The Rise of Refinement: G. F. Bodley's All Saints, Cambridge, and the Return to English Models in Gothic Architecture of the 1860s

by Michael Hall
The Rise of Refinement: G. F. Bodley's All Saints, Cambridge, and the Return to English Models in Gothic Architecture of the 1860s
Michael Hall
Architectural History
Start Page: 
End Page: 
Select license: 
Select License


The rise of re$nement:

G. F. Bodley's All Saints, Cambridge, and the return to English models in Gothic architecture of the I 860s


Gothic churches of the 1880s bear little resemblance to those of the 1850s. Within less than a generation, a style based on an aesthetic of sublimity, proclaiming an ideal of 'muscularity' and eclectic in its sources, had been replaced by a picturesque mode which upheld 'refinement' as an ideal and preferred exclusively English models. This change can be traced back to the revisions G. F. Bodley made at the end of I 862 to his designs for All Saints, Jesus Lane, Cambridge. His abrupt abandonment of the style of the 1850s now known as 'High Victorian' was early, decisive, and astonishingly influen- tial. However, though All Saints is well known and well documented, the only attempt to explain its architect's apparently surprising change of direction is the assumption of unsympathetic historians that it represents a failure of nerve. Was it no more than a retreat from the provocative stylistic innovations of the High Victorian years into the safe arms of irreproachable historicism?


No such mystery surrounds the influences that formed the young Bodley's style.2 Reacting against the manner of George Gilbert Scott, in whose office he was a pupil from I845 to I 850, Bodley looked to Ruskin and William Butterfield and, above all, to his slightly older colleagues in Scott's office, G. E. Street and William White, for the sources of the buildings he designed between the early 1850s and 1862. Most share the characteristics of the High Victorian style: an emphasis on simplicity and grandeur of form that are derived from an aesthetic of the sublime; the enrichment of architecture by both sculpture and permanent decoration, or constructional polychromy; and a conviction that the new style could be made a matter of progressive development by creative eclecticism in the choice of sources, principally Italian and early French Gothic.

This is evident at St Martin-on-the-Hill, Scarborough (Fig. I), the immediate predecessor ofAll Saints, Jesus Lane.4 Bodley owed the commission to a family friend from Hull, Mary Craven, who was the main contributor to the fabric fund. The first plans, drawn up at the beginning of 1860, proved to be too expensive. Opposition to Mary Craven in the church building committee may be deduced from its decision to


of decorative carving is amply compensated for by the richness of the alternating octagonal and clustered piers of the nave arcades, which carry well-moulded caps and arches. These are traits of English derivation which contrast strongly with the reedy mouldings and emphatic chamfers ofthe 'early French' style. There is also a specifically English reference in the blank tracery on the internal wall below the east window, for it is derived from the late thirteenth-century lavatovium in the cloister at Kirkham Priory, a few miles from Scarborough.

St Martin, like Bodley's earlier churches at Selsley, Gloucestershire (All Saints, I 858-62), and Brighton (St Michael, 1858-61), makes use of stained glass by Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co., founded in 1861. These were the firm's first important commissions and they introduced something new to Bodley's buildings. Most High Victorian stained glass had taken its hot palette from French and English glass ofthe late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, in keeping with the rise of early French influences. The glass which Bodley commissioned from Morris was very different. Martin Harrison has argued that the high proportion of white glass used in these schemes above and below the figure panels was most probably instigated by Bodley. He and Morris were undoubtedly influenced by fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Flemish and English glass and this is perhaps a clear signal of a move away from French and Italian sources.


All Saints, Jesus Lane, Cambridge, is strikingly different from Bodley's earlier churches. The now generally accepted view of his change of style, first propounded by Paul Thompson, is that it was 'forced upon him largely by the conservative tastes of his Cambridge patrons, who still wanted something in the manner of the 1840s'. loThis has been enlarged upon by Professor Crook: 'Bodley's change of style at Cambridge in 1863-8, from Early French to English Decorated, had been made at the request of the incumbent and university -Dr Whewell in particular.'ll However, the surviving documents do not bear this out.

Cambridge in the early I 860s was, doctrinally and architecturally, relatively free of controversy, partly as a result of the upheavals of fifteen years before. l2The existence of the Cambridge Camden Society had fused religious and aesthetic debate in the university to a degree not experienced at Oxford. In 1845, in an atmosphere of mounting hostility to the Tractarian movement, there had been a large withdrawal from the Society, led by George Corrie, the Master ofJesus College. The Camdenians left for London, and re-formed as the Ecclesiological Society.

These were fading memories by the time that Bodley first came to Cambridge in 1857, to work on the restoration of the nave of Histon parish church. A year later he began the remodelling of Queens' College chapel. It may, however, be significant that almost the only adverse criticism by the Ecclesiologist of any of Bodley's works concerned this first collegiate commission, the subject in 1862 of a long anonymous contribution. l3The writer defended eclecticism in an architect's choice of sources for a new building, but doubted whether it was appropriate for a restoration. Although it is probably too mild a protest to be evidence of Cambridge conservatism in the face of foreign architecture, the article appeared in time to have been a possible influence on Bodley's redesign of All Saints.

All Saints replaced an inconveniently small medieval church in St John's Street.14 In 1852 the decision to move to a new site was taken by a committee set up in 1849 to oversee the possible enlargement of the church. The following year, Scott agreed to be architect, but nothing was done until 1859 because of lack of money. In November 1859 serious fund-raising began. A new site, on Jesus Lane, was offered by Jesus College, the patron of the living, and in 1860 Bodley was appointed. The choice of architect may have been a result of the influence of John Gibson, rector of King's Stanley in Gloucestershire, and almost certainly responsible for the selection of Bodley to design the church at Selsley, originally in the King's Stanley parish. Gibson's career as Fellow of Jesus, from which he resigned in 1857, had involved not only the commissioning of Pugin in 1846 to restore the college chapel but also personal superintendence of the restoration of medieval painted decoration in St Andrew-the- Less, Cambridge.

Bodley began sketching ideas for the church in May 1860, before his official appointment (the precise date of the commission is unknown). He submitted draft plans in November and in February 1861 completed the first design. Its reception and eventual fate depended largely on the reactions of four people: two successive vicars of All Saints, W. C. Sharpe (incumbent from I 856 to I 862) and H. M. Lucock (I 862-63 and I 865-75); the Master ofJesus (as patron ofthe church), George Corrie; and William Whewell, Master of Trinity College since 1841, who was deferred to because of his status, personal contribution of 2500 to the building fund, and authoritative interest in architecture. The four did not provide a united front of aesthetic or ecclesiological opinion. Corrie, who was also president of the university's Architectural Society, was a die-hard Tory, fiercely opposed to university reform and advanced religious views, whether Tractarian or Evangelical.16 Whewell was more broad-minded.17 He had helped pioneer the scientific study of Gothic architecture by the publication in I 830 of his Avchitectuval Notes on Gevman Chuvches, one of the first books to propound the 'biological fallacy': that Gothic architecture reached maturity in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century after a century of crude youth and before a long decline. In I850 he published a lengthy review of Seven Lamps of Avchitectuve arguing against the use of Italian Gothic as a model, which suggests that he was unsympathetic to High Victorianism. Is However, he was a good friend of the High Victorian propagandist and president ofthe Ecclesiological Society A. J. Beresford Hope, who had largely paid for Anthony Salvin's restoration of the Master's Lodge at Trinity in I 842-43.

Both Corrie and Whewell presided over colleges that by the 1860s had a notoriously Puseyite undergraduate membership. Jesus had seen visible expression of the High Church movement in the restoration of the college chapel, begun by Pugin and taken up again in I 863, when Bodley began the restoration of the nave. The college produceda distinguished line of Anglo-Catholic clergymen, including Bodley's nephew Henry Bodley Bromby, an undergraduate from 1860 to 1863. l9 It may be assumed that the sympathies of the two incumbents of All Saints with whom Bodley had to deal were with the undergraduates. Sharpe commissioned drawings for a credence table at All Saints, a mark of High Church beliefs (credence tables were not declared legal until


1857). H. M. Lucock was an eminent Tractarian, who subsequently furthered the Anglo-Catholic cause as head of the Ely Theological College and later as Dean of Lichfield.

Of most immediate concern to Bodley was money. The proposed budget of 24,000 was tight for a church intended to seat 600. When he roughed out the first plans for Sharpe in May I 860, it was already clear that for financial reasons the church might have to be built in stages. After informal discussion with Sharpe, Bodley wrote to him in December that to his regret he would have to leave out the clerestory, for reasons of cost. The finished design was prepared with Gibson's help, as is revealed by a letter from Gibson to Corrie of 4 February I 86I, in the archives ofJesus College: 'Mr Bodley has purposely at my suggestion diminished his indulgence in some peculiarities he sometimes uses in the development of his style.' Clearly, Bodley and Gibson antici- pated opposition to the design, for Gibson goes on to describe the proposals in terms very similar to those Bodley used in a letter to Sharpe of 21 February, which accompanied his drawings. ~odle~'s

letter shows his continued adherence to.the High Victorian principles laid down by Street in his famous article of I 850, 'On the Proper Characteristics of a Town Church'.20 He urged that the north aisle wall be kept as close to the street line as possible, for 'it is a town church, not a country one, & if set back wd. not be nearly so good in character or feeling as if brought out well into the line of the street'.21 He offered alternative designs for the tower, a saddleback roof or a broach spire, making his preference for the former clear.

In February Sharpe and the churchwardens took the design to Whewell, who agreed 'that a different design for the east window was de~irable',~~

and Bodley, who came to Cambridge to see Whewell a week later, agreed to the change. His original proposal for the east window is not recorded, but given the general similarity of the first All Saints design to St Martin, it is possible that it resembled the east window of that church, in which a plate-traceried rose and two oculi surmount a tier of three lancets. The revised drawings were ready by 19 March, when they were shown to the Ecclesiological Society. On 8 April they were approved by the church-building committee (which opted for the spire), shown to Whewell, who made no further comment, and then submitted to Jesus College. On 27 April Corrie wrote to Sharpe to express the college's approval, adding 'that we are all in favour of the drawing for the Towev, & not for the

The committee, however, stuck to its choice, which was also that of the Ecclesi~logist.~~

This was the design that was published in November I 861 in the form of a lithograph accompanying an appeal for funds (Fig. 2). It is still a vigorously High Victorian building, and closely resembles the Scarborough church. The tower has substantial buttresses which rise to the cornice, although at All Saints small set-offs are intro- d~ced.~~

There is an unbroken roof line at Cambridge, whereas at Scarborough the chancel is lower. Both churches have a tier of blank arcading under the bell-openings of the tower above a very large expanse of smooth, blank wall. In both, the tower functions as a porch and is set at the north-west corner. Geometrical tracery is used for the aisle windows and there is a large plate-tracery rose at the west end of both, of slightly more complex form at Cambridge. No drawings survive for the interior of the Cambridge design, but the long description in the Ecclesiologist provides some details:

108 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 36: 1993 Fig. 2. G. F. Bodley'sfirst designfor

, All Saints, Cambridge. This lithograph


! / was publ~shed in November 1861

Fig. 3. The second designfor A11 Saints. Completed in December 1862, it was published in Mav 1867

" X,,",P 2,e-Cd,,.p Zast Edc vanon

'The style is an early and somewhat austere Pointed, with many features borrowed from the French Gothic . . . the arcades have bold and lofty arches, rising from low, shafted piers. The chancel-arch has coupled shafts of coloured marble. The east window is a large, unequal, marble-shafted triplet, nobly lifted up in the

Bodley had estimated the total cost as &4,5oo. By March 1862 eight tenders had been received. All exceeded &~,ooo,

and, as a result, in April the building committee voted to abandon his plans. However, in October it asked him to provide new drawings 'for a church to contain 550 or 560 sittings at the cost of£3,600 exclusive of seats, pulpit and font'.27 Bodley's second design (Fig. 3) was prepared quickly and accepted by the parish on 29 December. On 19 March 1863, a tender of £4,326 was accepted from William Bell and Sons of Cambridge; this was £1,009 less than their tender for the first proposal. On 27 May was laid the corner-stone of this dramatically different design. The tower was placed over the chancel and the north aisle omitted. A small porch was provided at the west end of the north front, so that the principal entrance is similarly positioned in both designs. The rose window was omitted and all marble enrichment abandoned, together with all the carving. The Ecclesiologist wrote: 'The architectural style is a severe, but graceful, form of Early-Pointed. We note, with some satisfaction, that Mr Bodley has restricted himself to pure English forms. The time for a reaction from exclusively French or Italian types has at length arrived.'28

The church was consecrated and opened in November 1864 (see Figs 4 and 5). It was unfinished: the spire was unbuilt and the tower did not rise above the apex of the roof. Moreover, the three westernmost windows on the north wall were given what the Cambridge Independent Press in 1864 called 'Jacobean rectangular glazing set in stone mullions and crude tracery'.29 In 1869-71 the tower and spire were added and new tracery inserted in the north window~.~O

Bodley took this opportunity to modify his design in a way that pushed the church emphatically into a fourteenth-century English idiom, although again he was forced to amend his designs for lack of funds. (His first proposal included a 'corona', presumably around the base of the spire.) The tracery of the north windows introduces ogival forms, in contrast to the 'pure geometrical tracery' of the design commended by the Ecclesiologist in I 863.31 The spire was changed from a broach rising from a low parapet pierced with quatrefoils to a slender early fourteenth-century type (derived from St Oswald, Ashbourne, Derbyshire, a church that also lacks a north aisle) rising behind battlements. The lucarnes were given ogee tracery and a crocketed spirelet was added to the north-east corner of the tower.

These late changes have confused some writers, who have assumed that the mature Bodley style appeared almost overnight at All Saints, which would indeed have been the case if the present tower and spire and curvilinear tracery had been part of the design approved in December 1862. Anthony Symondson has pointed out that St Salvador, Dundee (begun in 1865) and St John, Tue Brook, Liverpool (1868-71) are the churches which mark Bodley's whole-hearted acceptance of fourteenth-century English models.32 The importance of All Saints is that it is the first of Bodley's buildings to break unequivocally with the High Victorian idiom. The evidence of the Ecclesiologist is

schemes by Street, Pearson or Butterfield, which derive largely from early medieval sources of the type that Bodley himself seems to have had in mind when he recom- mended decoration by 'painters like Holman Hunt, Rossetti and other such men' in the course ofa report to the Ecclesiological Society on the restoration ofFrench churches.38 Instead, it is modelled on the late medieval examples in East Anglia drawn for Morris by the young George Wardle in 1865-66.39

It is possible, however, that another inspiration for this new enthusiasm was Pugin, for Bodley's first complete painted interior, at St John, Tue Brook, Liverpool, of I 868-71, looks back to such schemes as St Giles, Cheadle, Staffordshire, of I 841-46. A new interest in Pugin may have been stimulated by the publication in I 861 of Benjamin Ferrey's biography and the large display of his drawings at the 1862 Architectural Exhibition in Conduit Street, which was extensively reviewed.40 Gibson, who had known Pugin as a result of the architect's work at Jesus College, may have influenced Bodley's thoughts in this direction. However, since he attempted to commission his friend William Burges, rather than Bodley, for the restoration of the church at King's Stanley in 1872 -but was overruled by the patron, S. S. Marling41- it is possible that he was unsympathetic or indifferent to Bodley's change of stylistic direction in the 1860s. A more likely source of Puginian influence was Bodley's close friendship with Frederick Heathcote Sutton, later rector of Brant Broughton, Lincolnshire, whose eldest brother, Sir John Sutton, had as a member of Jesus College been one of those responsible for commissioning Pugin to restore the chapel. Sir John also collaborated with Pugin on the design of organs. A second Sutton brother, Augustus, commis- sioned Pugin in 1849 to rebuild the chancel of St Mary, West Tofts, Norfolk, which incorporates painted decoration. In 1868 and 1869 Frederick Sutton published two papers encouraging the revival of painted ecclesiastical decorati~n.~~

However, there is as yet no evidence that Sutton knew Bodley before the architect started work on Jesus College chapel in 1863, so, although he may well have influenced the final form of All Saints, it seems he cannot have helped inspire the design of December 1862.

Still awaiting investigation is the probability that Bodley's interest in Puginian Gothic was mediated through the work of other architects, most notably R. C. Carpenter, who had in the early 1850s practised a refined Decorated idiom that can seem remarkably close to Bodley's style of the late 1860s. However, the important point is that the use of later medieval and Puginian models in Bodley's painted schemes of the mid 1860s suggests that the influences that drew him to fourteenth-century Decorated forms began to exert themselves before the appearance of those forms in his architecture.

It is clear, therefore, that the change ofstyle at All Saints was not forced on Bodley by the aesthetic or ecclesiological demands of conservative patrons. Whewell's recorded interference was limited solely to a change in the design of the east window, before the publication of the first design. In its revised form the window was described by theEcclesiologist as a 'large, unequal, marble-shafted triplet'. It was evidently quite different from the second design, a large five-light window ofGeometrica1 tracery. Since there is no evidence of Whewell's -or anybody else's -influence between designs one and two, the final form of the east end was presumably Bodley's choice. Similarly, Corrie seems to have interfered on only one point, but it was liturgical, not aesthetic. On 2July


1863, after the acceptance of the second design, he wrote to the churchwardens to protest about the intended provision of a credence table, 'because such furniture wd. be the badge of a party in the Chur~h'.~~

It was abandoned.

Moreover, there is no evidence that All Saints was the harbinger of a conservative return to English models in collegiate architecture. There are no telling statements such as Benjamin Jowett's dismissal (with Butterfield's Balliol chapel in mind) of 'eccentri- city and un-English styles and fancies'.44 Instead, the years that saw the completion of All Saints witnessed the triumph of Alfred Waterhouse's energetic French Renaissance style at Caius (1868) and Pembroke (1871) and the building of St John's College chapel (1863-69) in Scott's least English manner.45

The essential point is that Bodley's High Victorian first design, albeit with a spire rather than a tower and with unspecified modifications to the east window, was accepted by his patrons and published. It would have been built, had not all the tenders exceeded the budget. The position was exactly that which had arisen at St Martin, Scarborough in 1860, but this time no extra funds appeared and Bodley was forced substantially to modify his plans to meet the money available. However, the financial constraints provided only the occasion, not the reason, for the change of style; cheapness could easily have been obtained within the High Victorian mode, to which later, better-funded projects make no attempt to return.

Since the circumstances of the commission provide no compelling reason why Bodley should have produced in the latter months of 1862 a design for All Saints that was not merely cheaper but also completely different in style, it is necessary to turn for an explanation to the wider ecclesiastical and architectural world. High Victorian archi- tecture had High Church origins. The early links between Tractarianism and the architectural avant-garde of the 1850s have been traced by David Brownlee, who has argued that Newman's emphasis on doctrinal development influenced the ideas of the Oxford architectural historian E. A. Freeman.46 Newman's growing conviction that there could be no simple return to the authority of the medieval church posed a problem for the whole notion of the revival of medieval styles. In 1845 Freeman first suggested to the Oxford Society for Promoting the Study of Gothic Architecture that modern Gothic should develop historic forms and not be simply an antiquarian re-creation. This idea was enthusiastically taken up by Scott and by Beresford Hope, whom Freeman first met in 184s. Hope took over the Ecclesiological Society in 1845-46 and was responsible for its conversion to the notion of development. He then put his consider- able wealth behind the change by giving to Butterfield the commissions that were to be the leading examples of the new style. For Freeman, the idea of development suggested the need to look to new models, drawn from chronological and geographical ranges wider than those acceptable to the ecclesiologists of the 1840s. Throughout the 1850s and 60s Hope championed the use of foreign models.

Does Bodley's reaction against the idea of 'development' in the 1860s reflect a shift in the original determinants of High Victorianism? Lack of discussion of the possibility by architectural historians may be a result of the long-standing belief that the Tractarian ideals which prompted the first ecclesiologists went into abeyance with Newman's conversion in 184s. In fact, religious and aesthetic debate drew closer together in the thirty years that followed his secession, for the Ritualist controversies of the 1860s and 70s were provoked by men fired by Tractarian theology into transforming the appearance of Anglican worship far more radically than the first ecclesiologists had ~ontemplated.~'

The existence of a Ritualist party was not evident until the late 18~os, when it became clear that many clergymen, although willing to support at least some of the ecclesiological developments of the last twenty years, rejected Ritualist practices. The controversy over these matters led to episcopal attempts to curb illegal ritual and eventually, in 1874, to the Public Worship Regulation Act, which attempted unsuccessfully -to call limits to Rituali~m.~~

These developments divided the old High Church party. Neither Butterfield nor Beresford Hope would worship at All Saints, Margaret Street, because of their disapproval ofthe Ritualist practices ofthe vicar, Upton Richards. 49 The split extended to the two most influential founders of the Ecclesiological Society, Benjamin Webb and

J. M. Neale. Webb was a moderate, and a supporter of Beresford Hope; both became increasingly estranged from the passionately Anglo-Catholic Neale, whom they condemned for 'ultrai~m'.~~

Beresford Hope and the moderates favoured eclecticism, whereas the radical Neale, who was one of Bodley's early patrons, rejected foreign models.51

Many ofBodley's patrons ofthe I 850s and early 60s gave him new commissions after his change of style; there is no evidence of a break in the pattern of his patronage. Most were supporters of Ritualist principles. Bodley executed two more substantial com- missions for his Scarborough patrons, another church (All Saints) and a school.52 The continuity of patronage over the change of style is most strikingly demonstrated at St Salvador's, Dundee, where the patrons were Alexander Penrose Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, and his friend and chaplain, the Revd James Nicolson. They commissioned both the school (temporarily a chapel) of 1857, which makes emphatic use of the plate-traceried early French repertory, and the adjacent church in the new English style (of which the first stage was begun in 1868 and the second in 1874).~~

This new Anglicization emerged at a time when it was beginning to be apparent that Tractarian principles encompassed at least two approaches to liturgy. W. G. Ward'sIdeal of a Chvistian Church (1844) had provocatively insisted that Anglicans look to Rome rather than the medieval English church for their model. This captured for Anglicanism Newman's concept of development and so encouraged the adoption of modern Roman Catholic ceremonial and extra-liturgical devotional practices within the Church of England. However, until the early twentieth century, the traditional ecclesiological alternative, which looked back to the pre-Reformation church, was much more popular. Just as architects revived the styles of the Middle Ages, so scholars such as William Maskell, in Ancient Liturgy of the Chuvclz ofEngland (1844), and Charles Walker, in The Lituvgy ofthe Church of Sarum (1866), sought to revive medieval liturgy, most notably the Use of Sarum.

Today, this antiquarian approach is most familiarly embodied in turn-of-the- century writings by such influential figures as the architect Ninian Comper and the liturgical scholar J. Wickham Legg, whose views were popularized by Percy Dearmer


in such books as The Parson's Handbook (first edition 1899). All sought an English alternative to the Romanist approach and recognized that the dominant Anglican tradition of church arrangements, created largely by Bodley out of Puginian and north European models, was insufficiently English. They looked instead to an alternative, and more academic, tradition which had found its first and most famous expression in George Gilbert Scott jun.'s St Agnes, Kennington, of 1874"However, it is wrong to see the earlyI 860s through the eyes of the narrower and more scholarly medievalism of the 189os, which can, despite its rejection in many instances of Bodley's influence, be traced back to the spirit which helped inspire his Anglicization of Anglo-Catholic architecture in I 862. That spirit was already apparent, for instance, in the first edition of John Purchas's Divectovium Anglicanum (I858), the immensely influential guide to Anglican liturgical ceremonial, despite the shortcomings ~ointed out by the Ecclesiologist in a generally favourable review: 'we must put on record our regret, that the old English use of Sarum has not been more religiously followed in the matter of precedent. It is, doubtless, a great temptation in liturgical matters to choose eclectically from differing rituals, and especially to borrow explanations or practices from modern Roman usage, where the ancient practice is obscure or doubtful. But we are satisfied that this is a wrong principle . . . We inherit the old English traditions, and none other.'55

Bodley, through his family connections with Anglo-Catholic circles in Brighton, may well have been influenced by the presence there in the 1850s and 60s of John Purchas and Charles Walker. It is clear that his characteristic blend of English and Continental models in chancel furnishings, for instance, which was to seem so unsatisfactory to Wickham Legg and others by the end of the century, was formed in part by the imperfectly realized anglophile aspirations of the first edition of the Divectoviurn Anglicanum and the writings of men associated with Purchas. None the less, this does not mean that he designed churches for one strand of Anglo-Catholicism alone. For example, two of his most celebrated patrons, Emily Meynell-Ingram, who commissioned Holy Angels, Hoar Cross, Staffordshire in 1871, and the 7th Duke of Newcastle, for whom Bodley designed Clumber Chapel, Nottinghamshire in 1886, modelled the liturgy of their churches on modern Roman Catholic practice rather than revived English medieval ceremonial, although the buildings themselves are remark- ably pure exercises in an English mid-fourteenth-century idiom. Despite the use of an Early Christian and Italianate manner for churches as celebrated as Arthur Blomfield's St Barnabas, Oxford (1869), and J. H. Ball's St Agatha, Landport, Portsmouth (I 893-9 j),the Romanizing trends were not fully embodied in an alternative architectu- ral tradition until the growth of classicizing and Baroque influences in the twentieth century, when the medieval English liturgical tradition was increasingly derided as 'British Museum religion'.56

The Roman or English preferences of Bodley's patrons almost certainly made little, ifany, difference to the form ofthe church they expected him to provide. However, it is possible that he shared with these patrons a new radicalism which cut across the boundaries of liturgical loyalty. Some evidence for this lies in the intriguing relation- ship between the language of architectural criticism and that of theology.57 The muscular architecture of the 1850s was designed for a muscular, missionary Tractarian Christianity, partly united to the Evangelical party by a common desire to evangelize to the urban classes. As the theological differences between the two groups widened, however, and as differences over ritual became more passionate, the language of muscular Chritianity was co-opted by the Evangelicals, who guyed the Tractarians as effeminate aesthetes. As one Ritualist wrote in 1867, 'one of the most popular of the weapons levelled at the advancing ranks of this so-called Ritualism is ridicule. Folly, trifling, childish nonsense, man millinery, effeminacy -these are the style of epithets with which it is sought to laugh men out of the cause'.58

Some responsibility for these attacks lies with Charles Kingsley -himself carica- tured in return as a boorish philistine. In private he wrote of the Tractarians in 185 I, 'in all that school, there is an element of foppery -even in dress and manner; a fastidious, maundering die-away effeminacy, which is mistaken for purity and refinement; and Iconfess myself unable to cope with it, so alluring is it to the minds of an effeminate and luxurious aristocracy'. 59 He could be scarcely less temperate in public. In I 865 he gave four sermons in Cambridge on the subject of David, in which he expounds his ideal of muscular Christianity and makes explicit the link in his mind between effeminacy and medievalism in religion: 'The monks of the middle ages, in aiming exclusively at the virtues of women, generally copied little but their vices.'60 Or, as Tom Brown summed up the Anglo-Catholics in I 861, after recoiling from an undergraduate's muslin curtains and eau-de-cologne: 'I don't want to see any more, for it seems to me all a Gothic-mouldings and man-millinery b~siness.'~~

This reflected a serious shift in religious language, which dates back to the early days of the Oxford Movement, although it was not widely noticed until the 1860s. In an essay of 1866 arguing for the relevance of Ritualism to urban missions, the Revd R. F. Littledale suggested that 'the influence of Broad Churchmanship is practically felt by one sect and age alone. It is singularly ill-adapted to women and children . . . the very epithet "manly", which they are fond of claiming as especially their own, shows, by the restricted sense in which it is employed, a neglect of the other aspects of Chri~tianity.'~~

Recently it has been suggested that this growing Anglo-Catholic interest in feminine qualities was sometimes taken to be a deliberately subversive encroachment on the overwhelmingly masculine values that shaped contemporary Anglicani~m.~~ women was

Certainly, the movement's strong appeal to widely noticed, especially by its critics.64 Belief in division of the sexes in congregations, the revival of confession and the establishment of Anglican sisterhoods were all thought to be attractions to women. They also appealed to a certain sort of man -those whom, as one historian has written, 'felt themselves constrained or affronted by Victorian cultural ideals of appropriate masculine and feminine behavior'. 65

This shift is directly comparable to one in architectural language. When in 1850 Scott had addressed the question of 'which is the best style?' he expressed a preference for Geometrical ~ecordted, for 'its merits as compared with the flowingAstyle, consist chiefly in its retention of the masculine and vigorous character of earlier days. The flowing tracery, though to some eyes more perfect, is too soft and feminine in its beauty to be admitted as the main characteristic of a perfect style'.(j6 To this he added a tentative note about the need for a certain eclecticism, and although it is true that this included 'feminine' elements, what Scott preferred was the quality of masculinity


which by the end of the decade Burges had claimed as the special attraction of 'early

Although Beresford Hope argued for the virtues of English Decorated, he insisted that it should be used in conjunction with sterner styles such as 'early French', so that their 'overpowering' and 'masculine' qualities could lend strength to Decor- ated's 'hectic flush'. 6s

Bodley firmly set his face against that. The earliest statement of his principles was published in I 885, but there is no reason to think that it does not represent his feelings of at least fifteen years before. Architecture must be English; it should avoid eclecticism; it should be harmonious and avoid extravagance; but above all it must be rejined:'nature, our great guide, never stops in her refinement. We cannot gauge the infinite delicacy of nature, nor her redundance of life and its variety. Now it is in refinement for architectural work, that the expression of life is chiefly shown.'69

This key concept, 'refinement', which links changing style with the changing mood of Anglo-Catholicism, had more than spiritual or feminine implications. In 1885 Bodley made explicit his wholesale rejection of the High Victorian decorative aesthetic: 'Look at what has been called the "Victorian Style". I do not mean work designed, in an honest spirit, to meet the requirements of the times,that which tries to catch the true spirit ofold work, but that shallow, conceited, and futile attempt to outdo the works of the past by coarseness and what is vulgarly called "go" in design.'70 This recalls Scott's famous account, written in 1864, of the 'wild absurdity' of much of the architecture of the previous seven or eight years, produced by 'an ignorant and untutored rabble'; he claimed that the originators of'the foreign rage . . . came to hate it, and can now hardly make use of their own developments without exposing themselves to ridicule, as adhering to exploded notions, and as abetting their own vulgar imitators. This reaction may well lead to an anglicization of the variety thus developed'. 71

Scott's comments draw on mid-Victorian feelings about class and education that may have helped shape the reaction against the High Victorian manner. Bodley's preference for 'refinement' emerged at just the point when the style of the 1830s was moving beyond the province of the avant-garde to becoming an acceptable choice for cheap commercial buildings. It is possible that, retrospectively at least, 'refinement' came to carry social overtones. Contemporaries commented on Bodley's ever-increasing respectability: Philip Webb, for instance, wrote on hearing of Bodley's death in 1907, 'He was a man of some taste and discrimination, and for a while I had some pleasure in his companionship; it died away under the "Restoration", separator of friendly familiarity, his respectability increasing and mine going -going -gone!'72 There was also a close, complicated connection between social status and Anglo- Catholicism itself. Paradoxically, a movement whose ministry was often associated with slum churches embodied also a rarefied, upper-class piety. Kingsley's comments on the movement's appeal to an 'effeminate and luxurious aristocracy' have already been quoted. Anglo-Catholics could equally well fuse spirituality with snobbery in the manner of the anonymous author of Protestantism and the Prayer Book (1867): 'Activity, progress, beauty, refinement, and devotion are allying themselves with the Catholic side and Protestantism finds its chief adherents among the vulgar and money-gaining classes.'73 This socially loaded use of the word 'refinement' by Bodley, his colleagues and patrons probably cannot be fully understood without an understanding of the

declining status of clergymen in the second half of the nineteenth century74 and the anxieties felt by the newly established architectural profession about its own social standing.

Bodley's changing style parallels a change in the religious temper of High Church circles, but that in turn was part of a wider 'feminization' of English culture in the late 1860s and early 70s which also produced the Queen Anne and Aesthetic movements. 75 His abandonment of the High Victorian manner is illuminated by this wider shift. More specifically, it was debates within the architectural avant-garde which are part of this change that provide the major clue as to how Bodley was able to translate such a generalized movement of taste into concrete architectural form within such a short time.


The break with eclectic, 'muscular' High Victorian styles can be traced back to the circle of Morris and his friends Edward Burne-Jones, D. G. Rossetti, Ford Madox Brown, and Philip Webb, who came together in the mid-1850s. The move from massive medievalism seems to have been initiated by Rossetti and Brown, and was at first limited to furniture and the applied arts, stimulated by a new interest in both oriental and eighteenth-century styles. Bodley's introduction to the group was prob- ably a result of Webb and Morris's pupillage in Street's office in Oxford at the time Bodley was helping Street (Webb was there from 1852 to 1858). In 1857 he was a member of the Medieval Society and in I 858 the Hogarth Club, short-lived groups run largely by Burges that included most members of what was to be Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & CO.~~

The value of English models in design was much discussed, and it was here that the crucial -and by no means inevitable -link between 'Englishness' and 'refinement' was first made. 77

The chief evidence of this is the correspondence of A. Warington Taylor (183 5-70), who in 1865 became the business manager of the Morris company.78 Despite a cosmopolitan outlook encouraged by his education in Germany, he had an acute concern for nationality in art. In about 1862 he wrote to E. R. Robson:

Burges and Seddon et hoc genus omne being industrious but not men of genius seek to make impression by 'stately' (qy pretentious?) Buildings -sensation! -all that is huge coarse in French Gothic they seize -but they have no feeling for the poetry of that very insular characteristic 'littleness of English nature' . . . Above all things nationality is the greatest social trait, English Gothic is small as our landscape is small, it is sweet picturesque homely farmyardish, Japanese, social, domestic -French is aspiring, grand straining after the extraordinary all very well in France but is wrong here. 79

This rejection offoreign models seems to have had social overtones for Taylor: to him, modern Gothic chairs were vulgar, whereas 'the common chair ofRed Lion Square [the first home of Morris & Co.] is essentially gentlemanly'.80

Taylor also conducted public propaganda for the English cause in the pages of the Buildirzg News, whose editorial stance was in favour of the progressive eclecticism of Beresford Hope and the ecclesiologists. In January 1865 the journal published a long letter from Taylor, 'Of Certain Contrasts between French and English Gothic': 'When an architect introduces French or Italian Gothic into England he brings in something


wholly strange, which is sure to attract attention by its strangeness, but which is nothing short of an outrage on good sense and on the poetry of national feeling . . . Races have always remained distinct, and will always do so.'81 Even French domestic architecture suffers from an excess of grandeur, whereas that of England 'claims superiority in a lyrical sense'. 82 The motifs of French and English Gothic are compared: French is found wanting in its preference for square abaci, stiff non-naturalistic foliage carving, heavy mouldings, and its love of regularity in fagades. Only three English architects have escaped the general French fashion, Butterfield, Webb, Bodley -the only men who would not attempt to 'build a small French cathedral and put it into an English village'. 83

Street rose to the bait in a letter attacking Taylor's arguments. He pointed out, for instance, that many of the elements Taylor criticized in French Gothic architecture could be found in English also, especially in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Street's most telling argument is that Taylor was not really interested in analysing Gothic architecture: as the examples he took show, what he cared about most is 'our simple vernacular country architecture from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century'. 84 Taylor's reply is prophetic. He admits the French qualities of Early English architecture but argues that for that reason it should not be a model. Gothic developed in the same way as the English language: 'much which is most English and lovely is found in Perpendicular architecture, especially the domestic. At last, then, we attained a decided national architecture. '85 It was this line of thinking that took Bodley on in the I 870s and 80s to the use of late Gothic models; if the desire is to be 'English' in architecture, then logically the chosen models should be those that are most distinctively national: curvilinear Decorated and Perpendicular.

The emphasis in these arguments on accurate architectural history is a reminder that the link between nineteenth-century architectural criticism and scholarship is still little explored. In England, Gothic was often argued for on the grounds that it was the 'national' style, as opposed to classical forms -as for instance in the great debate over the choice of style for the Foreign Office (1862-73). However, the new understanding that English Gothic architecture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, including the much-admired 'Middle Pointed', was derived from France seemed to validate eclec- ticism. The publication of Robert Willis's architectural history of Canterbury Cathe- dral in 1845 made popular the knowledge that the building's first Gothic architect was French. The issue occasionally became rather anxious: Willis's off-the-cuff remark that St Hugh's Choir was 'the work of a mad Fren~hman'~~

led in 1861 to Viollet-le-Duc being asked to give his opinion; his view that Lincoln Cathedral was essentially English was received with some relief. 87 The Gothic Revival necessarily encouraged architects to take a scholarly interest in medieval architecture, with the result that in works such as Gleaningsjom Westminster Abbey (I 861), Scott was involved in a careful analysis of the blend of French and English elements in an influential 'Middle Pointed' model. If Gothic were to be a national style, it had to be distinctively English.


The architectural debate of the I 860s provides the background necessary to understand how Bodley was able to create his mature style. A brief look at the response of other

architects makes clear the extent to which his reaction was individual. The most

important, and most problematic, instance is that ofThomas Garner (I 839-1906), who

in 1869 became Bodley's partner (in all but a legal sense; there was no deed of

partnership). He was in Scott's office from I 856 until about I 861, when he returned to

his native Warwickshire, where he executed various restorations for Scott. In 1868,

according to Edward Warren, 'he returned to London to assist his friend Bodley, who

found himself somewhat overburdened with work'.88 This probably refers to Bodley's

serious illness of I 869, which left him permanently disabled. Paul Waterhouse claimed

that 'All Saints' Cambridge . . is said to be the first fruits of the combination with

Garner', 89but Warren's account ofthe partnershipis moreauthoritative: 'What is perhaps

noticeable in some of the earlier buildings by the "firm" is the supersession of the French

influences, which had hitherto shown themselves in Mr Bodley's work, by a distinctively

English manner. For this change, however, Mr Garner's pronouncedly English

sympathies were by no means responsible, as his partner's work had begun to show

evidence of conversion, in this respect, a year or two before the partnership began.'90

The two views can be reconciled by surmising that Garner helped with the creation of the tower and spire at All Saints, although his name does not appear in the building records. The style of the tower and spire emerges naturally out of Bodley's work of the previous five years; Garner's intervention in the design (if any) cannot have been decisive. But clearly Garner must be set down as one of the architects interested in English models in the early 1860s. He was also part of Morris's circle and commis- sioned stained glass from Morris for three churches he restored in 1863-6~:~' his influence on Bodley may well, therefore, predate his involvement in any of Bodley's buildings. The same is true of another close friend during this period, George Gilbert Scott jun.; although his influential Late Gothic churches were not built until the I 870s, as early as February I 865 he wrote to J. T. Irvine, his father's clerk-of-works: 'Do you know I have become a great admirer of late work, and perpendicular, you will be pleased to hear this, I know, you are fond ofit. I believe intensely in English of all sorts, and let French go to the dogs.'92

Also hard to disentangle is Bodley's participation in the creation of the Queen Anne style, and the influence this may have had on his ecclesiastical ar~hitecture.~~

This movement away from Gothic forms to vernacular models was evident in Bodley's work as early as 1862, in the extension he designed for Melton Grange, a house belonging to Edward Wilson at Brough in Yorkshire, which is much influenced by Butterfield's domestic ar~hitecture,~~

but Bodley's first complete exercise in the new idiom was the rectory at Valley End, Windlesham, Surrey, dated 1866; it was followed by the vicarage for St Martin's, Scarborough, dated 1867 on the fabric and designed the year before; the vicarage of St Augustine's, Pendlebury; Cefn Bryntalch in Montgomeryshire; and a group of houses at Malvern Link, all of 1868-69. Their restrained eclecticism is less self-consciously picturesque than W. E. Nesfield's con- temporary 'Queen Anne' buildings, but they have a deliberate prettiness which distinguishes them from contemporary houses by Webb, who was slower to forsake Gothic elements. The houses are preceded only narrowly by Bodley's abandonment of the High Victorian mode in his ecclesiastical work and the two developments must have been closely linked.


There are, however, differences between the changes in ecclesiastical and domestic architecture: although both turn back simultaneously to English models, 'Queen Anne' was as energetically eclectic as 'High Victorian' and it drew on foreign as well as on native elements. In time, Bodley was to reject the 'very inferior manner' of Queen Anne as emphatically as he turned away from the 'vulgarity' ofHigh Victorian styles. 95 It is perhaps wrong to look only to issues of style as the link between changes in religious and secular architecture. The idealization of domesticity associated with the Queen Anne may help to explain domestic influences on church interiors, to which in the 1870s architects began to bring an exacting eye for decoration that had previously been reserved for houses. As Bodley wrote in 1878, 'The interior of an old Church was treated with the same intention, so to speak, as we treat the rooms in our houses. They were made as beautiful in colour and furniture as possible. '96 Despite Tractarian belief in the distinctively sacred nature of churches, it is arguable that the emphasis of Anglo-Catholic worship on private religious experience -the veiled mystery of the eucharist; the personal relationship between priest and layman embodied in the confessional; and the encouragement of solitary prayer in churches -helped to produce an elision that had not previously existed between the private space of home and the public arena of church.

Perhaps the most revealing contrast is that between Bodley and the two High Victorian architects least affected by the growth of interest in English models, James Brooks and William Burges. In 1884 the Builder wrote of Brooks, 'We very much admire this architect's works, and have only one complaint against him, viz., that he is always the same.'97 Throughout the 1870s Burges produced designs in a muscular High Victorian manner which, despite the infusion of some English influence, primarily demonstrates his continued allegiance to 'early French'. Yet both worked for patrons very similar to Bodley's; Brooks, in particular, was employed almost entirely by High Church circles (although, significantly, there was little overlap with Bodley's more exclusively aristocratic patrons). Why then were they not influenced more by any putative shift in temper of those patrons from 'muscularity' to 'refinement'? The answer seems to be that Bodley formed a unique link between Anglo-Catholicism and the anglo-aestheticism of Morris and his friends. The point was made neatly by Warington Taylor in a letter of the early 1860s to E. R. Robson: 'Sat. Review on furniture this week very rotten -I see therein the sectarian very strongly -The Ecclesiologist & Hope cannot bear Red L.S. [Lion Square] it is too natural for Puseyism, there is a hankering always after the ideal with those gentlemen. Though I cannot think Kingsley & the muscular school as likely to aid art. I cannot fancy that lot having any deep sentiment in Dante.'98

In other words, Morris & Co. shared with ecclesiology an interest in church art, but was utterly different in temperament. Morris and Burne-Jones, despite an early wish to become clergymen, soon threw off the High Church milieu; Warington Taylor's own religious beliefs, liberal Roman Catholicism influenced strongly by German biblical criticism, were guaranteed to alienate every shade of Anglican opinion. This was an atmosphere that was wholly foreign to Brooks, but extremely congenial to Burges, of whom Robert Kerr commented, 'Butterfield was High Church, Scott Low Church and Burges no church.'99 Bodley, through the accidents of his friendship with Morris and his close family links with Anglo-Catholicism, was able to bridge the two worlds, introducing the aesthetic of Red Lion Square into Anglo-Catholic church design as a reaction to both Hope and the 'muscular

Perhaps the most interesting response to this change, because the most ambivalent, was Butterfield's. He was customarily regarded as having pioneered the use of Continental models at All Saints, Margaret Street, and yet, somehow, it was always clear that he was essentially English. Paul Thompson, Butterfield's biographer, is puzzled by this contemporary response to St Alban's, Holborn, in I 863: 'It is an English church, for the worship of the Church of England, and built in a thoroughly English style . . .it is such as an English medieval architect might have built, if he had to consider the needs of our own times and the ritual of our own church.'lo1 For Thompson this means that Butterfield had simply captured the 'principles' of English Gothic, in contrast to Bodley's strict historicism. Yet, despite the coloured surfaces at St Alban's, the building was in every other detail English. It had clustered piers with moulded capitals and tall richly moulded arches; the chancel arch was emphatically moulded; the clerestory was shafted, and glazed on the outer wall; the chancel is square-ended. Butterfield admired All Saints, Cambridge,'02 and was very sympa- thetic to the return to English models, for he had never lost touch with them, despite his entrenched commitment to the High Victorian style he had helped create.

Comparison between Butterfield and Bodley helps make clear the extent to which the younger man preserved some of his High Victorian upbringing throughout his career. The best-known example of this is one of Bodley's most influential churches of the 187os, St Augustine's, Pendlebury, Lancashire. For all its deployment of his fourteenth-century curvilinear vocabulary, its basic form complies with Street's requirements for a town church more completely than any church by Street himself. It makes sense, therefore, to see it in some respects as a High Victorian building. In the I 860s Bodley created a union ofan intense, refined mid-fourteenth-century idiom with something of the heroic sublimity of High Victorian design. This so successfully mirrored the changing temper of Anglo-Catholicism that no transformations of such abruptness were ever required again.


I The first account of All Saints' history appears to be by Paul Crossley, 'Neo-Medieval Magic: A Look at All Saints' Church, Jesus Lane', Trinity Review (Easter term, 1968), pp. 6-8. The first discussions ofthe change ofstyle are in Paul Thompson, William Buttevfield (London, 1971). pp 352-54, and Stefan Muthesius, The High Victorian Movement in Architecture 18j0--1870 (London, 1972), pp. 138-40. The most authoritative history, however, is by Stephen Humphrey. First published as three articles in the magazine of the Cambridge National Trust Centre between September 1972 and April 1973, it was reprinted as a booklet by the Ecclesiological Society, The Victorian Rebuilding ofA11 Saints' Church, Cambridge (London, 1983). It does not address any ofthe questions raised here. See also Duncan Robinson and Stephen Wildman, Morris and Company in Cambridge (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 2p3 I. 2 Bodley's personal and office papers have been destroyed. The principal published accounts ofhis career are F. M. Simpson's obituary in Journal of the RIBA, 3rd ser., 15 (1908), 145-58; Paul Waterhouse's article in the DNB; Edward Warren, 'The Life and WorkofGeorgeFrederickBodley', Journal ofthe RIBA, 3rd ser., 17 (I~IO),

305-36; and David Verey's chapter on the architect in Seven Victorian Architects, ed. Jane Fawcett (London, 1976), pp. 84-101.


3 On the characteristics of High Victorian architecture, see H.-R. Hitchcock, 'High Victorian Gothic', Victorian Studies, I (1957-58), 47-71, and Muthesius, High Victorian Movement (note I). For the link with the aesthetic ofthe sublime, and a discussion of the urban origins of the style, see Nicholas Taylor, 'The Awful Sublimity of the Victorian City', in The Victorian City: Images and Realities, ed. H. J. Dyos and Michael Wolff, 2 (London, 1973)~

43 1-48. 4 On St Martin, see the parish papers in the Humberside County Record Office, PE168, and the history of the church by Newton Mant, A Memorial ofthe First Quarter Century ofthe History ofSt Martin's-on-the-Hill, Scarborough (London and Scarborough, 1888), although neither contains much about the planning of the church. See also David Winpenny, St Martin-on-the-Hill: A Guide (Scarborough, repr., 1977)~ and the more detailed history by Hal Langley in The Church of St Martin-on-the-Hill 1863-1988 (Scarborough, 1988). 5 Scarborough Gazette, 26 July 1860. 6 Ibid., 19 July, 26 July 1860. 7 Ibid., 6 September 1860. 8 Ecclesiologist, 22 (1861), 281. 9 Martin Harrison, Victorian Stained Glass (London, 1980), p. 42. 10 Thompson, Butterfield (note I), p. 354. 11 J. Mordaunt Crook, The Dilemma of Style (London, 1987). p. 149. 12 For a detailed account of these upheavals, see J. F. White, The Cambridge Movement (Cambridge, 1962). I3 Ecclesiologist, 20 (1862), 17-19, 14 The following account of the building history is based on the minutes of the building committee (Cam- bridgeshire Record Office, P20/6/3); correspondence between Bodley and the incumbent, the Revd W. C. Sharpe (CRO P20/6/4); the published lithographs of the two designs (CRO Pz0/6/5); and the minutes of the tower and spire committee (CRO P201617). 15 Ecclesiologist, 19 (1858), 133. 16 On Corrie, see M. Holroyd, Memorials ofthe Liji ofG. E. Corrie (Cambridge, 1890). 17 On Whewell's architectural interests, see Janet Douglas, The Li/e . . . of William Whewell, 2nd edn (London, 1882), and Nikolaus Pevsner, Some Architectural Writers ofthe Nineteenth Century(London, 1972), ch. 7, together with the same author's 'William Whewell and his Architectural Notes on German Churches', German Lij and Letters, 22 (1968-69), 39-48. 18 Fraser's Magazine, 41 (185o), 5 1-58. 19 J. H. B. Mace, Henry Bodley Bromby (London, 1913). 20 Ecclesiologist, I I (1850), 227-33. 21 Bodley to Sharpe, 21February 1861 (CRO Pzoi614). 22 Building Committee Minutes, February (day not specified) 1861 (CRO P20/6/3). 23 Corrie to Sharpe, 27 April 1861 (CRO P20/6/2). 24Ecclesio1ogis~,22 (1861), 124. 25 On the design of the spire, see Bodley to Sharpe, 13 November 1861 (CRO Pzoi614). 26 Ecclesiologist, 22 (1861), 124. 27 Building committee minutes, 8 October 1862 (CRO Pzoi6/3). 28 Ecclesiologist, 24 (1863), 127. 29 Quoted by Humphrey, All Saints' Church (note I), p. 14. 30 The only contemporary reference to this work outside the local press appears to be in the Builder, 28 (1870),

3I Ecclesiologist, 24 (1863), 128. 
32 Anthony Symondson, 'G. F. Bodley and St Salvador's, Dundee', Bulletin of the Scottish Georgian Society, I 
(1972), 10-23. TO these should be added the 1867 designs for St David's Cathedral, Hobart, Tasmania, in a style 
which the Ecclesiologist (28 [1867], 57) described as 'Geometrical Middle-Pointed -but of so late a type as to be 
scarcely distinguished from the Perpendicular variety of the succeeding style. . . We observe in the whole design a 
marked reaction from the earlier type of foreign Gothic which Mr Bodley formerly affected'. 
33 Builder, 28 (1870), 891. 
34 Church Builder (1876), p. 133. 
35 Ecclesiologist, 24 (1864), 49. 
36 Humphrey, All Saints' Church (note I), pp. 23-27, 
37 R. F. Littledale, On the Application of Color to the Decoration ofchurches (London, 1857). 
38 Ecclesiologist, 22 (1861), 70-78 (p. 77). 
39 Wardle's drawings are in a bound volume bequeathed to the Victoria and Albert Museum by May Morris. 
Some of his covering letters to Morris 81 Co. are in the National Art Library (Box 1.86.DD); that of 8 July 1865 asks 
for drawings to be forwarded to Bodley. 
40 For example, Building News, 8 (1862), 227-28. 
41 As papers in Gloucester Record Office, P~go, reveal. 

42 'On the Use of Colour in the Ornamentation of Churches: A paper read at the annual public meeting of the 
Architectural Society ofthe archdeaconry ofNorthampton, held at Northampton, October 6, 1868', in Reports and 
Papers Read at the Meetings ofthe Architectural Societies, 9 (1867-68), 24p5.4; and 'Painted Roofs: A paper read at the 
annual public meeting of the Architectural Society of the archdeaconry of Northampton, held at Northampton, 
October 13, 1869', in Reports and Papers Read at the Meetings of the Architectural Societies, 10 (186~70),8691. 
43 Corrie to churchwardens (CRO Pzo/6/2), and their decision, building committee minutes, 3 July 1861 (CRO 
44 Quoted in Peter Howell, 'Oxford Architecture, 1800-1914', in T. H. Aston (ed.), The History ofthe University 
of Oxford, vol. 7, The Nineteenth Century, ed. Michael Brock (forthcoming). 
45 One of Scott's initial proposals for the chapel's tower, presented in June 1864, was for a bold saddleback form 
clearly influenced by Butterfield and Bodley. However, for reasons which are not made clear by the published 
accounts of the building's history, the form eventually adopted was modelled on Pershore Abbey's tower. See 
Alec C. Crook, From the Foundation to Gilbert Scott: A History ofthe Buildings ofStJohn's College, Cambridge, 151I to 
1885 (Cambridge, 1980), p. 97. 
46 David B. Brownlee, 'The First High Victorians: British Architectural Theory in the 184os', Architectura, 15 

47 A point that is made strongly by Nigel Yates, The Oxford Movement and Anglican Ritualism (London, 1983). 
48 See James Bentley, Ritualism and Politics in Victorian Britain (Oxford, 1978). 
49 White, Cambridge Movement (note 12), p. 196. 
50 Ibid., p. 222. 
51 Brownlee, 'First High Victorians' (note 46), pp. 44-45. In 1856 Bodley designed a now-vanished chapel for the 
first St Margaret's Convent in East Grinstead, founded by Neale in 1855; see J. M. Neale, Letters (London, I~IO), 

p. 271. However, the scanty records ofthe commission do not suggest that Bodley anglicized his current style for Neale; indeed, his mortuary cross of 1858 for the convent, which still survives in the later buildings designed for the sisterhood by G. E. Street, was criticized for 'Italianising details' (Ecclesiologist, 19 [1858], 347). 52 All Saints, Falsgrave Road, Scarborough, was (to judge from photographs), a modest, towerless reprise ofAll Saints, Cambridge. It was demolished in 1975. Even more interesting was St Martin's school, demolished in 1989; the drawings preserved in the Humberside County Record Office (PE168128) prove that the free Tudor forms were conceived in 1870, and are not later, as was reasonably surmised by Nikolaus Pevsner, Yorkshire: The North Riding, The Buildings of England (Harmondsworth, 1966), p. 332; a close contemporary parallel is provided by Bodley's still surviving school for St Augustine, Pendlebury, Lancashire. 53 Symondson, 'St Salvador's' (note 32). 54 For an account of the relationship between liturgical and architectural thought in anglophile High Church circles of the end of the century, see Anthony Symondson, The Life and Work of Sir Ninian Comper 1864-1960 (exhib. cat., Heinz Gallery, London, 1988), pp. 11-12. 55 Ecclesiologist, 20 (1859), 31-34. 56 Dom Anselm Hughes, The Rivers of the Flood(London, 1961), p. 50. 57 The use of gender-related terms in Victorian architectural criticism is touched on by George Hersey in High Victorian Architecture: A Study in Associationism (Baltimore and London, 1972). His approach is limited by a lack of interest in religion or the wider cultural context. Similarly, David Sonstroem's article 'John Ruskin and the Nature of Manliness', The Victorian Newsletter, 4 (1971), 14-17, relates language solely to the psychology of the writer. However, there has recently been a good deal of art-historical interest in the relationship between beliefs about gender and the evolution offin-de-si?cle styles: see, for instance, Debora L. Silverman, Art ."v'ouveau in Fin-de-SiPcle France: Politics, Psychology and Style (Berkeley, 1989), which also discusses the relationship between ideas about historical styles (in her case, rococo) and conservative concepts ofnational identity. David Brett, C. R. Mackintosh: The Poetics of Workmanship (London, 1992) brings some of the same ideas to bear on late nineteenth-century architectural traditions. 58 C. J. LeGeyt, 'On the Symbolism of Ritual', in The Church and the World: Essays on Questions ofthe Day in1867 by Various Writers, ed. Orby Shipley (London, 1867), 523-67 (P. 524). 59 Quoted in R. B. Martin, The Dust ofconjict: A Life of Charles Kingsley (London, 1959), pp. 239-40, 60 Charles Kingsley, David: Four Sermons Preached before the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1865), p. 7. 61 Thomas Hughes, Tom Brown at Oxford(London, repr. 1880), p. 87. 62 R. F. Littledale, 'The Missionary Aspect of Ritualism', in Church and the World (note 58), 25-50 (p. 33). 63 See two articles by John Shelton Reed, 'A "female movement": The Feminization of Nineteenth-century Anglo-Catholicism', Anglican and Episcopal History, 57 (1988), 199-238; and "'Giddy young men": A Counter- cultural Aspect of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism', Comparative Social Research, I I (1989), 209-26. See also David Hilliard, 'Unenglish and Unmanly: Anglo-Catholicism and Homosexuality', Victorian Studies, 25 (1982), I 81-2 10.

64 There was also some anxiety in the church as a whole that religion was becoming unduly 'feminized', for by the end of the century statistics clearly revealed that congregations were predominantly female: see Brian Heeney, The


Women's ,Wouement in the Church of England, 1Pj61930 (Oxiord, 1988). For the church, the consequences of being 
one of the few acceptable areas for independent middle-class female endeavour were considerable: see Ann 
Douglas, The Fetninization qfAmerican Culture (New York, 1979), for a study of this subject in the USA and a 
warning against identifying 'feminization' with feminism. 
65 Reed, 'A "female movement"' (note 63), p. 238. 
66 G. G. Scott, A Pleafor the Faithfir1 Restoration ojour Antient Churches (London, 185o), p. 100. 
67 William Burges, 'Art and Religion', in The Church and the World: Essays on Various Questions qfthe Day in 1868 by 

Various Writers, ed. Orby Shipley (London, 1869), 574-98, p. 582. 
68 A. J. Beresford Hope, The Common Sense oj.4rt (London, 1858), pp. 19-20. 
69 G. F. Bodley, 'On some Principles and Characteristics of Ancient Architecture, and their Application to the 
Modern Practice of the Art', The Builder, 48 (1885), 294-97 (p. 294). 
70 Ibid., p. 295. 
71 G. G. Scott, Personal and Professional Recollections (London, 1879), p. 228. 
72 Quoted in W. R. Lethaby, Philip U7ebb and his Work (Oxford, 1935), p. 223 
71 Quoted in Reed, 'A "female movement"' (note 63). 
74 ~uch

light has recently been thrown on this topic by the case studies assembled in Clive Dewey, The Passing oj Barchester (London, 1991). 75 On this larger cultural transition, see Mark Girouard, Sweetness and Light: The Queen Anne Movement. 1860-1900, 2nd edn (London and New Haven, 1984), especially his comment about religion at p. 7. 76 Deborah Cherry, 'The Hogarth Club: 1858-61', Burlington Magazine, 122 (1980), 238-42. 77 It is ~ossible there was in part a straightforwardly patriotic reason for this. David Brownlee has suggested that the return to English models was 'perhaps a reaction against a perceived military threat from Second Empire France': The Law Courts: The Architecture ofGeorge Edmund Street (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1984), p. 144. The war scare of 1859 followed Napoleon 111's treaty with Cavour and ensuing Franco-Austrian war. There was certainly public antipathy to France in the early 186os, which may have had some influence on architects, although popular xenophobia is unlikely to have understood the sources of rapidly shifting avant-garde styles. Bodley's circle was affected by this sentiment, for Morris and some of his friends joined the volunteer movement in 1859-61:J. W. Mackail, The Lije of U7illiam Morris (London, 1899). I, 146. 78 See Girouard, Sweetness and Light (note 75), pp. 14-16 The fullest account of Taylor's life is a manuscript note (dated 21 November 1915) by S. C. Cockerell. Bound in with the correspondence between Taylor and Philip Webb in the National Art Library, London, it has been published as 'Notes on Warington Taylor and Philip Webb' in the Journal ojthe LVilliam Morris Society, I (Winter, 1962), 610. The spelling 'Warington' is correct. 79 Taylor to Robson, n.d. (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: Burne-Jones papers, xxiii, 23A). 80 Ibid., 19. 81 Building News, 12 (1865), 17-18 (p. 17). 82 Ibid., p. 18. 83 Ibid. 84 Building News, 12 (1865), 48-49. 85 Ibid., p. 71. 86 Quoted by the Revd Precentor Venables, Archaeological Journd, 44 (1887), 194-202 (p. 196). 87 Gentleman's Magazine, 10 (1861), 551. 88 Edward Warren, 'Thomas Garner', Architectural Review, 19 (1906), 275-76 (p. 275). 89 Paul Waterhouse, entry on Bodley in the DNB. 90 Warren, 'Thomas Garner' (note 88), p. 276. 91 Harrison, Victorian Stained Glass (note g), p. 43. 92 Quoted in Gavin Stamp, 'George Gilbert Scott, Junior, Architect, 1839-1897' (doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, 1978). 93 See Gavin Stamp and Andre Goulancourt, The English House 1860-1914 (London, 1986) and Girouard, Sweetness and Light (note 75), pp. 33-35. 94 The importance of Melton Grange in the development of Bodley's influential domestic architecture of the 1860s appears to have been overlooked, although the contract and some drawings are preserved in Hull Public Library (L.728.8[593]). Its transitional nature makes it in some ways the domestic equivalent of All Saints, Jesus Lane: although there is virtually no evidence of Gothic influence in the building, the designs for the library furniture are medieval in spirit, with as yet no trace of the 'Queen Anne' manner. 95 Bodley, 'Principles and Characteristics' (note 69), p. 296.

96 All Saints [Cambridge] Parish ,Wagarine, October 1878. 
97 The Builder, 44 (1883), 602. 
98 Taylor to Robson, n.d. (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: Burne-Jones papers, xxiii, 9). 
99 Quoted in J. Mordaunt Crook, IVilliam Burges and the High Victorian Dream (London, 1981), p. 170. 

roo For the parallel, but slightly later, cases of Pearson and Street's return to English models, see Anthony Quiney,John Loughborough Pearson (New Haven and London, 1979), pp. 75-78 and 97-101; David B. Brownlee, Law Courts (note 77), pp. 141-44; and Paul Joyce and John Hutchinson, 'The Architecture of George Edmund Street, RA', in GeorgeEdmundStreet in East Yorkshire, ed. John Hutchinson (exhib. cat., University ofHull, 1981), 5-14 (P. H).

IOI The Guardian, 25 February 1863, quoted in Thompson, Buttevfield (note I), p. 97.

102 According to T. F. Bumpus, London Churches Ancient and Modern, 2 (London, 1908), 271-72.

  • Recommend Us