Newsletter No. 7 Autumn 2017

Welcome to “The Friends” Newsletter No. 7 Autumn 2017

EVENTS SPONSORED BY THE FRIENDS OF ST MARTINS

Hello, and welcome to this bumper edition of the Newsletter. This is to make up for the lack of any publications since the new year, for which we apologise, and hope that this edition will make up for the shortfall.

Firstly, there are still a few events that are sponsored by the Friends this year:

Friday 8th December Edward Hewes will perform Messian's "La Nativitie" Tickets are £8 for non-members and £7 for members of The Friends of St. Martin's.

Refreshments will be served (including a free glass of wine) by the Friends of St Martin's at the end, when there will be an opportunity to meet each organist.

The Christmas Fair Saturday 2nd December 10.00 am. All welcome. The fair coincides with the opening of our Christmas Tree Festival which continues throughout Advent and Christmas. Any contributions to this will be very happily accepted. Christmas trees should not be taller than 5ft, be decorated with a significant theme and be lit with non-flashing lights. Please ring Mike if you wish to contribute 07342 046 193.

Coming next June 9th (2018) - a talk by Suzanne Fagence Cooper on sir Edward Burne-Jones in anticipation of The Tate Britain Exhibition opening in October 2018. Further details soon.

Provisional dates for organ recitals in 2018: Sat 26th May; Fridays 29th June, 20th OR 27th July, 21st OR 28th September and 26th October. Alternative dates will be finalised asp.

In This edition: We are fortunate to have an artist-in-residence, Angela Chalmers, who resides in Mary Craven’s house on The Esplanade (although in the servant’ quarters, I suspect). Angela has added to the work she has displayed in the church this year and introduces herself in the first article. We continue to explore individual windows with The Three Mary’s Window, perhaps one of the most interesting one we have as it depicts three of the famous Pre-Raphaelite Stunners, Annie Miller, Georgiana MacDonald and Lizzie Siddal.

Mike Baines has recently read Julian Trueher’s biography entitled “Ford Madox Brown Pre- Raphaelite Pioneer”, and provides us with some interesting information about Brown’s life from this work. To complement this article there is a description and commentary on one of Brown’s most famous works “The Last of England”.

Extending the theme of Ford Maddox Brown there is an article on the Life of St. Martin which related to Brown’s St. Martin Window which was the subject of What’s In A Window No 2 in the second Newsletter. You can download it at: http://www.friendsofstmartins.co.uk/Documents/Newsletter2Final.pdf

The exploration of the life of St. Martin continues with a detailed look at the series of 10 frescoes painted by Simone Martini in the St. Martin Chapel in San Francesco, Assisi.

We also continue our series of articles on George Frederick Bodley, this time looking at how he met the Pre-Raphaelites and one of his earliest cooperative works with them – The Church of St. Michael and All Angels in Brighton.

Finally, a short article about The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood first published in Look and Learn Magazine 1n 1973! It is a brief and informative overview of the aims and principles of the movement, something I am frequently asked about when doing guided tours. There is interesting content about how they arrive at the PRB name.

Contents:

Artist-in Residence by Angela Chalmers page 3

What’s In A Window? No 6: The Three Marys’ Window by Burne-Jones and William Morris Page 9

Ford Madox Brown by Mike Baines page 27

The Last Of England by Ford Madox Brown page 31

A Short Biography of St. Martin page 36

Scenes From The Life of St. Martin by Simone Martini 1280 – 1344 page 42

George Frederick Bodley – 3. Meeting and Working with the Pre-Raphaelites page 57

The Pre-Raphaelites wanted truth and naturalism in their Art page 65

Artist-in-Residence Dear readers

My name is Angela Chalmers and I am delighted to announce my role as artist-in-residence at St Martin-on-the-Hill. In the past, I have produced ‘There’s Something About Mary’ and ‘Floral Poetry’ and more recently two large works on paper called ‘Adam & Eve’, which were displayed during the Heritage Open Days in September.

I have been a professional artist for over 12 years and have worked in London and Sweden on various art projects. I am very excited to work with the church to help build on its community and assist the friends of St Martin’s on the committee.

So what does artist-in-residence actually mean?

In short, an artist is invited to spend some time in a different environment from their usual place of work. It is quite often a time for the artist to expand their art practice and reach new audiences, to explore new ideas, to research, be influenced, to inspire and to create new work incorporating all of these things.

The story so far.

Ever since I discovered St Martin’s church on my doorstep, I have become fascinated with the Victorian history of the building and the art of the Pre-Raphaelites housed inside. My main inspiration was the discovery that my home was the former home of benefactor Miss Mary Craven. Her generosity allowed the church to be built during the 1860s.

After a short period of research into the life of Mary, I created ‘There’s Something About Mary’ for Coastival Festival, 2015. The dress contemplates Mary’s character, and aims to raise awareness of earlier times relating to the church. More details about this piece can be found in the Friends newsletter 4, March 2015.

In 2016, I produced ‘Floral Poetry’. This again was inspired by the story of Mary Craven ‘purloining flowers’ from the South Cliff gardens. My intention was to create a garden for Mary to celebrate her love of flowers. In May 2017, I was invited to exhibit the dress in a gallery near Gothenburg, Sweden. It was an exciting opportunity for me to travel over there. I ran two workshops and visited the studios of many Swedish artists. The postcards I produced mention St Martin’s and were sold during the exhibition.

The remaining postcards are currently on sale alongside the others in the church. All proceeds go to the church fund. During the Heritage Open Days I displayed ‘Adam & Eve’ on the back wall under the windows of the same name by Ford Madox Brown.

I am planning to do more work inspired by the church and I’m currently writing a proposal for an Arts Council grant. The funding will help to establish the art residency and finance the project. It will enable me to lead art workshops and work towards a larger exhibition of my work involving an engagement with the local community.

In the meantime, I would like to thank everyone I have met for your warm welcome and look forward to sharing more news soon.

Angela Chalmers

What’s in a Window? No 6 The Three Marys’ Window Designed by Morris and Burne-Jones

The models for these figures were all pre-Raphaelite "stunners", and the story behind all of them is fascinating. Mary the Virgin (centre) is by Burne-Jones and the other two are by William Morris. The Models are (left to right) Annie Miller, Georgiana Burne-Jones and Lizzie Siddal.

Mary Magdalene by William Morris is holding a golden container in her right hand, symbolising the spikenard that she anointed Jesus with in St. John’s Gospel. In her left hand she holds a wreath of white roses symbolising chastity regained.

The whole story of Mary as a prostitute, who is fallen and redeemed, is a very powerful image of redemption - a signal that no matter how low one has fallen, one can be redeemed.

Powerful as this image may be, it is not the story of Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is mentioned in each of the four gospels in the New Testament, but not once does it mention that she was a prostitute or a sinner. At some point Mary Magdalene became confused with two other women in the Bible: Mary, the sister of Martha, and the unnamed sinner from Luke's gospel (7:36-50) both of whom wash Jesus' feet with their hair. In the 6th Century, Pope Gregory the Great made this assumption official by declaring in a sermon that these three characters were really the same person: Mary Magdalene, repentant saint. The Catholic Church did later declare that Mary Magdalene was not the penitent sinner, but this was not until 1969. After so long the reputation still lingers.

The floral designs on Mary’s dress reflect the Victorian language of flowers; there are sunflowers symbolising resurrection, and laurel which symbolises triumph and chastity, a further reflection on the reformed Mary’s triumph over her previous life.

Burne-Jones used his wife, Georgiana, for the model of Mary the Virgin. She holds a gold book in her right hand symbolising charity, while in her left hand is a large lily symbolising purity. The blood red background symbolises the sacrifice her son will make

The symbols in most of the church windows are large which is one of the features of pre- Raphaelite stained glass window design.

Above Mary is a sunburst or star (etoile) symbolising hope.

The floral patterns on her dress include pomegranates and sunflowers. The pomegranate is a symbol of the resurrection and the hope of eternal life. Because of its abundance of seeds, it can also symbolize royalty and the church, where the seeds represent the many believers who make up the one universal church.

The pomegranate symbol derives from the ancient myth of Proserpina and her annual return to earth in the spring. Christianity adopted this theme, with the pomegranate associated with the Resurrection of Christ and of believers, instead of the annual resurrection of crops.

The seeds bursting forth from the pomegranate are also likened to Christ bursting forth from the tomb. In Christian art, the pomegranate is often held by the Christ Child in depictions of the Madonna and Child, such as the famous example by Botticelli pictured below.

Madonna of the Pomegranate or Virgin and Child with Seven Angels by Sandro Botticelli (c1487)

Botticelli painted many images that include the Virgin, the Child and the angels. In this image, Mary is sitting holding the Holy Child with a heavenly light shining directly on her. Botticelli painted an oversized Mary to symbolize how her arms can support Christ. There is no visible architecture; the angels and Mary themselves become the supportive structure symbolizing that God can handle anything. The elements of this image contain many symbolic items. Each figure wears a sad expression as if their mind is somewhere else thinking of Christ’s death. The seed of the pomegranate the infant is holding signifies that Christ will receive resurrection through rebirth just as the seed will cause the birth of a new plant. The angel in front is holding lilies and roses which are both symbols of the Virgin. That same angel is wearing sashes with the words AVE GRAZIA PLENA which mean “Hail [Mary] full of grace.”

In Islam's holy book, the Koran, Mary's (Maryam's) story is in chapters 3 and 19. Allah, through an angel, declares Maryam "pure" and "exalted above all women," chosen to bear the prophet Jesus. She conceives simply by Allah's decree. In Christianity, Jesus is called the Son of God, divine as well as human. In Islam, he is human and decidedly not divine. Famous names for Mary include the Madonna, from the Italian for "my lady," and Notre Dame, Latin for "our lady." The Catholic prayer that starts with "Hail Mary" (Latin: "Ave Maria") also calls her the Mother of God. The doctrine of the "immaculate conception," that Mary was conceived without sin, was declared in 1854 by Pope Pius IX; the immaculate conception of Mary is sometimes confused with the virgin birth of Jesus. In 1854, Pope Pius IX, infallibly defined, ex cathedra (defined by the pope as infallibly true, to be accepted by all Catholics):

"The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

Mary should not be confused with approximately seven other Marys in the Bible (including Mary Magdalene), nor with Miriam, sister of Aaron.

William Morris used Lizzie Siddal as the model for Mary of Bethany. Mary is holding a white book, symbolising temperance, and a rose without a thorn. Because thorns represent original sin the Virgin Mary is sometimes referred to as the “rose without thorns”. This refers to the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was protected from original sin so that she might be the perfect vessel to give birth to a prefect child – Jesus.

In art roses depicted with Mary are always without thorns. Morris may have usurped this symbol for Mary of Bethany perhaps being unable to find a suitable alternative.

Mary was one of the two sisters of Lazarus of Bethany, intimate friends of Jesus, whose home from home was their house whenever he came to Jerusalem, particularly for The Passover.

Only Luke and John mention the sisters by name. Luke writes: 38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching.

40 But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.”

41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, 42 but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.

The name of Martha still epitomises the practical and efficient but over-busy and intolerant housekeeper, as opposed to that of Mary, the contemplative, who has chosen the better part. Later in the week following the raising of Lazarus, John describes Mary anointing the feet of Jesus with oil at a supper at which Martha served and Lazarus was at table. John’s account appears to be a conflation of Mark’s story of the anointing at the house of Simon the Leper, in Bethany, and Luke’s story of the anointing at Simon the Pharisee’s house in Galilee.

Martha preparing the meal while (in the background) Mary of Bethany sitting at Jesus' feet; painting (1566) by Joachim Beuckelaer For Mary to sit at Jesus' feet, and for him to allow her to do so, was itself controversial. In doing so, as one commentator notes, Mary took "the place of a disciple by sitting at the feet of the teacher. It was unusual for a woman in first-century Judaism to be accepted by a teacher as a disciple."

Professor David Crouch writes about the symbolism: "The window of the Three Marys is a very careful evocation of what is quite an obscure medieval cult - that of the third Mary. The Virgin and Mary Magdalene are present with their usual attributes, the Virgin with lily and devotional book, Mary Magdalene with her jar of precious ointment clasped in gold. But then there is the third Mary who represents the confusion over whether it was or was not Mary Magdalene who

12 was the 'other Mary' who took spices to the tomb. The third Mary, sometimes called Mary of Bethany, was an insurance in case Gregory the Great (who initially settled in favour of there being two Marys) had got it wrong. She carries a rose. This is a very obscure symbol, but may be an allusion to the description of the Virgin Mary as 'a rose without thorns'; short of a symbolic attribute, Burne-Jones borrowed a second hand one of the Virgin Mary. "

Annie Miller

Two portraits of Annie Miller by Dante Gabriel Rossetti both made in 1860, the year he married Lizzie Siddal. William Holman Hunt discovered Annie Miller working as a barmaid in a Chelsea slum. With her graceful neck and sensuous, full mouth, Hunt saw in her his ideal of Pre-Raphaelite beauty and 'rescued' her with the intention of moulding her into a lady to be his wife. When, in 1854, Hunt left London for the Holy Land, he became very possessive and strictly forbade her to model for other artists, in particular Rossetti.

Despite Hunt's restrictions, Annie was strong willed and rebellious. She modelled for Rossetti's Dante's Dream at the Time of the Death of Beatrice (1856, Tate Britain) and sat for several portrait drawings. To make things worse, she also sat for George Price Boyce and accompanied both artists to restaurants and for walks in the park. When Hunt discovered this on his return, declared, "I will never forgive Gabriel", and he poured out his distress to Madox Brown that "she had been taken to 'all sorts of places of amusement' including the Cremorne pleasure gardens, where she danced with Boyce!". William Michael Rossetti alluded to his brother's transgressions in a letter: "It behooves me to add that Mr Hunt was wholly blameless in this matter; not so my brother, who was properly, though I will not say very deeply, censurable". [Hunt's correspondence with his longtime friend F. G. Stephens, one of the original members of the PRB who became an art critic, contains a series of letters that reveal Annie and her father tried to blackmail Hunt. According to one

13 author, Annie married a wealthy man and ended up a widow living comfortably in a fashionable part of London. In 1858, Annie Miller sat to Holman Hunt as the model for the enlightened mistress for his famous work, The Awakening Conscience (Tate), although by 1860, Hunt had relinquished all ideas of marriage and withdrawn Annie's allowance. After this, she seemed more determined than ever to model for Rossetti "in preference to doing anything else". This caused yet more turmoil when Rossetti's wife, Lizzie Siddal, became jealous. She was even rumoured to have flung drawings of Annie into the Thames. Commentary by Peter Nahum from The Victorian Web Georgiana Burne-Jones (MacDonald)

Georgiana (left) by Edward Poynter (1870) and (right) Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1860)

The Macdonald sisters – Alice, Georgiana, Agnes and Louisa – daughters of a poor Methodist minister, were denied the advantage of a traditional education or the expectation of social advancement. Yet, as wives and mothers, they were to connect a famous painter, a President of the Royal Academy, a Prime Minister and a poet. Georgiana and Agnes married, respectively, Edward Burne-Jones and Edward Poynter; Louisa gave birth to Stanley Baldwin, whilst Alice was the mother of Rudyard Kipling.

Georgiana and Edward married in Manchester on 9 June 1860. Georgiana was 19, and Edward 27. They had been engaged for four years to the day. For much of the 1870s Burne-Jones did not exhibit, following a spate of bitterly hostile attacks in the press, and a passionate affair (described as the "emotional climax of his life") with his Greek model Maria Zambaco which became a public scandal bordering on farce when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself in Regent's Canal in 1869. (See Newsletter 5 for a fuller account of the affair between Edward Burne-Jones and Maria Zambaco: http://www.friendsofstmartins.co.uk/Documents/Newsletter5.pdf )

During these difficult years Georgiana developed a close friendship with William Morris, whose wife Jane had fallen in love with Rossetti. Morris and Georgiana may have been in love (as some

14 of his attempts at fiction of these years suggests), but if he asked her to leave her husband, she refused. (See “A Circle of Sisters” by Judith Flanders 2001, pp135-7) Of the Zambaco affair, which would sputter on for some years, Georgiana wrote to her dear friend Rosalind Howard "Dearest Rosalind, be hard on no one in this matter, and exalt no one, and may we all come through it at last. I know one thing, and that is that there is enough love between Edward and me to last out a long life if it is given us".

In the end, the Burne-Joneses remained together for another 30 years, as did Morris and his wife. Lizzie Siddal

Two sketches of Lizzie made by Rossetti 1860 (left) and 1855 (right)

Perhaps the most complex of the stunners, Lizzie became Rossetti’s muse, lover, mistress, model, pupil and, eventually, his wife. Following her tragic suicide in February 1862 Rossetti’s lifestyle became increasingly bizarre and subject to alcohol and chloral dependency. (A shortened name for Chloral Hydrate, it was taken by the Victorian individual as a 'non-addictive' cure for insomnia. The irony is that many of the people taking it had insomnia from alcohol abuse, and the addition of chloral addiction caused a vicious double-addiction cycle. Doses of the drug would have to be steadily increased to get the same effect.)

Lizzie had met Rossetti in 1850, ten years before they married, and by 1851 were recognised by their friends as a couple. “Lizzie quickly became Rossetti’s main – at times, only – source of inspiration. Their courtship was to continue, sometimes passionate and wonderful, at other limping sickeningly, until their belated marriage in 1860, by which time Lizzie was so ill, it was uncertain whether she would live long enough to make it to the church.” (Lizzie Siddal by Lucinda Hawksley 2004 p25)

Both were of a tense and nervous disposition, headstrong, wilful and aggressive, and prone to mood swings which today may have been described as bipolar. Both had a tendency towards addiction and shared a destructive jealous need to be the most important figure in their, or any other, relationship.

A common feature of several of the pre-Raphaelite painters was a desire to “improve” the girls they fell in love with. Rossetti was no exception and persuaded Lizzie to change the spelling of her surname from Siddall to Siddal, which he persuaded her looked “more genteel”. Ruskin was highly impressed with Lizzie and granted her an allowance to pursue her own artistic skills, until she gave it up in May 1857. Holman Hunt had a similar attitude towards Annie Miller. Lizzie and Annie disliked each other from first sight, Annie’s working-class background and confident sexuality, which she used to her own advantage, made her the type with whom Lizzie would never have associated. Furthermore, she correctly assumed that Annie was a potential hazard in her relationship with Rossetti.

Her temperament and fears led Lizzie to seek consolation in laudanum, the common elixir of Victorian woes. Known as “Tincture of Opium” laudanum was a readily available mixture of alcohol and opium widely taken at all levels of society. It was the Calpol of its time regularly sold to mothers to sooth their babies causing children to grow into adulthood already addicts. Combining addiction and depression Lizzie was on a downward spiral throughout the 1850s leading to a progressive series if increasingly serious periods of illness, usually when Rossetti and her were estranged, and culminating in her most serious bout of illness in Hastings in April 1860. Ruskin contacted Rossetti to inform him of Lizzie’s predicament and he rushed to her bedside where her emaciated frame, tortured by addiction, was unable to support her walking. Unaware that his negligent behaviour was the main cause of Lizzie’s illnesses and distress, he promised marriage if she recovered. She did and they were married on 23rd May at St. Clements’s Church, Hastings with just two witnesses present.

Lizzie died less than two years later by her own hand at about 7.20 am February 11th 1862, aged 32 and she was pregnant for the second time. Throughout their brief marriage Rossetti had remained faithful to her, although Lizzie often feared otherwise. Her first child was stillborn on 2nd May 1861, deepening her bouts of depression and worsening her laudanum dependency. The second child may have stopped moving within her confirming her fears of a second stillbirth. After a meal out in the company of Rossetti and Swinburn the night before she died Lizzie had retired to bed tired, and Rossetti went out to The Working Men’s College where he often taught.

On his return he found Lizzie snoring deeply with a note pinned to her nightdress and an empty bottle of laudanum at her bedside – it had been half full when he went out. The note asked Rossetti to take care of Henry, her disabled young brother. Unable to wake her he pocketed the note and called doctors – four in all but despite determined efforts to pump her stomach and revive her, Lizzie died. Desperate, Rossetti went to see Madox Brown, showed him the note, which Brown burned after he had read it; suicide was both scandalous and illegal, and Lizzie would have been refused a Christian burial if it became known. Lizzie held strong Christian beliefs.

Rossetti was truly devastated by Lizzie’s death, but only a handful of his friends grieved likewise – Swinburne, the Madox Browns and Georgiana Burne-Jones amongst them. His family, however, and many of Rossetti’s friends were secretly relieved that such a tragic and troublesome woman had finally departed. Despite strong beliefs amongst Rossetti’s friends that Lizzie was a suicide the coroner gave a verdict of accidental death. She was buried in Highgate Cemetery on February 17th, 1862. For years he had been composing a volume of poetry of which he had only one copy. Believing that Lizzie was the main inspiration for the work he buried it with her, and placed a Bible against her hair. He was inconsolable, and was haunted by images of her, telling his family and doctor that her ghost visited him every night.

Yet Lizzie became more famous in death because her demise led to a series of ugly rumours that her passing was not accidental. One of the most famous vindictive rumours originated from the playwright Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) who was still a child when Lizzie died. He conjured up a fictional scene where Rossetti, infuriated by Lizzie’s apparent unseemly behaviour while out dining with Swinburne, had a spectacular row with her on returning home culminating with him thrusting a full bottle of laudanum in her hands demanding that she take the lot. He then stormed out to see another woman. “Lizzie’s death …. began the first rumours of a legend that would be created around her life – the legend of a woman who had been the first supermodel, in a world where the term had not yet been coined” (ibid) However, by 1869, when Rossetti was having an affair with Jayne Morris, he was regretting having only made one copy of his poems, now buried with Lizzie. His unscrupulous agent, Charles Augustus Howell, suggested retrieving them. Rossetti consented but left all the arrangements to Howell who approached the Home Secretary for permission. This was granted illegally as the Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce, failed to ask permission of Mrs Frances Rossetti, the owner of the family plot in Highgate Cemetery. Rossetti hid in Howell’s house, comforted by his wife, Kitty, while her husband, a lawyer and some diggers carried out the exhumation in the dead of night. Amazingly, Howell declared that Lizzie remained whole and beautiful, and her brilliant, copper coloured hair had continued to grow so it now filled the coffin. This may have been to comfort Rossetti, yet when his turn came in 1882 Rossetti left instructions in his will that he should on no account be buried in Highgate!

The window was originally intended to be installed in a Bodley church (St. Michael’s) in Brighton in 1862, but was never delivered, possibly because Elizabeth Siddal was widely believed to have committed suicide. The window was put into storage, and eventually found a home at St. Martin's in 1868 as a memorial to Agnes Phoebe Marshall.

Agnes Phoebe Marshall died in Scarborough on 3rd January 1868, aged 57, and was the widow of Thomas Marshall Esq, of Hartford Beach, Cheshire. (Liverpool Mercury 8th Jan 1868) Note the age in the window differs by one year.

The Marshall family lived at Hartford’s Greenbank Manor for 200 years until the early 1900s and were involved in the salt trade. In about 1850 the Manor made available to Thomas Legard, the brother of Agnes Phoebe Marshall, who had inherited the house within the Marshall family. Thomas Legard was Surveyor General for the Duchy of Lancaster. He and Agnes were the children of Digby Legard of Walton Abbey.

A remarkable aspect of the pre-Raphaelite windows in St. Martin’s Church is the number of wives and lovers that are featured as models for biblical characters in the stained glass. The three Mary’s window alone contains two great rivals – Annie and Lizzie, and two great friends – Georgiana and Lizzie. We also have two other great rivals – Georgians Burne-Jones and Maria Zambaco. Jayne Morris appears in a Burne-Jones window and a Rossetti painting, and finally Madox Brown’s wife, Emma Hill portrays Eve. (See Newsletter 2). Quite a “stunning church”!

Mary Magdalene and the Pre-Raphaelites Several of the pre-Raphaelite artists have taken the character of Mary Magdalene as the subject of their work, Rossetti in particular.

Mary Magdalene at the Door of Simon the Pharisee, pen and India ink 1858

DGR contemplated an oil picture on this subject as early as July 1853, and he began executing a drawing or drawings at that point. He may have made a sketch even earlier.

In 1857 he was working assiduously at this elaborated drawing, which he was finishing for the semi-private Russell Street Pre-Raphaelite exhibition in June. But he kept working on the drawing through that year and the next, and he seems to have completed his work in 1859.

The pen and ink drawing is dated by DGR 1858, though he had made sketches as early as 1853, and was still working on it in 1859. There are several versions of the picture, including an unfinished oil replica.

This work has always been considered one of DGR's greatest pictures. Ruskin in particular admired it enormously: “magnificent to my mind, in every possible way” he wrote at the time to DGR.

It was the custom of the poet and artist Dante Gabriel Rossetti to write literary accompaniments to his pictures. The words below come from a sonnet composed as a commentary upon this richly detailed ink drawing. They are spoken by Mary Magdalene, the reformed prostitute who became one of Christ's closest female followers. WHY wilt thou cast the roses from thine hair? Nay, be thou all a rose,—wreath, lips, and cheek. Nay, not this house,—that banquet-house we seek; See how they kiss and enter; come thou there. This delicate day of love we two will share Till at our ear love's whispering night shall speak. What, sweet one,—hold'st thou still the foolish freak? Nay, when I kiss thy feet they'll leave the stair.” “Oh loose me! Seest thou not my Bridegroom's face That draws me to Him? For His feet my kiss, My hair, my tears He craves to-day:—and oh! What words can tell what other day and place Shall see me clasp those blood-stained feet of His? He needs me, calls me, loves me: let me go!”

Here we see the moment of her conversion, viewed incredulously by a crowd of revellers as she pulls a garland of roses from her long, flowing hair.

Behind her a procession approaches from the distance. Women dance, men play musical instruments, a couple kiss as they enter a doorway.

In the foreground three people stare up at Mary. On the left a beggar girl holding a bowl watches the glamorous figure ascend the stairs, upon which a finely dressed young woman kneels, her hand pressed against the wall to block Mary's way.

A young man stands immediately beneath her, dressed in a richly decorated cape, his head festooned with roses. He puts his hand upon Mary's foot and knee to further impede her progress. In a letter to a patron, Rossetti explained that this man is Mary's lover, her intended partner at the luxurious banquet in the house at the left of the drawing.

The Magdalene's attention, however, is entirely focused upon the other side of the picture. Within the doorway at the top of the stairs, a jowly, rather sour-looking man frowns out at her. This is the Pharisee Simon who has invited Christ into his house for dinner and debate. Behind him stands a serving girl, a steaming dish held aloft.

Entirely separated from the rest of the picture is the object of Mary's urgent ascent: Christ, whose radiant head is visible through a window, returning Mary's smitten gaze. Christ's profile was based upon the features of Rossetti's fellow artist Edward Burne-Jones. The face of the poet Algernon Charles Swinburne has been recognised in the young lover who tries to hold Mary back.

Mary herself is based upon a great beauty of the day, the actress Ruth Herbert (1831 -1921). Her early roles were in comedy and burlesque productions and she drew eyes with her beauty. Rossetti wrote giddily of her impending sitting in a letter to his friend, Ruth Herbert a sketch by Rossetti October 1859 Ruth Herbert William Bell Scott: a sketch by Rossetti Sept 1858 "I am in the stunning position this morning of expecting the actual visit at half past 11, of a model whom I have long been longing to paint for years - Miss Herbert of the Olympic Theatre - who has the most varied and highest expression I ever saw in a woman's face, besides abundant beauty, golden hair etc. Did you ever see her? O my eye! She has sat for me now and will sit to me for Mary Magdalene in the picture I am beginning. Such luck!" Rossetti and Herbert did not stay in regular contact past 1860, though he based a future work on the drawing and painting he had done of her previously

Rossetti described the scene of Mary Magdalene’s conversion in a letter: The scene represents two houses opposite each other, one of which is that of Simon the Pharisee, where Christ and Simon, with other guests, are seated at table. In the opposite house a great banquet is held, and feasters are trooping to it in cloth of gold and crowned with flowers.

Mary Magdalene has been in this procession, but has suddenly turned aside at the sight of Christ, and is pressing forward up the steps of Simon's house, and casting the roses from her hair. Her lover and a woman have followed her out of the procession and are laughingly trying to turn her back. The woman bars the door with her arm.

Those nearest the Magdalene in the group of feasters have stopped short in wonder and are looking after her, while a beggar girl offers them flowers from her basket. A girl near the front of the procession has caught sight of Mary and waves her garland to turn her back.

Beyond this the narrow street abuts on the high road and river. The young girl seated on the steps is a little beggar who has had food given her from within the house, and is wondering to see Mary go in there, knowing her as a famous woman of the city.

Simon looks disdainfully at her, and the servant who is setting a dish on the table smiles, knowing her too. Christ looks toward her from within, waiting till she shall reach him.

A fawn crops the vine on the wall where Christ is seen, and some fowls gather to share the beggar girl's dinner, giving a kind of equivalent to Christ's words: Yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs (from a July 1865 letter to Mrs. Clapburn)

Signs and Symbols: The work of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was distinguished by its rich use of symbols. Several of those used by Rossetti in his drawing of Mary Magdalene are found in Medieval and Renaissance art and reinforce the theme of repentance within the picture. Flanking the door to which Mary is ascending are two vases containing flowers. At Mary's left are three lilies, traditional symbols of purity and virginity. In Annunciation scenes, there are often lilies present as the archangel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary that she is miraculously carrying the son of God. To Mary's right a second vase contains three sunflowers. These flowers, which always turn their heads towards the sun, resemble Mary who has turned her back on the revelry and is transfixed by the radiant head of Christ.

The implication in Rossetti's picture then, is that Mary Magdalene is turning towards a life of purity. She sheds roses from her hair, flowers traditionally associated with Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love.

The fawn that nibbles at the vine beneath the window through which we see Christ, also reflects Mary's change of heart. It alludes to the opening of Psalm 42: "As the hart panteth after the waterbrooks, so panteth my soul after thee, oh God."

The vine at which the fawn nibbles is an ancient symbol for Christ and the Church. In the Gospel of John, 15, 1, Christ himself says, "I am the real vine."

Even the chickens pecking around the feet of the beggar girl were given a Biblical significance by Rossetti who in a letter explained that they give "a kind of equivalent to Christ's words: 'Yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.'"

Rossetti was in fact confused, for those words are spoken in Mark's Gospel not by Christ, but by a woman whom has come to him on behalf of her possessed daughter.Rossetti associated the work with his contemporary-life picture “Found“, which he had conceived and begun around the same time as this work. (See Newsletter 6) He remains famous for the beautiful women he painted and loved. He referred to them as his 'stunners' and in the 1860s, shortly after finishing this drawing, he began a series of oil paintings of his models in the guise of women from literature and mythology

Rossetti had completed two paintings in 1857 that starred Annie Miller as Mary Magdalene (left) and Lizzie Siddal as Mary The Virgin.

Mary Magdalene leaving the house of feasting', Watercolour on paper, dated 185This was made as a companion picture for 'Mary Nazarene', contrasting the penitent Magdalene with the purity of the Virgin. The Magdalene holds the jar of ointment that she used to anoint Christ's feet. Her hair is traditionally shown long and loose, both for its erotic associations and because she used it to wipe Christ's feet. Her robe is red, symbolising passion. Christ is shown as a minute figure in the distance. The simplified geometrical form of the steps, the well and buildings in the background appears to be based on the study of medieval manuscript illumination. Here, though, Rossetti has shown the steps covered in moss.

Mary The Nazarene is shown tending a lily, symbolic of purity and a rose, the flower particularly associated with her. Above hovers the dove of the Holy Spirit. Mary is dressed unusually in green, symbolising spring and youth. The title alludes to her living at Nazareth. This was originally intended to be part of a triptych showing her youth, family life and old age.

Another Pre-Raphaelite painting of Mary Magdalene was completed between 1858-1860 by Frederick Sandys (1829-1904). He was the brother of Emma Sandys and was close to Rossetti in the 1860s both socially and artistically, occasionally staying at Tudor House, Rossetti’s Chelsea residence. Mary Magdalene was the only figure from the Bible that Sandys ever painted. Having sharp features reminiscent of Lizzie Siddal (though the model is unknown).

Mary is depicted in front of a patterned forest-green damask. She holds an alabaster ointment cup, a traditional attribute which associates her with the unnamed sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet in Luke 7:37. Like other Pre-Raphaelite painters, Frederick Sandys gave Magdalene a sensual look.

Dante Rossetti accused Sandys of plagiarism, because of the resemblance to his Mary Magdalene Leaving the House of Feasting (above) but when Rossetti came to paint Magdalene some twenty years later, it was his painting that resembled Sandys.

Mary Magdalene Dante Gabriel Rossetti 1877

The jar held by the Magdalene contains the oil with which she annointed the feet of Jesus shortly before he underwent his Passion and Crucifixion.

“Haec pedes meos” is written on the silver jar which translates in “This is my feet”

Sometime late in the 1870s, perhaps 1879, Rossetti projected a two-panelled predella for the picture, showing the Magdalene in two of her famous encounters with Jesus: washing his feet before his crucifixion and helping take his body down from the cross. This predella was never executed. (The predella is the painting or sculpture along the frame at the bottom of an altarpiece.) The progression of Rossetti's art changed as he became more and more addicted to chloral. When he was taking it in low doses, he created tranquil scenes, such as St. Agnes at the spinning wheel. However, as he became more addicted, his art showed "more secular, voluptuous, almost hallucinatory women." In 1867 Rossetti had made a crayon sketch for Mary Magdalene which is obviously the basis for his painting ten years later. The question is … who’s the girl? The sketch of Jayne Morris (right) was made in 1869, and there are similarities. Unfortunately I can find no reference as to who the model was for Mary Magdalene. If you know please inform me.

FORD MADOX BROWN by Mike Baines

In St Martin’s we are fortunate in having four windows designed by Ford Maddox Brown which were completed during his association with Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. This association began when the firm was founded in 1861; Brown was a founding partner, presumably one of the and Co’s. The formal association ended in 1874 with the reorganization of the company but he continued to complete many designs for stained glass windows up to the end of the 1870’s.

He kept a diary, which is published, but there are gaps in the dates so that sadly there are no Self Portrait 1844 references to work on the designs for our windows. Further research into the records of the William Morris Company may provide more information, but if anyone else has further information to add we would be pleased to hear from them. The diaries themselves provides a fascinating insight into the mindset of this complicated man and the Victorian art world with its art critics, agents and patrons. Self Portrait 1850

We do have a portrayal of Brown and his second wife Emma Hill as Adam and Eve and it is surprising that this design is not better known. http://www.friendsofstmartins.co.uk/Window2.html

Julian Trueher has written an excellent biography entitled “Ford Madox Brown Pre-Raphaelite Pioneer” which covers Brown’s work as a designer of stained glass, but again there are no mentions of our windows.

In the biography there is a description of his answers for a popular Victorian parlour game “My Favourite Things” - for his favourite costume he records bathing dress! Perhaps not surprising for an artist who was not afraid to shock Victorian susceptibilities by portraying himself and his wife naked on the great west window of a fashionable church in Scarborough.

Ford Madox Brown is known for the injection of humour into Brown as Adam his paintings - the bear on which Adam rests his foot in Emma Hill as Eve indolent repose could be a pun on the bare state of Adam and Eve. Alternatively, the bear is associated with the deadly sin of anger. David Winpenny in his guide to the church windows 1977 remarks: “The patch of brown glass beneath Adam’s feet is in fact a supine bear which he is tickling in the stomach. This detail was added by Philip Webb. The cartoons are now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.” http://www.ashmoleanprints.com/image/658552/ford-madox-brown-1821-1893-design-for-a-stained-glass-window-of-adam

Born in Calais on the 16th April 1821, his father was retired from the navy where he had been a purser, Brown’s first twenty years were spent in various towns in northern France. As a consequence his grasp of written English was apparently a little sketchy, but he was renowned as a conversationalist, as well as for being the most handsome man in London.

Emma 1848 By Madox Brown Madox Brown 1852, His training as an artist in Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp and Paris was thorough and a sketch by Rossetti this is reflected in the quality of his work. His training had also given him an interest in the narrative painting in the French style of which his painting “Work” is an outstanding example. http://www.friendsofstmartins.co.uk/FordMaddoxBrown.html

It is in his travels in Italy that he found his enthusiasm for pre-Raphaelite art by way of the Nazarenes. They were a group of German artists working in Rome who were also known as the Brotherhood of Luke; St Luke being the patron saint of painters having by tradition painted the Virgin Mary from life. The Nazarenes was a nickname given by other German artists referring to their piety and avowed aim to bring about a revival of religious art. They were particularly influenced by early Italian Renaissance artists Masaccio and Fra Angelica.

Brown’s visit to Italy gave him the opportunity to see the great altar pieces and frescoes in the Churches of Rome and Florence by artists such as Giotto and Fra Angelica for himself. The colour and vibrancy of this work, and his meeting with Overbeck, the charismatic leader of the Nazarenes, made a permanent impression on him. He describes how his work subsequently was “a pouring out of the emotions and remembrances still vibrating within me of Italian art”.

These were the paintings that Rossetti stood in front of at an exhibition of Brown’s work some two years later, and which prompted him to write in praise of these glorious works which had kept him standing for a “fabulous” period of time. We can see in the windows at St Martin’s something of what enthused Rossetti: the bold use of colour and the vibrancy of early renaissance art.

To understand more about the man we should return to the foot on the bear; if the bear represents anger this could be appropriate as his career is littered with disputes. He was always an outsider; associated with the pre-Raphaelites but not one of them. True, he founded the Hogarth Club but that lasted only a few years, and he was constantly at odds with various galleries over imagined and sometimes real slights.

He was not independently wealthy as some of his fellow artists were, nor was he university educated, and in his early career he struggled to provide for his wife and young family. Also, he suffered from deep bouts of depression which further contributed to his feeling of alienation. The diaries have an impressive

list of his hates which seemed to include most of the art establishment, but especially that influential art critic John Ruskin and the painter John Millais.

The window at the east end of St Martin’s church depicts the traditional crucifixion portrayal with Mary and John standing at the foot of the cross. Ford Madox Brown has added his own take on the scene - Mary and John are holding hands. http://www.friendsofstmartins.co.uk/EWindowPages/Crucifixion.html He was strong in his dislikes but he was also steadfast in his relationships with family and friends. To his close friends and family he was warm hearted, loving and generous and, as we will hear later, he had a strong sympathy for those who he felt had had a raw deal from society.

He was no stranger to tragedy in his own life; his first wife died in his arms in a taxi cab as he was bringing her home leaving him with a young daughter, Lucy. When Emma sat for the study (left) the couple had already had a child, Catherine, together in 1850 but were not yet married. Brown most likely put off marrying Emma because he was struggling financially and she was a working-class girl who Brown may have felt lacked the social graces required by a middle-class wife. Emma 1852 by Madox Brown Catherine Madox Brown At the end of 1852 she was living in Highgate North Hill and was attending a school for young ladies to prepare her for marriage. On 5 April 1853 the couple were married at St Dunstan's- in-the-West, Fleet Street, with Brown's two closest male friends, Dante Gabriel Rossetti and Thomas Seddon, as witnesses. They had three children but only one, Catherine, survived. His son, Arthur, died in infancy and Oliver, who was already showing promise as an artist, died at the age of 19.

Emma came from a poor background and Brown taught her to read and write, but sadly she became dependent on alcohol over time. The diary shows Brown’s continuing love and concern for her welfare.

His close friends included the Rossetti’s. Dante Gabriel Rossetti had written to the older artist asking to become his pupil, and for a while he was taught by him before moving on, but it was the foundation of a firm friendship between the artists and their families. Gabriel Rossetti’s son Michael married his daughter Lucy.

Another close family friend was Peter Paul Marshall, known as “Pol”, an interesting nickname for a large and exuberant Scotsman who ran “a reckless and cheery household”. He was a surveyor and civil engineer, as well as an amateur artist, but our interest is in his work as a founder of Morris, Marshall,

Faulkner & Co and designer of stained glass. His designs for Joshua and the Archangel Michael stand alongside Ford Madox Brown’s design for Gideon in our Military window. http://www.friendsofstmartins.co.uk/Window7.html

Our final window depicting St Martin and the beggar reflects his instinctive sympathy with the underdog. http://www.friendsofstmartins.co.uk/Window1.html

His diary regularly relates small acts of kindness to those in need. Whilst in Manchester he became involved in working class movements, setting up a labour bureau for the unemployed, and when protests against the Poor Law went badly wrong for one of the organisers, Joseph Waddington, he set him up manufacturing furniture he had designed.

Ford Madox Brown died in 1893, he had contributed a great deal to the pre- Raphaelite movement, not only as an accomplished artist but also through his appreciation of European art. When he returned to England in the 1840’s the general preference was for the classical high renaissance and what went before was regarded as crude and inferior, but thanks in part to his pioneering work a whole new genre of pre-Raphaelite painting emerged.

Below left to right: 1 Madox Brown by Rossetti 1867, 2, 3 and 4 Phots, dates unknown, 5 Ford Madox Brown at the Easel by Catherine Madox Brown. Gideon by Madox Brown

Above left to right: Ford Madox Brown self-portrait 1867, Lucy Madox Brown portrait by her father, Lucy Madox Brown portrait by Rossetti 1874 when she married his brother William Michael Rossetti 31st March 1874. Her sister Catherine Madox Brown described her as "a strange mixture with a violent temper and a strong brain.”

The Last of England is an 1855 oil-on-panel painting by Ford Madox Brown depicting two emigrants leaving England to start a new life in Australia with their baby.

Ford Madox Brown has painted a young couple on board a ship, emigrating along with others, during the peak of the emigration movement in the 1840s and early 1850s. The theme was inspired by the emigration of the sculptor Thomas Woolner, a fellow Pre-Raphaelite, who left for the goldfields of Australia in July 1852. In the same year, 369,000 emigrants left Britain to seek their fortune overseas.

The woman has an infant wrapped in her grey hooded cape, and holds the baby's hand as the ship embarks on the long voyage. She grasps her husband's hand too, while that rests on the baby's little foot in its patterned sock. It is a poignant scene especially as the woman looks so sad, and the man so grim. Other passengers, glimpsed behind this family unit, seem to come from a lower class, and are certainly less sensitive and refined. They seem not to care about leaving England. On the contrary, one man, apparently engaged in horseplay, shakes his fist at it. Another smokes a long-stemmed pipe, while a little girl munches an apple. In front of the main figures hang vegetables, provisions for the long voyage, and a little boat at the rear contains further supplies.

All such details were explained by Brown as if he was recording the feelings and behaviour of real people in a real situation: “The educated are bound to their country by closer ties than the illiterate, whose chief consideration is food and physical comfort. I have therefore, in order to present the parting scene in its fullest tragic development, singled out a couple from the middle classes, high enough, through education and refinement, to appreciate all they are now giving up, and yet dignified enough in means to have to put up with the discomforts and humiliations incident to a vessel "all one class." The husband broods bitterly over blighted hopes, and severance from all he has been striving for. The young wife's grief is of a less cantankerous sort, probably confined to the sorrow of parting with a few friends of early years. The circle of her love moves with her.

The husband is shielding his wife from the sea spray with an umbrella. Next them, in the background, an honest family of the greengrocer kind, father (mother lost), eldest daughter and younger children, make the best of things with tobacco-pipe and apples, &c., &c. Still further back, a reprobate shakes his fist with curses at the land of his birth, as though that were answerable for his want of success; his old mother reproves him for his foul-mouthed profanity, while a boon companion, with flushed countenance, and got up in nautical togs for the voyage, signifies drunken approbation.

The cabbages slung round the stern of the vessel indicate, to the practised eye, a lengthy voyage; but for this their introduction would be objectless. A cabin-boy, too used to ‘laving his native land’ to see occasion for much sentiment in it, is selecting vegetables for the dinner out of a boatful”

Brown also explained the tactics he used to get this sense of lived experience: To insure the peculiar look of light all round which objects have on a dull day at sea, it was painted for the most part in the open air on dull days, and, when the flesh was being painted, on cold days. “Absolutely without regard to the art of any period or country, I have tried to render this scene as it would appear. The minuteness of detail which would be visible under such conditions of broad daylight I have thought necessary to imitate as bringing the pathos of the subject more home to the beholder.”

However, as so often in his work, there is relief from the predominant atmosphere not only in the earthier details (vegetables, fist-shaking) but also in the woman's fluttering ribbons, for which he used that brilliant shade of magenta that he once said, in a parlour game, was his favourite colour.

Although Brown himself never set out to emigrate, as Thomas Woolner had done only recently, he is known to have seriously considered it, and there is an element of personal feeling here: "His picture of the Last of England represents exactly his earlier face, where it looks out at us from the ship's stern disappointed and half resentful," writes his grandson Ford Madox Ford. By a happy irony, the picture expressing this glumness was the first "to which anything approaching general praise was accorded" http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/fmb/paintings/18.html

In the cartoon that Brown created the middle-class couple who dominate the oval are portraits of Brown and his future wife Emma. This drawing was produced in December 1852 and it reveals that the composition was originally to be slightly more oval in shape with far fewer figures; only the reprobate, his mother, and the young woman with her arm round the straggly haired boy from the painting can be seen in this drawing. The name of the boat carrying the emigrants was altered from 'White Horse Lin[e] of Australia' to the more symbolic 'Eldorado' in the painting. Emma's shawl also changed; she is seen here in a wide checked shawl. Unlike the final painting the man has no string attached to his hat. This was added to the painting at the insistence of Brown's dealer David Thomas White.

This portrait study of Emma was made around Christmas 1852 with Emma continuing to model for The Last of England well into the New Year. Brown records Emma 'at the beginning of /53 ... coming to sit ... in the most inhuman weather from Highgate. This work representing an out door scene without sunlight I painted at it chiefly out of doors when snow was lieing [sic] on the ground'

Whilst working on the painting in 1853 Brown spent four weeks on 'the madder ribbons of the bonnet' which are depicted being blown by the fierce wind. However, in this early head study of Emma, her ribbons are neatly tied and her hair lacks the windswept strands found in both the cartoon and the painting, suggesting that this study was done purely to capture Emma's likeness, which Brown was intent on portraying faithfully. However, capturing it in paint seems to cause him a considerable amount of trouble, with references in his diary to alterations made because the head appeared to be 'very bad & made [him] miserable'

A fully worked study also exists, and a detailed compositional drawing (both above). All are in the form of round panels, a rarely revived Renaissance format called a tondo, but differ in colouring. “Tondo” is a Renaissance term for a circular work of art, either a painting or a sculpture. The word derives from the Italian rotondo, "round”.

"The Guardian notes that, “The name of the boat – Eldorado – suggests that they are part of the southern hemisphere's short-lived gold rush of the 1850s. Their faces are blank and baffled by the scale of the step they are taking while their bodies radiate the pinched exhaustion of people who have no choice. The woman is based on Emma. The man is Brown himself, known in his youth as handsome, but here modelling the kind of sullen impotence you might see on a clever young man who has come down in the world. As ever, Brown lightens the whole effect with sly touches of humour: where you might expect to see lifebelts he has hung a row of scurvy-beating cabbages. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/16/ford-madox-brown-pre-raphaelite-exhibition The Spectator comments: “During this most creative Hampstead period, Brown was ‘intensely miserable, very hard up and a little mad’. While painting ‘The Last of England’ he was weighing up the alternatives of suicide or emigration to India — he cast himself and Emma, with baby Oliver, as the wretched emigrants. But desperation could not cure his perfectionism. He spent four weeks on the madder ribbon of Emma’s bonnet and heaven knows how long on the marvellously painted grey plaid of her shawl, which has an obsessive realism about it.” https://www.spectator.co.uk/2011/10/ford-madox-brown-preraphaelite-pioneer/

Brown began the painting in 1855 and in March 1859. The Last Sight of England as it was then known, was sold by Benjamin Windus to Ernest Gambart for 325 guineas (2010: £26,700).

Two finished versions of the picture exist, one in Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery and the other in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (below left). A reduced watercolour replica of the painting in Birmingham produced between 1864–66 is in Tate Britain (below right).

Madox Brown composed a short verse to accompany the painting in which the woman is depicted as hopeful for the future: She grips his listless hand and clasps her child, Through rainbow tears she sees a sunnier gleam, She cannot see a void where he will be.

The picture was voted Britain's eighth-favourite picture in a poll carried out by BBC Radio 4.

In 2013 it was voted 32 out of 57 paintings chosen by the British public from national collections, which were used for Art Everywhere The World's Largest Public Art Exhibition

St. Martin of Tours

Born: c.316 at Sabaria (Sarwar) in the Roman Province of Upper Pannonia which today is part of Hungary. (Red area on map) Parents: Martin’s father was an officer in the Roman army and we know very little about his mother. When Martin was born neither of his parents were Christians, and although his mother later became a Christian, his father remained a pagan all his life.

Martin’s early life: When he was still very young Martin’s father was ordered to go to Pavia in Italy as part of his soldiering, and this is where Martin was brought up. It seems that young Martin wanted to become a Christian from an early age even though his parents were pagans. At the age of ten Martin went to the local church in Pavia and asked to join. He became a catechumen (a pupil of the church who had to learn certain things before he was baptised). Martin wanted to become a monk from an early age, but his father in particular was severely opposed to this. When Martin was fifteen years old he was forced to join the Roman army because of a new ruling that said the sons of soldiers must join the army. Martin did not want to do this, but he had no choice, because he was kept in chains until he agreed. Once he had joined the army he was sent to a cavalry unit whose job was to protect the Emperor of Rome. Because of this he was not involved in any fighting, which suited Martin because he was not prepared to kill and thereby contravene his Christian beliefs. As an important officer Martin was given a servant, but because Martin wanted to become a monk he would not allow the servant to look after him, but insisted instead in looking after the servant by cleaning the servant’s boots.

The Story of the Cloak

This is the most famous story about Saint Martin. He had been sent to Amiens in Gaul. On a bitterly cold winter day, the young Martin rode through the gates of the town, probably dressed in gleaming, flexible armour, ridged helmet, and a beautiful white cloak whose upper section was lined with lambs’ wool.

As he approached the gates he saw a beggar with clothes so ragged that he was practically naked. The beggar was shaking and blue from the cold but no one reached out to help him. Martin felt great pity for the man, so he took off his St. Martin Dividing his Cloak cloak and, and with one quick stroke of his sword he slashed it in two. He then handed half of the cloak to the freezing man and wrapped the remainder on his own shoulders.

Many in the crowd thought this was so ridiculous a sight that they laughed and jeered at Martin, but some realized that they were seeing Christian goodness.

That night Martin dreamed that he saw Jesus wearing the half cloak he had given the beggar. Jesus said to the angels and saints that surrounded him, "See! This is the cloak that Martin, who has not yet been baptised, gave me." When he woke, it was the "who has not yet been baptised " that spurred Martin on and he went immediately to be baptised. He was twenty years old.

St. Martin’s Dream Little is known of two years that followed, but Martin knew that as a Christian he would never be able to kill anyone, although as a soldier he might be expected to do exactly that. This problem occurred about two years later when two warlike groups called the Franks and Alemanni invaded The Roman Empire. Martin was going to have to fight.

It was the practice at the time to give money to soldiers before battle to infuse the soldiers with a greater love of their country and desire to fight.

When the Emperor Julian lined up the soldiers in Gaul to give them their money, Martin refused to accept the money -- and to fight -- saying, "Put me in the front of the army, without weapons or armour; but I will not draw sword again. I am become the soldier of Christ."

The Emperor Julian was furious with Martin and called him a coward. He then told Martin he would grant him his wish and put him right in the middle of battle the next day. Until that happened, he had Martin imprisoned.

However, against all predictions and all explanation, the invaders sent word that they wanted to negotiate for peace and the battle was postponed. Martin was eventually released from his prison and from the army in a place called Worms, which is in Germany today.

Attacked by Robbers St. Martin tells the Emperor he will not fight On a trip over the Alps to visit his parents, he was attacked by robbers who not only wanted to steal what he owned but threatened to take his life. Calm and unperturbed, Martin spoke to the robbers about God. One was so impressed he converted and became a law-abiding citizen.

With Saint Hilary

Martin had a friend and teacher called Hilary who was bishop of Poitiers in Gaul, and eventually Martin went to see him. Because Martin wanted to live by himself to worship God as a monk/hermit, Hilary gave him a place to live that was isolated.

The Monastery at Liguge

However, other Christians came to see Martin because they thought that he was a very holy man and wanted to become his disciples. Martin founded a monastery for them called at a place called Liguge, very close to Poitiers. This was the first monastery in Western Europe.

Martin’s First Miracle

It was at Liguge that Martin performed the first of many miracles. When a catechumen died before baptism, Martin laid himself over the body and after several hours the man came back to life.

Martin remained in this monastery near his teacher and friend until after Hilary died in 367 A.D. Martin was about 51 years old then and devoted much of his time to converting the local people into Christians.

Martin becomes Bishop of Tours

The bishop of Tours died in 371 A.D. Tours is quite close to Poitiers, and the people of the town knew about Martin and his wonderful miracles. In those days the bishop of a town was chosen by the townspeople, and the people of Tours decided they wanted Martin. However, they understood this would be a difficult task due to Martin’s holiness and the fact that he preferred to live a solitary life. Because they believed he would never agree to be a bishop they decided to try and trick him into accepting the post.

A citizen of Tours came to Martin and begged him to come visit his sick wife. When the kind-hearted Martin arrived in Tours crowds of people came out of hiding and surrounded him. Unable to escape, he was swept into the city.

The people may have been enthusiastic about their choice but the local bishops who were there to consecrate the new bishop declared they were repelled by Martin’s dirty and ragged appearance.

The people's reply was that they didn't choose Martin for his haircut, which could be fixed by any barber, but for his holiness and poverty, that only charity and a true love of God could bring. Overwhelmed by the will of the crowds the bishops had no choice but to consecrate Martin as the new Bishop of Tours on 4th July 372 A.D.

Bishop Martin founds a second monastery at Marmoutiers

Instead of living in a palace, Martin made his first home as bishop in a cell attached to a church in hopes of being able to maintain his lifestyle as a monk. But at that time bishops were more than spiritual pastors. With the Empire's administration disintegrating because of outside invasions and internal conflict, often the only authority in a town like Tours was the bishop. People came to Martin constantly with questions and concerns that involved all the affairs of the area.

To regain some of his solitude Martin fled outside the city to live in a cabin made of branches. There he attracted as many as eighty disciples who wanted to follow him and so he founded a second monastery of Marmoutiers, near Tours. He kept in touch with Tours through priest representatives who reported to him and carried out his instructions and duties with the people.

Martin the Missionary

It may seem from this that Martin did not get involved with what was going on but Martin was deeply committed to his responsibilities.

He believed that he had an important job to convert those who still held to various non- Christian beliefs. In those early days of Christianity such old beliefs were held by many people.

His method was to travel from house to house and speak to people about God. Then he would organize the converts into a community under the direction of a priest or monk. In order to let them know of his continued love and to keep them following the faith, he would then visit these new communities regularly.

Stories about Martin

The Tree

In one town, when he tried to convince the locals to cut down a pine tree they worshipped, they agreed -- but only if Martin would sit where the tree was going to fall!

Martin seated himself directly under the path of the leaning tree and the townspeople began to cut from the other side. However, just as the tree began to topple, Martin made the sign of the cross and the tree fell in the opposite direction -- slowly enough to miss the fleeing townspeople. Martin won many converts that day.

The Tower

Martin tore down many non-Christian temples and always built a Christian church in their place to make a point about true worship and give people a genuine replacement for their false idols. In once case when a huge tower was not torn down under his orders, a bolt of lightning came to destroy it after his prayers.

The Death of Martin

Martin died when he was over 80 years old on November 8. Historians disagree on the year and put it anywhere between 395 to 402.

St. Martin was visiting a group of monks at Candes where two great rivers, the Loire and the Vienne, meet. He had come to settle an argument between the monks.

While he was there Martin was taken ill and died. Not surprisingly the monks at Candes wanted to keep his body for burial there. To have the body of a great saint was an honour which would attract a lot of pilgrims in the future. They would build a shrine to St. Martin.

However, Martin was Bishop of Tours, and the people of the town, including priests and monks, wanted him buried there - after all, he was their saint! So, in the middle of the night some monks came from Tours and secretly took St. Martin's body back to the city by boat.

Three day later he was buried, from a request he had previously made,, in the Cemetery of the Poor on November 11th, (which is now his feast day) at Tours. Two thousand monks and nuns gathered for his funeral, and the next Bishop of Tours built a chapel over his grave, which was eventually replaced by a fine cathedral.

The pictures below show (left)The Cathedral (Basilica) of St Martin in Tours today, and (right) the tomb of St Martin in the Cathedral Crypt. Notice the tiles on the wall which are prayer offerings to St. Martin for individual people or groups, paid for by relatives.

Scenes From The Life of St. Martin by Simone Martini 1280 – 1344

In 1317-19, Simone decorated the St. Martin Chapel in San Francesco, Assisi (below left) . The decoration of the Lower church in Assisi was funded by a donation from a Franciscan cardinal, Montefiori, who died in 1312. The cardinal had been an ardent supporter of the house of Anjou, in whose service he had helped with the acquisition of Hungary. The cycle comprises ten scenes from the life of St. Martin, starting with the episode in which he divides his cloak with the beggar and finishing with his death. Despite its church setting, the cycle is a work of court art; painted by Simone Martini, himself ennobled while in Anjou service, it glorifies the French ruling house through the figure of St. Martin, who had close connections with both France and Hungary.

The picture (left)shows the east wall of the chapel. The scenes are: Miracle of the Resurrected Child (scene 5, above left), Meditation (scene 6, above right), Division of the Cloak (scene 1, below left), and Dream of St Martin (scene 2, below right).

The pictorial program of the chapel interior includes ten scenes from the life of St. Martin, essentially based on the Golden Legend. All of the scenes are dominated by a calm, restrained, almost gentle narrative tone.

Division of the Cloak (scene 1) 1312-17 Fresco, 265x230cm

This is the famous episode of the Division of the Cloak, the story for which Martin is best known: having come across a beggar dressed in rags on a cold winter morning, Martin gave him half of his cloak. To the left, the city of Amiens, where the incident occurred, with its crenellated fortifications and defence towers. To the right, in the upper section, a head: to try and justify this strange presence we must examine the synopia of the fresco in the Museum of the Basilica.

Originally Simone had planned the composition differently: the beggar was shown with his arms outstretched towards the cloak and the city gate was on the opposite side. This helps us understand the position of this solitary profile, very close and parallel to the side frame. But then Simone changed his mind, covered the wall with another layer of intonaco, drew a new synopia and with a brushstroke of blue paint cancelled that first face which has now resurfaced.

synopia/sinopia: a preliminary drawing for a fresco done in sinopia ( a reddish- brown earth pigment) intonaco - The final layer of plaster on which a fresco is painted

The Dream of St. Martin (scene 2)

Martin's generous gesture of the division of the cloak is followed by a dream, in which Christ reveals to him that he was really the beggar. Wrapped in the cloak, and pointing at Martin, Jesus addresses the host of angels accompanying him: some are shown praying, others listen to him with their arms crossed, while the mass of gold haloes helps give a sense of depth to the architectural setting.

Meanwhile, Martin is sleeping under a blanket of typically Sienese fabric and Simone's realism is evident from one detail in particular: the border of the white sheet and the pillow are decorated with an embroidery called "drawn-thread" work, very fashionable at the time.

The rigidity of the outstretched body is intended to convey an intense spiritual participation in the message of Christ, and the way Martin's hand rests on his chest reveals excitement, as though he really were listening to the voice of the Lord.

S t.

Martin is Knighted (scene 3)

The stories of the life of St Martin that Simone could have used as sources, although none of them mention an actual investiture, do contain references to his military promotions. We can therefore suppose that our painter, surrounded by a world of tournaments and hunting expeditions, pictured a Roman soldier rather like a mediaeval miles (Miles is a male name from the Latin miles, a soldier. The medieval knight was called miles in Medieval Latin, while in Classical Latin, miles meant simply soldier of any sort, including infantry) and simply transposed a ceremony typical of his times to the late classical world.

It is not merely a matter of Panofsky's "theory of distance," according to which mediaeval painters made characters from the past appear more immediate and closer to their public by placing them in Gothic architectural settings and dressing them in 13th-century costumes.

Simone (and even more so his patrons who had commissioned the frescoes) used the scene of Martin's investiture to focus attention on courtly and aristocratic customs. Musicians, singers, equerries with weapons and falconers all witness the scene taking place inside a palace with loggias and wooden ceilings. In this detail of the larger fresco, a group of musicians and singers accompany a secular event: the knighting of the young St. Martin.

This explains the presence in this picture of the profane double recorder which the Christian church initially rejected. Although we cannot be certain how familiar the painter may have been with the method of playing, from the picture it appears that identical melodies are being played on both recorders, as indicated by the position of the player's hands. The other musician uses a plectrum to play the small, pear-shaped, inlaid lute, while visibly paying attention to his colleagues behind him.

Nothing could be more secular than the figure of the Roman Emperor fastening the sword, the symbol of his newly acquired dignity, around the knight's waist, while another attaches spurs to Martin’s feet.

The Emperor's immobile profile, with his half-open mouth and fixed gaze, is reminiscent of the portraits carved on ancient Roman coins, which Simone probably used as a model: even though it must be Julian the Apostate (and historically it could not be any other emperor), it has been suggested that the features are actually those of Constantine the Great.

Saint Martin Renounces his Weapons (scene 4)

In this fresco we see Martin, as an officer in the Roman army, face to face with the enemy, announcing his decision: "I am a soldier of Christ and I cannot fight."

To the left, the Roman camp, with Emperor Julian, a group of soldiers and the treasurer distributing money to the mercenaries.

To the right, waiting for the battle, behind the hill, the barbarian army with their armour and their spears. Martin (still a knight, but carrying a cross and shown in the act of blessing) is looking towards the Emperor but walking towards the enemy. His battle is the struggle against paganism, and his only weapon is the word of Christ.

The Miracle of the Resurrected Child (scene 5)

To the left of the Meditation (next scene) is the fresco of the Miracle of the Resurrected Child; like the Miraculous Mass (scene 7) , this episode had never been included in a fresco cycle before.

While Martin is praying he is approached by a woman holding her dead child in her arms; she begs him to do something and the Saint kneels in prayer. Amidst the astonishment of those present the child is resurrected. It was pointed out that Simone does not follow the official biographies (which all report the incident as having taken place in the countryside around Chartres), but blends this event with a legend that was popular in Siena at the time.

This legend was a longstanding oral tradition, which we know of from a 1657 source; it tells the story of Martin stopping in Siena while on his way to Rome on a pilgrimage. In Siena he performed a miracle so great that a church consecrated to him was built in the city. The miracle was a resurrection and this is the connection that justifies Simone's blending of the two episodes and changing the setting to Siena.

The city centre is symbolized by the building to the right: the square-topped battlements, the three-light mullioned windows on the piano nobile and the Sienese arch above the entrance door help us identify it as the Palazzo Pubblico. This is how the town hall appeared before 1325 when the bell tower, the Torre del Mangia, was added to the left.

The need to make the event recounted more immediate, to modernize an episode that had occurred almost a thousand years before, made Simone go even further.

The crowd does not consist only of pagans, as the written accounts of the event described it; Simone portrays a most varied group of onlookers.

A plump friar is shown looking up at a tree above the scene: he looks very much like Gentile da Montefiore (an Italian Cardinal).

The painting on the right (also by Martini) shows Gentile da Montefiore (kneeling) to pay tribute to St. Martin of Tours.

The similarity between the faces is striking.

Some of the figures are praying devoutly, while others, such as the knight in the blue hat, express astonishment and even scepticism (notice how the other knight looks at him frowning, as though in reproach). It is assumed that this is a self- portrait of the artist.

Meditation (scene 6)

The episodes depicted in the middle level illustrate the last part of the saint's life, after 371 when Martin was nominated Bishop of Tours, as we can see from his mitre.

In the bay to the left of the entrance we find the scene of the Meditation. In a state of profound spiritual ecstasy, Martin sits on a simple faldstool (the same one that Emperor Julian was sitting on in the scene of Martin renouncing arms), while two acolytes try to bring him back to reality so he can celebrate mass in the chapel nearby. One of them is shaking him gently, and the other is handing him his missal.

The two architectural spaces, parallel but of different depth, are geometrically so simple and bare that they appear to reflect the Saint's mood of profound absorption in prayer. The only decorative elements are the horizontal Greek key design on the wall and the quatrefoiled ornament in the arch above the mullioned windows.

Recently this scene was interpreted in another way. According to this interpretation the scene represents the Dream of St Ambrose, a premonition of the saint's death on the part of the bishop of Milan.

Miraculous Mass (scene 7)

the Miraculous Mass is an episode only very rarely included in Italian fresco cycles. This was the first time it was depicted.

The event took place in Albenga and was similar to what happened in Amiens.

After having given a beggar his tunic, Martin is about to celebrate mass.

During the elevation, the most deeply spiritual moment in the mass, two angels appear and give Martin a very beautiful and precious piece of fabric. There is extraordinary spontaneity and beauty in the deacon's expression of surprise, in his almost fearful gesture: his astonishment is so great that he instinctively reaches out towards his bishop.

The scene is a masterful composition of volumes and shapes with the linear elements (the candlesticks and the decoration of the altar-cloth) alternating with the solid structures of the altar and the dais, beneath a barrel- vaulted ceiling.

Miracle of Fire (scene 8)

This fresco, like the scene of the resurrected boy, is very badly damaged. The scene illustrates the event immediately after the miracle. If you look carefully you can see that the Emperor Valentine’s chair is on fire after he refuse Martin an audience.

Immediately regretting his actions, the fresco shows the emperor begging forgiveness of Martin, while behind Martin you can see the very astonished monk.

Two other interesting things are firstly the emperor himself does not look at all like a Roman Emperor, but more like a king at the time Simone Martini was painting. He has a very unusual crown that reminds us perhaps of thorns. Secondly, also notice the man who has turned his back from the throne to protect himself from the heat of the flames.

The

Death of St Martin (scene 9) The frescoes of the Death and Funeral (scene 10) are animated by light, colour and spatial depth. Both these scenes have the same composition, with a crowd of acolytes and followers witnessing the events. The same characters, with the same features, but depicted in different poses and with different gestures, appear in both scenes: the priest celebrating the ritual of the deceased in the scene of Martin's Death appears in the fresco of the Funeral between the two figures with haloes; the tonsured acolyte dressed in green and red who in the Death is gazing meditatively upwards, in the Funeral is shown holding the celebrant's dalmatic.

We see the soul of St. Martin being taken to Heaven by four angels. Around the body we see a priest reading prayers and the monk kneeling over Martin also has a halo indicating he is a saint. Others either pray to heaven or look at St. Martin. Another interesting element is the way the architectural style of the scenes follows the mood of the events: while the building in the scene of the Death of St Martin is a severe geometrical structure with bare walls, the Funeral takes place in a Gothic chapel with graceful and delicate decorations.

Burial of St Martin (scene 10)

In the final scene showing the burial of St. Martin, we can see some of the people who were at his death. Notice the priest with the grey beard at the back, and the man in the green and orange robes who is standing behind the new Bishop of Tours, St Brice (397-443). One of the priests is kissing the ring on the hand of the new Bishop to show his respect for the newcomer.

According to legend, Brice was an orphan. He was rescued by Bishop Martin and raised in the monastery at Marmoutiers. He later became Martin's pupil, although the ambitious and volatile Brice was rather the opposite of his master in temperament.

As Bishop of Tours, Brice performed his duties, but was also said to succumb to worldly pleasures. After a nun in his household gave birth to a child that was rumoured to be his, he performed a ritual by carrying hot coal in his coat to the grave of Martin, showing his unburned coat as proof of his innocence.

The people of Tours, however, did not believe him and forced him to leave Tours; he could return only after he had travelled to Rome and been absolved of all his sins by the Pope.

After seven years of exile in Rome, Brice returned to Tours when the administrator he had left in his absence died. He was a changed man. Upon returning, he served with such humility that on his death he was venerated as a saint. His Memorial Day is 13 November. The killing of the Danes in England on 13 November 1002 is called the St Brice's Day massacre.

Simone Martini was a Sienese painter, the pupil of Duccio, who developed the use of outline for the sake of linear rhythm as well as the sophisticated colour harmonies implicit in Duccio. He was also deeply influenced by the sculpture of Giovanni Pisano, and even more by French Gothic art.

His first work was a large fresco of the Maestà (1315, reworked 1321) painted for the Town Hall of Siena as a counterpart to the huge pala by Duccio in the Cathedral. This shows the formative influence of Duccio on him, but there is already a perceptible Gothic influence in it which is much strengthened in his next work, the St Louis of Toulouse (1317, Naples). At this date Naples was a French kingdom, ruled by Robert of Anjou, who sent for Simone and commissioned him to paint a new kind of picture: Robert's claim to the throne of Naples was not impeccable, and he therefore caused Simone to paint a large votive image of the newly canonized St Louis of Toulouse (a member of the French Royal house) shown in the act of resigning his crown to Robert.

From this time on, Simone's is essentially a Court art, refined and elegant, and much influenced by France. The type of Madonna evolved by Simone was of great importance in Sienese painting and may be seen in his Pisa polyptych (1320) and in several others. In 1328 Simone painted another fresco for the Town Hall, Siena, this time a commemorative equestrian portrait of the mercenary soldier Guidoriccio da Fogliano. It is one of the earliest of such commemorative images, and contains a vast panoramic landscape with the tents of the soldiers in the background. (Since the 1970s there has been an unresolved controversy raging over this picture, since a fresco, probably of 1331, seems to be painted below it - i.e. antedates it. The painted date 1328 is therefore almost certainly wrong, and should very probably be 1333, but the total rejection of the attribution to Simone by no means follows.)

At some date not yet established Simone went to Assisi and painted a fresco cycle in S. Francesco, of scenes from the life of St. Martin, which again show both the interest in French Gothic art and the sense of chivalric pomp that distinguish Simone. His best-known, and perhaps his finest, work is the Annunciation (1333, Florence, Uffizi) which was painted in collaboration with his brother-in-law Lippo Memmi (d.1357).

Go to https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/renaissance-reformation/late-gothic- italy/siena-late-gothic/v/martini-annunciation-1333 for a detailed overview and commentary.

Lippo often worked with him, but in this case they both signed the picture. It is perhaps the most splendid example of pure craftsmanship produced in Siena in the 14th century, with its elaborate tooling of the burnished and matt gold, but it is also an almost abstract essay in pure line and two-dimensional pattern, at the furthest possible remove from either Giotto or even their Sienese contemporary Ambrogio Lorenzetti.

In 1340-41 Simone went to France. It seems that he went on official business, and not as a painter, to the Curia at Avignon, where the Papacy was then established, and in this Franco- Italian enclave he spent the rest of his life. There he painted the jewel-like Christ Returning to His Parents after disputing with the Doctors (1342, Liverpool), a most unusual subject that perhaps once formed half of a diptych. In Avignon he met Petrarch and became friendly with him, illustrating a Virgil codex for him (Milan, Ambrosiana); he also painted frescoes in Notre Dame des Doms, of which the synopias remain (now in the Palais des Papes). They are probably datable in 1341.

His influence on French 14th-century painting is hard to assess, but a century later the Sienese regarded him as their greatest painter.

George Fredrick Bodley – 3 Meetingand Working with the Pre-Raphaelites Born 14 March 1827 at 4 Albion Street Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, England Died 21 October 1907 (aged 80) Water Eaton, Oxfordshire, England `The Pre-Raphaelite movement is identical with our own'

Tractarian architects were well aware of their closeness to the Pre-Raphaelite movement. In 1858 Street read a paper to the Ecclesiological Society, 'On the Future of Art in England', in which he discussed the parallels. Drawing attention to the way that the Pre-Raphaelites had extended their influence with great rapidity, Street argued that:

“The significance of this state of things for us lies in the fact that the Pre- Raphaelite movement is identical with our own: and that the success of the one aids immensely therefore in the success of the other.”

In February 1857 Bodley had won the third prize in a competition to design a church in Constantinople to commemorate the British who had died in the Crimean War. Street came second and William Burges first. In-fighting on the approval committee, coupled with concerns regarding the supposed "un-English" style of Burges' design, led to his being removed as architect in 1863 and his replacement by G.E. Street. An imposing Anglican Church — Christ Church, the Crimean Memorial — was built in 1858-1868 to commemorate the British soldiers who died in the Crimean War. George Street was a leading exponent of the neo-Gothic style, who later designed the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The moving force in the church's establishment was Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, British ambassador for most of the time between 1825 and 1858, and a powerful influence on Sultan Mahmut II, and especially Abdul Mecit I. He laid the foundation stone in 1858. Within a century it was falling into disuse and was deconsecrated in 1976. In 1991 volunteers from the British Commonwealth community in Istanbul set about patching the roof, rewiring, reglazing, restoring the fine organ and equipping the church. It was reconsecrated for regular worship in 1993.

Commenting on his third place in a letter to G.E. Scott, Bodley stated: One wd (sic), of course, much like to have carried out a church of this kind, but, as this is my first competition, I must be content with the honour I have got - especially as my drawings were somewhat hasty. The Ecclesiologist commenting on this competition stated:

Mr Burges and Mister Street have now proved their right to the highest rank of their profession; and Mr. Bodley and Mr. (William) Slater have fairly won their spurs. At the same time Bodley’s association with the pre-Raphaelite artists and The Arts and Craft Movement was developing. Bodley’s introduction to the pre-Raphaelites came through George Street who, In May 1854, took on Philip Webb as an assistant. Bodley and Webb became close friends. In January 1856 William Morris joined Street as a pupil, and was placed under the supervision of Webb. During this time Bodley met both Morris and Burne-Jones. Philip Webb 1831 - 1915 The Mediaeval Society, founded in 1857. Its purpose was to promote: 'the study of the medieval period as the highest and purest of former times' by assembling a collection of books, casts of sculpture, copies of paintings, brass rubbings and photographs, as well as Eastern ceramics and textiles.

Rossetti, Morris, Holman Hunt and Madox Brown were members, as were Ruskin, Bodley, Street and White. Every architect with strong links to the Pre-Raphaelite movement was involved. The society was superseded by the Hogarth Club, founded in April 1858, with a largely identical membership. Ford Madox Brown suggested that the club be named after William Hogarth since Hogarth was "a painter whom he deeply reverenced as the originator of moral invention and drama in modern art".

One of the members, the painter George Pryce Boyce, described in his diary seeing Bodley and Morris there in May 1858, the first documentary evidence of their friendship. A porter at the club carrying a bottle of wine, drawing by Despite initial success, the Hogarth Club failed to maintain Holman Hunt Sir Edward Burne-Jones its momentum, and was finally closed in 1861 after failing to adequately build up its membership in the face of hostility from the Royal Academy. Even the former leading Pre-Raphaelite John Everett Millais refused to join, as did otherwise sympathetic Royal Academicians such as Augustus Egg.

Several works that showed that the links between Tractarianism and Pre-Raphaelitism were still significant were exhibited at the club, among them Rossetti's Mary in the House of St John. “It was the first night after the Crucifixion.

John the disciple had taken Mary to his own home. A window looked out over a distant Calvary bereft of its crosses. Mary was lighting the watch lamp, John was bent pondering a scroll of Isaiah. A stormy sunset flooded the picture with purple light. The whole, as I remember now, was very impressive.” Thomas Sulman after seeing an 1856 version of this picture when he was DGR's student at the Working Men's College. The faces and hands of Mary and John echo the distant sky, which is the emblem of the eschatological moment they are waiting for. The scene is dominated by the image of the crucifix in the window. (Eschatology: the part of theology concerned with death, judgement, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind.)

John is represented with his tablets and writing implements meant to suggest that he is working on his gospel.

He is striking a flint to light the lamp ……

Which The Virgin is filling with oil

These actions are allegorical signalling the fact that mankind is entering the twilight-time between Christ's death and his resurrection. Rossetti told Ellen Heaton in a letter, “the motto on the frame might be a little while & ye shall not see me, & again a little while & ye shall see me.” The spinning-wheel is an emblem of a certain period of time that has yet to be accomplished.

In April 1861 the firm of Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co was founded. In discussions about the formation of the company the previous December Morris had suggested Bodley as a member in a letter to Madox Brown, who had originally suggested the formation of a co-operative firm to produce house and church furnishings to their designs. Although this suggestion was never realised Bodley, nevertheless, was an enthusiastic collaborator.

Bodley’s first two churches of national significance were opened in 1862, a year before St. Martin’s. They were: St. Michael and All Angels, Brighton – an urban church All Saints, Selsley, Gloucestershire – a rural church St. Michael’s and All Angels in Brighton:

As a resident of Brighton Bodley had attended St. Paul’s Church in his youth, a church which became a model for the use of Anglo-Catholic ritual and music. Bodley became a church warden and played the organ for services. He was working on interior alterations to St. Paul’s at the same time as he designed St. Michael’s.

St. Michael’s before its extension designed by Burges

Interesting comparisons with St. Martin’s: The intended vicar, Mr. Beanland, managed to finance the project from donations by two sisters, Mary and Sarah Windle, who met most of the eventual £6278 building costs. (St. Martin’s was largely paid for by Miss Mary Craven, although her sister Anne did contribute as well. The eventual building costs were £6328.) There are significant similarities in two of the windows as well:

St Martin’s St Michael’s

Virgin and Child by Burne-Jones

Morris’s firm produced half of the glass for St. Michael’s which is displayed on the south Aisle and in the west windows. Another company, Clayton and Bell produced the remainder. When the church was extended.

Morris wrote in April 1861 “We are, or consider ourselves to be, the only artistic firm of the kind, the others being glass painters in point of fact.” Perhaps he is referring to Clayton and Bell.

I take it to be one of the essential signs of life in a school of art that it loves colour; and I know it to be one of the first signs of death in the renaissance schools that they despised colour. Ruskin: The Stones of Venice By 1862 both Bodley and Morris had known these words for over a decade, and although Bodley probably had very little to say in the colours Morris and Co. chose for their glass, they were both in full agreement with Ruskin’s words.

Ruskin’s influence on Bodley in the design of St. Michael’s is strongly apparent in the use of polychromatic (showing a variety of colours) brickwork both inside and on the exterior of the church.

In The Stones of Venice Ruskin drew attention to the patterned brickwork of medieval Italian buildings: “til they know how to use clay they will nerve know how to use marble” “The best academy for English architects for some century to come would be the brickfields.”

St Paul’s Church, designed by R.C. Carpenter, Polychromatic brickwork on the exterior of St. opened im 1848. Bodley was church warden Michael’s. Burges addition remained faithful to and occasional organist during his time in Bodley’s external decorative designs. Bodley Bighton. Knapped flint contrasts with Caen attended St. Paul’s in Brighton (left) which also stone. has a polychromatic exterior.

Internally similar polychrome along the south wall brickwork and on the chancel arch. Burges declined to maintain this style in his internal designs.

Morris Glass the church of St. Michael and the Angels in Brighton

The Pre-Raphaelites wanted truth and naturalism in their Art This edited article about the Pre-Raphaelites first appeared in Look and Learn issue number 594 published on 2 June 1973.

With most movements in Art it is possible to say when they started, who were members of that movement, what their aims were, why they had the name they did, and when they ended. One of the most interesting things about the Pre-Raphaelite movement in Art is that it’s difficult to answer any of those questions. The one thing that is known with absolute certainty is when it actually began. The rest is confused and often contradictory.

Firstly, let us try and find out exactly why they were called the Pre-Raphaelites. There are a great many theories about this, but these are the three most common. The poet and painter, Rossetti, was impressed by a life of the poet Keats that he had just read and said that he thought that some of the early painters “surpassed even Raphael himself”. Raphael was one of the most famous painters of all time, who died in Rome in 1520. Another painter named Ford Madox Brown claimed that the name ‘Pre-Raphaelites’ was a common art term at the time and the brotherhood just adopted it. Holman Hunt and Millais, two of the founding members of the movement were once criticising a painting by Raphael called ‘The Transfiguration’, when someone who overheard them jokingly commented that if they didn’t like the picture then they must be ‘Pre-Raphaelites’. This last story is so undramatic that it is probably the true reason for the adoption of the name.

Now we know what their name was, let us look at the people who made up this movement and try to find out what their beliefs were. In 1848, three men came together in the home of Millais at Gower Street in London and founded what they called the ‘Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood’. Apart from Millais, already an artist of some distinction, they were Dante Gabriel Rossetti and William Holman Hunt. These three painters were generally dissatisfied with the dull state of Victorian art and vowed to try and change it by their collective skill. They enlisted Thomas Woolner, a young sculptor, Rossetti’s brother William Michael, another young painter named James Collinson (who was probably only included because he was to marry Christina Rossetti, who herself became a fine poet) and a friend of Hunt’s named Frederick Stephens who had never painted a picture. These were the seven men who planned to revolutionise Art. Only Rossetti, Millais and Hunt were really of any consequence as artists and we will look more closely at each of them later as well as at the other artists whom they influenced or who proved to be important to the movement. One of the first things the P.R.B. (this was their own abbreviation for Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and they agreed to inscribe these initials on all of their paintings) did was to draw up a list, pyramid-shaped of the people in history who they considered to be the ‘immortals’. Holman Hunt insisted that Jesus Christ should stand alone at the very top of their pyramid. Together on the next layer were Shakespeare and the author of the Book of Job in the Bible. The third strata also had an unusual mixture of names. There were Shelley, Keats, Chaucer,

Dante, Homer, Goethe, Browning, Thackeray (all writers) plus the painters Landor and Leonardo da Vinci and the statesmen King Alfred and Washington. Below that came two more layers each with a strange assortment of names.

Somehow this list shows the spirit of the movement rather well. It is an odd mixture and shows how different the ideas were of members of the group. Yet, despite that, it shows that they were capable of getting together and producing something on which they were reasonably agreed. So it was with their painting. One thing that we must remember is how very young they all were. Hunt was the eldest at twenty-one with Millais and Rossetti nineteen and twenty respectively.

Among the artists attracted to the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was Walter Dowell Deverell who, like Millais and Hunt, went to literature for his themes. Two of his paintings, Twelfth Night and As You Like It are beautiful illustrations of Shakespeare’s plays.

Easily the most important single influence on the Pre-Raphaelites was the poet, writer, critic and painter, John Ruskin. He was ten years older than Millais and had himself been influenced by one of the greatest of English painters, Joseph Turner. Ruskin believed passionately in naturalism in Art. He felt that most painting over the last two hundred years had become too stylised and unfaithful to Nature. For Ruskin, the world and everything in it revealed the full majesty of God. Nature was God, and everything about Nature was therefore good. Ruskin said that there was no such thing as bad weather. There were just different varieties of good weather. Like Turner, the paintings of Ruskin reveal this interest in, and knowledge of, all aspects of Nature.

Another artist who was just slightly older but who was to ally himself to the cause of the P.R.B. was Ford Madox Brown. Ingredients in his work that are cornerstones of the movement are an acute eye for architectural detail, an interest in the classics and a specific use of light and shade. This last is of particular importance. Painters had generally used a general style of light that had become almost conventional. Brown deliberately set out to show light and dark exactly as it was at the moment he was portraying it in each picture. This use of a natural light is one of the common features of nearly all Pre-Raphaelite paintings.

Rossetti, Millais and Hunt were all ambitious painters who found little enthusiasm among the older organisation artists of their day. These older men who ran the Royal Academy wouldn’t tolerate these jumped-up young men with their revolutionary ideas. In mid-Victorian England, the Royal Academy was the stronghold of Art and progress of any sort was looked upon with a great deal of suspicion. Since they knew they were weak alone, the three men saw the possibility of strength in numbers and decided to combine. It was September 1848 and the Pre- Raphaelite Brotherhood was about to be formed. They all cleared off their outstanding work and prepared to start anew. The revolution had begun.