di Dante, c. 1851. Stained glass window, 700 × 290cm, Pinacoteca Ambrosiana (inv. 59), Milan, Italy. (© Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana –​Milano/​De Agostini Picture Library) 5 Joseph Nash. The Foreign Department, Viewed towards the Transept, 1851, Great Exhibition, London. Chromolithograph published in Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851, 2 vols (London: Dickinson Bros, 1854), vol. 1, plate XXVI. (Courtesy of Special Collections, University of Exeter) 6 ‘Grandes verrières de Maréchal de Metz, au Palais de l’Industrie: côté de l’est et côté de l’ouest’ (Large windows by Maréchal of Metz, at the Palais de l’Industrie: eastern end and western end). Engraving published in L’Illustration, 25 (19 May 1855), 317. (Bibliothèque nationale de France) 7 Hardman & Co. Life of Christ, c. 1862. Stained glass window, east window, Doncaster Minster, South Yorkshire. (Author’s photograph)

x

x

List of plates 8 ‘Opening of the International Exhibition: Entrance to the Western Annexe’, Illustrated London News, 10 May 1862, 491. (© Illustrated London News Ltd/​Mary Evans) 9 Edward Burne-​Jones (designer), Powell & Sons (maker). Tree of Jesse, 1861. Stained glass window in collection of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery (1977m1), Birmingham, West Midlands. (Photograph © Birmingham Museums Trust) 10 General plan of the palace and park at the 1867 Paris Exposition Universelle, Champ de Mars, Paris, France. (Bibliothèque nationale de France) 11 ‘The Grand Vestibule upon the Opening of Exposition Universelle, 1867, Champ de Mars, Paris’, Illustrated London News, 13 April 1867, 356–​7. (© Illustrated London News Ltd/​Mary Evans) 12 Interior of chapel designed by Charles Lévêque, and built by M. Brien, c. 1867, for the 1867 Paris Exposition Universelle. (© Thaliastock/​Mary Evans) 13 The reconstructed Tiffany Chapel, The Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art, Winter Park, Florida, USA. (© The Charles Hosmer Morse Foundation, Inc.) 14 Prosper Lafaye. Watercolour design for a window exhibited at the 1851 Great Exhibition, London, and 1855 Paris Exposition Universelle. (Private Collection. Rights reserved) 15 Giuseppe Bertini. Madonna and Child, c. 1861–​62. in J. B. Waring, Masterpieces of the industrial art and sculpture at the International Exhibition 1862 (London: Day & Son, 1863), vol. 1, plate 23. (© Getty Images) 16 Charles-​Laurent Maréchal. L’artiste, 1861. Stained glass window, 260 × 131cm, Musée de La Cour d’Or (inv. 11317), Metz, France. (© Jean Munin –​Musée de La Cour d’Or –​Metz Métropole) 17 Alfred Gérente. The Life of Samson, c. 1851. Stained glass window, south nave aisle (sXXII), Ely Cathedral, Ely, Cambridgeshire. (Author’s photograph) 18 Johann Stephan Kellner. Mystic Marriage of St Catherine of Alexandria, and The Virgin and Child, c. 1845. Stained glass panels, each approx. 51.4 × 32cm, Victoria and Albert Museum (2634-​1845 and 2635-​1845), London. (© Victoria and Albert Museum, London) 19 John. G. Howe. The Tower of Babel, c. 1851. Stained glass window, south nave aisle (sXXVI), Ely Cathedral, Ely, Cambridgeshire. (Author’s photograph) 20 Michael, Arthur & William Henry O’Connor & Sons. Moses Parting the Red Sea. Detail from Old Testament Scenes: Adam and Eve in the Garden, The Sacrifice of Isaac, Moses, c. 1862. Stained glass window, west window (wI), St Mary’s Church, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. (Author’s photograph) 21 John Everett Millais. Mariana, 1851. Oil paint on mahogany, support: 59.7 × 49.5 × 1.5cm, frame: 87.6 × 76.7 × 5.5cm, Tate Collection (T07553), London. (© Tate, London 2018)

xi

List of plates 22 Sebastian Evans (designer), Chance Bros (maker). Robin Hood’s Last Shot, c. 1862. Engraving of an untraced window illustrated by P. H. De la Motte and engraved by W. J. Palmer, published in Cassell’s illustrated exhibitor; containing about three hundred illustrations, with letter press descriptions of all the principal objects in the International exhibition of 1862 (London: Cassell, 1862), p. 196. (Author’s collection. Photograph: Steven Jugg) 23 John Milner Allen (designer), Lavers & Barraud (maker). The Idylls of the King: Geraint and Enid; Merlin and Vivien; Lancelot and Elaine; Arthur and Guinevere, c. 1862. Stained glass windows, Northampton Town Hall, Northamptonshire. (Author’s photograph) 24 Francis Wollaston Moody (designer), Powell & Sons (maker). The Union of Art and Science, c. 1866. Stained glass window, Victoria and Albert Museum (Ncol.7-​2012, Ncol.8-​2012, and Ncol.9-​2012), London. (© Victoria and Albert Museum, London) 25 Selwyn Image (designer), Powell & Sons (maker). Aestas (Summer), c. 1878. Stained glass window for the Prince of Wales Pavilion, 1878 Exposition Universelle, Paris. Engraving published in ‘English Decorative Art in Paris No. 2’, British Architect and Northern Engineer (5 July 1878), 6. (© National Art Library, London) 26 John La Farge. The Angel Sealing the Servants of God (The Watson Window), 1889. Stained glass window, memorial chapel, Trinity Episcopalian Church, Buffalo, New York, USA. (Photograph: Virginia Raguin/​James Yarnall) 27 Tiffany & Co. Parakeets and Goldfish Bowl, c. 1889. Stained glass window, 195.58 × 97.79cm, in frame with moulding: 202.565 × 111.76 × 5.715cm, Museum of Fine Arts (inv. 2008.1415), Boston, Massachusetts, USA. (Photograph © 2018 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) 28 Georges de Feure (designer), Hans Müller Hickler (maker). Stained Glass Window, c. 1901, 200.03 × 90.96cm, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (inv. 85.349), Richmond, Virginia, USA. (© Virginia Museum of Fine Arts) 29 John Hardman Powell (designer), Hardman & Co. (maker). The Anointing of Christ’s Feet, c. 1876. Stained glass window, St Mary the Virgin’s Church, St Neots, Cambridgeshire. (Author’s photograph) 30 John Milner Allen (designer), Lavers & Barraud (maker). Scene from the Life of St Peter, west window (wI), St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Lavenham, Suffolk. Engraving published in Cassell’s illustrated exhibitor (London: Cassell, 1862), p. 120. (Author’s collection. Photograph: Steven Jugg) and the same section of the completed window today, following adaptation in the 20th century (Author’s photograph) 31 Ballantine & Son. The Crucifixion, c. 1862, east window, Holy Trinity Church, Prestolee, Lancashire. Engraving published in ‘The International Exhibition, 1862’, Illustrated London News (19 October 1862), 452. (© Illustrated London News Ltd/​Mary Evans)

xi

xii

xii

List of plates 32 ‘Church Furniture: Messrs Cox & Sons’, 1862 International Exhibition, London. Engraving published in Cassell’s illustrated exhibitor (London: Cassell, 1862), p. 52. (Author’s collection. Photograph: Steven Jugg) 33 John Thomas (designer), Ballantine & Allan (maker). Hail Happy Union, 1854–​55. Stained glass window, Council Chamber, Lowestoft Town Hall, Suffolk. Exhibited at the Exposition Universelle, 1855, Paris. (Author’s photograph) 34 Michael & Arthur O’Connor. Detail of stained glass memorial window to officers and men from the 62nd Wiltshire Regiment who died in the Sutlej campaign (1845–​46), c. 1851, south-​east transept, Salisbury Cathedral, Wiltshire. (Photograph: Chris Parkinson) 35 Tiroler Glasmalerei. Stained glass window commemorating the centenary of the colony of Victoria, c. 1888, Old Council Chamber, Melbourne Town Hall, Victoria, Australia. (Author’s photograph) 36 Jean-​Baptiste Capronnier. Adoration of the Magi, 1862. Stained glass window, west window (wI), Howden Minster, East Riding of Yorkshire. (Author’s photograph) 37 William Bullock. Portrait of a Canadian Indian, c. 1862, exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition, London. Engraving published in The Art Journal illustrated catalogue of the International Exhibition, 1862 (London; New York: James S. Virtue, 1862), p. 226. (Author’s collection) 38 Ann Weston (née Van Derlip) (designer), Tiffany & Co. (maker). Minne-​ha-​ha, c. 1893. Stained glass window, Duluth Depot, Minnesota, USA. (Photograph: Daniel Hartman) 39 Lyon, Cottier and Wells. Detail of Te Deum Laudamus, 1888. Stained glass window, east window (I), All Saints’ Church, Hunters Hill, Sydney, Australia. The window was exhibited at the 1888–​89 Melbourne Centennial Exhibition. (Photograph: John Diesendorf) 40 Kehinde Wiley. Madonna and Child, 2016. Stained glass in aluminium frame, 249 × 117cm. (© Kehinde Wiley Studio. Courtesy of the artist and Galerie Templon, Paris and Brussels)

xiii

Acknowledgements

This book is the accumulation of almost ten years’ interest in nineteenth-​ century stained glass, which began during a visit to a handful of churches in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Since those first inquisitive visits, my journeys to see stained glass windows of this period have taken me across four continents to churches, synagogues, houses, shopping centres, schools, monasteries, libraries, public houses, hotels, universities, museums, town halls, and railway stations. Along the way I have encountered a number of people who have aided my study and appreciation of this extraordinary medium, by providing access to buildings, museum collections and archives, and sharing their knowledge and ideas. In different ways they have all contributed to this project. Much of the research presented in this book, carried out in Britain, France, the USA, and Australia, was funded by the AHRC, to whom I am very grateful. The publication of this book would not have been possible without financial support in the form of a publication grant from the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art and grants from the Marc Fitch Fund and The Glaziers Trust. I am very grateful to all three organisations. I would also like to acknowledge my thanks to the commissioning and publishing editors at Manchester University Press for guiding me through the production process. On a more personal note I  am deeply indebted to both Tim Ayers and Jason Edwards for their encouragement, guidance, and support of this project from its initial inception to fruition. I would also like to express my thanks to trustees and colleagues at The Stained Glass Museum for being supportive of my endeavours to complete this book, and for granting me study leave in order to complete the final manuscript. Several individuals have kindly read sections of this book at various stages in the drafting and revising of the text. I would like to thank especially Marie Groll for her patient and thorough reading of a full draft of the manuscript during the latter stages. At earlier stages in the research and writing process, comments from Isobel Armstrong, Tim Ayers, Sarah Brown, Jason Edwards, Claire Jones, and Liz Prettejohn, each of whom brought their own unique insight and knowledge to their reading of this work, were invaluable in refining my ideas and helping to frame them within a wider art-​historical (and literary)

xiv

newgenprepdf

xiv

Acknowledgements context. I would also like to thank Kate Nichols and Sadiah Qureshi for their close reading of additional sections of the manuscript. In addition to those mentioned above, the ideas presented in this book have benefited from fruitful conversations with a number of colleagues across the world, including, Wojciech Balus, Clare Barry, Yvette Vanden Bemden, Jim Cheshire, Peter Cormack, Martin Crampin, Anna Eavis, Charlene Garfinkle, Françoise Gatouillat, Charlotte Gere, Nicola Gordon-​Bowe, Paul Greenhalgh, Martin Harrison, Bronwyn Hughes, Jean-​ François Luneau, Sarah Monks, David O’Connor, Elisabeth Pillet, Virginia Raguin, Laura Roscam Abbing, Beverley Sherry, Ellen Shortell, Sarah Victoria Turner, Elgin Vaasen, and Gabriel Williams. I  would also like to acknowledge Dennis Hadley and Neil Moat, neither of whom lived to see the completion of this book, although both made an invaluable contribution to the field of post-​medieval stained glass in their lifetime, and whose time and knowledge I greatly benefited from. Many others have assisted with providing information, and I  would like to note especially Rolf Achilles (former Curator of the Smith Museum of Stained Glass, Chicago), Monika Adamczak, Adrian Barlow, Tony Benyon, Terry Bloxham and Sherrie Eatman (Victoria and Albert Museum, London), Ray Brown, Ken Buehler (Duluth Depot), Denis Dang (CCI Paris), Lavinia Galli (Poldi Pezzoli Museum, Milan), Federica Guth, the late Betty MacDowell, Susan Mathews, Ian Millman, Aletta Rambaut, Barry Shifman (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts), Charlotte Smith (Museums Victoria, Melbourne), Veronica Smith, Caroline Swash, and Alessandra Uncini (Vatican Museums). In addition, there are a number of institutions and libraries I would like to thank, especially staff at the University of York and King’s Manor Libraries, York; Cambridge University Library; National Art Library, London; York Minster Library, York; staff in the British Library reading rooms in London and Boston Spa; the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; Bibliothèque des Arts Décoratifs, Paris; New  York Public Library, New York; and State Library Victoria, Melbourne. Thank you also to John Diesendorf, Daniel Hartman, Steven Jugg, Chris Parkinson, Virginia and Michel Raguin, and Kehinde Wiley for kindly granting me permission to use their photographs in this publication. Finally, thank you to my friends and family, who contributed without realising to this publication, by permitting detours and excursions to see ‘a window here’ and ‘a window there’. I extend my thanks to them all for their assistance with navigation, cameras and binoculars, as well as providing both sustenance and good company.

1

Introduction

The term ‘revival’ has become synonymous with nineteenth-​ century stained glass. A combination of the social, religious, technological, artistic, and industrial conditions of this era created an environment in which the art of stained glass flourished, in Britain and beyond. At the beginning of the century there was little demand for stained glass windows and few trained artists working in the medium, but by 1851, the year of the Great Exhibition, the industry was reinvigorated, and fast expanding beyond Europe to countries without a medieval tradition of stained glass manufacture in North America and Australasia. Nineteenth-​century imperialism provided a further vehicle for the expansion of the stained glass industry, distributing windows far beyond these continents to Asia, Africa, and South America.1 Yet in spite of the widespread presence and growing appeal of stained glass across the globe in this period, the vast majority of scholarship on nineteenth-​century stained glass remains confined within national boundaries. This book broadens such approaches by taking an international and interdisciplinary approach to the study of nineteenth-​century stained glass in the cosmopolitan contexts of the international exhibitions, expositions universelles, Weltausstellungen, or world’s fairs, as they are also known. At these vast ephemeral events, international displays of stained glass formed part of the numerous artistic and industrial commodities exhibited on a grand scale to the public, outside of traditional ecclesiastical settings and contexts, and in a predominantly secular environment. Since the transformation of stained glass in the nineteenth century coincided with the development of international exhibitions, these events provide an opportunity to explore the growing significance of stained glass in this era, its expansive production, changing status, and varied use, within a unique set of cultural parameters and social environments.

2

2

Windows for the world

The stained glass ‘revival’ After the destruction of much medieval glazing and the prohibition of religious images during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the manufacture of stained glass in Britain quickly waned. Although a few practitioners continued the production of stained glass in the seventeenth century, the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642 halted developments and brought further desecration to religious buildings, many of which contained stained glass. It wasn’t until the late eighteenth century that the medium began to be significantly revived, aided by the Romantic Movement and the renewed enjoyment of ancient ruins and artefacts. As Rosemary Sweet has noted, antiquaries started to appreciate the beauty of stained glass for its ambient qualities, and as an archaeological artefact: By the end of the century … a taste for painted glass for its aesthetic qualities –​ the air of gloom and mystery with which it endowed a church interior –​as well as the craftsmanship involved in its decoration, ensured that it was becoming much more highly prized amongst antiquaries.2

During the nineteenth century, the stained glass industry expanded at an unprecedented rate.3 Economic circumstances favoured a revival and led to several technological developments in glass manufacture.4 In 1826, Georges Bontemps (1801–​82), owner of a glassworks at Choisy-​le-​Roi, near Paris, successfully reproduced flashed ruby glass after a medieval recipe.5 The manufacture of cylinder-​blown sheet (or plate) glass, first introduced to Britain in 1832 by Chance Brothers Ltd at Smethwick, West Midlands, expanded the utility of glass as a construction material, and brought British glass production in line with continental methods.6 The repeal of glass tax in 1845 made glass more affordable, whilst the abolition of window tax in 1851 increased demand for domestic window glass.7 The Crystal Palace, a cast-​iron and plate-​glass construction erected in London for the Great Exhibition of 1851, was itself a product of these industrial and economic changes, exemplary of modern engineering and glass architecture.8 Arguably, the most influential factor in the increased interest and demand for stained glass around this time was the revived taste for ‘gothic’ architecture. In Britain, the publications of architect Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812–​52), Contrasts (1836) and True principles (1841), advocated a ‘pointed’ or ‘gothic’ style. Gothic architecture was further promoted as the most appropriate style for ecclesiastical buildings by groups such as the Oxford Tractarians, who sought to reconcile the Church of England’s thirty-​nine articles of faith with the doctrines of the Catholic Church through a series of publications entitled Tracts for the times (1833–​ 41). The publications of the Cambridge Camden Society, founded in 1839 (and known as the Ecclesiological Society from 1845), also encouraged architectural and liturgical reform within the Anglican Church based on

3

Introduction

the religious splendour of the Middle Ages.9 During this period hundreds of churches were built and restored across Britain, many of which were fitted with stained glass windows.10 Interest in medieval art and culture provided both the impetus and traction for the revival of stained glass in the first half of the nineteenth century, across Britain and Europe. The restoration of medieval monuments enabled stylistic and scientific analysis of surviving medieval glass, and increased both glass-​painters’ and glaziers’ understanding of medieval iconography and glazing techniques.11 Renewed appreciation of medieval stained glass, and the skilled craftsmanship involved in its production, led to several historical studies and practical experiments to improve modern glass. The investigations into the chemical composition of medieval glass instigated by barrister and stained glass historian Charles Winston (1814–​64), but carried out by a chemist identified only as ‘Dr Medlock’ in collaboration with Edward Green (dates unknown) of James Powell & Sons, helped glassworks such as Powell & Sons of Whitefriars, London (glassworks established 1720, purchased by James Powell in 1834) and James Hartley & Co. of Sunderland (established 1836) to produce better-​quality sheets of coloured glass. Winston’s resultant publication, An inquiry into the difference of style observable in ancient glass-​paintings (1847), marked a turning point in modern understanding of the composition and evolving style of medieval glass. Several contemporary stained glass artists penned treatises on stained glass, in order to further promote and raise the status of their art. A Treatise on Painted Glass (1845) by Edinburgh-​based artist James Ballantine (1807/​ 8–​77) demonstrated the suitability of ornamental and decorative stained glass for various architectural styles. A few years later William Warrington (1796–​1869) published The history of stained glass from the earliest period of the art to the present time (1848), illustrated entirely by chromolithographs of his own designs in the medieval style rather than genuine historical examples, an act for which he was rebuked in a review published in The Ecclesiologist, journal of the Cambridge Camden Society.12 In 1855, shortly after setting up his own stained glass studio, established painter and stained glass designer Francis Wilson Oliphant (1818–​59) produced a pamphlet entitled A plea for painted glass (1855), which sought to demonstrate the capabilities of this art form.13 On the continent, the French Revolutionary (1792–​ 1802) and Napoleonic Wars (1803–​15) had also brought about the destruction or removal of much historical stained glass. However, in the first part of the nineteenth century royal glass-​painting manufactories were set up in 1827 at Sèvres, France,14 and Munich, kingdom of Bavaria,15 and these were very influential in reviving the art of stained glass and raising its profile across Europe. Following the establishment of the Commission des monuments historiques in 1837, the restoration of medieval monuments

3

4

4

Windows for the world

in France under King Louis-​Philippe (r.1830–​48) saw the repair of many important glazing schemes.16 In 1843 Theophilus’ medieval treatise De diversis artibus, a quasi-​practical craft manual, was translated into French by historian and bibliophile Count Charles de l’Escalopier (1811–​61), enabling glaziers to rediscover medieval glazing practices. Treatises such as Bontemps’ Peinture sur verre au XIXe siècle: les secrets de cet art sont-​ils retrouvés? (1845) and Quelques mots sur la théorie de la peinture sur verre (1852) by Ferdinand Charles de Lasteyrie (1810–​79) celebrated recent discoveries and hinted at future possibilities for stained glass. In Bavaria, King Ludwig I (r. 1825–​48) actively promoted the art by commissioning a scheme of windows for the Mariahilfkirche (Church of Our Lady of Help), in Au, Munich, executed 1834–​43. Folio publications made these windows available to a wide audience, and in 1845 Bontemps declared: ‘no other windows in our time have been so well executed by more skilful hands’.17 A few decades later, in Belgium, Edmond Lévy’s Historie de la peinture sur verre en Europe et particulièrement en Belgique (1860) drew attention to historical stained glass in Belgium, with the aid of colour plates by leading nineteenth-​ century Belgian glass-​ painter Jean-​ Baptiste Capronnier (1814–​91). The rapid expansion of the stained glass industry across Europe in the mid-​nineteenth century, accelerated by the gothic revival, has led to the characterisation and dismissal of much nineteenth-​century stained glass as ‘industrialised’ and ‘mass-​produced’. In twentieth-​century Britain such criticisms were particularly rife.18 As Anglican clergyman Christopher Woodforde (1907–​62) noted in 1954, ‘it is customary to call all nineteenth-​ century stained glass “Victorian” and to dismiss it as unworthy of serious consideration’.19 In 1974, English architectural historian Alec Clifton-​ Taylor (1907–​85) advocated the removal of ‘bad Victorian glass’, on the principle that ‘the general standard of these windows is frankly appalling’.20 Interestingly, the same year saw the publication of Charles Sewter’s major work The stained glass of William Morris and his circle in two volumes (1974), which hailed the work of Morris & Co. as the finest productions of the period. It was only after the publication of Martin Harrison’s Victorian stained glass (1980) that the large quantity of stained glass windows produced by a number of artists in Britain during this era began to be properly reappraised. This reassessment was paralleled in France in the 1980s, when nineteenth-​century French stained glass also began to be re-​ examined.21 Since then, several biographies and gazetteers published on both sides of the Channel have contributed to our knowledge of artists and studios through chronological and geographical surveys.22 Since the productions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries fall outside the official remit of the international Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi (CVMA) committees, post-​medieval stained glass has not received the same level of academic attention or detailed cataloguing as its medieval

5

Introduction

counterparts. However, several national and regional catalogues of nineteenth-​century stained glass have been published across Western Europe. An exhibition catalogue published to coincide with a 1993–94 exhibition in Erfurt, along with  Elgin Vaasen’s Bilder auf glas (1997) provided the first accounts of nineteenth-​century stained glass in Germany,23 and several small volumes on nineteenth-​century stained glass in churches in the German Federal states have since appeared.24 The field of nineteenth-​century stained glass studies is today growing worldwide, with research documenting windows beyond the European countries of Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Poland,25 to countries in North America, South America, Australasia, and parts of South-​East Asia. Recent studies in the English language have focused on the influence of a particular style or cultural movement on the development of stained glass. Jim Cheshire’s Stained glass and the Victorian Gothic revival (2004) explored the stained glass revival in relation to ecclesiology, economics, and patronage, although case studies were limited to little-​known regional studios in South-​West England. In Angels & icons: Pre-​Raphaelite stained glass 1850–​1870 (2012) William Waters reassessed the work of five influential London-​based stained glass firms –​Clayton & Bell; Heaton, Butler & Bayne; Lavers, Barraud & Westlake; Powells; and Morris & Co. (all of whom exhibited stained glass at international exhibitions)  –​in relation to wider developments in British art, notably Pre-​ Raphaelitism, which flourished from 1850 to 1870. Waters’ follow-​up to this, Damozels & deities: Edward Burne-​Jones, Henry Holiday and Pre-​Raphaelite stained glass, 1870–​1898 (2017) continued his stylistic reassessment into the latter part of the century.26 Arts & crafts stained glass (2015) by Peter Cormack has provided the first in-​depth study of the Arts and Crafts Movement, 1880–​ 1930, focusing on several influential British and American stained glass artists, their renewed approach to materials and techniques, influence, and artistic training. These publications have furthered our understanding of nineteenth-​and early-​twentieth-​century stained glass within wider artistic contexts, but do not grapple with the fact that, in this era, as we shall see, stained glass straddled the often-​polarised spheres of art and industry. In the nineteenth century these concepts were closely linked, and nowhere was this more evident than at the international exhibitions. The international exhibitions created new opportunities for stained glass artists and firms to showcase, advertise and disseminate designs and completed windows, and to compare their work with competitors from across the world. In turn, these displays enabled visitors to encounter the medium in new ways and different environments. As Cheshire has recognised, ‘stained glass had never been exhibited on this scale or in this type of situation before’.27 The international exhibitions were beyond the Church’s control, and international in scope. It is unsurprising, then, that these events became forums for the critical discussion and evaluation of

5

6

6

Windows for the world

stained glass by professional and amateur art critics, fostering debates over the medium’s artistic status, stylistic development, and modern application.28 Giles Waterfield has demonstrated how the international exhibitions influenced the development of British art museums more generally.29 Both types of venue played a key role in the public display and appreciation of art in the nineteenth century through their purpose-​built buildings, collections and displays, and the evolution of both the art museum and international exhibition was closely associated with nineteenth-​century ideas and ideals of municipality and governance, education, and recreation for the masses. International exhibitions have only recently stirred the interest of stained glass historians, despite the fact that their influence on the development of stained glass was widely acknowledged in the nineteenth century.30 For example, Charles Winston referred to various stained glass windows exhibited at the London exhibitions of 1851 and 1862 in his Memoirs illustrative of the art of glass-​painting (1865).31 French painter and glassmaker Léon Auguste (known as Louis) Ottin (b. 1836)  drew attention to the important roles that the 1878 and 1889 exhibitions played in the rapid development of French stained glass in Le vitrail (1896). In his history of Glass-​making in England (1923), Harry J.  Powell (1853–​1922) included a list of stained-​and painted-​glass exhibits contributed by British glassmakers Powell & Sons to the London exhibitions of 1851 and 1862, and highlighted the significance of these events in developing the firm’s international reputation.32 All the major publications on nineteenth-​century stained glass since have mentioned the significance of the international exhibitions on the development of the medium, but none have explored these events in detail. Harrison described the Great Exhibition of 1851 as ‘the major event which reflected the progress made in the early stages of the stained glass revival’, and many of the windows discussed and illustrated in Victorian stained glass were displayed at international exhibitions in London and Paris.33 Sarah Brown has also acknowledged that the ‘transformation of stained glass production in the first half of the nineteenth century can be gauged from the Great Exhibition of 1851’.34 Waters highlighted the importance of the London and Paris international exhibitions in attracting potential clients and showcasing developments in British stained glass.35 Across the channel, scholars have made more definite progress in proclaiming the significance of these events for the history of stained glass, especially by acknowledging the importance of the expositions universelles on the development of secular glass in France.36 Although this is the first sustained study on stained glass in the international context of these exhibitions, publications by Jane Spillman, Charlotte Gere, and Jonathan Meyer have demonstrated the art-​historical, cultural, and social value of studying other decorative arts within these

7

Introduction

contexts.37 Gere’s study of the decorative arts in a single museum collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, demonstrated the wealth of international exhibition exhibits in museum collections, indicating the influence of these events on the formation of museums and their collections. Spillman’s study of glass exhibits at international exhibitions between 1851 and 1904 included a small section on stained glass, although only windows exhibited by two New York studios are mentioned, giving an unrepresentative account of the stained glass exhibited at these events, which predominantly came from European makers.38 Given that accounts of the history, iconography, and stylistic development of nineteenth-​century stained glass have, to date, almost exclusively focused on studies of stained glass within national and predominantly ecclesiastical contexts, this book explores new perspectives and implications for the study of nineteenth-​century stained glass in an international context.39 I will argue that the international exhibitions helped influence the stylistic development of nineteenth-​century stained glass, provided an impetus for material and technical innovations, as well as generating new iconographic and symbolic expressions, and that, in turn, the presence of stained glass changed perceptions of the exhibition environments. The historiography of nineteenth-​century stained glass perpetuates a chronological trajectory of stylistic development, but such an approach tends to oversimplify a complex stylistic narrative, and does not address national and regional variations. This book seeks to demonstrate that, while such trends exist, the stained glass windows produced in this period were eclectic in style and technique, and varied in subject matter and meaning. In the nineteenth century the art of stained glass had a strong presence in multiple and diverse contexts, both religious and secular, and it was therefore seen, consumed, and interpreted by a wide range of social groups. To take one example, inside the Assembly Chamber of the Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry is a large, richly coloured stained glass window entitled Le Travail, par l’Industrie et le Commerce, enrichit l’Humanité (Work with Industry and Commerce enriches Humanity) (Plate 1).40 Designed by Franco-​Swiss decorative artist Eugène Grasset (1845–​ 1917) and made in the Paris workshop of Félix Gaudin (1851–​1930), the window celebrates the enormous advances made in technology, transportation, and communication in the nineteenth century.41 It was commissioned to commemorate the 1900 Exposition Universelle, where it was displayed for the six-​month duration of the exhibition in the temporary pavilion of the Chamber of Commerce on the Champ de Mars. A day after the exhibition closed, the window was installed in its permanent home in the new Assembly Chamber, created during the extension of the building in 1891.42 Measuring over 5m high and 3.5m wide,43 the round-​arched window is a prodigious celebration of nineteenth-​century industrial and imperial progress. These themes were especially pertinent to the city of

7

8

8

Windows for the world

Paris during its staging of the 1900 Exposition Universelle, one of the largest and most well attended of international exhibitions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.44 Three large figures, representing Work, Industry and Commerce, form the main focus of the composition. Behind this group is a modern industrial landscape with cranes, steam locomotives, railway lines, barges, warehouses, and factories. ‘Work’, a muscular male figure with thick black hair, is depicted as a blacksmith standing at his anvil, with a hammer in his right hand. To his right is ‘Industry’, a standing female figure wearing a blue dress with lace trim and a lace headdress adorned with mechanical cogs. Her long shawl blows around her body as if caught by a sudden gust of wind, lending a vitality and energy to her appearance. She rests one hand on a large cog connected to a pulley mechanism, while the other presents an incandescent glass globe, representing electricity, to ‘Commerce’. The female figure representing ‘Commerce’ is seated in a golden chair and dressed in gold, with pearls in her hair. In her right hand she holds a book and in her left, a caduceus, the short staff entwined by two serpents carried by Hermes (the Greek god of commerce). Several books, along with various letters, telegrams, and parcels, are piled at her feet, reminding us of the importance of communication and exchange in the world of commerce. In the border are several smaller allegorical figures with long red hair and classical drapery, each identified by painted inscriptions and set against decorative foliate backgrounds representing natural products (grains, plants, and fruit). Six of these figures, three on either side, represent a contemporary technological development or advancement in communication or transportation. For example, in the top left-​hand corner of the window, against a background of wheat sheaves (grain), olive branches, and cannabis leaves, the invention of electric lighting is illustrated by a figure holding a light bulb. This is matched on the right by a figure celebrating the invention of gas lighting, shown against a backdrop of cotton plants and medicinal herbs. Two more figures below represent developments in communication:  on the left the telegraph, with coffee beans in the background; and on the right the telephone, against a backdrop of tea leaves. Below these are two more figures illustrating modern transportation networks; the railway on the left, against a background of sugar beet; and navigation on the right, shown advancing with a rudder and ship wheel, amongst cocoa pods. The ‘fruits of empire’ –​grains, oils, cotton, hemp and other medicinal herbs, along with tea and coffee, exotic fruits, sugar, and cocoa –​are here presented decoratively, the repeating patterns both symbolic and suggestive of abundance. Grasset’s design interweaves these natural products, associated with consumption, with figures representing imperial ambition and recent developments in industry, communication, and transportation

9

Introduction

networks, which enabled trade through the migration of labour, as well as the carriage and shipping of natural exotic produce, raw materials, artworks, and manufactures all over the world. This unique window articulates powerfully the combined forces of industrialism and imperialism, and their influence on work, industry, and trade, which had brought prosperity and wealth to powerful nations like France and Britain in the nineteenth century. Four more figures representing key characteristics of the French Empire –​Force, Riches, Independence, and Prosperity –​are shown seated or reclining along the bottom of the window. In the left-​hand corner, the semi-​naked primitive figure of ‘Force’ crouches amongst vines wearing a tiger-​skin hat, holding a wooden club in her right hand. ‘Riches’ and ‘Independence’ sit on either side of a globe. ‘Riches’ is adorned with jewellery and surrounded by oranges. She reclines, holding a crown in one hand while resting the other upon a basket of gold coins. Having thrown off her shackles, ‘Independence’ sits up; her sceptre pointing downwards and her foot resting on a jewelled crown, with fig trees in the background. In the right-​hand corner, the figure of ‘Prosperity’ sits amongst apple trees, with one hand holding a cornucopia, and the other on a wheel. The globe at the bottom of the window, which is turned to emphasise Africa, may have deliberately alluded to the expansion of the French colonial empire, initially in North Africa following the invasion of Algiers in 1830, and from the 1880s extending into vast areas of Western and Central Africa, as well as the island of Madagascar (annexed in 1896) off the east coast of Southern Africa. But imperial ambition did not come without cost. Is the figure of Force, with her outward stare and startled appearance, a reminder of the bloody battles fought and won, or is she another example of Western imperial propaganda  –​primitive and unyielding, ready to be ‘tamed’? Ambiguous, yet beguiling, this window demonstrates how the monumental art of stained glass contributed to visualisations of nineteenth-​ century industrial and imperial progress, marking the expansion of trade and empire. This is a theme that pervades this book. The window also demonstrates the reimagining and remoulding of a medieval art form for modern times. In its formal elements the window follows historical conventions in stained glass. The main figurative subjects are situated centrally, with smaller figures in the borders, arranged within ornamental backgrounds. Each figure is accompanied by attributes and identified by tituli. Yet in its design, materials, style, and subject matter, the window was regarded as eminently modern. Having seen the window displayed on the Champ de Mars, Parisian glass-​painter Léon Daumont-​ Tournel (dates unknown) remarked that ‘[l]‌’oeuvre est curieuse à ce titre, et aussi par son modernisme’ ([t]he work is curious for its title, and also for its modernism).45 The iconography is unique in its celebration of modern technology, and may well incorporate the first depiction of a telephone,

9

10

10

Windows for the world

patented in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell (1847–​1922), in stained glass. It is fitting that such nineteenth-​century inventions were represented in a window exhibited at the 1900 Exposition Universelle in Paris, which looked back on a century of progress.46 In his faithful execution of Grasset’s detailed design,47 Gaudin made use of new glass materials including commercially produced Cathedral glass, which was machine-​rolled to produce a textured surface on one side. The clouds of billowing smoke from the tall factory chimneys, and steam from the locomotive engine, are all created from pieces of Cathedral glass, in various white, grey, yellow, orange and red tones, with very little painted surface, their form accentuated by the lead lines. This approach to form and texture became a key feature of modern stained glass in the early twentieth century, and so Le Travail, par l’Industrie et le Commerce, enrichit l’Humanité demonstrated how new materials as well as new iconographic subjects on the themes of industrial progress and imperial expansion  transformed the art of stained glass in the nineteenth century.

International exhibitions Over forty large-​scale international exhibitions took place across the world between 1851 and 1900, and these continued well into the twentieth and twenty-​first centuries, albeit in different forms and guises.48 These events occurred alongside modern globalisation, and were shaped by nineteenth-​ century imperialism and industrialisation. R. D. Mandell has claimed that the international exhibitions offer ‘a sort of comprehensive, though variously distorted, flash picture of world civilization at its particular epoch’;49 and Peter Hoffenberg has noted that these exhibitions were ‘agents of change’, as well as mirrors of a political and social order.50 They made connections between ‘national and imperial institutions, sets of ideas, social visions and cultural practices’.51 Drawing on empirical and archival evidence, and close analysis of selected stained glass exhibits, this book explores how exhibitors presented the art of stained glass, and how individual stained glass exhibits were interpreted by visitors and critics, at ten international exhibitions held between 1851 and 1900.52 Given the large number of exhibitions that were held in this period, case studies have been carefully selected as both significant and representative examples.53 The Great Exhibition of 1851 and the International Exhibition of 1862 were the two largest and best-​ attended exhibitions held in London in the nineteenth century. Several historians have examined these British exhibitions in relation to themes of national identity,54 as well as empire, religion, class, labour, and gender.55 They took place at a time when the stained glass revival was developing apace, and were significant in setting precedents for future exhibitions held in France, the USA, and the British colonies. The series of expositions

11

Introduction

universelles held in Paris in the nineteenth century (1855, 1867, 1878, 1889, and 1900)  were staged every eleven years, without fail, and consistently funded by the French government.56 Considered from this perspective, the expositions universelles provide a measure of the changing attitudes towards stained glass in France and demonstrate how exhibitions could be used to encourage patriotism, and propel political regimes through the adoption of the exhibition as a national tradition. This study also includes two of the largest and most successful international exhibitions held in the USA in the nineteenth century,57 the Philadelphia Centennial of 1876 and World’s Columbian Exposition held in Chicago 1893. Publications by Robert Rydell and colleagues have assessed the influence of the American-​hosted exhibitions on the development of modern America.58 Both these exhibitions commemorated key events in America’s colonial history, while showcasing the vast technological and artistic advances achieved since independence (including developments in stained glass), demonstrating the rise of modern America as an economic and political power. Although exhibitions held in London, Paris, Philadelphia, and Chicago form the main case studies in this book, the two Melbourne International Exhibitions of 1880–8​1 and 1888–​89, which were amongst the first held in Australia in a significant nineteenth-​century colonial city and emerging centre of stained glass production, provide an interesting case study for examining colonial production and consumption.59 Australian exhibitions have more recently been repositioned within exhibition scholarship;60 studies have examined colonial representation at the international exhibitions and the role of these events on the formation of modern Australia.61 Any study of the international exhibitions relies upon surviving written and visual sources in order to understand these temporary events and their displays. This book takes advantage of the rich primary sources available, including Official Catalogues and Jury Reports, which were published for each exhibition, as well as articles in British periodicals such as the Art Journal, The Ecclesiologist, and Illustrated London News.62 These commentaries have been supplemented (and sometimes contrasted) with additional textual and visual primary-​source evidence from ‘unofficial’ guides; newspaper and journal reviews; and unpublished individual accounts (both real and fictional), in the French and English languages. Just as it is impossible to grasp these exhibitions in toto, it is equally impossible to gain a complete overview of the stained glass windows exhibited at these events. Official catalogues generally list the names of exhibitors and the nature of their exhibits, according to a classification scheme and/​or exhibiting nation. Yet these documents are rarely comprehensive. Many of the stained glass exhibits are merely described as ‘Painted glass’ or ‘A stained glass window’, making it impossible to gain a precise list of exhibited windows. However, the Appendix to the

11

12

12

Windows for the world

present book provides a list of the stained glass firms and studios that exhibited stained glass at these events, under the official classification for stained glass, as documented in official catalogues or reports. It also lists any awards they received for their stained glass exhibits. Because this information has been collated from multiple sources, including catalogues, reports, and press reviews, many of which contain errors and omissions, it should be treated with some degree of caution. It does, however, provide a sense of the scale and importance of these events to stained glass makers across the world. From the available evidence, stained glass exhibits appear to fall into three categories; firstly, windows which were designed and/​or commissioned specially for exhibition buildings and pavilions. Secondly, windows that had been commissioned for other architectural settings but not yet installed, and were therefore available for exhibition. Thirdly, smaller panels made specially for exhibition or competition purposes. Research carried out during the preparation of this book has identified and traced the intended destination and current whereabouts of numerous stained glass exhibits, many of which were subsequently installed in churches, homes, town halls, and other public and private buildings across the world, or entered museum collections.63 The windows discussed and illustrated in this book reveal just a snapshot of the wide range of stained glass exhibited at these events, although much care has been taken to present salient and representative examples, and the critical discourse surrounding them. Nonetheless, it is clear that the enormous quantity of surviving nineteenth-​century stained glass windows across the world, executed in eclectic styles and for diverse settings, deserves reassessment and reconsideration, and can bring new perspectives to studies of nineteenth-​century art, architecture, and the decorative arts.

Chapter outlines Each chapter of this book is thematic and analyses stained glass in relation to broad concepts and themes, including material taxonomies, artistic labour, museology and the history of display, international networks, artistic styles, production and consumption, religion, the politics of nationalism, and imperialism. In doing so, it challenges many of the major methodological and historiographical assumptions and paradigms relating to the study of nineteenth-​century stained glass, and incorporates new art-​ historical approaches to the medium alongside traditional stylistic, architectural, and ecclesiological methodologies. Chapter  1 focuses on the classification and status of stained glass, revealing the ways in which international exhibitions contributed to debates over its artistic status, display, and arrangement within the exhibition environments. It begins by examining the theoretical problems and

13

Introduction

potentialities of displaying an architectural art such as stained glass in a temporary exhibition setting, placing it in a museological context. It also explores how official exhibition classification schemes propagated interpretations of stained glass as a manufactured product rather than a decorative art. Finally, it addresses issues of artistic education, practice, and labour in relation to nineteenth-​century stained glass, interrogating the role of the artist in an age of industrialisation, arguing that, in this era, stained glass was intrinsically hybrid, a product of collaborative labour.64 The international exhibitions brought together a vast collection of objects from across the world that had never before been displayed together. Placed in such a collection, individual stained glass exhibits formed new contexts and connections and reached diverse audiences. Chapter 2 explores, chronologically, the ways in which stained glass was physically displayed at the international exhibitions, and charts the reaction of exhibition organisers, exhibitors, the public, and critics to some of the main official and unofficial stained glass displays at these events. It therefore provides an overview of the significance of stained glass at these events, and reveals changing attitudes towards the displays of stained glass within these new environments. The three remaining chapters highlight the wider implications of the exhibition of stained glass upon the global stained glass industry, thinking especially about its commercialisation and stylistic development, and how, in these environments, stained glass reflected and represented pertinent cultural and political themes, including nationalism and imperialism. Chapter 3 discusses the stylistic diversity of stained glass in this period, as evident in the international exhibition displays, which demonstrate a varied and eclectic approach to historicism and modernism; two concepts which were not mutually exclusive in this era. Nineteenth-​century stained glass was continually associated with and assessed in relation to historical styles, yet artists simultaneously encountered and adopted new styles, including Japonisme and Art Nouveau. Significantly, this chapter also charts the rapid secularisation of the medium and its adaptation to modern settings and contexts, as influenced by and demonstrated at these exhibition environments. Chapter  4 seeks to ascertain whether those makers who exhibited stained glass at these events were representative of the nineteenth-​century stained glass industry at large. It outlines exhibitors’ roles in the bureaucratic organisation of exhibitions and their commercial incentives for participating, revealing how exhibitors responded to the demands of consumers. It demonstrates that these displays helped exhibitors gain commissions and influence abroad, and considers the ways in which these events shaped exhibitors’ reputations. Finally, Chapter  5 discusses how the exhibition environment stimulated new iconographies and meanings in stained glass, thinking particularly about how the exhibits reflected, and

13

14

14

Windows for the world

influenced, some of the global political themes of the nineteenth-​century exhibitions: nationalism, imperialism, and human variety. In spite of recent interest in transnational and global art histories, and recognition that exhibitions were a ‘transnational phenomenon’,65 this book uses the term ‘international’ throughout, following its contemporaneous usage in the nineteenth century. Similarly, as a result of the international span of this book, the term ‘Victorian’, used by so many British historians of stained glass to describe the productions of this period, is rejected in favour of the more globally encompassing term ‘nineteenth-​ century’. As this is the first study to look at stained glass of this period in the broad context of the international exhibitions, it is hoped that it will encourage further investigation into the cross-​cultural, international, and global dissemination of stained glass into a range of secular and religious spaces and contexts in the late modern period.

Notes 1 Alex Bremner has demonstrated the influence of the gothic revival and High Anglican culture on religious architecture in the British Empire, although the role of stained glass (and other decorative arts) in such contexts is yet to be explored. See A. Bremner, Imperial gothic: religious architecture and High Anglican culture in the British Empire c. 1840–​1870 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2013). 2 R. Sweet, Antiquaries:  the discovery of the past in eighteenth-​ century Britain (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2004), pp. 272–​3. 3 Martin Harrison has cited census figures that reveal this rapid growth. In 1831 there were just three registered glass-​painters, in 1841 there were 108 (including five women), and by 1851 this had risen to 531. M. Harrison, Victorian stained glass (London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1980), p. 12. Increased interest in stained glass in the second half of the nineteenth century can also be charted in the periodical press. 4 J. Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), pp. 168–​8. 5 I. Armstrong, Victorian glassworlds:  glass culture and the imagination 1830–​1880 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 278. 6 Robert Lucas Chance  (1782–1865) became friends with Bontemps in 1830. Bontemps later helped recruit French and Belgian glass blowers to work in Chance’s factory, and found employment himself in the factory when he fled to England during the 1848 French Revolution. 7 Between 1844 and 1865 the price of ordinary sheet glass fell from 1s. 2d. per foot to 2d. per foot. Armstrong, Victorian glassworlds, p. 1, n. 3. 8 P. M. Shand, ‘The Crystal Palace as Structure and Precedent’, Architectural Review 81 (1937), 65–​72. 9 C. Webster and J. Elliot, ‘A church as it should be’: the Cambridge Camden Society and its influence (Stamford: Shaun Tyas, 2000). 10 The Church Building Acts of 1818 and 1824 gave a total of £1,500,000 for the erection of ecclesiastical buildings. O. Chadwick, The Victorian church: Part 1, 1829–​1859 (London:  SCM Press, 1966). Local philanthropy coupled with the ecclesiological movement also aided restoration and rebuilding projects at parish churches across the country. 11 On nineteenth-​ century restoration of medieval glazing schemes in France and Britain, see especially M.  H. Caviness, ‘Some Aspects of Nineteenth-​ Century

15

Introduction Stained Glass Restoration: Membra Disjecta et Collectanea’, in P. Moore (ed.), Crown in glory:  a celebration of craftmanship-​studies in stained glass (Norwich:  Jarrold & Sons, 1982), pp. 69–​73; A.  A. Jordan, ‘Rationalizing the Narrative:  Theory and Practice in the Nineteenth-​ Century Restoration of the Windows of the Sainte-​ Chapelle’, Gesta 37:2 (1998), 192–​200; É. Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle. Entretenir, conserver, restaurer. Corpus vitrearum France, Études, 9 (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010). 12 ‘Our literary glazier proves what twelfth century glass is by depicting choice specimens from “Bromley S.  Leonard, Stepney S.  Peter, and Brompton Holy Trinity, designed and executed by W.  Warrington, Esq.,” in the year of grace 1841.’ ‘Chapters on Stained Glass. –​No. II. Warrington and Winston’, The Ecclesiologist 74:38 (October 1849), 81. 13 Oliphant designed for Ballantine & Allan Edinburgh, and William Wailes Newcastle, and ran his own studio, 1854–​ 57. ‘Oliphant, Francis Wilson (1818–​ 1859)’, rev. M.  Williams, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2004). 14 Alexandre Brongniart (1770–​1847), Director of the Sèvres Porcelain Manufactory 1800–​47, began experiments with painting on glass 1801–​02 but a workshop was not formally established until 1827 and remained active until 1854. K. Bezut, ‘The Stained-​Glass and Painting-​on-​Glass Workshop at Sèvres, 1827–​1854’, in T. Preaud and D. E. Ostergard (eds), The Sèvres Porcelain Manufactory: Alexandre Brongniart and the triumph of art and industry, 1800–​1847 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 97–​111. 15 The Königliche Glasmalereianstalt studio at Munich was founded in 1827 as a department of the Royal Porcelain Manufactory. S. Rush, ‘The Königliche Glasmalereianstalt and the Reglazing of Glasgow Cathedral’, in C. M. Richardson and G. Smith (eds), Britannia, Italia, Germania:  taste and travel in the nineteenth century (Edinburgh: VARIE, 2001), pp. 91–​7. 16 Notably at the cathedrals of Bourges, and St-​ Denis, Notre-​ Dame and the Ste-​ Chapelle, Paris. See V. C. Raguin, ‘Revivals, Revivalists, and Architectural Stained Glass’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 49:3 (September 1990), 310–​29. 17 G. Bontemps, Peinture sur verre au XIXe siècle:  les secrets de cet art sont-​ ils retrouvés? Quelques réflexions sur ce sujet adressées aux savants et aux artistes (Paris: Imprimerie Ducessois, 1845), p. 42. 18 Chapters on nineteenth-​ century stained glass in chronological studies of the medium published between 1920 and 1980 tend to be slight, and vary from critical to outright damning. For example:  H. Read, English stained glass (London; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926). 19 C. Woodforde, English stained and painted glass (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1954), p. 55. 20 A. Clifton-​Taylor, English parish churches as works of art (London: Batsford, 1974), pp. 148, 143. 21 See, for example, the special editions devoted to nineteenth-​century stained glass in Revue de l’Art 72 (1986); Métiers d’Art 20 (November 1982); and Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest 93:4 (1986). 22 Notable gazetteers for the UK and Ireland include M. Wynne, Irish stained glass (Dublin: Eason and Son, 1977); B. Haward, Nineteenth century Norfolk stained glass (Norwich: Geo Books, 1984); N. Gordon Bowe, D. Caron, and M. Wynne, Gazetteer of Irish stained glass (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1988); B. Haward, Nineteenth century Suffolk stained glass (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1989); M. Donnelly, Scotland’s stained glass:  making the colours sing (Edinburgh:  Stationery Office, 1997); M. Crampin, Stained glass from Welsh churches (Talybont, Ceredigion: Y Lolfa, 2014).

15

16

16

Windows for the world 23 M. Böning, Glasmalerei des 19. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland: Katalog zur Ausstellung, Angermuseum Erfurt, 23. September 1993 bis 27. Februar 1994 (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 1993); E. Vaassen, Bilder auf Glas. Glasgemälde zwischen 1780 und 1870 (Munich; Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1997). 24 C. Aman, Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts:  Sachsen-​ Annhalt. Die Kirchen (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 2003); A. Hörig, Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts: Sachsen. Die Kirchen (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 2004); A. Klauke and F. Martin, Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts:  Berlin Brandenburg. Die Kirchen (Leipzig:  Edition Leipzig, 2003); R. Kuhl, Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts: Mecklenburg-​Vorpommern. Die Kirchen (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 2001). 25 For Poland see W. Balus, T. Szybisty; D. Czapczyńska-​Kleszczyńska, P. Karaszkiewicz, and A. Zeńczak, Korpus witraży z lat 1800–​1945 w kościołach rzymskokatolickich metropolii krakowskiej i przemyskiej. Tom 1, Archidiecezja krakowska: dekanaty krakowskie (Kraków: Corpus Vitrearum Polska, 2014). Volumes 2 and 3, also focusing on churches in Kraków, were published in 2015. 26 W. Waters and A. Carew-​Cox, Damozels & deities: Edward Burne-​Jones, Henry Holiday and Pre-​Raphaelite stained glass, 1870–​1898 (Worcester: Seraphim Press, 2017). 27 Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, p. 156. 28 Patricia Mainardi and Elizabeth Holt have demonstrated the influence of the French expositions universelles on nineteenth-​ century art criticism, revealing the intersections between art, exhibition culture, and politics. P. Mainardi, Art and politics of the Second Empire:  the Universal Expositions of 1855 and 1867 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1987); E. G. Holt (ed.), The expanding world of art, 1874–​1902, vol. 1 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1988). 29 G. Waterfield, The people’s galleries: art museums and exhibitions in Britain 1800–​ 1914 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2015). 30 Brongniart acknowledged the importance of the early-​nineteenth-​century French national industrial exhibitions on the stained glass revival. A. Brongniart, Mémoire sur la peinture sur verre (Paris: Imprimerie de Selligue, 1829). 31 C. Winston, Memoirs illustrative of the art of glass-​painting (London: John Murray, 1865), pp. 22, 46, 57, 148–​51, 156, 187–​9. 32 H.  J. Powell, Glass-​making in England (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1923), p. 161. 33 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 23. For example, the east window at Waltham Abbey designed by Edward Burne-​Jones for Powell & Sons; Morris & Co.’s early glass at Selsley, Gloucestershire; John Milner Allen’s designs for the Northampton Town Hall made by Lavers & Barraud; and the window at Mere designed by Henry Holiday and made by Powell & Sons. 34 S. Brown and S. Strobl, A fragile inheritance (London: Church House, 2002), p. 10. 35 W. Waters and A. Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons:  Pre-​Raphaelite stained glass 1850–​ 1870 (Worcester: Seraphim Press, 2012), pp. 306–​11. 36 See especially J.-​ M. Leniaud, ‘Le vitrail au XIXe siècle. Sources et problèmes iconographiques’, Revue d’Histoire de l’Eglise de France 67:178 (1981), 83–​9; C. Brisac, A thousand years of stained glass (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 157–​9; L. De Finance and D. Hervier, Un patrimoine de lumière 1830–​2000:  verrières des Hauts-​de-​Seine, Seine-​Saint-​Denis, Val-​de-​Marne (Paris: Monum, Éditions du Patrimoine, 2003). 37 J. Spillman, Glass from world’s fairs 1851–​1904 (Corning, NY:  Corning Museum of Glass, 1986); C. Gere, ‘European Decorative Arts at the World’s Fairs, 1850–​1900’, Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 56:3 (Winter 1998–​ 99); J. Meyer, Great Exhibitions:  London  –​New  York  –​Paris  –​Philadelphia 1851–​1900 (Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club, 2006).

17

Introduction 38 Spillman, Glass from world’s fairs, p. 44. Only exhibits from the New York studios of Tiffany and J. R. Lamb are discussed. 39 Some exceptions are:  Raguin, ‘Revivals’ and Y. Vanden Bemden, ‘Introduction’, in J. Barlet (ed.), Art, technique et science:  la création du vitrail de 1830  à 1930 (Liège: Commission royale des monuments, sites et fouilles, 2000), pp. 15–​24. 40 This building, located at 2 Place de la Bourse, in the 2nd arrondissement, has been the headquarters of the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie (CCI), Paris, since 1852. The Assembly Chamber is located on the first floor of the building. The window is installed in an external wall on the eastern side of the building looking out onto the rue Notre-​Dame-​des-​Victoires. 41 J.-​F. Luneau, Félix Gaudin, peintre-​ verrier et mosaiste (1851–​ 1930) (Clermont-​ Ferrand: Presses universitaires Blaise Pascal, 2006), p. 209. 42 L. Badel, Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Paris, 1803–​2003: II, Etudes thématiques (Genève: Droz, 2008), p. 374, n. 24. 43 The window is formed of eighteen leaded panels, held in place by an iron frame and horizontal saddle bars. 44 J. E. Findling and K. D. Pelle (eds), Historical dictionary of world’s fairs and expositions, 1851–​1988 (New York; London: Greenwood Press, 1990), Appendix B. 45 L. Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67.  –​Vitraux’, in Rapports du Jury international de l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1902), p. 53. 46 Findling and Pelle, Historical dictionary, p. 155. 47 The design for this window survives in the collection of the Louvre, Paris (ARO 1993 40 10). C. Bouchon, ‘Le carton destiné à la verrière de la chambre de commerce de Paris par E. Grasset’, Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France 2 (1986), 131–​8. 48 For a good survey see Findling and Pelle, Historical dictionary. 49 R.  D. Mandell, Paris 1900:  the Great World’s Fair (Toronto:  University of Toronto Press, 1967), p. x. 50 P.  H. Hoffenberg, An empire on display:  English, Indian, and Australian exhibitions from the Crystal Palace to the Great War (Berkeley, CA; London:  University of California Press, 2001), p.  27. This echoes Forster-​Hahn’s statement that ‘displays do not merely reflect or mirror society and a particular historical moment but actively function as agents that shape the historical process itself’, an idea fundamental to the study of cultural history. F. Forster-​Hahn, ‘The Politics of Display or the Display of Politics?’, Art Bulletin 77:2 (1995), 174. 51 Hoffenberg, An empire on display, p. xiv. 52 London 1851, Paris 1855, London 1862, Paris 1867, Philadelphia 1876, Paris 1878, Melbourne 1880–81, Melbourne 1888–89, Paris 1889, Chicago 1893, and Paris 1900. 53 Amongst the more significant exhibitions omitted from this study are Vienna’s Weltausstellung, 1873, the only international  exhibition held in a German-​speaking state in this period, and the Glasgow International Exhibition of 1888. Yet few stained glass exhibits appear to have been shown at these exhibitions. 54 J. Auerbach, The Great Exhibition of 1851:  a nation on display (New Haven; London:  Yale University Press, 1999); J.  R. Davis, The Great Exhibition (Stroud: Sutton, 1999). 55 L. Purbrick (ed.), The Great Exhibition of 1851:  new interdisciplinary essays (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 2001), pp. 1–​ 26; J.  P. Burris, Exhibiting religion:  colonialism and spectacle at international expositions, 1851–​ 1893 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001); J. A. Auerbach and P. H. Hoffenberg (eds), Britain, the empire, and the world at the Great Exhibition of 1851 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). 56 A. Démy, Essai historique sur les expositions universelles de Paris (Paris: A. Picard, 1907); R. Isay, Panorama des expositions universelles (Paris:  Gallimard, 1937);

17

18

18

Windows for the world P. Ory, Les expositions universelles de Paris (Paris:  Ramsay, 1982); M. Gaillard, Paris:  les expositions universelles de 1855  à 1937 (Paris:  Presses Franciliennes, 2003); M. Bacha, Les expositions universelles à Paris de 1855 à 1937 (Paris: Action artistique de la ville de Paris, 2005); A.-​L. Carré et  al., Les expositions universelles en France au XIXe siècle:  techniques, publics, patrimoines (Paris:  CNRS Éditions, 2012). 57 The first international exhibition held on American soil was New York, 1853–​54. 58 R.  W. Rydell and N.  E. Gwinn (eds), Fair representations:  world’s fairs and the modern world (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1994); R. W. Rydell, E. Findling, and K.  D. Pelle, Fair America:  world’s fairs in the United States (Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000). See also M. Curti, ‘America at the World’s Fairs, 1851–​1893’, American Historical Review 55 (July 1950), 833–​56; and S. K. Hunter, Footsteps at the American world’s fairs: the international exhibitions of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, 1853–​1965 (Glasgow: Exhibition Study Group, 1996). 59 The 1879–​80 International Exhibition held in Sydney, New South Wales, was the first international exhibition to be held in the Southern Hemisphere, but this focused on agriculture and livestock production, and received fewer visitors. 60 K. Darian-​Smith, C. Jordan, R. Gillespie, and E. Willis (eds), Seize the day: exhibitions, Australia and the world (Clayton, Vic.: Monash University Press, 2008). 61 J. Parris and A.  G.  L.  Shaw, ‘The Melbourne International Exhibition 1880–​81’, Victorian Historical Journal 51:4 (November 1980), 237–​54; J. Sweet, ‘The Face of Australia:  Colonial Design and Representation at International Exhibitions 1851–​ 1888’ (MA History of Design dissertation, V&A/​RCA, 1991); D. Cowley and M. McCormack, ‘Victoria at the Great Exhibitions, 1851–​1900’, La Trobe Library Journal 14:56 (Spring 1995); K. Orr, ‘A Force for Federation: International Exhibitions and the Formation of Australian Ethos (1851–​1901)’ (PhD dissertation, University of New South Wales, 2006); L. Douglas, ‘Representing Colonial Australia at British, American and European International Exhibitions’, Journal of the National Museum of Australia 3:1 (March 2008), 13–​32. 62 This study is indebted to the increasing number of online databases of primary sources, including the British Newspaper Archives; Illustrated London News Historical Archive; British Periodicals Online; American Periodicals Online; Gallica (France); and Trove (Australia). 63 Although many windows have been located, the incompleteness and inaccuracy of records means that a complete list of stained glass exhibits is, unfortunately, impossible. 64 On the exhibitions and labour see T. Barringer, Men at work:  art and labour in Victorian Britain (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 1–​19. 65 A. Iriye and P.-​Y. Saunier (eds), The Palgrave dictionary of transnational history (Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 370.

19

1 Exhibiting stained glass: classification, organisation and status

The art of glass-​painting can rarely receive justice in a general exhibition. Its dimmed light is injurious to most other objects. It is as exclusive in an exhibition as a beech-​tree in a forest, under which nothing else will grow. – Thomas Gambier Parry, 18671

Stained glass is an art form fundamentally concerned with the interplay of light and colour, and enhanced by the formal elements of line (both decorative and structural) and ornament. Transmitted light gives the translucent glass its precious colour, and illuminates a stained glass window, rendering it visible. The texture and tone of the coloured glass, as well as the application of vitreous pigment (glass paint), serve to modulate and temper the light passing through, as well as illuminating an image. Stained glass is also an art form strongly associated with picture and pattern; structural lead lines give a window its form and shape, while decorative painted detail enhances the design to give a pictorial or ornamental effect. A stained glass window often has to strike a careful balance between pictorial or decorative effect and the importance of the overall effect of the window in its architectural environment, taking into account lighting, scale, colour and decoration, as well as the function and climate of the building for which it is destined. Typically, stained glass windows are seen and contemplated in an architectural setting. Within this architectural framework and context, stained glass performs a practical, symbolic, and aesthetic function, keeping the elements out; regulating, refining, and refracting light into a building; and illuminating pictures and patterns. But when stained glass panels, or entire windows, are relocated to new spaces and contexts, they adopt a variant set of functions, symbolism, and aesthetics, prompting a range of methodological questions. What are the implications of the temporary or permanent displacement of stained glass panels, designed to fit a specific window opening, to new architectural

20

20

Windows for the world

settings, geographical contexts, and social environments? As this chapter will reveal, a number of practical as well as theoretical problems arise with the temporary display of stained glass in an exhibition setting, along with opportunities for new experiences and interpretations of the medium. Stained glass panels require structural support to hold them in place, and need a sufficient amount of light from behind in order to be seen.2 ‘They are indeed unwieldy objects to exhibit’, remarked American art critic Charles de Kay (1848–​1935) after the 1893 Chicago Exposition.3 Furthermore, most architectural stained glass windows are large monumental artworks intended to be placed at a great height and viewed from a distance, rather than up-​close. As one writer, E. G. Howard, observed in 1887, much ‘[p]‌ainted glass appears to great disadvantage in museums. Large figures and subjects intended to be seen from a considerable distance are brought close to the eye, so that the effect they were calculated to produce is entirely lost.’4 Likewise, smaller painted-​glass roundels and panels, intended to be seen up-​close in more intimate domestic settings, might get ‘lost’ amongst other exhibits in dense museum displays. Although many modern museums have found innovative and attractive ways of displaying architectural stained glass, the sheer size and scale of some panels make it difficult, if not impossible, to display an entire window (and rarely a whole scheme of windows), unless housed in a purpose-​built architectural structure.5 This is one of the reasons why artist and collector Thomas Gambier Parry (1816–​88), quoted above, believed that stained glass could not be fully appreciated in an exhibition context. Virginia Raguin has considered the implications of displaced stained glass windows and urged museum curators to evaluate historical stained glass windows within their architectural contexts: The nature of the detached object, of necessity, is in conflict with the object in use. No object can be simultaneously in use and on exhibit in a museum, and therefore we find the exclusion of functional, living art, an inevitable result.6

Raguin’s chief concern is that when individual stained glass panels are isolated from their original, or intended, setting and placed on display in an exhibition or museum, they lose their physical and metaphysical connections with the architectural contexts for which they were designed and made. Raguin acknowledges that such stained glass windows in museum settings are no longer ‘living’; but adopt a ‘museal mortality’. As Theodor W.  Adorno (1903–​69) wrote in his essay on the ‘Valéry Proust Museum’ (1952–​54): The German word museal [museumlike] has unpleasant overtones. It describes objects to which the observer no longer has a vital relationship and which are in the process of dying. They owe their preservation more to historical respect than to the needs of the present.7

21

Exhibiting stained glass

Both Raguin and Adorno subscribe to a Benjaminian school of thought that ‘[w]‌orks of art are received and valued on different planes. Two polar types stand out; with one, the accent is on the cult value; with the other, on the exhibition value of the work.’8 In this case, once a stained glass window is separated from its integral architectural framework, site-​specific function, and symbolism, its ‘cult value’ becomes irretrievable and, instead, it assumes an ‘exhibition value’.9 However, the placing of stained glass windows in new spaces can also establish new parameters of visual interest. As Svetlana Alpers has observed, when cultural objects are ‘severed from the ritual site, the invitation to look attentively remains and in certain respects may even be enhanced’.10 It is significant that Alpers demonstrates her paradigm through the example of Romanesque capitals and Renaissance altarpieces, since, like stained glass windows, these cultural objects have a fixed place within an architectural setting and a functional, symbolic, and ritualistic relationship with their surroundings. As we shall see, most of the stained glass panels or windows displayed at the international exhibitions were designed and made for specific buildings (predominantly churches), but had not yet been installed, and were therefore displayed outside of their intended contexts in these displays. Other exhibited panels were made specially for exhibition or competition purposes, and some were commissioned to decorate both temporary and permanent international exhibition buildings. The international exhibitions were not the first events to place ecclesiastical stained glass windows on public display in a temporary exhibition setting. The Musée des Monuments français, which opened in the suppressed convent of Petits-​Augustins in Paris from 1795 until 1816 under the direction of French archaeologist Alexandre Lenoir (1761–​1839), displayed a collection of French monuments including tombs, architectural sculptures, stained glass, and other artistic fragments confiscated from French churches following the secularisation of France.11 Little attention was paid to the subject matter or original context of the stained glass panels on display in the Musée des Monuments français, but their presence in all of the museum galleries helped recreate, through themed and period room settings, the atmosphere and mysticism of the Middle Ages in France.12 Increased antiquarian interest in stained glass led to a number of eclectic displays of historical stained glass within the houses of antiquarians and collectors, some of which were opened to the public.13 In the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century displays of stained glass formed part of a popular and spectacular urban exhibition culture, alongside diverse mechanical novelties and freak shows.14 The international exhibitions drew upon, and democratised further, the viewing of stained glass in such settings. As we shall see in Chapter 2, several displays at the

21

22

22

Windows for the world

international exhibitions similarly treated stained glass as an architectural and aesthetic accessory to give a particular religious, aesthetic, or spectacular effect, but disregarded its specific intended architectural context. At these exhibitions, stained glass windows were no longer defined in relation to their architectural setting, but formed an intermediary display as part of a new, sometimes altogether different, collection of exhibits. Literary critic Susan Stewart has argued that, ‘the collection replaces history with classification’; and ‘is dependent upon principles of organization and categorization’.15 Although Stewart’s writing focuses on private collections, her argument that the formation of the collection depends upon the decontextualisation of objects and the creation of new narratives also applies to ‘collections’ of objects within temporary exhibition displays. In the contexts of the international exhibitions, stained glass exhibits were no longer considered in relation to their architectural or liturgical context, symbolic function, or role in a multimedia iconographic or decorative scheme, but in relation to the new objects and spaces in which they were placed, arranged, and categorised. The placing of stained glass within a heterogeneous and eclectic collection of international exhibits provided opportunities to experiment with displaying stained glass, and to explore the relationship between stained glass and a range of other objects and artistic media. These events became forums for the discussion of the role of stained glass in nineteenth-​century society, where the many agents involved in making and interpreting stained glass  –​including artistic and architectural practitioners, critics, and the public  –​questioned the medium’s status. For, in the second half of the nineteenth century, stained glass was simultaneously and incongruously perceived as an applied art, art-​manufacture, craft, decorative art, industrial art, manufactured product, commodity, and contemporary anachronistic art form. These perceptions both informed and were shaped by the official classification and critical commentaries of the medium at the international exhibitions between 1851 and 1900. Yet official exhibition classification schemes were also challenged by the medium of stained glass, for its unique character and collaborative methods of production refuted taxonomic classification based on the binary division of art and industry.

Stained glass taxonomies, 1851–​1900 Exhibition classification systems attempted to organise vast collections of exhibits into comprehensible sections. These schemes reflect an era preoccupied with taxonomies and ordering the world and its contents: naturally, scientifically, philosophically, and commercially. The systematic and scientific classification of objects helped construct and disseminate knowledge. However, as both Thomas Richards and Steve Edwards have demonstrated, exhibition classification schemes were not only a philosophic and

23

Exhibiting stained glass

scientific exercise, they also reinforced national, political and artistic identities.16 Devised by exhibition officials (often called ‘Commissioners’),17 many of whom had direct connections to both crown and state, classification schemes demonstrated imperial, national, and political agendas, and this was especially noticeable in the selection and display of exhibits from colonies, dominions, and dependencies.18 Almost all exhibition classification schemes were derivatives of the hierarchical system used at the first Great Exhibition of 1851 in London, which divided exhibits into thirty classes within four categories which demonstrated the progressive stages of the manufacturing process:  raw materials, machinery, manufactures, and the fine arts. At subsequent exhibitions classification schemes gradually became more complex, with the addition of new sections and sub-​sections to reflect novel technologies and shifts in scientific or philosophical perception, especially concerning the autonomy of individual products and groups of people.19 By 1900 the comprehensive classification system at the Paris Exposition Universelle consisted of eighteen subject groups, subdivided into a further 121 classes, and ranked by their importance to mankind, from education and fine arts to colonisation and military objects. Yet the endless revisions and additions made to classification schemes between 1851 and 1900 also highlighted the philosophical problems of taxonomy; as cultural and literary scholar Isobel Armstrong has articulated in Victorian glassworlds (2008), the ‘anarchic, exponential multiplication of classification actually defeats ordering principles’.20 In spite of the fact that international exhibitions aimed to unite art and industry, classification schemes continually separated manufactured industrial products and the fine arts. This was especially evident in the official classification of the stained glass exhibits. At almost all of the exhibitions held in London and Paris between 1851 and 1900, stained glass was classed as a manufactured glass product rather than a fine art. Consequently, the stained glass exhibits were discussed by critics writing about glass materials and industries rather than fine art, and a browse through the official exhibition catalogues finds stained-​and painted-​glass windows amongst an extensive collection of ceramic and vitreous products in classes dedicated to ‘Glass’, ‘Glass and pottery’, or ‘Crystal, glassware, stained and window glass’. At the Great Exhibition of 1851, the stained glass exhibits formed part of Class  XXIV, devoted to ‘Glass’ manufactures and sub-​ divided into A, ‘Window glass’, and B, ‘Painted and ornamental window glass’, which included stained glass. Subsequent exhibitions followed this format and categorised stained glass with a variety of glass manufactures. The first Paris Exposition Universelle, held in 1855, assigned stained glass to Class  XVIII, ‘Industries de la céramique et de la verrerie’ (Glass and pottery), a group of mineral-​based glass and ceramic products. Stained

23

24

24

Windows for the world

glass was admitted into two sub-​sections of this class which highlighted its dual architectural and decorative function: A, ‘Verre à vitres et à glaces’ (Window glass and mirror glass), and B, ‘Objets de céramique et de verrière ayant spécialement une valeur artistique’ (Ceramic and glass manufactures, having especially an artistic value). By the time of the London International Exhibition of 1862 many more classes had been created to incorporate growing branches of industry. Yet stained glass was again placed with general glassware in Class  XXXIV, within sub-​division A, ‘Stained glass and glass used in buildings and decoration’. The further sub-​sections within this classification demonstrate that multiple categories for stained glass existed according to its intended symbolic or functional use and level of painted decoration:  (i) ‘Window glass, including sheet glass, crown glass, and coloured sheet glass’ (ii) ‘Painted and other kinds of ornamented window glass’, and (iii) ‘Stained and painted windows for ecclesiastical decoration’. In 1867, at the second Paris Exposition Universelle, stained glass remained classed with glass manufactures in Class  XVI, ‘Cristaux, verrièrre du luxe et vitraux’ (Crystals, luxury glass and stained glass) within Group III, a section devoted to ‘Meubles et autres objets destinés à l’habitation’ (Furniture and other articles intended for human habitation). Similarly, at the following Paris exhibitions of 1878 and 1889, stained glass was categorised with all industries for which glass was the object or base material, in Class XIX, ‘Cristaux, verrerie et vitraux’ (Crystal, glassware and stained glass), within Group III, ‘Mobilier et accessoires’ (Furniture and fixtures). This class included drinking glasses of crystal and cut glass; plated and mounted crystal; table glass; common glass and bottles; window and mirror glass; cast, enamelled, crackled, frosted, and tempered glass; glass for optical purposes; ornamental glass; and stained glass. The inclusion of stained glass in this group caused Édouard Didron (1836–​1902) (hereafter Didron), stained glass artist and adopted son of French archaeologist Adolphe Napoléon Didron (1806–​67) (hereafter Didron aîné), to remark, ‘il est véritablement trop défectueux de réunir les vitraux peints aux diverses industries du verre’ (it is truly too inadequate to combine stained glass with various glass industries).21 At the fin-​de-​siècle Paris exhibition of 1900, for the first time at an exhibition held in Europe, stained glass was allocated a class of its own: Class LXVII, ‘Vitraux’, within Group XII, ‘Décoration et mobilier des edifices publics et des habitations’ (Decoration and furnishing of public buildings and homes), incorporating both religious and secular glass. For almost fifty years then, stained glass windows were categorised as manufactured glass products, and grouped with other vitreous and ceramic objects of mineral composition that required kiln firing, rather than as a branch of the arts.

25

Exhibiting stained glass

One exception to this developing pattern of classification was the series of London international exhibitions scheduled to take place annually throughout the 1870s but which only occurred from 1871 until 1874, having been discontinued as a result of large deficits.22 These exhibitions were international, but not universal; the exhibition of manufactured exhibits varied from year to year, each focusing on a particular group of items, for example: pottery and porcelain, or cotton and woollen worsted. A special exhibition of glass manufactures, including ‘stained glass used in buildings’, was scheduled for 1878 but never took place. However, stained glass was exhibited at each annual exhibition held between 1871 and 1874 under the ‘Fine Art’ category in a class devoted to ‘paintings of all kinds in oil and water-​colours, distemper, wax, or enamel; on glass, porcelain, or mosaics, &c.’.23 Thus at this series of exhibitions, stained glass was classed as a manufactured product, but admitted and displayed as a fine art. Although these exhibitions were deemed a failure by contemporaries, and have been relatively ignored by scholars since, the inclusion of stained glass within the ‘Fine Art’ category was a significant moment which influenced the classification of stained glass as a fine art beyond the European centres of London and Paris. Both the Vienna Weltausstellung of 1873 and the Philadelphia Centennial of 1876 also categorised stained glass in this way. The fleeting recognition of stained glass as a ‘Fine Art’ at these exhibitions may reflect the increasing regard given to decorative arts by the emerging Arts and Crafts Movement. However, at later exhibitions in Paris throughout the century (1878, 1889 and 1900), as well as Melbourne (1880–​ 81 and 1888–89), Glasgow (1888), and Chicago (1893), stained glass remained categorised as a manufacture. Stained glass was subject to three distinct levels of classification at the international exhibitions: firstly, as a raw material, manufactured product, or fine art; secondly, according to its base material (glass) and production techniques (kiln fired); and, thirdly, according to its practical application (decorative, domestic, ecclesiastical). Yet to complicate matters, official catalogues reveal that stained glass was actually exhibited under multiple categories at exhibitions and judged in additional classes. For instance, at the Great Exhibition of 1851, stained glass was classed as a ‘glass manufacture’, but it was the Fine Arts jury who awarded medals for stained glass. These examples draw attention to the ‘incongruities’ and ‘impossibilities’ of nineteenth-​ century classification systems.24 Stained glass could be construed as both a ‘manufacture’ and a ‘fine art’, even though official classification systems necessitated that it was categorised as either one or the other.

Counter-​classifications: conflicts and cartographies Exhibition classification schemes sought to provide a structure for the organisation of exhibits but were continually disrupted and redefined by

25

26

26

Windows for the world

plans based on geographical, national, racial, or imperial groupings (as demonstrated further in Chapters  2 and 5), as well as practical display requirements and the availability of space. Visitors expected to be able to compare and cross-​reference types of exhibit with their country of origin, which made for varied displays, both thematically (according to material and products) and geographically (according to exhibiting country). Yet the arrangement of exhibits inside the exhibition buildings rarely adhered to the classification schemes adopted. For example, at the 1851 Great Exhibition, almost all British exhibits were displayed according to their classification groups at the west end of the Crystal Palace, but the arrangement of foreign exhibits in national courts at the east end of the building was left to each national commission. This inconsistency between classification and display, also apparent in official catalogues, led one contemporary journal to recall that the Great Exhibition had a ‘territorial character’,25 as the north and south transepts acted as an equator dividing Britain from the rest of the world.26 Official catalogues, which documented the exhibitions by listing the exhibits of every participating nation, provided alternate taxonomies. The official catalogue for the 1855 Paris Exposition Universelle rearranged the classification system in order to make it more legible. The Art Journal reported: The classification adopted on paper has resulted in a most glorious defiance of almost everything like classification in the actual arrangements. Not content with a single intelligible principle, its authors adopted two. In one, objects are classified according to use, in the other according to the nature of the material, or mode of manufacture.27

Furthermore, the actual arrangement of objects in the 1855 Palais de l’Industrie was, according to The Ecclesiologist’s reporter, entirely unsatisfactory. He lamented the fact that a ‘very beautiful paper plan’ had not been carried out: The material arrangement is vicious in the extreme. It affects scientific classification and fails in it, rather more egregiously than did the Hyde Park Exhibition …. The arrangement is neither topographical nor scientific, but unhappily combines the vices of both.28

Exhibition classification systems generated much discussion, not only around general themes of art and labour, but also around the exhibits themselves. Andrew Miller has observed how commentaries ‘collapsed these official categories and, in their writing, implicitly constructed a range of new relations between the manifold objects on display’.29 These new relations provide us with alternative ways in which to approach displays of stained glass at the exhibitions. They also highlight the role of exhibition journalism in shaping taste, informing and re-​orientating visitors (see Chapter 4).

27

Exhibiting stained glass

The troubled relationship between classification systems on paper and physical arrangement within an exhibition building was an important issue for both exhibition organisers and participants. American geologist William Phipps Blake (1826–​1910), who designed the classification system for the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, persuaded the Centennial Commission to adopt a dual system loosely relating classification and arrangement: A classification presupposes some arrangement or placing of objects in accordance with it; but, though connected, classification and arrangement are not necessarily one, objects may or may not be placed in the order or relations established by classification.30

Yet writing after the exhibition, Henry Pettit (1842–​1921), engineer and architect of the Main Exhibition Building, commented: [G]‌enerally the visiting public have no need for a system of classification, except as it is embodied in the arrangement, and this fact should establish the rule that a system of ‘classification’ for exhibits and ‘arrangement’ for exhibits should be considered as practically one and the same thing.31

Perhaps the most innovative approach towards dual classification and arrangement took place at the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1867. The main exhibition building designed by French engineer, sociologist, economist, and General-Commissioner Frédéric Le Play (1806–​82), referred to as the ‘Palais du Champ de Mars’, was a giant elliptical building with a central garden and a series of concentric bands; each band housing a different category of exhibits, moving hierarchically from fine arts at the centre to machinery on the periphery (see Plate 10). Four main avenues and twelve smaller passages intersected the bands by radiating from the centre, dividing the space into national sectors.32 English journalist George Augustus Sala (1828–​95) recalled: It was perfectly easy both to get into and out of the place, and nobody could lose his way. The radiating streets which converged to the interior gardens, and the great raised platform which ran right round to the machine galleries, were all original ideas, ingenious in conception, and skilfully worked out.33

Le Play’s 1867 exhibition building created a spatial articulation of the classification system and a new viewing environment, spectacularly different from the rectangular-​plan buildings of previous exhibitions. As one reporter for Fraser’s Magazine, C. R. Weld, observed, the chair-​tax which charged visitors to sit down, and the absence of a promenade, meant that there was ‘certainly no inducement to lounge indolently through the building, and you are thus forced, so to speak, to examine the objects around you’.34 The design for the 1867 exhibition building ‘formed a functional and ideological narrative introduction’ to the exhibition, enabling visitors to

27

28

28

Windows for the world

see the products of a single nation (by sector), and the international exhibits of a single category (by concentric band).35 Furthermore, the placing of certain nations adjacent to one another, particularly Britain and France, Belgium and Germany, enabled visitors to view products in relation to their direct international competitors. In theory it was a masterful plan, but not every nation could supply exhibits in all categories, leaving some spaces overcrowded with objects, and gaps in others.36 For example, only twelve countries contributed stained glass, and its particular display requirements meant that it was not to be found in the section allocated to the glass products with which it was categorised, but scattered around the Palais and its periphery buildings in the park.37 Dissatisfied with official provisions for both the classification and display of stained glass at these events, several French artists petitioned the government to recognise the status of stained glass and improve its display.38 In defiance of predicated classification schemes and allocated display spaces, many French exhibitors also erected private pavilions or chapels in which to show their stained glass exhibits. One of the most innovative examples of such a display, as we shall see in the following chapter, was the full-​sized, neo-​gothic chapel erected in the Park at the 1867 Paris Exposition by Charles Lévêque (1820–​89), a glass-​painter from Beauvais, to show a collective group of French exhibits (see Plate 12). In 1876, meanwhile, Didron, a member of the Committee of Admission and Installation for Class XIX (Glass) at the 1878 Paris Exposition, requested a special gallery for stained glass with well-​lit bays of a sufficient size in a wing of the Palais on the Champ de Mars for the forthcoming exhibition.39 He thought that the erection of separate pavilions provided an unfair advantage to some exhibitors and that the stained glass exhibits should be displayed in the same building, where they could be compared and assessed under the same conditions. Although the committee agreed to Didron’s proposal, on the principle that the glass-​painters paid for the construction, the project was abandoned in 1877 for financial reasons, causing some exhibitors to form the Corporation des artistes peintres-​verriers de France, which called for recognition of stained glass artists as artists.40 The Corporation sent a petition to the Ministère de l’agriculture, commerce et d’industrie requesting that stained glass be placed with the fine arts, but by this time it was too late as the exhibition classification and rules had already been published.41 Consequently, many glass-​painters abstained from exhibiting in 1878. Others erected private pavilions at their own expense to ensure their exhibits would be seen in good conditions. At the following Paris Exposition of 1889, glass-​painters remained exasperated at the poor classification and provision for the display of stained glass. In his jury report, Louis-​ Charles-​ Marie Champigneulle (known as Charles Champigneulle fils) (1853–​ 1905) exclaimed that ‘[q]‌ uatre

29

Exhibiting stained glass

Expositions décennales sont déjà passés et l’erreur du premier jour subsiste. Il est temps qu’elle cesse enfin, et qu’on rende au vitrail sa vraie place!’ ([f]our decennial expositions have already passed and the error of the first day remains. It is time for this to finally stop and for stained glass to be given its true place!).42 By this time, the disregard of the special exhibition requirements of stained glass had taken its toll on the glass-​painters, as Léon-​Alfred Appert (1837–​1925) reported, ‘[l]es peintres verriers semblent se désintéresser de plus en plus des expositions où leurs œuvres sont placés généralement dans de mauvaises conditions d’éclairage, d’élévation et surtout de classification’ ([t]he-​glass painters seem to be more and more uninterested in exhibitions where their works are generally placed in bad conditions of lighting, elevation, and above all classification).43 Champigneulle fils called for the General-​Commissioner to ensure stained glass would have its own classification group, an allocated building, and individual jury at the following exposition in 1900.44 At this turn-​of-​the-​century exposition, after many years of protests, stained glass was finally granted autonomous classification, yet this remained a sub-​group of manufactures rather than the fine arts.

Art versus industry? The status of stained glass It is a pity only that manufacture cannot in the nature of things rise to the highest level of Art. Lewis Foreman Day, 188745

As an art form reliant on both artistic and industrial labour, stained glass refuted rigid classification schemes based on the progressive stages of the manufacturing process, exposing problems and inconsistencies with exhibition taxonomies that divided art and industry. Alison Yarrington has drawn attention to the fact that nineteenth-​century sculpture was similarly ‘unstable, both distinguished and uneasy in its role as high art and industrial product’.46 The then-​recent invention of photography also confounded classification at the London international exhibitions of 1851 and 1862, as Steve Edwards has demonstrated.47 The arts of stained glass, sculpture, and photography were all dependent upon the division of artistic labour and the use of industrial processes, materials, manufacturing or chemical techniques, and this appears to have contributed to their classification problem. At the first French Exposition Universelle in 1855, the decision to include stained glass in the Palais de l’Industrie (dedicated to the industrial exhibits), rather than the Palais des Beaux-​Arts (housing the fine arts),48 caused French glass-​ painter Alfred Gérente (1821–​ 68) to write to the General-Commissioner of the Exposition des Beaux-​Arts on 15 March 1855: [J]‌’ai été fort surprise lorsque vos employés, ayant pour mission de recevoir les dépôts des artistes, m’ont declaré que les vitraux ne pouvaient être considérés comme œuvres d’art et devaient être exposés au palais de l’Industrie.49

29

30

30

Windows for the world (I was very surprised when your employees, whose responsibility it was to receive the artists’ submissions, declared to me that the stained-​glass windows could not be regarded as works of art and were to be exhibited at the Palace of Industry.)

Despite the agreement of committee member and architect Jean-​Baptiste Lassus (1807–57), who wrote in the margins of this letter that ‘la peinture sur verre ne doit pas être reléguée à l’exposition des produits industriels’ (painting on glass should not be relegated to the exhibition of industrial products),50 none of the stained glass exhibits were admitted to the Palais des Beaux-​Arts at this exhibition. Across the Channel, this decision was also contested when a writer for The Ecclesiologist, journal of the Cambridge Camden Society (founded in 1839 and known as the Ecclesiological Society from 1845), asked ‘why are the painted windows in the industrial department?’.51 Although the display of stained glass at the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1855 was restricted to the Palais de l’Industrie, in the Palais des Beaux-​ Arts cartoons (full-​ scale designs) for stained glass were framed and hung alongside grand history paintings.52 French neoclassical painter Jean-​Auguste-​Dominique Ingres (1780–​1867) exhibited twenty-​five cartoons for stained glass designed for the Chapel of Saint Ferdinand at Neuilly (1842–​43) and the Royal Chapel at Dreux (built 1816, enlarged in 1839, and furnished with stained glass 1843–​45).53 These full-​scale cartoons for stained glass windows, designed for two prestigious buildings with royal connections, appeared alongside forty-​ three of Ingres’ paintings. Ingres, who had worked for and been honoured by every French regime of the nineteenth century, selected and arranged the pictures himself.54 The incorporation of Ingres’ stained glass cartoons in the Palais des Beaux-​Arts acknowledged the complex relationship between the ‘high’ art of painting and the ‘subordinate’ applied decorative and architectural art of stained glass. Ingres, a recognised ‘artist’, conceived these designs, but the cartoons were then adapted for stained glass by gothic-​ revival architect Eugène-​ Emmanuel Viollet-​ le-​ Duc (1814–​ 79) before being transformed into windows by workers in the Sèvres manufactory.55 In these surroundings, stained glass design was elevated to an art of utmost importance through its association with the most senior artist in the French Academy and the most influential French architect of the gothic revival. Yet Ingres’ display of cartoons in the Palais de Beaux-​ Arts celebrated the artistic conception and design of the windows above their skilled transformation into glass and lead. Such displays reflected an artistic hierarchy that valued the art of designing and painting on opaque surfaces, such as canvas, more highly than painting on translucent surfaces, like glass.

31

Exhibiting stained glass

Artistic skill and labour The division of labour in the stained glass studio further complicated the contested status of stained glass as ‘art’ or ‘industry’, as Didron explained in his report on stained glass at the Paris Exposition of 1867: L’administration refuse également la qualité d’oeuvres d’art à ces produits qui lui semblent tomber dans le domaine de l’industrie. Pourquoi? La cause en est bien simple, en apparence du moins: c’est que le vitrail ne sort pas, achevé de pied en cap, des mains de l’artiste, et que celui-​ci doit s’adjoindre des collaborateurs ayant chacun une spécialité.56 (The administration also denies the status of works of art to these products, which appear to the management to belong to the category of industry. Why? The reason is simple, in appearance at least; that the stained glass window does not leave, complete from head to toe, the hands of the artist, and that it must enlist the services of collaborators, each with a speciality.)

In the nineteenth century, there were many people involved in the production of a stained glass window, including the chemist, glassblower, designer, cartoonist, glass-​cutter, painter, workman responsible for firing the glass, and the glazier to lead up and install the window. The language used by nineteenth-​ century critics demonstrates an awareness of this divided labour, but also draws our attention to the varying degrees of artistic and technical input by these individuals, not all of whom were equally acknowledged. As an anonymous writer for The Illustrated Exhibitor of the 1851 Great Exhibition noted, ‘great as is the difference between a first sketch and a finished painting, or between the clay and the marble, it is still more difficult to pronounce how a very showy cartoon will turn out in actual execution in glass’.57 Since the mid-​Victorian period, Henry Cole (1808–​82) and his peers had advocated the use of trained artists to design manufactured objects and decorative arts, including stained glass, with a view to raise their standard and status. As Oliphant declared in 1855, ‘the artist in glass requires the natural gift, the cultivated faculty, just as much as any other’.58 Prior to  the international exhibitions, several glass-​painters had attempted to raise the status of stained glass by association with fine art. Ballantine’s treatise intended ‘to show that Glass Painting is a medium of expression worthy of the energies of genius’.59 Winston acknowledged in his influential 1847 publication An inquiry into the difference of style observable in ancient glass paintings, ‘if therefore we are anxious to cultivate glass-​ painting as an art, we must encourage artists to practise it, by ceasing to countenance those mere artisans who at present make it their trade, and confine it to the lowest degradation’.60 William Warrington believed that stained glass was ‘the highest department of decorative Art’.61 All these individuals stressed the importance of the role of the artist-​ designer, but artistic training and experience amongst practising stained

31

32

32

Windows for the world

glass artists was diverse. Most nineteenth-​century stained glass designers in continental Europe appear to have received their formal training in fine art academies and studios, and this partly explains the differences in style between British and French proponents of the archaeological style, and those French, German, and Italian artists, who approached the medium as painters. Many French stained glass artists were trained in the studios of French Academicians. For example, Prosper Lafaye (1806–​83) began his career as a painter with Auguste Couder (1789–​1873).62 Claudius Lavergne (1815–​ 87), Gaspard Gsell (1814–​ 1904), and Pierre-​ Eugène Guérithault (1829–​ after 1879) were all pupils of Ingres; Eugène-​ Stanislas Oudinot (1827–​89) and Émile Hirsch (1832–​1904) were pupils of Eugène Delacroix (1798–​1863); Paul-Charles Nicod (1819–​98) and Ottin  studied under Paul Delaroche (1797–​1856); Julien-​Léopold Lobin (1814–​64) under Charles de Steuben (1788–​1856); Henri Carot (1850–​1919) under Jean-​François Millet (1814–​75); and Charles-​Laurent Maréchal (1801–​87) was a pupil of Jean-​Baptiste Regnault (1754–​1829).63 Luc-​Olivier Merson (1846–​1920), author of Les vitraux (1895), was a student of Isidore Pils (1813–​75) and a respected Academician who had won the Grand Prix de Rome in 1869.64 Leading Italian glass-​ painter Giuseppe Bertini (1825–​ 98) studied and later taught at the Brera Academy in Milan,65 and both he and Belgian glass-​painter Jean-​Baptiste Capronnier66 were descendants of painters who trained at the Sèvres porcelain manufactory, before setting up their own studios. German stained glass artist Josef Gabriel Mayer (1808–​83) of the Munich firm Mayer & Co. (founded 1848; glass-​painting department founded in 1862)  trained at the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich.67 For many of these men, stained glass was a form of monumental painting, and painting was regarded as the most prestigious medium in the traditional Academy.68 In England and Scotland, however, the establishment of Mechanics’ Institutes from the 1820s and Schools of Design from 1836 provided new teaching methods and training to decorative artists, complementing those of the traditional Royal Academy (RA).69 This may explain the more varied backgrounds of British stained glass artists. The majority of individuals running glass studios in the UK came from glazing dynasties, or received their training in the offices of notable architects. Those who received formal artistic training commonly specialised in heraldry, like Thomas Willement (1786–​ 1871),70 William Warrington (1796–​ 1869),71 72 and Michael O’Connor (1801–​67). James Ballantine (1807/​8–​77) studied draughtsmanship at the Trustees’ Academy in Edinburgh (now Edinburgh College of Art), and was a trained house decorator and painter of theatrical scenery.73 In contrast, William Wailes (1808–​81) was a self-​made man, a former tea dealer and grocer who made the transition from tradesman to stained glass artist, exemplary of Victorian social mobility and the emerging middle class.74

33

Exhibiting stained glass

John Richard Clayton (1827–​1913) of London-​based stained glass firm Clayton & Bell presented a different calibre of stained glass artist; he initially trained as a sculptor at the RA, but was later apprenticed to an architectural firm.75 Waters has argued that Clayton, who was well acquainted with the young Pre-​Raphaelite painters, a progressive group disillusioned with the RA, ‘became the anchor upon which the new design movement in stained glass was founded’.76 Several Pre-​Raphaelite painters turned their hands to stained glass design, including Edward Burne-​Jones (1833–​ 98), Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828–​82), Ford Madox-​Brown (1821–​93), and Simeon Solomon (1840–​1905).77 In spite of this, and the fact that a number of nineteenth-​century stained glass windows were copies of canvas paintings by Old Masters, eighteenth-​century painters like Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–​92), and contemporaries Frederick Leighton (1830–​96) and William Holman Hunt (1827–​1910),78 the interrelationship between painting on glass and painting on canvas has rarely been explored.79 This association was significant in raising the status of stained glass as a fine art. Studios advertised their artistic ability. As Cox & Sons’ 1870 Illustrated Catalogue of Designs for Stained Glass Windows for Churches and Domestic Use advertised, ‘[t]‌he cartoons for such a [figure] window are prepared by an Artist who has devoted his life to the study of this branch of Art, and has spent many years on the Continent, studying the works of the old masters’.80 American stained glass designers similarly promoted their work by claiming their association with more established English and continental masters. For example, Arthur Fitzpatrick of Staten Island advertised his training with Pugin; and Alphonse Frederick Bros. of Brooklyn were championed as pupils of successful French glass-​painter Charles-​Laurent Maréchal of Metz.81 Despite the fact that many trained and respected artists willingly turned their attention to the production of stained glass in the nineteenth century, snobbery towards stained glass, which was more widely recognised as a decorative, or applied, art remained. There was a prevailing sense that painting on canvas was a more prestigious art, which brought more status and income. As architect William Burges (1827–​81) explained, ‘a young painter does not sell his pictures, and is willing to work, say for a stained-​glass manufacturer, at the rate of a guinea-​a-​day’, yet as soon as he becomes successful, he ‘turns his nose up at cartoons or wall-​painting, and paints nothing else but easel pictures’.82 Gambier Parry addressed this problem in his review of stained glass at the 1867 exhibition, when he proclaimed: [T]‌here is plenty of room for genius of the highest order in this art …. Donatello, Ghiberti, Perino del Vaga, and Perugino designed for glass. Those giants were not too big for such an art …. A man cannot draw too well for it, nor think too poetically; only let him remember into what he has to translate his thoughts –​ glass, lead, and light.83

33

34

34

Windows for the world

Despite recognition by exhibition critics that a stained glass artist ‘must be a good glass manufacturer, and a skilful designer’,84 stained glass studios and exhibition catalogues invariably advertised the artistic skill of their designers, leaving anonymous the glass-​painter, cutter, glazier, and other individuals involved in making a stained glass window. In a rare exception to this rule, Cassell’s Illustrated Exhibitor for the London International Exhibition of 1862 explained the process of making a stained glass window: [B]‌esides the artist to make the original design upon paper, there must be the artist-​workman to transfer it to glass, the chemist to nicely calculate the various proportion of the several colours, the careful workman to ‘fire’ or fix the colours on the glass, and the artistic plumber to place the several pieces together.85

This description emphasised the artistry involved in every stage in the production of a stained glass window, whilst acknowledging an artistic hierarchy which valued the design and conception of a window more highly than the work undertaken by a team of skilled, capable, and careful workmen.86 Such widely esteemed beliefs were a hindrance to the development of the art in this period, since the designing of a window did not always incorporate its conception in glass and lead, and the final execution of a window depended as much on the skilled cutting, painting, and leading of glass as the design on paper. Furthermore, the large-​scale production of stained glass in studios meant that many hands were involved in the design and production of a window.87 A paper read to the Oxford Architectural Society on 11 March 1858 by gothic-​revival architect Charles Buckeridge (1832/​33–​73),88 entitled ‘The Production of Modern Stained Glass Windows’ (of which an extract was printed in The Ecclesiologist), criticised the increasingly commercial production of stained glass: [W]‌ith a few exceptions, our stained glass windows are turned out of establishments the owners of which have no more artistic skill than a linendraper; these men turn art into a trade, and deal with it in much the same spirit as a greengrocer deals in vegetables.… ‘Is the production of stained glass windows an art or a manufacture?’ Some call it one, some the other, and others split the difference and call it an ‘art-​manufacture,’ –​a very ambiguous term this, which generally means that manufacture has more to do with it than art.89

Like other nineteenth-​century arts, especially sculpture, stained glass windows were, to an extent, mass-​produced; designs were replicated and cartoons were commonly reused with little variation. Yet even stained glass windows made under such conditions from second-​hand cartoons were cut, painted, and leaded by hand.90 In an article published in the Art Journal (1887), Lewis Foreman Day (1845–​1910), who had begun his career in stained glass as a designer for Lavers & Barraud and then Clayton & Bell, before becoming a freelance

35

Exhibiting stained glass

designer in 1869,91 declared that ‘the translation of the artist’s design by another and almost inevitably lesser artist, must be to the detriment of Art, if to the profit of the manufacturer’.92 An Arts and Crafts ethos was firmly in place by 1889, when stained glass artist Hugh Arthur Kennedy (1854–​1905) wrote in a similar vein, ‘I am convinced that the comparative indifference of the public to-​day to glass-​work indirectly results from the improper division of labour in its execution’, and emphasised that the ‘artist’ should be present at every stage in the production of a stained glass window.93 Thus, the mechanical copyist, employed to work from stock cartoons or catalogues of designs, transferring them to glass, was set up in direct opposition to the independent artist-​designer. Although unrepresentative of the complex and varied roles and production methods of stained glass, this binary position sparked a prolonged debate over the status of stained glass, triggering responses from critics, exhibitors, and stained glass artists throughout the international exhibitions. The impact of the Arts and Crafts Movement and increased acknowledgement of the artist-​designer in the latter years of the nineteenth century was evident in later displays at the international exhibitions where completed stained glass windows were shown alongside their original designs. For example, Gaudin exhibited some of his completed windows alongside the original designs by several artist-​designers including Grasset, Merson, and Émile Delalande (1846–​after 1905) in the Fine Arts section of the World’s Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893.94 At the 1900 Paris Exposition a window for the Hôtel de Ville, Paris, made by Carot was displayed next to the full-​scale cartoon prepared by Albert Besnard (1849–​ 1934).95 Daumont-​Tournel, Parisian glass-​painter and author of the jury report, embraced this collaborative display. He wrote: L’artiste n’avait pas craint que le verrier pût trahir son oeuvre. L’examen comparatif du carton et du vitrail présentait un grand intérêt: on avait le sentiment que la collaboration ainsi entendue était féconde, que chacun apportait sa part de talent à l’oeuvre commune.96 (The artist did not fear that the glassmaker could betray his work. Comparative examination of the cartoon and the stained glass was of great interest: there was the feeling that a collaboration like this was fertile, that each brought his share of talent to the collective work.)

Thus, in such a combined display, the work of designer and glass manufacturer could be recognised equally. However, the anonymity of so many individuals involved in the design and production of stained glass has meant that the study of nineteenth-​century stained glass has focused on productions of stained glass studios or firms rather than individuals.97 When signatures, marks, and monograms are found on nineteenth-​century stained glass panels, they tend to belong to the stained glass studio where the window was made

35

36

36

Windows for the world

rather than the individual designer(s) or glass-​ painter(s).98 Similarly, most stained glass panels were catalogued and exhibited at the international exhibitions under a studio name, for example  ‘Hardman & Co.’ or ‘Powell & Sons’, thus associating the medium with commercial businesses rather than individual artists. This was one of the reasons that the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society was founded in 1887, as Walter Crane (1845–​1915) declared in the prospectus for the Society’s first exhibition in 1888: ‘there is no existing exhibition of art which gives an opportunity to the designer and craftsman as such to show their work under their own names’.99 Questions of artistic attribution and authorship are challenging in relation to nineteenth-​century stained glass. In many cases, it is difficult to name with certainty the designer(s) of stained glass windows made by a studio, and impossible to acknowledge every individual who was involved in its production. Where there are no archival records or signatures or studio marks on the windows, we are reliant upon connoisseurship and a formal art-​historical approach to the medium  which identifies makers through comparative stylistic analysis. Given the large number of extant stained glass windows from this period, we are not short of examples to survey, yet the sheer quantity and geographical spread makes thorough examination of these monumental windows up-​close and in situ a challenge, and so photographic records are often relied on, although these are no proper substitute for the light-​altering medium of stained glass.

Conclusion Stained glass is a medium dependent upon both artistic design and skilled execution and thus it exposed the futility of official exhibition classification schemes based on the binary division of manufactured products and the fine arts. Many exhibitors protested against its continual classification as a manufacture, and some French and American exhibitors went a step further in raising the medium’s status by forming their own separate displays. As events that attempted to unite art and industry, yet consistently separated them through a binary approach to classification, the international exhibitions highlighted the hybridity of nineteenth-​century artistic and industrial studio practice. Stained glass production relied upon the collaborative labour of many individuals with varying artistic and practical skills. The collaborative production of stained glass did not fit nineteenth-​century perceptions and ideals of ‘artistic labour’.100 Stained glass was caught between art and commerce, as well as between art and industry. As Champigneulle fils stated in his report of the 1889 Exposition: ‘L’art le renie et le renvoie au commerce comme son oeuvre; le commerce, lui, le repousse et le traite, honneur

37

Exhibiting stained glass

insigne, d’oeuvre d’art’ (art disavows it [stained glass] and returns it to trade as his work; trade pushes it back and treats it, with distinguished honour, as a work of art).101 By considering how exhibition classification schemes, displays, and critical commentaries on stained glass developed perceptions of the medium in the second half of the nineteenth century, we can gain new perspectives on the history of stained glass production. These classifications played an important role in shaping public understanding of the medium in this period, and triggered debates over its artistic status. The call for artists to engage with stained glass was intended to raise the status of the art and further its revival, but calls were also made for equal recognition of the skilled craft involved in its production alongside the artistic design and concept. In Britain this was partly realised in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by the Arts and Crafts Movement, which also influenced stained glass production in the USA. Having assessed the ways in which stained glass was philosophically categorised and ordered at the exhibitions, together with the conditions under which it was produced, and the ways in which it was perceived, in the next chapter we turn to the displays of stained glass within these complex environments. Of course, it is impossible to surmise a singular experience or to make generalisations about the various ways in which visitors might have encountered the medium in these unique exhibitionary displays, although we can read about individual reactions to the displays through visitor books, diary entries, and other personal accounts.102 Not only was it difficult to find one’s way around these exhibitions, but it was also impossible for visitors to grasp the display en masse.103 As one record of the 1862 Exhibition commented, the scale of the exhibition ‘renders it almost, if not utterly impossible for any individual, however laborious, to acquire a thorough and comprehensive insight into its collective details’.104 As the century progressed these events became more and more incomprehensible, as artist and stained glass designer Henry Holiday (1839–​1927), who visited several international exhibitions in his lifetime, recalled: [The Great Exhibition] was large and comprehensive, but it was so judiciously arranged that it was easy to select the parts that interested oneself for particular inspection, and take in the rest in a general survey. In the later ones, notably in Paris in 1900, the sensation was bewilderment and fatigue, with an after-​attack of mental indigestion.105

The multitude of displays at the international exhibitions meant that most visitors likely only saw a small proportion of the items on display. Yet, as we shall see in the next chapter, some of the stained glass exhibits, placed in prominent positions within exhibition buildings, would have certainly attracted notice.

37

38

38

Windows for the world

Notes 1 T. Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass. Class 16’, Illustrated London News (7 September 1867), 275. 2 In most museum displays, stained glass exhibits are illuminated with artificial lighting, although some displays at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (USA), and Burrell Collection, Glasgow (UK), also use natural lighting. The Vitromusée, Romont (Switzerland), explores a number of different ways of lighting stained glass. 3 Quoted in N. Long, The Tiffany Chapel at the Morse Museum (Florida:  Charles Hosmer Morse Museum, 2002), p. 79. 4 E. G. Howard, ‘Ancient and Modern Painted Glass’, National Review 9:54 (August 1887), 799. The author of this article may have been Edward George Howard (1818–​ 83), second son of the 13th Duke of Norfolk. 5 The Cloisters, a branch of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New  York (USA), includes purpose-​built architectural ensembles assembled from medieval fragments and displays medieval stained glass within an architectural context. 6 V. C. Raguin, ‘The Living Museum of the American City: Reflections on Stained Glass in Buildings and Museums’, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 52–​3 (1994–​95), 52. 7 D. Crimp, ‘On the Museum’s Ruins’, in H. Foster (ed.), Postmodern culture (London: Pluto, 1983), p. 43. 8 W. Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in H. Arendt (ed.), H. Zohn (trans.), Illuminations (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968), pp. 218–​19. 9 Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) acknowledged that ‘[i]‌t is easier to exhibit a portrait bust that can be sent here and there than to exhibit the statue of a divinity that has its fixed place in the interior of a temple’. Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, pp. 218–​19. Raguin adopts Benjamin’s stance in her argument, drawing attention to the integral role stained glass plays in the space for which it was designed and commissioned. Raguin, ‘The Living Museum’, 49. 10 S. Alpers, ‘The Museum as a Way of Seeing’, in I. Karp and S.  D. Lavine (eds), Exhibiting cultures:  the poetics and politics of museum display (Washington, DC; London, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), p. 26. 11 A. Stara, The Museum of French Monuments 1795–​1816: killing art to make history (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013). 12 For Lenoir and stained glass, see M.  B. Shepard, ‘Medieval Stained Glass and Alexandre Lenoir’, in E. Lane, E. Pastan, and E. Shortell (eds), The four modes of seeing: approaches to medieval imagery in honor of Madeline Harrison Caviness (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 497–​520. 13 For example, the house of Sir John Soane (now the Soane Museum), William Beckford (Fonthill Abbey), or Horace Walpole (Strawberry Hill). 14 See R.  D. Altick, The shows of London:  a panoramic history of exhibitions, 1600–​ 1862 (Cambridge, MA; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1978), p. 11; J. Cobb. ‘From Parrots to Princes: Exhibitions of Contemporary Stained Glass in Late Eighteenth-​Century London’, Vidimus 53 (July–​August 2011), http://​vidimus.org/​issues/​issue-​53/​feature/​ (accessed 26 November 2016); J. Allen, ‘Stained Glass and the Culture of the Spectacle, 1780–​1862’, Visual Culture in Britain 13:1 (2012), 1–​23. 15 S. Stewart, On longing: narratives of the miniature, the gigantic, the souvenir, the collection (Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press, 1993), pp. 151, 153. 16 See T. Richards, The imperial archive:  knowledge and the fantasy of empire (London:  Verso, 1993), p.  4; T. Barringer and T. Flynn (eds), Colonialism and the object: empire, material culture and the museum (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 11;

39

Exhibiting stained glass S.  Edwards, ‘The Accumulation of Knowledge or, William Whewell’s Eye’, in Purbrick, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 38. 17 Peter Hoffenberg describes exhibition Commissioners as ‘the authors of the Exhibitions’. Hoffenberg, An empire on display, p. xviii. 18 The Royal Commission orchestrated the displays of British colonies and dependencies at almost every exhibition. The Colonial and Indian Exhibition of 1886 was an exception –​each Colonial Commission devised its own classification scheme and produced its own catalogue and guidebook, yet the Royal Commission produced a handbook to the British Indian and Colonial Empire. F. Cundall (ed.), Reminiscences of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition (London:  William Clowes & Sons, 1886), p. 3. 19 J. Allwood, ‘International Exhibitions and the Classification of their Exhibits’, Journal of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce 128:5287 (June 1980), 450–​5. 20 Armstrong, Victorian glassworlds, p. 192. 21 É. Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, in É. Didron and L. Clémandot (eds), Exposition universelle internationale de 1878  à Paris. Groupe III.  –​Classe 19. Rapport sur les cristaux, la verrerie et les vitraux (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1880), p. 4. 22 Allwood, ‘International Exhibitions and the Classification of their Exhibits’; Findling and Pelle, Historical dictionary, pp. 44–​7. 23 H. Cole, A special report on the annual international exhibits of years 1871, 1872, 1873 and 1874 (London: HMSO, 1878–​79), p. 39. 24 Whewell, ‘On the General Bearing’, 20. 25 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, The Ecclesiologist 13 (October 1855), 265. The Official Catalogue only listed British exhibits by classification; the products of foreign territories were grouped together alphabetically. 26 Y. Ffrench, The Great Exhibition 1851 (London: Harvill Press, 1950), p. 213. 27 G. Wallis, ‘The Artistic, Industrial, and Commercial Results of the Universal Exposition of 1855’, Art Journal supplement for the Exhibition of Art-​Industry in Paris (January 1855), ii. 28 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 265. 29 A.  H. Miller, Novels behind glass:  commodity culture and Victorian narrative (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 52. 30 B. Gilberti, Designing the Centennial: a history of the 1876 International Exhibition in Philadelphia (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2002), p. 87. 31 Gilberti, Designing the Centennial, p. 87. 32 This design was loosely based on an unexecuted plan designed by George Maw and Edward Payne for the 1862 London Exhibition building. The plan was a late submission and was therefore not considered. See The Builder (16 February 1861), 108. 33 G.  A. Sala, The life and adventures of George Augustus Sala, written by himself (London: Cassell, 1895), vol. 2, p. 107. 34 C.  R. Weld, ‘The Paris Exhibition’, Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country (October 1867), 408. M. Bernard was responsible for supplying chairs; he paid the Commission six francs for each chair he brought into the exhibition, and collected money from those who sat down. 35 P. Van Wesemael, Architecture of instruction and delight: a socio-​historical analysis of world exhibitions as a didactic phenomenon (1798–​1851–​1970) (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001), p. 738, n. 132. 36 G. Wallis. ‘The International Exhibition 1872’, Art Journal (December 1871), 18. 37 Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass’, 275. See also Chapter 2. 38 J-​ F. Luneau, ‘Les peintres verriers dans les Expositions universelles:  histoire d’un désamour’, in A.-​ L. Carré, M. S. Corcy, C. Demeulenaere-​ Douyère, and

39

40

40

Windows for the world L. Hilaire-​ Pérez (eds), Les Expositions universelles en France au XIXe siècle. Techniques. Publics. Patrimoines (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2012), pp. 244–​57. 39 É. Hardouin-​Fugier, ‘Le vitrail français en 1878. L’Exposition universelle et l’enquête du ministère de l’industrie’, Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire de l’Art Français (1990), 207–​14; Luneau, Félix Gaudin, pp. 79–​80. 40 Although the Corporation had existed from 1867, in 1877 a new corporation was formed, founded by Claudius Lavergne (1815–​87). L. G., ‘Les peintres-​verriers aux Expositions’, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité: Supplement à la Gazette des Beaux-​Arts 9 (3 March 1877), 82; Luneau, Félix Gaudin, pp. 82–​7; Luneau, ‘Les peintres verriers’, pp. 249–​51; A. Duntze Ouvry, ‘Lucien Chatain (1846–​1886), peintre et peintre verrier clermontois’, Recherches en Histoire de l’Art 8 (2009), 27–​40. 41 Luneau, Félix Gaudin, p. 80, n. 202. 42 C. Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19. Cristaux, verrerie et vitraux. Part II. Vitraux’, in A. Picard (ed.), Exposition universelle internationale de 1889 à Paris. Rapports du Jury international publiés sous la direction de M.  Alfred Picard. Groupe III:  mobilier et accessoires, classes 17 à 29 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1891), p. 182. 43 L. Appert and J. Henrivaux, ‘La verrerie à l’Exposition Universelle de 1889’, in Arts industriels. Revue technique de l’Exposition universelle 1889 (Paris: E. Bernard & cie, 1890), p. 372. 44 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, pp. 175, 183. See also Luneau, ‘Les peintres verriers’, p. 254. 45 L. F. Day, ‘Victorian Progress in Applied Design’, Art Journal (June 1887), 193. 46 A. Yarrington, ‘ “Made in Italy”: Sculpture and the Staging of National Identities at the International Exhibition of 1862’, in M. Pfister and R. Hertel (eds), Performing national identity: Anglo-​Italian cultural transactions (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008), p. 86. 47 S. Edwards, ‘Photography, Allegory, and Labor’, Art Journal 55:2 (Summer 1996), 38–​44. 48 The construction of the Palais des Beaux-​Arts affirmed France’s role in promoting the Fine Arts, since the Great Exhibition had only admitted paintings which exhibited scientific developments. 49 Quoted in É. Pillet, ‘La plume et l’épée. Le capitaine de Montluisant chroniqueur de l’Exposition universelle de 1855’, Documents d’Distoire Parisienne 8 (2007), 53. 50 Quoted in Pillet, ‘La plume et l’épée’, 54. 51 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 265–​6. 52 Amongst these was a coloured drawing of a window executed by Alfred Gérente (1821–​68) for the Chapel of St Theodore, Amiens Cathedral, and a design for a window commemorating the apostolic mission in Gaul for the Synodal Hall in the Archiepiscopal Palace, Tours, designed by M.  Halley (dates unknown), a pupil of Nazarene painter Johann Friedrich Overbeck (1789–​1869), and manufactured at Sèvres. Some chromolithographs of ancient stained glass were also exhibited by Émile Beau (b. 1810). See ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’. 53 These cartoons are now in the Louvre. J. Foucart, Ingres: les cartons de vitraux des collections du Louvre (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 2002). 54 Mainardi, Art and politics of the Second Empire, p. 51, n. 8. 55 For Viollet-​le-​Duc and Sèvres, see N. Blondel, ‘Viollet-​le-​Duc et la manufacture royale de Sèvres’, in B. Foucart (ed.), Viollet-​le-​Duc (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1980), pp. 284–​7. 56 É. Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867 (Paris:  Didron, 1868), pp. 3–​4. 57 J. Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, a tribute to the world’s industrial jubilee; comprising sketches, by pen and pencil of the principal objects in the Great Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations, 1851 (London: Cassell, 1851), p. 380.

41

Exhibiting stained glass 58 F. W. Oliphant, A plea for painted glass; being an inquiry into its nature, character, and objects, and its claims as an art (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1855), p. 26. 59 J. Ballantine, A treatise on painted glass, shewing its applicability to every style of architecture (London: Chapman & Hall; Edinburgh: Menzies, 1845), p. 3 60 C. Winston, An inquiry into the difference of style observable in ancient glass paintings, especially in England; with hints on glass painting (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1847), vol. 1, p. 283. 61 W. Warrington, The history of stained glass from the earliest period of the art to the present time (London:  privately published, 1848), preface. Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 22. 62 Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle. 63 J.-​ F. Luneau. ‘Vitrail archéologique, vitrail-​ tableau. Chronique bibliographique’, Revue de l’Art 1 (1999), 71. 64 Merson designed stained glass for several studios including Oudinot, Gaudin, and Champigneulle. He became professor at the École des Beaux-​Arts in 1906. 65 N. M. Thompson, ‘The State of Stained Glass in 19th-​Century Italy: Ulisse de Matteis and the vitrail archéologique’, Journal of Glass Studies 52 (2010), 218. 66 The Capronnier studio was founded in Schaerbeek (Brussels) in 1829, by French immigrant François Capronnier (1779–​ 1853), a gilder and porcelain-​ painter. R. Vermeiren, ‘Het glazeniersatelier Capronnier. Belgisch pionier van het gebrandschilderde glasraam in de negentiende eeuw’, KADOC-​Nieuwsbrief 4 (2011), 8. 67 G. Mayer, Franz Mayer of Munich (Munich: Hirmer, 2013), p. 12. 68 The Académie Française was founded in the 1630s, and the Royal Academy of Arts (England) was founded in 1768. 69 Q. Bell, The schools of design (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963). 70 S.  A. Shepherd, ‘Willement, Thomas (1786–​1871)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/​view/​article/​29440?docPos=1 (accessed 26 November 2016). 71 S.  A. Shepherd, ‘Warrington, William (1796–​1869)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/​view/​article/​58226 (accessed 26 November 2016). 72 ‘O’Connor, Michael’, Dictionary of Irish Architects 1720–​ 1940, www.dia.ie/​architects/​view/​4127/​O%27CONNOR-​MICHAEL (accessed 26 November 2016). 73 R. G. H. Nicholson, ‘Ballantine, James (1807/​8–​1877)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2004), http://​www.oxforddnb.com/​ view/​article/​1226 (accessed 26 November 2016). 74 R. Torbet, The wonderful windows of William Wailes 1808–​81 (Lancaster: Scotforth Books, 2003). Cheshire attributes Wailes’ success partly to his affordable prices. Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, pp. 40–​1. 75 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 30. 76 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 22. 77 C. Sewter, The stained glass of William Morris and his circle, 2 vols (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1974). 78 Reproductions of Holman Hunt’s painting The Light of the World (1851–​53) in stained glass are to be found across the world. The painting’s popularity continued into the twentieth century after a second version (1900–​4) toured the British colonies. Frederick Leighton’s painting Wedded was purchased by the Art Gallery of New South Wales in 1882 and subsequently translated into stained glass for Sydney residences. Examples survive at Mandama, Croydon Park, NSW, 1899 by Goodlet & Smith. B. Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass (Sydney: Murray Child, 1991), p. 44. 79 An exception is S. Baylis, ‘Glass-​Painting in Britain c. 1760–​c. 1840: A Revolution in Taste’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1989).

41

42

42

Windows for the world 80 J.  M.  Farnsworth, ‘An American Bias for Foreign Stained Glass’, Nineteenth Century: Magazine of the Victorian Society in America 17:2 (Fall 1997), 18. 81 Farnsworth, ‘An American Bias’, 18. 82 W. Burges, Art applied to industry:  a series of lectures (Oxford:  J.  H. Parker, 1865), p. 11. 83 Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass’, 275. 84 Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851. From the originals painted for H. R. H. Prince Albert by Messrs. Nash, Haghe, and Roberts, R. A., 2 vols (London: Dickinson Bros, 1854), vol. 2, text accompanying plate XIII. 85 Cassell’s illustrated exhibitor; containing about three hundred illustrations, with letter press descriptions of all the principal objects in the International exhibition of 1862 (London: Cassell, 1862), p. 31. This description seems to refer to an enamel-painted stained glass window, because it refers to fixing colours on to the glass. 86 As Tony Benyon’s studies of the 1881 and 1901 census reveal, stained glass workers described their occupation in a number of different ways, including: ‘Plumber and Glazier’, ‘Glass Stainer’, ‘Artist in Stained Glass’, ‘Artist on Stained Glass’, ‘Glass Painter’, ‘Artistic Decorator’, ‘Glass Cutter and Painter’, ‘Stained Glass Manufacturer’, and ‘Church Window Decorator (Painter)’. T. Benyon, ‘British Glass Painters, Designers and Draughtsmen in 1881 and 1901: CD and On-​Line Research’, Journal of Stained Glass 26 (2002), 86–​118. 87 Most stained glass studios had 10–​30 employees, although larger studios such as Maréchal and Champigneulle employed 100–​125 people. Hardouin-​Fugier, ‘Le vitrail français en 1878’, 211. 88 A. Saint, ‘Charles Buckeridge and His Family’, Oxoniensia 38 (1973), 357–​76. 89 ‘Mr Buckeridge on Modern Stained Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 16 (1858), 119. 90 Some automated techniques which reduced artistic labour, such as stamped or pressed quarries, were introduced in the nineteenth century. See Chapter 3. 91 J.  M. Hansen, Lewis Foreman Day (1845–​ 1910):  unity in design and industry (Woodbridge: Antique Collector’s Club, 2007), p. 20. 92 Day, ‘Victorian Progress in Applied Design’, 194. 93 H. A. Kennedy, ‘An Art Not Generally Understood’, Contemporary Review 55 (March 1889), 434. 94 Luneau, Félix Gaudin, p. 182. 95 This window was entitled Au Buffet, and was one of two windows executed in 1891 which Carot refused to give to the Town Hall for the price offered. Two later windows, one designed by Henry Lerolle and the other by Besnard, made in 1895, can be seen today. V. David, ‘Les vitraux de l’hôtel de ville de Paris’, in M. Clément (ed.), Monumental: revue scientifique et technique des monuments historiques. Semestriel 1, Dossier vitrail (Paris:  Éditions du patrimoine, 2004), pp. 38–​47; L. De Finance and F. Stahl, ‘La collaboration entre Maurice Denis et Henri Carot à la lumière de la restauration des verrières du Vésinet (Yvelines)’, In Situ, Revue des Patrimoines 12 (2009), n. 14. 96 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 56. 97 Important biographical studies include P. Larkworthy, Clayton and Bell, stained glass artists and decorators (London: Ecclesiological Society, 1984); S. B. M. Bayne, Heaton, Butler & Bayne: un siècle d’art du vitrail (Montreux: S. B. M. Bayne, 1986); M. Galicki, Victorian and Edwardian stained glass: the work of five London studios 1855–​1910 (London:  English Heritage, 1987); Torbet, The wonderful windows of William Wailes; M. Fisher, Hardman of Birmingham:  goldsmith and glasspainter (Ashbourne:  Landmark Publishing, 2008); and S. Shepherd, The stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin (Reading: Spire Books, 2009).

43

Exhibiting stained glass 98 In 1887 E. G. Howard suggested that signatures of both the designer and glass painter should be included on windows. Howard, ‘Ancient and Modern Painted Glass’, 808–​9. 99 Cited in P. Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), pp. 50–​1. 100 For the reactions of Henry Holiday (1839–​1927) and William Morris (1834–​96) to the division of labour under the force of capitalism, see H. Holiday, Stained glass as an art (London; New  York:  Macmillan, 1896), pp. 110–​11; N. Pearson, ‘Art, Socialism and the Division of Labour’, Journal of William Morris Studies 4:3 (1981), 11. 101 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 182. 102 As demonstrated by V. Barth, ‘The Micro-​History of a World Event: Intention, Perception and Imagination at the Exposition Universelle de 1867’, Museum and Society 6:1 (March 2008), 22–​37; E. K. Nichols, Greece and Rome at the Crystal Palace:  classical sculpture and modern Britain, 1854–​ 1936 (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2015). The Visitors’ Book for the 1880–​ 81 Melbourne Exhibition records visitor comments from metropolises and provincial towns across Australia, as well as India, England, France, Germany, and North America; some commented ‘Better than Paris’. Hoffenberg, An empire on display, p. 251. 103 D. Wynne, ‘Responses to the 1851 Exhibition in Household Words’, The Dickensian 97 (2001), 228–​9. 104 Views of the international exhibition: the interior (London; Edinburgh; New York: T. Nelson & Sons, 1862), pp. 1–​2. 105 H. Holiday, Reminiscences of my life (London: W. Heinemann, 1914), p. 15.

43

44

2 A multitude of displays

[P]‌ainted glass is the one art treated with indifference –​its specimens are put about anywhere, without classification and without regard to place or distance. – Thomas Gambier Parry, 18671

The varied approaches to displaying stained glass, in both official exhibition buildings and unofficial private pavilions, demonstrated further uncertainty over its classification and display requirements. At these events, stained glass was presented in wide-​ ranging contexts, some of which were more effective and prominent than others. Individual stained glass exhibits were arranged in interior galleries and courts like paintings, displayed as freestanding exhibits like sculptures, within decorative interiors, and architecturally, fitted into both internal and external openings within purpose-​built exhibition buildings. The large architectural spaces created by some purpose-​built exhibition buildings invoked the vast spaces of ecclesiastical buildings. In Britain, religious terms such as ‘nave’ and ‘transept’ were frequently applied to exhibition buildings, and ceremonial openings, prayers, organ recitals, and sung hymns all contributed to an ecclesiastical atmosphere.2 The presence of stained glass, much of which depicted religious subjects, reaffirmed readings of the exhibition buildings as para-​cathedrals, even when displays juxtaposed ecclesiastical windows with secular ones and disregarded the devotional or sacred use for which they were made. Yet these exhibition buildings were also palaces of art and industrial halls, which shaped the development of the modern museum and art gallery. They formed unique, secular environments for viewing stained glass, and provided new and unusual settings for the medium, including restaurants (1862), covered walkways (1867), machinery halls (1889), and reconstructed historical buildings such as the church of Saint-​ Julien-​ des-​Ménestriers (1900). Perceptions of stained glass as a predominantly

45

A multitude of displays

ecclesiastical art form were challenged and complicated in these secular spaces, shifting public perceptions of the medium away from the church into new industrial, museological, and commercial contexts. The official provision for displaying stained glass in main exhibition buildings was often inadequate and led to a number of independent displays organised by glass-​painters and their patrons, which placed stained glass in separate pavilions and chapels. This chapter outlines, chronologically, the principal displays of stained glass at these exhibitions (both official and unofficial), and considers the various ways in which viewers might have encountered stained glass in these contexts. It focuses on the overall character of the displays, rather than a close reading of the individual exhibits (which feature more prominently in later chapters) in order to demonstrate how exhibitors and exhibition organisers responded to the challenges of showing stained glass in these new settings and contexts.

London, 1851: Great Exhibition The world’s first modern stained glass gallery The Crystal Palace erected in Hyde Park to house the Great Exhibition was a triumph of industrial engineering in iron and glass, and has become an iconic emblem of modern architecture.3 It also hosted the world’s first large-​scale, international, public stained glass gallery. A chromolithograph from Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures of the Great Exhibition (1852) (see Plate 2) gives an impression of the 250m-​long and 7m-​wide gallery at first-​ floor level in the north-​eastern part of the building.4 In this clerestory-​like gallery display, ecclesiastical windows exhibited by twenty-​seven British exhibitors and more than twenty foreign exhibitors were displayed alongside their secular counterparts, and arranged ‘sans distinction de nationalité’ (without national distinction).5 Since the exterior walls of the Crystal Palace were constructed of glass and emitted much light, special measures were taken to improve viewing conditions within the gallery. The stained glass panels were mounted in black wooden frames, illuminated by natural sunlight from the north side, with dark canvas hanging in between and from the ceiling, to darken the space.6 Visitors could view the stained glass up-​close at eye level from within the gallery, and at a distance from the nave below, as several illustrations of the foreign courts demonstrate.7 As one reviewer remarked, it was ‘a rare satisfaction to be enabled to scan closely the merits of those productions’.8 Several additional stained glass exhibits by British makers were fitted at gallery level over the west entrance to the building, above a display of naval architecture, arms, clocks, and organs. This display incorporated ecclesiastical subjects, including a window for St George’s Cathedral in

45

46

46

Windows for the world

Georgetown, Guyana, by Michael O’Connor (1801–​67) of London,9 and secular ornamental and enamel-​painted glass by British exhibitors Hall & Sons (Bristol) and William Davies (London).10 The presence of a window executed for Guyana (then British Guiana) draws attention to the importance of the British Empire to the stained glass industry, a topic to which we will return in later chapters.

Pugin’s Medieval Court Elsewhere, several panels of stained glass designed by leading gothic-​ revival architect A. W. N. Pugin and made by Birmingham-​based firm John Hardman & Co. were displayed in the Medieval Court in the south-​western part of the ground floor of the Crystal Palace.11 Founded in 1838 as a metalworking firm, Hardman & Co. began making stained glass in 1845, upon the instigation of Pugin.12 The 1851 Medieval Court built upon the success of their combined display at the regional Birmingham Exposition of Arts and Manufactures held in 1849.13 For many of Pugin’s contemporaries, and recent historians, the Medieval Court represented the apogée of the Victorian gothic-​revival interior.14 Alongside gothic-​style fabric and wallpaper, Hardman & Co.’s stained glass was displayed along the north wall of the court in this 126m2 space, which also displayed medieval-​inspired furniture by decorating firm John Gregory Crace & Sons, encaustic tiles by Minton & Potter, stone-​carving by George Myers, and a range of metalwork by Hardman, made to Pugin’s designs (see Plate 3).15 The stained glass display in the 1851 Medieval Court aimed to represent the chronological development of gothic styles, and to demonstrate how they might be successfully revived in the nineteenth century. However, the panels on display only represented the Decorated and Perpendicular gothic styles, since Pugin could not readily obtain examples in the ‘early’ medieval style (c. 1190–​1300) (see Chapter 4). Examples of the ‘Decorated style’ (c. 1300–​90) included the east window of the chantry chapel of St Edmund’s College, Ware, Hertfordshire, selected for pragmatic reasons, as Pugin explained to John Hardman (1812–​67): ‘because we can have it & it is an easy subject[:]‌2 Large Saints under canopies’.16 Pugin also showed three windows from his home church, St Augustine’s, Ramsgate, Kent, two of which were destined for the south wall of the Lady Chapel, showing scenes from the Life of the Virgin, and one for the west wall of the south aisle depicting St Ethelbert and St Bertha under architectural canopies.17 An unidentified window in the fourteenth-​century style depicting the Virgin Mary was also exhibited.18 Glass in the ‘Late’ style (c. 1390–​1540) included the three-​light north chancel window of St Andrew’s Church, Farnham, Surrey, depicting St Andrew and scenes from the New Testament, and two panels showing the Transfiguration and Crucifixion from the central light of the east window. Several of these windows now show signs of paint loss, likely

47

A multitude of displays

caused by surface moisture accumulation, unaided by inherent issues in their initial production –​such as over-​pigmentation and under-​firing.19 Secular stained glass exhibits in the Medieval Court included panels from a large window destined for the dining-​room at Alton Towers, Staffordshire, home to the 16th Earl of Shrewsbury, John Talbot (1791–​ 1852).20 The central light, depicting the standing figure of the 1st Earl, John Talbot (1384/​87–​1453) (known as the ‘Old Talbot’), crowned and dressed as a knight of the garter, was exhibited together with some panels from the outer lights depicting heraldic shields supported by Talbot hounds.21 Only a few of the main panels survive at Alton Towers today, in a jumbled rearrangement, although the tracery and main-​light borders remain in situ.22 Despite the inclusion of several secular exhibits, including large gothic cooking stoves, objections were made to the predominantly ecclesiastical character of Pugin’s Medieval Court. The presence of a large roodscreen decorated with a cross gave rise to accusations of ‘popery’, revealing the frenzy of anti-​Catholic feeling in the 1850s, following a number of high-​ profile conversions to Roman Catholicism.23 No doubt the added presence of stained glass, an art form typically associated with the pre-​Reformation medieval Church, enhanced such fears. Nonetheless, the Medieval Court had an enormous influence on the development of the gothic revival, and became a regular feature of later exhibitions held in Britain, Australia and the USA.24 When the Crystal Palace was rebuilt in Sydenham in 1854, the permanent galleries included a Medieval Court with modern panels of stained glass in the medieval style by Hardman & Co.25 Although the display of stained glass in the Medieval Court was generally considered a success, the glass environment of the Crystal Palace caused Pugin some concern. He feared that there would be too much reflected light for Hardman’s stained glass to be seen properly.26 Prior to the opening of the exhibition, he wrote to Hardman:  ‘since I  have been to see the Crystal Palace I am quite out of heart /​It will be impossible to exhibit painted glass there /​It will be all light.’27 The challenges of displaying and viewing stained glass in such an environment did not go unnoticed. A journalist reporting for The Ecclesiologist lamented that the stained glass panels were ‘barely visible from their internal position in the medieval court’.28 In order to get the best view, the Illustrated London News recommended that their readers visit the Court in the morning, for ‘a very tolerable idea of the designs and colours may be obtained from about nine till one on a fine morning, when the southern sun strikes upon them’.29 In doing so, the reviewer acknowledged how the viewing of stained glass is affected not only by its internal position, but also by naturally varying light conditions, reminding us that windows illuminated by sunlight varied in appearance over the course of a day, as well as during the six-​month duration of an international exhibition.

47

48

48

Windows for the world

Stained glass in the foreign courts: Bertini’s Dante Elsewhere on the ground floor of the Crystal Palace a few stained glass panels were exhibited in the foreign courts facing the nave. Of these, Giuseppe Bertini’s Il trionfo di Dante (1850–​ 51) (see Plate 4), which depicted a pensive Dante, seated with Beatrice and Matilda on either side, the friars Dominic and Francis of Assisi and scenes of the inferno above, was certainly the most impressive.30 The window held a prominent place within the Austrian Court, as a number of chromolithographs and engravings of the foreign nave demonstrate (see Plate 5). As Eileen Gillooly has stated: [S]‌ ome objects ‘demanded’ peculiar attention, impressing themselves on one’s apprehension and memory, not because they were identified in particular exhibits to be synecdochic of the nation displaying them (often quite the opposite), but rather because their appearance in the Crystal Palace at all (‘some distance’ from their place of origin) or else their contextual placement within a particular exhibition area forced the viewer’s notice.31

Bertini’s window certainly arrested visitors’ attention. At a height of 7m it was taller than most exhibits in the nave, and visible from a great distance. It was also cleverly displayed in an apex wooden-​framed canopy structure covered with red fabric, designed to reduce the amount of light emitted from the front and sides. Il trionfo di Dante held patriotic significance for Italians during the Risorgimento. Completed shortly after the failed insurrection of the cinque giornate di Milano, the window became a symbol of hope to Milanese inhabitants and exiles. Before being shipped to London for the Great Exhibition, Bertini exhibited the window in his Milan studio for three days, during which time it was much admired.32 After the Great Exhibition, several small replicas were made; one of which was commissioned for the home of Gian Giacomo Poldi Pezzoli (1822–​79), a Milanese collector who, like Dante, lived in exile; he escaped to Switzerland after the Austrians regained the city in 1848.33 In many ways, then, the iconography and symbolic significance of this window for Italians under Austrian rule contradicted and contested its placement in the Austrian Court. Bertini’s window was placed next to a zinc copper-​plated version of the sculpture An Amazon Being Attacked by a Tiger, by German sculptor August Kiss (1802–​65), which received international praise (see Plate 5).34 Kiss’ sculpture was placed in the court of the Zollverein, a coalition of German states.35 Bertini’s window was placed in the Austrian section, since Milan was under Austrian rule at the time (and remained so until Italian unification in 1861). The rear of the horse in Kiss’ sculpture and the back of Bertini’s window marked the boundary between the Zollverein and Austrian courts. Such a placement emphasised the artistic, political, and economic differences and rivalry between Austria and the Zollverein,

49

A multitude of displays

revealing how some stained glass exhibits adopted new meanings and significance in these environments.

Paris, 1855: Exposition Universelle Pavilions in the Palais de l’Industrie Following the classification of stained glass as an industrial product at the 1855 Exposition in Paris, the official space allocated to the display of stained glass was in the Palais de l’Industrie. This building, with walls of cut-​stone, interior compartments of cast iron, and a plate-​glass roof, was situated between Rond Pont and place de la Concorde, the avenue des Champs-​Élysées and Cours-​la-​Reine, on the site now occupied by the Grand Palais and Petit Palais.36 Stained glass exhibits were displayed in four pavilions located at each corner of the building, forming ‘the entrance to the galleries’.37 The way in which the stained glass exhibits were distributed across these internal pavilions followed the exhibition’s general plan and arrangement, which separated French exhibits from their foreign counterparts. Thus, foreign stained glass exhibits could be seen in the south-​eastern pavilion, whilst the French exhibits were distributed amongst the remaining three pavilions. Unfortunately no visual records of the interiors of these spaces survive, so it is difficult to know how the stained glass exhibits were arranged internally, or how they were illuminated. The placing of stained glass in these spaces, originally intended for serving refreshments, appears to have been an afterthought.38 Since these pavilions were adjacent to the main staircases leading to the first-​floor galleries,39 it is unlikely that visitors lingered to view the stained glass exhibits in the same way as the galleries of paintings or sculpture, yet these spaces would have experienced a high footfall from passing crowds on their way to and from the upper galleries.

Maréchal’s allegorical windows for the Palais de l’Industrie In contrast to these seemingly marginalised spaces, the 1855 Paris Exposition marked the first major stained glass commission for the decoration of a permanent exhibition building. After his successful participation in the Great Exhibition, French glass-​painter Charles-​Laurent Maréchal returned to France eager to ensure that the first Exposition Universelle presented a favourable display of French stained glass. Aware of the problems with the lighting conditions at London’s Crystal Palace, Maréchal wrote to Prosper Mérimée (1803–​70), a member of the Imperial Commission for the Beaux-​Arts, concerning the necessity of exhibiting stained glass panels more effectively at the 1855 Exposition.40 He proposed a special gallery, lit by natural daylight, and of a sufficient size to enable the stained glass to be seen from a distance.

49

50

50

Windows for the world

Maréchal’s request for a stained glass gallery was not granted, although he did gain a significant commission from Louis-​ Napoléon Bonaparte (1808–​73), Napoléon III, emperor of the Second French Empire 1852–​70, on 6 August 1854 for two large stained glass windows to decorate the tympana at either end of the Palais de l’Industrie (see Plate 6).41 As French archaeologist Arcisse de Caumont (1801–​73) noted in his jury report, Maréchal’s windows hinted at the future application of stained glass to iron and glass buildings: [L]‌’emploi toujours croissant du fer dans les constructions publiques et privées aura, tôt ou tard, pour conséquence de laisser une grand place au verre en diminuant les surfaces en maçonnerie; l’emploi du verre peint deviendra d’une absolue nécessité pour tempérer, dans beaucoup de cas, l’éclat de la lumière.42 ([T]‌he growing use of iron in public and private constructions will, sooner or later, by consequence leave a large square of glass, reducing masonry surfaces; the use of painted glass will become an absolute necessity to temper, in many cases, the brightness of the light.)

A commission formed by painters Eugène Delacroix and Henri Lehmann (1814–​82), as well as architects Jean-​Jacques Arveuf-​Fransquin (1802–​76) and Jean-​Baptiste Lassus, approved Maréchal’s designs. The lunette windows, painted in thin washes of enamel on large panels of white glass, celebrated the Exposition Universelle and served as visual propaganda for the newly established French Republic and Napoléon III’s regime, following the French Revolution of 1848 and the Crimean War, 1853–​56.43 The first of these grand allegories, La France conviant les nations à l’Exposition universelle (France inviting all nations to the exposition), depicted France seated on a throne with allegorical figures of ‘Art’ holding a lyre and ‘Science’ holding a celestial sphere, seated at her feet. Maréchal referred to Art and Science as ‘la gloire des nations’ (the glory of the nations) and ‘les indices de la prospérité qui accompagne leur développement moral’ (the indices of the prosperity that accompanies their moral development).44 ‘Art’ turned towards the ‘East’, whose primitive industries were represented by a seated shepherd, a trio of upright women carrying an Indian shawl, a Chinese vase, precious stones, and weapons of Arabia, the latter suggesting the historical characteristic of war compared to the enlightened European trade. ‘Science’ turned towards the ‘West’, whose industries were represented by a seated blacksmith at work, a trio of upright women carrying a steam engine, an electrical telegraph, and a power loom. The second window, L’Équité présidant à l’accroissement des échanges (Equity governing the increased exchanges amongst nations), depicted ‘Equity’ seated on a throne carrying a balance. In this composition, ‘Art’ was shown giving a pediment of the Parthenon inscribed ‘The beautiful one!’ to ‘Science’, who, in turn, presented ‘Art’ with a formula of the

51

A multitude of displays

German mathematician Leibniz, inscribed ‘Truth’. The mutual exchange of these objects and ideas demonstrated the role of the international exhibitions in bringing together nations, encouraging artistic and industrial exchange, and examining progress. Each nation’s attribute, as represented in the first window, was redistributed in the second window. In L’Équité présidant à l’accroissement des échanges, the Indian shawl was carried by England, who rested one hand on the Chinese vase. In return, India received the steam engine. China looked with curiosity at the dial of the electric telegraph and the shepherd raised a horn of plenty, from which escaped the manufactured products of the Occident. France oversaw Arabia receiving the power loom, and received a scarf and weapons from Algeria. Italy, wrapped in seersucker (a popular material used for clothing in warm climates), revealed a pile of thread ending in the dial carried by China. The blacksmith seized a horn of plenty full of fruits and raw materials from the East. This exchange of natural resources and industrial products demonstrated the classification schemes’ division into raw materials and manufactures, and the exhibitions’ role in stimulating world trade. A smaller allegorical stained glass window dedicated to La Science, l’Art et l’Industrie, which may have also been executed in Maréchal’s studio, adorned the triumphal-​arch-​shaped entrance to the Palais de l’Industrie from the avenue des Champs-​Élysées. It stood as a prominent reminder of the unifying aims of the French exhibitions. This window illustrated the heroic, winged figure of France with a star halo, holding a victory wreath in each hand for ‘Art’ and ‘Industry’, allegories of which were shown seated at her feet leaning on either side of the coat of arms of the city of Paris. The windows decorating the Palais de l’Industrie should be considered in relation to an extensive architectural decorative scheme, incorporating the sculptural group on the summit of the triumphal arch by Élias Robert (1821–​74), depicting La France couronnant l’Art et l’Industrie (France crowning art and industry), today located in the Parc de Saint-​Cloud.45 Robert’s sculpture uses a similar triangular composition to Maréchal’s windows with France at the centre, her arms outstretched. On her right is the allegorical figure of ‘Industry’ with a hammer, and, on her left, ‘Art’ with a canvas. Although allegory featured prominently in French monumental painting and public sculpture during the Second Empire, monumental allegorical stained glass windows for such secular contexts are rare. Maréchal conceived these large-​scale windows as a monumental form of painting, like frescoes. Both stained glass and frescoes experienced a revival in the nineteenth century, and have similar characteristics; both are essentially translucent media dependent upon broad flat areas of colour, which begin with a cartoon.46 The prominence of Maréchal’s windows, painted with enamels in a pictorial style, caused English commentators to refer

51

52

52

Windows for the world

to them as ‘horrid allegorical windows … dedicated to the glories of the Exhibition’.47 Their introduction, according to Richard Redgrave (1804– 88), was ‘a mistake in taste’; a comment that should be interpreted in light of ongoing debates over style (see Chapter 3).48 Yet Maréchal was the only stained glass exhibitor to be awarded a first-​class medal at this exhibition;49 and, as the jury report declared, ‘[l]‌e Palais de l’Industrie est une preuve de l’importance que peuvent prendre les vitraux peints dans la décoration “monumentale” ’ ([t]he Palace of Industry is proof of the importance which stained glass windows can assume in “monumental” decoration).50 Indeed, as we shall see, Maréchal’s windows had an enormous impact upon the use of stained glass in later exhibition buildings, as well as in civic architecture more broadly.51 These windows remained in the Palais de l’Industrie for fifty years until they were destroyed during the demolition of the building in 1897–​99.52 Now only remembered through engravings and photographs, they reveal how monumental stained glass, as well as painting and sculpture, contributed to the visualisation of national, imperial, and political ideals in the nineteenth century.

London, 1862: International Exhibition The iron and brick building, clad in stone, erected for the London International Exhibition of 1862 was nothing like its predecessor, the ‘fairy-​land’ Crystal Palace.53 It was described by Augustus Sala as having equally ‘the aspect of a workhouse, a public bath and wash-​house, and a gaol’,54 and dubbed a ‘wretched shed’ by the Art Journal.55 Designed by naval engineer Captain Francis Fowke (1823–​65), the building consisted of a nave cut across by two transepts with huge dodecagonal domes at both intersections, and was erected in South Kensington on the site now occupied by the Natural History Museum and Science Museum.56

Glazing the transepts A number of British stained glass exhibits, both complete windows and individual lights, were installed into the north-​facing external walls of the exhibition building above the entrances to the western machinery annexe and the eastern annexe, housing displays of granite and the Railway Enquiry Office. Following Maréchal’s tympana windows at the 1855 Exposition, these displays presented stained glass within an architectural framework and demonstrated its effective use as a form of monumental decoration. However, unlike Maréchal’s windows, which were permanent features, the 1862 exhibition building and its decorations were temporary.57 The installation of several large stained glass windows in the 15m-​wide transepts was not part of the architect’s original brief,58 and appears to have been a practical response to the need for display space. Six months before the exhibition opened, the Illustrated London News reported that there was a

53

A multitude of displays

‘large demand for space’ for ‘ecclesiastical furniture and from the makers of stained glass’.59 As only the northern transepts were fitted with stained glass, it seems likely that the windows were installed here at the same time that the western and eastern annexes were added to the north side of the building.60 In April 1862, the Illustrated London News reported that the extremities of the building had been ‘retraced in Gothic form, and filled in with stained glass supplied by Messrs. Hardman & Co.’,61 and other established English stained glass firms, thus presenting an unambiguously national display. Significantly, of those stained glass firms whose large stained glass windows were in the transepts all except Heaton, Butler & Bayne,62 for whom this exhibition marked their debut, had been critically acclaimed at the 1851 Great Exhibition, demonstrating the commercial value of these events for stained glass studios (as discussed further in Chapter 4). In front of the stained glass windows installed in the north-​ east transept was a display of organs. The centrepiece of this display was Hardman & Co.’s enormous window depicting the Life of Christ, which was exhibited in its entirety before being permanently installed at the east end of St George’s Church, Doncaster (now Doncaster Minster) (see Plate 7).63 Flanking this window were other ecclesiastical windows by Hardman & Co., and a secular window depicting Robin Hood’s Last Shot, by another Midlands firm, Chance Brothers of Smethwick, demonstrating that local and provincial comparisons, displays, and contexts were formed within national displays in this international environment. The windows in the north-​western transept (see Plate 8) were also mostly ecclesiastical. Displayed beneath the painted biblical inscription ‘Domini est terra et plentitudo ejus’ (the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof), they further contributed to the cathedral-​like appearance of the building. Some aesthetic as well as practical considerations were at work in this display, with exhibits arranged around a centre-​piece, evocative of a contemporaneous ‘salon hang’. The upper tier of Hardman’s five-​light east window for Worcester Cathedral, another Life of Christ, was placed in the centre, with the central panel from the lower lancets below. Some exhibits by Holland & Son of Warwick were placed to its left. The rectangular panel on the far right depicting the Entombment Procession by Heaton, Butler and Bayne, is now in the east window of St James’ Church, Chilton Cantelo, Somerset.64 Below this were three windows by the same firm depicting the Baptism of Christ and the Passage of the Red Sea for St Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, and the Acts of Mercy for Harpenden Church, Hertfordshire. Such displays imitated a genuine architectural context, but the juxtaposition of several windows of different styles, size, scale, and subject matter, intended for various settings, formed a unique display.

53

54

54

Windows for the world

The stained glass windows in the transepts transformed the exhibition space aesthetically and symbolically. The Illustrated Record of the International Exhibition (1862) remarked: No visitor could fail to observe how much the effect of the whole costly display was enhanced by stained glass windows, which adorned the edifices in various places; sometimes serving the purpose of windows to the building; and, in other cases, placed in favourable positions for being seen, and enhancing the general effect.65

The glazed transepts could be seen from numerous vantage points and distances, and are frequently mentioned in handbooks and guides. ‘Every visitor must have observed the enormous windows’ in the transepts, wrote one reviewer.66 In addition, the east and west ends of the building were punctuated by two axial ‘rose’ windows filled with coloured glass supplied by glassmaker James Hartley & Co. of Sunderland. Beneath the eastern dome, Dent’s clock (9m in diameter) was also decorated with geometric-​ patterned, coloured glass. Large clocks like these transformed new public spaces such as railway stations and exhibition halls and were often decorated with stained glass.67 However, as Sebastian Evans (1830–​1909),68 manager of the art department at Chance Bros, noted, ‘in a display of this kind we are in a great measure deprived of the means of arriving at a correct judgment, in consequence of the windows being placed in situations for which they were not intended’.69 A writer for the Illustrated London News also observed this, citing Robin Hood’s Last Shot, a window designed by Evans and exhibited by Chance Bros, as an example: It should be added, in justice to the artist, that the window was painted for a south light; so that its position at the exhibition in a northern aspect, with the sunlight streaming in on it from the inside during most of the day, was singularly unfavourable, giving the flesh tints a purplish hue and otherwise disturbing the harmony of colour.70

Outside of their intended architectural settings, and in these temporary displays, it was difficult to control the sources and direction of light, which often resulted in too much reflected rather than transmitted light, and this remained a continual problem for stained glass exhibitors. The rendering of colour, so crucial to stained glass, was particularly affected. As Burges wrote of the stained glass exhibits in the transepts ‘there is quite as much light in front of them as behind, and the consequence is, that the colour in nearly every instance is swallowed up’.71

Stained glass courts The remaining British stained glass exhibits (including additional exhibits by those studios already represented in the transept displays), and all the examples of foreign stained glass, were displayed in courts on the

55

A multitude of displays

first floor, by the central tower entrance on Cromwell Road.72 Stained glass lined both sides of a screen erected by the southern gallery at the break between the British and foreign picture galleries. One side overlooked the central south court, and the other the refreshment gallery, a space approximately 50m long and 4m wide with painted red walls.73 Although much time had been spent designing the nearby top-​lit sculpture and picture galleries, little provision was made for displaying stained glass in these courts. The Saturday Review remarked, ‘no place could possibly have been chosen in the whole building more unfit for the display of painted glass’.74 Inadequate light conditions, and the placement of panels by the refreshment courts, were among the many reasons for The Examiner to report that the display was a ‘mockery’: The great screen of painted glass by the south gallery, at the break between the British and foreign picture galleries, placed where by no chance a ray of light can ever shine through a square inch of it, opposite to which people eat buns and ices with no reason to believe that there is anything before them but a great smeared wall, is the greatest mockery set up within the building, of which all the arrangements have pressed with peculiar hardship on the exhibitors of decorated window glass.75

Although the placing of stained glass in the refreshment rooms reveals a certain lack of regard for the medium, it also signalled the increased presence of stained glass in hotels, cafés, restaurants, and public houses. As one reviewer remarked, here ‘without any trouble, you may feast both eye and palate –​may allay the hungering alike of soul and body at one and the same moment’.76 In a review published in the Gentleman’s Magazine, Burges further complained that the windows here could not be viewed from an appropriate distance, and that the gallery was too narrow.77 [I]‌t is absolutely impossible to judge of the effect of any of the windows exhibited in the galleries, as the only thing that can be noticed, is the drawing, and this when a window is intended to be placed at twenty or thirty feet from the ground, is often obliged to be so modified, that, like the statue of Phidias, it is hardly right to judge of it when level with the spectator’s eye.78

Burges’ comparison of viewing stained glass with classical sculptures by Phidias characterises stained glass as a monumental architectural art, in a similar way to the statuary removed from the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis, Greece, and acquired by the British government in 1816. Just as the Parthenon sculptures were presented in new display contexts at the British Museum, visitors’ perceptions of stained glass windows were altered by their presence at the exhibitions.79 As Burges wrote of the replica of part of the east window from Waltham Abbey (see Plate 9), designed by Burne-​Jones and exhibited by Powell & Sons, ‘[t]‌his window, which in

55

56

56

Windows for the world

its place [at Waltham Abbey] looks exceedingly rich and jewel-​like, is here simply a mass of confusion’.80 For these reasons, stained glass was excluded from the Ecclesiological Society’s 1862 Medieval Court, a 250m2 space on the north side of the nave opening directly into the eastern dome, organised by architects Burges and William Slater (1819–​72).81 The Ecclesiologist stated: We had offers of painted glass and cartoons for our own court, but we felt that its acceptance would involve us in difficulties of a material description, and we declined accordingly.82

It is surprising that the Ecclesiologists did not relish this opportunity to further promote and demonstrate their principles of stained glass design to the public, but they perhaps felt that the space allotted would not enable them to adequately display stained glass as an architectural art, especially since many windows were intended for other architectural contexts and environments. As Day later acknowledged: ‘[i]‌t is too much to expect of a window that it should stand the test of a light for which it was not designed’.83

Paris, 1867: Exposition Universelle At the second Paris Exposition, stained glass was disseminated across the exhibition site on the Champ de Mars, an important site of military, revolutionary, imperial, republican, national, and international displays and performances.84 The stained glass exhibits were displayed in the main exhibition building, in entrances to the exposition site, and, for the first time at an international exhibition, in a number of individual state and private pavilions erected in the surrounding park (see Plate 10).85 These pavilions were grouped into national zones, and many featured stained glass windows.86 Le Play’s elliptical Palais was erected in the centre of the Champ de Mars, and, as previously described, exhibits were arranged according to their classification in a hierarchical system of concentric zones. However, stained glass was not displayed in the concentric band containing other glass products, as the classification scheme predicated. Instead, several large stained glass exhibits were installed in the Grand Vestibule, a central passage that ran horizontally through the Palais from the Grande Avenue to the Jardin Central, dividing the exhibits of Great Britain and France (see Plate 11). Several engraved views of the Grand Vestibule show groups of visitors in this busy passage, where the windows were installed in architectural bays at clerestory level, elevated 8–​9m above the ground.87 The display placed French stained glass directly opposite its foreign counterparts (predominantly British), inviting national comparisons.88 Yet Didron noted that few people saw the glass as a result of its elevated height,89 and

57

A multitude of displays

Gambier Parry lamented that the exhibits of France and Britain could not be properly compared because ‘when one side is light the other is dull’.90 Within an exhibition context, this was a frustration, even though in many ways such conditions replicated a typical architectural environment where stained glass is placed high up, above the eye line, and illuminated by sunlight.

Stained glass in the covered walkways In addition to the stained glass in the Grand Vestibule, approximately fifteen French stained glass exhibitors showed specimens of stained glass in the chemins-​couverts, or covered walkways, which, in a cloister-​like fashion, united the lateral sides of Le Play’s Palais and enclosed the Champ de Mars. Stained glass by the Parisian stained glass studios of Paul Bitterlin and Eugène-​ Stanislas Oudinot could be seen along the covered walkway at the porte Rapp entrance to the exposition park from avenue de la Bourdonnaye. Another walkway from the porte Saint-​Dominique entrance contained stained glass exhibits by Bourrières (Paris), Erdmann & Kremer (Paris), Abbé Jean Goussard (d. 1883)  (Condom, Gers), Guynon & Fils (Paris), and Paul-​Charles Nicod (Paris). On the opposite side of the Palais, in the covered walkway stemming from the porte Suffren, works by Auguste Bruin, Louis-​Victor Gesta (Toulouse), and Gaspard Gsell (Paris) were housed along the porte Desaix. The covered walkway at the entrance of the rue d’Espagne from the porte Kléber displayed stained glass by Antoine Lusson (Paris), Nicolas Lorin (Chartres), Prosper Lafaye (Paris), and Petit (Paris).91 Bontemps blamed the exhibition officials’ poor organisation for the display of stained glass in these spaces that he, and others, considered entirely unsuitable.92 The windows were hung in a single line in wooden frames, but gaps between the frames enabled too much light to be emitted between the exhibits, making it difficult for visitors to see the windows, as light flooded onto the interior surface.93 These spaces created an unusual outside environment for viewing stained glass, for, in bad weather, these walkways provided shelter from the rain while visitors waited for their carriages, but in high winds they also acted as wind tunnels.94 These walkways enabled visitors to approach the medium at close quarters and, unintentionally, encouraged an unusual tactile experience. As Didron noted, ‘[d]‌es parties de certaines verrières, placées à portée de la main, ont été brisées par les visiteurs’ ([p]arts of some windows, placed within easy reach were broken by visitors).95

Pavilions in the Exposition Park Compared with these official displays, the stained glass exhibits that could be seen in various pavilions across the Exposition Park, were presented ‘dans leur cadre naturel, et bénéficiaient d’une décoration d’ensemble’ (in

57

58

58

Windows for the world

their natural environment, and benefitting from an overall decoration).96 Here, they were integrated with other interior furnishings in a more homogenous manner, and better appreciated.97 Once again, French glass-​painter Maréchal took particular initiative and displayed his stained glass exhibits together with photographs on glass by his son Charles-​Raphaël Maréchal (1818–​88) in a specially constructed pavilion, just off the central Grande Avenue in the French section of the park.98 Next to Maréchal’s pavilion was the Photosculpture Pavilion,99 containing ‘small domestic windows in the style of Dutch and Flemish glass of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’,100 and some photographs on glass exhibited by Prosper and Sophie Lafaye.101 Didron suggested that such transparent photographs were of little practical interest, but, in doing so, underestimated their importance.102 As another critic observed, ‘[t]‌his appears to be a branch of industry which is rapidly rising in public estimation’.103 The nineteenth-​century revival of stained glass occurred alongside the development of photography, yet the relationship between photography and stained glass has not yet been thoroughly explored.104 Both mediums relied on light and glass to project/​expose an image and the subsequent fixing of the image through chemicals or the heat of the furnace.105 Recent exhibitions have drawn attention to the relationship between painting and photography in the nineteenth century, but have not acknowledged the role of painting on glass, which provided a meeting point for these two mediums.106 Like painters, stained glass artists encountered photographic teaching aids in art schools, and used photographs for preparatory studies for composition. Christopher Whitworth Whall (1849–​1924), perhaps the most influential stained glass teacher of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, used photographs of cartoons for stained glass by Ford Madox Brown in his classes at the Central School of Art and Design.107 In addition, artists and studios used photographs as sample stock cards and in portfolios, so their circulation was crucial for business. Some stained glass artists were even important innovators of photographic processes. For example, Antoine-​François Claudet (1797–​1867) played a significant role in research into the limited spectral sensitivity of photographic emulsion, and the application of painted colour to photographic images.108 His firm Claudet & Houghton exhibited both stained glass and photographic equipment at the Great Exhibition.109 Together with Cyprien Marie Tessié-​du-​Motay (1818–​80), Charles-​Raphaël Maréchal of Maréchal & Sons invented a collotype process, ‘Phototypie’, in 1865, which aided photomechanical printing processes.110 These examples challenge perceptions of stained glass as an archaic art form, demonstrating that the revival of this traditional art form in the nineteenth century also encompassed cutting-​edge technological innovations.

59

A multitude of displays

Lévêque’s chapel Not far from the Photosculpture Pavilion, visitors could pay fifty centimes to see an enterprising collaborative display of French stained glass and church furnishings in the more traditional ecclesiastical setting of a gothic chapel (see Plate 12).111 Bentley’s Miscellany reported that: It blazes with the gold and colour of all manner of church decoration with which it is filled –​stained glass, Madonnas, altars, vestments, crucifixes –​it also contains statuary and other sculpture, and the tones of an organ add to the effect of the whole.112

Construction of the yellow-​brick chapel, built in a thirteenth-​century gothic style, was the idea of Charles Lévêque (d. 1889), a glass-​painter from Beauvais. Plans for the building were drawn up by M. Brien, an architect from Le Havre.113 The chapel had an interior vaulted ceiling of wood and plaster supported by twenty-​eight external buttresses and a great nave, two side aisles and a gallery, two large interior chapels, and two small chapels at the apse end. Displaying examples of building materials, brick vaulting, mosaic tiling for floors and walls, slate and zinc roof tiling, as well as furnishings, the building was a modern showroom for the church architect, builder, and clergyman. Stained glass was seen here in context with religious furnishings such as altars (in wood, marble, and stone), fonts (in cast iron and stone), lecterns, chasubles, cabinets, tapestries, embroidered altar-​cloths and banners; sculpture (in polychrome and monochrome; wood, lead, bronze, wax, and stone); stations of the cross, decorative painting, and ornaments; sanctuary lights and candles; organs and harmoniums; bookbinding; incense and censers.114 One guide noted the building’s suitability for the display of stained glass as an architectural decoration: Ajoutons de plus que ce petit bâtiment, unique en son genre, étant isolé, sera éclair d’une façon parfait, ce qui convient tant aux vitraux:  de sorte que le visiteur pourra contempler une verrière éclairée par le soleil et apprécier en meme temps l’effet contraire sur la façade opposé.115 (Let us add that this small building, unique in its genre, being isolated, will be bright in a perfect way, which is entirely appropriate for stained glass: so that the visitor will be able to contemplate a window illuminated by the sun and appreciate at the same time the contrary effect of the opposing façade.)

Nine French glass-​painters, including Lévêque, contributed stained glass windows to the chapel.116 The windows were all fairly small in dimension because of the restricted size of the window openings. Most were religious, although British glass-​painter Francis Kirchhoff (1839–​93) remarked that the windows in this chapel were ‘more modern in their treatment than painted glass is usually executed for churches’, suggesting that glass-​ painters opted to showcase new work.117 The most prominent exhibitor was, unsurprisingly, Lévêque; his ecclesiastical and ornamental grisaille

59

60

60

Windows for the world

windows were positioned in the west façade of the building. Julien-​Stéphane Bazin’s studio (Mesnil-​Saint-​Firmin) showed five ecclesiastical windows; Pagnon-​Deschelettes (Lyons) exhibited four ecclesiastical and ornamental windows, two of which depicted his locally venerated saint, François de Sales, thus representing provincial devotion within a display of national Catholic art, housed in the international park. Antoine Lusson fils (1840–​76) and father and son François Antoine (1807–​86) and Victor Höner (1840–​ 96) (whose family studio was founded in Nancy in 1847)  each exhibited two ecclesiastical windows; Gaspard Gsell showed four small ecclesiastical windows in the chevet of the chapel. Making his debut as an exhibitor of stained glass, M. Jacquier (dates unknown; fl. 1867–​89), a designer who was later associated with glass-​painter Maurice Küchelbecker (dates unknown; studio founded in 1881), showed one ecclesiastical window and one ornamental window; and Henry Ely (Nantes) (dates unknown; fl. 1867–​ 78) exhibited a Life of Christ window and another depicting four historical subjects relating to the virtue of charity, intended for the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Burlington, VT.118 In addition, the inclusion of two secular apartment windows executed by Ottin, depicting a wheel of Fortune and a historical combat scene, demonstrated this was not an exclusively ecclesiastical display. Nonetheless, most exhibits in the chapel evoked a traditional religious environment. As one popular description, published prior to the opening of the Exposition, stated: On ne sait pas si cette chapelle sera livrée au culte; cependant il y a tout lieu de croire que, s’il en est ainsi, le service divin sera fait de bonne heure, de façon à laisser libre l’exposition, et à ne pas froisser ni troubler la conscience des visiteurs appartenant à toute autre religion ou à tout autre culte.119 (It is not known if this chapel will be free for worship; however, it is necessary to believe that, if so, divine service will be performed early, in order to leave the exhibition free, and not to offend or disturb the conscience of visitors belonging to any other religion or other cult.)

We are left wondering if the chapel was ever consecrated and, if so, in what form did ‘divine service’ take place? Lévêque’s project appears to have influenced later contextual displays of stained glass and ecclesiastical art at the Chicago Exposition of 1893, where Louis Comfort Tiffany (1848–​1933) erected a Byzantine Chapel to show his wares, and a replica of a private chapel from a German castle was installed in the German Foreign Building.120 In these exhibition spaces ecclesiastical stained glass was treated as a commodity rather than a sacred object. This dialectic was unique to modern environments like the international exhibitions and also department stores, which have been interpreted as ‘cathedrals of commerce’.121 As Elizabeth Emery and Laura Morowitz have asked, ‘[h]‌ow could one continue to view something –​a stained-​glass window, a tapestry, a cathedral,

61

A multitude of displays

a pilgrimage –​as sacred when confronted by the conflicting aesthetic or commercial use to which others put it?’.122 We must apply such a question to our examination of stained glass at the exhibitions, for these environments were often worlds apart from the religious, civic. and private domestic settings for which the exhibited stained glass panels were intended.

Philadelphia, 1876: Centennial Exhibition Following the earlier Paris Exposition of 1867, the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876 appeared as ‘a small city of buildings within a planned and landscaped site’,123 with exhibits housed in a variety of buildings and pavilions across Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, including the first ever Woman’s Building, devoted to exhibits made by women.124 The majority of stained glass exhibits were displayed in two of the principal buildings: the Main Exhibition Building (housing displays of mining and metallurgy, manufactures, education, and science), where the foreign stained glass exhibits were found, and the Memorial Hall (fine art), which contained some stained glass exhibits from the USA. Thus, stained glass was presented as an industrial product in one building and an art form in another, emblematic of its uncertain status and unique position straddling the divide between art and industry.

Memorial Hall Although stained glass was officially classed as a fine art at the Philadelphia Exhibition with other vitreous and ceramic decorations, few stained glass exhibits appeared in either Memorial Hall or in the temporary Art Annex. Magee’s Guide stated that the provision for stained glass in this building included large window openings in each of the two pavilions, 4m by 10m, eight of which were ‘used for the display of stained glass’.125 Another popular guide noted that these windows: ‘formed a pleasant relief in the hot summer days from the vertical light and heat of the galleries’.126 Yet, one writer for the periodical press criticised the display for excluding the decorative arts: Illustrative and creative art declines an alliance with decorative and useful, and crowds it bodily out of these granite portals. Room is made for a few stained-​glass windows, but those gay defiances of the command ‘let there be light’ carry their rainbow hues to more congenial retreats. France devotes a building to them. Munich and Italy also compete for eminence in what exacting amateurs call a lost art. The exile of stained glass windows is shared by the photograph.127

In this reviewer’s opinion, the increasing number of official national and independent private pavilions built to display stained glass were far more successful. This included the private pavilion of French glass-​ painter Nicolas Lorin (1815–​82), who travelled from Chartres to Philadelphia for

61

62

62

Windows for the world

this exhibition.128 The absence of photography from the Fine Art Pavilion also demonstrates the ongoing debate about whether photography was an art.129 Nonetheless, elsewhere, the stained glass exhibits of F.  X. Zettler (1841–​ 1916) of Munich were exhibited in the German section of the Photographic Hall, once again pointing to the relationship between these two mediums.130

Main exhibition building Almost all the foreign stained glass exhibits were to be found in the Main Exhibition Building on Lansdowne Plateau, a temporary structure of wood, iron and glass, with a central nave and aisles.131 Foreign nations were responsible for constructing their own national courts within the building, and some of these included stained glass. Surviving photographs reveal that panels were displayed amongst the glass objects of the Austro-​Hungarian Empire.132 Although most British exhibits were placed in the north end of the building, the British stained glass was found chiefly in the gallery at the south end of the transept.133 The Official Report acknowledged that: The glass-​stainers’ art was well represented [in the art galleries]; but as a general rule the great bulk of the ‘Art Applied’ found place in the Main Building, because exhibitors preferred to keep their various objects together in one group rather than to separate and distribute them about in different localities in conformity with the strict order of classification.134

Indeed, many exhibitors of stained glass displayed other decorative art and furnishings including metalwork, ceramics, sculpture, and mosaics.135 Cox & Sons, frequent exhibitors since the Great Exhibition of 1851, exhibited numerous ecclesiastical and domestic furnishings at the Philadelphia Exhibition, including a chimney piece, embroidered mantel board, and ebonised corner cupboard, some carved oak furniture, bronze ornaments, ecclesiastical stained glass church windows, a wrought iron pulpit body, lecterns, church plate, brass work, art tiles, and plaques.136 Engravings of Cox & Sons’ exhibits often illustrated these wares together.137

James Powell & Sons’ display Powell & Sons’ exhibition stand at the Philadelphia Exhibition presented an integrated decorative display of carpets and stained glass.138 The studio’s name and address were signposted amongst rows of decorative medallions and figurative panels. The display included replicas of a three-​ light window designed by Henry Holiday under the direction of Burges, for St Michael’s Church, Mere, Wiltshire, depicting the Angel Appearing to Three Women at Christ’s Tomb, Christ’s Appearance to Mary Magdalene in the Garden, and Three Women Telling the Disciples of Christ’s Resurrection. The same panels had been displayed in Paris during the 1867 Exposition Universelle. In this 1876 display, the central panel of the Mere window, depicting Christ’s Appearance to Mary Magdalene, was paired with an

63

A multitude of displays

unidentified light depicting the Baptism of Christ from another window. The remaining two lights from the Mere window were displayed in a reverse arrangement that appeared out of sequence and confused the biblical narrative. The coloured backgrounds, originally intended to alternate between blue and red, following medieval precedents, and the staggered elevation of the architectural canopies were disrupted. This raises questions about how far artists and studios had control over the mounting of their displays. Although some studios sent representatives to erect their displays, most appear to have sent their packages with instructions and relied on the porters and workmen employed by the commissioners to manage the displays. Powell & Sons’ 1876 display also demonstrates the multimedia encounters exhibition-​goers experienced. Beneath the stained glass panels for Mere, small rugs were mounted on the wall, and large carpets adorned the space on the surrounding walls and floors. Powell’s 1876 arrangement was cordoned off by railings, and appeared as part-​museum exhibit, part-​showroom. The rarity of images of such displays, which illustrate the diverse and eclectic interiors and ‘shop fronts’ created by many exhibitors, has meant that resources such as these have been almost completely overlooked by art historians, despite the importance of such displays. As one contemporary journal recognised, ‘an international exhibition is an immense showroom … organised along the same principles as “every shop window in the world” ’.139

Paris, 1878: Exposition Universelle Palais du Trocadéro The commissioning of stained glass for purpose-​built exhibition buildings, as we have seen, presented the art in a more favourable light. At the 1878 Exposition, a number of French stained glass makers were invited to contribute to the scheme of windows illustrating the history of applied and industrial arts for the Palais du Trocadéro. This arc-​shaped building, designed by Gabriel Davioud (1823–​81), was built facing the Champ de Mars on the Chaillot Hill for the 1878 Paris Exposition. The subjects of the Trocadéro windows reflected the purpose of the building, which housed a retrospective art exhibition at ground level and contemporary art and sculpture at gallery level.140 There was a clear hierarchy in the scheme, and the stained glass windows acted as monumental signposts within the building; with industrial arts represented in the windows placed by the staircases, applied arts in the tall windows of the galleries, and fine arts and printing reserved for the more prominent pavilion windows along the façade of the building. The windows placed on the staircase illustrated the history of musical instruments (by Gustave Bourgeois, fl. 1870s), the clock industry (Henri

63

64

64

Windows for the world

Crapoix), iron (Gsell-​ Laurent studio), and saddlery and coach-​ building (Bazin). Those in the galleries depicted the history of furniture (Ottin), goldsmithery (Émile Hirsch), arms manufacture (Lafaye), and ceramics (designed by Louis-​Charles-​Auguste Steinheil, painted by Louis Bonnot, and made by Charles-​Ambrose Leprévost). The terminal walls of the two pavilions joined to the central rotunda (built facing the Seine), contained three windows showing the history of printing, engraving, and binding (Lévêque), and another three windows depicting the history of the liberal arts: painting (Hirsch), the history of sculpture in France, Italy, and Spain (Martin-​Philippe Queynoux), and architecture (Nicod). Thus in the Palais du Trocadéro, stained glass was used to illustrate and convey the subtle but distinct divisions between industrial workmanship, artistic design, and invention. As Élisabeth Hardouin-​Fugier has noted, the contributors to this glazing scheme were a diverse group of provincial and Parisian studios, incorporating both veterans of the archaeological Sainte-​Chapelle glazing competition and students of the sixteenth-​century pictorial style.141 Most had exhibited stained glass at previous Paris exhibitions, although this venture marked the international exhibition debut of both Crapoix and Hirsch. However, the involvement of so many stained glass artists made it difficult to produce a coherent scheme. The windows placed on the stairs were intended to be in colour, and those in the galleries in grisaille, yet some glaziers did not adhere to this design brief. As Didron noted: [Q]‌ue l’œuvre de M. Steinheil est colorée, quand les autres vitraux de la même série, s’ils appartiennent à la famille des grisailles, ont entre eux des différences de tonalité assez considérables pour rompre l’harmonie générale et troubler les idées que l’on se peut faire d’un système décoratif d’ensemble.142 ([T]‌hat the work of Mr. Steinheil is coloured, when the other stained glass windows of the same series, if they belong to the family of grisaille, have between them quite considerable differences of tonality which break the general harmony and disturb the ideas that can be made from an overall decorative scheme.)

Most of these windows appear to have been removed and destroyed when the Palais du Trocadéro was demolished in 1935 to make way for the Palais de Chaillot, built for the 1937 Exposition Internationale, leaving only photographic records.143 However, the colourful window depicting the ceramic arts, over 5m high, after cartoons designed in a Renaissance style by Steinheil, painted by Bonnot, and made by Leprévost, was recently rediscovered in the basement of the Musée des Monuments français, Paris, and restored in 2005.144 In the lower parts of this three-​light window are scenes showing the development of ceramic arts in the Middle Ages, Greece, and Japan, while the main lights illustrate subsequent developments led by nineteenth-​century French potter Theodore Deck (1823–​91).

65

A multitude of displays

The Palais du Champ de Mars On the other side of the Seine, and connected to the Palais du Trocadéro by the pont d’Iéna, was the Palais du Champ de Mars, designed by Léopold Amédée Hardy (1829–​94),145 which contained the bulk of the French and foreign stained glass exhibits.146 Just outside the Palais, at the south-​eastern end of the Champ de Mars facing the Military School, the stained glass pavilions of Lorin, and Charles-François  Champigneulle (1820–82)  and Maréchal were located on either side of the head of the Statue of Liberty sculpted by Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi (1834–​1904).147 Champigneulle and Maréchal’s pavilion contained religious statues and stained glass,148 reminiscent of the previous enterprising private displays of ecclesiastical furnishings led by Pugin in 1851 and Lévêque in 1867. The display of stained glass in Lorin’s pavilion emphasised his work across the world, showcasing windows made for churches in France, Belgium, Austria, Jerusalem (then under Ottoman rule), and New Zealand.149

Paris, 1889: Exposition Universelle Cathedral of Machines At the 1889 Paris Exposition, the official area reserved for stained glass was in the Galerie des Machines, which housed steam engines, electro-​ dynamos, and other machinery, and stood opposite the clou of the Exposition, Gustave Eiffel’s 300m-​high iron tower.150 This space was only allocated a month before the exhibition’s opening, which may explain the dispersal of stained glass across the exhibition site, in both national and colonial pavilions. Champigneulle fils expressed his disappointment that organisers had not made adequate provision for the display of stained glass sooner. He wrote, ‘on ne peut qu’exprimer le plus profond étonnement qu’un art si brillant et si bien fait pour séduire ait été tant délaissé’ (one can only express the deepest astonishment that an art so brilliant and so well made for seducing has been so much abandoned).151 However, the presence of stained glass in the Galerie des Machines, the largest iron and glass building in the world at the time, boldly demonstrated the medium’s capability, suitability, and potential in an era of industrial development. Elevator systems and overhead moving walkways gave visitors the opportunity to view windows from a distance, at an elevated height, and in motion, thus providing an emphatically modern means of viewing the medium. Yet, like earlier exhibition buildings, the vast industrial space also triggered comparisons with religious spaces, although the stained glass exhibits displayed here a mix of religious and secular themes, including a demi-​rose window depicting the Chariot of the Sun, from Greek mythology, by Lorin, which stood over the central bay in front of the military school.152

65

66

66

Windows for the world

Stained glass formed part of an elaborate and ambitious decorative scheme in the Galerie des Machines, as well as housing windows made for other buildings. As John Stamper has stated, ‘[t]‌he whole building was decorated with colored glass, mosaic work, paintings, and ceramic bricks, so that the great metal skeleton became essentially the frame of an enormous jewel box’.153 Under the central dome of the vestibule, six allegorical figures in stained glass represented Le Céramique, L’Orfèvrerie, Le Verre, La Tapisserie, La Pierre, and Le Bois.154 These subjects, designed by Champigneulle fils, paid tribute to historic French artistic industries, and their Renaissance style suggested their rebirth and transformation at the hands of modern artists. Furthermore, the ceiling was filled with agricultural allegories, and thus this ensemble of stained glass decoration paid homage to modern commerce, from agriculture to the industrial arts to modern machinery.155

Chicago, 1893: World’s Columbian Exposition Manufactures and Liberal Arts Building The neoclassical buildings that formed the ‘White City’ at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893 appeared as an architectural and aesthetic unity.156 Plans for the design and decoration of all state, non-​ official, and foreign buildings and pavilions had to be submitted to the Designer-​in-​Chief, Charles B.  Atwood (1849–​95), for approval, and two leading artists, the sculptor Augustus Saint-​ Gaudens (1848–​ 1907) and designer Francis Davis Millet (1848–​1912), were placed in charge of the sculptural and painted decoration, in an attempt to homogenise the whole. Millet, past student of the École des Beaux Arts, was also partner in the Chicago stained glass firm Healy & Millet (founded c. 1880), whose stained glass exhibits had first made an impact at Paris in 1889 and featured again at Chicago in 1893.157 Following classification as a manufacture, the displays of stained glass were widely dispersed across the enormous Manufactures and Liberal Arts Building designed by George Post (1837–​ 1913).158 The American stained glass exhibits occupied part of the north-​eastern gallery, while foreign stained glass exhibits were located in national pavilions within the building, the façade of which also required Atwood’s approval.159 As usual, exhibits from the hosting nation were prioritised over foreign exhibitors, and this was another reason why privately organised displays were so popular at these events. The Art Journal reported, the few British specimens of stained glass were ‘allotted space utterly unsuitable for their display’, and consequently went ‘unnoticed by the vast majority of visitors’.160

67

A multitude of displays

Tiffany’s pavilion Although Tiffany’s request for a special gallery devoted to American stained glass at the Chicago Exposition was denied,161 one of the most significant displays of stained glass was found in the Tiffany Pavilion, located within the Manufactures and Liberal Arts Building at the angle of the central alley, facing the French section.162 Like the displays led by Pugin (1851) and Lévêque (1867) at earlier exhibitions, Tiffany’s pavilion presented an integrated display of exhibits, and this was one of the reasons for his success.163 Unlike these earlier projects, however, Tiffany dedicated different parts of his pavilion to secular and ecclesiastical exhibits, thus catering for all consumer groups. The pavilion included a Light Room and a Dark Room, both of which featured secular stained glass windows,164 and a Byzantine Chapel, a 7m-​high, 11m-​long, and 7m-​wide construction of iridescent glass and mosaic, built to display his ecclesiastical exhibits, which included stained glass panels in the Byzantine, Northern Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, and modern opalescent styles.165 The chapel charmed visitors with its particular blend of modern theatricality and use of electric lighting.166 Like Lévêque’s 1867 chapel, it also inspired reverence; as one American reporter noted: Tiffany was the only firm that gave its glass any artistic setting. The ecclesiastical glass either for windows or lamps was placed in a Romanesque chapel so perfect in its appointments that it was not an uncommon sight to see men remove their hats upon entering the ‘sacred’ precincts.167

The Byzantine style, noted for its use of colourful mosaics and lavish decorations, was highly appropriate for Tiffany’s chapel, where the principal motif was the mosaic in the reredos depicting a peacock, symbol of the artist-​alchemist and aestheticism, as well as eternal life and the Resurrection in the Christian church.168 As J.  B. Bullen has noted, ‘[t]‌ he chapel was a huge national and international success, and its achievement in advertising Tiffany’s business was considerable’; it is thought to have been viewed by 1.4 million visitors.169 The exhibition occurred just after Tiffany had established his glassworks in Corona, Queens, New York, and he used this opportunity to demonstrate his range of Favrile glass and its tonal gradations. After the exposition, Tiffany rebuilt the chapel in his New York showrooms. It was purchased in 1898 by Celia Whipple Wallace (1833–​1916) and installed in the Cathedral of St John the Divine, New York, as a memorial to her son.170 Having been removed from the cathedral after water damage in 1916, the chapel was returned to Tiffany, who undertook repairs and installed it in a freestanding building at his estate, Laurelton Hall, Long Island, New York, where it remained until the mid-​twentieth century.171 It has since been reconstructed for public display at the Charles Hosmer Morse Museum

67

68

68

Windows for the world

of American Art, FL (see Plate 13). Although reconfigured for several different settings since its original conception in 1893, the Tiffany Chapel is a rare survival of a complete exhibition display, and gives a sense of how elaborate and beautiful these temporary spaces were.

Woman’s Building A number of stained glass designs, cartoons, and completed windows made by female artists were exhibited in the Woman’s Building at the Chicago Exposition, and stained glass windows decorated parlours, boardrooms and offices within the building.172 This display led Maud Howe Elliot (1854–​1948), the author of Art and handicraft in the Woman’s Building (1893), to remark, ‘few are aware how much artistic labour is performed by women in the new directions of designing, cutting, leading, and painting of stained glass … and in many other directions absolutely new to women’.173 This was true across the world but especially in the USA. Elliot continued, ‘[i]‌n the great American revival of stained glass, our women are doing much creditable work. Many of the best firms, including that of Tiffany, employ women designers, who have met with very great success’.174 Famously, in 1892, Tiffany established a Women’s Glass Cutting Department after the Lead Glaziers and Glass Cutters’ Union workers of New  York went on strike during preparations for the Chicago Exposition.175 Tiffany noted that the women in this department, led by Clara Driscoll (1861–​1944) and known as ‘the Tiffany Girls’, possessed ‘a more refined appreciation of the subtle differences between tone and tone and at the same time greater taste in their combination’.176 The Tiffany Girls made several of the stained glass windows exhibited by Tiffany Studios at these exhibitions (see Chapters 4 and 5). Other American stained glass exhibitors whose work was represented in the Woman’s Building included Marie Herndl (1859–​1912) of Chicago;177 Margaret Armstrong (1867–​1944);178 and from the group of ‘Tiffany Girls’, Mary McDowell (fl. 1890s), Agnes F.  Northrop (1857–​1953), Anne Van Derlip Weston (née Van Derlip) (1861–​ 1944), and Mary E.  Tillinghast (1845–​1912) of New  York,179 who had also formerly (1882–​83) worked with La Farge.180 In addition to these American exhibitors, British Arts and Crafts artist Mary J. Newill (1860–​1947) of Birmingham, UK, exhibited stained glass cartoons,181 and the Ladies’ Committee of Stockholm, Sweden, collectively exhibited a window depicting St Bridget of Sweden. One of Marie Herndl’s exhibits, The Fairy Queen (or Queen of the Elves), now in a private collection,182 caused controversy with its depiction of female nudity. Herndl refused to adapt the window to clothe the naked figures, and in what can be interpreted as a double rebuff, the organisers placed her window in the African-​American women’s exhibit and installed it the wrong way round.183 As well as revealing anxieties over the female nude, this action also exposed the exhibition organisers’

69

A multitude of displays

racial prejudice, since Herndl’s window was displayed with the exhibits of a marginalised ethnic group who were consistently characterised as ‘primitive’ by the organisers, in order to reinforce a social hierarchy. Such attitudes were common in the nineteenth century, and perpetuated through exhibitions of living foreign peoples at the international exhibitions (see Chapter 5). Some windows in the Woman’s Building were more prominent than others. The central window of three stained glass windows installed behind the stage at the east end of the Assembly Hall (on the second floor), used for musical performances, meetings and lectures, depicted Massachusetts Mothering the Coming Woman of Liberty, Progress and Light.184 Designed by Elizabeth Parsons, Edith Brown, and Ethel Brown, and made by Ford & Brooks of Boston, MA, the window featured a 2m-​high personification of Massachusetts joining hands with a younger woman wearing a liberty cap and holding a torch.185 These figures are surrounded by the names of famous progressive women from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries.186 The window can be interpreted as a symbol of the independent, educated, and freethinking New Woman. Its subject matter and title refer to Liberty (or Freedom) and Light (Enlightenment), and it held a central position in the Woman’s Building.

Paris, 1900: Exposition Universelle The stained glass pavilion Since stained glass gained autonomous classification at the fin-​de-​siècle exhibition in Paris, 1900, provision was made for the official display of French stained glass in a separate pavilion projecting from the Grand Palais de la Décoration et du Mobilier on the esplanade des Invalides.187 French stained glass exhibits occupied the first floor of this pavilion, a space 45m long and 18m wide, with an interior hall and glass ceiling.188 Foreign stained glass exhibits were, however, dispersed across the various foreign sections, on the other side of the esplanade des Invalides.189

L’Exposition rétrospectif du vitrail For the first time at an international exhibition, the display of stained glass at the Paris 1900 Exposition incorporated both contemporary and historic panels. A quarter of the total space allocated to stained glass was taken up by a retrospective exhibition mounted in a vestibule preceding the room of contemporary stained glass, where several examples of historic French stained glass from the twelfth to nineteenth centuries could be seen. The intention was twofold, to instruct contemporary glass-​painters and visitors in the development of the art, and to reflect upon recent progress.190 An entire committee of French glass-​painters, together with government architect Lucien Magne (1849–​1916), assembled the 1900 retrospective

69

70

70

Windows for the world

display from the private collections of glass-​painters and collectors, as well as government collections in the Service de Monuments historiques and the Direction des cultes.191 As Lenoir had intended in the beginning of the century through his displays at the Musée des Monuments français, Magne too wished to demonstrate that stained glass was ‘essentiellement un art français’ (essentially a French art).192 All the examples were French, and were arranged chronologically by region, alongside watercolours and designs showing entire windows, thus enabling the onlooker to interpret the fragmented exhibits as part of an architectural whole.193 This also gave viewers and critics a more comprehensive display incorporating the making of stained glass, from conception to design, to execution in glass, lead, and paint. Most of the exhibits were medieval. Only a few fragments from the seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries were shown, thus perpetuating the myth that this period marked the decline of the medium.194 The contemporary nineteenth-​century displays began with the products of the Royal Manufactory of Sèvres, emphasising the royal patronage of stained glass leading up to the Third Republic (1870–​ 1940). A nineteenth-​century pastiche in imitation of the twelfth-​and thirteenth-​ century stained glass at Chartres executed by Nicolas Coffetier (1821–​ 84) was also selected for display, demonstrating an eclectic medievalism that characterised much of the stained glass shown at these events, as will be discussed in Chapter 3. More recent panels made by Leprévost to the designs of Charles Lebayle (1856–​98), along with designs and maquettes by Merson and François-​Émile Ehrmann (1833–​1910), were also displayed. This retrospective display pre-​ empted the educational aims, taxonomic logic, and aesthetic of modern museum displays of stained glass, perhaps more than any other international exhibition display. It did so, firstly, by prioritising a close-​up viewing of an individual panel, disregarding the entire window and its architectural context. Secondly, it displayed historic artefacts in order to further  public education and future restoration and heritage. Daumont-​Tournel described the technical and educational benefits of the arrangement and pressed for the collection to be permanently displayed in either the Musée des arts décoratifs or Musée du Trocadéro, for the benefit of both the public and those in the industry.195 His report also recommended that temporary exhibitions of panels in the process of restoration, displayed alongside the resources available to the stained glass restorer, copies, monographs, documents, and photographs, would be of educational interest.196

Le Vieux Paris Elsewhere, the past was presented in a more theatrical fashion. Vieux Paris, or ‘old Paris’, was one of many architectural ensembles constructed

71

A multitude of displays

along the river Seine, which united medieval history with modern scenery and mock-​medieval buildings and streets, complete with actors in medieval costume.197 The recreated thirteenth-​century medieval church of Saint-​ Julien-​ des-​ Ménestriers, the church of the brotherhood of jugglers and minstrels of Paris, formed part of this complex. In a less than authentic pastiche of medieval modes, Saint-​Julien-​des-​Ménestriers was furnished with a set of stained glass windows designed by Albert Robida (1848–​1926) and executed by M.  Richard. The windows, illustrations of which were published in Robida’s Le Vieux Paris, études et dessins (1901), were entirely modern fabrications which recalled the history of the foundation of the church, and its particular relationship to art and music.198 They depicted minstrels serenading a statue of the Virgin Mary with prayer and music; Saint Cecelia and angel musicians; and the history of the chapel’s foundation as a hospice for injured minstrels.199 At the 1900 Exposition, the reconstructed church was used for concerts of medieval religious music, and thus the subjects of the stained glass windows adopted even greater significance, forming part of a multisensory experience in a place of entertainment rather than reverence. The church of Saint-​Julien-​des-​ Ménestriers reconnected stained glass (albeit in a modern guise) with the medieval period, and, like many previous Paris expositions, placed the medium within an architectural framework, demonstrating its monumental function.

Bing’s Art Nouveau Pavilion Although evoking the past remained popular at these events, the variety of official and private pavilions on the esplanade des Invalides during the 1900 Exposition provided ample opportunities for showcasing contemporary decorative arts including stained glass. Displays of French decorative art were organised according to geographical regions and took up the west side of the esplanade, with foreign decorative art on the east side. Amongst the buildings on the French side, between the Seine and the gare d’Orsay under the trees and close to the Breton village, was Bing’s Art Nouveau Pavilion. This pavilion marked a departure from previous private displays initiated by architects and artists like Pugin, Lévêque, and Tiffany, because it was organised by a German-​born ceramics dealer and patron of the Art Nouveau Movement, Siegfried Bing (1838–​1905),200 and thus signalled the rise of commercial art dealers and galleries in the art world. Bing’s pavilion served as an extended advertisement for his Parisian contemporary art gallery, Maison de L’Art Nouveau, which opened in 1895 and displayed a range of works by established and emerging ­artists, including Camille Pissaro (1830–​1903), Auguste Rodin (1840–​1917), Émile Gallé (1846–​ 1904), Henri de Toulouse-​ Lautrec (1864–​ 1901), Walter Crane, Charles Rennie Mackintosh (1868–​ 1928), Aubrey Beardsley (1872–​98), and Tiffany.201

71

72

72

Windows for the world

Bing’s pavilion at the Paris 1900 Exposition was the culmination of his artistic vision. Designed by then-​recent architecture graduate André Louis Arfvidson (1870–​1935), the pavilion was fashioned as a private house with a series of fully furnished decorated interiors. Skylights and stained glass windows illuminated several of the rooms, and the curved wall of the passage to the bedroom was formed entirely by stained glass designed by Georges De Feure (1868–​1943) (see also Chapter 3).202 Bing invested half a million francs in the pavilion, and in return he was awarded international acclaim. Bing’s pavilion came to be viewed as a defining moment for Art Nouveau in the same way that Pugin’s Medieval Court represented the gothic revival in 1851. Both were innovative and collaborative displays that featured stained glass as part of an integrated interior and influenced stylistic development as well as museum collecting.203 At the 1900 Exposition, stained glass was presented in both ‘historic’ and ‘nouveau’ contexts, reflecting the ways in which nineteenth-​century stained glass continually straddled medieval tradition and modern innovation. It is clear that these environments reveal the diverse public taste for stained glass in eclectic styles.

Notes 1 Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass’, 275. 2 The illustrated exhibitor proclaimed that the 1851 Crystal Palace ‘is like a cathedral in its vastness and solemnity’. Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, p.  346. The Archbishop of Canterbury also presided at the 1851 opening ceremony. French exhibition buildings do not appear to have been described in this way, perhaps because France was a secular state. 3 Armstrong. Victorian glassworlds; J.  Buzard, J.  W. Childers, and E. Gillooly (eds), Victorian prism: refractions of the Crystal Palace (Charlottesville; London: University of Virginia Press, 2007). 4 Other glass manufactures were displayed on the ground floor at the eastern and western extremities of the building. For dimensions of Paxton’s Crystal Palace in 1851, see C. Downes, The building erected in Hyde Park for the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, 1851 (London: J. Weale, 1852). 5 G. Bontemps, Examen historique et critique des verres, vitraux, cristaux composant la Classe XXIV de l’Exposition universelle de 1851 (Paris: Mathias; London: J. Weale, 1851), p. 51. 6 Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures, vol. 2, text accompanying plate XIII. 7 See the chromolithographs of Russia; North Germany; Holland; Italy; and Spain and Portugal, in Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures, vols. 1 and 2. 8 J. G. Strutt (ed.), Tallis’s history and description of the Crystal Palace and the Exhibition of the World’s Industry in 1851 (London: John Tallis, 1852), vol. 1, p. 96. 9 The first cathedral building was erected in 1842, but was declared structurally unsafe and dismantled in 1877. The fate of the window is unknown. D. H. Goodrich, A short history of St George’s, Georgetown, Guyana (Georgetown, Guyana:  D.  H. Goodrich, 1994). 10 ‘Ecclesiological Aspect of the Great Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 9 (1851), 183. 11 J. Allen, ‘A. W. N. Pugin, Stained Glass and the 1851 Medieval Court’, True Principles 5:1 (Spring 2016), 11–​28.

73

A multitude of displays 2 Shepherd, Stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 21. 1 13 Fisher, Hardman of Birmingham, pp. 61–​3. 14 A. Wedgwood, ‘The Mediæval Court’, in P. Atterbury and C. Wainwright (eds), Pugin: a gothic passion (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 237–​ 45; C. Brooks, The gothic revival (London: Phaidon, 1999); M. J. Lewis, The gothic revival (London: Thames & Hudson, 2002). 15 Fisher, Hardman of Birmingham, p. 62. 16 The window (which no longer survives) depicted St Thomas the Apostle and St Thomas of Canterbury, the patron saints of Bishop Griffiths, the founder of the chapel. Pugin to Hardman, House of Lords Record Office [HLRO] 304, letter no. 456. Quoted in Shepherd, Stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 89. 17 R. Fleet and C. Blaker, The stained glass of St Augustine’s Church Ramsgate (Ramsgate: Potmetal Press, 2010). 18 ‘The Medieval Court. Painted Glass’, Illustrated London News (20 September 1851), 362. 19 A. Gilchrist, ‘ “The Tears Wept by our Windows”: Severe Paint Loss from Stained Glass Windows of the Mid-​ Nineteenth Century’ (MA dissertation, University of York, 2010). 20 ‘The Medieval Court. Painted Glass’, 362. The 16th Earl of Shrewsbury was an important patron of A. W. N. Pugin. 21 The figure of the ‘Old Talbot’ was based on John Talbot’s fifteenth-​century effigy at St Alkmund’s church, Whitchurch, Shropshire, a plaster cast of which is in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Shepherd, Stained glass of A.  W. N. Pugin, p. 327. 22 This window was still intact in 1951, but probably suffered during the inter-​war period, when much of the fittings and furnishings were sold. Fisher, Hardman of Birmingham, p. 104. 23 Wedgwood, ‘The Medieval Court’, pp. 238–​9. 24 Hardman & Co. erected a Medieval Court for the Dublin International Exhibition of 1853. For medieval courts see J.  M. Ganim, ‘Medievalism and Orientalism at the World Fairs’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 38 (2002), 170–​90; L. D’Arcens, ‘ “The Last Thing One Might Expect”: The Mediaeval Court at the 1866 Melbourne Intercolonial Exhibition’, La Trobe Journal 81 (Autumn 2008), 26–​39. 25 M. Wyatt and J. B. Waring, The Mediaeval Court in the Crystal Palace (London: Crystal Palace Library and Bradbury & Evans, 1854), p. vi. 26 Letter from J. S. Gammell to Hardman, 15 March 1851. Shepherd, Stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, pp. 201–​2. 27 HLRO 304, letter no. 802. Quoted in Shepherd, Stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 89. 28 ‘Ecclesiological Aspect of the Great Exhibition’, 182. 29 ‘The Medieval Court. Painted Glass’, 362. 30 This window is now housed in the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana, Milan (Inv. 59). 31 E. Gillooly, ‘Rhetorical Remedies for Taxonomic Troubles:  Reading the Great Exhibition’, in Buzard et al., Victorian prism, p. 30. 32 L. Pini, ‘Milano–​Londra 1851:  la grande vetrata Dantesca di Giuseppe Bertini’, Quaderni de il Risorgimento (1999), 131–​43. 33 This reduced copy (1853–​54) is set amongst plain glazing decorated with bull’s-​ eyes in the Dante Room of the Museo Poldi Pezzoli, Milan. L. Pini. Lo studiolo del collezionista restaurato. Il Gabinetto dantesco del Museo Poldi Pezzoli (Milan: Silvia editrice, 2002). I am grateful to Lavinia Galli for alerting me to the existence of several other small versions of this window. 34 Kiss’s Amazon was first modelled in clay in 1839 at the instigation of Prussian architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781–​1841), and cast in zinc the same year by

73

74

74

Windows for the world Moritz Geiss (1805–​75). In 1843, an enlarged group was cast in bronze by public subscription and placed at the foot of the steps in front of the Königliches Museum (now Altes Museum), Berlin. C. A. Grissom, Zinc sculpture in America, 1850–​1950 (Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 2009), p. 227. 35 The Zollverein (or German Customs’ Union) was formed in 1818 to manage customs and economic policies. By 1851, the Zollverein covered most of the German Federation, but Austria was excluded from this group, and this exacerbated Austro-​ Prussian rivalry. A. Green, ‘Representing Germany? The Zollverein at the World Exhibitions, 1851–​1862’, Journal of Modern History 75:4 (December 2003), 836–​63. 36 The 1855 building was destroyed in 1897–​99 to make way for the Grand and Petit Palais, both of which were built for the later Exposition Universelle of 1900. De Finance and Hervier, Un patrimoine de lumière 1830–​2000, p. 262, n. 1279. 37 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 282. Wallis, ‘The Artistic, Industrial, and Commercial Results’, xv. 38 H. Cole, ‘Report on the Management of the British Portion of the Paris Universal Exhibition’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition: presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode for HMSO, 1856), part 1, p. 26. 39 ‘The Palais de l’Industrie’, The Critic (15 August 1855), 409. 40 Pillet, ‘La plume et l’épée’, 53. 41 The windows were installed ten days before the exposition opened on 5 May 1855. 42 A. De Caumont, ‘Vitraux peints’, in ‘Dix-​huitième classe: industrie de la verrerie et de la céramique’, in Rapports de Jury mixte international publiés sous la direction de la Commission impériale (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1856), p. 954. 43 As articulated by the Emperor at the opening of the Exposition: ‘I open with happiness this Temple of Peace’. Catalogue officiel publié par ordre de la Commission impériale (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1855), p. 4. 44 C.-​L. Maréchal, ‘Les verrières du Palais de l’Industrie’. Signed letter from Maréchal to the editor of Metz Littéraire, 4 October 1854, and published by F.  Blanc, chief editor of Courrier de La Moselle, 4 April 1855, bound in a volume of items pertaining to the Exposition Universelle of 1855 (4 October 1854). The windows were also described in ‘The Palais de l’Industrie’, 409. 45 S. Ageorges, Sur les traces des Expositions universelles Paris 1855–​ 1937:  à la recherche des pavillons et des monuments oubliés (Paris: Parigramme, 2006). 46 Charles Eastlake (1836–1906)  acknowledged that both depended on ‘simplicity, magnitude and distinctness’. See S. Rush, ‘Ungrateful Posterity? The Removal of the “Munich” Windows from Glasgow Cathedral’, in R. Fawcett (ed.), Glasgow’s great glass experiment: the Munich glass of Glasgow Cathedral (Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 2003), p.  61. At the 1878 Exposition, Didron compared stained glass with mural paintings, frescoes, and tapestries. See Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, pp. 59–​60. 47 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 285. 48 R. Redgrave, ‘On the Present State of Design as Applied to Manufactures’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition, vol. 3, p. 398. 49 De Caumont, ‘Vitraux peints’, p. 955. 50 De Caumont, ‘Vitraux peints’, p. 954. This sentiment is repeated by Pillet, ‘La plume et l’épée’, 52. 51 De Finance and Hervier, Un patrimoine de lumière, p.  154; P. Ennès, Histoire du verre. Le XIXe siècle:  au carrefour de l’art et de l’industrie (Paris:  Massin, 2006), p. 173. 52 The windows, reportedly 36m high and weighing six and a half million kilograms, were demolished in October 1897 by fifty men pulling cables attached to two powerful winches. As one article reported, ‘soudain l’immense vitrail s’incline lentement

75

A multitude of displays d’abord, puis tout d’une pièce s’abat sur le ciel au milieu d’un nuage de poussier et de graviers’ (All of a sudden, the immense stained glass window tilts, slowly at first, then the whole thing sweeps down through the sky in a cloud of dust and gravel). ‘Echos’, Journal de la Peinture sur Verre 19–​20 (October 1897), 6. 53 Purbrick, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 128. 54 Sala, The life and adventures of George Augustus Sala, vol. 1, p. 376. 55 Findling and Pelle, Historical dictionary, p. 25. 56 D. Dishon, ‘South Kensington’s Forgotten Palace:  The Rise and Fall of the 1862 Exhibition Building’, Decorative Arts Society Journal 38 (2014), 21–​45. 57 The land was purchased using profits from the Great Exhibition. After the exhibition closed the building was demolished and materials were sold; some were used in the construction of Alexandra Palace, 1871–​73. F. H. W. Sheppard (ed.), Survey of London, vol. 38, South Kensington Museums area (London: Athlone Press, 1975), pp. 137–​47. 58 There is no mention of fitting stained glass in the transepts in Some account of the buildings designed by Francis Fowke (1861). A report of a lecture delivered to the RSA by John Gregory Crace, the man responsible for the decoration of the building, noted that the aggregate surface of the windows throughout the building was ‘so tremendous that any application of stained glass, except upon the voluntary principle, would be quite out of the question’. J. G. Crace, ‘On the Decoration of the International Exhibition Building’, Society of Arts Journal (11 April 1862), 344. 59 ‘International Exhibition of 1862’, Illustrated London News (16 November 1861), 488. 60 The decision to construct an additional eastern annex was announced in ‘The International Exhibition, 1862’, Illustrated London News (19 October 1861), 397. It was reported nearly complete in ‘The International Exhibition, 1862’, Illustrated London News (11 January 1862), 42. 61 ‘Progress of the International Exhibition’, Illustrated London News (19 April 1862), 400. 62 Clement Heaton (1824–​82) established a stained glass firm in 1852, which, when James Butler (1830–​1913) became a partner in 1855, was known as Heaton & Butler. The name changed again in 1862 to Heaton, Butler & Bayne when a third partner, Robert Bayne (1837–​1915), joined the firm. 63 An engraving of the window was published in ‘The International Exhibition. Stained Glass’, Illustrated London News (27 September 1862), 344. 64 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 307. 65 P. Shaffner and W. Owen, The illustrated record of the International Exhibition of the Industrial Arts and Manufactures, and the Fine Arts, of All Nations in 1862 (London; New York: Ward and Lock, 1862), p. 71. 66 ‘Painted Glass in the International Exhibition’, Saturday Review 14:364 (18 October 1862), 477. 67 Five years later, Coffetier exhibited his stained glass in a large tympanum under the clock in the 1867 Palais de l’Industrie. G. Bontemps and É. Boeswillwald, ‘Groupe III. Classes 14 à 26. Section II. Vitraux’, in Rapports du Jury international publiés sous la direction de M. Michel Chevalier, 6 vols (Paris: Dupong, 1868), vol. 3, p. 93. 68 Evans, a friend of Burne-​Jones, was a conservative politician and anti-​Catholic journalist. After Chance Bros’ art department closed down he became editor of the Birmingham Daily Gazette, 1867–​70 and of conservative newspaper The People from 1878. Evans exhibited at the RA in 1881. C. Arscott, William Morris and Edward Burne-​Jones: interlacings (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), p. 218, n. 44. 69 S. Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures, Staining and Painting’, in W. Mackenzie and R. Mallet (eds), The record of the International Exhibition 1862 (Glasgow:  William Mackenzie, 1862), p. 404.

75

76

76

Windows for the world 70 ‘The International Exhibition. Stained Glass  –​No. II’, Illustrated London News (8 November 1862), 503–​4. 71 W. Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’, Gentleman’s Magazine 213 (July 1862), 7. 72 Evans described the display as ‘scattered, ill-​arranged, and ill-​seen’. Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 403. 73 E. McDermott, The popular guide to the International Exhibition of 1862 (London: W. H. Smith & Co., 1862), pp. 48–​9; W. Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’, Gentleman’s Magazine 212 (June 1862), 666. 74 ‘Painted Glass in the International Exhibition’, 477. 75 ‘The International Exhibition’, The Examiner 2854 (11 October 1862), 648. 76 ‘The Art-​Show at the Great Exhibition’, 136–​7. 77 Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’ (July 1862), 7. 78 Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’ (June 1862), 666–​7. 79 The Parthenon was also referred to in a discussion of the stained glass at the 1867 Exposition. See Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass’, 276. 80 Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’ (July 1862), 9. 81 The Ecclesiologist concluded that ‘the painted glass galleries are on the whole discouraging’. ‘The International Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 20 (April 1862), 172. 82 ‘The Mediaeval Court at the Great Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 20 (April 1862), 75. 83 L. F. Day, Windows: a book about stained and painted glass, 3rd edn (London: B.T. Batsford, 1909 [1897]), p. 369. 84 Weld, ‘The Paris Exhibition’, 405–​ 6; A.  C.  T. Geppert, Fleeting cities:  imperial expositions in fin-​ de-​ siècle Europe (Houndmills; New  York:  Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 69. 85 Several exhibitors contributed stained glass exhibits to both the Palais and the park. Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, pp. 44–​5. 86 See I. Chalet-​Bailhache, Paris et ses Exposition universelles:  architectures, 1855–​ 1937 (Paris:  Éditions du patrimoine; Centre des monuments nationaux, 2008); Demeulenaere-​Douyère, C. (ed.), Exotiques expositions: les Expositions universelles et les cultures extra-​ européennes, France, 1855–​ 1937 (Paris:  Somogy; Archives nationales, 2010). 87 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p. 6. 88 Walking towards the Jardin Central, French exhibits were on the left-​hand side of the vestibule, and foreign exhibits on the right. 89 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p.  30; Bontemps and Boeswillwald, ‘Groupe III’, p. 91. 90 Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass’, 275. 91 Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass’, 275–​6; Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, pp. 21–​30; T. Gambier Parry, ‘Report on Painting on Glass –​(Class 16)’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition 1867 (London:  HMSO, 1868), pp. 384–​7. 92 Bontemps and Boeswillwald, ‘Groupe III’, p. 91. 93 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p.  20; F.  Kirchhoff, ‘Glass Painting’, in Reports of artisans selected by a committee appointed by the Council of the Society of Arts to visit the Paris Universal Exhibition, 1867 (London: Bell and Daldy, 1867), p. 74. 94 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p. 20. 95 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p. 5. 96 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 32. 97 As Day noted in 1878, the ‘stained glass exhibited in the separate houses has a better chance of appreciation’. L. F. Day, ‘Notes on English Decorative Art in Paris. II –​Stained Glass’, British Architect 10:1 (5 July 1878), 4.

77

A multitude of displays 98 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p. 14; Gambier Parry, ‘Report on Painting on Glass’, p. 380. 99 Photosculpture is a process by which three-​dimensional sculptures are produced with the aid of a series of two-​ dimensional photographs taken from multiple angles. 100 Gambier Parry, ‘Painting on Glass’, 275. 101 Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle, p. 158. 102 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p. 14. 103 H.  W. Diamond, ‘Report on Photographic Proofs and Apparatus  –​(Class 9)’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition 1867, p. 174. 104 ‘What was the relationship between photography and stained glass?’ asked Cheshire in his preface. Cheshire, Stained glass, p. xi. 105 The use of the glass negative, first achieved in 1822 by Joseph-​Nicéphore Niépce and developed in 1839 by John Herschel, was an important development in photography. A. J. Hamber, ‘A higher branch of the art’: photographing the fine arts in England, 1839–​1880 (Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1996), pp. 52, 78–​9. 106 D. Waggoner et al., The Pre-​Raphaelite lens: British photography and painting, 1848–​ 1875 (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2010); C. Jacobi and H. Kingsley, with contributions by E. Jacklin, Painting with light: art and photography from the Pre-​Raphaelites to the modern age (London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2016). 107 Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 94. 108 Hamber, ‘A higher branch of the art’, p.  83. See R. Machado, ‘The Politics of Applied Color in Early Photography’, Nineteenth-​Century Art Worldwide: A Journal of Nineteenth-​Century Visual Culture 9:1 (Spring 2010), www.19thc-​artworldwide. org/​index.php/​spring10/​politics-​of-​applied-​color (accessed 30 January 2013); H. K. Henisch and B. A. Henisch, The painted photograph 1839–​1914 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996). 109 Cheshire, Stained glass, pp. 104, n. 11 and 158. 110 This was the earliest collotype process worked out after Poitevin’s 1856 experiments in Paris. J. Schnauss, Collotype and photo-​lithography practically elaborated, trans. E. C. Middleton (London: Iliffe and Son, 1889); C. Gravier, ‘The Photographic Processes Utilized in Stained Glass Window Decoration’, Wilson’s Photographic Magazine 29:424 (20 August 1892), 507. 111 H. Gautier, Les curiosités de l’Exposition de 1867 (Paris:  Ch. Delagrave et cie, 1867), p. 31. 112 ‘The Paris Exhibition, and Paris in Exhibition Time’, Bentley’s Miscellany 62 (July 1867), 58. 113 Lévêque’s chapel was a ‘construction en briques jaunes, couverte de différents échantillons de tuilès, ardoises ou zinc’ (construction in yellow brick, covered with various samples of tiles, slates, or zinc). E. D. T. Ansted (ed.), Black’s guide to Paris, and the International Exhibition of 1867 (Edinburgh:  Adam and Charles Black, 1867), p. 57. 114 For a complete list of exhibits see Exposition universelle de 1867 à Paris: Catalogue général (Paris: Dentu, 1867), pp. 330–​3. 115 Ansted, Black’s guide to Paris, p. 57. 116 For a description of these works see Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, pp. 14–​20. 117 Kirchhoff, ‘Glass Painting’, p. 80. 118 The cathedral was destroyed by fire on 13 March 1972. D. Blow, ‘A Cathedral for Burlington’, Vermont History 36:3 (Summer 1968), 109–​25. 119 A. Juquin and O. Masselin, Description exacte des grands travaux du palais et du parc de L’Exposition universelle de 1867 à Paris (Paris: O. Masselin, 1866), p. 25.

77

78

78

Windows for the world 120 B.  C. Truman, History of the World’s Fair (New  York:  Arno Press, 1976 [1893]), p. 511; ‘Glass and Ceramics at the Chicago Exhibition’, 30. 121 R. Lewis, ‘Everything under One Roof: World’s Fairs and Departmental Stores in Paris and Chicago’, Chicago History 12:3 (Fall 1983); E. Emery and L. Morowitz, Consuming the past: the medieval revival in fin-​de-​siècle France (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), pp. 111–​12; L. Morowitz, ‘The Cathedral of Commerce:  French Gothic Architecture and Wanamaker’s Department Store’, in J.  T. Marquardt and A.  A. Jordan (eds), Medieval art and architecture after the Middle Ages (Newcastle-​upon-​ Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011), pp. 340–​63. 122 Emery and Morowitz, Consuming the past, p. 164. 123 Allwood, ‘International Exhibitions and the Classification of their Exhibits’, 454. 124 M. F. Cordato, ‘Toward a New Century: Women and the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, 1876’, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (January 1983), 113–​35. 125 R. Magee, Magee’s centennial guide of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1876), p. 120. 126 P. Sandhurst et  al., The Great Centennial Exhibition critically described and illustrated (Philadelphia: Richard Magee & Son, 1876), p. 23. 127 ‘The Century –​Its Fruits and Its Festival. X –​Art’, Lippincott’s Magazine of Popular Literature and Science 18 (October 1876), 413. 128 N. Lorin, De la peinture sur verre, à propos de l’Exposition de Philadelphie (Chartres: Édouard Garnier, 1878); R. C. Post (ed.), 1876: a centennial exhibition (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1976), p. 179. 129 See Edwards, ‘Photography, Allegory, and Labor’. 130 Catalogues do not give us any detailed information about Zettler’s exhibits here. 131 D. Gardner (ed.), International Exhibition 1876. Grounds and buildings of the Centennial Exhibition Philadelphia, 1876 (Philadelphia:  Lippincott, 1878); J. Ingram, Complete history of the Centennial Exposition (Philadelphia: Hubbard Bros, 1876), p. 109. 132 Stained glass windows were shown on a high screen in Austro-​Hungary’s section. ‘Philadelphia 1876. Collection of Newspaper Clippings’, New York Public Library, p. 104. 133 J.  D. McCabe, The illustrated history of the Centennial Exhibition held in commemoration of the one hundredth anniversary of American Independence (Philadelphia: National Publishing Co., 1876), p. 371. 134 F.  A. Walker (ed.), United States Centennial Commission International Exhibition 1876. Reports and awards, Group XXVII (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1877), vol. 1, p. 140. 135 Hardouin-​Fugier, ‘Le vitrail français en 1878’, 210. 136 Walker, United States Centennial Commission, p. 217; D. G. Mitchell, ‘In and about the Fair’, Scribner’s Monthly (October 1876), 896; H. W. Sweny, ‘The International Exhibition, Philadelphia, 1876’, Art Journal 15 (January 1876), 28. 137 See, for example, illustrations in Cassell’s illustrated exhibitor, p.  52; Art Journal illustrated catalogue, 1868, p. 178. 138 See photograph in L. P. Gross and T. R. Snyder, Images of America. Philadelphia’s 1876 Centennial Exhibition (Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2005), p. 46. 139 Art Journal illustrated catalogue, 1878, pp. 7–​8. 140 For contemporary descriptions see Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, pp.  69–​ 71; Exposition universelle de 1878. Le Palais du Trocadéro (Paris: Morel, 1878), pp. 71–​ 3, 101–​2, 109–​12. 141 Except for provincial glaziers, Lévêque (Beauvais) and Bazin (Mesnil Saint-​ Fermin), all the contributing artists were from Paris. Hardouin-​Fugier, ‘Le vitrail français en 1878’, 208.

79

A multitude of displays 42 Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, p. 70. 1 143 Some photographs of the windows, taken c. 1892, survive in the Maciet Collection (482.21), Bibliothèque des arts décoratifs, Paris. 144 R. Dulau, ‘Un vitrail de Steinheil crée pour l’Exposition universelle de 1878’, in Clément, Monumental, pp. 48–​9; I. Baguelin, ‘La céramique. La redécouverte d’un vitrail de l’Exposition universelle de 1878 au Musée des Monuments français’, Histoire de l’Art 56 (April 2005), 131–​9; Luneau, Félix Gaudin, pp. 80–​1. 145 The Palais du Champ de Mars was torn down and replaced by the Galerie des Machines for the following 1889 Exposition. 146 ‘The Paris Universal Exhibition. –​VII’, Magazine of Art (January 1878), 190. 147 Maréchal opened his studio in 1837 and handed over to Champigneulle in 1867. Brisac, A thousand years of stained glass, p. 153. Hardouin-​Fugier, ‘Le vitrail français en 1878’, 207. 148 É. Bergerat, ‘Peinture sur verre et statuaire religieuse’, in Les chefs-​d’oeuvre d’art à l’Exposition universelle, 1878 (Paris: Baschet, 1878), pp. 9–​12. 149 Les merveilles de l’Exposition de 1878 (Paris: Librairie illustrée, 1879). 150 The Galerie des Machines was designed by Ferdinand Dutert (1845–​1906), and built by Victor Contamin (1840–​93). It was altered and used again for the 1900 Exposition, with a huge rotunda, the Salle des Fêtes, erected in the middle of the space. It was demolished in 1910. 151 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 175. 152 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 179. 153 J.  W. Stamper, ‘The Galerie des Machines of the 1889 Paris World’s Fair’, Technology and Culture 30:2 (April 1989), 337. 154 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p.  178. See Emery and Morowitz, Consuming the past, p. 76. 155 H. Gautier, Les curiosités de l’Exposition de 1889 (Paris: Librairie Charles Delagrave, 1889), p. 29. 156 Allwood, ‘International Exhibitions and the Classification of their Exhibits’, 454. This classical style, fashioned after the Greeks and Romans, represented the Republican and Democratic spirit of America. 157 Millet  also worked with La Farge. J.  L. Yarnall, ‘John La Farge’s Portrait of the Painter and the Use of Photography in His Work’, American Art Journal 18:1 (Winter 1986), 4–​20. 158 J.  E. Findling, Chicago’s great world’s fairs (Manchester; New  York:  Manchester University Press, 1994), p. 18. 159 For a review of the stained glass exhibits see ‘Chicago:  American vs. Foreign Stained Glass’, American Architect and Building News 42:933 (11 November 1893), 74–​5. 160 ‘Glass and Ceramics at the Chicago Exhibition’, 29. 161 Tiffany wrote: ‘you will look in vain in the great “White City” on the shores of Lake Michigan for a department in the Exposition devoted exclusively to exhibiting the results of the development in this particular art’. Cited in C. G. Garfinkle, ‘ “Women at Work”: The Design and Decoration of the Woman’s Building at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition:  Architecture, Exterior Sculpture, Stained Glass, and Interior Murals’ (PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1996), p. 105. 162 For contemporary descriptions of the stained glass see Chicago Daily Tribune (3 June 1894), 6. 163 For Tiffany’s exhibit see N. Long, The Tiffany Chapel at the Morse Museum (Winter Park, FL: Charles Hosmer Morse Museum, 2002), pp. 83–​4. Tiffany secured this space through his father’s jewellery company. J.  L. Sloan, ‘The Rivalry between

79

80

80

Windows for the world Louis Comfort Tiffany and John La Farge’, Nineteenth Century:  Magazine of the Victorian Society in America 17:2 (Fall 1997), 27–​34. 164 Including Woman Feeding Flamingoes, Morse Museum of American Art (FL), U-​D72, and Parakeets and Gold Fish Bowl, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MA), 2008.1415. See Long, The Tiffany Chapel, p. 77. 165 Long, The Tiffany Chapel, pp. 71–​85. 166 The French painter and goldsmith André Bouilhet rated the chapel as ‘somewhat theatrical but a great success’. A. Bouilhet, ‘L’exposition de Chicago: notes de voyage d’un orfèvre’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs (1893–​94), 65–​79. 167 ‘Chicago: American vs. Foreign Stained Glass’, 74. 168 R. M. Schuler, ‘W. B. Yeats: Artist or Alchemist?’, Review of English Studies 22:85 (February 1971), 37–​53. 169 J.  B. Bullen, ‘Louis Comfort Tiffany and Romano-​Byzantine Design’, Burlington Magazine 147:1227: Furniture, Decorative Arts, Sculpture (June 2005), 397, n. 50. 170 C. De Kay, ‘The Chapel in the Crypt’, New York Times (18 June 1899). 171 The chapel was dismantled in 1949. In 1959 some of the windows were bought by the Morse Museum and the chapel was reassembled there in 1997–​99. See Long, The Tiffany Chapel. 172 ‘Chicago:  American vs. Foreign Stained Glass’, 75. The Philadelphia Centennial played host to the first Woman’s Pavilion, which included some stained glass windows, see W.  H. Rideing, ‘At the Exhibition, Part III’, Appletons’ Journal (17 June 1876), 793; A. Trachtenberg, The incorporation of America: culture and society in the gilded age (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), p. 52; P. Greenhalgh, Fair world:  A history of world’s fairs and expositions from London to Shanghai 1851–​ 2010 (Winterbourne: Papadakis, 2011), p. 84. 173 M.  H. Elliott (ed.), Illustrated art and handicraft in the Woman’s Building of the World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago (Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1893), p. 61. 174 Elliot, Illustrated art and handicraft, p. 61. 175 M. Eidelberg, N. Gray, and M. K. Hofer, A new light on Tiffany: Clara Driscoll and the Tiffany Girls (London: Giles, 2007), p. 99. 176 L. C. Tiffany, ‘American Art Supreme in Colored Glass’, Forum (July 1893), 627. 177 Herndl hailed from Munich and studied with Zettler and Mayer & Co. before moving to Milwaukee, WI. See J. Briggs, ‘Woman Is Famous: Marie Herndl Has Reputation for Stained Glass Work’, Milwaukee Journal (11 February 1911). 178 Armstrong, daughter of stained glass artist David Maitland Armstrong, was perhaps better known as a bookbinder and author. Her sister also designed stained glass. 179 One of Tillinghast’s designs, which seemingly illustrated the state of Kansas, was illustrated in Elliot, Illustrated art and handicraft, p. 15. 180 Tillinghast was a stained glass designer, established in New  York from 1882. Previously she had studied in Paris under Carolus-​Duran and Henner. Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 118. 181 Newill trained at the Birmingham Municipal School of Art and became a teacher of embroidery at the school in 1892. She embroidered tapestries with May Morris and other pupils for Morris & Co. She was associated with the Bromsgrove Guild of Applied Arts and the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society. Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 55. 182 The window was formerly on view in the Smith Museum of Stained Glass, Navy Pier, Chicago, IL. Garfinkle, ‘ “Women at Work” ’, pp. 116, 120. 183 B. Jacobson, ‘The Forgotten Stained Glass Masterwork of Marie Herndl’, On Milwaukee (6 March 2016), http://​onmilwaukee.com/​ent/​articles/​marieherndl.html (accessed 22 August 2017).

81

A multitude of displays 184 Elliot, Illustrated art and handicraft, p. 37; Garfinkle, ‘ “Women at Work” ’, pp. 119–​ 20. Another of the three windows, by Mary Crease Sears (d. 1938), depicted the Seal of Boston. The third window is unknown. 185 The window is illustrated in C. G. Garfinkle, ‘Progress Illuminated: Two Stained Glass Windows from the 1893 Woman’s Building’, Woman’s Art Journal 33:1 (Spring/​Summer 2012), 31–​8. 186 Garfinkle, ‘Progress Illuminated’, 37, n. 13. 187 The pavilion was at the meeting point of rue de l’Université and rue de Constantine. Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 31. 188 Didron complained that this space was poorly lit. Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (1)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 9 (September 1900), 269. 189 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 32. 190 See É. Molinier and F. Marcou, Exposition universelle de 1900: L’art français des origines à la fin du XIXe siècle (Paris: É. Lévy, 1901). 191 French glass-​painters Henri Babonneau, Marcel Delon and Lucien Begulé contributed some stained glass panels and designs from their own private collections to the display, as did the Fouques-​Duparc family. 192 L. Magne, Musée rétrospectif de la classe 67, vitraux, à l’Exposition universelle internationale de 1900, à Paris (Saint-​Cloud: Belin frères, 1902), p. 34. 193 Didron drew attention to the instructive value of this archaeological display. Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (1)’, 269. 194 Magne, Musée rétrospectif, p. 31. 195 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’,  p.  33. This  was  fulfilled  in  1910 by  Magne,  who helped create a national gallery of ancient stained glass at the Palais du Trocadéro. 196 This hints at more rigorous documentation of conservation, which has been more fully implemented in the twentieth century through guidelines published by the CVMA. 197 However, stylistically, Vieux Paris was actually an eclectic mix of fifteenth-​ , seventeenth-​and eighteenth-​century architecture. It was based on the success of the Bruxelles-​Kermesse at the 1897 Brussels Exposition. 198 Robida’s illustrations appear to have been inspired by Frédéric Hillemacher’s illustrations in Antoine Vidal’s history of the church, published as part of a series on ‘Les vielles corporations de Paris’. See frontispiece in A. Vidal, La chapelle St-​ Julien-​des-​Ménestriers et les ménestrels à Paris (Paris: A. Quantin, 1878). 199 A. Robida, Le Vieux Paris:  études et dessins originaux (Paris:  Imprimerie Lemercier, 1901). 200 Siegfried Bing (often erroneously called Samuel) relocated to Paris in 1854 and became a naturalised French citizen in 1876. His family imported French porcelain and glass to Hamburg. G. P. Weisberg, Art Nouveau Bing: Paris style 1900 (New York; Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1986). 201 The term Art Nouveau derives from the name of Bing’s shop at 22 Rue des Provence, Paris. When this gallery opened, it featured several stained glass panels designed by a number of young French artists and executed by Tiffany. See Weisberg, Art Nouveau Bing; M. Eidelberg, ‘S. Bing and L. C. Tiffany: Entrepreneurs of Style’, Nineteenth-​Century Art Worldwide: A Journal of Nineteenth-​Century Visual Culture 4:2 (Summer 2005), www.19thc-​artworldwide.org/​index.php/​summer05/​215-​ excavating-​greece-​classicism-​between-​empire-​and-​nation-​in-​nineteenth-​century-​ europe (accessed 30 January 2013). 202 G. Mourey, ‘L’Art nouveau de M. Bing à l’Exposition universelle (2)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 9 (September 1900), 278. Although many rooms were furnished with Tiffany’s glassware and lamps, Tiffany’s stained glass exhibits were shown in his own pavilion in the American section.

81

82

82

Windows for the world 203 Items from Pugin’s court were purchased by the South Kensington Museum after being shown at the Great Exhibition, and a number of Bing’s exhibits were purchased by museums after the Paris Exposition of 1900, including the Danish Kunstindustrimuseum; Nordenfjeldske Kunstindustrimuseum in Trondheim, Norway; London’s South Kensington Museum; and the Musée des arts décoratifs, Paris. Weisberg, Art Nouveau Bing, pp. 218–​19; 229.

83

3 Stylistic eclecticism in nineteenth-​century stained glass

[T]‌he first business of every designer is to make himself master of the elements of all established styles, not only for the sake of knowing these styles but to enable him [sic] to effect any intelligible ornamental expression whatever. – Ralph Nicholson Wornum, 18511

The stained glass panels exhibited at the international exhibitions revealed a ‘multiplicity of different stylistic approaches’ and diverse techniques.2 Artists took the opportunity to demonstrate their stylistic fluidity and the versatility of their medium, showing examples of stained glass in various historical styles, including Byzantine, Roman, Greek, gothic, Renaissance, cinquecento, and Louis Quatorze, as well as modern styles which demonstrated how stained glass was shaped and renewed by new philosophies, materials, techniques, and technologies during the second half of the nineteenth century. The adaptability of these artists responded to the varying architectural styles of the time.3 Like architecture, nineteenth-​century stained glass was characteristically eclectic in style. This eclecticism was evident at the international exhibitions not only through the range of windows exhibited, but also within individual exhibits. For instance, Prosper Lafaye showed a window at the Great Exhibition and the 1855 Paris Exposition that demonstrated his ability to select and copy multiple historical styles (Plate 14). The upper panels of the window included facsimiles of early medieval glass at Chartres and the Sainte-​ Chapelle; the middle section was derivative of sixteenth-​century Swiss glass; and the lower parts featured Lafaye’s own designs, panels commemorating the marriage of Louis-​Philippe’s youngest son, the Duke of Montpensier (1824–​90), and Infanta Luisa Fernanda (1832–​97) of Spain, the daughter of Ferdinand VII of Spain, which took place in 1846.4 The Art Journal described it as ‘a curious but effective combination of the architectonic, pictorial, and mosaic effects’.5 The Ecclesiologists, notorious

84

84

Windows for the world

medieval purists, abhorred eclecticism and described Lafaye’s window as ‘a sort of chronological glazier’s pattern card’.6 They also denounced another chronological survey of stained glass exhibited by Auguste Bruin at the 1855 Paris Exposition featuring, ‘specimens of nine different schools of glass painting, ranging from the most archaic style of all to the most modern, including enamel-​painted landscapes, and a representation of aerial perspective with a highly-​coloured air balloon soaring among clouds’, as a ‘monstrous window’.7 In spite of such criticisms, many stained glass artists took advantage of the commercial opportunities at these events to advertise to critics and potential clients their proficiency in a number of styles and techniques. William Warrington took the opportunity to exhibit ‘specimens of windows in almost every known style, including … the Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular Gothic, the Italian, Cinque Cento, Palatial, and Geometric’ at the 1862 International Exhibition.8 As we have seen, French artist Maréchal embraced both medieval traditions and recent inventions at the 1867 Exposition by exhibiting a collection of stained glass exhibits that showed ‘the range of art from the earliest style of the 13th century to the most modern glass photograph’.9 At the following Paris exposition of 1878 Bitterlin fils exhibited stained glass windows in Egyptian, Arabesque, Russian, medieval, and Renaissance styles, thus appealing to international and colonial markets.10 His exhibits also demonstrated a range of techniques, including engraving, painting, and enamelling. In his report on the stained glass exhibited at Paris in 1889, Champigneulle fils defined his era in terms of a positive eclecticism, which simultaneously revered the medieval past, represented the present, and looked to the future. He explained that, in selecting his stained glass exhibits: [J]‌ ’ai voulu surtout prouver au public qu’en fait d’art on peut professer l’éclectisme le plus absolu, et si les imitations du XIIIe siècle que j’ai montrées prouvent assez que je veux respecter et suivre les anciens, les verrières plus nouvelles de mon exposition disent bien haut que j’entends être au niveau des aspirations et des idées de mon siècle, cultiver à la fois les leçons du passé et voir dans l’avenir aussi loin que le permettent les procédés scientifiques des progrès d’aujourd’hui.11 (I have especially wanted to prove to the public that in making art one can profess absolute eclecticism, and if the imitations of the thirteenth century that I have shown offer sufficient proof that I want to respect and follow the ancients, the newer windows in my exhibition proclaim that I intend to be at the level of the aspirations and the ideas of my century, to cultivate both the lessons of the past and to see into the future as far as the scientific processes of today’s progress permit.)

Champigneulle fils’ statement confirms and complements Rachel Teukolsky’s examination of art criticism at the Great Exhibition, which

85

Stylistic eclecticism

demonstrated a prevailing ‘intelligent and rational eclecticism’, involving the ‘judicious selection’ of styles.12 Artists followed ancient traditions, but also responded to pleas for a living art that represented the aims, tastes, and ideas of their own age. As German politician and influential advocate of the gothic revival August Reichensperger (1808–​95) observed following his visit to the Great Exhibition of 1851, the stained glass exhibits denoted an ‘unsteady wavering between the Antique and the Modern’.13 Through a close reading of some of the stained glass exhibits and their critical commentaries, this chapter demonstrates pluralistic attitudes towards style, technique, and taste in this period, and reveals how various styles and techniques developed and were showcased, disseminated, and discussed at the international exhibitions. Reflecting the eclecticism of stained glass in these environments, this chapter is eclectic in its content. It aims to reveal different perspectives of the medium, by considering the rapid expansion of the secular market alongside the ecclesiastical and demonstrating how the international exhibitions stimulated new applications and settings for the medium. Returning to themes from earlier chapters, it also poses a number of questions about how nineteenth-​century stained glass should be understood, seen, described, and interpreted. Before attempting to discuss stylistic development –​in terms of form, colour, approach to line and texture, and underlying stylistic influences and artistic philosophies  –​we must acknowledge that stained glass is a unique art, reliant on the transmission of light, and that it has a fundamental relationship with its architectural framework. Yet, although its character is distinctive, stained glass shares many formal qualities with other art forms, including painting (on various media), mosaics, and sculpture. Secondly, we need to stop devaluing stained glass because of its collaborative (sometimes industrial) production, or at least readjust our expectations and aesthetic judgement accordingly, without prejudice or bias. Much emphasis has been placed on the windows produced by Morris & Co. and later artists associated with the Arts and Crafts Movement,14 who, it has been argued, ‘explored a more personal integration of artistry and craftsmanship’ than the commercial studios of the time.15 While this opposition existed as a philosophical ideal, and the Arts and Crafts approach to materials reinvigorated the art, there are many fine examples of nineteenth-​century stained glass that do not belong to this movement. Furthermore, it is unfair to dismiss the artistry or skill of those who worked for larger commercial firms. Many individuals retained their creativity whilst designing for these studios, and had a deep understanding of the materials and structure of stained glass. Finally, the question of ‘style’ in nineteenth-​century stained glass has hitherto been primarily discussed in relation to individual nations. The international exhibitions provide a unique opportunity to consider stylistic

85

86

86

Windows for the world

development both nationally and internationally, since, at these events, windows from several nations were compared with one another and multiple styles were displayed and compared, discussed and disseminated for an international audience.

Stained glass and the vitrail-​tableau A picture in coloured glass is one of the most vulgar of barbarisms, and only fit to be ranked with the gauze transparencies and chemical illuminations of the sensational stage. John Ruskin, 187016

Continuing eighteenth-​century traditions, pictorial glass, the vitrail-​tableau or ‘transparency’,17 which primarily involved painting with coloured enamels onto large pieces of white glass,18 made a particular impression at the early international exhibitions. Very quickly, it was at the centre of debates surrounding the artistic merits and development of nineteenth-​century stained glass. The popularity of pictorial glass at the Great Exhibition of 1851 caused The Ecclesiologist to comment, ‘[w]‌e should think the novelty of this process would never wear of’.19 Around 10–​15 per cent of the windows exhibited in the Crystal Palace were enamel-​painted copies of well-​ known oil paintings of religious subjects, often derived from engravings, prints and, from the mid-​ nineteenth century onwards, photographs.20 John Toms (1812–​67) of Wellington, Somerset, exhibited an image of Mary Magdalene on glass, after a painting by Timoteo Viti (1469–​1523), which he had seen illustrated in a publication by Anna Brownell Jameson (1794–​1860), Sacred and Legendary Art (1848).21 George Hoadley (dates unknown) exhibited two paintings on glass including The Offering of the Wise Men after Flemish baroque painter Peter Paul Rubens (1577–​1640), and a Madonna and Child after Italian Renaissance painter Antonio da Correggio (1489–​1534).22 This practice was also popular in Europe:  the Burkhardt Brothers, who established a studio in Munich in 1851, exhibited a Madonna and a Holy Family, both after Italian painter Raphael (1483–​1520), a Holy Family after Flemish painter Anthony Van Dyck (1599–​1641), and a Madonna after Spanish Baroque painter Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (1617–​82);23 and Carl Johann Baptist Wetzel (1817–​72) of Stuttgart, Württemberg, exhibited paintings on glass after Murillo and German painter Carol Joseph Begas (1794–​1854).24 A writer for The Ecclesiologist, the journal of the Ecclesiological Society, insisted that copying oil paintings in stained glass was altogether ‘wrong’ and highlighted the distinctions between the two mediums –​a window is seen by transmitted light, a picture by reflected light.25 This was the standard view of the Ecclesiological Society, a group of staunch proponents of the gothic revival in the Anglican Church who were influenced by the Tracts

87

Stylistic eclecticism

for the Times (1833–​41) produced  by members  of  the Oxford Movement, and who played an important role in reviving stained glass.26 But, as Isobel Armstrong has noted, the society was ‘committed to the revival of ecclesiastical stained glass and its theological meaning, not to mass-​produced transparency outrageously imitating theological forms’.27 The Ecclesiologists advocated fidelity to gothic models in stained glass (the vitrail-​archéologique) as well as in architecture, and modern windows that contravened these guidelines were vehemently criticised. Such prejudices have continued to hold sway, and so it is important to challenge the denunciation of pictorial windows. As Cheshire has acknowledged, ‘Ecclesiological descriptions of this style of glass frequently resort to images of the visual entertainments and phantasmagoria of Georgian fairgrounds.’28 For example, at the 1855 Exposition Universelle in Paris, The Ecclesiologist criticised one of Ballantine & Allan’s allegorical stained glass windows for being ‘quite equal to a Regent Street transparency’, in an attempt to reduce its artistic significance and to identify it with more theatrical (and secular) forms of popular entertainment such as the Eidophusikon (invented 1781) and Diorama (1820).29 Such comparisons reveal an alternative historical trajectory to standard accounts of the stained glass revival, one in which the art of stained glass is closely connected to popular forms of visual entertainment and optical illusionism.30 Interestingly, in 1854, The Ecclesiologist compared the effects of viewing Bertini’s stained glass window (see Plate 4), which, as we have seen, was exhibited in the foreign nave at the Great Exhibition three years earlier, with the popular diorama: If a window were merely a transparency, which you went into the dark to see, like the Diorama (or as you were to look at the window by Bertini, of Milan, in the Crystal Palace) you might apply to it the ordinary principles of pictorial effect; you might use opaque surfaces, breadth and strong contrasts … [L]‌ogically a window is a transparency; really, much that would give its effect as a transparency must be sacrificed, from a respect for its nature and use. Its object is to give light, and all unnecessary shading and blackness must be avoided, because they are destructive of light.31

The Ecclesiologist had earlier acknowledged that Bertini’s Il trionfo di Dante was ‘clever and pretty in its way … calculated to win the applauses of the many; though in truth mainly transparent painting, and not the genuine treatment of its material’.32 Another review commented that, ‘[t]‌hough there was much merit in this work, the fine effect produced was mainly attributable to the complete obscurity which surrounded the spectators. It had too much the character of painting about it.’33 Visitors entered a tent-​like structure to view the stained glass window in complete darkness (see Plate 5). This created a new viewing experience that did not mimic an architectural environment, but was more akin to popular spectacles

87

88

88

Windows for the world

such as the Diorama, Eidophusikon, or peep-​show.34 Bertini’s window was thus indicative of a fusion of high and popular art that characterised many eighteenth-​and nineteenth-​century public exhibitions in metropolises like London and Paris.35 Although painted glass transparencies remained popular with the public and some were awarded medals by the exhibition juries of 1851, at later international exhibitions, when the gothic revival was in full swing and the moral, liturgical, and theological principles of the Ecclesiological Movement had been stated, such pictures painted onto glass were considered utterly ‘deceptive’, in contrast to the preferred ‘mosaic’ technique of the Middle Ages.36 The battle between the vitrail-​tableau and vitrail-​ archéologique was, as Jean-​François Luneau has observed, ‘le dilemme du vitrail du XIXe siècle’ (the dilemma of nineteenth-​century stained glass).37 The main difference between these two modes, as glass-​painter Oliphant noted, was the role of glass as ‘a vehicle of light and colour’.38 One of the popular criticisms of pictorial windows was that the application of enamel pigments restricted the amount of light transmitted through the glass. Thus Dickinson’s review of a portrait of Shakespeare Reading to Queen Elizabeth, exhibited by Edward Baillie (1812–​56) in 1851,39 remarked, ‘[t]‌he only fault was, that to be properly seen, the painting required the concentration of all the available light behind it, leaving the spectator in perfect obscurity’.40 The Official Report for the 1862 International Exhibition declared that all windows should allow a suitable degree of light to pass through the glass, to enable it to be seen, and ‘when a large portion of the glass is so opaque as almost wholly to preclude the transmission of the rays, an essential condition is infringed’.41 Both artists and critics alike were preoccupied with appropriate and effective levels of transparency in stained glass, which varied according to the type of coloured glass used and the glass-​painting techniques employed. Although around a quarter of stained glass exhibits at the Great Exhibition were ‘pictorial’ in style, by the International Exhibition of 1862, pictorial windows were almost absent in the British display of stained glass, revealing the widespread influence of the gothic revival. However, some continental artists, including the highly skilled Bertini and Maréchal, continued to exhibit examples of enamel-​painted pictorial glass throughout the century, to mixed reviews. Critics admired the skills of these artists and the stunning effects they produced, but disliked their pictorial style, heavy modelling, and lack of transparency.42 Although condemned for its pictorial style, Bertini’s Madonna and Child, exhibited in 1862 (see Plate 15), was described as having a ‘wonderful finish’ and ‘superior to any painting on glass in the exhibition’.43 The artist’s approach to composition and perspective, as well as technique, bears much similarity with his Il trionfo di Dante window, which had excited admiration in 1851.44

89

Stylistic eclecticism

The highly naturalistic effects achieved with brushes and vitreous enamels encouraged further comparisons with the art of painting on canvas. The Illustrated Exhibitor singled out the ‘life-​like effects’ of Baillie’s Shakespeare Reading to Queen Elizabeth and the naturalistic treatment of the dress, and claimed ‘different materials are represented so faithfully, the velvet and satin textures appearing as though you could distinguish them by touch’.45 Maréchal’s painted glass also excited admiration for its painterly effects.46 The Illustrated Exhibitor described his Portrait du Bourgmestre, exhibited at the Great Exhibition, as ‘an able performance’, a judgment that identified his theatrical artistry.47 This theatricality was evident in Maréchal’s L’artiste, of which two versions exist; one was  exhibited at the London International Exhibition of 1862, and another at the 1867 Paris Exposition. These windows asserted Maréchal’s artistic identity and status as a court painter by depicting the artist painting his self-​portrait at the age of twenty-​five, with a portfolio of designs in one hand and a paintbrush in the other. The first window was designed and made for an exhibition in Metz in 1861, when Maréchal was sixty years old, and re-​exhibited at the International Exhibition in London the following year.48 A  contemporary article in The Athenaeum acknowledged that L’artiste was an ‘imposing piece’, featuring ‘a man in a black broad hat, looking with melo-​dramatic expression straight at the spectator, as if attitudinizing before beginning his portrait in the folio one hand holds’.49 This panel was later purchased by the city of Metz, and today resides in the collection of the Musée de La Cour d’Or, Metz (Plate 16).50 The second version of L’artiste was exhibited at the 1867 Paris Exposition Universelle of 1867 and afterwards purchased by Napoléon III, whose monogram and heraldic arms were added to the window before it was installed at the Château de Fontainebleau in 1869.51 The meticulous and skilful rendering of the velvet and satin clothes using coloured glass enamels is a tour de force. His extraordinary imitation of these luminous fabrics caused Didron, who was a juror for the Exposition, to joke that ‘M. Maréchal abuse du velours, en raison de la perfection avec laquelle il l’imite’ (Maréchal misuses velvet, as a result of the perfection with which he imitates it).52 At the following Paris Exposition Universelle of 1878, Didron continued his praise for Maréchal’s proficiency at imitating life, and recognised that the capabilities of the art of painting on glass equalled, if not exceeded, those of painting on canvas.53 As Gambier Parry conceded in 1867, ‘[h]‌ighly wrought realistic pictures are intolerable in glass, except possibly in a cabinet or an exhibition specimen’.54 Occasionally, exceptional examples of pictorial works were shown at the international exhibitions. By treating their stained glass windows in a similar manner to grand history paintings, these artists succeeded in demonstrating the versatility, potential, and spectacular impact of stained glass to both critics and the public.

89

90

90

Windows for the world

Imitations of the medieval In contrast to these pictorial works, most of the French and British stained glass windows exhibited in the 1850s and 1860s revealed the strong and pervasive influence of the gothic revival. Throughout the nineteenth century, official jury reports narrated the history of glass production, and its extensive use in medieval civilisation.55 Stained glass was widely discussed as an ancient art, a product of which ‘nos pères nous ont laissé de si précieux modèles’ (our forefathers have left us such precious models).56 In perpetuating the belief that the medieval period was the medium’s zenith, and that ‘the old painters on glass produced beautiful and harmonious results, which have never since been equalled’,57 critics established a position in which modern glass was continually defined and evaluated in relation to the medieval, omitting the spectacularly painterly windows of the previous century. The imitation of medieval glass was a much-​ debated issue at the international exhibitions, and was influenced by a deep appreciation and close study of medieval stained glass that many artists had gained during restoration work on significant medieval glazing schemes. On the one hand, critics expected artists to equal the productions of their medieval ancestors. Yet, some contemporaries were critical of an over-​reliance on medieval precedents, and called for artists to study and select historical examples carefully. For example, Charles Winston, who was an associate juror for stained glass at the Great Exhibition, remarked that ancient imitations should be judged ‘with reference to the standard which its author has himself chosen’.58 He praised Alfred Gérente’s Romanesque light for Ely Cathedral (Plate 17), depicting scenes from the Life of Samson, for the way in which ‘the style of the period is rendered with extraordinary mastery and truth’, suggesting both Gérente’s skill and the authenticity of his methods.59 But Redgrave reported that, ‘in adopting the just principles of design the faults of the age have been adopted also, which must be objected to’.60 Gérente’s figure of Samson fighting a lion was designed in a bold grotesque manner akin to medieval manuscript illuminations.61 It disregarded modern anatomical knowledge of the human figure, and reproduced historic inaccuracies, a habit that glass-​painter Edward Baillie had criticised in an article published in The Builder a few months before the Exhibition opened.62 This practice appears to have been fairly common in the 1850s. As one popular publication declared after the 1855 Exposition: The obvious fault … that prevails in many of the specimens exhibited is the stiff, formal, and often incorrect drawing of the figures and emblems … in imitation, as it were, of the worst part of those which have come down to us from antiquity.63

The Ecclesiologist also lamented that Didron aîné appeared ‘content with mere imitation of the older styles, including their defects’.64 Critics

91

Stylistic eclecticism

believed that stained glass artists should use their discretion and judgment in selecting elements to imitate, and should not reproduce damaged or disfigured parts, which could be improved by modern hands. At the Great Exhibition, The Illustrated Exhibitor questioned the validity of imitations, commenting, ‘[w]‌e are not quite sure … how far mere imitations of existing old glass deserve admission into the exhibition’.65 Yet Johann Stephan Kellner (1812–​67) received a Prize Medal for his small-​ scale copies of panels from the late-​medieval ‘Volkhamer Window’ in the St Lorenzkirche, Nuremberg.66 The Art Journal published an engraving showing four of these panels, and reported that they were ‘as faithful as possible, both in drawing and colour’.67 Similarly, Winston declared that, ‘the colours and every detail of the original picture are faithfully rendered’.68 Although Kellner’s panels were discussed as accurate copies of the fifteenth-​ century originals, two identical panels depicting The Mystic Marriage of St Catherine of Alexandria and The Virgin and Child (Plate 18), acquired by the South Kensington School of Art in 1844–​45, suggest that Kellner actually employed a mixture of ancient and modern techniques.69 The red and green sections of St Catherine’s dress are made from traditional ‘pot-​metal’ glass, the medieval method of making coloured glass by adding different metallic oxides to molten glass, which was revived in the early nineteenth century. The yellow areas are formed of clear, or white, glass, treated with silver stain and then fired, turning those parts yellow-​ orange, after a method introduced to medieval glass painting in the early fourteenth century.70 The flashed ruby glass used for the Virgin’s cloak has been acid-​etched (a technique developed and widely used in the nineteenth century) in some areas to reveal the middle layer of white glass, and afterwards painted with silver stain. The cobalt-​ blue background, which was painted with blue enamel paint on the reverse of the glass, also employed modern techniques. Its peculiar surface finish suggests that it was not applied with a brush but a roller, a technique unusual in stained glass production.71 The official jury report and awards for stained glass at the Paris Exposition of 1855 reveal the prevalence of imitation panels of medieval glass. Joseph-​Aventin Veissière (Seignelay, Yonne) (b. 1805) was awarded a medal for his ‘très-​bonne imitation des vitraux anciens’ (very good imitation of ancient glass).72 This was a copy of a window from the Sainte-​ Chapelle in Paris, a thirteenth-​century reliquary chapel built for King Louis IX of France (r. 1226–​70) to house his Passion relics. But The Ecclesiologist commented that ‘[t]‌here is really no merit in this style, which every-​one seems able to reproduce with equal success and effect’.73 Indeed, several glaziers exhibited copies of the Sainte-​Chapelle glazing following a competition for its restoration, launched in 1846; as part of the competition brief, entrants were asked to produce a copy of one of the thirteenth-​century panels as well as a subject of their own composition.74 Bontemps noted the

91

92

92

Windows for the world

influence of this restoration project on the development of modern glass in his report on the 1855 Exposition.75 Antoine Lusson père, who took over the restoration of the Sainte-​Chapelle glazing upon Henry Gérente’s death in 1849,76 gained honourable mention at the Great Exhibition for his copy of a lancet window.77 Winston reported that Lusson reproduced the style ‘with great knowledge and care’,78 yet Redgrave criticised the fact that defects caused by ‘dust and time, and the corrosion of the glass’ had been imitated.79 At the London 1862 Exhibition, Evans, in Mackenzie’s Record of the International Exhibition, similarly remarked that the exhibits of French stained glass artists Lusson, Coffetier, Oudinot, Höner, and, above all, Didron aîné, ‘set up a standard for imitation’; and that ‘[e]‌very peculiarity, every beauty, every defect of early work, is preserved with an almost superstitious accuracy’.80 The use of the word ‘superstitious’ here reflects the common fear that medieval revival objects, such as stained glass, were indicative of Romanising tendencies. Evans went so far as to state that these specimens could be mistaken for genuine examples of medieval glazing: Some of these windows, indeed, look like real medieval glass just cleaned for the occasion, and might be set up side by side with some of the windows of Bourges or Chartres, without striking the eye as merely reproductions in the same style.81

Indeed, the precision with which nineteenth-​century glaziers could imitate medieval glass means that, even today, viewed from a distance, some period facsimiles may be mistaken for genuine examples of medieval glazing. Many glass-​painters developed their own techniques to ‘antiquate’ modern glass in order to make it appear medieval. Common methods included applying a patina, or flicking glass paint on the reverse side of the glass.82 Warrington is said to have applied black boot polish, and Willement to have aged his glass with a film of white enamel.83 The Ecclesiologist spoke against such practices of antiquating glass as early as 1844: The process of antiquating, that is, of giving an artificial appearance of dirt, corrosion, and decay to new glass, so as to make it closely resemble the real works of antiquity in their present state, is one which we think of very questionable expediency, and likely to produce the most dangerous results.84

The following year, Ballantine repeated these sentiments in his treatise.85 Winston also decried the common practice of ‘smudging’ or ‘antiquating’ smooth-​surfaced glass with pigments in his Jury Reports for the Great Exhibition, stating that it produced a ‘pernicious effect’.86 Similarly, after the 1855 Exposition, The Ecclesiologist expressed disappointment that Alfred Gérente, another medallist, artificially ‘dirtied’ his glass.87 The international exhibitions give us an insight into the ways in which medieval windows, and their effects, were deliberately imitated.

93

Stylistic eclecticism

Colour, Pre-​Raphaelitism, and innovation In spite of artists’ attempts to imitate the effects of medieval glass, the quality, texture, colour, and tone of nineteenth-​century glass materials differed greatly from medieval precedents. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the colour and brightness of nineteenth-​ century stained glass was a common criticism that led to the removal of many windows, especially in Britain.88 Similar complaints can also be found in nineteenth-​century exhibition reviews. Maréchal & Gugnon’s use of scarlet tones for the cardinal’s robe in their window depicting St Charles Borromeo Administering the Communion to the Plague-​Stricken, exhibited at the Great Exhibition, reportedly gave the whole window a ‘hot and glaring effect’.89 Redgrave described the window: [I]‌nstead of that general and harmonious effect of sobered light, which is so desirable in stained glass for the windows of a religious edifice, the effect is painful to the eye from its extreme brightness, and the window would irresistibly obtrude itself upon the attention of the spectator, and rather distract his thoughts than induce that solemn repose of mind which is so consistent with the place.90

Redgrave’s comments reasserted the ecclesiological role of stained glass and criticised the brilliant tones of modern stained glass windows, which were, on the whole, considered to be inferior to the more subdued tones of earlier glass and unsuitable for a contemplative church interior. Between the London international exhibitions of 1851 and 1862, frequent allusions were made to the brightness of modern glass and the ill-​arranged colours of modern windows. For example, the ornamental borders and background of the Tower of Babel exhibited in 1851 by its maker J. G. Howe (b. c. 1826), before being installed in the south nave aisle of Ely Cathedral (Plate 19), were clearly derived from study of thirteenth-​ century windows like those in the Basilica of Saint-​Denis and Canterbury Cathedral.91 However, the coloured glass used by Howe was significantly brighter than its medieval precedents, leading one eminent twentieth-​ century artist to describe it as ‘a series of dazzling pin-​table machines with different colour combinations’.92 Burges remarked upon the ‘horrible juxtapositions of colours’ and the ‘sharp and glaring tints’ present in the stained glass exhibits at the 1862 Exhibition.93 Glassmaker Apsley Pellatt (1791–​1863) also spoke of the brilliance of modern windows, which: Being charged with bright colour at a higher key, transmit too readily through the glass the bright rays of different colours antagonistic to each other, which fatigue the eye and form an unpleasant contrast to ancient glass.94

The ‘boiled-​sweet colours’ of modern windows did not fit critics’ conceptions of how stained glass should appear, and were far removed from the much-​coveted ‘gothic gloom’ emitted by medieval glass.95

93

94

94

Windows for the world

Yet, exhibits such as O’Connor’s west window for Aylesbury Church, which was awarded a medal in 1862, clearly still appealed to the jurors. This six-​light window, depicting Old Testament scenes which prefigure Christ’s ultimate sacrifice and the atonement for sins (the Expulsion of Adam and Eve, Moses, and Abraham’s Sacrifice), contains an assortment of brightly coloured glasses, in which each tone of turquoise, hot-​pink, salmon, orange-​red, deep-​hued purple, and bright green vies for the eye’s attention. Such windows are evidence of the range of coloured glass manufactured in mid-​nineteenth-​century Britain. The busy composition and dazzling array of colours break a number of medieval conventions. Although topped and tailed by traditional gothic canopies, the biblical scenes do not have decorative borders. They are original artistic expressions packed with drama, as emphasised by the perspective and arrangement of the figures. For example, in the third light, representing Moses Parting the Red Sea during the Exodus (see Plate 20), we see the Israelites safely fleeing Egypt. Moses is shown looking upwards, brandishing his staff and gesturing for the Israelites to flee. A  trail of cloud from heaven descends into the sea behind them, where members of the Egyptian army, some riding horses, are shown drowning in the waves. Both the draughtsmanship and colouring of this window invite us to make further comparisons with contemporary painting. Burges recognised that both the Ecclesiological Society and the Pre-​Raphaelites aimed to return to a ‘pure system of colouring’; and this was perhaps best exemplified in stained glass.96 The brilliant, hot tones of mid-​nineteenth-​century stained glass reflected, and also influenced, the vibrant use of colour in Pre-​Raphaelite paintings.97 Contemporaries spoke of the intense (sometimes overpowering) colouring of these paintings. As Elizabeth Prettejohn and others have observed, this was due to the practice of applying pure pigments on top of a white ground, which ‘shone through the translucent paint layers so as to enhance their brightness’.98 Thus Pre-​Raphaelite paintings achieved an effect of illumination similar to that of stained glass windows, made bright by white light passing through translucent coloured glass. Furthermore, critics responded to the extreme brightness of Pre-​ Raphaelite paintings and contemporaneous stained glass windows by using a similar vocabulary. Pre-​Raphaelite painter Ford Madox Brown (1821–​ 93), who also designed stained glass for Morris, Marshall, Faulkner  & Co. (founded in 1861), remarked that the paintings exhibited at the RA Exhibition in 1851 by John Everett Millais (1829–​96) and Holman Hunt ‘killed’ the more subdued pictures around them.99 The overwhelming visual effect of modern stained glass had been described in similar terms in The Ecclesiologist in 1844:  ‘a perfectly new stained window will appear very bright and glaring to the eye, and that in our present naked and colourless churches it may seem to kill instead of harmonizing with every other object’.100 This problem would have been especially pronounced in

95

Stylistic eclecticism

the international exhibition environment, where a great number of exhibits were gathered together. Tim Barringer has demonstrated that Pre-​Raphaelitism was a movement that ‘was simultaneously medieval and modern, revivalist and realist’.101 It is unsurprising, then, that painted depictions of stained glass appear in numerous Pre-​Raphaelite paintings. Stained glass, as a recently revived medium associated with medieval Christianity yet increasingly applied to new settings and ideas in this period, was an ideal medium for the Pre-​ Raphaelites. In turn, Pre-​Raphaelitism marked a departure point for many stained glass artists in moving away from the direct copyism of the previous generation, to using medieval art as a stimulus for modern design.102 These combined influences can be seen in Millais’ painting Mariana (1851),103 which includes a painted representation of some medieval stained glass (Plate 21).104 In this familiar Pre-​Raphaelite painting, Mariana stretches and gazes upon a gothic window containing two stained glass panels depicting the Annunciation, copied from the late-​thirteenth–​early-​fourteenth-​century east window tracery at Merton College Chapel, Oxford.105 Besides its Anglo-​Catholic and literary associations, which have been well elucidated,106 and the fact that the stained glass sheds light on the painting’s psychological and spiritual narrative,107 the inclusion of the stained glass window in Millais’ painting also reveals interest in the transmission, and subsequent kaleidoscopic diffusion of light through stained glass.108 Millais paid careful attention to the light’s refraction through the coloured glass panels and documented it with precision, painting smudged red and blue tints on the grey stonework. He had observed these effects at close quarters in 1850 whilst sketching the glass in situ from scaffolding erected to enable John Hungerford Pollen (1820–​1902) to paint the roof.109 The way in which coloured glass transmits light was of utmost importance to nineteenth-​century glass-​painters, and triggered the development of new materials. In response to demand for glass of a texture, thickness, and colour more akin to medieval glass, modern ‘antique’ glass was developed. The rediscovery of antique glass was indebted to medieval techniques of glass production, whereby molten glass is blown into a cylinder, then scored, reheated, and flattened to produce a sheet.110 At the 1862 International Exhibition, glassmakers James Powell & Sons (London), Lloyd & Summerfield (Birmingham), and Hartley (Sunderland) all exhibited coloured samples of new ‘antique’ or cylinder glass.111 The development of these antique glasses led to subtler colour combinations being used, and windows with more dulcet tones gradually replaced bright mid-​Victorian examples. Pellatt reported that modern antique glass ‘rivals the ancient in rich colour and low tone, and has a crispness and shellac appearance, so well calculated to absorb the rays, and retain the richness and beauty of the ancient colours’.112

95

96

96

Windows for the world

The stained glass exhibited by James Powell & Sons at the International Exhibition of 1862 revealed the impact of these new glasses and the firm’s progressive approach to stained glass design, as typified by the windows designed by Edward Burne-​Jones (1833–​98), chief designer at Powell & Sons between 1857 and 1863.113 Amongst these was a replica of the centre light of the Tree of Jesse window for Waltham Abbey (see Plate 9),114 which demonstrates Burne-​Jones’ combined influence of the gothic revival and Pre-​Raphaelitism. This tripartite window was Burne-​Jones’ last design for Powell & Sons before he began designing exclusively for Morris & Co, and is arguably one of his most significant designs, revealing his early potential in this medium.115 It was commissioned in 1860 by Burges, who was restoring the Abbey church and wanted a window to fill the reconstructed east window openings in the Early English style.116 Burne-​Jones responded by filling the three lancets with a Tree of Jesse, the stem of which was placed in the central light with curled branches extending into the outer lights. A depiction of Christ in Majesty, surrounded by the seven days of Creation, filled the septfoil above. The central lancet depicting the stem of Jesse demonstrates Burne-​ Jones’ knowledge of medieval principles and precedents, including surviving twelfth-​ century stained glass panels from Trees of Jesse at the cathedrals of Chartres and Canterbury and York Minster, but its style is more indicative of a later medievalism seen in the work of early-​twentieth-​century Arts and Crafts stained glass artists like Wilhelmina Geddes (1887–​1955) than the gothic revival work of nineteenth-century commercial firms.117 The composition is complex and crowded; two-​dimensional figures are shown standing, crouched, or huddled amongst the branches. The top three scenes relating to Christ’s life and death are placed against red backgrounds, emphasising the Passion. The Athenaeum reported that the exhibited replica was ‘strong, rich, jewel-​like and brilliant, excellent in all qualities’.118 However, as a writer for the Illustrated London News reported, these effects were not only attributable to Burne-​Jones, but also, significantly, the employees at Powell & Sons who had translated the artist’s design into stained glass: The richness of effect produced by Messrs Powell’s windows is not only due to the splendour of the glass, but also to the just manner in which it is treated. Shade is but very sparingly applied –​indeed, it is almost totally absent. A few lines are used to assist in making out the forms, and glass of various shades is employed, but the greatest care has been used in order to preserve the transparency of the glass.119

Indeed, the glass-​painting techniques are minimal but expressive, and bring to life the design whilst emphasising the colour and translucency of the brightly coloured glass. Most of the painting is limited to trace lines, which reveal the outline of a figure, the folds in drapery, and hair,

97

Stylistic eclecticism

or suggest surface decoration, whether carved stone, embroidered cloak, armour, or animal fleece. Burne-​Jones’ early designs in stained glass (for both Powell & Sons and Lavers & Barraud) have been overlooked in relation to his later designs for Morris & Co., which many scholars have argued revolutionised both ecclesiastical and secular stained glass through their innovations in colour and design. Indeed, as Martin Harrison has noted, ‘nearly all other Victorian stained glass has been assessed in a completely unrealistic relationship with Morris’s work’.120 Yet Morris’ firm was instrumental in introducing the shift from the hot polychromatic colouring of mid-​nineteenth-​century stained glass to a more muted palette of golden yellows, whites, deep blues, and luscious greens, based on stained glass of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.121 The firm’s founding members were deeply influenced by medieval stained glass and popularised a new decorative aesthetic which combined alternating colour narrative panels with square quarries of white glass, ornamented with silver stain, enclosed by narrow borders of coloured glass. The increased use of white glass, which mirrored the aesthetic changes that took place in mid-​thirteenth-​century Europe,122 increased the legibility of the figurative panels and the amount of light transmitted through the windows. The public debut of Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. (as they were known until 1875) at the International Exhibition of 1862, just a year after the firm was founded, marked the firm’s arrival as a major producer of stained glass and artistic furnishings for both the home and church.123 Given the status that Morris & Co. has today, it is perhaps surprising that their 1862 stained glass exhibits were not a resounding success. The Ecclesiologist wrote that ‘[o]‌f the two firms who exhibit the worst glass here –​Messrs. Claudet and Houghton, and Messrs Morris, Marshall, and Co.  –​the last is the worst, because the design is pseudo-​grotesque’.124 In making this remark, the author placed the firm’s exhibits in the same bracket as those of Claudet & Houghton, thus decrying their modern medievalism as equally unsuited to stained glass as pictorial work. However, in another article in the same journal, Burges was more sympathetic, and defended Morris & Co.’s exhibits, stating that ‘[t]here were faults in it; but it had very high merits, and evidenced original study’.125 In order to understand these divided opinions, we should turn to some of the glass exhibited by the firm in 1862. The Parable of the Vineyard panels designed by Pre-​Raphaelite artist Dante Gabriel Rossetti formed part of the firm’s ecclesiastical exhibits.126 The panels were awarded a medal, an act that baffled Evans, who believed they were ‘remarkable as a bold defiance of popular taste’.127 After the exhibition, the parable panels were installed in the east window of St Martin-​on-​the-​Hill Church, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, designed by architect George Frederick Bodley (1827–​1907).128 The haphazard arrangement of lead lines and

97

98

98

Windows for the world

crowding of figures renders these narrative scenes fairly illegible. Rossetti, who had little regard for stained glass, had not fully considered the translation of his designs into glass and lead.129 Under Morris’ supervision, the glass was replaced, repainted, and trimmed down.130 Contemporary reviews interpreted these idiosyncrasies in relation to the jumbled appearance of medieval glass. The Illustrated London News noted that ‘[e]‌verything seems to have been done to make the window look as old and rich as possible –​[sic] mere oddity we do not at all consider desirable’.131 Displays of stained glass at the exhibitions raised questions about the relevance of medievalism in regards to style and development. After the 1862 exhibition, Pellatt questioned, ‘does the grotesque style of the past age harmonize with our present mode of thought?’132 and Evans urged glaziers to break the ‘system of servile mediævalism, which has so long hindered real progress’.133 In an extended analogy, which compared the futile attempt to revive medieval art to that of bringing back the ‘megatherium’ from extinction, he suggested that, in trying to obtain the quality of medieval stained glass, artistic independence and development had been compromised.134 The passage is worth quoting in full: The latter half of the 19th century, however, differs widely in taste and sentiment, knowledge and appliances, from any period in the ‘mid-​ages of faith,’ and these literal reproductions of medieval art impress the general mind with feelings akin to those produced by the restored megatherium at the Crystal Palace. They belong to an extinct race, extinct even beyond the powers of galvanism. The needs of life require a living art, only let it be living, and we care not for the form. The living congeners of the megatherium differ considerably both in size and shape from their fossil ancestor. These grotesque figures, with their splay mouths and limbs, and impossible convolutions of drapery, belong to an age which can never be restored; and though the originals are well worthy of careful scientific study, we cannot accept the imitations, however successful as imitations, as by any means adapted to the requirements of the present. As evidences of a careful study of archaeology, these windows are deserving of high praise; as specimens of a living art, they are absolutely worthless.135

Evans’ words should be considered in light of the rise of geology, the debate between creationism and evolution, and the gradual acceptance of Charles Darwin’s theories of natural selection, of which extinction was a natural consequence.136 Such attitudes questioned the relevance and role of historic revivalism in an evolving age. As Day later proclaimed, in an article published in the British Architect in 1886, stained glass could only develop if artists learned from a variety of styles, and with this knowledge, produce something new.137 In 1868, after almost thirty years of influence upon the design of stained glass in Britain, continental Europe and the British colonies, the Ecclesiological Society disbanded. The final issue of The Ecclesiologist

99

Stylistic eclecticism

declared that, ‘we have the satisfaction of retiring from the field victors. Our mission has from the first had an ecclesiastical and also an artistic side.’138 In promoting medieval gothic styles for stained glass, the Ecclesiologists had made a lasting impression. As Holiday noted, in Stained Glass as an Art (1896), there was a general consensus, even at the end of the century, that stained glass should be ‘mediaeval’.139 Yet, in spite of its predominance in current scholarship, we must be cautious of assumptions that the Ecclesiological Society was the only driving force on the development of stained glass, as the international exhibitions reveal several other forces in play.

The secularisation of stained glass Various scholars have explored the impact of the nineteenth-​century international exhibitions on consumption,140 and these events occurred at a key moment in the secularisation and commercialisation of stained glass. As Cheshire has noted, the Great Exhibition was significant in establishing stained glass as a commodity,141 and ‘the fact that this famous event was beyond the control of the church makes it particularly significant’.142 Indeed, Ralph Nicholas Wornum (1812–​ 77), in his article on taste at the Great Exhibition, challenged assumptions that stained glass was an ecclesiastical art: The too prevalent notion that glass-​painting is peculiarly an ecclesiastical province of decoration, unless shortly exploded, promises to be fatal to the Art, under the very restricted development which ecclesiological prejudices are disposed to allow it in this country.143

Although the Ecclesiological Society had played a significant role in the development and application of stained glass as an ecclesiastical decoration, it could do little to stave off the rapid secular appeal and eclectic production of stained glass. As Yvette Vanden Bemden has acknowledged, in the nineteenth century, ‘the art of stained glass transformed itself under the pressure of the middle classes which attributed an essentially decorative and illuminating role to stained glass whether it be for public or private buildings’, and this was one of the major ways in which it was transformed into a relevant contemporary art form in this period.144 A colour lithograph of the stained glass gallery at the world’s first Great Exhibition of 1851 (see Plate 2) demonstrates how ecclesiastical panels were displayed alongside their secular counterparts and admired by a diverse public. Amongst those depicted in the gallery are a middle-​ class family, and a woman accompanied by an Anglican clergyman in a top hat and clerical collar. The woman points with her parasol towards some small panels of ornamental decorative glass. This active gesture and the presence of the family indicate the importance of the domestic market for stained glass alongside the ecclesiastical.145 Cassell’s Illustrated Exhibitor

99

100

100

Windows for the world

printed engravings of some of the ornamental stained glass exhibited in 1851 by the St Helen’s Crown Glass Company (founded in 1826) and Hall & Sons of Bristol (founded in 1788), and remarked, ‘we understand that several families of distinction have had windows of the new ornamental glass fitted up in their houses’.146 Such reviews demonstrated the applicability of modern decorative glass for home embellishment. In the nineteenth century, the presence of stained glass in domestic interiors was an exciting possibility. As one guide to the 1855 Exposition proclaimed: Aujourd’hui l’art des vitraux peints pénètre dans nos habitations ordinaires, et les prix assez bas auxquels le commerce les établit lui donneront bientôt des débouchés nouveau:  les salons, les boudoirs présenteront à l’œil ébloui ces mille teintes éclatantes que le soleil faisait rayonner exclusivement autrefois dans l’immensité de nos monuments gothiques.147 (Today the art of stained glass enters our ordinary homes, and at prices low enough that the trade will soon establish its new opportunities: lounges, bedrooms will present to the dazzled eye the thousand brilliant hues that the sun once made shine exclusively in the vastness of our gothic monuments.)

Stained glass emerged as a product for the growing middle classes, who were increasingly accustomed to consumer choice and competitive pricing under the forces of mid-​century capitalism.148 In Britain, economic changes lowered the price of glass and contributed to the democratisation of the medium.149 The repeal of the glass tax in 1845, and window tax in 1851, made plain glazed, coloured, and stained glass windows more affordable to the expanding middle classes and less affluent congregations, particularly in urban and manufacturing areas.150 Surviving advertisements and trade and exhibition catalogues demonstrate that a variety of domestic glass was available for the homeowner to purchase, from cheaper forms of ornamental stained, leaded, and embossed glass to more expensive and elaborate figurative stained glass windows based on historical or literary themes. Windows were costed by area and type of glass used. This rate increased according to the style and complexity of a design, and the amount of labour involved, so windows could be made or adapted from pre-​existing designs and cartoons in stock, or new designs could be conceived, depending upon the consumer’s preference and budget. The international exhibitions played a key role in promoting stained glass in secular contexts, and revealed the diversification of the stained glass industry through new production methods. Changes in the glass industry influenced the design of modern stained glass windows. Automated tools aided the production of decorative and ornamental glass, and popular techniques such as embossing, brilliant cutting, engraving, and acid etching were showcased at the international exhibitions alongside more traditional exhibits. Some of the most interesting types of glazing in the domestic (as well as the ecclesiastical) interior made use of new

101

Stylistic eclecticism

manufacturing techniques to create effective and more affordable decorative glazing schemes. Powell & Sons exhibited their patented ‘stamped’ or ‘pressed’ quarries at the Great Exhibition and at later exhibitions in Australia.151 Whilst still hot, the glass was pressed in moulds, and the outline of a flower or pattern impressed upon the glass surface. The outline left by the impression was later filled in with paint and enlivened with silver stain, before being fired in the kiln.152 By introducing a mechanical stage to the manufacturing process, these quarries were more cost-​effective to make, and relatively cheap to buy. Winston admired the way in which ‘Powell’s Pressed Glass’ could imitate Early English glass.153 Powell & Sons patented the process and advertised it widely in the UK and abroad.154 Evidence also suggests that Powell & Sons sold pressed quarries in bulk to other manufacturers.155 For those who could not afford genuine coloured, stained, or painted glass windows, there were also a large number of imitations available to purchase, including blinds, lithographs, and prints, which recreated the effects of stained glass windows.156 For example, H. W. Noel of Camden and G. L. Lee of Holborn exhibited ‘transparent window blinds, in imitation of stained glass’ in the Furniture department at the Great Exhibition.157 The Illustrated Exhibitor complained that a ‘M. Gaunt has played the practical joke of exhibiting among the glass what is not glass at all; but a transparency of muslin.’158 Predictably, the Ecclesiologists deplored such attempts to imitate stained glass. At the 1855 Paris Exposition, The Ecclesiologist reported disparagingly that a ‘staircase in this department is dedicated to painted window-​blinds in imitation of glass: some of which is intended for ecclesiastical purposes’.159 They objected to the use of deceptive, ugly, and cheap methods of decorating windows, especially in the sacred space of the church, and were scathing of windows that diverted from traditional methods and used modern technology. They proclaimed, ‘certain windows printed in lithography and afterwards painted, but not burnt, are scarcely worth the trouble of condemning’.160 However, the Ecclesiologists’ influence did not affect the public at large, who continued to ornament both their homes and churches with cheaper forms of translucent decorations that imitated the effects of stained glass. Indeed, by 1857, one could decorate windows, as well as lampshades, screens, conservatories, and lanterns, to resemble stained glass through processes known as ‘vitrauphanie’ or ‘diaphanie’, whereby translucent coloured prints on paper were purchased from a print shop and fixed to glass by adhesive or starch and then varnished to make them more translucent.161 Other variations of diaphanie included painting on ground-​glass with varnish by tracing and then painting a design; and painting on glass with watercolours.162 According to the National Magazine, in 1857, diaphanous prints could be purchased at nearly every print shop in London.163 Examples of diaphanie were shown amongst the stained and painted glass

101

102

102

Windows for the world

exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition, and they appear to have been used in both the church and home.164 House decoration was an important expression of individuality in the nineteenth century, and domestic stained glass windows were often personalised through selective iconography, monograms, portraits, family crests, and mottoes. As one stained glass artist acknowledged, the design of secular, and especially domestic, stained glass depended upon the ‘caprice and taste’ of the individual for whom it was commissioned.165 This was especially evident in the aristocratic country house. Yet, stained glass was not reserved for the ancestral homes of the nobility alone; it also formed a display of cultural wealth in the aspirational upper-​middle-​class home. In large country estates purchased by newly wealthy industrialists, stained glass windows were used to legitimate new ownership of historic properties. One domestic lancet window executed for the entrance hall of the then relatively recently rebuilt Scottish estate Glenormiston, in the historic county of Peeblesshire (now Tweedale), and exhibited at the Great Exhibition by Edinburgh stained glass firm Ballantine & Allan, demonstrated the combined personal and nationalistic role that stained glass could play in grand homes. The window, which no longer survives, commemorated a local tradition that, on the festival of St John, the proprietor of the estate should present a red rose to the sovereign.166 Ballantine’s window depicted the last time this event was thought to have occurred, in 1529, when a rose was presented to King James V of Scotland (r. 1513–​42). This scene was set in a medallion with Elizabethan-​style ornament against a background of pale-​blue, diamond-​shaped quarries stencilled with the national emblems of the rose for England, shamrock for Ireland, and thistle for Scotland, the whole surrounded by a regal border of ruby and gold.167 At the top of the window, the monogram of William Chambers (1800–​83), who purchased the estate in 1846, was painted beneath the Scottish proverb ‘He That Tholes Overcomes’ (He That Suffers Overcomes), with the date ‘1850’ at the base of the window. The commissioning of this window gave legitimacy to Chambers’ new role as lord of the manor, and demonstrated a broader chivalric revival in which historical events were adapted for use by families of ‘new’ money as well as the established aristocracy.168 The appropriation of historical events was common in the nineteenth century. At the 1862 London Exhibition, Ballantine & Son (as they were known after 1860)  exhibited another domestic window, destined for the hall of South Bantaskine, where the Battle of Falkirk Muir was fought in 1715. John Wilson (1815–​81), a coal master who bought the South Bantaskine estate in 1854, commissioned this window for his new mansion, erected in 1860. After the Second World War, the house was demolished,

103

Stylistic eclecticism

but this window was salvaged by Falkirk Council and is now on display in the Howgate Shopping Centre, Falkirk. It celebrates three leading figures in the Battle of Falkirk Muir:  Lord George Murray (1694–​1760), Prince Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) (1720–​88), and Lord John Drummond (1714–​47), who opposed Hanoverian succession of the throne from the Stuarts.169 Each figure is accompanied by a heraldic shield and emblem, and commemorated with a poetic inscription celebrating their role in the rebellion. The window held specific local civic and personal resonance, as Wilson’s family had played their part in the Jacobite risings. This has also presumably been a key factor in its survival and continued display. By the 1860s, the presence of stained glass in domestic interiors presented exciting possibilities, and the range of secular stained glass exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition in London led one reviewer to proclaim that the perfection of the art would be primarily reached through its ‘application to domestic, and not ecclesiastical purposes’.170 Historic and literary sources such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and Thomas Malory’s Arthurian legends proved popular subjects for British secular stained glass, as well as other new artistic and literary works. In this vein was the Robin Hood’s Last Shot window designed by Sebastian Evans and made by Chance Brothers, exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition (Plate 22).171 As the Illustrated London News exclaimed, the window demonstrated ‘that our old ballads supply innumerable subjects of interest which can be appropriately treated in this manner’.172 Like a grand history painting, this window exploited dramatic narrative to heighten its effect. The heroic Robin is shown drawing his last arrow, moments before his death. The image was accompanied with poetic verses from a popular ballad, like many contemporary Pre-​Raphaelite paintings.173

Commemorative windows One of the ways in which consumers dictated the styles and subjects of nineteenth-​ century stained glass was through the memorial window. Although memorial windows were part of a wider culture of commemoration in the period, they are notably absent from scholarship on Victorian death and mourning.174 In a lecture delivered to the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture in 1840, antiquary James Heywood Markland (1788–​1864) proposed the use of stained glass windows as an alternative to sepulchral monuments.175 Initially, this idea was criticised by the Ecclesiologists, who thought memorial windows were little more than signs of human affectation, and represented ‘the desire of making the most shew [sic] with a little money’.176 Art critic John Ruskin

103

104

104

Windows for the world

(1819–​1900) echoed these sentiments in The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849): The peculiar manner of selfish and impious ostentation, provoked by the glassmakers, for a stimulus to trade, of putting up painted windows to be records of private affection, instead of universal religion, is one of the worst, because most plausible and proud, hypocrisies of our day.177

Ruskin’s concern that memorial windows were evidence of the modern craftsman’s submission to economic impetus was not completely unfounded. The memorial window rapidly became a commodity across the world.178 Most commonly installed in churches, these windows often feature personalised inscriptions, iconography, heraldry, and monograms, and were, therefore, dependent upon the tastes and patronage of both the public and the church.179 Besides memorial windows to the deceased, which demonstrated both personal and collective mourning, windows were  also erected as thank offerings for  life-changing  events  such as recovery from serious illness or rescue from a storm. Communities also engaged in commemorating national events through the erection of stained glass windows, and in the reign of Queen Victoria this was especially marked, with a number of windows being erected upon the death of the Prince Consort in 1861; as a thank offering for the Prince of Wales, Albert Edward’s recovery from typhoid in 1872; or to commemorate Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee in 1887. Through such windows, erected across the globe in British colonies, as well as the UK, small communities shared in a national and ideological celebration of the monarchy and British Empire (see also Chapter 5). The strong presence of memorial windows at the exhibitions demonstrated their economic value to nineteenth-​century stained glass studios, as well as their popularity with the public. Three of the five windows exhibited by Cox & Sons at the 1862 International Exhibition were memorials. One of these, now in Christ Church, Worthing, West Sussex, demonstrates the combined theological, symbolic, and personal role of memorial windows. It depicts St John listening to the voice of an angel, from Revelation 14:13, holding a scroll bearing the inscription ‘Write, blessed are the dead which die in the Lord’. As the Illustrated London News reported: The face of the angel was, we believe, copied from a portrait of the lady to whose memory the window has just been fixed in Christchurch, Worthing. We trust we shall not be thought to touch upon a matter of only a personal and family interest by mentioning that the work was executed for Mr. R. P. Daniell, of Bond-​street, as a memorial of the late Mrs. Daniell.180

Although such windows with contemporary portraits have been described as ‘farcical’,181 the insertion of portraits in nineteenth-​century stained glass

105

Stylistic eclecticism

reveals donors’ desires to immortalise loved ones, and demonstrate ways in which public taste inflected stained glass design. The rise of photography appears to have increased demand for memorial  windows. The phenomenon of photographic stained glass, or photo-​ vitrail, was a significant element of the nineteenth-​century stained glass industry,182 much of which is now under threat.183 A number of contemporary articles shed further light on these processes.184 Invented between 1850 and 1865, and used extensively until c. 1920, the vitrail-​photographique was in its heyday during the exhibition era, although experiments with photography on glass were being made prior to this.185 French photographer and engraver Ferdinand-​Jean de la Ferté Joubert (1810–​84) patented a method that directly transferred photographs onto glass, and then fixed the images using vitreous paint, examples of which were shown at the International Exhibition of 1862.186 In England and Scotland, London-​based Powell & Sons and Baillie & Co. of Edinburgh were the sole agents of Joubert’s method, although other variations of these techniques existed. The photographic processes employed by stained glass makers demonstrate ways in which nineteenth-​century stained glass incorporated modern technologies.

Other secular settings During this period, stained glass was not only fitted into homes, but also public houses, theatres and popular music halls, hotels and restaurants, banks, railway stations, commercial offices and shops, as well as new civic or educational buildings, such as museums, art galleries, libraries, schools, and town halls. The dissemination of stained glass beyond traditional ecclesiastical and domestic settings, to diverse secular buildings with recreational public, civic, educational, and commercial purposes, stimulated modern subject matter and settings. Amongst the exhibits at the 1862 International Exhibition were some stained glass panels in the Pre-​ Raphaelite style designed by John Milner Allen (1827–​1902) and made by Lavers & Barraud for the half-​landing of the stairway of Northampton Guildhall (1861–​64), a neo-​gothic building designed by Edward William Godwin (1833–​86). Each main light illustrates a scene inspired by Tennyson’s narrative poem The Idylls of the King (see Plate 23), published in 1859, based on the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of Camelot. The prominence of women and themes of courtly love in these windows reflects the window’s patrons, a group of women subscribers headed by the Mayoress of Northampton, whose names are inscribed on a brass plaque nearby. At the same exhibition, Ballantine & Son exhibited a window for the National Bank of Scotland, Glasgow,187 which depicted three allegorical female figures representing Commerce, Mechanics, and Agriculture, with scenes below showing cherubs weighing bales, shipbuilding, the ploughing of fields, and gathering of corn. Above these panels were Mercury’s

105

106

106

Windows for the world

caduceus, a symbol of commerce and negotiation, the Scottish lion and thistle with the national motto ‘Nemo me impune lacessit’ (No one attacks me with impunity), and bouquets of fruits and flowers to symbolise Abundance.188 These exhibits reflected the importance of modern commerce and banking, revealing new corporate and business clients. Such allegorical windows, which occupied a prominent position at international exhibitions, may have influenced other important public schemes that promoted the use of stained glass in new environments, such as the windows designed for the South Kensington Museum (now Victoria and Albert Museum) in the 1860s and 1870s by members of the South Kensington Science and Art Department, several of which were exhibited at the 1867 Paris Exposition.189 One of these windows, designed by Francis Wollaston Moody (1824–​ 86) and made by Powell & Sons in 1866,190 represented the Union of Science and Art, overseen by Wisdom, a subject entirely appropriate to the newly founded South Kensington Museum.191 After its exhibition in Paris, the window appears to have been installed at the foot of the northern staircase leading to the picture galleries at the South Kensington Museum (in an area now not accessible to the public).192 It was removed in the early twentieth century as part of internal rearrangements to the building and now languishes in store.193 The round-​headed window, measuring almost 4m high by 2m wide, is divided into three parts (Plate 24). In the upper part, a large allegorical figure representing Wisdom is shown seated on a cloud, holding a book and a flaming torch. Small groups are gathered at either side of Wisdom’s feet, seated on steps behind balustrades, waiting for her guidance. In the centre of the window the allegorical figures of Science and Art meet and join hands. One figure is handed a sceptre and the other (crowned with laurels) is passed a flaming torch. Scenes in the lower section of the window represent the fictile arts, architecture, and metalworking. In the first, a group of potters are shown in their studio, one at the potter’s wheel in the foreground. In the second, an architect draws up plans while building work takes place in the distance, and in the third and final scene a blacksmith strikes his anvil. A border running around the entire window contains a selection of biblical texts concerning the teaching of wisdom (in Latin) from Proverbs  8. The inclusion of these didactic moralising inscriptions emphasises the role of wisdom in the progression of the arts and science, as well as practical instruction in life. The South Kensington Museum windows, and decorative scheme more broadly, reveals how this influential establishment articulated and demonstrated to the world its leading role as a centre for artistic education. The presence of religious texts in these windows, to reinforce the educational message and the value of art and labour, demonstrates the convergence of ecclesiastical and secular influence upon stained glass during this period.

107

Stylistic eclecticism

By abandoning gothic forms and ornament in favour of the Renaissance style, Moody and his peers at the South Kensington School of Art identified themselves with a broad lineage of historical figures, thinkers, artists, and modern inventors. The revived Renaissance style had an important impact upon decorative arts such as stained glass, as well as painting and sculpture.194 In his Studies in the History of the Renaissance (1873), literary and art critic Walter Pater (1839–​94) acknowledged Renaissance developments in glass painting.195 Pater noted that: [I]‌t was characteristic of these painters that they were most successful in painting on glass, that art so essentially mediæval. Taking it up where the middle age had left it, they found their whole work among the last subtleties of colour and line; and keeping within the true limits of their material, they got quite a new order of effects from it, and felt their way to refinements on colour never dreamed of by those older workmen, the glass-​painters of Chartres or Le Mans.196

Perhaps with the examples of stained glass he had seen at the South Kensington Museum in mind, Pater’s work attempted to describe the spirit of the Renaissance as a series of sensibilities unfolding from the late Middle Ages through to his contemporary era.197 Pater was not alone in this view. In 1877, the Revd Frederick Heathcote Sutton (1833–​88), an amateur stained glass designer whose windows were executed by Charles Eamer Kempe (1837–​1907), delivered a paper on ‘Renaissance Glass’ to the Lincoln Archaeological Society.198 A review of this paper reported that ‘Mr. Sutton observed that if, in this nineteenth century, we are to have a style of glass painting of our own, it seems not unlikely that it will be found in some modification of the Renaissance style, perhaps a Renaissance of the Renaissance.’199 Similar sentiments were expressed by Day in 1885, in a series of articles explaining the evolution of the Renaissance and cinquecento styles in stained glass as developments of the medieval gothic style.200 Day urged glass-​painters to look to other historic styles, and proclaimed that, ‘there are qualities in later styles which are worth our admiration and respect.… We shall not reach the highest level in our art –​architecture, glass-​painting, or whatever it may be –​without having learned something from all of them.’201 In a speech given to l’Union des arts décoratifs, Paris, in March 1897, Didron acknowledged that the increased secular demand for stained glass resulted in historical eclecticism. Yet, like his uncle, he remained an ardent advocate of the gothic style and believed the secularisation of stained glass was a misapplication of the art: Si le vitrail est resté en honneur dans nos églises, s’il occupé un nombre assez considérable d’artistes et d’artisans, son introduction dans la décoration des fenêtres de quelques édifices publics de l’ordre civil, des habitations les luxueuses et de certains lieux de réunion, telles que les restaurants et les brasseries, a procuré beaucoup plus de travail encore, en ces dernières années, à

107

108

108

Windows for the world nos ateliers spéciaux. Le bon marché, fils de la mode, a vulgarisé le vitrail que l’on voit partout maintenant. Gothique bâtard et Renaissance avachie hurlent d’être accouplés aux vitrines vieillotes des cabarets et de quelques boutiques, en cette fin de XIXe siècle.202 (If stained glass has retained its place of honour in our churches, if it employs a considerable number of artists and artisans, its introduction to the decoration of windows in government buildings, in the most luxurious homes and in certain meeting places such as restaurants and brasseries, has provided much more work, in the last few years, for our specialised workshops. The bon marché, a child of fashion, has vulgarized the stained glass windows that we now see everywhere. At the end of this nineteenth century, bastardized gothic and misshapen Renaissance howl at being mated with the old-​fashioned windows of cabarets and a few shops.)

In Didron’s view stained glass was a sacred art form, and should not be subject to the idiosyncrasies of public demand. Yet the application of stained glass to such varied secular settings represented the diversification and democratisation of the medium, and led to the emergence of new stylistic expressions across the world from the 1870s onwards. In Britain, the Arts and Crafts and Aesthetic movements regenerated the creative approach to the design, materials and making of stained glass; in the USA the invention of opalescent glasses transformed the material possibilities of the medium; and in continental Europe the influence of these new materials, along with the taste for Japonisme, modern Secessionist and Art Nouveau styles produced new expressions in stained glass.

Stained glass and the avant-​garde In his review of stained glass at the 1878 Exposition Universelle, Didron feared that the burgeoning market for stained glass would hinder its artistic development: Si la peinture sur verre est un art, sa mise en œuvre est un partie industrielle: il n’en a pas fallu d’avantage pour la faire verser dans une ornière commerciale, qui a été largement tracée par les besoins factices d’une consommation excessive …. Grâce à une concurrence que, d’ailleurs, le goût particulier des clients ordinaires a trop encouragée, la peinture sur verre cesse, dans bien des cas, d’être un art véritable pour devenir une industrie condamnée à produire beaucoup, rapidement et à bon marché.203 (If glass painting is an art, its implementation is in part industrial:  nothing more was needed to let her fall into a commercial rut, which was prepared by the false needs of an excessive consumption …. Because of competition, which, moreover, the particular taste of regular customers has encouraged too far, in many cases, painting on glass stops being a genuine art and becomes an industry condemned to produce much, quickly and cheaply.)

Many of the windows exhibited at the international exhibitions in the latter part of the century reacted against the increasing mass production

109

Stylistic eclecticism

and commercialisation of stained glass. In Britain, the growing tension between art and trade was counteracted by the emergence of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which reacted against commercialisation. As Cormack has argued, the Arts and Crafts Movement was a catalyst for the regeneration of stained glass from the 1880s onwards, and provided ‘an alternative to the conventions of Gothic Revival imagery’.204 The Arts and Crafts and Aesthetic movements heavily influenced secular stained glass design, as well as other decorative arts and furnishings.205 From the 1870s, displays of furnished interiors featuring stained glass windows became popular at the international exhibitions and revealed a fast-​expanding market for decorative arts in the home. One display that had a particular influence upon the use of stained glass in domestic interiors was the Prince of Wales Pavilion, the British Pavilion erected for the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1878. Designed by Richard Norman Shaw (1831–​1912) in the Elizabethan or ‘Queen Anne’ style, the pavilion was a showcase for the British Aesthetic Movement.206 The building featured a skylight as well as Anglo-​Japanese furniture, tapestries, and porcelain.207 Arts and Crafts stained glass artist Selwyn Image (1849–​1930) designed two stained glass windows for the vestibule entrance, which were made by Powell & Sons. One depicted the signs of the zodiac and the other the four seasons surrounding Mother Earth, which was described as ‘by far the finest window exhibited’.208 Image’s design for Summer (Plate 25) demonstrates how Western artists associated with the Arts and Crafts and Aesthetic movements adopted Japanese conventions of linear design, flatness, and patterned surfaces in designs for stained glass as well as furniture and other decorative arts.209 Image introduced a renewed simplicity to stained glass design that was directly related to contemporary graphic work.210 The cropped, linear design, its asymmetry, lack of shading and perspective, all point to the influence of Japanese prints. Indeed, Day described this window as having a ‘Japanese character’.211 It thus complemented the decorative scheme of the Elizabethan pavilion in the ‘Japanese’ style, which incorporated Anglo-​ Japanese furniture, an embroidered Japanese frieze, and a skylight ‘throwing a mellow tinge on the dining-​table beneath’.212 As Ottin noted in Les vitraux (1896), Japanese art began to impact the design of stained glass in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.213 The increasing influence of Japanese art in the West responded to contemporary political events as well as aesthetic preferences. Following more than two centuries of isolation, a number of treaties with Western countries, and especially after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan opened up trade with Europe and the USA.214 The Japanese Court at the 1862 International Exhibition, organised by the British Ambassador to Japan, Rutherford Alcock (1809–​97), amassed the largest collection of Japanese art in Europe at the time, and at later international exhibitions Japanese goods, and the

109

110

110

Windows for the world

Japanese style, made an enormous impact.215 Interest in Japanese culture more broadly represented a ‘tension between the pull of modernisation and the antiquity of native traditions’.216 The taste for Japanese design had much influence upon the subject matter and style of both European and American stained glass.217 As Didron noted at the 1878 Exposition: ‘Le “japonisme”, si fort à la mode en ce moment, s’est naturellement introduit dans la peinture sur verre’ (The ‘Japanese influence’, so much in vogue at the moment, is naturally introduced into glass painting).218 An article on stained glass published in the British Architect during this Exposition remarked: With few exceptions, Japanese work contains the principle which should guide stained glass artists. There is breadth of treatment, and sustained interest, both in form and colouring. The work is thoroughly flat, and in the drawings there is an acknowledgement that anything like a perfect representation of nature is not attempted, and there is an entire absence of vulgarity and pretence.219

The medium of stained glass was very suited to the flat graphic qualities of Japanese design evident in ukiyo-​e prints (Japanese woodcuts), which in turn affected poster design and fin-​de-​siècle painting. In 1895 English-​born American artist Louis J. Rhead (1857–​1926) acknowledged the connection between these various media in an article entitled ‘Stained Glass and the Decorative Poster’ (1895). He argued that the ‘influence of modern stained glass may be traced in every department of modern decoration, and it is likely that we owe to it the artistic poster with its flat tints, its strong colour, and its decided outlines’.220 These three media share characteristics of black lines between blocks of flat colour, and it is important to recognise that many of the leading decorative artists of the time, including the likes of versatile designers Alfonse Mucha (1860–​1939), Toulouse-​Lautrec, Crane, Grasset, and Day, designed both stained glass and posters. In the 1870s, at the same time that the Japanese style was in vogue, two of the most renowned American innovators in nineteenth-​ century stained glass, Tiffany and La Farge, established their studios in the USA and introduced a range of opalescent glasses to their repertoire. Unlike uniformly coloured pot-​ metal glass, opalescent glass is varied in both colour and texture. As well as being blown into sheets, opalescent glass was cast in moulds and manipulated on the bench with tools whilst still hot to produce glass of an unprecedented texture, depth, and weight. For instance, the molten glass could be twisted and folded to mimic the three-​ dimensional effects of drapery. Stained glass windows constructed from opalescent glass are undoubtedly sculptural.221 The development of opalescent glass led to greater levels of abstraction in stained glass, and this particularly lent itself to secular subjects.222 Having filed a patent for his opalescent glass in November 1879, which was granted in October 1880, John La Farge (1835–1910) first exhibited opalescent stained glass to an international public at the 1889 Paris Exposition, by which time there was

111

Stylistic eclecticism

an extensive commercial supply of opalescent sheet glasses available.223 The success of this exhibition established La Farge’s international reputation. Critic William Cosmo Monkhouse wrote: [La Farge] has a true sense of the qualities and conditions of his material, and knows how to make the most of them.… Unlike a great deal of modern work of this kind, the light does not strike through his panels and dazzle the eye with patches of crudely-​coloured light, but is held, as it were, in rich and jewelly suspension. Often, indeed, he obtains that effect of inward flame which is so observable in oriental glass.224

In his official report of stained glass at the 1889 Exposition, Champigneulle fils also recognised the beauty and ‘precious’ qualities of opalescent glass, writing that ‘ses opacitiés et ses transparences qui semblent faire jaillir l’or, le jaspe et l’onyx de la lumière par leurs heurtements fantastiques, si remplis d’imprévus et d’harmonies’ (its opacities and its transparencies … seem to spout out gold, jasper and onyx from the light by their fantastic collisions, so full of surprises and harmonies).225 These semi-​transparent opalescent glasses of variable thickness and texture came in tones of mixed colours with flows and stripes, and manipulated light in new ways. One of La Farge’s 1889 exhibits, the ‘Watson Memorial Window’ depicting The Angel Sealing the Servants of God (Plate 26), for the family’s side chapel at Trinity Episcopalian Church, Buffalo, New  York, provides us with an opportunity to explore how La Farge used opalescent glass to produce a spectacular interplay of light and colour.226 The window takes its subject from Revelation 7, where angels place a seal upon God’s chosen people. Rather than depict four angels and representatives of each of the twelve tribes of Israel, however, La Farge’s design depicts a single angel placing a seal upon the forehead of a woman, with two other figures ascending to heaven. The hands, arms, neck, and heads of the figures are the only parts that are painted. In contrast to the realism of these parts, La Farge has employed hundreds of unpainted pieces of coloured glass in an array of green, red, and violet, to represent the weighty robes of the figures and wings of the angel. A strong tonal contrast in these parts has been obtained by using many pieces of glass of different hues and thickness with varying levels of translucency. Together with the dynamic lead lines, the arrangement of the pieces of glass, and their tonal contrasts, emphasises the upward movement of the figures. As La Farge’s biographer, James Yarnall, has acknowledged, ‘the effect was electric, imparting a kinetic quality’.227 Tiffany visited the 1889 Paris Exposition but did not exhibit, and he seemed to have regretted this, especially since the exhibits of his main artistic and business rival, La Farge, received much attention. However, Tiffany’s display at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893 (where La Farge was notably absent) was even more influential. Tiffany published an article entitled ‘American Art Supreme in Colored Glass’ in

111

112

112

Windows for the world

Forum to coincide with this exhibition.228 Opalescent glass windows relied solely on the colour, form, and texture of the glass and leads of varying thickness to bring the design to life. Consequently, the act of painting on glass with pigment or enamel diminished. Enamel pigments were predominantly used for painting flesh, hands, and faces.229 The stained glass exhibited at the Paris Salons in the 1890s, the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, and the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1900 further emphasise how these new types of glass brought about changes in subject matter as well as techniques.230 One window, Parakeets and Goldfish Bowl (plate 27), which formed part of Tiffany’s Byzantine chapel at the 1893 Chicago Exposition, depicted parakeets resting in a blossoming fruit tree, with a goldfish bowl hanging from one of the branches .231 As Tiffany proclaimed, ‘the effect produced is most realistic, and has been obtained without the assistance of paints or enamels, solely by using opalescent glass’.232 Each piece of glass was carefully selected for its tonal variation and patterns of colour, texture, and patina, then cut to a particular shape and arranged. The glass material, aided by the lead contours, provides both image and subject. The mottled green glass used for the background has the effect of dappled sunlight upon blades of grass, while the flurries of white colour in the blue glass forming the sky are suggestive of cloud formations. A more opaque, milky, opalescent glass was used for the parts of the goldfish bowl containing water, in order to differentiate between the transparent glass bowl and its murky contents. Here, glass represented glass, and different pieces were selected to demonstrate the multiple effects of glass material –​transparency and translucency, reflection and distortion. Tiffany proclaimed that Americans were capable of producing opalescent glass windows ‘superior to the best mediæval windows’.233 Medievalists like Didron disagreed. Following the exhibits he had seen at the 1900 Paris Exposition he expressed his dislike of opalescent glass: [D]‌ ’une façon générale, on a substituté au verre ordinaire, transparent et lumineux, cette matière dévitrifiée, grippée, rissolé, peu translucide, souvent même presque opaque et, en ce cas, se caractérisant par des appearances de porcelain ou d’albâtre, d’aspect triste et d’allure mystérieuse qui a perdu les qualitiés de splendeur rayonnante du vitrail primitif.234 ([I]‌n a general way, one has substituted ordinary glass, transparent and luminous, for this devitrified material, blocked, brown, barely translucent, often almost opaque and, in this case, characterised by the appearance of porcelain or alabaster, of a sad aspect and mysterious allure, which has lost the qualities of radiant splendour of primitive stained glass.)

Yet by the end of the nineteenth century, opalescent windows were being made across the USA and Europe by converts to ‘le culte des verres spéciaux’ (the cult of special glass).235 Their followers embraced the material qualities of this opalescent glass, over and above its painted surface. As

113

Stylistic eclecticism

the jury report for the Exposition in Paris, 1900 commented, ‘[t]‌out est surbordonné à cette matière précieuse’ ([a]ll is subordinate to this precious material), and the role of the glass-​painter is transformed; he is at the mercy of his unique glass material.236 It is important to note that, like several other major innovators in stained glass, both La Farge and Tiffany were painters before they turned their attention to this medium.237 La Farge defined stained glass as an art that involves ‘painting in air with a material varying coloured light’.238 Drawn to the medium for its endless possibilities, Tiffany recognised that the opalescent glass material used in the late nineteenth century ‘rivalled the painter’s palette’, and that plating glass windows achieved the same result as ‘glazing in oil-​painting’.239 Furthermore, Yarnall has argued that La Farge’s experience with plating stained glass may have influenced the layering of colour in his watercolour paintings.240 In order to understand the uniqueness of stained glass, and its critical discussion in the nineteenth century, we need to further conceptualise and interpret the medium in relation to other artistic media, as some of the most exciting new forms of stained glass were brought about by artists working across many art forms. On the continent, the Art Nouveau Movement also exploited the fluidity of form and colour found in fin-​de-​siècle glass to achieve new expressions in stained glass, making particular use of the lead patterns. The elegant curved lines so characteristic of Art Nouveau have a ‘tense naturalism’, symbolising a metamorphosis, a stylistic evolution that expressed both the positive and negative aspects of the modern urban environment by combining naturalism with abstraction.241 Stained glass was an ideal medium for such expressions. As early as 1889, many years before the term ‘Art Nouveau’ had been coined, the style was pre-​empted by the arabesque designs and motifs in the stained glass exhibited by Chicago-​based firm of Healy & Millet, for which they were awarded a silver medal at the 1889 Paris Exposition.242 Several of these exhibits were subsequently purchased by the Musée des arts décoratifs, and are now in the collection of the Musée d’Orsay.243 The panels show interlocking curved forms that are propelled against lead lines running along both horizontal and vertical axes. The lead lines seem to attract and repel, contract and retract. This lends an effect of vitality, expressed through ornamental leading and the glass itself, rather than through paint and picture, making such windows suitable for a variety of secular settings. Besides these abstract patterns in leaded glass, several figurative stained glass windows in this style could be seen in Bing’s Art Nouveau Pavilion at the Paris Exposition in 1900. In an article for the Revue des arts décoratifs, art critic Gabriel Mourey (1865–1943) praised the four stained glass panels (representing the seasons) designed by De Feure, each of which depicted a woman and together formed part of a fully glazed curved wall within the pavilion.244

113

114

114

Windows for the world Ces quatre figures élancées de femmes, parmi les ondulosités un peu étranges de leur robes, dans ce décor complexe de fleurs et de feuilles aux couleurs fantastiques, produisent la plus séduisante impression; cela porte la marque d’un modernisme aigu, enrichi de souvenirs exotiques, rehaussé des caprices d’une imagination d’artiste très cultivée et très ardente.245 (These four figures of slender women, amongst the rather strange undulations of their dresses, in this complex decoration of flowers and leaves of fantastic colours, produce the most seductive impression; this bears the mark of an acute modernism, enriched with exotic memories, enhanced by the whims of the imagination of a highly cultured and very passionate artist.)

Black-​and-​white photographs of these windows, the fates of which are unknown, were reproduced in the German periodical Dekorative Kunst.246 The natural imagery flows from one window to the next, through continuous lead lines and an extended mass of foliage. Each figure adopts an individual pose, and, according to the season, a different outfit with accessories, the patterns of which appear to have been formed by both lead lines and textured glass. Daumont-​Tournel wrote that De Feure’s figures had an ‘élégance raffinée rendues sans peinture’ (refined elegance rendered without paint).247 An idea of the design, colouring, and techniques of these windows can be gleaned from a window which clearly relates to the scheme designed by De Feure for Bing’s Art Nouveau Pavilion, now in the collection of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond, VA (see Plate 28).248 Made by Hans Müller Hickler (1860–​1933) of Darmstadt, Germany, c. 1901, this window featured in an exhibition of De Feure’s artworks at Maison de l’Art Nouveau, Paris, in spring 1903.249 It depicts a woman leaning on a wall. The forms of her dress appear to have organically sprung from the ground, and the floral decoration on her dress mimics the surrounding plants. She sports a modern hairstyle, appears to be wearing lipstick and make-​up, and looks directly at the viewer. The palette consists mostly of pale secondary colours, although a deep flashed ruby glass has been used to great effect in the hat, which contains a bird. The treatment of the flashed glass, layers of which have been carefully acid-​etched and then coloured with silver stain, reveals the skill of the glassmaker. In Bing’s 1900 pavilion, De Feure’s windows were part of a broader decorative scheme, incorporating floral designs and figures of women, which Gabriel P.  Weisberg has interpreted as ‘icons of the modern woman’, visual evidence for the new era of women as patrons of the arts in the modern home.250 But one can also view them as portrayals of modern women, related to the fin-​de-​siècle posters designed by Grasset and Toulouse-​Lautrec. The flatness of the designs, the emphasis on fashion, decoration, and nature bear many similarities to modern French posters, and, like much of this graphic art, these designs appear cropped and without a border.

115

Stylistic eclecticism

Yet, in 1900, the year of Art Nouveau, Didron, a stalwart gothicist, remained unimpressed, and commented, ‘ “l’art nouveau” n’est pas fort séduisant; nous doutons de son avenir’ (‘art nouveau’ is not very attractive; we doubt its future), a judgment which, as a devout follower of the gothic school, demonstrated his wariness of new developments in stained glass design.251 In spite of material innovations and the international dissemination of new styles via the international exhibitions, at the end of the century, the medieval style remained, for some, the paradigmatic form of stained glass, even though the majority of exhibits in 1900 were not ‘gothic’ in style. Although some large commercial studios in both Britain and France continued to produce windows in an uninventive restrained gothic style throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, as this chapter has demonstrated, many innovative examples of nineteenth-​ century windows designed by talented artists, in all manner of styles, were displayed at the international exhibitions.

Notes 1 Strutt, Tallis’s history and description, p. 39. 2 Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 10. 3 As Raguin has acknowledged, in a climate of architectural multiplicity, stained glass ‘eclecticism was absolutely normative’. V.  C. Raguin, ‘Stained Glass in the 19th Century’, Paper presented at the international seminar on stained glass of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Philadelphia, 27 April–​1 May 1994, p. 1. 4 Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle, pp. 142–​3. 5 Wallis, ‘The Artistic, Industrial, and Commercial Results’, xv. 6 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 284. 7 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 282. 8 ‘The International Exhibition. Stained Glass –​No. II’, 503. ‘Warrington’s Progressive Examples of Stained Glass’, Art Journal 8 (August 1862), 174. 9 Gambier Parry, ‘Report on Painting on Glass’, p. 379. 10 P. Bitterlin, Exposition universelle de Paris en 1878. Section française. Classe 19. Groupe III. Paul Bitterlin fils:  artiste peintre-​graveur-​verrier (Paris:  Imprimerie de A. Pougin, 1878). 11 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, 178. 12 R. Teukolsky, ‘This Sublime Museum:  Looking at Art at the Great Exhibition’, in Buzard et al., Victorian prism, p. 97. 13 A. Reichensperger, ‘A Word on the Crystal Palace by A.  Reichensperger’, The Ecclesiologist 9 (1851), 387. 14 See for example Arscott, ‘Burne-​Jones. Stained Glass’, in William Morris and Edward Burne-​Jones: interlacings, pp. 202–​23. 15 Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 25. 16 J. Ruskin, Lectures on art (New York: John Wiley & Son, 1870), Lecture VII, p. 186. Delivered before the University of Oxford in Hilary term. 17 C. Bouchon and C. Brisac, ‘Le vitrail’, in C. Bouchon, C. Brisac, N.-​J. Chaline, and J.-​M. Leniaud (eds), Ces églises du dix-​neuvième siècle (Amiens:  Encrage, 1993), pp. 224–​43. 18 J. A. Knowles, ‘The Transition from the Mosaic to the Enamel Method of Painting on Glass’, Antiquaries Journal 6 (1926), 26–​35. 19 ‘Ecclesiological Aspect of the Great Exhibition’, 184.

115

116

116

Windows for the world 20 A number of nineteenth-​century windows derive their compositions from works by Rubens, Raphael, Dürer, and Millais. Both the Königliche Glasmalereianstalt and British stained glass artists used the Bilderbibel (1851, published in Britain in 1860) as a source. Rush, ‘The Königliche Glasmalereianstalt’, p. 93. 21 Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, pp. 59–​60. 22 G. W. Yapp (ed.), Official catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, 1851 (London: Spicer Brothers, 1851), p. 128. 23 Henrich Ludwig Burkhardt (1822–​1906) and his brother Christian Heinrich Burkhardt (1824–​93) were both employed at the Königlichen Glasmalereianstalt, before setting up their own glass-​painting studio in Munich in 1851. E. Vaasen, Bilder auf Glas. Glasgemälde zwischen 1780 und 1870 (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1997, pp. 241–​5. 24 Yapp, Official catalogue of the Great Exhibition, Part II, pp. 1095 and 1120. 25 G. R. F., ‘Some Remarks on Glass Painting No. II’, The Ecclesiologist 15 (1857), 80–​1. 26 For the Ecclesiological Society, see Webster and Elliot, ‘A church as it should be’. 27 Armstrong, Victorian glassworlds, p. 153. 28 Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, p. 12. 29 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 286. This was the window for Lowestoft Town Hall, discussed in Chapter 5. 30 See Baylis, ‘Glass-​Painting in Britain c. 1760–​c. 1840’; Allen, ‘The Spectacle of Stained Glass’. 31 ‘Thoughts on Stained Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 12 (1854), 34–​5. 32 ‘Ecclesiological Aspect of the Great Exhibition’, 183. The illustrated exhibitor noted that, ‘the effect attained is equal, if not superior to an oil painting’. Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, p. 383. 33 Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures, vol. 2, text accompanying plate XIII. 34 A. Bermingham, ‘Landscape-​O-​Rama: The Exhibition Landscape at Somerset House and the Rise of Popular Landscape Entertainments’, in D. Solkin (ed.), Art on the line: the Royal Academy exhibitions at Somerset House 1780–​1836 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), p. 132. 35 See Altick, The shows of London, p. 111. 36 By the 1860s, ecclesiological principles were generally adopted by those reviewing stained glass at the exhibitions. See, for example, A. Pellatt, ‘Class XXXIV. Glass’, in J.  F. Iselin and P. Le Neve Foster (eds), Reports by the Juries on the subjects in the thirty-​six classes into which the exhibition was divided (London: International Exhibition of 1862, 1863), pp. 1–​8. 37 Luneau, ‘Vitrail archéologique, vitrail-​tableau’, 67. 38 ‘Mr Oliphant on Painted Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 13 (1855), 160. 39 Edward Baillie worked  with  his  younger brother Thomas Baillie (1815–​83), who took over the firm upon Edward’s death. 40 Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures, vol. 2, text accompanying plate XIII. The window has not been traced. Interestingly, Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth I were two of the most represented figures in London’s National Portrait gallery around this time too. R. L. Stein, ‘National Portraits’, in Buzard et al., Victorian prism, pp. 115–​16. 41 Medals and honourable mentions awarded by the international juries, with a list of jurors and the Report of the Council of Chairmen (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1862), p. 3. 42 See for example criticisms of Maréchal and others in Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, p. 73; Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, pp. 33–​4. 43 ‘Stained Glass (Concluding Notice)’, Illustrated London News (15 November 1862), 538.

117

Stylistic eclecticism 44 A window in the collection of the Vatican Museum in Rome (inv. MV-​70986-​0-​0) may be the same window exhibited in 1862, although the Virgin has blonde hair, not chestnut brown as depicted in the colour lithograph published in J. B. Waring, Masterpieces of the industrial art and sculpture at the International Exhibition 1862 (London:  Day & Son, 1863), vol. 1, plate 23. This may have been an error during the colouring of the lithograph. An inscription painted on a separate piece of glass, which records the gift of the window by Cesare Ponti (a Milanese banker) to Pope Pius XI in 1922, may have been added at a later date, together with the gothic frame. 45 Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, pp. 383–​4. 46 Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures, vol. 2, text accompanying plate XIII. 47 Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, p. 381. 48 The Art Journal illustrated catalogue of the International Exhibition, 1862 (London; New York: James S. Virtue, 1862), p. 63; ‘Stained Glass (Concluding Notice)’, 536; Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 403. 49 ‘Stained Glass’, The Athenaeum 1816 (16 August 1862), 216. 50 Musée de La Cour d’Or, Metz (inv. 11317). 51 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, pp.  11–​12; Gambier Parry, ‘Report on Painting on Glass’, p. 380. The window is today in the central bay of the antechamber of the Galerie des Fastes, Château de Fontainebleau. 52 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p. 45. 53 Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, p. 71. 54 T. G. P., ‘The Walls and Windows of the Future’, The Ecclesiologist 28 (1867), 301. 55 For example, Bontemps, Examen historique; Pellatt, ‘Class XXIV’. 56 Bontemps and Boeswillwald, ‘Groupe III’, p. 89. 57 Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures, vol. 2, text accompanying plate XIII. 58 C. Winston, ‘Awards and Notices  –​Glass Paintings’, in Reports by the juries on the subjects in the thirty classes into which the Exhibition was divided. Jury reports IV: Classes XXVIII–​XXX (London, 1852), p. 534. 59 Winston, ‘Awards and Notices’, p.  702. Upon his brother Henry’s death in 1849, Alfred Gérente took over the studio. 60 R. Redgrave, ‘Supplementary Report on Design’, in Reports by the juries, p. 715. 61 Such as those in a Franco-​Flemish bestiary, c. 1270, ‘The Old Testament in Medieval Manuscript Illuminations’, Getty Center, Los Angeles, 2010, www.getty.edu/​art/​ exhibitions/​old_​testament/​ (accessed 26 January 2012). 62 ‘Surely a figure drawn in a natural and easy position is much more pleasing than if put in distorted postures –​postures in which no human being could put himself unless deformed’. E. Baillie, ‘New Old Stained Glass’, The Builder 9:425 (29 March 1851), 208. 63 A walk through the Universal Exhibition of 1855 (Paris: A. and W. Galignani & Co., 1855), pp. 176–​7. 64 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 283. 65 Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, p. 380. 66 It is thought that the Jesse Tree window was made in the studio of Strasbourg master glass-​painter Peter Hemmel von Andlau after 1480. J. Viebig, Die Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (Königstein im Taunus: K. R. Langewiesche, 1971). Kellner and his family were involved in restoration work at St Lorenz 1829–​40 and some original stained glass panels ended up in museum collections, replaced by copies. G. Frenzel, ‘The Restoration of |Medieval Stained Glass’, Scientific American (May 1985), 126–​35. 67 Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, p. 381; Art Journal illustrated catalogue 1862, p. 7. 68 Winston, ‘Awards and Notices’, p. 699.

117

118

118

Windows for the world 69 Kellner’s 1851 exhibits were copies of those in the Victoria and Albert Museum collection (2634-​1845 and 2635-​1845). 70 S. Brown and D. O’Connor, Medieval craftsmen: glass-​painters (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 4. 71 ‘St Catherine of Alexandria’, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, http://​collections.vam.ac.uk/​item/​O77502/​panel-​st-​catherine-​of-​alexandria-​mystic/​ (accessed 12 January 2012). 72 De Caumont, ‘Vitraux peints’, p. 954. 73 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 283. 74 F. Perrot, ‘La restauration des vitraux’, in Foucart, Viollet-​le-​Duc, pp. 174–​5; A. A. Jordan, ‘Rationalizing the Narrative: Theory and Practice in the Nineteenth-​Century Restoration of the Windows of the Sainte-​Chapelle’, Gesta 37:2 (1998), 193. 75 G. Bontemps, ‘On Glass’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition, part 2, p. 394. 76 F. Gatouillat, ‘Henry Gérente et le vitrail (1846–​1849), une fulgurant réussite internationale’, in C. De Ruyt, I. Lecocq, M. Lefftz, and M. Piavaux (eds), Lumierères, forms et couleurs: mélanges en homage à Yvette Vanden Bemden (Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur, 2008), pp. 151–​62, 393. 77 R. Hunt (ed.), Companion to the Official Catalogue:  synopsis of the contents of the Great Exhibition (London: Edward Stanford, 1851), p. 882. 78 Winston, ‘Awards and Notices’, p. 702. 79 Redgrave, ‘Supplementary Report on Design’, p. 715. 80 Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 403. 81 Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 403. 82 Pillet cites an early example of antiquating by Brother Pierre Régnier (d. 1766) at the Abbey of Saint-​Denis in 1774. Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle, p. 29. Lafaye employed a patina in many of his restorations. Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle, p. 195. 83 Sewter, The stained glass of William Morris, vol. 1, p. 7. 84 ‘Stained Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 3 (1844), 18. 85 Ballantine, A treatise on painted glass, p. 2. 86 C. Winston, ‘On a Revived Manufacture of Coloured Glass Used in Ancient Windows’, Civil Engineers and Architect’s Journal 15 (1852), 243. These comments were extended in: Winston, Memoirs, p. 181. 87 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 283. This ‘antiquating’ is evident in windows made by the Gérente brothers at Ely Cathedral. 88 For the later-​nineteenth-​century destruction and replacement of High Victorian stained glass windows see Harrison, Victorian stained glass, pp. 11–​12. 89 Redgrave, ‘Supplementary Report on Design’, p. 716. 90 Redgrave, ‘Supplementary Report on Design’, p. 715. 91 John George Howe, born c. 1826 in Sunderland, was the eldest son of Ralph Howe (1803–​76). Both father and son listed their occupations as artist on stained glass. In 1851 J. G. Howe had premises at 4 Cumberland Place, London, NW1. 92 P. Reyntiens, The beauty of stained glass (Boston: Bullfinch Press, 1990), p. 118. 93 W. Burges, ‘The Late Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 20 (1862), 338. 94 Pellatt, ‘Class XXXIV’, p. 2. 95 C. Arscott, ‘Fractured Figures: The Sculptural Logic of Burne-​Jones’s Stained Glass’, in D. Getsy (ed.), Body doubles: sculpture in Britain, 1877–​1905 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 44. 96 ‘Twenty-​First Anniversary Meeting’, The Ecclesiologist 21 (1860), 246. 97 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, pp. 12, 37, and 51. 98 E. Prettejohn, The art of the Pre-​Raphaelites (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 163. For Pre-​Raphaelite painting techniques see J. H. Townsend, J. Ridge, and S. Hackney, Pre-​Raphaelite painting techniques (London: Tate, 2004).

119

Stylistic eclecticism 99 F. Madox Brown, The diary of Ford Madox Brown, ed. V.  Surtees (New Haven; London:  Yale University Press, 1981). Cited in Prettejohn, The art of the Pre-​ Raphaelites, p. 150. 100 ‘Stained Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 3 (1844), 109. 101 T. Barringer, ‘An Antidote to Mechanical Poison:  John Ruskin, Photography, and Early Pre-​ Raphaelite Painting’, in Waggoner et  al., The Pre-​Raphaelite lens, p. 19. 102 Waters labels the stained glass produced by a number of British firms between 1855 and 1868 as ‘Pre-​Raphaelite’. Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 66. 103 The painting relates to two of Alfred Tennyson’s poems ‘Mariana’ (1830) and ‘Mariana in the South’ (1831), both inspired by a character in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure (1603–​04). 104 Armstrong, Victorian glassworlds, pp. 123–​4. 105 T. Ayers, The medieval stained glass of Merton College, Oxford (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. cxlv–​cxlix. 106 A. Grieve, ‘The Pre-​ Raphaelite Brotherhood and the Anglican High Church’, Burlington Magazine, 111 (1969), 295; A. Leng, ‘Millais’s Mariana:  Literary Painting, the Pre-​ Raphaelite Gothic, and the Iconology of the Marian Artist’, Journal of Pre-​Raphaelite and Aesthetic Studies 1 (Spring 1988), 66. 107 Prettejohn, The art of the Pre-​Raphaelites, pp. 11–​13. 108 On the kaleidoscope see N. Garrod-​Bush, ‘Repetition, Virtuality and Mechanical Pattern: The Significance of the Kaleidoscope for the “Fine and Useful Arts” ’, in K. Nichols, R. Wade, and G. Williams (eds), Art versus industry?: new perspectives on visual and industrial cultures in nineteenth-​century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015), pp. 103–​19. 109 Millais saw the windows at Merton whilst staying with Thomas Combe in 1850. L. Parris (ed.), The Pre-​Raphaelites (London: Tate, 1984), p. 89. 110 For ‘antique’ glass see Bontemps, ‘On Glass’, p. 393; A. M. Powell, ‘The Manufacture of Antique Glass’, Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​Painters 9:4 (1946), 105–​9; R.  W. Salmond, ‘History of English Antique Glass’, Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​Painters 15:1 (1972–​73), 73–​9; S. Shepherd, ‘A. W. N. Pugin and the Making of Medieval-​Type Glass’, Journal of Stained Glass 21 (1997), 1–​ 11; Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, pp. 173–​4; T. Benyon, ‘The Development of Antique and Other Glasses Used in 19th-​and 20th-​Century Stained Glass’, Journal of Stained Glass 29 (2005), 184–​200; Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, pp. 14–​15. 111 Shaffner and Owen, The illustrated record. 112 Pellatt, ‘Class XXXIV’, p. 2. 113 Burne-​Jones’ first stained glass design, The Good Shepherd, was made by Powell & Sons and used for the east window of the Congregational Church of Maidstone, Kent (1860–​62). The panel was purchased by Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery in 2016 (2001L5). 114 This replica has been made to the same cartoon, and the lead lines and colouring follow the original, although the painted inscriptions and other painted details vary slightly. This copy is now in Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery (BMAG 1977 M1). 115 M. Harrison, ‘A Burne-​Jones Window’, Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​Painters 15:1 (1972–​73), 62–​5. 116 Burges originally chose Westlake (of Lavers, Barraud & Westlake) to prepare cartoons of a window illustrating the death of King Harold, but the commission passed to Burne-​Jones. 117 N. Gordon Bowe, Wilhelmina Geddes:  life and work (Dublin:  Four Courts Press, 2015).

119

120

120

Windows for the world 18 ‘Stained glass’, 216. 1 119 ‘The International Exhibition. Stained Glass –​No. II’, 503–​4. 120 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 9. 121 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, pp.  40–​3; Sewter, The stained glass of William Morris, vol. 1, p. 18. 122 J. Gage, ‘A Dionysian Aesthetic’, in Colour and culture: practice and meaning from antiquity to abstraction (London: Thames & Hudson, 1993), p. 73. 123 The firm’s display of furniture in the Medieval Court was seen to represent ‘the emergence of a new mediaeval style of secular inspiration’. J. Gloag, Victorian taste:  some social aspects of architecture and industrial design, from 1820–​1900 (London: A. & C. Black, 1962), p. 150. 124 ‘The International Exhibition’, 173. 125 Burges, ‘The Late Exhibition’, 336. 126 A Baptism of Christ panel now in the Victoria and Albert Museum (C.440-​1940) was also exhibited. Morris & Co.’s secular stained glass exhibits, amongst which were two panels depicting ‘The Prince and the Merchant’s daughter’ from Beauty and the Beast and some scenes from the Legend of St George, were more successful and demonstrated the suitability of stained glass for domestic settings. 127 Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 405. 128 The parable was here used to foretell the Crucifixion. M. Hall, George Frederick Bodley and the later gothic revival in Britain and America (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2014), pp. 94–​9. 129 This is evident upon looking at Rossetti’s designs, two of which (nos. V and VI) are in the collection of the William Morris Gallery, A267 and A268. 130 D. O’Connor, ‘Morris Stained Glass: “An Art of the Middle Ages” ’, in J. Banham and J. Harris (eds), William Morris and the Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), p. 42. 131 ‘Stained Glass (Concluding Notice)’, 538. For more positive reviews, see Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’ (July 1862), 9; W. M. Rossetti, ‘The Fine Art of the International Exhibition’, Fraser’s Magazine 66:392 (August 1862), 199. 132 Pellatt, ‘Class XXXIV’, p. 3. 133 Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 403. 134 The ‘megatherium’, loosely translated as ‘the great beast’, was an extinct prehistoric animal belonging to the family of sloths. A. Rauch, ‘The Sins of Sloths: The Moral Status of Fossil Megatheria in Victorian Culture’, in D. Denenholz Morse and M. A. Danakay (eds), Victorian animal dreams:  representations of animals in Victorian literature and culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 215, 217. 135 Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 403. 136 For ‘Genesis and Geology’ see O. Chadwick, The Victorian church (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966–​70), pp. 558–​73. The Victorians’ interest in extinct species was evident in the prehistoric sculptures erected at the Sydenham Crystal Palace. S. McCarthy and M. Gilbert, The Crystal Palace dinosaurs: the story of the world’s first prehistoric sculptures (London:  Crystal Palace Foundation, 1994); M. Hall, ‘What do Victorian Churches Mean?’, Journal of the Society of the Architectural Historians of America 59 (2000), 78–​95. 137 L. F. Day, ‘Some Lessons from Old Glass’, British Architect (12 February 1886), 161. 138 ‘To Our Readers’, The Ecclesiologist, 29:189 (December 1868), 315. 139 Holiday, Stained glass as an art, p. 2. 140 R.  H. Williams, Dream worlds:  mass consumption in late nineteenth-​ century France (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1982); N.  Harris, Cultural excursions:  marketing appetites and tastes in modern America (Chicago:  Chicago University Press, 1990).

121

Stylistic eclecticism 41 Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, p. 158. 1 142 Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, p. 155. 143 Wornum, ‘The Exhibition as a Lesson in Taste’, xviii. 144 Vanden Bemden, ‘Introduction’, p. 22. 145 For female consumption at the Great Exhibition, see W. Walton, France at the Crystal Palace:  bourgeois taste and artisan manufacture in the nineteenth century (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992) pp. 49–​69. 146 Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, p. 380. The St Helen’s Crown Glass Company later became Pilkington Brothers Ltd. 147 A. Pascal, Visites et études de S. A. I. le Prince Napoléon au Palais de l’industrie, ou guide pratique et complet à l’Exposition universelle de 1855 (Paris: Perrotin, 1855), p. 252. 148 Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, pp. 163–​8. 149 Guidelines published by The Ecclesiologist in 1844 recommended glass-​painters charge between 30 shillings and £2 per square foot for the best glass and 10 shillings per square foot for quarry glass. Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, p. 64. 150 S. Muthesius, The English terraced house (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1982), pp. 18–​19. 151 Bontemps, Examen historique, p. 55; D. I. Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area c. 1830–​ c. 1920’ (MA dissertation, University of Sydney, 1983), p. 12. 152 The process is described in ‘Flower Quarries’, The Ecclesiologist 4:4 (July 1845), 147–​8. 153 Winston, Memoirs, p. 103. 154 Notes from a meeting of the Cambridge Camden Society on 6 March 1845 record that Powell & Sons had secured a patent for their stamped quarries and remarked ‘The removal of tax upon glass will now enable church builders and restorers to bring flowered-​quarries into general use.’ ‘Report of the Forty-​Second Meeting of the Cambridge Camden Society’, The Ecclesiologist 4:3 (May 1845), 122. Powell & Sons, who were eager to gain the approval of this influential society, made specimens to send to the committee. ‘Instrumenta Ecclesiastica’, The Ecclesiologist 4:5 (September 1845), 224. 155 Powell’s pressed quarries were exhibited at the Industrial and Art Exhibition at Sydney in 1861 by J.  Cooper of Woolloomooloo, and awarded a bronze medal. Catalogue of the natural and industrial products of New South Wales (Sydney: Reading and Wellbank, 1861), pp. 127 and 147. Cited in Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, p. 12. 156 From the late eighteenth century, coloured and patterned paper was used to imitate stained glass. S. Muthesius, The poetic home:  designing the 19th-​century domestic interior (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2009), p. 65. 157 Yapp, Official catalogue, p. 137. 158 Cassell, The illustrated exhibitor, p.  380. This was T.  Gaunt of Springfield Place, Leeds. 159 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 285. 160 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 285. The journal refers to Messrs Chance Bros’ specimens of their transfer process from lithographic stones. Wallis, ‘The Artistic, Industrial, and Commercial Results’, xiv. 161 ‘The Toilette and Ladies’ Guide. Imitation of Stained Glass’, Bow Bells 5:110 (5 September 1866), 141. 162 ‘Parlour Occupations: Diaphanie’, Sixpenny Magazine 9:45 (March 1865), 389–​90; ‘Decorative Arts for Ladies’, All Year Round 25: 600 (29 May 1880), 61–​2.

121

122

122

Windows for the world 163 ‘Diaphanie. The Art of Imitating Stained or Painted Glass’, National Magazine 2:10 (August 1857), 272. 164 ‘The International Exhibition’, 173. 165 F. Kirchhoff, ‘Report on Stained and Painted Glass’, in The Society of Arts: artisan reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition of 1878 (London: Sampson Low, 1879), p. 158. 166 The Art-​Journal illustrated catalogue: the industry of all nations 1851 (London: George Virtue, 1851), p.  207; ‘Stained Glass’, Stirling Observer (13 February 1851), unpaginated. 167 As illustrated in Art-​Journal illustrated catalogue 1851, p. 207. 168 For a discussion of the nineteenth-​century mania for both medieval and modern castles see M. Girouard, The Victorian country house (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1971). 169 As illustrated in Art Journal illustrated catalogue 1862, p. 137. 170 Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’, p. 406. 171 A colour illustration of this exhibit, the fate of which is unknown, was published in Waring, Masterpieces of the industrial art and sculpture, vol. 3, plate 262. 172 ‘The International Exhibition. Stained Glass –​No. II’, 504. 173 The ballad ‘Robin Hood’s Death’ featured in Francis James Child’s collection of The English and Scottish popular ballads, published in 1888. 174 For example, J. S. Curl, The Victorian celebration of death (Stroud: Sutton, 2000). For funerary glass in France see De Finance and Hervier, Un patrimoine de lumière, pp. 144–​51. 175 J. H. Markland, Remarks on the sepulchral memorials of past and present times, with some suggestions for improving the condition of our churches, in a letter addressed to … the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1840), p. 29. 176 ‘Notices’, The Ecclesiologist 2:19/​20 (February 1843), 109. Kerney (see note 178 below) believes the author of this notice was author and politician A. J. B. Beresford Hope (1820–​87). 177 J. Ruskin, The seven lamps of architecture (London:  Orpington, 1880 [1849]), p. 10. 178 A large proportion of windows placed in parish churches, cathedrals, and private chapels across Britain between 1840 and 1914 were erected as memorials to individuals and families and their popularity increased following the First and Second World Wars. See especially: M. Kerney, ‘The Victorian Memorial Window’, Journal of Stained Glass 31 (2007), 66–​94; Crampin, Stained glass from Welsh churches, pp. 142–​64, 190–​208. 179 R. Hubbuck, ‘Curiosities in English Stained Glass 1837–​1914’, published in three parts in the Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​Painters 16:2 (1978–​79), 57–​64; 16:3 (1979–​80), 16–​25; and 17:1 (1980–​81), 38–​56. 180 ‘Memorial Window, by Messrs. Cox and Son, of Southampton-​Street, Strand’, Illustrated London News 1176 (29 November 1862), 583. 181 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 154. 182 Hardouin-​Fugier, ‘Le vitrail français en 1878’, 209–​10; De Finance and Hervier, Un patrimoine de lumière, p. 148. 183 F. Vincent-​Petit and C. Loisel, ‘Le vitrail photographique au XIXe siècle: technique et identification’. Forum pour la conservation et la restauration des vitraux, Namur 14–​16 June 2007, Les dossiers de l’IPW 3 (Namur, 2007). 184 C. Gravier, ‘The Photographic Processes Utilized in Stained Glass Window Decoration’, Wilson’s Photographic Magazine 29:424 (20 August 1892), 507–​8. 185 See ‘Photography on Glass’, The Athenaeum (1 June 1850), 589; T. A. Malone, ‘Photography on Paper and on Glass’, Art Journal (August 1850), 261.

123

Stylistic eclecticism 186 These received a medal under Class XIV, No. 3105. Medals and honourable mentions awarded by the international juries, with a list of jurors and the report of the Council of Chairmen (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1862). 187 Designed by John Gibson (1817–​92) in 1847, the National Bank of Scotland building was formerly located on 57 Queen Street, but was moved, brick by brick, to its current home in Langside Avenue 1902–​03 and its interior was much altered. 188 ‘Stained Glass (Concluding Notice)’, 536. 189 The precise number of windows exhibited is hard to deduce from exhibition catalogues and reports. However, one of the windows described in reviews is identifiable as one of the two windows designed by Reuben Townroe (1835–​1911) depicting artists and scientists destined for the first landing of the Western Staircase (also known as the Ceramic Staircase), which survives in a fragile state in store (NCOL10-​ 2012lr, NCOL11-​2012lr, NCOL13-​2012lr). Descriptions also suggest that one of the windows designed by Townroe and intended for the Gamble refreshment rooms was also exhibited. Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, pp. 52–​4. 190 I have found only one other surviving example of a stained glass window designed by Moody, the east window of St Botolph’s Church, Bishopsgate, London (1869), also made by Powell & Sons. Moody also designed the west window, which was destroyed by IRA bombing in 1993. C. Swash, The 100 best stained glass sites in London (Malvern: Malvern Arts Press, 2016), pp. 146–​7. 191 Moody, Townroe, and James Gamble (1835–​1919) were all former students of Godfrey Sykes (1824–​66), who was in charge of the South Kensington School 1859–​66. Barringer, Men at work, pp. 222–​35. 192 It is listed in Decorations of the South Kensington Museum 1862–​1874, part I, Places decorated (London: South Kensington Museum, 1875) as being placed at the foot of the northern staircase, suggesting it was installed here by this date. However, since no visual records have been discovered it is not known exactly where it was placed. It may have been situated in the external wall on the east side of the staircase, or in the centre of the three doorways leading to the picture galleries directly facing another window depicting the Trades designed by Townroe and made by Lavers & Barraud on the landing. 193 One window in the North Staircase appears to have been removed during building alterations under the direction of Cecil Harcourt-​Smith (1859–​1944), Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, 1909–​24, and the other was destroyed by bomb damage during the Second World War. V&A Archive, ED 84/​71, 29 July 1913. J. Physik, The Victoria and Albert Museum: The history of its building (Oxford: Phaidon, 1986), p. 90. 194 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 49. For the Renaissance revival, see R. Pavoni (ed.), Reviving the Renaissance: the use and abuse of the past in nineteenth-​century Italian art and decoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 195 In his essay on sixteenth-​century French poet Joachim du Bellay (1522–​60). Pater’s text challenged contemporary perceptions of the Renaissance through a series of essays on influential artistic and poetic figures from the twelfth to eighteenth centuries. 196 W. Pater, ‘Joachim du Bellay’, Studies in the History of the Renaissance (1873), in A. J. Drake (ed.), E-​Texts for Victorianists, www.victorianweb.org/​authors/​pater/​ renaissance/​8.html (accessed 14 August 2012), pp. 123–​4. 197 The South Kensington Museum purchased many examples of High Renaissance art in the 1850s and 1860s, see D. Levi, ‘ “Let Agents be Sent to All the Cities of Italy”: British Public Museums and the Italian Art Market in the Mid-​Nineteenth Century’, in J. E. Law and L. Ǿstermark-​Johansen (eds), Victorian and Edwardian responses to the Italian Renaissance (Aldershot:  Ashgate, 2005), pp. 33–​53; H. Fraser, The Victorians and Renaissance Italy (Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992), pp. 63–​6.

123

124

124

Windows for the world 198 For Sutton, see Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, pp. 65–​9; C. Bennett, N. J. Morgan, J. Cheshire, and H. Tom Küpper, Stained glass of Lincoln Cathedral (London: Scala, 2012), pp. 65–​9. 199 F.  H. Sutton, ‘Renaissance Glass’, Reports and Papers of the Architectural and Archaeological Societies of the Counties of Lincoln and Northampton 14:1 (1877), 52–​6. 200 L. F. Day, ‘From Gothic Glass to Renaissance’, Magazine of Art 8 (January 1885), 282–​6. 201 Day, ‘Some Lessons from Old Glass’, 161. 202 É. Didron, ‘Le vitrail: conférence faite à la l’Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs’, Le Journal de la Peinture sur Verre 25 (1 March 1898), 1–4. Nikolaus Pevsner’s critique of the Great Exhibition similarly spoke of the ‘bastardization of taste’. N. Pevsner, High Victorian design: a study of the exhibits of 1851 (London: Architectural Press, 1951), p. 1. 203 Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, p. 87. 204 Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 7. 205 ‘No one previously attempted to describe any stained glass of the 1870s and 1880s as “Aesthetic”, and there are indeed problems in trying to justify such a classification’. Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 51. 206 E. Aslin, The Aesthetic Movement:  prelude to Art Nouveau (New  York:  Praeger, 1969), pp. 83–​4. 207 ‘Furniture and Decoration at the Exhibition’, Art Journal (January 1878), 196; ‘The Prince of Wales at the Paris Exhibition’, York Herald (30 April 1878), 6. 208 Day, ‘Notes on English Decorative Art in Paris’, 4–​5. 209 For Japonisme, see T. Sato and T. Watanabe (eds), Japan and Britain: an aesthetic dialogue 1850–​1930 (London: Lund Humphries, 1991); H. Sigur, The influence of Japanese art on design (Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2008). 210 Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, pp. 52–​4. 211 Day, ‘Notes on English Decorative Art in Paris’, 4. 212 ‘Coloured Glass at Paris’, Once a Week 8:201 (1 August 1878), 62. 213 ‘Le goût de l’art japonais s’étant répandu, on fait des vitraux dans le genre japonais’ (The taste of Japanese art has spread, we make stained glass windows in the Japanese genre). L. Ottin, Le vitrail:  son histoire, ses manifestations à travers les âges et les peuples (Paris: H. Laurens, 1896), p. 98. 214 L. Lambourne, Japonisme: cultural crossings between Japan and the West (London: Phaidon, 2005). 215 W. Burges, ‘The Japanese Court in the International Exhibition’, Gentleman’s Magazine 213 (September 1862), 243–​54; E. P. Conant, ‘Refractions of the Rising Sun:  Japan’s Participation in International Exhibitions 1862–​1910’, in Sato and Watanabe, Japan and Britain, pp. 79–​92. 216 N. Harris, ‘All the World a Melting Pot? Japan at American Fairs, 1876–​1904’, in Cultural excursions, p. 29. 217 J. Thomas, ‘Japanese Designs, Suggestive for Stained Glass Windows’, Decorator and Furnisher 9:3 (December 1886), 97. See also Brisac, A thousand years of stained glass, p. 157; Reyntiens, The beauty of stained glass, p. 128. 218 ‘Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, 74–​5. 219 H. Taylor, ‘Stained Glass: Its Proper Treatment’, British Architect 10: 23 (6 December 1878), 219. The author of this article, although named, has not been identified. He could have been Henry Taylor (1837–​1916), architect and author of several books on ancient domestic architecture. 220 L. J. Rhead, ‘An Exhibition of Original Designs for Posters’, Art Amateur: A Monthly Journal Devoted to Art in the Household 33:3 (August 1895), 59.

125

Stylistic eclecticism 221 These windows would perhaps make a better case study for further explorations of the ‘sculptural’ aspects of stained glass than windows by Morris & Co., suggested by Caroline Arscott. See Arscott, ‘Fractured Figures’. 222 ‘Opaline Glass’, Magazine of Art (January 1897), 334–​6. Between 1880 and 1883 there was an enormous demand for secular stained glass in the USA. Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 112. 223 J. L. Sloan and J. L. Yarnall, ‘Art of an Opaline Mind: The Stained Glass of John La Farge’, American Art Journal 24:1–​2 (1992), 19–​24; Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 158. 224 C. Monkhouse, American Decorative Art’, Academy 891 (1 June 1889), 384. 225 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 177. 226 The chapel was created in memory of Charlotte Sherman Watson’s mother and aunt. 227 Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 160. 228 L. C. Tiffany, ‘American Art Supreme in Colored Glass’, Forum (July 1893), 624. 229 Tiffany, ‘American Art Supreme in Colored Glass’, 625. These techniques are evident in Woman Feeding Flamingoes, c. 1893, Morse Museum of American Art, FL (U-​072), one of the secular windows exhibited by Tiffany in 1893, where the only painted areas of the design are the woman’s face, hands, and hair. 230 For the Salon of 1893 see A. Simil, ‘L’architecture au salon du Champ-​de-​Mars en 1893’, Revue des arts décoratifs (1893–​94), 33–​8. 231 Parakeets and Goldfish Bowl (c. 1892), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA (2008.1415). 232 Spillman, Glass from world’s fairs, p. 44. 233 Tiffany, ‘American Art Supreme in Colored Glass’, 623. 234 Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition Universelle de 1900 (1)’, 271. 235 É. Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (2)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 10 (October 1900), 315. The use of American glass in Germany increased notably after the Chicago Exposition. See Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 66. 236 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 37. 237 Tiffany contributed three oil paintings and six watercolour paintings to the Philadelphia Centennial of 1876. La Farge exhibited paintings in the fine art section at the 1878 Paris Exposition. When La Farge was invited to a one-​man show at the Paris Salon in 1894, the intention was to celebrate his contribution to American stained glass, but La Farge wanted recognition in Paris as a painter. Yarnall, John La Farge, pp. 205–​6. 238 John La Farge, ‘Window, Part III’, in Russell Sturgis, A dictionary of architecture and building (London: Macmillan & Co., 1902), p. 1080. Cited in Sloan and Yarnall, ‘Art of an Opaline Mind’, 5. 239 Tiffany, ‘American Art Supreme in Colored Glass’, 623. 240 Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 123. 241 P. Greenhalgh, The modern ideal:  the rise and collapse of idealism in the visual arts from the Enlightenment to Postmodernism (London: V&A Publications, 2005), pp. 206–​9. 242 Along with La Farge and Tiffany, Healy & Millet were responsible for the introduction of American glass to Europe. H. Schaefer, ‘Tiffany’s Fame in Europe’, Art Bulletin 44:4 (December 1962), 311. 243 Art Nouveau panels (c. 1888–​89), Musée d’Orsay, Paris (DO 1981-​5-​1–​2; DDO 1981-​7; DO 1981-​8; DO 1981-​6-​1–​2). M. Basou, M.-​M. Massé, and P. Thiébaut, Musée d’Orsay catalogue sommaire illustré des arts décoratifs (Paris: RMN, 1988); Luneau, Félix Gaudin, p. 146. 244 ‘La paroi cintrée de ce passage est formée tout entière par des vitraux’ (The curved wall of the passage is formed entirely of stained glass). Mourey, ‘L’Art nouveau

125

126

126

Windows for the world de M. Bing à l’Exposition universelle (2)’, 278. This is illustrated in Weisberg, Art Nouveau Bing, fig. 184. 245 Mourey, ‘L’Art nouveau de M. Bing à l’Exposition universelle (2)’, 278. 246 ‘Französisches Mobiliar auf der Weltausstellung’, Dekorative Kunst 6 (1900), 412–​13. 247 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 64. 248 Window (c. 1901), Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA (85.349). 249 I am grateful to Dr Ian Millman and Barry Shifman for this information on the window’s provenance and history. A watercolour design for this window was illustrated in R. Paux, ‘George de Feure’, Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration 12 (April/​ September 1908), 316. 250 G. P. Weisberg, ‘Lost and Found: S. Bing’s Merchandising of Japonisme and Art Nouveau’, Nineteenth-​ Century Art Worldwide:  A Journal of Nineteenth-​ Century Visual Culture 4:4 (Summer 2005), www.19thc-​artworldwide.org/​index.php/​ summer05/​212-​excavating-​greece-​classicism-​between-​empire-​and-​nation-​in-​ nineteenth-​century-​europe (accessed 30 January 2013). On female allegories at the exhibitions, see M. Sear, ‘Fair Women’s Worlds: Feminism and World’s Fairs 1876–​1908’, in V. Barth (ed.), Identity and universality (Paris: BIE, 2001), p. 21. 251 Didron ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (1)’, 274.

127

4 Competition and exchange: exhibitors and their networks

[H]‌ow is one to study nineteenth-​and early twentieth-​century stained glass by remaining closed in one’s own country? Glass and stained glass windows were exported and imported, large firms set up trading posts abroad and sent their representatives over there, glass makers moved around, models were circulated …. The production of stained glass became internationalised and it is evident that the more famous studios’ participation in the large international exhibitions favoured this globalisation of production, competition and exchange. – Yvette Vanden Bamden, 20001

The international exhibitions made visible the material, commercial, trade, and social links between peoples, nations, and goods,2 and as such they are crucial to our understanding of the internationalised production, exportation, and importation of stained glass. This chapter examines exhibitors’ participation in the international exhibitions, which from the outset were venues for competition as well as exchange. It considers the commercial impact of these events on individual exhibitors as well as the rapidly expanding global market for stained glass.

A global stained glass industry In the early nineteenth century, stained glass was an art form predominantly associated with Western Europe, and almost exclusively produced in Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, and Germanic regions; but, by the 1850s, the USA and the British settler colonies in Australia and Canada had also begun producing stained glass, as well as importing windows. The international exhibitions chart the expansion of the stained glass industry, and the growth of stained glass production in the colonies. The most prolific exhibitors of stained glass in this period were France and Britain, closely followed by the German states and Prussia, the USA, Belgium, and Austria. Stained glass exhibitors from

128

128

Windows for the world

Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Hungary, Russia, Egypt, the French colony of New Caledonia, and British colonies in Australia, Canada and South Africa also took part. A closer look at patterns of participation during this period reveals that the stained glass industry mirrored global economic trends. The most prolific exhibitors of stained glass between 1851 and 1867 were from France and Britain, countries which played a key role in the hosting of international exhibitions and where, as we have seen, the stained glass industry developed rapidly. The 1870s witnessed an increase in German exhibitors, reflecting the unification of Germany in 1871 and its subsequent economic growth, while the end of the century, 1889 to 1900, was marked by a significant rise in exhibitors from the USA. This reflected both the rise of the American stained glass industry, and increased American awareness of the role of international exhibitions, following the success of the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876. Although the production of stained glass was generally confined to the Western world, the distribution of stained glass extended much further. Under imperialist influences, a cosmopolitan marketplace for stained glass emerged, and effected the migration of skilled workers from the British Isles to settler populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA. It also involved the exportation of materials required to manufacture stained glass from Europe to these outposts and the shipping of European-​ manufactured stained glass throughout empires.3 As the Official Catalogue to the 1867 Paris Exposition acknowledged, ‘l’industrie des vitraux se développe de plus en plus sur tous les points de l’Empire’ (the stained glass industry is developing more and more at all points of the Empire).4 For example, John C.  Spence (d. 1890), one of the first known stained glass artists active in Montreal (QC), Canada, exhibited stained glass at the Paris Expositions of 1855 and 1867, Philadelphia Centennial of 1876, and Chicago Columbian of 1893.5 The history of stained glass production in both North America6 and Australasia was directly connected to the growth of the British Empire, and can be traced to a handful of British immigrants. English-​ born William Jay Bolton (1816–​84), whose New  York studio was established in 1842, has been hailed as the first stained glass manufacturer in the USA.7 Yet, at least two other New York studios that appear to have been making stained glass much earlier than Bolton contributed stained glass to the first Great Exhibition in London in 1851 –​W. J. Hannington (active from at least 1840), and John Gibson (1813–​77). Gibson joined his older brother’s decorative painting and glass-​staining business in New  York from Edinburgh in the late 1830s, before setting up his own business in Philadelphia in the 1840s.8 Stephen Slack (1837–​1908) was another émigré from Britain, thought to have worked for London firm Clayton & Bell.9 Slack arrived in the USA around 1860 and established a workshop

129

Competition and exchange

in Orange (NJ), and exhibited at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition.10 The Australian stained glass industry was founded entirely by stained glass workers who were born and trained in Britain before moving to Australia, where they established workshops and trained a new generation of Australian artists.11 For example, two Scotsmen, James Ferguson (1818–​ 94) and James Urie (1828–​90), established Ferguson & Urie in Melbourne (VIC) in 1853.12 Edward Brooks (1809–​74) completed an apprenticeship as a painter and glazier in Salisbury, Wiltshire, before emigrating to Australia in 1839, where he opened a business in Adelaide (SA) in the early 1850s.13 John Falconer (1838–​91) set up a stained glass studio in Sydney (NSW) in 1863, having moved from Glasgow in 1856, and was joined by Frederick Ashwin (1835–​ 1909) from Birmingham in 1875, forming Ashwin & Falconer.14 Glaswegians John Lamb Lyon (1835–​1916) and Daniel Cottier (1837–​91) formed Sydney’s second workshop, Lyon & Cottier, in 1873.15 Lyon ran the business from Sydney, while Cottier recruited assistants, artists, and craftsman in Britain.16 Maintaining connections with Europe was important, and as Danute Giedraiyte has observed in her study of Sydney’s stained glass, ‘when live contact between the local firms in Sydney and Britain ceased, glass painting in Sydney rapidly declined’.17 Besides exhibitions held in the Australian continent, the emerging Australian stained glass industry was first represented on the international stage at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876 by its two most prolific studios, Ferguson & Urie18 and Lyon & Cottier.19 In spite of the development of local stained glass industries in Canada, the USA, and Australia from the 1840s and 50s, imported European stained glass remained popular.20 Analysis of the many British studios that exported panels to Australia in the nineteenth century reveals that almost three-​quarters participated in at least one international exhibition, suggesting the commercial significance of these events.21 Since competition for commissions within Europe was strong, British studios sought to increase and diversify their business in the rapidly developing colonies.22 British glass-​painter Francis Kirchhoff acknowledged this new commercial focus, stating that he had ‘personally assisted on windows for America, India, Cape of Good Hope, Algiers, Australia, and New Zealand’ but had ‘no expectation of receiving orders or commissions for painted windows to be erected in France or Germany’.23

Exhibitors of stained glass Although not every stained glass studio exhibited at the international exhibitions, those that did reached global audiences. Studios were more likely to contribute to exhibitions hosted by their own country than those staged abroad, and participating studios could represent as much as a quarter of

129

130

130

Windows for the world

the domestic stained glass industry. As Jean-​François Luneau’s analysis of the Expositions Universelles (1855, 1867, 1878, 1889, and 1900) has demonstrated, between 18 per cent and 37 per cent of French stained glass studios participated in these Paris exhibitions.24 However, international involvement varied from exhibition to exhibition, and was affected by changing political and economic climates. For instance, after the Franco-​ Prussian War (1870–​71), the German Reich did not officially participate in the Paris Expositions of 1878 and 1889, although some independent federal state governments participated, as well as independent German exhibitors.25 Many European countries with monarchies abstained from official representation at the 1889 Paris Exposition, which marked the centenary of the French Revolution, although countries were economically obliged to encourage industries to participate independently.26 Over 400 stained glass studios (see Appendix), with employees of different backgrounds, skills and experience, nationality, and gender, took part in the ten international exhibitions featured in this study.27 The number would be even greater if we included the names of designers as well as manufacturers, but, for the most part, it was the manufacturing firms that were listed in the official catalogues. There is not room here to provide a detailed analysis of the participation of stained glass studios at every exhibition considered in this study, but it is useful to highlight some general observations, since such a list provides a cross-​section of the industry, revealing some of its major players. British firm Hardman & Co. (Birmingham) were the most frequent exhibitors of stained glass, participating in seven out of ten of the exhibitions in this study, closely followed by Chance Bros (Smethwick), Gsell-​ Laurent (Paris), and Carl Geyling (Vienna), who each exhibited at six. The French studios of Nicolas Lorin (Chartres), Auguste Bruin, Paul Bitterlin, Lafaye, Maréchal, Nicod, and Oudinot (all based in Paris) each participated in five exhibitions. British firms Baillie & Co., Clayton & Bell, Heaton, Butler & Bayne, Powell & Sons, Ward & Hughes (London); Canadian stained glass artist John C.  Spence (Montreal); Belgian makers Pluys (Mechlin) and Capronnier (Brussels); and French studios Bazin (Mesnil-​ Saint-​Firmin), Champigneulle (Bar-​le-​Duc), Vincent (Troyes), Bourgeois, Coffetier, Didron, Lusson, and Vantillard (all Paris), exhibited at four. Although no comprehensive international study of stained glass production exists, it is interesting to note that the most prevalent British exhibitors tally with Birkin Haward’s comprehensive surveys of nineteenth-​ century stained glass in the English counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, suggesting that these events were fairly indicative of the most prolific international stained glass studios.28 In spite of their current high status in art historical canons, the household names of Morris & Co., La Farge, and Tiffany, all of whom made significant contributions to the stylistic development of stained glass during this period, did not exhibit at these events as

131

Competition and exchange

frequently as some other studios, although, as we have seen, their exhibits caught the attention of critics Only 10 per cent of the stained glass exhibitors listed in the Appendix participated at three or more of the exhibitions in this study, including several studios that are today little known, such as British firms Claudet & Houghton (London), Forrest & Bromley (Liverpool), and the aforementioned Canadian firm J. C. Spence & Sons (Montreal). A large majority (80 per cent) participated in only one exhibition, suggesting that for many these were one-​off events. But we should be wary of relying on such statistics, as this study has examined only ten international exhibitions, held over a fifty-​year period.29 Furthermore, only a handful of the studios founded prior to the Great Exhibition continued to produce stained glass up to the end of the nineteenth century, including Hardman & Co. (Birmingham), Carl Geyling (Vienna), Didron (Paris), and Gsell-​Laurent (Paris).30 Most of these exhibitors were based in metropolitan centres of stained glass production, such as the  European cities of Birmingham, Brussels, London, Munich, and Paris,31 as well as North American cities including New  York and Chicago. However, the Appendix also reveals the significance of several cities in British settler colonies, especially Montreal (QC) and Toronto (ON) in Canada, and Sydney and Melbourne (VIC) in Australia. Furthermore, over a third of the stained glass exhibitors from Britain and France were based outside the capitals of Edinburgh, London, and Paris, highlighting the significance of local, regional, and provincial studios. A number of these have since dropped into obscurity, despite their prominence in the period and associations with well-​known artists, architects, and critics. For example, the Plymouth firm Fouracre & Watson exhibited at the Paris 1878 and Melbourne 1880–81 exhibitions, but the work of this firm is little known today.32 Their participation in the 1880–​81 Melbourne Exhibition indicates that they were seeking to establish a reputation in the colonies. Although the nineteenth century stained glass industry was male-​ dominated, our list of exhibitors includes several women, drawing attention to their largely overlooked yet important role. A few were the spouses of male stained glass artists. Pillet’s study of the maintenance and restoration of historical glass in Paris lists a number of husband–​wife teams of glaziers and glass-​painters, including Prosper and Sophie Lafaye (née Copée), who jointly exhibited at the 1867 Paris Exposition.33 The widows of both Nicolas Lorin (d. 1882) and Charles-​François Champigneulle (d.1882) exhibited stained glass at the 1889 Paris Exposition on behalf of their recently deceased husbands.34 In Britain, opportunities for independent women stained glass artists began to open up from the late 1880s, although few appear to have participated in the international exhibitions, focusing instead on showing

131

132

132

Windows for the world

their work at the increasing number of provincial and national exhibitions devoted to arts and crafts in the late nineteenth century.35 Mary J. Newill (1860–​1947) of Birmingham was an exception; she exhibited a stained glass window in the 1893 Woman’s Building in Chicago. Both the New York studios of La Farge and Tiffany employed women from the 1880s.36 Tiffany’s Women’s Glass Cutting Department, established in 1892,37 executed the rose window for his Chapel at the 1893 Chicago Exposition and the Four Seasons window, exhibited at Paris in 1900, parts of which can today be seen in the Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art, Florida.38 In 1900, Juliette Milési (fl. 1890s–​1900s), a talented pupil of Grasset and Merson at the École Guérin, Paris, also exhibited a Four Seasons panel after a design by children’s book illustrator Kate Greenaway (1846–​1901).39

Networks International exhibitions helped form and develop national and international artistic and business networks, and created commercial opportunities for stained glass artists and firms to advertise their wares and seek clientele, both at home and abroad. The complex organisational, artistic, commercial, and patronage networks surrounding exhibitions are often sidelined, and involve much archival work, but are crucial to our understanding of national and international stained glass networks.40 It was not uncommon for independent designers to carry out work for several studios during the course of their careers, and studios often had associations with one another. In France, for example, Prosper Lafaye (1806–​83) had a brief connection with Joseph-Aventin Veissière (b. 1805)  (Seignelay) in 1845 before establishing his own studio. These artists exhibited independently at the 1855 Paris Exposition.41 Lobin’s studio (Tours) collaborated with Gesta (Toulouse) and Parisian makers Didron, Gsell, Émile Thibaud (1806–​ 96), Alexandre Mauvernay (1810–​98), and Hirsch.42 In Britain, collaborations between studios were also common; for example, Joseph Bell & Sons of Bristol sometimes completed commissions for the larger Bristol-​based firm Hall and Sons (who also had a branch in London).43 Before John Richard Clayton (1827–​1913) and Alfred Bell (1832–​95) became partners in 1855, Clayton had designed for Ward & Hughes (previously known as Ward & Nixon; the firm’s name changed in 1857 when Henry Hughes (1822–​83) became a partner), and Bell had a brief association with Nathaniel Wood Lavers (1828–​1911). Even after their partnership was formed, both Clayton and Bell separately supplied designs for Powell & Sons from 1856.44 Francis Phillip Barraud (1824–​1900) also worked for Powell & Sons in 1849–​50.45 Clement Heaton (1824–​82) and James Butler (1830–​1913) both worked for Holland & Sons before establishing Heaton & Butler in 1852.46 All of these London firms exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition, revealing the sorts of rich collaborative

133

Competition and exchange

networks that appear to characterise mid-​nineteenth-​century stained glass production. Aided by these exhibitions, and the expanding global market, several firms established commercial branches or offices overseas from which to sell and export their products. Hardman & Co. opened a branch in Dublin in 1853, the same year that they participated in the Dublin International Exhibition.47 London firm Lavers & Barraud (founded in 1855) opened an office and showroom in central Manchester in the 1860s, enabling them to supply the north of England.48 Mayer of Munich had branches overseas by the 1860s, in London, New  York, and Paris, and Zettler Studios (also of Munich) expanded their operations to New York in 1888.49 Cottier opened branches of his furnishings and decorating company in New York and Sydney in 1873, the latter in partnership with Lyon.50 Commissions abroad were often sought through intermediary agents or studio managers who travelled with portfolios and sample panels to showcase the work of their studios.51 As well as contributing exhibits, many stained glass makers were visitors to the international exhibitions. These events provided a unique opportunity for stained glass artists and makers to travel, form new contacts and associations, and view and compare stained glass windows by their regional, national, and international competitors. For some it was a formative experience. During their brief association, Henry Holiday (1839–​1927) and William Gualbert Saunders (1837–​1923) visited the 1867 Paris Exhibition twice whilst en route to Italy to study church decoration.52 Kirchhoff, a figure painter with much experience working in commercial studios, was one of the artisans chosen by the Council of the Society of Arts to visit the Paris Expositions of 1867 and 1878 and write reports on the stained glass for the British Commission.53 He valued this experience, describing the 1867 Exhibition as ‘more improving, perhaps than several years of study; it must necessarily enlarge one’s ideas, and suggest a greater range in the treatment of the work’.54 The main reason for exhibitors to participate in these events was commercial, but the opportunities provided by these events for artistic comparison and networking, and raising the status of stained glass as an art form, should not be overlooked. Although stained glass was frequently exhibited to the public at popular exhibitions in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, glass-​ painters did not have an equivalent to the professional art academies in England and France.55 The international exhibitions provided a venue for the display of stained glass, and their international scope made them especially significant. Occasional special exhibitions like the 1864 Exhibition of Stained Glass and Mosaics at the South Kensington Museum,56 and others held by the Architectural Association (founded in 1847), treated the medium more exclusively, but such events were rare. The medium was not a regular feature at annual artistic exhibitions until those led by the

133

134

134

Windows for the world

Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs (from 1882) in Paris and the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society (from 1888) in London. Although Cormack has argued that the sequence of exhibitions organised by the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society played a major role in displaying stained glass to the public, these exhibitions mostly incorporated designs and cartoons for stained glass, rather than completed panels.57 In contrast, from the outset, the international exhibition displays featured monumental windows, as well as smaller-​scale stained glass panels and designs.

Selecting exhibits: patrons and clients Since most of the stained glass panels displayed at these events were commissioned for other buildings, good relationships with patrons and clients helped secure windows to exhibit at these events. Surviving correspondence from Pugin to Hardman & Co. in the years preceding the Great Exhibition reveals some of the practical problems Pugin faced when choosing works to exhibit in the 1851 Medieval Court. He advised Hardman that ‘we ought to have something of each kind’, exhibits representing all the gothic styles.58 But, ever business-​minded, he stated that it would be most cost-​effective if ‘you will only show windows ordered [which are not yet made or installed] and which will be paid for’.59 This limited Pugin’s display, since several of his clients would not give permission for their windows to be exhibited. The college chaplain and subscribers of a window being made for the south side of the chancel at Jesus College Chapel, Cambridge,60 denied Pugin’s request, as James Stewart Gammell (1826–​99), an undergraduate of the College and one of the window’s donors, explained: Many are unwilling that these windows executed especially for a church & so in a manner already consecrated shd. be made objects of exhibition among a collection & in a manner so purely secular. Others object to the time that would elapse before they could be placed in the chapel & some even speak of withdrawing their subscriptions if they are not to see the first of them before they leave College.61

Similarly, the dean and chapter of Hereford Cathedral refused to lend a light from their east window to the Great Exhibition, because they were anxious to have it installed as soon as possible.62 Just before the 1889 Paris Exposition, La Farge wrote to wealthy widow Charlotte Sherman Watson (1827–​ 1900) and her unmarried daughter Gertrude (1858–​1938) asking to exhibit a window they had commissioned for Trinity Episcopalian Church in Buffalo, NY (see Plate 26), in joint memory of Mrs Watson’s mother and aunt, and in return offered a reduction in price. In a remarkably perceptive letter, suggesting that clients were acutely aware of, and sometimes uncomfortable with, the commercially driven and secular aspect of the international exhibitions, Miss Watson responded: ‘[n]‌ow we are very uncertain and unhappy about that, for we

135

Competition and exchange

feel that you will make something louder and less refined than you would make just for us, to go straight to our church’.63 Miss Watson’s anxieties that La Farge would execute a window designed to attract the attention of public and critics, rather than a fitting private memorial, reveal much about public perceptions of these events. La Farge, heavily in debt, did not have the capital to make a window specifically for exhibition, and wrote back stubbornly, stating that, ‘the design pleases me. It seems to me one of my happiest, and unless I can send it to Paris I could not consent to build this window for you at any price.’64 In the end the ‘Watson Window’ was exhibited with much success. It won a first-​class exhibition medal, and the French government awarded La Farge the Légion d’honneur and offered to buy the window, but the Watson family refused and it was installed as planned in Trinity Episcopalian Church.65 A number of windows from a series designed by John Hardman Powell (1827–​95) and made by Hardman & Co. in the 1860s–​70s for the Church of St Mary the Virgin, St Neots, Cambridgeshire, were exhibited at international exhibitions, revealing Hardman Powell’s long-​ standing relationship with patron Charles Perceval Rowley (1827–​1904) of Wintringham Hall, Cambridgeshire. Rowley commissioned and paid for at least seven of the new windows installed in the church during its refurbishment. The Adoration of the Magi, destined for the Lady Chapel, appears to have been the only exhibit Hardman & Co. sent to the 1867 Paris Exposition. A letter from Hardman to Rowley, penned more than two months after the close of the Paris Exposition, informing him that the window had safely returned to Britain and been sent on to St Neots, reminds us of the practicalities of transporting windows to these events.66 Assuming that the window arrived in Paris in time for the opening of the exposition, it must have been out of the country for at least nine months. Rowley likely also benefited from, and enjoyed, the acclaim associated with its public exhibition, since he permitted three more windows from the scheme to be exhibited at other international exhibitions prior to installation: the Anointing of Christ’s Feet (Plate 29) now at the west end of the church (exhibited at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition of 1876),67 the Woman of Samaria window in the south aisle, and Healing at the Pool of Bethesda at the west end (both of which were exhibited at the 1878 Paris Exposition).68

Participation Expositions secure for the manufacturer, for the businessman, the most striking publicity. In one day they will bring before his machine, his display, his shop windows, more people than he would see in a lifetime in his factory or store. They seek out clients in all parts of the world, bring them at a set time, so that everything is ready to receive them and seduce them. That is why the number of exhibitors increases daily. Henri Chardon, 189669

135

136

136

Windows for the world

The frequency in which firms participated at international exhibitions suggests that they were selective in their involvement. Yet, as Henri Chardon (1861–​1939), General-Secretary of the 1900 Exposition in Paris, acknowledged, exhibitors had clear commercial incentives for taking part in these events, the opportunity to advertise to potential clients both at home and abroad. Stained glass exhibitors elected to participate in international exhibitions, but were sometimes sought out by exhibition organisers and committees. A letter in the John Hardman & Co. archive from the British Secretary and Executive Commissioner, Henry Cole (1808–​82), dated 7 August 1866, urged the firm to participate in the forthcoming Paris Exposition of 1867.70 Given the positive reviews and awards Hardman & Co. had gained at previous exhibitions in 1851 (London), 1855 (Paris), and 1862 (London), the British Commission were eager to ensure their favourable contribution to the British display in Paris in 1867. However, many studios chose not to participate at all. For example, Thomas Willement (1786–​1871) and William Warrington (1796–​1869), two of the most significant British stained glass artists of the time, were notably absent from the Great Exhibition, as was Charles Edmund Clutterbuck (1806–​61), who ran a studio in Stratford, and Thomas Ward (1808–​70), then in partnership with Nixon.71 However, Warrington and Ward appear to have regretted this decision, as Warrington & Sons exhibited several specimens at the second London International Exhibition (1862), and Ward’s new partnership Ward & Hughes exhibited a window for St Anne’s Church, Soho, London.72 The absence of British stained glass firms C. E. Kempe & Co. (founded 1866) and Burlison & Grylls (founded 1868) at these events is also noteworthy, and may be explained by their comparative conservatism and traditional output.73 Waters has argued that these two firms expressed ‘the sentiments of an unprogressive section of society’ and represented ‘an alternative, traditional line of designers who continued with an antiquated interpretation of religious imagery’.74 In contrast, the international exhibitions were intended to demonstrate recent advancements in art and industry, and were dominated by the larger studios. Some stained glass artists associated with the Arts and Crafts Movement appear to have deliberately avoided participating in these events in order to distance themselves and their productions from what they viewed as an increasingly commercialised industry.75 Practical difficulties may have deterred others from exhibiting. As we have seen, the need for stained glass to be illuminated from behind presented a challenge, and its inherently fragile nature meant that it was costly and risky to transport. Large windows were disassembled into panels and packed in crates, ready to be reconstructed on arrival, and transported to their destination via carriage, rail, and steamboat.76 Of course, accidents happened. The only Italian window exhibited at the Paris 1867 Exposition,

137

Competition and exchange

a Coronation of the Virgin by Perugian artist Francesco Moretti (1833–​ 1917), was damaged in transit.77 Upon arrival, stained glass, like other exhibits, was often subject to import duties as well as the costs of packing, insurance, wharfage, and freight (by carriage, rail, and ship). Analysis of Hardman’s Glass Day [Sales] Books reveals that these charges could range from 6 per cent to 20 per cent of the total cost of an order, depending on the commission and its destination.78 The costs, and the risks associated with long voyages, reveal the lengths that exhibitors would go to in order to send and show their wares across the world and build up their international reputation.79 All these factors also explain why the larger, more commercial studios had a bigger presence at these events, since they were more able to absorb these costs. Exhibitors sensibly took steps to avoid extra transportation costs and inconvenience, where possible, showing windows destined for the city or country in which an exhibition was taking place. For instance, numerous windows destined for churches in Central and Greater London were exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition held in South Kensington, London.80 Paris-​based artist Gérente’s sole exhibit at the Great Exhibition was a window for Ely Cathedral (see Plate 17), and Brussels artist Capronnier’s single offering at the 1862 Exhibition was the west window for Howden Minster, East Riding of Yorkshire (see Plate 36). At least one of the windows exhibited by the Munich firm Mayer & Co. in the German Building at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition was destined for an American client.81 Exhibitors also saved time and expense by showing the same panels or windows at multiple exhibitions. As the number of exhibitions increased each decade, the practice of re-​exhibiting became increasingly common. As already noted, Prosper Lafaye exhibited the same window at London in 1851 and Paris in 1855 (see Plate 14). Powell & Sons exhibited a replica of the centre light from the Tree of Jesse window in Waltham Abbey, designed by Burne-​Jones, in London 1862, Paris 1867, and Philadelphia 1876 (see Plate 9). Between exhibitions the window was displayed in Powell & Sons’ showroom and, like many exhibition pieces, ended up in a museum collection.

New markets Many scholars have explored the international exhibitions as marketplaces in which exhibitors advertised their products to potential clients.82 This was certainly the main underlying reason for exhibitors’ participation, although the extent to which new commissions were gained or commercial transactions took place in these environments is very difficult to assess, given that evidence is scarce and sales were not permitted at many of these events. Yet the impact of these events is still evident.

137

138

138

Windows for the world

In contrast to mainland Europe, where, as we have seen, the stained glass market was hugely competitive, the USA was a more open market, providing new opportunities for artists. The exhibition of a stained glass window designed by Henry Holiday and exhibited by Powell & Sons at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial caught the attention of influential Philadelphia architect Frank Furness (1839–​1912) and appears to have launched Holiday’s career in the USA.83 Kirchhoff also acknowledged the significance of this exhibition for British firms, when he stated in 1879 that ‘[h]‌undreds of church windows have been executed in England for America within the last few years’.84 The presence of little-​known Cambridge-​based studio W. H. Constable & Co. at the 1876 Philadelphia Exhibition was likely due to Constable’s personal association with William Jay Bolton.85 Morris & Co.’s participation in the Foreign Exhibition held in Boston (1883–​84) further increased the firm’s popularity in North America following a promotional tour of the USA by George Wardle, the firm’s general manager in 1880.86 The British colonies in Australia also represented a significant untapped market. Only a handful of foreign stained glass exhibitors showed stained glass at the Melbourne Exhibitions of 1880–​81 and 1888–​89,87 and for many it presented a one-​off commercial opportunity; ‘a chance to capture a new and potentially important market’ –​the developing colonies.88 Those exhibiting wares far from home hoped that when the exhibition ended their exhibits would be purchased, to save return shipping costs and justify the costs associated with taking part. In this regard, after the 1880–​81 Melbourne Exhibition, it probably came as a relief to Mayer & Co. that the Archbishop of Melbourne, James Goold (1812–​ 86), purchased two windows on behalf of St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral, Melbourne, which was then still under construction.89 These windows, which depict King Melchizedek and The Last Supper, were installed in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel on the northern side of the apse and are the only German-​manufactured windows in the cathedral.90 In contrast, few Australian stained glass studios took part in exhibitions beyond Australasia. This was partly because Australian Commissioners responded to requests from the UK to send natural exhibits, like flora, fauna, animals, and raw materials such as gold and timber, which they deemed ‘representative’ of Australasia as a group of agricultural colonies, an ideal Britain sought to promote for commercial benefit.91 However, the two international exhibitions held in Melbourne in the 1880s, and the Colonial and Indian Exhibition of 1886, held in London, enabled Australian stained glass artists to demonstrate their capabilities to both fellow countrymen and international visitors.92 To that end, with Australians now being afforded a chance to showcase their own creations, in 1887, the Australian Builder and Contractors’ News declared that, ‘there is no doubt that the Melbourne firms are able

139

Competition and exchange

to produce stained glass equal in quality to any imported goods’.93 By the Melbourne Centennial Exhibition of 1888–​89, stained glass studios were established in all the major Australian states,94 and Australian makers of stained glass had largely succeeded in fending off European competition. The importation of windows from Europe dropped considerably after the 1890s.95 An argument for employing Australia’s ‘own School of Glass-​painting’ was publicly made in 1888, the year that the Melbourne Centennial Exhibition opened. The Australian Builder contended that local artists were better ‘able to grapple with the differences of our climate from that of European countries’96 and manipulate the light ‘to suit the high lights of our colonies’.97 As Alex Bremner has demonstrated in his study of colonial churches in the British Empire, clergymen and architects had to consider designing buildings for radically different climates, varying from frozen to tropical climes.98 In hot climates, churches were frequently designed with fewer and smaller windows, often positioned at a height, to prevent direct sunlight from entering the building and making the interior too hot and too bright.99 Several stained glass windows made by Hardman & Co. for St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney, between 1881 and 1886 were sent back to be ‘darkened’. Similarly, Clayton & Bell’s windows for St Paul’s Cathedral, Melbourne, ordered between 1887 and 1891 by architect William Butterfield (1814–​1900), were subject to changes because of the intense Australian light.100

Measuring exhibitors’ success The exhibitions reveal the acutely commercial aspects of the stained glass industry. They provided venues and opened opportunities for exhibitors to showcase their work to a broad international public in the hope of gaining a new clientele, increased publicity (through awards, jury reports, and critical reviews), and an international reputation in a competitive market. After these exhibitions ended, critical reviews, jury reports, and visual records provided further modes for the distribution of stained glass exhibits across the world. Although often selective, as Jonathan Meyer has demonstrated, the coverage that the decorative arts ‘generated in the journals and press of the time was a greater proportion than was warranted by the space they occupied in the exhibition as a whole’, and this was indicative of public interest in and the popularity of stained glass at the time.101

Reviewing stained glass exhibits Most reviewers of stained glass exhibits had some direct experience working with stained glass; others were glass manufacturers, architects, and archaeologists with a keen interest and knowledge of the medium. Some were appointed by government officials to write official reports, while

139

140

140

Windows for the world

others recorded their own visits, observations, and expectations in the periodical press, many of which were published anonymously. Those writing official reports on the stained glass exhibits were given the task of summarising the displays and providing artistic and technical judgment (often according to their own principles or standards), in order to measure national progress and inform and educate readers on the progress of the art of stained glass across the world. Official reviews of stained glass at the British and French exhibitions were written by English lawyer and antiquarian Winston (1851); the French archaeologist De Caumont, who had published extensively on French religious and civil architecture of the Middle Ages (1855); English glass manufacturer Pellatt (1862); French glass manufacturer Bontemps (1867); and French stained glass artists Didron (1878), Champigneulle fils (1889) and Daumont-​Tournel (1900), as well as government architect Magne, who reported on the retrospective exhibition (1900).102 Kirchhoff’s reviews on the 1867 and 1878 Paris Expositions, written for the Society of Arts, form another branch of ‘official’ report.103 In addition, Bontemps wrote independent reports on stained glass at the 1851 Great Exhibition and 1855 Exposition,104 as did Didron for the 1867 Exposition.105 Didron’s reports on the stained glass at the later 1889 and 1900 Expositions were published in the French periodical Revue des arts décoratifs.106 Other important reviews of the medium, which appeared in various British periodicals, include those written by Sebastian Evans, manager of the art department at Chance Bros,107 architect William Burges (1862),108 and decorative artists Thomas Gambier Parry (1867)109 and Lewis Foreman Day (1878 and 1900).110 Other accounts provide a unique perspective or narrative, invaluable to the researcher. For example, Élisabeth Pillet has uncovered the written exchanges between Captain Charles de Montluisant (1820–​94) and a number of French glass-​ painters who participated in the Exposition Universelle of 1855, including Maréchal, Didron aîné, Lavergne, Veissière, and Lafaye.111 Kirchhoff’s report on the 1867 Paris Exposition is equally insightful for the comparison of nineteenth-​ century studio practice in France and Britain, since he visited the Parisian studios of French glass-​ painters Oudinot and Lusson during his official visit to this Paris Exposition. He observed with interest that, in French studios, a needlepoint was more common than a brush to remove pigment, and that the paint, line, and tone were frequently damaged by the (unusual and time-​consuming) practice of painting the glass while it was held in the lead matrix, before dismantling the pieces to burn in the kiln, prior to leading them up permanently.112 Kirchhoff also noted that the lead-​making machine in the French studio had been made in London, and that Lusson imported ruby glass from England, as well as from Salviati of Venice. This snapshot of the purchase of glass materials and tools further reminds us of the internationalisation of the nineteenth-​century stained glass industry.

141

Competition and exchange

French glass-​ painter Nicolas Lorin (1833–​ 82) exhibited at the Philadelphia Centennial in 1876 and combined his trip with a visit to St Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, for which he was making a series of stained glass windows; some of which were exhibited in Philadelphia in 1876 and Paris in 1878.113 Upon his return to France, he privately published De la peinture sur verre:  à propos de l’exposition de Philadelphie (1878), which gives us a record of his travels as well as the stained glass exhibits. The journey from France to New  York took twelve days, with a further three-​hour train journey to Philadelphia, where he stayed at the Exhibition Hotel adjacent to Fairmount Park.114 Like other commentators, Lorin used this opportunity to reflect on the historical development and character of stained glass, the role of the glass-​painter, and the various styles available to him. He also included extracts from critical reviews of his own exhibits, so that, on his return, the self-​funded publication served as an advertisement of his success, as well as a record of his travels.115 Writing reviews was an arduous task given the number of exhibitors and the dispersal of stained glass within buildings and over multiple sites. This may explain why Lorin’s self-​published notes list only twenty-​three exhibitors of stained glass in the Main Exhibition Building at the 1876 Philadelphia exhibition, when there were actually double this number.116 Official reviewers were often fuelled by national pride and concerned with the comparative progress and success of their own nation; as such, the documents should be approached with a degree of caution, for they contain national bias and reveal international prejudice. For instance, in his published notes on the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, Lorin praised the French as the best exhibitors, and revealed his prejudice towards Germans following the recent Franco-​Prussian War when he remarked on the sad aspect of the Memorial Hall, emphasising that the architect, Herman J. Schwarzmann (1846–​91), was a ‘Prussian’.117 Similarly, Didron’s report on the 1878 Paris Exposition is dominated by discussion of the French exhibits in the Palais du Champ de Mars, and although it refers to a handful of exhibits from Britain, Austria, and Belgium, there is no mention of the stained glass exhibits in national and foreign pavilions.118 Nonetheless, these authors made particularly acute observations at these events on the development of stained glass, its unique characteristics and potential, which have since been almost entirely overlooked. In spite of their interesting discourse on stained glass, the likes of Evans, Gambier Parry, and Kirchhoff are notably absent from the historiography of the medium.119

Jury boards and awards Exhibitors not only sought the attention of visitors (potential clients) and reviewers (journalists and critics), but the approval of the international

141

142

142

Windows for the world

awarding juries (the judging panel).120 Exhibition juries were formed of representatives from several nations, but always included a larger proportion of representatives from the exhibition’s hosting country. Members of juries or admissions and installation committees were exempt from awards.121 This may have deterred some exhibitors from taking on this responsibility, since as Richard Mandell has acknowledged, jury awards were widely sought-​after: The awards (or lack of them) could make or break an artist, craftsman, or inventor who offered his unique skills for judgement by the international juries. The expositions launched or ended careers, made or destroyed fortunes, and established or weakened the reputations of great firms. In all the large universal expositions nations too joined in expensive and earnest, though bloodless, battles for prestige.122

Jury awards were seen as a mark of quality by consumers and therefore carried great commercial value. It is not surprising, then, that the distribution of awards occasionally caused controversy. After Hardman & Co. received a prize medal for their display in Pugin’s Medieval Court at the Great Exhibition, fellow stained glass exhibitor Baillie publicly complained that Pugin, who had active involvement with the firm, was on the jury for that section.123 Few stained glass artists acted as jury members. Clayton was on the fine arts jury at the 1862 Exhibition,124 and La Farge sat on the fine arts jury for the 1893 Chicago Exposition.125 But these were exceptional cases. Following its material classification, the awarding juries for stained glass more commonly featured glassmakers or chemists, such as Bontemps (on the 1855, 1862, and 1867 juries); French chemist Eugène-​Melchior Péligot (1811–​90) (on the 1867 jury); British glassmakers Robert Lucas and Henry Chance (1794–1876) (on the 1862 and 1867 juries), and Harry James Powell (1853–​1922) (on the 1889 jury); Austrian glassmaker Ludwig Lobmeyr (1829–​1917) (on the 1878 jury); and French glassmakers Louis-​ Joseph Maës (1815–​98) (on the 1878 jury) and Léon-​Alfred Appert (1837–​ 1925) (on the 1889 jury). It was not until the Paris Exposition of 1878 that stained glass artists were represented on the awarding juries for stained glass, initially represented by Didron (1878) and at later Paris expositions by Oudinot (1889), Champigneulle fils (1889 and 1900), Daumont-​Tournel (1900), Marcel Delon (1900), and Delalande (1900). This, and the composition of the committee of installation for the 1900 Exposition, headed by Lucien Magne, Daumont-​Tournel, Henri Denis (1877–​1957), Auguste Bruin (dates unknown), and which included ten other French glass-​painters and two architects, seems to reflect the increased seriousness with which the French government viewed stained glass, perhaps in response to increased competition from American exhibitors. Exhibition jury awards require care in their assessment by art historians. A successful display gave a better chance of gaining an award. As

143

Competition and exchange

Michael Fisher has pointed out, in Pugin’s Medieval Court at the Great Exhibition, ‘[Hardman’s] glass was seen in the broadest context of the Gothic Revival, and he was the only Englishman to receive a prize medal for stained glass’.126 Yet, as we have seen, provision for, and the quality of, displays varied from one exhibition to the next. Furthermore, exhibitions had different awarding systems, some had none at all, and juries varied in their composition and approach to the task. Comparison of these awards is not, therefore, a fair measure of the success of stained glass artists in this period. For example, although the number of exhibitors at the Paris Exposition of 1889 had decreased since the previous exposition of 1878, the percentage of those who received an award increased from 39 per cent to 96 per cent.127 According to Champigneulle fils, the reason for this dramatic increase was that the jury wanted to show goodwill towards those glass-​painters who exhibited in unfavourable display conditions.128 Yet in spite of these inconsistencies, awards were seen as a mark of quality. Exhibition organisers, exhibitors, visitors, and critics were conscious of the competition for awards. Reviewers asked to whom they should ‘assign the prize’ for stained glass.129 In his essay on ‘The Artistic, Industrial, and Commercial Results of the Universal Exposition of 1855’, published in the Art Journal, George Wallis (1811–​91), headmaster of the Birmingham School of Design, questioned the use of such rhetoric: The claim of any country or any people to an exclusive right in the pursuits of industry, or supreme intelligence in its application, is quite as doubtful as the claim of any individual to universal knowledge, or the undisputed possession for all times of any invention or discovery.130

Nonetheless, jury awards were counted and individuals and nations were compared against one another in written reviews and statistical tables, which were often published adjacent to data showing commercial imports and exports in an attempt to align the results of the exhibitions with the industrial and economic progress of individual nations. Long after these events, jury awards continued to have an impact in seeking clientele and gaining commissions, and exhibitors frequently advertised their awards to the public in the press and in their showrooms. A number of medals awarded to Chance Bros remain in the firm’s archives in Smethwick, as a lasting legacy of their achievements.131 Hardman & Co. commemorated their success at the international exhibitions by recording their awards in a series of decorative stained glass panels that were presumably on display in their showroom and seen as marks of distinction by their prospective customers.132

Visual records Few reviews or jury reports are accompanied by illustrations of the stained glass exhibits discussed. Visual records of some selected stained glass

143

144

144

Windows for the world

exhibits exist, but these are rarely in colour. Many publications chose to illustrate only windows that had gained favourable reviews or accolades by awarding juries; others appear to have chosen windows whose style or subject matter might be of interest to their readers. The most common visual record of stained glass exhibits was the engraving. It is not known whether artists selected which exhibits to draw and how much publishers influenced their  decisions. Journals or periodicals like the Illustrated London News and the Art Journal printed high-​quality black-​and-​white engravings, as full-​page or accompanying images. These engravings conveyed the design and composition of windows, but not the arrangement of colour. Different techniques of representation were used in these engravings, as demonstrated by illustrations of the British stained glass exhibits at the International Exhibition of 1862. Some isolated the glass from its architectural context entirely, like the Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue’s engraving of a light designed by J. M. Allen and made by Lavers & Barraud for the west window at St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Lavenham, Suffolk (Plate 30).133 Others illustrated windows within a make-​believe architectural setting, showing the tracery and the effects of light and shade on the stonework; for example the Illustrated London News’ illustration of a window by Ballantine & Son destined for the chancel of Holy Trinity Church, Prestolee, Lancashire (Plate 31).134 Like the exhibition displays, these different approaches reveal uncertainties in the representation, and perception, of stained glass as a ‘picture’ or a ‘window’ for an architectural opening. Another illustration in Cassell’s Illustrated Exhibitor shows Cox & Sons’ stained glass as part of an integrated display of church furnishings, set within an ecclesiastical gothic interior (Plate 32).135 In this engraving, our eye is led through a solid wooden door with wrought ironwork hinges, which has been left ajar. Every surface is decorated; the wall is painted, the floors are tiled, and a stained glass window can be seen above the altar. The religious inscriptions, arrangement, and setting appear as an advertisement for the gothic style and Anglo-​ Catholicism, as well as the exhibitor’s wares, mimicking the unified aesthetic of Pugin’s Medieval Court. In contrast to black-​and-​white engravings, chromolithographs were highly suited to representations of stained glass because of their ability to give an impression of the tone, depth, and arrangement of colour. The laborious method of preparing chromolithographs, which initially required a different lithographic stone for each colour required, applied to the paper one at a time, meant that they were an expensive method of colour printing generally reserved for more expensive publications like Warrington’s The history of stained glass (1848) and commemorative volumes celebrating the international exhibitions, such as the two-​volume

145

Competition and exchange

Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851 (1854) and J. B. Waring’s three-​volume Masterpieces of industrial art and sculpture at the International Exhibition, 1862 (1863). The limitations of photography in the early days of its development, after the first permanent photographs were produced in the 1830s, meant that photographing stained glass was difficult.136 Unlike the opaque surface of canvas or marble, stained glass windows often appeared overexposed in photographs, as a result of the camera aiming directly at what was effectively a light-​transmitting medium. The photographic process was particularly over-​sensitive to reds, yellows, and deep greens, which appeared black or dark grey, while blues were rendered white.137 In a medium such as stained glass, where colour was so vital, this was a limitation. In contrast, freestanding sculptural exhibits were far more suited to photography.138 However, the rapid improvements in the technical art of photography during the latter half of the nineteenth century, and its growing popularity, meant that, by the end of the century, photography became the standard mode of illustration. Black-​and-​white photographs of individual stained glass panels were used to illustrate Didron’s two articles in the Revue des arts décoratifs (1900) and Day’s articles in the Art Journal (1901), as well as in Magne’s report on the retrospective exhibition of stained glass (1902).139 In many cases, printed illustrations from engravings, chromolithographs, and photographic plates provide the only visual record of these stained glass windows, which have since been lost or destroyed. They are therefore invaluable historical records. For those windows not yet identified or traced, these images also provide hope for identification and rediscovery in the future.

Notes 1 Vanden Bemden, ‘Introduction’, p. 21. 2 Hoffenberg, An empire on display, p. 18. 3 Barringer has noted the circulation of goods and increase of trade was a primary underlying motivation for imperial expansion. Barringer and Flynn, Colonialism and the object, p. 3. 4 Catalogue officiel des exposants récompensés par le Jury international (Paris: Dentu, 1867), p. 17. 5 Spence was the only Canadian representative of glassmaking at the 1855 Exposition where he exhibited both stained glass and table glass. G. Stevens, Early Canadian glass (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1961), pp. 111–​15; R. Pepall, ‘Stained Glass Windows in Montreal at the Turn of the Century’, Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology 13:3 Architectural Glass: History and Conservation (1981), 49. 6 See Farnsworth, ‘An American Bias’, 15; V. C. Raguin, ‘American Stained Glass:  English Influence before the 1880s’, Nineteenth Century:  Magazine of the Victorian Society in America 17:2 (Fall 1997), 5–​13. 7 W.  B. Clark, The stained glass art of William Jay Bolton (Syracuse, NY:  Syracuse University Press, 1992), p. 14.

145

146

146

Windows for the world 8 J. Farnsworth, ‘John and George H. Gibson “really have the cream of the bus[iness] in their line” ’, Journal of Stained Glass 37 (2013), 22–​49. 9 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 218. 10 Farnsworth, ‘An American Bias’, 113. 11 For stained glass in Australia, see J. Zimmer, Stained glass in Australia (Melbourne; Oxford; Auckland; New  York: Oxford University Press, 1984); P. Donovan and J. Donovan, 150  years of stained and painted glass (Netley, S.  Aust.:  Wakefield Press, 1986); Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass. For New Zealand, see F. Ciaran, Stained glass windows of Canterbury, New Zealand:  A catalogue raisonné (Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 1998). 12 I am grateful to Ray Brown, a descendant of Ferguson, for providing me with information on the history of this firm. 13 Donovan and Donovan, 150 years of stained and painted glass, pp. 32–​3. 14 Falconer had trained in the English studios of Gibbs, and Warrington. See Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, p. 130; Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass, p. 15. 15 Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, p. 259. 16 Lyon’s obituary in the Australian press noted that he made at least three trips to the ‘old country’ to recruit artists and craftsmen for the firm. Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, p. 274, App. item 21. 17 Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, p. 122. 18 Ferguson & Urie exhibited at the 1854 and 1861 Victorian Exhibitions, the 1866 Intercolonial Exhibition of Australasia, and the 1875 Victorian Intercolonial Exhibition (all held in Melbourne). 19 Having received several awards at the 1875 Intercolonial Exhibition (Melbourne) both firms were selected to represent the Australian Colonies in Philadelphia the following year. The Builder (2 September 1876), 853; G.  M. Down, ‘Nineteenth-​ Century Stained Glass in Melbourne’ (MA dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1975), p. 64; Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass, p. 41. 20 Jean Farnsworth’s study of Philadelphia’s stained glass commissions have revealed that 36 per cent of extant stained glass windows in the city between 1849 and 1930 was imported. Farnsworth, ‘An American Bias’, 15. 21 From a comparison of British studios mentioned in Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass with the Appendix to the present volume. 22 As Alex Bremner has noted in his study of Anglican architecture in the British Empire, ‘all the key glass manufacturers loomed large on the colonial scene, including Clayton & Bell, Hardmans, Morris & Co., C.  E. Kempe and others’. Bremner, Imperial gothic, p. 189. 23 Kirchhoff, ‘Report on Stained and Painted Glass’, pp. 157–​8. 24 Luneau, ‘Les peintres verriers dans les Expositions universelles’, p. 245. 25 Some individual federal state governments participated. E. Fuchs, ‘All the World into the School:  World’s Fairs and the Emergence of the School Museum in the Nineteenth Century’, in M. Lawn (ed.), Modelling the future:  exhibitions and the materiality of education (Didcot: Symposium Books, 2009), p. 55. 26 Ageorges, Sur les traces des Expositions universelles Paris 1855–​1937, p. 13; Geppert, Fleeting cities, p. 16. 27 It is impossible to establish the exact number of participants as stained glass exhibitors appear in several classes, and catalogues contain errors and omissions. 28 Besides local studios based in Norfolk or Suffolk, Haward’s studies suggest the most prominent British studios were: Ward & Hughes; William Wailes; Heaton, Butler & Bayne; Powell & Sons; Clayton & Bell; Hardman & Co.; Kempe & Co.; Lavers, Barraud & Westlake; Warrington; O’Connor; Cox & Sons; Gibbs; and Thomas Willement. All of these (except Kempe and Willement) took part in international exhibitions.

147

Competition and exchange Similarly, of the international firms whose work is to be found in either Norfolk or Suffolk (Mayer, Oliphant, Didron, Gerente, Oudinot, Lusson, De la Roche, Lobin and Zettler), all except De la Roche had participated in these events. See Haward, Nineteenth century Norfolk stained glass, p. 132; Haward, Nineteenth century Suffolk stained glass, p. 149. 29 This represents approximately a quarter of the number of events that took place in this period. See Findling and Pelle, Historical dictionary, pp. vii–​viii. 30 For Billard-​ Laurent-​ Gsell see H. Cabezas, ‘L’atelier de vitraux parisien Billard-​ Laurent-​Gsell (1838–​1892)’, Cahiers de la Rotonde 17 (1996), 163–​73. 31 Down, ‘Nineteenth-​Century Stained Glass in Melbourne’, p. 115. 32 John Thomas Fouracre and Henry Watson formed a partnership in the 1870s. Waters and Carew-​Cox, Damozels & deities, 234–​41. 33 Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle, p. 157. 34 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 179. 35 Designs for stained glass by women artists were first exhibited at the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society in 1889 (Margaret Hooper), and the next time was not until 1893 (Mary Newill). Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 55. 36 La Farge’s favourite glass-​painter was a woman (Juliette Hanson). Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 115. 37 The women’s department coexisted alongside the ‘men’s’. Eidelberg et al., A new light on Tiffany, pp. 32–​4. 38 Four Seasons (c. 1899–​1900), Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art, Florida (57-​019). 39 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 63. For Milési see Luneau, Félix Gaudin, pp. 389–​91. 40 M. P. Levy, ‘Manufacturers at the World’s Fairs: The Model of 1851’, in J. T. Busch and C. L. Futter (eds), Inventing the modern world: decorative arts at the world’s fairs 1851–​1939 (Kansas City, MO: The Nelson-​Atkins Museum of Art, 2012), pp. 34–​50. 41 Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle, pp. 138–​9. 42 A. Irlandes, L’atelier Lobin:  l’art du vitrail en Touraine (Chambray-​les-​Tours:  CLD, 1994), p. 26. For Mauvernay, see M. Dalzotto, ‘Alexandre Mauvernay, 1819–​1898’, in Lyon et le vitrail, du néo-​médiéval à l’Art nouveau (Lyons: Archives municipales, 1992), pp. 23–​5, 57, 92–​3, 109–​12, 119–​20. 43 Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, pp. 110–​11. 44 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 30; P. Larkworthy, Clayton and Bell, stained glass artists and decorators (London: Ecclesiological Society, 1984); Waters and Carew-​ Cox, Angels & icons, p. 248. 45 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 137. 46 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 32; M. Galicki, Victorian and Edwardian stained glass: the work of five London studios 1855–​1910 (London: English Heritage, 2001); Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 72. 47 Fisher, Hardman of Birmingham, p. 135. 48 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 156. 49 Mayer, Franz Mayer of Munich, p. 13. 50 Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 56. 51 For example, William Morris sent his general manager George Wardle to the USA in 1880 to advertise the work of Morris & Co. G. Wardle, The Morris exhibit at the Foreign Fair Boston, 1883–​84 (Boston: Roberts Bros, 1883). 52 Holiday, Reminiscences of my life, pp.  120–​ 2. Holiday was considering going into partnership with Saunders but in 1869 Saunders independently established Saunders & Co. 53 Kirchhoff was a figure painter for London firms Gibbs & Moore and Ward & Hughes. Correspondence with Tony Benyon, December 2012. 54 Kirchhoff, ‘Glass Painting’, p. 83.

147

148

148

Windows for the world 55 Stained glass was admitted into the Paris Salon from 1891 but does not appear to have been present at the Royal Academy annual exhibitions until the twentieth century. 56 The idea for this exhibition appears to have been conceived following the success of the British stained glass exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition. Although intended to be international in scope, all the exhibited works were British. T. Gambier Parry and R. Burchett, A catalogue of the exhibition of stained glass, mosaics, etc. (London: HMSO, 1864). 57 Cormack acknowledges ‘it was rarely possible to exhibit actual specimens of stained glass’ at the exhibitions organised by the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society. Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 51. 58 HLRO 304, letter no. 159, February 1851, and letter no. 693. Quoted in Shepherd, The stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 89. 59 Shepherd, The stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 89. 60 These windows were replaced by Morris & Co. in the early twentieth century. See Shepherd, The stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 198. 61 Letter from J. S. Gammell to Hardman, 14 December 1851. Quoted in Shepherd, The stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 201. 62 Shepherd, The stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin, p. 272. 63 Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 159. 64 Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 159. 65 Yarnall, John La Farge, pp. 160–​1. 66 Letter from Hardman to C. P. Rowley Esq., 16 December 1867. John Hardman & Co., Birmingham Archives. 67 D. G. Mitchell, ‘Industrial and Architectural Designs; Interior Decorations; Artistic Hardware; Mosaics; Inlaid-​Work in Wood and Metal; Stained Glass’, in F. A. Walker (ed.), United States Centennial Commission International Exhibition 1876. Reports and awards, Group XXVII (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincot, 1877), p. 45. 68 Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, p. 83. 69 In Revue de Paris, 1 February 1896. Quoted in Williams, Dream worlds, p. 59. 70 MS 175A/​11/​2/​2/​2 Part I, John Hardman & Co., Birmingham Archives. 71 Willement never took part in competitions and exhibitions. Cheshire, Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival, p. 158. 72 This window was destroyed in the Blitz. A  contemporary illustration appeared in Waring, Masterpieces of the industrial art and sculpture, vol. 3, plate 218. 73 Adrian Barlow, biographer of C. E. Kempe, suggests that Kempe, who had initially considered a vocation to the priesthood, may have felt that advertising for ecclesiastical work through exhibitions was somehow undignified and inappropriate. Since Kempe had an established network of patrons, clients, and colleagues he may not have felt the need to seek clients in this way. Correspondence with Adrian Barlow, November 2016. 74 Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, p. 11. 75 Very few of the artists in Cormack’s study on Arts and Crafts stained glass participated in international exhibitions in the nineteenth century, but they appear to have played a more important role in twentieth-​century international exhibitions, notably in Turin (1902). Cormack, Arts & crafts stained glass, p. 60. 76 Down, ‘Nineteenth-​Century Stained Glass in Melbourne’, p. 119. 77 Thompson, ‘The State of Stained Glass’, 228. See also Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, pp. 60–​1. 78 Day Books survive from November 1845 to January 1854, and January 1863 to June 1895, MS 175/​35, John Hardman & Co., Birmingham Archives. 79 Many stained glass panels were broken or damaged en route from the UK to India. See J. Holliday, Stories in glass: the stained glass heritage of Bombay (Mumbai: India Eminence Designs, 2012), p. 23.

149

Competition and exchange 80 Including windows for All Saints’ Church, Kensington Park (Ballantine); St Anne’s Church, Soho (Ward & Hughes); Wimbledon Church (Cox & Son); St Stephen’s Crypt, Westminster (Hardman); St Philip’s Church, Earl’s Court, Kensington (Heaton, Butler & Bayne); St Matthias’ Church, Stoke Newington (O’Connor); St Paul’s Church, Bow Common (Powell). Most of these windows were destroyed during the Second World War. S. Whiting, London International Exhibition 1862: official catalogue of the industrial department, 3rd edn (London, 1862). 81 A window for the chapel of the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD in memory of soldiers who had lost their lives in the Samoan hurricane. B. C. Truman, History of the world’s fair (New York: Arno Press, 1976), p. 511; ‘Glass and Ceramics at the Chicago Exhibition’, 30. 82 Williams, Dream Worlds; T. Richards, The commodity culture of Victorian England: advertising and spectacle, 1851–​ 1914 (Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press, 1990); Walton, France at the Crystal Palace. 83 G. B. Bryant, ‘Frank Furness and Henry Holiday: A Study of Patronage, Architecture and Art’, Architectural History 56 (2013), 169–​211. 84 Kirchhoff, ‘Report on Stained and Painted Glass’, p. 157. 85 After establishing his New York studio, Bolton returned to England, establishing a studio in Cambridge in 1845, which was taken over in 1853 by one of his assistants, Constable, The stained glass art of William Jay Bolton, p. 14. 86 G. Wardle, The Morris exhibit at the Foreign Fair Boston, 1883–​84 (Boston: Roberts Bros, 1883). 87 For example, in 1888–​89, stained glass exhibitors included Haudecoeur et Colpaert (Lille) and Hubert; L. Mondran (Lodelinsart); Peartree & Co. (Berlin); Victor von der Först (Münster); E. Pratt & Co. (London); J. C. & O. C. Hawkes (Birmingham). See also the Appendix. 88 Parris and Shaw, ‘The Melbourne International Exhibition 1880–​81’, 247. 89 K. Stone and G. Vaughan, The Piranesi effect (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2015), p. 315. Goold’s decision to purchase these windows may have been influenced by George Folingsby (1828–​91), an Irish-​born painter and art educator who resided in Munich for over twenty years before arriving in Melbourne in 1879. In 1882 Folingsby became Director of the National Gallery of Art and Master in the School of Painting and taught Munich methods to a generation of Australian artists. A. Galbally, ‘Patron of the Arts at the Antipodes’, La Trobe Journal 73 (Autumn 2004), 15; Hoffenberg, An empire on display, p. 42. 90 The remaining windows in the apse were later glazed by British studios Hardman & Co. and Powell & Sons. Zimmer, Stained glass in Australia, p. 77. 91 For the representation of Australia at these exhibitions see Darian-​Smith et  al., Seize the day. 92 A handful of Canadian and Australian stained glass studios exhibited at the Colonial and Indian Exhibition. Colonial and Indian Exhibition 1886. Official catalogue (London: W. Clowes, 1886). 93 Australian Builder and Contractor’s News (17 September 1887), 300. Quoted in Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass, p. 33. Similar statements had been made about American stained glass in 1857. See Farnsworth, ‘An American Bias for Foreign Stained Glass’, 15. 94 Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass, p. 13. 95 Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, p. 419. 96 Australian Builder and Contractor’s News (2 June 1888), 371. Quoted in Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass, p. 34. 97 Builder’s and Engineer’s Journal (9 May 1891), 179. Quoted in Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass, p. 34. 98 Bremner, Imperial gothic, pp. 125–​52.

149

150

150

Windows for the world 99 Bremner, Imperial gothic, pp. 127–​8. 100 See Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, pp. 70–​4. For the difficulties of the strong light in Bombay, see Holliday, Stories in glass, p. 14. 101 Meyer, Great Exhibitions, p. 12. 102 Winston, ‘Awards and Notices’; De Caumont, ‘Vitraux peints’; Pellatt, ‘Class XXXIV’; Bontemps and Boeswillwald, ‘Groupe III’; Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’; Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’; Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’; and Magne, Musée rétrospectif de la classe 67. 103 Kirchhoff, ‘Glass Painting’; Kirchhoff, ‘Report on Stained and Painted Glass’. 104 Bontemps, Examen historique; Bontemps, ‘On Glass’. 105 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867. 106 É. Didron, ‘Le vitrail depuis cent ans et à l’Exposition de 1889’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 10 (1889–​90), 39–​48, 97–​108, 37–​54; Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (1)’; and Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (2)’. 107 Evans, ‘Glass Manufactures’. 108 Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’ (June 1862); Burges, ‘The International Exhibition’ (July 1862); Burges, ‘The Late Exhibition’, 336–​9. 109 Gambier Parry’s report on the stained glass at the 1867 Exposition first appeared in the Illustrated London News, and was later reprinted in its entirety in a volume of official reports produced for the government (1868), while large sections were again reproduced in The Ecclesiologist (1868). 110 Day, ‘Notes on English Decorative Art in Paris. II’; L. F. Day, ‘The Glass at Paris’, Art Journal. The Paris Exhibition 1900 (1901), 265–​70. 111 See Pillet, ‘La plume et l’épée; 52; Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle, pp. 210–​11. 112 Kirchhoff, ‘Glass Painting’, p. 71. 113 J.  D. McCabe, The illustrated history of the Centennial Exhibition held in commemoration of the one hundredth anniversary of American independence (Philadelphia: National Publishing Company, 1876), p. 611; ‘The Illustrations. St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral, New York’, American Architect and Building News 3:108 (19 January 1878), 20–​5; Farnsworth, ‘An American Bias for Foreign Stained Glass’, 17. 114 Lorin, De la peinture sur verre, p. 5. 115 For other publications-​cum-​advertisements see Bitterlin, Exposition universelle de Paris en 1878. 116 Lorin, De la peinture sur verre, p. 61. 117 Lorin, De la peinture sur verre, p. 20. 118 This may have been partly due to the scattering of the stained glass exhibits across the exposition site, which made comparative study difficult. Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, pp. 52–​3. 119 Gambier Parry’s interest in stained glass and involvement in the 1864 Exhibition of Stained Glass and Mosaics held at the South Kensington Museum are not mentioned in D. Farr (ed.), Thomas Gambier Parry 1816–​1888 as artist and collector (London: Courtauld Institute Galleries, University of London, 1993). 120 From 1801 the industrial national exhibitions held in Paris had juries, and awards were first distributed at the 1802 Exposition. Greenhalgh, Fair world, p. 20. 121 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 31. 122 Mandell, Paris 1900, p. ix. 123 E. Baillie, ‘Modern Painting on Glass’, The Builder 9:461 (6 December 1851), 774. 124 Clayton’s presence is explained by his prolific artistic career as an architect, sculptor, painter, and stained glass artist and confirms his importance within wider artistic circles. See Waters and Carew-​Cox, Angels & icons, pp. 12, 22, and 60.

151

Competition and exchange 25 Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 223. 1 126 Fisher, Hardman of Birmingham, p. 77. 127 According to Champigneulle there were seventy-​ nine exhibitors of stained glass in 1878, and only forty-​six in 1889. Percentages calculated from figures in Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 176. 128 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 176. 129 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 297–​8. 130 Wallis, ‘The Artistic, Industrial, and Commercial Results’, p. i. 131 BS6/​9/​8/​1, Chance Brothers Business Records, Sandwell Community and History Archives, Smethwick. 132 Photographs of these panels were taken by Michael Fisher before the studio closed in 2008. Fisher, Hardman of Birmingham, p. 146. 133 Art Journal illustrated catalogue 1862, p. 25. Both the east and west windows of Lavenham church were exhibited. The backgrounds of the west window were removed and replaced with plain glazing in the twentieth century. 134 This window was commissioned in memory of Thomas Bonsor Crompton (1792–​ 1858), cotton manufacturer and owner of several mills in the Farnworth and Kearsley area. 135 Cassell’s illustrated exhibitor, p. 52. 136 H. E. Roberts, Art history through the camera lens (Amsterdam: OPA, 1995). 137 Hamber, ‘A higher branch of the art’, p. 84. 138 J. Hannavy (ed.), Encyclopaedia of nineteenth-​ century photography (London; New York: Routledge, 2013), 506–​10. 139 Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (1)’; Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (2)’; Day, ‘The Glass at Paris’; Magne, Musée rétrospectif de la classe 67.

151

152

5 Stained glass as propaganda

Stained glass rarely appears in secondary literature on nationalism,1 imperialism,2 or race,3 yet along with other art forms it played an important role in shaping and visualising national consciousness, propelling political and imperial regimes in the nineteenth century. This chapter demonstrates how these themes influenced the subject matter, interpretation, and critical discussion of stained glass in the nineteenth century, as demonstrated by the many windows shown at the international exhibitions. The first part discusses how stained glass was used to articulate national identity, mark territory, and affirm the political presence of ruling oligarchies. The second part considers the use of stained glass as imperial propaganda within international exhibitions, focusing on the two largest and most dominant empires of the era, Britain and France.4 The final section speculatively explores the role of stained glass in the formation of racial and ethnic stereotypes to both emphasise human variety and reinforce social hierarchies. Since stained glass was an art form principally associated with religious buildings, religion (especially Christianity, which dominated the Western world and was transplanted throughout empires by missionaries) is a recurring theme, inextricable from concepts of nation and empire.5

Stained glass as an ideological medium Stained glass can be considered an ideal medium for visualising complex national, international, and imperial identities. After all, its physical structure and composition, consisting of individual pieces of glass held together in a lead matrix, holds many parts in one whole. But the whole also has a ‘fractured logic’,6 in which pieces of glass can be removed, replaced and the whole reassembled, just as nations and empires are formed of several,

153

Stained glass as propaganda

often dislocated, states and peoples, amassed together, dismantled and reassembled into different federations and commonwealths. Nineteenth-​ century maps of the world also resemble stained glass windows in some ways. Black contours demarcate geographical and political boundaries whilst holding in place the coloured fragments of states and regions. The malleable qualities of lead, meanwhile, remind us of shifting geographical boundaries and political borders, which, when weakened or broken, make the whole national or imperial structure vulnerable. What better medium than stained glass, then, for us to examine the unifying ambitions and territorial fragility of nations and empires?

Nationalism Several historians have argued that the nineteenth-​century international exhibitions ‘gained legitimacy as a medium of national expression’.7 Alison Yarrington has proposed that we view the exhibitions as ‘theatres of displays’, sites of political, imperial, economic, and artistic rivalry, ‘where national identities were performed, paraded, confused, and inevitably judged one against the other’.8 Exhibitions brought multiple nations together under the banner of ‘peace’ but also made clear distinctions between the products, peoples, and cultures of different nations.9 National distinctions were made on both a micro-​and macrocosmic level. Exhibition buildings were divided into separate national territories, and within these, flags, armorial bearings, trophies, banners, and signs marked individual courts.10 Just as stained glass might be considered a unifying medium with a ‘fractured logic’, the international exhibitions were unifying events that brought together exhibits from all over the world in one place, but divided them into fragmented national displays. Along with allegorical frescoes, painted inscriptions, and architectural sculpture, stained glass played an important role in signposting and marking the territory of these national displays. For example, at the 1900 Paris Exposition, several of the national pavilions erected along the rue des Nations featured stained glass windows. These buildings were seen as architectural embodiments of a nation’s power as well as its culture, and, as we shall see, the presence and symbolism of stained glass was used to affirm (and sometimes undermine) national or imperial identities. Stained glass windows by Tiffany (whose name has become synonymous with ‘American’ opalescent glass) decorated and signposted the entrances to sections within the US Pavilion.11 The façade of the Pavilion of the Republic of Ecuador featured a large stained glass window with an allegorical landscape in the form of the flag of Ecuador.12 Although exhibits were frequently divided into the  national displays and catalogued by nation, the national identities of those involved in making and exhibiting were not as clear-​cut.13

153

154

154

Windows for the world

At these events, British identity was often interchangeable with English, leaving Welsh, Irish, and Scottish populations underrepresented. ‘British’ stained glass exhibits came predominantly from England and Scotland, reflecting accurately the fact that there were few makers of stained glass in Ireland and Wales until the early twentieth century.14 Notions of national identity in British overseas colonies were also complicated, with these countries having to grapple between their indigenous culture and new influence from British settlers.15 For instance, in his report on the 1900 Exposition, Daumont-​Tournel described one window depicting The Good Shepherd, exhibited by an Australian exhibitor, as ‘très britannique’ (very British).16

Stained glass and national terminologies The separate and nationalistic nature of the displays invited both the public and reviewers to make international comparisons. As one reviewer of the stained glass exhibits at the 1893 Chicago Exposition noted, ‘[t]‌o compare the different schools and see wherein the qualities which lift our own work so much above that of other nations is very interesting’.17 Nationalist terminology was frequently applied to discussions of the style, form, colour, subject, and painting techniques of stained glass exhibits in order to distinguish the productions of one country from another, and cast aesthetic and moral judgement. In 1851 a writer for The Illustrated Exhibitor remarked that British exhibitor Gibson ‘affects chiefly the German type of face and form; especially in a figure of the Virgin, seated, and engaged in reading’,18 and the stained glass exhibits of Capronnier of Brussels ‘fairly represent the state of glass-​staining in Belgium’.19 Such generalising comments and characterisations recur throughout exhibition journalism and reveal the rise of nationalism in the nineteenth century. Colour even became part of this nationalistic discourse. The prevailing use of green, yellow, and hot-​red glass in French stained glass, ‘sometimes to a painful extent’, was said to characterise windows made in Parisian studios.20 Contemporary commentaries also revealed national stylistic preferences, for example, the Belgian glass-​painters’ fondness for the Renaissance style, or the French artists’ preference for the archaeological medieval style.21 In his jury report for the Paris Exposition of 1889, Champigneulle fils identified specific characteristics as national traits; attributing material innovation to the USA, finesse of execution to England, and overall taste to his own nation, France.22 These examples demonstrate art-​historical tendencies to create national schools, defining styles by geographical and political boundaries. Yet the terms used in such discourse are often confusing or unhelpful. For example, in discussions of nineteenth-​century stained glass, the term ‘Munich school’ simultaneously or separately referred to:  a school

155

Stained glass as propaganda

influenced by the Nazarene painters; stained glass produced in Munich or elsewhere in Germany; or stained glass in the pictorial style.23 In Britain, the conflation of nationalism and style, and the general contempt for ‘foreign’ stained glass, culminated in the 1857  ‘Munich controversy’.24 The committee’s unpopular decision (following the advice of Winston) to award the glazing of Glasgow Cathedral to the Königlichen Glasmalereianstalt (Royal Bavarian Glass Painting Manufactory) at Munich caused national outrage, firstly because local Scottish artists were refused the commission, and secondly because of the Munich firm’s pictorial style.25 Nineteenth-​century artists and critics also tended to define Eastern influences on Western art through a homogenising lens, demonstrating their distinct lack of awareness of the different artistic styles and cultural productions of foreign nations. For instance, in his review of the stained glass at the 1878 Exposition, Didron described some panels exhibited by French glass-​painter Oudinot as in the ‘Japanese and Persian style’, thus conflating two separate countries, one in West Asia and the other in East Asia, with distinct artistic and cultural traditions.26 Elsewhere, in the 1878 Palais de l’Industrie, Didron exhibited some panels that were described by one critic as being in the ‘Japanese’ and ‘Indo-​Chinese’ style.27 At the 1900 Exposition a stained glass panel depicting a dragon, exhibited by the Californian Art Glass Works (San Francisco, CA), was similarly described by some critics as ‘Japanese’,28 and by others as ‘Chinese’.29 Contemporary discussions of Art Nouveau reveal further complexities and contradictions inherent in applying national terms to styles, and remind us of the political, and sometimes racist or xenophobic, motives underlying them. As Emery and Morowitz have demonstrated, the nineteenth-​ century embracing of medieval art forms like stained glass was, in part, patriotic.30 Anxieties over ‘foreignness’, and particularly ‘Jewishness’, were evident in contemporary writings on stained glass, as in the decorative arts more broadly. After the opening of his gallery Maison de l’Art Nouveau (also known as Maison Bing) in Paris in 1895, French critics launched a strongly nationalist and racist diatribe against Bing’s venture.31 Arsène Alexandre (1859–​1937) wrote of an international invasion that threatened France: ‘[a]‌ll this is confused, incoherent, almost unhealthy. It all smacks of the vicious Englishman, the Jewess addicted to morphine, or the Belgian spiv, or a good mixture of these three poisons.’32 Alexandre was not only adverse to this modern style, but also to Bing’s role as a mercenary art dealer and his German-​Jewish heritage, which was cited as a reason for his ‘failure’ to understand medieval French stained glass traditions.33 Such racist invective should be considered against the backdrop of the Dreyfus Affair, which exposed the fact that anti-​Semitism was rife in fin-​ de-​siècle France.34 Linda Nochlin has explored the influence of the Dreyfus Affair on late-​ nineteenth-​ century art, revealing the anti-​ Semitic views of French artists Edgar Degas (1834–​1917) and Pierre-​Auguste Renoir

155

156

156

Windows for the world

(1841–​1919).35 Ottin’s Le vitrail (1896) contains remarks that are part of this wider phenomenon when he invokes the mythology of Jewish financial conspiracy in his criticism of amateur practitioners of stained glass; ‘le juif n’ayant d’yeux que pour le plomb, c’est-​à-​dire l’argent –​car il s’empressait de procéder à la transmutation immédiate au cours du jour’ (the Jew has eyes only for lead, that is to say money –​because he was eager to change the metal [into cash] before the end of the day).36 Anti-​Semitism was part of a broader xenophobia which permeated French art criticism at the time, as demonstrated by the mixed reactions to Bing’s 1900 Art Nouveau Pavilion, a collaborative project that involved a group of international artists including Dutch-​born Georges de Feure, Frenchman Eugène Gaillard (1862–​ 1933), and German-​ born Edward Colonna (1862–​1948). Art historian and critic Gabriel Mourey described Art Nouveau as an inherently French style, ‘vraiment l’expression de la sensibilité de notre race, et non une adaptation de formules étrangères’ (truly an expression of the sensibility of our race and not an adaptation of foreign principles).37 Yet Louis de Fourcaud (1815–​1914), professor of aesthetics and art history at the École des Beaux-​Arts, believed Art Nouveau had negative implications for French art, and described the movement in racially prejudiced terms as being contaminated by the ‘foreign’ other, revealing his fear of miscegenation: The style, very composite, is a mixture of gothic and Japanese, of rustic and super-​refined, which came from England having passed through Belgium …. It was already modified and muted; one could not see, in spite of everything, that it responded to our needs, to our social temperament …. Simple and complicated at the same time, it contains, contradictorily, light open-​work and a structure of a strange weight, an unfortunate rigidity, bad proportion and a pretence of convenience which is in reality inconvenience. I’d ignore all this if in the future, by a series of transformation, it would achieve a French appearance.38

Echoing Alexandre’s comments four years earlier, Fourcaud felt that the superiority of French decorative arts, acclaimed at earlier international exhibitions, was threatened by the influx of a composite international style. His fears also reflected the growing significance and rising acclaim of German, Japanese, and American arts at this time. Indeed, a few years earlier, Ottin had referred to ‘ce fameux verre américain qui menace de nous envahir’ (this famous American glass that threatens to invade us); a statement that reveals the artistic and economic threat that America presented to Europe, which throughout the century claimed superiority in the decorative arts.39 Others, zealous in their national pride, sought to claim that the development of these new materials actually stemmed from Europe. From 1879 opalescent glass was frequently referred to as ‘verre américain’ (American glass), because its inventor La Farge was born, and worked in New York.40 Yet because La Farge was

157

Stained glass as propaganda

born to French parents, raised bilingual, and inspired to study art after his first visit to Paris in 1854,41 several French writers claimed that opalescent stained glass was in fact a French innovation.42 These examples reveal how artistic styles and movements were defined and perceived in binary terms of ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’, even though, as we have seen, the evolution, development, and exchange of styles and artistic networks were distinctly international. Several stained glass windows exhibited at these events presented complex visualisations of national identities, political relations, and colonial allegiance, as this part of the chapter continues to demonstrate.

A political assemblage of Anglo-​Franco relations, 1855 The Paris Exposition Universelle of 1855 marked the dawn of Napoléon III’s reign as Emperor and was a crucial stage for the performing of French nationalism to an international audience.43 The 1855 Exposition was used to express the new diplomatic alliance between Britain and France, allies (with Turkey and Sardinia) in the ongoing Crimean campaign against Russia, 1853–​56. One of the stained glass exhibits, a window designed by architect-​ sculptor John Thomas (1813–​ 62), made and exhibited by Ballantine & Allan, celebrated the political alliance, and friendly rivalry, between Britain and France (see Plate 33). The window was displayed with the British stained glass exhibits in the south-​eastern pavilion of the Palais de l’Industrie, before being installed in the Council Chamber of Lowestoft Town Hall in Suffolk, where it remains today. In the central panel of this brightly coloured window are the standing figures of the patron saints of France and England, St Denis and St George, presented, as an inscription indicates, as the ‘Guardians of Europe’. They are set on small Renaissance-​style pedestals in traditional architectural niches, decorated with scallop shells, with the inscription ‘Hail Happy Union’ above.44 Between St Denis and St George is a depiction of the tournament of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, painted on a small scale with coloured enamels. We look straight into the action of two jousting knights on horseback, the one on the left with his lance outstretched, the other just visible behind a wall of reeds. The sudden movement of this knight causes another horse in the foreground, bearing a courtier, to move in fright. Crowds of men, women, courtiers, and monks, all in Renaissance costume, watch the action from either side. There is a simple linear attempt at perspective in this arrangement, exaggerated by the horizontal lead lines that break up the picture. At the top of the window, the words ‘Forever United’ appear on a scroll. Below this central medallion, a winged cherub holds a crown over two double cameo portraits of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert on the right, and Emperor Napoléon III and Empress Eugénie on the left. These

157

158

158

Windows for the world

portraits are enclosed in laurel wreaths and supported by a cherub holding a cornucopia containing symbols of art, music, and industry. In the lower register, the French and British flags, accompanied by a fleur-​de-​lys sceptre and sword, are crossed in friendship, surmounted by a crown and set against olive branches, symbolic of peace. On either side of these flags are the heraldic arms of Napoléon III and Victoria. The borders of the window are decorated with fleur-​de-​lys and Tudor roses, the symbols of France and England. The medieval tournament of the Field of the Cloth of Gold was a significant event in the history of Anglo-​French relations. Taking place in June 1520 in a valley near Calais now known as the Val d’Or (then English territory), the meeting between King Henry VIII of England (r. 1509–​47) and King François I of France (r. 1515–​47), lasted seventeen days and involved competitive jousting, feasting, and dancing.45 Elaborate and expensive temporary quarters were erected for the kings and their entourages; the sumptuous materials providing the name with which we now remember the event. The young kings met to affirm two agreements following the Treaty of London in 1518: firstly a treaty of perpetual friendship, and secondly a marriage alliance between the two-​year-​old infant Dauphin François, heir to the French throne, and the four-​year-​old Princess Mary. However, the meeting was a diplomatic failure. After the event, Anglo-​Franco relations quickly became hostile; Henry VIII broke off the engagement in 1521 after François I invaded Navarre and the Low Countries. The nations fought on opposing sides during the Italian War, 1521–​26, which saw François I of France and the Republic of Venice fight against Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 1519–​56 (also King of Spain 1516–​56), Henry VIII, and the Papal States. The immediacy of the scene depicting the Field of the Cloth of Gold, and its prominence in this window, reminds us that the international exhibitions were the nineteenth-​century equivalent of medieval tournaments. Both were sites of international competition in which nations jostled for success and prowess in an environment filled with pomp and ceremony, symbolic and elaborate displays of nationalism and international peace. The comparison did not go unnoticed in the nineteenth century.46 During the Exposition Universelle of 1855, The Athenaeum used the tournament as a point of comparison for the challenge that the French display of Fine Arts presented to English artists, by proclaiming that France was ‘calling every nation to run a tilt with her in this new “field of the cloth of gold” ’.47 The famous medieval tournament became newly resonant during the nineteenth-​century gothic revival in which depictions of medieval chivalry were abundant.48 At the 1900 Paris Exposition the Field of the Cloth of Gold was the subject of another stained glass panel exhibited in the British Royal Pavilion,49 by George Wragge (1863–​1932) of Salford.50

159

Stained glass as propaganda

The presence of the tournament in this window also consciously alluded to relations between Britain and France. Victoria and Albert’s visit to France in September 1843 upon the invitation of Louis-​Philippe I was the first time a reigning British monarch had visited France since the 1520 tournament and was a momentous occasion.51 A  few years later, Louis-​ Philippe spent periods of exile in Great Britain during a tumultuous period leading up to the 1848 French Revolution. After Napoléon III’s successful coup d’état in 1851 and the re-​establishment of the French Empire, the relationship between the British and French rulers blossomed. Several more royal visits took place, culminating in a series of extended visits in 1855, the year of the first Paris Exposition. During Napoléon’s visit to London in April 1855, Victoria and Albert took Napoléon and Eugénie to the recently resurrected Crystal Palace at Sydenham.52 The following August, Victoria and Albert visited Paris for ten days, two of which were spent at the 1855 Exposition Universelle.53 Punch took a satirical approach to the developing friendship between Britain and France by publishing a caricature entitled ‘La Belle Alliance’ on 1 September 1855, which showed Victoria petting the French Eagle, seated on his perch, while Eugenie strokes the muzzle of the British Lion, and Albert lights Napoléon’s cigar.54 By contrast, Hail Happy Union more straightforwardly commemorated the strategic alliance, as suggested by the cameo presence of the British monarch and French emperor in the window. As one review of the exposition noted, Ballantine’s exhibit was ‘intended to perpetuate the amity and friendship of two states at the head of modern civilisation and refinement’.55 The window paid tribute to the British and French empires, and their shared ideologies of royal and parliamentary power, imperial rule, and economic and industrial development, but the depiction of the two rulers tête-​à-​ tête, and the presence of tilting knights, served as a reminder of the competition between the two nations. Underpinning, or perhaps holding together, the symbolic image of a ‘Happy Union’ were the business interests of its patron, Sir Samuel Morton Peto (1809–​89), a successful and opportunistic entrepreneur whose fortunes relied on industrial innovation and the development of international trade, railway transport, and communication links. Peto was an extraordinary businessman and entrepreneur, who made his millions from the construction industry. His civil engineering partnership, Grissell and Peto, managed the construction of the Houses of Parliament from 1840, amongst well-​known London gentleman’s clubs and churches, as well as such landmarks as Nelson’s Column (1843). During his lifetime he was elected Member of Parliament for Norwich, 1847–​54; Finsbury, 1859–​ 65; and Bristol, 1865–​68. It was probably at Westminster that Peto came into contact with Thomas56 and Ballantine,57 and he enlisted both for the rebuilding of his home at Somerleyton Hall, Suffolk, purchased in 1844.58 Peto helped develop the nearby town of Lowestoft into a leading port and

159

160

160

Windows for the world

seaside resort,59 and appears to have given this window to the Town Hall after its exhibition in Paris.60 The window’s unique iconography suggests it may have been specially commissioned for the Exposition Universelle of 1855. Peto was no stranger to international exhibitions. He was a Royal Commissioner for the Great Exhibition of 1851, acting as treasurer of the Finance Committee, and a significant guarantor for the Crystal Palace building.61 By this time, Peto was a successful businessman, who had seen the potential in railway construction in the 1830s, and his firm Grissell & Peto became one of the major railway contractors in the UK. After this partnership dissolved in 1846, Peto established a new partnership, Peto & Betts, with his brother-​ in-​law and began building railways abroad in the 1850s. One of the most significant was the Grand Crimean Central Railway, built upon Peto’s suggestion to assist the Crimean campaign, at cost price (in cooperation with main rivals Thomas Brassey and Edward Betts).62 This was the first railway built solely for military purposes, and it was a major factor in the success of the Siege of Sevastopol;63 an event which encouraged the new Tsar Alexander II (r. 1855–​81) to open peace negotiations, resulting in the 1856 Treaty of Paris. In this context, then, the presence of Peto’s window at the 1855 Paris Exposition reminded visitors of the imperial alliance underlying the on-​ going Crimean campaign, without addressing the brutal reality of these bloody battles. The imagery and inscriptions, ‘Hail Happy Union’, ‘Forever United’, and ‘Guardians of Europe’, presented an idealised depiction of this Anglo-​French alliance that was further pronounced by its presence in the Palais de l’Industrie, which Napoléon had christened ‘the temple of peace’.64 British and French imperial rule enabled Peto to expand his railway network, notably in the British colonies of Canada (1853) and Australia (1859–​63), and the French colony of Algeria (1860), where he accompanied Napoléon III to the official opening of the line. The inclusion of portraits of the British and French rulers in the form of cameo busts, a form valued since antiquity, but in the modern era commonly associated with the economic and exhibition currencies of coins and medals, revealed the financial rewards of the Anglo-​French alliance. Although we do not know the precise circumstances of the commissioning of this window, Peto appears to have used it as an opportunity to demonstrate his allegiance to the British and French empires, and to celebrate his involvement in the Crimean campaign. It is fitting that he chose stained glass as the medium in which to express these propagandist sentiments, as, whilst the monumental medium came with powerful medieval associations, Peto’s own fortune, like the revival of stained glass more broadly, depended upon the emphatically modern advancements of materials such as iron and glass, which characterised both nineteenth-​century exhibition buildings and railways.

161

Stained glass as propaganda

The Battle of Bouvines: a model of victory Throughout the nineteenth century, historic events were reimagined and revived to strengthen and validate recent military campaigns. At the Paris Exposition of 1889, stained glass windows commemorating the historic Battle of Bouvines, commissioned for the church of Saint-​Pierre, Bouvines, were exhibited in the ogival bays of the Galerie des Machines, where they served as both a local and national symbol of French victory in times of adversity.65 The Battle of Bouvines on 27 July 1214 marked the end of a twelve-​year war when Pope Innocent III (r. 1198–​1216), supported by King John of England (r. 1199–​1216) and Philippe Auguste of France (r. 1180–​ 1223), defeated Otto IV of Germany (Holy Roman Emperor, r.  1209–​15) and Count Ferrand of Flanders (1188–​1233), and held particular resonance in the late nineteenth century after the Franco-​Prussian War of 1870–​71. The French defeat and fall of the Second Empire led to a ‘rediscovery of that event, and to a renewed reflection on it, since a German emperor was the opponent of France once before’.66 In an era of ‘Revanchism’ (Revenge-​ ism) and desire to reclaim the regions of Alsace and Lorraine, Bouvines became a model of victory to the French people that was intensified by the events leading up to, and culminating in, the First World War. In a short report on the Bouvines windows, presented to the Catholic Assembly by Count Waziers, the battle was described as ‘une de nos plus belles victoires’ (one of our most beautiful victories), a ‘victoire morale’ (moral victory), ‘une victoire épiscopale, où le sentiment chrétien du droit, de la justice’ (an episcopal victory, where the Christian sentiment of right, of justice) enabled the French to defeat their opponents.67 The political messages of these windows were reinforced by their display at the 1889 Paris Exposition, since Germany abstained from official participation.68 The eleven windows exhibited in 1889 were part of a series of twenty-​ one, designed by French artist Pierre Fritel (1853–​1942) and painted by Emmanuel Champigneulle (1860–1942, brother of  Champigneulle fils).69 They were installed as part of a monumental scheme in the nave, transept, and choir of the church of Saint-​Pierre, Bouvines, during its rebuilding, 1880–​86, under the auspices of Félix Dehau (1846–​1934), Mayor of Bouvines for sixty-​two years from 1872 until his death.70 The first window was installed in 1889 and the last in 1906. Each window contained a scene from the battle according to the chronicle of Guillaume Le Breton (c. 1165–​ 1226), eyewitness and chaplain to King Philippe Auguste, beginning with the War Council at Valenciennes and ending in the triumphant return of the army to Paris.71 The windows followed the precedent of many medieval glazing schemes based on written chronicles with local significance, such as the thirteenth-​century Becket windows at Canterbury Cathedral, and the fifteenth-​century St William of York window at York Minster. However, the Bouvines windows were conceived long after this historical event, during

161

162

162

Windows for the world

an era of patriotic revival and retributionism, and remained in the national consciousness in the late nineteenth century.

Imperialism According to John MacKenzie, exhibitions were ‘the most striking examples of both conscious and unconscious approaches to imperial propaganda’.72 Greenhalgh has further demonstrated how the growth of imperial displays at these global events served to ‘simultaneously glorify and domesticate empire’.73 These accounts focus on the organisation of these exhibitions, rather than individual exhibits, yet many of the stained glass exhibits displayed in these environments also served to celebrate imperialism. Just as stained glass can help us better understand nineteenth-​century nationalism, the medium also has the potential to offer alternative and new definitions of empire. The translucency of glass and the refraction of light through a window signify its ability to illuminate ideas and disperse information. We have alluded to the ways in which the structure of stained glass resembled nineteenth-​century maps, and both maps and stained glass were an important means of visualising empire. At the exhibitions, colonies were represented and disseminated through cartographic maps and plans, the printed, painted and sculpted image, photographs, architectural pastiches and reconstructions, and stained glass. In 1900, Gustave Dupin (1861–​1933), a glass-​painter from Versailles and founder of the French Journal de la peinture sur verre, exhibited a painted glass window, after a cartoon by De Mondésir,74 depicting a landscape scene of Madagascar. The island of Madagascar, located off the coast of south-​ east Africa, had strategic importance allowing easier sea passage to India. France annexed Madagascar in 1896, and so Dupin’s window was a celebration of France’s new territorial acquisition. Daumont-​Tournel described this window, with a large banana tree at the centre, in some detail, captivated by the exotic plants and sunset colours.75 Traditional images of empire included the representation of people and places, exotic animals, and flora and fauna from across the world.76 Through such powerful images, empires were celebrated and exoticised for those at home.77

Commemorating the Sutlej campaign A stained glass window made by Michael (1801–​67) and Arthur O’Connor (1826–​73) displayed at the Great Exhibition and afterwards installed in the south-​east transept of Salisbury Cathedral,78 demonstrates the relationship between Christianity and empire, revealing how imperialism affected the subject matter and iconography of stained glass at home, as well as in the colonies.79 The window commemorates men from the 62nd Wiltshire

163

Stained glass as propaganda

Regiment who died fighting alongside the East India Company Bengal Army in the Sutlej campaign (First Sikh War) of 1845–​46, against the Sikhs of the Punjab, and was commissioned by their surviving comrades.80 An inscription at the bottom of the window commemorates 7 officers and 107 non-​commissioned officers and rank and file, who perished in the attack at Ferozesah, and an eighth officer and twelve non-​commissioned officers slain at the battles of Alliwal and Sobaron.81 The tall single lancet window contains five narrative scenes enclosed in octofoils, arranged vertically and set against painted grisaille. The upper scene depicts the Archangel Michael slaying a dragon. The three scenes below focus on events from the life of the Roman centurion Cornelius, the first gentile to be converted to Christianity, as described in the Acts of the  Apostles. Each is accompanied by a short biblical verse, which identifies the scene. The narrative sequence reads from bottom to top. First, Cornelius has a vision from an angel. He is then shown with Simon Peter at a gathering where the Holy Spirit descends on everyone present. Finally, Cornelius is baptised by Simon Peter. The fifth and final scene depicts St George on horseback slaying the dragon, surrounded by a border with eight sets of initials set in smaller medallions, corresponding to the number of officers who died in the campaign (Plate 34). The focus on Cornelius’ conversion to Christianity underlines the Christian faith of the deceased soldiers whom the window commemorates. The inclusion of St George in the lower part of the window is significant: not only is he the patron saint of England, but his legendary slaying of a dragon is directly compared to the scene of the Archangel Michael overcoming Satan at the top of the window. The window draws parallels between battles on earth and in heaven, as well as between military leaders in the Roman Empire and the British Empire. It serves to reinforce an imperial message and assert the righteousness of the British Christian soldiers in their recent colonial campaigns in British India, whilst offering solace in the Christian belief in resurrection. Windows like these, which demonstrate the inflections of Christianity and empire, can be found in ecclesiastical and civic buildings across the world, and are an important theme in nineteenth-​century stained glass.

Celebrating the Australian Centennial, 1888 The question of defining Australian culture became an urgent matter in the late 1880s, as the separately administered colonies prepared for a number of events marking the centenary of white settlement in Australia, including the 1888 Centennial Exhibition in Melbourne. After colonisation, and the suppression of the indigenous population, the vast majority of the remaining Australian population were immigrants, and thus the artistic imaging of a ‘white Australian’ culture and national identity was born in the

163

164

164

Windows for the world

nineteenth century. The French émigré artist and teacher Lucien Henry (1850–​96) played an important role in visually articulating ‘Australian’ identity through the use of Australian colours, fauna, and flora.82 Allegorical devices were borrowed from Europe, while symbols of British rule were employed to show the colonies’ dependence upon their mother country. The changing relationships between the mother country and her colonies, and complex attitudes towards, and expressions of, imperial property, exploitation, pride, and political and social responsibility were reflected in the organisation and display of the international exhibitions as well as the iconography of individual exhibits.83 A stained glass window exhibited at the Melbourne Centennial Exhibition of 1888, and afterwards given to the state of Victoria by the Austrian Commissioner on behalf of the Tiroler Glasmalerei, an Austrian glass firm established in Innsbruck in 1861, provides an interesting example of how stained glass could be a symbol of international bureaucratic cooperation, as exemplified by the international exhibitions. Today, the window is in the Old Council Chamber of Melbourne Town Hall (Plate 35). Melbourne newspaper The Argus reported in 1889: Herr Katzmayr, executive commissioner for Austria at the International Exhibition, presented … a stained glass panel representing the centenary of Victoria to the council as a souvenir of the Exhibition and the hospitality of the Mayor and councillors. The present was accepted with hearty thanks.84

The window celebrates the colony of Victoria, represented by an allegorical white female figure set against a night sky, with the Southern Cross constellation that features on the flag of Victoria and is used for marine navigation. She is shown standing on top of a globe with the coastline of the Australian mainland visible. A contemporary newspaper observed that ‘Victoria has her foot on the Gulf of Carpentaria’, the shallow sea enclosed on three sides by northern Australia.85 On closer inspection, this foot obscures almost all of the northern territory, or the aboriginal outback, the last part of Australia to be colonised. With this in mind, and given that the Victorian colony is synonymous with its namesake and imperial ruler, Queen Victoria, this depiction might today be interpreted as evidence of systematic whitewashing, Imperial Britain ‘stamping on’ or ‘stamping out’ the Australian aboriginal population. ‘Victoria’ wears the Southern Cross star on a headdress, and, in her left hand, holds a book inscribed ‘Centennial of the Colony of Victoria 1888’. The coat of arms of the city of Melbourne, a red cross with royal crown, quartered with fleece hanging from a red ring, wheatsheaf, whale, and three-​masted ship in sail, appears at the top of the window, as a nod to civic pride. A rectangular border surrounding the figure of ‘Victoria’ is interspersed with scrolls, which, although not in chronological order, record significant events in the history of white settlement in Australia, and

165

Stained glass as propaganda

specifically the state of Victoria. ‘A. Tasman 1642’ refers to Abel Janszoon Tasman (d. 1659), a Netherlandish mariner who reached and sighted the west coast of Tasmania, which he named Van Dieman’s Land, and South Island, New Zealand. ‘Discovery 1606’ marks the discovery of the Australian mainland, attributed to the Dutch. ‘J. Cook 1777’ commemorates the year that James Cook (1728–​79) published A Voyage round the World and arrived at New Zealand, the Christmas Islands, and Sandwich Islands. ‘Phillip 1788’ celebrates the landing of the first Governor of New South Wales, Admiral Arthur Phillip (1738–​1814) at Sydney Cove. ‘W. Melbourne 1835’ refers to the foundation of Melbourne by settlers from Van Diemen’s Land, named in honour of William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (1779–​1848). ‘J. Batman 1839’ refers to John Batman (1801–​39), the man who established the first settlement in Melbourne. ‘Legislature 1852’ seems to denote the establishment of the Supreme Court of Victoria by Victorian legislation in January 1852. ‘University 1857’ may be an error, as the University of Sydney was founded in 1850, and the University of Melbourne in 1853, although a Law School was founded in Melbourne in 1857, to which this may possibly refer. ‘McD. Stuart 1860’ commemorates John McDouall Stuart (1815–​66), a Scottish explorer who traversed the mainland from south to north and back, locating the centre of Australia in 1860. These inscriptions thus celebrated the European ‘discovery’ of Australia, the history of white settlement, and the subsequent development of ‘Western’ civilisation –​illustrated by the foundation of educational institutions, and the establishment of law and order in the state capital.86 This history was presented to the absolute exclusion of the indigenous population of these lands, with whom colonial settlers refused to integrate.87 Melbourne newspaper The Argus noted that the window had ‘evidently been prepared as a compliment to the colony’.88 It also served as an effective advertisement for the Tiroler Glasmalerei firm, who participated in exhibitions across Europe, Australia, and the USA in the nineteenth century.89 However, because of its connections to Austria, the window became a site of political anxiety following the First World War. In 1923, The Argus reported that ‘[d]‌uring the war more than one effort was made by patriotic citizens to have this window “abolished.” And unless a strong stand had been made it would have been removed.’90

Glorification and appropriation: national and colonial Stained glass played an important role in European imperialist appropriations of non-​European cultures and colonies in the numerous national and colonial pavilions erected at the Paris expositions universelles.91 These buildings were intended to impress, as well as serving a practical and diplomatic purpose, by providing a venue to welcome international officials.

165

166

166

Windows for the world

They demonstrated French attitudes towards empire and influenced the presentation and representation of other cultures through various architectural, archaeological, and fantastical constructions. For example, the Algerian Pavilion erected at the 1878 Paris Exposition, designed by French architect Jacques Drévet (1832–​1900), was a Moorish pastiche combining architectural replicas of ‘types de ce que l’art mauresque nous a laissé de plus remarquable en Algérie’ (types of Moorish art of the most remarkable heritage left to us in Algeria).92 The most important room of the pavilion, a rotunda-​shaped reception room for the French marshal, was ‘lighted dramatically by spherical stained glass windows’.93 Zeynep Çelik has discussed the significance of this pavilion as a political symbol, one in which local architecture was appropriated by a colonial power.94 The Algerian Pavilion erected for the following French Exposition Universelle of 1889 featured stained glass windows by Didron, in arabesque patterns reminiscent of Islamic windows.95 By this time French settlement was well established in Algeria, which had been under imperial French rule since the 1830s. To take another example, at the 1889 Paris Exposition, a large stained glass window entitled La République argentine reçue à l’Exposition par la Ville de Paris (The Argentine Republic received at the Exposition by the city of Paris) was placed on the staircase leading to the first level of the Argentine Pavilion.96 Although the pavilion represented the Argentine Republic it was designed by French architect Albert Ballu (1849–​1939). The stained glass, visible from the façade, was also designed by a Frenchman, Raoul Toché (1850–​95), and executed by the Parisian studio of Ader & Loubens.97 The window’s iconography celebrated the relationship between the two republics. France was depicted seated on a throne, in front of the newly erected Eiffel Tower, the ‘clou’ of the 1889 Exposition. Argentina was depicted in front of cultivated fields, flocks of sheep, and sheaths of wheat, holding a shield engraved with two clasped hands.98 The image acknowledged the waves of nineteenth-​century French immigration to Argentina to set up farming colonies, and the subsequent French influence on Argentine arts, culture, science, and education. At the following Paris Exposition of 1900, two large stained glass windows illuminated the Hall of Honour inside the Persian Pavilion, built for Mozaffar ad-​Din Shah Qajar, King of Persia (r. 1896–​1907). One depicted a Persian lion, and thus symbolised Persian national identity and power, and the other included a long inscription glorifying France. The government of His Highness the Shah erected this pavilion in honour of the 1900 Universal Exposition. The palaces it contains will call to mind the art of lost centuries as well as testifying to the progress of the present one. The whole world stands breathless with admiration before the gigantic work to which France gathered all the nations by a gracious act of hospitality. If the Persian pavilion displays only a small portion of the products of Persia, it bears

167

Stained glass as propaganda in itself a precious treasury: the warm wishes that [Persia] has for the prosperity and glory of France. The poet Zaka el Molk was happy to write these lines in Teheran and sign them in honour of this beautiful city of Paris, the land which nourishes all sciences and all arts.99

Inscriptions were to be seen on the walls, tiles, and stained glass of the Persian Pavilion, as common in Islamic architecture, reminding us of alternative uses of the medium beyond the Christian world. In these environments, stained glass also adopted different forms. As a reporter for the Chicago Tribune noted, in the Egyptian quarter at the 1893 Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition: All the windows are projected by graceful woodwork and many of them are made of stained glass. The shades in the windows are attractive. No paint covers the closely-​woven Meshrebieh [sic] screens which protect them.100

The ‘stained glass’ in the mashrabiyya screens here, together with the many representations in nineteenth-​century ‘Orientialist’ paintings, complicates traditional narratives of stained glass as a medium of European and Christian origin, and causes us to reflect on the differences between Arabic and Islamic traditions of setting pieces of coloured glass into a fixed carved or pierced wooden frame, or stucco, and medieval European stained glass windows in which a malleable lead matrix is constructed around several pieces of glass. Several writers in the nineteenth century alluded to the connections between these two distinct types of window. When Scottish writer and politician David Urquhart (1805–​77) published The Pillars of Hercules, an account of his travels in Spain and Morocco in 1850, he suggested that there was a connection between the pierced stucco apertures in Moorish houses and mosques and the windows of European churches and cathedrals.101 In his 1896 publication Le vitrail, Ottin suggested that these forms of coloured glass window openings might have preceded stained glass in Europe.102 In recognising a closely aligned Eastern tradition of using coloured glass to decorate windows, these accounts undermine more standard histories of stained glass which have perpetuated beliefs that stained glass is an entirely Western and Christian tradition.103 Yet in spite of the presence of coloured glass windows in Islamic architecture,104 few modern histories of stained glass acknowledge ancient traditions of non-​European cultures.105 Although the majority of stained glass exhibited at the international exhibitions was ecclesiastical, stained glass also formed part of the decoration of synagogues, mosques, and temples in the nineteenth century. Large stained glass studios, now best known for their ecclesiastical work, undertook commissions for other religious buildings, too. Both Westlake (of London-​ based stained glass firm Lavers, Barraud & Westlake) and Manchester firm Edmundson & Son, both of whom exhibited and received

167

168

168

Windows for the world

medals for stained glass at the Paris Exposition of 1867, designed and executed panels for major High Victorian ‘cathedral synagogues’ in Britain and Ireland.106 International exhibitions were important events from which to attract a broad clientele from different faiths, as well as various nations. For example, two geometrical windows with inscriptions, shown at the Philadelphia 1876 Exhibition by Zettler, were advertised as being for a ‘Mohammedan and Persian temple’.107 These snapshots demonstrate that the medium had wide appeal to different faith groups, even though exhibition reviews consistently wrote about the medium from a white European, imperial, and Christian perspective.

Human variety Contemporary discussion often synecdochally denotes ‘race’ through colour, yet race can also encompass ethnic nationalism, politics, language, beliefs, ethnic groups and origins, the relationships between humanity, society and nature, and how these relationships function.108 In the nineteenth century these issues were particularly pertinent because global imperialism encompassed many different peoples. Since participation in the international exhibitions was global, and international travel and communications were fairly limited in the nineteenth century, encounters with other peoples, objects, and cultures were mediated by these events and the journalism and images that they generated. Many representations of these events, as well as the exhibits on display, demonstrate how national, ethnic, and racial identities were visualised, often in stereotypical forms, to reinforce national and imperial hierarchies and religious ideologies. Skin colour, physiognomy, and dress were all used as physical characteristics to distinguish between unfamiliar peoples.109 For example, the windows designed and made by Maréchal for the 1855 Palais de l’Industrie (see Plate 6) depicted only a handful of nations, and these were divided into two geographical and cultural groups characterised by their chief artistic and industrial contributions to the exhibitions. The first group representing the ‘West’ included France and Britain, the ‘deux grandes nations dans les affaires du monde’ (two great nations in world affairs), together with Italy.110 Maréchal explained that France and Britain were included on the basis of their imperial and industrial prowess, while the inclusion of Italy represented the historical Roman Empire and classical antiquity.111 The prominence given to Britain and France demonstrated Anglo-​French accord after the Napoleonic Wars (1803–​15), and the alliance between the two nations during the Crimean War (1853–​56). The second group representing the ‘East’ incorporated China, Arabia, British India, and French Algeria, characterised by a selection of ostensibly ‘primitive’ industries. The nations were given a unifying appearance through classicised allegorical

169

Stained glass as propaganda

figures with ethnographic-​physiognomic visual traits, but the message of European superiority and technological advancement was implicit in the composition and attributes. The Bible had much influence on ideas and representations of racial identity in the western world.112 In the history of Christian art, foreign peoples of distinct ethnic groups play an important part in the visual representation of certain biblical scenes. One of the most common of these is the Adoration of the Magi, when three wise men travel from afar to visit the newborn Christ child and present him with kingly gifts. Since the fourteenth century, European artists commonly represented one of the wise men as black.113 As Albert Boime has demonstrated, the presence of the black magus in scenes of the Adoration of the Magi, where the men are shown paying homage to the founder of Christianity, references missionary expeditions to Africa in the beginnings of the slave trade and thus documents an important social and economic history.114 In his study of visual representations of Europe, Michael Wintle notes the continuation of this trend from the mid-​fifteenth century, stating that the three magi were seen to represent the three known continents, Africa, Asia, and Europe.115 Melchior was often shown with ‘Caucasian’ features (Europe), Caspar with ‘Semitic’ features (Asia), and Balthasar with ‘negro’ features (Africa). Matthew’s gospel provides no evidence for these stereotypes, but Wintle points to a pseudo-​Bede Irish writer of the eighth century who described Balthasar as fuscus, or ‘dark’, as the possible source of the black magus.116 After charting the depiction of the black magus through the late medieval and Renaissance period, Wintle acknowledges the figure’s prevalence in stained glass windows.117 Significantly, Wintle’s example (and the only stained glass illustrated in his book) is a nineteenth-​century window by Capronnier (Plate 36), the west window at Howden Minster, East Riding of Yorkshire, which was shown at the London International Exhibition of 1862.118 Although this exhibit is little discussed in contemporary reviews, the window’s presence at this international exhibition prompts us to consider the iconography in relation to nineteenth-​century European religious, political, and imperialist objectives. Wintle interprets Capronnier’s Adoration of the Magi as an example of the pre-​New World concept of three continents. The youngest magus, shown offering myrrh, and the servant at his side, are both identified as having physical traits, large white eyes and full lips, which stereotypically represent the peoples of the African continent. Behind ‘Africa’, in the outer light, is an older magus swinging a censer containing frankincense, the iconographic symbol for Asia. In prime position, Wintle identifies the kneeling magus presenting gold, the only figure to wear a crown, as ‘Europe’. He concludes, ‘in the ecumenical world of Christianity, the young black prince and the Asian sage have now ceded precedence of position to crowned Europe’.119 The hierarchy is emphasised by the position of

169

170

170

Windows for the world

the black magus and his servant behind the ‘white’ figure representing ‘Europe’. Thus Capronnier’s window may be viewed as a representation of the political and cultural dominance of Europe in the nineteenth century.120 Furthermore, four of the eight individuals in this scene, shown gathered around the Virgin Mary, Joseph, and Christ child, are clearly intended to represent people of African descent, and their diverse physiognomies, skin colour, and arrangement within the composition depict nineteenth-​ century conceptions of racial difference in relation to one another, as well as in relation to those figures identified as ‘white’. In addition to the black magus and his servant in the second light, another black servant appears in the first light accompanying ‘Asia’, and a fourth, whose presence is unexplained, is barely visible behind that of Joseph in the fourth light. All four of these figures are depicted on a subordinate visual plane to the figures of ‘Asia’, ‘Europe’, Joseph, the Virgin Mary, and infant Christ, yet the black magus is differentiated from the others through his elevated status and position in the group; he is shown standing closer to the Holy Family and his complexion is slightly paler than that of his companions. However, nineteenth-​century viewers may have interpreted the fact that the black magus is shown with his mouth slightly open as a sign of his ‘primitivism’, since in popular racist satire this was a signifier of the black subject’s ‘lack of decorum’.121 What first appears like another familiar biblical scene, then, is actually also a visualisation of human hierarchies according to nineteenth-​century concepts of racial difference. At the 1867 Paris Exposition, the Parisian firm of Goglet, Queynoux and Pouyet exhibited a Jesse Tree window with a difference; the Old Testament figure of Joram was portrayed as black. This may have been influenced by late-​medieval French depictions of black kings in Jesse Trees, for example in the axis chapel at Évreux Cathedral (1467–​69), just north-​west of Paris.122 Such depictions appear to demonstrate racial prejudice, since Joram was one of the ‘bad’ kings of Judah, who, during his reign over the southern kingdom of Israel (r. 851–​843 BC) killed many leaders, constructed idols, and forced his people to worship them.123 Yet Didron, in his jury report, offered an alternative explanation: Joram est figuré en nègre dans cette composition: il est à supposer que l’artiste a dû être guidé, en le représentant ainsi comme appartenant à une race différente de celle dont est issue toute la famille de Juda, par le désir de rompre la monotonie des figures.124 (Joram is illustrated as a negro in this composition: it is to be supposed that the artist has been guided, in representing him as belonging to a  different race from that which all the family of Judah issued, by the desire to break the monotony of the figures.)

However, if the theological purpose of the Jesse Tree is to show the genealogical lineage of the kings of Israel and Judah from David, the

171

Stained glass as propaganda

representation of Joram as of different ethnic origin confuses the didactic message. Perhaps Didron was correct in assuming the artists wished to provide some variation of colour, given that in the same year a critic in the Art Journal commented that a ‘black man, if not a subject for Phidias, is eminently picturesque; his colour can be turned to good account in picture making; witness the effect gained by Venetian painters out of the swarthy Ethiopian king in “The worship of the Magi” ’.125 Rossetti made similar aesthetic choices in his painting The Beloved (1865–​66), in which a red-​headed Caucasian bride is shown with her three bridesmaids, each of Jewish, Romany, and Asian descent, with a little black boy carrying a cup.126 In a letter to Birkenhead stockbroker George Rae (1817–​1902), who commissioned the painting, Rossetti explained that he meant the ‘colour of my picture to be like jewels, and the jet would be invaluable’.127 Such an attitude may suggest that the representation of racial difference in nineteenth-​century art was not always a tribute to human variety, but an aesthetic preference for contrasting flesh tones and balancing compositions.128 The ethical and theoretical implications of using black figures to perform such a formal aesthetic function requires further thought, since they cannot be divorced from lived experience of a racialised society.129 At the international exhibitions, black and aboriginal groups were consistently represented as subordinate colonial subjects, appearing as ‘human showcases’.130 These displays of people varied from anthropological exhibits to forms of human entertainment, and had been popular since the beginning of the nineteenth century.131 The Midway Plaisance at Chicago’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, where there was also a Ferris wheel and several theatres, included a number of living peoples in reconstructed ethnographic villages as well as bazaars and shows. The Midway has been described by Robert Rydell as a ‘sliding scale of humanity’, built on racial prejudice.132 Christopher Reed has offered a more nuanced study of extant sources, in which he argued that the ‘Midway did not exist as a panorama of ethnic or racial shame’, but was a place of human interaction, not devoid of prejudice, but not entirely built upon it either.133 This was certainly the experience of a Mrs D. C. Taylor, who wrote, after her visit to the 1893 Exposition, we ‘see people of every nation under the sun, black, brown, yellow and white, old and young, beautiful and homely, rich and poor, intelligent and ignorant, all brought to the same level, and crowding one another in this wonder Midway’.134 However, although interactions between different groups of people took place at these events, they were not as inclusive as this firsthand account might suggest. African-​ American citizens were virtually excluded from the fair. American journalist Ferdinand L. Barnett (1858–​1936), editor of the Chicago Conservator, commented that whilst the fair was ‘[t]‌heoretically open to all Americans’, it was ‘literally and figuratively, a “White City”, in the building of which

171

172

172

Windows for the world

the Coloured American was allowed no helping hand, and in its glorious success he has no share’.135 Exhibits from African Americans were disproportionate to the population and arranged by white Americans, despite several petitions to Congress for representational exhibits. The presence of indigenous peoples of America was also minimal, in spite of the fact that Columbus had encountered Native Americans in the Caribbean when he first landed in the New World.136 Yet, on the Chicago Midway, a number of exhibits were gathered to showcase Native American life and handicrafts alongside a village of indigenous peoples.137 As Greenhalgh and others have demonstrated, these displays, organised by the colonial powers of Canada and USA, presented Native Americans as ‘a primitive, amorphous race defying Western ideals of decency and civilization’.138 There was much public interest in the Native American during the nineteenth century, as evident at the Great Exhibition, where a sculpture depicting The Wounded Indian (1848–​50) by Peter Stephenson (1823–​c. 1861) became one of the most discussed exhibits in the American section of the Crystal Palace. Kate Flint has demonstrated that this sculpture, and the commentary it inspired, characterised Native Americans as exotic  –​violent and unpredictable, but otherwise dignified and emotionally remote.139 One of the handful of Canadian stained glass exhibits shown at the London International Exhibition of 1862 by William Bullock (fl. 1850s–​60s) of Toronto indulged this interest.140 It depicted a portrait of ‘a Canadian Indian in his full war-​dress’, which was described as ‘accurate in character and costume’ (Plate 37).141 Such images perpetuated an ethnic stereotype characterised by native clothing and war implements. Elsewhere at the 1893 Chicago Exposition, Native Americans were represented in a stained glass window exhibited in the Minnesota Building.142 The window, entitled Minne-​ha-​ha, a fictional Native American woman from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s 1855 epic poem The Song of Hiawatha, was designed by one of the ‘Tiffany Girls’, Anne Weston (1861–​1944) from Duluth, Minnesota, and made and exhibited by Tiffany Studios (Plate 38). It was subsequently purchased by St. Louis County Women’s Auxiliary at the Fair, and presented to the Duluth Public Library. It is now cared for by the Duluth Historical Society and displayed in the Duluth Depot. In Weston’s window, Minnehaha is shown standing in front of a waterfall, a reference to her name, which has local significance to a number of Minnesota landmarks. She wears her nation’s dress, mittens and mukluks (soft boots), with her hair in long braids. The decorative border contains a number of feathers and some arrows, as well as a passage from Longfellow’s poem in which Hiawatha first sees the Arrow-​Maker’s daughter: And he named her from the river, From the water-​fall he named her, Minnehaha, Laughing Water.143

173

Stained glass as propaganda

Longfellow’s poem inspired many contemporary artistic depictions,144 including a series of sculptures –​The Old Arrow-​Maker and His Daughter (1866) and The Marriage of Hiawatha (1866–​7) –​and sculptural busts of Hiawatha (1868) and Minnehaha (1868) by Edmonia Lewis (1844–​1907), whose mother was of both African-​American and American-​Indian descent and whose father was Haitian.145 Although Weston’s window depicted a Native American woman, the story had a hidden message. Longfellow’s poem ends with Minnehaha’s death and her lover Hiawatha meeting a ‘pale face’ missionary and accepting the message of Christ. As a medium strongly associated with Christianity, stained glass was an important form of European imperialist propaganda. The Evangelical revival and Protestant Missionary Movement provided ideological support for expanding colonial empires and spreading Western ideals, culture, and religion well into the twentieth century.146 As we have already noted, at the international exhibitions displayed peoples were commoditised, objectified, decontextualised, aestheticised, and fetishised.147 We must understand, therefore, the representation of colonial peoples in nineteenth-​century stained glass exhibits as both a signifier of, and a response to, Christian imperialism. Of course, this was widespread beyond the exhibitions, too. As English stained glass artist Ernest Richard Suffling (1855–​1911) recalled in 1898, when designing a window for St George’s Cathedral, in the former British colony of Sierra Leone (which gained independence in 1961), the bishop asked him to introduce as many black men as possible to the east window.148 Presumably the bishop wanted to ensure that the growing Christian church appealed to the local African community and demonstrated its global inclusivity. Suffling also observed (with humour rather than horror) that in several windows along the North African coast ‘the Virgin Mary is frequently depicted as a black woman!’.149 Another subject in which various racial representations were readily apparent in stained glass, and which was particularly designed to represent the inclusivity of the Christian church in an age of imperialism, was the Te Deum Laudamus, which formed an important part of Anglican liturgy. This early Christian hymn of praise was the subject of one window exhibited by Lyon, Cottier and Wells at the Melbourne Centennial of 1888. After the exhibition, the window was installed at the east end of All Saints’ Church, Hunters Hill, Sydney, in April 1889, where it remains today.150 The Te Deum dominated the upper row of scenes, with angels above and scenes of Christ’s last days below. Christ’s crucifixion in the central light is therefore witnessed by all those in heaven and on earth, including the apostles, prophets, martyrs, and the holy Church throughout all the world, as identified by an inscription at the bottom of the window. The fifth light, representing ‘the holy Church throughout all the world’, reveals eight figures of different ethnicities as well as nationalities, their faces rendered in different tones of white, pink, and dark murrey glass (Plate 39). At least

173

174

174

Windows for the world

two men, one of African descent and the other East Asian, are identifiable from the use of stereotypical skin complexions, hairstyles, and facial characteristics. The inclusion of these multi-​ethnic figures serves to demonstrate the extent of the Christian world. Whilst historians of stained glass can learn much from recent scholarship on racial identities, colour, and nineteenth-​century sculpture,151 stained glass represents an equally significant medium that historians of race might use to think about these complex identities. Representing human variety through skin colour presented a challenge to medieval stained glass artists, who in the absence of ‘black’ glass often used a blue or dark murrey coloured glass for representing black skin.152 In the nineteenth century a brown or murrey colour was often used, and conventions for representing white skin included using white (clear) glass as well as various peach, salmon, or hot-​pink tones or flesh-coloured enamels. Stained glass artists also had to consider the graduations from light to dark within the overall composition, as a means of depicting racial difference and variation. Whatever the colour of glass, or the level of painted decoration, the medium of stained glass varies with changing light levels, and this can heighten or lighten parts of the window and highlight differences of tone and colour. The naturally changing levels of illumination raise questions about whether our perceptions, as well as representations, of different racial, national, and ethnic identities are stable, relational, or performative.

Towards a progressive, inclusive art history As we have seen, nationalism and European imperialism were common themes at the exhibitions, evident in the division and decoration of exhibition spaces, the conceptualisation and design of exhibits, and their written and visual comparison. Although individual stained glass windows were commonly used to express nationalistic sentiment, their very presence in a temporary collection of global cultural exhibits suggested international competition and exchange. It is therefore unsurprising that stained glass exhibits reflected, articulated, and also sometimes interrogated, national ambitions and international relations. At the international exhibitions, stained glass played an important part in the glorification of imperialism and appropriation of foreign and colonial pavilions by Western imperial powers. But the international exhibitions also draw our attention to the widespread use of stained glass beyond Europe and colonies in the Muslim world. As discussed, the influence of both Orientalism upon nineteenth-​century stained glass and the potential historical influence of Islamic tradition on the development of medieval stained glass, a medium that is most often associated with Christianity, demonstrate a two-​way cross-​cultural exchange from East to West and vice versa. The relationship between stained glass and imperialism indicates

175

Stained glass as propaganda

the potential for further postcolonial exploration into the complexities of cultural, national, and ethnic identities and representation. Studies of nineteenth-​century stained glass might be galvanised by further engagement with critical race theory and exploration of the racial subject, rather than the racial object, especially since the exhibitions were places where people viewed race as relational. People of colour are often absent or marginalised in studies of Western art,153 yet, as in the cases of painting and sculpture, a variety of ethnic and racial identities were represented in nineteenth-​century stained glass, most commonly as biblical and imperial subjects. Given the medium’s monumental associations, and political, public, and religious functions in the nineteenth century, it is surprising that previous scholars of stained glass have not paid attention to representations of people of colour in stained glass. As Jan Marsh reminds us, ‘[t]‌he fact that the black presence in British art through the nineteenth century has been ignored and that art historians, virtually all white, have seldom looked for it, is no accident, but the result of class and cultural power’.154 Nineteenth-​century representations of colonial or racial subjects executed by white Europeans or Americans have a representational bias, and often an ulterior motive. Navigating these complex issues not only enhances our understanding of historical representations of human variety in stained glass and other media, but also remains relevant today, in a postcolonial age where racism in Western art history, as well as other historical disciplines, needs to be challenged. Contemporary American artist Kehinde Wiley (b. 1977)  has demonstrated how the art of stained glass might be used to address these issues in the twenty-​first century. Wiley’s first solo exhibition in France, ‘Lamentation’ (2017), at the Petit Palais, Paris, featured six stained glass windows designed by Wiley and made by a studio in the Czech Republic, on the theme of Christ’s relationship with his mother, the Virgin Mary.155 The subject matter and composition of these windows were all based on examples of historical medieval, Renaissance, and nineteenth-​ century stained glass windows, but in place of the religious figures were portraits of young black Americans wearing contemporary clothing. Three of the windows in Wiley’s ‘Lamentation’ series were based on a nineteenth-​century window of the Madonna and Child exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition in London by Italian glass-​painter Bertini of Milan. The form and colouring of the throne, tiled floor, background ornament of scrolling grape vines and Renaissance-​style borders in all three of Wiley’s windows (an example of which is illustrated in Plate 40) are almost identical to Bertini’s 1862 exhibit (see Plate 15). Except that in place of the pale-​ faced blonde figure of the Virgin Mary, as depicted by Bertini seated on the throne facing directly outwards and wearing rich ruby robes, on which the naked Christ child leans, Wiley has inserted contemporary portraits of an

175

176

176

Windows for the world

African-​American mother or father, each seated in a different position on the throne, with their son or daughter shown seated on their lap, standing at their side, or leaning between their legs. All are depicted in contemporary clothing – jeans, tracksuits and polo shirts, trainers and high heels. Instead of the lily held by the Christ child in Bertini’s window, one child is depicted clutching a football and the other two are holding a bamboo stick, perhaps a subtle reference to the history of the slave trade, in which bamboo sticks were often used to administer punishments. These realistic stained glass portraits raise questions about race and the politics of representation by using a medium that is almost entirely identified with white Western traditions to portray contemporary African Americans. In doing so Wiley brings a marginalised group to the forefront of his art and our own imagination, and forces us to examine and question our historical and cultural narratives. Wiley’s art demonstrates how nineteenth-​century stained glass windows like Bertini’s Madonna and Child might also be revived, reinterpreted, and made relevant to our present age, just as interest in medieval and Renaissance stained glass was renewed in the nineteenth century, giving rise to new form, techniques, and subject matter, and distributing windows to new contexts across the world.

Notes 1 Some recent exceptions include R. Jonas, ‘Vox Dei, Vox Populi:  Sacred Art and Popular Culture in Late Nineteenth-​ Century France’, in J. Hargrove and N. McWilliamson (eds), Nationalism and French culture, 1870–​1914. Studies in the history of art 68 (Washington, DC:  National Gallery of Art, 2005), pp. 195–​207; M. Wintle, The image of Europe: visualizing Europe in cartography and iconography throughout the ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 2 T. Barringer, G. Quilley, and D. Fordham, Art and the British Empire (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009). 3 No decorative arts were included in the 2005 exhibition Black Victorians at Manchester Art Gallery. J. Marsh, Black Victorians: black people in British art 1800–​ 1900 (Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Lund Humphries, 2005). 4 Spain, Germany, Russia, and Austria did not participate in large-​scale imperial displays in this period. Greenhalgh, Fair world, p. 115. 5 On the rise of Anglian ecclesiology in the British Empire, see Bremner, Imperial gothic. 6 This term is offered as an alternative to Arscott’s ‘sculptural logic’. Arscott, ‘Fractured Figures’, p. 40. 7 Greenhalgh, Fair world, pp. 12–​13. 8 Yarrington, ‘Made in Italy’, p. 76. 9 B. Anderson, Imagined communities: reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (London; New  York:  Verso, 1983); E. Hobsbawm, Nations and nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 10 B. Stoklund, ‘The Role of the International Exhibitions in the Construction of National Cultures in the Nineteenth Century’, Ethnologia Europaea:  Journal of European Ethnology 24:1 (1994), 38.

177

Stained glass as propaganda 1 As illustrated in Mandell, Paris 1900, fig. 52. 1 12 As illustrated in L. Baschet (ed.), Le panorama 1900:  Exposition universelle (Paris: Librairie d’Art Ludovic Baschet, 1900). 13 Yarrington has recently reassessed national and racial constructs at the 1862 International Exhibition, by emphasising the national hybridity of nineteenth-​ century sculptors, but these issues remain to be explored in relation to stained glass. Yarrington, ‘Made in Italy’, p. 94. 14 Crampin, Stained glass from Welsh churches; Gordon Bowe, Caron, and Wynne, Gazetteer of Irish stained glass. 15 D. Cole, ‘The Problem of “Nationalism” and “Imperialism” in British Settlement Colonies’, Journal of British Studies 10:2 (May 1971), 160–​82. 16 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 72. 17 ‘Chicago: American vs. Foreign Stained Glass’, 74. 18 Cassell, The Illustrated Exhibitor, p. 380. 19 Cassell, The Illustrated Exhibitor, p. 381. 20 Redgrave, ‘Supplementary Report on Design’, p. 716. 21 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 286 22 Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 177. 23 ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, 286. 24 ‘Stained Glass in Glasgow Cathedral’, The Athenaeum (9 January 1864), 58; Rush, ‘The Königliche Glasmalereianstalt’; Rush, ‘Ungrateful Posterity?’; and I. Macnair, Glasgow Cathedral: the stained glass windows (Glasgow: Johnstondesig n, 2009). 25 The Munich windows were installed between 1859 and 1864, and replaced 1935–​ 36. As we have seen in Chapter 3, this was partly due to the debate between the vitrail-​tableau and vitrail-​archéologique. 26 Didron, ‘Section II. Vitraux’, pp. 74–​5. 27 R. Fenwick, ‘Modern French Stained Glass’, Art Journal (January 1885), 23. 28 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 71. 29 Didron, ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (1)’, 272. 30 Emery and Morowitz, Consuming the past. 31 D. L. Silverman, ‘National Initiative to International Awakening: The Maison de l’Art Nouveau Bing’, in Art Nouveau in fin-​de-​siècle France: politics, psychology and style (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 270–​83. 32 ‘L’Art Nouveau’, Le Figaro (28 December 1895). Reprinted in V. Champier, ‘L’exposition de l’Art nouveau’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 16 (16 December 1896), 1–​16. 33 Emery and Morowitz, Consuming the past, pp. 140–​1. 34 Alfred Dreyfus (1859–​1935) was a French-​Jewish artillery officer whose trial and conviction in 1894 on charges of treason caused a political scandal. Dreyfus’ decree of pardon is thought to have saved the 1900 Exposition. S. Wilson, Ideology and experience: antisemitism in France at the time of the Dreyfus affair (London: Associated University Presses, 1982), pp. 33–​4. 35 L. Nochlin, ‘The Dreyfus Affair: A Portrait of the Artist as an Anti-​Semite’, in The politics of vision:  essays on nineteenth-​century art and society (London:  Thames & Hudson, 1991), pp. 141–​69. 36 Ottin, Le vitrail, p. 361. 37 G. Mourey, ‘L’Art nouveau de M. Bing à l’Exposition universelle (1)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 8 (August 1900), 262. 38 Louis de Fourcaud, in L’art à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (Paris, 1900). Quoted in Greenhalgh, Ephemeral vistas, p. 162. 39 Ottin, Le vitrail, pp. 100–​1.

177

178

178

Windows for the world 40 Roger Riordan first used the term ‘American Glass’ in American Art Review, 1881. Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 103, n. 52. V. C. Raguin, ‘John La Farge, Louis Comfort Tiffany et “le verre américain” ’, in Barlet, Art, technique et science, pp. 43–​55. 41 Yarnall, John La Farge, p. 3. 42 ‘M. John Lafarge, de New-​York, est plutôt Français qu’Américain’ (John Lafarge, of New York, is more French than American). Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, p. 179. 43 Ageorges, Sur les traces des Expositions universelles, p. 13. 44 The phrase ‘Hail Happy Union’ may have been inspired by a contemporary lithograph depicting the monarchs attending the Royal Italian Opera. Marie Alexandre Alophe, Hail! Happy Union! (The state visit to the Royal Italian Opera on Thursday, April 29th 1855), 1855, Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Lithograph, printed area: 410 × 580mm. 45 Six thousand men from England and Flanders constructed a palace set on brickwork foundations, with a timber framework, walls and roof of painted canvas, windows of real glass, and a façade adorned with sculpture. C. Lloyd and S. Thurley, Henry VIII: images of a Tudor king (Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1990), p. 53. 46 One magazine commented upon the opening of the Great Exhibition, ‘the Exhibition should be another Field of the Cloth of Gold’. ‘The Great Exhibition of 1851’, New Monthly Magazine and Humorist 92:365 (May 1851), 105. 47 ‘Exposition Universelle des Beaux Arts’, The Athenaeum 1460 (20 October 1855), 1217. 48 See M. Alexander, Medievalism:  the Middle Ages in modern England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). Glass-​painter Thomas Wilmshurst (1806–​80) achieved fame in 1830 by exhibiting a stained glass window depicting the Field of the Cloth of Gold after a sketch by Robert Trewick Bone (1790–​1840). It reportedly contained 350 pieces of glass and more than 100 life-​size figures, after figures by Holbein. ‘Fine Arts. The Field of the Cloth of Gold’, Gentleman’s Magazine 147 (April 1830), 348–​9. Baylis, ‘Glass-​Painting in Britain’, p. 164. Harrison, Victorian stained glass, p. 36. 49 I. Spielmann, ‘At the Paris Exhibition’, Country Life 8:198 (20 October 1900), 488–​94; Magazine of Art (January 1900), 549–​54; British Architect (20 April 1900), 284; Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, p. 72. 50 I am grateful to Veronica Smith for these dates. 51 Victoria and Albert visited France upon the invitation of Louis-​ Philippe, 2–​ 7 September 1843. 52 E. Starcky (ed.), Napoléon III et la reine Victoria: une visite à l’Exposition universelle de 1855 (Paris: RMN Éditions, 2008). 53 Starcky, Napoléon III et la reine Victoria. 54 ‘La belle alliance’, Punch (1 September 1855), 87. 55 A walk through the universal exhibition of 1855, p. 177. 56 Thomas was a prolific sculptor and architect who designed pottery and metalwork for leading Victorian firms; but this is likely the only stained glass window attributed to him. See I. Blatchford, ‘John Thomas and His “Wonderful Facility of Invention”:  Revisiting a Neglected Sculptor’, V&A Online Journal 3 (Spring 2011). 57 Edinburgh-​ based stained glass firm Ballantine & Allan won the competition to design the stained glass windows for the House of Lords in 1844. 58 ‘Somerleyton Hall’, Illustrated London News (10 January 1857), 24–​6. 59 The press referred to Peto as the founder of Lowestoft. He purchased the harbour works and built a modern town with a railway, pier, hotels, lodging houses, and church. ‘The Rev F.  Cunningham, Lowestoft’, Sunday at Home 840 (4 June 1870), 358. 60 Lowestoft Town Hall was not built until 1857.

179

Stained glass as propaganda 61 Peto is depicted in Henry Courtney Selous’ painting The Opening of the Great Exhibition by Queen Victoria on 1 May 1851 (1851–​52), Victoria and Albert Museum, London (V&A 329–1889). 62 Peto wrote to the War Office on 30 March 1854 offering to build a railway at cost price. B. Cooke, The Grand Crimean Central Railway:  the railway that won a war (Knutsford: Cavalier House, 1990); P. Marsh, Beatty’s railway: a historical reconstruction, Crimea 1854–​56 (Oxford: New Cherwell, 2000). 63 The railway was used to transport ammunition, coal, tents, clothing, food, books, and medical supplies to troops at the front line, and also carried the first hospital train. 64 At the opening of the Exposition, the Emperor proclaimed, ‘J’ouvre avec bonheur ce temple de la paix qui convie tous les peuples à la concorde’ (I happily open this temple of peace which invites all people to harmony). J.-​J. Bloch and M. Delort, Quand Paris allait ‘à l’Expo’ (Paris: Fayard, 1980), p. 15. 65 M. le comte de Waziers, ‘Les vitraux de la bataille de Bouvines: rapporte présenté à l’assemblée des Catholiques le 14 mai 1889’ (Paris: F. Levé, 1889); Bouchon and Brisac, ‘Le vitrail’, p. 243. 66 A. Rüth and J. Holland, ‘The Battle of Bouvines: Event History vs. Problem History Source’, MLN 116:4 (September 2001), 837. 67 Waziers, ‘Les vitraux de la bataille de Bouvines’, pp. 3–​4. 68 Fuchs, ‘All the World into the School’, p. 55. 69 It is not known which eleven windows were displayed along the avenue de Suffren side of the Galerie des Machines in 1889. The last window of the series was installed in 1906. Waziers, ‘Le vitraux de la bataille de Bouvines’, p. 6. 70 The church was designed by architect Auguste Normand (1839–​ 1906) in a thirteenth-​century gothic style (to replace a former thirteenth-​century building), and consecrated on 21 July 1910. The stained glass has been listed as a monument historique since 1981. 71 J. Delcour, ‘Les vitraux de Bouvines’, in N.-​J. Chaline (ed.), Le vitrail en Picardie et dans le nord de la France aux XIXe et XXe siècles (Amiens: Encrage, 1995), pp. 61–​71. 72 J. MacKenzie (ed.), The imperial exhibitions, propaganda and empire: the manipulation of British public opinion, 1880–​1960 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), p. 97. Aspects of MacKenzie’s work have since been developed see R. Corbey, ‘Ethnographic Showcases, 1870–​1930’, Cultural Anthropology 8:3 (August 1993), 338–​ 69; and B. Benedict, ‘Rituals of Representation:  Ethnic Stereotypes and Colonized Peoples at World’s Fairs’, in Rydell and Gwinn, Fair representations, pp. 28–​62. 73 Greenhalgh, Ephemeral vistas, p. 54; Greenhalgh, Fair world, p. 101. Imperial gains were also displayed by France at the National Exhibitions of 1839, 1844, and 1849. 74 This was likely Jean-​Frédéric-​Lucien Piarron de Mondésir (1857–​1943), who had a long career in the French military. He was assigned to an engineers’ regiment in Madagascar between 1897 and 1899 and won a colonial medal for his service there. 75 Daumont-​Tournel, ‘Classe 67’, 59. 76 A. Smith, D. Blayney Brown, and C. Jacobi (eds), Artist and empire: facing Britain’s imperial past (Tate: London, 2015). 77 C. Hall and S. O. Rose, At home with the empire: metropolitan culture and the imperial world (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 78 G. White, The cathedral church of Salisbury. A  description of its fabric and a brief history of the See of Sarum. Bell’s cathedrals (London: Bell, 1898), p. 93; R. O. C. Spring, The stained glass of Salisbury Cathedral (Salisbury:  Friends of Salisbury Cathedral, 1979). 79 Bremner acknowledges stained glass as one of ‘the most immediate and impressive’ ways that religious symbolism was articulated in the colonial church. Bremner, Imperial gothic, p. 187. 80 ‘Ecclesiological Aspect of the Great Exhibition’, 183.

179

180

180

Windows for the world 81 A few years later O’Connor executed another military memorial window dedicated to members of the Wiltshire Regiment who had fallen in the Crimean War of 1853–​ 56. The window was installed alongside the Sutlej window, and employs similar devices and inscriptions to commemorate the fallen soldiers. It depicts the history of Joshua, who led the Israelites into battle. 82 A. Stephen (ed.), Visions of a republic. The work of Lucien Henry: Paris–​Noumea–​ Sydney (Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing, 2001), p. 66. See, for example, the two triptych staircase windows (1889) in Sydney Town Hall, commissioned to celebrate the Australian Centennial. M. Betteridge, Sydney Town Hall: the building and its collection (Sydney: Council of the City of Sydney, 2000). 83 For displays of Australia at the International Exhibitions, see Orr, ‘A Force for Federation’; Douglas, ‘Representing Colonial Australia’. 84 ‘City Council. Fortnightly Meeting’, The Argus (26 March 1889), 9. 85 ‘Austro-​Hungary’, The Argus (6 November 1888), 67. 86 B. Sherry and D. Baglin, ‘Australian Themes in Stained Glass’, in Australia in trust:  a selection of the best writings from Heritage Australia (Sydney:  Australian Council of National Trusts in association with William Collins, 2000), pp. 68–​74. 87 A.  E. Coombes, Rethinking settler colonialism:  history and memory in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and South Africa (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 2011). 88 ‘Austro-​Hungary’, 67. 89 R. Rampold, ‘140 Jahre Tiroler Glasmalerei-​und Mosaikanstalt 1861–​ 2001’ (Innsbruck: Tiroler Glasmalerei-​und Mosaikanstalt, 2001). 90 ‘Historical Records. Town Hall Treasures. No Care or Arrangement’, The Argus (18 January 1923), 8. 91 Demeulenaere-​Douyère, Exotiques expositions. 92 Z. Çelik, Displaying the Orient:  architecture of Islam at nineteenth-​ century world’s fairs (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), p. 134. Journal Officiel de la République Française (3 October 1877). Archives nationales, F 12 3227: ‘Exposition universelle de 1878: pavillons coloniaux’. Cited in M. J. West, ‘Spectacular Ideology:  The Parisian Expositions Universelles and the Formation of National Cultural Identity, 1855–​ 1937’, unpublished manuscript, see www. andrew.cmu.edu/​user/​mw48/​WestWork.html (accessed 18 June 2012). 93 L’Illustration (10 August 1878). Quoted in Çelik, Displaying the Orient, p. 127. 94 Çelik, Displaying the Orient, p. 127. 95 V. Champier, Les industries d’art à l’Exposition universelle de 1889 (Paris:  Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs, 1889–​91). 96 Appert and Henrivaux, ‘La verrerie à l’Exposition universelle de 1889’, p.  373; Champigneulle, ‘Classe 19’, 177; Ottin, Le vitrail, p. 100. 97 Ottin, Le vitrail, p. 100. 98 The scene was also produced as a medal. W. H. Beezley and L. A. Curcio-​Nagy (eds), Latin American popular culture: an introduction (Wilmington, DE: SR Books, 2000), pp. 72 and 96. 99 L’Illustration (16 June 1900). Cited in Çelik, Displaying the Orient, p. 122, n. 60. 100 Chicago Tribune (28 May 1893). Quoted in Çelik, Displaying the Orient, p. 83. 101 D. Urquhart, The Pillars of Hercules; or, a narrative of travels in Spain and Morocco in 1848, vol. 2 (London: Bentley, 1850), p. 279. 102 Ottin, Le vitrail, p. 101. 103 For example, a published account of the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition described glass painting as ‘an art exclusively ecclesiastical and Christian in its origin and development.’ Sandhurst et al., The great centennial exhibition, p. 171. 104 For the use of stained glass in the Islamic world, see R. Hillenbrand, Islamic architecture: form, function and meaning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994);

181

Stained glass as propaganda S.  S. Blair and J.  M. Bloom, The art and architecture of Islam 1250–​1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). 105 For use of stucco in Islamic architecture and its relationship to stained glass, see T. Raquejo, ‘The “Arab Cathedrals”: Moorish Architecture as Seen by British Travellers’, Burlington Magazine 128:1001 (August 1986), 555–​63; F. B. Flood, ‘The Ottoman Windows in the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa Mosque’, in S. Auld and R. Hillenbrand (eds), Ottoman Jerusalem, the living city: 1517–​1917 (London: ltajir World of Islam Trust, 2000), pp. 431–​63. 106 Including Princes Road Synagogue, Liverpool (1874–​ 75) and St Petersburgh Place Synagogue, Bayswater, London (1877–​ 79). E. Jamilly, ‘ “All Manner of Workmanship”:  Interior Decoration in British Synagogues’, in S. Kadish (ed.), Building Jerusalem: Jewish architecture in Britain (London; Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell, 1996), pp. 193–​208; S. Kadish, ‘The “Cathedral Synagogues” of England’, Jewish Historical Studies 39 (2004), 45–​77. In addition, Lavers, Barraud & Westlake exhibited in 1862 and 1878. 107 In a bound collection of newspaper clippings relating to the 1876 Exhibition, New  York Public Library. The title and date of the published article is missing. Philadelphia 1876, p. 116. 108 K. Malik, The meaning of race:  race, history and culture in Western society (New York: New York University Press, 1996), p. 6. 109 On the development of ideas of race and aesthetic judgments in the eighteenth century, see D. Bindman, Ape to Apollo:  aesthetics and the idea of race in the 18th century (London:  Reaktion, 2002); R. Wheeler, The complexion of race: categories of difference in eighteenth-​ century British Culture (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000). Sadiah Qureshi’s work on exhibitions, empire, and anthropology prefers the term ‘human variety’ to ‘race’, since it represents more broadly differences in complexion, physiognomy, physical makeup, language, religion, clothing, and political, social and economic organisation. See S. Qureshi, Peoples on parade:  exhibitions, empire, and anthropology in nineteenth-​ century Britain (Chicago; London:  University of Chicago Press, 2011). 110 Maréchal, ‘Les verrières du Palais de l’Industrie’. 111 Maréchal, Les verrières du Palais de l’Industrie’. 112 C. Kidd, The forging of races:  race and scripture in the Protestant Atlantic world, 1600–​2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 113 See P. H. D. Kaplan, The rise of the black magus in Western art (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1985). 114 A. Boime, The art of exclusion:  representing blacks in the nineteenth century (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990), pp. 8–​9. 115 Wintle, The image of Europe, p. 191. 116 Wintle, The image of Europe, p. 195. 117 Wintle, The image of Europe, p. 211. 118 Pellatt, ‘Class XXXIV’, p. 3. 119 Wintle, The image of Europe, p. 212. 120 In other nineteenth-​century representations of this religious subject the depiction is much the same. As Caroline Bressey has acknowledged, Burne-​Jones’ Balthazar in his tapestry of the Adoration of the Magi (commissioned in 1886 for the chapel of Exeter College, Oxford, and completed 1890) was based on a black model. C. Bressey, ‘Victorian Photography and the Mapping of the Black Presence in Britain’, in Marsh, Black Victorians, p. 98. 121 Boime, The art of exclusion, p. 48. 122 J. Devisse and M. Mollat (eds), The image of the black in Western art, vol. 2, From the early Christian era to the ‘Age of Discovery, part  2, Africans in the Christian

181

182

182

Windows for the world ordinance of the world (fourteenth to the sixteenth century) (New York: W. Morrow, 1979), pp. 223, 296, nn. 176–​7. 123 2 Kings 8:16–​23; 2 Chronicles 21. Y. Pinson, ‘Connotations of Sin and Heresy in the Figure of the Black King in Some Northern Renaissance Adorations’, Artibus et Historiae 17:34 (1996), 159–​75. 124 Didron, Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867, p. 42. 125 Art Journal (1867), 248. Cited in Marsh, Black Victorians, pp. 19–​20. The critic is likely referring to the 1573 painting by Paolo Veronese (1528–​88), which has been in the National Gallery collection since 1855. National Gallery, NG268. 126 Tate Collection, N03053. Rossetti studied these figures from life models. See Marsh, Black Victorians, p. 106. 127 V. Surtees, The paintings and drawings of Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828–​82): a catalogue raisonné (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1971), p.  105. Cited in Marsh, Black Victorians, p. 106, cat. 83. 128 On RA painter William Etty’s introduction of a ‘dark man or tawny female’ for a ‘picturesque contrast’ see S. V. Turner, ‘Intimacy and Distance: Physicality, Race and Paint in Etty’s “The Wrestlers” ’, in S. Burnage, M. Hallett, and L. Turner (eds), William Etty: art and controversy (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2011), p. 79. 129 Toni Morrison has similarly argued that the presence of Africans in American literature cannot be purely ‘decorative’. T. Morrison, Playing in the dark: whiteness and the literary imagination (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 16. 130 See especially, W. Schneider, ‘Race and Empire: The Rise of Popular Ethnography in the Late Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Popular Culture 11:1 (Summer 1977), 98–​109. 131 The history of such displays is traced in Qureshi, Peoples on parade. 132 R.  W. Rydell, All the world’s a fair:  visions of empire at American International Expositions, 1876–​1916 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 65. 133 C. R. Reed, ‘All the world is here!’: the black presence at White City (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000), p. xxvii. 134 In Halcyon days in the dream city (self-​published, 1894). Cited in Reed, ‘All the world is here!’, p. xxvii. 135 F. Douglass, I. B. Wells, I. G. Penn, and F. L. Barnett, The reason why the colored American is not in the World’s Columbian Exposition (Chicago, 1893), pp. 2–​3. This publication catalogued the achievement of African Americans since the Abolition of Slavery and drew attention to apartheid in the American South. 136 M. D. Harris, Colored pictures: race and visual representation (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), p. 68. 137 Burton Benedict has demonstrated that Native Americans were the most frequently displayed colonised peoples at World’s Fairs. Benedict, ‘Rituals of Representation’, p. 59. 138 Greenhalgh, Ephemeral vistas, p. 100. 139 K. Flint, The transatlantic Indian 1776–​1930 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), p. 112. 140 Bullock was associated with Joseph McCausland in the 1850s. Stevens, Early Canadian glass, p. 161. 141 Art Journal illustrated catalogue1862, p. 226. 142 A bronze sculpture of Hiawatha carrying Minnehaha was also created for the Chicago Exposition by Norwegian-​born American sculptor Jacob Fjelde (1859–​96) and now resides in a park near Minnehaha Falls in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 143 H. W. Longfellow, Hiawatha; a poem, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Illustrated by John Rea Neill (Chicago: Reilly and Britton Co., 1909 [1856]), IV.

183

Stained glass as propaganda 144 A. Duncan, Tiffany windows: the indispensable book on Louis C. Tiffany’s masterworks (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1980), p. 18. 145 Lewis also sculpted a bust of Longfellow. See M.  Richardson, ‘Hiawatha in Rome:  Edmonia Lewis and Figures from Longfellow’, Catalogue of Antiques and Fine Art (Spring 2002), 198–​203. For black sculptor Edmonia Lewis, see also T.  A. Burgard, ‘Edmonia Lewis and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:  Images and Identities’, American Art Review 7:1 (1995), 114–​17; J. M. Holland, ‘Mary Edmonia Lewis’s ‘Minnehaha’:  Gender, Race and the Indian Maid’, Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 69:1–​2 (1995), 26–​35. 146 For example, a series of eight stained glass windows in the nave clerestory of St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, designed and executed by the Sydney artist Norman Carter between 1943 and 1956 show reconstructed and imagined events from the history of the Anglican Church in Australia. The windows depict early meetings of priests and Aboriginal tribes, demonstrating the influence of Christian missionaries and conversion. 147 Corbey, ‘Ethnographic Showcases’, 363–​4. 148 E. R. Suffling, ‘Curiosities of Stained Glass’, Chambers’s Journal 1:37 (13 August 1898), 592. 149 Suffling, ‘Curiosities of Stained Glass’, p. 592. 150 Sherry, Australia’s historic stained glass, pp.  16, 33, 91. A  replica was made for Grafton Cathedral, NSW. Giedraityte, ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area’, pp. 354–​55, plate 99. 151 C. A. Nelson, The color of stone: sculpting the black female subject in nineteenth-​ century America (Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press, 2007). For ethnographic sculptor Charles Cordier, who exhibited at all the major international exhibitions in London and Paris, see L. D. Margerie and É. Papet, Facing the other:  Charles Cordier (1827–​ 1905), ethnographic sculptor (New  York:  Harry N. Abrams, 2004). 152 Devisse and Mollatt, From the early Christian era to the ‘Age of Discovery’, pp. 130–​1. 153 Harris, Colored pictures, p. 46. 154 Marsh, Black Victorians, p. 17. 155 Wiley’s first forays into stained glass featured as part of ‘Kehinde Wiley: A New Republic’ (2015) organised by Brooklyn Museum, NY, and later toured the USA. The windows were made by Kolektiv Ateliers in Nový Bor, Czech Republic.

183

184

Conclusion: reappraising nineteenth-​century stained glass

[I]‌t is no sin in modern work that it belongs to its day –​it is its virtue. – Lewis Foreman. Day, 19091

As the first study to consider the importance of stained glass in a global, not just European, context, this book has highlighted and re-​evaluated the importance of decorative arts (such as stained glass) in the formulation and visualisation of nineteenth-​century culture on both a national and international scale. Globalisation, imperialism, and industrialism –​themes that permeated the international exhibitions –​had a significant impact on the ways in which stained glass was adapted for new contexts and cultures in the nineteenth century, and aided the distribution of windows throughout the world. Analysis of stained glass artists’ participation in the international exhibitions reveals the scale, diversity, dynamism, and internationalisation of the stained glass industry in this period, highlighting international commercial and artistic networks and patronage. The significant number of exhibitors of stained glass, predominantly studios but also encompassing individual artist-​makers, some of whom we know very little about, indicates the need for further contextual research into the vast quantity of stained glass produced and disseminated across the world in this period. The international exhibitions undeniably influenced the global stylistic development and consumption of stained glass. They aided the dissemination of stained glass beyond the domestic ecclesiastical market to new secular contexts as well as other countries, colonies, and continents. These events created new venues for and influenced the subject matter and iconography of stained glass exhibits. Many of the commissioned windows designed for and exhibited at these events illustrated themes of art, science, and industry, topics relevant not only to the exhibition buildings in which they were displayed, but to wider nineteenth-​century society.

185

Conclusion

Stained glass was an integral part of the architectural and ideological fabric of international exhibitions, asserting idealised visions of national identity and international relations, and reinforcing imperial structures. Different exhibition spaces and buildings presented different opportunities and challenges for the display of stained glass, affecting their mode of viewing and critical appreciation. Although the medium was marginalised at these events by the official classification and provision for display, some stained glass exhibits attracted significant attention in these new environments through their particular placement within an exhibition building, monumental size, style, or iconography. This enabled the medium to transcend the marginal status that it was usually afforded. Although these temporary displays often meant that stained glass was inadequately illuminated and viewed either, in close proximity or at a great distance, they also demonstrated the versatility of the medium, and presented stained glass panels in varying contexts –​as an art exhibit, secular architectural decoration, and religious furnishing. Within these eclectic exhibition environments, stained glass was seen and compared with a wide range of other exhibits, and this provided new experiences and exciting contexts for viewing and interpreting stained glass in relation to other cultural objects and artistic media. At these mass public events stained glass was ordered according to nineteenth-​century concepts of artistic labour, revealing mixed contemporary attitudes towards the medium’s status and significance, which have continued to affect its appreciation today. In the late nineteenth century both art and industry thrived, but the two were not mutually exclusive. This period saw the introduction of mechanical processes, new techniques, and technologies in order to increase production to meet commercial demand. Many stained glass studios adapted their working practices, employing both artists and workmen with varying levels of skill. Although the nineteenth century has been viewed as the era of the commercial studio, stained glass artist-​designers and makers (both freelance and those employed full-​ time by studios) rediscovered ancient techniques and styles, whilst engaging with new forms, styles, materials, techniques, and photographic and printing technologies. Traditional techniques existed alongside, and provided inspiration for, the development of a number of modern techniques such as machine-​rolled glass and stamped pressed quarries. The gothic revival had a sustained and pervasive influence on the development and reception of nineteenth-​century stained glass, but although it provided the benchmark style, it was not the singular driving force for development. Medievalism involved far more than the mere replication of gothic styles; it also provided the impetus or stimuli for nineteenth-​century artists and makers to create their own work inspired by the aesthetic appearance, symbolic significance, and techniques of medieval stained glass, as well as the conditions under which it was produced. Yet the effects

185

186

186

Windows for the world

were multifarious  –​for there are many phases, or strands, of medievalism in nineteenth-​century stained glass, even noticeable within the work of a single studio.2 As we have seen, other historic styles, including the Renaissance, were also selected, appropriated, revived, and rejuvenated in this period. Some styles were adopted internationally, but nineteenth-​ century stained glass also encompassed divergent national traditions. The wide range of stained glass exhibited at the international exhibitions demonstrates how those associated with the medium were able to engage with diverse styles, as well as other media including fresco and canvas painting, ceramics, and mosaics. They reveal how stained glass was not only successfully revived, but also actively adapted for a modern age.3 Artists revitalised the art of stained glass by engaging with new materials, global cultures, and scenes of modern life. Genuine expressions and interpretations of modern life were captured through personalised commemorative windows, donor and memorial portraits, as well as the articulation of newly emerging and highly original themes of empire, industry, and multiculturalism –​which were showcased at these events. The display of stained glass in the international exhibitions marked a turning point in its history. The presentation of stained glass at these events retained aspects of eighteenth-​century spectacular exhibition culture, drawing admiration for its monumental size, skill of execution, and unique viewing experience, while having a lasting influence on twentieth-​ century museum and gallery displays.4 For example, over 150 years since the Great Exhibition of 1851, the current arrangement of stained glass in the sacred  silver and stained glass galleries at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum is extraordinarily reminiscent of the first major international displays of the medium at the Crystal Palace.5 We would, no doubt, learn more about the art of stained glass in such contexts by extending research into different display environments beyond the chronological confines of this study. For example, prior to the Great Exhibition of 1851, the series of French national expositions of industry and local exhibitions organised by the Society of Arts and Mechanics’ Institutes set precedents for the inclusion of stained glass in national displays that celebrated manufacture and industry.6 These exhibitions may shed further light on the changing techniques and artistic status of stained glass, in relation to the rapidly developing glass industry, revealing its growing appreciation and economic value at a key moment in the early nineteenth century leading up to its major revival. Although this book has focused on exhibitions held in some of the largest cities in the world-prominent international and imperial centres of trade, a study of regional industrial exhibitions held in other metropolitan and industrial centres may help us better understand local and regional networks of artistic training, influence and trade, and how these reflected national and international interests.7

187

Conclusion

The international exhibitions continued well into the twentieth century, and the displays of stained glass at exhibitions such as the Prima Esposizione Internazionale d’Arte Decorativa Moderna, held in Turin in 1902, the Exposition internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels modernes, held in Paris in 1925, or the Festival of Britain, held in London in 1951 (to take just a handful of examples), may help trace the international development of stained glass in the twentieth century, especially in relation to national identity and global politics in the period before, during, and after the two world wars. Yet by considering the significance of international displays of stained glass between 1851 and 1900, this book has begun to fill a significant gap in the historiography of the medium, enabling unprecedented cultural, political, economic, and art-​historical reassessments of stained glass in relation to international nineteenth-​century political affairs, trade, individual and national identity, commerce, and empire, and revealing the possibilities of new approaches to stained glass within temporary display contexts. It has also challenged many of the major methodological and historiographical assumptions and paradigms relating to the study of post-​ medieval stained glass –​which have tended to polarise windows designed or made by named and famed stained glass artists and those collaborative works produced by large studio firms, and all too often focus solely on ecclesiastical contexts. Although the vast majority of our stained glass heritage is concentrated in churches, as this book has demonstrated, there is a rich and diverse heritage in secular buildings and contexts, which deserve to be re-​evaluated in their own contexts. A majority of art historians and critics writing in the twentieth century were disparaging of nineteenth-​century British stained glass, and even more contemptuous of the many windows by foreign studios whose work can still be found throughout the UK and Ireland.8 Such opinions can be gauged from browsing the first editions of the Buildings of England series begun by architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner (1902–​83), published between 1951 and 1974, which rarely include notes on post-​medieval stained glass, and these remarks were kept to a few brief dismissive words. For example, when referring to Ely Cathedral, Cambridgeshire, which contains an extensive collection of mid-​nineteenth-​century windows of the highest quality by leading British and French stained glass studios, Pevsner commented, ‘as to Victorian glass Ely is a mine inexhaustible for those few who for the sake of historical completeness or a somewhat morbid aesthetic curiosity wish to study it’.9 From the final quarter of the twentieth century onwards, the reputation of post-​medieval stained glass has slowly but surely been put on a better footing. Revised volumes of Pevsner’s architectural guides for counties in England (especially those published since the 1990s), together with the first editions produced for Wales, Ireland and Scotland, have

187

188

188

Windows for the world

reflected this shift in attitude, editing Pevsner’s original entries to include notes on post-​medieval stained glass, and recording stained glass designers, makers, and dates of windows (where known). Although there is still much work to be done before post-​medieval stained glass is fully (and critically) appreciated, this book has demonstrated how new approaches to nineteenth-​century stained glass in an international context can have value and significance for a deeper and more precise understanding of global histories of nineteenth-​century art and culture.

Notes 1 Day, Windows, p. 348. 2 For example, a comparison of one of the windows first exhibited by Heaton, Butler & Bayne at the 1862 International Exhibition, London (now in the north aisle of Bungay Church, Suffolk) with the Ascension window sent to the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1900 (now in the south transept of All Saints’ Church, Mullingar, Ireland) reveals a discernible contrast in overall composition and treatment, design and colouring, although both are influenced by medievalism. 3 As Raguin has acknowledged, in this era, stained glass was ‘recreated for a modern context’. Raguin, ‘Revivals’, 310. 4 See Allen, ‘Stained Glass and the Culture of the Spectacle’. 5 Stained and painted glass panels, mounted in thick, black, square-​edged frames, have been arranged along the outer wall of the Victoria and Albert Museum’s ‘Sacred Silver and Stained Glass’ gallery (room 83). 6 T. Kusamitsu, ‘Great Exhibitions before 1851’, History Workshop Journal 9 (Spring 1980), 70–​89. Pillet notes the importance of these French expositions and salons for the early development of nineteenth-​century stained glass. Pillet, Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle. 7 As recently demonstrated by M. Filipová (ed.), Cultures of international exhibitions 1840-​1940:  great exhibitions in the margins (Farnham; Burlington, VT:  Ashgate, 2015). 8 M. Saunders, ‘Appreciating Victorian and Arts and Crafts Stained Glass:  A Battle Half Won’, Ecclesiology Today 40 (July 2008), 83–​91. 9 N. Pevsner, Cambridgeshire:  the buildings of England, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970), p. 362.

189

newgenrtpdf

Appendix Table of stained glass exhibitors This appendix lists the stained glass firms and studios that exhibited stained glass at the exhibitions featured in this study, as documented in official catalogues and jury reports. It also includes any awards that these studios received for their stained glass exhibits. It is grouped by country following late-19th century political boundaries, with colonies and dependencies listed at the end. Exhibitor

Country

United Kingdom (UK) Austin, G. UK (Canterbury) Baillie, Edward UK (London) Ballantine & Allan UK (Edinburgh) (from 1860 Ballantine & Son) Barker, S. & Co. UK (London) Barnett, Henry UK (Newcastle) Mark Bell, Joseph UK (Bristol) Bland, Samuel UK (London) King Bury, Talbot T. UK (London) Cairney, J. UK (Glasgow) Camm Bros. UK (Smethwick) Chance Bros & UK (Smethwick) Co. Key ✔ Exhibited (✔) Exempt from Jury Awards H.M. Honourable Mention Cl. Class Or. Order

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

  ✔ ✔

✔   ✔

  ✔ ✔

  ✔  

  ✔  

     

     

     

     

     

     

   

   

✔ ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔ ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔     ✔ H.M.

  ✔   ✔

      (✔)

      (✔)

      ✔

    ✔  

      ✔

       

       

       

       

(continued)

190

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Claudet & Houghton Clayton, John R. & Bell, Alfred Constable, William Henry Cottier, M. D. Coulton Cox & Son Davies, William Dury, S. Edmundson, R. B. & Son Field & Allan Forrest & Bromley (in 1867 Forrest, A. and Son) Fouracre & Watson Gaunt, T. Gibbs, Alexander Gibbs, Charles Gibbs, Isaac Alexander

UK (London)

✔

 

✔

✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UK (London)

 

 

✔ Exempt ✔ (Jury)

 

 

 

✔ 1st Or.

✔ Gold

 

 

UK (Cambridge)

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 ✔

 

 

 

 

UK (Glasgow) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London) UK (Warwick) UK (Manchester)

      ✔    

           

    ✔      

✔ H.M. ✔ ✔ H.M.   ✔ H.M. ✔ Bronze

    ✔ Award      

           

           

           

           

           

           

UK (Edinburgh) UK (Liverpool)

  ✔ Bronze

   

✔ Medal ✔ H.M.

✔ ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

UK (Plymouth)

 

 

 

 

 

✔

✔

 

 

 

 

UK (Leeds) UK (London)

✔ ✔

   

  ✔ H.M. ✔ H.M.

   

  ✔ 

   

   

   

   

   

   

191

newgenrtpdf

Gibson, J. Green, Alfred Hall, J. W. & Sons Hardman, John & Co. Hartley, J. & Co. Hawkes, J. & O. C. Heaton, Butler & Bayne Hedgeland, George Hetherington, T. & Co. Hetley, Henry Hetley, James & Co. Hoadley, George Holiday, Henry Holland, William and Son Howe, J. G. Jackson, E. & W. H. James W. H. Lavers & Barraud (& Westlake from 1878) Long, Charles Lyon, J. T. & Co.

UK (Newcastle) UK (Sheffield) UK (Bristol) UK (Birmingham)

      ✔

      ✔ Medal

  ✔   ✔ Silver

      ✔ Award

      ✔

       

       

       

      ✔

       

UK (Sunderland) UK (Birmingham)

✔   ✔ ✔ Prize Medal ✔  

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

  ✔ 2nd Or.

   

   

   

UK (London)

 

 

✔ Medal

✔ Bronze

✔ Award

 

 

 

 

 

✔

UK (London)

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UK (Birmingham)

✔*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UK (London) UK (London)

  ✔

 

✔ (✔)

  ✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UK (London) UK (London) UK (Warwick)

✔ Silver   ✔ H.M.

     

    ✔

     

     

     

     

     

     

  ✔  

     

UK (London) UK (London)

✔ H.M. ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

UK (London) UK (London)

   

✔  

✔ ✔ Medal

  ✔ H.M.

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

   

UK (London) UK (London)

   

   

✔  

  ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

    (continued)

192

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Matthew, Edward & Sons Mayer, George McGrath, John Morini, C. de Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. Newman, P. H. Newsham, S. J. Nicholson, G. S. O’Connor, Michael and Arthur (and from 1862 W. H.) Pace, Ion Pitman & Cuthbertson Powell & Sons Pratt, E. & Co. Preedy, Frederick Prince, A. & Co. Ramsey, William Rees & Baker Royal Patent Decorative Glass Works

UK

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

UK (London) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London)

✔      

       

      ✔ Medal

    ✔ ✔

  ✔ ✔  

       

       

       

       

       

       

UK (London) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London)

  ✔   ✔ H.M.

    ✔  

      ✔ Medal

✔ H.M.      

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

UK (London) UK (London)

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

  ✔

   

   

✔  

   

UK (London) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London)

✔           ✔ Silver

             

✔ Medal   ✔ H.M. ✔   ✔  

✔ Silver            

✔       ✔ Award    

             

             

  ✔          

             

             

             

193

newgenrtpdf

Shrigley & Hunt Simpson & Co. St Helen’s Crown Glass Company Taylor Tobey, John Downton Toms, John Wailes, William Ward & Hughes Warrington, J. P. Warrington, W. (Sen.) & W. (Jun.) Winfields Ltd Wragge, George Wright & Mansfield

UK (Lancaster) UK UK (St Helens)

    ✔

     

     

     

     

  ✔  

     

     

✔    

     

     

UK UK (London)

  ✔

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

   

UK (Wellington) UK (Newcastle) UK (London) UK (London) UK (London)

✔ ✔ H.M.  

     

    ✔ Bronze

    ✔

    ✔

     

     

     

     

     

 

 

    ✔ H.M. ✔ ✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UK (London) UK (Salford) UK (London)

     

     

    ✔

     

     

     

     

     

     

✔    

  ✔   (continued)

194

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

France Ader, Émile (& Loubens) Alleaume, Auguste-​A. Anglade, Jean-​Baptiste Appert, A. et L. Aubriot Andoynaud, H. Audra et Thomas Babonneau, Henri-F ​ rançois-​ Marie Barzelou-​Veyrat Baudry Bazin (or Bazin-​Latteau)

  France (Paris)

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

Beaujon Bégule, Lucien Beltrand, Georges Bernard, Antoine Beysens & Beckers Bitterlin, Paul

   

   

France (Laval)

  ✔ ✔

France (Condom)

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

✔ Silver

 

(✔)

France (Clichy) France (Paris) France (Périgeux) France (Valence) France (Paris)

         

    ✔    

         

  ✔      

         

✔       ✔

         

         

✔       ✔ Bronze

         

✔     ✔ ✔

France (Bessac) France (Paris) France (Mesnil-​ Saint-​Firmin, Oise) France France (Lyons) France

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ ✔ ✔

 

✔ H.M.

 

✔

 

 

✔ Bronze  

 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

✔ Bronze   ✔ Silver      

  ✔ ✔

France (Grenoble) France (Paris)

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

   

✔  

France (Paris)

 

✔

 

✔

✔

✔

 

 

✔

 

 

195

newgenrtpdf

Boucherie Bougerie-​Villette Bougival Bourgeois, Gustave

France (Lille) France (Paris) Bordeaux France (Rheims and from 1867 Paris) Bourgeot France Bourières, J.-B.E. France (Paris) Bouvières, E. France (Paris) Brière et Fiévet, G. France Bruin Aîné, N.-​A. France (Paris) Bruin, Auguste Buglet France (Paris) Carot, Henri France (Paris) Cartisser France (Paris) Carton, E. A. France (Paris) Chabin, Henri France (Paris) Chalons, Paul France (Toulouse, Haute-​Garonne) Champigneulle, France (Metz Charles-​ from 1867, François Bar-​le-​Duc Champigneulle, 1872–​82) Emmanuel-​ Marie-​Joseph Champigneulle, Louis-​Charles-​ Marie (Charles) Champigneulle (Veuve) Chateteau, V. France (Paris)

✔    

✔    

  ✔ H.M.

  ✔

   

  ✔

   

   

  ✔ Silver

   

✔  

   

  ✔ H.M.

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

  ✔ H.M.

   

  ✔

   

   

    ✔ Bronze  

✔ ✔

   

   

   

   

✔ Bronze   ✔ Silver  

  ✔

     

    ✔ H.M.

  ✔  

  ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔  

   

     

    ✔      

     

     

    ✔ Bronze      

     

 

 

✔

✔

 

✔

 

 

✔ ✔ ✔ Gold

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

           

  ✔   ✔

  (continued)

196

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

Chaumussot, Étienne-​Louis Coffetier, Nicolas Compagnie des Cristailleries Cornuel, Adr.-​N.

France (Paris)

Coulier, Henry Crapoix, H. Dandois, F. Daumont-​ Tournel, Léon Delalande, Émile Delon, Marcel Demerusson Didot, A. F., Firmin & Balencie Didron, Adolphe-​ Napoléon (Didron aîné) Didron, Édouard-​ Amédée Dive & Schmalzer Dopter, Jubin

France (Paris) France (Saint-​Louis) France (Paris, from 1867 Orly, Seine) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Vincennes) France

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris ✔

   

✔ 2nd Cl. ✔ Medal ✔  

✔ Silver  

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

   

 

✔

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

     

     

     

     

  ✔ ✔

     

     

✔ H.M.   ✔ Silver

     

✔   ✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(✔)

France (Paris) France (Paris) France France

     

     

     

     

     

✔   ✔ ✔

     

     

     

     

(✔)    

France (Paris)

 

✔ 2nd Cl. ✔ Medal

✔ Silver

 

   

   

  ✔

   

✔    ✔

     

     

✔  ✔ H.M.  

     

✔     

France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Paris)

   

197

newgenrtpdf

Ducler, L. F.

Dupin, Gustave Durand (or Engelman & Durand) Durrieu, Paulin M. Echivard Eglispe Ély, Henri Erdmann, G. et Kremer, T. Evaldre, H. Fargue, Léon Fauquet, Eugéne Faye Felibien Fèvre & Cie Fialeix, A. Frémotte, J.

Fritel Fromont Frutieaux, D. Galimard, N. A. Galland, Jacques

France (Mesnil-​   Saint-​Firmin, Oise) France (Versailles)   France (Paris)  

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

✔ H.M. ✔ Silver

   

✔  

France (Paris)

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

France (Mans) France (Amiens) France (Nantes) France (Paris)

       

       

       

  ✔ ✔ H.M. ✔ H.M.

       

    ✔ ✔

       

       

       

       

✔      

       

✔     ✔ ✔

       

       

       

        ✔

       

       

       

       

✔ ✔    

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

     

✔     ✔

France (Lille) France (Paris) France France France (Bessac) France (Paris) France (Mayet, Le Mans, Sarthe) France (Neufchâteau, Vosges) France (Bar-​le-​Duc) France France (Rheims) France (Paris) France (Paris)

✔  

 

✔     ✔*

    ✔

     

     

     

  ✔  

     

     

      ✔

(continued)

198

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Gaudin, Félix

France (Clermont-​ Ferrand) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Toulouse, Haute-​Garonne) France (Charité-​ sur-​Loire, Nièvre) France (Mayer, Sarthe) France (Aniche)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ✔

 ✔

✔

✔ Prize  

✔ ✔ H.M.  

   

  ✔ Bronze

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

 

 

 

✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

France (Paris)

 

 

 

✔ Silver

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

France (Condom, Gers) France (Paris)

 

 

 

✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

✔ H.M.

✔ Medal

✔ Silver

 

✔

 

 

✔

 

✔ 

France (Poitiers, Vienne)

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

France (Paris)

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

Gellin, A. Gérente, A. Gesta, Louis-​Victor Gilbert, A. père

Girard, H. Gobbe, O., Fogt, A. & Co. Goglet, P.-​F. et cie Goussard, Abbé Joseph Gsell-​Laurent, Jules Gaspard & Co. Gesll, Albert Jacques Guérithault, Pierre-​Eugène & Ferdinand Philippe Frères Guernet, Auguste

✔

199

newgenrtpdf

Guilbert d’Anelle, C.-​M. Guillemin, Joseph Gugnon, Louis-​Napoléon Gugnon, A. fils Haudecoeur et Colpaert Haussaire, E.

France (Avignon,   Vaucluse) France France (Metz then   Paris)

 

 

✔ H.M.

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

✔ Bronze

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔  

France (Lille)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ 1st Or.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 ✔   Bronze

✔

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ✔

 

 

✔  

✔  

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

  ✔ Silver

   

   ✔

 

 

✔ H.M.

✔ H.M. ✔

 

✔ ✔

 

 

 

 

 

   

  ✔

   

   

   

  ✔

   

✔ 2nd Or.  

✔  

   

  ✔

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  ✔ ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔  

France (Rheims then Lille then Paris) Herbelot & Gellin France (Clermont-​ Ferrand) Hermanouska, M. France (Troyes) Hirsch, France (Paris) Charles-​Émile. Höner, François France (Nancy) Antoine Höner, Victor Hubert France (Paris) Hucher, E. et France (Carmel le Rathouis, E. Mans) Huckelbecker France (Le Mans) (F. and K.) (with Les Dames carmélites) Hugher fils France (Le Mans) Ichleiden France Jubinal, A. France (Dinan)

(continued)

200

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Jacquier

France (Le Mans/​ Paris) France France (Le Mans) France (Le Mans)

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  ✔ H.M. ✔

   

   

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

   

France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Troyes)  

✔      

✔   ✔ H.M.  

✔ Medal      

✔ Bronze ✔    

       

✔      

       

       

       

       

       

France (Paris)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ Bronze  

✔

✔

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔  

           

✔       ✔    

           

    ✔ H.M.     ✔ H.M.

          ✔ Award

✔ ✔ ✔     ✔

          ✔

           

✔         ✔

           

✔ ✔     ✔  

Kessler Küchelbecker, F. Kuchet and Becker Lafaye, Prosper Lamotte Larcher, Vincent Latteaux-​Bazin (see Bazin) Laumonnerie, Hippolyte-​ Théophile Lavergne, Nöel Leclercq, Jules Ledoux, Auguste Lefèvre, Léon Leprévost, C. A. Lévêque, C.-​I. Lobin, L. & Co. Lorain, Gustave Lorin, Nicolas

France (Paris) France (Mesnil-​ Saint-​Fermin) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Beauvais) France (Tours) France France (Chartres, Eure-​et-​Loire)

201

newgenrtpdf

Lorin (Veuve)

France (Chartres, Eure-​et-​Loire) France (Aube)

Lucinge-​ Faucigny, H. de Lusson, Antoine France (Le Mans and from 1862 Paris) Marchand, France (Paris) Jacques-​ Eugène & cie Maréchal, France (Metz) Charles-​ Raphaël (Junior) Maréchal, Charles-​ Laurent (Senior) Marechaud France Marette, Jean-​ France (Évreux) Gabriel & Fils Marquant-​Vogel, France (Rheims) A. Marquis France (Troyes) Martel, Auguste France de (Saint-​Quentin) Martin, Frédéric France (Avignon) Martin-​ France (Troyes) Hermanouska Mathieu, Henri France (Paris) Maurel France (Paris)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ Gold

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

✔ H.M.

✔

✔ Medal

✔ Silver

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ✔ Prize

✔ 1st Cl.

✔ Medal

✔ Silver

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

✔ 1st Cl.  ✔ Medal

✔ Silver

   

✔ ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

   

✔ ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔

✔ ✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

   

✔ Bronze   ✔ Bronze  

    (continued)

202

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Mauverney, Alexandre Meuret-​Lemoine Milési, Juliette Moise, Gustave Moreau, Henri Moulin, E.

France (Saint-​ Galmier, Loire) France France France (Rouen) France (Paris) France (Dreux, Eure-​et-​Loire) France France (Paris) France (Paris)

 

✔

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

  ✔ ✔

 

 

 

✔ ✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

✔

✔ Medal

✔ H.M.

 

  ✔ ✔

 

 

✔

 

 

France (Morlaiz, Finistère) France (Paris)

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

✔

 

 

✔

 

 

France (Paris)

 

 

✔ Medal

✔ Silver

 

✔

 

 

(✔)

 

✔

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moyse, Émile Neret, G. Nicod, Paul-​Charles Nicolas, Jean-​ Louis, fils Ottin, Léon-​Auguste Oudinot, Achille & Eugène-​ Stanislas Oudinot, E. and Harpignies, H. Pagnon-​ Deschelettes, Émile-​Benoît-​ Marie Pailleux-​Salatz, N.-​A.

France (Paris) France (Lyons)

France (Chatou)

✔ H.M.  

 

203

newgenrtpdf

Parvillée Pelletier, M. A. & Sons Petit Petit-​Gérard, J. B. Pizzagalli, Ch. Pomés, J. Ponsin, J. A. Queynoux, M. P. & Pouyet Ravel de Malval Rémon, J. M. H. Remy Retter Reverdy Reyen, A. G. Reygeal Frères , Michon et Veysset Reynard & Son Rigaud, D. Riquier, C. Robin, G. Roséy, Fernand Saint-​Armand, H. de Samson, L. Seguin, P.

France France (Saint-​Just-​ sur-​Loire) France France (Strasbourg) France France (Bordeaux) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Nancy) France (Strasbourg) France (Paris) France (Paris) France (Paris)

France (Fresnes) France (Toulouse) France (Paris) France France France (Lamarque) France (Paris) France (Paris/​ Bessac)

   

   

   

✔  

  ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

       

       

      ✔

       

  ✔ ✔ ✔

       

       

    ✔ Bronze  

       

✔      

   

  ✔ ✔

   

✔    

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

     

     

     

  ✔ ✔

     

     

✔ Bronze       ✔  

     

         

          ✔

✔        

         

         

  ✔ ✔    

         

         

         

         

      ✔ ✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ ✔

(continued)

204

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 1878 Philadelphia Paris

1880–​81 1888–​89 Melbourne Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Socard Soulier Soullard, E. Tabouret, Louis Tamoni, Marius Tessié du Motay Tétrelle Thevenot, Étienne-​ Hormidès Thibaud (from 1855 Thibaud-​Dallet) Thierry, père and fils Tiercelin, E. Trézel, Louis Ullmann, Achille-Antoine Vantillard, Ch. J. Veissière, Joseph-​ Aventin & Fils Vincent, Julièn Vincent-​Larcher Vogel Werlen, B.

France France (Paris) France (Paris) France France (Paris) France (Paris) France France (Clermont-​ Ferrand)

 

  ✔            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

           

      ✔    

           

✔     ✔ ✔  

           

           

    ✔ Bronze      

           

  ✔ ✔      

France (Clermont-​ ✔ Ferrand)

✔

 

✔ Bronze

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

France (Angers)

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

France (Paris) France France (Paris)

     

    ✔

     

    ✔

     

✔    

     

     

✔ Bronze          

  ✔  

✔ Silver  

✔  

          ✔

France (Paris)   France (Seignelay)  

    ✔ 2nd Cl.  

   

   

✔  

   

   

France (Paris) France (Troyes) France France

 

 

 

✔

 

 

✔  

   

 

 

 

✔ ✔

 

 

     

✔ H.M.  

 

✔  

205

newgenrtpdf

United States of America (USA) Androvette, USA (Chicago) George E. & Co. Armstrong, USA (New York) Margaret M. Baker, James & USA (New York) Son Beeler, John C. USA (New York) Buffalo Stained USA (Buffalo, Glass Works Co. New York) California Art USA (San Francisco) Glass Co. Erkins, H. USA (Chicago) Falck, Otto F. & USA (Boston) Co. Fitzpatrick, Arthur USA (Staten Island) & Co. Frederick A., & USA (Brooklyn, Bros. New York) Gibson, George. USA (Philadelphia) Gibson, J. USA (New York) Greenough, USA (Brooklyn, Walter C. New York) Hannington, W.J. USA (New York) Healy & Millet USA (Chicago) Henry, Charles USA (Kokomo, IN) Edward Herndl, Marie USA (Chicago)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

   

   

  ✔ Silver

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

 

 

 

 

✔ Award

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

  ✔  

     

     

     

✔    

     

     

     

    ✔

     

     

✔    

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  ✔ Silver ✔ Gold

  ✔  

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

  (continued)

206

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 Philadelphia

1878 Paris

1880–​81 Melbourne

1888–​89 Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Hoefel, Ferdinand La Farge, John Lamb, J. & R. Studios Lathrop, François Lynch, A. K. & Co. Maitland, Armstrong & Co. Mallon, John Marshall, S. S. & Bro. McCully & Miles McPherson, W. J. & Co. Mittermaier, Max

USA (Saint Louis) USA (New York) USA (New York)

     

     

     

     

✔    

     

     

     

  ✔ Gold  

    ✔

    ✔

USA (New York) USA (New York) USA (New York)

     

     

     

     

  ✔  

     

     

     

     

    ✔

✔    

USA (San Francisco) USA (Alleghany City, Pennsylvania) USA (Chicago) USA (Boston)

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

✔  

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

USA (Brooklyn, New York) USA (Philadelphia) USA (New York)

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

  ✔

  ✔

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

Reith, William Sharp, Henry

207

newgenrtpdf

Slack, S. & Co. USA (Orange, New Jersey) Smith, H. J. & USA Co. (Philadelphia) Tiffany & Co. USA (New York) Tillinghast, USA (New York) Mary Wells Glass USA (Chicago) Company West, Samuel USA (Boston)

 

 

 

 

✔ Award

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔ ✔

✔  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

  (continued)

208

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 Philadelphia

1878 Paris

1880–​81 Melbourne

1888–​89 Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Italy Bagatti-​Valsecchi, Pietro Bertini, Giuseppe Francini, G. Francisci, F. & M. 1862 Michieli, André and Rossi (Joseph) Moretti Mossmeyer Rossi, François

  Italy (Milan)

  ✔ H.M.

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Italy (Milan) Italy (Florence) Italy (Umbria)

✔ Prize    

     

✔ Medal   ✔ H.M.    

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

Italy (Padua)

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Italy (Rome) Italy (Florence) Italy (Macerata)

     

     

     

✔   ✔

     

     

     

     

     

     

  ✔  

209

newgenrtpdf

Austria and the German States Auerbach & Co., M. Prussia (Berlin) Beiler, H. Baden-​Würtemberg (Heidelberg) Binsfield & Jansen Germany (Trier) Bostelmann, A. Germany (Hamburg) Burkhardt Brothers Bavaria (Munich) Christiansen, Prof. Hesse (Darmsdadt) Hans De Bouché, Carl Bavaria (Munich) Drinneberg, Hans Baden-​Würtemberg (Karlsruhe) Eggert and Sonner Bavaria (Munich) Eissgruber, Sebastian Bavaria (Nuremberg) Endner Hesse (Darmsdadt) Engelbrecht, Karl Germany (Hamburg) Först, Victor von der Germany (Münster) Fridiche, Antoine Austria (Köflach) Fueglmüllen (frère et Austria (Süsenheim) neveu) Geyling, Carl Austria (Vienna)

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔ ✔

  ✔

  ✔ ✔

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

✔     ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔ ✔

   

             

✔            

             

          ✔ ✔

             

             

             

        ✔ 1st Or.    

             

  ✔   ✔      

    ✔ ✔      

✔

✔

 

✔ H.M.

 

✔

 

 

✔ Gold  

✔ (continued)

210

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 Philadelphia

1878 Paris

1880–​81 Melbourne

1888–​89 Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 1900 Chicago Paris

Neuhauser Tyrolese Glass Painting Manufactory Ganter, R. Geiges, Fritz

Austria (Innsbruck) Austria (Innsbruck)

   

   

   

  ✔

  ✔

✔  

   

  ✔ 2nd Or.

   

   

   

Prussia (Berlin) Baden-​Würtemberg (Freiburg) Prussia (Ehrenbreitstein) Prussia (Kempen) German (Mecklenburg-​ Schwerin) Prussia (Berlin) Prussia (Halle an der-​Saale) Bavaria (Nuremberg) Prussia (Berlin)

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔ ✔

  ✔

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  ✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

✔  

   

   

  (✔)

   

   

   

  ✔ 1st Or.

   

   

   

Bavaria (Nuremberg) Prussia (Münster) Kingdom of Saxony (Dresden) Frankfurt am Main Prussia (Berlin) Bavaria (Munich) Bavaria (Munich) Bavaria (Munich)

✔ Prize    

     

     

✔    

     

     

     

     

     

    ✔

  ✔ ✔

    ✔ Prize    

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

  ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

✔        

Geissler, Fr. Geuer, J. J. Gillmeister, E.

Grosse, E. Heckert, E. Hodder Königliches Institut fur Glasmalerie Kellner, Stephan Lechter, Melchoir Liebert Lüthi, A. (Lutti) Marcus, Max Mayer, J. Mosimann, Karl Naager, Franz & Pflederer, Friedrich

211

newgenrtpdf

Nesser Oidtmann, D. G. & Co. Peartree & Co. Pfaff, Hans Pfanneschmidt Rösing, F. W. Schell, Wilhelm Schmitz, Michel Hubert Schneider, M. Sievers Spinn, J. C. & Co. Staudinger, Alvis Ule, Karl Van Treek, Gustav Vittali, Otto Westphal, Louis Wetzel, C. J. Wilhelm, Gotthilf Zebger, F. W. Zettler, F. X.

Bavaria Prussia (Linnich, Aachen) Prussia (Berlin) Kingdom of Saxony (Dresden) Germany (Hamburg) Germany (Hamburg) Bavaria (Offenberg) Prussia (Aachen) Bavaria (Regensburg) Bavaria (Munich) Prussia (Berlin) Bavaria (Munich) Bavaria (Munich) Bavaria (Munich) Prussia (Berlin) Prussia (Berlin) Wurtemberg (Stuttgart) Wurtemberg (Stuttgart) Prussia (Berlin) Bavaria (Munich)

   

   

  ✔

✔   ✔ Bronze  

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

✔ 2nd Or.  

   

   

  ✔

✔    

        ✔ H.M.  

✔     ✔ H.M.

     

     

     

     

     

  ✔  

     

✔               ✔

✔              

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

  ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔   ✔  

  ✔       ✔    

  ✔ Award

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

✔ H.M. ✔  

   

   

   

(continued)

212

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor Belgium Capronnier, Jean-​Baptiste Comère De Cranes, P. De Taffe Dobbelaere Dorlodot, L. de & Co. Fontana Jonet, D. Couillet Mondran, L. Pluys, J. F. Pluys, Léopold Société Anonyme des Verreries de Jumet Stalins and Janssens Vanderpoorten, J.-​L. Willocx, Constant

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

Belgium (Brussels)

✔

Belgium Belgium (Antwerp) Belgium (Brussels) Belgium (Bruges) Belgium (Lodelinsart) Belgium Belgium (Hainault) Belgium (Lodelinsart) Belgium (Mechlin) Belgium (Mechlin) Belgium

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 Philadelphia

1878 Paris

1880–​81 Melbourne

1888–​89 Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 Chicago

1900 Paris

✔ 2nd Cl. ✔ Medal

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ Silver

 

 

     

     

     

  ✔ H.M.  

    ✔

  ✔   ✔   

     

     

     

✔    

     

  ✔  

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ✔ 2nd Or.

✔ Bronze          

     

✔    

✔    

     

     

     

     

     

✔ 2nd Or.   ✔ 3rd Or.

     

✔ ✔  

     

Belgium (Anvers)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ Gold

 

 

Belgium (Brussels)

 

 

✔ H.M.

✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

Belgium (Malines)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

213

newgenrtpdf

The Netherlands Bouvy

Coquenet, P.J.

Etablissement Royal de peinture sur verre, under J. Fischer et cie Le Comte, A. Mengelberg, Othon Regout, P.

Schouten, Jan

Kingdom of the Netherlands (Dordrecht) Kingdom of the Netherlands (Amsterdam) Kingdom of the Netherlands (Amsterdam)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kingdom of the Netherlands Kingdom of the Netherlands Kingdom of the Netherlands (Maastricht) Kingdom of the Netherlands (Delft)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

(continued)

214

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 Philadelphia

1878 Paris

1880–​81 Melbourne

1888–​89 Melbourne

1889 Paris

Switzerland Berbig, Frédéric Gisbrecht, Rob. Hosch

  Switzerland (Zurich) Switzerland

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

    ✔ Bronze  

  ✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

Switzerland (Lausanne) Switzerland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ H.M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

Switzerland (Fribourg) Switzerland (Solothurn) Switzerland (Zurich) Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ Gold

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ Bronze  

✔ ✔  

Jaggli-​ Froehlich, Walter Kirsch & Fleckner Kreuger Kreuzer, Ad. Muret, Albert Murki Wehrli

1893 Chicago

1900 Paris

215

newgenrtpdf

Other European countries  Linster & Luxembourg Schmit

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

Ladies’ Committee   Duvier, Aug.

Sweden (Stockholm)   Denmark (Copenhagen) Denmark (Copenhagen)   Russia (St Petersburg)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

  Hungary (Budapest)   Spain (Barcelona) Bohemia (Prague)

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

  ✔

   

   

   

   

   

   

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gotke, E. J.   Society of Glaziers and Verriers of Nord   Roth   Pascal y Granes Quast, J.

(continued)

216

newgenrtpdf

(Cont.) Exhibitor

Country

British colonies and protectorates Ashwin & Australia (Sydney) Falconer Brooks, Australia Robinson & (Melbourne) Co. Ferguson & Urie Australia (Melbourne) Girolami Egypt Goodlett & Australia (Sydney) Smith Lyon & Cottier Australia (Sydney) Lyon, Wells & Australia (Sydney) Cottier Montefiore, E. L. Australia (Woollahra, NSW) Rowe, J. F. & Co. Australia (Melbourne) Smyrk & Australia Rodgers (Melbourne) Train, W. & Co. Australia (Melbourne)    

1851 London

1855 Paris

1862 London

1867 Paris

1876 Philadelphia

1878 Paris

1880–​81 Melbourne

1888–​89 Melbourne

1889 Paris

1893 Chicago

1900 Paris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ 2nd Or.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ 1st Or.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ✔ 2nd Or.

✔ H.M.      

   

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

   

  ✔ H.M.

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

217

newgenrtpdf

Booth, William, J. Bullock, William Hobendan & Mildrum McCausland, J. & Son Spence, J.-​C. Walker, A.

Canada (Toronto) Canada (Toronto) Canada (Toronto)

     

     

  ✔  

     

✔ Award   ✔ Award

     

     

     

     

     

     

Canada (Toronto)

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

✔

 

Canada (Montreal) Canada (Halifax, Nova Scotia)

   

✔  

   

✔ H.M.  

✔ Award ✔ Award

   

   

   

   

✔  

   

Bailey & Kerr

South Africa (Cape Town)

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔

 

 

 

 

New Caledonia (France)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✔ H.M.  

 

French colonies Péntencier & Bouloupari

218

Bibliography

Archival sources Birmingham Archives and Heritage, Birmingham, The Hardman Archive, MS 175/​35. Birmingham Archives and Heritage, Birmingham, The Hardman Archive, MS 175A/​4/​3/​7/​1, Glass Day [Sales] Book, November 1845–​January 1854. Birmingham Archives and Heritage, Birmingham, The Hardman Archive, MS 175A/​4/​3/​7/​2, Glass Day [Sales] Book, January 1863–​June 1870. Birmingham Archives and Heritage, Birmingham, The Hardman Archive, MS 175A/​4/​3/​7/​3, Glass Day [Sales] Book, July 1870–​June 1876. Birmingham Archives and Heritage, Birmingham, The Hardman Archive, MS 175A/​ 11/​2/​2/​1, Goods Sent to International Exhibition 1862 by John Hardman & Co. Birmingham Archives and Heritage, Birmingham, The Hardman Archive, MS 175A/​11/​2/​2/​2, Letters and Papers relating to Paris Exhibition of 1867. Birmingham Archives and Heritage, Birmingham, The Hardman Archive, MS 175A/​11/​2/​2/​3, Posters of Paris Exhibition. British Library, London, ‘Plan of the International Exhibition, held at South Kensington in 1862’. Scale, 1 inch = 60 feet, British Library Maps 3560.(31). National Art Library, South Kensington, London, EX. 1851. 118, ‘Great Exhibition 1851 Illustrations:  A Collection of Cuttings of Engravings Illustrating the Articles in the Exhibition Arranged in Classes’, vol. 4 (Classes XXIV–​XXVI). National Art Library, South Kensington, London, Special Collections 805.AB.0004, Scrapbook of Newspaper Cuttings, Lithographs, Prints Related to the International Exhibition of 1862. National Art Library, South Kensington, London, VA. 1998. Box 0030, Select List of Great Exhibition Objects on Display in the Victoria and Albert Museum. New York Public Library, New York, ‘Philadelphia 1876. Collection of Newspaper Clippings’. Sandwell Community and History Archives, Smethwick, Chance Brothers Business Records, BS6/​9/​8/​1, Box of Medals. V&A Archive, London, Correspondence:  Alterations, Decorations and Repairs, 1863–​1934, ED 84/​71, 29 July 1913.

219

Bibliography

Printed sources Ageorges, S. Sur les traces des Expositions universelles Paris 1855–​ 1937:  à la recherche des pavillons et des monuments oubliés (Paris: Parigramme, 2006). Alexander, M. Medievalism: the Middle Ages in modern England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). Allen, J. ‘A. W. N. Pugin, Stained Glass and the 1851 Medieval Court’, True Principles 5:1 (Spring 2016), 11–​28. Allen, J. ‘Stained Glass and the Culture of the Spectacle, 1780–​1862’, Visual Culture in Britain 13:1 (2012), 1–​23. Allwood, J. ‘International Exhibitions and the Classification of their Exhibits’, Journal of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce 128:5287 (June 1980), 450–​5. Alpers, S. ‘The Museum as a Way of Seeing’, in I. Karp and S. D. Lavine (eds), Exhibiting cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display (Washington, DC; London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), pp. 25–​33. Altick, R. D. The shows of London: a panoramic history of exhibitions, 1600–​1862 (Cambridge, MA; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1978). Aman, C. Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts:  Sachsen-​ Annhalt. Die Kirchen (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 2003). Anderson, B. Imagined communities: reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (London; New York: Verso, 1983). Ansted, E. D. T. (ed.). Black’s guide to Paris, and the International Exhibition of 1867 (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1867). Appert, L. and J. Henrivaux. ‘La verrerie à l’Exposition universelle de 1889’, in Arts industriels. Revue technique de l’Exposition universelle 1889 (Paris: E. Bernard & cie, 1890), pp. 353–​446. Armstrong, I. Victorian glassworlds:  glass culture and the imagination 1830–​1880 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Arscott, C. ‘Burne-​ Jones. Stained glass’, William Morris and Edward Burne-​ Jones: interlacings (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), pp. 202–​23. Arscott, C. ‘Fractured Figures:  The Sculptural Logic of Burne-​ Jones’s Stained Glass’, in D. Getsy (ed.), Body doubles: sculpture in Britain, 1877–​1905 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), pp. 39–​62. The Art Journal illustrated catalogue of the International Exhibition, 1862 (London; New York: James S. Virtue, 1862). The Art-​Journal illustrated catalogue:  the industry of all nations 1851 (London: George Virtue, 1851). ‘L’Art nouveau’, Le Figaro (28 December 1895). Reprinted in V.  Champier, ‘L’Exposition de l’Art nouveau’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 16 (16 December 1896), 1–​16. ‘The Art-​Show at the Great Exhibition’, Dublin University Magazine (August 1862), 131–​45. Aslin, E. The Aesthetic Movement: prelude to Art Nouveau (New York: Praeger, 1969). Auerbach, J. The Great Exhibition of 1851:  A nation on display (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1999). Auerbach, J. A. and P. H. Hoffenberg (eds). Britain, the empire, and the world at the Great Exhibition of 1851 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). Australian Builder and Contractor’s News (17 September 1887), 300. Australian Builder and Contractor’s News (2 June 1888), 371.

219

220

220

Bibliography ‘Austro-​Hungary’, The Argus (6 November 1888), 67. Ayers, T. The medieval stained glass of Merton College, Oxford (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2013). Bacha, M. Les Expositions universelles à Paris de 1855 à 1937 (Paris: Action artistique de la ville de Paris, 2005). Badel, L. Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Paris, 1803–​2003: II Études thématiques (Geneva: Droz, 2008). Baguelin, I. ‘La céramique. La redécouverte d’un vitrail de l’Exposition universelle de 1878 au Musée des Monuments français’, Histoire de l’Art 56 (April 2005), 131–​9. Baillie, E. ‘Modern Painting on Glass’, The Builder 9:461 (6 December 1851), 774. Baillie, E. ‘New Old Stained Glass’, The Builder 9:425 (29 March 1851), 208. Ballantine, J. A treatise on painted glass, shewing its applicability to every style of architecture (London: Chapman & Hall; Edinburgh: Menzies, 1845). Balus, W., T. Szybisty, D. Czapczyńska-​Kleszczyńska, P. Karaszkiewicz, and A. Zeńczak. Korpus witraży z lat 1800–​ 1945 w kościołach rzymskokatolickich metropolii krakowskiej i przemyskiej. Tom 1, Archidiecezja krakowska: dekanaty krakowskie (Kraków: Corpus Vitrearum Polska, 2014). Barringer, T. ‘An Antidote to Mechanical Poison: John Ruskin, Photography, and Early Pre-​ Raphaelite Painting’, in D. Waggoner et  al., The Pre-​Raphaelite lens: British photography and painting, 1848–​1875 (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2010), pp. 18–​31. Barringer, T. Men at work:  art and labour in Victorian Britain (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2005). Barringer, T. and T. Flynn (eds). Colonialism and the object: empire, material culture and the museum (London: Routledge, 1998). Barringer, T., G. Quilley, and D. Fordham. Art and the British Empire (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009). Barth, V. ‘The Micro-​History of a World Event: Intention, Perception and Imagination at the Exposition Universelle de 1867’, Museum and Society 6:1 (March 2008), 22–​37. Baschet, L. (ed.). Le panorama 1900: Exposition universelle (Paris: Librairie d’Art Ludovic Baschet, 1900). Basou, M., M.-​M. Massé, and P. Thiébaut. Musée d’Orsay catalogue sommaire illustré des arts décoratifs (Paris: RMN, 1988). Baylis, S. ‘Glass-​painting in Britain c. 1760–​c. 1840: A Revolution in Taste’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1989). Bayne, S. B. M. Heaton, Butler & Bayne: un siècle d’art du vitrail (Montreux: S. B. M. Bayne, 1986). Beezley, W.  H. and L.  A. Curcio-​Nagy (eds). Latin American popular culture:  an introduction (Wilmington, DE: SR Books, 2000). Bell, Q. The schools of design (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963). ‘La belle alliance’, Punch 29 (1 September 1855), 87. Benedict, B. ‘Rituals of Representation: Ethnic Stereotypes and Colonized Peoples at World’s Fairs’, in R. W. Rydell and N. E. Gwinn (eds), Fair representations: world’s fairs and the modern world. European contributions to American studies 27 (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1994), pp. 28–​62. Benjamin, W. ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, in H. Arendt (ed.) and H. Zohn (trans.), Illuminations (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968), pp. 217–​53.

221

Bibliography Bennett, C., N. J. Morgan, J. Cheshire, and H. Tom Küpper. Stained glass of Lincoln Cathedral (London: Scala, 2012). Benyon, T. ‘British Glass Painters, Designers and Draughtsmen in 1881 and 1901: CD and On-​Line Research’, Journal of Stained Glass 26 (2002), 86–​118. Benyon, T. ‘The Development of Antique and Other Glasses Used in 19th-​and 20th-​Century Stained Glass’, Journal of Stained Glass 29 (2005), 184–​200. Bergerat, É. ‘Peinture sur verre et statuaire religieuse’, in Les chefs-​d’oeuvre d’art à l’Exposition universelle, 1878 (Paris: Baschet, 1878), pp. 9–​12. Bermingham, A. ‘Landscape-​ O-​ Rama:  The Exhibition Landscape at Somerset House and the Rise of Popular Landscape Entertainments’, in D. Solkin (ed.), Art on the line: the Royal Academy exhibitions at Somerset House 1780–​1836 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), pp. 127–​44. Betteridge, M. Sydney Town Hall: the building and its collection (Sydney: Council of the City of Sydney, 2000). Bezut, K. ‘The Stained-​Glass and Painting-​on-​Glass Workshop at Sèvres, 1827–​ 1854’, in T. Preaud and D. E. Ostergard (eds), The Sèvres Porcelain Manufactory: Alexandre Brongniart and the triumph of art and industry, 1800–​1847 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 97–​111. Bindman, D. Ape to Apollo:  aesthetics and the idea of race in the 18th century (London: Reaktion, 2002). Bitterlin, P. Exposition universelle de Paris en 1878. Section française. Classe 19. Groupe III. Paul Bitterlin fils: artiste peintre-​graveur-​verrier (Paris: Imprimerie de A. Pougin, 1878). Blair, S.  S. and J.  M. Bloom. The art and architecture of Islam 1250–​1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Blatchford, I. ‘John Thomas and His “Wonderful Facility of Invention”: Revisiting a Neglected Sculptor’, V&A Online Journal 3 (Spring 2011). Bloch, J.-​J. and M. Delort. Quand Paris allait ‘à l’Expo’ (Paris: Fayard, 1980). Blondel, N. ‘Viollet-​Le-​Duc et la manufacture royale de Sèvres’, in B. Foucart (ed.), Viollet-​le-​Duc (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1980), pp. 284–​7. Blow, D. ‘A Cathedral for Burlington’, Vermont History 36:3 (Summer 1968), 109–​25. Boime, A. The art of exclusion:  representing blacks in the nineteenth century (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990). Böning, M. Glasmalerei des 19. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland: Katalog zur Ausstellung, Angermuseum Erfurt, 23. September 1993 bis 27. Februar 1994 (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 1993). Bontemps, G. Examen historique et critique des verres, vitraux, cristaux composant la classe XXIV de l’Exposition universelle de 1851 (Paris:  Mathias; London: J. Weale, 1851). Bontemps, G. ‘On Glass’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition:  presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty (London:  Eyre & Spottiswoode for HMSO, 1856), part 2, pp. 373–​405. Bontemps, G. Peinture sur verre au XIXe siècle: les secrets de cet art sont-​ils retrouvés? Quelques réflexions sur ce sujet adressées aux savants et aux artistes (Paris: Imprimerie Ducessois, 1845). Bontemps, G. and É. Boeswillwald. ‘Groupe III. Classes 14 à 26. Section II. Vitraux’, in Rapports du Jury international publiés sous la direction de M. Michel Chevalier, 6 vols (Paris: Dupong, 1868), vol. 3, pp. 88–​97.

221

222

222

Bibliography Bouchon, C. ‘Le carton destiné à la verrière de la chambre de commerce de Paris par E. Grasset’, La Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France 2 (1986), 131–​8. Bouchon, C. and C. Brisac. ‘Le Vitrail’, in C. Bouchon, C. Brisac, N.-​J. Chaline, and J.-​M. Leniaud (eds), Ces églises du dix-​neuvième siècle (Amiens: Encrage, 1993), pp. 224–​43. Bouilhet, A. ‘L’Exposition de Chicago: notes de voyage d’un orfèvre’, Revue des arts décoratifs (1893–​94), 65–​79. Breckenridge, C.  A. ‘The Aesthetics and Politics of Colonial Collecting:  India at World Fairs’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 31:2 (April 1989), 195–​216. Bremner, A. Imperial gothic:  religious architecture and High Anglican culture in the British Empire c. 1840–​1870 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2013). Bressey, C. ‘Victorian Photography and the Mapping of the Black Presence in Britain’, in J.  Marsh, Black Victorians:  black people in British art 1800–​1900 (Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Lund Humphries, 2005), pp. 66–​76. Briggs, J. ‘Woman Is Famous:  Marie Herndl Has Reputation for Stained Glass Work’, Milwaukee Journal (11 February 1911). Brisac, C. A thousand years of stained glass (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986). British Architect (20 April 1900), 284. Brongniart, A. Mémoire sur la peinture sur verre (Paris: Imprimerie de Selligue, 1829). Brooks, C. The gothic revival (London: Phaidon, 1999). Brown, S. and D. O’Connor. Medieval craftsmen: glass-​painters (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991). Brown, S. and S. Strobl. A fragile inheritance (London: Church House, 2002). Bryant, G. B. ‘Frank Furness and Henry Holiday: A Study of Patronage, Architecture and Art’, Architectural History 56 (2013), 169–​211. Builder’s and Engineer’s Journal (9 May 1891), 179. Bullen, J.  B. ‘Louis Comfort Tiffany and Romano-​Byzantine Design’, Burlington Magazine 147:1227, Furniture, Decorative Arts, Sculpture (June 2005), 390–​8. Burgard, T.  A. ‘Edmonia Lewis and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:  Images and Identities’, American Art Review 7:1 (1995), 114–​17. Burges, W. Art applied to industry: a series of lectures (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1865). Burges, W. ‘The International Exhibition’, Gentleman’s Magazine 212 (June 1862), 663–​76. Burges, W. ‘The International Exhibition’, Gentleman’s Magazine 213 (July 1862), 3–​12. Burges, W. ‘The Japanese Court in the International Exhibition’, Gentleman’s Magazine 213 (September 1862), 243–​54. Burges, W. ‘The Late Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 20 (1862), 336–​9. Burris, J. P. Exhibiting religion: colonialism and spectacle at international expositions, 1851–​1893 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001). Buzard, J., J. W. Childers and E. Gillooly (eds). Victorian prism: refractions of the Crystal Palace (Charlottesville; London: University of Virginia Press, 2007). Cabezas, H. ‘L’atelier de vitraux parisien Billard-​ Laurent-​ Gsell (1838–​ 1892)’, Cahiers de la Rotonde 17 (1996), 163–​73. Cajamarca, A. F. L. ‘Innovations des techniques verrières au XIXe siècle et leurs applications dans la réalisation de vitraux’, PhD thesis, Conservatoire national des arts et metiers –​CNAM (2013).

223

Bibliography Carré, A.-​L., M.-​S. Corcy, L. Hilaire-​Pérez, and C.  Demeulenaere-​Douyère. Les Expositions universelles en France au XIXe siècle: techniques, publics, patrimoines (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2012). Cassell, J. The illustrated exhibitor, a tribute to the world’s industrial jubilee; comprising sketches, by pen and pencil of the principal objects in the Great Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations, 1851 (London: Cassell, 1851). Cassell’s illustrated exhibitor; containing about three hundred illustrations, with letter press descriptions of all the principal objects in the International exhibition of 1862 (London: Cassell, 1862). Catalogue of the natural and industrial products of New South Wales (Sydney: Reading and Wellbank, 1861) Catalogue officiel des exposants récompenses par le jury international (Paris: Dentu, 1867). Catalogue officiel publié par ordre de la Commission Impériale (Paris:  Imprimerie impériale, 1855). Caviness, M. H. ‘Some Aspects of Nineteenth-​Century Stained Glass Restoration: Membra Disjecta et Collectanea’, in P. Moore (ed.), Crown in glory: a celebration of craftmanship-​studies in stained glass (Norwich: Jarrold & Sons, 1982), pp. 69–​73. Çelik, Z. Displaying the Orient:  architecture of Islam at nineteenth-​century world’s fairs (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992). ‘The Century –​Its Fruits and Its Festival. X –​Art’, Lippincott’s Magazine of Popular Literature and Science 18 (October 1876), 393–​414. Chadwick, O. The Victorian Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966–​70). Chalet-​Bailhache, I. Paris et ses Expositions universelles: architectures, 1855–​1937 (Paris: Éditions du patrimoine: Centre des monuments nationaux, 2008) Champier, V. Les industries d’art à l’Exposition universelle de 1889 (Paris:  Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs, 1889–​91). Champigneulle, C. ‘Classe 19. Cristaux, verrerie et vitraux. Part II. Vitraux’, in A. Picard (ed.), Exposition universelle internationale de 1889  à Paris. Rapports du Jury international publiés sous la direction de M.  Alfred Picard. Groupe III: mobilier et accessoires, classes 17 à 29 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1891), pp. 175–​83. ‘Chapters on Stained Glass. –​No. II. Warrington and Winston’, The Ecclesiologist 74:38 (October 1849), 81–​97. Cheshire, J. Stained glass and the Victorian gothic revival (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004). ‘Chicago:  American vs. Foreign Stained Glass’, American Architect and Building News 42:933 (11 November 1893), 74–​5. Chicago Daily Tribune (3 June 1894), 6. Child, F. J. The English and Scottish popular ballads (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1888). Ciaran, F. Stained glass windows of Canterbury, New Zealand: a catalogue raisonné (Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press, 1998). ‘City Council. Fortnightly Meeting’, The Argus (26 March 1889), 9. Clark, W.  B. The stained glass art of William Jay Bolton (Syracuse, NY:  Syracuse University Press, 1992). Clifton-​Taylor, A. English parish churches as works of art (London:  Batsford, 1974).

223

224

224

Bibliography Cobb, J. ‘From Parrots to Princes: Exhibitions of Contemporary Stained Glass in Late Eighteenth-​Century London’, Vidimus 53 (July–​August 2011), http://​vidimus.org/​issues/​issue-​53/​feature/​ (accessed 26 November 2016). Cole, D. ‘The Problem of “Nationalism” and “Imperialism” in British Settlement Colonies’, Journal of British Studies 10:2 (May 1971), 160–​82. Cole, H. ‘Report on the Management of the British Portion of the Paris Universal Exhibition’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition:  presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode for HMSO, 1856), part 1, pp. 5–​72. Cole, H. A special report on the annual international exhibits of years 1871, 1872, 1873 and 1874 (London: HMSO, 1878–​79). Colonial and Indian Exhibition 1886. Official catalogue (London: W. Clowes, 1886). ‘Coloured Glass at Paris’, Once a Week 8:201 (1 August 1878), 62–​4. Conant, E.P. ‘Refractions of the Rising Sun: Japan’s Participation in International Exhibitions 1862–​1910’, in T. Sato and T. Watanabe (eds), Japan and Britain: an aesthetic dialogue 1850–​1930 (London: Lund Humphries, 1991), pp. 79–​92. ‘Contributions to the International Exhibition, Philadelphia’, Art Journal (June 1876), 185–​8. Cooke, B. The Grand Crimean Central Railway: the railway that won a war (Knutsford: Cavalier House, 1990). Coombes, A.  E. Rethinking settler colonialism:  history and memory in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and South Africa (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 2011). Corbey, R. ‘Ethnographic Showcases, 1870–​ 1930’, Cultural Anthropology 8:3 (August 1993), 338–​69. Cordato, M. F. ‘Toward a New Century: Women and the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, 1876’, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (January 1983), 113–​35. Cormack, P. Arts & crafts stained glass (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015). Cowley, D. and M. McCormack. ‘Victoria at the Great Exhibitions, 1851–​1900’, La Trobe Library Journal 14:56 (Spring 1995), 2–​5. Crace, J. G. ‘On the Decoration of the International Exhibition Building’, Society of Arts Journal (11 April 1862), 339–​44. Crampin, M. Stained glass from Welsh churches (Talybont, Ceredigion: Y Lolfa, 2014). Crimp, D. ‘On the Museum’s Ruins’, in H. Foster (ed.), Postmodern culture (London: Pluto, 1983), pp. 43–​56. Cundall, F. (ed.). Reminiscences of the Colonial and Indian Exhibition (London: William Clowes & Sons, 1886). Curl, J. S. The Victorian celebration of death (Stroud: Sutton, 2000). Curti, M. ‘America at the World’s Fairs, 1851–​1893’, American Historical Review 55 (July 1950), 833–​56. D’Arcens, L. ‘ “The Last Thing One Might Expect”:  The Mediaeval Court at the 1866 Melbourne Intercolonial Exhibition’, La Trobe Journal 81 (Autumn 2008), 26–​39. Dalzotto, M. ‘Alexandre Mauvernay, 1819–​ 1898’, in Lyon et le vitrail, du néo-​ médiéval à l’Art Nouveau (Lyons: Archives municipales, 1992), pp. 23–​5, 57, 92–​3, 109–​12, 19–​20. Darian-​ Smith, K., C. Jordan, R. Gillespie, and E. Willis (eds). Seize the day: exhibitions, Australia and the world (Clayton, Vic.: Monash University ePress, 2008).

225

Bibliography Daumont-​Tournel, L. ‘Classe 67.  –​Vitraux’, in Rapports du Jury international de l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1902), pp. 27–​75. David, V. ‘Les vitraux de l’hôtel de ville de Paris’, in M. Clément (ed.), Monumental: revue scientifique et technique des monuments historiques. Dossier vitrail, semestriel 1 (Paris: Éditions du patrimoine, 2004), pp. 38–​47. Davis, J. R. The Great Exhibition (Stroud: Sutton, 1999). Day, L.  F. ‘From Gothic Glass to Renaissance’, Magazine of Art 8 (January 1885), 282–​6. Day, L. F. ‘The Glass at Paris’, Art Journal. The Paris Exhibition 1900 (1901), 265–​70. Day, L.  F. ‘Notes on English Decorative Art in Paris. II  –​Stained Glass’, British Architect 10:1 (July 5, 1878), 4–​5. Day, L. F. ‘Some Lessons from Old Glass’, British Architect (12 February 1886), 160–​1. Day, L. F. ‘Victorian Progress in Applied Design’, Art Journal (June 1887), 185–​202. Day, L. F. Windows: a book about stained and painted glass, 3rd edn (London: B.T. Batsford, 1909 [1897]). De Caumont, A. ‘Vitraux peints’ in ‘Dix-​huitième classe:  Industrie de la verrerie et de la céramique’, in Rapports du Jury mixte international publiés sous la direction de la Commission impériale (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1856), pp. 927–​55. De Finance, L. and D. Hervier. Un patrimoine de lumière 1830–​2000: verrières des Hauts-​de-​Seine, Seine-​Saint-​Denis, Val-​de-​Marne (Paris:  Monum, Éditions du patrimoine, 2003). De Finance, L. and F. Stahl. ‘La Collaboration entre Maurice Denis et Henri Carot à la lumière de la restauration des verrières du Vésinet (Yvelines)’, In Situ, Revue des Patrimoines 12 (2009), http://​insitu.revues.org/​5471 (accessed 21 November 2016). De Kay, C. ‘The Chapel in the Crypt’, New York Times (18 June 1899). Decorations of the South Kensington Museum 1862–​1874, part I, Places decorated (London: South Kensington Museum, 1875). ‘Decorative Arts for Ladies’, All Year Round 25:600 (29 May 1880), 61–​2. Delcour, J. ‘Les vitraux de Bouvines’, in N.-​J. Chaline (ed.), Le vitrail en Picardie et dans le nord de la France aux XIXe et XXe siècles (Amiens: Encrage, 1995), pp. 61–​71. Demeulenaere-​Douyère, C. (ed.). Exotiques expositions: les Expositions universelles et les cultures extra-​européennes, France, 1855–​1937 (Paris: Somogy; Archives nationales, 2010). Démy, A. Essai historique sur les Expositions universelles de Paris (Paris: A. Picard, 1907). Devisse, J. and M. Mollatt (eds). The image of the black in Western art, vol. 2, From the early Christian era to the ‘Age of Discovery’ part 1, From the demonic threat to the incarnation of sainthood (New York: W. Morrow, 1979). Devisse, J. and M. Mollat (eds). The image of the black in Western art, vol. 2, From the early Christian era to the ‘Age of Discovery’, part 2, Africans in the Christian ordinance of the world (fourteenth to the sixteenth century) (New  York:  W. Morrow, 1979). Diamond, H.  W. ‘Report on Photographic Proofs and Apparatus  –​(Class 9)’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition 1867 (London:  HMSO, 1868), pp. 169–​83. ‘Diaphanie. The Art of Imitating Stained or Painted Glass’, National Magazine 2:10 (August 1857), 272.

225

226

226

Bibliography Dickinson’s comprehensive pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851. From the originals painted for H.  R.  H. Prince Albert by Messrs. Nash, Haghe, and Roberts, R. A., 2 vols (London: Dickinson Bros, 1854). Didron, É. ‘Section II. Vitraux’ in É. Didron and L. Clémandot (eds), Exposition Universelle internationale de 1878 à Paris. Groupe III. –​Classe 19. Rapport sur les cristaux, la verrerie et les vitraux (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1880), pp. 51–​88. Didron, É. ‘Le vitrail:  conférence faite à l’Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs’, Le Journal de la Peinture sur Verre 25 (1 March 1898), 1–4. Didron, É. ‘Le vitrail depuis cent ans et à l’Exposition de 1889’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 10 (1889–​90), 39–​48, 97–​108, 37–​54. Didron, É. Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1867 (Paris: Didron, 1868). Didron, É. ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (1)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 9 (September 1900), 269–​77. Didron, É. ‘Les vitraux à l’Exposition universelle de 1900 (2)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 10 (October 1900), 315–​25. Dishon, D. ‘South Kensington’s Forgotten Palace:  The Rise and Fall of the 1862 Exhibition Building’, Decorative Arts Society Journal 38 (2014), 21–​45. Donnelly, M. Scotland’s stained glass: making the colours sing (Edinburgh: Stationery Office, 1997). Donovan, P. and J. Donovan. 150  years of stained and painted glass (Netley, S. Aust.: Wakefield Press, 1986). Douglas, L. ‘Representing Colonial Australia at British, American and European International Exhibitions’, Journal of the National Museum of Australia 3:1 (March 2008), 13–​32. Douglass, F., I. B. Wells, I. G. Penn, and F. L. Barnett. The reason why the colored American is not in the World’s Columbian Exposition (Chicago, 1893). Down, G. M. ‘Nineteenth-​Century Stained Glass in Melbourne’ (MA dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1975). Downes, C. The building erected in Hyde Park for the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, 1851 (London: J. Weale, 1852). Dulau, R. ‘Un vitrail de Steinheil crée pour l’Exposition universelle de 1878’, in M. Clément (ed.), Monumental: revue scientifique et technique des monuments historiques. Dossier vitrail, semestriel 1 (Paris: Éditions du patrimoine, 2004), pp. 48–​9. Duncan, A. Tiffany windows:  the indispensable book on Louis C.  Tiffany’s masterworks (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1980). Duntze Ouvry, A. ‘Lucien Chatain (1846–​1886), peintre et peintre verrier clermontois’, Recherches en Histoire de l’Art 8 (2009), 27–​40. ‘Ecclesiological Aspect of the Great Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 9 (1851), 178–​90. ‘Echos’, Journal de la Peinture sur Verre 19–​20 (October 1897), 6. Edwards, S. ‘The Accumulation of Knowledge or, William Whewell’s Eye’, in L. Purbrick (ed.), The Great Exhibition of 1851:  new interdisciplinary essays (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), pp. 26–​52. Edwards, S. ‘Photography, Allegory, and Labor’, Art Journal 55:2 (Summer 1996), 38–​44. Eidelberg, M. ‘S. Bing and L. C. Tiffany: Entrepreneurs of Style’, Nineteenth-​Century Art Worldwide:  A Journal of Nineteenth-​Century Visual Culture 4:2 (Summer 2005), www.19thc-​artworldwide.org/​index.php/​summer05/​215-​excavating-​ greece-​classicism-​between-​empire-​and-​nation-​in-​nineteenth-​century-​europe (accessed January 30 2013).

227

Bibliography Eidelberg, M. P., N. Gray, and M. K. Hofer. A new light on Tiffany: Clara Driscoll and the Tiffany Girls (New York: New-​York Historical Society, 2007). Elliott, M.  H. (ed.). Illustrated art and handicraft in the Woman’s Building of the World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago (Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1893). Emery, E. and L. Morowitz. Consuming the past: the medieval revival in fin-​de-​siècle France (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). Ennès, P. Histoire du verre. Le XIXe siècle:  au carrefour de l’art et de l’industrie (Paris: Massin, 2006). Evans, S. ‘Glass Manufactures, Staining and Painting’, in W. Mackenzie and R. Mallet (eds), The record of the International Exhibition 1862 (Glasgow: William Mackenzie, 1862), pp. 399–​410. Exposition universelle de 1867 à Paris. Catalogue general (Paris: Dentu, 1867). Exposition Universelle de 1878. Le Palais du Trocadéro (Paris: Morel, 1878). ‘Exposition Universelle des Beaux Arts’, The Athenaeum 1460 (20 October 1855), 1217. Farnsworth, J. ‘John and George H. Gibson “really have the cream of the bus[iness] in their line”’, Journal of Stained Glass 37 (2013), 22–​49. Farnsworth, J.  M. ‘An American Bias for Foreign Stained Glass’, Nineteenth Century:  Magazine of the Victorian Society in America 17:2 (Fall 1997), 15–​20. Farr, D. (ed.). Thomas Gambier Parry 1816–​ 1888 as artist and collector (London: Courtauld Institute Galleries, University of London, 1993). Fenwick, R. ‘Modern French Stained Glass’, Art Journal (January 1885), 20–​3. Ffrench, Y. The Great Exhibition 1851 (London: Harvill Press, 1950). Filipová, M. (ed.). Cultures of international exhibitions 1840–​1940: great exhibitions in the margins (Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2015). Findling, J.  E. Chicago’s great world’s fairs (Manchester; New  York:  Manchester University Press, 1994). Findling, J. E. and K. D. Pelle (eds). Historical dictionary of world’s fairs and expositions, 1851–​1988 (New York; London: Greenwood Press, 1990). ‘Fine Arts. The Field of the Cloth of Gold’, Gentleman’s Magazine 147 (April 1830), 348–​9. Fisher, M. Hardman of Birmingham:  goldsmith and glasspainter (Ashbourne: Landmark Publishing, 2008). Fleet, R. and C. Blaker. The stained glass of St Augustine’s Church Ramsgate (Ramsgate: Potmetal Press, 2010). Flint, K. The transatlantic Indian 1776–​1930 (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2009). Flood, F. B. ‘The Ottoman Windows in the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa Mosque’, in S. Auld and R. Hillenbrand (eds), Ottoman Jerusalem, the living city: 1517–​ 1917 (London: ltajir World of Islam Trust, 2000), pp. 431–​63. ‘Flower Quarries’, The Ecclesiologist 4:4 (July 1845), 147–​8. Forster- Hahn, F. ‘The Politics of Display or the Display of Politics?’, Art Bulletin 77: 2 (1995), 174–9. Foucart, J. Ingres: Les cartons de vitraux des collections du Louvre (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 2002). ‘Französisches Mobiliar auf der Weltausstellung’, Dekorative Kunst 6 (1900), 409–​13. Fraser, H. The Victorians and Renaissance Italy (Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992).

227

228

228

Bibliography Frenzel, G. ‘The Restoration of Medieval Stained Glass’, Scientific American (May 1985), 126–​35. Fuchs, E. ‘All the World into the School: World’s Fairs and the Emergence of the School Museum in the Nineteenth Century’, in M. Lawn (ed.), Modelling the future: exhibitions and the materiality of education (Didcot: Symposium Books, 2009), pp. 51–​72. ‘Furniture and Decoration at the Exhibition’, Art Journal (January 1878), 186–​212. G. R. F., ‘Some Remarks on Glass Painting No. II’, The Ecclesiologist 15 (1857), 73–​83. Gage, J. ‘A Dionysian Aesthetic’, in Colour and culture: practice and meaning from antiquity to abstraction (London: Thames & Hudson, 1993), pp. 69–​78. Gaillard, M. Paris:  les Expositions universelles de 1855  à 1937 (Paris:  Presses Franciliennes, 2003). Galbally, A. ‘Patron of the Arts at the Antipodes’, La Trobe Journal 73 (Autumn 2004), 4–​18. Galicki, M. Victorian and Edwardian stained glass: the work of five London studios 1855–​1910 (Bristol: M. and J. Venables, 2001 [1987]). Gambier Parry, T. ‘Painting on Glass. Class 16’, Illustrated London News (7 September 1867), 275–​6. Gambier Parry, T. ‘Report on Painting on Glass –​(Class 16)’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition 1867 (London: HMSO, 1868), pp. 377–​90. Gambier Parry, T. and R. Burchett. A catalogue of the exhibition of stained glass, mosaics, etc. (London: HMSO, 1864). Ganim, J.  M. ‘Medievalism and Orientalism at the World Fairs’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 38 (2002), 170–​90. Gardner, D. (ed.). International Exhibition 1876. Grounds and buildings of the Centennial Exhibition Philadelphia, 1876 (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1878). Garfinkle, C. G. ‘Progress Illuminated: Two Stained Glass Windows from the 1893 Woman’s Building’, Woman’s Art Journal 33:1 (Spring/​Summer 2012), 31–​8. Garfinkle, C. G. ‘ “Women at Work”: The Design and Decoration of the Woman’s Building at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition:  Architecture, Exterior Sculpture, Stained Glass, and Interior Murals’ (PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1996). Garrod-​Bush, N. ‘Repetition, Virtuality and Mechanical Pattern: The Significance of the Kaleidoscope for the “Fine and Useful Arts”’, in K. Nichols, R. Wade, and G. Williams (eds), Art versus industry?: new perspectives on visual and industrial cultures in nineteenth-​century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015), pp. 103–​19. Gatouillat, F. ‘Henry Gérente et le vitrail (1846–​ 1849), une fulgurant réussite internationale’, in C. De Ruyt, I. Lecocq, M. Lefftz, and M. Piavaux(eds), Lumierères, forms et couleurs: mélanges en homage à Yvette Vanden Bemden (Namur: Presses universitaires de Namur, 2008), pp. 151–​62, 393. Gautier, H. Les curiosités de l’Exposition de 1867 (Paris: Ch. Delagrave et cie, 1867). Gautier, H. Les curiosités de l’Exposition de 1889 (Paris: Librairie Charles Delagrave, 1889). Geppert, A.  C.  T. Fleeting cities:  imperial expositions in fin-​ de-​ siècle Europe (Houndmills; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). Gere, C. ‘European Decorative Arts at the World’s Fairs, 1850–​1900’, Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 56:3 (Winter 1998–​99), 1, 16–​56. Giedraityte, D. I. ‘Stained and Painted Glass in the Sydney Area c. 1830–​c. 1920’ (MA dissertation, University of Sydney, 1983).

229

Bibliography Gilberti, B. Designing the Centennial: a history of the 1876 International Exhibition in Philadelphia (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2002). Gilchrist, A. ‘ “The Tears Wept by Our Windows”: Severe Paint Loss from Stained Glass Windows of the Mid-​Nineteenth Century’ (MA dissertation, University of York, 2010). Gillooly, E. ‘Rhetorical Remedies for Taxonomic Troubles:  Reading the Great Exhibition’, in J. Buzard, J.  W. Childers, and E. Gillooly (eds), Victorian prism: refractions of the Crystal Palace (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007), pp. 23–​40. Girouard, M. The Victorian country house (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). ‘Glass and Ceramics at the Chicago Exhibition’, Art Journal (December 1893), 29–​32. Gloag, J. Victorian taste: some social aspects of architecture and industrial design, from 1820–​1900 (London: A. & C. Black, 1962). Goodrich, D. H. A short history of St George’s, Georgetown, Guyana (Guyana: D. H. Goodrich, 1994). Gordon Bowe, N. Wilhelmina Geddes:  life and work (Dublin:  Four Courts Press, 2015). Gordon Bowe, N., D. Caron, and M. Wynne. Gazetteer of Irish stained glass (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1988). ‘Grandes verrières de Maréchal de Metz, au Palais de l’Industrie: côté de l’est et côté de l’ouest’, L’Illustration 25 (19 May 1855), p. 317. Gravier, C. ‘The Photographic Processes Utilized in Stained Glass Window Decoration’, Wilson’s Photographic Magazine 29:  424 (20 August 1892), 507–​8. ‘The Great Exhibition of 1851’, New Monthly Magazine and Humorist 92:365 (May 1851), 103–​26. Green, A. ‘Representing Germany? The Zollverein at the World Exhibitions, 1851–​ 1862’, Journal of Modern History 75:4 (December 2003), 836–​63. Greenhalgh, P. Fair world: a history of world’s fairs and expositions from London to Shanghai 1851–​2010 (Winterbourne: Papadakis, 2011). Greenhalgh, P. The modern ideal: the rise and collapse of idealism in the visual arts from the Enlightenment to Postmodernism (London: V&A Publications, 2005). Grieve, A. ‘The Pre-​ Raphaelite Brotherhood and the Anglican High Church’, Burlington Magazine 111 (1969), 294–​5. Grissom, C.  A. Zinc sculpture in America, 1850–​1950 (Newark, DE:  University of Delaware Press, 2009). Gross, L.  P. and T.  R. Snyder. Images of America. Philadelphia’s 1876 Centennial Exhibition (Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2005). Hall, C. and S. O. Rose. At home with the empire: metropolitan culture and the imperial world (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Hall, M. George Frederick Bodley and the later gothic revival in Britain and America (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2014). Hall, M. ‘What do Victorian Churches Mean?’, Journal of the Society of the Architectural Historians of America 59 (2000), 78–​95. Hamber, A. J. ‘A higher branch of the art’: photographing the fine arts in England, 1839–​1880 (Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1996). Hannavy, J. (ed.). Encyclopaedia of nineteenth-​ century photography (London; New York: Routledge, 2013), 506–​10. Hansen, J.  M. Lewis Foreman Day (1845–​ 1910):  unity in design and industry (Woodbridge: Antique Collector’s Club, 2007).

229

230

230

Bibliography Hardouin-​ Fugier, É. ‘Le vitrail français en 1878. L’Exposition universelle et l’enquête du ministère de l’industrie’, Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire de l’Art Français (1990), 207–​14. Harris, M. D. Colored pictures: race and visual representation (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003). Harris, N. Cultural excursions:  marketing appetites and tastes in modern America (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1990). Harrison, M. ‘A Burne-​Jones Window’, Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​ Painters 15:1 (1972–​73), 62–​5. Harrison, M. Victorian stained glass (London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1980). Haward, B. Nineteenth century Norfolk stained glass (Norwich: Geo Books, 1984). Haward, B. Nineteenth century Suffolk stained glass (Woodbridge:  Boydell Press, 1989). Henisch, H. K. and B. A. Henisch. The painted photograph 1839–​1914 (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996). Hillenbrand, R. Islamic architecture: form, function and meaning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994). ‘Historical Records. Town Hall Treasures. No Care or Arrangement.’, The Argus (18 January 1923), 8. Hobsbawm, E. Nations and nationalism since 1780:  programme, myth, reality (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Hoffenberg, P. H. An empire on display: English, Indian, and Australian exhibitions from the Crystal Palace to the Great War (Berkeley, CA; London: University of California Press, 2001). Holiday, H. Reminiscences of my life (London: W. Heinemann, 1914). Holiday, H. Stained glass as an art (London; New York: Macmillan, 1896). Holland, J. M. ‘Mary Edmonia Lewis’s “Minnehaha”: Gender, Race and the Indian Maid’, Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 69:1–​2 (1995), 26–​35. Holliday, J. Stories in glass:  the stained glass heritage of Bombay (Mumbai:  India Eminence Designs, 2012). Holt, E.  G. (ed.). The expanding world of art, 1874–​ 1902, vol. 1 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1988). Hörig, A. Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts: Sachsen. Die Kirchen (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 2004). Howard, E. G. ‘Ancient and Modern Painted Glass’, National Review 9:54 (August 1887), 793–​810. Hubbuck, R. ‘Curiosities in English Stained Glass 1837–​1914’, published in three parts in the Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​Painters 16:2 (1978–​ 79), 57–​64; 16:3 (1979–​80), 16–​25; and 17:1 (1980–​81), 38–​56. Hunt, R. (ed.). Companion to the Official Catalogue: synopsis of the contents of the Great Exhibition (London: Edward Stanford, 1851). Hunter, S. K. Footsteps at the American world’s fairs: the international exhibitions of Chicago, New  York and Philadelphia, 1853–​1965 (Glasgow:  Exhibition Study Group, 1996). ‘The Illustrations. St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral, New  York’, American Architect and Building News 3:108 (19 January 1878), 20–​5. Ingram, J. Complete history of the Centennial Exposition (Philadelphia:  Hubbard Bros., 1876). ‘Instrumenta Ecclesiastica’, The Ecclesiologist 4:5 (September 1845), 224. ‘The International Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 20 (April 1862), 168–​76.

231

Bibliography ‘The International Exhibition’, The Examiner 2854 (11 October 1862), 648. ‘The International Exhibition, 1862’, Illustrated London News (19 October 1861), 397. ‘The International Exhibition, 1862’, Illustrated London News (11 January 1862), 42. ‘International Exhibition of 1862’, Illustrated London News (16 November 1861), 488. ‘The International Exhibition. Stained Glass’, Illustrated London News (27 September 1862), 344–​6. ‘The International Exhibition. Stained Glass –​No. II’, Illustrated London News (8 November 1862), 503–​4. Iriye, A. and P.-​Y. Saunier (eds). The Palgrave dictionary of transnational history (Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). Irlandes, A. L’atelier Lobin: l’art du vitrail en Touraine (Chambray-​les-​Tours: CLD, 1994). Isay, R. Panorama des Expositions universelles (Paris: Gallimard, 1937). Jacobi, C. and H. Kingsley, with contributions by E. Jacklin. Painting with light: art and photography from the Pre-​Raphaelites to the Modern Age (London:  Tate Gallery Publishing, 2016). Jacobson, B. ‘The Forgotten Stained Glass Masterwork of Marie Herndl’, On Milwaukee (6 March 2016), http://​onmilwaukee.com/​ent/​articles/​marieherndl. html (accessed 26 November 2016). Jamilly, E. ‘‘All Manner of Workmanship’: Interior Decoration in British Synagogues’, in S. Kadish (ed.), Building Jerusalem: Jewish architecture in Britain (London; Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell, 1996), pp. 193–​208. Jonas, R. ‘Vox Dei, Vox Populi: Sacred Art and Popular Culture in Late Nineteenth-​ Century France’, in J. Hargrove and N. McWilliamson (eds), Nationalism and French culture, 1870–​1914. Studies in the history of art 68 (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2005), pp. 195–​207. Jordan, A. A. ‘Rationalizing the Narrative: Theory and Practice in the Nineteenth-​ Century Restoration of the Windows of the Sainte-​ Chapelle’, Gesta 37:  2 (1998), 192–​200. Journal Officiel de la République Française (3 October 1877). Juquin, A. and O. Masselin. Description exacte des grands travaux du palais et du parc de L’Exposition universelle de 1867 à Paris (Paris: O. Masselin, 1866). Kadish, S. ‘The “Cathedral Synagogues” of England’, Jewish Historical Studies 39 (2004), 45–​77. Kaplan, P. H. D. The rise of the black magus in Western art (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1985). Kennedy, H. A. ‘An Art Not Generally Understood’, Contemporary Review 55 (March 1889), 427–​42. Kerney, M. ‘The Victorian Memorial Window’, Journal of Stained Glass 31 (2007), 66–​94. Kidd, C. The forging of races:  race and scripture in the Protestant Atlantic world, 1600–​2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Kirchhoff, F. ‘Glass Painting’, in Reports of artisans selected by a committee appointed by the Council of the Society of Arts to visit the Paris Universal Exhibition, 1867 (London: Bell and Daldy, 1867), pp. 70–​83. Kirchhoff, F. ‘Report on Stained and Painted Glass’, in The Society of Arts:  artisan reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition of 1878 (London: Sampson Low, 1879), pp. 157–​64.

231

232

232

Bibliography Klauke, A. and F. Martin. Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts: Berlin Brandenburg. Die Kirchen (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 2003). Knowles, J. A. ‘The Transition from the Mosaic to the Enamel Method of Painting on Glass’, Antiquaries Journal 6 (1926), 26–​35. Kuhl, R. Glasmalereien des 19. Jahrhunderts: Mecklenburg-​Vorpommern. Die Kirchen (Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 2001). Kusamitsu, T. ‘Great Exhibitions before 1851’, History Workshop Journal 9 (Spring 1980), 70–​89. L.  G., ‘Les peintres-​ verriers aux Expositions’, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité: Supplement à la Gazette des Beaux-​Arts 9 (3 March 1877), 82. Lambourne, L. Japonisme: cultural crossings between Japan and the West (London: Phaidon, 2005). Larkworthy, P. Clayton and Bell, stained glass artists and decorators (London: Ecclesiological Society, 1984). Leng, A. ‘Millais’s Mariana: Literary Painting, the Pre-​Raphaelite Gothic, and the Iconology of the Marian Artist’, Journal of Pre-​Raphaelite and Aesthetic Studies 1 (Spring 1988), 63–​74 Leniaud, J.-​M. ‘Le vitrail au XIXe siècle. Sources et problèmes iconographiques’, Revue d’Histoire de l’Eglise de France 67:178 (1981), 83–​9. Levi, D. ‘ “Let Agents be Sent to All the Cities of Italy”:  British Public Museums and the Italian Art Market in the Mid-​Nineteenth Century’, in J. E. Law and L. Ǿstermark-​Johansen (eds), Victorian and Edwardian responses to the Italian Renaissance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 33–​53. Lévy, E. Histoire de la peinture sur verre en Europe et particulièrement en Belgique (Brussels: Tircher, 1860). Levy, M. P. ‘Manufacturers at the World’s Fairs: The Model of 1851’, in J. T. Busch and C. L. Futter (eds), Inventing the modern world: decorative arts at the world’s fairs 1851–​1939 (Kansas City, MO: The Nelson-​Atkins Museum of Art, 2012), pp. 34–​50. Lewis, M. J. The gothic revival (London: Thames & Hudson, 2002). Lewis, R. ‘Everything under One Roof: World’s Fairs and Departmental Stores in Paris and Chicago’, Chicago History 12:3 (Fall 1983), 28–​47. Lloyd, C. and S. Thurley. Henry VIII:  images of a Tudor king (Oxford:  Phaidon Press, 1990). Long, N. The Tiffany Chapel at the Morse Museum (Winter Park, FL: Charles Hosmer Morse Museum, 2002). Longfellow, H. W. Hiawatha; a poem, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Illustrated by John Rea Neill (Chicago: Reilly and Britton Co., 1909 [1856]), IV. Lorin, N. De la peinture sur verre, à propos de l’Exposition de Philadelphie (Chartres: Chartres: Édouard Garnier, 1878). Luneau, J.-​F. Félix Gaudin, peintre-​ verrier et mosaiste (1851–​ 1930) (Clermont-​ Ferrand: Presses universitaires Blaise Pascal, 2006). Luneau, J.-​ F. ‘Les peintres verriers dans les Expositions universelles:  histoire d’un désamour’, in A.-​L. Carré, M. S. Corcy, C. Demeulenaere-​Douyère, and L. Hilaire-​Pérez (eds), Les Expositions universelles en France au XIXe siècle. Techniques. Publics. Patrimoines (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2012), pp. 244–​57. Luneau, J.-​F. ‘Vitrail archéologique, vitrail-​tableau. Chronique bibliographique’, Revue de l’Art 1 (1999), 67–​78.

233

Bibliography McCabe, J.  D. The illustrated history of the Centennial Exhibition held in commemoration of the one hundredth anniversary of American independence (Philadelphia: National Pub. Co., 1876). McCarthy, S. and M. Gilbert. The Crystal Palace dinosaurs: the story of the world’s first prehistoric sculptures (London: Crystal Palace Foundation, 1994). McDermott, E. The popular guide to the International Exhibition of 1862 (London: W. H. Smith & Co., 1862). Machado, R. ‘The Politics of Applied Color in Early Photography’, Nineteenth-​ Century Art Worldwide:  A Journal of Nineteenth-​ Century Visual Culture 9:1 (Spring 2010), www.19thc-​artworldwide.org/​index.php/​spring10/​politics-​of-​ applied-​color (accessed 30 January 2013). MacKenzie, J. (ed.). The imperial exhibitions, propaganda and empire: the manipulation of British public opinion, 1880–​1960 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984). Macnair, I. Glasgow Cathedral: the stained glass windows (Glasgow: Johnstondesign, 2009). Magee, R. Magee’s Centennial guide of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1876). Magne, L. Musée rétrospectif de la classe 67, vitraux, à l’Exposition universelle internationale de 1900, à Paris (Saint-​Cloud: Belin frères, 1902). Mainardi, P. Art and politics of the Second Empire: the universal expositions of 1855 and 1867 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1987). Malik, K. The meaning of race:  race, history and culture in Western society (New York: New York University Press, 1996). Malone, T. A. ‘Photography on Paper and on Glass’, Art Journal (August 1850), 261. Mandell, R. D. Paris 1900: the Great World’s Fair (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967). Maréchal, C.-​L. ‘Les verrières du Palais de l’Industrie’. Signed letter from Maréchal to the editor of Metz Littéraire, 4 October 1854, published by F. Blanc, chief editor of Courrier de La Moselle, 4 April 1855, bound in a volume of items pertaining to the Exposition Universelle of 1855 (4 October 1854). Margerie, L. D. and É. Papet. Facing the other: Charles Cordier (1827–​1905), ethnographic sculptor (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2004). Markland, J. H. Remarks on the sepulchral memorials of past and present times, with some suggestions for improving the condition of our churches, in a letter addressed to … the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1840). Marsh, J. Black Victorians:  black people in British art 1800–​ 1900 (Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Lund Humphries, 2005). Marsh, P. Beatty’s railway: a historical reconstruction, Crimea 1854–​56 (Oxford: New Cherwell, 2000). Mayer, G. Franz Mayer of Munich (Munich: Hirmer, 2013). Medals and honourable mentions awarded by the International Juries, with a list of Jurors and the Report of the Council of Chairmen (London:  Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1862). ‘The Mediaeval Court at the Great Exhibition’, The Ecclesiologist 20 (April 1862), 73–​5. ‘The Medieval Court. Painted Glass’, Illustrated London News (20 September 1851), 362.

233

234

234

Bibliography ‘Memorial Window, by Messrs. Cox and Son, of Southampton-​ Street, Strand’, Illustrated London News 1176 (29 November 1862), 583. Les merveilles de l’Exposition de 1878 (Paris: Librairie illustrée, 1879). Métiers d’Art 20 (November 1982). Meyer, J. Great Exhibitions: London –​New York –​Paris –​Philadelphia 1851–​1900 (Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club, 2006). Miller, A.  H. Novels behind glass:  commodity culture and Victorian narrative (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Millman, I. Georges de Feure 1868–​1943 (Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum; Zwolle: Waanders uitgevers, 1993). Mitchell, D. G. ‘In and about the Fair’, Scribner’s Monthly (October 1876), 889–​97. Mitchell, D. G. ‘Industrial and Architectural Designs; Interior Decorations; Artistic Hardware; Mosaics; Inlaid-​Work in Wood and Metal; Stained Glass’, in F. A. Walker (ed.), United States Centennial Commission International Exhibition 1876. Reports and awards, Group XXVII (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1877), pp. 36–​45. Molinier, É. and F. Marcou. Exposition universelle de 1900: l’art français des origines à la fin du XIXe siècle (Paris: É. Lévy, 1901). Monkhouse, C. ‘American Decorative Art’, Academy 891 (1 June 1889), 384–​5. Morowitz, L. ‘The Cathedral of Commerce:  French Gothic Architecture and Wanamaker’s Department Store’, in J.  T. Marquardt and A.  A. Jordan (eds), Medieval art and architecture after the Middle Ages (Newcastle-​upon-​ Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011), pp. 340–​63. Morrison, T. Playing in the dark: whiteness and the literary imagination (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Mourey, G. ‘L’Art nouveau de M. Bing à l’Exposition universelle (1)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 8 (August 1900), 257–​68. Mourey, G. ‘L’Art nouveau de M. Bing à l’Exposition universelle (2)’, Revue des Arts Décoratifs 9 (September 1900), 278–​84. ‘Mr Buckeridge on Modern Stained Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 16 (1858), 119–​20. ‘Mr Oliphant on Painted Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 13 (1855), 159–​62. Muthesius, S. The English terraced house (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1982). Muthesius, S. The poetic home:  designing the 19th-​ century domestic interior (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2009). Nelson, C.  A. The color of stone:  sculpting the black female subject in nineteenth-​ century America (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007). Nichols, E. K. Greece and Rome at the Crystal Palace, classical sculpture and modern Britain, 1854–​1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Nicholson, R. G. H. ‘Ballantine, James (1807/​8–​1877)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/​view/​ article/​1226 (accessed 26 November 2016). Nochlin, L. ‘The Dreyfus Affair: A Portrait of the Artist as an Anti-​Semite’, in The politics of vision: essays on nineteenth-​century art and society (London: Thames & Hudson, 1991), pp. 141–​69. ‘Notices’, The Ecclesiologist 2:19/​20 (February 1843), 109. O’Connor, D. ‘Morris Stained Glass: “An Art of the Middle Ages”’, in J. Banham and J. Harris (eds), William Morris and the Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), pp. 31–​46.

235

Bibliography ‘O’Connor, Michael’, Dictionary of Irish Architects 1720–​1940, www.dia.ie/​architects/​view/​4127/​O%27CONNOR-​MICHAEL (accessed 26 November 2016). ‘The Old Testament in Medieval Manuscript Illuminations’, Getty Center, Los Angeles, 2010, www.getty.edu/​art/​exhibitions/​old_​testament/​ (accessed 26 January 2012). Oliphant, F. W. A plea for painted glass; being an inquiry into its nature, character, and objects, and its claims as an art (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1855). ‘Oliphant, Francis Wilson (1818–​ 1859)’, rev. M.  Williams, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), www.oxforddnb. com/​view/​article/​20705?docPos=3 (accessed 26 November 2016). ‘Opaline Glass’, Magazine of Art (January 1897), 334–​6. Orr, K. ‘A Force for Federation: International Exhibitions and the Formation of Australian Ethos (1851–​1901)’ (PhD dissertation, University of New South Wales, 2006). Ory, P. Les Expositions universelles de Paris (Paris: Ramsay, 1982). Ottin, L. Le vitrail: son histoire, ses manifestations à travers les âges et les peuples (Paris: H. Laurens, 1896). ‘Painted Glass in the International Exhibition’, Saturday Review 14:364 (18 October 1862), 476–​7. ‘The Palais de l’Industrie’, The Critic (15 August 1855), 409. ‘Parlour Occupations: Diaphanie’, Sixpenny Magazine 9:45 (March 1865), 389–​90. ‘The Paris Exhibition, and Paris in Exhibitiontime’, Bentley’s Miscellany 62 (July 1867), 47–​62. ‘The Paris Exhibition of 1855’, The Ecclesiologist 13 (October 1855), 263–​99. ‘The Paris Universal Exhibition. –​VII’, Magazine of Art (January 1878), 187–​91. Parris, J. and A.  G.  L. Shaw. ‘The Melbourne International Exhibition 1880–​81’, Victorian Historical Journal 51:4 (November 1980), 237–​54. Pascal, A. Visites et études de S. A. I. le Prince Napoléon au Palais de l’industrie, ou guide pratique et complet à l’Exposition universelle de 1855 (Paris:  Perrotin, 1855). Pater, W. ‘Joachim du Bellay’, Studies in the history of the Renaissance (1873), in A.  J. Drake (ed.), E-​ Texts for Victorianists, www.victorianweb.org/​authors/​ pater/​renaissance/​8.html (accessed 14 August 2012), pp. 123–​4. Paux, R. ‘George de Feure’, Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration 12 (April/​September 1908), 313–​16. Pavoni, R. (ed.). Reviving the Renaissance:  the use and abuse of the past in nineteenth-​century Italian art and decoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Pearson, N. ‘Art, Socialism and the Division of Labour’, Journal of William Morris Studies 4:3 (1981), 7–​25. Pellatt, A. ‘Class XXXIV. Glass’, in J. F. Iselin and P. Le Neve Foster (eds), Reports by the Juries on the subjects in the thirty-​six classes into which the exhibition was divided (London: International Exhibition of 1862, 1863), pp. 1–​8. Pepall, R. ‘Stained Glass Windows in Montreal at the Turn of the Century’, Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology. Architectural Glass: History and Conservation 13:3 (1981), 49–​55. Pevsner, N. Cambridgeshire:  the buildings of England, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970). Pevsner, N. High Victorian design:  a study of the exhibits of 1851 (London: Architectural Press, 1951).

235

236

236

Bibliography Physik, J. The Victoria and Albert Museum: The history of its building (Oxford: Phaidon, 1986). ‘Photography on Glass’, The Athenaeum 1179 (1 June 1850), 589. ‘Photography on Glass’, The Athenaeum (15 March 1851), 304–​5. Pillet, É. ‘La plume et l’épée. Le capitaine de Montluisant chroniquer de l’Exposition universelle de 1855’, Documents d’Histoire Parisienne 8 (2007), 51–​70. Pillet, É. Le vitrail à Paris au XIXe siècle. Entretenir, conserver, restaurer. Corpus vitrearum France, Études 9 (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010). Pini, L. ‘Milano–​Londra 1851:  la grande vetrata Dantesca di Giuseppe Bertini’, Quaderni de il Risorgimento (1999), 131–​43. Pini, L. Lo studiolo del collezionista restaurato. Il Gabinetto dantesco del Museo Poldi Pezzoli (Milan: Silvia editrice, 2002). Pinson, Y. ‘Connotations of Sin and Heresy in the Figure of the Black King in Some Northern Renaissance Adorations’, Artibus et Historiae 17:34 (1996), 159–​75. Post, R.  C. (ed.). 1876:  a centennial exhibition (Washington, DC:  Smithsonian Institution, 1976). Powell, A. M. ‘The Manufacture of Antique Glass’, Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​Painters 9:4 (1946), 105–​9. Powell, H.  J. Glass-​ making in England (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1923). Prettejohn, E. The art of the Pre-​Raphaelites (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000). ‘The Prince of Wales at the Paris Exhibition’, York Herald (30 April 1878), 6. ‘Progress of the International Exhibition’, Illustrated London News (19 April 1862), 400. Pugin, A. W. N. Contrasts; or, a parallel between the noble edifices of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and similar buildings of the present day. Shewing the present decay in taste (London: self-​published, 1836). Pugin, A. W. N. The true principles of pointed or Christian architecture: set forth in two lectures delivered at St. Marie’s, Oscott (London: John Weale, 1841). Purbrick, L. (ed.). The Great Exhibition of 1851:  new interdisciplinary essays (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001). Qureshi, S. Peoples on parade: exhibitions, empire, and anthropology in nineteenth-​ century Britain (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2011). Raguin, V.  C. ‘American Stained Glass:  English Influence before the 1880s’, Nineteenth Century:  Magazine of the Victorian Society in America 17:2 (Fall 1997), 5–​13. Raguin, V.  C. ‘John La Farge, Louis Comfort Tiffany et “le verre américain”’, in J. Barlet (ed.), Art, technique et science:  la création du vitrail de 1830  à 1930 (Liège:  Commission royale des monuments, sites et fouilles, 2000), pp. 43–​55. Raguin, V. C. ‘The Living Museum of the American City:  Reflections on Stained Glass in Buildings and Museums’, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 52–​3 (1994–​95), 49–​60. Raguin, V. C. ‘Revivals, Revivalists, and Architectural Stained Glass’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 49:3 (September 1990), 310–​29. Raguin, V. C. ‘Stained Glass in the 19th Century’, Paper presented at the International Seminar on Stained Glass of the 19th and 20th Centuries, Philadelphia, April 27–​May 1 1994, 1–​12.

237

Bibliography Rampold, R. ‘140 Jahre Tiroler Glasmalerei-​und Mosaikanstalt 1861–​ 2001’ (Innsbruck:  Tiroler Glasmalerei-​und Mosaikanstalt, 2001), http://​members. tirol.com/​glasmalerei/​D_​LOW.PDF (accessed 25 November 2016). Raquejo, T. ‘The “Arab Cathedrals”:  Moorish Architecture as Seen by British Travellers’, Burlington Magazine 128:1001 (August 1986), 555–​63. Rauch, A. ‘The Sins of Sloths: The Moral Status of Fossil Megatheria in Victorian Culture’, in D . Denenholz Morse and M.  A. Danakay (eds), Victorian animal dreams:  representations of animals in Victorian literature and culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 215–​29. Read, H. English Stained Glass (London; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926). Redgrave, R. ‘On the Present State of Design as Applied to Manufactures’, in Reports on the Paris Universal Exhibition: presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode for HMSO, 1856), part 3, pp. 313–​411. Redgrave, R. ‘Supplementary Report on Design’, in Reports by the Juries on the subjects in the thirty classes into which the Exhibition was divided. Jury reports IV: Classes XXVIII–​XXX (London, 1852), pp. 708–​49. Reed, C. R. ‘All the world is here!’: the black presence at White City (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000). ‘The Rev F. Cunningham, Lowestoft’, Sunday at Home 840 (4 June 1870), 358. Reichensperger, A. ‘A Word on the Crystal Palace by A.  Reichensperger’, The Ecclesiologist 9 (1851), 384–​9. ‘Report of the Forty-​ Second meeting of the Cambridge Camden Society’, The Ecclesiologist 4:3 (May 1845), 122. Reyntiens, P. The beauty of stained glass (Boston: Bullfinch Press, 1990). Rhead, L. J. ‘An Exhibition of Original Designs for Posters’, Art Amateur: A Monthly Journal Devoted to Art in the Household 33:3 (August 1895), 59. Richards, T. The commodity culture of Victorian England: advertising and spectacle, 1851–​1914 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990). Richards, T. The imperial archive:  knowledge and the fantasy of empire (London: Verso, 1993). Richardson, M. ‘Hiawatha in Rome: Edmonia Lewis and Figures from Longfellow’, Catalogue of Antiques and Fine Art (Spring 2002), 198–​203. Rideing, W. H. ‘At the Exhibition, Part III’, Appletons’ Journal (17 June 1876), 792–​4. Roberts, H. E. Art history through the camera lens (Amsterdam: OPA, 1995). Robida, A. Le Vieux Paris: études et dessins originaux (Paris: Imprimerie Lemercier, 1901). Rossetti, W.  M. ‘The Fine Art of the International Exhibition’, Fraser’s Magazine 66:392 (August 1862), 188–​99. Rush, S. ‘The Königliche Glasmalereianstalt and the Reglazing of Glasgow Cathedral’, in C. M. Richardson and G. Smith (eds), Britannia, Italia, Germania: taste and travel in the nineteenth century (Edinburgh: VARIE, 2001), pp. 91–​7. Rush, S. ‘Ungrateful Posterity?:  The Removal of the “Munich” Windows from Glasgow Cathedral’, in R. Fawcett (ed.), Glasgow’s great glass experiment: the Munich glass of Glasgow Cathedral (Edinburgh:  Historic Scotland, 2003), pp. 46–​65. Ruskin, J. Lectures on art (New York: John Wiley & Son, 1870). Ruskin, J. The seven lamps of architecture (London: Orpington, 1880 (1849)). Rüth, A. and J. Holland. ‘The Battle of Bouvines: Event History vs. Problem History Source’, MLN 116:4 (September 2001), 816–​43.

237

238

238

Bibliography Rydell, R. W. All the World’s a fair: visions of empire at American international expositions, 1876–​1916 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). Rydell, R. W., J. E. Findling, and K. D. Pelle. Fair America: world’s fairs in the United States (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000). Rydell, R. W. and N. E. Gwinn (eds). Fair representations: world’s fairs and the modern world. European contributions to American studies 27 (Amsterdam:  VU University Press, 1994). Saint, A. ‘Charles Buckeridge and His Family’, Oxoniensia 38 (1973), 357–​76. Sala, G. A. The life and adventures of George Augustus Sala, written by himself, 2 vols (London: Cassell, 1895). Salmond, R. W. ‘History of English Antique Glass’, Journal of the British Society of Master Glass-​Painters 15:1 (1972–​73), 73–​9. Sandhurst, P. et  al. The Great Centennial Exhibition critically described and illustrated (Philadelphia: Richard Magee & Son, 1876). Sato, T. and T. Watanabe (eds). Japan and Britain: an aesthetic dialogue 1850–​1930 (London: Lund Humphries, 1991). Saunders, M. ‘Appreciating Victorian and Arts and Crafts Stained Glass: A Battle Half Won’, Ecclesiology Today 40 (July 2008), 83–​91. Schaefer, H. ‘Tiffany’s Fame in Europe’, Art Bulletin 44:4 (December 1962), 309–​28. Schnauss, J. Collotype and photo-​lithography practically elaborated, trans. E.  C. Middleton (London: Iliffe and Son, 1889). Schneider, W. ‘Race and Empire: The Rise of Popular Ethnography in the Late Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Popular Culture 11:1 (Summer 1977), 98–​109. Schuler, R. M. ‘W. B. Yeats: Artist or Alchemist?’, Review of English Studies 22:85 (February 1971), 37–​53. Sear, M. ‘Fair Women’s Worlds: Feminism and World’s Fairs 1876–​1908’, in V. Barth (ed.), Identity and universality (Paris:  Bureau International des Expositions, 2001), pp. 19–​37. Sewter, C. The stained glass of William Morris and his circle (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1974). Shaffner, P. and W. Owen. The illustrated record of the International Exhibition of the Industrial Arts and Manufactures, and the Fine Arts, of All Nations in 1862 (London; New York: Ward and Lock, 1862). Shand, P. M. ‘The Crystal Palace as Structure and Precedent’, Architectural Review 81 (1937), 65–​72. Shepard, M.  B. ‘Medieval Stained Glass and Alexandre Lenoir’, in E. Lane, E. Pastan, and E. Shortell (eds), The four modes of seeing: approaches to medieval imagery in honor of Madeline Harrison Caviness (Aldershot:  Ashgate, 2009), pp. 497–​520. Shepherd, S. ‘A. W. N. Pugin and the Making of Medieval-​Type Glass’, Journal of Stained Glass 21 (1997), 1–​11. Shepherd, S. The stained glass of A. W. N. Pugin (Reading: Spire Books, 2009). Shepherd, S.  A. ‘Warrington, William (1796–​1869)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/​view/​ article/​58226 (accessed 26 November 2016). Shepherd, S.  A. ‘Willement, Thomas (1786–​1871)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/​view/​ article/​29440?docPos=1 (accessed 26 November 2016).

239

Bibliography Sheppard, F. H. W. (ed.). Survey of London, vol. 38, South Kensington museums area (London: Athlone Press, 1975). Sherry, B. Australia’s historic stained glass (Sydney: Murray Child, 1991). Sherry, B. and D. Baglin. ‘Australian Themes in Stained Glass’, in Australia in trust: a selection of the best writings from Heritage Australia (Sydney: Australian Council of National Trusts in association with William Collins, 2000), pp. 68–​74. Sigur, H. The influence of Japanese art on design (Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2008). Silverman, D.  L. ‘National Initiative to International Awakening:  The Maison de l’Art Nouveau Bing’, in Art Nouveau in fin-​de-​siècle France: politics, psychology and style (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 270–​83. Simil, A. ‘L’architecture au salon du Champ-​de-​Mars en 1893’, Revue des arts décoratifs (1893–​94), 33–​8. Sloan, J. L. ‘John La Farge’s Patent for the American Opalescent Window’, Journal of Stained Glass 28 (2004), 31–​46. Sloan, J.  L. ‘The Rivalry between Louis Comfort Tiffany and John La Farge’, Nineteenth Century:  Magazine of the Victorian Society in America 17:2 (Fall 1997), 27–​34. Sloan, J. L. and J. L. Yarnall. ‘Art of an Opaline Mind: The Stained Glass of John La Farge’, American Art Journal 24:1–​2 (1992), 5–​43. Smith, A., D. Blayney Brown, and C. Jacobi (eds). Artist and empire: facing Britain’s imperial past (London: Tate, 2015). ‘Somerleyton Hall’, Illustrated London News (10 January 1857), 24–​6. Spielmann, I. ‘At the Paris Exhibition’, Country Life 8:198 (20 October 1900), 488–​94. Spielmann, M. H. (ed.). ‘The Paris Exhibition’, Magazine of Art (January 1900), 549–​54. Spillman, J. Glass from world’s fairs 1851–​1904 (Corning, NY: Corning Museum of Glass, 1986). Spring, R.  O.  C. The stained glass of Salisbury Cathedral (Salisbury:  Friends of Salisbury Cathedral, 1979). ‘Stained Glass’, The Athenaeum 1816 (16 August 1862), 216. ‘Stained Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 3 (1844), 16–​20. ‘Stained Glass’, The Stirling Observer (13 February 1851), unpag. ‘Stained Glass (Concluding Notice)’, Illustrated London News (15 November 1862), 536–​8. ‘Stained Glass in Glasgow Cathedral’, The Athenaeum (9 January 1864), 58. Stamper, J. W. ‘The Galerie des Machines of the 1889 Paris World’s Fair’, Technology and Culture 30:2 (April 1989), 330–​53. Stara, A. The Museum of French Monuments 1795–​1816: killing art to make history (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013). Starcky, E. (ed.). Napoléon III et la reine Victoria: une visite à l’Exposition universelle de 1855 ( Paris: RMN Éditions, 2008). Stein, R. L. ‘National Portraits’, in J. Buzard, J. W. Childers, and E. Gillooly (eds), Victorian prism: refractions of the Crystal Palace (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007), pp. 101–​19. Stephen, A. (ed.). Visions of a republic. The work of Lucien Henry: Paris–​Noumea–​ Sydney (Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing, 2001). Stevens, G. Early Canadian glass (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1961).

239

240

240

Bibliography Stewart, S. On longing: narratives of the miniature, the gigantic, the souvenir, the collection (Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press, 1993). Stoklund, B. ‘The Role of the International Exhibitions in the Construction of National Cultures in the Nineteenth Century’, Ethnologia Europaea: Journal of European Ethnology 24:1 (1994), 35–​44. Stone, K. and G. Vaughan, The Piranesi effect (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2015). Strutt, J. G.  (ed.). Tallis’s history and description of the Crystal Palace and the Exhibition of the World’s Industry in 1851 (London: John Tallis, 1852). Suffling, E. R. ‘Curiosities of Stained Glass’, Chambers’s Journal 1:37 (13 August 1898). Surtees, V. The paintings and drawings of Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828–​82): a catalogue raisonné (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Sutton, F.  H. ‘Renaissance Glass’, Reports and Papers of the Architectural and Archaeological Societies of the Counties of Lincoln and Northampton 14:1 (1877), 52–​6. Swash, C. The 100 best stained glass sites in London (Malvern: Malvern Arts Press, 2016). Sweet, J. ‘The Face of Australia: Colonial Design and Representation at International Exhibitions 1851–​1888’ (MA History of Design dissertation, V&A/​RCA, 1991). Sweet, R. Antiquaries:  the discovery of the past in eighteenth-​ century Britain (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2004). Sweny, H.  W. ‘The International Exhibition, Philadelphia, 1876’, Art Journal 15 (January 1876), 27–​8. T. G. P. ‘The Walls and Windows of the Future’, The Ecclesiologist (1867), 277–​301. Taylor, H. ‘Stained Glass: Its Proper Treatment’, British Architect 10: 23 (6 December 1878), 218–​21. Tessier, Y. Les métamorphoses des vitraux dans les cimetières de Paris (Strasbourg: Hirlé, 2006). Tessier, Y. ‘Les vitraux funéraires:  un aspect méconnu du patrimoine parisien’, Connaissance des arts 576 (October 2000), 62–​7. Teukolsky, R. ‘This Sublime Museum:  Looking at Art at the Great Exhibition’, in J. Buzard, J. W. Childers, and E. Gillooly (eds), Victorian prism: refractions of the Crystal Palace (Charlottesville:  University of Virginia Press, 2007), pp. 84–​101. Thomas, J. ‘Japanese Designs, Suggestive for Stained Glass Windows’, Decorator and Furnisher 9:3 (December 1886), 97. Thompson, N. M. ‘The State of Stained Glass in 19th-​Century Italy: Ulisse de Matteis and the vitrail archéologique’, Journal of Glass Studies 52 (2010), 217–​31. ‘Thoughts on Stained Glass’, The Ecclesiologist 12 (1854), 33–​6. Tiffany, L. C. ‘American Art Supreme in Colored Glass’, Forum (July 1893), 621–​8. ‘To Our Readers’, The Ecclesiologist 29:189 (December 1868), 315–​16. ‘The Toilette and Ladies’ Guide. Imitation of Stained Glass’, Bow Bells 5:110 (5 September 1866), 141. Torbet, R. The wonderful windows of William Wailes 1808–​81 (Lancaster: Scotforth Books, 2003). Townsend, J.  H., J. Ridge, and S. Hackney. Pre-​ Raphaelite painting techniques (London: Tate, 2004). Trachtenberg, A. The incorporation of America: culture and society in the Gilded Age (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982). Truman, B. C. History of the world’s fair (New York: Arno Press, 1976).

241

Bibliography Turner, S.  V. ‘Intimacy and Distance:  Physicality, Race and Paint in Etty’s “The Wrestlers” ’, in S. Burnage, M. Hallett, and L. Turner (eds), William Etty: art and controversy (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2011), pp. 75–​90. ‘Twenty-​First Anniversary Meeting’, The Ecclesiologist 21 (1860), 246–​51. Urquhart, D. The Pillars of Hercules; or, a narrative of travels in Spain and Morocco in 1848, vol. 2 (London: Bentley, 1850). Vaassen, E. Bilder auf Glas. Glasgemälde zwischen 1780 und 1870 (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1997). Van Wesemael, P. Architecture of instruction and delight: a socio-​historical analysis of world exhibitions as a didactic phenomenon (1798–​1851–​1970) (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001). Vanden Bemden, Y. ‘Introduction’, in J. Barlet (ed.), Art, technique et science:  la création du vitrail de 1830 à 1930 (Liège: Commission royale des monuments, sites et fouilles, 2000), pp. 15–​24. Vermeiren, R. ‘Het glazeniersatelier Capronnier. Belgisch pionier van het gebrandschilderde glasraam in de negentiende eeuw’, KADOC-​Nieuwsbrief 4 (2011), 8–​15. Vidal, A. La chapelle St-​Julien-​des-​Ménestriers et les ménestrels à Paris. Les vielles corporations de Paris (Paris: A. Quantin, 1878). Viebig, J. Die Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (Königstein im Taunus: K. R. Langewiesche, 1971). Views of the International Exhibition: the interior (London; Edinburgh; New York: T. Nelson & Sons, 1862). Vincent-​Petit, F. and C. Loisel. ‘Le vitrail photographique au XIXe siècle: technique et identification.’ Forum pour la conservation et la restauration des vitraux, Namur 14–​16 June 2007, Les dossiers de l’IPW 3 (Namur, 2007), pp. 129–​42. Waggoner, D. et  al. The Pre-​ Raphaelite lens:  British photography and painting, 1848–​1875 (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2010). A walk through the Universal Exhibition of 1855 (Paris:  A.  and W.  Galignani & Co., 1855). Walker, F.  A. (ed.). United States Centennial Commission International Exhibition 1876. Reports and awards, Group XXVII (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1877). Wallis, G. ‘The Artistic, Industrial, and Commercial Results of the Universal Exposition of 1855’, Art Journal supplement for the Exhibition of Art-​Industry in Paris (January 1855), i–​xx. Wallis, G. ‘The International Exhibition 1872’, Art Journal (December 1871), 1–​64. Walton, W. France at the Crystal Palace: bourgeois taste and artisan manufacture in the nineteenth century (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1992). Wardle, G. The Morris exhibit at the Foreign Fair Boston, 1883–​84 (Boston: Roberts Bros., 1883). Waring, J.  B. Masterpieces of industrial art and sculpture at the International Exhibition, 1862, 3 vols (London: Day & Son, 1863). Warrington, W. The history of stained glass from the earliest period of the art to the present time (London: privately published, 1848). ‘Warrington’s Progressive Examples of Stained Glass’, Art Journal 8 (August 1862), 174. Waterfield, G. The people’s galleries: art museums and exhibitions in Britain 1800– 1914 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2015). Waters, W. and A. Carew-​Cox. Angels & icons: Pre-​Raphaelite stained glass 1850–​ 1870 (Worcester: Seraphim Press, 2012).

241

242

242

Bibliography Waters, W. and A. Carew-Cox.  Damozels & Deities: Edward Burne-Jones, Henry Holiday and Pre-Raphaelite Stained Glass, 1870–1898 (Worcester: Seraphim Press, 2017). Waziers, M. le comte de. ‘Le vitraux de la bataille de Bouvines: rapporte présenté à l’assemblée des Catholiques le 14 mai 1889’ (Paris: F. Levé, 1889). Webster, C. and J. Elliot. ‘A church as it should be’: the Cambridge Camden Society and its influence (Stamford: Shaun Tyas, 2000). Wedgwood, A. ‘The Mediæval Court’, in P. Atterbury and C. Wainwright (eds), Pugin:  a gothic passion (New Haven; London:  Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 237–​45. Weisberg, G.  P. Art Nouveau Bing:  Paris style 1900 (New  York; Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1986). Weisberg, G. P. ‘Lost and Found: S. Bing’s Merchandising of Japonisme and Art Nouveau’, Nineteenth-​Century Art Worldwide: A Journal of Nineteenth-​Century Visual Culture 4:4 (Summer 2005), www.19thc-​artworldwide.org/​index.php/​ summer05/​212-​excavating-​greece-​classicism-​between-​empire-​and-​nation-​in-​ nineteenth-​century-​europe (accessed 30 January 2013). Weld, C. R. ‘The Paris Exhibition’, Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country (October 1867), 403–​25. Wheeler, R. The complexion of race:  categories of difference in eighteenth-​century British culture (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000). Whewell, W. ‘On the General Bearing of the Great Exhibition on the Progress of Art and Science’, in Lectures on the results of the Great Exhibition of 1851 (London: Royal Society of Arts, 1852–​53), pp. 1–​34. White, G. The cathedral church of Salisbury: a description of its fabric and a brief history of the See of Sarum. Bell’s cathedrals (London: Bell, 1898). Whiting, S. London International Exhibition 1862: official catalogue of the industrial department, 3rd edn (London, 1862). Williams, R. H. Dream worlds: mass consumption in late nineteenth-​century France (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982). Wilson, S. Ideology and experience: antisemitism in France at the time of the Dreyfus Affair (London: Associated University Presses, 1982). Winston, C. ‘Awards and Notices –​Glass Paintings’, in Reports by the Juries on the subjects in the thirty classes into which the exhibition was divided. Jury reports IV: Classes XXVIII–​XXX (London, 1852), pp. 533–​5, 680–​707. Winston, C. An inquiry into the difference of style observable in ancient glass paintings, especially in England; with hints on glass painting, 2 vols (Oxford:  J.  H. Parker, 1847). Winston, C. Memoirs illustrative of the art of glass-​painting (London: John Murray, 1865). Winston, C. ‘On a Revived Manufacture of Coloured Glass Used in Ancient Windows’, Civil Engineers and Architect’s Journal 15 (1852), 241–​3. Wintle, M. The image of Europe: visualizing Europe in cartography and iconography throughout the ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Woodforde, C. English stained and painted glass (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954). Wyatt, M. and J. B. Waring. The Mediaeval Court in the Crystal Palace (London: Crystal Palace Library and Bradbury & Evans, 1854). Wynne, D. ‘Responses to the 1851 Exhibition in Household Words’, The Dickensian 97 (2001), 228–​34.

243

Bibliography Yapp, G. W. (ed.). Official catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, 1851 (London: Spicer Brothers, 1851). Yarnall, J.  L. John La Farge:  a biographical and critical study (Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012). Yarnall, J. L. ‘John La Farge’s Portrait of the Painter and the Use of Photography in His Work’, American Art Journal 18:1 (Winter 1986), 4–​20. Yarrington, A. ‘ “Made in Italy”: Sculpture and the Staging of National Identities at the International Exhibition of 1862’, in M. Pfister and R. Hertel (eds), Performing national identity: Anglo-​Italian cultural transactions (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008), pp. 75–​99. Zimmer, J. Stained glass in Australia (Melbourne; Oxford; Auckland; New  York: Oxford University Press, 1984).

243

244

Index

Ader & Loubens (Paris) 166 Aesthetic Movement 108–​9 Alcock, Rutherford 109 Alexandre, Arsène 155–​6 Allen, John Milner 105, 144, Plate 23, Plate 30 Alton Towers, Staffordshire 47 Anglican Church 2, 86 Anglo-​Catholicism 95, 144 Anglo-​French relations 157–​60, 168 anti-​Semitism 155–​6 Appert, Léon-​Alfred 29, 142 Argentine Republic 166 Armstrong, Margaret 68 Art Nouveau 13, 71–​2, 108, 113–​15, 155–​6 Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society 36, 80n.181, 134, 148n.57 Arts and Crafts Movement 5, 25, 35, 37, 85, 109, 136 Ashwin & Falconer (Sydney) 129 Australia 11, 127–​9, 131, 138–​9 white settlement in 163–​5 Aylesbury, St Mary’s Church (Bucks) 94, Plate 20 Baillie, Edward 88, 89, 90, 142 Ballantine & Allan (Edinburgh, from 1860 known as Ballantine & Sons) 15n.13, 87, 102, 157, Plate 33 Ballantine & Sons (Edinburgh) 105, 144, Plate 31

see also Ballantine & Allan Ballantine, James 3, 31, 32, 92 Barraud, Francis Phillip 132 Bazin, Julien-​Stéphane (Mesnil-​Saint-​Firmin) 60, 64, 78n.141, 130 Bell & Sons (Bristol) 132 Bertini, Giuseppe 32, 48, 87–​8, 175–​6, Plate 4, Plate 15 Besnard, Albert 35 Bing, Siegfried 71–​2, 81n.200, 113, 114, 155, 156 Bitterlin fils, Paul (Paris) 57, 84, 130 Bodley, George Frederick 97 Bolton, William Jay (New York) 128, 138 Bonaparte, Louis-​Napoléon 50, 89, 157, 158, 159 Bontemps, Georges 2, 4, 14n.6, 57, 91, 140, 142 Bourgeois, Gustave 63, 130 Bourrières (Paris) 57 Bouvines, l’église de Saint-​Pierre (France) 161 British Empire 14n.1, 46, 104, 128, 139, 163 Brongniart, Alexandre 15n.14, 16n.30 Brooks, Edward (Adelaide) 129 Brown, Ford Madox 33, 58, 94 Bruin, Auguste (Paris) 57, 84, 130, 142 Buckeridge, Charles 34 Bullock, William (Toronto) 172, Plate 37

245

Index Buffalo, Trinity Episcopalian Church (New York) 111, 134, Plate 26 Burges, William 33, 54, 55–​6, 62, 93, 94, 96, 97, 140 Burkhardt Brothers (Munich) 86 Burlison & Grylls (London) 136 Burne-​Jones, Edward 33, 55, 96–​7, 137, Plate 9 Butterfield, William 139 Californian Art Glass Works (San Francisco, LA) 155 Cambridge Camden Society see Ecclesiological Society Cambridge, Jesus College Chapel 134 Capronnier, François 41n.66 Capronnier, Jean-​Baptiste 4, 32, 130, 137, 154, 169–​70, Plate 36 Champigneulle, Charles-​François 131 Champigneulle, Emmanuel 161 Champigneulle, Louis-​Charles-​Marie (Charles, or Champigneulle fils) 28–​9, 65–​6, 131, 140, 142 Chance Brothers (Smethwick) 2, 53–​4, 103, 130, 140, 143, Plate 22 Chance, Henry 142 Chance, Robert Lucas 14n.6, 142 Chardon, Henri 135–​6 Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art (FL) 67–​8, 132, Plate 13 Chicago World Columbian Exposition (1893) 11, 20, 25, 35, 60, 66–​9, 111–​12, 128, 132, 142, 154, 167, 171–​2 Chilton Cantelo, St James’ Church (Somerset) 53 chromolithographs 3, 40n.52, 48, 144, 145 Claudet & Houghton (London) 58, 97, 131 Clayton & Bell (London) 5, 34, 128, 130, 132, 146n.22 Clayton, John Richard 33, 132, 139, 142, 151n.124 Clutterbuck, Charles Edmund 136 Coffetier, Nicolas 70, 75n.67, 92, 130 Cole, Henry 31, 136 colonial churches 139 Constable, W. H. & Co. (Cambridge) 138

Cox & Sons (London) 33, 62, 104, 144, Plate 32 Crace & Sons (London) 46 Crane, Walter 71, 110 Crimean War 50, 157, 160, 168 Crystal Palace see London, Crystal Palace Daumont-​Tournel, Léon (Paris) 9, 35, 70, 114, 140, 142, 154, 162 Davies, William (London) 46 Day, Lewis Foreman 98, 107, 109, 110, 140, 145, 154 de Caumont, Arcisse 50, 140 de Feure, Georges 73, 113–​14, 156, Plate 28 de Fourcaud, Louis 156 de la Ferté Joubert, Ferdinand-​Jean 105 Delalande, Émile 35, 142 de Toulouse-​Lautrec, Henri 71, 110, 114 Didron, Adolphe Napoléon (Didron aîné) 24, 90, 92, 140 Didron, Édouard 24, 28, 107–​8, 112, 114, 130, 131, 132, 140, 141, 142, 145, 155, 166, 170–​1 Doncaster Minster, St George’s (South Yorks) 53, Plate 7 Driscoll, Clara 68 Dupin, Gustave (Versailles) 162 Eastlake, Charles 74n.46 Ecclesiological Society 2–​3, 30, 86–​7, 88, 94, 98–​9, 101, 103 Ehrmann, François-​Émile 70 Ely Cathedral (Cambs) 90, 93, 137, 187, Plate 17, Plate 19 Ely, Henry (Nantes) 60 Erdmann & Kremer (Paris) 57 Evans, Sebastian 54, 98, 103, 140, 141, Plate 22 exhibition catalogues 23, 34, 100, 123n.189, 130, 146n.27 exhibition classification schemes 11–​13, 22–​9, 37, 51, 56 stained glass and 23–​5, 62, 66, 69 exhibition juries 25, 141–​3 awards 12, 91, 136, 139, 141–​3 jury reports 11, 90, 139

245

246

246

Index exhibitors 11, 13, 28, 45, 54, 62–​3, 68, 127–​32, 133, 135–​9, 141–​3, 184 women as 61, 68–​9 Exposition Universelle see Paris Farnham, St. Andrew’s Church (Surrey) 46 Ferguson & Urie (Melbourne) 129 Ford & Brooks (Boston) 69 Fouracre & Watson (Plymouth) 131 Fowke, Francis 52 France Second French Empire 9, 50–​1, 159–​61, 166 Third Republic 70 Franco-​Prussian War 130, 141, 161 French Algeria 51, 160, 166, 168 French Revolution 3, 14n.6, 50, 130, 159 Fritel, Pierre 161 Gaillard, Eugène 156 Gallé, Emile 71 Gambier Parry, Thomas 20, 44, 140, 141, 150n.119 Gaudin, Félix (Clemont-​Ferrand) 7, 10, 35, Plate 1 Gérente, Alfred (Paris) 90, 92, 137, Plate 17 Gérente, Henry (Paris) 2, 117n.59 Gesta, Louis-​Victor (Toulouse) 57, 132 Geyling, Carl (Vienna) 130, 131 Gibson, John (New York) 154 Glasgow Glasgow Cathedral, St Mungo’s 155 International Exhibition (1888) 17n.53, 25 National Bank of Scotland 105 glass ‘antiquating’ 92 ‘antique’ or cylinder 95 decorative 99–​100 opalescent 67, 108, 110–​13, 153, 156–​7 materials 10, 23, 93, 112–​13, 140 tax 2, 100 techniques acid etching 91, 114 brilliant cutting 100 embossing 100 painting on 15n.14, 33, 58, 88–​9,

96, 101, 107, 108, 112 pressed quarries 42n.90, 101, 185 Goglet, Queynoux and Pouyet (Paris) 170 gothic revival 4, 72, 86, 88, 90, 96, 143, 158, 185 Grasset, Eugène 7–​10, 35, 110, 114, 132, Plate 1 Gsell, Gaspard 32, 57, 60 Gsell-​Laurent (Paris) 64, 130–​2 Guérithault, Pierre Eugène 32 Guynon & Fils (Paris) 57 Hall & Sons (Bristol) 46, 100 Hannington, W. J. (New York) 128 Hardman & Co. (Birmingham) 46–​7, 53, 130–​1, 133–​7, 139, 142–​3, Plate 7, Plate 29 Harpenden, St Nicholas’ Church (Herts) 53 Hartley & Co. (Sunderland) 3, 54, 95 Healy & Millet (Chicago) 66, 113 Heaton & Butler (London, after 1862 Heaton, Butler & Bayne) 5, 53, 130, 132 Heaton, Clement 75n.62, 132 Henry, Lucien 164 Herndl, Marie 68–​9 Hickler, Hans Müller (Darmstadt) 114, Plate 28 Hirsch, Émile 32, 64, 132 Hoadley, George 86 Holiday, Henry 37, 62, 99, 133, 138 Holland & Sons (Warwick) 53, 132 Holman Hunt, William 33, 94 Höner, François-​Joseph and his nephew Victor (Nancy) 60, 92 Howden Minster, St Peter and St Paul (East Riding of Yorks) 137, 169 Howe, John George 93, 118n.91, Plate 19 Image, Selwyn 109, Plate 25 imperialism 1, 9, 10, 152, 162, 168, 173, 174 Ingres, Jean-​Auguste-​Dominique 30, 32 International Exhibition see individual locations, e.g. London Jacquier (Le Mans) 60 Kellner, Johann Stephan 91, Plate 18

247

Index Kempe, Charles Eamer 107, 136, 146n.28, 148n.73 Kennedy, Hugh Arthur 35 Kirchhoff, Francis 129, 133, 140, 141, 147n.53 Königlichen Glasmalereianstalt (Munich) 15n.15, 116n.20 and n.23, 155 Küchelbecker, Maurice (Le Mans) 60 La Farge, John 68, 110–​11, 113, 130, 132, 134–​5, 142, 156–​7, Plate 26 Lafaye, Prosper (Paris) 32, 57, 58, 64, 83–​4, 130, 132, 137, 140, 199, Plate 14 Lafaye, Sophie (née Copée) 131 Lamb, William (2nd Viscount Melbourne) 165 Lassus, Jean-​Baptiste 30, 50 Lavenham, St Peter and St Paul’s Church (Suffolk) 144, Plate 30 Lavergne, Claudius 32, 40n.40, 140 Lavers & Barraud (London, after 1868 known as Lavers, Barraud & Westlake) 5, 16n.33, 34, 97, 105, 119n.116, 123n.192, 133, 144, 146n.28, 167, 181n.106, Plate 23, Plate 30 Lavers, Nathaniel Wood 132 Lebayle, Charles 70 Lenoir, Alexandre 21, 70 Le Play, Frédéric 27, 56 Leprévost, Charles-​Ambrose 64, 70 Lévêque, Charles (Beauvais) 28, 59–​60, 64, 65, 67 Lobin, Lucien (Tours) 32, 122 Lobmeyr, Ludwig 142 London annual International Exhibitions (1871–74) 25 Central School of Art and Design 58 Colonial and Indian Exhibition (1886) 39n.18, 138, 149n.92 Crystal Palace 2, 45–​7, 49, 52, 160, 186 at Sydenham 47, 98, 159 Great Exhibition (1851) 1, 2, 6, 10, 23, 25–​6, 37, 45–​9, 84–​5, 86–​7, 90, 91–​2, 99, 143, 160, 172, 186, Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 5 International Exhibition (1862) 6, 10,

24, 29, 37, 44, 52–​6, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96–​8, 102, 104, 105, 109, 132, 137, 142, 144, 169, 172, 175, Plate 8 Soho, St Anne’s Church 136, 149n.80 South Kensington Museum 106–​7, 133 South Kensington School of Art 91, 107 Victoria & Albert Museum 106, 186 Lorin, Nicolas (Chartres) 57, 61, 65, 130, 141 Lusson fils, Antoine (Paris) 60 Lusson père, Antoine-​François (Paris) 57, 92, 130, 140 Lyon & Cottier (after 1886 known as Lyon, Wells, Cottier & Co.) 129, 133, 173, Plate 39 Mackintosh, Charles Rennie 71 Maës, Louis-​Joseph 142 Magne, Lucien 69, 70, 81n.195, 140, 142, 145 Maréchal, Charles-​Laurent (Metz) 32, 33, 49–​52, 58, 65, 84, 88–​9, 93, 130, 140, 168, Plate 6, Plate 16 Maréchal, Charles-​Raphaël 58 Maréchal & Gugnon (Paris) 93 Mauvernay, Alexandre 132 Mayer & Co (Munich) 32, 131, 133, 137–​8 Mayer, Josef Gabriel 32 McDowell, Mary 68 medieval art 3, 9, 95, 97–​8 Melbourne Centennial Exhibition (1888–89) 11, 25, 138, 139, 163–​5, 173 International Exhibition (1880–81) 11, 25, 43n.102, 131, 138 St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral 138 St Paul’s Cathedral 139 Town Hall 164, Plate 35 Mere, Wiltshire (St Michael’s Church) 62–​3 Merson, Luc Olivier 32, 35, 70, 132 Milési, Juliette 132 Millais, John Everett 94, 95, Plate 21 Millet, Francis Davis 66

247

248

248

Index Moody, Francis Wollaston 106–​7, Plate 24 Moretti, Francesco (Perugia) 137 Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co., (after 1875 known as Morris & Co) 4, 5, 85, 94, 96, 97–​8, 130, 138 Mourey, Gabriel 113, 156 Mucha, Alfonse 110 Napoléon III see Bonaparte, Louis-​Napoléon Napoleonic Wars 3, 168 nationalism 152–​5, 157–​8 Newill, Mary J. (Birmingham) 68, 132 New York Cathedral, St John the Divine 67 International Exhibition (1853) 18n.57 Nicod, Paul-​Charles (Paris) 32, 57, 64, 130 Northampton Guildhall 105, Plate 23 Northrop, Agnes F. 68 Nuremberg, St Lorenzkirche 91 O’Connor, Arthur 162, Plate 34 O’Connor, Michael 32, 46, 162, Plate 34 O’Connor & Sons (London) 94, Plate 20 Oliphant, Francis Wilson 3, 31, 88 Ottin, Léon Auguste (Paris) 6, 32, 60, 64, 109, 156, 167 Oudinot, Eugène-​Stanislas (Paris) 32, 57, 92, 130, 142, 155 Oxford, Merton College Chapel 95 Oxford Movement 2, 87 Pagnon-​Deschelettes (Lyon) 60 Paris Exposition Universelle (1855) 11, 23, 16, 29–​30, 49–​52, 83–​4, 91, 157–​61 Exposition Universelle (1867) 11, 24, 27–​8, 56–​61, 62, 65, 67, 84, 89, 106, 128, 133, 136 Exposition Universelle (1878) 6, 11, 24, 25, 28, 63–​5, 109, 110, 130, 133, 143, 155, 166 Exposition Universelle (1889) 6, 11, 24, 25, 28, 35, 65–​6, 130, 143, 161, 166

Exposition Universelle (1900) 7–​8, 11, 23, 24, 25, 29, 37, 44, 69–​72, 112–​15, 130, 153, 166 Hôtel de Ville 35 Musée des Arts Décoratifs 70, 113 Musée des Monuments Français 21, 64, 70 Musée de Trocadéro 70 Musée d’Orsay 113 Sainte-​Chapelle 64, 83, 91–​2 Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs 134 Parsons, Elizabeth 69 Pater, Walter 107 patrons 5, 70, 104, 132, 184 women as 105 Péligot, Eugène-​Melchior 142 Pellatt, Apsley 93, 95, 98, 140 Peto, Sir Samuel Morton 159–​60 Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition (1876) 11, 25, 27, 61, 128, 138, 141 photography 29, 36, 58, 61–​2, 70, 84, 86, 105, 114, 145, 162, 185 in colour 144–​5 photosculpture 58–​9 Poldi Pezzoli, Gian Giacomo 48 Pollen, John Hungerford 95 poster art 110, 114 Powell & Sons 3, 5, 6, 36, 62–​3, 95–​7, 101, 105, 106, 109, 130, 132, 137, 138, Plate 9, Plate 24, Plate 25 Powell, Harry James 6, 142 Powell, John Hardman 135, Plate 29 Pre-​Raphaelite paintings 94–​5, 103 Protestant Missionary Movement 173 Pugin, Augustus Welby Northmore 2, 33, 46–​7, 72, 134, 142–​3 Prestolee, Holy Trinity Church (Lancs) 144 Queen Victoria 104, 157, 159, 164 Queynoux, Martin-​Philippe 64 race 152, 156, 168–​76 Ramsgate, St. Augustine’s (Kent) 46 religion 60, 104, 152, 173 Reynolds, Joshua 33 Robert, Élias 51

249

Index Robida, Albert 71 Rossetti, Dante Gabriel 33, 97, 98, 171 Royal Bavarian Glass Painting Manufactory (Munich) see Königlichen Glasmalereianstalt Ruskin, John 86, 103–​4 Sala, George Augustus 27, 52 Salisbury Cathedral (Wilts) 162, Plate 34 Saunders, William Gualbert 133 Scarborough, St. Martin-​on-​the-​Hill Church (North Yorks) 97 sculpture 21, 29, 34, 48, 51, 55, 59, 62, 85, 107, 153, 172–​3, 174 Sèvres Royal Manufactory 3, 30, 32, 70 Slack, Stephen (Orange, NJ) 128 Spence, John C. (Montreal) 128, 130, 131 stained glass colour of 19, 51, 54, 85, 88, 93–​7, 110, 111–​13, 145, 154, 174 commercialisation of 99, 109 domestic 102, 130 Elizabethan style 102, 109 gothic style 2, 46, 59, 99, 107, 115, 134, 144, 185 industry 1, 2, 4, 13, 46, 105, 127–​31, 139, 140, 184 and light diffusion of light 95 transmission of light 19, 54, 85, 88, 95, 97, 145 medieval stained glass imitation of 70, 84, 90–​2, 98 influence of 3, 73, 82, 92, 93, 96, 107, 161, 185 memorial windows 103–​4, 111 pictorial style 51, 64, 83, 86–​9, 155 renaissance style 64, 66, 67, 83, 84, 107–​8, 154, 175, 176, 186 secular 57, 67, 97, 103, 109 secularisation of 13, 99–​100, 107 translucency of 96, 111, 112, 162 stained glass artists 3, 5, 28, 32–​5, 58, 64, 84, 91, 132–​3, 136, 138, 142, 143, 174, 184 women as 131–​2 Steinheil, Louis-​Charles-​Auguste 64

St Albans Abbey (Herts) 53 St Helen’s Crown Glass Company 100 St Neots, Church of St Mary the Virgin (Cambs) 135 Suffling, Ernest Richard 173 Sutton, Revd Frederick Heathcote 107 Sydney All Saints Church, Hunters Hill 173 St Andrew’s Cathedral (Anglican) 183n.46 St Mary’s Cathedral (RC) 139 Tessié-​du-​Motay, Cyprien Marie 58 Thibaud, Émile (Paris) 132 Thomas, John 157, 159, Plate 33 Tiffany Girls 68, 172 Tiffany, Louis Comfort (New York) 60, 67–​8, 71, 110, 111–​13, 130, 132, 153, Plate 13, Plate 27, Plate 38 Tillinghast, Mary E. (New York) 68 Tiroler Glasmalerei (Innsbruck) 164–​5, Plate 35 Toché, Raoul 166 Toms, John (Wellington) 86 Urquhart, David 167 Veissière, Joseph-​Aventin (Seignelay, Yonne) 91, 132, 140 Vienna Weltausstellung (1873) 25 Viollet-​le-​Duc, Eugène-​Emmanuel 30 Wailes, William (Newcastle) 32 Waltham Abbey (Essex) 55–​6, 96, 137, Plate 9 Ward & Hughes (London) 132, 136 Ware, St. Edmund’s College (Herts) 46 Warrington, William (London) 3, 31, 32, 84, 92, 136, 144 Weston, Anne Van Derlip 68, 172, 173, Plate 38 Wetzel, Carl Johann Baptist (Stuttgart) 86 Whall, Christopher Whitworth 58 Wiley, Kehinde 175–​6, Plate 40 Willement, Thomas 32, 92, 136 window blinds 10

249

250

250

Index tax 2, 100 Winston, Charles 3, 6, 31, 90, 91, 92, 101, 140, 155 Worcester Cathedral (Worcs) 53 Wornum, Ralph Nicholson 83, 99

Worthing, Christ Church (West Sussex) 104 Wragge, George (Salford) 158 Zettler, F. X. (Munich) 62, 133, 168

1

Plate 1

 ugène Grasset (designer), Félix Gaudin (maker). Le Travail, par l’Industrie et le Commerce, E enrichit l’Humanité, 1900, Chamber of Commerce, Paris.

2

newgenrtpdf

Plate 2 Joseph Nash. The Stained Glass Gallery, Great Exhibition, 1851. The majority of stained glass exhibits were displayed in a gallery on the upper level of the Crystal Palace.

3

newgenrtpdf

Plate 3 W  . M. Prior (illustrator), G. Measom (engraver). The Medieval Court, 1851, Great Exhibition, Hyde Park, London. Panels of stained glass by Hardman & Co. lined the north wall of Pugin’s Medieval Court, on the ground floor of the Crystal Palace, erected for the 1851 Great Exhibition. The Medieval Court contained a variety of fittings and furnishings in the gothic style.

4

n

Plate 4 G  iuseppe Bertini and Pompeo Bertini. Il trionfo di Dante, c. 1851, Pinacoteca Ambrosiana, Milan.

5

newgenrtpdf

Plate 5 J oseph Nash. The Foreign Department, Viewed towards the Transept, 1851, Great Exhibition, London. This view shows Bertini’s Il trionfo di Dante window (see Plate 4) displayed in the foreign nave of the Crystal Palace.

6

Plate 6 Illustration showing Maréchal’s allegorical windows at the eastern and western ends of the Palais de l’Industrie, 1855, Exposition Universelle, Paris.

7

Plate 7 H  ardman & Co. Life of Christ, c. 1862, east window, Doncaster Minster, South Yorkshire. This enormous window formed the centrepiece of a display of stained glass by British studios arranged in the north-east transept of the 1862 Exhibition building.

8

Plate 8 ‘Opening of the International Exhibition: Entrance to the Western Annexe’, 1862, International Exhibition, London. Several British stained glass exhibits were displayed in the north-east and north-west transepts, forming the entrances to the annexes.

9

Plate 9 E  dward Burne-​Jones (designer), Powell & Sons (maker). Tree of Jesse, 1861, Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. This replica of part of the window designed by Edward Burne-Jones for the east window of Waltham Abbey was exhibited in the south court of the 1862 Exhibition building.

10

Plate 10 G  eneral plan of the palace and park at the 1867 Paris Exposition Universelle, Champ de Mars, Paris, France. The Palais du Champ du Mars built for the 1867 Paris Exposition Universelle was an elliptical building. The exposition park contained numerous smaller buildings, arranged into national zones.

11

newgenrtpdf

Plate 11

‘The Grand Vestibule upon the Opening of Exposition Universelle, 1867, Champ de Mars, Paris’. Several stained glass exhibits were displayed at a great height in the Grand Vestibule, which formed a central passage running through the 1867 exhibition building, known as the Palais du Champ du Mars.

12

Plate 12 Interior of chapel designed by Charles Lévêque and built by M. Brien, c. 1867, for the 1867 Paris Exposition Universelle. This neo-gothic chapel formed one of the pavilions erected in the French section of the 1867 Exposition park.

13

Plate 13 T he reconstructed Tiffany Chapel, The Charles Hosmer Morse Museum of American Art, Winter Park, Florida, USA. This chapel, in a neo-Byzantine style, was built by Tiffany to display his wares at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago.

14

Plate 14 P  rosper Lafaye. Watercolour design for a window exhibited at the 1851 Great Exhibition, London, and the 1855 Paris Exposition Universelle. This window deliberately demonstrated Lafaye’s ability to reproduce various historic and modern styles in stained glass.

15

Plate 15 Giuseppe Bertini. Madonna and Child, c. 1861–​62, exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition, London. This chromolithograph of Bertini’s exhibit was publsihed in J. B. Waring’s publication, Masterpieces of the industrial art and sculpture at the International Exhibition 1862 (1863). The window survives today in the Vatican Museum in Rome.

16

Plate 16 Charles-​Laurent Maréchal. L’artiste, 1861, Musée de La Cour d’Or, Metz. This selfportrait was made for an Exposition in Metz in 1861 and re-exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition in London.

17

Plate 17 Alfred Gérente. The Life of Samson, c. 1851, south nave aisle, Ely Cathedral, Cambridgeshire. The window formed Gérente’s main exhibit at the Great Exhibition of 1851.

18

newgenrtpdf

Plate 18 J ohann Stephan Kellner. Mystic Marriage of St Catherine of Alexandria, and The Virgin and Child, c. 1845, Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Replica versions of these panels were exhibited by Kellner at the Great Exhibition of 1851.

19

Plate 19 J ohn. G. Howe. The Tower of Babel, c. 1851, south nave aisle, Ely Cathedral, Cambridgeshire. This window was Howe’s sole exhibit at the Great Exhibition of 1851.

20

Plate 20 M  ichael, Arthur & William Henry O’Connor & Sons. Moses Parting the Red Sea, c. 1862, detail from west window, St Mary’s Church, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. This is one light from a six-light window with tracery lights which was exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition in London.

21

Plate 21

J ohn Everett Millais. Mariana, 1851, Tate Collection, London. The stained glass windows upon which Mariana gazes are copies of fourteenth-century stained glass in the east window tracery of Merton College Chapel, Oxford.

22

Plate 22 S ebastian Evans (designer), Chance Bros (maker). Robin Hood’s Last Shot, c. 1862, exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition, London. This engraving shows the overall composition of this window, the fate of which is unknown.

23

newgenrtpdf

Plate 23 J ohn Milner Allen (designer), Lavers & Barraud (maker). The Idylls of the King, c. 1862, Northampton Town Hall, Northamptonshire. Sections from this window were exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition in London.

24

Plate 24 F rancis Wollaston Moody (designer), Powell & Sons (maker). The Union of Art and Science, c. 1866, Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Designed for the South Kensington Museum, this window was exhibited at the 1867 Exposition Universelle in Paris.

25

Plate 25 S elwyn Image (designer), Powell & Sons (maker). Aestas (Summer), c. 1878, stained glass window designed for the Prince of Wales Pavilion, 1878 Exposition Universelle, Paris.

26

Plate 26 J ohn La Farge. The Angel Sealing the Servants of God (The Watson Window), 1889, memorial chapel, Trinity Episcopalian Church, Buffalo, New York. This window was exhibited at the 1889 Exposition Universelle in Paris.

27

Plate 27 T iffany & Co. Parakeets and Goldfish Bowl, c. 1889, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. This window formed part of Tiffany’s display at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago.

28

Plate 28 G  eorges de Feure (designer), Hans Müller Hickler (maker). Stained Glass Window, c. 1901, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Virginia, USA. De Feure designed windows very similar to this, depicting figures of women as seasons, for Bing’s Art Nouveau pavilion at the 1900 Exposition Universelle in Paris.

29

Plate 29 J ohn Hardman Powell (designer), Hardman & Co. (maker). The Anointing of Christ’s Feet, c. 1876, St Mary the Virgin’s Church, St Neots, Cambridgeshire. This window was exhibited at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition in 1876. Other windows from this church were also exhibited by Hardman & Co. at Expositions in Paris in 1867 and 1878.

30

   Plate 30 John Milner Allen (designer), Lavers & Barraud (maker). Scene from the Life of St Peter, c. 1862, west window, St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Lavenham, Suffolk. The west window of Lavenham church in its entirety was exhibited by Lavers & Barraud at the 1862 International Exhibition. The image on the right shows the same section of the completed window as it is today, following adaptation in the 20th century.

31

Plate 31

 allantine & Son. The Crucifixion, c. 1862, east window, Holy Trinity Church, Prestolee, Lancashire. B This window was one of several exhibited by Ballantine & Sons at the 1862 International Exhibition.

32

Plate 32 ‘Church Furniture: Messrs Cox & Sons’, 1862 International Exhibition, London. This engraving shows the range of furnishings and fittings the firm of Cox & Sons offered at the 1862 International Exhibition.

33

Plate 33 J ohn Thomas (designer), Ballantine & Allan (maker). Hail Happy Union, 1854–​55, Lowestoft Town Hall, Suffolk. Exhibited at the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1855, this window celebrates the alliance between France and Britain during the Crimean War.

34

Plate 34 Michael & Arthur O’Connor. Detail of stained glass memorial window to officers and men from the 62nd Wiltshire Regiment who died in the Sutlej campaign (1845–​46), c. 1851, south-​east transept, Salisbury Cathedral, Wiltshire. This window was one of a number of memorial windows displayed at the Great Exhibition of 1851.

35

Plate 35 Tiroler Glasmalerei. Stained glass window commemorating the centenary of the colony of Victoria, c. 1888, Old Council Chamber, Melbourne Town Hall, Victoria, Australia. This window was presented as a gift to the state of Victoria after being displayed at the 1888–89 Centennial Exhibition in Melbourne.

36

newgenrtpdf

Plate 36 Jean-​Baptiste Capronnier. Adoration of the Magi, 1862, Howden Minster, East Riding of Yorkshire. This window was Capronnier’s sole exhibit at the 1862 International Exhibition.

37

Plate 37 William Bullock. Portrait of a Canadian Indian, c. 1862, exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition, London. Representations of native Americans and Canadians were popular at exhibitions in the 1850s and 1860s.

38

Plate 38 Ann Weston (née Van Derlip) (designer), Tiffany & Co. (maker). Minne-​ha-​ha, c. 1893, Duluth Depot, Minnesota, USA. This window was exhibited in the Minnesota building at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago.

39

Plate 39 Lyon, Cottier and Wells. Detail of Te Deum Laudamus, 1888, east window, All Saints’ Church, Hunters Hill, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The upper panels of this window, displayed at the 1888–89 Melbourne Centennial Exhibition, illustrate the spreading of the Christian message throughout the world.

40

Plate 40 Kehinde Wiley. Madonna and Child, 2016. One of the windows produced as part of Wiley’s Lamentation series, which is based on Bertini’s 1862 Madonna and Child (see Plate 15).