‘CHRIST IN MAJESTY’ 1984
by JOHN PIPER and PATRICK REYNTIENS
CHAPEL OF SAINT JOHN BAPTIST, LICHFIELD.
Study by Iain McKillop 2019
CONTENTS
ILLUSTRATIONS
‘CHRIST IN MAJESTY’ 1984 by JOHN PIPER & PATRICK REYNTIENS
EAST WINDOW IN THE CHAPEL OF SAINT JOHN BAPTIST, LICHFIELD.
Iain McKillop 2019
The chapel to which John Piper’s east window makes such a strong contribution is open daily to the public. Saint John’s provides sheltered housing for retired people. Since the C12th its chapel has been a place of public worship. The original ‘Hospital of St John Baptist Without The Barrs’ was founded in 1135 as a priory/hostel outside the Culstubbe Gate of the city. A community of Augustinian brothers and sisters provided shelter and sustenance for pilgrims who arrived after city’s curfew, when Lichfield’s city-gates were closed. Later it became a benefice run by a non-residentiary secular clerk. Bishop William Smyth re-founded the priory in 1495 as almshouses for elderly men, incorporating a free grammar school. The most distinctive architectural features of the building are the eight tall 15th Century brick chimneys, dating from the Tudor alterations to the building:
The chapel and east range facing Saint John Street are part of the original mediaeval foundation, though expanded and highly restored in Victorian times. John Piper and Patrick Reyntiens’ 1984 stained glass east window for the chapel brings the ancient and modern together in its imagery and colours. It was installed in time for the commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of the original Augustinian Foundation, though surprisingly this significant anniversary is not mentioned in any correspondence concerning the commissioning of the window. The subject of ‘Christ in Majesty’ focuses on the purpose of the Chapel, to enable worship of God, to enhance a sense of Christ’s presence with us and to concentrate thought on Christ’s care, power and gift of salvation:
“A man that looks on glass,
On it may stay his eye;
Or, if he pleaseth, through it pass
And there the heav’n espy”
[George Herbert – The Elixir – (‘Teach me my God and King, In all things thee to see.’)]
Some react negatively to Piper’s window: I personally admit that I was initially unsure about the appropriateness of the design for its setting, when I first saw photographs and later encountered it first-hand. However my mind quickly changed. I had admired Piper’s art for decades; the style, texture and subjects of his paintings particularly. His use of colour was always innovative, and, with his innovatory use of texture, perhaps his greatest skill. (One traditionalist canon who objected to the vibrancy of Piper’s reredos tapestry in Chichester Cathedral deliberately turned up to services wearing dark glasses [Spalding 2009 p.403].) In St. John’s Chapel, I at first felt that the artist’s use of colour seemed rather over-dominant, though it creates a meaningful atmosphere in the chancel. It has very obviously transformed the ambiance of the chancel from the brightness that must have pervaded it previously, when lit by clear, transparent Victorian glass. The composition, which is usually another of Piper’s primary skills, is more centrally focused than usual. It thus dominates the space less subtly than at Coventry and Liverpool Cathedrals or Robinson College Cambridge, especially as St. John’s Chapel is small. Christ’s face and the painting of the two angels, I initially found awkward and slightly crude for such winsome subjects, especially as we view them form such close proximity. I thought to excuse these as weaknesses, perhaps due to recognising that this was a late work by an aging artist. However, with familiarity, study and close contemplation, the meaning and qualities of the window have grown on me intensely, and I now find immense value and meaning within all aspects of the window. I now consider the colours and fine detail beautiful.
Piper was 81years old when he designed the glass. He might not have been at the summit of his skills, creativity or imagination, unlike some of his best work between 1940 and the late 1960s. But it is a spirit-lifting piece. By 1983/4 John was at a stage of his life and career when he might have identified with many who now live in the sheltered housing of St. John’s. Yet his quality and ideas as an artist were still very strong. Piper’s younger co-worker on the window, the master-glass-artist Patrick Reyntiens enhanced the painted cartoon design by his own artistry, to make it one of their best windows. St. John’s window represents the late-flowering of an elderly artist who had reached the last decade of his life. Within four years dementia had set in, leaving Piper’s wife believing that for the next four years (1988 to 1992) she had already lost him [as quoted in Spalding 2009 p.500]. Despite my initial misgivings, the more I have studied, considered and contemplated this late window, the more I now find rich content, meaning and values within it, (perhaps more than many of Piper’s other works in glass,) and have come to admire the window greatly. Reading all the surviving correspondence about the design during the process of the commission (appended at the end of this study) one realises that Piper and Patrick Reyntiens recognised that this would probably be their last major commission together (a few smaller works followed) and were committed to making it a masterpiece, celebrating their creative partnership. The qualities of colour, rich intensity and fine etching of the glass demonstrate this. On 2nd March 1983 John H. Lang, Dean of Lichfield reported after a meeting with Piper and Reyntiens:
“Mr. Reyntiens… told me privately that he and Mr. Piper were particularly anxious to complete this commission because it was likely to be their last major piece of work together… I also believe that Mr. Piper really sees this window as summing up his work on glass and if it is brought off effectively it may well be of lasting importance.”
The younger John Piper would not have been worried if the viewer finds his work initially uncomfortable or even disquieting. He believed that it was partly the role of a ‘modern artist’ to confront viewers with the unfamiliar, to challenge us to think further about a work and find in it meanings and values that we might not at first have recognised. When we are forced to make an effort at appreciation, this can expand our minds, thoughts and concepts. This may become in itself a spiritual exercise, (as writing this study has been). I write in the hope that it might help others explore and find ideas, meaning and inspiration within the window.
Given the age of the artist at the time of designing the window, the work is also an inspirational testimony to the potential creativity, fruitfulness and abilities within an elderly mind: This in itself offers hope, affirmation of our continuing value, encouragement and incentive for us all, especially as we grow older!
JOHN PIPER: THE ARTIST / DESIGNER
John Piper is probably best-known today for his dramatic windows for Coventry Cathedral Baptistery (consecrated in 1962) and the corona above Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (consecrated in 1967), his architectural paintings, lithographs and illustrations of British buildings, particularly his 1940s records of post-war ruins, and his illustrations and writings for the Shell Guides (especially in the 1940s & 50s). His art and ideas changed regularly over a career of nearly 63 years. Piper’s paintings, graphics and designs went in and out of fashion several times during his career. He especially lost popularity among the artistic elite in the late 1950s and early 60s due to the rising taste for Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art. He was criticised for both being insufficiently avant-garde and for defecting from abstraction. This led him to resign as a Trustee of the Tate Gallery. Yet his work in stained glass remained popular from his first glass designs in 1954 until his death. By the early 1980s, when St. John’s window was commissioned, he was beginning to return to fashion, and his value and contribution was being reassessed, particularly through critics like Peter Fuller.
John Egerton Christmas Piper (1903-1992) was born in Epsom, Surrey, on 13 December 1903. ‘Christmas’ was the middle name of his grandfather, Charles Christmas Piper who died a year later in October 1904. Charles was a self-made man who retired to The White House, West Hill, Epsom. He had been a London boot-manufacturer who expanded his sights to become a partner in several firms including the Westminster House & Land Co. and Wightman & Co., printers and stationers. He became so successful as a businessman that at his death his effects amounted to £14,261 (between £1.5 and £2 million today). His son, Charles (1866-1927), John’s father, did not follow his father into business but became a Westminster solicitor.
John was educated at Kingswood House Preparatory School, Epsom then at the age of 15 moved to Epsom College (1919-22). Despite encouraging John’s interest in the arts, and supporting his visits to galleries, his father’s ambition was for his son to follow a stable profession. He articled him to his own law firm, intending that John would succeed him. Charles’s early death in March 1927 removed opposition to John following his own ambition to attempt a career in the arts. However, a condition in his father’s will meant that, on giving up law to study art, John was obliged to surrender to his brothers his personal share of his father's estate. His mother supported John’s decision and supported him financially with an allowance. In 1935 she bought the house and farm-buildings in Fawley Bottom, Oxfordshire, where John and his second wife lived for the rest of their professional careers. John enrolled in Richmond School of Art (1927-8) in preparation for applying for a place at the Royal College of Art, London the following year.
Unlike today, when many art students are encouraged to choose an area of specialism early in their careers, Piper’s art college education introduced him to technical training in a wide variety of media. This partially accounts of the varied nature of Piper’s later work and interests - abstract and figurative painting, printmaking, graphic design, applique relief constructions, opera and theatre design, photography, ceramics, firework spectaculars, tapestry, textile and wallpaper design, as well as stained glass. Piper only stayed at the Royal College from 1928 to 1929 leaving partly in frustration at what he considered to be narrowness in the philosophy and traditionalism of the tuition. He had already been enthused by modern innovations in European art through visiting artists’ studios in Paris, being introduced to contemporary art collections and seeing galleries in London like Zwemmer’s and the Mayor Gallery, which promoted modernism. John was ambitious to make early artistic innovations and found the traditional focus of art education in London at the time too suspicious of modernism. It did not promote experimentation with abstraction or the progressive use of colour, both of which excited John’s imagination and ideas.
On leaving College John supported himself by writing reviews of modernism for art and literary magazines, while painting and exhibiting his own work, sometimes alongside his wife Eileen, who he met at college. Through his writing he became introduced to many more innovative modernist artists and writers in London, as well as on continued visits to Europe. Piper initially lived in Hammersmith in close proximity to a community of fellow artists and writers who inspired him, including Ceri Richards, Edmund Blunden, Robert Graves, David Garnet and Leonard Woolf,
Piper’s wife’s affairs with Ceri Richards and others led to the break-up of this early college-student marriage. He had already met Myfanwy Evans (1911-1997), an English scholar and modern-art enthusiast and soon afterwards they married. John had introduced her to the progressive artists of Paris, then in 1935 he encouraged her to found and edit the AXIS art magazine. This promoted English abstract art, contemporary ideas and work of continental Modernist artists who they admired. It has been described as “the most radical art magazine in Britain.” [Spalding 2009 p.81]. This was a period when artists intermingled, argued and enthused over new theories. Both John and Myfanwy had visited the studios of Picasso, Léger, Jean Hélion, Mondrian, Kandinsky, Giacometti, Braque, Calder, Arp and Brancusi. Many of them became their friends. The established London art-world was more conservative, but AXIS and their immediate circle of artists and writers were excited by the potential of new forms of art. This fed into Piper’s experimentation with colour and abstraction, which later led to the vibrancy and experimentation in his printmaking and stained glass design. Piper was gregarious and was fortunate in being introduced to a circle of some of the most advanced British artists of the day: Ben and Winifred Nicholson, Ivon Hitchens (through whom he met Myfanwy), Paul Nash, Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, Ceri Richards and Edward Wadsworth were among their friends, collaborators and contributors to AXIS. So were writers like Geoffrey Grigson, John Betjeman, Herbert Read, H.S. Ede and musicians like Peter Peers and Benjamin Britten, for whose operas Myfanwy wrote three libretti (The Turn of the Screw, Owen Wingrave and Death in Venice).
Enthusiastic about European ideas and theories of abstraction, Piper, his friend Ben Nicholson and other colleagues pioneered abstract British art, and defended it in many articles. However, at this time abstract work was not generally understood in England and rarely sold on the London market. The group’s ideas and enthusiasm culminated in the Art Concrete exhibition of 1936. Piper wrote that he recognised that abstract art and religion contain some similar aspirations and codes that aim, and are able, to raise and inspire the human soul [Decoration Magazine 11 p.44 March 1936]. Of his abstract work he also wrote: “My intention in drawing and painting is not to imitate anything but to organise something. I have tried to make a bright design that will catch your eye and make you wonder what is inside... People usually want you to understand the meaning of pictures. Why? They do not ask to understand the meaning of the enjoyment of good food, country air, or the colour of beech leaves in autumn ... wet weather or the seaside.” [Imperial Airways brochure: Modern Travel for Modern People.] Piper’s abstract arrangements of colours and forms in stained glass, as in the St, John’s Chapel window) often follow similar principles: “to make a bright design that will catch your eye and make you wonder what is inside...”
Soon after 1936 Piper changed direction from the hard edged abstraction of his mid-1930s works. He continued in his commitment to modernism in art but recognised that those modern artists and theorists who dictated that to be modern all art must be abstract, were limiting possible developments of the arts. The priority of abstraction had been originally defended in AXIS and by the 7 & 5 Group of artists, of which John and Myfanwy were founders. But with the rise of Totalitarianism in Europe, Piper began to believe that to only allow art to follow one basic theory was as fascistic as Totalitarian politics. Bauhaus designers and Constructivists like Naum Gabo had retreated from Germany to settle in Britain, helping to promote the importance of total abstraction. Ben Nicholson too believed that abstraction was the only way for modern art. The influential new publication ‘Circle’ defended this idea. Piper became further convinced of the need to accept variety in modern art after the 1936 International Surrealist Exhibition, which he defended and the abstract artists denigrated. These growing differences sadly caused a rift between the Pipers, the Nicholsons and the critic Herbert Read who at the time defended total abstraction.
Piper’s late 1930s works moved to a looser, more textured, design-based figurative art, (which was to later influence his semi-representational/semi-abstract stained glass design from the mid-1950s onwards). At the time of his change of emphasis, he wrote, in a seminal 1938 article ‘Abstraction on the Beach’: “Abstraction is a great luxury, a luxury that has been left to the present day to exploit. Yet some painters indulge in it as if it were the bread of life. The early Christian sculptors, wall-painters and glass-makers had a sensible attitude towards abstraction. However hard one tries one cannot catch them indulging in pure abstraction. Their abstraction, such as it is, is always subservient to an end – a Christian end… Pure abstraction is undernourished. It should at least be allowed to feed on a bare beach with tins and broken bottles.” [article “Abstraction on the Beach’ in Vingtième Siècle 1July 1938. p.41]. His new work employed a wide variety of painting and illustration techniques: collage, drawing, painting, mark-making and wax-resist techniques to create textures that conveyed the character and atmosphere of places. His approach created modernist, semi-abstract images yet referred back to the traditions and nature of English art, architecture and landscape in a way that became known as ‘Neo-Romanticism’. Artists like Sutherland, Ceri Richards, Keith Vaughan, Paul Nash, Edmund Blunden and Eric Ravilious followed a similar path. In 1942 Piper published ‘British Romantic Artists’ exploring the traditions which the Neo-Romantics were following, including the influence of English artists like William Blake, Samuel Palmer and Edward Calvert. (He later celebrated Blake in vibrant windows for St. Peter’s, Firle, East Sussex (1985), based on Blake’s illustrations to the Bok of Job.) Piper’s Neo-Romantic works were often abstract in composition and colour yet introduced recognisable representational motifs including details from nature, sculpture and buildings.
By 1940 Piper’s creations appealed to the British taste and were so popular that his exhibitions sold out, whereas his former abstract work had rarely found buyers. His popularity grew because his subjects appealed to a wartime and post-war sense of nostalgia for British qualities and English subjects. Most notable are his works based on English churches and their details. His style was suited to contemporary illustration and he became a popular choice for designing book-covers and illustrations. He was a frequent contributor and illustrator for to the Architectural Review, edited by Jim Richards. John Betjeman, who earlier edited this publication had moved on to edit the Shell Guides, and commissioned John for illustrations and writings on architecture, townscapes and landscapes.
In his Neo-Romantic/abstract style Piper found themes, styles and techniques that united his interests and ideas, and which he could develop as his own, without his art seeming derivative of other artists’ work or theories. As a youth Piper had become fascinated by archaeology. From the age of 17 to 26 he had been secretary of the Epsom branch of the Surrey Archaeological Society and remained a member until 1937. On his bicycle he visited and drew many Surrey churches, made watercolour copies of mediaeval stained glass, and pen and ink drawings of architectural features. He also began to design ideas for windows, though did not make stained glass until decades later. The Curate of St. Martin’s Church, Epsom, Victor Kenna, cultivated John’s interest in modern art, music and literature, as well as Celtic, early British art. Later John became an enthusiastic photographer of early architecture and sculpture. At that time Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Romanesque art were still largely unappreciated. There were few illustrated books on early British art and even less on stained glass. John and Myfanwy drove throughout England photographing early sculpture, encouraged by Thomas D. Kendrick of the British Museum who was compiling a photographic survey of early British sculpture. Many of these became sources for Pipers paintings and lithographs. [ILLUSTRATIONS 8-11, 14-25].
Kenneth Clark, Director of the National Gallery, who had previously been opposed to the cause of completely abstract art, enthusiastically promoted Piper, recommending him for several commissions and roles in the artistic community. He involved Piper early in the ‘Recording Britain’ project, from 1939, funded by the Pilgrim Trust to celebrate and record historic buildings and British traditions threatened by war. In 1940 Clark recommended Piper for commission as a war artist. His regular promotion of John made Piper a household name in Britain, and by 1945 gained him an international reputation, exhibiting in America and Europe alongside Henry Moore and Graham Sutherland.
In his booklet “The Artist and the Public” Piper wrote “It is important for an artist to love his subject.” His fascination with and love of the historic past and ancient religious sculpture, (particularly Romanesque sculpture, which could be adapted to modernism,) accounts for the historic feeling of figures like the Christ in the Lichfield glass, which reflects the Romanesque tradition of representing Christ in Majesty. In many of his works he celebrated his love of the past and acknowledged the debt of ecclesiastical art to historic precedents and traditional iconography. As Piper’s career developed he became an enthusiastic supporter of heritage institutions: the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Trust Historic Country Houses, the Friends of Friendless Churches, Fellow of the Ancient Monuments Society, Member of the Royal Fine Arts Commission and a Trustee of the Tate Gallery and National Gallery. He served on the Diocesan Advisory Commission for Oxford Churches for 38 years from 1950, promoting both conservation and good innovatory design for reordering churches and new ecclesiastical commissions.
Piper used wax-resist techniques and collage to give the images the textures of age and wear, which he believed contributed to a sense of spirituality and antiquity within his work and subjects. John’s experimentation with techniques and textures expanded during his time as an official war artist from 1940 to 1942, as he explored ways of recording ruined buildings in drawings, paintings and collage. Among his most effective paintings are those recording the bomb damage to Coventry Cathedral after the blitzkrieg. On 15 November 1940, the day after the bombing, Piper visited Coventry, at the request of Kenneth Clark, making a series of drawings of the ravaged city, in particular of the cathedral and other gutted churches. Many of his sketches and the paintings developed from them are in the Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, Coventry. He combined splattered paint, resist effects created by wax crayon, dabbing with a sponge and other textural techniques with strong areas of bright expressive paint and sometimes collage. Many of his experimental mark-making techniques had been originally learned from Francis Spear who taught lithographic techniques and stained glass painting at the Royal College. This technical experimentation was later adapted and expanded for his illustrations and lithographs at the Curwen Press under the technical tutelage of Barnett Freedman. The texturing in the St John’s east window, particularly in the figure of Christ, the angels, the four winged creatures and the green foliate background developed from such experimentation.
In the late 1930s Piper turned to lithography partly because it appealed to his socially committed ideas of producing good, affordable modern images to inspire the general public. His book-cover designs and illustrations had a similar aim. He and Robert Wellington of the Zwemmer Gallery founded ‘Contemporary Lithographs Ltd.’ to provide high-quality contemporary art for schools. Into the project they recruited some of the best current British artists, among them: Eric Ravilious, Edward Bawden. Paul and John Nash, Graham Sutherland, Robert Medley, Edward Ardizzone, Duncan Grant and Vanessa Bell. Piper’s lithographs of architecture developed from this, and his experimentation with various colour-ways in lithography led directly to using bold colours in other designs, as we see in his Lichfield window.
In Britain art that was entirely abstract continued to be treated with suspicion for many years, both in popular taste and by many in the professional art-world, including critics, curators and gallery-owners. However, the representational elements and the decorative nature of abstraction in Piper’s work, fitted the English taste, especially an upper-middle-class taste for a comfortable, fashionable modernism. This developed in the post-war years leading up to the Festival of Britain (to which Piper contributed alongside Osbert Lancaster) and the design innovations of the 1950s. The elements of English history, architecture and landscape in his work suited the post-war sense of nostalgia for the lost or changing past and national pride. Though he aimed for an art that was not socially elitist, Piper became an artist of choice for a cultural elite, as well as for popular design. He continued to collaborate with John Betjeman the editor on the Shell Guides, later becoming editor for them himself, beginning with the Oxfordshire guide in 1937. He continued to be in popular demand for book illustrations and book-covers. Piper became fascinated by John Sell Cotman’s C19th records of Norfolk Churches and ruins and wanted to emulate him in modern ways. In 1940, at the recommendation of Kenneth Clark, under the threat of bombings, Queen Elizabeth had commissioned 26 paintings of Windsor Caste from Piper as modern counterparts to Paul Sandby’s C18th panoramas of the castle. Osbert Sitwell then invited him to paint Renishaw Hall, to produce a large mural there and to illustrate his autobiography. The Sitwells collected 70 of his paintings from 1942. He was frequently invited as a guest to paint some of the great houses of Britain, the architecture of which he loved. Frances Spalding suggests that Piper may be one of the models for Charles Ryder in Evelyn Waugh’s ‘Brideshead Revisited.’ [2009, p.210]. Yet despite his growing social connections, Piper’s socialist principles determined him on not becoming ‘a country house painter’.
Piper was an energetic and organised worker, as one would have to be to take on the number of projects and commissions that he accepted throughout most of his career. In conversation with Noel Barber he spoke of learning from George Braque “…the absolute need, however romantic or sentimental one wanted to be, for extreme discipline in painting. Otherwise the goods simply could not be delivered. I hope this discipline is more obvious in my work today. I hope it has taken a lot of the unnecessary rhetoric away, and that I’m left with something more worth having. My painting is just as romantic, but I hope it’s more unified, more united… It’s not true that I do work from Mondays to Fridays – but it’s true that I’d like to! But I do feel one should be business-like about painting… One needs office hours or one doesn’t get the work done. There’s so much to do. That’s why I like a time-table. I know exactly what I’m going to do next, but it’s just waiting to get at it and find the time to do it that’s difficult I enjoy working on several (works at once).. one painting influences another a bit like cats that are brought up together.” [Noel Barber Conversations with Painters. Collins London 1964 p.67-8]
Though fascinated by archaeology, Piper wrote that his interest in historic buildings was more about celebrating their aesthetic beauty, atmosphere and architectural character than studying them as places of historic interest. This is recognisable in his loose approach to drawing the details of buildings and his written descriptions of places and art. In his Shell Guide to Oxfordshire he called himself ‘an unashamed church-gazer”. Neither he nor his colleague and friend John Betjeman were professional architectural historians or archaeologists. They were enthusiasts who learned much from existing sources, by looking and having a feeling for the atmosphere of buildings, townscapes and the landscape. They developed personal expertise but they did very little first-hand original research, other than visiting, exploring and considering the aesthetic and social value of places. Most of their writing included personal opinions and responses. As a result their Shell and Murrays Guides, though well-written, were soon surpassed in scholarship by Pevsner’s ‘Buildings of England’ series which began publication in 1951. The Shell Guides declined in popularity, though Piper continued to edit, commission and contribute to them until late in his life.
From 1938 John had collaborated with the Group Theatre, founded by a former member of the Diaghilev Ballet, Rupert Donne. They were committed to producing modern plays that were not in the common repertory: works on contemporary, classical and mediaeval themes by left-wing writers including W.H. Auden, Stephen Spender, Louis MacNeice and Christopher Isherwood. Benjamin Britten composed music for several of the productions. Later, from 1946 onwards, he commissioned Piper to design the sets for all his operas. (The only opera-projects that Piper did not design were those performed in church settings, and this was remedied in 1979 when John made stained glass designs for three (The Prodigal Son, Curlew River and The Burning Fiery Furnace) in the Britten Memorial Window for Aldeburgh Church. As later in his collaboration with the glass designer Patrick Reyntiens, Britten and Piper worked together closely throughout the composition and design process of each opera, consulting and bouncing ideas off each other throughout the project. As a result, John became a popular contemporary choice as a designer for Glyndebourne Festival Opera, the Royal Opera House, The Old Vic and La Fenice, Venice.
Concerning his religious beliefs, at first John Piper seems to have been more interested in the response of his senses and feelings to ecclesiastical art and architecture, the atmosphere of place, and English Church traditions than specifically committed to faith and Christian spirituality. He knew Kandinsky and his theosophically-influenced writing ‘Concerning the Spiritual in Art’. In the mid-1930s Piper had written on similarities between art and religion. [Spalding 2009 p.83]. In ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ he mentions that in churches he had a “sentimental feeling for pleasing decay” [p.14 and in an article in Architectural Review 1947]. Piper’s mother had a Methodist background. His father had attended the Methodist chapel, then founded his own non-conformist meeting ‘The Nomads’ in Epsom. Later, while remaining non-conformist in his attitudes and beliefs, Charles nominally joined St. Martin’s Parish Church. There John came under the influence of the Curate, Revd. V.E.G. Kenna, who became a friend. Kenna introduced him early to Celtic and early British art, modern art and music and literature, and to his friend, Michael Sadler, the collector of Modern Art. Later Victor Kenna became a valued theological and liturgical advisor on John’s ecclesiastical commissions. However, it seems to have been his travels and friendship with John Betjeman that most developed Piper’s faith. Wherever possible Betjeman would attend Morning Prayer and it was his influence that led to John and Myfanwy’s confirmation in February 1940. Though not the reason behind his turn to faith, Piper’s Anglican affiliation incidentally also helped to gain him commissions, brought him easier access to ecclesiastical buildings and helped in the commissioning and research for his writings and guides. As non-conformism and Roman Catholicism were still regarded somewhat suspiciously in the mid-C20th, his Anglican allegiance also meant that he became a popular choice for positions on advisory committees and trusts.
Towards the end of his life Piper worked on a series of self-portraits - a theme on which he had never previously concentrated. This may have contributed to the different style used for faces of Christ in the Ramsgate and Lichfield windows. Sadly, by the early 1980s, at the time that he was working on the designs for the St. John’s Chapel window, Piper admitted in interviews with Rachel Billington [1983] and John Decker that he had grown disillusioned with the Church of England and lost his former faith, despite holding on to personal evidences which sustained his belief in God [Interviews recalled in Spalding 2009 p.496-7]. Years of dealing with the deliberations and machinations of ecclesiastical committees, exploring faith and ideas with thoughtful questioning, had taken their toll. Through Betjeman he had developed a traditionalist approach to faith. Piper felt confused by liturgical changes and uncomfortable with the way that the issue of the ordination of women was introduced. Had he been his younger, modernist, exuberant, revolutionary self, he would probably have supported such developments and changes, taking them in his stride. I find it encouraging that this man who felt that his faith was fading could still produce such a positive artwork as the St. John’s chapel window, to encourage faith in others. It is inevitable that most thinking people of faith find that their beliefs change and modify with age, developing knowledge and understanding, as our experiences or circumstances alter. If we attempt to clarify and study our beliefs while we feel some confidence in them, we can lay strong foundations that are able to continue to support or inspire us as our circumstances or experiences develop. This will particularly help us through times of questioning and doubts, which are inevitable in a modern sceptical world. The words of Ecclesiastes 12:1ff are wise: “Remember your creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years draw near when you will say: ‘ I have no pleasure in them’.....” Piper’s earlier studies, ideas, beliefs and disciplines in life, faith and art, partly sustained him and his family as life became more difficult. Gradually through 1988 John Piper’s mental health declined. Despite developing dementia, he continued to paint in bright vibrant colours, though he gave up other media than paint from 1987. By mid-1990 his dementia was fully debilitating, followed by substantial decline in his physical health by the early summer of 1992. He died at his home at Fawley Bottom on 28th June 1992, 8 years after the dedication of the St. John’s window, and was buried in Fawley churchyard. His wife Myfanwy survived him by 5 years.
JOHN PIPER'S STAINED GLASS
Piper’s interest in stained glass began in his youth. He had visited old buildings and churches with his father since childhood. John described tracing images of stained glass windows in the early 1920s, at about the age of 17. He read the few available books on the history of stained glass, though volumes with reproductions of stained glass were rare until Herbert Read’s 1926 monograph on English glass. As Piper’s antiquarian interests grew he would produce watercolour copies of glass that interested him. Piper wrote that he felt Romanesque glass, like that at Chartres [ILLUSTRATION 11], to be most sympathetic to Western eyes. He liked the formal arrangements, primary colour contrasts and lack of perspectival depth in early art. This reminded him of modern innovations in colour and composition by artist who he admired, such as Picasso and Léger. He felt that little advance or experimentation had been made with stained glass in England since William Morris and the Pre-Raphaelites. Piper admired the modern European glass of the painters Léger (made by Jean Barillet), Manessier Sophie Tauber-Arp, and Jacques Villon, who inspired the Vorticist glass of Alfred Wolmark (at Slough c1920) and Piper’s own windows for St. Margaret’s, Westminster. He was later inspired by the simplicity of design in the 50s and 60s glass of Matisse and Chagall. Reyntiens called the stained glass interpretations of designs by Matisse and Rouault by Paul Bony “in many ways the most significant achievement of stained glass so far in the twentieth century” [The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 p.12].In the early 1950s John was attracted to and influenced by a quotation by Alfred Manessier in which he claimed to regard stained glass “less as a design [than] the spontaneous creation of a light-filled architectural unit.” This is certainly the case with Piper’s work for Coventry [ILLUSTRATION 31], Liverpool [ILLUSTRATION 30] and Eton College Chapel, and to a certain extent the effect of the coloured glass in St. John’s Chapel, though here the subject of Christ in Majesty is of primary importance, and the meaning of the window is intended to contribute most to the space.
Piper was fortunate to have had such a large amount of stained glass commissions through his career. He was the right person, in the right place, at the right time: Britain faced a revival in the need for church building and glass restoration after the ravages of the 2nd World War. Other artists who similarly benefited from commissions to create contemporary window designs were Ceri Richards, Geoffrey Clarke, Margaret Tranerne, Brian Young.
John responded positively to the call of Bishop George Bell (died 1958) to modern artists to create work for churches. Many of John’s major commissions works were for badly damaged large churches in major cities or industrial areas. Yet within the area of Oxfordshire and Berkshire close to Pipers’ home at Fawley Bottom, the artist also created a series of fairly intimate stained glass windows for churches, which more reflected his personal spirituality, particularly those at Fawley and Nettlebed. Some think of the Lichfield window as John’s final glass project; it is certainly his last large window. In 1984 he was also working on a window for St. Mary the Virgin, Lamberhurst, Kent, made by David Wasley (Reyntiens’ assistant and co-worker on the St. John’s glass) and in 1985 he designed a small lancet window for St. Paul’s, Jarrow. Soon afterwards he gave up all other media to concentrate his energies on painting and printmaking. His last stained glass window was gifted posthumously in 1995 by Piper’s widow Myfanwy to the Oxford Diocese, in John’s memory. John’s design, already been created in glass was in his studio and David Wasley adapted it, adding wider margins and an extra lower panel to fit a Romanesque window of St Mary’s Church, Iffley, Oxfordshire.
Though Piper promoted modernist art, his sensibilities also made him suspicious of “modern artists disfiguring churches.” The title of Piper’s 1968 book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ refers to the need of artists, makers and commissioners to concentrate on the aesthetic and spiritual contribution of a work of stained-glass art to an interior, rather than to be trapped by either technique or tradition. He was especially uncomfortable about possible insensitivity, if the Church commissioned “those who were not believing Christians” [Spalding 2009 p.172]. John was aware that inappropriate colour and imagery in windows could damage the aesthetic and spiritual focus of buildings. In ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ he wrote:
“Stained glass is a great leader astray of anyone who works at it – designer and craftsman alike. In terms of colour and form it is eccentric. Colour is abnormally bright, since the light comes through the material instead of being reflected from the surface; tone is usually dictated by bounding leads or area joints of some kind. The whole thing is imprisoned within glazing bars that form an inexorable grid and are structurally necessary. This is its proper splendid discipline.” [p.8].
This is one reason why Piper was so sensitive in using the St. John’s East window to create a sense of darkness and mystery to contribute to the spirituality of the chancel space. When the window had previously been glazed in plain quarry glass, the chancel lacked atmosphere and focus [ILLUSTRATION 67]. Piper’s design focused worship towards the altar and emphasised the chapel’s purpose.
In a 1969 letter to an education student, writing a dissertation on his work he had written: “The fact that craftsmen become less good artists when they take their eyes for long off art, is evident all the time on every side of us. Look at the average carpet, let alone the average stained glass window. Gracious me! One doesn’t have to experience the sensation oneself necessarily; it is demonstrated all the time.
Stained glass designers and makers hardly ever have any influence on the shape or size of windows. Most of them happen after a building is finished because there is spare money. The Baptistery window at Coventry was half-built (for instance) before I was commissioned at all.
Coventry was not meant to be “The Holy Trinity theme” – if the window has a theme it was invented after the design was made. It was abstract. People didn’t like the idea of abstraction (they have come round to is now so much that they don’t always like things that aren’t abstract) that it got called “the Light of the World”, or something of the kind. I don’t mind! I think it is quite a good name.
I am not really a window man at all – I am a painter, and I work hard all the time being one…” [Letter to E.M. Jenkins, 23 January 1969 (Private Collection]
Through John Betjeman, Piper became acquainted with the ecclesiastical architect Ninian Comper (1864-1960) and initially wanted to edit and publish Comper’s writings and ideas on church design. He agreed with Comper’s belief that a good church interior should “move to worship, to bring a man to his knees, to refresh the soul in a weary land.” [Comper, Ninian Of the Atmosphere in a Church. London, SPCK. 1947 p.9-10]. John sought spiritual and liturgical advice on his commissions from his old friend the cleric Victor Kenna, as well as Christopher Hussey, Dean of Chichester, and Revd. Moelwyn Merchant, an English Professor in Cardiff then Exeter. All were intensely interested in modern art, Christian imagery and art’s potential role in supporting liturgy and creating an aesthetic and symbolic space, conducive of and encouraging worship. Merchant published a quarterly magazine ‘Cymry’r Groes’, for which Piper wrote on the artist’s place in the Church.
In his book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ Piper reminded the reader that the textures that excite us today in some mediaeval glass, and which he himself imitated in his wax-resist effects, or painted and acid-etched glass, are often the accidental process of time, due to the pitting and weathering of glass over the centuries [Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art p.14]. Originally the glass in cathedrals and churches would have been much bolder, with starker effects of colour-change. Although he used texturing to create expressive effects in his glass, he also wrote about the need for modern artists to be bold with colour designs, as Picasso had been, and to make definite statements through the way they employed colour. Piper did this in his St. John’s Chapel window.
While being consciously modern in his designs he recognised his debt to the art of the past, particularly in designing for ecclesiastical commissions, and deliberately referred back to historic precedents and models. Yet he felt that much derivative stained glass, like the worst Victorian and Edwardian windows, were weak pastiches of mediaeval glass, and added nothing to architecture. His book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ also proposed iconoclastically that where a church space is effectively lit by clear glass, churches should not even consider replacing it by coloured glass. For the south aisle of St Margaret’s Westminster, Piper replaced the highly coloured Victorian glass that had been destroyed in war-time bombing, with a wall of far simpler, non-assertive abstract, grey windows, occasionally enhanced with subtly tinted geometric forms and patterns. His intention, he wrote, was to not distract from the strong colours of the large Flemish East window, which celebrated the marriage of Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon and had originally been designed for Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey. “The aim was to provide an unaggressive screen or filter for the daylight on the south side of the church, which would be agreeable in itself and would in no way affect the grand vista eastward in the church.” [Account dated 28th April 1980 quoted in Osborne 1997 p.96].
From the 1940s to 70s, Piper became the popular choice for designing modern stained glass for churches and chapels. By the 1970s all the work he designed for glass was figurative. Most of his designs over 35 years were executed in collaboration with stained glass artist Patrick Reyntiens (born 1925). After about 1977, when Reyntiens was busy teaching as Head of Fine Art at Central School of Art and running his own busy workshop, two of Reyntiens, most trusted studio colleagues David Wasley and Joseph Nuttgens (son of Reyntiens’ teacher) did much of the interpreting of Piper’s designs into glass, but Patrick remained a major advisor and colleague. The two were introduced in 1954 by their mutual friend, Penelope, wife of John Betjeman, at the time of Piper’s first stained glass commission for windows for Oundle School Chapel. Sponsored by the Grocers' City Livery Company, these were commissioned to commemorate the school’s 400th Anniversary. Piper was looking for a skilled craftsman to interpret his designs and Penelope recognised the qualities in the young, newly-qualified designer. The windows took three years to complete. Their themes are similar to the holistic meaning behind the later Christ in Majesty window at Lichfield: The lancets celebrate nine aspects of Christ: The Way, The Truth, The Light, True Vine, Living Bread, Water of Life, Judge, Leader, Good Shepherd.
Seeing the Oundle Chapel glass inspired Basil Spence to commission from Piper the Baptistery Window at Coventry Cathedral (1957–61) [ILUSTRATION 31], which in turn led to the commission for the corona above the Metropolitan Catholic Cathedral, Liverpool (1963–7) [ILLUSTRATION 31]. These two major commissions were particularly experimental as neither Piper nor Reyntiens had worked on such large scales before. In Coventry, whereas stained-glass window-makers usually begin from the bottom upward, Reyntiens persuaded Spence to allow them to work from the top downward, so that any initial mistakes in the making process or uncomfortable aspects of design would be less evident due to their distance from the viewer. For the Liverpool lantern they used a ‘dalle de verre’ technique pioneered in France of using reinforced concrete and one-inch thick glass to enhance structural strength. Piper had been impressed by its use by Fernand Leger and Jean Bazaine at Audincourt in May 1957, which Patrick had visited two years earlier.
In all Piper worked on 55 realised projects for stained glass windows. Reyntiens recorded that Piper preferred working on smaller parish church windows. They both carefully considered the appropriateness of the design to each building, which led them to creating a far wider variety of designs than most designers and makers. Together they designed and worked on the glass for Eton College Chapel (1959-64), Llandaff Cathedral (1961-2); Nuffield College, Oxford (1965-6); Churchill College (1970) and Robinson College, Cambridge (1978-80) [ILLUSTRATIONS 60 & 61]; Washington National Cathedral (1973-4); the Minster Church of Saint Andrew, Plymouth (1957-68); Ripon College Chapel, Cuddesdon (1964); St. Marks, Broomhill, Sheffield (1963-4); All Saints’ Clifton, Bristol (1967); the George V1 Memorial Window, Windsor (1969); Charing Cross Hospital Chapel (1977); the Benjamin Britten Memorial Window, Aldeburgh, Suffolk (1979); St. Peter's, Babraham, Cambs.(1966); All Hallows, Wellingborough (1960-69) [ILLUSTRATION 32]; St. Bartholomew’s Church, Nettlebed, Oxon (1970 &76); St Andrew's Church, Whitmore Reans, Wolverhampton (1973-4) and many others.
Piper and Reyntiens’ collaboration expanded the aesthetic and technical possibilities, structural, decorative and liturgical use of glass in architecture. As with Piper’s experimental painting techniques, they explored many different approaches to the medium, used acid, paint and enamel on the glass, and enjoyed the craft aspects of design. Piper greatly admired French medieval glass, particularly the windows of Chartres. He made several summer tours round France, Germany and Italy to study old glass, to learn from past design and glean ideas. But he also studied modern trends in glass design, some of which he celebrated in his book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’. He expressed disappointment in the quality of much Victorian, Edwardian and modern British glass, writing in 1979: “It sometimes seems as though the medieval glass-painter could do no wrong, and that the glass-maker of today cannot go right: that we cannot in these days recapture the magic of the creation of the jewelled light by a clear design.” [in Clarke, Brian (ed.) Architectural Stained Glass, London: John Murray 1979]. John was determined to overcome such potential problems in his own work: Patrick had a similar determination. He wrote: “Stained Glass is apt all too easily to acquire a reputation for being visually stodgy, a reputation more often than not deserved.” [The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 p.11]. Piper and Reyntiens struggled to perfect the images and techniques in their windows, using the finest materials available and purest colours of glass, often imported from Germany and France particularly the glass manufacturers Hilden and Waldassen. This is evident in the positive design and the qualities of colour and glass chosen for Lichfield’s Christ in Majesty, despite the enormous rise in the price of materials at the time.
Patrick wrote of Piper: “No painter keeps to the possibilities of stained glass better than John Piper, yet at the same time, no painter stretches his executive interpreter more cruelly.” [The Beauty of Stained Glass, Herbert Press, 1990 quoted Osborne p117]. Piper created full-scale colour cartoons for each commission, executed in watercolour and gouache, often with collaged details [cf. ILLUSTRATIONS 5 & 66]. Asked about his use of collage in preparing his designs, Piper said:
“This is a simple way I developed of doing cartoons - quite a convenient one - making a lot of pieces of coloured paper (home-made paper in various colours) and then scissoring them up into shapes and then just sticking them on. It’s interesting, of course, that the cutting of the pieces of paper is rather like the cutting of the pieces of glass later on. Even sticking on the coloured papers is rather like putting the glass into its pattern. It’s much more like a glass technique than merely taking a brush and swishing colour about on paper… in all cases of stained glass there has to be consideration and approval by the chaps outside. Someone has to say, “Yes, we all like that,” or “We don’t like that and can you alter this bit?” This usually takes place when I am doing large preliminary sketches. But even when I get a general approval and start work on the cartoon – which is the actual size of the window – there can be a number of delays…… When my work on the cartoon is finished – that is, when it’s capable of being translated into glass – I give it to Patrick Reyntiens and his merry men and they make a cut-line. after that it’s just a question of proceeding with the usual methods of glass-making.”. [Noel Barber Conversations with Painters 1964 Collins. London p.62]
Although Piper’s drawing, painting and designs appear very spontaneous, and despite the rapid speed at which he often worked, he took care over the ideas behind his designs, the detail of his images, the meaning and context for which his windows were designed, and their contribution to the architectural space. The 8 lancets for Eton College Chapel took 5 years because they were being worked on at the same time as the Coventry Baptistery window. Their theme was based mostly on miracles and parables, where Piper carefully paralleled subjects, as in ‘The Gospel as a Light Hidden under a Bushel’, paired with ‘Christ as the Light That Shines Forth’. In the windows for St Andrew’s, Plymouth, the ‘Instruments of the Passion’ theme led him to research and draw carefully details of ancient instruments. So in the St John’s Chapel window the apparent spontaneity in the face of Christ and the loose drawing of the angels are probably intentional. At this time, around the 1980s, Piper was working with greater fluidity than at most previous times in his career.
In 2012, a major exhibition ‘John Piper and the Church’, in Dorchester Abbey, Oxfordshire, (a building Piper loved and about which he had written,) focused on his ecclesiastical commissions. It explored his relationship with the Church and his influence on the development of the use of modern art in churches. Piper had personally selected and curated an earlier touring exhibition ‘The Artist and the Church’ in 1943, which opened in Chichester Cathedral, encouraged by George Bell. (Walter Hussey, who later encouraged John and commissioned Piper’s Chichester Tapestry, was then at St. Matthew’s Northampton, not becoming Dean at Chichester until 1955). The touring exhibition explored the historic tradition of collaboration, and promoted the reestablishment of fruitful links between artists of quality and the Church. In his preface to the catalogue Piper called himself “a painter who is also a churchman and a lover of churches old and new.” He criticised some artists who were “uncooperative and indifferent” to the needs of the Church, while criticising the Church for “lack of discrimination” and “loss of artistic conviction”. He wrote that he hoped that “with practice and trust the artist will regain his confidence in working for the greatest and most fruitful of all patrons in history and that the Church will regain its commanding conviction about the arts.”
PATRICK REYNTIENS: MASTER GLASS ARTIST
While Piper occasionally painted and etched, discussed or supervised some of the painting and etching of some of the glass used in his windows, he did not make the windows himself. The majority of the work was done by artist craftsmen. Most particularly Patrick Reyntiens. As Piper wrote in ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ “The great windows of modern times are all the work of artists working with collaborative craftsmen.” Sometimes he did not see the glass from delivering the cartoons until near a window’s completion, before the leading process, as he trusted the interpreters. This was mostly the case with the St. John’s window, as Patrick Reyntiens, who translated Piper’s design, moved to a new workshop in Dorset, further away from the painter, before the making of the window began. The full-scale cartoon for St. John’s Chapel window still survives in a private collection and was shown dramatically in the Dorchester Abbey exhibition, hanging in a central position over the nave [ILLUSTRATION 66].
From 1954, when Penelope Betjeman introduced them, then for over 35 years, Piper collaborated with Patrick Reyntiens, who was 22 years younger and soon became one of the leading C20th practitioners of stained glass in Britain. Piper and Reyntiens were of different ages, with different characters and social backgrounds but their skills and ideas complemented each other. Reyntiens was committed to his Roman Catholic faith, which, though it seems fairly liberally interpreted, he writes of regarding it as a central aspect his life. His faith added profundity to his commitment to their projects. Piper’s faith was more middle-of-the-road, traditionalist Anglican. Both regarded their work on the glass of churches as aiming to enhance the worship of those who used the buildings.
Reyntiens’ family originated from Belgium and also had Russian connections, though he was born in London, at 63 Cadogan Square. He later described the area as ‘far more stimulating than the more aristocratic streets and squares of Belgravia’. In the 1920s and 30s the novelist Arnold Bennett had lived four doors away and from childhood Patrick developed a love of reading, amassing a substantial library. His education at Ampleforth College in Latin and Greek, history, philosophy and myth added intellectual and spiritual depth to his approach to his work. His suggestions contributed much to the expansion of Piper’s ideas and imagery as they worked together on projects. It was at Ampleforth that Patrick developed his ambition to be an artist.
After Regent Street Polytechnic School of Art, Reyntiens moved to train further at Edinburgh College of Art where he met his future wife, the painter Anne Bruce (1927–2006). He soon focused his creativity towards stained glass and was awarded a two-year Travelling Fellowship in 1955, which enabled him to journey through France studying stained glass and modern art. He became assistant to the master Arts-and-Crafts stained-glass-maker Joseph Edward (Eddie) Nuttgens (1892–1982), which helped to finance his marriage to Anne. (Nuttgens’ son Joseph later became a close collaborator with Patrick, helping to run his studio from 1978-82, before Joseph took over his father’s studio.) Edward Nuttgens was a neighbour and friend of Eric Gill at Piggotts Hill, near High Wycombe. From Gill’s ideas, Reyntiens inherited the concept of the need for integrity in one’s craftsmanship and a belief that to be a craftsperson was a ‘holy’ pursuit and a spiritual calling. In 1959 Patrick was elected as a member of the Art-Worker’s Guild, founded by members of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which advanced the idea of uniting crafts with the fine arts. Eventually he became Head of Fine Art at St. Martin’s School of Art and Design, London, an art school originally founded with the same aim.
Penelope Betjeman introduced Piper to Reyntiens soon after he had completed his training, encouraging him to translate into glass two heads from Piper’s designs for the Oundle Chapel. This confirmed Piper’s trust in his skills and sensitivity in interpreting his work. Penelope was also instrumental in obtaining sponsorship for them from the Glazier’s Company.
John Piper’s collaborative relationship with Reyntiens was far more equal than that of an artist working with a technical adviser who had the abilities to construct his designs. Patrick compared their co-operation together as more like inventing, composing, interpreting and constructing music jointly. Working with John Piper, he said “was like seeing a craft whose ambitions up till then had been akin to those of chamber music being transformed by full-blooded orchestration. We were conscious of bringing stained-glass into the modern movement of painting and design and in so doing bringing the eye of the painter to the medium. Hitherto the craft had been dominated by line rather than by blocks of colour.” Reyntiens contributed much to Piper’s glass designs. He had suggested the theme behind the Coventry Cathedral window: the architect Basil Spence had originally conceived the baptistery window to be of ‘pale, almost white glass with a slight tint of pink and pale blue’ [Fraser Jenkins & Fowler White 2016 p.410]. When Piper was stuck for inspiration Patrick suggested that he should imagine a bomb or burst of glory, symbolising the power of the Holy Spirit at the centre of the Baptistery window and design a huge explosion of light around it, similar to the aureole of light around the dove above St. Peter’s throne in the basilica in Rome. [Andrew Lambirth, ‘God in a Stained Glass Window ‘– The Spectatorwww. 14/12/2013]. Reyntiens also contributed to the inspiration behind the Corona of Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral: From his recent reading of Dante’s Divine Comedy he remembered a description of The Trinity as three great eyes of different colours communicating with each other. [Lambirth ibid.] The spectrum of colour in the corona was arranged around three intense bursts of white light, which relate to each other across the lantern yet focus different colours into the interior liturgical space as the day progresses.
John and Patrick saw their experimentations in English glass as “pioneering” internationally in their exploration and experimentation with the possibilities for using colour, mark texture and diffused light in architecture. In some windows Patrick used different layers of glass to alter colour and tone. (This is especially found in the rich colours of his antechapel window for Robinson College, Cambridge (1980) [ILLUSTRATION 60], where Reyntiens used up to 5 layers of glass to create the depth of hue and texture.) Their work paralleled Chagall’s achievements in France or the experiments of Johannes Schreiter and Ludwig Schaffrath in Germany, though they were less linear in their approach to design.
Encouraged by Piper, Patrick and his wife Anne Bruce began a school teaching design and manufacture at Burleighfield House, Loudwater, near High Wycombe. This ran from 1963 to 1976 promoting skills, techniques and ideas of design which they had explored and advanced. They then opened a larger teaching workshop in 1977 at Old Church School, Windsor End, Beconsfield, in addition to Reyntiens’ teaching as Head of Fine Art at Central School of Art. Some of their Buckinghamshire students became assistants who helped in the construction of Reyntiens’ projects. David Wasley and Joseph Nuttgens helped to run the studio and were entrusted with the most important interpretations. Wasley worked for seven years in Reyntiens’ studio in the late 1970s and early 80s. Nuttgens had already trained under his father Eddie, Patrick’s own teacher and colleague, and worked with Reyntiens and Piper until 1983, when he took over his recently deceased father’s studio. Both helped with Piper’s projects around this time.
John and Patrick continued to experiment throughout their careers together. For architectural strength the huge lantern at Liverpool Cathedral was made in ‘dalle de verre’ a technique using strong one-inch thick glass set within concrete divisions, with epoxy-renin and black carbon based mortar. This had been pioneered by French designers, notably Mannessier and Léger, but had never been attempted on such a large scale. The windows of All Saints’, Clifton, Bristol and St. Matthew’s Southcote, Reading were made in an experimental, more flexible, translucent fibre-glass and coloured resin, but this innovation was not fully successful as the All Saints’ window crackles and is unstable as the sun heats the fibreglass. Piper’s chapter on ‘Materials’ at the end of ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ briefly explains several of their methods. John and Patrick later restricted themselves to more traditional media. The glass for St. John’s Chapel is more conventionally created in leaded glass, though its design is deliberately bold and uses many techniques in painting and etching the glass, as well as creating different intensities of light.
The renown of his collaboration with Piper has partly overshadowed appreciation of Reyntiens’s individual creativity. He was the man with all the technical skills, spiritual knowledge and at times more aesthetic sensitivity than Piper. Patrick himself designed and created stained glass for many buildings throughout Britain, including the large west window of Southwell Minster (1996). One of his finest personal commissions, St Mary’s, Hound Road, Netley Abbey, Southampton (1958–9), was designed at the same time as he and Piper were working on Coventry. His own dramatic design of Christ in Majesty (1962) is in St. Michael and All Angels, Marden, Kent. Unlike Piper, Patrick was not especially inspired by the strong contrasting hues of historical stained glass, preferring to create more delicate, harmoniously coloured, transparent images, with strong, linear drawing. He had a clear commitment to beauty, believing that it could contribute to the spirituality of a work. He wrote: ‘I don’t know what beauty is really — except that in one way or another it is what we were all intended to experience. We don’t realise how incredible life is.’
Though a fast and committed worker, Piper was not very practical in business-matters, often accepting commissions without signing contracts. The artist’s invoices and bills were dealt with by his wife Myfanwy. By the late 1970s and early 80s, when the Lichfield window was commissioned, tensions had arisen between Piper and Reyntiens over the financing of Piper’s projects. Inflation was regularly increasing the costs of materials and labour enormously, especially the price of imports like the high-quality specialist glass which Patrick used to create the vibrancy of his windows. Reyntiens complained that John was regularly quoting prices for windows that were far too low, not taking sufficient account of the growing price of materials, construction and labour. Piper in response accused him of “getting very grand” but Reyntiens and his assistants needed reasonable payment for the hard, and painstakingly long, committed work involved. Nevertheless they continued to work together creating impressive, vibrant and harmonious art, which is a testimony to their character and collaboration. This tension is discernible in the correspondence with Patrick during the process of commissioning and making the window for St. John’s. The delays in confirming and financing the project meant that Reyntiens’ suffered financial losses. He had ordered glass, booked studio time for the window and given more focus to the commission because of its significant importance, summing up his collaboration with Piper. John joked to the Sunday Telegraph journalist Sebastian Faulks: “His (Reyntiens’) accountant told him he couldn’t afford to work with me any more – or some such thing,” [Sunday Telegraph 1 July 1984 p.11]. It had been a difficult commission practically and financially. Nevertheless Patrick was professionally and spiritually committed to making a success of this last major collaboration together with the elderly artist. That commitment is shown in his determined perseverance with the project, patiently working through the problems, bringing the work through to completion and particularly the high quality and amount of detail that went into the finished window.
Patrick explained the importance of stained glass to a building in his seminal book ‘The Technique of Stained Glass’ 1967: “Glass, being both coloured and transparent, is capable of transforming the whole of a building by a subtle unificatory process. It has the power to transmute or destroy interior space. Stained glass is an environmental art, enveloping and overwhelming the spectator. It creates an atmosphere which is grasped by the eye, an envelope of experience within which the spectator moves, not a series of arresting points of contemplation.” [page 11] In several ways, the Lichfield window, a decade and a half later, both provides ‘transformatory atmosphere’ to the whole chapel, particularly the chancel, but it is also an ‘arresting point’ as it provides a main point of focus.
PIPER & REYNTIENS’ GLASS FOR ST. JOHN’S CHAPEL, LICHFIELD
At the time of creating the window for St. John’s Chapel, Piper was also helping the curator David Fraser Jenkins in planning a large retrospective exhibition of John’s work at the Tate Gallery to celebrate the artist’s 80th birthday. An exhibition of his glass designs: ‘John Piper: Painting in Coloured Light’ had opened in December 1982 in Kettle’s Yard, Cambridge, in which the final paragraph of the catalogue hailed him as: “generally accepted as being Britain’s leading designer of stained glass.” It is not surprising, therefore, that he was the chosen artist for the St. John’s commission, despite being close to the end of his career. Piper had several previous connections with Lichfield. In 1947 he had been commissioned by the then Dean, Frederic Iremonger, to design the poster for the Cathedral’s 750th Anniversary celebrations. He also designed a textile cover for the chancel reredos, for use at certain seasons. John and his wife had become close friends with Janet Stone, daughter of the Bishop of Lichfield and her husband the wood engraver Reynolds Stone, on whom Myfanwy had written a 1957 monograph. In 1968 Piper mentioned his admiration for the C16th Herkenrode glass of Lichfield Cathedral in ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ [p.28]. Within Lichfield Diocese Piper had also been lauded for his innovatory glass design for the modernist architectural interior of St. Andrew’s, Whitmore Reans, Wolverhampton (1973-4).
Piper and Reyntiens’s East window for St John’s Chapel was commissioned to replace a window of plain quarry glass which had been installed during the chapel's restoration in 1870, when the walls and the pitch if the roof had been raised. The ‘Christ in Majesty’ window, dedicated in 1984, was John Piper’s last major project with Patrick Reyntiens, though five smaller glass projects developed in the next two years. Piper’s full-size cartoon for this window demonstrates how well Reyntiens and his studio assistants were able to interpret and transfer into glass the colours and marks of Piper’s painted cartoon. However Piper recognised that glass (as with lithography) was a very different medium to an initial painted design and wrote in the Penrose Annual (43) 1949: “When a painter’s works is reproduced in colour by whatever method, he should ask for a lively parallel to his work, not an imitation of it, in colour or in any other particular.” [p.53, quoted in Osborne 1997. P.108]. Patrick, of course, created the patterns for the leadwork, which in the blue mandorla of the chapel window especially adds extra life and radiance to Piper’s design. But his contribution to the window was far more than as a translator; its qualities are as much due to his art as to those of the painter.
The image and colouring did not arrive fully formed in Piper’s creative mind as might be suggested by the final cartoon and smaller finished gouache. A number of initial designs were made, many of which are now in private collections. They show him working with different figures around Christ and using very different colour ranges, including yellows, ochres and gold. One study [ILLUSTRATION 3] suggests that Piper may have considered using different colours in each vertical panel the window. However the 1979 watercolour of the Beaulieu sur Dordogne Tympanum [ILLUSTRATION 13] shows that the eventual colour-scheme was already present in Piper’s mind in response to the theme.
Comparing Piper’ full-size cartoon for the St. John’s window [ILLUSTRATION 5] with the finished glass [ILLUSTRATION 2], one recognises how great was Reyntiens’ contribution to the whole. He is far more than a craftsman transferring a design into glass; his contribution to the qualities in the window enhance and enrich the original design. Patrick very evidently created a “a lively parallel to (Piper’s) work, not an imitation of it, in colour or in any other particular” [Penrose Annual (43) 1949 p.53, quoted in Osborne 1997. P.108].
In ‘The Beauty of Stained Glass’ (1990 p.170 & 175) Reyntiens described his work with other artists as ‘interpreting’ their designs. Earlier, in 1967, Patrick wrote of the requirements for interpreting a painted cartoon: “There are two things to remember about full-scale coloured cartoons.
The first is that a cartoon is not to be slavishly copied into glass; the mental process in dealing with a colour cartoon is quite different from dealing with a skeletal cartoon (A ‘skeletal cartoon’ is the design for the leaded glass). With a colour cartoon, the stained glass artist has to go back in mental chronology and re-edit from the beginning a window that, mentally, is a parallel achievement to the cartoon. This is very much easier to do with another artist’s cartoon than one’s own, for the simple reason that in interpreting someone else’s cartoon, only one mental journey is done. In interpreting one’s own cartoon, a kind of parallel journey is made with the mental process already expended on the colour cartoon.
Secondly, in cartooning in colour, it must always be remembered that emotional equivalents in colour that are valid in painting are, in many respects, quite different in stained glass – a particular passage of, say, blue and green dominated by a strong yellow in paintings, if directly translated into glass, becomes a yellowish area dominated by blue. Blue becomes more vivid, red becomes more sombre or claustrophobic. Black passages are large black lines, although sometimes effective, at other times tend to become mere negative areas between areas of light; so that a passage in a painted cartoon which is of colour strongly over-barred by black for dramatic effect may become, in glass, a series of disconnected, isolated emphases and patches of colour floating about in the void.”
All isolated white passages in cartoons should be interpreted in the cutline with a smaller perimeter of lead – lessening the area, especially if the glass is unpainted, owing to white’s tendency to halate or spread.
When black passages are wanted in glass, the equivalent emotional trigger must be found in very dark green, brown or purple. What is used, in fact, is the emotional effect of black, but the means to get it are in the language of light, the language of stained glass – not the language of non-light, i.e. total obscurity, which is negative.
These are only a few of the apercus that the stained glass artist will pick up in the course of years of work. Each individual will find out his own language…”
… There comes a moment in the cartooning when any more than can be said at this stage transforms the cartoon into a more important artistic statement than the glass. This is the time to stop cartooning. The final artistic statement in stained glass must come from working in the medium – in cutting, painting and leading….
… The artistic method of thinking, and the architectural method of thinking, are completely different. Whereas the artistic mind works from vague generalities towards a uniquely defined statement, the architectural mind is occupied in giving concrete form to a tightly predetermined system of logical coherence. Most architects and many clients tend to like tight and precise sketches submitted to them. This does not work out well from an artist’s point of view, since the vision is always evolving towards the finished product. In glass, the evolution is ended in the window. In architecture, more often than not, the evolution is ended in the plans and drawings. Some architects understand the artist’s way of aiming at a definition, others are not so receptive.” [The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 p.34-5]
Many differences between Piper’s cartoon for the Lichfield chapel window and the finished stained glass obviously relate to the differences between media and the choice of coloured glass. Light shining through glass is far more radiant than any watercolour, gouache or inks with which Piper could work. Reyntiens sourced from Europe some of the most vibrant glass available. The blues of the mandorla, reds of the ox, greens of the angels and surround are far richer than in the cartoon. Though some of the glass was painted in his studio-workshop, it is inevitable that the colours do not exactly match the painting, as in travelling to France and Germany to source the best coloured glass, he would have had to rely on colour-memory and smaller watercolours rather than always being able to match exact comparisons with the cartoon. When he had found the finest blues or reds, he would have chosen hues of other coloured glass which harmonised together, rather than just working from colours that harmonised in the painted study.
The greatest difference in colour is found in the yellows of the light radiating from Christ’s face, the Cross and the lion. Whereas in the cartoon these areas are more peachy orange, in the glass the face of ‘the Light of the World’ and the Cross become the radiant focus of the whole design. The face in the cartoon is quieter and vaguer than in the glass [inset ILLUSTRATION 51]. Piper’s original suggests a rather gentler expression; in the glass his face feels more severe. In interpreting the watercolour, Reyntiens inevitably had to strengthen it, as he needed to incorporate patterns of lead and changes of hues in glass. Glass could not blend the purples of the shadows with the gold/oranges of the highlighted areas as subtly and mysteriously as in the watercolour. Piper’s design for the face only subtly suggested features; they needed to be more defined in the lead-work. So the authority, if slight sternness of Christ’s face, in the glass is largely a result of the way the design needed to be translated practically [ILLUSTRATION 51]. However, in interpreting Christ’s hands, Reyntiens was able to be much subtler and painterly, creating their gentle gesture by simple painted and etched lines on the glass [ILLUSTRATIONS 49-50].
Elsewhere strengthening of the design is sometimes glorious. The variations of colours in Christ’s robes give his garments an enriched majesty [ILLUSTRATION 52]. It is worth focusing on them carefully to appreciate the intensity of the work. The blues around the sun and moon are also far more richly varied than in the cartoon. As sources of light they glow with radiance like auras and suggest different dimensions of distance within the blue of eternity. The lead-work around them radiates livelily from Christ [ILLUSTRATIONS 45-47].
The etching in the green glass framing the whole window [ILLUSTRATIONS 53-54] is more detailed than in any other Piper/Reyntiens windows I have seen, other than Reyntiens’ panel: ‘Orpheus Charming the Trees’1984-5 [ILLUSTRATION 64]. In the cartoon for the St John’s Chapel window [ILLUSTRATION 5] this area is painted in amorphous washes of greens and blues. In interpreting this into glass, Patrick has used varieties of green hue and painted glass, which he then etched and in places multi-layered to suggest, (without overly defining,) foliage, plants, the movement of air and a mystery and richness in nature surrounding Christ as the Source of Creation. Some of the varieties of effect created in the green glass are explained and illustrated in Reyntiens’ The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 pages 70-79]. With the lead-work, this etching makes the frame much darker, more shadowed, enhanced with more mystery and life than the cartoon. It also differentiates this dimension from the green of the angels, which are more freely painted [ILLUSTRATIONS 39-44].
The painting of the angels is the area where Reyntiens most clearly works closely in the artistic manner and style of Piper. John Piper’s watercolours are often textured with wax-resist and other effects. Reyntiens’ was able to replicate John’s spontaneity and fluidity, in the spirit of the designer. The angels may not be as strong as the rest of the design, but they are very close to Piper’s original. The faces of angels, particularly, clearly reflect John’s style and painting technique [ILLUSTRATIONS 43-44].
In January 1985 Reyntiens wrote: “Originally the motivation behind the creation of the first stained glass windows, in the ninth to eleventh centuries, was the love of visions, significant visions, already encapsulated in the enamelled reliquary or the illuminated manuscript; these were small intimate, one-to-one delights and preciosities conveying messages of extreme importance. Men have always handled precious objects with peculiar sensitivity of touch, as though the iridescence and translucency of such things call for the same reverential treatment that they accord their own flesh, the fabric of their bodies; and for good reason, for both are in their way vessels of a spiritual significance far greater than their exterior measurements might suggest.” [‘Points of Reference by the Artist’ in Bruton Gallery catalogue: Patrick Reyntiens, Glass Painted and Stained - Visions in Light. January 1985 p.33]. This spiritual significance is certainly encapsulated in the vision which Piper and Reyntiens managed to create in the St. John’s Chapel window. Though the window in large, it is representing an enormous, eternal and omnipresent subject. It has parallels with ‘Adoration of the Lamb’ window which Reyntiens created for All Saints’ Church, Odiham, Hants. There the central focus is on a dynamic apocalyptic vision of Christ, represented as the Lamb of God, surrounded by the Four Beasts/ Evangelist Symbols that are very similarly treated to those in the St John’s Window [ILLUSTRATIONS 65 & 35-38]
THE SUBJECT OF THE ST. JOHN’S WINDOW
The main focus of the chapel window is the figure of Christ, enthroned in Majesty. One might imagine that this chapel was dedicated to the Evangelist John, rather than John the Baptist, since this window celebrates the high, divine imagery of Jesus Christ which is such a feature of the New Testament writings ascribed to John, (attributions that are highly debated among theologians). At an early stage in the commission the Trustees considered whether the figures of St Chad (Patron of the Diocese) and John the Baptist (patron of the Hospital) should be incorporated into the design (cf. Letter from Canon G.N. Strong 4th August 1979) But as stated in a 31st July 1981 letter from M. Bramidge of the Lichfield Diocesan Advisory Committee to Dennis Birch, Steward of the St John’s Hospital Trustees:
“With regard to the comment that St. John Baptist in absent in the design, we felt that this was perhaps unavoidable. The theme, together with the four evangelists, does not easily admit the Baptist – and in fact this could look very contrived.”
In February 1984 John Piper wrote an introduction to the window for the dedication service. In it he stated:
“The Character of the design is influenced by a number of drawings and paintings I made of Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of Western France, on many visits between 1955 and 1975. These carvings are often on the large semi-circular areas above the entrance doors of churches in those parts. These churches were on, or near, the old routes to the famous shrine at Compostella, in northern Spain. The carvings have provided a stimulus, with their formal ‘bigness’ and grandeur, for much twentieth century sculpture and painting.”
This emphasis on Compostella relates the idea of pilgrimage to the window. St. John’s Hospital and its chapel were the last stop for some on the pilgrimage route to the Shrine of St. Chad at Lichfield Cathedral. They did not need to include Chad or John the Baptist in the subject of the window, since the saint’s patronage was already implicit in the presence of the chapel. Instead the emphasis on Christ in Majesty gave a more direct spiritual focus for the chancel of the chapel. The fact that Piper considered the subject, ‘grandeur’ and style of the Romanesque source justifiable for a ‘modern’ work of art, further justified its contemporaneity for use in the chapel.
Christ is robed in imperial or royal purple, indicating supreme position as the centre of creation. He is flanked by the sun and moon and two green angels carrying small trumpets. All these are set within the lozenge form of a ‘mandorla’. Towards the four corners of the window are four winged beasts and the whole image is framed by green, which contains some suggestions of foliage, clouds and marks representing movement. The window provides a dramatic focus of strong, vibrant colours, rich varied hues, areas of shadow. Above the altar of the chapel, the window creates a solemn intensity. This feeling is enhanced by the strange, unfamiliar ways of representing Christ’s figure and the winged creatures, suggesting that here are represented in visual metaphor several mysteries within faith.
Behind Christ is the Mercian Cross, an element of the Lichfield Diocesan coat-of-arms. The Cross has more than iconic significance; it represents the salvation that Christ, from his throne in glory, is offering to us as we come to the chapel to pray or worship. The Cross shines strongly; its yellow-gold implying that behind the risen, ascended and glorified Christ, his death achieved something glorious, majestic and regal for the world and for us. This positioning of the Cross was an element of the Romanesque tympanum sculpture of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, which inspired Piper’s design. At the centre of the cross is a diadem representing its glory. Perhaps it also suggests the eye of God overseeing all.
It has been suggested that the main figure in the window appears aged [ILLUSTRATIONS 50-51] (as does the winged man, who is usually represented far younger and more active) [ILLUSTRATION 35]. Perhaps, some suggest, Piper was deliberately relating the relevance of Christ to the elderly residents of Saint John’s for whom the chapel is intended as a place of daily prayer and contemplation. I believe, as I explain later, that the age of Christ and the figure symbolising St. Matthew have far deeper significance. The Evangelist figures and the angels are announcing and acknowledging Christ’s presence and his coming in a gentle way. He is the ‘Ancient of Days’ of the Book of Daniel [Dan.7:9-10], ruler, guardian, elder and guide of his people. None of the figures are threatening or frightening; the angels seem to dance and are very loosely painted, quite similar to angels in Chagall’s paintings and painted glass. Their form and green colour suggests that they are not of this dimension, yet still part of the created order - a supernatural part of the cosmos.
THE FOLIATE BORDER
The amorphous foliate shapes of the green border of the window may represent the natural environment encircling Lichfield (Hopwas Woods, Cannock Chase, Sutton Park and other areas), at the centre of which this vision of Christ’s Majesty is present. In some lower detail we see the forms of wild flowers. Other areas of etched green suggest varieties of greens and other textures in nature. Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich, Thomas Traherne and George Herbert all wrote of our spiritual enlightenment and the development of the human soul as ‘Greening’. Through a window of the natural world, Christ in his mandorla is revealed as creator and sustainer of all, in a similar way to the vision of heaven appearing through a window in the clouds in the Book of Revelation [Rev.4:1].
The green foliage may also have connections with the ‘Green Man’ motif which appears in the carving of many cathedrals and churches. Piper had previously created many paintings, lithographs, textile and ceramic designs on the subject, though he preferred to call them ‘Foliate Heads’ [ILLUSTRATIONS 57-59]. He admitted that if he ever doodled, he tended to doodle ‘Green Men’ [Osborne 1997 p.80]. At the same time as the creation of this window, in 1981 Piper had designed glass roundels of foliate heads depicting different seasons. The following year he created an inspiring glass panel of foliate heads based on the ‘Four Seasons, Four Elements and Four Ages of Man’ for an exhibition of stained glass at Chartres [ILLUSTRATION 57]. So the implications of the nature theme were at the forefront of his work as he was working on the St. John’s design.
We do not fully know the origin of the Green Man imagery. It is found in so many churches that it probably had Christian connotations as well as pagan associations and origins. It possibly originated as a spirit within creation superstitiously associated with fertility or other animist ideas. William Anderson and June Osborne suggest that this motif represents “a life-force – a symbol of renewal and rebirth; it epitomises man’s oneness with nature…. And may be said to denote inspiration” [Osborne 1997 p.88]. If they are right, as seems to be the case in Piper’s regular use of the leaf motif, it would seem to fit Piper’s intention of using the figure of Christ in this window to inspire creative thought and suggest that faith can bring us life. Green Men were probably included in churches to represent Christianity’s victory over paganism. In common iconography, foliage emerges from the Green Man’s mouth; here it is part of Christ’s Creation embraced in the arc formed by Christ’s outstretched arms. His hands touch the border as though he is both creating our world and opening for us a revelation of himself within it.
The figure of Christ revealed and radiating in glory within the natural foliate background in the St. John’s window may suggest Christ’s position of priority and authority within creation and the cosmos. Being divine, he is greater than the created order and ruler over any spirit within it. The theology suggests that Christ in Majesty is Creator, Source, governor, observer, supporter and protector of Creation. He has given himself for our wellbeing, secure future and salvation, of which the Mercian Cross and his ascended, enthroned, glorified form are reminders.
The border may also relate to Piper’s regular use of the motif of the Tree of Life. Peter Pears is recorded as saying that for John Piper the main themes of art were nature and religion The Tree of Life is to be found in Piper’s west window of Ripon College, Cuddesdon, Oxford; Christ’s College Chapel, Christchurch, New Zealand (1968); St. Giles Totternhoe, Beds. (1970-1); St. Bartholomew’s, Nettlebed, Oxon. 1970-6; Washington National Cathedral 90; St Mary’s Fawley (1976); Charing Cross Hospital Chapel (1977); All Saints’ Clifton (), The Betjeman Memorial Window, Farnborough (1986) and the Gage Chapel Memorial Window, Firle (1985). Most dramatically the theme is found in the cascading leaves and Water of Life in Robinson College Chapel, Cambridge (1978-80) [ILLUSTRATION 62]. The texturally rich latter is closest in treatment to the foliate border of St. John’s Chapel Window, though etched in less detail. Similar detail of the foliage is found in Reyntiens own design of a glass panel of ‘Orpheus Charming the Trees’ 1984-5, and his ‘Ovid Series’, [ILLUSTRATION 64], shown in the Bruton Gallery Exhibition ‘Visions in Light’ 1985 [Catalogue Illustration 1].
Like the motif of the four symbolic beasts, the Tree of Life symbol is found both in Ezekiel [47:7, 12] and Revelation [22:2, 14]. In both prophetic texts, the Tree does not just represent fruitfulness and fecundity but restoration and renewal. Life is brought to the world by God through the nourishment of the River of Life. On either side of this river, which itself teems with life in Ezekiel (as in the Betjeman Memorial Window), grow the trees that bring fruit and healing to people and nations. As a symbol of hope in a chapel for the comfort of a largely elderly congregation this is a really positive motif, but it is subservient to the main motif of Christ himself. In the Robinson Chapel window, designed for both Christian and non-Christian use, the theme is primarily that ‘The Light of the World’ brings life to the foliage and waters of life as the sun shines through leaves and coruscates off water [ILLUSTRATION 62]. (This appears to have been Reyntiens’ favourite of Piper’s designs [quoted in Frazer Jenkins & Fowler White 2016 p.447], though in a letter to the Dean of Lichfield, Patrick said of the St. John’s window:
“I look upon it as the crown of the Piper-Reyntiens collaborations over so many years. [11/3/1983 cf. p. 45.]
In St. John’s Chapel ‘The Light of the World’ is represented as Christ himself. He is the bringer of hope and healing; the one who promises life, restoration and renewal.
THE FIGURE OF CHRIST
Piper’s figure of Christ in the Lichfield window is partly mysterious. His character and physiognomy are not immediately obvious. He is not the benign, attractive Good Shepherd of Victorian glass or the righteous yet fierce judicial ruler of many apocalyptic images.
Christ’s arms stretch wide, echoing the horizontal bar of the cross, suggesting that his death on the Cross, his return to life in the Resurrection, his Ascension and his enthronement now in heaven are the source of salvation, which he is holding out in promise to us. The gesture also carries the connotation that now, enthroned in triumph, he reaches to embrace us. In the small finished gouache design for the window Christ’s arms appear far stronger, as they are in the 1979 watercolour based on the Beaulieu tympanum [ILLUSTRATION 13]. But in the cartoon and window glass Christ’s arms have been made thinner and gentler. The hands are particularly gentle in their gesture [ILLUSTRATIONS 49 - 50]. They have no mark of the nails. Perhaps Piper deliberately altered them to make the gesture seem more welcoming than strong; they appear weathered by time to thin bars, like the weathering on many exterior mediaeval statues on Cathedrals. This effect makes Christ seems kindly and compassionate in his offer of embrace. This gentleness of gesture of Christ’s arms is similar to the outstretched arms of Christ in Glory in the Tympanum over the central entrance at Vézelay Abbey [ILLUSTRATION 6], which Piper had frequently painted and included in designs. They are also outstretched in the much-restored tympanum of the central portal of St. Denis, Paris. At the time of the installation of the window, Piper wrote that it was influenced by sculptures seen in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of western France [Quoted Osborne 1997 from the guidebook]. The main influence on the gesture of the figure and angels was the South Portal tympanum of the Abbey Church of Saint-Pierre Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne (Corrèze), [ILLUSTRATION 12], which he had visited and painted in 1970 and 1979. Christ’s figure, arms, the angels with trumpets on either side, and the Cross behind Christ’s shoulder are almost identically positioned in the Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne tympanum, though for the window he greatly simplified the design.
The arms of Christ in Majesty in most tympana, as at Moissac, Chartres, Carennac-sur-Lot and Souillac, Quercy, Saint Benoit-sur-Loire and Saint-Foy, Conques, (Aveyron) are usually raised in judgement or holding the Book of Life, more as a warning to not enter the church unworthily. At Autun they are lowered more humbly as though Christ is benignly in charge of all that is happening in the judgement scene, offering mercy to those coming to the church. Here in the St John’s Chapel window, as at Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, they seem to intentionally welcome us towards the altar. As the St. John’s Chapel is principally used by residents who are at a late stage in life, perhaps this gesture of Jesus also carries the potential interpretation that at the right time, Christ is and will be always there, ready to receive us with love and care. This is particularly appropriate for any who are suffering or may feel uncertain about their future and need the assurance of Christ’s presence, truth, love and support.
Christ’s features in the glass, by contrast, feel more inscrutable than welcoming, though they are gentler in Piper’s cartoon [ILLUSTRATION 51]. The face itself resembles one of Piper’s photographs of the simple sculpted figures on the font at Toller Fratrum, Dorset [ILLUSTRATIONS 22-23]. Christ’s face may have been designed to resemble the weathered stone sculpture of a tympanum or other early-Mediaeval sculpture, as though he, like us has endured and been weathered by life. But it is made obvious that we are not looking at a ‘portrait’ of Christ. In Piper’s own work it is closest to the face of the Risen Christ in the tracery lights of the East Window of St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate [ILLUSTRATION 24]. This was made by David Wasley to Piper’s design in 1981, shortly before the Lichfield commission. This Ramsgate panel is in deep indigo and strong colour, suggesting the mystery of Christ (evident too in the St. John’s window), which is quite a contrast to the pale blues of Reynteins’ design of the lights below. The features of Christ depicted in both windows are rather like iconic faces by Paul Klee [ILLUSTRATION 25], who Piper admired. The simplified shape of the eyes of Jesus and the four winged creatures certainly resemble the eyes in Klee’s faces. Christ’s face is here simple, iconic, representing a figure of power, spiritual depth, dignity and mystery without portraying him in detail. In a similar way Orthodox icons represent or symbolise figures in a stylised way, deliberately demonstrating that the image is not intended to be thought of as a ‘portrait’ of the true Christ or saints. The stylized features of an Orthodox or Coptic icon of Christ, present the viewer with mage that is a visual theological statement about Christ and suggests that the real Christ is present beyond the image. There were centuries of controversy in the Early Church over whether images were acceptable in places of worship, or whether they were idolatrous and disobeyed the 2nd Commandment to not make graven images. Church Councils finally accepted the justifications given for the use images, in a ruling in 843 CE. that has become known as ‘the Triumph of Orthodoxy’. However disagreement continued and controversy continues today in some churches. The Councils formed rules for iconographers to stylise their images and ensure that pictures of Christ or the saints could not be mistaken for portraits or worshipped idolatrously. Though not resembling a painted icon face, Piper’s face of Christ in the chapel window is similarly stylised and definitely not realistic. Its stylisation suggests that this is a reminder not a representation of Christ, yet emphasises that the real, true Christ is invisibly present with us. Like an icon, Piper’s Christ is a ‘window onto the spiritual reality beyond’ rather than intended to be regarded as a portrait.
The features of Piper’s Christ in both Lichfield and Ramsgate are not ugly, but neither are they attractive or particularly winsome (unlike his gesture of embrace or welcome). Perhaps this was intentionally to deter the viewer from focusing intently on the window emotionally, or imagining Christ sentimentally. Or it may just be that he was referring to the weathered face of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, which influenced both figure designs. In St. John’s, at close view, Christ’s eye-lids have a rather sad expression. The sun in Piper’s mandorla illuminates the gold side of Jesus’ face, while the majority of his face remains more in purple shadow than light, illuminated by the moon. Consequently Christ’s face is largely purple and chrome yellow. In colour theory these are complementary colours that cause each colour to sing out individually rather than harmonise. Symbolically these colours represent: Purple - imperial power and deep, mystical mystery contrasted with Chrome-Yellow -indicating Christ’s glory, halo of power and heavenly light. Interestingly on the side of the sun the double part of the halo is the blue of eternity. The crescent moon and Mercian Cross, themselves symbols of spiritual mystery have a stranger dark light that illuminates the larger, mysterious area of Christ’s head.
There are similarities in iconography here to the imagery of Christ’s face in Graham Sutherland’s Coventry Tapestry [ILLUSTRATION 26], though Sutherland’s face of Christ is more naturalistic and benign. There Jesus holds up a dark glass which slightly obscures his features, symbolically alluding to Paul’s promise to the Corinthians: “Now we see through a glass darkly; then we will see face to face. Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror; then we shall know, even as we are fully known” 1Cor.13:12]. Dominican and much apophatic Christian spirituality asks us to concentrate not just on what we see or understand of our faith, but to look beyond what is tangible or comprehensible towards recognising that there are far more invisible aspects of God than we could ever comprehend. Even the invisible aspects of faith, or the many things we do not understand can provide ‘light in our darkness’. The small final gouache study for the St John’s window [ILUSTRATION 4] may suggest that Piper’s original intention might have been to make the figure of Christ even more mysterious. The gouache is even darker in shades and hues, with far more darkness in Christ’s face and robes and a darker green surround. With no halo, three-quarters of the face is in shadow. Only Christ’s naked legs and one arm are highlighted by the sun. These may perhaps suggest the once-crucified aspects of Christ beneath his imperial robes. In the smaller gouache, the faces of the angels too are in shadow, unlike the final cartoon; only their trumpets/ horns are highlighted. In the finished window the highlighted details on Christ’s cloak/mantle, ephod, girdle and robe give a greater sense of the glory of majesty, lighting his mystery.
If the look on Jesus’ face in the Lichfield window is inscrutable rather than dour, it is certainly serious. Christ does not appear to object to or judge those he is watching (unlike some of the tympanum sculptures of Judgement that inspired Piper). Rather, the gesture of his arms and his facial expression are of serious love and care. Arthur Penn, Keeper of the Privy Purse criticised Piper’s work for Windsor Castle by calling him a “slightly melancholy artist who appears to regard nature through a glass darkly”; Osbert Sitwell described Piper as having “a sombre and fiery genius”. But I think any apparent darkness or serious expression in this work reflects the artist’s seriousness in attempting to present an intensity of mystery, history, meaning and spirituality behind Christ. Salvation and the nature of Christ are spiritual mysteries, as is God’s rule over the Cosmos. Piper may have personally had a melancholic character but his representations of Christ are intended to be majestic and caring.
This image of Jesus represents him more as the “One of Ancient Days” described in apocalyptic literature, than as the Judge of Romanesque Tympana. In Daniel 7:9 the description of the Ancient One comes immediately after the description of the four winged beasts [Dan.7:1-8], which in Piper’s window accompany Christ. Here in the St. John’s glass, the face of Christ seems to look on with a depth of knowledge born from centuries or millennia of experience. The Hebrew imagery of the Ancient One in Daniel 7 recognised how tribes were dependent on the elder for his or her wisdom, memory, justice, understanding of traditions and history, keeping the stories of the tribes and the faith of the people alive. God for the Hebrews tribes was being described in picture language as their ‘elder’ who was able to rule and judge with total knowledge, the wisdom of ultimate understanding, a commitment to righteousness, equity and a care about the continued future of God’s people. The resemblance of Piper’s Lichfield Christ to a weathered Romanesque head contributes to this sense of wisdom and thorough knowledge of us. Alongside as being a focus for worship, the seriousness of Christ’s features reminds us of our responsibilities to live righteously. For the historic foundation of St John’s, now sheltered accommodation, the figure of Christ as an Ancient One also affirms the value of the memories, character and contribution of the older residents to the wider community.
THE MANDORLA
The technical term for the red frame around Christ is a ‘mandorla’ [ILLUSTRATION 47]. A ‘mandorla’ is an aureole, nimbus or frame, usually of a lozenge shape formed by two intersecting curves, normally pointed where they join. The word mandorla derives from the Italian term for ‘almond’. In Latin the shape was called ‘vesica piscis’ due to its resemblance to the ‘bladder of a fish’. Its top and base are occasionally rounded, or flattened to form a rhombus, as in Graham Sutherland’s Coventry Tapestry [ILLUSTRATION 26]. Sometimes a mandorla may be completely circular, like a large halo surrounding a figure. In Orthodox icons of the Transfiguration the mandorla is often the shape of an irregular star. One of the most important mandorlas in medieval stained glass appears at the summit of the ‘Life of Christ’ lancet in Chartres Cathedral, which Piper knew well, regarding Chartres as one of the greatest achievements of mediaeval glass. On page 16 of ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ Piper illustrated another great stained glass mandorla of Christ in Majesty from the clerestory of Canterbury Cathedral. There he carries the sealed scroll of Judgement.
The origins of the use of a mandorla as a significant sign are uncertain and disputed. The shape may have symbolic associations with ‘life’ and ‘fertility’ as almond trees are often the earliest plants to flower in Greece, Italy and the Middle East. Aaron’s rod, which blossomed, according to tradition brought forth both flowers and almonds (Numbers 17:8). Some ancient Greek myths link almonds, and the almond-shape, with new life. Ancient Greek use of the mandorla symbol is seen in a C4th BCE gold ring depicting lovers seated within a mandorla that may represent the uniting of their two lives (Pergamon Museum, Berlin). The shape also has female connotations: the passage through which we are generated and born. In other religious contexts the mandorla is found in Buddhist, Chinese and Japanese art: mandorlas often surround the Buddha in paintings and statuettes.
The use of the mandorla probably came into Early Christian art through its association with the Roman imperial cult. Roman emperors who were considered divine were frequently represented in carvings as surrounded by a mandorla. The supposedly-divine ruler belonged to both the circle and heaven and the circle of earth. The symbol signified that they ruled from their thrones on earth (the circle of the world) and ruled with divine authority and power as a representative of the gods (the circle of the heavens). The ruler therefore sits enthroned at the intersection of the two circles. When Jesus was recognised in doctrine as wholly human and wholly divine, Christians considered that Christ fulfilled this position, uniting in himself the earthly and heavenly spheres. Occasionally Christ’s mandorla is represented literally as the intersection of two complete circles. By the C5th, as the Church, doctrinal beliefs about Christ’s nature, and the iconography of Christian art became established, it was common in Christian symbolism to surround the enthroned Christ with a mandorla. This affirmed that the church conformed to the Nicene doctrine of Christ being both fully human and fully divine. By the C6th a mandorla was included in Transfiguration images, where it symbolised the revelation of Christ’s glory. In icons of the Transfiguration particularly, the star mandorla illustrated the glowing light experienced by the disciples on seeing Jesus accompanied by Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor [Mk. 9:3; Matt. 17:2; Lk.9:29]. Rays of light radiating from the mandorla around Jesus indicate the disciples’ recognition of Christ’s glory and divine nature. The mandorla became a common visual symbol of the theological teaching about Jesus dual nature. Occasionally in Byzantine, Romanesque and mediaeval art mandorlas were also placed around the enthroned Virgin Mary with the Christ-child. In the C5th mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, mandorlas also surround some Old Testament figures, indicating their continued presence in heaven with Christ in glory. Haloes may have developed from the mandorla symbol (they were also occasionally represented on Roman Emperors). While the halo usually just encircles the head; the mandorla surrounds the entire body, showing that the whole of this figure is divine, sent by God, glorious, and ruling with divine authority and power.
Jesus, particularly the risen/ascended Christ, is often designated by a cross within his halo. In the St. John’s window, the Mercian Cross is positioned behind Christ’s right shoulder, in the same position as in the Beaulieu tympanum [ILLUSTRATIONS 48 & 12]. Piper places this within Christ’s mandorla, though Beaulieu has no mandorla, unlike Chartres, Moissac and Vézelay. In Piper’s window a cross in Christ’s halo is suggested by the lines of lead. We are left in no doubt about the power and authority of this figure and the importance of the Cross to his activity and rule. The whole image could be regarded as a visual representation of Philippians 2:6-11:
“Christ Jesus... though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Unique to Piper’s window is the placing of the four winged creatures around Christ within their own smaller mandorlas. At first this seems incorrect iconographically: - He is the one who should be represented in glory. But if we imagine the mandorla as a window onto a vision of glories of heaven, these creatures are represented as living within that realm. In Orthodox icons the mandorla is employed around Christ in sacred scenes where he transcends his earthly nature, particularly the Transfiguration, Resurrection and Ascension, or when he is represented as present in heaven, as in the icon of ‘The Dormition of Mary the Theotokos (transl. ‘The death/falling asleep of the Mother of the One with is God’). A mandorla also sometimes surrounds the dove of the Holy Spirit in Baptism icons, representing the Spirit acknowledging from heaven Christ’s glory and divine sonship [Lk.3:22]. So in the St. John’s Chapel window the mandorlas around the four winged creatures help to emphasise that this whole window is a vision of the dimension of heaven, which human eyes cannot yet see, where Christ’s rule is supreme, and where all Creation, visible and invisible, worships Christ. Compositionally the mandorals also help to draw together into a unity the diverse symbols of the window. In the far more complex compositions of Piper’s Eton Chapel windows he had used similar shapes to unite disparate elements; elsewhere he used rectangles of colour for similar purposes.
In representing sacred light in icons or murals, mandorlas were often painted in concentric bands of colour, growing darker towards the centre, rather than lighter. This represents the mystery and hiddenness of divine truth. The “cloud of unknowing” is another metaphor for such spiritual mysteries. In his writings Pseudo-Dionysius suggested that the human mind cannot depict or imagine the glory and brightness of holiness and heavenly truth. He represented divine glory as darkness. This suggested that the best way to approach God’s truth is to accept our incapability and recognise the limitations of our spiritual knowledge. Divine truth is mostly darkness to us at present. Apophatic spirituality suggests that to approach spiritual truth about God and Christ we need to pass through stages of increasing mystery and darkness. (This is represented iconographically by the lightening areas within the mandorla.) Only by recognising our inability to know God can we approach him truly and understand aspects Christ’s glory in revealing elements of God and God’s truth to us. Again this reflects 1Cor.13:12: “Now we see through a glass darkly; then we will see face to face. Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror; then we shall know, even as we are fully known”
T.S. Eliot, who Piper knew, tries to express this dichotomy and the mysterious path to spiritual enlightenment in the Four Quartets [1944], which parallels some of the mystery in Piper’s figure of Christ:
“To arrive where you are not, to get to where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance,
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
you must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know...” [East Coker III]
Spiritual truth and the mysteries of God and Eternity cannot be sufficiently reached through words, knowledge, sight, understanding, sacred writing, contemplative prayer or even scripture. While the centre of an icon’s mandorla is often black or darkens by gradations, Piper represents the centre of his mandorla as the blue of infinity and eternity. John wrote of the use of blue in his Coventry Baptistery window: “Ever since I was taken to Canterbury Cathedral as a child, my heart beats faster when I see blue glass in church glass windows, especially when it predominates in a window in the thirteenth century manner... the magic never fails to work! The excitement, that heightening of emotion always occurs: the blue seems to be ‘there’ in the window... yet not there at all, except as a symbol of infinity, but infinity that has become intensely real instead of an abstraction....” [Coventry Cathedral Review, December 1961].
The blue centre of the St. John’s mandorla is Piper’s iconographic way of representing the mystery yet heavenly glory and majesty of Christ. Christ is presented to us in this image as glorious and mysterious, at the heart of infinity and eternity, as well as the heart of the created world. He not only rules over the cosmos and offers himself to us; he offers us the way to enter and share eternity with him. From ancient times in several cultures the blue of lapis lazuli was used to represent eternity and perfection. The mandorla in the St John’s window, and the rays of blue light radiating from Christ announce his divinity yet recognise that this is beyond human comprehension. The rays created by the lead pattern of the window were part of Reyntiens’ contribution to suggest that the source of life radiates from Christ. When Piper designed his stained-glass in watercolour and gouache he left the designing of the lead that would hold the pieces of glass together, to Patrick. Reyntiens’ patterning of the lead often gave the design extra life. Here in the Lichfield mandorla, he used the lead to add further radiating movement and suggestions of the glow of glory to the designed image [ILLUSTRATIONS 45-47]. It suggests that Christ’s power is a force that radiates out to control and support the Cosmos. In Hildegard of Bingen’s symbolism a mandorla, like an egg, refers to the Cosmos being ruled and developing by Christ’s power.
The blue within Piper’s mandorla varies, like different depths in the skies. In Reyntiens’ ‘interpretation’ this variation is even more pronounced and vibrant. The sun, moon, golden Cross and angels within the mandorla are some of the means by which Christ exercises power and offers life to us and to Creation. While usually the centre of a mandorla is dark, or in sculpted mandorals is left plain, occasionally in mediaeval images mandorlas contained a few stars, representing the planets of the known universe. Here it symbolically holds the sun and moon, “the greater and lesser lights” if creation [Gen.1:16-18]. The mandorla in Piper’s window is surrounded by a red border containing circles, stars or eyes, as in the C12th Virgin and Child window at Vendome, which he called “one of the best gems, the prizes of the period” and illustrated on page 12 of in his book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?. There are similar circles in the mandorla of the Rowlstone tympanum, which Piper had represented in several paintings and lithographs [ILLUSTRATIONS 8 & 9]. The St. John’s Chapel mandorla contains 84 stars, which may be intended as a symbolic number: 7 x 12 – both sacred numbers of perfection, wholeness and completion. This number may not, however, be intentional as there are fewer white spots in Piper’s gouache cartoon for the window; Reyntiens may have increased the number deliberately or unintentionally.
By the C15th with the rise of naturalism in Renaissance art, mandorlas became used less commonly, though they continued in Orthodox icons and aureoles surrounding sculpted figures like Tilman Riemenschneider’s Madonnas, or Post-Reformation images of Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension, the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary. Modernist religious art revived the use of mandorlas as used by Sutherland in the Coventry Tapestry, and Piper here, referring back to traditions of past Christian iconography.
FIVE WOUNDS OF CHRIST?
Contemplating the window’s imagery, another more sombre potential meaning within the symbolism of the shape of the mandorla emerges. This may not have been the intention of Piper or Reyntiens, but they must surely have been aware of the possible significance from their substantial knowledge of Christian symbolism in art. Elongated mandorla shapes on a small scale were often used in contemplative Christian art as a symbol of the Five Wounds inflicted at Jesus’ crucifixion, particularly in art after the Black Death and during the Counter-Reformation. Reynitens, with his Roman Catholic background and Ampleforth education especially, would certainly have recognised this. (Piper used the Five Wounds of Christ in a number of his windows: St. Andrew’s, Plymouth; All Saints’ Misterton, Notts. and the West window of Nuffield College Chapel. However, in all of these he used the alternative motif of drops of blood rather than the wound shape.
Piper wrote of the use of reds in Chartres’ windows as: “Reds gashed themselves across the blue like wounds… One felt surrounded by cliffs of stone, with coloured perforations; the windows seemed to give onto tunnels with light only at the dark end of them.” [Quoted Osborne 1997 p.11]. The red borders of the mandorals in St. John’s create a similar effect: wounds in the surrounding colour through which we reach into another dimension.
Contemplation of Christ’s wounds became a popular penitential exercise especially during Lent. C14th and C15th spiritual writings on it are common. Clare of Assisi, St. Mechtilde, St. Gertrude of Helfta, Richard Rolle, Bridget of Sweden and later, in the mid C18th, Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, all promoted the practice. The exercise has been revived in modern times by the Roman Catholic contemplative Marie Martha Chambon, and even by Protestant writers like Bishop Stephen Cottrell. To focus thought on Christ’s five wounds seems rather macabre to some modern minds. It reflects the dark emphasis of much mediaeval spirituality, where the penitent was strongly reminded of how deeply their sins were responsible for Christ’s suffering. Contemplation of Christ’s wounds and subsequent penitence often led people of a mediaeval mind-set to over-dependence on the Church for absolution. The Reformation deliberately moved the emphasis of spirituality more onto recognition of the freedom that faith in Christ can bring. But meditation on the wounds of Christ was never meant to be a totally depressing exercise. The wounds were always seen as ways by which Christ’s sacrifice opened up a way to heaven for those who trust in, and are freed by, his redemptive self-sacrifice.
The five mandorlas in St. John’s Chapel window are openings onto the heavenly, eternal dimension. But their number and shape, unintentionally or intentionally, are reminders of the wounds in Christ feet and side. The positioning of the shapes above the main altar of the chapel particularly contributes a feeling of extra sacramental significance. The forms suggest that through the wounds of this now-glorified Saviour, we too can have access to heaven. The emphasis of an altar in a Protestant chapel or church is not on sacrifice. Doctrine emphasises that the sacrifice of Christ was given ‘once, for all, upon the Cross.’ [Romans 6:10; Hebrews 10, particularly vss.2 & 10; 1Peter:3:18]. Jesus’ gift of his life was sufficient to offer cosmic freedom; there is no further need for any similar form of sacrifice. The Communion Table is therefore no longer considered to be a place of ‘sacrifice’, except, as emphasised in words of the ‘Eucharist’ Service, that we bring before God, ‘our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ in spirit and in truth, in our hearts. For Piper, with his family’s Methodist background, this would have been even more emphatic, as Methodist Chapels lay emphasis on the ‘table’, avoiding the term ‘altar’. However his Anglican churchmanship became more sacramental.
In St. John’s Chapel the link of the glory of Christ in the window with the sufferings of Christ is further emphasised by the reredos painting of Jesus as the ‘Suffering Servant’ which hangs below Piper’s window behind the altar table. Together, this and the Piper window of the enthroned Christ add to the theological significance of Christ’s glory, as described in Philippians 2:6-11:
“Christ Jesus... humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
While this link between the five glorious mandorlas of the window and the five wounds of Christ is tentative and may be only subliminal, it nevertheless adds a further layer to the window’s potential content and message for the contemplative. It adds meaning to one’s meditation on the enormity of Christ’s achievement and gift of salvation. We are presented with an image designed to remind us that Christ has opened the way for us to share eternity with him. The symbols and images in the window are reminders of the promised eternal dimension available to us as a result of the love, self-giving, forgiveness, generosity and rule of God.
THE SUN AND MOON
For spiritual accuracy, if one were to be pedantic, the sun and moon should not be contained within the mandorla but outside it, within the dimension of creation. The Heavenly Jerusalem is described as having no need of the sun for God’s reign illuminates all: “And the city has no need of the sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut by day – and there will be no night there” [Rev.21:23-4]. (This verse has significance for the original role of St John’s Hospital, which gave shelter to those who were locked out of the walls of Lichfield City at night. Christ is the protector, day and night, of all the residents of the building.)
In mediaeval times the sun and moon and stars were considered to be within God’s heavenly dimension. So in the mandorla of the Tympanum at Cervon (Nièvre), Christ is surrounded by 8 stars, resembling blossoming flowers (the 8 may relate to Jewish Covenant symbolism). Conques’ 6 stars mandorla represents the then-known planets including the Moon. Christ in majesty is often accompanied by the sun and moon in mediaeval manuscripts implying symbolically that Christ rules the created order, even the Sun, which was considered the most important of the heavenly bodies, set to govern the cosmos [Gen 1:18; Job 9:7; Ps.19:46; 74:16]. The sun and moon were considered as two great governing lights that God had set in place on the 4th day of Creation: “And God said ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day and the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and night, and to separate the light from darkness.” [Gen.1:14-18]. Christ’s involvement as Lord of creation meant that he ruled these lights as he ruled the cosmos. Yet his is also a gentle, caring rule, as Psalm 8 emphasises: “When I consider your heavens... the moon and stars that you have set in place; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honour” [Ps.8:3-5]. So this image represents not just Christ’s cosmic power, but his constant care and valuing of each of us as he cares for us by day and by night. Reyntiens’ attention to detail and contemporisation and attention to detail is seen in the etching of the sun’s surface to suggest sunspots [ILLUSTRATION 45 inset].
In the small gouache finished study for the window, Piper painted the sun Chrome Yellow, but he had not given Christ a halo. In the cartoon and finished glass he reduced the size of the sun and made its hue far whiter, which unites the sun and moon and gives extra prominence to the warmth of the golden yellows of Christ’s face, halo and robes. The golden yellow therefore is used to emphasise Christ’s glory. This is pointed to by the golden lion, king of the beasts, acknowledging Christ’s dominance as King: the Lion of Judah.
THE FOUR WINGED BEASTS
In the corners of the window are four winged beasts, which unusually emerge from small mandorlas. Traditionally in Christian symbolism since Victorinus of Pettau (died 304) and St Jerome (347-420), these beasts are used to represent the Four Evangelists: Matthew (the winged man), Mark (the winged lion), Luke (the winged ox) and John (the eagle). Some of the Church Fathers, beginning with Irenaeus (130-202) and Hippolytus of Rome (170-235), interpreted these creatures as representing different aspects of Christ, and the characteristics of each Gospel and Gospel-writer. (Not all relate the same creature to the same Gospel: for example Irenaeus and Chromatius of Aquileia interpreted the confidence and rule of the lion as John’s Gospel. Hippolytus, Augustine of Hippo and Primasius of Hadrumetum interpreted the lion as the royal nature of Christ emphasised in Matthew’s introductory genealogy.)
Piper had represented the ‘Beasts of the Evangelists’ in the Helen Wells Chapman Memorial Window of All. Hallows, Wellingborough in 1961 [ILLUSTRATION 32], where he linked them with typology from the Hebrew scriptures and the imagery of Christ as \the True Vine’. He also represented them in his Chichester tapestry (1965) and the Catherine Window of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth (1965-6) but none of these representations is as effective as the Lichfield glass. Equally dynamically Reyntiens represented them surrounding the Lamb of God in his ‘Adoration of the Lamb’ window, All Saints, Odiham, Hants. (1968-9) [ILLUSTRATION 65].
The Lichfield Gospels contain a finely drawn page of the Four Evangelist symbols. But, though Piper mentions the Lichfield Gospels generally in his writings, there is no evidence that Piper knew the particular Four Evangelists illumination specifically, nor of him using it as a source for his work. The face of the Ox in the Four Evangelists Page [ILLUSTRATION 69] does bear a very slight resemblance to the face of the Ox in the first watercolour for the window design [ILLUSTRATION4] but The Lichfield Gospels’ full-page illumination of St Luke [ILLUSTRATION 70] is more of the style of his Oundle School Chapel glass of 1954, 30 years previously.
Were these symbols in Piper’s St. John’s window simply representing the four Gospel writers they would suggest that we are looking at a holistic representation of the nature of Christ. A value of having four gospels is that each writer or compiler of sources contributed a slightly different perspective or emphasis to Jesus’ life and teaching.
Matthew’s Gospel is an account that brings out the teaching, humanity, human ancestry, kingship and socially caring nature of Jesus and God’s future coming Kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount shows Christ’s care and understanding of our human nature and the true human condition. This naturally aligns Matthew’s Gospel with the image of a winged human.
Marks’ Gospel is a vigorous narrative, beginning with Joh the Baptist roaring prophetically in the wilderness and emphasising Christ’s kingship by royal lineage as the lion of Judah. Jesus moves through the narrative quickly healing and astounding people (‘immediately’ seems a favourite phrase of Mark’s). This Gospel presents Jesus’ story vividly, with unique personal details, in a powerful way that allowed early commentators to compare him to the vigorous lion symbol. In ancient bestiaries Lions were also associated with healing.
Luke’s Gospel claims to be rigorously researched and faithful as a diligent, strong, hard-working creature, the ox. Luke’s Christ is compassionate, praying for persecutors, drawing in outsiders, working on behalf of others. He acts both as priest and sacrificial animal. In Luke, Christ also works conscientiously to bring the Kingdom into reality now. Kingdom activity and faith is to be alive in the present as well as in the future [Lk.4&7].
John Gospel is written from a different perspective, as though looking from the heavens, most certain in claiming Christ’s divine origins and nature. The Eagle in the ancient bestiary mythology that originated in the Middle East, was the creature which flew highest, closest to the sun (Christ in the presence of God), singed its wings so plummeted to earth (Christ’s Incarnation and Death on the Cross), was revived in the sea (the Tomb) then rose to soar in glory again (Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension and restoration to the throne of glory). John’s Gospel is also written from the perspective of the glories of the Kingdom being here already, as a result of Christ’s coming, for those who, like the Eagle can see through spiritual insight from on high.
By placing these four symbols around the figure of Christ an image-maker implies that the figure of Jesus Christ represents and unites all these aspects and perspectives in one person. It is important for a Christian believer to develop a holistic view of Jesus Christ. If believers just consider a selected few favourite or outstanding aspects of any religion, their beliefs can easily become distorted. This is seen in the damage created by limited fundamental beliefs throughout the world. Consequently, if Jesus’ life and teaching offer us the clearest, most holistic image of what the Christian God is like, when we focus on him holistically we are most likely to be able to worship God “in spirit and in truth” [Jn.4:23]. The vision of Christ in Glory in Piper’s window thus encourages us to approach worship holistically, coming before the God of Truth through considering all that Christ represents for us, for the world and for all creation.
Piper had already designed more abstract renditions of the four Evangelist creatures at the base of his tapestry for the chancel of Chichester Cathedral. In Chichester they are more simplified than in the Lichfield window, where they are stylized in a modern way rather than abstract. In the West window of the north aisle of All Hallows, Wellingborough he had also represented the four evangelist symbols in glass in 1961. As in Chichester they are just the heads of the creatures, each with a wing and its printed name. The more considered and subtle representations of the creatures in St John’s Chapel windows more closely resemble Sutherland’s approach to the Tetramorph in the Coventry tapestry. In a similar way Celtic mediaeval manuscripts (including the Lichfield Gospels) and the Moissac tympanum stylise the winged figures around the glorified Christ.
In the Lichfield window, as in Sutherland’s tapestry in Coventry Cathedral [ILLUSTRATION 26] the beasts represent far more than the Gospel symbols. The symbols for the Evangelists were derived from the winged apocalyptic figures mentioned in Ezekiel 1:5-28, Daniel 7:2-8 and Revelation 4:6-9, which accompany the presence of God, carry out God’s will, and represent God’s powers. In Ezekiel they have four heads, multiple pairs of wings, are covered with all-seeing eyes, and accompany God’s divine chariot in every direction as God directs and wills them to follow divine rule. In Daniel 7 the creatures are different from those in Ezekiel and Revelation and are active in enforcing God’s judgement, with features and characteristics of a lion, eagle, bear and human. In Revelation each creature has the characteristics of one beast, while Ezekiel’s vision describes them as multi-headed. The four winged creatures of Ezekiel and Revelation are known technically as the ‘Tetramorph’. This term is derived from the Greek ‘tetra’/’four’ and ‘morph’/’shape’. Their symbolism is complicated, with many possible sources or connotations.
The earliest astronomy/astrology of which we have records is Sumerian (c3200 BCE.). Like several other early beliefs, they divided the horizon and the heavens into four fixed areas through which the Sun travelled during the Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes and the Summer and Winter Solstices. They attributed spiritual qualities and characteristics to each quarter. The Sumerian civilization used these same creatures, the Ox, Lion, Eagle and Man, to represent those quarters. Together the beasts represented the complete cycle of the year as well as the four quarters of the earth. Over time and in various cultures, these creatures became incorporated into the full zodiac that has been handed down to western astronomy. The Babylonian zodiac also had these four fixed signs: Ox/Taurus; Lion/Leo; Man/Aquarius; the Eagle they associated with Scorpio. These were in turn associated with the four elements of which they believed the cosmos was formed: Ox/earth; Lion/fire; Eagle/air; Human/water. These constellations and elements were thought to rule the entire cosmos. If Ezekiel intended a cosmic meaning when writing at the time of the Babylonian Captivity of Israel, his vision could be a sign of divine security, implying that all the spheres of heaven and earth are under the control of YHWH, the Hebrew monotheistic God. Time, space, place and the lives of Ezekiel’s people could all be trusted to YHWH as their circumstances were all in God’s design, direction, care and judgement: part of God’s plan of redemption and justice.
Compound creatures are found in many mythologies and religions. Some scholars believe that in Ezekiel’s vision the four creatures’ association with YHWH suggests that they represent various aspects of God’s nature and powers. In a similar way the animal characteristics of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Greek gods represent aspects of their powers and realm of influence. Perhaps in Ezekiel they suggest:
The Eagle: God’s all-seeing perspective, overview from on high and over-spanning powers from the heavens.
The Ox: The power, determination, hard work, strength, danger and solid reliability of God.
The Lion: God’s rule as fiercest and most awe-inspiring leader of all creatures. The Lion of Judah.
The Winged Man: the wisdom, humanity and thoughtful consideration of God, greater than any human mind, caring for us, knowing and understanding us thoroughly. Humans (‘in God’s image’ [Gen.1:26]) were thought to resemble God’s nature more closely than any other creature. In Greek art the winged man was sometimes a symbol of physical perfection.
All these characteristics may be applied to Jesus Christ, in focusing worship upon God in the chapel.
In Ezekiel 1 God is represented as riding on a chariot accompanied by these powerful Tetramorph creatures. Ezekiel was influenced by the experience of the Jewish people in exile in Babylon, where they would have seen images of gods with the heads of animals. The Sphynx in Egypt and Babylon had a human head and a lion’s body. The guardian creatures sculpted at the gates of Nimrod, had elements of all four beasts. The Northern tribes in exile in Assyria would also have encountered similar images: Lamassu, the Assyrian protective deity had four wings, the head of a man and the body of an Ox. Assyrian gods were represented as enthroned on chariots driven by winged tetramorph creatures similar to Ezekiel’s description. Israel’s contacts with Egypt would also have made them familiar with images of animal-headed gods and spirits. Representing the Hebrew God YHWH as controlling a chariot-throne drawn by such creatures was perhaps a way for Ezekiel to emphasise that the Hebrew monotheistic God was more powerful than all spiritual or divine powers that were thought to control rival nations. This would have assured his vulnerable people both in exile and during the rebuilding and restoration of the Temple and nation that YHWH was still on their side. The spiritual world of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, or Canaanite gods like Baal and Ashtaroth (1Ki.7:3) were believed to be subservient and subject to the power and will of the God of the Hebrew tribes. Ezekiel’s imagery of God riding on and controlling spiritual beings composed of such creatures and ordering their direction and activities could be a way of the prophet emphasising the dominance of the Hebrew God over all surrounding gods and alternative beliefs.
Ezekiel’s creatures are represented alongside Christ in several Christian Roman and Byzantine mosaics and frescoes like Santa Prudenzia, Santa Maria in Trasetevere and San Clemente Basilica, Rome. They are also found in many Byzantine, Carolingian, Ottonian and Celtic manuscript illustrations. In the tympana over the entrance doorways of cathedrals and many churches, Christ in Majesty is often represented as accompanied by these winged figures, partly to remind us that he stands in judgement over the world, so we should not enter unworthily. It was also intended as a reminder of Christ’s protection and his divine origins and power. The arrangement of Piper’s beasts differs from their position in most mediaeval imagery. In tympana the eagle and man are usually at the top, representing the higher aspects of the circle of heaven. The ox and lion, representing the circle of the powers of earthly creatures are usually below. Sutherland’s Coventry tapestry arranged the figures in their traditional mediaeval positions and in rectangles, not mandorlas, emphasising that they too are created beings. Piper however places the eagle and man to the left and the lion and ox to the right. Either he did not know the reason for their traditional placement, or he was deliberately showing them within the left and right arcs of Christ’s mandorla, suggesting that the circles of heaven and earth reach out to the left and right. Whatever their symbolic intention, the overall meaning of the image is to represent Christ enthroned as the Lord of all – everything in heaven and earth, the cycle of time, the fullness of the year and whole of human life. Though all circumstances may change, Christ is represented as stable, wise, secure, reliable and glorious: he can be trusted with our faith and our lives. This has lasting relevance to all who worship in the chapel.
Piper’s ox in the small final gouache looks out at the viewer, almost acting as a foil to lead the viewer’s eye into the scene. In the final cartoon and window this has been changed so all four creatures look towards Christ. The ox too has a crown of stars, which may suggest the sacrificial significance of cattle, as Piper related these red starred bars in stained glass windows to wounds [Reds gashed themselves across the blue like wounds…” previously quoted from Osborne 1997 p.11]. The Lion gestures towards Christ and the line of the lion’s limb and paw particularly direct our eyes towards the Cross, which is of a similar colour and light-intensity. The eagle appears bald and Osborne suggests that it is aged [Osborne 1997 p.141]. Certainly the winged man, representative of Matthew, in the upper left has been altered drastically from an active youth, similar to a crowned cherub holding a book, in the gouache [ILLUSTRATION 4], leaning backwards, perhaps in awe, to an old, bearded, supplicant man who is also holding a book. He is set within a blood-red mandorla. June Osborne suggests: “Perhaps in making him look old… Piper was thinking of the use for which the building was created. It is oddly poignant.” [Osborne 1997 p.141]. While this may of course be true, it seems rather a simplistic reading of the symbolism. (Piper did call the residents of the hospital ‘old dears’, rather patronisingly or jokingly in his Sunday Telegraph interview with Sebastian Faulks 11th July 1984 [ILLUSTRATION 61 - cf. page 63] yet he was himself in his early 80s.) Like the figure of Christ as ‘One of Ancient Days’ [Dan.7:9], the aged, winged male figure suggests that we are looking at an image that represents an aged sage, with the wisdom of experience, who has been part of the dimension of heaven for eternity and demonstrates this in his maturity and depth of insight.
It is unusual to find the four apocalyptic beasts within mandorlas. Sometimes in manuscripts they are contained within roundels. Here we should probably not imagine that their mandorlas represent them as glorious, in the same way as the main mandorla suggests Christ’s glory. These four smaller mandorlas seem more to represent slits or openings through which we have a glimpse of the life of the spiritual world: a dimension beyond ours, yet within which our earthly dimension exists. As red in iconography represents human flesh as well as martyrdom, the red borders on the mandorlas could conceivably represent cuts in the fleshly world of earth through which we recognise visions of this other spiritual dimension, which oversees and relishes in ours. The two lower blue mandorlas may represent openings through the ethereal world.
COLOURS IN THE WINDOW
The colours of the St. John’s Chapel window may initially feel uncomfortable to some who are more familiar with the subtler colour-schemes of some mediaeval glass or the common red, blue, yellow and white emphasis in much stained glass in British churches. However, mediaeval churches were never subtly coloured, being far brighter and, to many modern tastes, more garish than we experience them today. The purple and green combinations used in the chapel glass are more common in German and Flemish stained glass, as in the C16th Herkenrode glass of the Lady Chapel in Lichfield Cathedral [ILLUSTRATION 29]. We cannot be sure whether this was a direct influence on Piper’s choice of colour for the St. John’s windows, though he mentions this glass with admiration in ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ [p.28] and Reyntiens discusses it in his 1990 book ‘The Beauty of Stained Glass’ [p.100, ills. 108-9]. The colours that Piper chose are particularly effective in combination with the red local sandstone from which the Cathedral and St John’s Chapel are built, though the interior walls of the chapel are largely painted [ILLUSTRATION 1].
It is interesting to note that the basic colour-scheme of purples and greens with some blue, which Piper used in the eventual window was already being used by him in the watercolour based on the Tympanum of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, painted in 1979 before the window was conceived. Perhaps the original sculpture or place suggested that mood or colour-range to him. However, an early colour study for the window shows that he was also considering oranges, golds and yellows [ILLUSTRATION 3]. Much of the ‘decorative’ aspect of Piper’s paintings based on churches seems to have been instinctive, not necessarily initially symbolic, as can be seen in his paintings of Vézelay and Moissac [ILLUSTRATIONS 7 & 11].
From the 1940s Piper became fascinated by the contribution of art and architecture to liturgy, creating a space conducive to prayer and encouraging or focusing worship. He was involved with the emerging Liturgical Movement in the late 1950s and 60s, particularly influenced by Peter Hammond’s two books on the subject: ‘Liturgy and Architecture’ (1960) and ‘Towards a Church Architecture’ (1962). “Architecture and art” Hammond had written, “must rediscover their true function as the handmaid of liturgy” [Peter Hammond ‘Liturgy and Architecture’ 1960 London: Barrie & Rockliff, p.26]. Through 38 years of experience on the Oxford Diocesan Advisory Board, Piper advised on the restoration and re-ordering of many churches to make their space more appropriate for worship. The success of his advice is seen particularly in his collaborative help in the reordering Tudely Church, Kent, with its Chagall windows.
Piper’s church commitment and consideration of liturgical requirements is partly demonstrated in the colours chosen for the St John’s window, which are all based on the colours of the liturgical seasons:
Green - Ordinary time
Purple - Penitential Seasons – Lent and Advent
White and Gold - Festal Seasons – Christmas and Easter
Red - Pentecost, Martyrs and Saints’ Days.
Blue - Though blue is occasionally used liturgically, here the blue of the mandorla represents Christ’s place, enthroned in eternity and his mystery hidden in infinity. Piper’s belief that “blue seems to be ‘there’ in the window... yet not there at all, except as a symbol of infinity, but infinity that has become intensely real instead of an abstraction....” [Coventry Cathedral Review, December 1961 - quoted more fully on p.24] is close to the intention in his use of blue in the mandorla around Christ. The blue is not sky or an abstract use of intense colour; it helps to represent the mystery and hidden glory within faith.
The colours of the Tetramorph creatures may also be intended to be symbolic. This could suggest the ancient idea of the Four Elements, which Piper had recently represented for the Chartres exhibition [ILLUSTRATION 57], Plymouth Cathedral [ILLUSTRATION 33] and the Ipswich School Library roundels [cf. Osborne 1997 p.124-5 & figs. 104-109]. The Eagle is the blue colour of the Air; the Lion is the gold of Fire; the Red of the Ox may be the colour of Earth 0r sacrificial blood; and the Green Man may be a symbol of Water, which brings the green of life to creation. Green has often been related to nourished fruitfulness and spirituality, especially in writings of mystics like Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich, Thomas Traherne and George Herbert, who all write of spiritual growth as ‘greening’.
Piper was always intent on being modern in his approach; his strong, unconventional choice of colours was part of this. He wrote in ‘Stained Glass: Art and Anti-Art’ that artists and clergy should be bold in the statements that they make in churches. He wanted the chapel window to create an impact, which it certainly does. Art in churches needs to communicate; it is not enough to create something that is bland or just echoes the existing atmosphere of the space. If an image hides in a corner unnoticed, there is no reason for it to be there in the church at all. It should harmonise and feel appropriate within its space, yet it needs to attract a certain attention in order to communicate then focus worship beyond the artefact to God. Piper wanted to create an image that would communicate and focus the viewers’ spiritual thoughts, challenging them to contemplate and consider the meaning within the work in its setting. A work of art in the church context should enhance not distract from worship (as, sadly, some works of art do in churches). The theory of Orthodox iconographers may be useful here: The icon is designed to be a window through which the viewer is encouraged to consider the theological truth contained within its subject. The eye should not remain on the surface of an icon, a religious picture, sculpture or a stained glass image. We should always look through or beyond it to consider its spiritual meaning and be led to worship the invisible God to whose truths the story or message in the image is pointing.
Piper’s experimentation with strong colour in his stained glass was enhanced by his experimentation with colours in limited-edition lithographic prints, particularly later in his career. He created many lithographs based on mediaeval sculptures and tympana [ILLUSTRATIONS 21 & 58]. In particular he was fascinated by the image of Christ in Glory at Vézelay and re-drew and represented it in prints and paintings many times between the mid-1960s and 1980 [ILLUSTRATIONS 6-7]. This may be why it has several superficial similarities with the Christ in Glory in St. John’s Chapel window. Piper had first used the Vézelay image on a curtain for Britten’s ‘Rape of Lucretia’ in 1946. With Robert Wellington and the Curwen and Baynard Press, Piper had formed a business association ‘Contemporary Lithographs’ in 1936. In 1964, Marlborough Galleries published a portfolio of twenty-four original lithographs called "A Retrospective of Churches". This became one of his best known suites of graphics. One lithograph in that series depicted the early Romanesque Tympanum of Kilpeck Church, Herefordshire [ILLUSTRATION 21]. So in the two decades before creating designs for the Lichfield window, the subject of ‘Christ in Majesty’ was explored in different media and many colours.
In the medium of lithography Piper was able to easily experiment widely with many different colour-ways and colour combinations. This would have encouraged him to experiment with different variations of colour as he made sketches and painted studies for the St. John’s Chapel window. Some early coloured studies for the window show that Piper considered a gold, yellow and orange format, presumably suggesting the glory and light of Christ. The colours he eventually chose are more unusual. The rich colours symbolise not just liturgical colours of the seasons, the depth and mystery of glory and Christ’s rule in his imperial purple robes. They are also the main primary and secondary colours. Anthony West describes Piper’s serious changes in his use of bright colour from about 1968: “(he used) colour oppositions and the inherent qualities of paint as the means of expressing the discoveries about colour he had made while handling glass. [John Piper Secker and Warburg 1979]. The primary and secondary colours of the window suggest a rainbow (symbolic of God’s Covenant promise to care for his people). These are the colours from which all other colours in creation can be formed, suggestive of the fruitful earth and cosmos, created by God, over which Christ in Majesty is entrusted with the responsibility to govern and care [Phil.2:9-11].
THE ROLE OF HISTORIC INFLUENCES & SOURCES BEHIND ST. JOHNS’ WINDOW
The subject of the St. John’s east window is so close to Graham Sutherland’s great tapestry for St. Michael’s Cathedral Coventry that this must have been a huge influence on Piper’s design for the same position above the main chapel altar. However in conversation with the Dean of Lichfield Piper implied that this was not an influence [Dean’s Report 2nd March 1983 reprinted p.43]. He and Sutherland had been heavily involved in the Coventry Cathedral project, and their works were regularly exhibited together in international exhibitions and national exhibitions on modern artists and the Church. Though they were not close friends, coincidentally Piper and Sutherland had both been educated at Epsom College, though Sutherland had left a term before Piper started there. Piper’s design for the huge Baptistery window of Coventry Cathedral complemented Sutherland’s tapestry, both making a strong impact on first entering the cathedral.
The smaller scale of St. John’s Chapel makes that impact rather more intimate. By contrast to Coventry, the entrance doorway to St John’s Chapel is undramatic: a domestic size courtyard door leads one into a narrow narthex. On entering the chapel itself the east window provides an immediate focus. It helps to immediately direct one to the purpose of being in the building: not to sightsee or come to see the work of a famous artist, but to focus on being in the presence of God, to lead us to prayer and worship. This agrees with Comper’s & Piper’s aim, already mentioned that a good church interior should “move to worship, to bring a man to his knees, to refresh the soul in a weary land.” [Ninian Comper Of the Atmosphere in a Church. London: SPCK 1947 p.9-10]. The chancel with its altar and reredos painting is where that worship is focused towards God. The window of Christ in Majesty above this helps to draw our eyes towards that space and to provide a subject through which our thoughts are directed towards the God of salvation and Christ’s care for us.
From childhood Piper expressed an admiration for the writings of John Ruskin. One might think that this glass is so unlike Pre-Raphaelite and William Morris glass and the Gothic Revival design in churches that Ruskin inspired, that as a modernist Piper must have moved away from that early influence. But Ruskin also advocated that the modern artist should not attempt to copy nature but make marks and equivalents that pointed to nature and reality rather than copying it. Piper’s figurative mark-making developed Ruskin’s idea of the abstract imitation of nature into more modernist forms. Most influentially, Ruskin like Piper and Betjeman had a sensitivity and a feeling for the picturesque and spiritual aesthetic of places, appreciating the age and past of buildings and art, without needing to know every historic detail about them. This picturesque aesthetic influenced John Piper’s writings, guides and his feeling for what an artwork might add to an interior. In the Appendix to The Two Path lectures on art, and its application to decoration and manufacture, delivered in 1858-9, Ruskin had written of stained glass: “The value of hue in all illuminations on painted glass of fine periods depends primarily on the expedients used to make the colours palpitate and fluctuate; inequality of brilliancy being the condition of brilliancy…. Delicacy of organisation in the designer given, you will soon have all, and without it nothing….. The first necessity of beauty in colour is gradation, as the first necessity of beauty in line is curvature. All harmonies of colour depend for their vitality on the action and helpful operation of every particle of colour they contain. No colour harmony is of high order unless it involves indescribable tints.” The vibrancy of Piper’s stained glass in many ways translated into modern forms the ‘vitality’, ‘indescribable tints’, ‘palpitation and fluctuation of brilliancy’ which Ruskin praised in the best stained glass a century before.
The main building of St John’s is 15th Century, but the original Hospital and its chapel date back to 1135, so it was founded at a time when the Romanesque subject matter of ‘Christ in Majesty’ was common as a main focus in the iconography of a church building. Piper must have known the magnificent figure of Christ in a mandorla worshipped by angels above Ely Cathedral’s Prior’s Door. Such tympana have survived more in France. In mediaeval European cathedrals and major churches of the Romanesque period, many of which Piper had visited on his travels with camera and sketchbook, the subject of Christ in glory surrounded by the Tetramorph (the Four Living Creatures) was placed above the main entrance portal. This is seen most dramatically and famously at Chartres, Moissac, Saint-Trophime in Arles and Vézelay. In 1968 Piper had painted in Moissac, especially the Apostle figures on the south doorway [cf. Wortley ‘John Piper: Master of Diversity’2000, illustr.17 p.12]. Piper drew Vézelay’s tympanum and developed it into lithographs and pictures multiple times, so you might think this might have been the main source of his iconography. But though Vézelay includes Christ in a mandorla and many active figures, like the angels in St. John’s window, it does not include the beasts. The carved Romanesque tympanum at Conques has angels at Christ’s feet but they hold candlesticks rather than trumpets, unlike the angels at St. Pierre, Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne. The winged creatures are naturalistically and formally arranged at Chartres while those in the Moissac tympanum are more abstractly designed to squeeze them into the available space, as are the creatures in the St. John’s window and in Sutherland’s Coventry tapestry.
Throughout Piper’s career he had often explored historic church-art and sculpture. Towards the end of the 1970s he began to re-assess and examine the contribution of historic artefacts and the feeling, atmosphere and spirituality which they created. This culminated in 1978 in an unusual book, Stones and Bones, in which he compared and contrasted qualities through his large drawings from old photographs of sculptures, nudes, walls and rocks. This volume set his modern art in context within the British landscape environment and the early art that had grown out of it. These historic and environmental comparisons may have influenced his choice of a Romanesque sculpture as the source and main inspiration behind the St. John’s window. It certainly influenced his choice of subject for the design of the ante-chapel window of Robinson College, Cambridge (1978-9), based on the West Front Tympanum of Neuilly-en-Donjon, Burgundy, which he had visited in 1969 [ILLUSTRATION 60].
Piper’s friend Revd. Victor Kenna had introduced him from his youth to early mediaeval sculpture and to a love of Celtic art. He continued to advise him on theology and symbolism for years, introducing John to new works of art that might influence him. The stylised representation of the Gospel symbols of the winged lion, ox, man and eagle are often highly stylised in Celtic and Insular manuscripts. We do not know what contact Piper had with the Lichfield Gospels, but considering his fascination with ecclesiastical art-history, it is inconceivable that he did not go to see them when visiting the city. The stylisation of figures in his 1954 Oundle Chapel windows resembles the figures of the Evangelists in the Lichfield Gospels, but are closer to the elongated, stylised, sculpted figures in the portal jams of Moissac and Chartres. The only resemblance of the Lichfield Gospel illustrations to the St John’s Chapel window, however, is a very slight similarity between the bodies of the green angels and the St Matthew on the Lichfield illumination page of the four Evangelist figures [Chad p.219].
Piper himself wrote of the imagery of his Lichfield window: “The character of the design is influenced by a number of drawings and paintings I made of Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of Western France, on many visits between 1955-1975. The carvings are often on the large semi-circular areas above the entrance doors of churches in those parts. These churches were on, or near, the old routes to the famous shrine at Compostella, in northern Spain. The Carvings have provided a stimulus, with their formal ‘bigness’ and grandeur, for much twentieth-century sculpture and painting.” [He was probably thinking of Moore and Hepworth in terms of sculpture. The choice of this style to give ‘grandeur’ and ‘bigness’ to his subject obviously gives the image of Christ in Majesty a sense of presence and dominance.
The areas of France that Piper visited for inspiration are rich in Romanesque sculptures and tympana, but only the tympanum of the Abbey Church of Saint-Pierre, Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne has a figure of Christ that truly resembles that of Piper’s window [ILLUSTRATION12]. The scene of Judgement at Saint Foy has a large Cross centrally behind Christ and angels flying with trumpets above but no beasts. Piper made paintings of the Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne tympanum in 1979, not long before the commissioning of the St. John’s window [cf. Wortley ‘John Piper: Master of Diversity’2000, illustr.19 p.13]. In one watercolour and gouache we see the angels and the figure of Christ in purple, a cross behind Christ’s shoulder and a green foliate border, as in the St. John’s window [ILLUSTRATION 13]. The painting contains neither the mandorla nor the beasts. In the Beaulieu tympanum there is a prominent Cross behind Christ’s shoulder but no mandorla. The winged creatures, which are relatively small and in heraldic terms ‘statant’ or ‘passant’, (i.e. with all feet on the ground or one foot raised) occupy a level beneath Christ’s feet. They are not arranged around him and most have strange serpent-headed tails, which may relate to other monsters in the Book of Revelation (perhaps Rev.9:10). The Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne tympanum is replete with other figures present at the Judgement, as at Vézelay and Autun, but not included in Piper’s window. Other figures are vaguely suggested in Piper’s watercolours of the tympanum, but not as prominent in his drawings as the two angels. On the lowest level of the double lintel of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne are strange creatures that may represent the different beasts recorded in Daniel’s vision, or the beasts of Rev.9:3-11 or Rev.13. This is not common in other tympana.
Many of Piper’s archive photographs, recording sculpture and architecture are in the Tate Gallery Archives and the Victoria and Albert Museum [ILLUSTRATIONS 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23]. Sadly most are undated, and stretch from 1930 to 1980. They include Vézelay and several tympana from British churches. His photograph of All Saints Lullington, Cornwall shows a Christ in Majesty surrounded by four roundels [ILLUSTRATION 19], which may have inspired the four mandorlas in which the Lichfield beasts are placed. The Tympanum of St Peter’s, Rowlstone, Herefordshire, which Piper also painted [ILLUSTRATIONS 8 & 9], is closest in subject matter and image to the St John’s window, with Christ in his mandorla accompanied by two animated angels. The Rowlstone Tympanum does not include the winged beasts and the mandorla is elliptical rather than pointed, yet it is decorated with many circles or eyes, as is the St John’s mandorla. Such circles are also featured in the mandorlas of many stained glass windows, like that illustrated in Stained Glass: Art and Anti-Art p.12.
It is most likely that Piper was working loosely and intuitively, incorporating remembered ideas from the French Moissac, Chartres and Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne iconography, as well as other Dordogne and Saintonge sculptures which he mentioned having recorded in earlier drawings, and the imagery of Sutherland’s Coventry Tapestry. Some details may be adapted from elsewhere or invented. Piper’s antechapel window of Robinson College, Cambridge (1980) [ILLUSTRATION 60] is directly based on the Nativity Tympanum of Neuilly-en-Donjon, which Piper had painted in 1969. Apart from the close connection of the angels, cross and figure of Christ to the Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne mandorla [ILLUSTRATION 12], there seems to be no other direct source for the St. John’s Chapel Christ in Majesty, to which he was primarily indebted. However, even when illustrating a particular sculpture or building, Piper’s images are not precise reproductions rather they are ‘interpretations’ in a modern idiom. At this late stage in his career especially, Piper was working even more loosely and intuitively than previously, based on a lifetime of contact with architecture and religious art, immersed in Christian imagery. He was fond of often quoting Camille Pissarro’s letter to his son Lucien: “I am more than ever for the impression through memory; it renders less the object – vulgarity disappears, leaving only the undulations of the truth that was glimpsed, felt”. [Quoted by Piper in an article: ‘Camille Pissarro’ in The Listener 17Aug.1944].
The historic influences and references in Piper’s work are more than recognising, illustrating or drawing influences from great art of the past that he loved. They link the themes of his modern work with the past and show that modern or contemporary art in churches, like our development of faith, is part of an ongoing continuum. This link with the past was often a ‘romantic’ interpretation of religious and architectural history and English culture, just as Piper’s work for the Shell Guides had been. In this historic romanticism he is linked with other contemporary British artists like Sutherland, Paul and John Nash, Keith Vaughan, Eric Ravilious, Cecil Beaton, Stanley Spencer and Ivon Hitchens. Their historic and cultural ideals are explored in a fascinating study by Alexandra Harris: ‘Romantic Moderns: English Artists and the Imagination from Virginias Woolf to John Piper’.
Piper wrote in ‘British Romantic Artists’: “Romantic art deals with the particular and is the result of a vision that can see in things something significant beyond ordinary significance: something that for a moment seems to contain the whole world; and when that moment is past, carries over some comment on life or experience besides the comment on appearances.” [London: Collins 1942 p.5].
Christianity is similarly linked to its past, to valuable traditions and finding significance in the particular that reaches beyond the ordinary. Christian faith is committed to bringing traditions alive, asserting their significance and making them relevant to the contemporary world. Faith attempts to open people to spiritual truths that are timeless yet rooted in the historic past in which the biblical stories are set. Christian art, like faith, builds upon traditions, iconographies and understandings that have developed and consolidated over time. It shows their life, significance and meaning for today and opens people to develop them further, for the future advance of belief and spiritual understanding. By referencing past images and imagery, yet working in modern ways, Piper was showing that the past and faith have significance today. The past and present are interlinked in many of his ecclesiastical commissions, particularly the later window designs, which reference historic images more than in his earlier stained glass. I wrote at the opening of this study: ‘John Piper’s 1984 stained glass east window for the chapel brings the ancient and modern together in its imagery and colour’ [p.3]. He and Reyntiens present us with an iconic image of Christ in Majesty that was as relevant to the mediaeval worshipper entering a Romanesque portico as it is to a contemporary visitor or resident entering St. John’s Chapel today. Piper’s design challenges us to feel our links with the past essence of faith in Christ and to explore the spiritual relevance of his subject to our present lives and for the future.
CORRESPONDENCE AND THE PROCESS OF THE ST. JOHN’S COMMISSION
From the little correspondence directly with John Piper in the Archive one gains the impression that much of the negotiation with the artist was made by telephone, through Patrick Reyntiens or, at a later stage, through the Dean or when members of the Trustees visited Piper’s studio at Fawley Bottom.
I include here the almost entire correspondence over the window which survives in St. John’s Archive, partly for completeness and to preserve the archive, but particularly because it is instructive. A number of significant mistakes and misunderstandings occurred during the process of the commission, from which future commissioning projects could learn. As the Trustees, (like the committees of many churches considering new artworks for their buildings,) had not been involved in a commission like this before, it is understandable that several difficulties arose through the development of the project. It is instructive to study them, as we may draw conclusions from them, which could contribute to the smoother running of any future commissioning projects. I will consider potential lessons to be learned at the end of this section.
Primarily, problems occurred because it does not appear that, at a sufficiently early stage, the Trustees had sufficiently considered the full costs involved and how the window was to be financed. This caused long periods of delay, frustrations, rising costs and, for Reyntiens, financial loss. As the commission progressed, it is interesting to discern, through the correspondence the personalities and egos of certain characters involved. Piper’s character is discernable more through the work than through the correspondence, as some of the interaction with him is inferred by reports of telephone conversations or visits. Less written material in the archives comes directly from him, other than mention of the calls and conversations in the letters of Dennis Birch, Steward to St. John’s and the Dean of Lichfield, John Lang. The one figure whose ordered professional approach, thoughtfulness, and gentle responses shine out through the correspondence, despite intense frustrations and losses over the delays, is Patrick Reyntiens. He stably resolved many of the difficulties and remained steadfastly committed to the project through to its successful conclusion.
It does not appear that other artists than John Piper were initially considered to be consulted over the window. The choice of him for the commission is perhaps not surprising. He was the foremost name that most ordinary people, unfamiliar with the field, would have associated with contemporary stained glass, particularly if one was considering a religious commission. He had already worked on several ecclesiastical commissions in Midlands’ churches and had contacts in and near Lichfield. The Trustees did not initially think to contact the Crafts Council in London or West Midlands Arts in Stafford who might have supplied further possible names. However, among the St. John’s correspondence is an undated (but probably c1979) list of other glass designers, which may have come from the Diocesan Advisory Committee, with the following annotations:
Alan Younger, 44 Belvedere Road, Upper Norwood, S.E.19.
Very efficient, willing to adapt to requirements, modern where needed, but does good figurative windows (did new glass at Tamworth).
Brian Clarke, Howton Hall, Birchover, Nr. Matlock, Derbyshire.
Rather ‘Art Nouveau’ – probably only abstract work.
Messieur Michel Petit, 47 Rue de Spoir, Thivers, 28000 Chartres.
Very original - a talented artist, no more expensive than English counterparts. Will do work to suit any requirements, with a clearly individual flavour. Can do 14th Century to 20th Century styles. Unfortunately speaks no English!
Keith New, 6 Studio House, Murray Road, Wimbledon, S.W.19.
Lively, strong, modern in feeling, but possibly not over-willing to adapt.
J.E.Nuttgens, Piggots Hill, North Dean, High Wicombe, Bucks.
An old man, very traditional, but good designer. (Nuttgens was 9 years older than John Piper, but died in 1982)
Miss Moira Forsyth
Somewhat sentimental, but attractive windows.
Piper’s early ideas for the window and the approach to the artist for the commission are discussed in the Chairman of the Trust’s Letter to the Dean on 9th June 1983 (cf. p. 54) . After discussions among the Trustees, R.D. (Dennis) Birch, the Steward of St. John’s was instructed to contact John Piper. His initial introductory letter (below) was sent to the artist on 21st August 1979. Before this the following correspondence circulated:
Rev. Canon G.N. Strong M.A.
The Master’s House
St. John’s Hospital,
Lichfield
4. 8. 79
Dear Mr. Birch,
I assume that Aldrm. Garratt will by now have told you of the preliminary research he and I have had with Rev. John Howe * about the proposed window. It has occurred to one that the enclosed photos might be of help to Mr. Piper whom Mr. Garratt proposes we should consult as a first step.
Yours G.N.S.
This was accompanied by another note on the Master’s notepaper. It is interesting that already the theme of ‘Christ in Glory’ was his major suggestion for the theme, and was not originated by John Piper himself, though it was a major theme in his art at the time.
I shall be grateful for the return, sometime, of the large photo – having but that one copy! **
I would like, if I may, to indicate my suggestions re the subject of the proposed window –
a/ as central feature: the Christ in Glory as sequence to the altar-crucifix.
b/ possibly flanked by S. Chad (Patron of diocese) and S. John Bapt. (Patron of the ‘Hospital’)
c/ retaining ample natural light to guard against darkening the chapel.
G.N.S.
(* Prebendary John Howe was Secretary of the Lichfield Diocesan Advisory Committee and may have supplied the annotated list of glass designers above. ** This photograph is probably that shown in ILLUSTRATION 67).
RDB/PET/SJH 6th August, 1979.
To A.L.Garratt, esq. M.B.E., J.P.
7, Cloister Walk,
Whittington,
Nr. Lichfield,
Staffordshire.
Dear Mr. Garratt,
Proposed stained glass window in the Chapel.
I have had an interview with the Master who has told me of your meeting with the Reverend J. Howe a few days ago.
I understand that it was suggested that John Piper should be asked to design the window and the Master has shown me certain suggestions that he has put forward on the subject.
Perhaps you will confirm that it will be in order for me to write a preliminary letter to John Piper enquiring whether he would be prepared to consider the acceptance of such a commission.
With kindest regards to Mrs. Garratt and yourself,
Yours very sincerely,
R.D.Birch
Steward.
P.S. I am so sorry to trouble you but I fear it will be necessary to call a special meeting of the Trustees in order to pass a resolution vesting the land purchased at Burton several years ago in the Official Trustee of Charity Lands.
I am wondering whether you could let me have two alternate dates that would suit you. I do not think the meeting will take very long. R.D.B.
Birch then approached John Piper with regard to the commission:
RDB/SJC/SJH 21st August, 1979
to: J.E.C. Piper Esq. C.H.
Fawley Bottom Farmhouse,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to trouble you, but I am wondering whether you could possibly assist us.
I believe that you visited Lichfield in connection with your painting of the Cathedral for the 750th Anniversary Celebrations in 1946. I do not know at this time if you may have noticed the mediaeval buildings of the above hospital.
The Trustees of the Hospital decided some time ago that they would like to have a stained glass window for the East end of the Hospital Chapel in place of the plain glass window that there is at present. A recent legacy has enabled us to consider the matter in more detail.
I shall be very grateful if you will inform me whether there would be any possibility of your accepting a commission to design the stained glass window in question.
Yours faithfully,
R.D.Birch.
John Piper replied by hand on 31st August 1979:
Fawley Bottom Farmhouse,
near Henley-on-Thames,
Oxon. RG9 6JH
to R.D.Birch Esq.
Lichfield
Dear Mr. Birch,
Thank you for your letter. If there is not a great hurry for the window, I should like to do it for you. At the moment I am working on designs for two windows (one a memorial for Benjamin Britten, at Aldeburgh) and I must finish them first. I could come to see you about the end of October, or early November, if that suits you? I have a friend living near Wolverhampton, with whom we stay sometimes.
If that is not delaying things too long I will come to see you then, and look forward to seeing the chapel and to meeting you.
Yours sincerely
John Piper
RDB/PET/SJH 4th September 1979.
Dear Mr. Piper,
St. John’s Hospital Chapel.
Thank you for your letter of the 31st ultimo as regards this matter.
There is no great urgency in the matter and therefore, I shall very much look forward to seeing you at the end of October or early November for a discussion of the project.
I am sure that the Trustees were very glad to learn that there is a chance of your undertaking the commission.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward
P.S. I believe we have a mutual friend in Henry Thorold who stayed with us on several occasions when writing his Shell Guide to Staffordshire.
There was a delay, so the Steward wrote again on 18th January 1980. In retrospect, his excessive politeness in insisting repeatedly that there was ‘no great urgency in the matter’ was not the best way of approaching Piper. Though the artist was hard-working, he had many projects underway and was fairly inefficient in personal administration, so it took nearly a year to get him to visit the site for the commission:
Dear Mr. Piper, 18th January 1980.
St. John’s Hospital Chapel
With reference to my letter to you of the 4th of September, I am so sorry to trouble you as regards this matter, but I am wondering whether it would be possible for you to visit the Hospital in the next month or so, so that we can discuss the project.
There is no great urgency in the matter but I think the Trustees would like to make some progress in the course of the next few months.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Piper replied by postcard on 2nd February 1980:
2 . 2. 80:
Dear Mr. Birch,
I hope to come and visit you this month or next – probably next; and I will communicate beforehand.
Yours sincerely,
John Piper
However there was further delay, as the Steward wrote with a slight indication of frustration on 7th May, 1980:
Dear Mr. Piper,
St. John’s Hospital Chapel
I am sorry to trouble you but with reference to your post card of the 2nd February; I was wondering whether you will now be able to come and visit the Chapel in the course of the next few months.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
There was a delay in further response, apparently due to Piper’s having been ill, since on 18th July 1980 the Steward wrote to Piper (copies to RDB (Birch himself)/MJC (Clutterbuck, Master of St John’s)/SJH (St. John’s Hospital records):
Dear Mr. Piper,
St John’s Hospital Chapel
I am so sorry to be such a nuisance with reference to our previous correspondence as regards this matter; I am wondering whether your other commitments will now permit you to visit Lichfield and have a look at the Chapel in the course of the next month or so.
With kind regards
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
By 5th August 1980, the Steward had spoken to Piper and wrote to A.L. Garratt at 7 Cloister Walk, Whittington, Lichfield: (cc. RDB/PET/SJH):
Dear Mr. Garratt,
Hospital Chapel.
With reference to our recent discussion on this matter, I have now spoken to Mr. Piper on the telephone when he apologised most profusely for the delay.
Unfortunately, the friend with whom he used to stay in this area has had bereavement and he has had to make alternative arrangements. However, he hopes to be able to make an appointment to come and see the Chapel before the end of this month.
With kind regards to Mrs. Garratt and yourself,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Piper must have visited later in August or September 1980 and produced some initial ideas for designs [e.g. ILLUSTRATION 3].
Progress had been made by 29th October, because J.C. Ballinger, Derrick Duval and Peter Brownhill, Chartered architects of 24 Bird Street, Lichfield WS 13 6PT were asked to supply scale drawings of the east window on the chapel, which they sent to Mr. Birch [Our Ref. PEB/10]
These were forwarded by the steward to John Piper on 30th October. (Copies to RDB/DJT) In this he mentions that Piper had visited Lichfield ‘a few weeks ago’ and that Piper had since ‘spent time at St. David’s.’
On 18th November 1980 the Steward wrote to P.E. Brownhill asking from Piper for clarification for the actual width of the glass in each of the lancets, and requesting for him to measure them.
These measurements were made and copies with the measurements indicated were forwarded from Ballinger, Duval and Brownhill to the Steward on 5th December 1980.
The Steward sent these to Piper on 10th December 1980.
There is then silence in the written records for five and a half months until 13th July 1981, when Piper wrote to the Steward on notepaper from Fawley Bottom Farmhouse and enclosed an image of the potential design:
Dear Mr. Birch,
I hope this reaches you safely, and that you may look at it with favour.
The subject, of course, is Christ in Majesty, with the symbols of the Evangelists.
Patrick Reyntiens will be wanting to send somebody to make accurate measurements, if the design – and when- it is approved. I have given him your address.
Yours sincerely
John Piper.
This proposed design was shown to the Diocese of Lichfield Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches, St. Mary’s House, Lichfield. WS13 7LD from which M. Bramidge wrote on 31st July 1981 with a highly positive response:
Dear Dennis,
The Diocesan Advisory Committee greatly appreciated the opportunity to see the proposed design for the window for the chapel of the Hospital of St. John,
The committee felt that this would be a magnificent piece of work and highly recommend its acceptance.
Your point concerning the light was considered in great detail. The Committee felt (many of us from great experience) that the large amount of light coming through the east window always has the effect of smothering the altar beneath in almost total darkness. We felt that to diminish the light would in this instance be a good idea. The other windows of the chapel do let in considerable light and with the use of artificial lighting we felt that this would not be a detraction from the design. In particular we felt that the light coming in on the side of the sanctuary would light up the altar better than it ever has before.
With regard to the comment that St. John Baptist in absent in the design, we felt that this was perhaps unavoidable. The theme, together with the four evangelists, does not easily admit the Baptist – and in fact this could look very contrived.
Unanimously we felt that this window could be a great asset to the Hospital and something well worth a visit for the outsider.
If you have not already discovered, I removed the design to the safety of my office, and although I am on holiday myself, do please feel free to take it – though, as it is valuable, I would appreciate a note to know that you have done so. I myself will be away until August 15th.
Kind Regards
Yours sincerely,
M. Bramidge
p.p, J. Howe (Rev. J. Howe Secretary of the Advisory Committee.)
On 13th August 1981 Birch wrote to Piper (cc RDB/MJC/SJH):
Dear Mr. Piper,
Re: Window in Hospital Chapel
With reference to our previous correspondence; the Trustees inspected your drawing for the new window at a recent meeting and unanimously expressed their appreciation.
The design has also been inspected by the Diocesan Advisory Committee who strongly recommended that the Trustees should proceed with the project.
The Trustees would like to have some idea of the actual construction and installation costs as regards the window and I am wondering if you could possibly refer me to some source of information on these points.
You mention Mr. P. Reyntiens and it may be that he would be able to supply the details in question.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
The problem of financing the project then seriously delayed its progress:
Patrick Reyntiens sent an estimate for the window to the Steward on 4th Novermber 1981:
ESTIMATE
For making a stained glass window from John Piper’s design for St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield
£15,860 plus V.A.T. ex-works.
This estimate is valid for three months only from 4th November, 1981.
Despite the stipulation of a constraint on time it was a month later, 4th December 1981, before the Steward wrote to The Secretary, The Charity Commission, (Northern Office), Graem House, Derby Square, Liverpool L2 7SB:
Our Ref RDB/PET/SJH
Your ref 214784
Dear Sir,
Several Years ago the Trustees of the above Hospital received a legacy under the Will of a former Almsman for £2,500 which was to be used for the benefit of the Hospital in such ways as the Trustees might think fit.
After some consideration the Trustees felt that it might be advisable to use this money for the beautification of the Chapel which is of course, used daily by the residents.
It was suggested that the East Window which is at present of clear glass might be greatly enhanced by a design.
The Trustees have now made enquiries and had a design prepared by a well-known designer of stained glass.
The Trustees find that the cost of such a window would be considerably more that the amount of the legacy that had been received together with the interest that has accrued since the date of its receipt.
I shall be glad to hear whether you feel that the Trustees are entitled to make up the balance from the general Fund of the Charity.
Yours faithfully
R.D. Birch
Steward.
P.S. May I remind you that some years ago of course, the Commissioners agreed to the provision of certain moneys of the Trustees in the replacement of the organ in the Chapel.
Reyntiens advised the Trustees to apply to the Craft Council for a grant for the project. Birch did so and wrote to Patrick on 2nd March 1982:
Dear Sir,
Re. New Window in the Chapel
With reference to our telephone conversation a few weeks ago; I have now completed the preparation of the form of application to the Craft Council and I should like another copy of your estimate.
When we spoke on the telephone I was under the impression that I had the drawing of the design, but I remembered a day or so later that your Assistant had of course taken it away.
Will it be possible for you to deliver this item to the Craft Council so that it can be used in conjunction with our application.
Yours faithfully,
R.D.Birch.
Reyntiens replied on 19th March:
Dear Mr., Birch,
Thank you for your letter of 2nd March. I have arranged for the drawing of the design to be delivered to the Crafts Council before 2nd April. In the meantime may I draw your attention to my estimate of November 4th which was valid for three months only. In the normal course of events, I would have had to put the price up by 5 per cent because of inflation costs, but in the circumstances it would give me great pleasure to waive this provided some kind of decision could be made fairly quickly after the 2nd April. Quite apart from the monetary consideration, my schedule of completions is beginning to be distorted, and in any case I would not want you to have your window any later than necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Reyntiens.
The grant application was sent to John Jones, Secretary of the Crafts Council on 25th March 1982 and Reyntiens delivered the design himself directly.
Birch worked out the amount of interest accrued from the Estate of S.W. Hayes deceased for its first receipt on 19th April 1979. By 31st March 1982 the legacy had risen from £2,000 to £2885.81p.
On 2nd April 1982 The Crafts Council Secretary asked for further clarification:
Dear Mr. Birch
The Hospital of St. John the Baptist, Li(t)chfiield (incorrectly typed)
Thank you for your letter of 25th March and for your application for a Special Project grant towards the costs of a new window in the Chapel of the Hospital. This will be considered by the Projects and Organisations Committee at its meeting on 12 May and I will let you know the outcome by 25 May.
Please would you let me know how much Mr. Piper is charging for his design. I have not yet received his cartoon but I wonder whether it will tell us the dimensions of the window?
You mention in the application an appeal to local Trusts. I would also suggest you speak to the Visual Arts Officer at West Midlands Arts, Lisa Henderson, to see whether an application to the Association would be possible, since, although neither the designer nor maker live in the West Midlands, the work will be on public view in its area. The address and telephone number are:
West Midlands Arts
Lloyd’s Bank Chambers
Market Street
Stafford
ST16 1AP
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
John Jones
Grants and Loans Officer
Regional Section.
Crafts Council
12 Waterloo Place
London
SW1Y 4AU
On this letter a penciled note confirmed that West Midlands Arts were contacted by telephone, responding that they would contact the Arts Council and come back to them 8/4/82. On 8th April Birch also wrote to Piper asking what he would be charging for the design, as Mr. Reyntiens had already submitted his estimates for making the window.
On 14th Birch replied to J.A. Jones at the Crafts Council that he had telephoned West Midlands Arts as he had suggested. He appended a “P.S. Mr. Piper’s Fee will be £2500.”
Unfortunately, on 14th May 1982 the Crafts Council sent a letter refusing a grant:
Dear Mr. Birch
Re: Application for Grant re: new Window in Hospital Chapel.
I am sorry to have to inform you that your application for a Special Projects grant was unsuccessful. As you will understand the Committee receives many more applications than it can respond to given the limited funds available.
I hope that you will be successful in finding alternative sources of funds for this project;
I have returned Mr. Piper’s cartoon directly to him.
Yours sincerely
Barclay Price
Grants and Loans Officer
Regional Section.
This disappointment understandably led the Trustees to review their commitment to the project. As a result the Steward telephoned Patrick Reyntiens to reassure him of their continued commitment, clarifying where issues stood. Being business-like Patrick replied on 21st May 1982 in a formal clarification letter, which is very useful for our understanding of what had been agreed in the telephone call:
Patrick Reyntiens
The Old Church School
Windsor End
P.O.Box 45
Beaconsfield
Buckinghamshire
HP9 2JU
Dear Mr. Birch,
Thank you very much for our telephone conversation today. I write in confirmation as to what I believe transpired then.
X 7. Since I shall be changing the venue of my studio at the end of August, it is absolutely vital that I get a go-ahead in as soon a time as possible.
X 8. Since this job that I am devoting the whole of my personal attention to in the months of June, July and August will be very difficult to do after September I shall have to re-quote under those circumstance.
In conclusion, I must say how dismayed and disappointed I am, both on mine and John Piper’s and your behalf, that the Crafts Council has seen fit to select somebody else’s work other than ours to support at this particular time. I am most awfully depressed by their reaction, even though I appreciate the situation they are in.
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
Items 6 to 8 have been marked in pen with crosses, which he explains in his own hand at the end of the letter:
X These three I did not mention but feel you ought to know.
Reyntiens had made the stipulation over the time-scale of his financial offer to hold the price until the first fortnight in June because inflation was rising daily over this period. The materials and wages were therefore going to cost more and he had set aside these three months, with no other projects, for himself and his most able and sensitive assistant to work on the commission. Despite the urgency of Patrick’s request it took a further three weeks for Dennis Birch to send a reply, which will have reached Patrick after the stipulated deadline:
14th June 1982
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
Proposed new Window – Hospital Chapel.
Thank you for your recent letter which I have discussed with the Chairman.
I am now making a fresh approach to the Charity Commissioners in the hope that they will be prepared for us to devote more of our own funds towards the costs of the scheme.
I appreciate the need for urgency and I will write to you again as soon as possible.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
Steward.
It took him another two days to write to the Charity Commissioners (Northern Office), Graeme House, Derby Square, Liverpool L2 7SB:
RDB/MJC/SJH
ADP/2147844/9-L4
16th June 1982
Dear Sir,
Proposed Installation of New Stained Glass Window in the Hospital Chapel
With reference to your letter of the 25th February; this matter has again been most carefully considered by the Trustees.
The Trustees and the residents at the Hospital are extremely anxious that this scheme if at all possible should be put in hand.
The original legacy has of course grown to some substantial extent owing to the increase in interest over the last few years and it is understood that certain funds will be available from the Hospital Chapel Fund which is a fund quite outside the jurisdiction of the Trustees and operated by the Master.
It is realized that this will still leave a substantial sum to be found by the Trustees.
As you are aware, the Trustees have had a very substantial accretion to their income by view of their recent sale at a figure which would not have been imagined a few years ago.
The trustees have of course carried out repairs to the Hospital Chapel and maintenance of various kinds over the years. There has, however, been no improvement whatever to the Hospital Chapel over the last 20 or 30 years in the true sense of an improvement.
It is felt that it would be only sensible for the Trustees to be permitted say once in a generation to embellish the hospital chapel in some way or another as it was embellished in previous centuries by the Master and others.
I have been instructed to ascertain whether it might be possible for the Trustees to use a small amount of capital to install the proposed new window subject to the repayment over a reasonable period out of income so that the capital of the Trustees is not decreased in any way.
One does not feel that it could possibly be argued that the amortization of such a loan of capital would in any way deprive the Trustees of their powers of operating the Hospital satisfactorily over the next decade or so, nor would it in any way deprive the residents of any amenities or facilities that they could possibly require.
I should be very grateful if you could consider this matter as sympathetically as you can or if you require further information or would like to meet the Chairman or other members of the Trustee body, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch.
Unfortunately the hesitancy and cap-in-hand approach in this letter did not sufficiently convince the professional body of Charity Commissioners. A few of his words and phrases, particularly ‘say once in a generation to embellish the Hospital Chapel’, or ‘One does not feel that it could possibly be argued that the amortization of such a loan of capital would in any way deprive the Trustees of their powers of operating the Hospital satisfactorily over the next decade or so’ were rather injudicious for making a convincing legal argument to a legalistic body such as the Charity Commissioners. It took them very little time to consider the matter as they responded on 28th June. They would accept expenditure of income on land and new building schemes, but not on ‘expensive embellishment’:
Dear Sir,
St John’s Hospital Lichfield Staffordshire
Thank you for your letter dated 16th June.
On the information provided, we do not consider that there is any justification for the expenditure of income, under the scheme, on works of major and expensive embellishment. Far less could we allow capital to be used.
I look forward to hearing from you further in connection with the proposed acquisition of land and the proposed new scheme. Our letter of 25th February refers.
Yours faithfully
A.D. Polack
Birch added in pen to this letter, after ‘Far less could we allow capital to be used’… ‘We could pay from income.’
At this impasse the artists involved may have understandably become worried that the scheme might fold, so the Pipers requested payment for his work. Myfanwy, who dealt with John’s finances wrote on 15th July 1982:
Fawley Bottom Farmhouse
Near Henley-on-Thames,
Oxon
RG9 6JH
Henley 2494
Dear Mr. Birch,
I enclose the invoice for the window as requested.
I have included the V.A.T. but it has occurred to me that The Hospital of St John may be exempt as a charity. I have not been able to get hold of our accountant in time to find out, so perhaps you would kindly ignore the V.A.T. if you find that it is exempt?
With kind regards
Yours sincerely
Myfanwy Piper
It seems that the Trustees next considered whether they might justify the window by convincing the Charity Commission that the Victorian window needed replacing. On 19th July 1982 the Steward wrote to The Duval Brownhill Architectural Partnership requesting a detailed report on the window. His wording notably requests the listing of ‘defects’ :
Dear Mr. Brownhill,
Hospital Chapel.
With reference to our telephone conversation of the 16th instant, I shall be very glad if you will prepare a detailed report as regards the present condition of the East Window in the Chapel.
As you know, we are considering whether it ought to be replaced and possibly, a stained glass window installed in place of it.
I shall therefore be glad if you will prepare a detailed report as regards its present condition, listing any defects that may be apparent so that the Trustee can give the Charity Commission a true position of the present condition of the window.
With Kind regards
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
Unfortunately, the architect’s three-page report, which was sent on 18th August 1982 did not supply sufficient arguments for the need to replace the window:
… ‘correctly repaired panes’… ‘lead calms in good order… ‘one broken pane’… ‘correctly repaired calms’… 3 ‘small sections of cement breaking away’…
Interior in good order, mullions in reasonable and sound condition.
CONCLUSION:
One pane is damaged and should be repaired.
Generally the calms and glass are in good order.
The quality of light would benefit if the windows were cleaned inside and out.
Birch talked to Reyntiens by telephone later in August and Patrick sent a new, revised quote on 1st September 1982. A note in pencil on the letter suggests that this was to be discussed at the nest Trustees meeting on 6th September but by 24th November, almost three months later, Reyntiens had still received no response. His frustration is apparent in the unaccustomed shortness of his next letter:
Dear Mr. Birch,
Window for Hospital Chapel
With reference to my letter of 1st September, when can I have some kind of answer to this?
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens November 24th 1982.
It is at this point that Birch and the Trustees turned for help and advice to the Dean of Lichfield, The Very Reverend John H. Lang, who was himself one of the Trustees. They met on 25th November and the following day the following letter of confirmation was sent:
26th November 1982
Dear John,
Proposed new window in Hospital Chapel.
With reference to the discussion of this matter at the Trustees’ recent meeting, I enclose a copy of a letter that I wrote to the Charity Commissioners regarding this matter.
Their reply to my letter was to the effect that they did not feel that they could agree to the request as it stood at the present time but that if a new window was required in the Hospital Chapel owing to its state of repair etc. then they would reconsider the matter, possibly more favourably.
I shall be very glad to hear your comments as regards a fresh approach to the Charity Commissioners on this matter.
Best regards
As ever,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
The Dean responded on 7th December:
Dear Denis,
Thank you for the file on the window in St. John’s Hospital. I shall hold on to it for the time being, if I may, because I want to go into the matter more thoroughly before we return to the Charity Commissioners. I am also inclined to pay a visit to Patrick Reyntiens so as to assure myself that if we go ahead we are going to get a really first class job of work.
Yours sincerely
John.
It is evident from this phrasing that the Dean was not personally aware of the quality of Reyntiens’ work and his commitment to integrity, but also, that since this was likely to be Patrick’s last major project with John Piper, they were both intent that it should be, not just ‘first class’ but a very special piece. (He corrected this in his report of 2nd March 1983 (below).
The day before the Dean’s letter, on 6th December, Birch replied to Patrick Reyntiens’ letter:
Dear Mr. Reyntiens
Window for Hospital Chapel.
Thank you for your letter of the 24th ultimo are regards the above matter (received 2nd instant).
At the present time we are engaged in making a fresh approach to the Charity Commissioners in an attempt to persuade them to release the remainder of the money required to complete the financial arrangements for the window scheme over and above the money that we already have in hand.
I will let you know as soon as I hear whether the fresh approach has been successful.
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
Steward.
A hand-written note shows that the Dean was now looking into the finances of the matter carefully. The following information was forwarded to him on 2nd March 1983, in answer for his enquiry about the finances:
Legacy bequeathed to Hospital under will of Mr. S.W. Hayes who died on 2nd January 1979.
Reported to Trustees at Meeting held on 3rd May 1979 that a cheque had been received.
Mr. J. Piper has been paid £2875.00 by cheque dated 23rd July 1982.
The Dean wrote a substantial report on the Chapel Window Project, dated 2nd March 1983, which greatly advanced the progress of the Project and it is valuable to assess its full content as it explains the situation well:
St. John’s Hospital: Report on the Chapel Window Project
At the meeting of the Trustees of St. John’s Hospital on 25th November last year, I was asked to investigate the difficulties which have arisen over the plans for a stained glass window in the Chapel and to see if there was any way of overcoming them.
I began by looking at the Steward’s fie on the subject so as to learn the course of events which led to the present impasse. There seems little point in recounting the history in detail, so I shall restrict myself to the salient points.
In March 1979 the Trustees learned of a legacy to the Hospital from the estate of Mr. S.W. Hayes. Since the money involved could be used as the Trustees wished we decided, quite reasonably in my view, to do something special with it, which would not be done under ordinary circumstances. The choice fell on a stained glass window for the Chapel, which we asked Mr. John Piper (an artist generally regarded as outstanding in this field) to design. Mr. Piper accepted the commission and submitted a sketch which the Trustees approved. Mr. Piper said that he would like the window to be made by Mr. Patrick Reyntiens and an estimate for the work was prepared. By this time it was apparent that the cost of the project would be at least five or six times the amount of the original legacy, which itself covered no more than the cost of Mr. Piper’s design. At this stage, and only at this stage, recourse was had to the Charity Commissioners who replied promptly and peremptorily that such expensive embellishment could not be permitted under the terms of the 1976 Scheme. At about this time Mr. Piper asked that he should be paid and the Trustees authorized the Steward to send him his full fee of £2, 875.
With the Chairman’s permission I visited Mr. Piper’s studio near Henley-on-Thames on 5th February. Mr. Reyntiens was also present and we discussed the project thoroughly. I had never previously been concerned with the commissioning of stained glass and wanted to understand the process of designing and making it. I also wanted to satisfy myself that the work, which had been in the making so long, was still alive in the artists’ minds. It seemed to me that these things were a necessary pre-requisite to an effective appeal to the Charity Commissioners to rescind their initial ruling.
Mr. Piper received me very kindly and showed me other work he had done in glass (mostly in photographic form). His close partnership with Mr. Reyntiens has spanned thirty years and they have worked on such major projects as Eton College Chapel, St. Margaret’s Westminster, and above all Coventry Cathedral. A particularly fine piece of more recent work is the Benjamin Britten memorial window in Aldeburgh Parish Church. Mr. Reyntiens, who joined us some time after my arrival, told me privately that he and Mr. Piper were particularly anxious to complete this commission because it was likely to be their last major piece of work together.
What the Trustees have seen is only the preliminary sketch, done to show the subject and the way in which the artist proposes to treat it. As soon as he received approval of that, Mr. Piper started work on the cartoon – a full size painting done in every detail as he wishes it eventually to be seen in glass. He explained to me that the idea for the window came from a church in the Dordogne in which the figure of Christ seated in glory was backed by a cross off-centre (to the left of the figure). I was impressed by another similarity which he did not mention, and of which he may not even be aware, that is to Graham Sutherland’s great tapestry over the high altar at Coventry. I also believe that Mr. Piper really sees this window as summing up his work on glass and if it is brought off effectively it may well be of lasting importance.
By summer last year Mr. Reyntiens was ready to start work. The first step was to get the necessary glass, most of which comes from Czechoslovakia and France. He actually has to go to find precisely what he wants as the choice is in itself an important aspect of his craft. It was at this stage that he learned of the difficulty with the Charity Commissioners.
The whole story seems most unsatisfactory. We are in the position of having commissioned a major British artist to do an important piece of work without ever having met him to discuss it. Mr. Piper spoke mostly warmly of our Steward’s courtesy but it is we, the Trustees, who are ultimately responsible. Further, we have paid in full for a painting which, until I went to Henley, none of us had ever seen. Had the process of executing the work been understood by us, we would not, I imagine, have paid him fully before his supervision of the making of the window was complete. Mr. Piper told me they sent the bill because nothing seemed to be happening and he thought it was a way of finding out what the Trustees’ intentions were.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I must draw the Trustees’ attention. If we had consulted the Charity Commissioners at an earlier stage we would not have put Mr. Reyntiens in the position of suddenly finding himself without work for several months. I must record my impression (and I did not probe the matter too far) that the last minute cancellation actually caused him and his family financial hardship. Stained glass window commissions are few and far between however eminent the artists and craftsmen.
I believe that the Trustees should determine unanimously to see this project through if at all possible. I do not consider there is justification for a public appeal, and it will therefore be necessary to convince the Charity Commissioners that the further expenditure of some £20,000 is a legitimate charge on the Hospital’s income. It could, I think, be said that having spent virtually the whole of Mr. Hayes’ legacy for a window there is a moral duty to put it into the Chapel. Mr. Piper’s design, though interesting, is quite useless as it stands. It consists of several large pieces of paper, taped together, a working document, not a picture for exhibition.
Since the Charity Commissioners’ first negative response there has been some slight movement on their part. In a letter to the Steward dated 3rd February, 1983, Mr. J.A. Dutton writes,
“Can you please indicate the present position with regard to the replacement of the window in the Chapel. I see from previous correspondence that the Trustees of St. John’s Hospital received a legacy which (though we have not seen a copy of the will) was apparently applicable without distinction between capital and income for the general purposes of the Charity. You indicated that your Trustees intend to expend this legacy together with some of the income of the Charity in the replacement of the window and I see from the most recent accounts that some £2,875 has already been expended in this connection. Unless you are satisfied that this expenditure is justified under the provisions of the existing Scheme, I would suggest that the proposed Scheme be amended to prove approval of/authority for this expenditure. Obviously we could only provide approval/authority in respect of a reasonably modest amount and I shall be obliged if you can provide full details as to how much has already been expended and how much it is envisaged will be expended for this purpose. Surely it will not be necessary to have recourse to the capital endowment of the Charity?”
The attached draft letter is for the Trustees’ Perusal. I have relied heavily on the fact that St. John’s Hospital is an ancient religious foundation and that the stained glass window is an equally ancient form of religious teaching, a wholly appropriate subject for expenditure in view of the continuing obligation of the Almspeople to worship in the Chapel. I have done my best to relate this to the present Scheme.
John Lang, Dean
2nd March 1983
The proposed letter appended to this report was approved by the Trustees and sent to J.A. Dutton, Charity Commission, Graeme House, Derby Square, Liverpool on 14th March 1983, addressed directly from the Dean at Lichfield Deanery. I print the letter here as sent to the Charity Commission. Only a few changes were made to the Dean’s draft letter and the draft words, which were changed are shown as ‘crossed out’ in the text.
Dear Sir Mr. Dutton,
I am writing at the request of the Trustees of St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield about their intention to put a stained glass window in the Hospital Chapel. I propose to maintain that the considerable expenditure involved (of income, not capital) is within the spirit of the Founders’ intentions and, more precisely, within the provisions of the present (1976) Scheme.
St. John’s Hospital is and always has been a religious foundation. The Bishop of Lichfield is ex-officio President and the Almspeople are required to be residents of the Diocese of Lichfield. The Master has to be a clergyman of the Church of England and is responsible not only for the Almspeople’s physical welfare but, as Chaplain, for their spiritual welfare also. Further Section 31 of the 1976 Scheme specifically requires that the Almspeople will attend the Chapel services.
In recent years the Charity Commission has permitted (and/or raised no objection to) very considerable improvements to the physical circumstances of the Almspeople. These have been possibly largely because of significant increases in the revenue of the Charity which are thoroughly documented in the annual accounts. Now the Trustees are proposing, not a mere expensive embellishment, but a carefully thought out improvement to the circumstances in which the Almspeople regularly and by obligation worship. While it is perfectly true that Section 32 of the present Scheme does not specifically mention improvements to the Chapel, but only maintenance and repairs, Section 38 of the present scheme allows the Trustees to apply the income “for the benefit of the Almspeople of the Charity or any of these in such a manner as the Trustees think fit from time to time.” I do not imagine for one moment that in the case of so specifically religious a foundation as St. John’s Hospital the Charity Commissioners would wish to hold that the word “benefit” meant material benefit only and not quite definitely spiritual benefit as well.
The window which the Trustees propose to commission is to be put in the most prominent position in the Chapel, immediately above the main altar. It will portray the figure of Christ seated in glory with the cross behind, signifying the central doctrine of Christianity. It has been designed by Mr. John Piper, C.H., (one of the most distinguished artists in this field anywhere in the world) and is deliberately within the centuries’ old tradition of stained glass designed to teach the Christian Ffaith. I mention these facts only to demonstrate that what is proposed is integral to the purpose for which the Charity was founded.
I regret that the plan to commission this window was not referred to the Charity Commissioners at a much earlier stage. The Trustees have however acted in good faith and are anxious to execute their intentions as soon as possible. I would be most happy to visit the Commission to discuss the matter further, either alone or with one or more of my colleagues.
I enclose an estimate of the cost of the making of the window by Mr. Patrick Reyntiens. Mr. Piper’s design has, as you are aware, been paid for already.
Yours faithfully,
John Lang
Enclosed with this was Patrick Reyntiens latest revised estimate for the work, which the Dean had requested. It was sent from the new address of Reyntiens’ studio:
Ilford Bridge Farm
close Stocklinch,
Ilminster,
Somerset
11th March 1983
Reverend and Dear Dean
ST. JOHN’S
I enclose a final and revised estimate for the windows of St. John’s chapel to the design of John Piper.
You will note that the price has increased by £600 over and above the £20.000 quoted (including V.A.T.) last year. This represents in the neighbourhood of 3½% - 4% increase which given the rate of inflation is reasonable, I hope you will agree. The extra V.A.T. inherent in the £600 is to be absorbed by me.
As I said to Mr. Birch in my letter to him of 1st May 1982 that my labour (and the glass) has to be pre-planned and fitted into a time schedule so as to make the job a viable proposition.
I submit this estimate for three months from the middle of March in the earnest hope that should the Trustees prevail with their argument with the Charity Commissioners the contract or exchange of letters will be entered into as soon as possible to enable the contract to be fulfilled by the end of 1983.
In the event of the contract being signed the pattern of payment I would anticipate is as follows:-
£7,000 on signature
£2000 on the first of the following month for six consecutive months
£1600 retainer split as follows:
£1000 at the time of installation
£600 after six months (retention sum against defects)
I would be very glad of your Trustees’ agreement to this payment schedule.
I must conclude by repeating my grateful thanks for all that you and the Trustees have done on the furthering of this project. I look upon it as the crown of the Piper-Reyntiens collaborations over so many years.
With all good wishes
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens.
INVOICE: 11th March
TO: the Trustees of St. John without the Bar(r)s, Lichfield Staffordshire
To making a window in stained painted and acided glass to the design of John Piper Esq. C.H.
Price ex-works £20,600
Twenty thousand and six hundred pounds
This price to be valid for three months from the 15th March 1893.
N.B. ‘Ex-works’ – price excludes packaging, transport and insurance to site, installation etc.
Within a fortnight, as recommended by the Dean in paragraph 10 of the report, the Trustees decided to go ahead with the commission. Presumably they had received some initial assurance from the Charity Commissioners that their original rejection would be overturned. The go-ahead was certainly authorised by mid-May, as acknowledged in the Chairman’s letter to the Dean of 26/5/83 below.
The Steward wrote to Patrick’s solicitors Messrs. Baker and Duke of 20 Silver Street, Ilminster, on 28th March 1983 with regards to drawing up a simple form of contract for the installation of the window.
This agreement was drawn up on 21st April 1983 and sent by the Steward to A.L. Garratt of 7 Cloisters Walk, Whittington, Nr. Lichfield for perusal. After the exchange of several letters the finalised agreements were exchanged on 9th May and signed on 16th May 1983.
In preparation of the draft agreement it was stated that if anything untoward happened to Patrick Reyntiens before the completion of the contract, David Williams would complete the work under the direction of John Piper. Also that if the work was not completed at the expiration of a two month period from the due date, Reyntiens would be paid on a quantum merit basis for what he had done, the expert assessment of which should be made by an appointee of the President of the Royal Academy:
AN AGREEMENT made the Sixteenth day of May 1983 BETWEEN NICHOLAS PATRICK REYNTIENS of Ilford Bridge Farm Stocklinch near Ilminster in the County of Somerset of the one part and ARTHUR LESLIE GARRATT of 7 Cloister Walk Wittington near Lichfield in the County of Stafford and ROBERT DENNIS BIRCH of 20 St. John Street Lichfield aforesaid being respectively the Chairman and Steward of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist in the City of Lichfield (hereafter called “the Purchasers”) of the other part WHEREBY IT IS AGREED as follows:-
In accordance with this agreement, a cheque for £7,000 was sent to Reyntiens via his solicitors of 20th May 1983 and a second payment of £2000 on 27th May.
Meanwhile, difficulties arose between the Master and the Dean. As reported in the local paper, The Mercury of 13th May 1983 (page 7) Patrick Reyntiens revisited St. John’s and was photographed for the paper with the Master, outside the chapel, holding the design for Piper’s window [ILLUSTRATION 34]. As the Dean had been so instrumental in the progressing the project, he evidently felt that he should have been acknowledged. He was not mentioned in the article, though the Master was named three times. Also the Master (who had evidently had earlier reservations about the window), had recently visited Piper’s studio, discussed the project and convinced himself of the qualities that the window, so that he could convince residents unsure about its worth. Perhaps the Dean felt that his own support of the project was being sidelined, or he considered that he was the figure who should have been reported to have been liaising with such artists of stature. Or perhaps the Master may have been asserting his priority in matters of the Hospital – we cannot be sure. A few acrimonious letters ensued. The disagreements and clashes of egos read rather like an incident in one of Anthony Trollope’s Barchester Novels:
19th May from the Dean to Leslie Garratt (Chair of Trustees)
Dear Leslie,
I’m sorry I wasn’t at the Hospital meeting this afternoon but our School Governing Body had some critical decisions to make and they took much longer that I expected. I asked Arnold Ward to give my apologies.
Half an hour ago I had a rather disagreeable telephone call from the Master who accused me of behaving “like a pima donna” over the chapel window. He added intemperately that “he’d already had quite enough trouble with the bloody diocese.”
I want to assure you that so far as the window is concerned I shall be prepared to do as much or as little as you and the other Trustees wish. My understanding was that you wished me to see the project through but if that is not so I shall be perfectly happy to stand down. Whatever happens your splendid conception must not be marred by acrimony.
Yours sincerely
John.
The Master’s side of the incident was related to Garratt in a letter the following day (20th May 1983):
Dear Leslie,
I was distressed at the Dean’s behavior (by proxy) yesterday. I supposed he was hurt because he was not in the photo! He acted like a prima donna. I told him so last night and had the phone slammed down on me – See how these Christians love one another!
I think there are two serious implications of this affair. Surely we cannot hand over the window to the Dean’s sole charge. He has been useful but only at the end of the line. I am sure the obstacles could have been removed by other hands if we had persevered. The window is surely yours and Arnold’s and others because you initiated it before the Dean or I came on the scene. Is the Dean going to supervise all the practical details of getting the window installed?
Secondly, I think the Trustees should remember that I have spiritual oversight of the chapel and that I am not compelled to take anything which I think would interfere with the considerable religious life which goes on there. We are now getting an average of hundred communicants a week - people come from a wide area. Some have been ‘unchurched’ through unexplained changes in their local parish and I am not going to add yet another injury to them. It has been clear that a number of regulars do not want the chapel changed. However, I think I have won them round because I now realise that it will be a beautiful asset - but it took my visit to Mr. Piper to convince me. I went to see him on purely pastoral grounds and there is no question of me taking the project over, as the Dean told me on the phone. Mr. Reyntiens asked if he could come at short notice and this was arranged. It was (a) purely business visit and I do not think the Dean could have added to the discussion which, as you know was purely practical. I am now very happy with the window but I think it is the time and place to declare that the Master does have special rights in his chapel by virtue of his licence as parish priest. I would defend those rights with all my strength.
I hope we can now go forward happily in this matter. It is clear that the Dean has much on his plate as organiser of the Festival and I would not think that he would want to be bothered overmuch with our small corner.
If you think it will help, please show this letter to Arnold Ward. I hope Mary will soon recover. Let us know if we can do anything. We shall only be away for the inside of next week.
Best wishes,
Yours ever,
Ivan
I notice in the Dean’s memorandum that he says he knew little about stained glass. I was fortunate enough to be very involved in this art while I was at Cambridge. I am very happy with the Piper window.
I am sorry you have been bothered by this unfortunate misunderstanding.
It is interesting that the “short notice” which the Master claims was given by Patrick Reyntiens, still allowed him time to contact the Mercury and bring a reporter and photographer to the Hospital. In an attempt to pacify the situation the Chairman of Trustees wrote judiciously to the Dean on 26th May:
Dear (John),
I am sure I speak for all the Trustees when I say how grateful we are for your support of our case to the Charity Commissioners. Without the recognition of your important position in the hierarchy of the Church, and the articulate and well reasoned letter, they would not have authorised the go-ahead for the window.
I believe the Steward has already sent you a letter confirming the unanimous expression of the Trustees for your support, expressed in a minute.
On the other hand, one has to recognise the interest of the Master in such a tremendous undertaking for the Chapel. It will not be many incumbents of the Church who will in due course enjoy such a distinction.
You ask to what extent will your interest in the project be involved in the future development. I trust it will not be inhibited in any way. However, as a matter of practical administration, the details must be passed through the Steward, and I have asked Mr. Birch to keep you thoroughly informed of what is being done.
Yours sincerely,
Lesley
The same day the Chairman wrote in a similar conciliatory manner to the Master:
26th May 1983
Dear (Ivan)
It was unfortunate the Dean could not be contacted to inform him of the unexpected visit of Mr. Reyntiens. The same lack of communication affected Mr. Birch and of course myself.
Given the great interest the Dean has taken in the project, and his outstanding assistance to getting the go-ahead, one can understand he does feel left out in the cold a little. This was all an unfortunate sequence of events, and I have written to the Dean in this sense.
As a matter of practical administration, the future developments must be passed through the official channels, namely through Mr. Birch’s office. However, as the incumbent who will be ‘at the sharp end’ of the developments and working practices, it is most important you be kept informed of all aspects of the project as it gets underway, and I have asked Mr. Birch to make sure of this.
Yours sincerely,
Lesley
He wrote to Patrick Reyntiens in the same day’s correspondence, to his address as Head of Fine Art at Central School of Art. It appears evident from these three letters that the Chairman of the Trust was trying to moderate the clashing egos of the Dean and Master by making their contact with the artists less individual and personal, to focus their contact professionally through the Steward:
26th May 1983
Dear (Mr. Reyntiens)
I was very glad indeed to have the opportunity of meeting you and discussing the general development of what we all hope will be an historic phase in the long life of the chapel.
I am sure you will appreciate your dealings with the practical details of the scheme should be passed through the Steward, Mr. Birch, and it will be his responsibility to then see the Dean and the Master be kept properly informed.
I hope you had a pleasant journey back to London.
Yours sincerely
The Dean replied three days later on 29th May. He was evidently not totally pacified by the political rhetoric, as he emphasised his personal negotiating skills towards artists and craftspeople, and gently pointed our mistakes by the Trustees. He still remained convinced that he was the right person to negotiate, but suggested that he resign from his role:
Dear Leslie,
Thanks you for your courteous letter. What it meant to me is that it would be best for the Master to see the window project through and I accept that absolutely.
I think I should add a word or two by way of explanation. Some of the Trustees may not be fully aware that an artist’s finest work is generally done when there is a close rapport with the client, resulting in a continuous dialogue about the progress of the work. This is particularly important in the context of an historic building.
No such rapport exists between St. John’s Hospital and Messrs. Piper and Reyntiens or it would not have been possible for the absurd situation to have come about in which the Trustees paid in full for a cartoon none of them had ever seen. My visit to Piper’s studio last February was intended to put that right as a preliminary to approaching the Charity Commissioners on the point of law.
As you know the Trustees gave me authority to act on their behalf and I therefore commissioned Reyntiens to do the work and asked the Steward to draw up the contract. I also kept the Master fully informed because he too has an important post (part?) to play, especially with the congregation. At this point the Master himself changed the situation. To put it very simply a television programme cannot have two producers nor an orchestra two conductors. The Master must do the job and I must stand down.
This is not, I assure you, written in anger though it would be less than honest of me to pretend to complete confidence in the Master’s judgement.
Yours sincerely,
John
Another letter of 5th June seems to have been received, for the Chairman responded on 9th June 1983. It may have been ‘redacted’ from the records because it evidently contained some further criticism of the Steward’s actions, which the Chair felt he had to counter in his next letter, perhaps even for legal reasons. The Dean seems also to have made some claim to the priority of his vision for the glass, as the Chair now expressed his credentials in contributing to the commissioning process, as well as understanding and considering the needs for glass and for the chapel:
Dear John,
I would ask you to forgive my replying in some depth to your letter of 5th June, for if I do not fill out the record of events leading up to the decision about the chapel window, an unwitting injustice to Denis Birch might result.
I have taken a considerable interest in 18th and 19th century wine glasses for many years. This was well known to the Trustees, and in fact on the occasion of the completion of the extension to the St. John’s Street almshouses, the Bishop Reeve clubbed with his fellow Trustees in presenting me with a copy of (not printed).
As a natural extension of my interest I visited the international Exhibition of Stained Glass at the Royal Exchange in the City of London in August 1978, and there appreciated that although the chapel of St. John’s was traditionally satisfactory, it was not outstanding, and that a modern stained glass window over the Altar would be an immens(e)ly valuable distinction.
I discussed the matter with the Master and Denis Birch and the Trustees, and later visited the church at Aldeburgh, where John Piper had designed a window in memory of Benjamin Britten. I brought some coloured postcards of the window, and subsequently in discussion with the Trustees and the Master, we decided to approach Mr. Piper.
Mr. Piper agreed to undertake the commission and he met the Master and produced some small scale cartoons. There was some considerable delay because of Mr. Piper’s illness, but ultimately the cartoon was produced and accepted. This was exhibited in the chapel for some weeks, and accepted by the Trustees. As you know, there was a longer delay in producing confirmation by the Charity Commission, and it was only your support and eloquence which reversed their decision.
I fully appreciate the comments at the end of your letter, and I have prepared the accompanying memorandum which, subject to the comments of yourself and the Master I propose to circulate with the next Notice of the Trustees on the (?) July. (This memorandum also appears to have been redacted from the file, perhaps for pastoral or legal reasons.)
There will be many details to consider as the project for the stained glass window in the Chapel progresses, and I would wish to propose that a Chapel Window Sub Committee be formed to deal with all the details, subject to confirmation by the main body of Trustees. The Sub Committee to be:-
Chairman
Vice Chairman
The Master
The Dean of Lichfield
A member of the congregation
A Trustee.
Yours sincerely,
John
The initial cheque for work on the window, authorised on 20th May 1983 was sent via Reyntiens’ solicitors: E.A. Wells Esq. Messrs. Baker and Duke, Solicitors, Silver Street, Ilminster, Somerset TA19 OBN:
RDB/MJC/SJH
LB/18/255/2
Dear Mr. Wells,
Re: Installation of New Stained Glass Window.
With reference to our previous correspondence as regards the above matter; the Trustees have now executed their copy of the Agreement and I have sent both agreements off for stamping.
I enclose a cheque for £7,000.00 and shall be grateful if you will kindly acknowledge receipt at your convenience.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch.
This was received and a receipt sent on 23rd May.
It was followed on 27th May by a copy of the Agreement and further payment due on 1st June (receipt sent by the Solicitors on 3rd. June):
E/B18/255/2
RDB/PET/SJH
Dear Mr. Wells,
Installation of Stained Glass Window in Hospital Chapel
With reference to our previous correspondence, I now enclose your copy of the Agreement for you to keep. It does not appear that it needs stamping.
I also enclose a cheque for £2,000 in respect of the second payment due under the Agreement.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
On the same day (27th May 1983) Birch wrote suitably appeasing thanks to the Dean:
Dear John,
New Window in Hospital Chapel
I am so sorry that I was absent from the last meeting of the Trustees as the Chairman had kindly given leave of absence to attend the inauguration meeting of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust and the Incorporated Building Society.
The Chairman however, called to see me yesterday and we had a preliminary discussion of the minutes.
I gather that the Chairman is writing to you personally as regards one or two problems in connection with the arrangements for the provision of the new window. He has however, asked me to write to you on behalf of the Trustees as a whole to thank you for all that you have done in connection with the scheme to date.
There is no doubt whatever, that your visit to the designer and your subsequent masterly letter to the Commissioners at last opened the way to the scheme proceeding and all the Trustees realise that if (it) had not been for the exercise of your authority the Commissioners might well have continued with their objections to the proposals indefinitely.
The Trustees hope that the scheme will now proceed smoothly and will result in an outstanding new feature for the Chapel which will be an inspiration to the residents and to the other worshippers in the chapel for centuries to come.
Best regards,
As ever,
DB
Steward.
Reyntiens wrote a personal hand-written receipt on 6th June (Some of his writing is difficult to decipher) :
Dear Mr. Birch
St John’s
Please find enclosed my receipt for £2,000 and second invoice.
I received a most kind letter from MS(?) who shared the first planning in meeting together with its (master?) Clutterbuck in May.
I so (?) understand that all St John’s business comes through you as Trustee and will send his invoice (?) to you direct (first?)
All good wishes
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
Our ref. RBS/DJT/SJH 1st August 1983
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
I enclose the Trustees’ cheque for £2,000 in respect of the instalment due on the 1st August 1983 under the Contract for the East Window for the Hospital.
Your Account for the payment due on the 1st July, 1983 and the receipt in respect of the payment due on the 1st June, 1983 which were addressed “To the Warden, St John’s Without the Walls, Lichfield, Staffordshire” although posted on the 5th July, 1983 has only now been received by the Master.
I shall be grateful therefore if you will kindly note that all correspondence should be addressed to me at the above address to avoid delay.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
STEWARD
18th August 1983
Dear Mr. Birch
Very many thanks for your letter.
I’m delighted that you propose coming down here. Round about the 20th September will see a fine display of glass – yet unglazed in lead.
I had an idea that you and Mr. Clutterbuck might meet here with John Piper to view. Possibly the Dean would care to be in the party.
All good wishes,
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
6th September, 1983
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
I now enclose the Trustees’ Cheque for £2,000.00 in respect of the instalment under the Contract for the West Window of the Hospital, which became due on the 1st September, 1983
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
STEWARD
The Steward and Master jointly sent an invitation to all the Trustees to join a party to visit Reyntiens’ studio and view the progress of the window. In the light of previous problems caused by members’ exclusive visits, it is interesting that the trip was opened to all, possibly to prevent further possible difficulties or misunderstandings:
7th September, 1983
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: Installation of the New Window in the Hospital Chapel
Mr. P. Reyntiens who is working in conjunction with Mr. j. Piper the designer of the new window in the Hospital Chapel has kindly invited members of the Committee to visit his workshop in Ilminster, Somerset, to discuss the progress of the scheme.
It is felt that this will be of considerable interest to all members and will give them an insight into the work involved.
It is proposed that the visit should take place on Friday September 23rd 1983 and I shall be very glad to hear by telephone if possible within the next day or so whether your will be able to attend.
The Chairman has not yet fixed the arrangements, but it might well be that we should leave Lichfield at about 9.0 a.m. possibly by Minibus, lunch on the way and arrive at the workshop at approximately 2.0 p.m. and arrive back at about 7.30 p.m.
Yours faithfully
It appears from Reyntiens’ next letter of 9th September that the suggested day for the outing (23rd September 1983) was confused between the Friday or Saturday):
Dear Mr. Birch
ST. JOHN’S
I do apologise for the lateness in forwarding the monthly invoice. The enclosed invoice relates to the £2, 000 due on the 1st of September.
Will you let me know how many in your party there will be? It would be a great pleasure to give you luncheon in my house, if you wold care to accept it, on the 23rd. I am telephoning John and Myfanwy Piper and hope that they can manage to come on the Saturday also for lunch.
All good wishes,
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
The visit appears to have been a great success, and made many of the Trustees aware for perhaps the first time, of the amount of work and detail that had gone into the project and the creation of the glass.
27th September, 1983
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
I feel that I must drop you a line to thank you so much for your very kind hospitality which you and Mrs. Reyntiens so kindly provided for us and which was much appreciated.
All our party found the visit extremely interesting and gave them an insight into the intricacies inherent in the creation of a window such as the one you are now producing for us.
I shall look forward to hearing from you in due course as to two or three suitable dates for you to visit Lichfield and I will then make arrangements for the builders to meet you.
With many more thanks and kind regards to Mrs. Reyntiens and yourself.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
This was followed by further instalments of £2,000 on 1st September and 1st December.
The next issue that concerned the Trustees was to ensure the safety of the window once installed. In connection with this the Steward wrote to the Secretary of the Diocesan Advisory Committee:
The Reverend Prebendary 20th December, 1983
J. Howe
The Vicarage
Hoar Cross
Burton-on-Trent
Staffordshire
DE13 8QR
Dear Prebendary,
Re: Proposed New Window in the Hospital Chapel
You are of course aware of the proposals to install a new East window in the Chapel of the above Hospital. The window has been designed by John Piper and it will be ready for installation some time in April.
The Trustees have recently had a lengthy discussion as regards the question of safe-guarding the window.
The Window fronts onto a busy main road and in addition to the usual hazards of stones being thrown by vandals etc. damage is constantly caused to the present window by small pieced of material being thrown from the street by passing traffic.
The Trustees have discussed the questions of protection for the new window in some detail and two suggestions have been made to date i.e. some form of metal grille or possibly plastic sheeting.
The Trustees would be extremely grateful for your advice or the advice of the Committee as to the best steps to adopt to safe-guard their very valuable new acquisition.
With all good wishes for Christmas and 1984.
Yours sincerely R.D. Birch
In the event (as we know from a letter of Birch to Linfords of 16th March 1984 – included below) it was eventually Reyntiens himself who provided the most practical advice to the contractors on the protective guards to be installed. The Secretary of the Diocesan Advisory Board responded:
6th January 1984
Dear Mr. Birch
Hospital Chapel: East Window
Thank you for your letter of 20th December. I am delighted to hear that the Piper window is in fact going to go in St. John’s and I look forward to seeing it.
I agree that you should be considering some form of protection – some of which of course will have the added advantage of being double glazing and therefore heat conserving.
I will bring this matter to the next meeting of the D.A.C. on January 31st. There are now so many new polycarbonate materials coming onto the market that I am not at all sure that my present advice is sound enough for you!
I will contact you immediately after 31st January.
With kind regards and all good wishes
Yours sincerely
The Rev. Prebendary J. Howe, M.A, p. H. Ember.
Plans were developing towards the installation and dedication of the window when complete:
RDB/MJC/SJH 8th February 1984
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
Installation of new East Window in the Hospital Chapel,
With reference to our previous correspondence as regards this matter; the Trustees have now authorised me to accept Messrs. Linfords’ estimate for the installation of the window.
I am in correspondence with the Diocesan Advisory Committee as regards the guards and the Trustees have a further estimate from Linfords for the instal(l)ation of the same in due course.
It is now proposed that the window should be dedicated on Saturday June 23rd 1984 i.e. the Patronal Festival and it is greatly hoped that you will be able to be present on this occasion.
A formal invitation of course will be sent to you nearer the time.
I fear that Mr. Piper will not be able to attend the Dedication but he will be able to see the window when he visits the exhibition of his work that is being held in the Chapter House of the Cathedral early in July.
I shall be very grateful if you will let me know the position as regards the insurance of the window both in respect of its journey from Somerset to Lichfield and also whilst it is in the course of installation.
I naturally assume that you have made private arrangements for insurance cover for the window whilst it is in your workshop.
I do hope that you are keeping well.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Lindford Building Limited
Lichfield Regional Office
Quonians, Lichfield, Staffs. WS13 7LB
AJS/BAL
Estimate NO. L.678
20th January 1984
To: Hinkley Birch and Exham
Solicitors
20 St. John Street
Lichfield
Staffs.
Dear Sirs
ST JOHN’S HOSPITAL Lichfield
We thank you for your enquiry and now have pleasure in submitting our estimates as follows:-
1/ Erect all necessary scaffolding to both sides of East window and take down and clear away on completion.
Take out existing leaded lights and fix only new stained glass window to new saddle bars, all as shown in drawing supplied by Mr Rentin (Reyniens?).
Clear site and leave clean and tidy on completion.
FOR THE SUM OF £1,494.00 (one thousand four hundred and ninety four pounds)
2) Supply and fix stainless steel guards to external face of East window whilst scaffolding is erected for reglazing.
FOR THE SUM OF £789.00 (seven hundred and eighty nine pounds)
There would be a saving of £33.00 for using brass guards in lieu of stainless steel.
Whilst every care would be taken in handling the new stained glass leaded lights, we cannot accept responsibility for any breakages should they occur,
Our estimate is based on today’s cost of labour and materials and is subject to any fluctuation in same.
The above figure does not include V.A.T. and this tax will be charged where applicable, at the standard rate under the provisions of the V.A.T. General Regulations 1972.
We await your further instructions in due course.
Yours faithfully,
LINFORD BUILDING LIMITED
A.J. SILVESTER
Estimater
AJS/BAL
RDB/MJC/SJH
8th February 1984,
Dear Sirs,
Installation of new East Window in the Hospital Chapel
Your estimate No.L678 of the 20th ultimo as regards the above matter was carefully considered by the Trustees at their recent meeting when they agreed to the acceptance of Item 1 i.e. an estimate for £1,494.00.
The acceptance of this estimate is on the basis that the interior of the Chapel will be protected by some means or another while the work is being carried out and perhaps you will kindly confirm that this will in fact be done.
Providing this is understood then presumably you will be in communication with Mr. Reyntiens as to the exact date for the work.
As regards Item 2. in your estimate I am in communication with the Diocesan Advisory Committee as regards this matter and I hope to be able to write to you again at an early date.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
Piper wrote a description of the window to be used at the dedication service, which was later included in the Guide Book of St. John’s:
Description of the Window
The new east window in the Chapel of St. John the Baptist without the Barrs shows Christ in Majesty with the Four Evangelists.
The Character of the design is influenced by a number of drawings and paintings I made of Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of Western France, on many visits between 1955 and 1975. These carvings are often on the large semi-circular areas above the entrance doors of churches in those parts. These churches were on, or near, the old routes to the famous shrine at Compostella, in northern Spain. The carvings have provided a stimulus, with their formal ‘bigness’ and grandeur, for much twentieth century sculpture and painting.
John Piper, February 1984.
RDB/PET/SJH 16th March, 1984
To: C.R. Ballance Esq. (Contracts Supervisor)
Messrs. Bridgemans (Linford Building Limited)
Quonians,
LICHFIELD
Dear Mr. Ballance,
Installation of new East Window
With reference to our telephone conversation as regards this matter, I have now discussed the matter with Mr. Reyntiens and he will be very glad if you will telephone him to discuss the position,
When you telephone him he has agreed to make certain suggestions as regards the best protective system to be adopted.
I shall be very grateful if you will let me have an estimate at your early convenience as regards any additional cost of the protective material that he is recommending so that I can place it before the Trustees.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward
All was not as straightforward as appears in the letter. Perhaps misunderstandings occurred because local contractors rather than specialists who had done such work before were being employed. However it is as likely that the full requirements and implications of the transport and installation had not been fully discussed:
Linford Building Limited
Our Ref: CRB/LSC
18th April 1984
Hinkley Birch & Exham
20 St. John Street
Lichfield Staffs.
Dear Sirs
AT JOHN’S HOSPITAL, LICHFIELD – INSTALLATION OF NEW EAST WINDOW
Further to numerous telephone calls with yourself and Mr. Reyntiens, we are sorry to say that we are not clear as to what you require of us in order to carry out this contract.
We intend to take no further action regarding this matter until you can give us definite instructions and details of the job required.
As soon as the position is clarified between yourself and Mr. Reyntiens, would you please inform us immediately of your decision.
Yours faithfully
LINFORD BUILDING LIMITED
C.R. BALLANCE
(Contracts Supervisor)
Evidently there was some discussion over financing, which the Steward obviously had to take to the Trustees. Yet considering the urgency of the matter and the close approaching date for the Dedication, it seems strange that the steward took 9 days to reply. Though in pencil on Linford’s letter, he wrote that he replied on the 25th April, his response is dated as the 27th. Perhaps this discrepancy was due to delay in his secretary typing the letter.
CRB/LSC/
RDB/PET/SJH 27th April, 1984
Dear Sirs,
Installation of new East Window.
Thank you for your letter of the 18th instant with regards the above matter.
With regards to our recent telephone conversation I am glad to say that the Trustees have decided not to pursue their rights in this connection under the Agreement but will be willing to meet the costs of your estimate for the removal of the window and installation of the window and the provision of a safety-guard in accordance with the estimates already approved, and hope therefore that the work will proceed with all possible speed.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Linfords responded immediately:
1st May 1984
Dear Sir
ST JOHN’S HOSPITAL: Installation of New East Window
We confirm our Mr. Marsh’s telephone conversation in which you accepted the following estimates:
1) Estimate No L678 – Item 2 – dated 20th January 1984 for £789.00
2) Estimate No L932 dated 4th April 1984 for £113.00
We will arrange with Mr. Reyntiens regarding the date for collection of the window.
Yours faithfully
LINFORD BUILDING LIMITED
pp W R MASON
Surveyor
5th June 1984 from the Diocesan Advisory Committee:
Dear Mr. Birch
HOSPITAL CHAPEL WINDOW
Thank you for your letter.
You’re right that the good Victorian glass should not be destroyed. Unfortunately we do not have any place to store in the Diocese, so I would suggest storage somewhere in the Hospital.
If you wish to dispose of the glass I presume that any of the stained glass museums would be willing to receive it for use. However, I would have thought that it would be wise to keep it for repair and replacement of chapel windows.
Yours sincerely,
THE REV. PREBENDARY J. HOWE. M.A
The glass was duly removed and the new window installed and dedicated. The responses to it were positive as the Steward wrote to John Piper on 24th July:
Dear Mr. Piper,
At the Trustees’ recent meeting it was unanimously resolved that I should write to you to thank you on behalf of the Trustees for the splendid acquisition that you have provided for the chapel in the form of the new window.
Large numbers of people have been visiting the chapel to view the window and I have received numerous messages saying how delighted they are with what has been done and how the window enhances the beauties of the chapel.
Everyone connected with the chapel is greatly in your debt.
The trustees were very glad that you and Mrs. Piper were able to join us for luncheon a fortnight ago and we do hope that you had a comfortable and not too exhausting journey back to Henley.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
The wording of the letter to Patrick Reyntiens is similar, but does not fully acknowledge that the master-artist-craftsman’s contribution in interpreting and developing the window was as great as the designer. It also somewhat downplays the amazing patience and professionalism with which Patrick faced in overcoming the difficulties that arose during the process of the commission:
31st July 1984
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
At the Trustees’ recent meeting it was unanimously resolved that I should write to you to thank you for all that you have done in connection with the provision of the new window in the Chapel.
The Trustees are delighted with the results and we are having numerous visitors to the Chapel who are universally expressing their admiration of the window and commenting on the way that the beauties of the Chapel have been enhanced.
I well know that there have been a number of difficulties in connection with the provision of the Window and we are extremely grateful to you for your co-operation and the way in which all the difficulties were surmounted.
With kind regards to Mrs. Reyntiens and yourself.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Reaction to the glass was not universally good, however, as Sebastian Faulks wrote in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 1st July 1984 [page 11. ILLUSTRATION 61]. He quoted the negative reaction of one resident but also betrayed his own response in words like “alarming power”, “unnerving” and “violent pagan feel”. Faulks also made a few mistakes in the review, including issues in Piper’s relationship with Reynteins over finances and suggesting that the artist’s inspiration was a “window” rather than a sculpted tympanum at Beaulieu:
ROMANTIC VISION OF A PAGAN BELIEVER: Sebastian Faulks talks to John Piper:
The burghers of Lichfield, Staffs. are in for a shock. Theirs is a pious little town, with its Dr. Johnson birthplace museum, its busy cathedral and twinkling craft shops. But last weekend, outside the city walls in the chapel of St. John’s Hospital, a new stained glass window was dedicated: a work of alarming power by John Piper.
It is the last of his co-operations with Patrick Reyntiens, who has translated almost all of Piper’s most famous designs – including those at Coventry Cathedral, Eton and Oundle – into glass. Their ways have parted: “His accountant told him he couldn’t afford to work with me any more – or some such thing,” says Piper.
But the Lichfield window is an unnerving climax. It follows traditional Romanesque patterns, which Piper has studied for many years, and has taken specific direction from a window at Beaulieu in the Dordogne. “I hope the old dears aren’t going to be shocked by it,” says Piper. Well, they are, a bit. One of them damned it with praise as faint as to be inaudible: “Of course I like it,” she began – everything, that is, except the design and the colour.
In comparison with the chapel’s Victorian window, it has a violent, pagan feel, yet it has also been described as “clearly the work of a believer.” According to the artist, both descriptions are correct.
He and his wife Myfanwy were introduced to the Church by John Betjeman, with whom Piper used to edit the Shell Guides to Britain. “John was very keen on the Church. He always had doubts, you see, and that was why he was so churchy”
Piper accepts with a stoical smile that it was not until his 80th birthday show at the Tate last year that he was established as one of the greatest artists in Britain. After all they almost let Wodehouse die before they bothered to knight him at 90 – “and they waited until Howard Hodgkin’s nearly 60 before packing him off to the Biennale.”
His art is popularly known (though he might smile at that description) by its versatility – there is hardly a medium he has not attempted – and by his love of place. According to his friend Richard Ingrams, the self-appointed elite of the art world consider him “too parochial” because of his concentration on England, but Piper himself has said: “The basic and unexplainable thing about my painting is a feeling for places. Not for ‘travel’ but just for going somewhere – anywhere really – and trying to see what hasn’t been seen before.”
He calls himself a Romantic, by which he means someone who can see beauty in the particular or the unspectacular. He is a modest, approachable man; he looks about 10 years younger than he is, with a fit, wiry frame, white hair creeping over his collar and blue corduroy trousers pulled well up.
Piper’s own place is a lonely brick-and-flint farmhouse of four-square simplicity hedged in by hills and quietness on the Bucks.-Oxon. Border. He has studios in the two outhouses; one where he does his paintings and one for larger work such as the “cartoon” for the Lichfield window. “Here, you must be the only man alive who has seen the window and the Cartoon.” He will not see the finished window himself until Friday when he opens an exhibition of his work at the Lichfield Festival.
Piper’s pictures are full of varied surfaces and lines. “Yes, I have always had an instinct to ‘decorate’ a canvas – something for which I might be criticised.” The paintings were also at one time gloomy and storm-stricken, which led to the celebrated encounter with the shy King George VI who, after thumbing through several sketches of Windsor Castle, could only think to comment: “You’ve been pretty unlucky with the weather, Mr. Piper.”
When the light is there, it is pyrotechnic. “I used to make fireworks as a small boy with gunpowder and saltpetre. Dangerous? Yes, but that made it more fun.” He has designed huge firework displays with a friend in the business and last year set the Oxon. sky alight to mark his 80th birthday and the 60th of his neighbour the playwright John Mortimer.
Piper had a youthful excursion into abstract art under the influence of Picasso and Léger (works by both of whom hang in his house). He is adamant about how much he learned from his experiment: “I wouldn’t have been any good at all if I hadn’t done it.”
His later, more representational work has made life hard for his critics who like to see people as either modernist or not. According to David Fraser-Jenkins who organised the Tate retrospective: “He has reduced the gap between popular and academic taste. He is an artist of a very particular kind in this respect. His work in stained glass has revived the standing of that whole branch of art.”
Last week saw the regatta at nearby Henley – “terribly boring’ – and the arrival of what Myfanwy calls: “Leanderthal man.” When I met them, the Pipers were bracing themselves over a glass of Sancerre for the influx of tourists. (“Wine connoisseurs? Oh no, we can’t afford to be. But we drink a lot of it.”)
Even after a hard day’s work, Piper was still restlessly searching the garden with his eyes – “Look at that extraordinary shade of pink there.” Age has diminished his powers not at all; on the contrary, “it’s remarkable how much it comes down to practice.”
The Steward next planned for the erection of a plaque detailing the commission [ILLUSTRATION 68]:
31st July, 1984
To: A.L. Garratt Esq. MBE., JP.,
7 Cloisters Walk,
Whittington,
Nr. Lichfield,
Staffordshire.
Dear Mr. Garratt
Plaque relating to the new East Window in Hospital Chapel.
You will recall the discussion at the Trustees’ last meeting arising out of the proposal of Mr. F.H. Clayton that a plaque should be installed near the window giving some details as regards the name of the artist etc.
The Master was left somewhat in a vacuum and perhaps you will let me know what type of plaque you have in mind; I imagine a wooden plaque is all that will be required about 1’6” square and perhaps you will let me know whether we should obtain an estimate for the same from either Peter Ward Studios or Mevesyn Ridware.
With kind regards to Mrs. Garratt and yourself,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
The size of plaque suggested in Birch’s letter seems rather insensitive within the aesthetic of the building, especially if it was to be sited within the Chancel area. Considering previous problems, one would have thought that he would have initially contacted the Diocesan Advisory Committee for advice about what they would be acceptable. As with the window commission, the plaque was delayed as a result, since we know from a letter of 16th November 1984 that the design proposed was rejected and a smaller design required. However we find the Steward writing to Messrs. Bridgeman & Sons, Quonians Lane, Lichfield on 13th August 1984:
Dear Sirs,
New East Window in the Hospital Chapel.
With reference to our previous discussion of the installation of the new East Window in the Hospital Chapel, the Trustees feel that there ought to be some kind of plaque inside the Chapel situated close to the window, very briefly setting out the fact that the window was given as a result in the first place of a gift by one of the Almsmen, was designed by Mr. Piper and executed by Mr. P. Reyntiens and dedicated in June 1984.
I shall be grateful if you will let me have your comments on the most suitable type of plaque i.e. either a metal one or a wooden one.
I should imagine that it would be required to be about 1’6” x 1’ in size and it is suggested that the words should be confined to about forty words.
When writing perhaps you could let me have a very approximate estimate of the cost of the making of such a plaque and of its erection.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Bridgeman’s response on 17th August 1984 was a one quarter scale sketch for a brass plaque – ‘Brass Satin Finish Lettering Machine Cut Roman Type (Black) with the rather imprecise and convoluted text:
THE EASTERN WINDOW OF
THIS CHAPEL UPON RENEWAL
WAS DEDICATED AS A GIFT FROM
THE ALMSMEN IN JUNE 1984
THE DESIGN AND EXECUTION
WERE BY MR JOHN PIPER
AND MR REYNTIENS
The Trustees also approached a monumental craftsman who presented a beautifully detailed calligraphic design in November, but for all the work put into it, it had to be rejected. The following letter asking for a revision refers to “circumstances beyond our control”, though in fact, if the Diocesan Advisory Committee had been consulted initially the circumstances would have been considered. Rightly, in the revised lettering the role of the Trustees in providing finance for the project was included, with that of the initial bequest which began the process. By this time H.H. Lewis had replaced R.D. Birch as Steward:
To: Mr. M. Painter
Whichcraft
Tudor Row
Lichfield
Staffs.
Dear Mr. Painter,
CHAPEL PLAQUE
Thank you very much for the sketch you sent last week. Unfortunately, because of circumstances outside our control, we have to ask you to start again.
Our information is that the plaque must not be more than approximately 144 sq. inches in area, otherwise permission to install it will not be received. Consequently the wording has to be reduced and amended as follows:
The East Window, the Gift of Mr. S.W. Hayes
an Almsman and the Trustees of the Hospital
was designed by Mr. John Piper and made by
Mr. Patrick Reyntiens. June 1984
Perhaps you will be kind enough to let me have a revised quotation when convenient. Your sketch need not be as elaborate this time.
Yours sincerely,
H.H. Lewis
Steward
Painter’s revised slate design with his pricing of £106.25 is show as ILLUSTRATION 68 & 68a
While Birch was still Steward the promotion of the window by postcard images was also considered:
To: Messrs. Beric Tempest & Co, Ltd. 14th August 1984
Temprint Works
St. Ives.
Cornwall.
Dear Sirs,
I enclose a transparency in respect of the new East Window that has been installed in the Hospital Chapel which has been designed by John Piper.
The Trustees would like to purchase five thousand post-cards depicting the window and I gather that your price would be £165.00 together with V.A.T.
We should like a caption of ‘The Christ in Glory’ East Window in St John’s Hospital Chapel Lichfield designed by John Piper.
I should be very glad if you would confirm that you would be able to supply such cards for the figure mentioned and I will then place the matter before the Trustees at their meeting on the 13th proximo for a final decision prior to giving an order.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if there is any further information that you require.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
It is at this point that the archives concerning work on the window itself stop.
From a letter of 23rd January 1992 (below) the watercolour study (26 inches x 18 inches), which Piper had produced for acceptance as the final design for the window was given generously to the Hospital and its value was recognised. The presentation appears to have been by some friends of St. John’s, through Mr. T. O (Terence) Read of Sandycove, Co. Dublin, some time before June 1991. For safety it was kept in the Master’s House. At the end of June 1991 it was valued for insurance purposes by Michael Smedley, Director of Fine Art for Wintertons Auctioneers. Wood End Lane, Fradley, Lichfield who sent a valuation on 1st July 1991. In this the watercolour design is called a “‘Cartoon’ for the East Window, The Chapel, St. John’s Hospital. Watercolour/pastel (the last known work of the artist)” and valued at £3000. In fact the watercolour as discussed earlier, was not the “last known work of the artist”, nor was the Lichfield window his last stained glass, thought it was his last large glass commission completed in close collaboration with Patrick Reyntiens. At this time all were perhaps unaware that Piper was near death (he died five months later, on the 28th June 1992).
To: Mr. T. O. Read
9 Sandycove Ave. West
Sandycove
Co. Dublin
IRELAND
Dear Terence,
Linda, who is typing this letter, has a very gifted photographer husband. He has taken photographs of your presentation, which has been framed recently, and I enclose a couple for your records. Thank you very much again for your kindness. The frame containing your gift will be hanging in my office shortly. At the moment I am awaiting the removal of the Cartoon of the John Piper window to the Heritage Centre at St. Mary’s Church, Lichfield. The cartoon has been here in my office for safe keeping.
With warmest good wishes to you and all the Friends.
Yours sincerely,
H.H. Lewis
This was a finished ‘design’, not the ‘cartoon’ for the window. Throughout the correspondence, the term ‘cartoon’ had often been used incorrectly to refer to smaller drawings and watercolours. The true ‘cartoon’ was the full-size painting on several pieces of collaged-together paper [ILLUSTRATION 5, now in a private collection which was shown in the Dorchester Abbey exhibition ‘John Piper and the Church’ in 2012]. The Hospital’s design is far smaller, more the size of the drawing shown in the Mercury press-photograph being shown by Patrick Reyntiens to the Master. Whether these are exactly the same is uncertain. The composition and symbols of St. Matthew and St Luke are the same. By close comparison, the painted study [ILLUSTRATION 4] seems more intense than the image being held in the photograph. Piper may have worked into further that painting.
The Trustees decided, perhaps for insurance, security and protective purposes, as well as for promotion, to offer this study on loan to the museum in St. Mary’s Centre, Lichfield, where it resides at present Leading to some future confusion, it persisted in being called a ‘cartoon’:
To: Mr. Lewis Leeds 17th January 1992
St. Mary’s Centre
Market Square
LICHFIELD
Staffs.
Dear Lewis,
John Piper Window – S. John’s Chapel
The Trustees feel that the cartoon produced by Mr. John Piper of the Chapel window ought to be on public display. This would be of interest to people generally and would advertise further the fact that the window in one of the tourist attractions of the City. The cartoon in a gilt frame measures approximately 32½” x 24½” and was valued recently at £3,000. As no more Piper windows will be produced because of the gentleman’s age, the item cannot but increase in value progressively.
The Trustees would like to know, please, whether or not you would like to display the cartoon in the Heritage Centre. They are aware that you have excellent security arrangements and that the atmosphere in the building would not have any adverse effect on the cartoon. However, they wold be grateful for confirmation of these points and that the cartoon would be covered by your insurance policy.
If I can provide you with any further information, do please contact me either here or at home (telephone number supplied). Meanwhile, perhaps you will be kind enough to arrange for the matter to be discussed at your next meeting.
Yours sincerely
H. H. LEWIS
STEWARD
Lewis J Leeds responded immediately on 21st July, thanking the Trustees for their kind offer, assuring the Steward that it was much appreciated and would be considered by the Executive Committee at the February meeting, after which he would be in touch with him again. The Committee met on 11th February and the Chairman responded on the next day:
12th February 1992
Dear Hugh,
In Lewis’s absence last night, I chaired the Executive Committee Meeting.
I am delighted to tell you that your very kind offer of the loan of the John Piper Cartoon was unanimously and enthusiastically accepted and will be a welcome addition to the Exhibition.
We will of course be responsible for the Insurance of the Cartoon and its security.
Yours sincerely,
for St Mary’s Centre
John E. Rackham
Chairman, Publicity and Promotion
The St. Mary’s Centre, Lichfield.
John Rackham then sent a confirmation that he had collected the Cartoon, that it would be exhibited and fully covered for insurance purposes by St. Mary’s Centre, and they would be responsible for its security. A letter to the Steward from him of the 18th February proposed a draft Caption for the Cartoon and asked for his comments and suggestions before having it printed:
“Mr. John Piper’s original cartoon design for his magnificent stained glass window in the Chapel of St John’s Hospital, Lichfield. This window represents Christ in Majesty and is the last of its kind to be produced by Mr. Piper. It was dedicated in 1984 by the Dean of Lichfield, the Very Reverend John Harley Lane M.A., D.Lit.”
Huw Lewis (Steward) evidently contacted the Dean, who had recently returned in the capacity of a Trustee. A week later the Dean replied:
24th February 1992
Dear Huw,
I have drafted an alternative inscription for you to use or not as you wish.
The partnership between the two artists was a very fruitful one. They together did the windows in Coventry Cathedral and in St. Margaret’s Westminster.
Yours sincerely,
John
Lang’s enclosed proposal for the caption was:
‘John Piper’s original design for the magnificent stained glass east window in the Chapel of St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield. It represents Christ in Majesty.
The window was made by Patrick Reyntiens and is the last work done by the two artists jointly. It was dedicated in 1984 by John Harley Lang, Dean of Lichfield.
The Steward forwarded copy of this letter to Rackham at The St. Mary’s Centre 0n 25th February 1992, adding:
“What is interesting is the fact that we have been calling a ‘design’ a cartoon, completely incorrectly!”
He also wrote to the Dean on the same day:
Dear Mr. Dean,
John Piper Window
Many thanks indeed for your letter of yesterday and for the alternative form of caption for the “design”. As old habits die hard, “cartoon will take some getting rid of from the system!
A copy of your letter along with mine of today is being sent to John Rackham who, I am sure, will be happy to use your suggestion.
Your advice and help are appreciated greatly.
Yours sincerely
Huw Lewis.
A note from Huw Lewis’s secretary, Linda, records a telephone call from John Rackham thanking him for his letter and assuring him that “it will be done exactly as the Dean has said.”
Though they had the design in their safekeeping since mid-February, it was not until 11th June 1992 that The St. Mary’s Centre formally accepted the loan of the design. Lewis J. Leeds, the President of The St. Mary’s Centre confirmed on 5th May 1992:
Dear Huw,
We have arranged for the formal acceptance on loan of the John Piper Design to take place in the Heritage4 Centre on Thursday 11th June at 6pm. And would very much welcome the presence of the Chairman and Board of Trustees of St. John’s Hospital on the occasion of this presentation.
Light refreshments will be provided.
Yours sincerely
For St. Mary’s Centre
Lewis J. Leeds
President
The Steward responded with thanks on 8th May that at the Trustees’ meeting the previous day they had expressed pleasure at their invitation to the official presentation. He would later confirm numbers.
On the 12th June, the day after the presentation Huw Lewis wrote in thanks to Lewis Leeds (President) and John Rackham (Chairman):
Dear Lewis,
John Piper Design
Many thanks for the excellent show you put on yesterday evening at St. Mary’s when our Chairman, Councillor Arnold Ward, presented the Design to you on loan. It was an extremely pleasant event altogether and the Trustees hope that the publicity will be beneficial to our respective organisations.
Please convey the Trustees’ best thanks to all your colleagues who were involved.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
H.H. LEWIS
STEWARD
12th June,
Dear John,
John Piper Window Design
A letter is going out today on behalf of the Trustees to Lewis Leeds thanking him officially for the most enjoyable event at St. Mary’s yesterday evening. However, it would be remiss of me if I fail to thank you very warmly on a personal basis for all you have done to make it a great success. As I have said the Trustees here will be pleased to pick up the bill for the refreshment. A little note from you stating the sum will please our auditors as proof that a cheque has been issued correctly!
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
H.H. Lewis
STEWARD
On the 15th June, Huw Lewis contacted the editorial team of the Cathedral Newsletter with proposed copy:
To. Mr. James Wilson
The Chapter Office
Lichfield.
Dear James,
Cathedral News Letter
If Kathy is short of material for the news letter in the near future she will be interested in the following item:-
“St. John’s Hospital – John Piper Window
Until recently, the framed design (32½ inch x 24½ inch) by John Piper of the window in the Chapel was kept in the Master’s House; now it is on view to the public at St. Mary’s Centre, Lichfield following a ceremony on the 11th June when the St. John’s Chairman, Cllr. Arnold Ward, presented the design on loan to Mr. Lewis Leeds, the St. Mary’s Centre Chairman.
The inscription reads:-
John Piper’s original design for the significant stained glass east window in the Chapel of St. John’s Hospital Lichfield. It represents Christ in Majesty.
The window was made by Patrick Reyntiens and is the last work done by the two artists jointly. It was dedicated in 1984 by John Harley Lang, Dean of Lichfield.
Signed Huw Lewis
Steward to the Trustees
The Dean was present at St. Mary’s Centre.
Yours sincerely
Huw 15/6/92
The event was also reported on page 16 of The Post on the 18th June 1992. H. H. Lewis wrote to thank the Editor on the following day, though he pointed out that: “As the design, which is very valuable, is still on our inventory, please allow me to point out that it is on loan to St. Mary’s Centre and not a gift.”
To accompany the picture the Trustees also loaned a model of St. John’s Hospital to St. Mary Centre on 17th September 1993.
In March 1993 The Master, Andrew Gorham, was contacted by Libby Horner who, in completing her catalogue of Reyntiens’ stained glass, sent him for approval her catalogue entry for the St. John’s Christ in Majesty: Note that Horner repeated (probably from Sebastian Faulks’ mistake,) that the design source was a ‘window’ not the sculpted tympanum of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne. Faulks is also spelled ‘Faulkes’.
Title: Christ in Majesty
Date: 1984
Location and Size: 5-light east window, approximately 360 x 285 cms (141 x 112 in)
Designer: John Piper
Glass Painter and Maker: Patrick Reyntiens
Donor: The window was paid for by the Trustees and a bequest from Samuel Hayes, a former resident.
Dedication: June 1984
Literature:
Sunday Telegraph The, Faulkes Sebastian, ‘Romantic Design of a Pagan Believer’, 1 July 1984, p11.
Osborne, 1997, p140-142, 178.
Spalding, 209 p486
Williams Canon Roger, St John’s Hospital LICHFIELD Ziggurat Design, undated, p.17, 22, 25
Reproduced: Osborne 1997, p138
Williams Canon Roger, St John’s Hospital LICHFIELD Ziggurat Design, undated, p.7, 10-11, 22-25; postcard.
Notes: This was the last window in which Piper and Reyntiens collaborated and Piper was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph article as saying: ‘His accountant told him he couldn’t afford to work with me any more – or some such thing.’ The window replaced one of plain white quarry glass, and Piper’s inspiration was Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintogne areas of France and specifically a window at Beaulieu in the Dordogne. Christ is depicted with his arms outstretched within a red bordered mandorla and flanked by two green angels blowing trumpets with the sun and moon above them and a slightly offset Mercian Cross. Surrounding the mandorla is green glass and the symbols of the evangelists at the four corners. Faulkes described the window as ‘a work of alarming power’ and noted that at the time one old dear said: ‘Of course I like it – everything that is except the design and the colour!’
SOME LESSONS WHICH MAY BE LEARNED ABOUT COMMISSIONING PROCESSES FROM THIS PROJECT:
The list below is not exhaustive but, I hope, gives useful examples for groups considering future commissions.
The outcome of this commission was extremely successful, largely due to the skills, experience and commitment of the two artists concerned. All artists’ work can vary in quality and often successful and famous modern artists’ work declines in quality as they age. With fame or familiarity, some become blasé over the quality of work that they present. This is far from the case in this project, and may be partly due to Piper and Reyntiens’ recognition that this was probably going to be their last major collaboration. Certainly the commitment of Reyntiens to the project is seen both in the highest quality of the final work and the integrity and patience with which he maintained his intention to bring the work to a successful conclusion through all the delays and difficulties. The quality of the materials and colours of the glass selected, his vivid, lively interpretation of Piper’s design, and the intricacy of detail in the etching and fusing of the glass make the final window a masterpiece.
Several of the delays and misunderstandings that occurred in the project might have been avoided, and I suggest here a few lessons which could be learned for future commissions. The longest delays were caused initially by John Piper’s lack of organisation in visiting the chapel, the Steward’s politeness in writing that the commission was not urgent, and the Trustees not considering sufficiently the financial cost of the window or planning in advance contingences for where the money would come from. Piper was approached and began the designs before the committee realised how difficult it was going to be to obtain or release the full funding. Yet we may be grateful for this, since, if they had considered the full implications, I doubt that the Chapel would now have the window as its chief glory. There may have been many times when the Trustees regretted beginning the undertaking, but by the time Samuel Hayes’ bequest had been spent on Piper’s work for the design they had committed themselves to a process from which it was difficult to extricate themselves. It is to their credit that they saw the project through without aborting it. The Dean’s intervention was crucial in persuading the Charity Commissioners to accept the use of funds from Hospital income. By a carefully constructed argument he demonstrated that the project was within the remit of the Foundation’s aims. Reyntiens’ integrity in maintaining the price at a time of rapidly rising inflation meant that he personally lost some finance through the project. Through all these issues and more, an initially naively-considered project reached successful fruition.
From the problems certain lessons could be considered:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources:
St. John’s Hospital Archives
Tate Gallery Archives
V&A Archives
Literature:
Archer, Michael, An Introduction to English Stained Glass. V&A Museum. London: HM Stationery Office 1985
Bowen, Jane (curator), John Piper Centenary: Crossing Boundaries. Chichester: Pallant House Gallery 2016.
Campbell, Louise (ed.), To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral 1945-62. University of Warwick exhibition catalogue 1987.
Campbell, Louise (ed.), Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain. Oxford, Clarendon Press 1996.
Clark, Brian, Architectural Stained Glass (ed.). London, John Murray 1979, with contributions from John Piper.
Comper, Ninian, Of the Atmosphere of a Church. London: SPCK 1947.
Compton, Ann (ed.), John Piper: Painting in Coloured Light. Cambridge: Kettles Yard Gallery 1982
Davis, Howard, A Great Job of Work for All Time. John Piper - Unknown Mosaicist, Andamento [British Association for Modern Mosaic] No. 3 2009.
Patricia Jordan Evans & Joanna Cartwright (ed), John Piper And The Church. Dorchester Abbey, Oxon. Exhibition Catalogue 2012. cf. http://www.johnpiperandthechurch.co.uk/exhibition.htm
Faulks, Sebastian, ‘Romantic Design of a Pagan Believer’, The Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 1984, p11.
Fraser Jenkins, David, John Piper. London: Tate Gallery Publications 1983.
Fraser Jenkins, David & John Piper, A Painter's Camera. London: Tate Gallery Publications 1987.
Fraser Jenkins, David, John Piper - The Robert & Rena Lewin Gift to the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum 1992.
Fraser Jenkins, David, John Piper - The Forties. London: Philip Wilson Publishers / Imperial War Museum 2000.
Fraser Jenkins, David & Spalding, Frances, John Piper in the 1930s: Abstraction on the Beach. Dulwich Art Gallery. London: Merrell 2003.
Fraser Jenkins, David & Fowler-Wright, Hugh, The Art of John Piper. Unicorn Press & Portland Gallery. 2016.
Gibberd, Frederick, The Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King, Liverpool. London: Architectural Press 1968.
Harris, Alexandra Romantic Moderns: English Artists and the Imagination from Virginias Woolf to John Piper. New York: Thames and Hudson 2010
Hammond, Peter, Liturgy and Architecture. London: Barrie and Rockliff 1960.
Heathcote, David, A Shell Eye on England: The Shell County Guides 1934-1984 Farringdon: Libri Publishing 2010.
History Today September 2009: John Piper's wartime paintings and his work for the Sitwells at Renishaw.
Horner, Libby, Patrick Reyntiens: Catalogue of Stained Glass. Bristol: Sansom & Co. 2013
Imperial War Museum. War artists archive: John Piper.
Imperial War Museum. Art from the Second World War. 2015.
Lambirth, Andrew, ‘God in a Stained Glass Window’. The Spectator 14 December 2013
Levinson, Orde, Quality and Experiment: The Prints of John Piper - A Catalogue Raisonné 1932–91. London: Lund Humphries Publishers 1996.
Nead, Lynda, ‘How John Piper Found Beauty in Bombed Buildings’. Art UK. 2017.
Osborne; June, John Piper and Stained Glass. Stroud: Alan Sutton 1997.
Osborne, June, Stained Glass in England. Stroud: Alan Sutton 1993 (Revised Edition)
Peterson, William S., John Betjeman: A Bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006
Piper, John, ‘England's Early Sculptors’, Architectural Review: 1937.
Piper, John, ‘The Architecture of Destruction’ Architectural Review July 1941.
Piper, John, British Romantic Artists. London: Collins 1942.
Piper, John, ‘Colour in Building: Colour and Texture’ Architectural Review Feb. 1944.
Piper, John, ‘The Artist and the Church’. Cymry’r Groes: Quarterly magazine 2:1 July 1946.
Piper, John, ‘Book Illustration and the Painter-Artist’ in Penrose Annual43: 1949, p.52–54
Piper, John, Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?. London: Studio Vista 1968.
Powers, Alan, et al., Piper in Print. Artist's Choice Edition 2010.
Reyntiens, Patrick, Technique of Stained Glass. London: Batsford 1987.
Reyntiens, Patrick, The Beauty of Stained Glass. London: Herbert Press 1990
Reyntiens, Patrick, Visions in Light- Glass Painted and Stained. Bruton Gallery Ltd, Somerset 1985
Spalding, Frances, `Mondrian's Grocer' in ‘From Self to Shelf: The Construction of the Artist’. Sally Bayley & William May (ed.), Cambridge: Scholars Press, Preface and Esay 2008.
Walker, Lucy (ed.), Benjamin Britten: New Perspectives on His Life and Work, Boydell & Brewer with The Britten-Pears Foundation 2009.
Spalding, Frances, John Piper, Myfanwy Piper: Lives in Art. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2009.
Spalding, Frances, `In the Nautical Tradition: John Piper' in Lara Feigel & Alexandra Harris (ed.) Modernism on Sea: Art and Culture at the British Seaside. Oxford: Peter Lang 2009, pp. 135-143.
Spalding, Frances, ‘Ways With Words: John Piper: a sombre yet fiery genius’. The Telegraph. 20 May 2010.
West, Anthony, John Piper. London: Secker & Warburg 1979.
Woods, S. John, John Piper Paintings Drawings & Theatre Designs 1932–1954. New York: Curt Valentin 1955.
Wortley, Laura, John Piper - Master of Diversity Henley-on-Thames: River & Rowing Museum 2000. exhibition catalogue.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/12/patrick-reyntienss-stained-glass-provides-food-for-the-soul/God in a stained glass window
https://www.artfund.org/get-involved/art-happens/bring-john-piper-home-to-henley/john-pipers-stained-glass
by JOHN PIPER and PATRICK REYNTIENS
CHAPEL OF SAINT JOHN BAPTIST, LICHFIELD.
Study by Iain McKillop 2019
CONTENTS
- LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1-2
- INTRODUCTION 3
- JOHN PIPER: THE ARTIST 4
- JOHN PIPER'S STAINED GLASS 9
- PATRICK REYNTIENS: MASTER GLASS ARTIST 13
- PIPER & REYNTIENS’ GLASS FOR ST. JOHN’S CHAPEL, LICHFIELD 16
- THE SUBJECT OF THE WINDOW 19
- THE FOLIATE BORDER 20
- THE FIGURE OF CHRIST 21
- THE MANDORLA SYMBOL AROUND CHRIST 23
- FIVE WOUNDS OF CHRIST? 26
- THE SUN AND MOON 27
- THE FOUR WINGED BEASTS 27
- COLOURS IN THE WINDOW 31
- THE ROLE OF HISTORIC SOURCES BEHIND THE ST. JOHNS’ WINDOW 32
- CORRESPONDENCE AND THE PROCESS OF THE ST. JOHN’SCOMMISSION 36
- SOME LESSONS WHICH MAY BE LEARNED ABOUT COMMISSIONING PROCESSES FROM THIS PROJECT 71
- BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
- ILLUSTRATIONS 75ff
ILLUSTRATIONS
- St John’s Chapel, Lichfield looking East.
- John Piper & Patrick Reyntiens – East Window in St. John’s Chapel.
- John Piper - Early Mixed Media Collage Study for St. John’s window. (Private Collection)
- John Piper - Watercolour Study for St. John’s window. (St John’s Collection on Loan)
- John Piper – Full-size Cartoon for St. John’ window. (Private Collection)
- Vézelay Tympanum.
- John Piper - Watercolour/gouache/collage based on the Vézelay Tympanum. 1970. (Private Collection)
- John Piper - Photograph of Tympanum, St. Peter’s Rowlstone, Herefordshire. Tate Gallery Archive.
- John Piper - Watercolour of Rowlestone Tympanum. (Private Collection)
- John Piper - Photograph of Moissac Tympanum. Tate Gallery Archive.
- John Piper - Apostles, Moissac South Door Watercolour/crayon/mixed media, 1968. (Private Collection)
- Romanesque Tympanum – Beaulieau-sur-Dordogne.
- John Piper - Watercolour based on the Tympanum, Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne 1979. (Private Collection)
- John Piper - Rowlestone Tympanum with Hanging Lamp. 1952. Oil. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada.
- John Piper - Photograph Tympanum Pitsford, Nothants. Tate Gallery, Archive.
- John Piper - Hertfordshire Tympanum. Tate Gallery Archive.
- Chartres Cathedral, Christ in Majesty above Good Samaritan Window.
- John Piper - Photograph St. Andrew’s, Great Rollright, Oxon. Tate Gallery Archive.
- John Piper - Photograph All Saints, Lullington, Somerset. Tate Gallery Archive.
- John Piper- Ledisham, Yorks. Watercolour & Mixed Media. 1983. (Private Collection)
- John Piper - South Door, Kilpeck, Herefordshire Portfolio Lithograph ‘A Retrospective of Churches’ 1963-4. (Private Collection)
- John Piper - Photograph figures of Romanesque Font, Toller Fratrum. Tate Gallery Archive.
- John Piper - Photograph figures of Romanesque Font, Toller Fratrum. Tate Gallery Archive.
- John Piper & David Wasley Head of Risen Christ from St Lawrence College Chapel, Ramsgate, 1981.
- Paul Klee – Senecio. Kunstmuseum, Basel. 1922.
- Graham Sutherland - Christ in Glory in the Teramorph - Coventry Cathedral Tapestry 1951-62.
- Central West Tympanum, Chartres Cathedral.
- John Piper - Lithograph Donzy-le-Pre Tympanum 1970. (Private Collection)
- Herkenrode Glass, Lichfield Cathedral. Flemish, C16th.
- Piper & Reyntiens - Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral. 1965-67.
- Piper & Reyntiens - Baptistery Window, Coventry Cathedral. 1959-62.
- Piper & Reyntiens - Four Evangelists Window, All Hallows, Wellingborough. 1960-61
- Piper & Reyntiens ‘The Four Elements’ Lady Astor Memorial Window Plymouth Cathedral. 1965.
- Reyntiens & Ivan Clutterbuck, Master of St. John’s, holding the window design. The Mercury May 13th 1983
- Winged Man - St. Matthew - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Winged Lion - St. Mark. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Eagle - St John. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Winged Ox - St. Luke
- a/ Left hand Angel 39b/ Right hand Angel. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Figure of Christ in Majesty. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Feet Detail of the left hand Angel. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Drapery Detail of Left Hand Angel. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Head of right-hand Angel. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Head of left-hand Angel. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Sun and radiating leading. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Moon and radiating leading. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Central Section of Window. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Right Hand of Christ. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Left Hand of Christ. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Cross and Head of Christ. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Head of Christ with inset Head of Christ from the Cartoon. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Robes of Christ. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Details of Etching in the Green Background. - St. John’s Chapel Window.
- Details of Etching in the Green Background. - St. John’s Chapel Window.
- Detail of Etching and Painting in Robes of the Ange. - St. John’s Chapel Window.
- Eye/Jewel at the centre of the Cross. - St. John’s Chapel Window Detail.
- Piper & Reyntiens - Four Ages/Seasons/Elements Panel for Chartres exhibition. 1982 (Piper Collection)
- John Piper - Foliate Head - Lithograph 1972- (Private Collection)
- John Piper - Foliate Head Tapestry 1979. (Private Collection)
- Piper & Reyntiens – Adoration of Magi, Antechapel, Robinson Chapel, Cambridge, based on Tympanum Neuilly-en-Donjon, Allier, 1978-80.
- Sebastian Faulks - Article on Piper and the St. John’s Window Sunday Telegraph July 11, 1984 p.11.
- Piper & Reyntiens The Light of the World. Robinson College Chapel Cambridge 1968
- Piper & Reyntiens Christ with St. Peter & St. Paul based on Tympanum, Aulnay, France. V&A. 1955
- Patrick Reyntiens - Orpheus Charming the Trees. 1984-5. (Private Collection)
- Patrick Reyntiens - All Saints, Odiham. Hants - Adoration of the Lamb Window. 1968-9.
- Piper Full-Size Cartoon, displayed in Dorchester Abbey exhibition 2012. (Private Collection)
- Interior of St. John’s c.1979 prior to installation of Christ in Majesty window.
- Inscription Panel in chancel of St. John’s Chapel. / 68a Dyeline of original drawn plan for the panel
- Four Evangelists page from the Lichfield Gospels. c730? (Lichfield Cathedral)
- St. Luke Illuminated page from the Lichfield Gospels. c730? (Lichfield Cathedral)
‘CHRIST IN MAJESTY’ 1984 by JOHN PIPER & PATRICK REYNTIENS
EAST WINDOW IN THE CHAPEL OF SAINT JOHN BAPTIST, LICHFIELD.
Iain McKillop 2019
The chapel to which John Piper’s east window makes such a strong contribution is open daily to the public. Saint John’s provides sheltered housing for retired people. Since the C12th its chapel has been a place of public worship. The original ‘Hospital of St John Baptist Without The Barrs’ was founded in 1135 as a priory/hostel outside the Culstubbe Gate of the city. A community of Augustinian brothers and sisters provided shelter and sustenance for pilgrims who arrived after city’s curfew, when Lichfield’s city-gates were closed. Later it became a benefice run by a non-residentiary secular clerk. Bishop William Smyth re-founded the priory in 1495 as almshouses for elderly men, incorporating a free grammar school. The most distinctive architectural features of the building are the eight tall 15th Century brick chimneys, dating from the Tudor alterations to the building:
The chapel and east range facing Saint John Street are part of the original mediaeval foundation, though expanded and highly restored in Victorian times. John Piper and Patrick Reyntiens’ 1984 stained glass east window for the chapel brings the ancient and modern together in its imagery and colours. It was installed in time for the commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of the original Augustinian Foundation, though surprisingly this significant anniversary is not mentioned in any correspondence concerning the commissioning of the window. The subject of ‘Christ in Majesty’ focuses on the purpose of the Chapel, to enable worship of God, to enhance a sense of Christ’s presence with us and to concentrate thought on Christ’s care, power and gift of salvation:
“A man that looks on glass,
On it may stay his eye;
Or, if he pleaseth, through it pass
And there the heav’n espy”
[George Herbert – The Elixir – (‘Teach me my God and King, In all things thee to see.’)]
Some react negatively to Piper’s window: I personally admit that I was initially unsure about the appropriateness of the design for its setting, when I first saw photographs and later encountered it first-hand. However my mind quickly changed. I had admired Piper’s art for decades; the style, texture and subjects of his paintings particularly. His use of colour was always innovative, and, with his innovatory use of texture, perhaps his greatest skill. (One traditionalist canon who objected to the vibrancy of Piper’s reredos tapestry in Chichester Cathedral deliberately turned up to services wearing dark glasses [Spalding 2009 p.403].) In St. John’s Chapel, I at first felt that the artist’s use of colour seemed rather over-dominant, though it creates a meaningful atmosphere in the chancel. It has very obviously transformed the ambiance of the chancel from the brightness that must have pervaded it previously, when lit by clear, transparent Victorian glass. The composition, which is usually another of Piper’s primary skills, is more centrally focused than usual. It thus dominates the space less subtly than at Coventry and Liverpool Cathedrals or Robinson College Cambridge, especially as St. John’s Chapel is small. Christ’s face and the painting of the two angels, I initially found awkward and slightly crude for such winsome subjects, especially as we view them form such close proximity. I thought to excuse these as weaknesses, perhaps due to recognising that this was a late work by an aging artist. However, with familiarity, study and close contemplation, the meaning and qualities of the window have grown on me intensely, and I now find immense value and meaning within all aspects of the window. I now consider the colours and fine detail beautiful.
Piper was 81years old when he designed the glass. He might not have been at the summit of his skills, creativity or imagination, unlike some of his best work between 1940 and the late 1960s. But it is a spirit-lifting piece. By 1983/4 John was at a stage of his life and career when he might have identified with many who now live in the sheltered housing of St. John’s. Yet his quality and ideas as an artist were still very strong. Piper’s younger co-worker on the window, the master-glass-artist Patrick Reyntiens enhanced the painted cartoon design by his own artistry, to make it one of their best windows. St. John’s window represents the late-flowering of an elderly artist who had reached the last decade of his life. Within four years dementia had set in, leaving Piper’s wife believing that for the next four years (1988 to 1992) she had already lost him [as quoted in Spalding 2009 p.500]. Despite my initial misgivings, the more I have studied, considered and contemplated this late window, the more I now find rich content, meaning and values within it, (perhaps more than many of Piper’s other works in glass,) and have come to admire the window greatly. Reading all the surviving correspondence about the design during the process of the commission (appended at the end of this study) one realises that Piper and Patrick Reyntiens recognised that this would probably be their last major commission together (a few smaller works followed) and were committed to making it a masterpiece, celebrating their creative partnership. The qualities of colour, rich intensity and fine etching of the glass demonstrate this. On 2nd March 1983 John H. Lang, Dean of Lichfield reported after a meeting with Piper and Reyntiens:
“Mr. Reyntiens… told me privately that he and Mr. Piper were particularly anxious to complete this commission because it was likely to be their last major piece of work together… I also believe that Mr. Piper really sees this window as summing up his work on glass and if it is brought off effectively it may well be of lasting importance.”
The younger John Piper would not have been worried if the viewer finds his work initially uncomfortable or even disquieting. He believed that it was partly the role of a ‘modern artist’ to confront viewers with the unfamiliar, to challenge us to think further about a work and find in it meanings and values that we might not at first have recognised. When we are forced to make an effort at appreciation, this can expand our minds, thoughts and concepts. This may become in itself a spiritual exercise, (as writing this study has been). I write in the hope that it might help others explore and find ideas, meaning and inspiration within the window.
Given the age of the artist at the time of designing the window, the work is also an inspirational testimony to the potential creativity, fruitfulness and abilities within an elderly mind: This in itself offers hope, affirmation of our continuing value, encouragement and incentive for us all, especially as we grow older!
JOHN PIPER: THE ARTIST / DESIGNER
John Piper is probably best-known today for his dramatic windows for Coventry Cathedral Baptistery (consecrated in 1962) and the corona above Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (consecrated in 1967), his architectural paintings, lithographs and illustrations of British buildings, particularly his 1940s records of post-war ruins, and his illustrations and writings for the Shell Guides (especially in the 1940s & 50s). His art and ideas changed regularly over a career of nearly 63 years. Piper’s paintings, graphics and designs went in and out of fashion several times during his career. He especially lost popularity among the artistic elite in the late 1950s and early 60s due to the rising taste for Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art. He was criticised for both being insufficiently avant-garde and for defecting from abstraction. This led him to resign as a Trustee of the Tate Gallery. Yet his work in stained glass remained popular from his first glass designs in 1954 until his death. By the early 1980s, when St. John’s window was commissioned, he was beginning to return to fashion, and his value and contribution was being reassessed, particularly through critics like Peter Fuller.
John Egerton Christmas Piper (1903-1992) was born in Epsom, Surrey, on 13 December 1903. ‘Christmas’ was the middle name of his grandfather, Charles Christmas Piper who died a year later in October 1904. Charles was a self-made man who retired to The White House, West Hill, Epsom. He had been a London boot-manufacturer who expanded his sights to become a partner in several firms including the Westminster House & Land Co. and Wightman & Co., printers and stationers. He became so successful as a businessman that at his death his effects amounted to £14,261 (between £1.5 and £2 million today). His son, Charles (1866-1927), John’s father, did not follow his father into business but became a Westminster solicitor.
John was educated at Kingswood House Preparatory School, Epsom then at the age of 15 moved to Epsom College (1919-22). Despite encouraging John’s interest in the arts, and supporting his visits to galleries, his father’s ambition was for his son to follow a stable profession. He articled him to his own law firm, intending that John would succeed him. Charles’s early death in March 1927 removed opposition to John following his own ambition to attempt a career in the arts. However, a condition in his father’s will meant that, on giving up law to study art, John was obliged to surrender to his brothers his personal share of his father's estate. His mother supported John’s decision and supported him financially with an allowance. In 1935 she bought the house and farm-buildings in Fawley Bottom, Oxfordshire, where John and his second wife lived for the rest of their professional careers. John enrolled in Richmond School of Art (1927-8) in preparation for applying for a place at the Royal College of Art, London the following year.
Unlike today, when many art students are encouraged to choose an area of specialism early in their careers, Piper’s art college education introduced him to technical training in a wide variety of media. This partially accounts of the varied nature of Piper’s later work and interests - abstract and figurative painting, printmaking, graphic design, applique relief constructions, opera and theatre design, photography, ceramics, firework spectaculars, tapestry, textile and wallpaper design, as well as stained glass. Piper only stayed at the Royal College from 1928 to 1929 leaving partly in frustration at what he considered to be narrowness in the philosophy and traditionalism of the tuition. He had already been enthused by modern innovations in European art through visiting artists’ studios in Paris, being introduced to contemporary art collections and seeing galleries in London like Zwemmer’s and the Mayor Gallery, which promoted modernism. John was ambitious to make early artistic innovations and found the traditional focus of art education in London at the time too suspicious of modernism. It did not promote experimentation with abstraction or the progressive use of colour, both of which excited John’s imagination and ideas.
On leaving College John supported himself by writing reviews of modernism for art and literary magazines, while painting and exhibiting his own work, sometimes alongside his wife Eileen, who he met at college. Through his writing he became introduced to many more innovative modernist artists and writers in London, as well as on continued visits to Europe. Piper initially lived in Hammersmith in close proximity to a community of fellow artists and writers who inspired him, including Ceri Richards, Edmund Blunden, Robert Graves, David Garnet and Leonard Woolf,
Piper’s wife’s affairs with Ceri Richards and others led to the break-up of this early college-student marriage. He had already met Myfanwy Evans (1911-1997), an English scholar and modern-art enthusiast and soon afterwards they married. John had introduced her to the progressive artists of Paris, then in 1935 he encouraged her to found and edit the AXIS art magazine. This promoted English abstract art, contemporary ideas and work of continental Modernist artists who they admired. It has been described as “the most radical art magazine in Britain.” [Spalding 2009 p.81]. This was a period when artists intermingled, argued and enthused over new theories. Both John and Myfanwy had visited the studios of Picasso, Léger, Jean Hélion, Mondrian, Kandinsky, Giacometti, Braque, Calder, Arp and Brancusi. Many of them became their friends. The established London art-world was more conservative, but AXIS and their immediate circle of artists and writers were excited by the potential of new forms of art. This fed into Piper’s experimentation with colour and abstraction, which later led to the vibrancy and experimentation in his printmaking and stained glass design. Piper was gregarious and was fortunate in being introduced to a circle of some of the most advanced British artists of the day: Ben and Winifred Nicholson, Ivon Hitchens (through whom he met Myfanwy), Paul Nash, Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, Ceri Richards and Edward Wadsworth were among their friends, collaborators and contributors to AXIS. So were writers like Geoffrey Grigson, John Betjeman, Herbert Read, H.S. Ede and musicians like Peter Peers and Benjamin Britten, for whose operas Myfanwy wrote three libretti (The Turn of the Screw, Owen Wingrave and Death in Venice).
Enthusiastic about European ideas and theories of abstraction, Piper, his friend Ben Nicholson and other colleagues pioneered abstract British art, and defended it in many articles. However, at this time abstract work was not generally understood in England and rarely sold on the London market. The group’s ideas and enthusiasm culminated in the Art Concrete exhibition of 1936. Piper wrote that he recognised that abstract art and religion contain some similar aspirations and codes that aim, and are able, to raise and inspire the human soul [Decoration Magazine 11 p.44 March 1936]. Of his abstract work he also wrote: “My intention in drawing and painting is not to imitate anything but to organise something. I have tried to make a bright design that will catch your eye and make you wonder what is inside... People usually want you to understand the meaning of pictures. Why? They do not ask to understand the meaning of the enjoyment of good food, country air, or the colour of beech leaves in autumn ... wet weather or the seaside.” [Imperial Airways brochure: Modern Travel for Modern People.] Piper’s abstract arrangements of colours and forms in stained glass, as in the St, John’s Chapel window) often follow similar principles: “to make a bright design that will catch your eye and make you wonder what is inside...”
Soon after 1936 Piper changed direction from the hard edged abstraction of his mid-1930s works. He continued in his commitment to modernism in art but recognised that those modern artists and theorists who dictated that to be modern all art must be abstract, were limiting possible developments of the arts. The priority of abstraction had been originally defended in AXIS and by the 7 & 5 Group of artists, of which John and Myfanwy were founders. But with the rise of Totalitarianism in Europe, Piper began to believe that to only allow art to follow one basic theory was as fascistic as Totalitarian politics. Bauhaus designers and Constructivists like Naum Gabo had retreated from Germany to settle in Britain, helping to promote the importance of total abstraction. Ben Nicholson too believed that abstraction was the only way for modern art. The influential new publication ‘Circle’ defended this idea. Piper became further convinced of the need to accept variety in modern art after the 1936 International Surrealist Exhibition, which he defended and the abstract artists denigrated. These growing differences sadly caused a rift between the Pipers, the Nicholsons and the critic Herbert Read who at the time defended total abstraction.
Piper’s late 1930s works moved to a looser, more textured, design-based figurative art, (which was to later influence his semi-representational/semi-abstract stained glass design from the mid-1950s onwards). At the time of his change of emphasis, he wrote, in a seminal 1938 article ‘Abstraction on the Beach’: “Abstraction is a great luxury, a luxury that has been left to the present day to exploit. Yet some painters indulge in it as if it were the bread of life. The early Christian sculptors, wall-painters and glass-makers had a sensible attitude towards abstraction. However hard one tries one cannot catch them indulging in pure abstraction. Their abstraction, such as it is, is always subservient to an end – a Christian end… Pure abstraction is undernourished. It should at least be allowed to feed on a bare beach with tins and broken bottles.” [article “Abstraction on the Beach’ in Vingtième Siècle 1July 1938. p.41]. His new work employed a wide variety of painting and illustration techniques: collage, drawing, painting, mark-making and wax-resist techniques to create textures that conveyed the character and atmosphere of places. His approach created modernist, semi-abstract images yet referred back to the traditions and nature of English art, architecture and landscape in a way that became known as ‘Neo-Romanticism’. Artists like Sutherland, Ceri Richards, Keith Vaughan, Paul Nash, Edmund Blunden and Eric Ravilious followed a similar path. In 1942 Piper published ‘British Romantic Artists’ exploring the traditions which the Neo-Romantics were following, including the influence of English artists like William Blake, Samuel Palmer and Edward Calvert. (He later celebrated Blake in vibrant windows for St. Peter’s, Firle, East Sussex (1985), based on Blake’s illustrations to the Bok of Job.) Piper’s Neo-Romantic works were often abstract in composition and colour yet introduced recognisable representational motifs including details from nature, sculpture and buildings.
By 1940 Piper’s creations appealed to the British taste and were so popular that his exhibitions sold out, whereas his former abstract work had rarely found buyers. His popularity grew because his subjects appealed to a wartime and post-war sense of nostalgia for British qualities and English subjects. Most notable are his works based on English churches and their details. His style was suited to contemporary illustration and he became a popular choice for designing book-covers and illustrations. He was a frequent contributor and illustrator for to the Architectural Review, edited by Jim Richards. John Betjeman, who earlier edited this publication had moved on to edit the Shell Guides, and commissioned John for illustrations and writings on architecture, townscapes and landscapes.
In his Neo-Romantic/abstract style Piper found themes, styles and techniques that united his interests and ideas, and which he could develop as his own, without his art seeming derivative of other artists’ work or theories. As a youth Piper had become fascinated by archaeology. From the age of 17 to 26 he had been secretary of the Epsom branch of the Surrey Archaeological Society and remained a member until 1937. On his bicycle he visited and drew many Surrey churches, made watercolour copies of mediaeval stained glass, and pen and ink drawings of architectural features. He also began to design ideas for windows, though did not make stained glass until decades later. The Curate of St. Martin’s Church, Epsom, Victor Kenna, cultivated John’s interest in modern art, music and literature, as well as Celtic, early British art. Later John became an enthusiastic photographer of early architecture and sculpture. At that time Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Romanesque art were still largely unappreciated. There were few illustrated books on early British art and even less on stained glass. John and Myfanwy drove throughout England photographing early sculpture, encouraged by Thomas D. Kendrick of the British Museum who was compiling a photographic survey of early British sculpture. Many of these became sources for Pipers paintings and lithographs. [ILLUSTRATIONS 8-11, 14-25].
Kenneth Clark, Director of the National Gallery, who had previously been opposed to the cause of completely abstract art, enthusiastically promoted Piper, recommending him for several commissions and roles in the artistic community. He involved Piper early in the ‘Recording Britain’ project, from 1939, funded by the Pilgrim Trust to celebrate and record historic buildings and British traditions threatened by war. In 1940 Clark recommended Piper for commission as a war artist. His regular promotion of John made Piper a household name in Britain, and by 1945 gained him an international reputation, exhibiting in America and Europe alongside Henry Moore and Graham Sutherland.
In his booklet “The Artist and the Public” Piper wrote “It is important for an artist to love his subject.” His fascination with and love of the historic past and ancient religious sculpture, (particularly Romanesque sculpture, which could be adapted to modernism,) accounts for the historic feeling of figures like the Christ in the Lichfield glass, which reflects the Romanesque tradition of representing Christ in Majesty. In many of his works he celebrated his love of the past and acknowledged the debt of ecclesiastical art to historic precedents and traditional iconography. As Piper’s career developed he became an enthusiastic supporter of heritage institutions: the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Trust Historic Country Houses, the Friends of Friendless Churches, Fellow of the Ancient Monuments Society, Member of the Royal Fine Arts Commission and a Trustee of the Tate Gallery and National Gallery. He served on the Diocesan Advisory Commission for Oxford Churches for 38 years from 1950, promoting both conservation and good innovatory design for reordering churches and new ecclesiastical commissions.
Piper used wax-resist techniques and collage to give the images the textures of age and wear, which he believed contributed to a sense of spirituality and antiquity within his work and subjects. John’s experimentation with techniques and textures expanded during his time as an official war artist from 1940 to 1942, as he explored ways of recording ruined buildings in drawings, paintings and collage. Among his most effective paintings are those recording the bomb damage to Coventry Cathedral after the blitzkrieg. On 15 November 1940, the day after the bombing, Piper visited Coventry, at the request of Kenneth Clark, making a series of drawings of the ravaged city, in particular of the cathedral and other gutted churches. Many of his sketches and the paintings developed from them are in the Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, Coventry. He combined splattered paint, resist effects created by wax crayon, dabbing with a sponge and other textural techniques with strong areas of bright expressive paint and sometimes collage. Many of his experimental mark-making techniques had been originally learned from Francis Spear who taught lithographic techniques and stained glass painting at the Royal College. This technical experimentation was later adapted and expanded for his illustrations and lithographs at the Curwen Press under the technical tutelage of Barnett Freedman. The texturing in the St John’s east window, particularly in the figure of Christ, the angels, the four winged creatures and the green foliate background developed from such experimentation.
In the late 1930s Piper turned to lithography partly because it appealed to his socially committed ideas of producing good, affordable modern images to inspire the general public. His book-cover designs and illustrations had a similar aim. He and Robert Wellington of the Zwemmer Gallery founded ‘Contemporary Lithographs Ltd.’ to provide high-quality contemporary art for schools. Into the project they recruited some of the best current British artists, among them: Eric Ravilious, Edward Bawden. Paul and John Nash, Graham Sutherland, Robert Medley, Edward Ardizzone, Duncan Grant and Vanessa Bell. Piper’s lithographs of architecture developed from this, and his experimentation with various colour-ways in lithography led directly to using bold colours in other designs, as we see in his Lichfield window.
In Britain art that was entirely abstract continued to be treated with suspicion for many years, both in popular taste and by many in the professional art-world, including critics, curators and gallery-owners. However, the representational elements and the decorative nature of abstraction in Piper’s work, fitted the English taste, especially an upper-middle-class taste for a comfortable, fashionable modernism. This developed in the post-war years leading up to the Festival of Britain (to which Piper contributed alongside Osbert Lancaster) and the design innovations of the 1950s. The elements of English history, architecture and landscape in his work suited the post-war sense of nostalgia for the lost or changing past and national pride. Though he aimed for an art that was not socially elitist, Piper became an artist of choice for a cultural elite, as well as for popular design. He continued to collaborate with John Betjeman the editor on the Shell Guides, later becoming editor for them himself, beginning with the Oxfordshire guide in 1937. He continued to be in popular demand for book illustrations and book-covers. Piper became fascinated by John Sell Cotman’s C19th records of Norfolk Churches and ruins and wanted to emulate him in modern ways. In 1940, at the recommendation of Kenneth Clark, under the threat of bombings, Queen Elizabeth had commissioned 26 paintings of Windsor Caste from Piper as modern counterparts to Paul Sandby’s C18th panoramas of the castle. Osbert Sitwell then invited him to paint Renishaw Hall, to produce a large mural there and to illustrate his autobiography. The Sitwells collected 70 of his paintings from 1942. He was frequently invited as a guest to paint some of the great houses of Britain, the architecture of which he loved. Frances Spalding suggests that Piper may be one of the models for Charles Ryder in Evelyn Waugh’s ‘Brideshead Revisited.’ [2009, p.210]. Yet despite his growing social connections, Piper’s socialist principles determined him on not becoming ‘a country house painter’.
Piper was an energetic and organised worker, as one would have to be to take on the number of projects and commissions that he accepted throughout most of his career. In conversation with Noel Barber he spoke of learning from George Braque “…the absolute need, however romantic or sentimental one wanted to be, for extreme discipline in painting. Otherwise the goods simply could not be delivered. I hope this discipline is more obvious in my work today. I hope it has taken a lot of the unnecessary rhetoric away, and that I’m left with something more worth having. My painting is just as romantic, but I hope it’s more unified, more united… It’s not true that I do work from Mondays to Fridays – but it’s true that I’d like to! But I do feel one should be business-like about painting… One needs office hours or one doesn’t get the work done. There’s so much to do. That’s why I like a time-table. I know exactly what I’m going to do next, but it’s just waiting to get at it and find the time to do it that’s difficult I enjoy working on several (works at once).. one painting influences another a bit like cats that are brought up together.” [Noel Barber Conversations with Painters. Collins London 1964 p.67-8]
Though fascinated by archaeology, Piper wrote that his interest in historic buildings was more about celebrating their aesthetic beauty, atmosphere and architectural character than studying them as places of historic interest. This is recognisable in his loose approach to drawing the details of buildings and his written descriptions of places and art. In his Shell Guide to Oxfordshire he called himself ‘an unashamed church-gazer”. Neither he nor his colleague and friend John Betjeman were professional architectural historians or archaeologists. They were enthusiasts who learned much from existing sources, by looking and having a feeling for the atmosphere of buildings, townscapes and the landscape. They developed personal expertise but they did very little first-hand original research, other than visiting, exploring and considering the aesthetic and social value of places. Most of their writing included personal opinions and responses. As a result their Shell and Murrays Guides, though well-written, were soon surpassed in scholarship by Pevsner’s ‘Buildings of England’ series which began publication in 1951. The Shell Guides declined in popularity, though Piper continued to edit, commission and contribute to them until late in his life.
From 1938 John had collaborated with the Group Theatre, founded by a former member of the Diaghilev Ballet, Rupert Donne. They were committed to producing modern plays that were not in the common repertory: works on contemporary, classical and mediaeval themes by left-wing writers including W.H. Auden, Stephen Spender, Louis MacNeice and Christopher Isherwood. Benjamin Britten composed music for several of the productions. Later, from 1946 onwards, he commissioned Piper to design the sets for all his operas. (The only opera-projects that Piper did not design were those performed in church settings, and this was remedied in 1979 when John made stained glass designs for three (The Prodigal Son, Curlew River and The Burning Fiery Furnace) in the Britten Memorial Window for Aldeburgh Church. As later in his collaboration with the glass designer Patrick Reyntiens, Britten and Piper worked together closely throughout the composition and design process of each opera, consulting and bouncing ideas off each other throughout the project. As a result, John became a popular contemporary choice as a designer for Glyndebourne Festival Opera, the Royal Opera House, The Old Vic and La Fenice, Venice.
Concerning his religious beliefs, at first John Piper seems to have been more interested in the response of his senses and feelings to ecclesiastical art and architecture, the atmosphere of place, and English Church traditions than specifically committed to faith and Christian spirituality. He knew Kandinsky and his theosophically-influenced writing ‘Concerning the Spiritual in Art’. In the mid-1930s Piper had written on similarities between art and religion. [Spalding 2009 p.83]. In ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ he mentions that in churches he had a “sentimental feeling for pleasing decay” [p.14 and in an article in Architectural Review 1947]. Piper’s mother had a Methodist background. His father had attended the Methodist chapel, then founded his own non-conformist meeting ‘The Nomads’ in Epsom. Later, while remaining non-conformist in his attitudes and beliefs, Charles nominally joined St. Martin’s Parish Church. There John came under the influence of the Curate, Revd. V.E.G. Kenna, who became a friend. Kenna introduced him early to Celtic and early British art, modern art and music and literature, and to his friend, Michael Sadler, the collector of Modern Art. Later Victor Kenna became a valued theological and liturgical advisor on John’s ecclesiastical commissions. However, it seems to have been his travels and friendship with John Betjeman that most developed Piper’s faith. Wherever possible Betjeman would attend Morning Prayer and it was his influence that led to John and Myfanwy’s confirmation in February 1940. Though not the reason behind his turn to faith, Piper’s Anglican affiliation incidentally also helped to gain him commissions, brought him easier access to ecclesiastical buildings and helped in the commissioning and research for his writings and guides. As non-conformism and Roman Catholicism were still regarded somewhat suspiciously in the mid-C20th, his Anglican allegiance also meant that he became a popular choice for positions on advisory committees and trusts.
Towards the end of his life Piper worked on a series of self-portraits - a theme on which he had never previously concentrated. This may have contributed to the different style used for faces of Christ in the Ramsgate and Lichfield windows. Sadly, by the early 1980s, at the time that he was working on the designs for the St. John’s Chapel window, Piper admitted in interviews with Rachel Billington [1983] and John Decker that he had grown disillusioned with the Church of England and lost his former faith, despite holding on to personal evidences which sustained his belief in God [Interviews recalled in Spalding 2009 p.496-7]. Years of dealing with the deliberations and machinations of ecclesiastical committees, exploring faith and ideas with thoughtful questioning, had taken their toll. Through Betjeman he had developed a traditionalist approach to faith. Piper felt confused by liturgical changes and uncomfortable with the way that the issue of the ordination of women was introduced. Had he been his younger, modernist, exuberant, revolutionary self, he would probably have supported such developments and changes, taking them in his stride. I find it encouraging that this man who felt that his faith was fading could still produce such a positive artwork as the St. John’s chapel window, to encourage faith in others. It is inevitable that most thinking people of faith find that their beliefs change and modify with age, developing knowledge and understanding, as our experiences or circumstances alter. If we attempt to clarify and study our beliefs while we feel some confidence in them, we can lay strong foundations that are able to continue to support or inspire us as our circumstances or experiences develop. This will particularly help us through times of questioning and doubts, which are inevitable in a modern sceptical world. The words of Ecclesiastes 12:1ff are wise: “Remember your creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years draw near when you will say: ‘ I have no pleasure in them’.....” Piper’s earlier studies, ideas, beliefs and disciplines in life, faith and art, partly sustained him and his family as life became more difficult. Gradually through 1988 John Piper’s mental health declined. Despite developing dementia, he continued to paint in bright vibrant colours, though he gave up other media than paint from 1987. By mid-1990 his dementia was fully debilitating, followed by substantial decline in his physical health by the early summer of 1992. He died at his home at Fawley Bottom on 28th June 1992, 8 years after the dedication of the St. John’s window, and was buried in Fawley churchyard. His wife Myfanwy survived him by 5 years.
JOHN PIPER'S STAINED GLASS
Piper’s interest in stained glass began in his youth. He had visited old buildings and churches with his father since childhood. John described tracing images of stained glass windows in the early 1920s, at about the age of 17. He read the few available books on the history of stained glass, though volumes with reproductions of stained glass were rare until Herbert Read’s 1926 monograph on English glass. As Piper’s antiquarian interests grew he would produce watercolour copies of glass that interested him. Piper wrote that he felt Romanesque glass, like that at Chartres [ILLUSTRATION 11], to be most sympathetic to Western eyes. He liked the formal arrangements, primary colour contrasts and lack of perspectival depth in early art. This reminded him of modern innovations in colour and composition by artist who he admired, such as Picasso and Léger. He felt that little advance or experimentation had been made with stained glass in England since William Morris and the Pre-Raphaelites. Piper admired the modern European glass of the painters Léger (made by Jean Barillet), Manessier Sophie Tauber-Arp, and Jacques Villon, who inspired the Vorticist glass of Alfred Wolmark (at Slough c1920) and Piper’s own windows for St. Margaret’s, Westminster. He was later inspired by the simplicity of design in the 50s and 60s glass of Matisse and Chagall. Reyntiens called the stained glass interpretations of designs by Matisse and Rouault by Paul Bony “in many ways the most significant achievement of stained glass so far in the twentieth century” [The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 p.12].In the early 1950s John was attracted to and influenced by a quotation by Alfred Manessier in which he claimed to regard stained glass “less as a design [than] the spontaneous creation of a light-filled architectural unit.” This is certainly the case with Piper’s work for Coventry [ILLUSTRATION 31], Liverpool [ILLUSTRATION 30] and Eton College Chapel, and to a certain extent the effect of the coloured glass in St. John’s Chapel, though here the subject of Christ in Majesty is of primary importance, and the meaning of the window is intended to contribute most to the space.
Piper was fortunate to have had such a large amount of stained glass commissions through his career. He was the right person, in the right place, at the right time: Britain faced a revival in the need for church building and glass restoration after the ravages of the 2nd World War. Other artists who similarly benefited from commissions to create contemporary window designs were Ceri Richards, Geoffrey Clarke, Margaret Tranerne, Brian Young.
John responded positively to the call of Bishop George Bell (died 1958) to modern artists to create work for churches. Many of John’s major commissions works were for badly damaged large churches in major cities or industrial areas. Yet within the area of Oxfordshire and Berkshire close to Pipers’ home at Fawley Bottom, the artist also created a series of fairly intimate stained glass windows for churches, which more reflected his personal spirituality, particularly those at Fawley and Nettlebed. Some think of the Lichfield window as John’s final glass project; it is certainly his last large window. In 1984 he was also working on a window for St. Mary the Virgin, Lamberhurst, Kent, made by David Wasley (Reyntiens’ assistant and co-worker on the St. John’s glass) and in 1985 he designed a small lancet window for St. Paul’s, Jarrow. Soon afterwards he gave up all other media to concentrate his energies on painting and printmaking. His last stained glass window was gifted posthumously in 1995 by Piper’s widow Myfanwy to the Oxford Diocese, in John’s memory. John’s design, already been created in glass was in his studio and David Wasley adapted it, adding wider margins and an extra lower panel to fit a Romanesque window of St Mary’s Church, Iffley, Oxfordshire.
Though Piper promoted modernist art, his sensibilities also made him suspicious of “modern artists disfiguring churches.” The title of Piper’s 1968 book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ refers to the need of artists, makers and commissioners to concentrate on the aesthetic and spiritual contribution of a work of stained-glass art to an interior, rather than to be trapped by either technique or tradition. He was especially uncomfortable about possible insensitivity, if the Church commissioned “those who were not believing Christians” [Spalding 2009 p.172]. John was aware that inappropriate colour and imagery in windows could damage the aesthetic and spiritual focus of buildings. In ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ he wrote:
“Stained glass is a great leader astray of anyone who works at it – designer and craftsman alike. In terms of colour and form it is eccentric. Colour is abnormally bright, since the light comes through the material instead of being reflected from the surface; tone is usually dictated by bounding leads or area joints of some kind. The whole thing is imprisoned within glazing bars that form an inexorable grid and are structurally necessary. This is its proper splendid discipline.” [p.8].
This is one reason why Piper was so sensitive in using the St. John’s East window to create a sense of darkness and mystery to contribute to the spirituality of the chancel space. When the window had previously been glazed in plain quarry glass, the chancel lacked atmosphere and focus [ILLUSTRATION 67]. Piper’s design focused worship towards the altar and emphasised the chapel’s purpose.
In a 1969 letter to an education student, writing a dissertation on his work he had written: “The fact that craftsmen become less good artists when they take their eyes for long off art, is evident all the time on every side of us. Look at the average carpet, let alone the average stained glass window. Gracious me! One doesn’t have to experience the sensation oneself necessarily; it is demonstrated all the time.
Stained glass designers and makers hardly ever have any influence on the shape or size of windows. Most of them happen after a building is finished because there is spare money. The Baptistery window at Coventry was half-built (for instance) before I was commissioned at all.
Coventry was not meant to be “The Holy Trinity theme” – if the window has a theme it was invented after the design was made. It was abstract. People didn’t like the idea of abstraction (they have come round to is now so much that they don’t always like things that aren’t abstract) that it got called “the Light of the World”, or something of the kind. I don’t mind! I think it is quite a good name.
I am not really a window man at all – I am a painter, and I work hard all the time being one…” [Letter to E.M. Jenkins, 23 January 1969 (Private Collection]
Through John Betjeman, Piper became acquainted with the ecclesiastical architect Ninian Comper (1864-1960) and initially wanted to edit and publish Comper’s writings and ideas on church design. He agreed with Comper’s belief that a good church interior should “move to worship, to bring a man to his knees, to refresh the soul in a weary land.” [Comper, Ninian Of the Atmosphere in a Church. London, SPCK. 1947 p.9-10]. John sought spiritual and liturgical advice on his commissions from his old friend the cleric Victor Kenna, as well as Christopher Hussey, Dean of Chichester, and Revd. Moelwyn Merchant, an English Professor in Cardiff then Exeter. All were intensely interested in modern art, Christian imagery and art’s potential role in supporting liturgy and creating an aesthetic and symbolic space, conducive of and encouraging worship. Merchant published a quarterly magazine ‘Cymry’r Groes’, for which Piper wrote on the artist’s place in the Church.
In his book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ Piper reminded the reader that the textures that excite us today in some mediaeval glass, and which he himself imitated in his wax-resist effects, or painted and acid-etched glass, are often the accidental process of time, due to the pitting and weathering of glass over the centuries [Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art p.14]. Originally the glass in cathedrals and churches would have been much bolder, with starker effects of colour-change. Although he used texturing to create expressive effects in his glass, he also wrote about the need for modern artists to be bold with colour designs, as Picasso had been, and to make definite statements through the way they employed colour. Piper did this in his St. John’s Chapel window.
While being consciously modern in his designs he recognised his debt to the art of the past, particularly in designing for ecclesiastical commissions, and deliberately referred back to historic precedents and models. Yet he felt that much derivative stained glass, like the worst Victorian and Edwardian windows, were weak pastiches of mediaeval glass, and added nothing to architecture. His book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ also proposed iconoclastically that where a church space is effectively lit by clear glass, churches should not even consider replacing it by coloured glass. For the south aisle of St Margaret’s Westminster, Piper replaced the highly coloured Victorian glass that had been destroyed in war-time bombing, with a wall of far simpler, non-assertive abstract, grey windows, occasionally enhanced with subtly tinted geometric forms and patterns. His intention, he wrote, was to not distract from the strong colours of the large Flemish East window, which celebrated the marriage of Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon and had originally been designed for Henry VII Chapel, Westminster Abbey. “The aim was to provide an unaggressive screen or filter for the daylight on the south side of the church, which would be agreeable in itself and would in no way affect the grand vista eastward in the church.” [Account dated 28th April 1980 quoted in Osborne 1997 p.96].
From the 1940s to 70s, Piper became the popular choice for designing modern stained glass for churches and chapels. By the 1970s all the work he designed for glass was figurative. Most of his designs over 35 years were executed in collaboration with stained glass artist Patrick Reyntiens (born 1925). After about 1977, when Reyntiens was busy teaching as Head of Fine Art at Central School of Art and running his own busy workshop, two of Reyntiens, most trusted studio colleagues David Wasley and Joseph Nuttgens (son of Reyntiens’ teacher) did much of the interpreting of Piper’s designs into glass, but Patrick remained a major advisor and colleague. The two were introduced in 1954 by their mutual friend, Penelope, wife of John Betjeman, at the time of Piper’s first stained glass commission for windows for Oundle School Chapel. Sponsored by the Grocers' City Livery Company, these were commissioned to commemorate the school’s 400th Anniversary. Piper was looking for a skilled craftsman to interpret his designs and Penelope recognised the qualities in the young, newly-qualified designer. The windows took three years to complete. Their themes are similar to the holistic meaning behind the later Christ in Majesty window at Lichfield: The lancets celebrate nine aspects of Christ: The Way, The Truth, The Light, True Vine, Living Bread, Water of Life, Judge, Leader, Good Shepherd.
Seeing the Oundle Chapel glass inspired Basil Spence to commission from Piper the Baptistery Window at Coventry Cathedral (1957–61) [ILUSTRATION 31], which in turn led to the commission for the corona above the Metropolitan Catholic Cathedral, Liverpool (1963–7) [ILLUSTRATION 31]. These two major commissions were particularly experimental as neither Piper nor Reyntiens had worked on such large scales before. In Coventry, whereas stained-glass window-makers usually begin from the bottom upward, Reyntiens persuaded Spence to allow them to work from the top downward, so that any initial mistakes in the making process or uncomfortable aspects of design would be less evident due to their distance from the viewer. For the Liverpool lantern they used a ‘dalle de verre’ technique pioneered in France of using reinforced concrete and one-inch thick glass to enhance structural strength. Piper had been impressed by its use by Fernand Leger and Jean Bazaine at Audincourt in May 1957, which Patrick had visited two years earlier.
In all Piper worked on 55 realised projects for stained glass windows. Reyntiens recorded that Piper preferred working on smaller parish church windows. They both carefully considered the appropriateness of the design to each building, which led them to creating a far wider variety of designs than most designers and makers. Together they designed and worked on the glass for Eton College Chapel (1959-64), Llandaff Cathedral (1961-2); Nuffield College, Oxford (1965-6); Churchill College (1970) and Robinson College, Cambridge (1978-80) [ILLUSTRATIONS 60 & 61]; Washington National Cathedral (1973-4); the Minster Church of Saint Andrew, Plymouth (1957-68); Ripon College Chapel, Cuddesdon (1964); St. Marks, Broomhill, Sheffield (1963-4); All Saints’ Clifton, Bristol (1967); the George V1 Memorial Window, Windsor (1969); Charing Cross Hospital Chapel (1977); the Benjamin Britten Memorial Window, Aldeburgh, Suffolk (1979); St. Peter's, Babraham, Cambs.(1966); All Hallows, Wellingborough (1960-69) [ILLUSTRATION 32]; St. Bartholomew’s Church, Nettlebed, Oxon (1970 &76); St Andrew's Church, Whitmore Reans, Wolverhampton (1973-4) and many others.
Piper and Reyntiens’ collaboration expanded the aesthetic and technical possibilities, structural, decorative and liturgical use of glass in architecture. As with Piper’s experimental painting techniques, they explored many different approaches to the medium, used acid, paint and enamel on the glass, and enjoyed the craft aspects of design. Piper greatly admired French medieval glass, particularly the windows of Chartres. He made several summer tours round France, Germany and Italy to study old glass, to learn from past design and glean ideas. But he also studied modern trends in glass design, some of which he celebrated in his book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’. He expressed disappointment in the quality of much Victorian, Edwardian and modern British glass, writing in 1979: “It sometimes seems as though the medieval glass-painter could do no wrong, and that the glass-maker of today cannot go right: that we cannot in these days recapture the magic of the creation of the jewelled light by a clear design.” [in Clarke, Brian (ed.) Architectural Stained Glass, London: John Murray 1979]. John was determined to overcome such potential problems in his own work: Patrick had a similar determination. He wrote: “Stained Glass is apt all too easily to acquire a reputation for being visually stodgy, a reputation more often than not deserved.” [The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 p.11]. Piper and Reyntiens struggled to perfect the images and techniques in their windows, using the finest materials available and purest colours of glass, often imported from Germany and France particularly the glass manufacturers Hilden and Waldassen. This is evident in the positive design and the qualities of colour and glass chosen for Lichfield’s Christ in Majesty, despite the enormous rise in the price of materials at the time.
Patrick wrote of Piper: “No painter keeps to the possibilities of stained glass better than John Piper, yet at the same time, no painter stretches his executive interpreter more cruelly.” [The Beauty of Stained Glass, Herbert Press, 1990 quoted Osborne p117]. Piper created full-scale colour cartoons for each commission, executed in watercolour and gouache, often with collaged details [cf. ILLUSTRATIONS 5 & 66]. Asked about his use of collage in preparing his designs, Piper said:
“This is a simple way I developed of doing cartoons - quite a convenient one - making a lot of pieces of coloured paper (home-made paper in various colours) and then scissoring them up into shapes and then just sticking them on. It’s interesting, of course, that the cutting of the pieces of paper is rather like the cutting of the pieces of glass later on. Even sticking on the coloured papers is rather like putting the glass into its pattern. It’s much more like a glass technique than merely taking a brush and swishing colour about on paper… in all cases of stained glass there has to be consideration and approval by the chaps outside. Someone has to say, “Yes, we all like that,” or “We don’t like that and can you alter this bit?” This usually takes place when I am doing large preliminary sketches. But even when I get a general approval and start work on the cartoon – which is the actual size of the window – there can be a number of delays…… When my work on the cartoon is finished – that is, when it’s capable of being translated into glass – I give it to Patrick Reyntiens and his merry men and they make a cut-line. after that it’s just a question of proceeding with the usual methods of glass-making.”. [Noel Barber Conversations with Painters 1964 Collins. London p.62]
Although Piper’s drawing, painting and designs appear very spontaneous, and despite the rapid speed at which he often worked, he took care over the ideas behind his designs, the detail of his images, the meaning and context for which his windows were designed, and their contribution to the architectural space. The 8 lancets for Eton College Chapel took 5 years because they were being worked on at the same time as the Coventry Baptistery window. Their theme was based mostly on miracles and parables, where Piper carefully paralleled subjects, as in ‘The Gospel as a Light Hidden under a Bushel’, paired with ‘Christ as the Light That Shines Forth’. In the windows for St Andrew’s, Plymouth, the ‘Instruments of the Passion’ theme led him to research and draw carefully details of ancient instruments. So in the St John’s Chapel window the apparent spontaneity in the face of Christ and the loose drawing of the angels are probably intentional. At this time, around the 1980s, Piper was working with greater fluidity than at most previous times in his career.
In 2012, a major exhibition ‘John Piper and the Church’, in Dorchester Abbey, Oxfordshire, (a building Piper loved and about which he had written,) focused on his ecclesiastical commissions. It explored his relationship with the Church and his influence on the development of the use of modern art in churches. Piper had personally selected and curated an earlier touring exhibition ‘The Artist and the Church’ in 1943, which opened in Chichester Cathedral, encouraged by George Bell. (Walter Hussey, who later encouraged John and commissioned Piper’s Chichester Tapestry, was then at St. Matthew’s Northampton, not becoming Dean at Chichester until 1955). The touring exhibition explored the historic tradition of collaboration, and promoted the reestablishment of fruitful links between artists of quality and the Church. In his preface to the catalogue Piper called himself “a painter who is also a churchman and a lover of churches old and new.” He criticised some artists who were “uncooperative and indifferent” to the needs of the Church, while criticising the Church for “lack of discrimination” and “loss of artistic conviction”. He wrote that he hoped that “with practice and trust the artist will regain his confidence in working for the greatest and most fruitful of all patrons in history and that the Church will regain its commanding conviction about the arts.”
PATRICK REYNTIENS: MASTER GLASS ARTIST
While Piper occasionally painted and etched, discussed or supervised some of the painting and etching of some of the glass used in his windows, he did not make the windows himself. The majority of the work was done by artist craftsmen. Most particularly Patrick Reyntiens. As Piper wrote in ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ “The great windows of modern times are all the work of artists working with collaborative craftsmen.” Sometimes he did not see the glass from delivering the cartoons until near a window’s completion, before the leading process, as he trusted the interpreters. This was mostly the case with the St. John’s window, as Patrick Reyntiens, who translated Piper’s design, moved to a new workshop in Dorset, further away from the painter, before the making of the window began. The full-scale cartoon for St. John’s Chapel window still survives in a private collection and was shown dramatically in the Dorchester Abbey exhibition, hanging in a central position over the nave [ILLUSTRATION 66].
From 1954, when Penelope Betjeman introduced them, then for over 35 years, Piper collaborated with Patrick Reyntiens, who was 22 years younger and soon became one of the leading C20th practitioners of stained glass in Britain. Piper and Reyntiens were of different ages, with different characters and social backgrounds but their skills and ideas complemented each other. Reyntiens was committed to his Roman Catholic faith, which, though it seems fairly liberally interpreted, he writes of regarding it as a central aspect his life. His faith added profundity to his commitment to their projects. Piper’s faith was more middle-of-the-road, traditionalist Anglican. Both regarded their work on the glass of churches as aiming to enhance the worship of those who used the buildings.
Reyntiens’ family originated from Belgium and also had Russian connections, though he was born in London, at 63 Cadogan Square. He later described the area as ‘far more stimulating than the more aristocratic streets and squares of Belgravia’. In the 1920s and 30s the novelist Arnold Bennett had lived four doors away and from childhood Patrick developed a love of reading, amassing a substantial library. His education at Ampleforth College in Latin and Greek, history, philosophy and myth added intellectual and spiritual depth to his approach to his work. His suggestions contributed much to the expansion of Piper’s ideas and imagery as they worked together on projects. It was at Ampleforth that Patrick developed his ambition to be an artist.
After Regent Street Polytechnic School of Art, Reyntiens moved to train further at Edinburgh College of Art where he met his future wife, the painter Anne Bruce (1927–2006). He soon focused his creativity towards stained glass and was awarded a two-year Travelling Fellowship in 1955, which enabled him to journey through France studying stained glass and modern art. He became assistant to the master Arts-and-Crafts stained-glass-maker Joseph Edward (Eddie) Nuttgens (1892–1982), which helped to finance his marriage to Anne. (Nuttgens’ son Joseph later became a close collaborator with Patrick, helping to run his studio from 1978-82, before Joseph took over his father’s studio.) Edward Nuttgens was a neighbour and friend of Eric Gill at Piggotts Hill, near High Wycombe. From Gill’s ideas, Reyntiens inherited the concept of the need for integrity in one’s craftsmanship and a belief that to be a craftsperson was a ‘holy’ pursuit and a spiritual calling. In 1959 Patrick was elected as a member of the Art-Worker’s Guild, founded by members of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which advanced the idea of uniting crafts with the fine arts. Eventually he became Head of Fine Art at St. Martin’s School of Art and Design, London, an art school originally founded with the same aim.
Penelope Betjeman introduced Piper to Reyntiens soon after he had completed his training, encouraging him to translate into glass two heads from Piper’s designs for the Oundle Chapel. This confirmed Piper’s trust in his skills and sensitivity in interpreting his work. Penelope was also instrumental in obtaining sponsorship for them from the Glazier’s Company.
John Piper’s collaborative relationship with Reyntiens was far more equal than that of an artist working with a technical adviser who had the abilities to construct his designs. Patrick compared their co-operation together as more like inventing, composing, interpreting and constructing music jointly. Working with John Piper, he said “was like seeing a craft whose ambitions up till then had been akin to those of chamber music being transformed by full-blooded orchestration. We were conscious of bringing stained-glass into the modern movement of painting and design and in so doing bringing the eye of the painter to the medium. Hitherto the craft had been dominated by line rather than by blocks of colour.” Reyntiens contributed much to Piper’s glass designs. He had suggested the theme behind the Coventry Cathedral window: the architect Basil Spence had originally conceived the baptistery window to be of ‘pale, almost white glass with a slight tint of pink and pale blue’ [Fraser Jenkins & Fowler White 2016 p.410]. When Piper was stuck for inspiration Patrick suggested that he should imagine a bomb or burst of glory, symbolising the power of the Holy Spirit at the centre of the Baptistery window and design a huge explosion of light around it, similar to the aureole of light around the dove above St. Peter’s throne in the basilica in Rome. [Andrew Lambirth, ‘God in a Stained Glass Window ‘– The Spectatorwww. 14/12/2013]. Reyntiens also contributed to the inspiration behind the Corona of Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral: From his recent reading of Dante’s Divine Comedy he remembered a description of The Trinity as three great eyes of different colours communicating with each other. [Lambirth ibid.] The spectrum of colour in the corona was arranged around three intense bursts of white light, which relate to each other across the lantern yet focus different colours into the interior liturgical space as the day progresses.
John and Patrick saw their experimentations in English glass as “pioneering” internationally in their exploration and experimentation with the possibilities for using colour, mark texture and diffused light in architecture. In some windows Patrick used different layers of glass to alter colour and tone. (This is especially found in the rich colours of his antechapel window for Robinson College, Cambridge (1980) [ILLUSTRATION 60], where Reyntiens used up to 5 layers of glass to create the depth of hue and texture.) Their work paralleled Chagall’s achievements in France or the experiments of Johannes Schreiter and Ludwig Schaffrath in Germany, though they were less linear in their approach to design.
Encouraged by Piper, Patrick and his wife Anne Bruce began a school teaching design and manufacture at Burleighfield House, Loudwater, near High Wycombe. This ran from 1963 to 1976 promoting skills, techniques and ideas of design which they had explored and advanced. They then opened a larger teaching workshop in 1977 at Old Church School, Windsor End, Beconsfield, in addition to Reyntiens’ teaching as Head of Fine Art at Central School of Art. Some of their Buckinghamshire students became assistants who helped in the construction of Reyntiens’ projects. David Wasley and Joseph Nuttgens helped to run the studio and were entrusted with the most important interpretations. Wasley worked for seven years in Reyntiens’ studio in the late 1970s and early 80s. Nuttgens had already trained under his father Eddie, Patrick’s own teacher and colleague, and worked with Reyntiens and Piper until 1983, when he took over his recently deceased father’s studio. Both helped with Piper’s projects around this time.
John and Patrick continued to experiment throughout their careers together. For architectural strength the huge lantern at Liverpool Cathedral was made in ‘dalle de verre’ a technique using strong one-inch thick glass set within concrete divisions, with epoxy-renin and black carbon based mortar. This had been pioneered by French designers, notably Mannessier and Léger, but had never been attempted on such a large scale. The windows of All Saints’, Clifton, Bristol and St. Matthew’s Southcote, Reading were made in an experimental, more flexible, translucent fibre-glass and coloured resin, but this innovation was not fully successful as the All Saints’ window crackles and is unstable as the sun heats the fibreglass. Piper’s chapter on ‘Materials’ at the end of ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ briefly explains several of their methods. John and Patrick later restricted themselves to more traditional media. The glass for St. John’s Chapel is more conventionally created in leaded glass, though its design is deliberately bold and uses many techniques in painting and etching the glass, as well as creating different intensities of light.
The renown of his collaboration with Piper has partly overshadowed appreciation of Reyntiens’s individual creativity. He was the man with all the technical skills, spiritual knowledge and at times more aesthetic sensitivity than Piper. Patrick himself designed and created stained glass for many buildings throughout Britain, including the large west window of Southwell Minster (1996). One of his finest personal commissions, St Mary’s, Hound Road, Netley Abbey, Southampton (1958–9), was designed at the same time as he and Piper were working on Coventry. His own dramatic design of Christ in Majesty (1962) is in St. Michael and All Angels, Marden, Kent. Unlike Piper, Patrick was not especially inspired by the strong contrasting hues of historical stained glass, preferring to create more delicate, harmoniously coloured, transparent images, with strong, linear drawing. He had a clear commitment to beauty, believing that it could contribute to the spirituality of a work. He wrote: ‘I don’t know what beauty is really — except that in one way or another it is what we were all intended to experience. We don’t realise how incredible life is.’
Though a fast and committed worker, Piper was not very practical in business-matters, often accepting commissions without signing contracts. The artist’s invoices and bills were dealt with by his wife Myfanwy. By the late 1970s and early 80s, when the Lichfield window was commissioned, tensions had arisen between Piper and Reyntiens over the financing of Piper’s projects. Inflation was regularly increasing the costs of materials and labour enormously, especially the price of imports like the high-quality specialist glass which Patrick used to create the vibrancy of his windows. Reyntiens complained that John was regularly quoting prices for windows that were far too low, not taking sufficient account of the growing price of materials, construction and labour. Piper in response accused him of “getting very grand” but Reyntiens and his assistants needed reasonable payment for the hard, and painstakingly long, committed work involved. Nevertheless they continued to work together creating impressive, vibrant and harmonious art, which is a testimony to their character and collaboration. This tension is discernible in the correspondence with Patrick during the process of commissioning and making the window for St. John’s. The delays in confirming and financing the project meant that Reyntiens’ suffered financial losses. He had ordered glass, booked studio time for the window and given more focus to the commission because of its significant importance, summing up his collaboration with Piper. John joked to the Sunday Telegraph journalist Sebastian Faulks: “His (Reyntiens’) accountant told him he couldn’t afford to work with me any more – or some such thing,” [Sunday Telegraph 1 July 1984 p.11]. It had been a difficult commission practically and financially. Nevertheless Patrick was professionally and spiritually committed to making a success of this last major collaboration together with the elderly artist. That commitment is shown in his determined perseverance with the project, patiently working through the problems, bringing the work through to completion and particularly the high quality and amount of detail that went into the finished window.
Patrick explained the importance of stained glass to a building in his seminal book ‘The Technique of Stained Glass’ 1967: “Glass, being both coloured and transparent, is capable of transforming the whole of a building by a subtle unificatory process. It has the power to transmute or destroy interior space. Stained glass is an environmental art, enveloping and overwhelming the spectator. It creates an atmosphere which is grasped by the eye, an envelope of experience within which the spectator moves, not a series of arresting points of contemplation.” [page 11] In several ways, the Lichfield window, a decade and a half later, both provides ‘transformatory atmosphere’ to the whole chapel, particularly the chancel, but it is also an ‘arresting point’ as it provides a main point of focus.
PIPER & REYNTIENS’ GLASS FOR ST. JOHN’S CHAPEL, LICHFIELD
At the time of creating the window for St. John’s Chapel, Piper was also helping the curator David Fraser Jenkins in planning a large retrospective exhibition of John’s work at the Tate Gallery to celebrate the artist’s 80th birthday. An exhibition of his glass designs: ‘John Piper: Painting in Coloured Light’ had opened in December 1982 in Kettle’s Yard, Cambridge, in which the final paragraph of the catalogue hailed him as: “generally accepted as being Britain’s leading designer of stained glass.” It is not surprising, therefore, that he was the chosen artist for the St. John’s commission, despite being close to the end of his career. Piper had several previous connections with Lichfield. In 1947 he had been commissioned by the then Dean, Frederic Iremonger, to design the poster for the Cathedral’s 750th Anniversary celebrations. He also designed a textile cover for the chancel reredos, for use at certain seasons. John and his wife had become close friends with Janet Stone, daughter of the Bishop of Lichfield and her husband the wood engraver Reynolds Stone, on whom Myfanwy had written a 1957 monograph. In 1968 Piper mentioned his admiration for the C16th Herkenrode glass of Lichfield Cathedral in ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ [p.28]. Within Lichfield Diocese Piper had also been lauded for his innovatory glass design for the modernist architectural interior of St. Andrew’s, Whitmore Reans, Wolverhampton (1973-4).
Piper and Reyntiens’s East window for St John’s Chapel was commissioned to replace a window of plain quarry glass which had been installed during the chapel's restoration in 1870, when the walls and the pitch if the roof had been raised. The ‘Christ in Majesty’ window, dedicated in 1984, was John Piper’s last major project with Patrick Reyntiens, though five smaller glass projects developed in the next two years. Piper’s full-size cartoon for this window demonstrates how well Reyntiens and his studio assistants were able to interpret and transfer into glass the colours and marks of Piper’s painted cartoon. However Piper recognised that glass (as with lithography) was a very different medium to an initial painted design and wrote in the Penrose Annual (43) 1949: “When a painter’s works is reproduced in colour by whatever method, he should ask for a lively parallel to his work, not an imitation of it, in colour or in any other particular.” [p.53, quoted in Osborne 1997. P.108]. Patrick, of course, created the patterns for the leadwork, which in the blue mandorla of the chapel window especially adds extra life and radiance to Piper’s design. But his contribution to the window was far more than as a translator; its qualities are as much due to his art as to those of the painter.
The image and colouring did not arrive fully formed in Piper’s creative mind as might be suggested by the final cartoon and smaller finished gouache. A number of initial designs were made, many of which are now in private collections. They show him working with different figures around Christ and using very different colour ranges, including yellows, ochres and gold. One study [ILLUSTRATION 3] suggests that Piper may have considered using different colours in each vertical panel the window. However the 1979 watercolour of the Beaulieu sur Dordogne Tympanum [ILLUSTRATION 13] shows that the eventual colour-scheme was already present in Piper’s mind in response to the theme.
Comparing Piper’ full-size cartoon for the St. John’s window [ILLUSTRATION 5] with the finished glass [ILLUSTRATION 2], one recognises how great was Reyntiens’ contribution to the whole. He is far more than a craftsman transferring a design into glass; his contribution to the qualities in the window enhance and enrich the original design. Patrick very evidently created a “a lively parallel to (Piper’s) work, not an imitation of it, in colour or in any other particular” [Penrose Annual (43) 1949 p.53, quoted in Osborne 1997. P.108].
In ‘The Beauty of Stained Glass’ (1990 p.170 & 175) Reyntiens described his work with other artists as ‘interpreting’ their designs. Earlier, in 1967, Patrick wrote of the requirements for interpreting a painted cartoon: “There are two things to remember about full-scale coloured cartoons.
The first is that a cartoon is not to be slavishly copied into glass; the mental process in dealing with a colour cartoon is quite different from dealing with a skeletal cartoon (A ‘skeletal cartoon’ is the design for the leaded glass). With a colour cartoon, the stained glass artist has to go back in mental chronology and re-edit from the beginning a window that, mentally, is a parallel achievement to the cartoon. This is very much easier to do with another artist’s cartoon than one’s own, for the simple reason that in interpreting someone else’s cartoon, only one mental journey is done. In interpreting one’s own cartoon, a kind of parallel journey is made with the mental process already expended on the colour cartoon.
Secondly, in cartooning in colour, it must always be remembered that emotional equivalents in colour that are valid in painting are, in many respects, quite different in stained glass – a particular passage of, say, blue and green dominated by a strong yellow in paintings, if directly translated into glass, becomes a yellowish area dominated by blue. Blue becomes more vivid, red becomes more sombre or claustrophobic. Black passages are large black lines, although sometimes effective, at other times tend to become mere negative areas between areas of light; so that a passage in a painted cartoon which is of colour strongly over-barred by black for dramatic effect may become, in glass, a series of disconnected, isolated emphases and patches of colour floating about in the void.”
All isolated white passages in cartoons should be interpreted in the cutline with a smaller perimeter of lead – lessening the area, especially if the glass is unpainted, owing to white’s tendency to halate or spread.
When black passages are wanted in glass, the equivalent emotional trigger must be found in very dark green, brown or purple. What is used, in fact, is the emotional effect of black, but the means to get it are in the language of light, the language of stained glass – not the language of non-light, i.e. total obscurity, which is negative.
These are only a few of the apercus that the stained glass artist will pick up in the course of years of work. Each individual will find out his own language…”
… There comes a moment in the cartooning when any more than can be said at this stage transforms the cartoon into a more important artistic statement than the glass. This is the time to stop cartooning. The final artistic statement in stained glass must come from working in the medium – in cutting, painting and leading….
… The artistic method of thinking, and the architectural method of thinking, are completely different. Whereas the artistic mind works from vague generalities towards a uniquely defined statement, the architectural mind is occupied in giving concrete form to a tightly predetermined system of logical coherence. Most architects and many clients tend to like tight and precise sketches submitted to them. This does not work out well from an artist’s point of view, since the vision is always evolving towards the finished product. In glass, the evolution is ended in the window. In architecture, more often than not, the evolution is ended in the plans and drawings. Some architects understand the artist’s way of aiming at a definition, others are not so receptive.” [The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 p.34-5]
Many differences between Piper’s cartoon for the Lichfield chapel window and the finished stained glass obviously relate to the differences between media and the choice of coloured glass. Light shining through glass is far more radiant than any watercolour, gouache or inks with which Piper could work. Reyntiens sourced from Europe some of the most vibrant glass available. The blues of the mandorla, reds of the ox, greens of the angels and surround are far richer than in the cartoon. Though some of the glass was painted in his studio-workshop, it is inevitable that the colours do not exactly match the painting, as in travelling to France and Germany to source the best coloured glass, he would have had to rely on colour-memory and smaller watercolours rather than always being able to match exact comparisons with the cartoon. When he had found the finest blues or reds, he would have chosen hues of other coloured glass which harmonised together, rather than just working from colours that harmonised in the painted study.
The greatest difference in colour is found in the yellows of the light radiating from Christ’s face, the Cross and the lion. Whereas in the cartoon these areas are more peachy orange, in the glass the face of ‘the Light of the World’ and the Cross become the radiant focus of the whole design. The face in the cartoon is quieter and vaguer than in the glass [inset ILLUSTRATION 51]. Piper’s original suggests a rather gentler expression; in the glass his face feels more severe. In interpreting the watercolour, Reyntiens inevitably had to strengthen it, as he needed to incorporate patterns of lead and changes of hues in glass. Glass could not blend the purples of the shadows with the gold/oranges of the highlighted areas as subtly and mysteriously as in the watercolour. Piper’s design for the face only subtly suggested features; they needed to be more defined in the lead-work. So the authority, if slight sternness of Christ’s face, in the glass is largely a result of the way the design needed to be translated practically [ILLUSTRATION 51]. However, in interpreting Christ’s hands, Reyntiens was able to be much subtler and painterly, creating their gentle gesture by simple painted and etched lines on the glass [ILLUSTRATIONS 49-50].
Elsewhere strengthening of the design is sometimes glorious. The variations of colours in Christ’s robes give his garments an enriched majesty [ILLUSTRATION 52]. It is worth focusing on them carefully to appreciate the intensity of the work. The blues around the sun and moon are also far more richly varied than in the cartoon. As sources of light they glow with radiance like auras and suggest different dimensions of distance within the blue of eternity. The lead-work around them radiates livelily from Christ [ILLUSTRATIONS 45-47].
The etching in the green glass framing the whole window [ILLUSTRATIONS 53-54] is more detailed than in any other Piper/Reyntiens windows I have seen, other than Reyntiens’ panel: ‘Orpheus Charming the Trees’1984-5 [ILLUSTRATION 64]. In the cartoon for the St John’s Chapel window [ILLUSTRATION 5] this area is painted in amorphous washes of greens and blues. In interpreting this into glass, Patrick has used varieties of green hue and painted glass, which he then etched and in places multi-layered to suggest, (without overly defining,) foliage, plants, the movement of air and a mystery and richness in nature surrounding Christ as the Source of Creation. Some of the varieties of effect created in the green glass are explained and illustrated in Reyntiens’ The Technique of Stained Glass 1967 pages 70-79]. With the lead-work, this etching makes the frame much darker, more shadowed, enhanced with more mystery and life than the cartoon. It also differentiates this dimension from the green of the angels, which are more freely painted [ILLUSTRATIONS 39-44].
The painting of the angels is the area where Reyntiens most clearly works closely in the artistic manner and style of Piper. John Piper’s watercolours are often textured with wax-resist and other effects. Reyntiens’ was able to replicate John’s spontaneity and fluidity, in the spirit of the designer. The angels may not be as strong as the rest of the design, but they are very close to Piper’s original. The faces of angels, particularly, clearly reflect John’s style and painting technique [ILLUSTRATIONS 43-44].
In January 1985 Reyntiens wrote: “Originally the motivation behind the creation of the first stained glass windows, in the ninth to eleventh centuries, was the love of visions, significant visions, already encapsulated in the enamelled reliquary or the illuminated manuscript; these were small intimate, one-to-one delights and preciosities conveying messages of extreme importance. Men have always handled precious objects with peculiar sensitivity of touch, as though the iridescence and translucency of such things call for the same reverential treatment that they accord their own flesh, the fabric of their bodies; and for good reason, for both are in their way vessels of a spiritual significance far greater than their exterior measurements might suggest.” [‘Points of Reference by the Artist’ in Bruton Gallery catalogue: Patrick Reyntiens, Glass Painted and Stained - Visions in Light. January 1985 p.33]. This spiritual significance is certainly encapsulated in the vision which Piper and Reyntiens managed to create in the St. John’s Chapel window. Though the window in large, it is representing an enormous, eternal and omnipresent subject. It has parallels with ‘Adoration of the Lamb’ window which Reyntiens created for All Saints’ Church, Odiham, Hants. There the central focus is on a dynamic apocalyptic vision of Christ, represented as the Lamb of God, surrounded by the Four Beasts/ Evangelist Symbols that are very similarly treated to those in the St John’s Window [ILLUSTRATIONS 65 & 35-38]
THE SUBJECT OF THE ST. JOHN’S WINDOW
The main focus of the chapel window is the figure of Christ, enthroned in Majesty. One might imagine that this chapel was dedicated to the Evangelist John, rather than John the Baptist, since this window celebrates the high, divine imagery of Jesus Christ which is such a feature of the New Testament writings ascribed to John, (attributions that are highly debated among theologians). At an early stage in the commission the Trustees considered whether the figures of St Chad (Patron of the Diocese) and John the Baptist (patron of the Hospital) should be incorporated into the design (cf. Letter from Canon G.N. Strong 4th August 1979) But as stated in a 31st July 1981 letter from M. Bramidge of the Lichfield Diocesan Advisory Committee to Dennis Birch, Steward of the St John’s Hospital Trustees:
“With regard to the comment that St. John Baptist in absent in the design, we felt that this was perhaps unavoidable. The theme, together with the four evangelists, does not easily admit the Baptist – and in fact this could look very contrived.”
In February 1984 John Piper wrote an introduction to the window for the dedication service. In it he stated:
“The Character of the design is influenced by a number of drawings and paintings I made of Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of Western France, on many visits between 1955 and 1975. These carvings are often on the large semi-circular areas above the entrance doors of churches in those parts. These churches were on, or near, the old routes to the famous shrine at Compostella, in northern Spain. The carvings have provided a stimulus, with their formal ‘bigness’ and grandeur, for much twentieth century sculpture and painting.”
This emphasis on Compostella relates the idea of pilgrimage to the window. St. John’s Hospital and its chapel were the last stop for some on the pilgrimage route to the Shrine of St. Chad at Lichfield Cathedral. They did not need to include Chad or John the Baptist in the subject of the window, since the saint’s patronage was already implicit in the presence of the chapel. Instead the emphasis on Christ in Majesty gave a more direct spiritual focus for the chancel of the chapel. The fact that Piper considered the subject, ‘grandeur’ and style of the Romanesque source justifiable for a ‘modern’ work of art, further justified its contemporaneity for use in the chapel.
Christ is robed in imperial or royal purple, indicating supreme position as the centre of creation. He is flanked by the sun and moon and two green angels carrying small trumpets. All these are set within the lozenge form of a ‘mandorla’. Towards the four corners of the window are four winged beasts and the whole image is framed by green, which contains some suggestions of foliage, clouds and marks representing movement. The window provides a dramatic focus of strong, vibrant colours, rich varied hues, areas of shadow. Above the altar of the chapel, the window creates a solemn intensity. This feeling is enhanced by the strange, unfamiliar ways of representing Christ’s figure and the winged creatures, suggesting that here are represented in visual metaphor several mysteries within faith.
Behind Christ is the Mercian Cross, an element of the Lichfield Diocesan coat-of-arms. The Cross has more than iconic significance; it represents the salvation that Christ, from his throne in glory, is offering to us as we come to the chapel to pray or worship. The Cross shines strongly; its yellow-gold implying that behind the risen, ascended and glorified Christ, his death achieved something glorious, majestic and regal for the world and for us. This positioning of the Cross was an element of the Romanesque tympanum sculpture of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, which inspired Piper’s design. At the centre of the cross is a diadem representing its glory. Perhaps it also suggests the eye of God overseeing all.
It has been suggested that the main figure in the window appears aged [ILLUSTRATIONS 50-51] (as does the winged man, who is usually represented far younger and more active) [ILLUSTRATION 35]. Perhaps, some suggest, Piper was deliberately relating the relevance of Christ to the elderly residents of Saint John’s for whom the chapel is intended as a place of daily prayer and contemplation. I believe, as I explain later, that the age of Christ and the figure symbolising St. Matthew have far deeper significance. The Evangelist figures and the angels are announcing and acknowledging Christ’s presence and his coming in a gentle way. He is the ‘Ancient of Days’ of the Book of Daniel [Dan.7:9-10], ruler, guardian, elder and guide of his people. None of the figures are threatening or frightening; the angels seem to dance and are very loosely painted, quite similar to angels in Chagall’s paintings and painted glass. Their form and green colour suggests that they are not of this dimension, yet still part of the created order - a supernatural part of the cosmos.
THE FOLIATE BORDER
The amorphous foliate shapes of the green border of the window may represent the natural environment encircling Lichfield (Hopwas Woods, Cannock Chase, Sutton Park and other areas), at the centre of which this vision of Christ’s Majesty is present. In some lower detail we see the forms of wild flowers. Other areas of etched green suggest varieties of greens and other textures in nature. Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich, Thomas Traherne and George Herbert all wrote of our spiritual enlightenment and the development of the human soul as ‘Greening’. Through a window of the natural world, Christ in his mandorla is revealed as creator and sustainer of all, in a similar way to the vision of heaven appearing through a window in the clouds in the Book of Revelation [Rev.4:1].
The green foliage may also have connections with the ‘Green Man’ motif which appears in the carving of many cathedrals and churches. Piper had previously created many paintings, lithographs, textile and ceramic designs on the subject, though he preferred to call them ‘Foliate Heads’ [ILLUSTRATIONS 57-59]. He admitted that if he ever doodled, he tended to doodle ‘Green Men’ [Osborne 1997 p.80]. At the same time as the creation of this window, in 1981 Piper had designed glass roundels of foliate heads depicting different seasons. The following year he created an inspiring glass panel of foliate heads based on the ‘Four Seasons, Four Elements and Four Ages of Man’ for an exhibition of stained glass at Chartres [ILLUSTRATION 57]. So the implications of the nature theme were at the forefront of his work as he was working on the St. John’s design.
We do not fully know the origin of the Green Man imagery. It is found in so many churches that it probably had Christian connotations as well as pagan associations and origins. It possibly originated as a spirit within creation superstitiously associated with fertility or other animist ideas. William Anderson and June Osborne suggest that this motif represents “a life-force – a symbol of renewal and rebirth; it epitomises man’s oneness with nature…. And may be said to denote inspiration” [Osborne 1997 p.88]. If they are right, as seems to be the case in Piper’s regular use of the leaf motif, it would seem to fit Piper’s intention of using the figure of Christ in this window to inspire creative thought and suggest that faith can bring us life. Green Men were probably included in churches to represent Christianity’s victory over paganism. In common iconography, foliage emerges from the Green Man’s mouth; here it is part of Christ’s Creation embraced in the arc formed by Christ’s outstretched arms. His hands touch the border as though he is both creating our world and opening for us a revelation of himself within it.
The figure of Christ revealed and radiating in glory within the natural foliate background in the St. John’s window may suggest Christ’s position of priority and authority within creation and the cosmos. Being divine, he is greater than the created order and ruler over any spirit within it. The theology suggests that Christ in Majesty is Creator, Source, governor, observer, supporter and protector of Creation. He has given himself for our wellbeing, secure future and salvation, of which the Mercian Cross and his ascended, enthroned, glorified form are reminders.
The border may also relate to Piper’s regular use of the motif of the Tree of Life. Peter Pears is recorded as saying that for John Piper the main themes of art were nature and religion The Tree of Life is to be found in Piper’s west window of Ripon College, Cuddesdon, Oxford; Christ’s College Chapel, Christchurch, New Zealand (1968); St. Giles Totternhoe, Beds. (1970-1); St. Bartholomew’s, Nettlebed, Oxon. 1970-6; Washington National Cathedral 90; St Mary’s Fawley (1976); Charing Cross Hospital Chapel (1977); All Saints’ Clifton (), The Betjeman Memorial Window, Farnborough (1986) and the Gage Chapel Memorial Window, Firle (1985). Most dramatically the theme is found in the cascading leaves and Water of Life in Robinson College Chapel, Cambridge (1978-80) [ILLUSTRATION 62]. The texturally rich latter is closest in treatment to the foliate border of St. John’s Chapel Window, though etched in less detail. Similar detail of the foliage is found in Reyntiens own design of a glass panel of ‘Orpheus Charming the Trees’ 1984-5, and his ‘Ovid Series’, [ILLUSTRATION 64], shown in the Bruton Gallery Exhibition ‘Visions in Light’ 1985 [Catalogue Illustration 1].
Like the motif of the four symbolic beasts, the Tree of Life symbol is found both in Ezekiel [47:7, 12] and Revelation [22:2, 14]. In both prophetic texts, the Tree does not just represent fruitfulness and fecundity but restoration and renewal. Life is brought to the world by God through the nourishment of the River of Life. On either side of this river, which itself teems with life in Ezekiel (as in the Betjeman Memorial Window), grow the trees that bring fruit and healing to people and nations. As a symbol of hope in a chapel for the comfort of a largely elderly congregation this is a really positive motif, but it is subservient to the main motif of Christ himself. In the Robinson Chapel window, designed for both Christian and non-Christian use, the theme is primarily that ‘The Light of the World’ brings life to the foliage and waters of life as the sun shines through leaves and coruscates off water [ILLUSTRATION 62]. (This appears to have been Reyntiens’ favourite of Piper’s designs [quoted in Frazer Jenkins & Fowler White 2016 p.447], though in a letter to the Dean of Lichfield, Patrick said of the St. John’s window:
“I look upon it as the crown of the Piper-Reyntiens collaborations over so many years. [11/3/1983 cf. p. 45.]
In St. John’s Chapel ‘The Light of the World’ is represented as Christ himself. He is the bringer of hope and healing; the one who promises life, restoration and renewal.
THE FIGURE OF CHRIST
Piper’s figure of Christ in the Lichfield window is partly mysterious. His character and physiognomy are not immediately obvious. He is not the benign, attractive Good Shepherd of Victorian glass or the righteous yet fierce judicial ruler of many apocalyptic images.
Christ’s arms stretch wide, echoing the horizontal bar of the cross, suggesting that his death on the Cross, his return to life in the Resurrection, his Ascension and his enthronement now in heaven are the source of salvation, which he is holding out in promise to us. The gesture also carries the connotation that now, enthroned in triumph, he reaches to embrace us. In the small finished gouache design for the window Christ’s arms appear far stronger, as they are in the 1979 watercolour based on the Beaulieu tympanum [ILLUSTRATION 13]. But in the cartoon and window glass Christ’s arms have been made thinner and gentler. The hands are particularly gentle in their gesture [ILLUSTRATIONS 49 - 50]. They have no mark of the nails. Perhaps Piper deliberately altered them to make the gesture seem more welcoming than strong; they appear weathered by time to thin bars, like the weathering on many exterior mediaeval statues on Cathedrals. This effect makes Christ seems kindly and compassionate in his offer of embrace. This gentleness of gesture of Christ’s arms is similar to the outstretched arms of Christ in Glory in the Tympanum over the central entrance at Vézelay Abbey [ILLUSTRATION 6], which Piper had frequently painted and included in designs. They are also outstretched in the much-restored tympanum of the central portal of St. Denis, Paris. At the time of the installation of the window, Piper wrote that it was influenced by sculptures seen in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of western France [Quoted Osborne 1997 from the guidebook]. The main influence on the gesture of the figure and angels was the South Portal tympanum of the Abbey Church of Saint-Pierre Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne (Corrèze), [ILLUSTRATION 12], which he had visited and painted in 1970 and 1979. Christ’s figure, arms, the angels with trumpets on either side, and the Cross behind Christ’s shoulder are almost identically positioned in the Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne tympanum, though for the window he greatly simplified the design.
The arms of Christ in Majesty in most tympana, as at Moissac, Chartres, Carennac-sur-Lot and Souillac, Quercy, Saint Benoit-sur-Loire and Saint-Foy, Conques, (Aveyron) are usually raised in judgement or holding the Book of Life, more as a warning to not enter the church unworthily. At Autun they are lowered more humbly as though Christ is benignly in charge of all that is happening in the judgement scene, offering mercy to those coming to the church. Here in the St John’s Chapel window, as at Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, they seem to intentionally welcome us towards the altar. As the St. John’s Chapel is principally used by residents who are at a late stage in life, perhaps this gesture of Jesus also carries the potential interpretation that at the right time, Christ is and will be always there, ready to receive us with love and care. This is particularly appropriate for any who are suffering or may feel uncertain about their future and need the assurance of Christ’s presence, truth, love and support.
Christ’s features in the glass, by contrast, feel more inscrutable than welcoming, though they are gentler in Piper’s cartoon [ILLUSTRATION 51]. The face itself resembles one of Piper’s photographs of the simple sculpted figures on the font at Toller Fratrum, Dorset [ILLUSTRATIONS 22-23]. Christ’s face may have been designed to resemble the weathered stone sculpture of a tympanum or other early-Mediaeval sculpture, as though he, like us has endured and been weathered by life. But it is made obvious that we are not looking at a ‘portrait’ of Christ. In Piper’s own work it is closest to the face of the Risen Christ in the tracery lights of the East Window of St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate [ILLUSTRATION 24]. This was made by David Wasley to Piper’s design in 1981, shortly before the Lichfield commission. This Ramsgate panel is in deep indigo and strong colour, suggesting the mystery of Christ (evident too in the St. John’s window), which is quite a contrast to the pale blues of Reynteins’ design of the lights below. The features of Christ depicted in both windows are rather like iconic faces by Paul Klee [ILLUSTRATION 25], who Piper admired. The simplified shape of the eyes of Jesus and the four winged creatures certainly resemble the eyes in Klee’s faces. Christ’s face is here simple, iconic, representing a figure of power, spiritual depth, dignity and mystery without portraying him in detail. In a similar way Orthodox icons represent or symbolise figures in a stylised way, deliberately demonstrating that the image is not intended to be thought of as a ‘portrait’ of the true Christ or saints. The stylized features of an Orthodox or Coptic icon of Christ, present the viewer with mage that is a visual theological statement about Christ and suggests that the real Christ is present beyond the image. There were centuries of controversy in the Early Church over whether images were acceptable in places of worship, or whether they were idolatrous and disobeyed the 2nd Commandment to not make graven images. Church Councils finally accepted the justifications given for the use images, in a ruling in 843 CE. that has become known as ‘the Triumph of Orthodoxy’. However disagreement continued and controversy continues today in some churches. The Councils formed rules for iconographers to stylise their images and ensure that pictures of Christ or the saints could not be mistaken for portraits or worshipped idolatrously. Though not resembling a painted icon face, Piper’s face of Christ in the chapel window is similarly stylised and definitely not realistic. Its stylisation suggests that this is a reminder not a representation of Christ, yet emphasises that the real, true Christ is invisibly present with us. Like an icon, Piper’s Christ is a ‘window onto the spiritual reality beyond’ rather than intended to be regarded as a portrait.
The features of Piper’s Christ in both Lichfield and Ramsgate are not ugly, but neither are they attractive or particularly winsome (unlike his gesture of embrace or welcome). Perhaps this was intentionally to deter the viewer from focusing intently on the window emotionally, or imagining Christ sentimentally. Or it may just be that he was referring to the weathered face of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, which influenced both figure designs. In St. John’s, at close view, Christ’s eye-lids have a rather sad expression. The sun in Piper’s mandorla illuminates the gold side of Jesus’ face, while the majority of his face remains more in purple shadow than light, illuminated by the moon. Consequently Christ’s face is largely purple and chrome yellow. In colour theory these are complementary colours that cause each colour to sing out individually rather than harmonise. Symbolically these colours represent: Purple - imperial power and deep, mystical mystery contrasted with Chrome-Yellow -indicating Christ’s glory, halo of power and heavenly light. Interestingly on the side of the sun the double part of the halo is the blue of eternity. The crescent moon and Mercian Cross, themselves symbols of spiritual mystery have a stranger dark light that illuminates the larger, mysterious area of Christ’s head.
There are similarities in iconography here to the imagery of Christ’s face in Graham Sutherland’s Coventry Tapestry [ILLUSTRATION 26], though Sutherland’s face of Christ is more naturalistic and benign. There Jesus holds up a dark glass which slightly obscures his features, symbolically alluding to Paul’s promise to the Corinthians: “Now we see through a glass darkly; then we will see face to face. Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror; then we shall know, even as we are fully known” 1Cor.13:12]. Dominican and much apophatic Christian spirituality asks us to concentrate not just on what we see or understand of our faith, but to look beyond what is tangible or comprehensible towards recognising that there are far more invisible aspects of God than we could ever comprehend. Even the invisible aspects of faith, or the many things we do not understand can provide ‘light in our darkness’. The small final gouache study for the St John’s window [ILUSTRATION 4] may suggest that Piper’s original intention might have been to make the figure of Christ even more mysterious. The gouache is even darker in shades and hues, with far more darkness in Christ’s face and robes and a darker green surround. With no halo, three-quarters of the face is in shadow. Only Christ’s naked legs and one arm are highlighted by the sun. These may perhaps suggest the once-crucified aspects of Christ beneath his imperial robes. In the smaller gouache, the faces of the angels too are in shadow, unlike the final cartoon; only their trumpets/ horns are highlighted. In the finished window the highlighted details on Christ’s cloak/mantle, ephod, girdle and robe give a greater sense of the glory of majesty, lighting his mystery.
If the look on Jesus’ face in the Lichfield window is inscrutable rather than dour, it is certainly serious. Christ does not appear to object to or judge those he is watching (unlike some of the tympanum sculptures of Judgement that inspired Piper). Rather, the gesture of his arms and his facial expression are of serious love and care. Arthur Penn, Keeper of the Privy Purse criticised Piper’s work for Windsor Castle by calling him a “slightly melancholy artist who appears to regard nature through a glass darkly”; Osbert Sitwell described Piper as having “a sombre and fiery genius”. But I think any apparent darkness or serious expression in this work reflects the artist’s seriousness in attempting to present an intensity of mystery, history, meaning and spirituality behind Christ. Salvation and the nature of Christ are spiritual mysteries, as is God’s rule over the Cosmos. Piper may have personally had a melancholic character but his representations of Christ are intended to be majestic and caring.
This image of Jesus represents him more as the “One of Ancient Days” described in apocalyptic literature, than as the Judge of Romanesque Tympana. In Daniel 7:9 the description of the Ancient One comes immediately after the description of the four winged beasts [Dan.7:1-8], which in Piper’s window accompany Christ. Here in the St. John’s glass, the face of Christ seems to look on with a depth of knowledge born from centuries or millennia of experience. The Hebrew imagery of the Ancient One in Daniel 7 recognised how tribes were dependent on the elder for his or her wisdom, memory, justice, understanding of traditions and history, keeping the stories of the tribes and the faith of the people alive. God for the Hebrews tribes was being described in picture language as their ‘elder’ who was able to rule and judge with total knowledge, the wisdom of ultimate understanding, a commitment to righteousness, equity and a care about the continued future of God’s people. The resemblance of Piper’s Lichfield Christ to a weathered Romanesque head contributes to this sense of wisdom and thorough knowledge of us. Alongside as being a focus for worship, the seriousness of Christ’s features reminds us of our responsibilities to live righteously. For the historic foundation of St John’s, now sheltered accommodation, the figure of Christ as an Ancient One also affirms the value of the memories, character and contribution of the older residents to the wider community.
THE MANDORLA
The technical term for the red frame around Christ is a ‘mandorla’ [ILLUSTRATION 47]. A ‘mandorla’ is an aureole, nimbus or frame, usually of a lozenge shape formed by two intersecting curves, normally pointed where they join. The word mandorla derives from the Italian term for ‘almond’. In Latin the shape was called ‘vesica piscis’ due to its resemblance to the ‘bladder of a fish’. Its top and base are occasionally rounded, or flattened to form a rhombus, as in Graham Sutherland’s Coventry Tapestry [ILLUSTRATION 26]. Sometimes a mandorla may be completely circular, like a large halo surrounding a figure. In Orthodox icons of the Transfiguration the mandorla is often the shape of an irregular star. One of the most important mandorlas in medieval stained glass appears at the summit of the ‘Life of Christ’ lancet in Chartres Cathedral, which Piper knew well, regarding Chartres as one of the greatest achievements of mediaeval glass. On page 16 of ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ Piper illustrated another great stained glass mandorla of Christ in Majesty from the clerestory of Canterbury Cathedral. There he carries the sealed scroll of Judgement.
The origins of the use of a mandorla as a significant sign are uncertain and disputed. The shape may have symbolic associations with ‘life’ and ‘fertility’ as almond trees are often the earliest plants to flower in Greece, Italy and the Middle East. Aaron’s rod, which blossomed, according to tradition brought forth both flowers and almonds (Numbers 17:8). Some ancient Greek myths link almonds, and the almond-shape, with new life. Ancient Greek use of the mandorla symbol is seen in a C4th BCE gold ring depicting lovers seated within a mandorla that may represent the uniting of their two lives (Pergamon Museum, Berlin). The shape also has female connotations: the passage through which we are generated and born. In other religious contexts the mandorla is found in Buddhist, Chinese and Japanese art: mandorlas often surround the Buddha in paintings and statuettes.
The use of the mandorla probably came into Early Christian art through its association with the Roman imperial cult. Roman emperors who were considered divine were frequently represented in carvings as surrounded by a mandorla. The supposedly-divine ruler belonged to both the circle and heaven and the circle of earth. The symbol signified that they ruled from their thrones on earth (the circle of the world) and ruled with divine authority and power as a representative of the gods (the circle of the heavens). The ruler therefore sits enthroned at the intersection of the two circles. When Jesus was recognised in doctrine as wholly human and wholly divine, Christians considered that Christ fulfilled this position, uniting in himself the earthly and heavenly spheres. Occasionally Christ’s mandorla is represented literally as the intersection of two complete circles. By the C5th, as the Church, doctrinal beliefs about Christ’s nature, and the iconography of Christian art became established, it was common in Christian symbolism to surround the enthroned Christ with a mandorla. This affirmed that the church conformed to the Nicene doctrine of Christ being both fully human and fully divine. By the C6th a mandorla was included in Transfiguration images, where it symbolised the revelation of Christ’s glory. In icons of the Transfiguration particularly, the star mandorla illustrated the glowing light experienced by the disciples on seeing Jesus accompanied by Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor [Mk. 9:3; Matt. 17:2; Lk.9:29]. Rays of light radiating from the mandorla around Jesus indicate the disciples’ recognition of Christ’s glory and divine nature. The mandorla became a common visual symbol of the theological teaching about Jesus dual nature. Occasionally in Byzantine, Romanesque and mediaeval art mandorlas were also placed around the enthroned Virgin Mary with the Christ-child. In the C5th mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, mandorlas also surround some Old Testament figures, indicating their continued presence in heaven with Christ in glory. Haloes may have developed from the mandorla symbol (they were also occasionally represented on Roman Emperors). While the halo usually just encircles the head; the mandorla surrounds the entire body, showing that the whole of this figure is divine, sent by God, glorious, and ruling with divine authority and power.
Jesus, particularly the risen/ascended Christ, is often designated by a cross within his halo. In the St. John’s window, the Mercian Cross is positioned behind Christ’s right shoulder, in the same position as in the Beaulieu tympanum [ILLUSTRATIONS 48 & 12]. Piper places this within Christ’s mandorla, though Beaulieu has no mandorla, unlike Chartres, Moissac and Vézelay. In Piper’s window a cross in Christ’s halo is suggested by the lines of lead. We are left in no doubt about the power and authority of this figure and the importance of the Cross to his activity and rule. The whole image could be regarded as a visual representation of Philippians 2:6-11:
“Christ Jesus... though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Unique to Piper’s window is the placing of the four winged creatures around Christ within their own smaller mandorlas. At first this seems incorrect iconographically: - He is the one who should be represented in glory. But if we imagine the mandorla as a window onto a vision of glories of heaven, these creatures are represented as living within that realm. In Orthodox icons the mandorla is employed around Christ in sacred scenes where he transcends his earthly nature, particularly the Transfiguration, Resurrection and Ascension, or when he is represented as present in heaven, as in the icon of ‘The Dormition of Mary the Theotokos (transl. ‘The death/falling asleep of the Mother of the One with is God’). A mandorla also sometimes surrounds the dove of the Holy Spirit in Baptism icons, representing the Spirit acknowledging from heaven Christ’s glory and divine sonship [Lk.3:22]. So in the St. John’s Chapel window the mandorlas around the four winged creatures help to emphasise that this whole window is a vision of the dimension of heaven, which human eyes cannot yet see, where Christ’s rule is supreme, and where all Creation, visible and invisible, worships Christ. Compositionally the mandorals also help to draw together into a unity the diverse symbols of the window. In the far more complex compositions of Piper’s Eton Chapel windows he had used similar shapes to unite disparate elements; elsewhere he used rectangles of colour for similar purposes.
In representing sacred light in icons or murals, mandorlas were often painted in concentric bands of colour, growing darker towards the centre, rather than lighter. This represents the mystery and hiddenness of divine truth. The “cloud of unknowing” is another metaphor for such spiritual mysteries. In his writings Pseudo-Dionysius suggested that the human mind cannot depict or imagine the glory and brightness of holiness and heavenly truth. He represented divine glory as darkness. This suggested that the best way to approach God’s truth is to accept our incapability and recognise the limitations of our spiritual knowledge. Divine truth is mostly darkness to us at present. Apophatic spirituality suggests that to approach spiritual truth about God and Christ we need to pass through stages of increasing mystery and darkness. (This is represented iconographically by the lightening areas within the mandorla.) Only by recognising our inability to know God can we approach him truly and understand aspects Christ’s glory in revealing elements of God and God’s truth to us. Again this reflects 1Cor.13:12: “Now we see through a glass darkly; then we will see face to face. Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror; then we shall know, even as we are fully known”
T.S. Eliot, who Piper knew, tries to express this dichotomy and the mysterious path to spiritual enlightenment in the Four Quartets [1944], which parallels some of the mystery in Piper’s figure of Christ:
“To arrive where you are not, to get to where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance,
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
you must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know...” [East Coker III]
Spiritual truth and the mysteries of God and Eternity cannot be sufficiently reached through words, knowledge, sight, understanding, sacred writing, contemplative prayer or even scripture. While the centre of an icon’s mandorla is often black or darkens by gradations, Piper represents the centre of his mandorla as the blue of infinity and eternity. John wrote of the use of blue in his Coventry Baptistery window: “Ever since I was taken to Canterbury Cathedral as a child, my heart beats faster when I see blue glass in church glass windows, especially when it predominates in a window in the thirteenth century manner... the magic never fails to work! The excitement, that heightening of emotion always occurs: the blue seems to be ‘there’ in the window... yet not there at all, except as a symbol of infinity, but infinity that has become intensely real instead of an abstraction....” [Coventry Cathedral Review, December 1961].
The blue centre of the St. John’s mandorla is Piper’s iconographic way of representing the mystery yet heavenly glory and majesty of Christ. Christ is presented to us in this image as glorious and mysterious, at the heart of infinity and eternity, as well as the heart of the created world. He not only rules over the cosmos and offers himself to us; he offers us the way to enter and share eternity with him. From ancient times in several cultures the blue of lapis lazuli was used to represent eternity and perfection. The mandorla in the St John’s window, and the rays of blue light radiating from Christ announce his divinity yet recognise that this is beyond human comprehension. The rays created by the lead pattern of the window were part of Reyntiens’ contribution to suggest that the source of life radiates from Christ. When Piper designed his stained-glass in watercolour and gouache he left the designing of the lead that would hold the pieces of glass together, to Patrick. Reyntiens’ patterning of the lead often gave the design extra life. Here in the Lichfield mandorla, he used the lead to add further radiating movement and suggestions of the glow of glory to the designed image [ILLUSTRATIONS 45-47]. It suggests that Christ’s power is a force that radiates out to control and support the Cosmos. In Hildegard of Bingen’s symbolism a mandorla, like an egg, refers to the Cosmos being ruled and developing by Christ’s power.
The blue within Piper’s mandorla varies, like different depths in the skies. In Reyntiens’ ‘interpretation’ this variation is even more pronounced and vibrant. The sun, moon, golden Cross and angels within the mandorla are some of the means by which Christ exercises power and offers life to us and to Creation. While usually the centre of a mandorla is dark, or in sculpted mandorals is left plain, occasionally in mediaeval images mandorlas contained a few stars, representing the planets of the known universe. Here it symbolically holds the sun and moon, “the greater and lesser lights” if creation [Gen.1:16-18]. The mandorla in Piper’s window is surrounded by a red border containing circles, stars or eyes, as in the C12th Virgin and Child window at Vendome, which he called “one of the best gems, the prizes of the period” and illustrated on page 12 of in his book ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?. There are similar circles in the mandorla of the Rowlstone tympanum, which Piper had represented in several paintings and lithographs [ILLUSTRATIONS 8 & 9]. The St. John’s Chapel mandorla contains 84 stars, which may be intended as a symbolic number: 7 x 12 – both sacred numbers of perfection, wholeness and completion. This number may not, however, be intentional as there are fewer white spots in Piper’s gouache cartoon for the window; Reyntiens may have increased the number deliberately or unintentionally.
By the C15th with the rise of naturalism in Renaissance art, mandorlas became used less commonly, though they continued in Orthodox icons and aureoles surrounding sculpted figures like Tilman Riemenschneider’s Madonnas, or Post-Reformation images of Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension, the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary. Modernist religious art revived the use of mandorlas as used by Sutherland in the Coventry Tapestry, and Piper here, referring back to traditions of past Christian iconography.
FIVE WOUNDS OF CHRIST?
Contemplating the window’s imagery, another more sombre potential meaning within the symbolism of the shape of the mandorla emerges. This may not have been the intention of Piper or Reyntiens, but they must surely have been aware of the possible significance from their substantial knowledge of Christian symbolism in art. Elongated mandorla shapes on a small scale were often used in contemplative Christian art as a symbol of the Five Wounds inflicted at Jesus’ crucifixion, particularly in art after the Black Death and during the Counter-Reformation. Reynitens, with his Roman Catholic background and Ampleforth education especially, would certainly have recognised this. (Piper used the Five Wounds of Christ in a number of his windows: St. Andrew’s, Plymouth; All Saints’ Misterton, Notts. and the West window of Nuffield College Chapel. However, in all of these he used the alternative motif of drops of blood rather than the wound shape.
Piper wrote of the use of reds in Chartres’ windows as: “Reds gashed themselves across the blue like wounds… One felt surrounded by cliffs of stone, with coloured perforations; the windows seemed to give onto tunnels with light only at the dark end of them.” [Quoted Osborne 1997 p.11]. The red borders of the mandorals in St. John’s create a similar effect: wounds in the surrounding colour through which we reach into another dimension.
Contemplation of Christ’s wounds became a popular penitential exercise especially during Lent. C14th and C15th spiritual writings on it are common. Clare of Assisi, St. Mechtilde, St. Gertrude of Helfta, Richard Rolle, Bridget of Sweden and later, in the mid C18th, Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, all promoted the practice. The exercise has been revived in modern times by the Roman Catholic contemplative Marie Martha Chambon, and even by Protestant writers like Bishop Stephen Cottrell. To focus thought on Christ’s five wounds seems rather macabre to some modern minds. It reflects the dark emphasis of much mediaeval spirituality, where the penitent was strongly reminded of how deeply their sins were responsible for Christ’s suffering. Contemplation of Christ’s wounds and subsequent penitence often led people of a mediaeval mind-set to over-dependence on the Church for absolution. The Reformation deliberately moved the emphasis of spirituality more onto recognition of the freedom that faith in Christ can bring. But meditation on the wounds of Christ was never meant to be a totally depressing exercise. The wounds were always seen as ways by which Christ’s sacrifice opened up a way to heaven for those who trust in, and are freed by, his redemptive self-sacrifice.
The five mandorlas in St. John’s Chapel window are openings onto the heavenly, eternal dimension. But their number and shape, unintentionally or intentionally, are reminders of the wounds in Christ feet and side. The positioning of the shapes above the main altar of the chapel particularly contributes a feeling of extra sacramental significance. The forms suggest that through the wounds of this now-glorified Saviour, we too can have access to heaven. The emphasis of an altar in a Protestant chapel or church is not on sacrifice. Doctrine emphasises that the sacrifice of Christ was given ‘once, for all, upon the Cross.’ [Romans 6:10; Hebrews 10, particularly vss.2 & 10; 1Peter:3:18]. Jesus’ gift of his life was sufficient to offer cosmic freedom; there is no further need for any similar form of sacrifice. The Communion Table is therefore no longer considered to be a place of ‘sacrifice’, except, as emphasised in words of the ‘Eucharist’ Service, that we bring before God, ‘our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ in spirit and in truth, in our hearts. For Piper, with his family’s Methodist background, this would have been even more emphatic, as Methodist Chapels lay emphasis on the ‘table’, avoiding the term ‘altar’. However his Anglican churchmanship became more sacramental.
In St. John’s Chapel the link of the glory of Christ in the window with the sufferings of Christ is further emphasised by the reredos painting of Jesus as the ‘Suffering Servant’ which hangs below Piper’s window behind the altar table. Together, this and the Piper window of the enthroned Christ add to the theological significance of Christ’s glory, as described in Philippians 2:6-11:
“Christ Jesus... humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
While this link between the five glorious mandorlas of the window and the five wounds of Christ is tentative and may be only subliminal, it nevertheless adds a further layer to the window’s potential content and message for the contemplative. It adds meaning to one’s meditation on the enormity of Christ’s achievement and gift of salvation. We are presented with an image designed to remind us that Christ has opened the way for us to share eternity with him. The symbols and images in the window are reminders of the promised eternal dimension available to us as a result of the love, self-giving, forgiveness, generosity and rule of God.
THE SUN AND MOON
For spiritual accuracy, if one were to be pedantic, the sun and moon should not be contained within the mandorla but outside it, within the dimension of creation. The Heavenly Jerusalem is described as having no need of the sun for God’s reign illuminates all: “And the city has no need of the sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut by day – and there will be no night there” [Rev.21:23-4]. (This verse has significance for the original role of St John’s Hospital, which gave shelter to those who were locked out of the walls of Lichfield City at night. Christ is the protector, day and night, of all the residents of the building.)
In mediaeval times the sun and moon and stars were considered to be within God’s heavenly dimension. So in the mandorla of the Tympanum at Cervon (Nièvre), Christ is surrounded by 8 stars, resembling blossoming flowers (the 8 may relate to Jewish Covenant symbolism). Conques’ 6 stars mandorla represents the then-known planets including the Moon. Christ in majesty is often accompanied by the sun and moon in mediaeval manuscripts implying symbolically that Christ rules the created order, even the Sun, which was considered the most important of the heavenly bodies, set to govern the cosmos [Gen 1:18; Job 9:7; Ps.19:46; 74:16]. The sun and moon were considered as two great governing lights that God had set in place on the 4th day of Creation: “And God said ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day and the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. God made the two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and night, and to separate the light from darkness.” [Gen.1:14-18]. Christ’s involvement as Lord of creation meant that he ruled these lights as he ruled the cosmos. Yet his is also a gentle, caring rule, as Psalm 8 emphasises: “When I consider your heavens... the moon and stars that you have set in place; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honour” [Ps.8:3-5]. So this image represents not just Christ’s cosmic power, but his constant care and valuing of each of us as he cares for us by day and by night. Reyntiens’ attention to detail and contemporisation and attention to detail is seen in the etching of the sun’s surface to suggest sunspots [ILLUSTRATION 45 inset].
In the small gouache finished study for the window, Piper painted the sun Chrome Yellow, but he had not given Christ a halo. In the cartoon and finished glass he reduced the size of the sun and made its hue far whiter, which unites the sun and moon and gives extra prominence to the warmth of the golden yellows of Christ’s face, halo and robes. The golden yellow therefore is used to emphasise Christ’s glory. This is pointed to by the golden lion, king of the beasts, acknowledging Christ’s dominance as King: the Lion of Judah.
THE FOUR WINGED BEASTS
In the corners of the window are four winged beasts, which unusually emerge from small mandorlas. Traditionally in Christian symbolism since Victorinus of Pettau (died 304) and St Jerome (347-420), these beasts are used to represent the Four Evangelists: Matthew (the winged man), Mark (the winged lion), Luke (the winged ox) and John (the eagle). Some of the Church Fathers, beginning with Irenaeus (130-202) and Hippolytus of Rome (170-235), interpreted these creatures as representing different aspects of Christ, and the characteristics of each Gospel and Gospel-writer. (Not all relate the same creature to the same Gospel: for example Irenaeus and Chromatius of Aquileia interpreted the confidence and rule of the lion as John’s Gospel. Hippolytus, Augustine of Hippo and Primasius of Hadrumetum interpreted the lion as the royal nature of Christ emphasised in Matthew’s introductory genealogy.)
Piper had represented the ‘Beasts of the Evangelists’ in the Helen Wells Chapman Memorial Window of All. Hallows, Wellingborough in 1961 [ILLUSTRATION 32], where he linked them with typology from the Hebrew scriptures and the imagery of Christ as \the True Vine’. He also represented them in his Chichester tapestry (1965) and the Catherine Window of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth (1965-6) but none of these representations is as effective as the Lichfield glass. Equally dynamically Reyntiens represented them surrounding the Lamb of God in his ‘Adoration of the Lamb’ window, All Saints, Odiham, Hants. (1968-9) [ILLUSTRATION 65].
The Lichfield Gospels contain a finely drawn page of the Four Evangelist symbols. But, though Piper mentions the Lichfield Gospels generally in his writings, there is no evidence that Piper knew the particular Four Evangelists illumination specifically, nor of him using it as a source for his work. The face of the Ox in the Four Evangelists Page [ILLUSTRATION 69] does bear a very slight resemblance to the face of the Ox in the first watercolour for the window design [ILLUSTRATION4] but The Lichfield Gospels’ full-page illumination of St Luke [ILLUSTRATION 70] is more of the style of his Oundle School Chapel glass of 1954, 30 years previously.
Were these symbols in Piper’s St. John’s window simply representing the four Gospel writers they would suggest that we are looking at a holistic representation of the nature of Christ. A value of having four gospels is that each writer or compiler of sources contributed a slightly different perspective or emphasis to Jesus’ life and teaching.
Matthew’s Gospel is an account that brings out the teaching, humanity, human ancestry, kingship and socially caring nature of Jesus and God’s future coming Kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount shows Christ’s care and understanding of our human nature and the true human condition. This naturally aligns Matthew’s Gospel with the image of a winged human.
Marks’ Gospel is a vigorous narrative, beginning with Joh the Baptist roaring prophetically in the wilderness and emphasising Christ’s kingship by royal lineage as the lion of Judah. Jesus moves through the narrative quickly healing and astounding people (‘immediately’ seems a favourite phrase of Mark’s). This Gospel presents Jesus’ story vividly, with unique personal details, in a powerful way that allowed early commentators to compare him to the vigorous lion symbol. In ancient bestiaries Lions were also associated with healing.
Luke’s Gospel claims to be rigorously researched and faithful as a diligent, strong, hard-working creature, the ox. Luke’s Christ is compassionate, praying for persecutors, drawing in outsiders, working on behalf of others. He acts both as priest and sacrificial animal. In Luke, Christ also works conscientiously to bring the Kingdom into reality now. Kingdom activity and faith is to be alive in the present as well as in the future [Lk.4&7].
John Gospel is written from a different perspective, as though looking from the heavens, most certain in claiming Christ’s divine origins and nature. The Eagle in the ancient bestiary mythology that originated in the Middle East, was the creature which flew highest, closest to the sun (Christ in the presence of God), singed its wings so plummeted to earth (Christ’s Incarnation and Death on the Cross), was revived in the sea (the Tomb) then rose to soar in glory again (Christ’s Resurrection, Ascension and restoration to the throne of glory). John’s Gospel is also written from the perspective of the glories of the Kingdom being here already, as a result of Christ’s coming, for those who, like the Eagle can see through spiritual insight from on high.
By placing these four symbols around the figure of Christ an image-maker implies that the figure of Jesus Christ represents and unites all these aspects and perspectives in one person. It is important for a Christian believer to develop a holistic view of Jesus Christ. If believers just consider a selected few favourite or outstanding aspects of any religion, their beliefs can easily become distorted. This is seen in the damage created by limited fundamental beliefs throughout the world. Consequently, if Jesus’ life and teaching offer us the clearest, most holistic image of what the Christian God is like, when we focus on him holistically we are most likely to be able to worship God “in spirit and in truth” [Jn.4:23]. The vision of Christ in Glory in Piper’s window thus encourages us to approach worship holistically, coming before the God of Truth through considering all that Christ represents for us, for the world and for all creation.
Piper had already designed more abstract renditions of the four Evangelist creatures at the base of his tapestry for the chancel of Chichester Cathedral. In Chichester they are more simplified than in the Lichfield window, where they are stylized in a modern way rather than abstract. In the West window of the north aisle of All Hallows, Wellingborough he had also represented the four evangelist symbols in glass in 1961. As in Chichester they are just the heads of the creatures, each with a wing and its printed name. The more considered and subtle representations of the creatures in St John’s Chapel windows more closely resemble Sutherland’s approach to the Tetramorph in the Coventry tapestry. In a similar way Celtic mediaeval manuscripts (including the Lichfield Gospels) and the Moissac tympanum stylise the winged figures around the glorified Christ.
In the Lichfield window, as in Sutherland’s tapestry in Coventry Cathedral [ILLUSTRATION 26] the beasts represent far more than the Gospel symbols. The symbols for the Evangelists were derived from the winged apocalyptic figures mentioned in Ezekiel 1:5-28, Daniel 7:2-8 and Revelation 4:6-9, which accompany the presence of God, carry out God’s will, and represent God’s powers. In Ezekiel they have four heads, multiple pairs of wings, are covered with all-seeing eyes, and accompany God’s divine chariot in every direction as God directs and wills them to follow divine rule. In Daniel 7 the creatures are different from those in Ezekiel and Revelation and are active in enforcing God’s judgement, with features and characteristics of a lion, eagle, bear and human. In Revelation each creature has the characteristics of one beast, while Ezekiel’s vision describes them as multi-headed. The four winged creatures of Ezekiel and Revelation are known technically as the ‘Tetramorph’. This term is derived from the Greek ‘tetra’/’four’ and ‘morph’/’shape’. Their symbolism is complicated, with many possible sources or connotations.
The earliest astronomy/astrology of which we have records is Sumerian (c3200 BCE.). Like several other early beliefs, they divided the horizon and the heavens into four fixed areas through which the Sun travelled during the Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes and the Summer and Winter Solstices. They attributed spiritual qualities and characteristics to each quarter. The Sumerian civilization used these same creatures, the Ox, Lion, Eagle and Man, to represent those quarters. Together the beasts represented the complete cycle of the year as well as the four quarters of the earth. Over time and in various cultures, these creatures became incorporated into the full zodiac that has been handed down to western astronomy. The Babylonian zodiac also had these four fixed signs: Ox/Taurus; Lion/Leo; Man/Aquarius; the Eagle they associated with Scorpio. These were in turn associated with the four elements of which they believed the cosmos was formed: Ox/earth; Lion/fire; Eagle/air; Human/water. These constellations and elements were thought to rule the entire cosmos. If Ezekiel intended a cosmic meaning when writing at the time of the Babylonian Captivity of Israel, his vision could be a sign of divine security, implying that all the spheres of heaven and earth are under the control of YHWH, the Hebrew monotheistic God. Time, space, place and the lives of Ezekiel’s people could all be trusted to YHWH as their circumstances were all in God’s design, direction, care and judgement: part of God’s plan of redemption and justice.
Compound creatures are found in many mythologies and religions. Some scholars believe that in Ezekiel’s vision the four creatures’ association with YHWH suggests that they represent various aspects of God’s nature and powers. In a similar way the animal characteristics of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Greek gods represent aspects of their powers and realm of influence. Perhaps in Ezekiel they suggest:
The Eagle: God’s all-seeing perspective, overview from on high and over-spanning powers from the heavens.
The Ox: The power, determination, hard work, strength, danger and solid reliability of God.
The Lion: God’s rule as fiercest and most awe-inspiring leader of all creatures. The Lion of Judah.
The Winged Man: the wisdom, humanity and thoughtful consideration of God, greater than any human mind, caring for us, knowing and understanding us thoroughly. Humans (‘in God’s image’ [Gen.1:26]) were thought to resemble God’s nature more closely than any other creature. In Greek art the winged man was sometimes a symbol of physical perfection.
All these characteristics may be applied to Jesus Christ, in focusing worship upon God in the chapel.
In Ezekiel 1 God is represented as riding on a chariot accompanied by these powerful Tetramorph creatures. Ezekiel was influenced by the experience of the Jewish people in exile in Babylon, where they would have seen images of gods with the heads of animals. The Sphynx in Egypt and Babylon had a human head and a lion’s body. The guardian creatures sculpted at the gates of Nimrod, had elements of all four beasts. The Northern tribes in exile in Assyria would also have encountered similar images: Lamassu, the Assyrian protective deity had four wings, the head of a man and the body of an Ox. Assyrian gods were represented as enthroned on chariots driven by winged tetramorph creatures similar to Ezekiel’s description. Israel’s contacts with Egypt would also have made them familiar with images of animal-headed gods and spirits. Representing the Hebrew God YHWH as controlling a chariot-throne drawn by such creatures was perhaps a way for Ezekiel to emphasise that the Hebrew monotheistic God was more powerful than all spiritual or divine powers that were thought to control rival nations. This would have assured his vulnerable people both in exile and during the rebuilding and restoration of the Temple and nation that YHWH was still on their side. The spiritual world of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, or Canaanite gods like Baal and Ashtaroth (1Ki.7:3) were believed to be subservient and subject to the power and will of the God of the Hebrew tribes. Ezekiel’s imagery of God riding on and controlling spiritual beings composed of such creatures and ordering their direction and activities could be a way of the prophet emphasising the dominance of the Hebrew God over all surrounding gods and alternative beliefs.
Ezekiel’s creatures are represented alongside Christ in several Christian Roman and Byzantine mosaics and frescoes like Santa Prudenzia, Santa Maria in Trasetevere and San Clemente Basilica, Rome. They are also found in many Byzantine, Carolingian, Ottonian and Celtic manuscript illustrations. In the tympana over the entrance doorways of cathedrals and many churches, Christ in Majesty is often represented as accompanied by these winged figures, partly to remind us that he stands in judgement over the world, so we should not enter unworthily. It was also intended as a reminder of Christ’s protection and his divine origins and power. The arrangement of Piper’s beasts differs from their position in most mediaeval imagery. In tympana the eagle and man are usually at the top, representing the higher aspects of the circle of heaven. The ox and lion, representing the circle of the powers of earthly creatures are usually below. Sutherland’s Coventry tapestry arranged the figures in their traditional mediaeval positions and in rectangles, not mandorlas, emphasising that they too are created beings. Piper however places the eagle and man to the left and the lion and ox to the right. Either he did not know the reason for their traditional placement, or he was deliberately showing them within the left and right arcs of Christ’s mandorla, suggesting that the circles of heaven and earth reach out to the left and right. Whatever their symbolic intention, the overall meaning of the image is to represent Christ enthroned as the Lord of all – everything in heaven and earth, the cycle of time, the fullness of the year and whole of human life. Though all circumstances may change, Christ is represented as stable, wise, secure, reliable and glorious: he can be trusted with our faith and our lives. This has lasting relevance to all who worship in the chapel.
Piper’s ox in the small final gouache looks out at the viewer, almost acting as a foil to lead the viewer’s eye into the scene. In the final cartoon and window this has been changed so all four creatures look towards Christ. The ox too has a crown of stars, which may suggest the sacrificial significance of cattle, as Piper related these red starred bars in stained glass windows to wounds [Reds gashed themselves across the blue like wounds…” previously quoted from Osborne 1997 p.11]. The Lion gestures towards Christ and the line of the lion’s limb and paw particularly direct our eyes towards the Cross, which is of a similar colour and light-intensity. The eagle appears bald and Osborne suggests that it is aged [Osborne 1997 p.141]. Certainly the winged man, representative of Matthew, in the upper left has been altered drastically from an active youth, similar to a crowned cherub holding a book, in the gouache [ILLUSTRATION 4], leaning backwards, perhaps in awe, to an old, bearded, supplicant man who is also holding a book. He is set within a blood-red mandorla. June Osborne suggests: “Perhaps in making him look old… Piper was thinking of the use for which the building was created. It is oddly poignant.” [Osborne 1997 p.141]. While this may of course be true, it seems rather a simplistic reading of the symbolism. (Piper did call the residents of the hospital ‘old dears’, rather patronisingly or jokingly in his Sunday Telegraph interview with Sebastian Faulks 11th July 1984 [ILLUSTRATION 61 - cf. page 63] yet he was himself in his early 80s.) Like the figure of Christ as ‘One of Ancient Days’ [Dan.7:9], the aged, winged male figure suggests that we are looking at an image that represents an aged sage, with the wisdom of experience, who has been part of the dimension of heaven for eternity and demonstrates this in his maturity and depth of insight.
It is unusual to find the four apocalyptic beasts within mandorlas. Sometimes in manuscripts they are contained within roundels. Here we should probably not imagine that their mandorlas represent them as glorious, in the same way as the main mandorla suggests Christ’s glory. These four smaller mandorlas seem more to represent slits or openings through which we have a glimpse of the life of the spiritual world: a dimension beyond ours, yet within which our earthly dimension exists. As red in iconography represents human flesh as well as martyrdom, the red borders on the mandorlas could conceivably represent cuts in the fleshly world of earth through which we recognise visions of this other spiritual dimension, which oversees and relishes in ours. The two lower blue mandorlas may represent openings through the ethereal world.
COLOURS IN THE WINDOW
The colours of the St. John’s Chapel window may initially feel uncomfortable to some who are more familiar with the subtler colour-schemes of some mediaeval glass or the common red, blue, yellow and white emphasis in much stained glass in British churches. However, mediaeval churches were never subtly coloured, being far brighter and, to many modern tastes, more garish than we experience them today. The purple and green combinations used in the chapel glass are more common in German and Flemish stained glass, as in the C16th Herkenrode glass of the Lady Chapel in Lichfield Cathedral [ILLUSTRATION 29]. We cannot be sure whether this was a direct influence on Piper’s choice of colour for the St. John’s windows, though he mentions this glass with admiration in ‘Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?’ [p.28] and Reyntiens discusses it in his 1990 book ‘The Beauty of Stained Glass’ [p.100, ills. 108-9]. The colours that Piper chose are particularly effective in combination with the red local sandstone from which the Cathedral and St John’s Chapel are built, though the interior walls of the chapel are largely painted [ILLUSTRATION 1].
It is interesting to note that the basic colour-scheme of purples and greens with some blue, which Piper used in the eventual window was already being used by him in the watercolour based on the Tympanum of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne, painted in 1979 before the window was conceived. Perhaps the original sculpture or place suggested that mood or colour-range to him. However, an early colour study for the window shows that he was also considering oranges, golds and yellows [ILLUSTRATION 3]. Much of the ‘decorative’ aspect of Piper’s paintings based on churches seems to have been instinctive, not necessarily initially symbolic, as can be seen in his paintings of Vézelay and Moissac [ILLUSTRATIONS 7 & 11].
From the 1940s Piper became fascinated by the contribution of art and architecture to liturgy, creating a space conducive to prayer and encouraging or focusing worship. He was involved with the emerging Liturgical Movement in the late 1950s and 60s, particularly influenced by Peter Hammond’s two books on the subject: ‘Liturgy and Architecture’ (1960) and ‘Towards a Church Architecture’ (1962). “Architecture and art” Hammond had written, “must rediscover their true function as the handmaid of liturgy” [Peter Hammond ‘Liturgy and Architecture’ 1960 London: Barrie & Rockliff, p.26]. Through 38 years of experience on the Oxford Diocesan Advisory Board, Piper advised on the restoration and re-ordering of many churches to make their space more appropriate for worship. The success of his advice is seen particularly in his collaborative help in the reordering Tudely Church, Kent, with its Chagall windows.
Piper’s church commitment and consideration of liturgical requirements is partly demonstrated in the colours chosen for the St John’s window, which are all based on the colours of the liturgical seasons:
Green - Ordinary time
Purple - Penitential Seasons – Lent and Advent
White and Gold - Festal Seasons – Christmas and Easter
Red - Pentecost, Martyrs and Saints’ Days.
Blue - Though blue is occasionally used liturgically, here the blue of the mandorla represents Christ’s place, enthroned in eternity and his mystery hidden in infinity. Piper’s belief that “blue seems to be ‘there’ in the window... yet not there at all, except as a symbol of infinity, but infinity that has become intensely real instead of an abstraction....” [Coventry Cathedral Review, December 1961 - quoted more fully on p.24] is close to the intention in his use of blue in the mandorla around Christ. The blue is not sky or an abstract use of intense colour; it helps to represent the mystery and hidden glory within faith.
The colours of the Tetramorph creatures may also be intended to be symbolic. This could suggest the ancient idea of the Four Elements, which Piper had recently represented for the Chartres exhibition [ILLUSTRATION 57], Plymouth Cathedral [ILLUSTRATION 33] and the Ipswich School Library roundels [cf. Osborne 1997 p.124-5 & figs. 104-109]. The Eagle is the blue colour of the Air; the Lion is the gold of Fire; the Red of the Ox may be the colour of Earth 0r sacrificial blood; and the Green Man may be a symbol of Water, which brings the green of life to creation. Green has often been related to nourished fruitfulness and spirituality, especially in writings of mystics like Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich, Thomas Traherne and George Herbert, who all write of spiritual growth as ‘greening’.
Piper was always intent on being modern in his approach; his strong, unconventional choice of colours was part of this. He wrote in ‘Stained Glass: Art and Anti-Art’ that artists and clergy should be bold in the statements that they make in churches. He wanted the chapel window to create an impact, which it certainly does. Art in churches needs to communicate; it is not enough to create something that is bland or just echoes the existing atmosphere of the space. If an image hides in a corner unnoticed, there is no reason for it to be there in the church at all. It should harmonise and feel appropriate within its space, yet it needs to attract a certain attention in order to communicate then focus worship beyond the artefact to God. Piper wanted to create an image that would communicate and focus the viewers’ spiritual thoughts, challenging them to contemplate and consider the meaning within the work in its setting. A work of art in the church context should enhance not distract from worship (as, sadly, some works of art do in churches). The theory of Orthodox iconographers may be useful here: The icon is designed to be a window through which the viewer is encouraged to consider the theological truth contained within its subject. The eye should not remain on the surface of an icon, a religious picture, sculpture or a stained glass image. We should always look through or beyond it to consider its spiritual meaning and be led to worship the invisible God to whose truths the story or message in the image is pointing.
Piper’s experimentation with strong colour in his stained glass was enhanced by his experimentation with colours in limited-edition lithographic prints, particularly later in his career. He created many lithographs based on mediaeval sculptures and tympana [ILLUSTRATIONS 21 & 58]. In particular he was fascinated by the image of Christ in Glory at Vézelay and re-drew and represented it in prints and paintings many times between the mid-1960s and 1980 [ILLUSTRATIONS 6-7]. This may be why it has several superficial similarities with the Christ in Glory in St. John’s Chapel window. Piper had first used the Vézelay image on a curtain for Britten’s ‘Rape of Lucretia’ in 1946. With Robert Wellington and the Curwen and Baynard Press, Piper had formed a business association ‘Contemporary Lithographs’ in 1936. In 1964, Marlborough Galleries published a portfolio of twenty-four original lithographs called "A Retrospective of Churches". This became one of his best known suites of graphics. One lithograph in that series depicted the early Romanesque Tympanum of Kilpeck Church, Herefordshire [ILLUSTRATION 21]. So in the two decades before creating designs for the Lichfield window, the subject of ‘Christ in Majesty’ was explored in different media and many colours.
In the medium of lithography Piper was able to easily experiment widely with many different colour-ways and colour combinations. This would have encouraged him to experiment with different variations of colour as he made sketches and painted studies for the St. John’s Chapel window. Some early coloured studies for the window show that Piper considered a gold, yellow and orange format, presumably suggesting the glory and light of Christ. The colours he eventually chose are more unusual. The rich colours symbolise not just liturgical colours of the seasons, the depth and mystery of glory and Christ’s rule in his imperial purple robes. They are also the main primary and secondary colours. Anthony West describes Piper’s serious changes in his use of bright colour from about 1968: “(he used) colour oppositions and the inherent qualities of paint as the means of expressing the discoveries about colour he had made while handling glass. [John Piper Secker and Warburg 1979]. The primary and secondary colours of the window suggest a rainbow (symbolic of God’s Covenant promise to care for his people). These are the colours from which all other colours in creation can be formed, suggestive of the fruitful earth and cosmos, created by God, over which Christ in Majesty is entrusted with the responsibility to govern and care [Phil.2:9-11].
THE ROLE OF HISTORIC INFLUENCES & SOURCES BEHIND ST. JOHNS’ WINDOW
The subject of the St. John’s east window is so close to Graham Sutherland’s great tapestry for St. Michael’s Cathedral Coventry that this must have been a huge influence on Piper’s design for the same position above the main chapel altar. However in conversation with the Dean of Lichfield Piper implied that this was not an influence [Dean’s Report 2nd March 1983 reprinted p.43]. He and Sutherland had been heavily involved in the Coventry Cathedral project, and their works were regularly exhibited together in international exhibitions and national exhibitions on modern artists and the Church. Though they were not close friends, coincidentally Piper and Sutherland had both been educated at Epsom College, though Sutherland had left a term before Piper started there. Piper’s design for the huge Baptistery window of Coventry Cathedral complemented Sutherland’s tapestry, both making a strong impact on first entering the cathedral.
The smaller scale of St. John’s Chapel makes that impact rather more intimate. By contrast to Coventry, the entrance doorway to St John’s Chapel is undramatic: a domestic size courtyard door leads one into a narrow narthex. On entering the chapel itself the east window provides an immediate focus. It helps to immediately direct one to the purpose of being in the building: not to sightsee or come to see the work of a famous artist, but to focus on being in the presence of God, to lead us to prayer and worship. This agrees with Comper’s & Piper’s aim, already mentioned that a good church interior should “move to worship, to bring a man to his knees, to refresh the soul in a weary land.” [Ninian Comper Of the Atmosphere in a Church. London: SPCK 1947 p.9-10]. The chancel with its altar and reredos painting is where that worship is focused towards God. The window of Christ in Majesty above this helps to draw our eyes towards that space and to provide a subject through which our thoughts are directed towards the God of salvation and Christ’s care for us.
From childhood Piper expressed an admiration for the writings of John Ruskin. One might think that this glass is so unlike Pre-Raphaelite and William Morris glass and the Gothic Revival design in churches that Ruskin inspired, that as a modernist Piper must have moved away from that early influence. But Ruskin also advocated that the modern artist should not attempt to copy nature but make marks and equivalents that pointed to nature and reality rather than copying it. Piper’s figurative mark-making developed Ruskin’s idea of the abstract imitation of nature into more modernist forms. Most influentially, Ruskin like Piper and Betjeman had a sensitivity and a feeling for the picturesque and spiritual aesthetic of places, appreciating the age and past of buildings and art, without needing to know every historic detail about them. This picturesque aesthetic influenced John Piper’s writings, guides and his feeling for what an artwork might add to an interior. In the Appendix to The Two Path lectures on art, and its application to decoration and manufacture, delivered in 1858-9, Ruskin had written of stained glass: “The value of hue in all illuminations on painted glass of fine periods depends primarily on the expedients used to make the colours palpitate and fluctuate; inequality of brilliancy being the condition of brilliancy…. Delicacy of organisation in the designer given, you will soon have all, and without it nothing….. The first necessity of beauty in colour is gradation, as the first necessity of beauty in line is curvature. All harmonies of colour depend for their vitality on the action and helpful operation of every particle of colour they contain. No colour harmony is of high order unless it involves indescribable tints.” The vibrancy of Piper’s stained glass in many ways translated into modern forms the ‘vitality’, ‘indescribable tints’, ‘palpitation and fluctuation of brilliancy’ which Ruskin praised in the best stained glass a century before.
The main building of St John’s is 15th Century, but the original Hospital and its chapel date back to 1135, so it was founded at a time when the Romanesque subject matter of ‘Christ in Majesty’ was common as a main focus in the iconography of a church building. Piper must have known the magnificent figure of Christ in a mandorla worshipped by angels above Ely Cathedral’s Prior’s Door. Such tympana have survived more in France. In mediaeval European cathedrals and major churches of the Romanesque period, many of which Piper had visited on his travels with camera and sketchbook, the subject of Christ in glory surrounded by the Tetramorph (the Four Living Creatures) was placed above the main entrance portal. This is seen most dramatically and famously at Chartres, Moissac, Saint-Trophime in Arles and Vézelay. In 1968 Piper had painted in Moissac, especially the Apostle figures on the south doorway [cf. Wortley ‘John Piper: Master of Diversity’2000, illustr.17 p.12]. Piper drew Vézelay’s tympanum and developed it into lithographs and pictures multiple times, so you might think this might have been the main source of his iconography. But though Vézelay includes Christ in a mandorla and many active figures, like the angels in St. John’s window, it does not include the beasts. The carved Romanesque tympanum at Conques has angels at Christ’s feet but they hold candlesticks rather than trumpets, unlike the angels at St. Pierre, Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne. The winged creatures are naturalistically and formally arranged at Chartres while those in the Moissac tympanum are more abstractly designed to squeeze them into the available space, as are the creatures in the St. John’s window and in Sutherland’s Coventry tapestry.
Throughout Piper’s career he had often explored historic church-art and sculpture. Towards the end of the 1970s he began to re-assess and examine the contribution of historic artefacts and the feeling, atmosphere and spirituality which they created. This culminated in 1978 in an unusual book, Stones and Bones, in which he compared and contrasted qualities through his large drawings from old photographs of sculptures, nudes, walls and rocks. This volume set his modern art in context within the British landscape environment and the early art that had grown out of it. These historic and environmental comparisons may have influenced his choice of a Romanesque sculpture as the source and main inspiration behind the St. John’s window. It certainly influenced his choice of subject for the design of the ante-chapel window of Robinson College, Cambridge (1978-9), based on the West Front Tympanum of Neuilly-en-Donjon, Burgundy, which he had visited in 1969 [ILLUSTRATION 60].
Piper’s friend Revd. Victor Kenna had introduced him from his youth to early mediaeval sculpture and to a love of Celtic art. He continued to advise him on theology and symbolism for years, introducing John to new works of art that might influence him. The stylised representation of the Gospel symbols of the winged lion, ox, man and eagle are often highly stylised in Celtic and Insular manuscripts. We do not know what contact Piper had with the Lichfield Gospels, but considering his fascination with ecclesiastical art-history, it is inconceivable that he did not go to see them when visiting the city. The stylisation of figures in his 1954 Oundle Chapel windows resembles the figures of the Evangelists in the Lichfield Gospels, but are closer to the elongated, stylised, sculpted figures in the portal jams of Moissac and Chartres. The only resemblance of the Lichfield Gospel illustrations to the St John’s Chapel window, however, is a very slight similarity between the bodies of the green angels and the St Matthew on the Lichfield illumination page of the four Evangelist figures [Chad p.219].
Piper himself wrote of the imagery of his Lichfield window: “The character of the design is influenced by a number of drawings and paintings I made of Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of Western France, on many visits between 1955-1975. The carvings are often on the large semi-circular areas above the entrance doors of churches in those parts. These churches were on, or near, the old routes to the famous shrine at Compostella, in northern Spain. The Carvings have provided a stimulus, with their formal ‘bigness’ and grandeur, for much twentieth-century sculpture and painting.” [He was probably thinking of Moore and Hepworth in terms of sculpture. The choice of this style to give ‘grandeur’ and ‘bigness’ to his subject obviously gives the image of Christ in Majesty a sense of presence and dominance.
The areas of France that Piper visited for inspiration are rich in Romanesque sculptures and tympana, but only the tympanum of the Abbey Church of Saint-Pierre, Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne has a figure of Christ that truly resembles that of Piper’s window [ILLUSTRATION12]. The scene of Judgement at Saint Foy has a large Cross centrally behind Christ and angels flying with trumpets above but no beasts. Piper made paintings of the Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne tympanum in 1979, not long before the commissioning of the St. John’s window [cf. Wortley ‘John Piper: Master of Diversity’2000, illustr.19 p.13]. In one watercolour and gouache we see the angels and the figure of Christ in purple, a cross behind Christ’s shoulder and a green foliate border, as in the St. John’s window [ILLUSTRATION 13]. The painting contains neither the mandorla nor the beasts. In the Beaulieu tympanum there is a prominent Cross behind Christ’s shoulder but no mandorla. The winged creatures, which are relatively small and in heraldic terms ‘statant’ or ‘passant’, (i.e. with all feet on the ground or one foot raised) occupy a level beneath Christ’s feet. They are not arranged around him and most have strange serpent-headed tails, which may relate to other monsters in the Book of Revelation (perhaps Rev.9:10). The Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne tympanum is replete with other figures present at the Judgement, as at Vézelay and Autun, but not included in Piper’s window. Other figures are vaguely suggested in Piper’s watercolours of the tympanum, but not as prominent in his drawings as the two angels. On the lowest level of the double lintel of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne are strange creatures that may represent the different beasts recorded in Daniel’s vision, or the beasts of Rev.9:3-11 or Rev.13. This is not common in other tympana.
Many of Piper’s archive photographs, recording sculpture and architecture are in the Tate Gallery Archives and the Victoria and Albert Museum [ILLUSTRATIONS 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23]. Sadly most are undated, and stretch from 1930 to 1980. They include Vézelay and several tympana from British churches. His photograph of All Saints Lullington, Cornwall shows a Christ in Majesty surrounded by four roundels [ILLUSTRATION 19], which may have inspired the four mandorlas in which the Lichfield beasts are placed. The Tympanum of St Peter’s, Rowlstone, Herefordshire, which Piper also painted [ILLUSTRATIONS 8 & 9], is closest in subject matter and image to the St John’s window, with Christ in his mandorla accompanied by two animated angels. The Rowlstone Tympanum does not include the winged beasts and the mandorla is elliptical rather than pointed, yet it is decorated with many circles or eyes, as is the St John’s mandorla. Such circles are also featured in the mandorlas of many stained glass windows, like that illustrated in Stained Glass: Art and Anti-Art p.12.
It is most likely that Piper was working loosely and intuitively, incorporating remembered ideas from the French Moissac, Chartres and Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne iconography, as well as other Dordogne and Saintonge sculptures which he mentioned having recorded in earlier drawings, and the imagery of Sutherland’s Coventry Tapestry. Some details may be adapted from elsewhere or invented. Piper’s antechapel window of Robinson College, Cambridge (1980) [ILLUSTRATION 60] is directly based on the Nativity Tympanum of Neuilly-en-Donjon, which Piper had painted in 1969. Apart from the close connection of the angels, cross and figure of Christ to the Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne mandorla [ILLUSTRATION 12], there seems to be no other direct source for the St. John’s Chapel Christ in Majesty, to which he was primarily indebted. However, even when illustrating a particular sculpture or building, Piper’s images are not precise reproductions rather they are ‘interpretations’ in a modern idiom. At this late stage in his career especially, Piper was working even more loosely and intuitively than previously, based on a lifetime of contact with architecture and religious art, immersed in Christian imagery. He was fond of often quoting Camille Pissarro’s letter to his son Lucien: “I am more than ever for the impression through memory; it renders less the object – vulgarity disappears, leaving only the undulations of the truth that was glimpsed, felt”. [Quoted by Piper in an article: ‘Camille Pissarro’ in The Listener 17Aug.1944].
The historic influences and references in Piper’s work are more than recognising, illustrating or drawing influences from great art of the past that he loved. They link the themes of his modern work with the past and show that modern or contemporary art in churches, like our development of faith, is part of an ongoing continuum. This link with the past was often a ‘romantic’ interpretation of religious and architectural history and English culture, just as Piper’s work for the Shell Guides had been. In this historic romanticism he is linked with other contemporary British artists like Sutherland, Paul and John Nash, Keith Vaughan, Eric Ravilious, Cecil Beaton, Stanley Spencer and Ivon Hitchens. Their historic and cultural ideals are explored in a fascinating study by Alexandra Harris: ‘Romantic Moderns: English Artists and the Imagination from Virginias Woolf to John Piper’.
Piper wrote in ‘British Romantic Artists’: “Romantic art deals with the particular and is the result of a vision that can see in things something significant beyond ordinary significance: something that for a moment seems to contain the whole world; and when that moment is past, carries over some comment on life or experience besides the comment on appearances.” [London: Collins 1942 p.5].
Christianity is similarly linked to its past, to valuable traditions and finding significance in the particular that reaches beyond the ordinary. Christian faith is committed to bringing traditions alive, asserting their significance and making them relevant to the contemporary world. Faith attempts to open people to spiritual truths that are timeless yet rooted in the historic past in which the biblical stories are set. Christian art, like faith, builds upon traditions, iconographies and understandings that have developed and consolidated over time. It shows their life, significance and meaning for today and opens people to develop them further, for the future advance of belief and spiritual understanding. By referencing past images and imagery, yet working in modern ways, Piper was showing that the past and faith have significance today. The past and present are interlinked in many of his ecclesiastical commissions, particularly the later window designs, which reference historic images more than in his earlier stained glass. I wrote at the opening of this study: ‘John Piper’s 1984 stained glass east window for the chapel brings the ancient and modern together in its imagery and colour’ [p.3]. He and Reyntiens present us with an iconic image of Christ in Majesty that was as relevant to the mediaeval worshipper entering a Romanesque portico as it is to a contemporary visitor or resident entering St. John’s Chapel today. Piper’s design challenges us to feel our links with the past essence of faith in Christ and to explore the spiritual relevance of his subject to our present lives and for the future.
CORRESPONDENCE AND THE PROCESS OF THE ST. JOHN’S COMMISSION
From the little correspondence directly with John Piper in the Archive one gains the impression that much of the negotiation with the artist was made by telephone, through Patrick Reyntiens or, at a later stage, through the Dean or when members of the Trustees visited Piper’s studio at Fawley Bottom.
I include here the almost entire correspondence over the window which survives in St. John’s Archive, partly for completeness and to preserve the archive, but particularly because it is instructive. A number of significant mistakes and misunderstandings occurred during the process of the commission, from which future commissioning projects could learn. As the Trustees, (like the committees of many churches considering new artworks for their buildings,) had not been involved in a commission like this before, it is understandable that several difficulties arose through the development of the project. It is instructive to study them, as we may draw conclusions from them, which could contribute to the smoother running of any future commissioning projects. I will consider potential lessons to be learned at the end of this section.
Primarily, problems occurred because it does not appear that, at a sufficiently early stage, the Trustees had sufficiently considered the full costs involved and how the window was to be financed. This caused long periods of delay, frustrations, rising costs and, for Reyntiens, financial loss. As the commission progressed, it is interesting to discern, through the correspondence the personalities and egos of certain characters involved. Piper’s character is discernable more through the work than through the correspondence, as some of the interaction with him is inferred by reports of telephone conversations or visits. Less written material in the archives comes directly from him, other than mention of the calls and conversations in the letters of Dennis Birch, Steward to St. John’s and the Dean of Lichfield, John Lang. The one figure whose ordered professional approach, thoughtfulness, and gentle responses shine out through the correspondence, despite intense frustrations and losses over the delays, is Patrick Reyntiens. He stably resolved many of the difficulties and remained steadfastly committed to the project through to its successful conclusion.
It does not appear that other artists than John Piper were initially considered to be consulted over the window. The choice of him for the commission is perhaps not surprising. He was the foremost name that most ordinary people, unfamiliar with the field, would have associated with contemporary stained glass, particularly if one was considering a religious commission. He had already worked on several ecclesiastical commissions in Midlands’ churches and had contacts in and near Lichfield. The Trustees did not initially think to contact the Crafts Council in London or West Midlands Arts in Stafford who might have supplied further possible names. However, among the St. John’s correspondence is an undated (but probably c1979) list of other glass designers, which may have come from the Diocesan Advisory Committee, with the following annotations:
Alan Younger, 44 Belvedere Road, Upper Norwood, S.E.19.
Very efficient, willing to adapt to requirements, modern where needed, but does good figurative windows (did new glass at Tamworth).
Brian Clarke, Howton Hall, Birchover, Nr. Matlock, Derbyshire.
Rather ‘Art Nouveau’ – probably only abstract work.
Messieur Michel Petit, 47 Rue de Spoir, Thivers, 28000 Chartres.
Very original - a talented artist, no more expensive than English counterparts. Will do work to suit any requirements, with a clearly individual flavour. Can do 14th Century to 20th Century styles. Unfortunately speaks no English!
Keith New, 6 Studio House, Murray Road, Wimbledon, S.W.19.
Lively, strong, modern in feeling, but possibly not over-willing to adapt.
J.E.Nuttgens, Piggots Hill, North Dean, High Wicombe, Bucks.
An old man, very traditional, but good designer. (Nuttgens was 9 years older than John Piper, but died in 1982)
Miss Moira Forsyth
Somewhat sentimental, but attractive windows.
Piper’s early ideas for the window and the approach to the artist for the commission are discussed in the Chairman of the Trust’s Letter to the Dean on 9th June 1983 (cf. p. 54) . After discussions among the Trustees, R.D. (Dennis) Birch, the Steward of St. John’s was instructed to contact John Piper. His initial introductory letter (below) was sent to the artist on 21st August 1979. Before this the following correspondence circulated:
Rev. Canon G.N. Strong M.A.
The Master’s House
St. John’s Hospital,
Lichfield
4. 8. 79
Dear Mr. Birch,
I assume that Aldrm. Garratt will by now have told you of the preliminary research he and I have had with Rev. John Howe * about the proposed window. It has occurred to one that the enclosed photos might be of help to Mr. Piper whom Mr. Garratt proposes we should consult as a first step.
Yours G.N.S.
This was accompanied by another note on the Master’s notepaper. It is interesting that already the theme of ‘Christ in Glory’ was his major suggestion for the theme, and was not originated by John Piper himself, though it was a major theme in his art at the time.
I shall be grateful for the return, sometime, of the large photo – having but that one copy! **
I would like, if I may, to indicate my suggestions re the subject of the proposed window –
a/ as central feature: the Christ in Glory as sequence to the altar-crucifix.
b/ possibly flanked by S. Chad (Patron of diocese) and S. John Bapt. (Patron of the ‘Hospital’)
c/ retaining ample natural light to guard against darkening the chapel.
G.N.S.
(* Prebendary John Howe was Secretary of the Lichfield Diocesan Advisory Committee and may have supplied the annotated list of glass designers above. ** This photograph is probably that shown in ILLUSTRATION 67).
RDB/PET/SJH 6th August, 1979.
To A.L.Garratt, esq. M.B.E., J.P.
7, Cloister Walk,
Whittington,
Nr. Lichfield,
Staffordshire.
Dear Mr. Garratt,
Proposed stained glass window in the Chapel.
I have had an interview with the Master who has told me of your meeting with the Reverend J. Howe a few days ago.
I understand that it was suggested that John Piper should be asked to design the window and the Master has shown me certain suggestions that he has put forward on the subject.
Perhaps you will confirm that it will be in order for me to write a preliminary letter to John Piper enquiring whether he would be prepared to consider the acceptance of such a commission.
With kindest regards to Mrs. Garratt and yourself,
Yours very sincerely,
R.D.Birch
Steward.
P.S. I am so sorry to trouble you but I fear it will be necessary to call a special meeting of the Trustees in order to pass a resolution vesting the land purchased at Burton several years ago in the Official Trustee of Charity Lands.
I am wondering whether you could let me have two alternate dates that would suit you. I do not think the meeting will take very long. R.D.B.
Birch then approached John Piper with regard to the commission:
RDB/SJC/SJH 21st August, 1979
to: J.E.C. Piper Esq. C.H.
Fawley Bottom Farmhouse,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon.
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to trouble you, but I am wondering whether you could possibly assist us.
I believe that you visited Lichfield in connection with your painting of the Cathedral for the 750th Anniversary Celebrations in 1946. I do not know at this time if you may have noticed the mediaeval buildings of the above hospital.
The Trustees of the Hospital decided some time ago that they would like to have a stained glass window for the East end of the Hospital Chapel in place of the plain glass window that there is at present. A recent legacy has enabled us to consider the matter in more detail.
I shall be very grateful if you will inform me whether there would be any possibility of your accepting a commission to design the stained glass window in question.
Yours faithfully,
R.D.Birch.
John Piper replied by hand on 31st August 1979:
Fawley Bottom Farmhouse,
near Henley-on-Thames,
Oxon. RG9 6JH
to R.D.Birch Esq.
Lichfield
Dear Mr. Birch,
Thank you for your letter. If there is not a great hurry for the window, I should like to do it for you. At the moment I am working on designs for two windows (one a memorial for Benjamin Britten, at Aldeburgh) and I must finish them first. I could come to see you about the end of October, or early November, if that suits you? I have a friend living near Wolverhampton, with whom we stay sometimes.
If that is not delaying things too long I will come to see you then, and look forward to seeing the chapel and to meeting you.
Yours sincerely
John Piper
RDB/PET/SJH 4th September 1979.
Dear Mr. Piper,
St. John’s Hospital Chapel.
Thank you for your letter of the 31st ultimo as regards this matter.
There is no great urgency in the matter and therefore, I shall very much look forward to seeing you at the end of October or early November for a discussion of the project.
I am sure that the Trustees were very glad to learn that there is a chance of your undertaking the commission.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward
P.S. I believe we have a mutual friend in Henry Thorold who stayed with us on several occasions when writing his Shell Guide to Staffordshire.
There was a delay, so the Steward wrote again on 18th January 1980. In retrospect, his excessive politeness in insisting repeatedly that there was ‘no great urgency in the matter’ was not the best way of approaching Piper. Though the artist was hard-working, he had many projects underway and was fairly inefficient in personal administration, so it took nearly a year to get him to visit the site for the commission:
Dear Mr. Piper, 18th January 1980.
St. John’s Hospital Chapel
With reference to my letter to you of the 4th of September, I am so sorry to trouble you as regards this matter, but I am wondering whether it would be possible for you to visit the Hospital in the next month or so, so that we can discuss the project.
There is no great urgency in the matter but I think the Trustees would like to make some progress in the course of the next few months.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Piper replied by postcard on 2nd February 1980:
2 . 2. 80:
Dear Mr. Birch,
I hope to come and visit you this month or next – probably next; and I will communicate beforehand.
Yours sincerely,
John Piper
However there was further delay, as the Steward wrote with a slight indication of frustration on 7th May, 1980:
Dear Mr. Piper,
St. John’s Hospital Chapel
I am sorry to trouble you but with reference to your post card of the 2nd February; I was wondering whether you will now be able to come and visit the Chapel in the course of the next few months.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
There was a delay in further response, apparently due to Piper’s having been ill, since on 18th July 1980 the Steward wrote to Piper (copies to RDB (Birch himself)/MJC (Clutterbuck, Master of St John’s)/SJH (St. John’s Hospital records):
Dear Mr. Piper,
St John’s Hospital Chapel
I am so sorry to be such a nuisance with reference to our previous correspondence as regards this matter; I am wondering whether your other commitments will now permit you to visit Lichfield and have a look at the Chapel in the course of the next month or so.
With kind regards
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
By 5th August 1980, the Steward had spoken to Piper and wrote to A.L. Garratt at 7 Cloister Walk, Whittington, Lichfield: (cc. RDB/PET/SJH):
Dear Mr. Garratt,
Hospital Chapel.
With reference to our recent discussion on this matter, I have now spoken to Mr. Piper on the telephone when he apologised most profusely for the delay.
Unfortunately, the friend with whom he used to stay in this area has had bereavement and he has had to make alternative arrangements. However, he hopes to be able to make an appointment to come and see the Chapel before the end of this month.
With kind regards to Mrs. Garratt and yourself,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Piper must have visited later in August or September 1980 and produced some initial ideas for designs [e.g. ILLUSTRATION 3].
Progress had been made by 29th October, because J.C. Ballinger, Derrick Duval and Peter Brownhill, Chartered architects of 24 Bird Street, Lichfield WS 13 6PT were asked to supply scale drawings of the east window on the chapel, which they sent to Mr. Birch [Our Ref. PEB/10]
These were forwarded by the steward to John Piper on 30th October. (Copies to RDB/DJT) In this he mentions that Piper had visited Lichfield ‘a few weeks ago’ and that Piper had since ‘spent time at St. David’s.’
On 18th November 1980 the Steward wrote to P.E. Brownhill asking from Piper for clarification for the actual width of the glass in each of the lancets, and requesting for him to measure them.
These measurements were made and copies with the measurements indicated were forwarded from Ballinger, Duval and Brownhill to the Steward on 5th December 1980.
The Steward sent these to Piper on 10th December 1980.
There is then silence in the written records for five and a half months until 13th July 1981, when Piper wrote to the Steward on notepaper from Fawley Bottom Farmhouse and enclosed an image of the potential design:
Dear Mr. Birch,
I hope this reaches you safely, and that you may look at it with favour.
The subject, of course, is Christ in Majesty, with the symbols of the Evangelists.
Patrick Reyntiens will be wanting to send somebody to make accurate measurements, if the design – and when- it is approved. I have given him your address.
Yours sincerely
John Piper.
This proposed design was shown to the Diocese of Lichfield Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches, St. Mary’s House, Lichfield. WS13 7LD from which M. Bramidge wrote on 31st July 1981 with a highly positive response:
Dear Dennis,
The Diocesan Advisory Committee greatly appreciated the opportunity to see the proposed design for the window for the chapel of the Hospital of St. John,
The committee felt that this would be a magnificent piece of work and highly recommend its acceptance.
Your point concerning the light was considered in great detail. The Committee felt (many of us from great experience) that the large amount of light coming through the east window always has the effect of smothering the altar beneath in almost total darkness. We felt that to diminish the light would in this instance be a good idea. The other windows of the chapel do let in considerable light and with the use of artificial lighting we felt that this would not be a detraction from the design. In particular we felt that the light coming in on the side of the sanctuary would light up the altar better than it ever has before.
With regard to the comment that St. John Baptist in absent in the design, we felt that this was perhaps unavoidable. The theme, together with the four evangelists, does not easily admit the Baptist – and in fact this could look very contrived.
Unanimously we felt that this window could be a great asset to the Hospital and something well worth a visit for the outsider.
If you have not already discovered, I removed the design to the safety of my office, and although I am on holiday myself, do please feel free to take it – though, as it is valuable, I would appreciate a note to know that you have done so. I myself will be away until August 15th.
Kind Regards
Yours sincerely,
M. Bramidge
p.p, J. Howe (Rev. J. Howe Secretary of the Advisory Committee.)
On 13th August 1981 Birch wrote to Piper (cc RDB/MJC/SJH):
Dear Mr. Piper,
Re: Window in Hospital Chapel
With reference to our previous correspondence; the Trustees inspected your drawing for the new window at a recent meeting and unanimously expressed their appreciation.
The design has also been inspected by the Diocesan Advisory Committee who strongly recommended that the Trustees should proceed with the project.
The Trustees would like to have some idea of the actual construction and installation costs as regards the window and I am wondering if you could possibly refer me to some source of information on these points.
You mention Mr. P. Reyntiens and it may be that he would be able to supply the details in question.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
The problem of financing the project then seriously delayed its progress:
Patrick Reyntiens sent an estimate for the window to the Steward on 4th Novermber 1981:
ESTIMATE
For making a stained glass window from John Piper’s design for St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield
£15,860 plus V.A.T. ex-works.
This estimate is valid for three months only from 4th November, 1981.
Despite the stipulation of a constraint on time it was a month later, 4th December 1981, before the Steward wrote to The Secretary, The Charity Commission, (Northern Office), Graem House, Derby Square, Liverpool L2 7SB:
Our Ref RDB/PET/SJH
Your ref 214784
Dear Sir,
Several Years ago the Trustees of the above Hospital received a legacy under the Will of a former Almsman for £2,500 which was to be used for the benefit of the Hospital in such ways as the Trustees might think fit.
After some consideration the Trustees felt that it might be advisable to use this money for the beautification of the Chapel which is of course, used daily by the residents.
It was suggested that the East Window which is at present of clear glass might be greatly enhanced by a design.
The Trustees have now made enquiries and had a design prepared by a well-known designer of stained glass.
The Trustees find that the cost of such a window would be considerably more that the amount of the legacy that had been received together with the interest that has accrued since the date of its receipt.
I shall be glad to hear whether you feel that the Trustees are entitled to make up the balance from the general Fund of the Charity.
Yours faithfully
R.D. Birch
Steward.
P.S. May I remind you that some years ago of course, the Commissioners agreed to the provision of certain moneys of the Trustees in the replacement of the organ in the Chapel.
Reyntiens advised the Trustees to apply to the Craft Council for a grant for the project. Birch did so and wrote to Patrick on 2nd March 1982:
Dear Sir,
Re. New Window in the Chapel
With reference to our telephone conversation a few weeks ago; I have now completed the preparation of the form of application to the Craft Council and I should like another copy of your estimate.
When we spoke on the telephone I was under the impression that I had the drawing of the design, but I remembered a day or so later that your Assistant had of course taken it away.
Will it be possible for you to deliver this item to the Craft Council so that it can be used in conjunction with our application.
Yours faithfully,
R.D.Birch.
Reyntiens replied on 19th March:
Dear Mr., Birch,
Thank you for your letter of 2nd March. I have arranged for the drawing of the design to be delivered to the Crafts Council before 2nd April. In the meantime may I draw your attention to my estimate of November 4th which was valid for three months only. In the normal course of events, I would have had to put the price up by 5 per cent because of inflation costs, but in the circumstances it would give me great pleasure to waive this provided some kind of decision could be made fairly quickly after the 2nd April. Quite apart from the monetary consideration, my schedule of completions is beginning to be distorted, and in any case I would not want you to have your window any later than necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Reyntiens.
The grant application was sent to John Jones, Secretary of the Crafts Council on 25th March 1982 and Reyntiens delivered the design himself directly.
Birch worked out the amount of interest accrued from the Estate of S.W. Hayes deceased for its first receipt on 19th April 1979. By 31st March 1982 the legacy had risen from £2,000 to £2885.81p.
On 2nd April 1982 The Crafts Council Secretary asked for further clarification:
Dear Mr. Birch
The Hospital of St. John the Baptist, Li(t)chfiield (incorrectly typed)
Thank you for your letter of 25th March and for your application for a Special Project grant towards the costs of a new window in the Chapel of the Hospital. This will be considered by the Projects and Organisations Committee at its meeting on 12 May and I will let you know the outcome by 25 May.
Please would you let me know how much Mr. Piper is charging for his design. I have not yet received his cartoon but I wonder whether it will tell us the dimensions of the window?
You mention in the application an appeal to local Trusts. I would also suggest you speak to the Visual Arts Officer at West Midlands Arts, Lisa Henderson, to see whether an application to the Association would be possible, since, although neither the designer nor maker live in the West Midlands, the work will be on public view in its area. The address and telephone number are:
West Midlands Arts
Lloyd’s Bank Chambers
Market Street
Stafford
ST16 1AP
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
John Jones
Grants and Loans Officer
Regional Section.
Crafts Council
12 Waterloo Place
London
SW1Y 4AU
On this letter a penciled note confirmed that West Midlands Arts were contacted by telephone, responding that they would contact the Arts Council and come back to them 8/4/82. On 8th April Birch also wrote to Piper asking what he would be charging for the design, as Mr. Reyntiens had already submitted his estimates for making the window.
On 14th Birch replied to J.A. Jones at the Crafts Council that he had telephoned West Midlands Arts as he had suggested. He appended a “P.S. Mr. Piper’s Fee will be £2500.”
Unfortunately, on 14th May 1982 the Crafts Council sent a letter refusing a grant:
Dear Mr. Birch
Re: Application for Grant re: new Window in Hospital Chapel.
I am sorry to have to inform you that your application for a Special Projects grant was unsuccessful. As you will understand the Committee receives many more applications than it can respond to given the limited funds available.
I hope that you will be successful in finding alternative sources of funds for this project;
I have returned Mr. Piper’s cartoon directly to him.
Yours sincerely
Barclay Price
Grants and Loans Officer
Regional Section.
This disappointment understandably led the Trustees to review their commitment to the project. As a result the Steward telephoned Patrick Reyntiens to reassure him of their continued commitment, clarifying where issues stood. Being business-like Patrick replied on 21st May 1982 in a formal clarification letter, which is very useful for our understanding of what had been agreed in the telephone call:
Patrick Reyntiens
The Old Church School
Windsor End
P.O.Box 45
Beaconsfield
Buckinghamshire
HP9 2JU
Dear Mr. Birch,
Thank you very much for our telephone conversation today. I write in confirmation as to what I believe transpired then.
- That the commission is still on and has not been cancelled.
- That the Crafts Council reaction is a grave disappointment for you and your Trustees but not a financial set-back.
- That I agreed to keep the price, which was originally pegged to March and then further extended in my letter of March 19th, on the understanding that if there were really substantial delays, I would have to re-quote, but this side of the first fortnight in June I would not.
- I now have a particular craftsman waiting for the go-ahead whom I have to keep on a salary.
- John Piper has completed and delivered the cartoon full-scale.
X 7. Since I shall be changing the venue of my studio at the end of August, it is absolutely vital that I get a go-ahead in as soon a time as possible.
X 8. Since this job that I am devoting the whole of my personal attention to in the months of June, July and August will be very difficult to do after September I shall have to re-quote under those circumstance.
In conclusion, I must say how dismayed and disappointed I am, both on mine and John Piper’s and your behalf, that the Crafts Council has seen fit to select somebody else’s work other than ours to support at this particular time. I am most awfully depressed by their reaction, even though I appreciate the situation they are in.
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
Items 6 to 8 have been marked in pen with crosses, which he explains in his own hand at the end of the letter:
X These three I did not mention but feel you ought to know.
Reyntiens had made the stipulation over the time-scale of his financial offer to hold the price until the first fortnight in June because inflation was rising daily over this period. The materials and wages were therefore going to cost more and he had set aside these three months, with no other projects, for himself and his most able and sensitive assistant to work on the commission. Despite the urgency of Patrick’s request it took a further three weeks for Dennis Birch to send a reply, which will have reached Patrick after the stipulated deadline:
14th June 1982
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
Proposed new Window – Hospital Chapel.
Thank you for your recent letter which I have discussed with the Chairman.
I am now making a fresh approach to the Charity Commissioners in the hope that they will be prepared for us to devote more of our own funds towards the costs of the scheme.
I appreciate the need for urgency and I will write to you again as soon as possible.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
Steward.
It took him another two days to write to the Charity Commissioners (Northern Office), Graeme House, Derby Square, Liverpool L2 7SB:
RDB/MJC/SJH
ADP/2147844/9-L4
16th June 1982
Dear Sir,
Proposed Installation of New Stained Glass Window in the Hospital Chapel
With reference to your letter of the 25th February; this matter has again been most carefully considered by the Trustees.
The Trustees and the residents at the Hospital are extremely anxious that this scheme if at all possible should be put in hand.
The original legacy has of course grown to some substantial extent owing to the increase in interest over the last few years and it is understood that certain funds will be available from the Hospital Chapel Fund which is a fund quite outside the jurisdiction of the Trustees and operated by the Master.
It is realized that this will still leave a substantial sum to be found by the Trustees.
As you are aware, the Trustees have had a very substantial accretion to their income by view of their recent sale at a figure which would not have been imagined a few years ago.
The trustees have of course carried out repairs to the Hospital Chapel and maintenance of various kinds over the years. There has, however, been no improvement whatever to the Hospital Chapel over the last 20 or 30 years in the true sense of an improvement.
It is felt that it would be only sensible for the Trustees to be permitted say once in a generation to embellish the hospital chapel in some way or another as it was embellished in previous centuries by the Master and others.
I have been instructed to ascertain whether it might be possible for the Trustees to use a small amount of capital to install the proposed new window subject to the repayment over a reasonable period out of income so that the capital of the Trustees is not decreased in any way.
One does not feel that it could possibly be argued that the amortization of such a loan of capital would in any way deprive the Trustees of their powers of operating the Hospital satisfactorily over the next decade or so, nor would it in any way deprive the residents of any amenities or facilities that they could possibly require.
I should be very grateful if you could consider this matter as sympathetically as you can or if you require further information or would like to meet the Chairman or other members of the Trustee body, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch.
Unfortunately the hesitancy and cap-in-hand approach in this letter did not sufficiently convince the professional body of Charity Commissioners. A few of his words and phrases, particularly ‘say once in a generation to embellish the Hospital Chapel’, or ‘One does not feel that it could possibly be argued that the amortization of such a loan of capital would in any way deprive the Trustees of their powers of operating the Hospital satisfactorily over the next decade or so’ were rather injudicious for making a convincing legal argument to a legalistic body such as the Charity Commissioners. It took them very little time to consider the matter as they responded on 28th June. They would accept expenditure of income on land and new building schemes, but not on ‘expensive embellishment’:
Dear Sir,
St John’s Hospital Lichfield Staffordshire
Thank you for your letter dated 16th June.
On the information provided, we do not consider that there is any justification for the expenditure of income, under the scheme, on works of major and expensive embellishment. Far less could we allow capital to be used.
I look forward to hearing from you further in connection with the proposed acquisition of land and the proposed new scheme. Our letter of 25th February refers.
Yours faithfully
A.D. Polack
Birch added in pen to this letter, after ‘Far less could we allow capital to be used’… ‘We could pay from income.’
At this impasse the artists involved may have understandably become worried that the scheme might fold, so the Pipers requested payment for his work. Myfanwy, who dealt with John’s finances wrote on 15th July 1982:
Fawley Bottom Farmhouse
Near Henley-on-Thames,
Oxon
RG9 6JH
Henley 2494
Dear Mr. Birch,
I enclose the invoice for the window as requested.
I have included the V.A.T. but it has occurred to me that The Hospital of St John may be exempt as a charity. I have not been able to get hold of our accountant in time to find out, so perhaps you would kindly ignore the V.A.T. if you find that it is exempt?
With kind regards
Yours sincerely
Myfanwy Piper
It seems that the Trustees next considered whether they might justify the window by convincing the Charity Commission that the Victorian window needed replacing. On 19th July 1982 the Steward wrote to The Duval Brownhill Architectural Partnership requesting a detailed report on the window. His wording notably requests the listing of ‘defects’ :
Dear Mr. Brownhill,
Hospital Chapel.
With reference to our telephone conversation of the 16th instant, I shall be very glad if you will prepare a detailed report as regards the present condition of the East Window in the Chapel.
As you know, we are considering whether it ought to be replaced and possibly, a stained glass window installed in place of it.
I shall therefore be glad if you will prepare a detailed report as regards its present condition, listing any defects that may be apparent so that the Trustee can give the Charity Commission a true position of the present condition of the window.
With Kind regards
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
Unfortunately, the architect’s three-page report, which was sent on 18th August 1982 did not supply sufficient arguments for the need to replace the window:
… ‘correctly repaired panes’… ‘lead calms in good order… ‘one broken pane’… ‘correctly repaired calms’… 3 ‘small sections of cement breaking away’…
Interior in good order, mullions in reasonable and sound condition.
CONCLUSION:
One pane is damaged and should be repaired.
Generally the calms and glass are in good order.
The quality of light would benefit if the windows were cleaned inside and out.
Birch talked to Reyntiens by telephone later in August and Patrick sent a new, revised quote on 1st September 1982. A note in pencil on the letter suggests that this was to be discussed at the nest Trustees meeting on 6th September but by 24th November, almost three months later, Reyntiens had still received no response. His frustration is apparent in the unaccustomed shortness of his next letter:
Dear Mr. Birch,
Window for Hospital Chapel
With reference to my letter of 1st September, when can I have some kind of answer to this?
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens November 24th 1982.
It is at this point that Birch and the Trustees turned for help and advice to the Dean of Lichfield, The Very Reverend John H. Lang, who was himself one of the Trustees. They met on 25th November and the following day the following letter of confirmation was sent:
26th November 1982
Dear John,
Proposed new window in Hospital Chapel.
With reference to the discussion of this matter at the Trustees’ recent meeting, I enclose a copy of a letter that I wrote to the Charity Commissioners regarding this matter.
Their reply to my letter was to the effect that they did not feel that they could agree to the request as it stood at the present time but that if a new window was required in the Hospital Chapel owing to its state of repair etc. then they would reconsider the matter, possibly more favourably.
I shall be very glad to hear your comments as regards a fresh approach to the Charity Commissioners on this matter.
Best regards
As ever,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
The Dean responded on 7th December:
Dear Denis,
Thank you for the file on the window in St. John’s Hospital. I shall hold on to it for the time being, if I may, because I want to go into the matter more thoroughly before we return to the Charity Commissioners. I am also inclined to pay a visit to Patrick Reyntiens so as to assure myself that if we go ahead we are going to get a really first class job of work.
Yours sincerely
John.
It is evident from this phrasing that the Dean was not personally aware of the quality of Reyntiens’ work and his commitment to integrity, but also, that since this was likely to be Patrick’s last major project with John Piper, they were both intent that it should be, not just ‘first class’ but a very special piece. (He corrected this in his report of 2nd March 1983 (below).
The day before the Dean’s letter, on 6th December, Birch replied to Patrick Reyntiens’ letter:
Dear Mr. Reyntiens
Window for Hospital Chapel.
Thank you for your letter of the 24th ultimo are regards the above matter (received 2nd instant).
At the present time we are engaged in making a fresh approach to the Charity Commissioners in an attempt to persuade them to release the remainder of the money required to complete the financial arrangements for the window scheme over and above the money that we already have in hand.
I will let you know as soon as I hear whether the fresh approach has been successful.
Yours sincerely
R.D. Birch
Steward.
A hand-written note shows that the Dean was now looking into the finances of the matter carefully. The following information was forwarded to him on 2nd March 1983, in answer for his enquiry about the finances:
Legacy bequeathed to Hospital under will of Mr. S.W. Hayes who died on 2nd January 1979.
Reported to Trustees at Meeting held on 3rd May 1979 that a cheque had been received.
Mr. J. Piper has been paid £2875.00 by cheque dated 23rd July 1982.
The Dean wrote a substantial report on the Chapel Window Project, dated 2nd March 1983, which greatly advanced the progress of the Project and it is valuable to assess its full content as it explains the situation well:
St. John’s Hospital: Report on the Chapel Window Project
At the meeting of the Trustees of St. John’s Hospital on 25th November last year, I was asked to investigate the difficulties which have arisen over the plans for a stained glass window in the Chapel and to see if there was any way of overcoming them.
I began by looking at the Steward’s fie on the subject so as to learn the course of events which led to the present impasse. There seems little point in recounting the history in detail, so I shall restrict myself to the salient points.
In March 1979 the Trustees learned of a legacy to the Hospital from the estate of Mr. S.W. Hayes. Since the money involved could be used as the Trustees wished we decided, quite reasonably in my view, to do something special with it, which would not be done under ordinary circumstances. The choice fell on a stained glass window for the Chapel, which we asked Mr. John Piper (an artist generally regarded as outstanding in this field) to design. Mr. Piper accepted the commission and submitted a sketch which the Trustees approved. Mr. Piper said that he would like the window to be made by Mr. Patrick Reyntiens and an estimate for the work was prepared. By this time it was apparent that the cost of the project would be at least five or six times the amount of the original legacy, which itself covered no more than the cost of Mr. Piper’s design. At this stage, and only at this stage, recourse was had to the Charity Commissioners who replied promptly and peremptorily that such expensive embellishment could not be permitted under the terms of the 1976 Scheme. At about this time Mr. Piper asked that he should be paid and the Trustees authorized the Steward to send him his full fee of £2, 875.
With the Chairman’s permission I visited Mr. Piper’s studio near Henley-on-Thames on 5th February. Mr. Reyntiens was also present and we discussed the project thoroughly. I had never previously been concerned with the commissioning of stained glass and wanted to understand the process of designing and making it. I also wanted to satisfy myself that the work, which had been in the making so long, was still alive in the artists’ minds. It seemed to me that these things were a necessary pre-requisite to an effective appeal to the Charity Commissioners to rescind their initial ruling.
Mr. Piper received me very kindly and showed me other work he had done in glass (mostly in photographic form). His close partnership with Mr. Reyntiens has spanned thirty years and they have worked on such major projects as Eton College Chapel, St. Margaret’s Westminster, and above all Coventry Cathedral. A particularly fine piece of more recent work is the Benjamin Britten memorial window in Aldeburgh Parish Church. Mr. Reyntiens, who joined us some time after my arrival, told me privately that he and Mr. Piper were particularly anxious to complete this commission because it was likely to be their last major piece of work together.
What the Trustees have seen is only the preliminary sketch, done to show the subject and the way in which the artist proposes to treat it. As soon as he received approval of that, Mr. Piper started work on the cartoon – a full size painting done in every detail as he wishes it eventually to be seen in glass. He explained to me that the idea for the window came from a church in the Dordogne in which the figure of Christ seated in glory was backed by a cross off-centre (to the left of the figure). I was impressed by another similarity which he did not mention, and of which he may not even be aware, that is to Graham Sutherland’s great tapestry over the high altar at Coventry. I also believe that Mr. Piper really sees this window as summing up his work on glass and if it is brought off effectively it may well be of lasting importance.
By summer last year Mr. Reyntiens was ready to start work. The first step was to get the necessary glass, most of which comes from Czechoslovakia and France. He actually has to go to find precisely what he wants as the choice is in itself an important aspect of his craft. It was at this stage that he learned of the difficulty with the Charity Commissioners.
The whole story seems most unsatisfactory. We are in the position of having commissioned a major British artist to do an important piece of work without ever having met him to discuss it. Mr. Piper spoke mostly warmly of our Steward’s courtesy but it is we, the Trustees, who are ultimately responsible. Further, we have paid in full for a painting which, until I went to Henley, none of us had ever seen. Had the process of executing the work been understood by us, we would not, I imagine, have paid him fully before his supervision of the making of the window was complete. Mr. Piper told me they sent the bill because nothing seemed to be happening and he thought it was a way of finding out what the Trustees’ intentions were.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I must draw the Trustees’ attention. If we had consulted the Charity Commissioners at an earlier stage we would not have put Mr. Reyntiens in the position of suddenly finding himself without work for several months. I must record my impression (and I did not probe the matter too far) that the last minute cancellation actually caused him and his family financial hardship. Stained glass window commissions are few and far between however eminent the artists and craftsmen.
I believe that the Trustees should determine unanimously to see this project through if at all possible. I do not consider there is justification for a public appeal, and it will therefore be necessary to convince the Charity Commissioners that the further expenditure of some £20,000 is a legitimate charge on the Hospital’s income. It could, I think, be said that having spent virtually the whole of Mr. Hayes’ legacy for a window there is a moral duty to put it into the Chapel. Mr. Piper’s design, though interesting, is quite useless as it stands. It consists of several large pieces of paper, taped together, a working document, not a picture for exhibition.
Since the Charity Commissioners’ first negative response there has been some slight movement on their part. In a letter to the Steward dated 3rd February, 1983, Mr. J.A. Dutton writes,
“Can you please indicate the present position with regard to the replacement of the window in the Chapel. I see from previous correspondence that the Trustees of St. John’s Hospital received a legacy which (though we have not seen a copy of the will) was apparently applicable without distinction between capital and income for the general purposes of the Charity. You indicated that your Trustees intend to expend this legacy together with some of the income of the Charity in the replacement of the window and I see from the most recent accounts that some £2,875 has already been expended in this connection. Unless you are satisfied that this expenditure is justified under the provisions of the existing Scheme, I would suggest that the proposed Scheme be amended to prove approval of/authority for this expenditure. Obviously we could only provide approval/authority in respect of a reasonably modest amount and I shall be obliged if you can provide full details as to how much has already been expended and how much it is envisaged will be expended for this purpose. Surely it will not be necessary to have recourse to the capital endowment of the Charity?”
The attached draft letter is for the Trustees’ Perusal. I have relied heavily on the fact that St. John’s Hospital is an ancient religious foundation and that the stained glass window is an equally ancient form of religious teaching, a wholly appropriate subject for expenditure in view of the continuing obligation of the Almspeople to worship in the Chapel. I have done my best to relate this to the present Scheme.
John Lang, Dean
2nd March 1983
The proposed letter appended to this report was approved by the Trustees and sent to J.A. Dutton, Charity Commission, Graeme House, Derby Square, Liverpool on 14th March 1983, addressed directly from the Dean at Lichfield Deanery. I print the letter here as sent to the Charity Commission. Only a few changes were made to the Dean’s draft letter and the draft words, which were changed are shown as ‘crossed out’ in the text.
Dear Sir Mr. Dutton,
I am writing at the request of the Trustees of St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield about their intention to put a stained glass window in the Hospital Chapel. I propose to maintain that the considerable expenditure involved (of income, not capital) is within the spirit of the Founders’ intentions and, more precisely, within the provisions of the present (1976) Scheme.
St. John’s Hospital is and always has been a religious foundation. The Bishop of Lichfield is ex-officio President and the Almspeople are required to be residents of the Diocese of Lichfield. The Master has to be a clergyman of the Church of England and is responsible not only for the Almspeople’s physical welfare but, as Chaplain, for their spiritual welfare also. Further Section 31 of the 1976 Scheme specifically requires that the Almspeople will attend the Chapel services.
In recent years the Charity Commission has permitted (and/or raised no objection to) very considerable improvements to the physical circumstances of the Almspeople. These have been possibly largely because of significant increases in the revenue of the Charity which are thoroughly documented in the annual accounts. Now the Trustees are proposing, not a mere expensive embellishment, but a carefully thought out improvement to the circumstances in which the Almspeople regularly and by obligation worship. While it is perfectly true that Section 32 of the present Scheme does not specifically mention improvements to the Chapel, but only maintenance and repairs, Section 38 of the present scheme allows the Trustees to apply the income “for the benefit of the Almspeople of the Charity or any of these in such a manner as the Trustees think fit from time to time.” I do not imagine for one moment that in the case of so specifically religious a foundation as St. John’s Hospital the Charity Commissioners would wish to hold that the word “benefit” meant material benefit only and not quite definitely spiritual benefit as well.
The window which the Trustees propose to commission is to be put in the most prominent position in the Chapel, immediately above the main altar. It will portray the figure of Christ seated in glory with the cross behind, signifying the central doctrine of Christianity. It has been designed by Mr. John Piper, C.H., (one of the most distinguished artists in this field anywhere in the world) and is deliberately within the centuries’ old tradition of stained glass designed to teach the Christian Ffaith. I mention these facts only to demonstrate that what is proposed is integral to the purpose for which the Charity was founded.
I regret that the plan to commission this window was not referred to the Charity Commissioners at a much earlier stage. The Trustees have however acted in good faith and are anxious to execute their intentions as soon as possible. I would be most happy to visit the Commission to discuss the matter further, either alone or with one or more of my colleagues.
I enclose an estimate of the cost of the making of the window by Mr. Patrick Reyntiens. Mr. Piper’s design has, as you are aware, been paid for already.
Yours faithfully,
John Lang
Enclosed with this was Patrick Reyntiens latest revised estimate for the work, which the Dean had requested. It was sent from the new address of Reyntiens’ studio:
Ilford Bridge Farm
close Stocklinch,
Ilminster,
Somerset
11th March 1983
Reverend and Dear Dean
ST. JOHN’S
I enclose a final and revised estimate for the windows of St. John’s chapel to the design of John Piper.
You will note that the price has increased by £600 over and above the £20.000 quoted (including V.A.T.) last year. This represents in the neighbourhood of 3½% - 4% increase which given the rate of inflation is reasonable, I hope you will agree. The extra V.A.T. inherent in the £600 is to be absorbed by me.
As I said to Mr. Birch in my letter to him of 1st May 1982 that my labour (and the glass) has to be pre-planned and fitted into a time schedule so as to make the job a viable proposition.
I submit this estimate for three months from the middle of March in the earnest hope that should the Trustees prevail with their argument with the Charity Commissioners the contract or exchange of letters will be entered into as soon as possible to enable the contract to be fulfilled by the end of 1983.
In the event of the contract being signed the pattern of payment I would anticipate is as follows:-
£7,000 on signature
£2000 on the first of the following month for six consecutive months
£1600 retainer split as follows:
£1000 at the time of installation
£600 after six months (retention sum against defects)
I would be very glad of your Trustees’ agreement to this payment schedule.
I must conclude by repeating my grateful thanks for all that you and the Trustees have done on the furthering of this project. I look upon it as the crown of the Piper-Reyntiens collaborations over so many years.
With all good wishes
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens.
INVOICE: 11th March
TO: the Trustees of St. John without the Bar(r)s, Lichfield Staffordshire
To making a window in stained painted and acided glass to the design of John Piper Esq. C.H.
Price ex-works £20,600
Twenty thousand and six hundred pounds
This price to be valid for three months from the 15th March 1893.
N.B. ‘Ex-works’ – price excludes packaging, transport and insurance to site, installation etc.
Within a fortnight, as recommended by the Dean in paragraph 10 of the report, the Trustees decided to go ahead with the commission. Presumably they had received some initial assurance from the Charity Commissioners that their original rejection would be overturned. The go-ahead was certainly authorised by mid-May, as acknowledged in the Chairman’s letter to the Dean of 26/5/83 below.
The Steward wrote to Patrick’s solicitors Messrs. Baker and Duke of 20 Silver Street, Ilminster, on 28th March 1983 with regards to drawing up a simple form of contract for the installation of the window.
This agreement was drawn up on 21st April 1983 and sent by the Steward to A.L. Garratt of 7 Cloisters Walk, Whittington, Nr. Lichfield for perusal. After the exchange of several letters the finalised agreements were exchanged on 9th May and signed on 16th May 1983.
In preparation of the draft agreement it was stated that if anything untoward happened to Patrick Reyntiens before the completion of the contract, David Williams would complete the work under the direction of John Piper. Also that if the work was not completed at the expiration of a two month period from the due date, Reyntiens would be paid on a quantum merit basis for what he had done, the expert assessment of which should be made by an appointee of the President of the Royal Academy:
AN AGREEMENT made the Sixteenth day of May 1983 BETWEEN NICHOLAS PATRICK REYNTIENS of Ilford Bridge Farm Stocklinch near Ilminster in the County of Somerset of the one part and ARTHUR LESLIE GARRATT of 7 Cloister Walk Wittington near Lichfield in the County of Stafford and ROBERT DENNIS BIRCH of 20 St. John Street Lichfield aforesaid being respectively the Chairman and Steward of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist in the City of Lichfield (hereafter called “the Purchasers”) of the other part WHEREBY IT IS AGREED as follows:-
- The said NICHOLAS PATRICK REYNTIENS will construct and install a stained glass window in the chapel of the Hospital of St. John aforesaid in accordance with the design of Mr. John Piper CH for the consideration hereinafter stated.
- The Purchasers shall pay to the said NICHOLAS Patrick Reyntiens the sum of £20,600 whereof the sum of £7,000 shall be payable on the signing of this Agreement and the balance as hereafter mentioned i.e. £2,000 on the first day of the month following the month in which this Agreement is signed and £2,000 on the first day of each successive five months thereafter As regards the balance of the consideration £1,000 shall be paid over on the completion of the installation of the Window in question and £600 on the expiration of six months from the date of the completion of the installation.
- The said Nicholas Patrick Reyntiens will complete the said work within Seven months from the date of this Agreement and in the event of his failing to do so within such period or within such further period as the Purchasers shall consent in writing and the Purchasers may serve upon him a notice requiring him to complete the said work within two months of the date of service upon him of such notice. If at the expiration of the said period of two months the said Nicholas Patrick Reyntiens shall have failed to complete the said wish this agreement shall forthwith terminate and in lieu of any sums agreed to be paid under clause 2 the work done to date of such termination shall be valued and the said NICHOLAS Patrick Reyntiens shall be paid the difference between the total payments made to him by the Purchasers in respect of the said work at that date and the amount of such valuation provided that if the sums paid to the said NICHOLAS Patrick Reyntiens at that date exceed the amounts of such valuation the Purchasers shall be entitled to be repaid by him the amount of such excess. Any valuation herewith shall be made by a valuer appointed by agreement between the parties or in default of agreement by the President for the time being of the Royal Academy such valuer to act as an expert not as an arbitrator. In respect of any notice to complete herewith time shall be of the essence.
- In the event of the death of the said NICHOLAS Patrick Reyntiens before the completion of the said work the Purchasers shall have the option to be exercised within three months of the death either to require the personal representatives of the said NICHOLAS Patrick Reyntiens to complete the work or to make reasonable arrangements for the completion of the work in which event the balance outstanding at that time shall be paid over to the Personal Representatives or alternatively to make their own arrangements for the completion of the work in which event the only sums payable to the Personal Representatives will be the amount due in accordance with the terms of the above Agreement up to the date of death of the said NICHOLAS Patrick Reyntiens.
In accordance with this agreement, a cheque for £7,000 was sent to Reyntiens via his solicitors of 20th May 1983 and a second payment of £2000 on 27th May.
Meanwhile, difficulties arose between the Master and the Dean. As reported in the local paper, The Mercury of 13th May 1983 (page 7) Patrick Reyntiens revisited St. John’s and was photographed for the paper with the Master, outside the chapel, holding the design for Piper’s window [ILLUSTRATION 34]. As the Dean had been so instrumental in the progressing the project, he evidently felt that he should have been acknowledged. He was not mentioned in the article, though the Master was named three times. Also the Master (who had evidently had earlier reservations about the window), had recently visited Piper’s studio, discussed the project and convinced himself of the qualities that the window, so that he could convince residents unsure about its worth. Perhaps the Dean felt that his own support of the project was being sidelined, or he considered that he was the figure who should have been reported to have been liaising with such artists of stature. Or perhaps the Master may have been asserting his priority in matters of the Hospital – we cannot be sure. A few acrimonious letters ensued. The disagreements and clashes of egos read rather like an incident in one of Anthony Trollope’s Barchester Novels:
19th May from the Dean to Leslie Garratt (Chair of Trustees)
Dear Leslie,
I’m sorry I wasn’t at the Hospital meeting this afternoon but our School Governing Body had some critical decisions to make and they took much longer that I expected. I asked Arnold Ward to give my apologies.
Half an hour ago I had a rather disagreeable telephone call from the Master who accused me of behaving “like a pima donna” over the chapel window. He added intemperately that “he’d already had quite enough trouble with the bloody diocese.”
I want to assure you that so far as the window is concerned I shall be prepared to do as much or as little as you and the other Trustees wish. My understanding was that you wished me to see the project through but if that is not so I shall be perfectly happy to stand down. Whatever happens your splendid conception must not be marred by acrimony.
Yours sincerely
John.
The Master’s side of the incident was related to Garratt in a letter the following day (20th May 1983):
Dear Leslie,
I was distressed at the Dean’s behavior (by proxy) yesterday. I supposed he was hurt because he was not in the photo! He acted like a prima donna. I told him so last night and had the phone slammed down on me – See how these Christians love one another!
I think there are two serious implications of this affair. Surely we cannot hand over the window to the Dean’s sole charge. He has been useful but only at the end of the line. I am sure the obstacles could have been removed by other hands if we had persevered. The window is surely yours and Arnold’s and others because you initiated it before the Dean or I came on the scene. Is the Dean going to supervise all the practical details of getting the window installed?
Secondly, I think the Trustees should remember that I have spiritual oversight of the chapel and that I am not compelled to take anything which I think would interfere with the considerable religious life which goes on there. We are now getting an average of hundred communicants a week - people come from a wide area. Some have been ‘unchurched’ through unexplained changes in their local parish and I am not going to add yet another injury to them. It has been clear that a number of regulars do not want the chapel changed. However, I think I have won them round because I now realise that it will be a beautiful asset - but it took my visit to Mr. Piper to convince me. I went to see him on purely pastoral grounds and there is no question of me taking the project over, as the Dean told me on the phone. Mr. Reyntiens asked if he could come at short notice and this was arranged. It was (a) purely business visit and I do not think the Dean could have added to the discussion which, as you know was purely practical. I am now very happy with the window but I think it is the time and place to declare that the Master does have special rights in his chapel by virtue of his licence as parish priest. I would defend those rights with all my strength.
I hope we can now go forward happily in this matter. It is clear that the Dean has much on his plate as organiser of the Festival and I would not think that he would want to be bothered overmuch with our small corner.
If you think it will help, please show this letter to Arnold Ward. I hope Mary will soon recover. Let us know if we can do anything. We shall only be away for the inside of next week.
Best wishes,
Yours ever,
Ivan
I notice in the Dean’s memorandum that he says he knew little about stained glass. I was fortunate enough to be very involved in this art while I was at Cambridge. I am very happy with the Piper window.
I am sorry you have been bothered by this unfortunate misunderstanding.
It is interesting that the “short notice” which the Master claims was given by Patrick Reyntiens, still allowed him time to contact the Mercury and bring a reporter and photographer to the Hospital. In an attempt to pacify the situation the Chairman of Trustees wrote judiciously to the Dean on 26th May:
Dear (John),
I am sure I speak for all the Trustees when I say how grateful we are for your support of our case to the Charity Commissioners. Without the recognition of your important position in the hierarchy of the Church, and the articulate and well reasoned letter, they would not have authorised the go-ahead for the window.
I believe the Steward has already sent you a letter confirming the unanimous expression of the Trustees for your support, expressed in a minute.
On the other hand, one has to recognise the interest of the Master in such a tremendous undertaking for the Chapel. It will not be many incumbents of the Church who will in due course enjoy such a distinction.
You ask to what extent will your interest in the project be involved in the future development. I trust it will not be inhibited in any way. However, as a matter of practical administration, the details must be passed through the Steward, and I have asked Mr. Birch to keep you thoroughly informed of what is being done.
Yours sincerely,
Lesley
The same day the Chairman wrote in a similar conciliatory manner to the Master:
26th May 1983
Dear (Ivan)
It was unfortunate the Dean could not be contacted to inform him of the unexpected visit of Mr. Reyntiens. The same lack of communication affected Mr. Birch and of course myself.
Given the great interest the Dean has taken in the project, and his outstanding assistance to getting the go-ahead, one can understand he does feel left out in the cold a little. This was all an unfortunate sequence of events, and I have written to the Dean in this sense.
As a matter of practical administration, the future developments must be passed through the official channels, namely through Mr. Birch’s office. However, as the incumbent who will be ‘at the sharp end’ of the developments and working practices, it is most important you be kept informed of all aspects of the project as it gets underway, and I have asked Mr. Birch to make sure of this.
Yours sincerely,
Lesley
He wrote to Patrick Reyntiens in the same day’s correspondence, to his address as Head of Fine Art at Central School of Art. It appears evident from these three letters that the Chairman of the Trust was trying to moderate the clashing egos of the Dean and Master by making their contact with the artists less individual and personal, to focus their contact professionally through the Steward:
26th May 1983
Dear (Mr. Reyntiens)
I was very glad indeed to have the opportunity of meeting you and discussing the general development of what we all hope will be an historic phase in the long life of the chapel.
I am sure you will appreciate your dealings with the practical details of the scheme should be passed through the Steward, Mr. Birch, and it will be his responsibility to then see the Dean and the Master be kept properly informed.
I hope you had a pleasant journey back to London.
Yours sincerely
The Dean replied three days later on 29th May. He was evidently not totally pacified by the political rhetoric, as he emphasised his personal negotiating skills towards artists and craftspeople, and gently pointed our mistakes by the Trustees. He still remained convinced that he was the right person to negotiate, but suggested that he resign from his role:
Dear Leslie,
Thanks you for your courteous letter. What it meant to me is that it would be best for the Master to see the window project through and I accept that absolutely.
I think I should add a word or two by way of explanation. Some of the Trustees may not be fully aware that an artist’s finest work is generally done when there is a close rapport with the client, resulting in a continuous dialogue about the progress of the work. This is particularly important in the context of an historic building.
No such rapport exists between St. John’s Hospital and Messrs. Piper and Reyntiens or it would not have been possible for the absurd situation to have come about in which the Trustees paid in full for a cartoon none of them had ever seen. My visit to Piper’s studio last February was intended to put that right as a preliminary to approaching the Charity Commissioners on the point of law.
As you know the Trustees gave me authority to act on their behalf and I therefore commissioned Reyntiens to do the work and asked the Steward to draw up the contract. I also kept the Master fully informed because he too has an important post (part?) to play, especially with the congregation. At this point the Master himself changed the situation. To put it very simply a television programme cannot have two producers nor an orchestra two conductors. The Master must do the job and I must stand down.
This is not, I assure you, written in anger though it would be less than honest of me to pretend to complete confidence in the Master’s judgement.
Yours sincerely,
John
Another letter of 5th June seems to have been received, for the Chairman responded on 9th June 1983. It may have been ‘redacted’ from the records because it evidently contained some further criticism of the Steward’s actions, which the Chair felt he had to counter in his next letter, perhaps even for legal reasons. The Dean seems also to have made some claim to the priority of his vision for the glass, as the Chair now expressed his credentials in contributing to the commissioning process, as well as understanding and considering the needs for glass and for the chapel:
Dear John,
I would ask you to forgive my replying in some depth to your letter of 5th June, for if I do not fill out the record of events leading up to the decision about the chapel window, an unwitting injustice to Denis Birch might result.
I have taken a considerable interest in 18th and 19th century wine glasses for many years. This was well known to the Trustees, and in fact on the occasion of the completion of the extension to the St. John’s Street almshouses, the Bishop Reeve clubbed with his fellow Trustees in presenting me with a copy of (not printed).
As a natural extension of my interest I visited the international Exhibition of Stained Glass at the Royal Exchange in the City of London in August 1978, and there appreciated that although the chapel of St. John’s was traditionally satisfactory, it was not outstanding, and that a modern stained glass window over the Altar would be an immens(e)ly valuable distinction.
I discussed the matter with the Master and Denis Birch and the Trustees, and later visited the church at Aldeburgh, where John Piper had designed a window in memory of Benjamin Britten. I brought some coloured postcards of the window, and subsequently in discussion with the Trustees and the Master, we decided to approach Mr. Piper.
Mr. Piper agreed to undertake the commission and he met the Master and produced some small scale cartoons. There was some considerable delay because of Mr. Piper’s illness, but ultimately the cartoon was produced and accepted. This was exhibited in the chapel for some weeks, and accepted by the Trustees. As you know, there was a longer delay in producing confirmation by the Charity Commission, and it was only your support and eloquence which reversed their decision.
I fully appreciate the comments at the end of your letter, and I have prepared the accompanying memorandum which, subject to the comments of yourself and the Master I propose to circulate with the next Notice of the Trustees on the (?) July. (This memorandum also appears to have been redacted from the file, perhaps for pastoral or legal reasons.)
There will be many details to consider as the project for the stained glass window in the Chapel progresses, and I would wish to propose that a Chapel Window Sub Committee be formed to deal with all the details, subject to confirmation by the main body of Trustees. The Sub Committee to be:-
Chairman
Vice Chairman
The Master
The Dean of Lichfield
A member of the congregation
A Trustee.
Yours sincerely,
John
The initial cheque for work on the window, authorised on 20th May 1983 was sent via Reyntiens’ solicitors: E.A. Wells Esq. Messrs. Baker and Duke, Solicitors, Silver Street, Ilminster, Somerset TA19 OBN:
RDB/MJC/SJH
LB/18/255/2
Dear Mr. Wells,
Re: Installation of New Stained Glass Window.
With reference to our previous correspondence as regards the above matter; the Trustees have now executed their copy of the Agreement and I have sent both agreements off for stamping.
I enclose a cheque for £7,000.00 and shall be grateful if you will kindly acknowledge receipt at your convenience.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch.
This was received and a receipt sent on 23rd May.
It was followed on 27th May by a copy of the Agreement and further payment due on 1st June (receipt sent by the Solicitors on 3rd. June):
E/B18/255/2
RDB/PET/SJH
Dear Mr. Wells,
Installation of Stained Glass Window in Hospital Chapel
With reference to our previous correspondence, I now enclose your copy of the Agreement for you to keep. It does not appear that it needs stamping.
I also enclose a cheque for £2,000 in respect of the second payment due under the Agreement.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
On the same day (27th May 1983) Birch wrote suitably appeasing thanks to the Dean:
Dear John,
New Window in Hospital Chapel
I am so sorry that I was absent from the last meeting of the Trustees as the Chairman had kindly given leave of absence to attend the inauguration meeting of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust and the Incorporated Building Society.
The Chairman however, called to see me yesterday and we had a preliminary discussion of the minutes.
I gather that the Chairman is writing to you personally as regards one or two problems in connection with the arrangements for the provision of the new window. He has however, asked me to write to you on behalf of the Trustees as a whole to thank you for all that you have done in connection with the scheme to date.
There is no doubt whatever, that your visit to the designer and your subsequent masterly letter to the Commissioners at last opened the way to the scheme proceeding and all the Trustees realise that if (it) had not been for the exercise of your authority the Commissioners might well have continued with their objections to the proposals indefinitely.
The Trustees hope that the scheme will now proceed smoothly and will result in an outstanding new feature for the Chapel which will be an inspiration to the residents and to the other worshippers in the chapel for centuries to come.
Best regards,
As ever,
DB
Steward.
Reyntiens wrote a personal hand-written receipt on 6th June (Some of his writing is difficult to decipher) :
Dear Mr. Birch
St John’s
Please find enclosed my receipt for £2,000 and second invoice.
I received a most kind letter from MS(?) who shared the first planning in meeting together with its (master?) Clutterbuck in May.
I so (?) understand that all St John’s business comes through you as Trustee and will send his invoice (?) to you direct (first?)
All good wishes
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
Our ref. RBS/DJT/SJH 1st August 1983
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
I enclose the Trustees’ cheque for £2,000 in respect of the instalment due on the 1st August 1983 under the Contract for the East Window for the Hospital.
Your Account for the payment due on the 1st July, 1983 and the receipt in respect of the payment due on the 1st June, 1983 which were addressed “To the Warden, St John’s Without the Walls, Lichfield, Staffordshire” although posted on the 5th July, 1983 has only now been received by the Master.
I shall be grateful therefore if you will kindly note that all correspondence should be addressed to me at the above address to avoid delay.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
STEWARD
18th August 1983
Dear Mr. Birch
Very many thanks for your letter.
I’m delighted that you propose coming down here. Round about the 20th September will see a fine display of glass – yet unglazed in lead.
I had an idea that you and Mr. Clutterbuck might meet here with John Piper to view. Possibly the Dean would care to be in the party.
All good wishes,
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
6th September, 1983
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
I now enclose the Trustees’ Cheque for £2,000.00 in respect of the instalment under the Contract for the West Window of the Hospital, which became due on the 1st September, 1983
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
STEWARD
The Steward and Master jointly sent an invitation to all the Trustees to join a party to visit Reyntiens’ studio and view the progress of the window. In the light of previous problems caused by members’ exclusive visits, it is interesting that the trip was opened to all, possibly to prevent further possible difficulties or misunderstandings:
7th September, 1983
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: Installation of the New Window in the Hospital Chapel
Mr. P. Reyntiens who is working in conjunction with Mr. j. Piper the designer of the new window in the Hospital Chapel has kindly invited members of the Committee to visit his workshop in Ilminster, Somerset, to discuss the progress of the scheme.
It is felt that this will be of considerable interest to all members and will give them an insight into the work involved.
It is proposed that the visit should take place on Friday September 23rd 1983 and I shall be very glad to hear by telephone if possible within the next day or so whether your will be able to attend.
The Chairman has not yet fixed the arrangements, but it might well be that we should leave Lichfield at about 9.0 a.m. possibly by Minibus, lunch on the way and arrive at the workshop at approximately 2.0 p.m. and arrive back at about 7.30 p.m.
Yours faithfully
It appears from Reyntiens’ next letter of 9th September that the suggested day for the outing (23rd September 1983) was confused between the Friday or Saturday):
Dear Mr. Birch
ST. JOHN’S
I do apologise for the lateness in forwarding the monthly invoice. The enclosed invoice relates to the £2, 000 due on the 1st of September.
Will you let me know how many in your party there will be? It would be a great pleasure to give you luncheon in my house, if you wold care to accept it, on the 23rd. I am telephoning John and Myfanwy Piper and hope that they can manage to come on the Saturday also for lunch.
All good wishes,
Yours sincerely
Patrick Reyntiens
The visit appears to have been a great success, and made many of the Trustees aware for perhaps the first time, of the amount of work and detail that had gone into the project and the creation of the glass.
27th September, 1983
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
I feel that I must drop you a line to thank you so much for your very kind hospitality which you and Mrs. Reyntiens so kindly provided for us and which was much appreciated.
All our party found the visit extremely interesting and gave them an insight into the intricacies inherent in the creation of a window such as the one you are now producing for us.
I shall look forward to hearing from you in due course as to two or three suitable dates for you to visit Lichfield and I will then make arrangements for the builders to meet you.
With many more thanks and kind regards to Mrs. Reyntiens and yourself.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
This was followed by further instalments of £2,000 on 1st September and 1st December.
The next issue that concerned the Trustees was to ensure the safety of the window once installed. In connection with this the Steward wrote to the Secretary of the Diocesan Advisory Committee:
The Reverend Prebendary 20th December, 1983
J. Howe
The Vicarage
Hoar Cross
Burton-on-Trent
Staffordshire
DE13 8QR
Dear Prebendary,
Re: Proposed New Window in the Hospital Chapel
You are of course aware of the proposals to install a new East window in the Chapel of the above Hospital. The window has been designed by John Piper and it will be ready for installation some time in April.
The Trustees have recently had a lengthy discussion as regards the question of safe-guarding the window.
The Window fronts onto a busy main road and in addition to the usual hazards of stones being thrown by vandals etc. damage is constantly caused to the present window by small pieced of material being thrown from the street by passing traffic.
The Trustees have discussed the questions of protection for the new window in some detail and two suggestions have been made to date i.e. some form of metal grille or possibly plastic sheeting.
The Trustees would be extremely grateful for your advice or the advice of the Committee as to the best steps to adopt to safe-guard their very valuable new acquisition.
With all good wishes for Christmas and 1984.
Yours sincerely R.D. Birch
In the event (as we know from a letter of Birch to Linfords of 16th March 1984 – included below) it was eventually Reyntiens himself who provided the most practical advice to the contractors on the protective guards to be installed. The Secretary of the Diocesan Advisory Board responded:
6th January 1984
Dear Mr. Birch
Hospital Chapel: East Window
Thank you for your letter of 20th December. I am delighted to hear that the Piper window is in fact going to go in St. John’s and I look forward to seeing it.
I agree that you should be considering some form of protection – some of which of course will have the added advantage of being double glazing and therefore heat conserving.
I will bring this matter to the next meeting of the D.A.C. on January 31st. There are now so many new polycarbonate materials coming onto the market that I am not at all sure that my present advice is sound enough for you!
I will contact you immediately after 31st January.
With kind regards and all good wishes
Yours sincerely
The Rev. Prebendary J. Howe, M.A, p. H. Ember.
Plans were developing towards the installation and dedication of the window when complete:
RDB/MJC/SJH 8th February 1984
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
Installation of new East Window in the Hospital Chapel,
With reference to our previous correspondence as regards this matter; the Trustees have now authorised me to accept Messrs. Linfords’ estimate for the installation of the window.
I am in correspondence with the Diocesan Advisory Committee as regards the guards and the Trustees have a further estimate from Linfords for the instal(l)ation of the same in due course.
It is now proposed that the window should be dedicated on Saturday June 23rd 1984 i.e. the Patronal Festival and it is greatly hoped that you will be able to be present on this occasion.
A formal invitation of course will be sent to you nearer the time.
I fear that Mr. Piper will not be able to attend the Dedication but he will be able to see the window when he visits the exhibition of his work that is being held in the Chapter House of the Cathedral early in July.
I shall be very grateful if you will let me know the position as regards the insurance of the window both in respect of its journey from Somerset to Lichfield and also whilst it is in the course of installation.
I naturally assume that you have made private arrangements for insurance cover for the window whilst it is in your workshop.
I do hope that you are keeping well.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Lindford Building Limited
Lichfield Regional Office
Quonians, Lichfield, Staffs. WS13 7LB
AJS/BAL
Estimate NO. L.678
20th January 1984
To: Hinkley Birch and Exham
Solicitors
20 St. John Street
Lichfield
Staffs.
Dear Sirs
ST JOHN’S HOSPITAL Lichfield
We thank you for your enquiry and now have pleasure in submitting our estimates as follows:-
1/ Erect all necessary scaffolding to both sides of East window and take down and clear away on completion.
Take out existing leaded lights and fix only new stained glass window to new saddle bars, all as shown in drawing supplied by Mr Rentin (Reyniens?).
Clear site and leave clean and tidy on completion.
FOR THE SUM OF £1,494.00 (one thousand four hundred and ninety four pounds)
2) Supply and fix stainless steel guards to external face of East window whilst scaffolding is erected for reglazing.
FOR THE SUM OF £789.00 (seven hundred and eighty nine pounds)
There would be a saving of £33.00 for using brass guards in lieu of stainless steel.
Whilst every care would be taken in handling the new stained glass leaded lights, we cannot accept responsibility for any breakages should they occur,
Our estimate is based on today’s cost of labour and materials and is subject to any fluctuation in same.
The above figure does not include V.A.T. and this tax will be charged where applicable, at the standard rate under the provisions of the V.A.T. General Regulations 1972.
We await your further instructions in due course.
Yours faithfully,
LINFORD BUILDING LIMITED
A.J. SILVESTER
Estimater
AJS/BAL
RDB/MJC/SJH
8th February 1984,
Dear Sirs,
Installation of new East Window in the Hospital Chapel
Your estimate No.L678 of the 20th ultimo as regards the above matter was carefully considered by the Trustees at their recent meeting when they agreed to the acceptance of Item 1 i.e. an estimate for £1,494.00.
The acceptance of this estimate is on the basis that the interior of the Chapel will be protected by some means or another while the work is being carried out and perhaps you will kindly confirm that this will in fact be done.
Providing this is understood then presumably you will be in communication with Mr. Reyntiens as to the exact date for the work.
As regards Item 2. in your estimate I am in communication with the Diocesan Advisory Committee as regards this matter and I hope to be able to write to you again at an early date.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
Piper wrote a description of the window to be used at the dedication service, which was later included in the Guide Book of St. John’s:
Description of the Window
The new east window in the Chapel of St. John the Baptist without the Barrs shows Christ in Majesty with the Four Evangelists.
The Character of the design is influenced by a number of drawings and paintings I made of Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintonge areas of Western France, on many visits between 1955 and 1975. These carvings are often on the large semi-circular areas above the entrance doors of churches in those parts. These churches were on, or near, the old routes to the famous shrine at Compostella, in northern Spain. The carvings have provided a stimulus, with their formal ‘bigness’ and grandeur, for much twentieth century sculpture and painting.
John Piper, February 1984.
RDB/PET/SJH 16th March, 1984
To: C.R. Ballance Esq. (Contracts Supervisor)
Messrs. Bridgemans (Linford Building Limited)
Quonians,
LICHFIELD
Dear Mr. Ballance,
Installation of new East Window
With reference to our telephone conversation as regards this matter, I have now discussed the matter with Mr. Reyntiens and he will be very glad if you will telephone him to discuss the position,
When you telephone him he has agreed to make certain suggestions as regards the best protective system to be adopted.
I shall be very grateful if you will let me have an estimate at your early convenience as regards any additional cost of the protective material that he is recommending so that I can place it before the Trustees.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward
All was not as straightforward as appears in the letter. Perhaps misunderstandings occurred because local contractors rather than specialists who had done such work before were being employed. However it is as likely that the full requirements and implications of the transport and installation had not been fully discussed:
Linford Building Limited
Our Ref: CRB/LSC
18th April 1984
Hinkley Birch & Exham
20 St. John Street
Lichfield Staffs.
Dear Sirs
AT JOHN’S HOSPITAL, LICHFIELD – INSTALLATION OF NEW EAST WINDOW
Further to numerous telephone calls with yourself and Mr. Reyntiens, we are sorry to say that we are not clear as to what you require of us in order to carry out this contract.
We intend to take no further action regarding this matter until you can give us definite instructions and details of the job required.
As soon as the position is clarified between yourself and Mr. Reyntiens, would you please inform us immediately of your decision.
Yours faithfully
LINFORD BUILDING LIMITED
C.R. BALLANCE
(Contracts Supervisor)
Evidently there was some discussion over financing, which the Steward obviously had to take to the Trustees. Yet considering the urgency of the matter and the close approaching date for the Dedication, it seems strange that the steward took 9 days to reply. Though in pencil on Linford’s letter, he wrote that he replied on the 25th April, his response is dated as the 27th. Perhaps this discrepancy was due to delay in his secretary typing the letter.
CRB/LSC/
RDB/PET/SJH 27th April, 1984
Dear Sirs,
Installation of new East Window.
Thank you for your letter of the 18th instant with regards the above matter.
With regards to our recent telephone conversation I am glad to say that the Trustees have decided not to pursue their rights in this connection under the Agreement but will be willing to meet the costs of your estimate for the removal of the window and installation of the window and the provision of a safety-guard in accordance with the estimates already approved, and hope therefore that the work will proceed with all possible speed.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Linfords responded immediately:
1st May 1984
Dear Sir
ST JOHN’S HOSPITAL: Installation of New East Window
We confirm our Mr. Marsh’s telephone conversation in which you accepted the following estimates:
1) Estimate No L678 – Item 2 – dated 20th January 1984 for £789.00
2) Estimate No L932 dated 4th April 1984 for £113.00
We will arrange with Mr. Reyntiens regarding the date for collection of the window.
Yours faithfully
LINFORD BUILDING LIMITED
pp W R MASON
Surveyor
5th June 1984 from the Diocesan Advisory Committee:
Dear Mr. Birch
HOSPITAL CHAPEL WINDOW
Thank you for your letter.
You’re right that the good Victorian glass should not be destroyed. Unfortunately we do not have any place to store in the Diocese, so I would suggest storage somewhere in the Hospital.
If you wish to dispose of the glass I presume that any of the stained glass museums would be willing to receive it for use. However, I would have thought that it would be wise to keep it for repair and replacement of chapel windows.
Yours sincerely,
THE REV. PREBENDARY J. HOWE. M.A
The glass was duly removed and the new window installed and dedicated. The responses to it were positive as the Steward wrote to John Piper on 24th July:
Dear Mr. Piper,
At the Trustees’ recent meeting it was unanimously resolved that I should write to you to thank you on behalf of the Trustees for the splendid acquisition that you have provided for the chapel in the form of the new window.
Large numbers of people have been visiting the chapel to view the window and I have received numerous messages saying how delighted they are with what has been done and how the window enhances the beauties of the chapel.
Everyone connected with the chapel is greatly in your debt.
The trustees were very glad that you and Mrs. Piper were able to join us for luncheon a fortnight ago and we do hope that you had a comfortable and not too exhausting journey back to Henley.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
The wording of the letter to Patrick Reyntiens is similar, but does not fully acknowledge that the master-artist-craftsman’s contribution in interpreting and developing the window was as great as the designer. It also somewhat downplays the amazing patience and professionalism with which Patrick faced in overcoming the difficulties that arose during the process of the commission:
31st July 1984
Dear Mr. Reyntiens,
At the Trustees’ recent meeting it was unanimously resolved that I should write to you to thank you for all that you have done in connection with the provision of the new window in the Chapel.
The Trustees are delighted with the results and we are having numerous visitors to the Chapel who are universally expressing their admiration of the window and commenting on the way that the beauties of the Chapel have been enhanced.
I well know that there have been a number of difficulties in connection with the provision of the Window and we are extremely grateful to you for your co-operation and the way in which all the difficulties were surmounted.
With kind regards to Mrs. Reyntiens and yourself.
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Reaction to the glass was not universally good, however, as Sebastian Faulks wrote in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 1st July 1984 [page 11. ILLUSTRATION 61]. He quoted the negative reaction of one resident but also betrayed his own response in words like “alarming power”, “unnerving” and “violent pagan feel”. Faulks also made a few mistakes in the review, including issues in Piper’s relationship with Reynteins over finances and suggesting that the artist’s inspiration was a “window” rather than a sculpted tympanum at Beaulieu:
ROMANTIC VISION OF A PAGAN BELIEVER: Sebastian Faulks talks to John Piper:
The burghers of Lichfield, Staffs. are in for a shock. Theirs is a pious little town, with its Dr. Johnson birthplace museum, its busy cathedral and twinkling craft shops. But last weekend, outside the city walls in the chapel of St. John’s Hospital, a new stained glass window was dedicated: a work of alarming power by John Piper.
It is the last of his co-operations with Patrick Reyntiens, who has translated almost all of Piper’s most famous designs – including those at Coventry Cathedral, Eton and Oundle – into glass. Their ways have parted: “His accountant told him he couldn’t afford to work with me any more – or some such thing,” says Piper.
But the Lichfield window is an unnerving climax. It follows traditional Romanesque patterns, which Piper has studied for many years, and has taken specific direction from a window at Beaulieu in the Dordogne. “I hope the old dears aren’t going to be shocked by it,” says Piper. Well, they are, a bit. One of them damned it with praise as faint as to be inaudible: “Of course I like it,” she began – everything, that is, except the design and the colour.
In comparison with the chapel’s Victorian window, it has a violent, pagan feel, yet it has also been described as “clearly the work of a believer.” According to the artist, both descriptions are correct.
He and his wife Myfanwy were introduced to the Church by John Betjeman, with whom Piper used to edit the Shell Guides to Britain. “John was very keen on the Church. He always had doubts, you see, and that was why he was so churchy”
Piper accepts with a stoical smile that it was not until his 80th birthday show at the Tate last year that he was established as one of the greatest artists in Britain. After all they almost let Wodehouse die before they bothered to knight him at 90 – “and they waited until Howard Hodgkin’s nearly 60 before packing him off to the Biennale.”
His art is popularly known (though he might smile at that description) by its versatility – there is hardly a medium he has not attempted – and by his love of place. According to his friend Richard Ingrams, the self-appointed elite of the art world consider him “too parochial” because of his concentration on England, but Piper himself has said: “The basic and unexplainable thing about my painting is a feeling for places. Not for ‘travel’ but just for going somewhere – anywhere really – and trying to see what hasn’t been seen before.”
He calls himself a Romantic, by which he means someone who can see beauty in the particular or the unspectacular. He is a modest, approachable man; he looks about 10 years younger than he is, with a fit, wiry frame, white hair creeping over his collar and blue corduroy trousers pulled well up.
Piper’s own place is a lonely brick-and-flint farmhouse of four-square simplicity hedged in by hills and quietness on the Bucks.-Oxon. Border. He has studios in the two outhouses; one where he does his paintings and one for larger work such as the “cartoon” for the Lichfield window. “Here, you must be the only man alive who has seen the window and the Cartoon.” He will not see the finished window himself until Friday when he opens an exhibition of his work at the Lichfield Festival.
Piper’s pictures are full of varied surfaces and lines. “Yes, I have always had an instinct to ‘decorate’ a canvas – something for which I might be criticised.” The paintings were also at one time gloomy and storm-stricken, which led to the celebrated encounter with the shy King George VI who, after thumbing through several sketches of Windsor Castle, could only think to comment: “You’ve been pretty unlucky with the weather, Mr. Piper.”
When the light is there, it is pyrotechnic. “I used to make fireworks as a small boy with gunpowder and saltpetre. Dangerous? Yes, but that made it more fun.” He has designed huge firework displays with a friend in the business and last year set the Oxon. sky alight to mark his 80th birthday and the 60th of his neighbour the playwright John Mortimer.
Piper had a youthful excursion into abstract art under the influence of Picasso and Léger (works by both of whom hang in his house). He is adamant about how much he learned from his experiment: “I wouldn’t have been any good at all if I hadn’t done it.”
His later, more representational work has made life hard for his critics who like to see people as either modernist or not. According to David Fraser-Jenkins who organised the Tate retrospective: “He has reduced the gap between popular and academic taste. He is an artist of a very particular kind in this respect. His work in stained glass has revived the standing of that whole branch of art.”
Last week saw the regatta at nearby Henley – “terribly boring’ – and the arrival of what Myfanwy calls: “Leanderthal man.” When I met them, the Pipers were bracing themselves over a glass of Sancerre for the influx of tourists. (“Wine connoisseurs? Oh no, we can’t afford to be. But we drink a lot of it.”)
Even after a hard day’s work, Piper was still restlessly searching the garden with his eyes – “Look at that extraordinary shade of pink there.” Age has diminished his powers not at all; on the contrary, “it’s remarkable how much it comes down to practice.”
The Steward next planned for the erection of a plaque detailing the commission [ILLUSTRATION 68]:
31st July, 1984
To: A.L. Garratt Esq. MBE., JP.,
7 Cloisters Walk,
Whittington,
Nr. Lichfield,
Staffordshire.
Dear Mr. Garratt
Plaque relating to the new East Window in Hospital Chapel.
You will recall the discussion at the Trustees’ last meeting arising out of the proposal of Mr. F.H. Clayton that a plaque should be installed near the window giving some details as regards the name of the artist etc.
The Master was left somewhat in a vacuum and perhaps you will let me know what type of plaque you have in mind; I imagine a wooden plaque is all that will be required about 1’6” square and perhaps you will let me know whether we should obtain an estimate for the same from either Peter Ward Studios or Mevesyn Ridware.
With kind regards to Mrs. Garratt and yourself,
Yours sincerely,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
The size of plaque suggested in Birch’s letter seems rather insensitive within the aesthetic of the building, especially if it was to be sited within the Chancel area. Considering previous problems, one would have thought that he would have initially contacted the Diocesan Advisory Committee for advice about what they would be acceptable. As with the window commission, the plaque was delayed as a result, since we know from a letter of 16th November 1984 that the design proposed was rejected and a smaller design required. However we find the Steward writing to Messrs. Bridgeman & Sons, Quonians Lane, Lichfield on 13th August 1984:
Dear Sirs,
New East Window in the Hospital Chapel.
With reference to our previous discussion of the installation of the new East Window in the Hospital Chapel, the Trustees feel that there ought to be some kind of plaque inside the Chapel situated close to the window, very briefly setting out the fact that the window was given as a result in the first place of a gift by one of the Almsmen, was designed by Mr. Piper and executed by Mr. P. Reyntiens and dedicated in June 1984.
I shall be grateful if you will let me have your comments on the most suitable type of plaque i.e. either a metal one or a wooden one.
I should imagine that it would be required to be about 1’6” x 1’ in size and it is suggested that the words should be confined to about forty words.
When writing perhaps you could let me have a very approximate estimate of the cost of the making of such a plaque and of its erection.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
Steward.
Bridgeman’s response on 17th August 1984 was a one quarter scale sketch for a brass plaque – ‘Brass Satin Finish Lettering Machine Cut Roman Type (Black) with the rather imprecise and convoluted text:
THE EASTERN WINDOW OF
THIS CHAPEL UPON RENEWAL
WAS DEDICATED AS A GIFT FROM
THE ALMSMEN IN JUNE 1984
THE DESIGN AND EXECUTION
WERE BY MR JOHN PIPER
AND MR REYNTIENS
The Trustees also approached a monumental craftsman who presented a beautifully detailed calligraphic design in November, but for all the work put into it, it had to be rejected. The following letter asking for a revision refers to “circumstances beyond our control”, though in fact, if the Diocesan Advisory Committee had been consulted initially the circumstances would have been considered. Rightly, in the revised lettering the role of the Trustees in providing finance for the project was included, with that of the initial bequest which began the process. By this time H.H. Lewis had replaced R.D. Birch as Steward:
To: Mr. M. Painter
Whichcraft
Tudor Row
Lichfield
Staffs.
Dear Mr. Painter,
CHAPEL PLAQUE
Thank you very much for the sketch you sent last week. Unfortunately, because of circumstances outside our control, we have to ask you to start again.
Our information is that the plaque must not be more than approximately 144 sq. inches in area, otherwise permission to install it will not be received. Consequently the wording has to be reduced and amended as follows:
The East Window, the Gift of Mr. S.W. Hayes
an Almsman and the Trustees of the Hospital
was designed by Mr. John Piper and made by
Mr. Patrick Reyntiens. June 1984
Perhaps you will be kind enough to let me have a revised quotation when convenient. Your sketch need not be as elaborate this time.
Yours sincerely,
H.H. Lewis
Steward
Painter’s revised slate design with his pricing of £106.25 is show as ILLUSTRATION 68 & 68a
While Birch was still Steward the promotion of the window by postcard images was also considered:
To: Messrs. Beric Tempest & Co, Ltd. 14th August 1984
Temprint Works
St. Ives.
Cornwall.
Dear Sirs,
I enclose a transparency in respect of the new East Window that has been installed in the Hospital Chapel which has been designed by John Piper.
The Trustees would like to purchase five thousand post-cards depicting the window and I gather that your price would be £165.00 together with V.A.T.
We should like a caption of ‘The Christ in Glory’ East Window in St John’s Hospital Chapel Lichfield designed by John Piper.
I should be very glad if you would confirm that you would be able to supply such cards for the figure mentioned and I will then place the matter before the Trustees at their meeting on the 13th proximo for a final decision prior to giving an order.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if there is any further information that you require.
Yours faithfully,
R.D. Birch
It is at this point that the archives concerning work on the window itself stop.
From a letter of 23rd January 1992 (below) the watercolour study (26 inches x 18 inches), which Piper had produced for acceptance as the final design for the window was given generously to the Hospital and its value was recognised. The presentation appears to have been by some friends of St. John’s, through Mr. T. O (Terence) Read of Sandycove, Co. Dublin, some time before June 1991. For safety it was kept in the Master’s House. At the end of June 1991 it was valued for insurance purposes by Michael Smedley, Director of Fine Art for Wintertons Auctioneers. Wood End Lane, Fradley, Lichfield who sent a valuation on 1st July 1991. In this the watercolour design is called a “‘Cartoon’ for the East Window, The Chapel, St. John’s Hospital. Watercolour/pastel (the last known work of the artist)” and valued at £3000. In fact the watercolour as discussed earlier, was not the “last known work of the artist”, nor was the Lichfield window his last stained glass, thought it was his last large glass commission completed in close collaboration with Patrick Reyntiens. At this time all were perhaps unaware that Piper was near death (he died five months later, on the 28th June 1992).
To: Mr. T. O. Read
9 Sandycove Ave. West
Sandycove
Co. Dublin
IRELAND
Dear Terence,
Linda, who is typing this letter, has a very gifted photographer husband. He has taken photographs of your presentation, which has been framed recently, and I enclose a couple for your records. Thank you very much again for your kindness. The frame containing your gift will be hanging in my office shortly. At the moment I am awaiting the removal of the Cartoon of the John Piper window to the Heritage Centre at St. Mary’s Church, Lichfield. The cartoon has been here in my office for safe keeping.
With warmest good wishes to you and all the Friends.
Yours sincerely,
H.H. Lewis
This was a finished ‘design’, not the ‘cartoon’ for the window. Throughout the correspondence, the term ‘cartoon’ had often been used incorrectly to refer to smaller drawings and watercolours. The true ‘cartoon’ was the full-size painting on several pieces of collaged-together paper [ILLUSTRATION 5, now in a private collection which was shown in the Dorchester Abbey exhibition ‘John Piper and the Church’ in 2012]. The Hospital’s design is far smaller, more the size of the drawing shown in the Mercury press-photograph being shown by Patrick Reyntiens to the Master. Whether these are exactly the same is uncertain. The composition and symbols of St. Matthew and St Luke are the same. By close comparison, the painted study [ILLUSTRATION 4] seems more intense than the image being held in the photograph. Piper may have worked into further that painting.
The Trustees decided, perhaps for insurance, security and protective purposes, as well as for promotion, to offer this study on loan to the museum in St. Mary’s Centre, Lichfield, where it resides at present Leading to some future confusion, it persisted in being called a ‘cartoon’:
To: Mr. Lewis Leeds 17th January 1992
St. Mary’s Centre
Market Square
LICHFIELD
Staffs.
Dear Lewis,
John Piper Window – S. John’s Chapel
The Trustees feel that the cartoon produced by Mr. John Piper of the Chapel window ought to be on public display. This would be of interest to people generally and would advertise further the fact that the window in one of the tourist attractions of the City. The cartoon in a gilt frame measures approximately 32½” x 24½” and was valued recently at £3,000. As no more Piper windows will be produced because of the gentleman’s age, the item cannot but increase in value progressively.
The Trustees would like to know, please, whether or not you would like to display the cartoon in the Heritage Centre. They are aware that you have excellent security arrangements and that the atmosphere in the building would not have any adverse effect on the cartoon. However, they wold be grateful for confirmation of these points and that the cartoon would be covered by your insurance policy.
If I can provide you with any further information, do please contact me either here or at home (telephone number supplied). Meanwhile, perhaps you will be kind enough to arrange for the matter to be discussed at your next meeting.
Yours sincerely
H. H. LEWIS
STEWARD
Lewis J Leeds responded immediately on 21st July, thanking the Trustees for their kind offer, assuring the Steward that it was much appreciated and would be considered by the Executive Committee at the February meeting, after which he would be in touch with him again. The Committee met on 11th February and the Chairman responded on the next day:
12th February 1992
Dear Hugh,
In Lewis’s absence last night, I chaired the Executive Committee Meeting.
I am delighted to tell you that your very kind offer of the loan of the John Piper Cartoon was unanimously and enthusiastically accepted and will be a welcome addition to the Exhibition.
We will of course be responsible for the Insurance of the Cartoon and its security.
Yours sincerely,
for St Mary’s Centre
John E. Rackham
Chairman, Publicity and Promotion
The St. Mary’s Centre, Lichfield.
John Rackham then sent a confirmation that he had collected the Cartoon, that it would be exhibited and fully covered for insurance purposes by St. Mary’s Centre, and they would be responsible for its security. A letter to the Steward from him of the 18th February proposed a draft Caption for the Cartoon and asked for his comments and suggestions before having it printed:
“Mr. John Piper’s original cartoon design for his magnificent stained glass window in the Chapel of St John’s Hospital, Lichfield. This window represents Christ in Majesty and is the last of its kind to be produced by Mr. Piper. It was dedicated in 1984 by the Dean of Lichfield, the Very Reverend John Harley Lane M.A., D.Lit.”
Huw Lewis (Steward) evidently contacted the Dean, who had recently returned in the capacity of a Trustee. A week later the Dean replied:
24th February 1992
Dear Huw,
I have drafted an alternative inscription for you to use or not as you wish.
- I suggest omitting titles as they are not generally used for artists.
- I’ve ascertained that a cartoon is a full-sized drawing so what you have is a ‘design’.
- Patrick Reyntiens should be mentioned because he made the window/ Indeed once John Piper had finished the huge cartoon (which he painted on the floor of his study) (I presume the Dean intended to write ‘studio’) he had nothing more to do with it until I took him to see the finished work in situ.
The partnership between the two artists was a very fruitful one. They together did the windows in Coventry Cathedral and in St. Margaret’s Westminster.
Yours sincerely,
John
Lang’s enclosed proposal for the caption was:
‘John Piper’s original design for the magnificent stained glass east window in the Chapel of St. John’s Hospital, Lichfield. It represents Christ in Majesty.
The window was made by Patrick Reyntiens and is the last work done by the two artists jointly. It was dedicated in 1984 by John Harley Lang, Dean of Lichfield.
The Steward forwarded copy of this letter to Rackham at The St. Mary’s Centre 0n 25th February 1992, adding:
“What is interesting is the fact that we have been calling a ‘design’ a cartoon, completely incorrectly!”
He also wrote to the Dean on the same day:
Dear Mr. Dean,
John Piper Window
Many thanks indeed for your letter of yesterday and for the alternative form of caption for the “design”. As old habits die hard, “cartoon will take some getting rid of from the system!
A copy of your letter along with mine of today is being sent to John Rackham who, I am sure, will be happy to use your suggestion.
Your advice and help are appreciated greatly.
Yours sincerely
Huw Lewis.
A note from Huw Lewis’s secretary, Linda, records a telephone call from John Rackham thanking him for his letter and assuring him that “it will be done exactly as the Dean has said.”
Though they had the design in their safekeeping since mid-February, it was not until 11th June 1992 that The St. Mary’s Centre formally accepted the loan of the design. Lewis J. Leeds, the President of The St. Mary’s Centre confirmed on 5th May 1992:
Dear Huw,
We have arranged for the formal acceptance on loan of the John Piper Design to take place in the Heritage4 Centre on Thursday 11th June at 6pm. And would very much welcome the presence of the Chairman and Board of Trustees of St. John’s Hospital on the occasion of this presentation.
Light refreshments will be provided.
Yours sincerely
For St. Mary’s Centre
Lewis J. Leeds
President
The Steward responded with thanks on 8th May that at the Trustees’ meeting the previous day they had expressed pleasure at their invitation to the official presentation. He would later confirm numbers.
On the 12th June, the day after the presentation Huw Lewis wrote in thanks to Lewis Leeds (President) and John Rackham (Chairman):
Dear Lewis,
John Piper Design
Many thanks for the excellent show you put on yesterday evening at St. Mary’s when our Chairman, Councillor Arnold Ward, presented the Design to you on loan. It was an extremely pleasant event altogether and the Trustees hope that the publicity will be beneficial to our respective organisations.
Please convey the Trustees’ best thanks to all your colleagues who were involved.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
H.H. LEWIS
STEWARD
12th June,
Dear John,
John Piper Window Design
A letter is going out today on behalf of the Trustees to Lewis Leeds thanking him officially for the most enjoyable event at St. Mary’s yesterday evening. However, it would be remiss of me if I fail to thank you very warmly on a personal basis for all you have done to make it a great success. As I have said the Trustees here will be pleased to pick up the bill for the refreshment. A little note from you stating the sum will please our auditors as proof that a cheque has been issued correctly!
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
H.H. Lewis
STEWARD
On the 15th June, Huw Lewis contacted the editorial team of the Cathedral Newsletter with proposed copy:
To. Mr. James Wilson
The Chapter Office
Lichfield.
Dear James,
Cathedral News Letter
If Kathy is short of material for the news letter in the near future she will be interested in the following item:-
“St. John’s Hospital – John Piper Window
Until recently, the framed design (32½ inch x 24½ inch) by John Piper of the window in the Chapel was kept in the Master’s House; now it is on view to the public at St. Mary’s Centre, Lichfield following a ceremony on the 11th June when the St. John’s Chairman, Cllr. Arnold Ward, presented the design on loan to Mr. Lewis Leeds, the St. Mary’s Centre Chairman.
The inscription reads:-
John Piper’s original design for the significant stained glass east window in the Chapel of St. John’s Hospital Lichfield. It represents Christ in Majesty.
The window was made by Patrick Reyntiens and is the last work done by the two artists jointly. It was dedicated in 1984 by John Harley Lang, Dean of Lichfield.
Signed Huw Lewis
Steward to the Trustees
The Dean was present at St. Mary’s Centre.
Yours sincerely
Huw 15/6/92
The event was also reported on page 16 of The Post on the 18th June 1992. H. H. Lewis wrote to thank the Editor on the following day, though he pointed out that: “As the design, which is very valuable, is still on our inventory, please allow me to point out that it is on loan to St. Mary’s Centre and not a gift.”
To accompany the picture the Trustees also loaned a model of St. John’s Hospital to St. Mary Centre on 17th September 1993.
In March 1993 The Master, Andrew Gorham, was contacted by Libby Horner who, in completing her catalogue of Reyntiens’ stained glass, sent him for approval her catalogue entry for the St. John’s Christ in Majesty: Note that Horner repeated (probably from Sebastian Faulks’ mistake,) that the design source was a ‘window’ not the sculpted tympanum of Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne. Faulks is also spelled ‘Faulkes’.
Title: Christ in Majesty
Date: 1984
Location and Size: 5-light east window, approximately 360 x 285 cms (141 x 112 in)
Designer: John Piper
Glass Painter and Maker: Patrick Reyntiens
Donor: The window was paid for by the Trustees and a bequest from Samuel Hayes, a former resident.
Dedication: June 1984
Literature:
Sunday Telegraph The, Faulkes Sebastian, ‘Romantic Design of a Pagan Believer’, 1 July 1984, p11.
Osborne, 1997, p140-142, 178.
Spalding, 209 p486
Williams Canon Roger, St John’s Hospital LICHFIELD Ziggurat Design, undated, p.17, 22, 25
Reproduced: Osborne 1997, p138
Williams Canon Roger, St John’s Hospital LICHFIELD Ziggurat Design, undated, p.7, 10-11, 22-25; postcard.
Notes: This was the last window in which Piper and Reyntiens collaborated and Piper was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph article as saying: ‘His accountant told him he couldn’t afford to work with me any more – or some such thing.’ The window replaced one of plain white quarry glass, and Piper’s inspiration was Romanesque sculptures in the Dordogne and Saintogne areas of France and specifically a window at Beaulieu in the Dordogne. Christ is depicted with his arms outstretched within a red bordered mandorla and flanked by two green angels blowing trumpets with the sun and moon above them and a slightly offset Mercian Cross. Surrounding the mandorla is green glass and the symbols of the evangelists at the four corners. Faulkes described the window as ‘a work of alarming power’ and noted that at the time one old dear said: ‘Of course I like it – everything that is except the design and the colour!’
SOME LESSONS WHICH MAY BE LEARNED ABOUT COMMISSIONING PROCESSES FROM THIS PROJECT:
The list below is not exhaustive but, I hope, gives useful examples for groups considering future commissions.
The outcome of this commission was extremely successful, largely due to the skills, experience and commitment of the two artists concerned. All artists’ work can vary in quality and often successful and famous modern artists’ work declines in quality as they age. With fame or familiarity, some become blasé over the quality of work that they present. This is far from the case in this project, and may be partly due to Piper and Reyntiens’ recognition that this was probably going to be their last major collaboration. Certainly the commitment of Reyntiens to the project is seen both in the highest quality of the final work and the integrity and patience with which he maintained his intention to bring the work to a successful conclusion through all the delays and difficulties. The quality of the materials and colours of the glass selected, his vivid, lively interpretation of Piper’s design, and the intricacy of detail in the etching and fusing of the glass make the final window a masterpiece.
Several of the delays and misunderstandings that occurred in the project might have been avoided, and I suggest here a few lessons which could be learned for future commissions. The longest delays were caused initially by John Piper’s lack of organisation in visiting the chapel, the Steward’s politeness in writing that the commission was not urgent, and the Trustees not considering sufficiently the financial cost of the window or planning in advance contingences for where the money would come from. Piper was approached and began the designs before the committee realised how difficult it was going to be to obtain or release the full funding. Yet we may be grateful for this, since, if they had considered the full implications, I doubt that the Chapel would now have the window as its chief glory. There may have been many times when the Trustees regretted beginning the undertaking, but by the time Samuel Hayes’ bequest had been spent on Piper’s work for the design they had committed themselves to a process from which it was difficult to extricate themselves. It is to their credit that they saw the project through without aborting it. The Dean’s intervention was crucial in persuading the Charity Commissioners to accept the use of funds from Hospital income. By a carefully constructed argument he demonstrated that the project was within the remit of the Foundation’s aims. Reyntiens’ integrity in maintaining the price at a time of rapidly rising inflation meant that he personally lost some finance through the project. Through all these issues and more, an initially naively-considered project reached successful fruition.
From the problems certain lessons could be considered:
- At an early stage any who commission a work should consider how much it will cost, how much they can afford, and where funds will come from.
- Be confident that you will be able to finance a project before you undertake it. Even if you do not have present access to the full funding, make sure that you know where you can apply for the funds and that they are potentially available. It is dispiriting to all to begin a project then find that you have to abort it.
- Work out who to approach for the finance and how to most effectively appeal to grant-awarding bodies.
- When approaching finance bodies and individuals, give them the appropriate information that they will need, in order to enable a positive response.
- Do not take the availability of grants, awards, legacies or your own ability to finance for granted: make sure that finances are available and sufficient.
- In checking finances, make allowances for inflation and factor into your budgeting problems over unavailability of materials, failure of sourcing, delays, illnesses or other needs.
- If you are an institutional body, make sure that a project is within your remit or is acceptable to the aims of your institution. If this is challenged you need to be able to justify your expenditure.
- Use effectively your contacts with people of influence.
- Make sure that all your committee members are committed to the concept and financing of such a project. Internal disagreements or dissent can hamper progress and damage relationships.
- Allow for unavoidable time-delays, mistakes, workers’ illness or encountering problems.
- Choose artists/craftspeople/builders/project supervisors etc. of quality and integrity – people who understand the work required and are able to carry it out effectively.
- Do not just choose famous artist, as some contemporary Church commissions have done. St. John’s was fortunate that Piper and Reyntiens together produced such a special design, but many commissions have not been so successful.
- Find out how adaptable and efficient the artist might be, so that you can work with them effectively.
- Look for an artist who is in sympathy with the aims of your commission. You want to find a designer and maker who is able to create a piece that will spiritually uplift, challenge and be appropriate for your congregation now and into the future, not just something that it at present in fashion. Current fashions or popular artists may not provide the best permanent solution. A work commissioned for a church needs to be able to communicate for a long time to many different people, as culture and spiritualities change.
- You need to challenge, inspire and grow faith through a commissioned work in an ecclesiastical setting, not just pander to current spiritualities, fashions and biases.
- Consider the varied possible spiritual implications and responses to the subject and style of the work.
- In any agreement with bodies, artists, craftspeople or companies agree a payment strategy and keep to it.
- Work out a practical timetable for the work.
- Make sure that the design you commission is appropriate for its place, use and the community for which you are commissioning it. A design needs to be carefully considered, suitable and appropriate to complement, enhance and speak into its setting, and be useful.
- Think through your requirements carefully and communicate them effectively to the artist/designer. A good design practically fulfils what is required of it.
- Work out what you want from a work yourself at an early stage, so that you and the artist/craftsperson/worker agree on the aims for it.
- Make an open list of ‘suggestions’ which would like a successful commission to fulfil. This should be creatively inspiring, not restricting, to those you are commissioning.
- Do not be too prescriptive. You want to leave the artist/designer creative freedom to expand, change and explore ideas, adding their personal insights, imagination, spirituality and creative flair to a project. It is more likely to be imaginative, meaningful, original and alive if the requirements given are not too restrictive.
- Be open to innovative ideas, aware that a different or lateral approach may achieve a better result than you originally envisaged or imagined.
- The patron does not always know best, but neither does the artist or designer; work and think together.
- The first design proposed may well not be the best. React to it positively, but carefully critique it, to encourage and enable the artist/designer to bring it to the best possible conclusion. Artists do not always have the best ideas initially, though this may sometimes happen. Work together to achieve the best possible solutions.
- The commissioners should maintain contact with the project though the whole process of making, yet not over-interfere to the detriment of its development. Do not just let the artist/designer go off on their own initiative, without regularly demonstrating your personal commitment to viewing and supporting their process. Visit them at work on the project. That way all concerned will be able to feel responsible for and ‘own’ the work, and mistakes or misunderstandings can be resolved early.
- Affirm the work of all involved and help them feel that their involvement is valued and useful.
- Oversee the progress of the work at various agreed stages, so that you can discuss its development, demonstrate interest and commitment, encourage, discuss any necessary changes and resolve difficulties.
- Come to an understanding of the work yourself.
- If you are commissioning a piece for the use of a group or a congregation, involve them all in the commissioning process. Do not just impose a work on people as a ‘fait-accomplis’. Help them be able to understand, value and ‘own’ the work, as well as feel committed to using it when complete.
- Find ways of explaining the work to those who will be using it. Encourage them to practice using it; enable them to effectively benefit from it and grow in their responses for the enhancement of spirituality and worship.
- Maintain a carefully considered line of communication between the commissioners and the artists. Too many varied contacts or suggestions may cause misunderstanding, confusion, bruised egos or damaged relationships.
- Keep a good working relationship and informed contact with all concerned in the project. Resolve difficulties amicably at as early stages as possible.
- Be positive in your relationship with those working with and for you and for whom you are working. If there is any need for criticism, approach it in positive language.
- Be careful, appropriate and wise in wording all written material, contracts, agreements, letters, emails etc.
- Make a practical, legal (but not too restrictive) written contract between commissioners and workers.
- Keep a record of ALL contacts, discussions and agreements over the project, to which you can refer back. If agreements are made verbally or by telephone, confirm in writing, keeping a clear record of what was agreed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources:
St. John’s Hospital Archives
Tate Gallery Archives
V&A Archives
Literature:
Archer, Michael, An Introduction to English Stained Glass. V&A Museum. London: HM Stationery Office 1985
Bowen, Jane (curator), John Piper Centenary: Crossing Boundaries. Chichester: Pallant House Gallery 2016.
Campbell, Louise (ed.), To Build a Cathedral: Coventry Cathedral 1945-62. University of Warwick exhibition catalogue 1987.
Campbell, Louise (ed.), Coventry Cathedral: Art and Architecture in Post-War Britain. Oxford, Clarendon Press 1996.
Clark, Brian, Architectural Stained Glass (ed.). London, John Murray 1979, with contributions from John Piper.
Comper, Ninian, Of the Atmosphere of a Church. London: SPCK 1947.
Compton, Ann (ed.), John Piper: Painting in Coloured Light. Cambridge: Kettles Yard Gallery 1982
Davis, Howard, A Great Job of Work for All Time. John Piper - Unknown Mosaicist, Andamento [British Association for Modern Mosaic] No. 3 2009.
Patricia Jordan Evans & Joanna Cartwright (ed), John Piper And The Church. Dorchester Abbey, Oxon. Exhibition Catalogue 2012. cf. http://www.johnpiperandthechurch.co.uk/exhibition.htm
Faulks, Sebastian, ‘Romantic Design of a Pagan Believer’, The Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 1984, p11.
Fraser Jenkins, David, John Piper. London: Tate Gallery Publications 1983.
Fraser Jenkins, David & John Piper, A Painter's Camera. London: Tate Gallery Publications 1987.
Fraser Jenkins, David, John Piper - The Robert & Rena Lewin Gift to the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum 1992.
Fraser Jenkins, David, John Piper - The Forties. London: Philip Wilson Publishers / Imperial War Museum 2000.
Fraser Jenkins, David & Spalding, Frances, John Piper in the 1930s: Abstraction on the Beach. Dulwich Art Gallery. London: Merrell 2003.
Fraser Jenkins, David & Fowler-Wright, Hugh, The Art of John Piper. Unicorn Press & Portland Gallery. 2016.
Gibberd, Frederick, The Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King, Liverpool. London: Architectural Press 1968.
Harris, Alexandra Romantic Moderns: English Artists and the Imagination from Virginias Woolf to John Piper. New York: Thames and Hudson 2010
Hammond, Peter, Liturgy and Architecture. London: Barrie and Rockliff 1960.
Heathcote, David, A Shell Eye on England: The Shell County Guides 1934-1984 Farringdon: Libri Publishing 2010.
History Today September 2009: John Piper's wartime paintings and his work for the Sitwells at Renishaw.
Horner, Libby, Patrick Reyntiens: Catalogue of Stained Glass. Bristol: Sansom & Co. 2013
Imperial War Museum. War artists archive: John Piper.
Imperial War Museum. Art from the Second World War. 2015.
Lambirth, Andrew, ‘God in a Stained Glass Window’. The Spectator 14 December 2013
Levinson, Orde, Quality and Experiment: The Prints of John Piper - A Catalogue Raisonné 1932–91. London: Lund Humphries Publishers 1996.
Nead, Lynda, ‘How John Piper Found Beauty in Bombed Buildings’. Art UK. 2017.
Osborne; June, John Piper and Stained Glass. Stroud: Alan Sutton 1997.
Osborne, June, Stained Glass in England. Stroud: Alan Sutton 1993 (Revised Edition)
Peterson, William S., John Betjeman: A Bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006
Piper, John, ‘England's Early Sculptors’, Architectural Review: 1937.
Piper, John, ‘The Architecture of Destruction’ Architectural Review July 1941.
Piper, John, British Romantic Artists. London: Collins 1942.
Piper, John, ‘Colour in Building: Colour and Texture’ Architectural Review Feb. 1944.
Piper, John, ‘The Artist and the Church’. Cymry’r Groes: Quarterly magazine 2:1 July 1946.
Piper, John, ‘Book Illustration and the Painter-Artist’ in Penrose Annual43: 1949, p.52–54
Piper, John, Stained Glass: Art or Anti-Art?. London: Studio Vista 1968.
Powers, Alan, et al., Piper in Print. Artist's Choice Edition 2010.
Reyntiens, Patrick, Technique of Stained Glass. London: Batsford 1987.
Reyntiens, Patrick, The Beauty of Stained Glass. London: Herbert Press 1990
Reyntiens, Patrick, Visions in Light- Glass Painted and Stained. Bruton Gallery Ltd, Somerset 1985
Spalding, Frances, `Mondrian's Grocer' in ‘From Self to Shelf: The Construction of the Artist’. Sally Bayley & William May (ed.), Cambridge: Scholars Press, Preface and Esay 2008.
Walker, Lucy (ed.), Benjamin Britten: New Perspectives on His Life and Work, Boydell & Brewer with The Britten-Pears Foundation 2009.
Spalding, Frances, John Piper, Myfanwy Piper: Lives in Art. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2009.
Spalding, Frances, `In the Nautical Tradition: John Piper' in Lara Feigel & Alexandra Harris (ed.) Modernism on Sea: Art and Culture at the British Seaside. Oxford: Peter Lang 2009, pp. 135-143.
Spalding, Frances, ‘Ways With Words: John Piper: a sombre yet fiery genius’. The Telegraph. 20 May 2010.
West, Anthony, John Piper. London: Secker & Warburg 1979.
Woods, S. John, John Piper Paintings Drawings & Theatre Designs 1932–1954. New York: Curt Valentin 1955.
Wortley, Laura, John Piper - Master of Diversity Henley-on-Thames: River & Rowing Museum 2000. exhibition catalogue.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/12/patrick-reyntienss-stained-glass-provides-food-for-the-soul/God in a stained glass window
https://www.artfund.org/get-involved/art-happens/bring-john-piper-home-to-henley/john-pipers-stained-glass