THE ENAMEL GLASS-PAINTERS OF YORK: 1585 - 1795 (IN THREE VOLUMES) VOLUMEI JOHN TREVOR BRIGHTON M. A. THESIS SUBMITTED FOR D. PHIL. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF YORK DEPARTMENT OF I-HSTORY. FEBRUARY 1978 CONTENTS VOLUME I Abstract 1 2 Acknowledgements and Declaration Introduction 3 Bernard Dinninckhoff (fl. 1585 1618) 7 - c. Bernard Dinninckhoff Is Techniques and Designs 13 After Dinninckhoff 21 Catalogue of the Glasspaintings of Dinninckhoff 24 The Gyles Family 73 Henry Gyles (1645 1709). His Early Life Education 79 - and Henry Gyles and the York Virtuosi 85 Henry'Gyles' Techniques and Materials 100 The Style and Sources of Gyles' Work 110 Henry Gyles and Patronage 131 After Henry Gyles 136 Catalogue of the Glass Paintings of Henry Gyles 139 VOLUME II 237 William Peckitt 1773 - 1796 Patronage and the Distribution of Peckitt's Work 248 William Peckitt's Techniques and Materials 258 The Style, Design and Sources of Peckitt's Work 270 Conclusion 284 Catalogue of the Glass Paintings of William Peckitt 288 VOLUME III Appendix Ia-f Documents and drawings relating to the 596 work of Bernard Dinninckhoff 6tO 9 List of slides illustrating his'work (+ miscellaneous material) 627 h List of armorials painted by him i List of plates relating to his work 633 (+ miscellaneous material) VOLUME III (contd, ) 637 Appendix 11 1- 35 Documents relating to the life and work of Henry Gyles 36 List of armorials painted by him 714 37 List of plates illustrating his work 719 '729 38 List of slides illustrating his work Appendix III A-L Documents relating to the life and work 740 of William Peckitt M Index of armorials, painted by William 878 Peckitt N List of plates of his work 898 0 List of slides of his work 906 P Concordance of subjects painted by him 921 Appendix IV Index of places mentioned in the three 926 catalogues of work by Dinninckhoff, Gyles and Peckitt Appendix V Bibliographies Bernard Dinninckhoff 934 Henry Gyles 936 William Peckitt 942 General 947 Appendix VI Figures, maps and tables with preliminary 949 list. ABSTRACT This research begins with Bernard Dinninckhoff's earliest known windows of 1585 and ends with the last work of William Peckitt in 1795. The work of these two artists, together with that of Henry Gyles (1645-1709), constitutes two centuries in the history of glass-painting when the City of York strove to revive the art which had made it famous before the Reformation. The three artists were primarily enamel painters,, though each of them incorporated in some of their windows coloured pot-metal glass and the mosaic techniques of the Middle Ages. Each of them came from different backgrounds, only Henry Gyles being a native of York. They were at no period contemporaries and in no way formed a school. Each in turn was a lone revivalist struggling to restore an art that was almost extinguished at the Reformation and their work was therefore more secular than religious. They were not craftsmen of the mediaeval typeg affiliated to a guild, but were individuals who considered themselves artists. In this sense they reflected the prevailing artistic fashions of their day and copied and interpreted some of the leading masters from the Renaissance to their own times. Thust in their styles and subject matter. they were much more eclectic than their mediaeval predecessors. Dinninckhoff, Gyles and Peckitt were important in maintaining the City of York as a centre of glass-painting before the Gothic Revival of the 19th century. AMOWLEDGEMENTS AND DECLARATION In the course of this research the author has written innumerable letterst visited hundreds of places throughout the British Isles and consulted the collections of many libraries, museums and muniment rooms. Throughout he has been greeted with courtesy and unstinting help. To all those private individuals and public employees who have opened up cathedralsv churches and chapels, stately homes, houses and offices, libraries, files and archives the writer wishes to express his most sincere gratitude. in He would single out first the late J. A. Knowles, glass-painterg field he particular for encouraging him to research further in the where alone had, worked previously. has Secondly he would record his indebtedness to Denis King of Norwich who kindly restored. a number of the windows discussed in this thesis and who the placed his wide knowledge and excellent photographic records at writer's disposal. The author has drawn ont and often corrected or adjustedg the interpretation thesis. of articles he has written beforeg or during the compilation of-this footnotes. These articles are listed in the bibliography and referred to in The author's private collection of slides and photographs submitted with this thesis may be consulted on request. The collections are listed, Appendices. together with acknowled. gements for the platesq in the 2 Introduction. T-Tuch has been written about the York School of Glasspainting. J. A. Knowles' book by that title concluded that, apart from a brief break after the death of Henry Gyles in 1709, glasspainting had gone on unbroken in York from the Middle Ages to the present day. Howeverg whilst there is much justification for speaking of a school in York before the Reformationg this thesis endeavours to that there show is none for the period afterwards. Glasspainting in York stopped the Reformation at and there is no evidence that the declining guild of glaziers contained any glasspainters thereafter. Instead there was a sequence of glass- painters who styled themselves Partists' and who had no links with the old guild system. the After completion of the windows of St. Michael le Belfry by 1540 there is no further evidence of any work executed or erected in or near York for another 45 years, when Bernard'-. Dinninckhoff completed much of the armorial glass for Gilling Castle. Dinninckhoff was a foreigner with no roots in York or in England. His work, almost entirely armorialq was totally different in style and techninue from anýrthing done earlier. J. W. Knowles assumed he was one of a number of Dutch (1) glasspainters who constituted a school in York at this time. This belief has foundation. no Dinninckhoff brought his art with him and almost certainly practiced it alone in York. The city fathers made him a freemang doubtless in the hope that he would stay and revive what was a lost art in York. He stayed in or around the city for some thirty years and then vanished as mysteriously as he had arrived. His willg if he made one, has not survived and he appears to have trained no apprentices and to have left no sons to carry on his work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J. W. Knowles. 'Yoric Artists' (Manuscript in York City Library), V01- I- Pý 185. 1 3 Almost half a century elapsed before glasspainting was again practiced in York. This time the artistq Henry Gyles, was a native of the city and a member of an family old of glaziers. Againg this thesis disagrees with J. A. Knowles' that statements Gyles' forebears were glasspainters who had links with the late mediaeval masters of York. Glaziers and glasspainters were not synomymous by the 17th century. If Dinninckhoff was, in all likelihoodq an accomplished glasspainter on his in arrival Yorkt Henry Gyles was largely self taught and again the City Corporation to strove encourage this lone glasspainter. He practiced for almost half a his century until death in 1709. Like Dinninckhofft he left neither sons nor to assistants carry on his work and glasspainting in York died again with him. J. W. Knowles cited the unreliable Dallaway's statement that Gyles had established (1) a school of glasspainters in York. Knowles himself believed that Gyles had acquired some of the secrets of his trade from the earlier Dutch school he thought had existed in York. Howeverv he was nearer the mark when he stated that "by diligent study he had worked out some of the more complex difficulties that (2) beset the student in this art. " Alas, Dallaway's statements were taken up by numerous writers, who also give wrong dates for Gyles' life. The dictionaries of Levyj Redgrave2 Benezit and Thierne- Becker contain errors about Gyles and perpetrate the myth that he had taupht William Price'the Eldert the London glasspainter. (3) Whilst J. A. Knowles disposed of this last error he had perpetrated the idea of a school by discussing the work of Dinninckhoffq Gyles and Peckitt in his ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Rev. J. Dallaway, 'Observations on English Architecture. ' (1806) p. 280. " ... Henry Giles of York, who appears to have established a, school of glass-painting there, which continued its reputation for more than a century William - Price the elder was his most able scholar and successor (2) J. W. Knowles. loc. cit. (3) See "The Price Family of Glasspainters" Antiouaries Journal 1953. p-n. 188-190- 4- 'York School of Glasspainting' As late as 1961 the tVictoria County History of the City of York' was claiming (1) that William Peckitt "was probably a pupil of Gylesg" when it was well established that Gyles had died in 1709 and Peckitt was not born until 1731! Having rejected Dalloway's belief that Gyles had taught William Price the Elderg J. A. Knowles toyed with the idea that his song William Price the Younger may have taught Peckitt the art of glasspainting in London. He based this surmise . simply on the ground th at Peckitt purchased some of Price the Younger's drawiný20 This thesis maintains that Peckittg not a native of Yorkt was self-taught like Gyles. Again the City Corporation encouraged him in its hope to restore glass- painting again to York.