Holybox by Verity Lewis

‘THE HOLY BOX’ The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Paul Gough

with Ann Danks, Amanda Bradley, James Rothwell, Sarah Rutherford, and with an introduction by Carolyn Leder 1

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

First published in 2017 by Sansom & Company Ltd., 81g Pembroke Road, Bristol BS8 3EA www.sansomandcompany.co.uk info@sansomandcompany.co.uk In association with the National Trust and The Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham ÂŠ the authors 2017 For picture credits see section 8 ISBN: 978-1-911408-09-3 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library All rights reserved. Except for the purpose of review, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. Front cover: Stanley Spencer, Builders, 1935, oil on canvas, 111.8 x 91.8 cm, Yale University Art Gallery, reproduced with grateful permission of the Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, USA. Back cover: Lionel G. Pearson, proposed elevation of Sandham Memorial Chapel, c.1926, The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive, Micheldever, UK. Design and typesetting by Verity Lewis Printed by ????

THE HOLY BOX The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Amanda Bradley, Ann Danks, Paul Gough, James Rothwell, Sarah Rutherford With an introduction by Carolyn Leder

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

CONTENTS

Foreword The Sandham Memorial Chapel: a Personal Reflection Carolyn Leder, Curator and Trustee Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham 1 Stanley Spencer: Medical Orderly, Soldier, Patient. Paul Gough

Brief introduction to Spencer’s family; the Slade; onset of War; the Beaufort Military Hospital; transition to war; Aldershot; Mediterranean; orderly service; transfer to infantry; combat; malaria; home. 2 A life in letters - Burghclere’s Patrons: John Louis and (Phyllis) Mary Behrend Amanda Bradley

The Behrend family background; their role as philanthropists and supporters of the arts; key artists, Lamb, Kennedy and others; wider patronage in music and dance; Britten, Pears; Rambert; building the Chapel; Sandham Memorial Trust; gifting to the National Trust. The Behrends in Context: Spencer’s other patrons. 3 ‘The God Box’: Designing and Building the Chapel Paul Gough

The origins of the idea 1911-1922; the choice and purchasing of the site; early design 1925; measuring the site 1926; removal of Kennedy; the replacement architect Pearson; honing the design and tendering for the work; selection of builder; costs; the vexed design process; the ‘clerestory’ incident; design discussions of the ‘West End’; the well. 4 Sandham Memorial Chapel: the Garden and its Setting Sarah Rutherford

107

Unique cultural composition; overview of the form of the garden; development of setting; design process and planting choices; planting

purchases and management; rules for the occupants; intended general character; reflection on the significance of the garden and its setting; comparisons in Europe and England. 5 A Painter’s Progress: Spencer’s Materials, Methods and Working Routine Paul Gough

125

Arriving at the final layout. Ordering materials and installation. The preparatory drawings; refinement and Spencer’s changing views on their arrangement; the materials, the method, the approach. Head’s role in preparing the interior for the paintings; Spencer’s progress between 19261930. 6 The Interior of the Chapel, its Fittings, Fixtures and Furniture Amanda Bradley, Paul Gough, James Rothwell, Sarah Rutherford

151

The interior of the chapel; its fittings and furniture described. Examination of the altar plate - chalice, paten and alms dish - designed by Herbert Durst; the memorial plaque to Hal Sandham designed and carved by Charles Pibworth; the linen altar frontal by Madeline Clifton; and the aborted mosaic tiles by Boris Anrep. 7 A full record of the National Trust archive material relating to the Oratory of All Souls, Sandham Memorial Chapel, Burghclere, including a transcript of a letter by Hilda Carline, c.1927.

166

Compiled by Meg Courtney and Paul Gough 8 Bibliography, Picture List and Acknowledgements

197

9 A note about the contributors

206

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

THE SANDHAM MEMORIAL CHAPEL: A PERSONAL REFLECTION Carolyn Leder

I first visited the chapel 35 years after its completion. In those days it appeared almost hidden amidst green, rural lanes, waiting to be discovered. It was and remains a very special place. As a consecrated chapel, it exerted an almost sacred, numinous emotion, which felt very different from looking at pictures in a city gallery. It was akin to discovering a Renaissance chapel in Hampshire, but one that is resolutely modern and for our own times, on a par with any of the works produced in response to the First World War. It is arguably the artist’s greatest achievement and all the more astonishing in that it arose entirely from his own ideas, rather than stemming from a commission. But it would not have been achieved without the extraordinarily generous and inspired patronage of John Louis and Mary Behrend. For the rest of his life, Spencer hoped, in vain, for another such patron to build him a ‘Church-House’, a building he could design to include his figurative paintings. As one of the most original British artists of the twentieth century, Spencer produced a series of subjects of his own invention, as well as biblical pictures set not in Jerusalem but in places of importance to him, frequently his home village of Cookham. His intense reaction to terrain and plants, so evident in his landscapes, is readily apparent in the chapel at Burghclere. With his Shipbuilding on the Clyde series of the Second World War, Spencer achieved a remarkable feat in producing some of the most memorable masterpieces to emerge from the two great conflicts of the twentieth century. Not only was there a stream of visitors to the chapel during the years in which Spencer was living and painting at Burghclere (even Elsie, the Spencers’ maid, would sign the visitors’ book when she came over from Chapel View), but it has continued to draw admirers. For many years, a coachload of Friends of the Stanley Spencer Gallery visited the chapel annually, on the Sunday nearest to Spencer’s birthday on 30 June. As I was generally asked to give a talk in the chapel, I remember that we were frequently accompanied by Spencer’s erstwhile mistress Daphne Charlton, coming to pay homage. I also recall a separate occasion about 1980 when I encountered the eminent art dealer, Anthony d’Offay, bringing the avantgarde American artist Julian Schnabel to view the chapel. Spencer’s choice of subject matter is intensely personal yet also universal. With his lifelong need to redeem everything associated with him, he chose

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

to focus not on battle, but on the everyday life of soldiers as he experienced it, firstly in the Beaufort Military Hospital, Bristol, and then in Macedonia. His reaction to the war is in stark contrast to that of his exact contemporary, the German artist, Otto Dix, whose stark, unflinching realism serves to highlight the savagery and brutality of battle and its aftermath. The emotional impact of Spencer’s pictures is underpinned by the extraordinary accuracy of his depiction of army life. He noted that it was in ‘keeping very near to how things were’, that I ‘was able to arrive at this spiritual significance’. This accuracy permeates the depiction of military and medical equipment and practice, which I have found elicits regular comment from those with first-hand knowledge of either the army or medicine. The convalescent soldiers, for instance, wear ‘Hospital Blues’, rather than dressing gowns as I have heard stated incorrectly on the radio. In Frostbite, an orderly shoulders sterilisation drums, rather than buckets as they are sometimes imprecisely described. Over the years, I have been increasingly aware of the role of food and animals in Spencer’s army life, and the reflection of this in the chapel. His depiction of the preparation and consumption of food would seem to echo the frequently cited quotation that an army marches on its stomach. To take just two examples, he moves from breakfast in Camp at Karasuli, which he described as ‘a symphony in rashers of bacon’ with a ‘tea-making obligato’, to Tea in the Hospital Ward, with its tall piles of floury-crusted bread and butter. One soldier spreads a slice with jam: possibly the almost ubiquitous plum and apple jam

of the First World War. Spencer wrote from Salonica to his sister Florence, 25 March 1917: ‘You know what a boy I am for bread & butter’. A variety of animals appear in the pictures, from the dog picking over Fray Bentos tins (in Camp at Karasuli), the horse ridden by the only officer to be portrayed in the chapel (in Map-Reading), a swarm of mosquitoes (in Reveille), and the tortoises, dog and jackal in The Resurrection of the Soldiers. He had even contemplated painting ‘a lecture on mosquitoes’. Having suffered several attacks of malaria In Macedonia, he returned to England in December 1918 on the ‘Y’ list for the repatriation of serious malaria cases. The poet Rupert Brooke whom he knew quite well, died in the war, of septicaemia caused by a mosquito bite. In Spencer’s letters from the Front, and later reminiscences, he recorded his close and poetic observation of many creatures he encountered or observed in Macedonia, including wild dogs, fireflies, sheep, goats, donkeys, jackals, hares, tortoises, storks, owls, young magpies in a nest, wild geese, starlings, snakes, a tiger moth and ants. But it is mules which predominate, in his writing and his art. Mules have suffered from a bad press on account of their notorious stubbornness, yet they were the pack animal of choice in the Macedonian campaign of the First World War. They were used for field ambulance activities and to transport supplies, for which the army’s Macedonian Mule Corps recruited some 13,000 muleteers, of Greek or Cypriot origin. Spencer became fond of the mules with which he worked as a medical orderly, when one of his tasks was to manage a travoy, or mule-drawn mountain sledge, in which the wounded were conveyed. Their role in Spencer’s war is commemorated in his work as an official war artist, Travoys with Wounded Soldiers Arriving at a Dressing Station at Smol, Macedonia, 1919 (Imperial War Museum, London). Mules appear in several pictures in the chapel. Spencer recalled, ‘there were nearly as many mules in Macedonia as there were men… the mules seemed to reflect the feeling that the country gave me…’ Although as an orderly he had sometimes struggled to prevent mules from ‘flopping down to sleep in daylight’, following which it was even more difficult to persuade them to get up again, he wrote appreciatively of their positive qualities, including their surefootedness. This is the reason that to this day mules rather than horses are used to carry tourists down the Grand Canyon: their life-saving stubbornness is caused in part by their refusal to go where they feel unsafe. In Filling Water-

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Bottles, a wounded soldier is conveyed by a mule in a military litter, or cacolet (a chair with arms, attached to the pack saddle of a mule). Spencer likened the many mules in The Resurrection of the Soldiers to the herd of whales in Moby Dick. He further elaborated on the mule theme to his brother-in-law, Richard Carline: ‘The central motif of this picture is also mules. They are lying on the ground in the same order as when they were harnessed to the limber wagon,…the wheels and the mules and the men, who were the riders of them waking up, it being the Resurrection, and contemplating the surroundings…I once saw a scene very similar…of riders fallen down between the mules.’ The idea of the mules turning ‘their heads round in opposite directions’ was taken from the horses who drew the oil-cart at the Vale of Health in Hampstead, where he was living before he moved to Burghclere. Whatever theological debate surrounds the resurrection of animals, Spencer with his all-inclusive nature was happy to include them in The Resurrection of the Soldiers, his second great painting of a resurrection, a theme so closely associated with his name. He commented that ‘even the mules and tortoises come in for some sort of redemption…The mules still retain their “aeroplane” ears however, but only now as a decoration badge of honour; Mons star sort of thing.’ When in 1917 Spencer volunteered for the infantry, he heard supplies being brought up by mule-drawn limber wagons under cover of darkness: the rattling of army biscuits in their tins was less welcome to the troops than the quieter delivery of their preferred loaves of bread. Mules on the left of The Resurrection of the Soldiers have been carrying ‘a truss of straw’, loaves of bread and tins of biscuits (‘rather similar to Shell petrol tins, only they were squarer’), which are depicted near to pack saddles. The provision of food extends to the animals, since ‘in among my mass of mules, I have, here and there, just conveniently growing under some of the mules’ very noses, some green stuff specially to their taste.’ Horses, dogs, carrier pigeons, even camels and elephants, were involved in the various theatres of war. But in art, it was Spencer above all who celebrated the role of mules in the First World War. In 1923, referring to his drawings for a ‘scheme of war pictures’ in a chapel, he wrote to his sister Florence, ‘…They don’t look like war pictures, they look rather like heaven; a place I am becoming very familiar with.’ I like to think that his chapel at Burghclere takes us all a little nearer to heaven.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

STANLEY SPENCER: MEDICAL ORDERLY, SOLDIER, PATIENT

After the War I can see myself doing some strange things … I arrive home, two days after get in a train for Bristol, get out at Bath, stand on the Railway platform & look towards a certain loathsome suburban church standing in the side of big hill. Take notes & get back into train. Get out at Bristol, on tram up to Fishponds. Go up a certain hill, a slummy street on left; small cottage, window-sill, on the window-sill earthenware animals & flower pots, on the other side of house small cottage garden on a steep slope, on opposite slope little orchard. Take notes and return to Cookham.1 Stanley Spencer was born in 1891, the eighth surviving child of a remarkable family who lived in Fernlea, the family home on the High Street of Cookham village in Berkshire. As a child he was slightly built, darkhaired, often unkempt, an unstoppable talker, and a voracious reader. His childhood was immersed in music: each night when he and his younger brother Gilbert were put to bed they could hear the strains of music played by his father and elder brothers ‘such as they would never forget.’ After hearing his revered elder brother Will playing Bach’s St Anne’s Prelude on the church organ, the young Stanley exclaimed in rhapsodic delight that it sounded ‘like angels shrieking with joy’. However Spencer’s true calling would be in the visual arts. In May 1908, father and son attended an interview for a place at the Slade School of University College, London. Spencer had been so nervous about the admissions process that ‘Pa’ had to complete the application form, forging his son’s signature. Despite failing the general knowledge paper, Stanley was offered a place on the strength of his drawing. Having previously ventured on his own no further than Maidenhead, he had to be accompanied to London by his father until he gained sufficient confidence in travelling alone. He was particularly perturbed by the prospect of crossing the busy Euston Road. Spencer thrived at the Slade. The staff recognized his unique talent and his original turn of mind, and he won many of the School’s important drawing and composition prizes. Teased for his rural accent and his incessant highpitched chatter about his revered home village, he earned the nickname ‘Cookham’. However, he left the Slade School in 1912 in what others described as ‘a blaze of glory’ and became one of that remarkable cohort of young British artists – amongst them C.W.R. Nevinson, Mark Gertler, Dora Carrington, Isaac Rosenberg, David Bomberg, Paul Nash, and Edward Wadsworth – who would play a major part in the story of British painting over

Stanley Spencer, Self Portrait, 1914, oil on canvas, Tate

1 Stanley Spencer, Notebook / diary, [1915]-1918, Tate Gallery Archive (TGA) 733.3.83.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

the following decades. On the eve of the Great War Spencer’s paintings were arousing interest by critics and collectors. His highly rendered religious and narrative compositions were selected for major exhibitions in London and his work found enthusiastic and committed buyers. By then Spencer had returned to Cookham, his ‘heaven on earth’, back to the domestic throng of Fernlea where he would set up his easel anywhere space could be found, mostly in the corners of the crowded dining-room, and patiently paint vivid and compelling narrative compositions.

THE WAR Within a month of the outbreak of war in August 1914 Stanley and his brother Gilbert had joined the Maidenhead Branch of the Civic Guard, where they practiced manoeuvres in the local park armed with wooden rifles. Given Stanley’s diminutive stature weekly drill must have made an interesting spectacle. ‘I am 5ft 1 inch,’ he wrote, ‘the man next to me last night was 6ft !’ 2 Spencer’s martial zeal, however, was not to be realised. Both brothers were persuaded by their mother to seek enlistment for Home Hospital Service in the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC) on her belief that neither of them had the stomach for fighting. Both brothers acquiesced rather reluctantly. Months later ominous news reached Fernlea from Gilbert: … Gil went to a hospital at Bristol: an awful place and awful hospital; I may go there. … Wherever I go it is bound to be vile, but I am prepared

Private Stanley Spencer, Sergeant Percy Spencer (seated) and Lieutenant Sydney Spencer, c.1915

2 Stanley Spencer to Gwen Raverat, September 1914, TGA 8116.41.

for anything. I expect my duties will be cleaning out lavatories & taking the “Pan” around the ward. It seems such rotten luck that Gil and I had to do this instead of being “tummies”… 3 Stanley was called up soon after, only to find that he too was being posted to Bristol. Despite being forewarned by Gilbert, nothing prepared him for his rude arrival at ‘The Beauforts’: The gate was as high & massive as the gate of hell. It was a vile cast iron structure. Its keeper, though unlike that lean son of a hag who kept the gate of hell being tall & thick, was nevertheless associated with that auspicious gentleman being the man who had charge of all the ‘deaders’ & did all the cutting up in all the post mortem operations. I could imagine him cutting my head off as easily as I imagined him cutting off chunks of beef. 4 The Beaufort Military Hospital on the edge of Fishponds in north-east Bristol is hewn from the same uncharitable rock that built the nearby Muller Orphanages. Formerly the Bristol Lunatic Asylum, the Beaufort was converted in 1915 to accommodate the vast numbers of wounded not just from the Western Front, but from as far away as Gallipoli, in Turkey. The asylum had been converted to take up to 1,460 wounded combatants. Day rooms and night wards were converted into twenty-four medical and surgical wards. During emergency admissions corridors were used to provide further bed spaces. Rooms were adapted to act as operating

Beaufort Military War Hospital, Bristol, c.1916

3 Stanley Spencer to Henry Lamb, 19 July 1915, TGA 945.27. 4 Stanley Spencer, Account, 1918, TGA 733.3.83.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

theatres, radiography departments and pharmacy stations. Contemporary photographs show how the hospital retained some of its pre-war character. The wards are strewn with large potted plants and ornate furnishings, though little could disguise the hard deal tables, the flagstone floors and the high windows with their cast-iron glazing bars. Stanley Spencer is glimpsed in one of these photographs – a diminutive figure in an ill-fitting tunic surrounded by long avenues of beds, each separated by large, ungainly wooden lockers. Veterans of the Great War had little affection for military hospitals; many complained of an inhumanity that seemed to increase with distance from the battlefield. At the front, wounded soldiers were treated by fellow-combatants and by familiar regimental doctors. ‘The wounded man’ recalled one soldier, ‘is in a moment a little baby and all the rest become the tenderest of mothers. One holds his hand; another lights his cigarette. Before this, it is given to few to know the love of those who go together through the long valley of the shadow of death.’ 5 All this changed in the rear of the battle zone and in the general hospitals back in ‘Blighty’. Their journey from the front-line might be surprisingly rapid. Gilbert Spencer recalled his first hours as an orderly at the Beaufort when he found himself confronted by a ‘ward full of wounded Gallipoli soldiers, their skins sunburnt and their clothes bleached and the soil of Suvla Bay still on their boots.’ 6

The Beaufort today, as UWE Bristol Faculty of Applied Health and Applied Sciences, Glenside.

5 J. Wedgwood, Essays and Adventures of an MP (Allen and Unwin, London, 1924). 6 Gilbert Spencer, Stanley Spencer by his brother Gilbert (Gollancz, London, 1961; reprinted, Redcliffe Press, Bristol, 1991) p.137.

Henry Williamson in his novel ‘The Patriot’s Progress’ left a more sympathetic account of his time in military hospital: ‘Months and months of pain and contentment: regular grub and fags, military band outside once a week, and sometimes a theatre, riding in a toff’s car’. Though his novel’s character also remembers ‘[t]he terrible silence of the white wards, the swish of felt slippers, the terrible white walls and crying, the strange white sheets and beds in a row.’ 7 Most veterans remembered the casual brutishness of convalescence and the uneasy tension between the wounded and their non-fighting guardians, with their cushy jobs and protected status. To many soldiers, duty back in the front line became something of a release from the petty regimes and indifferent treatment dealt out in the British military hospitals.

THROUGH THE ‘GATES OF HELL’ Passing through the ‘Gates of Hell’ precipitated a change in Stanley Spencer. He felt trapped in a place for which he was utterly ill-prepared. The Beaufort would shatter the stillness and unity of his enclosed world, but in so doing would stimulate the enquiring and curious side of a creative mind that had remained dormant until then. But at first the Asylum-cum-Hospital was a place that brought ‘innumerable unanalysable mental shocks that continually

Hospital Ward, Beaufort Military War Hospital, Bristol, with Stanley Spencer on the extreme left marked as ‘me’, c.1915

7 Henry Williamson, The Patriot’s Progress (Geoffrey Bles, London, 1930) pp. 189 –191.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

beset me’. Energetic and robust, Spencer soon found his feet. Drawing on his natural ebullience and his incorrigible interest in everything around him, his second day found him in better spirits: I had to scrub out the Asylum Church. It was a splendid test of my feelings about this war. But I still feel the necessity of this war, & I have seen some sights, but not what one might expect. The lunatics are good workers & one persists in saluting us & always with the wrong hand. Another one thinks he is an electric battery... 8 Plainly, The Beaufort was not without its diversions. Punctuating the bland rhythms of hospital routine were the curious habits of the pre-war inmates, the ‘Lunys’ as Spencer called them. He wrote of Frank and Charley, tall and gaunt, and another who never spoke ‘except when he heard a dog bark in the distance when he would tell us someone had thrown himself off Clifton Suspension bridge’. This character – described as being as tall as the bridge itself – had a memorable manner of clearing crockery after meals: he would ‘reach his great arm out & scoop the plates off the table, shooting them into the trolley. And yet they never broke.’ This may have been because all the plates and dishes were made of cheap, thin tin, and the cutlery had been ‘constructed more for the protection of life and limb than for eating: all were blunted down to a minimum.’ 9 Lacking the sense of fraternity that he so cherished at Fernlea and in the drawing studios at the Slade, Spencer found occasional comfort with his brother when they worked side by side administering dressings. But most of his long working day was spent on just two wards 4A and 4B, at the far eastern end of the vast hospital complex.

‘A BLESSED STATE OF SERVILITY’ In his eighty-eight lengthy notebooks, his thirteen diaries and one thousand extended pieces of reflective prose Spencer often ruminated on the impact of the Beaufort Hospital and the Macedonian Front on his subsequent career as an artist. Sometimes he remembered the hospital fondly, especially after dark ‘with the feeling of night, night, slippers, go quietly, terrible operations, uncanny supernatural atmosphere …’. But at the time he wrote more edgily of the hospital as a vile, degrading place where the ‘utterly selfish spirit’ of his fellow-orderlies made him ‘wild’. 10

8 Stanley Spencer to Gwen Raverat, July/August 1915, TGA 8116.54. 9 Stanley Spencer , Notebook diary, TGA 733.3.83. 10 Stanley Spencer to Gwen Raverat, August? 1915, TGA 8116.58.

Patients at an open air event, Beaufort Military War Hospital, Bristol, c.1916

Newly arrived wounded, Beaufort Military War Hospital, Bristol, c.1916

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

While the Beaufort may have tested Spencer’s mental and spiritual capacities he proved more than able to meet its vigorous physical demands. On the face of it, his work was little more than uniformed hard labour. Following an early morning parade or physical training he would be tasked, with at least two other orderlies, to work in a ward, usually Number Four. There he would spend a long day – usually ten, sometimes as long as fifteen hours – at the beck and call of the nursing sister. Like so many low-ranking soldiers Spencer was largely unaware of what was happening around him or what next to expect. The tedium of his daily existence, the repetition and lack of variety, punctuated by the unannounced arrival of convoys of wounded troops, left him vulnerable, often unable to cope, and seized by a profound sense of disorientation. By December 1915 he was at his lowest ebb. He wrote home to say that he was ‘horribly fed up’ – ‘I get no exercise, drill and that is what I thirst for. I know what drilling is … Ever since I have been here, I have done nothing but scrub floors.’ 11 However it was during that loathed act of scrubbing floors that he met a key figure in his time at Bristol: a young local man named Desmond Macready Chute. As an aesthete, born of one of the great cultural dynasties in the city, he knew Spencer’s art and could barely believe he was working in Bristol: I had a visit from a young intellectual of sixteen who, like Christ visiting Hell, came one day walking to me along a stone-coloured passage with glass-coloured windows all down one side and a highly patterned tile floor... I had a sack tied round my waist and a bucket of dirty water in my hand. I was amazed to note that this youth in a beautiful civilian suit was walking towards me as if he meant to speak to me; the usual visitors to the hospital passed us orderlies by as they would pass a row of bedpans. The nearer he came, the more deferential his deportment, until at last he stood and asked me with the utmost respect whether I was Stanley Spencer. 12 Chute introduced him to the art circles in Bristol, to the Clifton Arts Club, and the Royal West of England Academy. He shared his classical literature and fine music and critically, he shared with him the Confessions of Saint Augustine. It was a defining moment in Spencer’s life in Bristol:

11 Quoted in Richard Carline, Stanley Spencer at War (Faber, London, 1978) p.53. 12. Stanley Spencer, TGA 733.3.85. A full account of Spencer’s long-lasting friendship with Desmond and a full transcript of the letters can be read in Paul Gough, ‘Your Loving Friend, Stanley’, the Great War Correspondence between Stanley Spencer and Desmond Chute (Sansom and Company, Bristol, 2011).

‘There is a glorifying God, in all His different performances. This struck me very much …”Ever busy, yet ever at rest. Gathering yet never needing, bearing, filling, guarding, creating, nourishing, perfecting, seeking though thou hast no lack!” And so I thought “bearing, filling,” coming, going, fetching, carrying, sorting, opening doors, shutting them, carrying tea-urns, scrubbing floors, etc. Yes, he was a friend indeed. I never disliked doing any of these things; … sweeping up had become part of the performance of painting the picture afterwards.’ 13 Saint Augustine’s writings seemed to validate Spencer’s purpose in the hospital; he now recognised the nature of his sacrifice and the reasons for his servitude to the greater cause. Thereafter, hospital work became not a source of boredom and frustration but of inspiration. Even scrubbing floors assumed an elevated meaning. Not only was it associated with his first memories of meeting the inestimable Desmond, but it released a spiritual and aesthetic sensation that Spencer learned to savour: Now and then, I was hired from [Ward] 4A to scrub this stone-floored bath-room and I used to enjoy it rather. The orderlies might give me a bit of cake … and the sister would condescend a little. I liked the surface of that floor and the colour was very good – some parts faded India-rubber red, and some more ochre and peach-like. The bath-room of [Ward] 4B was quite different. It was more jolly and matter of fact and had a dealboard floor and free and easy entrance and exit. It was the way through to the lavatories, so that there was continual passing through …. Yet here in 4B bathroom, the more noise, the more men and general washings and bathings took place, the more a certain atmosphere and special character became enhanced. It was the hospital in its more robust form.’ 14 Through the writings of Saint Augustine, Spencer discovered a metaphysical model which validated and made sense of the menial grime of his work in the hospital. He now realised that through volunteering he had sacrificed himself and his art to servitude. Through his suffering, through carrying this burden, he could now comprehend why he had been sent to the Beaufort. Chute had revealed the nature of his sacrifice: Spencer was released into a state of visionary ecstasy. After ten months in Bristol Spencer volunteered for overseas service and was sent to the forgotten front that girdled the free port of Salonika, now

Desmond Chute, undated c.1915

13 Stanley Spencer quoted in Richard Carline (Faber, London 1978) p.57. 14 Stanley Spencer quoted in Richard Carline (1978) p.58.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

known as Thessaloniki in Greek Macedonia. When he came to recall in paint his time as a medical orderly, he looked back at the hospital with mixed, but spiritually enriched, emotions: My intention was to attempt to express the very happy imaginative feelings [I] had in that hospital revealed through my different performances & leading to a kind of redemption of the atmosphere & feelings that the place & circumstances gave me. … I had, as I said, a longing to experience all these hospital performances minus the harassing atmosphere I lived in & the pictures were largely an outcome of this wish. 15

LEAVING BRISTOL Although Spencer had applied for overseas duty in late autumn 1915, it was not until late spring the following year that he finally left the Beaufort. He was twenty-five years old. On 12 May 1916, as the British Expeditionary Force in France went into its final preparations for the ‘Big Push’ on the Somme, a draft of twelve volunteers left the asylum-cumhospital gates for the last time. Spencer wrote of his mixed feelings as he swept the ward for the last time with his ‘chum’ George Saunders who was staying behind. ‘I felt a bit sad’, he wrote in his customary hand, ‘poor old George was so upset.’ Although destined for the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC) Training Depot near Farnham, Spencer’s group was sent first to Devonport where

15 Stanley Spencer, TGA 945.46.

for two days he had to withstand the customary vicissitudes of servicemen in transit. He and his fellows were not on a ration list, they had not been indented for, and were shunted from queue to queue. Having to forage for themselves they eventually found sleeping quarters in a deserted schoolroom nearby. It was rather bewildering but, as so often, Spencer’s letters mask any unpleasant tasks or inconveniences, focusing instead on the natural wonders that were revealed to him. Always a keen observer of nature he was moved by his impressions of the coast; after all it was only his second ever sight of the sea: ‘I did not realize I was looking out across the sea till I saw a ship up in the clouds & came to the sensible conclusion that the sea was under it.’ 16 After leaving Devonport his home for the next ten weeks was Tweseldown Camp, near Aldershot. Located on the site of the National Hunt Race Course it consisted of rows of identical wooden huts erected across flat land that had been bought during the Crimea War for military use. Since 1914 it had been the training camp for the RAMC. 17 Much of Spencer’s daily work was standard infantry training consisting of lengthy route marches through town and country, often in full pack, occasionally accompanied by drums. Spencer thrived on the physical rigours of military training, greatly enjoying the long and arduous route marches and the open-air gymnastics that were part of the Swedish Drill. He described the novelty of having his hair cut ‘clipped right close’ like a convict, but assured Chute that ‘in fact I feel like a rejoicing criminal’.’ 18 Faced with the task of hauling large wagons Spencer exclaimed (without any hint of irony) that ‘it was perfect. I felt as if my soul would bust for joy.’ 19 After the stuffiness and lethargy of the hospital Spencer thrived in the open air of early summer and warmed to the novel banter of the NCOs, though as ever he was wary of the occasional brutish sergeants who he felt were out to ‘crime’ him. Always wary of over-assertive authority, he complained to Desmond that: I am not brazen faced and I shall never be able to stand the bullying of these sergeants. At least I shall stand it but it will always hurt me, always shock me. It is useless to say to myself ‘ok they are ignorant etc’. Do you know what it is to be watched all day persistently by a sergeant who is trying to crime you. 20

16 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, Letter postmarked 12 May 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 17 For further information about the history of Tweseldown as a training ground and a racecourse see www. tweseldown.co.uk and http://www.roll-of-honour.com/ Hampshire/TweseldownCamp.html 18 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, Letter postmarked 12 May 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 19 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, letter postmarked 12 May 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 20 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, Summer 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

In June 1916 Spencer enjoyed a weekend’s home leave, arriving without warning at Fernlea, surprising them with his cropped hair and out-ofdoors vitality. It was the last time he would see Sydney, his favourite and deeply cherished brother, who would die on active service a week before the Armistice. In subsequent letters Stanley remembers with deep affection the layout of each of the trees in the bottom of the garden, recalling the ‘William Pear tree’, ‘the laburnum’ and so forth. He compared those happy memories with a recent thunderstorm near Aldershot when lightning had struck a tree studded with metal nails, killing a lance-corporal of ‘V’ Company. 21 Ever restless and ready for new challenges, by mid-June he craved training that was more fitted to his future as a stretcher-bearer. He learned the essential craft of water purification and vital lessons in using a gas mask: How lovely it is to get a wash afterwards; they are so greasy these helmets & are composed of 2 layers of thick flannelette, greasy & dirty & we breath & suck through a rusty bin tube covered with a piece of transparent India rubbery stuff which you grip with your teeth (you wonder who gripped it last). 22 However, he craved meaningful action. Gossip and rumour about their eventual destination compounded his sense of frustration. Only the simulated trench exercises seemed authentic, indeed Spencer found them visually arresting: We are still training. We go into the trenches & bring the wounded out. We have to keep our heads down because the captain tells off a party to pelt us with stones if we show ourselves. I love to watch long rows of men in front of me in trenches. And the trenches are so solid & sometimes the communication trenches are so narrow that the gassed man we are carrying in his overcoat gets wedged, & it gives me such an extraordinary feeling. When we came out this morning we were caked in clay. Then those ledges you know let into the side of the communication trench. We put our patient there for a rest & it looked fine. 23

21 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, Rec’d 10 June 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 22 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, rec’d 24 July 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 23 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, Summer 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

His frustrations were exacerbated by news of success on the Western Front in France (the storming of Pozieres by the Australian Division at the end of July 1916) and the sight of large detachments of his fellows – ‘in sun helmets & the lovely cool ‘drill’ suits’ – preparing to leave, ‘their dull training’ come to an end. Eventually his turn came and in August 1916, having made out his will as required by military law and guessing they were heading for ‘the east’, he sorted his belongings, sent home a number of books too large to carry – amongst them several bulky volumes of Shakespeare – and carefully packed The Canterbury Tales, Crime and Punishment, the pocketbooks of fine art reproductions published by Gowans and Grey, and other books that had been sent so diligently by Chute. By late August he and his comrades were at sea. After the carbolic grimness of the military hospital and the inertia of Tweseldown, Spencer was greatly excited by the sights he saw from the troopship as it steamed up the Mediterranean. ‘It makes me tremble down in my inside’, he wrote, ‘every time I look at yonder coast.’ 24 His letters teem with exotic sights, of great sandy mounds on the Tunisian seaboard, a coastline dotted with white buildings that seemed to be palaces or mosques, and peculiarly shaped hills ‘like the wrinkles on the back of a bullock’s neck – most wonderful’. 25 In another he described the view of the Algerian coast as quite mysterious: ‘It was just like being in the Bible. Now it is a white ghost-like sea with a dark dusky blue horizon which clears towards the top & the mountain tops appear above.’ At some point in the Mediterranean, he and his younger brother ‘dipped flags’ when their ships passed on their separate ways as Gilbert sailed off to join the Expeditionary Force in Egypt.

MACEDONIA: A LIVING QUATTROCENTO

Stanley Spencer, Wounded being carried by Mules in Macedonia, 1918-19, pen and wash on paper, Stanley Spencer Gallery (acquired in memory of Tessa Sidey with assistance from her bequest, 2012).

Arriving at the free port of Salonika Spencer was posted up country to 68th Field Ambulance on the Doiran Sector. Travelling northwards he was immediately enraptured by this new world. The landscape of whitewashed buildings, groups of peasants, goats and donkeys, tall cypresses and deep ravines struck him as both novel and strangely familiar. As if by a miracle it conjured up the early Italian paintings that he had studied so earnestly at the Slade, those paintings by Giotto and Mantega that had

24 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, August 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 25 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, August 1916, accompanied by a small drawing, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

been such a vital touchstone for his art. The impact was profound. It was as if the two-dimensional visions of his youth had become a tangible reality before his eyes. Once-imagined Biblical landscapes had found their proper Renaissance setting: I sat on the wooden seats [of the troop train from Lembet] & was entranced by the landscapes from the window. Low plains with trees & looking through trees to strange further plains, or fields, & here & there a figure in dirty white. It was not landscape; it was a spiritual world. 26 Despite his initial enthrallment Spencer’s homesickness could not be dispelled, and on occasion he pined for ‘an English sunrise’, and, as ever, he worried for his artistic sensibilities: Desmond, it is awful the way I am suffering, being kept from my work like this. It will not I think do me harm but it is exasperating. 27 Given the harsh punishment meted out for recording and sharing military information, there are few references to his soldierly activities or his work as a medical orderly. He would leave it until after the war to tell – and paint - those stories, filling his extensive notebooks with tales of his arduous work, not as a stretcher-bearer close to the lines (as he had once thought to be his mission), but to the much less heroic task of transferring the wounded on the cumbersome ‘travoys’.

26 Stanley Spencer, Notebook 1945-47, TGA 733.3.86. 27 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, Autumn 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 28 There were other variations on the ‘Travoy’: the ‘doolie’ required the shafts to be slung between two mules, and was used to overcome marshy ground. The cacolet (or ‘cacklet’ as the British troops called it) was a customised chair slung either side of the mule in a rather haphazard, even hazardous, fashion. Spencer depicted this type in Convoy of Wounded men Filling Water Bottles at a Stream, one of the arched panels at Burghclere.

The travoy played a central part in Spencer’s war experience. It was a sort of mountain sledge, a mule-drawn contraption made up of two wooden shafts steel-tipped at one end, onto which was strapped a canvas stretcher which held a single wounded soldier who was then half-pulled, half-dragged to the nearest Dressing Station. The controlled dragging was uncomfortable and ungainly. It invariably resulted in the casualty sliding to the foot of the stretcher, jolted there by the treacherous conditions of the tracks and by the vagaries of the mule. Spencer’s only option was to support the casualty by gripping him under the armpits, but for a man as short as Spencer it was exhausting work. Despite his best efforts the invalid was occasionally pitched headlong onto the stony ground. The obstinacy and unpredictability of the mules caused further annoyance. Spencer complained that his arms used to ache while trying to pull the mules around to prevent them from lying down and falling into a deep (and rather unmilitary) slumber. 28

In September 1916 Spencer’s Field Ambulance unit had to support an attack on Machine Gun Hill. It was Spencer’s first experience of battle. His orders were to help evacuate the British wounded to the Dressing Station in the abandoned village of Smol about two thousand yards behind the front line. By night he joined parties of some ten or twenty orderlies who set off into the Sedomli Ravine, one of the many riverbeds cut into the face of the hills north of Kalinova. There they would meet the regimental stretcher-bearers who brought casualties down from the front-line, a routine that was accompanied by the curious ‘clanging sound’ of the travoys dragging along the stony ground, like bars of steel being knocked together. Although heartened by the landscape around him and emboldened by his disciplined sense of duty, Spencer agonized about his inability to record the many varied sights: Oh how I long to paint! A man told me that Malta possesses many old churches full of frescos, & one in particular called the church of St Paul, which contains the life of St Paul on its walls. When this man told me this I began to long. I could not help thinking what a glorious thing it was to be an artist; to perform miracles, & then I wanted to work & couldn’t. If I see a man putting a bivouac up beautifully I want to do it myself. 29 Little was happening on the malaria-infected front. Military action had ground to a halt. Spencer read voraciously and he asked his family to send him anything by Hardy, and more by Milton, Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky – books that dutifully (and rather miraculously given the sclerotic conditions in that theatre of war) arrived along with books on ‘… Keats, Blake, Coriolanus, Michaelangelo, Velasquez, Claude’ as well as a box of chocolates. 30 Throughout those days with the Field Ambulance on the Doiran Front, Spencer’s letters are regularly sprinkled with fond memories of Bristol, of ‘those songs’ that Miss Daniell used to sing, of Miss Krauss’s studio, and of the social gatherings with Desmond’s circle of artistic ladies. ‘By jove I shall not forget those times’, he had written in October 1916, and again in May 1918 recalling how Bristol ‘has a great hold on my mind’. Throughout the entire sorry Macedonian Campaign the soldier’s main enemy was not always the Bulgarian and German troops holed up in their mountainous northern strongholds, but the mosquito, which spread malaria

29 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, 28th October 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 30 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, November 1916, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

that laid waste the Allied troops stuck in the insect-ridden plains of the broad river valleys. Spencer was smitten several times, each recurrence further debilitating him and reducing his already poor resistance to this most virulent of maladies.

Illustrated letter from Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, written from Salonika, 4 January 1916, but corrected to read 4 January 1917. Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham, reproduced with kind permission of John Spencer and the Spencer estate.

31 Stanley Spencer, Notebook, 1945-47 TGA 733.3.86.

Spencer changed units several times during his service with the RAMC. Such changes – brought about by periods of hospitalisation – were unwelcome to every soldier; friends were lost, equipment displaced, rations refused. It caused Spencer real distress: he was highly dependent on familiar routines and any sudden change disoriented and troubled him for a long time. In December 1916, barely two months since arriving in Salonika, he had to spend a short period in a Field Hospital, from whence he was posted to a different unit. By March 1917, he was again in hospital with a recurrence of malaria bought on when nasal catarrh developed into bronchitis. Upon his release he was again posted to a different unit, the newly formed 143rd Field Ambulance, where his role seemed to be little more than to ‘round up mules, young ones, fresh, alert eared, that were here & there breaking away & striking out on their own.’ 31 Although Spencer’s untested unit had been sent to a relatively quiet part of the front it was neither easy nor safe work: on one occasion they came under enemy artillery fire and he witnessed the extraordinary sight of a sun-lit rose bush pulverised into a cloud of dust by the direct hit of a ‘dud’ shell. In his several bouts of illness in hospital, he found time to read and draw. One letter, from January 1917, is written on ‘British Red Cross and Order of St John’ headed paper: I am so keen on drawing patients that I spend my whole time on it. This is really how it is that I write so seldom. I believe my drawing is getting more definite; it begins to mean something. Through it is still exasperating.

I do anything for these men. I do not know why but I cannot refuse them anything & they love me to make drawings of photos of their wives & children or a brother who has been killed. A diary of a man who was killed chronicled the weather day after day & as you read these monosyllables it gives you an intensely dramatic feeling. 32 However, little was going well for the Allies campaign. A spring offensive failed and Spencer’s new unit was moved eastwards to another river valley, the Todorova. His reputation for being ‘artistic’ earned him the distinction of decorating the doors of the latrines. He was required to paint the letters that indicated the men’s and the sergeants’ cubicles, and he ‘tried his magic’ by marking the latter with a ‘big letter S for Sergeants & painted some dog roses round it’. 33 During his convalescence in spring 1917 he composed a remarkable piece of extended writing recalling deeply embedded memories of his home village. Written as if he were taking a stroll through Cookham it comprises several thousand words in the present tense and may well have been written in a quinine-induced delirium: I go down stairs, and taking a towel I stroll into the street. I walk down to the bottom of the street and call a friend, we all go down to Odney Weir for a bathe and swim. My friend has an Airedale terrier, a fine dog with magnificent head neck and shoulders. He jumps leaps and bounds about in the dewy grass. I feel fresh awake and alive; that is the time for visitations. We swim and look at the bank over the rushes I swim right in the pathway of sunlight I go home to breakfast thinking as I go of the beautiful wholeness of the day. 34 By Easter Sunday, April 1917, Spencer was writing from a YMCA canteen as he was again shunted from one unit to the other. Feeling doubly irritated at not having his customary seasonal treat, he complained to Chute that ‘When we were at home we used to sit round the dining room table & each one of us had a big hot-cross bun for breakfast.’ 35

FIGHTING MAN By the time Chute received his next letter Spencer had lost patience with the Field Ambulance. Spurred on by notices asking for volunteers to join the denuded infantry he had transferred to his county regiment, the Royal

32 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, ‘4 January 1916’ [The date is an error and should read ‘1917’], archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 33 Stanley Spencer, Notebook 1945-47, TGA 733.3.86. 34 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, March 1917 page 4 recto, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 35 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, 8 April 1917, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Berkshires. And so he embarked on the second phase of his personal trinity – medical orderly, soldier, patient – and this period would definitely be the most hazardous. After a short period of infantry training he manned outposts, went on the occasional patrol, and was marched hither and thither often with little idea why or where he was being sent. By day he performed the menial tasks so fittingly known as ‘fatigues’; a daily grind of carrying, fetching and humping provisions and siege-equipment, but at all times keeping low and concealed from enemy observation. By night he set off for the outposts – ‘new moon-shaped ruts in the ground’ – and patrolled the defensive wire. Spencer recalled it as being hazardous but often quite thrilling: ‘We formed up, in the evening just before sunset, outside the dugouts… taking two bombs each from a box as we did so. It was always suspected by the Bulgars as being the time to start a barrage.… The shells dropped uncomfortably near and I was glad when … getting to the outposts, we were able to take cover in a communication trench.’ 36 Although there is little mention of combat in these letters, nor in much of the correspondence sent by Spencer during his final year in Macedonia, there is no doubt that his time with the Royal Berkshires was arduous and often highly dangerous. His front-line experience reached a crescendo in the autumn attack of 1918 when he and his platoon had to attack and hold an enemy line that had previously repelled a charge at the cost of a thousand British casualties. Spencer’s moment of reckoning as a soldier had come. ‘I did not relish the prospect’ he later recalled:

36 Stanley Spencer to Florence, 24 February 1918, TGA 756.34‘At last’, he wrote Spencer wrote to his sister Florence (Flongy), ‘I am back up the line’. TGA 756.34. 37 Stanley Spencer, Numbered Writings 1936, TGA 733.2.25. Years after the war he recalled the dangerous topography of his outpost on M4 Hill in a page of one of his sketchbooks; TGA 733.3.81.

As I thought what, in an hour and a half’s time I should be experiencing it seemed to me inconceivable what would or might be happening to me …. There was the most glaring fact staring me in the face that the place where yesterday if I had shown myself beyond the second belt of barbed wire for ten minutes in the dark, would have got a machine gun bullet through me and where shrapnel was almost a continuous occurrence. And here we were, who for two and a half years had not dared to make hardly one change at all in our front, going to suddenly calmly tread over our wire & over the Bulgar lines right bang in amongst them. … I felt a kind of disagreeable gloominess & taciturness settle on my spirits as the night wore on. 37 That night, during a short rest, letters from home were distributed. Spencer received a note from his artist-friend Gwen Raverat

congratulating him on his ‘appointment’ as an Official War Artist. Rumour of this possibility had been mentioned in various letters many months earlier but it had come to nothing. Spencer was aware that other painters – some of whom he had studied alongside – had been commissioned as government-funded artist. He had been disappointed at the lack of official recognition for the part he might play. So this ‘announcement’ from Gwen was doubly confusing, especially in the traumatic surroundings he now found himself. But suddenly and without warning the dreadful prospect of fighting lifted: the Bulgars had withdrawn, indeed had apparently vanished. Spencer’s relief was palpable: I looked curiously about the ground in front of me which I had only ever seen in the darkness of night. In the night I had gazed and strained my eyes to see what some object was on the left, and now I could see that it was just the straggling remains of a tree and the slight rise of ground on which it stood. Away to the right, the two hills, one bigger, one smaller, [these were the Grand and Petit Couronnes] which had presented such an eerie appearance at night when the Bulgars had been sending up Very lights, looked just another bit of Macedonian country now. 38 The unexpected withdrawal by the enemy was a prelude to the collapse of the Bulgarian Army as they were chased and harassed through the mountains by British and Allied troops. The Royal Berkshires were in the vanguard of this action and Spencer came under fire a number of times. He had some close scrapes with the retreating enemy but he saw out the Armistice in hospital having suffered a relapse of the malaria that had by now spread as an epidemic through the British forces. Sensing the war was over Spencer began honing an idea for a painted memorial scheme. The tantalising prospect of an official artistic

38 Stanley Spencer, TGA 733.3.85.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

commission had whetted his appetite and it helped focus his creative thinking, as he explained in a quite beautiful passage of writing to Chute: If I get this job, I shall be able to show God in the bare ‘real’ things, in a limber wagon in ravines, in fowling mule lines. I shall not forget what you said about God “Fetching & carrying”, it was something like that, out of St Augustine’s confessions. 39 Could he have ever known that this would lead to many years of visionary creative work culminating in the chapel in Burghclere? By the closing weeks of the war Spencer was quite exhausted, so weak he could barely manage light tasks such as carrying blankets. His frontline traumas had almost undone him; what he had seen in Macedonia had challenged the very depths of his religious belief. At his lowest ebb he confessed that his recent ‘experiences seem to have quite unmanned me.’ 40 There are though, flashes of anger, shared colourfully with his correspondents, and aimed at his straitened circumstances and the inequities that faced the working man: ‘There ought to be an equal distribution of Labour’, he ranted in a polemical broadside, ‘if any man is ignorant or fool or knave, you & I are largely responsible.’ 41 Spencer returned to Cookham via train through Italy and France and troopship into Southampton. Coming home after years of trauma, tribulation and debilitating illness was like being reborn; it was a seminal moment of personal and symbolic resurrection that would find its visionary form on the walls of the Chapel at Burghclere. Across its magnificent end wall he would paint his vast and powerful Resurrection of the Soldiers, re-imagining all those whom he had laid in the earth during burial parties on the Salonika Front. Years later he reflected how the very crossing of the English Channel had triggered such a premonition to him: I think I have been led to do the Resurrection subject through this sense of true meaning of things. I used to say “today is the world to come” meaning that it contained as much & could express as much as that. I had a sense of this being born again; of approaching the ‘world to come’ when I was returning from Macedonia after all the years out there & never expecting to return. As I approach the lighthouse off the

39 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, 25 May 1918, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. 40 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, 5 October 1918, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham.. 41 Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, 16 September 1918, archive of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham.

Isle of White in the dark & the light swinging round & round now on our ship now not; it’s wonderful. I ‘the unborn babe’ still in the ship – am having a little chat with a sort of angel who is giving me advice & some notion of what this life of mine in England is going to be like. In this imaginary converse I now & then get a little concerned at the future possibilities being foretold & raise my unborn eyebrow & say “nothing precipitate I hope?” 42

Unveiling Cookham War Memorial, September 1919, Private Collection

42 Stanley Spencer to Daphne Spencer, letter no.3, cited in Jeremy Harvey, ‘The Stanley Spencer – Daphne Spencer Correspondence’, unpublished MPhil dissertation, Bristol 2010.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

A LIFE IN LETTERS - BURGHCLERE’S PATRONS: JOHN LOUIS AND (PHYLLIS) MARY BEHREND Amanda Bradley

Louis and Mary Behrend have supported me through the most difficult years of my artistic life from the year dot …. Dudley Tooth wanted me especially because of the Burghclere Chapel [and] my reputation depended chiefly on the work in the chapel and these earlier works of mine still so much liked. 1 Spencer’s correspondence with the Behrends – and primarily with Mary Behrend – spanned some forty-six years; ‘a long time to stay friendly’ as she herself commented. The Behrends were known, in the words of Henry Lamb, to be the most ‘faithful, generous and undemonstrative’ patrons of the period, who were unstinting in their support of artists of various disciplines, and equally had exceptional taste. 2 Unlike some of their contemporaries, with more effusive characters, larger wallets and a greater penchant for self-publicisation, the name Behrend has been lost to all but committed scholars of the period. Moreover, it was they who enabled Spencer to fulfil his dream of creating the ‘Holy Box’, and indeed the chapel was described by Eric Newton as ‘one of the bravest and most enlightened acts of patronage that ever happened to an artist’. It is through letters relating to the project (mostly housed in the Tate Gallery Archive, and in National Trust archives at Micheldever and The Vyne) that a clearer picture of the Behrends and their deep and mutually supportive relationship with Spencer can be established. 3 Ironically, the Behrends never thought of themselves as patrons. In Newton’s introduction to the Leicester Galleries catalogue, he argued that they were neither patrons (for they were not ‘self-conscious benefactors’) nor collectors (for they were not conscious of their possessions), but simply bought ‘what they liked. And liking for them, was hardly distinguishable from loving … their instinct for quality and excellence was and still is, unerring.’ 4 The narrative of how the chapel came to pass, and how the Behrends caught sight of Spencer’s drawings on Henry Lamb’s dining room table, is well-documented. In enabling Spencer to fulfil his vision – and indeed building a chapel in which he could house it – was seemingly a traditional model of patronage, but there were some exceptions. Firstly, the idea was all Spencer’s (as Mary attested) - the Behrends had no iconographical input whatsoever; moreover, Spencer’s involvement extended beyond his own canvases and impinged on the work of those who worked alongside him. In short, the chapel became a temple to his own artistic genius, perhaps unique in

1 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, 19 September 1958, TGA 882.75; Spencer recounts a conversation he has had with David Giffs who worked at Tooth’s dealership. 2 Cited in Keith Clements, Henry Lamb: the Artist and his Friends (Bristol, Redcliffe Press, 1985) p.240. 3 Cited in Eric Newton, Introduction to the Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings from the Collection of J.L. Behrend, exhibition catalogue, Leicester Galleries, London, May 1962, p.3. 4 op.cit. supra

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

the history of arts patronage. ‘I suppose however that we had better give way to Stanley – though it pulls both ways to do so’, wrote Mary Behrend in 1930. 5 The two parties had an unquestioning belief in each other, to the extent that there was no contract – written or otherwise, something of which they were proud. Consequently, the costs of the project soared quite beyond the Behrend’s means; unlike most patrons commissioning on this scale, their finances were distinctly straitened. Behrend money was made primarily from dealing in cotton seed in Egypt, chartering ships on the Baltic Exchange in London, and milling rice. The company had been founded as B & D Behrend by John Louis’s father and uncle, who had not been born wealthy, but had been driven, in particular, by John’s Uncle Bernard, who was a talented trader and dealer. The family were Orthodox Jews, John Louis’s mother having been born into a wealthy Portuguese Jewish family. Originally from Hanover, they had arrived in London in 1855. When John Louis (who changed his name to John by deed poll in around 1909) fell in love with the gentile Mary, he was sent to Egypt to quell his ardour, and to learn the family trade; ever open-minded, whilst he was there he built a mosque for his workers in Alexandria. Mary, born into a middle class family of devout High Church Anglicans, had been christened Phyllis Mary, but she too detested her name as much as her future husband, and dropped her forename in favour of the more ecclesiastical Mary. John Louis returned from Africa in 1910 and promptly married Mary in a registry office, something of less concern to the Sandham family, in light of his conversion to Christianity and his apparent wealth. Unfortunately, after this religious and marital transgression he later inherited only a fraction of the family business: half the business was given to his mother, the other half inherited by his two sisters and himself. Money – or lack thereof – becomes something of a theme in correspondence between the two parties. Much of the correspondence relating to the building of the chapel concerns funding and how to save on costs. The Behrends had tried to inveigle other wealthy art enthusiasts into the building of the chapel (purpose-built on Stanley’s insistence), even calling upon – unsuccessfully – the former Liberal Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith. When they committed to the scheme in September 1923 (although Spencer was not to start painting specifically for the chapel commission for another four years), they were on their own, funding a

5 Mary Behrend to Richard Carline, 25 November 1930, TGA 825.2.

project that was to cost them over £8000. They were considerably less wealthy than they had been in 1918 and Stanley realised that they were only comfortably off. When one day a formidable woman looking around the chapel said to him, ‘It smells of money here, doesn’t it?, he replied, No, only courage.’ 6 Monetary constraints aside, the Behrends provided lodgings for Spencer and were charitable to him throughout their lives. ‘They pay handsomely down your way’, Spencer noted …. ‘I did the Burghclere job and you paid me for it as well as building a house for me to live in while I did it and building a memorial for me to do it in ….’ 7 At times Spencer did not use the English language very precisely, so one must be cautious not to read to much into his script, but it is perhaps telling and confusingly contradictory that he should describe the ‘commission’ as a ‘job’, whilst also describing a ‘memorial to me’. It leaves – in the reader’s mind – no small confusion as to who the focus of the enterprise was and would remain so.

THE BEHREND COLLECTION: SPENCER The great collectors were not formed by bargain-hunters. In our youth, it was customary for Christian collectors to boast of how little they had paid for their prizes. ‘Picked it up for a few coppers’ was the usual phrase. Jewish collectors on the other hand, were proud to tell one what sacrifices they had made to obtain their treasures …. There can be no doubt which of these two standpoints denotes the greater love of art. 8 In the context of turn-of-the-century Britain, the Behrends were decidedly ‘non-Establishment’, he a lapsed, immigrant Jew, she from a distinctly middle-class family, with no fortune of her own. 9 In his autobiography, their son George mentions ‘the profound feeling of desertion that Jews have when a Jew converts to marry a non Jew’, something that perhaps inspired him – and them – to create a new identity for themselves through their collecting. 10 Similarly it perhaps gave them the freedom to develop such an inspired, individual and exacting taste, described by Eric Newton ‘English, with a sub-category that could be described as ‘affectionate’.11 The use of the term ‘affectionate’ is interesting as it implies not only an aesthetic (perhaps the German term ‘gemütlich’ is appropriate here)

6 Mary Behrend to Richard Carline, 20 December 1959, TGA 852.2. 7 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend (draft or copy), c.1935, TGA 733.1.86. 8 Kenneth Clarke, Another Part of the Wood: A Self-Portrait (John Murray, London, 1974) pp.193-4; cited in James Stourton and Charles Sebag-Montefiore, The British as Art Collectors: From the Tudors to the Present (Scala, London, 2012) p.21. I am grateful to Oliver Garnett for pointing out this reference. 9 Behrend’s father had emigrated from Germany in the 1860s. He was the nephew of three earlier emigrating brothers, leaving in 1809, 1817 and 1821. 10 George Behrend, 2007, p.19; at the same time he described his Jewish ancestry as ‘the No. 1 skeleton in the cupboard. It is unlikely that this was the case – if they had been sufficiently bothered, they would have changed their surname as others had done in the past (for example the Moses family became Beddington).

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

expressive of an English belonging, but also the support they extended to the artists around them. The creation of Burghclere perhaps encapsulates this ‘English, affectionate’ taste, but also highlights the complexity of John Louis’s religious background and the conflicting emotions that accompanied that upbringing. For John Louis, the familial, religious and financial implications were undoubtedly a source of tension: none of the Behrend family was at the dedication of the chapel in 1927, and John Louis’s mother Rachael (‘Bamma’) would have been particularly appalled. However, Spencer’s own confused religious identity meant that he was not present either: his own brand of religion was deemed sufficiently idiosyncratic to offend the officiating Bishop of Guildford. 12 By the end of Spencer’s life, the Behrends had amassed some thirty works by him, not including the Burghclere murals. 13 They hung alongside works by the likes of Lamb, Sickert, Gertler, Pasmore, Gilbert Spencer, Max Beerbohm, Wilson Steer, Edward Burra and Augustus John, to name just a few. Their collection packed the walls of their houses in London, in Wigmore Street and also at Grey House in Burghclere, which became their primary base and where they chose to entertain friends and artists.

Louis Behrend, in officer’s uniform, c.1916. Stanley Spencer Gallery Archive (Courtesy of Amanda Findlay).

11 Eric Newton, Introduction to the Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings from the Collection of J.L. Behrend, exhibition catalogue, Leicester Galleries, London, May 1962. 12 Spencer believed in God and was an ardent Bible reader, but after active service found the concept of a personal God difficult. For him the joy of God was to be found in Biblical narrative and in ‘all things I love’ (see Paul Gough, Your Loving Friend: the Great War Correspondence between Stanley Spencer and Desmond Chute (Sansom and Company, Bristol, 2011, p.52). 13 This figure is based on sales catalogues, literary descriptions and provenance descriptions in Keith Bell, Stanley Spencer: a complete catalogue of the paintings (Phaidon Press, London, 1992).

Mary Behrend, date unknown. Stanley Spencer Gallery Archive (Courtesy of Amanda Findlay).

14 Some of these were subsequently bought by the Tate Gallery. In 1917 the Behrends had donated Lamb’s Head of an Irish Girl and a letter written by the artist to the Gallery. 15 I am indebted to Ann Danks at the Spencer Gallery, Cookham for looking into the Behrends’s relationship with the gallery and for providing this reference.

Many of these works were sold at Christie’s in 1961 and at the Leicester Gallery in 1962, after they had moved to another Grey House in Llanwrin, Montgomeryshire in 1954. 14 The selling off of Behrend rice mills in Egypt, and Sir Stafford Cripps’s Capital Levy, alongside the straitened economic climate in the post-war years resulted in an existence pared down yet further from their already-reduced inheritance. In the post-war years, the Behrends were constrained by reduced financial circumstances, with no servants and partially reliant on a farmstead, which supplemented their rations. John Louis had been approached to loan or donate works to the then formative Spencer Gallery in Cookham, but had declined Lord Astor’s request. 15 He wrote, ‘I supported [him] in various ways. More particularly, besides a small house, I built the Burghclere Chapel expressly for him [my italics] to paint and have since handed it over to the National Trust. So I feel I have had my share in perpetuating his memory …’. His words are characteristically modest and define the chapel’s status as a memorial to artistic creativity. It had been hoped that Behrend would donate his Last Supper to the Gallery and there was great disappointment when he did not: ‘That Behrend should sell his pictures, and not give ‘The Last

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Supper’ to Cookham!’. 16 Ironically, Dudley Tooth had bought the picture and wanted Cookham Church to have it, but ultimately the picture was acquired by public subscription (by the church and the Gallery), helped by none other than Behrend who contributed £75.17 Moreover, some years later, in 1968, Behrend donated Spencer’s 1923 large-scale schematic drawings for Burghclere to the Gallery. Fittingly, on John Louis’s death, the Friends of the Gallery raised money to acquire a small study for the Shipbuilding on the Clyde series in his memory. In the 60s the Behrends’s collection was much denuded, although some pictures were retained by the Behrend’s son, George, who outlived his sister, Julia (later an alcoholic), and who also gradually sold things off over the years. George seemingly begrudged his parents’ collecting habits, and clouded their legacy in his embittered 2007 autobiography. He blamed his own impecunious state on his parents’ cultivation of the arts, particularly Stanley Spencer: ‘My pram was probably the most expensive … possible to buy in 1922, being pre-Stanley Spencer Chapel (which took all the money)’. 18 He was sensitive to contemporary criticism of Spencer’s work and, in particular, his familial association with the chapel (akin perhaps to an embarrassed teenager). When Kenneth Clarke gave a lecture at the Aldeburgh Festival, at which George was helping out, some of his slides were burnt by the heat of the projector. Such was George’s paranoia, he felt that Clarke blamed him, purely because he ‘disliked Spencer and everyone to do with him.’ 19 Conversely, Clarke was said, by Spencer, to have bought one of his pictures – a still life of Lilac. 20 Both the Behrend children had seemingly sad lives (their parents are accused of ‘not liking children’ in George’s autobiography), and although they do indeed have a melancholy look about them in Henry Lamb’s commissioned family portrait of 1927, so most children would at that age being made to sit to a portrait. Moreover, there do exist a few letters from George to Stanley, which reflect a much more genial relationship between Spencer and George. 21 George noted that his parents never paid more than £200 for a picture, except between the wars when they paid £300. In general they paid less, and Spencer was generally sensitive to their financial constraints: ‘I shall ask £100 for the seated nude, but if you can’t rise to this could you let me know what you can afford’, Spencer wrote to Mary in 1936. 22

16 Again, I am indebted to Ann Danks for this reference. Letter Michael Westropp to Gerard Shiel, 15 May 1962, (Stanley Spencer Gallery). 17 My thanks to Ann Danks, Stanley Spencer Gallery Archive for clarifying the acquisition method. 18 George Behrend, An Unexpected Life, (Jersey Artists Ltd, 2007), p.11 19 ibid., p.480 20 Letter from Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, 4 November 1932, TGA 882.5. It is not clear from Bell’s monograph to which picture this relates, if indeed the account is accurate. 21 George Behrend to Stanley Spencer, politely offering him lunch and congratulating Spencer on his knighthood and signing off, “Wishing you many years of good health and happiness doing what you want to do instead of ‘pot boilers’. TGA 733.1.84-85, dated 1959. 22 Spencer to Mary Behrend, November 1936, TGA 882.42.

It was, however, a game of give-and-take: ‘Can Louis manage to send me any more on account of the picture? … I only ask simply because I have nothing’, Spencer lamented (it is not clear about which picture he is speaking). 23 In 1946 John Louis had written to Richard Smart at Tooth’s expressing his interest in the Swiss Piece, (Swiss Skittle Alley: Saas Fee [private collection]), but regretted that he was having to face the ‘very heavy expense in getting the chapel paintings cleaned and varnished; and I am afraid, therefore, that picture buying will have to take a back seat for some time’. 24 In spite of Smart persuading the owner to agree to a reduced price of £45, it appears that the picture never made it into the Behrend collection. The excuse was entirely justified, but it is possible that it was just that – the excuse of an unconvinced collector. Some years earlier, Spencer had thanked the Behrends for a cheque and noted – somewhat smugly - that he was ‘raking it in’, albeit with the proviso that he was paying for Elsie’s (his loyal housekeeper) operation, £31 for Mrs Harter’s upkeep of Shirin and Hilda’s allowance of £3 per week. Moreover, it was noted that Gilbert was not ‘raking it in’, possibly in an attempt to pique their generosity. 25 However, as with any long-term relationship, transactions were not always smooth. In 1933 Spencer was clearly disappointed and irritated at the way an offer had been made on a painting of his, particularly in light of the concession he had made with regard to price, but he was happy to ‘extricate’ them in light of an impending offer from the Tate. 26 The episode seems uncharacteristic of the Behrends, who were generally keen to help and acquire things whenever they were willing and able. Moreover, at that time, soon after the completion of the chapel, John Louis was clearly ‘rather worried and anxious about [Spencer] in view of Chapel money coming to an end’. 27 Spencer tries to allay his fears, relating how both the Tate and Kenneth Clarke were interested in things of his, specifying Clarke’s acquisition of the Lilac piece. Moreover, there were times when the Behrends saw ‘very little’ of Spencer. Mary Behrend recounted how ‘[owing] to the petrol; partly his growing fame; and partly his lack of interest in his early work owing to Patricia’s influence; we saw very little of him.’ 28 Furthermore, Mary abhorred Patricia

Mary Behrend with Julia and baby George, who was born 10 January 1922. Stanley Spencer Gallery Archive (Courtesy of Amanda Findlay).

23 Letter from Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend (copy or draft), with reports on ‘each and every’ figure picture he has painted, 1930s; TGA 733.1.87. 24 John Louis Behrend to Richard Smart, 26 November 1946, TGA 20106.1.13.9. 25 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, October 1933, TGA 882.19. 26 October 11 1933, TGA 882.20. Tate wanted to swap their landscape for the picture (a portrait). It is not clear what this is and it appears the deal never came off. 27 Letter from Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, TGA 882.5. 28 Mary Behrend to Maurice Collis, 29 July 1960, TGA 8413.2.13.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Preece: ‘Mary has ‘rumbled’ her alright’, proclaimed Spencer in his diary. If nothing else, this probably had something to do with Spencer’s desire to be in Cookham to be with Preece, at the expense of finishing off the Burghclere canvases, but in truth the feeling ran deeper: ‘It is difficult… as she’s still alive to say what a bad one Patricia had – what an overwhelming infatuation he had for her.’ 30 The sentiment has a parental tone about it, which chimes with the tone of other letters in which Spencer thanks Mary for socks (on numerous occasions); and complains of ailments (similarly frequently). There was also humour – on either side – which was equally gentle and slapstick and which was a feature of their relationship until the end of Spencer’s life. John Louis delighted in a typographic error of his in which he wrote about Spencer’s portraits in the ‘arse world’ – blatantly crossed through with typed ‘X’’s. 31 The Behrend’s interest in Spencer predated the conception of the chapel by some years; their first acquisition was Mending Cowls at Cookham (Tate), which was bought directly from the artist in 1915 for £40; five years later they bought Swan Upping (Tate), a similar genre of picture – again from Spencer – for £100. They bought consistently throughout Spencer’s life, with the 1940s being their quietest decade, at which time they are known to have bought just two (or possibly three) pictures by him (Joachim among the Shepherds, National Art Gallery and Museum, New

Mary Behrend, Julia and George outside Grey House, Burghclere with unidentified nanny, c. May 1923. Stanley Spencer Gallery Archive (Courtesy of Amanda Findlay).

29 Diary, 27 July 1934, cited in Adrian Glew, Stanley Spencer: Letters and Writings (Tate, London, 2001), p.166. 30 op.cit supra, TGA 8413.2.13. 31 John Louis Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 5 November 1956, TGA 733.1.109.

Zealand), and the Last Supper (ex their friend, Henry Slesser and now Spencer Gallery Cookham). During the 1920s they were at the height of their acquisitive power, buying pictures of all manner of subjects – both figurative and landscape – in large numbers. Notably, they were even buying in 1927, the year that the fabric of Burghclere was finished, and when Spencer began painting the canvases; in this year they bought The Marrow Bed and the 1924 Self Portrait from Goupil (both now in private collections). The last Spencer they bought was The Ministers, Ming Tombs, Peking (now Government Art Collection), but two years later Spencer painted a portrait of John Louis whilst staying with them in Wales, and was given to him by the artist (now Leicester Art Galleries). Essential to the Behrends was an ongoing dialogue with the artist, in which they exchanged ideas and provided a quasi-artistic succour. Spencer wrote that ‘Mary Behrend lets [my italics] me do a small painting of a Turkish Woman for £50 and pays me for it’, lending credence to the idea that he was supported – and given a free rein – to pursue his own artistic outlook. 32 He discussed thoughts on pictures with them freely, noting in a letter of around 1946, ‘I loved your ps. reference to the German and the horses [in the Burghclere Resurrection]. That stallion horse right bang astride the whole Resurrection picture Royal Agricultural show style with Willhelm Tell up, arm smartly drawn to the side, strong, strong …’. 33 However he goes on to explain that he ‘might not take [his] advice’, but hopes that John Louis does not feel that he is wasting his time or taking needless trouble. Typically for Spencer he adds – sensitively – “Your suggestions are a great help to me whatever I do about them.” 32 Draft letter from Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, preceding his attempts at writing for the BBC series ‘What I believe’, c. July/August 1956, TGA 733.1.186. It is not clear to which painting this refers. 33 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, c.1946, TGA 733.1.90A. 34 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 27 October 1936, TGA 882.41. 35 op. cit supra, July/August 1956, TGA 733.1.1414.

In short, the relationship allowed Spencer to be free. The Behrends owned around seven ‘potboilers’ (Spencer’s term for landscape/still life work), but more ‘difficult’ figurative work was generally more to their taste. Nevertheless, Spencer still wrote to Mary in 1936 complaining that he thought his landscapes ‘better but I usually find that you go in the exact opposite direction as soon as I like a thing of mine.’ 34 It was an unfair comment and most correspondence suggests that the Behrends were positively glad to be influenced by Spencer’s aesthetic judgement. Spencer wrote to Mary: ‘I believe in the inspiration I derive from the Bible, I believe in Bach. I believe in Blake and I believe in myself …. In my work I know what being sure is …’. 35 It was this surety of his own conviction that drew them to Spencer.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

It is clear that they liked to buy paintings that Spencer liked too. The Christ in the Wilderness series (1939-54), were bought by the Behrends on completion. Four of the canvases had been painted in the 1938 when Spencer found himself in a hermetic state in Adelaide Road in London, rejecting sexual subject matter in favour of the Biblical. Behrend perhaps found the ideological similarities to the chapel alluring; it was a composite scheme, entirely driven by the artist, and moreover it had a typically idiosyncratic view of the Christian faith – ‘I loved it all because it was God and me all the time’, he wrote of his self-imposed exile. 36 Like the Resurrection altarpiece The Foxes have Holes humanises animals in a religious context, and Rising from Sleep in the Morning has more of an ideological resonance with the Chapel, in its contemplation of ‘Christ and all the accidents of nature. He feels the shape of the … ditch he is sitting in.’ 37 It was not until a meaningful relationship had been struck up with the artist that the Behrends began buying landscapes; both Bourne End, Buckinghamshire (1920, sold Christie’s 1979), The Mill, Durweston (1920, private collection, on loan to the Stanley Spencer Gallery Cookham), Furrowed Fields, Dorset (and a Landscape with a Cultivator (1920, private collection) were acquired in 1920. Admittedly some pictures were bought with the intention of ‘helping Spencer out’, or even safe-guarding his reputation. The Nude Portrait of Patricia Preece (Ferens Art Gallery, Hull) was kept at Grey House wrapped up in brown paper in the hope that Stanley would not paint any more graphic pictures of his unpopular second wife. 38 Dudley Tooth, Spencer’s dealer had remarked that his figures pictures were ‘next to impossible’ 39, but Mary was, conversely, singularly receptive. Spencer wrote to her, ‘Can I do another of those negro pictures for you? …. Only the landscapes have a chance of selling and I would rather teach or write than do landscapes … it’s the only work that interests me; I mean my figure paintings very rarely sell.’ 40 Referring to his still lifes of Christmas Paper Decorations, he remarked to Mary that ‘It looks as if the day people liking pictures ‘painted out of your own head’ is past’. Even a Cookham resident professed not to like ‘hand painted’ pictures…. “he leaves nothing to the imagination you know.” 41 Admittedly, his landscapes were often ‘easier’ and, moreover, he was often very talented at them, something that he himself recognised. In one of his letters to Mary, he describes the ‘marvellous big close up of clipped yew … for which an extra charge will be made.’ 42 Moreover, his opinion on his own pictures was not necessarily

36 Keith Bell, op.cit. Catalogue No. 283. 37 TGA 733.3.62, c.1944. 38 George Behrend, op. cit, 2007, p.174. 39 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 22 December 1936, TGA 882.43. 40 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 19 April 1935, TGA 882.35; Spencer goes on to list the five big pictures he has painted since the completion of the chapel. 41 op. cit supra, 22 December 1936, TGA 882.43. 42 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, February – March 1934, TGA 882.23.

entirely apposite. He wrote - again to Mary - describing a visit from a client who had bought the Scarecrow Landscape, at the same time asking him why he did ‘such things’ (i.e. landscape) when he could do ‘pictures like this’? Spencer asserted that it was because people buy such things but ‘she seemed quite disgusted that I should do the landscapes ….’ 43 Alongside the ‘difficult’ figurative pictures, came the difficulty in hanging them, a dilemma to which Spencer freely conceded. When the Behrends bought Love Among the Nations in 1936, Spencer was ‘really rather

Stanley Spencer, Portrait of Louis Behrend, date not known, graphite on paper. Tate. Presented by Mrs Nancy Carline in memory of her brother, Richard Carline 1982.

43 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, February – March 1934, TGA 882.23.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

bucked’ by Mary’s letter about the painting (Mary also liked to use the term ‘bucked’, the synchronicity of language perhaps in some small part indicative of their closeness). He added that ‘the only unfortunate thing is that the only place where you might have them is in the servants’ quarters, or safest of all in your own bedroom, that’s best.’ 44 George Behrend recounted how some Jesuit priests being shown around the house could barely take their eyes off it, their ‘eyes glued to all those tits in the right hand top corner’. During the same visit, he also threatened to tear the brown wrapping paper off the Nude Portrait of Patricia. 45 Spencer was similarly ‘bucked’ at the thought of their taking the Portrait of Elsie, which was rather easier to situate: ‘I feel what you like about it is …. [that it is] whole-hearted, robust and happy …. [it was] done like a house painter paints and there is a feeling of ‘no mincing matters here in it’. Elsie is excited at the thought of your having it and we both wondered where it would hang.’ 46

WIDER PATRONAGE: ART AND MUSIC George Behrend wrote that his parents had ‘an unconventional way in which they went about being thoroughly conventional’, which also explains their diverse taste and intense relationships with artists, often becoming the moral and financial cornerstones to these artists’ lives. Their relationship with Benjamin Britten is well-documented and it was they who gave him time and space to work and think whilst boarding at their home, at a time that was seminal to his musical development. They also made possible Britten’s first concert – a fact perhaps little known because of their extreme distaste for publicity (this was the concert Britten gave with Sophie Wyss at the Behrend’s London home on 6 January 1939). Four years later, in 1942, they sponsored the first recital given by Pears and Britten after their return to England from America. It was Mary who had a particularly close relationship with Britten, almost akin to a ‘sympathetic and civilised surrogate mother.’ 47 Like Spencer, Britten corresponded mostly with Mary, rather than with her husband. One of his thank-you letters to Mary gives an insight into weekend life at Grey House and the warm generosity of the hosts. He talks of the ‘lovely tennis, bathing, conversation, (tho’ I fear I overstepped the mark there!), company in general, exquisite hospitality in every direction, & last but not

Henry Lamb, Portrait of the Behrend Family, 1927, oil on canvas, Brighton and Hove Museums.

44 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, Febraary – March 1934, TGA 882.23. 45 George Behrend, p.174. Father d’Arcy from Oxford had been invited to lunch in the hope that Stanley would be commissioned to decorate Campion Hall, Oxford, and had brought some younger priests with him. 46 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, TGA 882.5. A price of £40 is suggested in the letter but he wrote that ‘if you can’t manage that give me less.’ 47 Neil Powell, Benjamin Britten: A Life for Music (Henry Holt, New York, 2013), p.135

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

least, the really overwhelming kindness of the hosts.’ 48 His ‘overstepping the mark’ constituted a defence of his political leftward leanings, but those would have by no means have offended his hosts, who were not political, but were Fabians, and their group of friends suggested a liberal – if not downright left-wing – outlook. No doubt this milieu edged them out of what constituted the ‘Establishment’; in any case, the Behrends were anything but socialites and guarded their privacy intently. From Britten, Mary had commissioned one piece of music, the Second String Quartet, Op.36, the manuscript of which he gave her in December 1945. He wrote: ‘I am so glad you got pleasure from it because to my mind it is the greatest advance that I have yet made, & altho’ it is far from perfect, it has given me encouragement to continue on new lines.’ 49 The sentiment, which reveals not only the financial but also the intellectual generosity of this woman, is mirrored by Spencer in much of his correspondence to the Behrends. And just as much of Spencer’s work was sold later in their lives, so was Britten’s lost, albeit in more tragic circumstances: Mary destroyed his music – along with much other material – towards the end of her years. A letter from Peter Pears to Mary Behrend summarises their importance practically and emotionally to both artists and musicians: I would like to be able to put into words just how much Bow and you have meant to me. It was our dear Peter Burra who brought us together. How he loved and admired you, and how quickly I learnt to do the same. The Grey House was the first civilised house I had ever set foot in, and you were the first civilised people I had ever met. So it seemed to me thirty five years ago, and it still does. You and Bow showed me art – at first hand – for the first time. Art as part of one’s life – not in a museum. I was very young really and those days were a whole education in itself. One of my prides (and a mighty one) is to have on my bedroom wall the G. Spencer picture of the boys on the common with the football and the two men – and again the Henry Lamb of the Bivouac in Salonika. They belonged to you and Bow – and now they are mine. What a joyful pride. Before I saw your pictures, I only knew half of the aura of pictures. And nowadays when people enjoy or come to see our pictures, I would like to feel that I know some of the satisfaction which you & Bow must have felt. Not really pride of

48 19 July 1937, cited in Powell, ibid. Britten later recorded in his diary how he and Peter Burra had lunch with ‘rich friends of Peter’s, the Behrends nearby – charming & cultured people who have done a tremendous amount to help artists’, in Powell, ibid., pp.129-130, 479. 49 3 December 1945, cited in Powell, op.cit., p.245

possession, certainly not only, but as a part of a creative fight for the good and the beautiful and the true. And this I learnt from you & Bow. And then too it was Peter’s death at Bucklebury which brought Ben into my life. How can I ever be thankful enough for this happening? Yet, at the cost of Peter? No, it would have had to be. But the picture includes all these shades of tone. All your continued kindness and generosity to us in the war and after – our concert during the War – the String Quartet – and then of course the Opera Group and the Festival. You and Bow have had a great part in our life, a creative one which sets us all an example. 50 In 1947 the Behrends had commissioned from another of their favoured artists, Henry Lamb (himself a considered music enthusiast and accomplished pianist), a portrait of Britten, which now hangs in the drawing room of The Red House in Aldeburgh. Peter Pears had bought it from George Behrend the year after Britten’s death. By the 1930s, the Behrends owned around twenty pictures by Lamb, including the massive Portrait of Lytton Strachey (now Tate), which hung in the drawing room at Burghclere (he had read the manuscript of Eminent Victorians to the Behrends). They had met Lamb in 1911 and wrote of them to the patroness Ottoline Morrell: “they are faithful, generous, undemonstrative … they are very nice. She is dark and pleasantly featured, lively, naïve and sincere, but not striking in any way. The man is thick and curly haired also dark but reserved and rather intelligent and very nice. Both very young.” 51 Henry Lamb is perhaps not given enough credit for the pivotal role he played in Spencer’s early life, and more specifically for introducing him to the Behrends. He had met Spencer in November 1913 and was so struck by Spencer’s Apple Gatherers (now Tate) that he had bought it. He had met Spencer (along with his brother Gilbert) shortly after Spencer had been demobbed and whose subsequent stay at Lamb’s house in Poole and the introduction to the Behrends is widely documented. Less well-known is Spencer’s desire for Henry to become a ‘director’ of the scheme, who could ‘deal with and controle [sic] the more knotty parts’. 52 Spencer began to burden Lamb with infinitesimal details of the project and he finally withdrew when his friend, the architect George, was himself fired from the project (as Paul Gough notes elsewhere in this volume, Spencer found his architectural idiom too florid). 53 The whole enterprise was, in any case, uncomfortable for Lamb. He had expected that the Behrends’s visit to Poole might result

50 Peter Pears, letter to Mary Behrend, 10th March 1972, cited in Donald Mitchell and Philip Reed (eds.), Letters from a Life, Selected Letters and Diaries of Benjamin Britten, Volume One 1923-39, (Boydell and Brewer, London ,1991). 51 Keith Clements, op.cit., p.240. 52 Cited in Keith Clements, ibid, p.243. 53 George Kennedy wrote a monograph on Lamb in 1924.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

in a sale or commission for himself, but instead it was his friend who had got lucky. By way of compensation, the Behrends commissioned him to paint a family portrait (1927, Brighton and Hove Museums), in which the frame of Spencer’s Marrow Bed is just visible. Some years earlier he had painted a portrait of Mary (private collection), for which a generous price had been paid, and during which time Mary had somewhat fallen for Henry. It was possible that the feeling was mutual, Henry writing of her, rather overperceptibly, ‘She was outwardly bright and happy but I could see the tortures of self-consciousness blighting the pleasure and racking her within.’ It has been noted that the portrait is not entirely successful, Clements describing it as ‘fumbling’, perhaps because the sitter herself was unsure of her identity before she became known as a patron and collector. If this was indeed the case then, Mary – and her husband – soon found a confidence and identity in their taste. In 1958 Mary wrote to Spencer that they had gone to Llandaff to see Epstein’s Christ in Majesty in the Cathedral, which she had thought ‘very good, but the placing of it horrible.’ 54 Mary herself recognised how good Lamb was to Spencer, calling him his ‘mainstay’. She wrote to Maurice Collis (Spencer’s biographer) that Lamb had “had him a lot at Poole and also let him have his rooms at the top of the public house in the Vale of Health … It was there that Stanley married, there that we paid the rent, and there that he nursed the baby with one hand and painted with the other.’ 55 A unifying feature amongst all their philanthropic activities was music – even amongst those who practised the visual arts. Lamb was a great musical enthusiast and whilst painting Mary’s portrait he would sometimes accompany her on the piano, whilst she played the violin (although he thought she played a little too stiffly). They occasionally went to concerts together in London – a generosity on their part which went beyond the usual patron/artist conventions. Music was equally important to Spencer; his father was a music teacher and played the organ in Hedsor church – an ability he passed on not only to Stanley, but also to one of his brothers, who was regarded a prodigy in this respect. Stanley was an accomplished pianist and was passionate about Bach in particular. His friendships were often born of a mutual love of music: Desmond Chute and Lionel Budden (later a world authority on Serbian folk songs), whom he met at the Beaufort War Hospital, were such men. It can be no coincidence that the chapel itself has been viewed in musical terms. Spencer’s daughter,

Stanley Spencer with Hilda Carline, Louis Behrend, Julia, George and an unidentified male outside Grey House, August 1925.

54 Mary Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 16 December, probably 1958, TGA 733.1.94/250. 55 20 July 1960, TGA 8413.2.12.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Shirin commented on her father’s innate understanding of music ‘from the inside’, and considered Burghclere ‘fugal, with the cross being a fugal theme’. 56 Indeed, even to the musically illiterate, the rhythms of paint and form resonate throughout the space. It was typical of the Behrend’s generosity and love of music and creativity that they took in the Ballet Rambert during the Second World War. The pupils’ parents had pleaded for their children to be evacuated during the war and Grey House was considered far enough from London to avoid the bombs. Rather scathingly Marie Rambert wryly noted that ballet students from middle class backgrounds were deemed rather more suitable than East End evacuees. Lessons were taken in a large room with a parquet floor, which was unsuitable for pointe work. It is unclear when the school left but the Behrends apparently ‘tired of their guests – they interfered with their lives and the school dispersed.’ 57 It is strange how – despite their generosity – the Behrends seemed to pique their friends. It seems quite reasonable that they might tire of a ballet school residing with them, but equally both Spencer and Lamb had moments of being downright rude to their benefactors. Whilst painting the family portrait (Mozart’s music and a piano to hand) he seemed to have become disillusioned with them both, perhaps due to their grandiose patronage of Spencer. Lamb’s biographer wondered whether the picture had ‘simply and unconsciously been infiltrated by Henry’s mockery of the sitter’s continuing susceptibility to his charms’, but noted that the Behrends were ‘never difficult, demanding, arrogant, or interfering patrons.’ 58 To Lamb, the family became known as the ‘Bums’ and the pictures as the ‘Bums Symphony’. In spite of this, it is one of his most successful compositions. Lamb’s attitude was perhaps more a reflection of his artistic temperament than the Behrends’s characters, but it perhaps also indicates the closeness of their relationship.

BUILDING THE CHAPEL AND THE SANDHAM MEMORIAL TRUST The Behrends were clearly tolerant to the point of indulgence with their artists. This is no more evident than in the building of Burghclere and the resulting correspondence between them and Spencer. Spencer’s involvement extended beyond his painted decoration and into the architectural planning. As Paul Gough recounts in this volume, the complexities of the triumvirate of Spencer, Behrend and Pearson were second to none. Of all the players,

56 Interview in the Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2001. 57 Brigitte Kelly, ‘Mim’ A Personal Memoir of Marie Rambert, (Hampshire, Alton, 2009) p.120. 58 Keith Clements, op.cit., p.244

59 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 16 January 1928, TGA 882.1. 60 Stanley Spencer to Unity Spencer, private archive, cited in Ken Pople, Stanley Spencer: A Biography (Collins, London, 1991) p.280. 61 ibid 62 TGA 825 (W15 and W16). My thanks to Ann Danks for bringing this to my attention. 63 Mary Behrend to Richard Carline, 25 November 1930, TGA 825.2. 64 Stanley Spencer to Mary, 17 September 1931, TGA 882.2. 65 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, 4 November 1932, TGA 882.5. 66 It still exists today and is known as Ash Cottage. The plot had been sold in 1926 by the Carnarvon estate to a railway worker who almost immediately sold a section to Behrend. For information on Chapel View, I am indebted to Sarah Rutherford’s Conservation Statement for Sandham Memorial Chapel (National Trust internal document). 67 National Trust Micheldever, Box 411:22, 22 January 1928.

Spencer was perhaps the most self-obsessed, occasionally referring to Pearson as ‘Mr Whatsisnames’ in correspondence. 59 Although supported by his family and the family help, Elsie Munday, it was an overwhelming project, with the added pressure, later on, of personal traumas. The smallest slight would hurt; John Louis playfully called him a ‘stick-in-the-mud’ for wanting to return to Cookham in 1930, a comment that not only smarted, but mocked the sanctity of his home village. 60 There were also moments of ingratitude: ‘It is odd the way that neither the Behrends nor any of my London supporters, my usual patrons, never believed in the way of loving my own wishes regarding myself.’ 61 This self-projection manifested itself in his hijacking of the entire chapel project, which the Behrends bore with astounding good grace. There exists a draft letter from Spencer, intended for John Louis Behrend, but probably never sent, in which he castigates Behrend for installing a heraldic plaque, commemorating Harry Sandham, in the chapel: ‘If you had been intending or had previously told me you were going to erect a huge equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington in the centre of the room do you suppose that in thinking out the scheme I would not have had to take that into consideration?’ 62 The baroque modelling and gilt embellishment of the shield admittedly jars with both the architecture and the painted interior, and Spencer felt that the character of the shield was aggressive, compared to the ‘pacific’ nature of the pictures. However, the Behrends were perfectly entitled to do whatsoever they wished, and this was a rare occasion that they put their foot down. In 1930 Mary Behrend wrote, ‘I suppose … that we had better give way to Stanley – though it pulls both ways to do so’ – it was a philosophy that informed their relationship throughout the chapel project. 63 Similarly, the Behrends had not capitulated on the location of the chapel, refusing Spencer’s request that it should be built in Cookham. He complained that the altitude and water at Burghclere was making him drowsy: ‘If I had arched canvases here they would be done in no time.’ 64 (Spencer did eventually move back to Cookham, and was nevertheless aware of the ‘disturbing gaps’ at Burghclere. 65) The Behrends had actually built a house specifically for Spencer and his family, then known as Chapel View. 66 Spencer moved into the house in early 1928, at which time Behrend carefully set out the terms of letting: 7/6 per week with Spencer to pay the rates and taxes and maintain the house and gardens in good order. 67 The agreement was terminable by either party, with three months notice to be given either side. The Spencers and their baby, Shirin, were well looked-after, but this did not stop Hilda writing to John Louis from

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Palmer’s Hill Farm (where they were then staying), complaining that Mr Head, the builder, did not design ‘this cottage’, but she did.68 It is not quite clear what she was trying to achieve, save rile her husband’s benefactors. Quite clearly, the chapel was not about the Behrends at all. It was about Spencer and his artistic genius. Mary later wrote that ‘it infuriates us to see it [the chapel] as having been commissioned … he had this thing complete in his head for so many years … the whole thing was his idea.’69 Contrary to widely held views, it was only at a later stage in the project that it was decided that the chapel should be dedicated to Harry Sandham, Mary’s brother. Sandham, like Spencer, had served in Macedonia, and suffered from malaria whilst there. He died shortly after returning home, probably due to malaria-related complications, but this was not acknowledged on his death certificate and he was therefore not eligible to appear on any local war memorials. The Behrend’s delayed decision underscores the fact that they had initially financed the chapel purely out of a love of artistic endeavour. Indeed, save for the ‘inflammatory’ plaque, there are few – if any – references to Hal in the scheme. The Behrends were similarly likely to have been sensitive to the prevailing economic climate, at which time it would

Harry Willoughby Sandham, Red House, Lamorna Gate, Penzance, date unknown. Stanley Spencer Gallery Archive (Courtesy of Amanda Findlay).

68 Hilda Carline to William Head, undated letter, possibly mid-1927. 69 Mary Behrend to Richard Carline, 20 December 1959, TGA 852.2.

have been perceived as gauche to spend so lavishly on a temple to artistic endeavour. The almshouses and the chapel’s dedication as an Oratory of All Souls gave the chapel a philanthropic and inclusive purpose. Spencer’s views on the chapel are typically confused. As we have seen, he was single minded about his own purpose and needs, and his views on the copyright of the chapel pictures were characteristically stubborn. A friend of the Behrends had taken photographs of Burghclere without first asking Spencer’s permission: To put it mildly I called it cheek … So if it was said that because this Burghclere work was a memorial or equivalent in some way to such work where the copyright goes to the donors even so the transaction has to take place and the formal legal business of handing over all duly signed and witnessed …. Unless and except where otherwise stated the copyright is in the possession of the artist (with reference to the 1911 copyright act).’ 70 The Behrends’ response (if there was one) does not survive. Spencer had initially wanted to exhibit the paintings in London, primarily as a commercial enterprise. In this instance he respected the Behrend’s views: ‘Hands off the Behrend’s shrine’, he wrote. 71 The respect was, therefore, clearly mutual, and in the 1920s Spencer worked on a series of separate scenes for the chapel acknowledging the Behrends, although this was never realised. Maintaining the chapel became an expensive exercise, mainly due to conservation issues resulting from the change in flow of hot and cold air between the double walls. It must have been with a heavy heart that the Behrends relinquished ownership of the chapel to the National Trust some twenty years after its dedication, in 1947. They had not only invested their fortune, but also their hearts, souls and very lives to the project. A key figure in the acquisition of the chapel was Eardley Knollys, who was the Trust representative for the South West from 1942 to 1957. He was one of the ‘Crichel Boys’, the cultured circle of which included Eddy SackvilleWest, Desmond Shawe-Taylor, Raymond Mortimer and Derek Hill (who left his collection to Mottisfont, National Trust). The cultural diarist, James Lees-Milne records in his diaries a visit with Knollys to the chapel, which he was in favour of acquiring. 72 It was therefore in 1947 that the Oratory of All Souls became the Sandham Memorial Chapel, a name by which –

70 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend (draft or copy), c.1946, TGA 733.1.90A/214. 71 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, c. November 1932, TGA 882.7. 72 James Lees-Milne, Caves of Ice, Diaries 1946-1947 (Michael Russell, Norfolk, 2004) p.110, 29. November 1946. I am grateful to Oliver Garnett for pointing out this reference. “As an achievement it is colossal; as a period piece highly representative. Mr. B. offers it to the Trust. It is, I submit, well worth holding.” Knollys took Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West to see the chapel in August the following year, ‘which they did not much like and thought should not have been accepted’, (p.192). It should be noted that throughout this volume of diaries, the Nicolsons did not seem to like much at all.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

in any case – it had become known locally. Some sixteen years later, in 1963, the Behrends gave to the Trust the meadow opposite the chapel, in order to preserve the views to Watership Down. The announcement was greeted with optimism. Richard Smart wrote to John Louis: ‘I feel that through the National Trust one can count on the continuance of care which you and Mrs Behrend have for so long given to the Chapel and its paintings.’ 73 John Louis – ever efficient in his correspondence - wrote back a day later, conscious to the last of his duty to the chapel: ‘Before handing over to the National Trust, I am going have the pictures cleaned and varnished, as nothing has been done to them since they were painted.’ 74 Twenty years later, they conceded that there ‘may have been too many cooks when we tried to hand it over in apple pie order. It would have been better to have left them unvarnished as it turns out.’ 75 By this time, the Trust (via Bobby Gore, the Pictures Adviser) had involved the services of Rees Jones, a conservator at the Courtauld Institute. Giving up ownership of the chapel did not mean that the Behrends absolved themselves entirely of any involvement. The Sandham Memorial Trust, which had been established before the take over, enabled them to maintain some financial and ideological control. John Louis was Chairman, and George was Honorary Secretary – a role he held for some ten years, something which also belies his senile vitriol in his later autobiography. Administering to the chapel was not glamorous; there was an endless slew of domestic accounts to be dealt with (rates, water, electricity, coal, insurance etc.), as well as the running of the almshouses (for which the council rather meanly refused to grant remission of rates in 1956). Moreover, there was the ‘managing’ of the rector, whom Behrend appointed and with whom he had a reasonably close working relationship. It must have been a difficult and somewhat eccentric career choice for a man of the cloth. However, the first stayed for twenty years, and was replaced by an adjutant at RAF Cranwell – ‘not promising but I daresay alright’ wrote John Louis to Spencer on the appointment. 76 He seemed to step up to the role, for John Louis wrote a year later – again to Spencer - that he had helped some ailing cottagers, adding sardonically: ‘I don’t know whether he will have high jinks (as Disraeli described it) with the vestments, chasuble …. which Medicott presented and used to wear at our services, rather

73 19 February 1947, TGA 20106/1/13/9. 74 20 February 1947, TGA 20106/1/13/9. 75 Mary Behrend to Stanley Spencer, May 1959, TGA 733.1.98/265. 76 John Louis Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 16 August 1958, TGA 733.1.112/290.

uncomfortably as they didn’t fit.’ 77 This slight religious irreverence would have certainly delighted Spencer. Spencer’s interest in and involvement with the chapel was similarly long-standing, he too holding a place on the committee. For Behrend this was essential as his presence brought in ‘£100s’. 78 Spencer was very keen to provide ‘little occasional helps’ in order to secure the upkeep of the chapel. He felt that the Trust was not taking responsibility; ‘who is liable after we are gone’? he exclaimed to John Louis. 79 The Behrend’s had given a £1,500 endowment with their gift of the chapel itself. This was invested in Government Stock, but in the long-term this was not enough to maintain the fabric of the building and the canvases themselves – their condition not helped by the use of the chapel as a food storage unit by the military from 1939 to 1945. ‘We manage the best we can’ was their motto. 80 Takings were supplemented by the collection box: the proceedings of the Trust stated that this was £40 in November 1956. The Trust clearly did not see itself as financially responsible and were reliant on the endowment and John Louis’s careful management. By 1958, he was at his wit’s end, with no money to spare, a debt of £101 and an urgent need of £400 to pay for the roof. He shares his angst with Spencer and raises the possibility of a loan from the Trust, who ‘do not seem to understand.’ 81 Spencer was understandably rather anti-National Trust: ‘That institution has never communicated with me except for the first time about one year ago. This gave me good reason to suppose that the [sic] Sandham was not a popular responsibility they had undertaken in which case the minimum of what they would be obliged to pay for could only be expected.’ 82 Spencer supported the chapel in 1958 by painting Clematis in Cookham Churchyard, which was to be sold by Tooth as a fundraiser. Initially John Louis had suggested displaying it in the chapel, inside a cupboard with the door removed – given that the chapel was dedicated but not consecrated ‘we can do what we like’[!] 83 Generous to the last, John Louis would pay for the frame. Spencer had balked at Tooth’s commission, but felt he was the most successful means of getting the best price for the picture. 84 By the end of the 1950s the Sandham Memorial Trust was disbanded and ceased to manage the site by the end of 1960, at which point it became a National Trust General Property, as opposed to a Special Trust Property.

77 John Louis Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 10 January 1959, TGA 733.1.116/298. 78 Ibid, TGA 733.1.116/298. 79 Stanley Spencer to John Louis / Mary Behrend (draft/ copy), TGA 733.1.122. 80 Letter from John Louis Behrend to the Manager of Westminster Bank, 30 November 1946 (National Trust curatorial box 414). 81 John Louis Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 20 August 1958, TGA 733.1.113. 82 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, TGA 733.1.92c. 83 John Louis Behrend to Spencer, 20 August 1958, TGA 733.1.113. 84 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, 19 September 1958, TGA 882.75.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

THE BEHRENDS IN CONTEXT: SPENCER’S OTHER PATRONS The Behrends were quite different from other patrons of Modern British Art. Undoubtedly John Louis’s Jewish ancestry was a problem, which, at a time when anti-Semitism was rife, excluded them from many social circles. Not that this particularly bothered them. They were deeply private, and whilst they liked company, their guests were very much part of a discrete circle, which was largely creatively-based. By contrast, Edward Beddington-Behrens, also a Spencer patron, was something more of an arriviste. Equally Jewish, he moved in more elevated circles, sometimes taking advantage of the similarity of their last names and even on occasion taking credit for the chapel. Spencer travelled to Switzerland with him, but did not take to him, partly because he rejected the artist’s Swiss offering, asking that he sell it and retain the deposit: ‘I don’t know why I should worry you with my woes, but it is amazing isn’t it? I credited the man with much, but not this much.’ 85 Beddington-Behrends had been introduced to Spencer’s work by his uncle, Sidney Schiff (another enlightened patron of art, music and literature, who wrote under the name of Stephen Hudson). Schiff had bought the Beehive early on in his career and had twenty years later looked him up in the ‘phone directory in order to see his picture again. 85 In the same letter he explained to John Louis that Schiff had been so moved by the chapel that he had ‘[wanted] to help this man, to do a picture of any size, something you would love.’ At Schiff’s home, Spencer had met the French artist, Simon Bussy (brother in law of Lytton Strachey), and had found the episode so exciting that he urged John Louis to accompany him on one of these expeditions, and ‘stand meekly by cap in hand. We were offered dinner and all …’. A family triumvirate was completed by Sir Montague Burton, Beddington Behrends’s father in law (his daughter, Daphne was to leave various pictures to the Stanley Spencer Gallery in Cookham). Theirs was a less successful union. Burton, a tailoring merchant, had wanted Spencer to paint a picture for the staff canteen in Leeds as a result of seeing the chapel, which was to depict all departments of the tailoring trade – ‘possibly a life size portrait of one of his shop window dummies with their lovely teeth’, wrote Spencer. 86 Ultimately Burton was ‘furious’ about a pricing issue and the scheme was never realized. 87 In the

85 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 13 June 1933, TGA 882.10. 86 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, June 1934, TGA 882.22. 87 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend (draft/copy), c.1935, TGA 733.1.86/187.

same letter, Spencer contrasts him with the Behrends: ‘they pay very handsomely down your way.’ Spencer’s letters to the Behrends give a very human insight into the dynamics of patronage. Spencer loved to be flattered and he had a good eye for people’s idiosyncrasies. Outside the usual circle of ‘English’ patrons was a Canadian doctor, Talliano, for whom Spencer painted a Crucifixion. ‘The world is distinctly richer for every brushstroke you make’ he told the painter, but Spencer was certain that he could not fulfil his very specific requests, and he would be almost certain not to have it when it was done: ‘he’ll get the shock of my life when he sees my picture.’ 88 Spencer was similarly incisive about Zoltan Lewinter-Frankl with ‘his fine acquiline nose and grand profile.’ 89 A Hungarian Jew, Frankl had

Louis Behrend in his study at Grey House, Burghclere, date unknown.

88 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 1 January 1936, TGA 882.38. 89 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 29 December, TGA 882.66.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

fled Vienna in 1938 and had settled in Belfast encouraged by the New Industries Development act, but had retained his accent: ‘vonderful, vonderful’, is how he described one of Spencer’s exhibitions. 90 Frankl owned several major Spencers, but also commissioned a portrait of his wife, Anny Lewinter-Frankl, which remained unfinished (Private Collection). He was a regular visitor in the 1950s, at which time he gave them a Self Portrait. Of all Spencer’s patrons, Frankl chimes closest with the Behrends in their exacting, singular and brave taste, and also their ‘separateness’. Zoltan became one of the most important patrons of Modern Irish art of his era, funded by his highly successful knitware company. Against the backdrop of the ‘dour conservatism of civic taste that afflicted many of Belfast’s public institutions’ Frankl’s aesthetic progressiveness stood out.91 His impact on the Irish art world was akin to the Behrends’s on Spencer and the wider realm of Modern British art. Between the wars, this type of patron who had the money, the will, the taste and the enthusiasm was a rarity, usually set apart from the landed gentry that had patronised artists in the centuries before. Arguably, it was this new order that kept the arts alive in modern Britain. The most long-lived of Spencer’s relationships tended to be with couples, who – like the Behrends – could and would nurture him in a quasi-parental fashion. Sir Henry Slesser and his wife, friends of the Behrends, had a similar nurturing influence on Spencer. In many ways, their relationship was a precursor to the Burghclere project, for in April 1920 he moved in with them and painted painted The Last Supper and The Money Changers triptych for their private chapel above their boathouse. Spencer also included Henry Slesser in the foreground of The Resurrection, Cookham, in 1926. 92 The Slessers later donated an altar cross to the Behrends for Sandham; they were devout Catholics, and also of Jewish ancestry. However, although Spencer initially enjoyed his time at Bourne End, he was never as close to the Slessers as he was the Behrends, noting that he felt like a ‘lodger’ in their company. 93

90 ibid, TGA 882.66. 91 For a full resume of Frankl see Mark Adams, ‘A Northern Maecenas’, Irish Arts Review, Autumn, 2003, pp.98103. Shortly before his death he was baptised as a Presbyterian. At the time he remarked, ‘I’m a funny sort of Presbyterian.’ 92 I am indebted to Ann Danks, Stanley Spencer Gallery, for pointing this out. 93 Patrick Wright, ‘Purposeful Art in a Climate of Cultural Reaction: Stanley Spencer in the 1920s’, in Timothy Hyman and Patrick Wright (eds.), Stanley Spencer, exh. cat. (Tate, London, 2001) p.61.

POSTSCRIPT The Behrends died penniless. One could say from generosity. Only a year after they moved away from Burghclere in 1954, the Daily Herald ran an article on the chapel entitled ‘A genius they all pass by’, which described the chapel as ‘virtually known even amongst local communities.’ 94 The taste for Spencer’s art was waning, only to resurrect decades later. The deeply private nature of the Behrend’s existence in a large part accounts for the fact that their status as patrons and collectors did not stand up to posterity, although the sad fact remains that John Louis’s ancestry would have laid them bare to snobbishness and rife anti-Semitism. An article in Country Life appeared in 1978 after both their deaths 95, and Anthony Blunt – credit to him - tried to hold a reception for them at the Courtauld Institute of Art in 1970, although by this time they were too frail to attend. The Behrends delighted in art and the artistic process, which is clear in their correspondence with Spencer and indeed with the other artists they took under their wing. It is arguable that their ability to recognise unconventional talent and passion to help young artists was often livelier than the Tate of those days. It is not hyperbolic to compare their domestic patronage with that great Renaissance Pope, Julius II, who commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling. In many respects their dedication to furthering artistic endeavour went beyond that of the papal ruler, for their chapel was dedicated – primarily – to artistic genius. They shunned personal glory and social advancement and this is what makes them singular in the history of arts patronage and why they deserved to be remembered in perpetuity. 94 Daily Herald, 26 August 1955, p.4. 95 I.M. Rawson, ‘Patrons of Talent: The Behrends of Burghclere’, Country Life, 26 October 1978, pp.1347-8.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

‘THE GOD BOX’: DESIGNING AND BUILDING THE CHAPEL Paul Gough

The chapel is a plain rectangular block, with shallow regular panels and a symmetrical front, having a wide window flanked by narrow windows, and a central doorway. The low, hipped tile roof is partially screened behind a parapet, with coping stone and broad stone ‘eaves’ band; a lower band is tied to the head of the stone doorframe; thin stone frames surround the windows, with a stone plinth. The chapel is of cavity brick construction, externally of red brickwork with brindle panels. The elevations incorporate single-glazed metal windows. The pitched roof is covered in plain clay tiles draining into lead parapet gutters, with single dormers to the front and rear hips. The front dormer is almost hidden by the parapet but is surmounted by a small stone cross on a carved plinth which dominates the south elevation of the chapel. There are panelled double oak doors to the south front and further oak double doors to the rear of the chapel. The lintel of the main doorway is carved 19AMDG26. 1

THE POWER OF ‘CHAPEL’ AS A SITE OF MEMORY Chapels had a hold on Stanley Spencer’s imagination from a very young age. 2 As a child he had attended the Wesleyan Chapel on the corner of Cookham High Street with his mother and his brothers. Located only yards from the family home it was no ordinary place of worship. Spencer’s uncle had been a preacher there and was remembered in an impressive stained glass window dedicated to his memory set in the west wall behind the altar. Years later Spencer would recall every detail of the simple building’s interior and its ‘gentle and homely’ atmosphere. In 1910 Gilbert Spencer, his younger brother, noted the sadness with which they saw the chapel close: ‘Stan and I saw the key turned in the door of the Cookham Chapel for the last time after the evening service. I think an important and significant influence in my brother’s life came to an end.’ 3 Spencer’s desire to decorate the interior of a chapel may have taken wing soon after the Cookham Chapel closed its doors to prayer. In 1911 his friend Jacques Raverat had suggested such a scheme dreaming of a building that he, Spencer and Eric Gill could fill with their paintings. 4 Although that project was never to be realised Spencer thought of it often when on active service in Macedonia, writing to his sister Florence ‘If Jacques Raverat’s project holds good we are going to build a church and the walls will have on them all about Christ.’ 5

Henry Lamb, Portrait of Stanley Spencer, 1921, oil on canvas, 33.9 x 24.5 cm, Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth.

1 Sarah Rutherford. Conservation Statement, National Trust, November 2013, p. 50. 2 The author is grateful to Ann Danks for allowing the use of extracts from an unpublished essay on Stanley Spencer’s appreciation of chapels. 3 Gilbert Spencer, Stanley Spencer by his Brother Gilbert (Gollancz, London, 1961; reprinted, Redcliffe Press, Bristol, 1991) p. 82. 4 Spencer met Jacques and Gwen Raverat at the Slade School of Art. Their friendship was of great importance to him during the years in which he matured as both a young man and an artist. The Spencer / Raverat letters in the Tate Archive (TA 8116) testify to this deep and lasting bond. See S. Avery-Quash, ‘Valuable assistance’ Stanley Spencer’s friendship with Gwen and Jacques Raverat’, Apollo (Oct, 1999), pp. 3-11. 5 Frances Spalding, Gwen Raverat: Friends, family and affections (Harvill, London, 2001) discusses the project in more detail.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

After the war Spencer became caught up in a number of short-lived ventures for memorial schemes. Along with a number of young British painters, he was approached in 1921 by Sir Michael Sadler, ViceChancellor at Leeds University, to submit studies for murals to decorate Leeds Town Hall. Although Spencer visited the city several times he withdrew from the commission as he did not feel that his designs should be subjected to a selection committee, a stance that ended the entire project, infuriating his fellow artists who included Jacob Kramer, Edward Wadsworth, John Nash and Paul Nash, none of whom were commissioned. A year later Spencer was invited by a long-standing supporter Muirhead Bone to consider two further large-scale painting commissions: a series of war memorial pictures in Steep Village Hall and a possible scheme for the end wall of the refectory of the school at Bedales, but as with the Leeds commission, the projects faltered, and the schemes came to nought. The wall at Bedales, which Spencer estimated to be as large as 40 by 30 feet, must have whetted the painter’s appetite for a large-scale memorial scheme. 6 Nearer home in Cookham, Spencer had better fortunes. His striking canvas ‘The Last Supper’ (1920) was purchased by one of his early patrons Henry Slesser to be hung as an ‘altar piece’ in his boat house, the upstairs of which served as a private chapel. This was the first real opportunity he had to make paintings for a specific location in a place of worship. Whilst staying with the Slessers from late 1919 he also painted a triptych from the life of Christ to decorate the walls of their innovative dualpurpose building. However, it is clear that Spencer had greater ambitions During early summer 1923, while lodging with his friend and mentor Henry Lamb in Poole, Dorset, Spencer spent day after day at the large table in the main room making page after page of drawings ‘as unhesitatingly as though he were writing a letter.’ 7 Visitors recalled the sight of him churning out ‘acres of Salonica and Bristol war compositions’. 8 Spencer quickly arrived at proposals for a finished design, complete with architectural features, a lighting scheme, and detailed compositions for each part of a chapel’s painted interior. As he explained to his future wife Hilda, in late May 1923: Since I have been here, I have hardly been out at all; I have been so much moved by a scheme of war pictures that I have been making compositions for, that all my time here has been on this. I have drawn a

6 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, undated, TGA 733.1.86. 7 Gilbert Spencer, Stanley Spencer by his Brother Gilbert (Gollancz, London,1961; reprinted, Redcliffe Press, Bristol, 1991) p. 144. 8 Henry Lamb to Richard Carline, 10 June 1923. The circular table is depicted in Lamb’s 1926 oil painting The Tea Party (private collection) which shows Lamb and others listening to an animated Stanley.

whole architectural scheme of the pictures. The end wall is to be a tall circular topped picture of that idea I told you about – the resurrection of the soldiers in Salonica. This idea, as far as what it appears like, is at present the vaguest, and yet it will, I know, be the best. 9 At this stage however Spencer was making a huge leap of faith; he had no support for any such scheme, he lacked a patron who might fund his vision, and yet he knew exactly the scale and style of building he thought he needed. Spencer’s proposed building, in addition to housing his recollections of the war, was in itself intended to be the expression of memory, based upon another very well-known building which had taken hold of his imagination years earlier. In 1911 Gwen Raverat, knowing of Spencer’s interest in early Italian painting, had given him Ruskin’s book ‘Giotto and his works in Padua’. 10 At the heart of the book was Ruskin’s eloquent peroration on Giotto’s Scrovegni Chapel (the Capella degli Scrovegni, known also as the Arena Chapel) which was completed in 1305 and is regarded as

La Cappella degli Scrovegni (the Arena Chapel), Padua, Italy.

9 Stanley Spencer to Hilda Carline, 31 May 1923. The two 1923 working drawings, now in the collection of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, are believed to be the only surviving studies of the complete scheme for the side walls, as it was originally conceived. These are true working drawings, deeply creased and frayed from constant handling, stained in places by the oils that were mixed with the paint. Fortunately, Gilbert Spencer photographed the drawings and they were reproduced in R.H.Wilenski’s book ‘Stanley Spencer’, published in 1924. 10 Available as a free book http://www.gutenberg.org/ ebooks/18371

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

one of the most important masterpieces of early Italian art. It houses a sequence of frescoes relating the life of the Virgin Mary and her role in human salvation, and is considered to be the most complete series of paintings executed by the mature Giotto. The chapel architecture is simple and unembellished, formed of a free-standing rectangular hall with a barrel vault roof. It has a small gothic triple lancet window on the west façade, tall lancet windows on the southern wall, and a polygonal apse, later raised to contain the belfry. Stripped back to the bare essentials the economic architectural design allows the narrative and emotional intensity of the frescoes to dominate. Inside, each wall is arranged in three tiers of narrative, each of four scenes that follow three main themes: episodes in the lives of Joachim and Anna (panels 1-6), episodes in the Virgin Mary’s life (panels 7-13), and a final set of episodes recounting Christ’s life and death. A lower set of panels, the predella, contains a series of frescoes illustrating Vices and Virtues in allegory. A Last Judgement covers the entire wall above the entrance and includes a devotional portrait of the patron Enrico Scrovegni. Facing this extraordinary vision of judgment, on the chancel arch above the altar, is an unusual scene of God in heaven dispatching an angel to earth. Ruskin’s book, augmented by the half-tone reproductions in the Gowans and Gray art books which Spencer so assiduously studied before and during the war, provided him with much of the practical information needed to fire his imagination. It is also possible that he knew of the medieval practice of ‘copying’ a holy building in order to convey sacredness upon a new building. The Sistine Chapel, for example, was designed with exactly the same proportions as the Temple of Jerusalem. 11 More often than not medieval designers and builders would never have seen the original building, but set out to replicate it through transferring certain elements – shape, volume, and dimension – the significance of which was understood at the time. 12

Wesleyan Chapel, corner of Cookham High Street, Cookham. Stanley Spencer Gallery Archive (Photography by Ben Danks).

11 Richard Krautheimer, ‘Introduction to an Iconography of Medieval Architecture’, Journal of the Courtauld and Warburg Institutes, 5 (1942), 1-33. See also ‘Medieval Architecture and Meaning: the Limits of Iconography’, Paul Crossley, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 130, No. 1019, Special Issue on English Gothic Art, February, 1988, pp. 116-121. 12 Spencer’s use of memory, asserts Andrew Daniels, was wholly instinctive, it ‘echoed with some precision the fundamentally memorial culture of the middle ages’. Andrew Daniels, ‘This is life, this is’, from Stanley Spencer: the making of a singular man, unpublished manuscript, 2002, p. 109.

To what extent did Spencer plan the building and its interior at Burghclere in the likeness of the Scrovegni Chapel? It must be remembered that he had not visited Padua and never did. However, his future brother-in-law and friend, the painter Richard (Dick) Carline had done so, and was able to recount his memories of the building. Spencer’s feeling, based on this important information, was that his chapel should allude to the exterior appearance of the Scrovegni Chapel as much as possible; ‘Dick’s contentions, are that my own ideas about the building are best, that it ought to be plain outside, just like a box and that there ought to be no sort of attempt at any kind of architectural features outside whatever’. 13 Dick’s compelling memories of his visit to the Scrovegni would have been confirmed by Spencer’s reading of Ruskin: ‘The architecture of Italy in the beginning of the fourteenth century is always pure, and often severe; but this chapel is remarkable, even amongst the severest forms, for the absence of decoration’. 14 Spencer’s preliminary sketches for a hypothetical building share this unadorned aesthetic. They accentuate the strong vertical lines of the Paduan Chapel, its simple cuboid bulk appeased only by a solitary arched window and a simple dressed door case in the entrance façade. 15 Other buildings, not least his beloved Wesleyan Chapel at Cookham, may also have influenced Spencer’s thinking about the external appearance and design. 16 Inside Spencer’s proposed building, Giotto’s influence was intended to be equally as pronounced. Spencer knew intimately the woodcut illustrations in Ruskin’s ‘Giotto and his Works in Padua’, and the predellas, lunettes and higher wall pictures that he envisaged for his building’s interior closely follow the triple layer of paintings depicted in the book. Ruskin’s illustrations also show the chancel arch with painted vignettes on either side of the interior, and Spencer’s original 1923 plans clearly show how his initial design for the end wall mimicked this arrangement. 17 In his many letters to Hilda Carline and Henry Lamb, Spencer described his intended layout in terms that Giotto might have recognised. He imagined the exact placing of each painting in his narrative sequence, how the frames around the key paintings were to be ‘broad’ and he envisioned the entire idea as something that was ‘…full of possibilities and it has an architectural meaning also...’ 18 This phrase may either be a reference to the depiction of open tents in one of the narrative scenes he intended to paint (reflecting the scenes at Padua of buildings

13 Letter to Henry Lamb, undated. TAM 15 15/52. 14 John Ruskin, Giotto and his works in Padua (George Allen, London, 1905) p. 49. 15 See Tom Bromwell, ‘The “God-Box’ of Burghclere’, National Trust Historic Houses and Collections Annual 2014, Apollo, 2014, pp. 54-59. 16 Sue Malvern, ‘Memorizing the Great War: Stanley Spencer at Burghclere,’ Art History, 23, 2, 2000, pp. 182204. 17 Thought to be lost, this drawing has previously only been known from an unfinished version illustrated in R.H. Wilenski in 1924. As Ann Danks has revealed, recent research has found it to be in the archives of the National Trust at Hughenden. Although its condition has deteriorated Spencer’s first composition for ‘The Resurrection of the Soldiers’ can be clearly discerned. 18 Letter to Hilda Carline (31 May 1923) in Richard Carline, Stanley Spencer at War (Faber, London, 1978) p.145-6.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

flanked by figures) or it may allude to compositional echoes between the architecture of the chancel arch in the Scrovegni Chapel and Spencer’s ambitions for his own desired scheme. In his preparatory drawings Spencer adapted Giotto’s three-tier arrangement so as to create an episodic cycle. Aided by the strict symmetry of the facing side walls, each panel would be both dedicated to a specific event but also be part of an unfolding narrative with each element evincing loftier values of reconciliation and redemption. 19 Not only did Spencer imagine far in advance the content, sequence and narrative inter-relationship between each painting, he had, as Ann Danks relates, a very clear idea of the interior architecture. The features of the walls are meticulously depicted in the two 1923 working drawings: the outer frame of each lunette canvas is shown as raised plasterwork with a decorative corbel at each intersection. A cornice-like rail running the width of the bottom of each lunette divides these paintings from those of the predella, underneath which can be seen a deep curved dado decorated by horizontal grooves at regular intervals. Spencer was fastidious (and persistent) about his requirements, ‘The ‘grooves’ which I wanted’, he explained to Mary Behrend, ‘are not possible now as you cannot chip plaster. But a painted line on the surface in lieu of the groove might serve and not look trivial or disturbing. But this would have to be tested. The grooves or lines divide the six feet widths of the predella pictures into seven spaces …’ 20 Parallels between the buildings in Padua and Burghclere, and their painted interiors, extend to more than just the obvious however. Ruskin states that the chapel in Padua was ‘dedicated to the Annunciate Virgin’ in 1303, and explains that an annual festival was held ‘on Lady-day, in which the Annunciation was represented in the manner of our English mysteries.’ 21 It can then be no coincidence that the 1927 consecration of the Burghclere Chapel by the Bishop Suffragan of Guildford took place on 25 March – the Feast of the Annunciation, the very same day that the Scrovegni Chapel had been dedicated some 600 years earlier. Through his reading of Ruskin, Spencer must have been aware of the importance of this date for the Paduan chapel and have purposely chosen to link it with his own chapel even though he did not care for the title of ‘Oratory’ and did not attend the 1927 ceremony himself. 22

19 Ann Danks has observed that Spencer’s limited reading of the Scrovegni Chapel was largely because his visualisation was derived from Ruskin’s text than from any appreciation of the depth and space of the chancel arch and apse. See Ann Danks, ‘Buildings and Memory in the work of Stanley Spencer, unpublished dissertation, University of Reading, 2012, p. 29. 20 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 16 January, possibly 1933. Written after the architect Roddy Enthoven had completed long-delayed modifications to the dado rails and the half corbels. Spencer refers to the architect as ‘Mr Whatsisnames’, but stressed that he ‘did like the dado very much and I am very pleased…’. Ann Danks, ‘The Working Drawings for the side Walls of the Sandham Memorial Chapel’, Stanley Spencer Gallery, 2010/12. 21 John Ruskin, 1905, p. 2-3. For more information about this celebration and subsequent Annunciation ceremonies associated with the chancel arch in the Scrovegni Chapel see Laura Jacobus, ‘Giotto’s Annunciation in the Arena Chapel, Padua’, The Art Bulletin, 81.1 (March, 1999), pp. 93-107. 22 Derived from fourteenth-century Anglo-Norman architecture, an ‘oratory’ is usually understood to be a small room or secluded place set aside for private prayer. Exacting as always, Spencer preferred a different term, one that identified his Chapel as a public, accessible and inclusive space, not a closed and private place. He instructed Richard Carline that ‘as Ms Behrend did not insist on the Chapel being called “Oratory of All Souls” please call it Chapel of All Souls’. (Letter to Richard Carline, July/August 1929). The dedication of a building in the middle ages was often one way in which a replica of a holy building could be acknowledged and recognised. See Richard Krautheimer, op.cit., p. 1.

By emulating the design and concept of the Scrovegni Chapel from the outset Spencer conferred a heightened status upon his own proposed chapel. As he sketched out his plans on Henry Lamb’s dining room table, Spencer intended that his design should not be regarded as yet another war memorial but as a continuation of the age-old tradition of Christian art. He would have also known that Giotto was an architect as well as a painter, and although Spencer had absolutely no training in designing buildings or planning their interiors he took courage and guidance from the Italian master and embarked on his ‘architectural scheme’ without a moment’s hesitation or self-doubt.

THE CHOSEN SITE: A NECESSARY COMPROMISE In September 1923, several months after they first saw Spencer’s drawings in Poole, John Louis and Mary Behrend decided to commit themselves to building the chapel and commission Spencer to paint its interior walls. He was exultant: ‘What ho, Giotto!’ he is said to have exclaimed in excitement. 23 Never one to sit idle, Spencer promptly assumed control of the design and planning for the project: I would like to design an altar myself, & I believe in time, I should be able to get what I wanted. I should like [it] to be bas reliefed. I have decided the proportions of everything; length of building, height of roof, kind of roof, kind of tiles, height of dado & cornice, projection of moulding of arches, size and place of windows, and door, etc. So that the architect only has to make a builder’s drawing from my measurements. 24 He tried to influence the Behrends’ choice of location and spent time trying to convince them that the building should be situated not at Burghclere, but in his beloved home village of Cookham, or if not there then at nearby Cookham Dean or Hedsor. However, on this the Behrends would not compromise. 25 They could not justify a private family chapel some forty miles from their family home in Burghclere. They were sensitive about building a private chapel in a village which already had two churches, and they were anxious not to appear lavish at a time when local people were homeless. Having impressed on Spencer the need to build nearer their home, they eventually appeased some of their anxieties by adding two cottages (later described as almshouses) either side of the chapel, space enough to offer sheltered accommodation to war veterans and their families, but also providing homes for future generations of chapel-keepers.

23 Cited in many places, including George Behrend, Stanley Spencer at Burghclere (Macdonald, London, 1965) p. 6, and Duncan Robinson, Stanley Spencer (Oxford, Phaidon, 1990) p. 33. Mary Behrend later wrote of Spencer’s vision for the chapel: ‘It seems so odd that he had this thing complete in his head for so many years & at the time of doing the wash drawings very little encouragement… the whole thing was his idea.’ Mary Behrend to Richard Carline, undated letter, written shortly after Spencer’s death in 1959 from the Behrends home in mid-Wales, TGA 825 / 2. 24 TGA 825.14. 25 Hoping to find sponsorship or assistance with the financing of the project, but finding none, the Behrends initially proposed a temporary housing for the works possibly in London but Spencer refused such a tepid solution insisting that his paintings should be housed in a purpose-built permanent and functioning chapel.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

La Cappella degli Scrovegni (the Arena Chapel), interior, Padua, Italy.

26 Quoted in George Behrend, An Unexpected Life, (Jersey Artists Ltd, 2007), p. 21. 27 So far the surviving documentation identified for the Chapel site does not include a ground plan of the whole plot as bought from Lord Carnarvon, although as Sarah Rutherford notes such a plan may indeed be included with the deeds held by the National Trust, but they have yet to be located. 28 Sarah Rutherford. Conservation Statement, National Trust, November 2013, p. 70. 29 TGA 825.14. George Behrend recalled that the house next door to the chosen plot was called The Homestead, owned by a Mr Talmage, who had helped build the railway in 1885 and whose daughter was the Behrend’s ‘marvellous cook’.

The site itself was a compromise. A flat expanse of land was first sought in the village of Burghclere but nothing was large enough and available for purchase. The Behrend’s son, George, recalled that the only pieces of land for sale were the chicken field across the lane and the paddock below the family home – neither of which were considered suitable. 26 Eventually the purchase of a compact piece of land was negotiated with the Caernarvon Estate, which owned sizeable properties throughout the county, including, of course, the family home at Highclere Castle. The 5th Earl – of Tutankhamun fame – had died in 1923, and his successor, the 6th Earl proved more amenable to selling off pockets of land. The site purchased by the Behrends lay at the western, more remote end of the village. 27 It was a long, narrow plot hemmed in by a deep railway cutting to the east and a public road to the south. As Sarah Rutherford explores in this volume, the early history of the chapel plot is obscure. 28 By the mid-18th century it had been part of the Commons of Burghclere for several centuries, used largely as grazed pasture. It was probably enclosed as part of the 1783 Inclosure of the Commons, bounded to the south by Pound Lane and to the east by Harts Lane. Both roads had come under the jurisdiction of the Turnpike Act of 17612, and this may explain the large oak trees which stand at the northeast and south-east corners of the chapel plot. These would once have marked the boundaries with public roads. As ‘garden ground’ its state of cultivation was termed arable, and the 1873 Ordnance Survey shows it continued to be labelled as a market garden. Until the construction of the chapel in the 1920s, the most radical transformation of the site was brought about by the siting of the new railway line from Winchester to Newbury in the 1880s, which took the eastern half of the cultivated parcel for a deep cutting, with the new Highclere Station built nearby to the south-east. Despite his strong feeling that it was in the ‘wrong’ village, Spencer had been thrilled by the purchase of the plot: The other day I went & inspected the ‘site’ & I was by myself (it is in a little plot of ground near Highclere station, near Newbury) & I loved measuring the ground; I felt this is life this is, & I have fallen into the habit of measuring everything & every building I enter I want to know the height of the ceiling. 29

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

THE PAINTER AND THE TWO ARCHITECTS It would though be four, at times frustrating, years before Spencer was able to open the doors of the new building and start painting its blank walls. However, the chapel was never far from his thoughts: ‘What purpose will it serve, and where is it to be built?’ Well, I have come to the conclusion that it is obviously intended for a memorial hall or chapel to be attached to some hospital; it need not necessarily be a military one…. It would help to ennoble and reveal the sublimity of medical services. 30 Habitually assertive, often imperious, Spencer was determined that the building would be built to his exact specifications. Despite his lack of experience in designing in three-dimensions he intended to dictate the ‘proportions of everything.’ 31 As Amanda Bradley observes in this volume, such was Spencer’s confidence and self-projection he effectively hijacked the entire chapel project – from the height of roof, its shape, the make and choice of tiles, and so on. Little escaped his energetic attention to detail, whether it was required or not. Spencer’s unrelenting self-confidence was borne by the Behrends with good grace and much forbearance, though at times the process of reaching decisions was a contracted and extremely fraught process. Spencer felt strongly that the architecture (and to a much lesser extent the landscape design) should be subservient, or at least secondary, to his paintings. This demanded a flexible and co-operative design partner, someone willing to subordinate his own creative ideas to those of Spencer, something that most architects would find a difficult, if not impossible, concession. That expectation, indeed requirement, Spencer had made very clear within months of the Behrends agreeing to fund the project. John Louis and Mary Behrend had wanted to engage George Kennedy as their first choice architect. He was a close friend of Henry Lamb, who was a confidant of the Behrends, and was showing a keen interest in the unfolding chapel project. Kennedy and his wife were also good friends of the Behrends and a large portrait of the architect and his family, painted by Lamb, hung in the smoking room of Grey House. It seemed a perfect, if slightly cosy, arrangement.

30 Stanley Spencer to Henry Lamb, October 1923. 31 TGA 825.14.

Spencer, however, did not care at all for Kennedy’s approach or his design aesthetic, which he thought too ornate and too fussy. Before long there were frequent and profound differences of opinion. Kennedy proposed small windows high in the chapel bays and the addition of a ‘narthex’, an outer porch seen in many Byzantine churches. Spencer fundamentally disagreed, forcibly asserting ‘that my own ideas about the building are the best; that it ought to be plain outside, just like a box, and that there ought to be no… architectural ornament or features outside whatever.’ 32 At a number of turbulent meetings between Kennedy, Lamb, and the Behrends, Spencer reiterated his conviction that the chapel should be architecturally simple and uncluttered, with minimal decoration and plain elevations constructed in slim red bricks. Like the Scrovegni, he believed the building at Burghclere needed to be little more than a plain block sticking straight out of the ground, unadorned, unfussy, even unremarkable, until one stepped inside and experienced his magnificently painted murals. Spencer dictated further specifications: the walls should be sufficiently deep ‘as it is always more restful to look out of [a] window through a thick wall’, and he insisted that the entrance – ‘a secret unobtrusive door’ – should be set to one side and not centrally positioned. Kennedy refused to modify his own ideas. The tensions between artist and architect proved intolerable. There was a final terrible row, which the young George Behrend remembered hearing from his bedroom. 33 Spencer, as usual, had his way. Kennedy was replaced by the more compliant Lionel Pearson and after this debacle, it is said that the Behrends never spoke to Kennedy again. Thereafter, most of Stanley’s original and exacting requirements – the width of the bays, the height of the dado rail, the exact shapes of the corbels and mouldings – would be followed to the utmost degree, even though his visualisation of space did not always successfully translate architecturally, resulting in many uneasy compromises. Two years older than John Louis Behrend, and twelve years senior to Spencer, Lionel Godfrey Pearson, FRIBA (1879-1953) had trained in Liverpool and then practised in London. From 1913 he worked with Harry Percy Adams and Charles Henry Holden in the practice of Adams, Holden and Pearson located at 9 Knightsbridge, central London. His most significant work, apart from the chapel in Burghclere,

32 Stanley Spencer to Henry Lamb, October 1923. 33 This is taken from private communication and interviews with George Behrend conducted in 2004. In his memoir ‘An Unexpected Life’, (Jersey Artists Ltd, 2007), George Behrend relates (p. 21) that the row took place at Louis’ weekday residence in 127 Wigmore Street, London. Kennedy was told that his flamboyant designs would have to be altered to suit the dimensions of Spencer’s pictures. ‘George Kennedy was furious, walked out, and never spoke to them again.’

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

is perhaps the Royal Regiment of Artillery memorial on Hyde Park Corner, for which, in 1921, he designed the stone structure for Charles Sargent Jagger’s memorable sculptures. Despite this striking design Pearson’s career has a certain obscurity. 34 This is rather surprising given the prolific output by his partners in the practice, most notably Charles Holden whose Modern Movement style created some of the most impressive inter-war London Underground station designs in the capital and many fine buildings in the regions, including the Central Library in Bristol, as well a number of memorial structures on the old battlefields of the Western Front. It is unfortunate that Pearson was so constrained when designing the Sandham Memorial Chapel. After all, he had proved his ability to work collaboratively and to great effect on the Hyde Park monument. The artillery memorial is a unforgettable fusion of static pyramidal stone with four imposing bronze figures sculpted by Jagger who, like Spencer, was a veteran of the Great War’s Mediterranean campaign. The striking relationship between the broad-featured, massive figures and the solid mass of the stone howitzer is moving and epic; the dialogue between architect and artist works to mutual and powerful advantage. At Burghclere, Pearson did not appear to enjoy the same creative collaboration with Spencer, who exerted a stronger influence on the architectural design than he ought, by rights, to have had. Indeed, his brother Gilbert recalled that Pearson drew the proportions for his plans directly from Stanley’s original 1923 working drawings. 35 As Andrew Daniels has astutely observed, ‘the architecture had become the handmaiden of [the] painting’. 36 Burdened by Spencer’s exacting requirements and thwarted in his own ideas about the chapel’s design, Lamb was distressed by the departure of Kennedy, whom he had long championed. He tactfully withdrew from further involvement in the project. Ever sensitive to their artist-friends, and as some compensation for hurting his feelings, the Behrends commissioned a family portrait from Lamb. Painted in 1926 (though dated 1927) the Behrend family portrait now hangs in Hove Museum and Art Gallery. It is a sensitive and worthy family grouping despite George’s disparaging remarks that his ‘hideous bright yellow jersey’ was worn only to add a much-needed splash of colour in the monochromatic painting. 37

34 Sarah Rutherford. Conservation Statement, National Trust, November 2013, p. 41. 35 Gilbert Spencer, Stanley Spencer by his Brother Gilbert (Gollancz, London, 1961; reprinted, Redcliffe Press, Bristol, 1991), p. 145. As Ann Danks states the side walls of the chapel, as built, are 28 feet 8 feet in length: the corresponding drawings are 28.5 inches long. 36 Andrew Daniels, ‘This is life, this is’, from Stanley Spencer: the making of a singular man, unpublished manuscript, 2002, p. 84. 37 Collection of Hove Museum and Art Gallery, Sussex.

As the design ideas were tried out on Spencer and Behrend, Pearson proved to be a responsive and assiduous co-worker, ‘amenable and efficient’ wrote George Behrend in his memoirs, with characteristic faint-hearted praise. Invariably, the architect was willing to be directed by Spencer and to discuss his designs openly and often with his client. But it was not always an untroubled process. Pearson, along with Mary Behrend, worked may have diligently to mediate the strong views of both painter and patron, but it was clearly a volatile three-way arrangement. George Behrend recalled times when he and his sister leaned over the banisters outside their bedroom at Grey House to listen to the rising volume of the regular meetings between architect, painter and client. ‘Mr Pearson’s coming to lunch’ became a family byword for heated discussion ‘particularly when Spencer was present.’ 38 Not only did Spencer take the creative – and at times moral – high ground when dictating the shape and form of the chapel but his attention to detail was incorrigible. Years after the building was completed, Spencer fussed over the tiniest aspect of the building’s interior. Minor alterations to the dado became a notable source of contention, resulting in scores of illustrated letters (well into the early 1930s) demanding that his exact modifications be met. Out of necessity the Behrends adopted a pragmatic, at times rather resigned, philosophy to meet the painter’s demands. ‘I suppose however that we had better give way to Stanley’, wrote a weary Mary Behrend on one such occasion in 1930, ‘though it pulls both ways to do so’. 39

38 George Behrend, An Unexpected Life, (Jersey Artists Ltd, 2007) p.22. 39 Mary Behrend to Richard Carline, 25 November 1930, TGA 825.2. In late 1932 the Behrends commissioned an architect, Roderick Enthoven (1900-1985), to design and modify the dado rail, and to enrich the pilasters behind the altar. Spencer eventually approved the designs: William Head made the modifications during December 1932. However, in January 1933 Spencer still wanted a painted line to be added to the surface of the dado rail in lieu of a groove that could not now be cut into the plaster. ‘The grooves or lines divide the six feet widths of the predella picture into seven spaces.’ (Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend 16 January 1933, TGA 882.8). For his part Enthoven went to great pains to achieve a suitable and sympathetic finish to his additions, suggesting ‘stippling a cool white over a warm white to give quality.’

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

HONING THE DESIGN; PAINTER AND ARCHITECT In mid-November 1925, two years since the Behrends had committed themselves to building the Chapel, the new architect and the painter met to discuss the inside of the building – the ‘interior arrangement’ as Pearson called it. Spencer was beside himself with excitement at the prospect of the project ahead. Enthusiastically he shared his specific ideas about the design with Pearson. On 18 November 1925, the morning after one such meeting, the architect forewarned his patron that some of the painter’s novel ideas might not be feasible, either because they were architecturally challenging or materially too expensive: He [Spencer] quite realises the difficulty of the arches being carried out in stone. At the same time he would prefer them to have a constructional meaning. We finally came to the conclusion that a vaulted ceiling with which the small arches will intersect would probably be the best solution, but Spencer is going to think the matter over carefully and let me know further. 40 Greatly animated by his own ideas for the interior and sensing that the architect was biddable, Spencer wrote to Mary Behrend: Pearson’s suggestions led me to desire many things such as recesses, made me think of little cubicles like this [indicated in a small sketch] for the arched & predella pictures but this seemed too architectural & then Pearson thought of barrel vaulting. This last as you can see much the best & most possible but all the same I have a craving for the flat wall. 41 As Spencer played around with his ideas about the interior, the site was being readied. At the end of November 1925 Behrend ordered core building materials, which included five rolls of netting, three pounds of staples, six yards of cable and two batten holders, for a total sum of £6-136, from N.M. Toomer, Wholesale Farriers, Builders & Estate Ironmongers in Newbury. 42 Pearson was busy attending to the initial designs for the two cottages either side of the chapel. During late November he shared

Detail of a letter from Stanley Spencer showing barrel vaults, 23 November 1925. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

40 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 17 November 1925. Correspondence between the architect, artist, patron and builder is from the National Trust archive at Micheldever, boxes 411-415. See the full record of the archive in this volume. 41 Stanley Spencer to Mary Behrend, 23 November 1925, letter in Sandham Memorial Chapel files, this was written two days after the birth of Unity, Hilda and Stanley’s first child. 42 Invoice dated 30 November 1925.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

a number of ideas with Behrend about the possible location of the living rooms, suggesting each one be placed adjacent to the chapel so as to help keep it warm, adding that ‘the range should be in the living room… otherwise [the occupants] would spend their lives in the scullery which I am sure you do not wish’. 43 Pearson also suggested that the dresser was best placed in the scullery, closer to the sink so that it would be used for crockery and not for books. 44 Such shared attention to detail became a staple part of their almost daily exchange of letters during late 1925 and the following year. The price of all these subtle modifications and the cost of raw materials were never far from the conversation between architect and patron, and became a constant refrain in the correspondence towards the close of 1925. Pearson’s occasional meetings with Spencer raised a number of further ideas (and expectations) about the materials that might be purchased for the interior. On 4 December, for example, the architect proposed marble columns, at a cost of £200, plus £100 for a marble base and seat, suggesting a few days later they use Hopton Wood Stone ‘an English marble of a very pleasant fawn colour’. The floor, he added, would also be ‘very nice in black and white marble’ but could be done in stone paving if cost was a consideration. 45

South and East Elevation drawings by Lionel Pearson, 11 December 1925. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

43 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 4 December 1925. 44 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 8 December 1925. Pearson uses the phrase ‘your people’ to describe the future occupants. 45 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 4 December 1925 and 8 December 1925. 46 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 11 December 1925.

Mindful that the Behrends might balk at the extravagance of certain materials Pearson reassured his patron on 11 December that he could obtain excellent bricks and tiles locally, and use Bath stone instead of Portland, at least for the interior stonework. In the same letter he estimates the entire building might eventually cost £4000 to build, though advises that ‘we must be rather careful not to be extravagant in the way of marble, etc.’ 46 Knowing that there were similar contemporary buildings in the vicinity, Pearson strongly encouraged Behrend to visit Bedales School at Steep near Petersfield, Hampshire where a memorial library in the Arts and Crafts style had recently been built. Pearson felt it might serve as a useful reference point for contemporary design and material construction. Designed by Ernest Gimson in 1911, revised in 1918, but only realised by Sidney Barnsley and Geoffrey Lupton in 1920-21, the library was built from locally sourced and handmade materials. In keeping with Arts and Crafts precepts it combined the traditional with the ‘modern’, but with a typically strong focus on craftsmanship, honesty in construction and truth to

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

materials. The combination of pitched and flat roof suggested to Pearson how he might resolve the roofline at Burghclere. At Bedales he would have been especially impressed by the clever integration of dormer windows, large chimney stacks and nibbed plain clay tiles. 47 It is not known, however, whether Behrend was able to visit the school and see the library, nor whether he was made aware of other recent memorial schemes such as that at Knutsford, Cheshire which have a number of design features in common with the Sandham Memorial Chapel. 48

FINALISING THE DESIGN FOR THE EXTERIOR For painter, patron and architect the year 1925 had appeared to end on a positive note; work was under way to prepare the site, and by 31 December D.M. Brain, Coal, Coke and Salt merchant had delivered the first consignment of gravel and hard core. 49 Spencer’s ambitions for the ‘interior arrangement’ were still on the drawing board, Behrend had his eye on every detail of the plan, and the architect was doing his level best to meet the idiosyncratic demands of both men. However, tensions clearly ran under the surface of this three-way relationship. On Christmas Eve Pearson wrote to his patron defending some rather minor details about which Behrend clearly had strong views: ‘…I really think the proportions of the panes and the construction of the arch’, he wrote, ‘might best be left to the poor old architect – after all it is supposed to be his job don’t you agree? But we will settle all this next Tuesday.’ 50 Although at times rather intense, the relationship between Behrend and Pearson was invariably polite, good-natured and productive. The architect’s letters are addressed to ‘My dear Behrend’, or at least ‘Dear Behrend’. Their frequent correspondence was augmented and enriched by site visits and other meetings. Pearson also spent time with the painter and would have acknowledged, if not always appreciated, his obsessive thoroughness. On several occasions, however, Behrend found himself caught between the two men – Pearson, with his professional obligation to create a well-designed and fully functioning contemporary building, and the amateur designer, Spencer, with his fastidious attention to detail and, at times, almost unreasonable demands. His brother Gilbert knew this side of his character well:

Stanley Spencer, Hilda Studying a Model for Burghclere, c.1930, oil on paper. Collection of Catherine and William MacDougall.

47 Lupton had been employed as an apprentice craftsmanbuilder by the designer-architect Ernst Grimson in 1905, and had then gone on to fund and build the assembly hall at Bedales, and later to realise Grimson’s inspired design for the Memorial Library. Pearson’s desire that John Louis Behrend meet Lupton was not to be as Lupton had emigrated to South Africa. 48 The Knutsford War Memorial Cottage Hospital, designed by Sir Percy Worthington, was opened in 1922 at a building cost of over £6,200. It has a number of similarities to Pearson’s final design at Burghclere, though as Leon Van Schaik points out, the use of a hipped roof behind parapets was a familiar and contemporary solution in many municipal buildings of the period. 49 Invoice for £12-3-6 dated 31 December 1925 to cover hard core and gravel delivered to the site during the previous six weeks. 50 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 24 December 1925, handwritten letter

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

I expect that Pearson found, as I did when Stan used to lecture me about the exactitude necessary when measuring up from the scale drawings, that the scale was very precise. Stan would order canvases to 3/16 of an inch sometimes. 51 Neither architect nor patron ever underestimated Spencer’s visionary passion for his chapel. His unerring devotion to the project is perhaps neatly summarised in a small oil painting where he shows Hilda lying on the floor encased by a small cardboard model of the chapel. It was apparently a favourite place for them to lie and ruminate its every angle. 52

MEASURING THE SITE: FITTING THE DESIGN TO THE PLOT As the design ideas were further developed and modified, Pearson remained concerned whether the building would actually fit on to the site. In addition to matters of style, about which Spencer had such strong views, one of the challenges facing the architect was to create sufficient width for the end wall of the chapel to accommodate Spencer’s ‘Resurrection of the Soldiers’. The wall had to be precisely 28 feet 8 inches wide because this conformed to the scale that Spencer had been using in his working drawings. On the very first batch of drawings (those made as early as mid-1923 in Lamb’s living room in Poole) one inch represented exactly one foot on the walls. 53 On New Year’s Day 1926 Pearson sent a hand-written note to Behrend confessing to becoming concerned about the proportions of the proposed building and sending a revised design which reversed the arms of the cottages to give the ‘squareness which is characteristic’. The letter is illustrated by a simple plan which Pearson thought ‘looks well in perspective as the returns help to support the lines of the ‘GOD-BOX’ as you call it – the plan is better also.’ 54 In addition to the configuration of the buildings and the challenges of fitting it on the land available, Pearson was considering incorporating a pair of shallow shelters, as recessed integral loggias, on either side of the chapel door. He wrote to Behrend four days later seeking his assurance: I hope you will not think the scheme for the shelters and garden is too ambitious. It seems to me to set off the entrance to the chapel better than any other scheme. 55

51 Quoted in Gilbert Spencer, Stanley Spencer by his Brother Gilbert (London, Gollancz, 1961; reprinted, Redcliffe Press, 1991) p. 145. 52 The scale model of the Chapel is depicted in a small canvas ‘Hilda studying a model for Burghclere’, c.1930 (Bell, 133). Stanley intended, but never fulfilled, a plan for a series of paintings in which the Behrends were honoured as principal donors. 53 This fine and exacting attention to detail shows how closely Spencer insisted that the building, which in mid1923 existed only in his imagination, adhered to these original plans when it was eventually built. See Ann Danks ‘Overview of the Drawings’, p. 1. 54 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 1 January 1926. 55 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 5 January 1926. The shallow recesses were not to be realised in the final scheme.

The actual width of the site, however, remained a nagging worry. On 15th January 1926 Pearson referred to it specifically: The dimensions you give is ‘95ft across the field at its narrowest part. That allows one ft. from the newly planted hedge and about three ft. from the row of limes’, this seems to give us the space required for the plan we agreed on. 56 To resolve the issue once and for all Pearson made a site visit to verify the dimensions and check the fit: As the question of the width of the site seems to be the deciding point in the working out of the design, I can come down and settle this on site. I would suggest if it suited you, coming down by an evening train and spending the morning on the site. Would Saturday morning next suit you by any chance?

Evidently it did. Pearson travelled from Paddington on the 10.45 train that Saturday returning on the 16.09. Met by the Behrends he examined the site in detail and was assured that ‘the width [of the plot] will allow our plan’. 58 Pearson would clearly have liked a few extra feet so as to obtain connecting walls around the site but he appreciated that the dimensions of the purchased land would not permit it. His plans and elevation drawings for the building (dated 5, 8 and 10 February) survive and give clear evidence of the developments in his design thinking. The drawing dated 5 February 1926, for example, indicates provision for outside seating in recesses either side of the chapel door. It also shows the cottages’ living room windows facing into the forecourt (or ‘quad’) created by the ‘wings’ of the cottages. Pearson’s

56 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 15 January 1926. Pearson is referring here to correspondence about the original measurements sent by Behrend on 3 December 1925. The hedge was most likely along the east boundary; the limes to the west of the building along the line of the drive. John Louis Behrend had recently purchased a selection of trees and shrubs from the Carnarvon Estates Company. Amongst a long list of purchases invoiced on 21 January 1926 are 20 limes at one shilling and sixpence each, four hollies at four shillings each, and five loads of soil at five shillings per load. Many years after the Chapel had been completed Behrend was still negotiating on occasion with the Estate. On 1 February 1930 he agreed the £10 purchase of an oak tree in field no. 242, standing on the bank next to the railway embankment between the two meadows. It concluded six years of transactions between the Chapel’s patron and the largest landholder in the immediate environs. 57 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 25 January 1926. 58 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 27 January 1926.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

drawings exhibit an Arts and Crafts aesthetic which, as Tom Bromwell points out, were largely absent from the eventual design. 59 Pearson’s proposals for seating recesses, accentuated dormer windows, a pitched roof line, and other architectural detail might have softened the ‘boxy’, rectilinear nature of the building when it was finally built. Although not all the correspondence appears to have survived, it is apparent that Pearson and Behrend were in touch every few days, the latter giving strong direction to the architect. Pearson was highly sensitive to his patron’s views, perhaps on occasion wary of his disapproval. In early February he confesses to Behrend that ‘I am afraid you think I have developed my plan rather too much but I think I shall be able to meet most of your criticisms and still keep to the outline which I think is the right one for our scheme.’ 60 Although costs would rule out some of these niceties, by 10 February the architect responded with some relief that he was ‘very glad that you approve of the plan as I am sure the outline is much the best we have had.’ 61 It was still very much ‘our plan’. However, not all was as it seemed. A simmering issue about the design was about to boil over.

FINALISING THE ‘WEST END’ Although Pearson may have been genuinely exercised by the width of the site and the possible arrangement of a ‘quad’ created by the wings of the cottages, these were peripheral to his fundamental aesthetic concern, namely the actual appearance of the West End of the chapel. Any architect would have recognised that the design of this main façade represented the best opportunity to make their unique mark on the entire scheme. Getting its proportions in balance was critical to the harmonious arrangement of the central block and its adjoining cottages. Pearson’s concerns about the design of the main facade and the ‘proportions’ of the chapel block were antagonised by two significant issues: first, how to bring sufficient light to the chapel’s interior, and second, how to resolve the question over the roof line, about which the painter had such fixed views. Pearson knew that while these matters remained unresolved he could not finalise the overall design of the West End – the main frontage – of the chapel. 62

South Elevation of chapel, with unexecuted central window and roof proposal, by Lionel Pearson, 10 February 1926. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

59 Tom Bromwell, ‘The God-Box of Burghclere’, National Trust Historic House and Collections Annual 2014, pp. 54-59, 57. 60 Lionel Pearson to John Behrend, 8 February 1926. 61 Lionel Pearson to John Behrend, 10 February 1926. 62 Although in northern Europe it was highly desirable to orient Christian religious buildings on a west to east alignment this was not always possible. In many cases, liturgical directions and terms rarely coincide with geographical alignment. Whatever its true orientation, the term ‘West End’ is generally used when describing the layout of cathedrals and churches as that end which contains the front doors, and there are often towers on that end of the building, while the liturgical ‘East End’ of the church has the altar. The ‘West End’ of Burghclere actually points to the south. The altar wall of the interior actually faces north-west; true north lies in the corner of the building at the junction of the end- and right-hand walls.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

The architect discussed the dilemma with one of his business partners, most probably Charles Holden. Pearson wanted a more pronounced, sharply pitched roof, which would be more in keeping with the overall architectural schema. It would provide better weather-proofing and be more consistent with the overall angularity of the building’s aesthetic. Spencer, though, had always insisted on an unadorned cuboid ‘box’ and was firmly set against a pitched roof. Pearson was also concerned that the highest parts of the paintings – the ‘decoration’ as he terms it – would be inadequately lit unless more natural light was allowed to penetrate the uppermost levels of the chapel. One solution was to substantially increase the width of the vertical window on the front wall of the chapel. Another more radical design solution would be to create light higher inside the building. He set out these options to Behrend on 10 February 1926: I will work out the elevation of the West End in the course of the next two or three days. One way of solving the difficulty would be to have a small clerestorey [sic] behind the parapet which would have the effect of raising the roof and giving more light on the decoration and we should not then need such an ungainly window to the West End. 63 In architectural parlance, a clerestory is an upper level of a church or basilica building, whose walls rise above the roofline of the lower aisle and are dotted with apertures or windows to allow light and air into the building’s inner space. In addition to improving illumination, a clerestory provides light without a distracting view, and it does not compromise privacy. Pearson clearly had in mind a girdle of narrow windows that would be hidden from view by a low parapet encircling the top of the chapel. The parapet would also conceal the guttering, which was essential to the maintenance of the building. The small drawing made on 10 February 1926 shows Pearson’s preferred design, without the three strips of ‘ungainly window’. It presents a sharply pitched roof, a single large window to the frontage, a clerestory and a dotted line indicating the windows immediately behind the parapet. However Pearson’s mind was not set. Two days later he responded to Behrend about the need for ‘rather more emphasis on the design’ of the West End, although he noted (with possible dismay) that ‘… you don’t approve the ‘clerestorey [sic]’. His letter continued:

63 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 10 February 1926.

It seems to me that the parapet, although it is very nice in many ways has certain disadvantages in this case. If a heavy snowstorm should occur and the gutters become choked there might be some serious damage to the Mural decorations. I think this is a point which we should consider very carefully as recent snowstorms brought many instances to my notice of damage done owing to parapets, walls and gutters. 64 Recognising that the clerestory found no favour with patron or painter he tried another approach: ‘One cannot be too careful about damp when it is a question of mural decorations. Under these circumstances is it not asking for trouble to go in for a parapet type of Gutter?’ 65 Two days later, on Friday 19 February 1926, both men had arranged to meet and may well have discussed the drainage of the roof as well as the illumination of the interior. Frustrated by the failure of the clerestory proposal, Pearson began toying with an idea for a dormer window that might allow more light to the upper portions of the interior. He rehearsed the idea in a hand-written note to Behrend on 26 February, conceding that ‘the parapet shall be solid as you wish’ while also suggesting that he could put in an ‘unobtrusive’ dormer which ‘would not worry you I am sure’. 66 A series of drawings made within days of each other lend further evidence of the challenges that faced Pearson as he tried to re-imagine the front elevation of the chapel. In one highly finished drawing (5 February 1926) the roof is sharply pitched and lacks a parapet. In addition to three strips of window on the frontage, the shelter recesses flanking the chapel are clearly evident, though these would not eventually be executed. An ensuing sketch, probably drawn before Pearson’s meeting with Behrend on 19 February, presents the full panoply of features to illuminate the interior, namely four small clerestory windows, a single dormer window, and the three full-length windows on the facade. Despite his aversion to their ungainliness, these three windows would be executed as depicted in the drawings, and the dormer would be considerably diminished in scale, hidden behind a rather obtrusive stone cross. While Pearson tried to convince his client about the need for more light in the interior, Spencer was still experimenting with the possible location of certain small paintings inside the chapel. Although the imagery for the three tiers of paintings on the sidewalls was to remain largely unchanged from the original drawings made in Poole in 1923, the visual concept of

64 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 12 February 1926. Snow would continue to be a concern in the coming decades. On 17 April 1942 Head acknowledged payment for clearing snow and ice from the chapel. 65 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 17 February 1926. 66 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 26 February 1926

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

the altar wall underwent constant modification as Spencer experimented with a range of compositional ideas. His architectural ‘thinking’ was equally as experimental: it ranged from requiring an arched roof to sketching out a huge central square panel flanked by eight smaller panels. He even considered at one point the insertion of a cross in each of the spandrels. 67 However, it was the proposed location of these eight panels that was to cause such concern to Pearson. Spencer described his original thinking in a letter to his sister Florence as early as 1923: They don’t look like war pictures, they rather look like heaven; a place I am becoming very familiar with. There are to be two pictures about 28 feet long and 10 feet high, then there is one about 14 feet square and 8 pictures with arched tops, each of these will be about 7 feet high. Then there are 8 ‘predella’ pictures below the arched pictures and 8 little pictures of incidents happening outside the door of a tent; these last to go either side of steps leading to the altar. 68 The ‘8 little pictures’ that Spencer wanted to be considered for the end wall behind the altar were representations of soldiers at the entrance flaps of a number of bell tents. This habit of thinking out loud, and then committing his thoughts to long letters augmented by copious sketches, was a favourite iterative device deployed by Spencer. For an architect hoping to hand a final design to a builder it must have been irksome, if not infuriating. Closely engaged as the architect was with his attentive patron, Spencer remained a constant ‘offstage noise’ during the evolution of the design of the interior of the chapel. Pearson was clearly a little nonplussed by Spencer’s constant lobbying. In June 1926, only weeks after handing over the blueprint to the appointed builder and having assumed the ‘8 little pictures’ idea to have been forgotten, Pearson wrote to Behrend in exasperation relating how he had received another long letter from Spencer trying to revive his idea for the ‘small tent pictures’. The artist had first envisaged them either side of the main ‘East End’ wall, but was then ‘suggesting putting them on the Western Wall’ [around the main door]. Given the advanced state of the design it was an awkward intrusion. ‘I am writing to him [Spencer] to explain that I must discuss this with you before going any further.’ Enclosing a small sketch of the long windows on the main facade, which would have to be redesigned to accommodate any such

Sketch of South Front elevation with detail of possible window design, by Lionel Pearson, undated. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive. Sketch of South Front elevation, by Lionel Pearson, 5 February 1926. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

67 Keith Bell, Stanley Spencer: a complete catalogue of the paintings (London, Phaidon, 1992) p. 422. 68 Stanley Spencer to Florence Image, September/October ? 1923, TGA 825.14.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

panels, the architect warned Behrend that ‘if these are cut short, it will very much spoil the effect.’ 69 Behind these few words lurk simmering tensions that were about to surface. It is easy to see why. Pearson was trying to finalise the design for the exterior: Spencer kept changing his mind about the interior. Behrend was doing his best to pacify them both. Having already had to identify, at short notice, space inside and above the main door for a carved memorial stone, Pearson was now being asked by Spencer to find further space for up to eight small canvases of encamped soldiers. This was an unforeseen and very late request that would require the architect to rethink the length of the windows and find a fresh location for the coat of arms and memorial tablet that had been commissioned from Charles Pibworth. 70 Such lastminute requests would have taxed any architect. Although decorum was maintained between architect, artist and patron, it is clear that feelings were running high. Writing to Behrend by hand and from his home address, Pearson asked to be indulged in a grumble, or as he puts it ‘a grind’: I should like to explain that the idea that you can strike out parts of a design and leave others is most unsound and quite honestly I would rather not carry out a job at all than do it in these conditions. I would suggest us leaving any further discussions for a week or two as I shall be very busy and away a good deal this next 10 days. Also I feel sore on the subject at the moment but no doubt will recover in time. 71 To his credit, Behrend responded promptly. His letter (replete with crossing out and pencil annotations) shows his concern with Pearson’s frustration: I am awfully sorry to think that you are upset about the design; I would not have dreamt of altering it, if it were one you had just made, but this design I merely altered it to shew what I meant, and I certainly not (sic) have touched it, if it had not already been superseded by alterations agreed upon. (as regards the inside tablet, which surely presumably will have to be put in hand without much delay). 72 However Behrend was also a little irritated by Pearson’s inability to devote as much time to the scheme as he felt was needed, especially when it

Elevation of chapel, with unexecuted proposal for dormer window in roof, by Lionel Pearson, undated c. 1926. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

69 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 14 June 1926. 70 See the essay on Charles Pibworth in this volume. 71 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 19 June 1926. 72 John Louis Behrend to Lionel Pearson, 22 June 1926.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

involved an artist as fastidious as Spencer. In the remainder of his reply he strikes an assertive note, with none of the revisions evident in the opening apology, as perhaps befits a patron who had already committed many thousands of pounds to the project: It is a great pity that you are so busy as not to be able to devote much time to the affair, for Head [the builder] is getting on pretty fast, and I greatly fear that there may [be] other details similar to the stone skirting, which may be rendered impossible by the advancement of the work. I am very sorry you are so worried about it all and I would hazard the opinion that a good deal of this worry could have been avoided if you had sent us the designs in good time. I must confess that I am ignorant as to how far a client can have his views adopted, but he surely must have some say in the matter, otherwise why send him any designs at all? 73 The dispute appears to have blown over, although for a short while Pearson’s correspondence is addressed to ‘Dear Mr Behrend…’ rather than anything more familiar. Yet, despite the frequent dialogue and the passion it aroused, the design of the roof was never fully resolved to Pearson’s satisfaction, and the issue over the location of the eight panels was quietly dropped.

73 John Louis Behrend to Lionel Pearson, 22 June 1926.

TENDERS CONSIDERED: CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES By the end of March 1926 Pearson wrote to Behrend enclosing two tenders for the construction of the building. Both were from local contractors: Hosking Bros. of Newbury offered a price for construction of £4,037; and William G. Head of Burghclere, the slightly lesser amount of £3,879. ‘I hope Head is the man whom you wish to carry out the work’ opined Pearson, ‘as I know you favour the local man.’ 74 And indeed, by 19 April the contract with William ‘Bill’ Head was ready for all parties to sign. 75 Within days Head was grappling with the heavy work of levelling the site and readying it for construction. Rather than transport surplus earth one and a half miles away – at some cost – he and Pearson agreed, with characteristic pragmatism, to dispose of it in the north-east corner of the site where the land sloped away into the railway cutting. An illustrated letter to Behrend on 24 April showed the proposed building in plan, and a hand-written note indicated that any remaining earth could be used to level the land in front of the chapel, which sloped slightly from west to east. 76 It is clear from the frequent correspondence that Pearson was busy in the following weeks resolving a number of issues about the essential functions of the building, in particular the layout of utilities in the cottages. His detailed letters covered rather pedestrian, but necessary, details such as the location of the boilers, the heating chamber and several shallow cupboards. 77 Most were resolved without fuss, although on 28 May the architect raised concerns that the ‘idea of placing the altar about two feet from the end wall (might) take away from the length of the chapel?’ 78 Enclosing the latest blueprint with this letter he suggests that Behrend consider the layout carefully before deciding. It was advice well heeded as the final positioning of the altar is nearer the end wall. Close as it is, there was just space enough to allow Spencer access to complete the very lowest part of the painting many years after the rest of the chapel’s murals were finished. 79

74 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 31 March 1926. 75 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 19 April 1926, covering letter with the Contract for ‘Memorial Chapel and Almshouses’. Even after the completion of the building, Head’s work on the Chapel continued on and off until the 1950s. In one letter to the Behrends written 21 February 1950, Head assures his long-standing clients that a consignment of oak is safely stored at his house in case future work should be required for facing the Chapel doors. 76 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 24 April 1926. Invariably, the correspondence between the two mean was typed, though on occasion a hand-written note was sufficient, especially if it was a note accompanying a sketch, rough plan or elevation. 77 See letters between Lionel Pearson and John Louis Behrend, 22 and 28 May 1926. 78 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 28 May 1926. The blueprint must be presumed missing or lost. 79 In the letter of 28 May 1926 the architect shares some proposals made by the quantity surveyor, namely the omission of the rainwater tank, and the extra funding needed for the oak doors. Earlier that year Russell and Co. Engineers of New Bond Street, London had provided detailed technical information about the capacity of two 1,000 gallon tanks, their ability to hold sufficient water for 10-11 weeks without rain, and an estimate that the roof of the Chapel would collect 9,000 gallons of water annually, assuming average rainfall of 30 inches per year. (Extract of a letter from Russell and Co. to Behrend, 17 March 1926). For an examination of the painted wall immediately behind the altar see Paul Gough, Journey to Burghclere (Sansom and Company, Bristol, 2006) p. 333.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Amidst the continuing three-way discussion about the final design of the exterior and interior of the building, Bill Head and his men had commenced digging foundations and ordering materials. The builder was paid in regular instalments of £500 after two initial smaller payments, and by October 1926 had invoiced for £2,200, representing some five months work on site. 80 Although Mary Behrend is not mentioned as often as her husband in the copious correspondence about the design and construction of the building, her contribution in helping to realise the chapel must never be underestimated. She played an essential role behind the scenes. In early September 1926, for example, the builder asked Behrend to ‘please let Mrs Behrend know, that I got in touch with the architects & have also had “Hopes” man down about the chapel windows, so all is now clear.’ 81 At this stage, Head was working closely with Pearson to resolve many small, but essential, details. A month later the architect wrote to Behrend endorsing Head’s decision to commission Elliotts – a local carpentry firm – to make the oak doors for the front of the building, suggesting that they also construct the side doors in oak but with deal wood frames to match the rest of the painted work. Between the architect, builder and carpenter they also arrived at a handy solution for ‘getting rid of the nasty raw colour of oak’ by using a special staining process devised by Elliotts. 82 To the disadvantage of the builder and his men there was no running water at the site. However, a water-diviner detected a source and a well was dug directly in line with the chapel doors about half-way down the length of the current garden meadow. It was dug by hand, with each bucket of spoil used to level the sloping forecourt of the future building. Rather theatrically the well-digger was wound down and up at the beginning and end of each day, to a considerable depth as it had to be deep enough to sink below the level of the adjacent railway cutting. The capped well remains in situ today. In an oft-related incident, George Behrend recalled one adventurous day at the building site when he and his younger sister helped the builders to mix cement. However, instead of using one of the ordinary galvanized buckets, they came across an oak, barrel-shaped bucket which they happily used all afternoon. 83 In the evening it transpired that this was the bucket used by the residents of the cottages to draw and carry water from the well. Full of hardened cement it was completely ruined and had to be replaced.

100

80 In order for the builder to be paid the architect would issue a monthly certificate to John Louis Behrend requesting payment to Head. On 9 September 1926 Head corresponded with Behrend about a missing balance of £100. The archive contains a typical instalment certificate, No. 5, dated 19 October 1926. 81 William Head to John Louis Behrend, 9 September 1926. 82 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 19 and 21 October 1926. 83 The bucket appears on a written invoice from Bill Head drawn up in May 1927. In a long list of items it is listed as ‘I oak well bucket with galvd bands & handles. £1 ten shillings. The previous item on the list is ‘1 steel well rope 40’ long with chain. 15 shillings. The following item is: ‘1 set of hinges & hooks for well, lid & 2 rings for tumbler, & iron handle & stud etc’.

FINISHING TOUCHES: THE ROOF AND THE WELL

84 In a letter to the Chairman of the Trustees, National Trust, Burghclere, written 29 December 1950 and in answer to concerns over suspected water ingress, Pearson itemised in detail the actual fabric of the chapel. ‘The wall consists of 4½ inch external wall, a 2½ inch cavity, and a 9 inch internal wall. The internal wall is rendered in cement on the inside face and the cavity runs right up from foundations to roof. There is a damp course at ground floor level and the wooden joists rest on the internal wall at the top ceiling level.’ Pearson concluded that the likely cause of the damp was not water ingress but condensation, caused by warm air inside the Chapel striking the walls, which were cold during the winter months. In the same letter, having reviewed the problem on a site visit with Bill Head, he proposes a range of possible solutions. 85 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 8 November 1926. 86 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 12 January 1927. 87 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 14 January 1927. 88 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 19 January 1927. 89 George, Behrend, Stanley Spencer at Burghclere (Macdonald, London,1965) p. 47. 90 Spencer had required that no artificial lighting be included inside the Chapel.

By early November 1926 the construction was well advanced. 84 Once more Pearson addressed the vexed issue of the roof. A hand-written letter and an accompanying drawing set out his preferred options: three windows on the main façade (a wide central window flanked by two narrow ones), a steeply pitched roof and a rather ornate dormer window resting on a solid parapet, the whole feature waterproofed by a simple lead treatment. The carving of the dormer, he adds, ‘would give a bit of enrichment in a place where it would be most valuable.’ It was his final attempt to convince both patron and painter, ‘I don’t think we ought to abandon the dormer lightly in any case.’ 85 Behrend’s response is not known, but must have sufficiently encouraged Pearson because two months later he was exploring the cost of having ‘dormer tops’ priced up by a supplier and fitted by Head to save money. 86 However, he cautions Behrend that ‘lead is very high in price nowadays’. 87 As ever a middle position was adopted, and by 19 January 1927 Behrend had consented to a less ornate and significantly smaller dormer for the main facade. He also agreed with the architect to add ‘the back dormer in a plainer style so that the two will match to some extent.’ 88 Despite Pearson’s professional advice the proposal for a clerestory was never revisited and Spencer’s views about the roof were preferred over his. As constructed by Head, the roof is appreciably shallower than in any of the architect’s drawings, the pitch is less obvious and the dormers reduced significantly in size and visual impact. The only surprising modification to the exterior was a small carved stone block surmounted by a white cross. ‘The resulting compromise,’ noted George Behrend, ‘is rather unfortunate.’ 89 Indeed, the final design suffers by the lack of a bold roofline and the interior is blighted by the absence of any light in the upper reaches of the painted panels, which means that in weak daylight the highest details are rendered almost unreadable. 90 The cross appears to have been a last-minute decision. It appears in none of Pearson’s earlier designs. Possibly, in the absence of a significant roof, it was added as a signifier of the buildings’ religious status.

101

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Perhaps only from the gardens at the rear of the buildings can one appreciate Spencer’s requirement for a lightly adorned cuboid structure, a ‘Holy Box’ to contain his extraordinary narrative paintings.

Despite these many compromises and the occasional spat, Pearson ends his lengthy correspondence with the Behrends on a warm and positive note: ‘It has been extraordinarily pleasant working on your job’ he wrote, ‘I am glad you like the building so well.’ 91 Critical and popular opinion was unanimous in its appreciation of the paintings. The building itself aroused mixed reviews, at best faint praise. George Behrend described the chapel’s dimension as ‘unattractive’. In his memoirs he writes, rather acerbically, that he and his sister thought it looked like the Hunter and Palmer’s biscuit factory in nearby Reading, and ever after the children called it such. 92 However, as a relatively simple unadorned cube, the chapel met most of Spencer’s strict specifications – a ‘Holy Box’ indeed, or as Pearson and the Behrends chose to call it on occasion, ‘Spencer’s God Box’. 93

102

91 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 20 April 1927. Pearson also adds: ‘I am quite sorry that my visits to Newbury are done.’ 92 George Behrend, ‘An Unexpected Life’, p. 22. From 1870 until the 1970s, Reading was known as ‘biscuit town’ because of the fame of Huntley & Palmers biscuits originally made there, in what was the world’s largest biscuit factory. In his 1965 book, Stanley Spencer at Burghclere, George Behrend goes as far as to state that Spencer’s ‘strict conditions’ for the building are ‘architecturally quite unsound.’ (p.45) 93 Lionel Pearson’s handwritten letter to John Louis Behrend, 1 January 1926, features a hand-drawn plan of the proposed building and the phrase ‘…the lines of the GOD BOX as you call it’.

103

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

104

105

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

106

SANDHAM MEMORIAL CHAPEL: THE GARDEN AND ITS SETTING Sarah Rutherford

Sandham Memorial Chapel at Burghclere is a unique cultural composition. The ensemble is focussed upon an early 20th century private memorial chapel dedicated to a single individual, its interior conceived by a major artist as the setting for a series of great religious paintings. It is set in its own garden (not a burial ground), open to the public, and with cottages and their gardens as part of the ensemble, within a self-contained site not previously developed. This chapter examines the origins of the garden, its design and construction, and ends by offering a range of comparable ensembles of places of worship in ornamental settings. However, it must be concluded that in many respects the Sandham ensemble is unique. Rather surprisingly, the layout of the garden and grounds of the chapel had not been analysed in detail until 2013, although it formed an intrinsic element of the original artistic composition. 1 Concentrating specifically on the landscape aspects of the garden this chapter is divided into three main sections that deal with the development and form of the garden, its significance to the cultural ensemble, and the wider context of such a garden for a place of worship. It concludes that in its form it contributes to make the site a unique cultural ensemble.

OVERVIEW OF THE FORM OF THE GARDEN The 0.5 ha. (1 acre) chapel plot is broadly rectangular, c.35m wide west to east, and 135m at its greatest length north to south (on the east boundary with the former railway) with a very gentle fall in this direction. It is bounded to the north by a field, to the west by The Homestead house and garden, to the east by the steep cutting of the former Didcot, Newbury & Southampton Railway, and to the south by Harts Lane and beyond this the associated meadow. The chapel and almshouses stand as a united composition set back some 50m from the road. The garden forms the immediate setting of the chapel and remains divided into two areas: first, the Front Lawns which consist of an ornamental approach and main visual setting for the chapel and its decoration, including formal and informal lawns, terracing and an orchard. Secondly, the Rear Gardens, which contain a service area and were the site of two former cottage gardens.

107

Aerial photography of the Sandham Memorial Chapel and environs, 1946.

1 Much of this chapter is based on research and analysis carried out by the author for the National Trust in 2013 in preparation for the report â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Sandham Memorial Chapel The Oratory of All Souls, Burghclere, Hampshire, Conservation Statementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2 volumes, October 2013). This report also includes an overview of sources (Section 2.5, pp. 9-10).

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

The landscape is closely related to its wider setting, both the adjoining land and also further afield, particularly long views south to Watership Down, part of the Berkshire Downs, from the chapel door and main path.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GARDEN: EARLY USE The early history of the chapel plot is obscure, but by the mid-18th century it was apparently part of the Commons of Burghclere, and had probably been so for several centuries. The large oaks which still stand at the northeast and south-east corners may have originated as part of the Commons, marking boundaries with former public roads.

2 Burghclere Tithe Plan and Award (Hampshire Record Office). 3 1873 Ordnance Survey, 6” and 25” scales. 4 1893 and later Ordnance Survey, 6” and 25” scales. 5 John Louis and Mary Behrend, Account of the Building of the Burghclere Chapel, 1959, National Trust Archive. ARMS file id: 6163416. 6 George Behrend, Stanley Spencer At Burghclere (Macdonald, London,1965) p. 6. 7 30 July 1926: Highclere Estate auction, Lot 17 fronting Pound Lane. 2 acres included site of later Chapel View (Ash Cottage): “an attractive building site” sold for £195 to a Mr Garrett a ‘retired railwayman from Eastleigh’. The Chapel View part was then bought by the Behrends for Spencer’s house while painting the Chapel.

By the late 18th century the future Chapel plot was enclosed as part of a larger parcel, probably as part of the 1783 Inclosure of the Commons of Burghclere. The whole parcel of nearly 4 acres (just under 2 hectares) was contiguous with further farmland to the north and west. The parcel remained in similar use and form during the 19th century. By 1838 it was owned by the Earl of Carnarvon and tenanted by William Pascoe. As a ‘Garden Ground’, its ‘state of cultivation’ was ‘arable’ (i.e. not homestead, pasture or woodland which were the alternatives). 2 It continued as a market garden or similar productive area with the future chapel plot crossing its centre from north to south. 3 In the 1880s the new railway took the east half of the cultivated parcel for a large cutting, with the new Highclere Station built nearby to the south-east. 4

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GARDEN AS THE SETTING FOR THE CHAPEL In 1923 John Louis and Mary Behrend bought a strip adjacent to the railway from a reluctant 6th Earl of Carnarvon which became the site of the memorial chapel building and its garden. As Paul Gough explores elsewhere in this volume, it seems that a larger site was sought but was unavailable in the area at that time and the site as acquired was not what the Behrends thought ideal. 5 The timing was unfortunate as the Estate was at that time reluctant to part with any land in Burghclere for building 6 but shortly afterwards in 1926 was forced to sell a considerable proportion of the estate land in the area. 7 Aspects of the development of the design and its execution are well documented, including architect Lionel Pearson’s correspondence and

108

plans sent to Behrend, and Head the builder’s accounts to Behrend, together with the plans. These sources, examined by Paul Gough in this volume, indicate how the development of the grounds was considered closely by Behrend as the client, and the main design drivers. They also indicate how cost was a major factor in deciding whether some of the more detailed design suggestions were adopted. The surviving documentation so far identified (by 2013) does not include a ground plan of the whole plot as bought by the Behrends from Lord Carnarvon in 1923, 8 nor proposal plans for the entire layout (Pearson provided more than one but these do not survive). The landscape design for the grounds around the chapel was split into two major areas: a) The south, front lawns as the formal frame for the chapel composition. This was the most important aspect of the layout. The design of this area was based on Pearson’s ideas in discussion with Behrend and adopted a contemporary ‘Arts and Crafts’ style with a geometric layout and features softened by traditional planting. b) The almshouse gardens, screened to the rear of the building provided for the occupants to garden. They contrasted with the front

109

Historic view from front garden looking towards Sandham Memorial Chapel, early 1920s. National Trust Archive.

8 A plan may be included with the deeds held by the National Trust, but this source was not available to the author.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

lawns as they were cultivated, productive and flower gardens in the manner of traditional cottage gardens. These two areas were linked on the west side by a narrow service drive for coal deliveries to the rear of the building, lined by the formal line of clipped limes (European limes, Tilia x europaea). The early stages of the design process for the building and its setting began in November 1925 when Pearson’s earliest drawings of the building and its immediate surrounds are dated. By the following January, Pearson refers to his proposal, hoping that Behrend ‘will not think the scheme for the shelters and garden is too ambitious. It seems to me to set off the entrance to the chapel better than any other scheme.’ 9 The shelters were to be recessed integral loggias either side of the chapel door and are seen in one of his proposals, but were not executed. The siting of the building on the plot was also under discussion. Pearson commented that because the plot measured 95 ft ‘across the field at its narrowest part’, this allowed for the position of the building ‘one ft from the newly planted hedge [presume on the east boundary] and about 3 ft from the row of limes [west of the building along the drive].’ He reckoned that this provided adequate space ‘required for the plan we agreed on.’ 10 The row of limes was an early designed feature of the layout. Pearson estimated that the almshouses would be about 180 ft back from the road. In doing so the position of the building was carefully judged to allow the garden to act as the herald and frame. Pearson’s plans and elevations for the building (dated 05, 08 and 10 February 1926) show some details of the proposed landscape. Provision of seating in recesses flanking the main chapel door (presumably the shelters referred to on 05 January) was suggested by Pearson, but this was not taken up, probably because of the cost but possibly, as is covered elsewhere in this volume, because of differences between Behrend and Pearson as to the final design. 11 With regard to ‘the yard at the back’, the architect advised it would be better arranged with a hedge in place of a brick wall. This perhaps referred to a small yard suggested adjacent to the chapel rear doors between the cottage gardens. It is unclear if this was executed.

110

9 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 5 January 26. Correspondence between the architect, artist, patron and builder are from the National Trust archive at Micheldever, Boxes 411-415. See the full record of the archive in this volume. 10 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 15 January 1926. 11 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 8 February 1926.

By mid-March the layout was clearly well advanced. Elements of the main approach through the garden included the ‘front entrance, piers and gates, the brick path and the well covering’. 12 Although not included in Pearson’s £4,000 estimate for the chapel, the brick path around the cottages and chapel was to be included. To reduce costs Pearson suggested using an oak gate with clipped yews in place of proposed brick piers, & that the well head ‘might also be in oak of a simple type as this would look unobtrusive in front of the chapel.’ 13 The style was Arts and Crafts in modest form. Pearson sent an initial plan showing the suggested arrangement for the brick paths. These would cost a few more pounds but the purpose would be worth it as they ‘would help the old people to resist the temptation of cutting off the corner as they will surely be inclined to do.’ 14 This may refer to the planting of small clipped evergreens to stop people cutting across corners. This clearly did not entirely satisfy his client as a few days later he supplied a variation on the path plan providing a ‘more pleasing shape’. 15 Head’s building account to Behrend for May 1927 relates largely to constructing the building, with 5 pages of detailed items, but it also includes items for the grounds including:

111

Elevation of chapel by Lionel Pearson showing an early arrangement proposal for the terrace, undated but probably early 1926. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

12 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 23 March 1926. 13 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 8 April 1926. 14 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 14 December 1926. 15 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 17 December 1926. Plan cannot now be located nor is the variation in shape clear.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Digging and ?steining [sic] well 35’ deep to ground line including dome, etc £38.0.0 Carpenter’s time making oak well top with door and tumbler £4.18.6 Steel well rope 40’ long with chain. Oak well bucket with ladle. Set hinges and hooks for well lid and 2 rings for tumblers. Oak gate and posts complete £6.0.0 Extra brick on edge paving. 112 yds Extra for circular [brick]work and steps. Extra cost of bricks owing to strike [The 1926 General Strike]. In May 1927 Head erected 4 oak posts and [washing] lines for the cottages. This confirms that they really were cottage gardens and that their appearance was not considered to be important in the approach to the chapel, being hidden behind it. Fine gravel was supplied and rolled, presumably for the drive. Bills show that loads of manure were regularly delivered to cottages during this period and paid for by Behrend. Thus at its completion the site was laid out with a formal lawned front approach from Harts Lane, dominated by the composition of the building with the chapel elevation set back. To the rear the two cottage gardens for the almshouse inhabitants were gardened largely as allotments. No photographs of the entire early layout have been found except for the RAF aerials of 1946-47, and these are rather small in scale. Pearson’s ground floor plans (November 1925 – April 1926) indicate various details that were not carried out, including that the building was to be surrounded by a hard path. A forecourt enclosed in front of the chapel by the almshouses was to be laid out with two square panels, presumably of fine turf. The earlier version (February 1926) shows the north end of a central path leading to this ‘paved garden’. It also shows what may be the line of the drive along the west boundary and the property boundary dotted to the east. His perspective sketch c.April 1926 shows two further panels of lawn enclosed by paths in front of each almshouse flanking the central path. The paving was proposed to be extended south in an angled apron in December 1926 shown in a drawing by Pearson, but was instead carried out as a semi-circle.

112

THE LANDSCAPE COMPLETED The layout as completed is shown in RAF aerial photographs of 1946 and 1947, with the simple geometric pattern, and open rural setting. No other views including the rear almshouse gardens have been identified to indicate in greater detail their early use and layout. These shots show that woodland was absent from the tightly clipped hedged boundaries. The cutting, then still in use as a working railway, was clear of vegetation, as was the view between the chapel and Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s former home, Chapel View cottage (east of the cutting). The central path and well led to the chapel, with the drive running along the whole western boundary to the rear of the site. The rear gardens were vegetable gardens, each cultivated with rows of crops. They were divided by a broad strip (probably of lawn with shrubs), immediately behind the chapel, leading to the coal shed by the north boundary.

PLANTING & MANAGEMENT The intent of the planted character of the garden is indicated from two main contrasting sources held by the National Trust: the Carnarvon Estate nursery bill set in January 1926, early in the design of the garden, lists plants supplied in the previous autumn for ÂŁ11-7-0. They are all common plants as garden shrubs and traditional hedging species: 16

16 Carnarvon Estate, nursery bill, 21 January 1926. 17 Anecdotal information from George Behrend in an e-mail referred to in the draft National Trust Garden Conservation Statement, 2011.

3 Laurestinus @ 3/- each [Viburnum laurestinus, these were probably used as specimen shrubs] 20 Limes @ 1/6- each [type unspecified, but a common type as they were only 1/6 each. They were used to line the drive. Twenty remained in this position in 2013, and are believed to be Tilia x europaea] 475 Quick [hawthorn] @ 20/- per 100 [Crataegus monogyna, a standard rural hedging species] 40 Berberis @ 50/- per 100 [the type unspecified but a common one used for hedging judging by the price] 50 Briars @ 40/- per 100 [Rosa canina, another common hedging species] 12 Thorns @ 1/- each (Double Scarlet) [ornamental variety of Crataegus monogyna, probably standard specimen trees] 4 Hollies @ 4/- each [Ilex aquifolium, probably large specimens as standards were quite expensive]. In addition apple trees and box were planted in 1928. 17 This list indicates

113

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

that the intended planted character was based on common, largely native plants, including extant mature trees, particularly oak, with a few ornamentals, although the clipped lime line and box specimens added a note of formality, typical of this period. The apple trees imparted a note of rurality and productivity in the otherwise formal front garden, redolent of cottages and Arts and Crafts themes. The Duties and rules for the Occupants and Committee summary (c.1927) indicate how the garden was to be managed and thus its character. The duties of the occupants included: Cut and roll lawn when required, trim or lay hedges, trim edges, roll gravel, sweep and weed paths and generally keep grounds in order. Clear snow from … paths. Sweep out chapel weekly and wash outside steps. Rules for the Occupants specified: Grounds in front of buildings to be kept as orchard and meadow under Committee’s management. No animals to be kept on it, no trees, shrubs or turf to be cut [as in lifted] and no washing to be hung out there, and no flowers cut. No animals to be kept in garden or cottage to the annoyance of other occupants or neighbours. No extension of garden beyond piece allotted. E.C. [earth closet] buckets to be emptied daily and excrement buried behind each occupant’s garden. All tools to be cleaned after use; lawn mower and roller to be kept oiled. ‘Rules for the Committee’ relating to the grounds set out their management duties and included: Have grass scythed and dispose of hay. Have trees pruned, mulched if necessary, etc. Generally keep buildings and grounds in repair.

114

INTENDED GENERAL CHARACTER The general character was based on simple geometry, with a strong contrast between the polite front garden as the setting for the chapel and its main approach, and to the rear the vernacular productive cottage gardens cultivated in regular rows in two rectangular allotments divided by the central strip left as access. The layout was sensitive to the rural setting and use of the almshouses by disadvantaged local people. A surviving agreement shows that the almshouses were first occupied in March and June 1927. The few surviving photographs of the early years of the front garden show the young fruit trees and limes, box sentinels flanking the terrace steps and daffodils naturalized along the path edges. The grass under the apple trees up to the slope was grown long for hay-making and thus cut several times a year. The grass on the slope and around the path edges was neatly mown. 18 The eastern boundary was clear of trees along the railway cutting, with a clear view between the building and Chapel View built by the Behrends where the Spencers lived, some 75m to the east aligned on the chapel building which it faced.

115

Ground plan of chapel and almshouses by Lionel Pearson, indicating the initial ideas for the layout of the courtyard, 8 February 1926.

18 Anecdotal information from George Behrend in an e-mail referred to in the draft National Trust Garden Conservation Statement, 2011.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHAPEL GARDEN AND ITS SETTING The garden was of high significance to the cultural composition of the Chapel from the outset, even though Spencer, who was vociferous in his concept for the building and its artworks, it seems had little opinion or influence on the layout. 19 The design seems to have been a combination of Pearson’s initiation as architect, responding to his client Behrend’s opinions. It was always conceived as a garden, without prominent religious associations, rather than as a burial ground. The garden forms the integral ornamental and essentially domestic setting for what was to become an internationally renowned memorial chapel established in the late 1920s and consolidated in the 1930s, which remains largely unaltered. The garden heralded the chapel as the main approach for the worshippers and numerous visitors. Stylistically it is typical of the later flowering of the Arts and Crafts approach to garden design of high quality, although simple in its design and effect and modest in scale. This style contrasts with the Modernist leanings of the chapel architecture and has more in common with the Queen Anne style echoes of the almshouses. The key design is based on the garden’s division into two contrasting ornamental and productive areas whose horticultural aspects would have reflected varieties of both a formal public setting for the approach to the chapel and to the rear the hidden productive cottage gardens.

116

Ground plan of chapel and almshouses by Lionel Pearson, indicating the more developed and near final layout of the courtyard, 14 December 1926. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

19 This is not to suggest that Spencer was disinterested. He had a keen interest in plants, flowers and gardens, and painted them on many occasions throughout his life. However, the demands of the chapel’s interior occupied his attention and required a singular concentration.

117

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

The setting and its character which comprises a mosaic of the immediate rural and village landscape is of high significance to the chapel and its designed grounds together with the associated views. It includes a strong relationship with the wider Hampshire landscape, particularly Watership Down (which is said to have inspired Spencer and was included in scenes in the chapel) and remains largely unaltered. The railway cutting before the railway was shut and maintenance abandoned to self-sown woodland, had a considerable effect in affording a long stretch of views eastwards from the site, in particular the view between the chapel and Chapel View where Spencer and his family lived. The rural garden concept of the setting of Sandham Memorial Chapel may owe something to the genre of the 19th century estate owner who in the grounds of his country house erected a private chapel or parish church which was also designed as an incident in the larger estate design. Some were remote from the house. At Killerton, Devon, in the late 1830s-1840, for example, Sir Thomas Acland, 10th Bt, built the rather austere large chapel in neoâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Norman style by C.R. Cockerell for the parishioners in a remote part of his park and extended an elaborate detached pleasure ground around it as part of the composition. At nearby Bicton for Lady Rolle the small parish church was recast by Pugin in 1850 as a mausoleum and enclosed within the gardens, and a flamboyant new church built alongside. The churchyard was part of the garden ensemble. At Tyntesfield, Somerset, in the garden adjacent to the house, the flamboyant Tractarian chapel was built in 1873 for William Gibbs, a passionate supporter of the Oxford or High Church Movement, and based by William Butterfield on Sainte Chapelle in Paris. 20 Considerably closer to Sandham Memorial Chapel in form as a religious artistic ensemble within a self-contained rural ornamental setting is the Watts Memorial (or Mortuary) Chapel in Compton Cemetery near Godalming, Surrey. The composition of both as an innovative memorial work of art in an ornamental setting is strongly comparable, but the Compton ensemble was designed earlier than Sandham. The chapel was built in the 1890s by Mary Watts as a memorial for her husband the renowned painter G.F. Watts (1817-1904) and is an Arts and Crafts tour de force. The new village cemetery, created out of agricultural land, was dominated by the highly ornate parish chapel, its exterior smothered in

118

The chapel and the terrace photographed in late 1936 or early 1937, with a clear view of the railway cutting in the background. National Trust Archive.

20 This in turn continued the tradition established by eighteenth-century land owners who laid out newlyfashionable landscape parks and included the parish church and its churchyard within the new layout, often intentionally as an eye-catcher, sometimes, such as at Hartwell House, Bucks, rebuilt for the purpose.

119

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

symbolic terra-cotta ornament made by local villagers for Mary Watts’s Compton Pottery (Potters Arts Guild). The interior was filled from 1901 with Christian-themed mural painting, including a Tree of Life. Whilst closely managed by Mary Watts the decoration of the Chapel was a community affair, with more than seventy villagers taking part. Other contemporary structures in the cemetery included a long, free-standing cloister of brick, terra cotta and oak timbers, an elaborate Compton Pottery well head and a large number of ornamental Compton Pottery memorials which gradually accumulated in the early 20th century. The ensemble differed from Sandham in the use of the grounds as a parish burial ground, albeit with highly decorative ornamental structures from the Pottery. As a place of worship set in a contemporary secular landscape, Sandham had similarities with the pre-War Hampstead Garden Suburb in North London, although this was at a considerably larger scale. In this case, the central civic space for the residents of the extensive garden suburb by Raymond Unwin was dominated by two massive churches (the Church of England one by Sir Edwin Lutyens) flanking Lutyens’ soulless but impressive recreational space, with an imposing Institute as the centrepiece. As a garden with a contemplative and a memorial theme, Sandham chapel bears some similarities to the Imperial War Graves Commission’s cemeteries that were being laid out in the 1920s across the main theatres of the Great War, particularly the Western Front. In 1922 Spencer went on a painting holiday in Yugoslavia, spending a month in Sarajevo, wanting to return to the remembered contours of the Macedonian Hills. It seems that while there he saw and was moved by the Imperial War Graves cemeteries, but it is unclear whether he in turn influenced the garden at Sandham. The Imperial (now Commonwealth) War Graves Commission led the British Establishment response with its thousands of cemeteries, all unique in their position but united by certain features and characteristics common to all. Christian symbolism was prominent at the heart of each cemetery (those with over 40 burials) in the form of the Cross of Sacrifice (usually the form designed by Blomfield), but apart from this religious symbolism was not pervasive throughout the cemeteries. One key aspect which set them apart from other cemeteries was their horticultural treatment, in which trees, shrubs and smaller flowering plants including herbaceous and roses were used in a particular pattern. The doyenne of garden designers of the 1920s, Gertrude Jekyll advised the Commission.

120

Her influence helped to establish the use of herbaceous plants and roses in beds in front of the rows of headstones, to imitate an old-fashioned English churchyard with lawns and flowers to soften the serried ranks of headstones and formal architecture and layout. This was typical of Arts and Crafts designers, who espoused the profusion of cottage gardens, made more sophisticated by the use of more varied planting. Predating this genre, but with similarities, the Philips Memorial Garden, Godalming was an outstanding early civil memorial garden that epitomised the Arts and Crafts style. It commemorates the chief wireless operator on the Titanic, who perished at his post in the disaster of 1912. A freestanding cloister by Thackeray Turner enclosed and sheltered visitors with an arcaded brick wall holding the stone memorial plaque, surrounds a central courtyard pool, all using vernacular Surrey architectural forms and materials, and planted by Miss Jekyll with herbaceous plants, climbers and evergreen shrubs. Looking even further back in time, how does the chapel at Burghclere compare to the setting of the medieval Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, which provided such a crucial touch point for Spencer as he originated the ideas for the chapelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s paintings. In Padua the chapel architecture is simple: a free-standing rectangular hall with a barrel vault, a small gothic triple lancet window on the west faĂ§ade, tall lancet windows on the southern wall, and a polygonal apse, later raised to contain the belfry. The frescoes dominate. However, the Scrovegni chapel originated as an integral part of a domestic ensemble rather than as an isolated place of worship and its original landscape setting is unclear. It now stands isolated in an urban public park with related ruins. This apparently had no influence on the Sandham setting. In Burghclere, the garden is a key element of this unique cultural composition. The building is well framed within the Arts and Crafts-style front garden with the key initial view along the garden path from the roadside gateway which signals emphatically that this is not a burial ground. The garden, within a compact and self-contained site, heralds the building and its internal artworks and sets a quiet, domestic scene anticipating the nature of Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s art works within. The adjoining cottages and their originally vernacular gardens to the rear form an integral part of the spiritual ambience of the memorial. The wider and varied rural setting is also key to this ensemble, including the nearby

121

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

cottage built for Spencer to live in while he executed his master work, the village, and the railway, as well as the more distant Watership Down, which features in the chapel paintings. If modest in scale and layout, though always thoughtful in its design and planting, the garden forms an integral element of the cultural ensemble as the setting for Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unique and internationally important artwork.

122

The chapel front garden seen from the gateway

The front garden seen from the front door of the chapel, looking towards Watership Down

123

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

124

A PAINTER’S PROGRESS: SPENCER’S MATERIALS, METHODS AND WORKING ROUTINE Paul Gough

They don’t look like war pictures, they rather look like heaven; a place I am becoming very familiar with. There are to be two pictures about 28 feet long and 10 feet high, then there is one about 14 feet square and 8 pictures with arched tops, each of these will be about 7 feet high. Then there are 8 ‘predella’ pictures below the arched pictures and 8 little pictures of incidents happening outside the door of a tent; these least to go either side of steps leading to the altar. 1 Spencer did not wait for the chapel to be finished before embarking on the first paintings. After all, he had an exact plan of the scheme firmly in his mind and virtually every aspect of the composition had been drawn to the finest detail in his working sketches. Sixteen of the paintings were to be easel-sized works: eight would be rectangular canvases (each 105.5 x 185.5 cm) to be located at sitting height to form the ‘predella’ panels. Above these were the larger arched pictures (or ‘lunettes’ as they are occasionally called) measuring some 213.5 x 185.5 cms. Flushed by the critical and commercial success of The Resurrection, Cookham, and satisfied that his instructions for the chapel’s design would be followed, Spencer completed Scrubbing the Floor and Sorting and Moving Kitbags, the first of the predellas, in the Hampstead studio he had borrowed from Henry Lamb. They were exhibited in Spencer’s one-man show at Goupil Gallery in February 1927. Spencer’s brother-in-law, Richard Carline, confessed to being disappointed by these first canvases. He thought their colour a little drab and the compositions rather static. Compared to the compositional ingenuity of his Cookham Resurrection, these smaller panels seemed a little cautious, even regressive. But the painter soon convinced Carline of the overarching need to secure pictorial unity throughout the chapel. Spencer was quite aware that faced with the sheer scale of the chapel’s interior he would have to unify the three painted walls into a coherent whole. The greatest danger lay in losing a grip on the composition, frittering away the narrative power in a jumble of fragmented anecdotes, or abandoning the larger vision by resorting to local solutions. In both of the Hampstead studio paintings the severe architecture of the former lunatic asylum surrounds and dominates the figures, reinforcing the feeling that the uniformed individuals are trapped but also transient;

125

Stanley Spencer, at the doorway to the chapel, undated photograph.The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

1 Stanley Spencer to Florence Image, September/October ? 1923, TGA 825.14. In architectural terms the predella is the long supporting plinth below the main tier of paintings. In most Renaissance works the predellas are decorated with narratives from the life of the saints depicted above.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

oppressed by their surroundings yet recognising that they will soon be moving on. This transitory sense is emphasised through the visual stories that are being told – carrying, conveying, shifting; the soldier’s few prized goods crammed into makeshift luggage, the epitome of impermanence and the fugitive. But above everything, their subdued tonality and the sense of spatial compression helped determine the sensory complexion of the ‘hellish underworld’ of the Beaufort. In these two canvases, Spencer set the pictorial tone and the emotional register of his time at the hospital. This chapter explores the fabric of the building’s interior; how the building was made ready for Spencer, where his materials were obtained, and his working routine during the years at Burghclere. Drawing on John Louis Behrend’s comprehensive records held by the National Trust a full account of Spencer’s progress, payments and procedures can be itemized and discussed in context. The narrative begins in the middle of 1927, some three months after Spencer’s exhibition at Goupil. The chapel’s builder William [Bill] G. Head, nearing the end of his time on the construction site, sent Behrend a lengthy itemized list of works already completed inside and outside the chapel. The list included the final arrangements for the dormer windows on the revised roofline: ‘… wooden tops to Dormers, to men’s time erecting scaffolding, pulley blocks etc & fixing lead dormer top as supplied by Mr Armitage… £7-15 shillings.’ Detailed items in the interior included: ‘Plastering Chapel and vestry / coat Portland / keens…’. The final payment was settled by Behrend on 12 August 1927, a total of £4,338-12-5d, with a balance of £238-12-5d yet to be paid. On that same day Head wrote a few short words of appreciation to the Behrends thanking them for the settlement of the ‘chapel job’: I should like to thank Mrs Behrend & yourself for entrusting such an important job to me & I sincerely trust everything will be satisfactory to Mr Pearson.’ Signed ‘Your obedient servant, W.G.Head’. 2 However, the work – and the payment - was not quite finished. A further note written on 19 August 1927 listed a summary of works done in the chapel since April 1927, most notably on 16 June ‘To man’s time assisting

126

2 William Head to John Louis Behrend, 12 August 1927.

Pryce (sic) Smith taking patterns of arches & cartage of scaffolding for same.’ The sum of 12 shillings. Minor alterations to the building would continue for many decades, its upkeep was a steady regime against damp and the occasional weather incident. Indeed, Bill Head was still undertaking minor works at Behrend’s request into the early 1950’s.

SPENCER’S PAINTING MATERIALS Spencer purchased most of his painting materials from J.Bryce Smith Ltd, Wholesale and Retail Brush Manufacturers and Artist’s Colourmen, of 117 Hampstead Road, London, NW1. The business had thrived there since 1883, with its works buildings located in nearby Prince of Wales Road. When deciding on the canvases and wooden supports that would be required for the side walls of the chapel, Spencer ordered a job lot. On 16 June 1927 Bryce Smith’s men visited the chapel to measure the apertures in which Spencer’s paintings would be located. They drew up an order for the first five rectangular canvases (for the predella panels) each measuring 42 inches by 72 ¾ inches, to be covered in No.9 canvas on one and half inch wooden stretchers at £2-2-6 each. In the summer of that year a carpenter and two men from Bryce Smith were sent to Burghclere to strain, adjust and install the canvases. Their first trip cost one pound ten shillings for the carpenter’s time, three pounds for the men’s time and some sixteen shillings in return rail tickets to Highclere.

127

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Further invoices from Bryce Smith itemised eight ‘large extra strong shaped strs [stretchers]’ – the arched ‘lunettes’ – and eight pieces of hog canvas, a total of some 19 yards, plus the hire of a van and driver to make the delivery. The total cost of this order was forty-three pounds and five shillings (31 August 1927). A few months later (on 20 October 1927) the suppliers drew up a further invoice for a vast tract of canvas 22 ½ feet by 18 feet at the cost of twenty pounds and ten shillings; a sum that was paid by cheque in early November 1927. Spencer continued to rely on this supplier for his materials – brushes, canvas and paints – for much of the rest of his life. J.Bryce Smith’s invoice of 30 July 1927 listed eight large extra strong shaped wooden stretchers. A tiny diagram drawn on the invoice indicates the arched shape required of each. For Spencer, these paintings were associated ever after with the joyous and highly productive period at Burghclere. Many years later, during less harmonious personal circumstances in the mid-1930s, the arched wooden structure re-appeared in a painting that recalled the construction of the chapel. ‘The Builders’ (1935) 3 was one of a pair of canvases – the other being ‘Workmen in the House’ – that had been commissioned by a wealthy property magnate named Boot who had been introduced to the painter by another patron, Sir Edward Beddington-Behrens. ‘The Builders’ depicts a busy open-air scene, with a group of hod-carriers in the foreground and two workmen moving a large wooden template. Above them a cluster of nestling birds adds a heartening cosiness to the bustle. Dappled sunlight breaks up the flat surfaces of the red brick wall, casting strong shadows from the figures and lending an animated, exuberant air of energy and endeavour. Spencer wrote that he had recently seen a similar wooden template being used by builders in Hampstead, but like so many of his narrative paintings the imagery was rarely bound by one single incident. His figurative narratives were invariably concocted from a mélange of impressions drawn from the present, his distant childhood past, and – in this instance – his rich recollections of watching the builders at work in and around the chapel. Spencer wrote of ‘seeing and helping Mr Head, the builder at Burghclere, fitting into the arched recesses the stretcher frames for my canvases’, and he recalled doing ‘a study of the men measuring the wooden framework’. 4

128

3 Builders, 1935, oil on canvas, 111.8 x 91.8 cm, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven. Executed in 1935, commissioned by Mr Boot, 1935, but not accepted. Acquired from the artist (via Arthur Tooth & Sons, London) by Wilfrid A. Evill in 1937 for £250-0-0, by whom bequeathed to Honor Frost in 1963. 4 Stanley Spencer, TGA 733.3.1.

129

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

130

Could the figure at the top of the arch be Bill Head busy manhandling the sturdy template into position inside the chapel? Or might it be a recollection of the day in June 1927 when the men from Bryce Smith had visited Burghclere to measure the alcoves that were to take the stretched canvases. Certainly, when fitting out the interior of the chapel the shallow recesses for each of the eight lunettes would have had to be constructed from a common template. The half-moon and cruciform wooden structure in ‘The Builders’ may have been a recollection of an act that Spencer had witnessed, or been told about, while the chapel’s interior was measured and fitted out. The companion painting that was commissioned (but later rejected) by Boot also had a direct link with Burghclere. A more sombre image, ‘Workmen in the House’ (1935) 5 was associated by Spencer with a rather serious incident at Chapel View when he detected smoke filtering from behind the skirting board in the kitchen. His diagnosis - that the cooking range had been poorly fitted - was ignored by the workmen called to remedy the problem. In fact had Spencer not acted swiftly it is likely the cottage would have burned down. According to Pople, Spencer was angry that his warning was ignored: imputations that he was ‘dreamy, impractical and incompetent’ touched a raw nerve in him. 6

MOVING TO BURGHCLERE Stanley, Hilda and baby Shirin (who had been born in Hampstead sixteen months earlier) first set out for Burghclere on 5 May 1927. For the rest of that year they lodged with the Fosters at Palmer’s Hill Farm in the village. It was a cheap but comfortable billet that Spencer savoured for its domestic homeliness. However, it was too far to walk to the chapel and back four times a day so Spencer had to learn to ride Hilda’s old bicycle. ‘I hated this,’ he complained, ‘but it had to be done to save time.’ With characteristic generosity, the Behrends commissioned Head to build a cottage within walking distance of the chapel so that Spencer could be close to his workplace for the coming years. An invoice drawn up by Bill Head in September 1927 reveals that ‘New House, known as Breach Cottage’, cost £300 to build. It was a modest building, practical rather than luxurious. Hilda had strong feelings about

131

Stanley Spencer, Builders, 1935, oil on canvas, 111.8 x 91.8 cm Yale University Art Gallery, USA.

5 ‘Workmen in the House’, oil on canvas, 113 by 91.5 cm. Executed in 1935, Commissioned by Mr Boot, 1935, but not accepted. Acquired from the artist (via Arthur Tooth & Sons, London) by Wilfrid A. Evill in 1937 for £250, by whom bequeathed to Honor Frost in 1963. 6 Quoted in Kenneth Pople, Stanley Spencer: A Biography (Collins, London, 1991) pp.315-316.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

the size of some rooms and she remonstrated with the builder on several occasions. Extra work was carried out in early 1928: perimeter fencing and an oak gate were erected, an 80 gallon tank and a pump for the well installed, and a brick wash house was built. These refinements together cost an additional £142 and four shillings. 7 On 22 January 1928 John Louis Behrend wrote in his business-like way to Spencer (then still at Palmer’s Hill Farm) setting out the terms of his residency: Dear Stanley, as you are now about to move into “Breach Cottage”, I think it best to put in writing the terms on which this cottage is let to you, viz. the rent to be 7/6 per week, you to pay rates and taxes & to keep the cottage in tenantable order and condition & the garden properly cultivated. The tenancy to be terminable by either party by three months’ notice in writing. 8

7 William Head to John Louis Behrend, receipt 18 February 1928. 8 John Louis Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 22 January 1928.

A few weeks later the family moved to Breach Cottage, now renamed ‘Ash Cottage’. It was finally re-titled ‘Chapel View’ by Hilda in recognition of the scene that was unfolding not far from them. The house is positioned within sight of the chapel but separated from it by the deep cutting of the railway line. The building still stands today, extended and modified but still recognisable as the house captured in photographs of Stanley, Hilda and Shirin. The view of the chapel a few hundred yards away to the west is now obscured by new growth in an adjacent copse.

132

FITTING OUT THE CHAPEL’S INTERIOR While the Spencers were moving from the farm to the new cottage, Head was drawing up yet another invoice for the Behrends. It covered a period during the previous December when ‘using short ladders’ his men had erected scaffolding at the far end of the chapel. 9 Their task was to install a single sheet of canvas that would cover the entire width of the end wall. As there were no looms sufficiently wide in Britain, the canvas had to be specially woven in Belgium so as to ensure a seamless surface. Affixing it was a laborious and painstaking process. First the walls had to coated with boiled linseed oil and left for one month. A layer of asbestos cloth had then to be applied with white lead and gold size. One month later a second coat of boiled linseed oil was applied, and only then could the canvas be fixed with a support of white lead and gold size. An invoice records the ingredients and the intervals of time between the protracted procedure: Dec. [1927] To men’s time fixing asbestos cloth to walls. £2-19-6d As paid ‘Bells’ for asbestos cloth. £21-7-9d 1 cwt of Genuine white lead, 2 falls best gold size. £4-5-0d Feb. [1928] To men’s time coating asbestos with oil. £1-2-6d 5 gallons of boiled oil (pure) £1-7-6d. 10 The canvas for the painted friezes on each side walls was ordered in November 1929, some 20 months later. Head gave precise measurements

133

9 William Head to John Louis Behrend, receipt, 12 February 1928. 10 William Head to John Louis Behrend, receipt, 12 February 1928. An undated note in National Trust archive box 413 clearly sets out the four steps needed to affix the canvas successfully. The painted sidewalls of the chapel interior are in fact 28 feet long; each panel in the predella measured 39 inches by 73 inches; the lunettes are 84 inches high, and the top frieze some ten feet tall. This makes the total height of the side walls some 24 feet high. The end wall behind the altar measures 21 feet in height by 17 feet three inches wide (the actual width of the chapel).

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

for the surface to be covered – 28 feet 9 inches long by12 feet one inch high – but demanded an additional nine inches (‘not less’) to each dimension so as to ‘allow for enough to fix it at ends & top’. His instruction contains a small diagram showing how the two seamless tracts of canvas – each some 340 square feet - would have to be affixed high on each side. He asked Behrend if he was happy to accept that four pieces of canvas would have to be cut out to accommodate each arch. The waste was inevitable, wrote Head rather bluntly, it ‘must be done, as Mr Spencer will not have a joint?’ 11 Fitting the individual canvases into the arches on the side walls required much less work. Head invoiced Behrend for twelve shillings and six pence for two days work on 2 and 3 January, ‘To self & man, fitting frames in recesses & refixing canvases etc & fixing pictures.’ One of the men may have been Leslie Mercer who worked with his father as a carrier in Burghclere and the surrounding villages from the 1920s to the late 1930s. He transported Spencer’s materials from the local station to the chapel and came to know the painter quite well. In 1932 Spencer made a pencil drawing of the young man. Indeed, in a reminiscence of her father, his daughter recalls that ‘My father understood that Stanley Spencer would incorporate an element of the portrait in one of the panels in the chapel.’ 12 It is perhaps worth noting, given the architect’s nagging anxieties about the drainage capacity of the roof, that on 1 January 1927 (‘a Sunday’, notes Head on the invoice) he had to employ ‘… men’s time clearing all snow from roof - 10 shillings’.

SPENCER’S WORKING ROUTINE Spencer’s routine at Burghclere was regular and highly disciplined; each day’s painting determined by the quality of the natural light. During his five years in the chapel, the door was never locked and a steady stream of visitors came to see his progress – as many as sixteen on a single December day in 1928.13 Spencer seems not to have minded the interruptions, taking the opportunity to expand in detail about the incidents depicted, or yet to be painted, on the walls. Visitors were often surprised at the simplicity of Spencer’s painting paraphernalia; he did not use large tubs of paint or a muralist’s slab for mixing colours. Extensive equipment and well-fitted studios had never played a major part in the family’s artistic behaviour: ‘Bedrooms, attics, barns, sheds and stables, these had been our workrooms from the beginning.’ Anything

134

Stanley Spencer, Portrait of Leslie Mercer, 1932, graphite on paper, private collection.

11 William Head to John Louis Behrend, 11 November 1929. 12 I am grateful to Ann Danks for this information, which was compiled by I.S.Mercer of Hastings in January 2014. Leslie Mercer was born 25 August 1904, and died 31 January 1965. 13 Stanley Spencer, Diary, 1928, TGA 733.4.3 I. Amongst those who made their way to Burgchlere were Robert Gathorne-Hardy and the Bloomsbury artists – Duncan Grant, Vanessa Bell, Roger Fry and the Carringtons, and the poet Arthur Waley. Fry wrote a review of the work in the Nation and Athenaeum, 12 March 1927.

135

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

resembling a proper studio would ‘have felt all wrong.’ Gilbert Spencer relates how little his brother kept by way of paint stuff: ‘no stocks of paints, no drawers full of materials, no drawing benches with high chairs and electric lamps.’ 14 Stanley did not paint all the time: one visitor once found him sitting high on the scaffolding reading works by Mark Twain, one of his favourite authors, and many long letters were written from his lofty perch in the chapel. On a few occasions, as Amanda Bradley states in this volume, he became irritated by insensitive observations from casual visitors, such as a time when he mimicked the rhetoric of a visiting General who remarked loudly: ‘To think of our dear boys.’ 15 But for long periods of time he was there on his own, palette in hand, clad in his favourite suit, enveloped in complete silence. Spencer painted the arched lunettes and the smaller predella canvases on an easel in the chapel. By scrutinising the entries in his letters and diaries it seems that the lunettes took at least six to eight weeks to complete. Although it may now seem breath-taking in its demands on any individual painter, Spencer treated the five-year project in a workmanlike manner and was largely undaunted by technical difficulties. He was well aware of his personal capacity and his work rate. The Behrends, by comparison, were expecting the chapel’s paintings to take much longer to complete. Writing to the ecclesiastical insurers in March 1927 John Louis had even estimated that the ‘war memorial paintings ... will hardly be finished for some 8 or 10 years.’ In fact it took much less time, probably fifty months as opposed to the six years that are usually cited. 16 The panels and walls in the Chapel were painted in the following chronological order: 1927: Scrubbing the Floor; Sorting and Moving Kitbags; A Convoy of Wounded Soldiers Arriving at Beaufort Hospital Gates, Sorting Laundry, Filling Tea Urns. 1928: Ablutions; Dug-out (or Stand-to). 1928-29: The Resurrection of Soldiers (the altar wall). 1929: Reveille; Washing Lockers. 1930: Kit Inspection; The Camp at Karasuli (left hand wall). 1930-31: Riverbed at Todorova (right hand wall). 1932: Patient Suffering from Frostbite; Convoy of Wounded Men Filling Water Bottles at a Stream; Tea in the Hospital Ward; Map Reading; Bed Making; Making a Fire Belt.

136

14 Gilbert Spencer, Stanley Spencer by his Brother Gilbert (Gollancz, London, 1961; reprinted, Redcliffe Press, Bristol, 1991) p.167. 15 Gilbert Spencer, ibid, p.149. Many casual visitors were taken aback by the paintings. The rector responsible for arranging the bishop’s visit to dedicate the chapel in March 1927 wrote to John Louis Behrend: ‘Till the scheme is finished, lots of people will be puzzled & when it is, some will be shocked! … I don’t know if I have seen other pictures like it anywhere.’ Letter from Revd Canon R.S.Medlicott to John Louis Behrend, 12 March 1927. 16 Spencer and his family left London in May 1927, staying in Palmer’s Hill Farm until early January 1928, during which time Spencer had to cycle to the chapel to carry out his paintings in situ. Having settled in Chapel View, he painted through the years 1928, 1929, and 1930. By late summer 1931 he had largely completed the canvases fixed to the walls. It is very likely he finished the last two of the predella canvases and three of the arched lunettes from his newly purchased house in Cookham.

137

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

It is worth pausing to reflect, and appreciate, Spencer’s extraordinary achievement in completing much of the left-hand side of the chapel (except for the easel painting ‘Kit Inspection’ and the high frieze) by the end of 1928, less than eighteen months after he had set foot in the chapel. Sadly, there are only a few contemporary images which show Spencer’s rate of progress. Richard Carline’s essay in The Studio magazine of November 1928 included a very early photograph of the incomplete chapel walls. 17 It depicts the first two of the predella panels – Scrubbing the Floor (1927) and Sorting and Moving Kitbags (1927) – and above them, in the first arch on the left-hand wall, is A Convoy of Wounded Soldiers Arriving at Beaufort Hospital Gates (also of 1927). The empty arch to the right, which would eventually contain Ablutions (1928), gives an impression of the depth of the recess designed to house each separate canvas. Another photograph taken before the canvas was affixed to the interior walls in December 1927 shows the bare plasterwork of the huge altar wall that would occupy Spencer in late 1928 and throughout much of 1929. Although at first glance the painted walls seem to teem with uncoordinated and energetic incident, the narratives are logically organized according to Spencer’s war service in Bristol and the Balkans. When it was completed, the left-hand wall would primarily depict scenes from Spencer’s time at the Beaufort hospital and Tweseldown Camp. On the right-hand side are depicted incidents from Macedonia. All eight of the lower predella panels are drawn from his service as an orderly in Bristol. The immense end wall, behind the altar, and the high friezes on either side wall, relate narratives drawn from the Salonika Front.

PAYMENTS FOR THE PAINTINGS AND SPENCER’S PROGRESS AROUND THE WALLS From the many invoices, receipts and chits retained diligently by Behrend and Head, and the many other papers kept by the National Trust, it is a straightforward task to compute the cost of the building and the sum paid to the artist for the full commission. In late December 1925 Lionel Pearson indicated to John Louis Behrend that the building could be built for approximately £4,000, but this would cover only materials and labour. His estimate was accurate. William G. Head of Burghclere, Newbury estimated £3,879; Hoskings Brothers of Newbury

138

Interior of the Chapel, left-hand wall with a number of completed canvases, 1928. From The Studio, November 1928.

Interior of the Chapel, end wall, not dated but possibly 1928.

17 Richard Carline, ‘New Mural paintings by Stanley Spencer’, The Studio, November 1928, pp.316 – 321.

139

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

quoted a slightly higher tender of £4,037. As Pearson had predicted, Behrend chose Head – ‘Builder, Decorator, Undertaker’ - not necessarily because his price was lower but because he was the ‘local man’. 18 Less detail is known of the other costs - the purchase price of the land, the architect’s charges etc – although there is considerable scattered information about incidental costs: the purchase of two-thirds of the frontage of the Meadow for £20 in July 1926; the acquisition of an oak tree in February 1930, (bought from the Caernarvon Estate for £10) and the frequent purchase of plants, shrubs and other greenery to dress the garden (see Sarah Rutherford’s chapter in this volume). In addition, the running costs of the chapel, the almshouses and the Spencer’s cottage were not insignificant. They varied widely from utility bills and tests to ensure the quality of the drinking water (pursued during August 1928) to the two loads of manure delivered in October 1930 to ‘Sandham Cottages’ at ten shillings a load. 19 Despite unsuccessful attempts to garner support from other patrons and supporters, the Behrends had to foot the bill for everything connected to the buildings and the surrounding gardens, as well as the annual running costs. It is little wonder that the correspondence is peppered with references to budget limitations and occasional quibbles over costs. Driven by his vision for the chapel’s interior, Spencer was only obliquely aware of the Behrend’s fiscal health, but architect Pearson was always mindful of his client, reminding him on several occasions: … but we must be rather careful not to be extravagant in the way of marble, etc. One factor in our favour is that it is possible to obtain such excellent bricks and tiles locally. As for the stone work we might possibly use Bath stone for the interior if Portland was not possible owing to the cost, but I think Portland should be used for the strings, etc. of the exterior. 20 Behrend’s meticulous record of his payments to Pearson, Head and various suppliers and sub-contractors helps us chart the progress of the building under construction. We can identify and track the many refinements and alterations that had to be considered and afforded. The record of payments also gives an unusual insight into Spencer’s progress in painting the chapel’s walls as well as the monies he received. Although there was no formal contact between patron and painter (something of which Spencer felt very proud) the following price per

140

Stanley Spencer, drawing of William ‘Bill’ Head, undated.

18 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 31 March 1926. Head remained the builder most closely linked with the chapel – as repairman, snow clearer, and general upkeep and maintenance - until a few years before his death in May 1959. 19 Smithers, Ashold Farm to Mary Behrend, 9 October 1930. 20 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 11 November 1925.

141

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

painting was agreed in advance: for each predella he would be paid £50; each shaped canvas (the ‘lunettes’ or the ‘arches’ as Behrend called them) would be £75; each side wall frieze £500, and the end wall the sum of £1,000. This would amount to a final total for all nineteen pieces of £3000. Behrend appears to have paid Spencer in arrears in monthly sums roughly subdivided from the agreed final price for all the paintings. On 31 December 1929 his account showed that between 1 January 1926 to 31 January 1928 Spencer had been paid 20 months at 15 pounds per month; over the following four months this increased to sixteen pound and ten shillings per month; and thereafter from 1 June 1928 to the end of that year it increased to twenty-one pounds and ten shillings per month. Behrend paid Spencer by cheque every six months; a sequence of statements illustrates his reckoning. (21) However in mid- January 1929 Behrend confessed to Spencer of ‘an unexpected windfall yesterday and think I cannot do much better than to send you a cheque for £500 – which will go some way towards making up the amount due to you.’ On that occasion, Behrend enclosed ‘a rather elaborate but, I believe, correct statement up to the end of next March [1929], as I am assuming the End Wall picture will be done by then. If this is so, I should on 1 April still be owing you £277-5-0 in respect of pictures already done.’ Out of these monthly and occasional payments Behrend deducted an ‘allowance of 7/6 a week in lieu of rent on your house, or 30/- a month.’ (22) It is perhaps worth noting that Behrend was managing his finances only months before the US Stock Market crash of October 1929 and had to complete the chapel and honour his commitments to Spencer and his family throughout the challenging years of the Depression. Spencer’s earnings were commensurate with his emerging standing as a painter; his large painting The Resurrection, Cookham, 1924-1926, for example, was bought from the Goupil Gallery exhibition in 1927 by the trustees of the Duveen Paintings Fund for the Tate Gallery for the then considerable sum of £1,000. Average daily wages in southern England in 1929 for a building craftsman were fifteen shillings a day, a labourer earned 11/6 daily. Behrend’s comprehensive record-keeping and Spencer’s equally assiduous attention to detail allows an insight into the progress of the work inside the chapel. By July 1929 Spencer had completed 4 predellas, 2 arched paintings and the entire endwall. By 31 December 1929 he had completed a further 2 predellas and another 2 arches. If August to December can be consider approximately 22 weeks, then each of the

142

21 John Louis Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 31 December 1929. 22 John Louis Behrend to Stanley Spencer, 18 January 1929.

arched canvases might have taken some 6 weeks to start and finish; the predella panels possibly 4 weeks. An invoice from 31 July 1930 listed the following works completed: • • • •

5 predellas @ £50 5 Arches @ £75 End wall £1000 Half West side wall £250

Six months later, on 1 January 1931, Behrend’s account indicates that the ‘west side wall - £500’ was complete and paid for. Six months later, on 30 June 1931, the record shows that Spencer had been paid £375 for ¾ of the east wall. By this reckoning each of the high frieze paintings on the side walls – of the camp at Karasuli and the Riverbed at Todorova – had taken over six months to complete from start to finish, although Spencer had been working on non-Burghclere works during some of this period, most notably the five paintings on the theme of Industry and Peace commissioned by the Empire Marketing Board and painted during 1929. By 31 December 1931 Spencer had completed the second of the friezes on the side walls and a further predella. The final written record, drawn up on 10 June 1932 records the following payments: • • • •

6 predellas 5 arches end wall two side walls

£300 £375 £1000 £1000

In order to tackle the vast end wall - 21 feet in height by a little over 17 feet in width - a scaffold had been built by Head during the summer of 1928. A sequence of letters and invoices show that Head, his son, and other men were involved in carting, erecting, and adjusting the scaffolding and safety net during the summer of 1928. His invoice of 13 August reads: To work done at Chapel – 22nd June 1928 - To men’s time altering scaffolding & cartage of laying more planks to ditto. Fixing up wire guard etc. (Labour only charged).

143

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

144

145

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Throughout that summer a sequence of invoices (26, 29, 30 June and 7 July) refer ‘To carpenter’s time altering scaffold & hanging picture’ and ‘To carpenter’s time altering scaffold & position of picture’. The sum was three shillings six pence a session. In mid-August (date not specified but before 13 August) Head refers ‘To carpenter’s time prep, fixing & staining new strip on ceiling to hold canvas of end picture. 18ft of 1 ¼ x ½ nails and stain.’ The invoice total for this work was £7-3-0. By late February 1929 Spencer had painted enough of the end wall to have most of the scaffolding removed. A month later the wall was complete, except for a few feet largely concealed by the altar, which Spencer eventually painted in the early 1930s. There is an undated photograph which shows two of Head’s men moving one of the large wooden trellises that formed part of the scaffolding. Sunlight pours into the chapel as the two men handle the tall ladder frames. In the background the altar wall appears to be completely finished. (23) It was an awe-inspiring achievement, unparalleled in contemporary European painting. Yet despite nine months concentrated and unrelenting work there was to be little respite for Spencer. The side walls beckoned. In May 1929 Head drew up an invoice that records the work carried out to support Spencer between 6 December 1928 up to 7 March 1929: ‘To altering scaffolding & fixing circular Picture. To taking down whole of scaffolding & boarding over steps each side of Altar. 97 feet run 6 “ x ¾” board. Nails etc’. There were additional refinements undertaken during the same period: ‘To carpenters time taking down oak archatraves (sic) & taking to shop & altering same to pattern coating with grey polish & unfixing same complete’. The total sum on this invoice was £2-17- 6. (24) In early 1930 the scaffold rig was moved again and Spencer started work on the ten feet high panoramic friezes above the arched paintings. True to his methodical approach of working from left-to-right, from wet paint to dry canvas, and very like the Italian gesso painters he so revered, he chose the left-hand (west) wall first. The scaffold was repositioned and he started work. By 31 July 1930 (as Behrend’s record shows) he had completed half of the

146

Scaffolding ladders being moved inside the chapel, undated. The Behrend Collection, National Trust Archive.

23 A hand-written note suggests these images may be from the early 1930s. In a letter to John Louis Behrend, 16 January 1931, Spencer expressed his enthusiasm to see the paintings without all the clutter: ‘In a few months time I shall be ready for the scaffold to come down & when it is gone it will be nice to have all unnecessary furniture removed from the chapel so that we can see what it looks like.’ 24 William Head to John Louis Behrend, May 1929. Head’s reference to a ‘circular’ picture probably refers to fixing and securing one of the arched lunettes.

147

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

representation of the camp at Karasuli. In one letter written when Spencer was halfway along the wall he informed Henry Lamb, ‘I am just about to paint the portrait of “me”, striding past a bivouac and delivering the “coup de grace” with an old rusty bayonet to bits of the Balkan News lying about.’ (25) During the final months of 1930 the wall was finished. Once again, the scaffolding was dismantled, moved and re-erected, and for the next nine months he toiled on the long frieze on the right-hand wall – a panorama of the riverbed at Todorova. As he embarked on that huge task he complained that he was: having to do a lot more drawing on the wall so that the last 3 or 4 days I have had to draw & will be condemned to 4 or 5 days more drawing. The ‘stones’ part takes ages to draw & I shall have another big bout of it when I get to the lower part of picture. The trees are going to take me ages also & will have to be drawn to a leaf. However, his letter ends on an upbeat, even humorous note, ‘So when you think of people just ‘vegitating’ (sic) think of me; I shall be vegitating with a vengeance.’ (26) An invoice from Bill Head, drawn up in January 1931 lists works completed between October and December 1930, such as ‘ …men’s time erecting scaffold to side of Chapel, including rails etc – Two pounds and ten shillings.’ A further item indicates that Head’s men ‘marked out to scale’ the high canvas friezes, and also fixed a wire guard to the scaffolding (including staples) to ensure the painter did not fall headlong from it – a task that was costed to the sum of one pound, nine shillings and six pence. (27) By late 1931 the wall-glued canvases were completed, Spencer adding the finishing touches to the last of the painted figures high on the frieze on the right-hand wall. It portrays a short, stocky individual balanced on

148

25 Quoted in Richard Carline, Stanley Spencer at War (Faber, London, 1978) p.197. 26 Stanley Spencer to John Louis Behrend, 16 January 1931. 27 William Head to John Louis Behrend, 21 January 1931. In April 1928 Behrend had arrange life insurance for Spencer. ‘Owing to Mr Spencer’s occupation’, wrote the brokers, ‘the best quotation … for covering him against fatal accidents’ was an annual premium of three pounds and ten shillings per annum for £2,000 cover.

two boulders, caught mid-stride by the light flooding in from the windows of the chapel. Giving the impression that he is trying to escape the crowds to his right, this solitary figure heralded a change in Spencer’s life. After nearly five years of soldiers and scaffolding he wanted the chapel project finished: this may explain why the panorama of the riverbed at Todorova seems much less busy and pictorially dense than the other parts of the painted walls. Larger stretches of the frieze on the right-hand side are dense with foliage and large tracts of dun-coloured sand and pebbles. Whereas there are more than forty figures on the left-hand wall, there are only twenty-seven larger-scaled soldiers on the panorama of Todorova, and the surrounding landscape is more schematic and less varied. Despite once stating that he would never leave Burghclere, the lure of his home village and other distractions took him back to his beloved Cookham. Behrend had hoped to see the Spencers before they quit Chapel View in the last week of January 1932, but influenza had prevented it. In a final statement of payments he let Spencer off the January rental payment and made some arrangements for settling the bill over the use of the garage. His letter concludes with a sad note about the sudden and early death of a painter they both knew: ‘Is it not awfully sad about Strachey; I feel very cut up about it.’ (28)

28 Strachey died of (undiagnosed) stomach cancer on 21 January 1932, at the age of 51. It is reported that his final words were: ‘If this is dying, then I don’t think much of it.’ 29 Author’s interview with George Behrend, 2004.

Although Spencer left Burghclere with the chapel walls incomplete he worked relentlessly during 1932 to finish the last two predella panels and three arched lunettes. That Easter the Behrends travelled to Cookham to visit Spencer at his new home Lindworth to make sure the final canvases would actually be finished. On that occasion they left bearing one of the predella panels wrapped up but still exposed to the elements in the back of their open-topped motorcar anxious that it might not rain on one of the essential parts of the chapel. (29)

149

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

150

THE INTERIOR OF THE CHAPEL, ITS FITTINGS, FIXTURES AND FURNITURE Amanda Bradley, Sarah Rutherford, James Rothwell, Paul Gough

INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERIOR OF THE CHAPEL Reflecting Spencer’s favoured ‘box-like’ simplicity, the interior of the chapel is a plain, double height rectangular room with an altar at the north end against the wall. 1 The altar is made of a single block of Portland stone. It was provided and fitted by William Head for £29-10-0 in early 1927. Designed as a monumental, plain rectangular block on a plinth of low steps, there are echoes of Edwin Lutyens’ altar-like (but non-denominational) ‘War Stone’ (later known as the Stone of Remembrance) which was the focal commemorative point for the larger Imperial War Graves cemeteries on the former battlefields of the Great War. The altar is flanked by two timber doors on a slightly lower level reached via stone steps. The left-hand (west) door opens into a cupboard; the right-hand door (east) opens into the small vestry, leading to the double rear doors and the unplastered boiler room on the centre/west side of the chapel building. The roof of the chapel is of varnished timber planks divided into panels by broad moulded cross beams. The side walls (left/west, and right/east) are articulated by raised stone bands arranged as arcades of four arches or bays on either side, evoking church aisles. These arches provide frames for Spencer’s smaller paintings with two per arch. The upper, main paintings – the ‘lunettes’ - fill the arches; the lower register contains rectangular paintings which Spencer called predella panels. Each arcade is united by a single painting - the ‘friezes’ – which fill the rest of each side wall above the arched lunettes. To meet Spencer’s final requirements, corbels were designed for the arches and modifications made to the dado rail during 1932-33. The north end (fulfilling the liturgical east end in conventional church layouts) is filled with Spencer’s The Resurrection of the Soldiers, except for the doors. The south wall is plain but is hung with two Rococo-esque white and gold wooden plaques with acanthus leaf scrolls, fixed to the recess on either side of the main doors, one in memory of Stanley Spencer, the other to commemorate the paintings in the chapel: ‘These paintings by Stanley Spencer and this oratory are the fulfilment of a design which he conceived while on active service 1914-1918’.

151

William Herbert Durst, Communion Plate in situ, (with altar cross not by Durst, donated by Henry Slesser) Sandham Memorial Chapel

1 Much of this material was devised for the National Trust’s 2013 Conservation Statement for the Sandham Memorial Chapel extensively researched and written by Sarah Rutherford.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

A carved stone memorial to Lieutenant Sandham stands on the central windowsill, topped by a finely carved lion, above a memorial stone set into the wall. It was carved by Charles Pibworth, Sculptor in late 1926, early 1927, who also carved the letters for the inscription above the outside of the main doors. There is no artificial lighting. Electric lighting was never integral in the chapel, neither was it installed when electricity was brought to the almshouses in the 1940s. Spencer expressed a strong preference for natural lighting, provided by the three long windows on the main façade. 2 The interior and exterior reflected chiefly Spencer’s wishes but also those of John Louis Behrend, both of whom were for architect Lionel Pearson two exacting clients with strong opinions and wills. Pearson incorporated into the building nearly all of Spencer’s structural suggestions: for the sections of the mouldings, for the insertion of decorative corbels between the arches of the bay divisions, and for the curved dado beneath the predellas on the side walls. The architect also incorporated Behrend’s suggestions for the external appearance and function of the buildings, particularly the chapel parapet (to which Pearson was strongly opposed). These creative tensions are explored in full throughout this volume. 3 SR

152

Roddy Enthoven, sketch of proposed modifications to the dado rail, Sandham Memorial Chapel, letter to John Louis Behrend, 30 January 1933. National Trust Archive.

2 The control of natural light is a challenge for the custodians of the chapel, and depends on the judgment of the staff on duty to adjust continually the double blinds on the windows to achieve a good balance between sufficient ambient light to see and enjoy the paintings, and keeping within the target band for light exposure (150, 000 lux hours/year). UV film is installed and effective. 3 See Paul Gough’s chapter on ‘The God Box’ in this volume and Amanda Bradley’s ‘A Life in Letters’.

MADELINE CLIFTON AND THE LINEN ALTAR FRONTAL The linen altar frontal was designed, created and presented to the Behrends by Madeline Clifton (nee Knox, 1890-1975), who – as with all others involved with the chapel – was a close friend of the Behrends. 4 Clifton was a pupil of Sickert’s whose artistic life was based in the graphic arts; she even helped Sickert set up an etching school in Hampstead, the stress of which made both him and her ill. Her husband, Arthur Clifton, ran the Carfax Gallery where the Camden Town Group held their exhibitions between 1911 and 1912, and where Madeline herself had exhibitions to great positive acclaim. It was not until 1925 that she devoted her artistic endeavours to embroidery. The altar frontal at Burghclere is embroidered with pale green and gold lettering on a grey-tone base, which complements the tonality of the Resurrection altarpiece. The quotations are taken from The Tempest (Act 4, Scene 1, line 148): ‘We are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little …[life is rounded with a sleep].’; and from the Gospel according to John (II.25): ‘I am the resurrection and the life and he that ….[believeth in me, though he be dead yet shall he live]’. The texts are deliberately left incomplete, probably to encourage the viewer to complete the verses themselves, thinking deeper about their meaning and relevance to the surroundings. The confluence of pagan and secular verse, and concepts, chime well with the iconography of the pictures. The relevance of the New Testament quotation is straightforward, offering a textual counterpart to the painted vision of Christ above, accepted crosses from the fallen soldiers who have risen again. The Shakespearian reference is a little more obtuse. Spoken by the magician Prospero, the text refers to the nature of reality and the philosophy of true existence; in other words, life is but a dream and death (the ‘little sleep’) is a true awakening in which reality is found. Human existence (like Shakespeare’s play) is therefore nothing but an illusion – ‘the stuff as dreams’. Spencer’s murals, detailing the travails of everyday life, scrubbing, cleaning, fetching, sorting and carrying are all but an illusion. Spencer, inspired by the Confessions of St. Augustine, believed that these mundane rituals brought one closer to God (the true reality), which is ultimately achieved in the Resurrection altarpiece. Certainly, Spencer would not have conceived his murals with this philosophical bent in mind, but it seems entirely conceivable that the Behrends were tuned into the parallels when the text was chosen.

153

4 The altar frontal appeared in the 1955 edition of Embroidery, the Journal of the Embroiderer’s Guild. It was conserved in the 1990s, at the Trust Textile Conservation studio at Blickling, Norfolk, finally returning to the Chapel in 2005.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Intriguingly, their social circle included intellectuals who, or who’s thoughts, just might have influenced this choice. It is tempting to suppose that the likes of the philosopher Bertrand Russell (erstwhile lover of the patroness Lady Ottoline Morrell) tutor of Wittgenstein, and friend of John Maynard Keynes might have had a part to play. 5 Such was the Behrends intellectual rapacity that the idea is not inconceivable, although frustratingly, no known documents survive which detail the design and donation of the altar frontal. AB

CHARLES B. PIBWORTH AND THE MEMORIAL STONE Contrary to widely held views, it was only at a later stage in the project that it was decided the chapel should be dedicated to Harry ‘Hal’ Sandham, Mary Behrend’s brother. Sandham, like Spencer, had served in Macedonia, and suffered from malaria whilst there. He died shortly after returning home, probably due to malaria-related complications, but this was not acknowledged on his death certificate and he was therefore not eligible to appear on any local war memorials. 6 In addition to the dedication of the chapel to Hal, the Behrends decided to directly commemorate his passing by commissioning a memorial plaque. Mary Behrend appears to have been the driving force behind this idea as, unusually, nearly all the correspondence is between her and the commissioned artist, London-based sculptor Charles James Pibworth. A graduate of Bristol School of Art, the Royal College of Art and the Royal Academy Schools, Pibworth had worked frequently for the architect Charles Holden during the first decade of the 20th century. He created memorable relief panels for Bristol Central Library, the figures in the window recesses at the Law Society extension building in Chancery Lane, and other sculpted reliefs on Holden’s buildings in central London. It is very likely he was selected by the Behrends on the advice of Lionel Pearson who worked in practice with Holden.

154

5 Margaret Moran, ‘Betrand Russell meets his muse: the impact of Lady Ottoline Morrell (1911-12)’, Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives, 1991-2, pp.180-92. 6 The absence of his name on a war memorial is probably because Hal died at home. He was buried in a churchyard in Stoke D’Abernon, Surrey.

From the correspondence, Pibworth appears to have been commissioned during autumn 1926. A receipt for an initial payment of £20 was sent to Mrs Behrend on 4 October. By the mid-winter Solstice the carving and colouring of the Coat of Arms was almost finished, the inscription to be done in the New Year. Pibworth asked that the wall in the chapel be left unplastered until the plaque was complete and ready to hang. Given that the task was taking longer than he anticipated due to the complexities of carving and casting, he asked Mary Behrend would she ‘consider increasing the sum of £50 for payment – but this would be for you to decide best when you see the completed work.’ 7 In the New Year the sculptor sent the design to the Behrends for the inscribed words. He drew attention to the different forms of the smaller letters, setting out various options for the tops of certain letters some of which were finished in a horizontal cut, others with an angled niche. ‘I have put a capital W in “who” – it is done in this way in Richard le Neve’s tablet in Westminster Abbey.’ 8 The Behrends opted for horizontal tops to the lettering. On his advice, Pibworth attended to the spacing of the letters RASC (Royal Army Service Corps), given them a little more space from the Sandham surname. 9 By early February the carved and coloured plaque was almost finished. Pibworth wrote to Behrend on 9 February hoping that ‘Mrs Behrend will be pleased with it when you see it in position’, an indication that the protagonist for the plaque had indeed been Mary Behrend. The sculptor was thankful for the extra £10 which had graciously been offered. The Behrends had also offered to drive to the sculptor’s studio at 14a Cheyne Row, Chelsea SW3 to collect the piece, which was planned for Sunday 20 February 1927. Despite all this planning by his patrons, Spencer was fundamentally opposed to the need for a memorial tablet in his chapel. Having dismissed as too decorative and fussy Kennedy’s original architectural ideas he would have been irritated, indeed indignant, at Pibworth’s florid style. Nor could he see the need for a written inscription. In his view the compelling narrative of his paintings ought to have been sufficient. There exists a draft letter from Spencer, intended for John Louis Behrend, but probably never sent, in which he castigates him for installing the

155

7 Charles Pibworth to John Louis Behrend, 21 December 1926. 8 Charles Pibworth to John Louis Behrend, 3 January 1927. Richard le Neve’s Tomb and Epitaph inscription can be accessed at: http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/ richard-le-neve 9 Charles Pibworth to John Louis Behrend, 10 January 1927.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

heraldic plaque: ‘If you had been intending or had previously told me you were going to erect a huge equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington in the centre of the room do you suppose that in thinking out the scheme I would not have had to take that into consideration?’ 10 For his part, the architect mentions the plaque only in passing in his letter of 19 January 1927 when he advises Behrend that the glazing for the chapel windows is unflattened crown glass, which is ‘quite clear and there should be no difficulty in seeing the back of the carved stone.’ 11

10 TGA 825 (W15 and W16). With thanks to Ann Danks for bringing this to the attention of the author. 11 Lionel Pearson to John Louis Behrend, 19 January 1927.

Pibworth visited the Chapel in the Spring of 1927 to help adjust the memorial tablet and to cut the letters into the stonework on the entrance to the chapel. His receipt for £10 for ‘cutting letters outside the Oratory, time spent refixing memorial tablet & for railway fares’ was sent to Mrs Behrend on 27 March 1927, two days after the Church Dedication Service of the Oratory of All Souls by the Bishop Suffragan of Guildford, which was then part of the Winchester Diocese. PG

156

BORIS ANREP AND THE SCHEME FOR DECORATED FLOOR TILES Russian-born mosaicist and painter, Boris Anrep (1883-1969) had first studied Law in St Petersburg, then art in Paris – at the Academie Julian and the Academie de la Palette – before moving to Scotland where he studied under F. Morley Fletcher at the Edinburgh College of Art, 191011. 12 While in France he had befriended Henry Lamb, and in England in 1912 he organized the Russian section of Roger Fry’s second PostImpressionist exhibition. Through Lamb and many other artist accomplices he met Stanley Spencer. Settling in London after the war, in which he served with the Russian army, he became fascinated by Byzantine art and came to specialize in mosaic pavements. 13 His most well known pieces are in London’s National Gallery, where between 1926 and 1952 he created four floors on and around the main staircase. 14 The Behrends had long been supporters of the Russian. In 1913 they bought a painting of Two Mystical Figures from his solo exhibition at the Chenil Gallery. They also owned Yellow Woman, Desolation and The Chieftain, which were exhibited at the Russian Exhibition at the Grafton Gallery in 1917. 15 In 1921 they had contributed £250 towards the cost of a mosaic floor at the Tate Gallery and had suggested that Boris be awarded with the commission. There is some evidence that Anrep had mosaicked a covered seating area in the garden at the Behrend’s Grey House, but this does not survive and, as yet, no documentation has been found by the author. As well as their friendship with the Behrends it is likely that Lamb suggested Anrep be involved in decorating the interior of the chapel at Burghclere. But it is perhaps just as well that his involvement never came to pass. Anrep had ambitious plans, which included marble columns, marbles bases and seats, and an ornate mosaic floor. None of this would be realised, largely for reasons of cost but also because his ebullient character and visually dense designs would have overwhelmed the project. Although Spencer spoke enthusiastically about Anrep’s possible contribution to the chapel it is questionable whether he would have tolerated another artist’s creation so close to his own. AB / PG

157

12 Ian Chilvers, ‘Boris Anrep’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists, 4th edition, January 1929. 13 Anon (1927) ‘Mosaics by Boris Anrep’, Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 34: p.203 14 R. MacColl, (1930) ‘Modern Life in Mosaic: Boris Anrep in the National Gallery’, Studio, 94: p.128. The mosaic in Tate Britain (1923) represents William Blake’s Proverbs. 15 This information was kindly given to the author by Jane Williams.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

THE SANDHAM MEMORIAL CHAPEL COMMUNION PLATE As a consecrated place of worship in which it was intended to hold services, if only occasionally, the Sandham Memorial Chapel required a set of altar plate: a chalice, a paten and an alms dish. Mary Behrend appears to have assumed responsibility for the commission, perhaps because of its profoundly Christian nature, and in 1929 she approached Herbert Durst (1880-1964), an English artist and goldsmith who had established a workshop in Florence in 1912, resuming practice there after the First World War. 16 Durst was from a long-established clerical family, his father William being Vicar of Alton in Hampshire and his mother’s antecedents having provided an archbishop of Canterbury (John Bird Sumner) and a bishop of Winchester (Charles Sumner) in the midnineteenth century. He too was destined for the church by his parents but after returning from the Boer War, in which he distinguished himself, he was permitted to pursue the arts, studying first at the Slade and then under the tuition of one of the last of the French Academic painters, Jean-Paul Laurens (1838-1921), at the Académie Julian in Paris. Back in England in 1907 he learnt silver-smithing at the Central School of Arts and Crafts in London and he must have been articled to a practitioner over the next three years, though the name of his master is not known. The Behrends were old friends of Durst and had given him a canteen of silver cutlery on his marriage to Alice Hill in January 1912, shortly before the move to Florence. The business there operated from the Palazzo Guidi, where Robert and Elizabeth Barrett Browning had rented an apartment from 1847, and Durst was assisted by a native goldsmith, Guido Trallori (known as Giovanni). Their respective roles are not recorded but Durst may have focussed more on finishing and decoration, given his recorded skill as a chaser, engraver and enameller. He is said to have aimed to ‘combine English thoroughness in workmanship with Italian spontaneity and genius for form, without too much regard for styles either ancient or modern’ and he disliked mechanical processes. Hammer marks, for instance, were not to be

158

16 His full name was William Herbert Durst. The author is grateful to his grandson, Ruari Halford-MacLeod, for generously sharing his researches upon much of the biographical material is based.

disguised but neither were they to be artificially accentuated. 17 He was, at heart, following the principles of William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement, with an Italian twist. Surviving photographs taken in the Casa Guidi Workshops, before commissions were dispersed, show a range of objects including tea and coffee pots of essentially neo-Georgian form, a covered two-handled bowl with chinoiserie flat-chasing clearly inspired by late 17th century porringers or ecuelles and an extensive range of highly effective jewellery in Renaissance form. Many of his clients were American residents and visitors and it may have been for that market that he developed the most striking element of his output, a series of substantial silver ships. These were fully equipped with sails, rigging and guns and embellished with chasing but rather than being on wheels or raised on a stem as might sixteenth century nefs, they were, in the manner of Venetian glass, given a frothy sea formed of tagliatelle-like curled strips of silver. 18 As well as being old friends with the Behrends and a talented British artist in the mould of others that they patronised, Durst had, like Harry Sandham and Stanley Spencer, served in Salonika, being awarded the Military Cross in 1916 and ending the war as a lieutenant colonel in the King’s Own Royal Lancaster Regiment. He thus had an understanding of the background to Spencer’s painting scheme and Mary Behrend sent him the November 1928 edition of the Studio containing Richard Carline’s article on Stanley Spencer’s ‘New Mural Paintings’. 19 Unfortunately Mary’s letter does not survive but Durst’s reply, dated 2 December 1929, does. He turned his attention first to the chalice and paten, enclosing a ‘rough and dirty drawing’ which sadly does not survive and explaining his approach to the design of the chalice: I don’t think its possible to go much out side the conventional shape for practical reason - that shape is far more convenient to handle than any other, as regards the decoration of it I think a carved and pierced knop might look well but I daresay the whole thing will come out completely different when I begin to make it. 20

159

17 National Trust curatorial files, Micheldever Station, box no. TS 24: 13, anonymous notes on W.H. Durst. 18 Photographs in the possession of Ruari HalfordMacLeod, 2016. National Trust, Micheldever Station. 19 Richard Carline, ‘New Mural Paintings by Stanley Spencer’, Studio, lxlvi, November 1928, pp. 316-23. 20 National Trust curatorial files, Micheldever Station, box no. TS 24: 07, W Herbert Durst to Mary Behrend, 2 December, 1929.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

The finished piece (8 - the chalice) closely reflects these thoughts and consists of a nearly hemispherical bowl on a short stem with a pierced and chased knop (or, more correctly, knot) below which flares the circular, trumpet foot, its base rim pierced with scrolling tendrils. The practical elements referred to by Durst are the broad foot to ensure stability on the altar, the simplicity of the bowl for drinking from, and the knot which assists those dispensing wine secure the chalice whilst recipients place their fingers on the bowl and foot. The precise form and decoration is quite clearly inspired by 13th and early 14th century English survivals, such as the Dolgellau Chalice in the Royal Collection 21 and that discovered in the grave of an unidentified archbishop of York now in the Minster Treasury. 22 Both have chased overlapping lobe decoration descending from the stem, as does the Sandham chalice, and they also exhibit the fundamental variance from later mediaeval examples in their round rather than multi-faceted foot outline. Durstâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s twist is provided by the piercing of the knot and the foot ring, which is atypical in early English examples, and in his application to the knot of four tiny wrought symbols of the Evangelists. He seems to have particularly favoured the Evangelists, incorporating them in the enamel plaques of his only other known piece of church plate beyond the Sandham pieces, an altar cross probably produced at around the same time and also of an early mediaeval form. 23 The accompanying paten (9 - the paten) conforms style-wise to the chalice, being of simple circular shape with a broad, flat rim and a shallow depressed centre within which is a second depression with a multi-lobed outline. This is very close indeed to the Dolgellau Paten but the actual design source may well be another mid-13th century survivor, that in the church of St Matthew, Weeke, on the outskirts of Winchester. Much celebrated from the late 19th century as one of the earliest surviving English patens, it would have been well known in the household of a Hampshire clergyman such as Durstâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s father even if he was only of the slightest antiquarian bent. 24 Although Durst opted for a hexafoil depression rather than octafoil and omitted a rim inscription, as found at Weeke, he followed the foliate decoration of the spandrels and the central Agnus Dei, a very unusual symbol on mediaeval patens. Both patens express their hand workmanship as in the visible centring marks for forming the lobes, this being of necessity for the 13th century goldsmith and in part selfconscious for Durst.

160

21 Inventory no. RCIN 69048. On loan to the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. 22 Charles Oman, English Church Plate 597-1830, 1957, pp. 41-2, plates 4 and 6. 23 Photograph in the possession of Ruari Halford-MacLeod, 2016. Copy in the National Trust curatorial files, Micheldever Station. 24 Oman 1957, p. 47, plate 24b. The Weeke (or Wyke) paten was exhibited at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London in 1886. See Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London (Second Series), vol. 11 (June 1887), p. 84.

It seems highly unlikely that the style chosen for the chalice and paten was accidental, or merely Durst’s preference, given the close proximity to the dates of the Scrovegni Chapel. For the alms dish (9 – the alms dish), however, there were no equivalent models as the first references to such items in England are from the reign of Edward VI and none survives from before the early 17th century. 25 Their form then and thereafter was not dissimilar to secular basins and it is unsurprising that what Durst produced for Sandham should be broadly comparable to a 16th century or earlier basin, with a broad rim, a deep ring well and a raised centre with chased decoration. As with some of the spectacular dishes of the 17th century, which were intended to be propped up in the middle of the altar in place of the cross, much attention was given to the image chased on the central medallion. It must have been this aspect that enthused Durst to write to Mary Behrend in 1929 in relation to the alms dish; ‘that will be much more exciting to do. I think one might make something quite interesting of it’. 26 He chose as the subject the Crucifixion and his composition, which must have been formed from an amalgam of sources, includes several attenuated William Blake-like figures reaching towards a tunic-clad Christ whilst in the foreground are groups of men at prayer. The latter are reminiscent of the saints and donors shown in innumerable north Italian paintings of the Renaissance and earlier but there is amongst them a figure in 20th century dress, a First World War soldier on one knee and with a hand to his helmet which he is presumably about to doff.

161

25 Oman, op.cit.,, p. 235. 26 W. Herbert Durst to Mary Behrend, 2 December 1929, National Trust curatorial files, Micheldever Station, box no. TS 24: 07.

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Although Durst is thought to have had a maker’s mark composed of his initials 27 he did not apply it to the Sandham pieces and nor were they hallmarked either in Italy or England. Work must have been completed by July 1930, the invoice being dated the fourth of that month, and the charges were 6,500 Lire (approximately £72 at the official exchange rate) for the alms dish and 2,500 Lire (£28) for the chalice and paten. 28 First use would have been made of the new arrivals at the celebration of Holy Communion on 3 November, 1930 at which alms of £1-2-0d were received for Earl Haig’s Fund. 29 Durst could have been justly proud of his creations which demonstrate a high level of technical and artistic skill and are well suited to the mid-20th century response by Spencer to Giotto’s Scrovegni Chapel. They probably represented one of the Casa Guidi Workshops’ most satisfying commissions but, sadly, the business was not destined to prosper and in 1933, in the face of increasing hostility from the fascist regime towards American and British businesses and residents, Durst decided to return to England with his family. 30 He never again had a goldsmithing workshop and died in 1964, having served for some years as the custodian of Longthorpe Tower near Peterborough which, appropriately enough, contains one of the most important surviving schemes of 14th century wall paintings in England. 31 James Rothwell

162

27 Information from his grandson, Ruari Halford-MacLeod. 28 W. H. Durst to John Louis Behrend, 4 July, 1930. National Trust curatorial files, Micheldever Station, box no. TS 24: 07, 29 National Trust curatorial files, Micheldever Station, box no. TS 24:13, ‘Record of Services at the Oratory of All Souls Burchclere [sic]’, typescript of original at Sandham Memorial Chapel. 30 Information from Ruari Halford-MacLeod. 31 The wall paintings at Longthorpe were discovered in the 1940s. See E. Clive Rouse and Audrey Baker, Audley, ‘The wall-paintings at Longthorpe Tower’, Archaeologia (Second Series), Vol. 96 (1955), pp. 1–57. Durst’s interpretation of the texts were included in this article.

163

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

164

165

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

A FULL RECORD OF THE NATIONAL TRUST ARCHIVE MATERIAL RELATING TO THE ORATORY OF ALL SOULS, SANDHAM MEMORIAL CHAPEL, BURGHCLERE, INCLUDING A TRANSCRIPT OF A LETTER BY HILDA CARLINE, C.1927. Compiled by Meg Courtney and Paul Gough

Date

Sender

Recipient

Summary of contents

Archive Box

1925, November 17w

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson reports on a recent meeting with Spencer. They discussed the interior arrangement of the chapel. Spencer recognised the difficulty of the arches being in stone. They concluded that a vaulted ceiling intersecting with the arched panels would be best. Spencer is going to ‘think the matter over carefully’.

411, 1925-29

1925, November 17

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Additional note from Pearson which estimates the whole building could be done for £4000, but that they must be careful not be be too extravagant with marble etc. and that Bath stone might work as a cheaper alternative to Portland. He adds, 'one factor in our favour is that it is possible to obtain such excellent bricks and tiles locally'.

411, 1925-29

1925, November 24

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

While Spencer considers the interior of the chapel, Pearson addresses the design of the cottages (not yet called almshouses) suggesting location of the living room adjacent the chapel to help warm it. He suggests ‘a small gallery over the porch of the chapel which could be used in case of a musical service,' and that it might be reached by circular iron staircase from the Vestry underneath.

411, 1925-29

1925, November 30

N.M.Toomer, Wholesale Farriers, Builders & Estate Ironmongers in Newbury

J.L. Behrend

Invoice for building materials delivered between November 16-30, 1925 and receipt for December 8th payment: 5 rolls of netting, 3lbs of staples, 6 yds of cable, 2 batten holders. Total sum £6-13-6.

411, 1925-29

1925, December 2

L.G. Pearson

Mary Behrend

Pearson sends a cutting (presumed missing from archive) with notes on cottage planning to Mrs Behrend, which may interest her in view of their discussion on the plan of her cottages.

411, 1925-29

1925, December 4

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson sends a revised plan of the chapel with marble columns, a cost of £200 plus £100 for a marble base and seat. He has shown the wash-house separately, with a suggested position, saying ‘the range should be in the living room in any case, otherwise your people would spend their lives in the scullery which I am sure you do not wish’. These alterations will add to the costs.

411, 1925-29

1925, December 8

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson is glad that Behrend approves of plan. Suggests that the dresser is placed in the scullery in proximity with the sink so it be used for crockery and not for books. He also suggests Hopton Wood Stone – ‘an English marble of a very pleasant fawn colour’ - for the columns in the chapel, the floor would also be ‘very nice in black and white marble’ but could be done in stone paving if cost is a consideration.

411, 1925-29

1925

166

1925, December 11

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson advises Behrend to visit Geoffrey Lupton’s work at Bedale School. He suggests some minor modification of the ‘set back’ for the design of the cottages. Pearson estimates the whole building could be done for £4000, adding 'one factor in our favour is that it is possible to obtain such excellent bricks and tiles locally'. He adds that they 'must be rather careful not to be extravagent in the way of marble etc.' (and that Bath stone might work as a cheaper alternative to Portland), through he advises that Portland be used for the strings, etc. of the exterior.

411, 1925-29

1925, December 17

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson adds a sketch (presumed missing from archive) which shows the position of the chimney stack at the rear of the chapel. He cannot see how the pilasters at the front would work with the current design, though they would go well with the previous pediment design. He hopes that Behrend will be able to meet with Lupton as he may be emigrating to South Africa soon.

411, 1925-29

1925, December 24

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

In a handwritten note, Pearson shares some thoughts about the location of the chimney stack, and mentions the design of the windows. He writes ‘I really think the proportions of the panes and the construction of the area might best be left to the poor old architect – after all it is supposed to be his job don’t you agree?'

411, 1925-29

1925, December 31

D.M.Brain, Coal, Coke and Salt Merchants, Newbury

J.L. Behrend

Invoice and payment receipt for gravels and hard core delivery, total £123-6.

411, 1925-29

1926, January 1

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

A handwritten note with a small drawing, in which Pearson confesses to have become worried about the proportions of the ‘west face’ of the chapel and proposes a fresh alignment to 'support the lines of the 'GOD-BOX' as [Behrend] calls it’. He fears that Behrend ‘will regard the loss of the quad with considerable regret.’

411, 1925-29

1926, January 5

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson suggests a revised design for the entrances to the cottages, moving them to the sides of the buildings rather than facing south. He has drawn up plans for the shelters and gardens, adding, ‘I hope you will not think the scheme for the shelters and garden is too ambitious. It seems to me to set off the entrance to the chapel better than any other scheme.’

411, 1925-29

1926, January 15

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson confirms that the field dimensions that Behrend sent in his December 3rd letter will fit the requirements for the plan that they agreed on.

411, 1925-29

1926, January 20

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson submits a revised plan of the building on the site as measured on paper. He would have liked a few extra feet so as to obtain connecting walls on the site, but appreciates that the dimensions of the purchased land may not permit it. He promises a perspective scale drawing in a day or two.

411, 1925-29

1926, January 21

J.A. Rutherford, The Carnarvon Estate Company

J.L. Behrend

Receipt for payment for the delivery of plants and soil for the garden. Includes trees and shrubs, 20 limes, 4 hollies, 5 loads of soil.

411, 1925-29

1926, January 25

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

As the question of the width of the site seems to be wrapped up in 'the working out of the design...', Pearson suggests visiting Burghclere 'to settle this on the site.' He suggests next Saturday morning.

411, 1925-29

1926, January 27

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

The site visit has been agreed and Pearson confirms that he will take the 10.45am train from Paddington, and return on the 4.09pm train. Pearson adds a handwritten addendum stating that he is glad that Behrend thinks the wider site ‘will allow our plan’.

411, 1925-29

1926, February 8

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson is concerned that Behrend thinks that he has developed his designs too much but believes he ‘can meet most of [Behrend's] criticisms and still keep to the outline which [he] thinks is the right one’. He suggests that the cottage living rooms could still have windows on to the forecourt, and the seats be placed in the recesses. He raises also some changes to the parapet of the chapel, changes suggested by his architectural practice partner ‘who criticised the old arrangement.’ He feels it necessary to emphasize the centre rather more and will amend the design to try and do this.

411, 1925-29

1926

167

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1926, February 10

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson is glad that Behrend approves of the most recent plan ‘as [he is] sure the outline is much the best we have had.’ He promises to continue re-working the chapel elevation, suggesting that ‘one way of solving the difficulty would be to have a small clerestorey behind the parapet which would have the effect of raising the roof and giving more light on the decoration and we should not then need such an ungainly window to the West End’.

411, 1925-29

1926, February 10

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Feb 10 'elevation' drawing.

411, 1925-29

1926, February 12

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson still feels that the 'West End' requires more emphasis in the design, and believes this could be achieved by showing the apex of the roof more strongly. In a handwritten addition, he notes that Behrend has not approved the ‘clerestorey’. The architect weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of the parapet, mentioning that heavy snow fall could choke the gutters and possibly damage the murals.

411, 1925-29

1926, February 17

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson has not been able to work on the chapel, due to a recent attack of the flu. He has discussed the issue of the effects of damp on mural decorations with his partner, Charles Holden and his opinion is that 'one cannot be too careful about damp when it is a question of mural decorations.' He suggests that a parapet type of gutter, but he hopes to see Behrend on Friday to discuss.

411, 1925-29

1926, February 26

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Thanking Behrend for his recent letter, in a handwritten letter Pearson promises to provide revised drawings and agrees that the parapet should be ‘solid as you wish’. He ends by referring to a recent lecture he gave which was attended by 'several kind hearted ladies,' but which he was glad was over as he was not in top form.

411, 1925-29

1926, March 11

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson is glad that Behrend liked the pilaster treatment. He is pressing the Quantity Surveyor to finalise tender submissions and understands that Behrend only requires two contractors to tender.

411, 1925-29

1926, March 17

J.L. Behrend

J.L. Behrend (note to self): An extract from Russell and Co. Engineers of New Bond Street, London

Technical information about the capacity of the two 1,000 gallon tanks, their ability to hold sufficient water for 10-11 weeks without rain, and an estimate that the roof of the chapel will collect 9,000 gallons of water annually assuming average rainfall of 30 inches per year.

411, 1925-29

1926, March 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson has instructed the Quantity Surveyor to take ‘plain plastered walls to the chapel, Portland stone paving, boarded and painted roof’ as this will ‘leave Spencer free to do as he likes’. He asks for the addresses of the firms that Behrend would like to tender.

411, 1925-29

1926, March 23

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson proposes that they will have to fix Spencer’s wooden frames at a later date. He notes that estimates for the front entrance, piers and gates, the brick path and the well covering will not be in the estimate for the chapel but the brick path around the cottages and chapel itself will be included.

411, 1925-29

1926, March 31

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

The tenders for the construction of the building have been submitted. Both are from local contractors: Hosking Bros of Newbury, with a tender of £4,037; and William G. Head of Burghclere, at the slightly lesser amount of £3,879. Pearson says, ‘I hope Head is the man whom you wish to carry out the work as I know you favour the local man.’

411, 1925-29

1926, April 8

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson has looked over Behrend's budget and does not think that there is very much that could be cut out. He suggests some cost saving measures - York Stone instead of Portland Stone, an oak gate instead of brick piers. He asks Behrend to confirm if the almshouses will be 180 feet back from the road.

411, 1925-29

1926, April 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

A short letter accompanying the contract (presumed missing from archive) to be signed by William Head, the successful tender. Pearson uses the words ‘almshouses’ for the first time.

411, 1925-29

168

1926, April 24

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Head has written to Pearson saying that he will need to cart the surplus earth 1.5 miles away. As it is a very expensive matter, Pearson suggests it would be preferable to dispose of it in the north-east corner of the site where the land slopes away. A hand-written footnote (aided by a small drawing) states that any remaining earth could be used to level the land in front of the chapel which slopes slightly from west to east.

411, 1925-29

1926, April 24

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson advises Behrend about the hedging, saying, 'I expect it would pay in the end to grub up the existing hedge and plant an entirely new one next autumn. But your expert gardener would no doubt advise about this.'

411, 1925-29

1926, May 22

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson identifies an issue over the location of the heating chamber, ('the door itself would be burnt to a frazzle') and a suggested solution. He thanks Behrend for the tickets for the Horticultural Show.

411, 1925-29

1926, May 28

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson encloses the up-to-date blueprint (presumed missing from archive). He is concerned that placing the altar two feet from the end wall might '...take away from the length of the chapel?' Pearson also shares the value engineering being undertaken by the Quantity Surveyor, namely the omission of the rain water tank, and the extra needed for the oak doors.

411, 1925-29

1926, June 2

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

A note attached to an elevation drawing (presumed missing from archive) showing inside view of the western wall of the chapel and indicating a suitable location for the inscription (above the door). Pearson asks Behrend to confirm if this was agreed upon.

411, 1925-29

1926, June 14

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson sends a sketch of the long windows (presumed missing from archive) arguing that ‘if these are cut short, it will very much spoil the effect.’ He also notes, with some concern, that he has had a long letter from Spencer who generally agrees to the various suggestions, but is worried about the positioning of the small tent pictures, suggesting putting them on the Western wall, but Pearson stresses that he must discuss this with Behrend before going any further.

411, 1925-29

Undated, 1926

Probably J.L.Behrend

A typed note with the correct wording for the inscription To the Memory of Harry Willoughby Sandham R.A.S.C who served in France and Macedonia 1915-1919. These Almshouses and Oratory were erected by J. L. Behrend and P. M. Behrend - 1926. ‘Henry’ has been crossed out and ‘Harry’ added, similarly ‘chapel’ has been crossed out and ‘Oratory’ substituted.

411, 1925-29

1926, June 19

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

A short handwritten note thanking John Louis for £400. This is the first record of any payment made to Bill Head.

411, 1925-29

1926, June 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson writes to Mrs Behrend thanking her for returning his drawing. He clarifies some details about the central window, and suggests that the date should be carved on stone rather than brick (though having a block between them is a simple matter, if preferred). He promises also to let Spencer ‘have the West elevation next week some time.’

411, 1925-29

1926, June 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

An uncharacteristically irate letter written by hand and from his home address, in which Pearson says, ‘I should like to explain that the idea that you can strike out parts of a design and leave others is most unsound and quite honestly I would rather not carry out a job at all than do it in these conditions'. He suggests leaving further discussions for a week or two as he '...shall be very busy and away a good deal this next 10 days.' He adds, 'also I feel sore on the subject at the moment but no doubt will recover in time.’

411, 1925-29

1926, June 22

J.L. Behrend

L.G. Pearson

A carbon copy response from Behrend (part of which appears to be in draft) which says 'I am awfully sorry to think that you are upset about the design; I merely altered it to shew what I meant. I would certainly not have touched it, if it had not already been superseded by alterations agreed upon'. Behrend appears irritated by Pearson’s inability to devote as much time to the scheme as he'd hoped. He continues, 'I am very sorry you are so worried about it all and I would hazard the opinion that a good deal of this worry could have been avoided if you had sent us the designs in good time. I must confess that I am ignorant as to how far a client can have his views adopted, but he surely must have some say in the matter, otherwise why send him any designs at all?’

411, 1925-29

169

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1926, August 2

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Official receipt for payment of £400, for Head's work on the chapel and almshouses.

411, 1925-29

1926, August 11

Duncan, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Duncan writes to Behrend about the conveyancing of the site. He suggests that the chapel and almshouses should be converyed to a Diocesan Trust, with the Behrends on the management committee.

411, 1925-29

1926, September 7

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

A receipt from Head for £400 (the total received to date is listed as £1,600).

411, 1925-29

1926, September 9

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

JL Behrend

Head thanks Behrend for the cheque for £400. He is enclosing the receipt from the architects (for £500) and asks that Behrend send the additional £100. He asks him to tell Mrs Behrend that he has spoken to Hopes about window details and they now have a shared understanding.

411, 1925-29

1926, September 15

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

A short note thanking Behrend for the additional £100.

411, 1925-29

1926, 4 October

Charles Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

Signed receipt for £20 received from Mrs Behrend for Pibworth's work on the memorial tablet and Coat of Arms for the Sandham Chapel.

411, 1925-29

1926, October 11

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson is glad to hear 'about the doors and will supply details shortly'. He notes that Russell and Co. Engineers of New Bond Street, London have arranged for a supply pipe for the radiator to run along the ceiling and the back under the floor.

411, 1925-29

1926, October 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

An order raised by Pearson for payment to Head of £500.

411, 1925-29

1926, October 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson encloses a drawing of the doors (presumed missing from archive) as promised. He thinks that the back doors should be treated as shutters. He ventures that if Head is going to get Elliotts to make the oak door, that it might be a good idea to have the two side doors, as well as the front door, in oak as well.

411, 1925-29

1926, October 21

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson feels assured that if Elliotts are carrying out the oak work, Behrend need not worry about their colour (as they will know how to make it attractive). Pearson assumes that Behrend wants all remaining doors in oak, and will send a new drawing.

411, 1925-29

1926, November 8

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson encloses a drawing of the proposed lead treatment for the front dormer, which he thinks will be most useful. He does not think '[they] ought to abandon the dormer lightly in any case'.

411, 1925-29

1926, November 10

Duncan, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Duncan sends the revised Conveyance and Trust Deed and asks Behrend to look over the alterations.

411, 1925-29

1926, November 16

Duncan, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Final version of the Conveyance and Trust Deed and asks Behrend to sign, with his wife as a witness.

411, 1925-29

The Conveyance and Trust Deed, establishing the Sandham Memorial Trust. The deed spells out all terminology E.g. 'the settler', 'the trust' etc. The agreement was written up November 18, 1926. Signed by both Behrend and his wife and a loan of £1500 on a British Government Conversion Loan.

411, 1925-29

1926, November 18

1926, December 14

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson sends a plan showing suggested arrangement for brick paths. 'These would cost a few more pounds but would help the old people to resist the temptation of cutting off the corner as they will surely be inclined to do.'

411, 1925-29

1926, December 16

Duncan, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Duncan writes to seek Behrend's views on the conveyancing duty owed for the site. He encloses an evaluation from the District Valuer.

411, 1925-29

1926, December 17

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson sends a new variation of the plan for the paths, 'which is a more pleasing shape’.

411, 1925-29

170

1926, December 21

Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

Handwritten letter from Charles Pibworth stating that he has nearly finished the coat of arms and has completed the plaster cast for the model of the lion. He is holding off on the inscription until the coat of arms is in place and asks if it is possible to delay the plastering of the wall until the memorial is completed (by end of January 1927). He thanks Behrend for offering to collect it in his car. He admits that the work has taken longer than expected and asks for a £50 increase in payment with this in mind.

411, 1925-29

1926, December 28

Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

A receipt from Pibworth for the sum of £20 (one installment) for the coat of arms and inscription.

411, 1925-29

1926, December 28

Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

Handwritten letter thanking Mr Beherend for payment. He promises to send the inscription and some alternative lettering in the next few days. He sends best wishes to Mrs Behrend

411, 1925-29

1927, January 3

Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

Handwritten letter from Pibworth, with small sketches, concerning designs for the inscription and feels that the crowded lettering can be rectified when the time comes to cut it. He has used a capital Won 'who' to mimic a tablet in Westminster Abbey and has also included a badge in addition to the motto which he feels completes the design. His delivery of the design took longer than he thought as he required that 'the whole inscription was drawn up and spaced fairly entirely.'

411, 1925-29

1927, January 4

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

An estimate for the dormers, from Mr Armitage (£41 and £72). Pearson feels that the ornament might be omitted from the dormer at the back and will send details to Head of dressers and cupboards soon.

411, 1925-29

1927, January 10

Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

Pibworth is glad that Behrend is happy with the design for the inscription and thanks Behrend for arranging with the builder to delay the plastering. He will finish the inscription as soon as possible.

411, 1925-29

1927, January 11

Thomas F Calvery?

J.L. and Mary Behrend

An old parishioner writes to ask if Mr and Mrs Behrend would be kind enough to 'let us have one of the cottages adjoining the chapel once it is completed'. He lists previous caretaking experience.

411, 1925-29

1927, January 12

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson has asked Mr Armitage to provide more detail on the Dormer tops and says it would be a help if Head could do the fixing.

411, 1925-29

1927, January 14

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson writes, enclosing a letter from Mr Armitage (presumed missing from archive) with slightly reduced price for dormers. He notes that lead is high in price nowadays.

411, 1925-29

1927, January 14

Duncan, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Duncan writes to Behrend of a delay in registering the Sandham Memorial Trust with Charity Commission.

411, 1925-29

Undated, c.1927

J.L. Behrend

Draft list of Duties of Committee that appears to be written by Behrend, with his handwritten notes alongside to the typed list. It includes items like 'settle any disputes amongst inmates', 'keep gutters cleaned', 'keep cottage clean' and 'open chapel windows when sunny and warm...'.

411, 1925-29

Undated, c.1927

J.L. Behrend

Draft Committee Agenda that appears to be written by Behrend, with his handwritten notes alongside to the typed list. It includes items like 'election of committee and officers', 'choice of occupants' and 'finance, bank signature'.

411, 1925-29

1927, January 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson to arrange with Armitage to have the back dormer done in plainer style. Glazing in chapel windows is known as unflattened crown glass 'and there should be no difficulty in seeing the back of the carved stone'. He can make a visit any day except the 29th, due to a wedding.

411, 1925-29

1927, February 2

Theodore Winton

Rev. Medlicott

Mr Winton will take the necessary steps for the Licensing of the chapel. It must be understood that it is not independent of the parish but that so far as the services are concerned it is under Medlicott’s control. It is entirely appropriate to have celebrations on All Souls Days and any other family anniversaries there.

411, 1925-29

1927, February 4

Chappell and Co. Ltd, Music Publishers

J.L. Behrend

Chappell & Co. are pleased to inform Behrend that they have secured The Kensington Singers for the Church Dedication Service on Friday March 25, for a fee of 12 guineas. They ask for clarity on the Denomination of the Church and whether Behrend would like the singing in Latin or English.

411, 1925-29

1927

171

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel Undated, probably February

Burghclere Rectory, Newbury

J.L. Behrend

Handwritten note about the Bishop's availability for the Dedication ceremony on Friday March 25 in the afternoon, noting 'he will be in the neighbourhood anyway'.

411, 1925-29

1927, February 5

JL Behrend

Chappell and Co. Ltd, Music Publishers

Behrend agrees to book the Kensington Singers but would prefer to hear them beforehand if possible. He would like the singing in English and and as to denomination, the chapel is Church of England. He awaits more information from the Bishop on the precise form of the service.

411, 1925-29

1927, February 7

Stibbard, Gibson & Co.

J.L. Behrend

Additions to the Deed seem acceptable, but there may be a difficulty in amending as it has already been completed and delivered to the Charity Commissioners.

411, 1925-29

1927, February 9

Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

Pibworth thanks Behrend for the extra £10 and encloses a receipt. He says 'I don't like asking for more than I estimate but the work has taken me much longer than anticipated and the moulding is much more elaborate than I suspected in my first sketch'. He hopes that the Behrends will be pleased with it and expects Behrend's car at 3pm on the 20th.

411, 1925-29

1927, February 9

Pibworth

J.L. Behrend

A receipt for Pibworth's final payment of £20.

411, 1925-29

1927, February 26

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Head thanks Behrend for the cheque for £500.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 1

Burghclere Rectory

J.L. Behrend

In a handwritten note the Rector lets Behrend know that the Bishop approves the suggested form of service i.e. a dedication of a chapel in the diocese of Winchester which contains Psalm 122, 2 hymns and a motet.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 1

J.L. Behrend

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Ltd.

Behrend would like the building insured through their office against fire, burglary, etc., for £4,000, from March 8. He asks the office to let him know of any particulars that they require.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 2

Robert Love, Managing Director, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Ltd.

J.L. Behrend

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Ltd writes including paperwork for Behrend to fill in. For insurance against fire, lightning and explosion, the minimum rate is 1/6d per £100.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 3

J.L. Behrend

The Manager, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office

Details of Behrend's requirements for insurance cover. He lists what is in the chapel currently and notes that in the future he would like to insure the communion plate, vestments etc. when they are eventually acquired. He explains that a series of war memorial paintings are being executed 'but will hardly be finished for some 8 or 10 years'. He makes it clear he will not insure almshouses contents, but hopes to insure their fittings.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 4

Chappell and Co. Ltd, Music Publishers

J.L. Behrend

Regarding the engagement of the Kensington Singers, Mr Roland Plumtree will be sending a selection of music for Behrend's approval. They ask for more detail on some of the elements of the service.

411, 1925-29

A small diagrammatic drawing of five crosses arranged in a larger cross shape.

411, 1925-29

Undated, possibly March Undated, possibly March

Burghclere Rectory, Newbury

J.L. Behrend

Handwritten note suggesting the Bishop arrive at 1.15pm. The Rector says he can provide copies of the service if Behrend requires.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 4

Robert Love, Managing Director, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Ltd

J.L. Behrend

The Ecclesiastical Insurance Office is happy to meet Behrend's requirements. They 'gather that as a general rule, the chapel will not be left open unattended'. Insurance to commence April 8.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 4

Robert Love, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office, Ltd

The Trustees of the Sandham Memorial Trust, Burghclere

Fire Insurance invoice, at a premium of £3-4-2 per year, for cover up to £4275. The premium and cover commences on 8 April, 1927, until 'Ladyday 1928'.

411, 1925-29

172

1927, March 4

Robert Love, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office, Ltd

The Trustees of the Sandham Memorial Trust, Burghclere

Burglary Insurance invoice, at a premium of £0-3-9 per year, for cover up to £75. The premium and cover commences on 8 April, 1927, until 'Ladyday 1928'.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 5

J.L. Behrend

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office

Behrend encloses a cheque for the insurance cover and assures the company that '…as a general rule, the chapel will not be left open unattended'.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 7

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office

The Trustees

Burglary Insurance Certificate, date stamped March 7, 1927

411, 1925-29

1927, March 7

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office

The Trustees

Fire Insurance Certificate, date stamped March 7, 1927

411, 1925-29

1927, March 7

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson writes about a Spencer show reviewed in Manchester, how wellreceived it was by critics and the public. He took measurements of the altar and steps at a small chapel in Kent, noting that by comparison 'we are more generous.' He hopes that the work on the Sandham Chapel is getting finished to Behrend's satisfaction.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 8

Duncan, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Duncan encloses a schedule and deed, and an excerpt from the Laws of England which will cover the Bishop's requirements (rather than needing to alter the Deed). The Deed has now been recorded in the books of the Charity Commission.

411, 1925-29

Undated, c.1927

Stibbard, Gibson & Co.

The Sandham Memorial Trust, Burghclere

Schedule of Deeds and Documents Cover Sheet (Sandham Memorial Trust), including Conveyance, Contract and Trust Deed

411, 1925-29

1927, March 10

A.R Mowbray, Craftsmen in Ecclesiastical Art

J.L. Behrend

Account and receipt, for goods including silk made up into frontal, 1 velvet cushion, 2 vegetable wax candles and candle extinguisher, for the fee of £8-6-9.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 12

The Rector (from Grand Marine Hotel Brighton)

J.L. Behrend

Handwritten letter in which the Rector says that he thinks that the Bishop will be okay without the changes to the deed as he had not yet seen the original, adding, 'till the scheme is finished, lots of people will be puzzled & when it is, some will be shocked! … I don't know if I have seen other pictures like it anywhere.'

411, 1925-29

March 15, 1927

The Bishop of Guildford

J.L. Behrend

The Bishop informs Mr Behrend that Mr Medlicott asked him to return the proposed Order of Service with his amendments to Behrend. The Bishop says 'I am very much looking forward to seeing the beautiful chapel and to making your acquaintance'.

411, 1925-29

Booklet for the Dedication of the chapel, which includes the Order of Service, hymn and chorale, and the dedication of the altar.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 25 1927, March 26

Pibworth

Mary Behrend

A receipt for £10 from Pibworth, for cutting lettering for the doors of the Oratory, refixing memorial tablet, and railway fares.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 28

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson is glad to hear that the ceremony was a success. He will come and stay the night, as per Behrend's suggestion, and says 'it will be much more my line than the ecclesiastical gathering'. He encloses Head's certificate.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 28

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson raises an invoice for Head's work on the chapel, for £800.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 28

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

In a handwritten letter Head thanks Behrend for the £300 received and compliments him on the lovely dedication service on Friday. He has included letters from Mr Garrett for Behrend's response. He is gathering the names of men and wives who worked on the chapel for an upcoming dinner, including 'the 4 Durnfords who hauled all the bricks', for Mrs Behrend's approval.

411, 1925-29

1927, March 29

Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd.

J.L. Behrend

Invoice and receipt from Burns Oates, Publishers and Church Furnishers, for chairs/kneelers, including 10 chairs and 10 kneelers, for a fee of £7.17.6

411, 1925-29

1927, March 29

Duncan, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Duncan encloses a draft of the appointment of a new trustee and a draft of the proposed rules and regulations.

411, 1925-29

173

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1927, April 1

R. Garrett

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

A Deposit of £20 toward two-thirds of the frontage of the Meadow known as Lot 17.

411, 1925-29

1927, April 7

Rectory Burghclere

J.L. Behrend

The Rector sends Behrend the licence, for which he paid £1-4-0. He would like Behrend to keep it in the church safe.

411, 1925-29

1927, April 12w

The Goupil Gallery, Ltd.

J.L. Behrend

Invoice and Receipt for collecting 10 pictures from Goupil Gallery and delivering them to Grey House, Burghclere, for £7.

411, 1925-29

1927, April 20

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson returns a cutting of a review about Spencer. He hopes that the Behrends will enjoy their beautiful Spring holiday in the Lake District. He thanks Mrs Behrend for her nice letter and notes that it has been ‘extraordinarily pleasant working on your job and I am quite sorry that my visits to Newbury are done.'

411, 1925-29

1927, April 28

Rectory Burghclere

J.L. Behrend

The Rector returns the record of service loaned earlier.

411, 1925-29

1927, May 11

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson thanks Behrend for the cheque and letter and encloses a receipt. He says 'I am very glad to hear that Spencer is now installed at Burghclere and that the building is looking well.'

411, 1925-29

1927, May 13

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

An invoice for a lengthy list of works completed by Head, and a receipt for payment for £41-17-9.

411, 1925-29

Undated, probably mid-1927

Hilda Spencer, Palmer's Hill Farm, Burghclere

J.L. Behrend

An eight page letter from Hilda Carline about the design and exact specifications of their cottage, chapel View. She writes in detail about the dimensions of the rooms, the ownership of the design, and the breakdown in communications between herself and William Head, blaming the builder for a series of misunderstandings.

411, 1925-29

1927, May

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

A five page list list of Head's building works at the chapel and Almshouses. Payment settlement on August 12th 1927 for the outstanding £238-12-5.

411, 1925-29

1927, May 31

Stibbard, Gibson & Co.

J.L. Behrend

Cover letter for the Agreement for occupation of Almshouses.

411, 1925-29

Undated, possibly 1927

Unsigned

Two loosely drawn sketches showing general plans and orientation of the sites of the chapel and cottages.

411, 1925-29

1927, June 3

J.L. Behrend

The Manager, Westminster Bank Ltd

Behrend encloses forms signed by the four committee members (presumed missing from archive) of the Sandham Memorial Trust (himself, Mrs Behrend, Mr George Head and Rev. Medlicott), with the view to opening the account in their names.

411, 1925-29

Nathaniel Hailstone and William Elliot

Lease agreement for the Sandham Memorial Trust's almshouses with Nathaniel Hailstone and William Elliot. Agreement signed June 3, 1927, almshouses occupied March 5, 1927. Includes additional handwritten notes from August and September 1928.

411, 1925-29

1927, June 3

1927, June 7

The Manager, Westminster Bank Ltd

J.L. Behrend

An acknowledgement from from the bank concerning Behrend's authority to open the account for the Trust

411, 1925-29

1927, June 11

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Head thanks Behrend for the £300 received and for the additions to his work at the chapel. He asks that Behrend let Mrs Behrend know that his son is ready to assist Mr P. Smith as requested and that Head is ready to erect the scaffold, on Behrend's call.

411, 1925-29

1927, July 4

Stibbard, Gibson & Co.

J.L. Behrend

An invoice for various conveyancing charges from August-November 1926, for £18-8-8.

411, 1925-29

1927, July 30

J Bryce Smith

Stanley Spencer

Receipt for extra strong arch-shaped stretchers and canvas for £43-5-0.

411, 1925-29

1927, July 30

J Bryce Smith

Stanley Spencer

Invoice for carpenter's time, and for 2 x men’s time to visit Highclere for delivery, for £48-11-1.

411, 1925-29

1927, July

J Bryce Smith

Stanley Spencer

Receipt for payment for carpenter's time, and for 2 x men’s time to visit Highclere for delivery, for £48-11-1.

411, 1925-29

174

1927, August 12

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Head writes to thank Behrend for entrusting him with such an important project and that he trusts that everything will be satisfactory for Mr Pearson. He will be bringing another pattern for the arches on Tuesdays and asks Behrend to let Mrs Behrend know that he will be starting another room in the cottage on Monday.

411, 1925-29

1927, August 22

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Invoice dated August 19, from Head for works on the chapel, for £103-13-6.

411, 1925-29

Statement of sale of land to Mr Garrett (£225), minus fencing costs (£24), total £201-0-0.

411, 1925-29

Undated, c.1927 1927, August 31

J Bryce Smith

Stanley Spencer

Receipt for stretchers, arches and canvas for £15-2-6.

411, 1925-29

1927, September

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Receipt for payment for Head's work on 'Breach Cottage', for £300.

411, 1925-29

1927, October 20

J Bryce Smith

Stanley Spencer

Receipt for large canvas for £21-16-2.

411, 1925-29

1928, January 22

J.L. Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Behrend writes to Spencer on the eve of his move into 'Breach Cottage' to confirm the rental agreement of 7/6 per week, and can be terminated by either party with 3 months notice.

411, 1925-29

1928, February 14

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Receipt of payment for Materials and Work completed at Breach Cottage, for £142-4-0.

411, 1925-29

1928, February 12

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Receipt of payment for Materials and Work completed at the chapel, including fitting frames and putting asbestos cloth on walls, for £37-18-3.

411, 1925-29

1928, March 20

W. Brain & Son Ltd.

Mary Behrend

Payment for 1 tonne of anthracite, £2-4-0

411, 1925-29

1928, March 24

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson has been in further conversations with Mr Coffin, Managing Director of Messrs Russell & Co. Coffin is keen to make the heating in the chapel a success. Pearson suggests, as the correspondence has not managed to bring the matter to a conclusion, that he call into Behrend's office to '...discuss the best means of getting over the difficulty?'

411, 1925-29

1928, April 24

Halford, Henry, Montefiore & Co. Incorporated Insurance Brokers

J.L. Behrend

Details from Insurance Brokers on Spencer's life insurance, which states that '... owing to Mr Spencer's occupation, the best quotation we have been able to obtain for covering him against fatal accidents anywhere in the United Kingdom for twelve months... is a £2000 policy, £3.10.0d'.

411, 1925-29

1928, April 26

Halford, Henry, Montefiore & Co., Incorporated Insurance Brokers

J.L. Behrend

Confirmation on insurance cover for Stanley Spencer. 'With further reference to our letter of 24th inst. And in accordance with your kind telephonic advices, we have arranged an insurance for the above, under Lloyd K.I. Policy Form for £1000…'

411, 1925-29

Aug 13 1928

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

An invoice and receipt for erecting scaffolding, fixing archetraves, where Head 'worked to a special pattern and created with special grey polish' for £7-3-0.

411, 1925-29

1928, August 31

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Letter from Head informing Behrend that Spencer had been complaining about the quality of his drinking water from the well at his cottage. Head believes the only safe way to assess its quality is to get it tested, but Spencer is refusing to pay (and wants Behrend to do so). He wants to know Behrend's thoughts on whether to test it or not. He recommends testing as the only way to satisfy the Spencers although he is sure that the well is not polluted. He apologises for worrying Behrend with this issue.

411, 1925-29

1928, September 12

County Medical Officer, Public Health

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

The test results from the Public Health Laboratory, Hampshire City Council concerning the water at Spencer's cottage. The Country Medical Officer reports, 'this is satisfactory water for all domestic purposes including drinking'.

411, 1925-29

1928

175

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1928, October 9

H. M. Inspector of Taxes, Newbury

J.L. Behrend

Assessment of income tax for the house and chapel, year 1928-29, ending 5 April, 1929.

411, 1925-29

1928, October 24

Island Revenue, H.M Inspector of Taxes

J.L. Behrend

The Inspector is in receipt of Behrend's letter regarding the proposed tax assessment of £35-0-0. The gross Poor Rate assessment is in excess of the rent paid 'and this is normally, in comparison with rents commanded'. He awaits Behrend's further observations.

411, 1925-29

1928, November 12

Island Revenue, H.M Inspector of Taxes

J.L. Behrend

The Inspector thanks Behrend for his letter and informs him that he is now obtaining further information on the Poor Rate.

411, 1925-29

1928, November 19

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

An invoice and receipt for lowering top scaffolding, fixing 2 pictures, horses for moving furniture etc. for £2-1-3.

411, 1925-29

1929, January 2

JL Behrend

L.G. Pearson

Behrend thanks Pearson for offering to split the £15 for the heating repairs, but does not wish him to contribute. He '..mentioned the amount as showing at what a small cost Mr Coffin might have put the matter right and re-established his reputation, if only had he shown willing.' Despite there having been no severe weather, Behrend feels confident the system will work well when the cold comes.

412, 19291933

1929, January 18

J.L. Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Behrend has had an unexpected windfall and with this in mind is sending a cheque for £500-0-0 towards the money owed to Spencer. If the 'End Wall' picture is completed by March, Behrend will owe £277-5-0 on April 1.

412, 19291933

1929, January 19

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson is surprised that Coffin has been so difficult to work with as this was not his previous experience of him. He can only guess that his financial troubles are affecting his behaviour. Pearson is doubtful that he will see any money from Coffin to right the heating defects, but hopes for the best.

412, 19291933

1929, April 1

J.L. Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Balance sheet for Stanley Spencer's work, showing an outstanding £277-50 as at April 1, 1929.

412, 19291933

1929, May

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

An invoice for worked carried out from December 6 1928 until March 7 1929, including moving scaffolding, boarding over steps either side of alter etc., for £2-17-6.

412, 19291933

Undated, c.1929

Probably J.L. Behrend

Typed information sheet about the chapel, the architect, Spencer's war experiences, and his work, the dedication of the chapel etc.

412, 19291933

1929, May 3

Joint Manager Trustee Department, Westminster Bank

J.L. Behrend

The bank has obtained the forms to claim on behalf of the Sandham Memorial Trust. They ask Behrend for a signed authority and for him to fill out the claim forms.

412, 19291933

1929, May 16

Chas. J. Sawyer Booksellers & Fine Art Dealers

Mary Behrend

Receipt for The Book of Common Prayer £5-0-0.

412, 19291933

1929, June 6

R. H. Garrett, Kingsclere Rural District Council

J.L. Behrend

Garrett thanks Behrend for his payment of rates and encloses a refund cheque for £17-4-0 for allowances.

412, 19291933

1929, July 8

J.L. Behrend

The Manager, Westminster Bank Ltd

Behrend writes to the bank, enclosing receipts for expediture made from the Trust's funds. He explains that he has been paying the almspeople out of his own pocket, a duty the Trust ought to be fulfilling.

412, 19291933

1929, July 31

JL Behrend

Stanley Spencer?

Balance sheet for Stanley Spencer's work, showing an outstanding £48-0-0 as at August 1, 1929.

412, 19291933

1929, August 1

Clerk to the Rating Authority, Kingsclere

J.L. Behrend

A Notice of the Meeting of the Assessment Committee, on Monday August 26, 1929, to consider proposals and amendments to the Valuation List. The assessment will be on 2 Almshouses, Burghclere, valued currently at £12-0-0.

412, 19291933

1929

176

1929, August 12

J.L. Behrend

A Balance Sheet for the upkeep of the almshouses (including insurance, wages, coal etc.), totalling £84-0-0. In an N.B., Behrend notes that he has been paying for fuel and further allowances out of his own pocket.

412, 19291933

1929, August 28

Stockbridge Assessment Area

J.L. Behrend

Notice of Decision of Assessment Committee on Proposal for Amendment of the Valuation List. Assessment Numbers 31 and 32 (the two almshouses) retain their value at £6 each (£12 total).

412, 19291933

1929, September 9

Rev. Medlicott,

J.L. Behrend

Rev Medlicott, of Burghclere Rectory, Newbury, writes to Behrend about a possible new tenant in almshouse - a 60 year old named Frank Desnics.

412, 19291933

1929, November 2

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

An invoice and receipt for refixing canvas to 2 circular pictures and alterations to the hot water system (heater/boiler) for £15-5-6.

412, 19291933

1929, November 11

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

Mary Behrend

Handwritten letter from Head to Mrs Behrend discussing the specifications of the canvas that needs to be ordered by Mrs Behrend. Head is taking care of ordering the asbestos cloth and offers to arrange to put both the cloth and canvas on the frames at the same time, in which case only 1 scaffold would be required. He notes that the thermometer at the chapel was at 200 (93 celsius) but that he thinks that it is wrong as the fire was 'not at all large and the old man was as pleased as punch with his stoking'. The letter includes a small schematic drawing of the canvas pieces and their relationship to the arches.

412, 19291933

1929, December 2

W.H. Durst, The Casa Guidi Workshop, Florence

Mary Behrend

Handwritten letter from Durst thanking Mary Behrend for the photos of Spencer's works. He longs to see the originals, since 'Alice came back full of them'. He includes 'rough and dirty drawings as a suggestion' for a chalice for the chapel (presumed missing from archive), which he estimates will cost about £20, including the patten. He notes that they will be unlikely to deviate from the conventional shape, as it is most convenient to hold. He promises to send a drawing for the alms dish, but will not have the time to do so until after Christmas. He will find out if there is a duty to be paid on silver and if so will go through a local silversmith. He saw Muriel for a day on her way from Egypt back to England and she spoke highly of her catch-up with Behrend in Vienna. Durst hopes to 'get a glimpse of you all soon'.

412, 19291933

1929, December 28

J.L. Behrend

L.G. Pearson

Behrend sends payment for Pearson's final account for the completion of works on the chapel. He notes that he had withheld the final £67-6-3 for the defects in the heating system (which was installed on Pearson's instructions), but that since Head's inventive work on it, '... has made the whole thing work admirably', Coffin's shortcomings have only left Behrend out of pocket by £15-0-0.

412, 19291933

1929, December 31

J.L. Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Balance sheet with Stanley Spencer for his work on the chapel art works, from June 1 1926, to December 1929, with a balance of £74-10-0 owed as at January 1 1929.

412, 19291933

1929, December 30

L.G. Pearson

J.L. Behrend

Pearson apologises for the heating problems and notes 'I wrote many letters to our friend Mr Coffin and spoke very strongly to his personally as I considered his conduct was very stupid' and offers to pay half of the outstanding £15.

412, 19291933

1930, February 1

The Carnarvon Estates Company

J.L. Behrend

Mr M. W. Wickham-Boynton of Carnarvon Estates writes to Behrend to confirm the sale of an oak tree adjoining the left hand side boundary of the field where the Memorial chapel stands, for £10-10-0.

412, 19291933

1930, February 15

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Invoice and Receipt for Head's work in the chapel, including affixing asbestos cloth, repairs to boiler, fixing pictures etc. for £55-3-4.

412, 19291933

1930, April 14

J Bryce Smith, Artists' Materials, London

Stanley Spencer

Receipt for Artist’s materials purchased by Spencer, for £6-11-9.

412, 19291933

1930

177

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1930, April 15

J Bryce Smith, Artists' Materials, London

Stanley Spencer

Receipt for Artist’s materials purchased by Spencer, for £8-8-9.

412, 19291933

1930, May 3

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management,

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Expenditure from April 12 1929 until April 1930, Sandham Memorial Trust.

412, 19291933

1930, May 20

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Invoice and receipt for Head's work, from April - May 1930, including wires frames, reframing canvas and fixing picture to arch, for £2-1-0.

412, 19291933

1930, July 4

W.H. Durst

J.L. Behrend

A receipt from W.H. Durst, The Casa Guidi Workshop, Florence, for payment of the silver alms dish and silver chalice and pattern, for 7000 Lire, gratefully received.

412, 19291933

1930, July 24

W. Brain & Son Ltd.

Mrs Behrend

Invoices for the delivery of coal for £9-3-9.

412, 19291933

1930, July 26

Stanley Spencer Esq.

J.L. Behrend

A receipt and thanks for cheque received for £150.

412, 19291933

1930, July 31

JL Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Balance sheet with Stanley Spencer for his work on the chapel paintings, set against his rent for the cottage (from June 1 1926, to July 1930).

412, 19291933

1930, July

William Owen

Mary Behrend

Invoices for the delivery of four tons of coal for £8-0-0.

412, 19291933

1930, August 20

The Manager, Trustee Department, Westminster Bank Ltd

J.L. Behrend

A notice informing Behrend that the bank has reserved £10-10-0 as income tax, on behalf of the Sandham Memorial Trust Fund.

412, 19291933

1930, October 9

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Invoice and receipt for Head's work, including taking down main scaffolding and refixing same to bottom of arches.

412, 19291933

1930, October 9

Smithers, Ashold Farm

Mary Behrend

A receipt for the sale and delivery of 2 loads of manure to the Sandham Cottages.

412, 19291933

1930, November 20

C. Smith, Wood Dealer & Haulage Contractor

Mary Behrend

A receipt for payment of £0-6-0 paid to C. Smith, wood dealer and haulage.

412, 19291933

1931, January 1

Stanley Spencer Esq.

J.L. Behrend

A receipt and thanks for cheque received for £150.

412, 19291933

1931, January 1

JL Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Balance sheet with Stanley Spencer for his work on the chapel art works, against his rent (from June 1 1926, to January 1931)

412, 19291933

1931, January 16

Spencer

J.L. Behrend

A letter from Stanley Spencer which asks Behrend's permission for buying a small wooden studio (with a small drawing of the studio's tongue and groove wooden construction). He writes of clearing out the furniture, stages and table from the chapel 'so we can see what it looks like', and finishing the painting of the trees and vegetation. He closes by telling Behrend that this is very slow work and he will be 'vegetating with a vengeance'.

412, 19291933

1931, January 21

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Invoice and receipt for Head's work, including restretching canvases, fixing wire guards etc. from October-November 1930, for £13-5-0.

412, 19291933

1931, April 1

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Receipts from April 1930 until April 1931, Sandham Memorial Trust Bank Account

412, 19291933

1931

178

1931, April 20

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Receipts from April 1930 until April 1931, Sandham Memorial Trust.

412, 19291933

1931, April 28

J.L. Behrend

Rev Medlicott

A request to Medlicott, as one of the Managers of the Almshouses, for his opinion on the Bank's recommendation to change the Trust's investment.

412, 19291933

1931, April 30

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Head endorses the Bank's suggested changes to the Trust.

412, 19291933

1931, June 30

J.L. Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Debit/Credit account for paintings executed from June 1, 1926 up to 30 June, 1931.

412, 19291933

1931, July 8

W. Taylor, Coal Merchant

J.L. Behrend for Sandham Memorial Trust

Receipt for £8 for 4 tonnes of house coal delivered to Sandham Cottages on June 30.

412, 19291933

1931, July 21

G. Kewell, Tothill

Mary Behrend

Receipt for 'a score of puffs' £5 6 shillings delivered to Sandham Cottages on June 13.

412, 19291933

1931, July 27

The House of Toomer, Newbury

Mary Behrend

Receipt from The House of Toomer, Newbury, Ironmonger & House Furnishings for 2 keys cut for chapel, for £1-3-6.

412, 19291933

1931, October 30

R. Smithers

Mrs Behrend

Receipt for £10 for 2 loads of manure delivered to Sandham Cottages on October 19. Payment received with thanks November 2.

412, 19291933

1931, November 6

E. Josey

Sandham Cottages

Receipt for cleaning up grass and attending to lopping trees at Sandham Cottages, for £19 (for work October 24 & 31). Payment made at the time.

412, 19291933

1931, December 10

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

Mrs Behrend

Receipt for repair of entrance steps to cottage, repair expansion tank in chapel roof and cleaning and fitting covers for tanks, for £3.1.0. Payment received 21 December 1931.

412, 19291933

1932, January 22

Stanley Spencer Esq.

J.L. Behrend

An account of paintings executed by Spencer up to the 31st December 1931 for £2675 (£221 still owing as at January 21, 1932)

412, 19291933

1932, January 22

J.L. Behrend

Stanley Spencer

Behrend hopes that Spencer's move to Cookham has gone smoothly and wishes he had had the chance to say goodbye, but for the influenza that he could not shake off. He offers Spencer continued access to the garage and studio for a further six months, before taking charge of them again himself. He also asks Stanley to update him on any change to bank details after his move. Behrend concludes by sharing that he is 'very cut up' about the death of Lytton Strachey and that it is awfully sad.

412, 19291933

1932, January 25

Stanley Spencer

J.L. Behrend & Mary Behrend

With thanks from Stanley Spencer, a receipt for cheques received from Mr Behrend (£30 and £7) and cheques received from Mrs Behrend (£5 and £5) for expenses.

412, 19291933

March, 1932

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Receipts from September 1931 until April 1932, Sandham Memorial Trust.

412, 19291933

1932, April 8

Edwards & Godding Ltd

Sandham Memorial Trust

Receipt from Edwards & Gossing, wholesale ironmongers and engineers, for lawn mower, grass box and tin toilet, including a 5% discount, for £218-3.

412, 19291933

1932, April 13

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Expenditure from April 1931 until April 1932, Sandham Memorial Trust.

412, 19291933

1932, June 10

Stanley Spencer

J.L. Behrend

An account of paintings executed by Spencer up to the 31 May 1932 for £2,775 (£101 still owing as on January 21, 1932).

412, 19291933

1932, September 30

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Receipt for payment of quote prepared by Head for oak on chapel doors and for iron stove pipe for cottage (payment received 31 October).

412, 19291933

1932

179

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1932, November 7

Arthur Tooth & Sons, Art Dealers

J.L. Behrend

Letter from Mr Dudley Tooth confirming the Behrend's offer (via Spencer) to loan panels of Spencer's art work for an exhibition about Spencer's war-related work. Tooth seeks to clarify details on the content of the works, the purpose of the memorial chapel, and other details. He suggests that the exhibition (to be held possibly in spring of the following year) will considerably enhance Spencer's reputation.

412, 19291933

1932, November 8

J.L. Behrend

Arthur Tooth & Sons, Art Dealers

Behrend agrees to give more information on the works and the chapel but asks that while giving Spencer maximum publicity, he and his wife wish for a minimum of publicity, concluding that 'anything in the nature of self-advertisement is very obnoxious to us'. He invites the dealer to see the works themselves at the chapel, or alternately that Tooth and Behrend meet in London to discuss the details.

412, 19291933

1932, November 11

Arthur Tooth & Sons, Art Dealers

J.L. Behrend

Dudley Tooth thanks Behrend for his kind invitation to come and see the chapel but explains that certain business is keeping him close to home for the next fortnight. He asks that they meet in London and agrees to respect the Behrend's wishes for a minimum of personal publicity.

412, 19291933

1932, November 18

Arthur Tooth & Sons, Art Dealers

J.L. Behrend

Mr Tooth advises Behrend of a list of press writers and critics whom ought to be contacted about the forthcoming exhibition and some draft 'wording' that might be included with the invitations, so as to emphasise the importance of the event: 'Mr Spencer's decorations constitute the most important set of Mural Paintings undertaken by a British artist in recent times.'

412, 19291933

1932, November 19

JL Behrend

Arthur Tooth & Sons, Art Dealers

Behrend thanks Tooth for the wording for the descriptive note and lets him know he will notify him when the invitations have gone out, though he anticipates it will not be until after Christmas.

412, 19291933

1932, December 2

Roddy Enthoven, Architect

J.L. Behrend

The architect, from the practice Pakington, Enthoven and Grey (Bedford Square, London) sends drawings to help Behrend explain to Spencer how they will make the final small modifications to complete the chapel. The architect seeks Spencer's feedback (via Behrend) on the proposed dado and queries whether the 'enrichment' on the pilasters might compromise the painting behind the altar. He suggests that the 'enrichment of the pilasters can only be judged for size and shape by being tried out in a model.'

412, 19291933

1932, December 2

J.L. Behrend

On Sandham Memorial Trust letterhead, Behrend signs a statement saying that 'this is to certify that the paintings at the Oratory of Old Souls, Burghclere, are the property of the Sandham Memorial Trust. This is witnessed and signed by Alice Dunklin, Spinster, Newbury.

412, 19291933

1932, December 4

J.L. Behrend

Roddy Enthoven, Architect

Behrend passes on the good news that Spencer saw the architects drawings 'at the chapel to-day' and is happy with the suggested plans (both for the dado and the half-corbels). He does not think that they will harm the painting and believes he 'can easily paint the uncovered piece of canvas at the bottom of the end-wall picture.' Behrend asks Enthoven to go ahead and order the works to be done by Head the builder, but not until after the press have visited the chapel. In light of Spencer's recent election as an Associate of the Royal Academy (ARA) Behrend is concerned that the news will stir the 'gutter press' who will be 'nosing about'. Therefore, he and his wife would like the 'better critics' to have a visit to the chapel first. To do so, Head's work must be delayed until after after the 15th to give them a chance to come and visit. Behrend has already carefully explained the few incomplete elements of the chapel to the invited press.

412, 19291933

1932, December 6

Roddy Enthoven, Architect

J.L. Behrend

Enthoven confirms that he has ordered the work to be done by Head and has asked him for an estimated cost for the full works (and that he order the stone without delay). He encloses a copy of the work order and suggests that he should come and inspect the works once they have started to discuss any modifications required. He notes that he read of Spencer's Royal Academy recognition in Sunday's newspaper and wondered whether it would alter Behrend's timeline. He adds that it is 'most exciting'.

412, 19291933

1932, December

Roddy Enthoven, Architect

J.L. Behrend

Postscript on the outside of an envelope from architect Roddy Enthoven in which he suggests 'stippling a cool white over a warm white to give quality'.

412, 19291933

180

1932, December 7

J.L. Behrend

Undated, c.late 1932

J.L. Behrend

1932, December 10

J.L. Behrend

1932, December 17

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

A copy of the work order from December 6, drawn up by Enthoven, for Head, and an accompanying letter from Behrend to Head confirming that the work order is correct (the ceiling work can wait, but he would like a quote), that the agreed works can be done any day but the 15th and he passes on Enthoven's advice about painting cool white over warm on the plaster.

412, 19291933

A list of the works by Spencer in the chapel (and their positioning) in which Behrend notes that 'the pictures are all by Mr. Stanley Spencer A.R.A. and relate to the war, being scenes either in hospital or in Macedonia'.

412, 19291933

In light of a recent phonecall, Behrend now sends the editor 'photographs of the 19 pictures by Mr Stanley Spencer A.R.A. at the Oratory of All Souls, Burghclere'. Behrend notes that the photographic quality may not be of the standard 'to which your paper has accustomed its readers and it cannot be said that they do justice to Mr Spencer's work.' He asks for their safe return. Behrend enquires whether the journalist will be able to accept his invitation to view the works of the 15th?

412, 19291933

Newspaper article, unknown newspaper

Cutting under the title 'War Artist, Mysticism and Experience, The Resurrection', by R.R. Tatlock, which describes the chapel and the paintings in some detail. Tatlock responds positively to Spencer's work, suggesting of the end-wall that 'it may not be a picture that everyone will understand' but it is painted, like the rest of the chapel, 'with Spencerian ingenuity and candour.'

412, 19291933

1932, December 17

Newspaper article, The Times

Cutting of an uncredited article, 'A War Memorial, Oratory of All Souls Burghclere' in which the chapel's paintings are described in detail and the main work, The Resurrection of the Soldiers discussed in depth. 'If there had been any doubts about his quality as an artist they would be removed by these remarkable works', notes the writer. 'The present century... has produced nothing more important and nothing so truly original.' The writer summarises the end-wall by suggesting it is 'one aspect of his genius - for genius is the only word.'

412, 19291933

1932, December 18

J.L. Behrend

Roddy Enthoven, Architect

Behrend writes that Head's estimate 'does not seem terribly dear' but thanks the architect for going into details as he fears he has been too 'easy-going' in the past with Head. Behrend describes the press viewing as 'rather an ordeal' and is disappointed that some of the critics were on occasion obtuse. He was glad to see the positive review in The Times, but wishes that the reviewers would focus on Spencer, not Behrend and his wife.

412, 19291933

1932, December 24

J.E. PrydeHughes, Mondiale

J.L. Behrend

A letter thanking Behrend for his kind letter of December 17, regarding the photos that Pryde-Hughes took of Spencer's art works. Pryde-Hughes has received the prints back and is very happy with their quality. He plans to send them to three editors in Berlin and will send Behrend any journals in which the photographs are reproduced.

412, 19291933

1932, December 25

Newspaper article Sunday Times

In the Galleries section under the heading 'A Wayside chapel, the Art of Stanley Spencer, A.R.A.' Frank Rutter discusses Spencer's good fortune ('happy indeed should be the artist who has thus lived to see the fulfillment of his dreams') and the six years of work that Spencer put in to creating the 27 artworks that decorate the chapel. Rutter offers a thorough appreciation on Spencer's achievement.

412, 19291933

1932, December 30

Stanley Spencer Esq.

J.L. Behrend

Fees for paintings executed from December 1928 until December 1932 for ÂŁ3,000 (ÂŁ161 still owing as on January 1, 1933).

412, 19291933

1932, December 30

Miss Jocelyn Rae, Art Editor, The Listener

J.L. Behrend

Miss Rae reminds Behrend that they met at the Carringtons when the Behrends were kind enough to 'lend us [their] swimming bath one morning'. She would like to have an article on mural art in The Listener and would like half-plate photograph prints of the works. The magazine is happy to pay the photographer and Rae offers to contact the photographer directly if Behrend provides the details.

412, 19291933

1932, December

J.L. Behrend

412, 19291933

The Editor, Illustrated London News

181

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel Undated, possibly 1932

A statement about the chapel which describes it, inclusive of some of the specifications, and with some detail of Spencer's war service. The statement suggests that the architects were the practice of Adams, Holden and Pearson, as distinct from Lionel G. Pearson alone. It mentions briefly the part played by Mr and Mrs J.L. Behrend in erecting the chapel 'in commemoration of a relative, who lost his life during the war'.

412, 19291933

1933 January 30, 1933

Roddy Enthoven, Architect

J.L. Behrend

Handwritten letter from the architect's home address in Campden Hill, W.8, thanking Behrend for inviting him to so 'distinguished a gathering' and notes that he is 'still mildly kicking [him]self for the dado trouble'. He continues, 'I should have forseen that the top member would catch the light like that and look mean.' He includes a drawing of what he thinks would make all the difference to the effect. He asks that Behrend consult Head about cutting back the curve (as per enclosed profile drawing).

412, 19291933

February 22, 1933

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

From Head, a quote and monies received for the work on the stonework, dado, corbels and architraves as per Roddy Enthoven's work order (£89-0-0) and another for decorations within the chapel - making frames, varnishing work, etc (£13-9-0).

412, 19291933

February 23, 1933

Roddy Enthoven, Architect

J.L. Behrend

An invoice for professional services in relation to the completion of the Burghclere Oratory, from Pakington, Enthoven and Grey architects for £6-0-0.

412, 19291933

March 9, 1933

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Letter to Behrend including an estimate to paint the exterior of the chapel and almshouses for £12-7-0. Head awaits Behrend's instructions.

412, 19291933

March 10, 1933

Editor, Country Life magazine

J.L. Behrend

Editor Christopher Hussey notes that he has heard that the chapel will be open in Spring and asks if they could document the works in Country Life. He asks Behrend for any photos that he may have and requests a visit so that he can assess whether further photographs may be required.

412, 19291933

April 10, 1933

Editor, Country Life magazine

J.L. Behrend

A reply letter from the Editor at Country Life thanking Behrend for the photos which he says are 'admirable' and suggesting that a further photograph be taken to capture the works in relation to each other. They will find the time to send someone down to the chapel to do this.

412, 19291933

April 15, 1933

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Expenditure from April 1932 until April 1933, Sandham Memorial Trust.

412, 19291933

April 24, 1933

Eric Maclagan, Victoria and Albert Museum

Mary Behrend

A letter from the Director and Secretary, Victoria and Albert Museum, Kensington, thanking Mrs Behrend for the photos sent to them of Spencer's works in the chapel. They have much pleasure in accepting them for inclusion in their collection.

412, 19291933

August 3, 1933

Stanley Spencer

J.L. Behrend

Final paperwork enumerating fees for paintings executed from June 1, 1926 until August 1, 1933 for £3,000 and subsequent cheques received (£1 still owing as at August 3, 1933).

412, 19291933

1936/1937

A portfolio of photographs by Maurice Beck of Stanley Spencer's paintings in the chapel: Sorting and Moving Kitbags, Sorting The Laundry, Scrubbing the Floor, Frostbite, River at Karasuli, Tea in the Hospital Ward, River at Todorovo, Bedmaking, Filling the Tea Urns, Washing Locker, The Resurrection of the Soldiers.

413, 1943-46

Undated, possibly mid.1930s

Photograph of two men handling ladders, trestles, and wooden platforms inside the chapel.

413, 1943-46

Undated, possibly mid.1930s

Photograph of the top left-hand corner of the chapel, facing north-west, showing a portion of The Resurrection of the Soldiers, the altar and the left-hand wall.

413, 1943-46

Undated, possibly spring 1937

A portfolio of photographs by Maurice Beck of front entrance of the chapel.

413, 1943-46

Undated, possibly spring 1937

Photograph of Sandham Memorial chapel and Almshouses, seen from the Front Gardens.

413, 1943-46

1936/1937

182

Undated

Information Plate #3 which notes that from 1927, Spencer moved to Burghclere to work on the 'murals' and that he continued unaided for nearly 6 years. It notes that the three main paintings are painted on canvas especially woven in Belgium as no English looms were large enough. Spencer worked on plank-and-trestle scaffolding erected by Head (with special netting to stop him stepping backwards).

413, 1943-46

Undated

Information Plate #4 which notes that Resurrection of the Soldiers took Spencer almost a year to complete, and that he had a passion for accuracy, and is quoted as saying 'I paint what know and remember, I have no time for impressions of things'. It relates how Spencer asked for permission to paint soldiers at Richmond to refresh his memory and that on one occasion he had to go home to fetch a sponge as he could not remember it precisely. He also washed his hair to see what the soapsuds looked like for his work on Ablutions.

413, 1943-46

Undated

File note that records the National Trust's recognition of the chapel's historical importance: 'They now represent a work of art of the highest importance and certainly the most decorative scheme of its period in England'.

413, 1943-46

Undated

File note on the four steps required for the preparation of the walls prior to attaching the large stretches of canvas on the end-wall and for the high friezes on either side of the chapel.

413, 1943-46

1940 April 4, 1940

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Invoice from Head and payment for £1.0.0 for work on the chapel (clearing snow and ice)

413, 1943-46

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Invoice from Head and payment for £16.8.6 for Head (and staffs) work on the chapel (cleaning guttering, clearing snow from roof etc.)

413, 1943-46

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Expenditure & Receipts from April 1942 until April 1943, Sandham Memorial Trust.

413, 1943-46

April 1, 1944

Rural District Council of Kingsclere & Whitchurch

J.L. Behrend

Demand Note for Rates and Water Charges for 19 shillings and 2 Pence. Payment received May 10, 1944.

413, 1943-46

April 28, 1944

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Expenditure & Receipts from April 1943 until April 1944, Sandham Memorial Trust.

413, 1943-46

April 20, 1945

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

Sandham Memorial Trust

Statement of Expenditure & Receipts from April 1944 until April 1945, Sandham Memorial Trust

413, 1943-46

December 1, 1945

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

A detailed note of proposed electrical works for the two bungalows, which Head quotes at a cost of £38-20-0. Head awaits Behrend's instructions.

413, 1943-46

Ministry of Works

J.L. Behrend

Control of Civil Building Licence, issued by Kingsclere & Whitchurch Rural District Council, to install electrical lighting at the almshouses, at a cost of £39.

413, 1943-46

1942 April 17, 1942

1943 April 13, 1943

1944

1945

1946 1946, January 2

183

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1946, February

J.L. Behrend

Hampshire County Council (Highclere Division) Election Campaign notice from J.L.Behrend, calling on the public to elect him at the forthcoming County Election. Behrend cites many previous local government posts as evidence of his capability.

413, 1943-46

1946, May 3

Wessex Electricity Company

J.L. Behrend

The District Manager of Wessex Electricity Company confirms the verbal quote, £30-9-6, made by their representative as correct. This sum is demanded as Behrend's contribution to the installation of an underground cable, due to extra energy required for new lighting. The District Manager asks Behrend to fill out application forms for the associated tariffs.

413, 1943-46

May 31, 1946

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Quote for a range of minor works for 'Miss Pettit's Wash House' and the bungalows, including assorted electrical works. Receipt for funds gratefully received for £83-12-0 June 8, 1946.

413, 1943-46

1946, August 28

W. G. Taylor, Coal and Coke Merchant

J.L. Behrend

Receipt of payment for 1 tonne of house coal delivered to Mrs Bitmead and Miss Pettit on July 15.

414, 1946-50

1946, September 21

H.S. Rumball, High-Class Purveyor of Best English, Scotch and Colonial Meat

Mary Behrend

Rumball encloses 'pages as requested' to save Mrs Behrend calling.

414, 1946-50

1946, c.October

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

William Drown's contact details are passed on from Eardley to Behrend. Eardley suggests that the two brothers who run their business from New Bond Street, W1, 'both inspire confidence'.

414, 1946-50

1946, October 20

J.L. Behrend

Mr William Drown

Behrend asks Drown to visit so that he might 'examine some pictures of [Behrend's] with a view to cleaning and varnishing them'. He mentions the 16 large pictures on stretchers and 'three very large ones on canvas gummed on the wall'. He asks for Drown's availability in November.

414, 1946-50

1946, October 30

John Rothenstein, Director, The Tate Gallery London

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Copy of a letter of support for the proposed acquisition of the Sandham Chapel by the National Trust. Rothenstein is wholly supportive: 'I write to say that I regard Stanley Spencer as one of the most considerable painters now alive and I know of no contemporary wall paintings which seem to me to be in the same class as the painting at Burghclere. Indeed I am convinced that these constitute one of the major achievements in the whole history of English monumental painting.'

414, 1946-50

1946, November 2

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

Eardley plans to put Behrend's proposal in front of the committee on November 15 and asks if Behrend has any misgivings about this. Eardley notes that '[he] personally would be very disappointed if the Committee do not rise to the occasion.' He acknowledges that the chapel is unlinke anything that has been proposed to the National Trust prior. A handwritten sign-off which says, ‘With love to Mary and all good wishes, yours ever, Eardley. If you have any possibility of paying a visit then do please let me know. Could you squeeze the petrol to come to lunch one day?’

414, 1946-50

1946, November 4

JL Behrend

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Behrend responds to Eardley saying that he is glad that the chapel proposal is being put before the Executive Committee and that he hopes that the National Trust will consider it as it is '… in a class apart, may claim more sympathetic consideration'. He says that they would love to come to lunch but that the petrol situation at the moment is none too good. He notes that Drown is coming to give his opinion on fixing the pictures in the chapel and that therefore, if the Trust will have the chapel, he '...should like to be able to hand it over in apple-pie order.'

414, 1946-50

1946, November 7

Unidentified National Trust Executive Committee member

A copy of a note possibly written by a National Trust Executive Committee member: "It seems quite clear that we should accept. This is the most important decorative scheme of its decade in England, and the finest effort by an individual painter of our time, I think. It is many years since I saw it, but the recollection remains vivid - so don't send photos to me."

414, 1946-50

184

1946, November 9

R. H. Wilenski M.A. Savile Club, London

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Copy of a letter of support for the proposed acquisition of the chapel by the National Trust. Art historian Wilenski states: 'I have never had any doubt since I saw the original drawings for this chapel (reproduced in my "Stanley Spencer", Benn 1924) that this work was of quite exceptional significance both as a war memorial and as English imaginative art on a high level... Surely one of the achievements of the period by which it would wish to be remembered in future times. I earnestly hope that the chapel will in fact be safe-guarded by the Trust.'

414, 1946-50

1946, November 12

Kenneth Clark, Upper Terrace House, Hampstead, NW3

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Copy of a letter of support from Sir Kenneth Clark, for the proposed acquisition of the chapel by the National Trust. Clark is generally supportive. He writes that although he is not 'a convinced admirer of all Stanley Spencer's work, I regard the Burghclere chapel as one of the chief monuments of English painting in our generation, and it would be most appropriate that it should become part of the National Trust.'

414, 1946-50

1946, November 12

J.L. Behrend

The Manager, Westminster Bank Ltd

Behrend writes to the bank manager that he hopes the National Trust will take the chapel into its care and that in that eventuality, the Trust will be appointed Trustee of the chapel. He asks for a copy of the Deed, to show the National Trust, as the original is thought to have been lost in the blitz. He expresses his thanks for all the support the bank and the manager have shown.

414, 1946-50

1946, November 21

William Drown, Picture Restorers, London

J.L. Behrend

The Restorers write to Behrend with a quote for treating the paintings of between £250-£350. Drown (or his representative) is concerned by the fungi growing and the peculiar 'runs' - he thinks that they will respond to treatment but is concerned that some stains might remain (which could be fixed by careful retouching afterward).

414, 1946-50

1946, November 25

J.L. Behrend

The Manager, Westminster Bank Ltd

Behrend is glad to note that the bank is ready to facilitate the transfer of the Trusteeship to the National Trust, presuming it materializes.

414, 1946-50

1946, December 3

Richard Smart, Arthur Tooth & Sons Ltd.

J.L. Behrend

Regarding photographs of Spencer's works, Smart writes 'in my enthusiasm for the photographs, I am afraid I did not count the cost. Thinking it over I do not feel that so expensive a pleasure can just now be gratified.' He hopes to delay the purchase until he has serious interest from a publisher and hopes that he has not caused embarrassment to Mrs Behrend in her asking Mr Beck about the photographs.

414, 1946-50

1946, December 5

J.L. Behrend

Messrs Stradlings Ltd., Newbury

Behrend has sent a cheque for £35-3-1 to settle the account with Messrs Stradlings. He has deducted £3-7-6 for the Service Magneto which he hopes to return soon, when the makers of his lawnmower fit a new magneto into it.

Box 414 1946-50

1946, December 16

James LeeMilne, Secretary Buildings Committee, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

Milne is delighted to inform Behrend that the Committee has agreed to accept the Memorial chapel. He notes, 'it was rather amusing hearing the different comments made by members of the Committee on the illustrations you lent us'.

414, 1946-50

1946, December 17

Vice-Admiral & Secretary, Oliver Bevir, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

Bevir writes to say, 'I am very glad to say that the Executive Committee agreed most readily to accept [Behrend's] offer of this unusual but important property…' and asks that he iron out a 'few technical problems' with Eardley, in light of the fact that the chapel has current trustees in place.

414, 1946-50

1946, December 20

J.L. Behrend

James LeeMilne, Secretary Buildings Committee, The National Trust

Behrend thanks Lees-Milne (Secretary Buildings Committee, The National Trust) for his work toward having the chapel accepted into the care of the National Trust. He is '… naturally very pleased that the Committee has agreed to accept the property,' adding 'I can well believe that opinions about it varied widely; they always do!'

414, 1946-50

1946, December 26

J.L. Behrend

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Behrend thanks Eardley for his letter which he is 'much amused by' and notes that to his knowledge, the change of trustee should be quite simple. Despite keeping the transfer out of the public eye for now, Behrend feels that he should at least let the Rector '...know what is in the wind.'

414, 1946-50

1946, December 28

Honorary Secretary, C. W. Barton, National Farmers Union

J.L. Behrend

Barton regrets that Behrend wishes to resign, but has notified the Hon. Treasurer of Behrend's wishes.

414, 1946-50

185

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1946, December 30

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

Eardley has received a request from London to put Behrend's lawyer in touch with the Trust's lawyer, A. A. Martineau. Eardley will provide Martineau with the deeds and has made a 'special request to London that no publicity whatever shall be made without first telling [Behrend] and also submitting the text to [Behrend].'

414, 1946-50

1947, January 1

J.L. Behrend

Mr Duncan

Behrend asks Mr Duncan to get in touch with A. A. Martineau to arrange for the conveyance from the Westminster Bank to the National Trust.

414, 1946-50

1947, January 2

J.L. Behrend

The Manager, Westminster Bank Ltd

Behrend confirms that the National Trust has agreed to take over the Trusteeship of the chapel. His Solicitor will be in touch.

414, 1946-50

1947, January 2

A. A. Martineau, Solicitor

J.L. Behrend

Martineau thanks Behrend for his letter and for the deeds enclosed. He confirms that he has a copy of the deeds on hand.

414, 1946-50

1947, January 6

J.L. Behrend

Mr Duncan

Behrend lets Duncan know that the current Committee of Management is himself, his wife, Mrs Ruth St Barbe and William George Head. Behrend imagines that the Trust will likely keep this committee with the addition of one of their representatives. He queries whether Duncan will make the conveyance before or after the committee is decided.

414, 1946-50

1947, January 8

Mr Duncan

J.L. Behrend

Duncan sends Behrend a copy of the deed, for him to refresh his memory, before meeting with National Trust officials.

414, 1946-50

1947, January 10

J.L. Behrend

Mr Duncan

Having re-read the Deed's careful wording, Behrend feels satisfied that he and his wife should not want for any different conditions, though he accepts that the National Trust may want some changes made to the Committee aspects. He leaves it in Duncan's hands to discuss with Martineau.

414, 1946-50

1947, February 7

L.G.C. Ramsay, Public Relations Officer, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

A letter (with attached Press Release) for Behrend to review, amend if appropriate, and approve. It covers the National Trust's acceptance of the gift of the Sandham Memorial chapel. The Press release 'National Trust Accepts Memorial chapel' explains the gift, the endowment, the patrons and the painter, but not the architect. The chapel, it states, is a memorial to 'Lieut. Harry Willoughby Sandham RASC, who gave his life in the 1914/18 war.'

414, 1946-50

1947, February 10

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

A list of questions, from National Trust's Head Office, on details about the chapel. Covers questions such as the chapel's full title, the chapel's distance from Newbury, the acreagae and opening hours etc..

414, 1946-50

1947, February 13

J.L. Behrend

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Behrend's factual answers to a 'questionnaire' on the chapel from Eardley. In his answer to No.1, Behrend's attempts to clarify the best name for the chapel saying that 'This is very difficult to answer; it is rather like the White Knight's song in Alice in Wonderland'.

414, 1946-50

1947, March 9

JL Behrend

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Behrend invites Eardley to come and visit, and he shares details of recent expenditure and running costs in the chapel and the cottages. He hopes that Drown will start the restoration work next month. Behrend and his wife have been in London at concerts and visiting exhibitions, including the Spanish show at the National Gallery and another at Agnews.

414, 1946-50

Undated, c.early 1930s

Peter Burra

Extended tract of writing, covering ten pages of double-spaced typed script. The essay offers insights into the spiritual origins of the chapel's paintings. In addition to vivid descriptions of the painting's narratives it explores Spencer's understanding of love through self-identification, and his extraordinary use of pictorial distortion. Although unsigned, the essay was written in the early 1930s by Peter James Salkeld Burra, biographer, writer, and a friend of Benjamin Britten, Lennox Berkeley, Peter Pears, and the Behrends. Charismatic, connected and, according to Britten, a ‘firstrate brain’ he died in a light aeroplane accident in April 1937. The essay contains many moving and perceptive passages: ‘If Life is to be seen as something worth fighting for, something worth setting up against the terrible activity of War, it must be shown charged with utmost importance in its most humble moments, when the heart lays open herself the lowliest duties. Take care of the minutes, these pictures seem to say, and the years will take care of themselves. …. Life is War and Death is Peace.’

414, 1946-50

1947

186

1947, May 23

William Drown, Picture Restorers, London

J.L. Behrend

A receipt for Drown's restoration works on Spencer's nineteen works at the chapel, and 'attention' to a further fourteen at the Grey House, for the sum of £350-0-0.

414, 1946-50

1947, August 23

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Head's quote for repairing ceilings and freize and walls in the sitting room and in Miss Pettit's bungalow, an estimate of £22-11-0. And a second estimate for work to Mrs Bitmead's cottage, for £11-4-0. He has also requested a new boiler.

414, 1946-50

1947, August 28

Vice-Admiral & Secretary, Oliver Bevir, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

A belated letter which lets Behrend knows that their recent gift to the Trust allows them to become "Benefactors" of the Trust. He has enclosed membership cards for them.

414, 1946-50

1947, September 1

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

Eardley proposes a sign for the property (as is the way with all of the Trust's assets) with opening hours information, etc. for the public. He suggests an 18 inch square sign. He also proposes that they meet soon to talk about management of the chapel and looks forward to seeing the paintings again '… after Drown's attentions'. He sends love to Mary and asks Behrend to feel free to revise the sign wording. In pencil Behrend has added details about opening hours and access.

414, 1946-50

1947, October 28

Trollope & Colls Ltd.

J.L. Behrend

Trollope & Colls Ltd, Builders, Decorators & Engineers of Dorking Surrey, have sent by passenger train the notice-board in accordance with instructions from the National Trust. There is a Receipt slip (No. 6559) from Trollope & Colls for the delivery of the Notice Board.

414, 1946-50

December 15, 1947

The Manager, Westminster Bank Ltd

J.L. Behrend

The manager thanks Behrend for his letter, which informs him that Mr Eardley Knollys and Mr George Henry Behrend were elected to the Sandham Trust Committee.

414, 1946-50

Dedcember 31, 1947

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

Buxton lets Behrend know that he has taken over from Knollys as Land Agent for Behrend's area. He asks to come and visit and for Behrend to provide insurance details for the chapel, if any.

414, 1946-50

1948, April 11

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

J.L. Behrend

Statement of Expenditure & Receipts from September 1947 until December 1948, Sandham Memorial Trust.

414, 1946-50

1948, April 11

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

1947 Statement of Work completed (April - October) and a receipt of payment received for £42-6-0. On 17, 18 and 25 April 1947 Head's men erected scaffolding in the chapel to 'take out part of pictures and again to refix'. The same was carried out on 1 and 8 May, which also included 'tightening up the frames', and on 22 August Head and his men charged 7/6 'to journey to refix pictures.'

414, 1946-50

1948, April 30

J.L. Behrend

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

Behrend is glad to hear that Head has got a new boiler and would like it installed in the next few weeks. Given that 'the chapel has no money to spare just now', he anticipates that because this expense is out of the ordinary, the National Trust will bear the costs.

414, 1946-50

1948, September 18

Southern Electricity Board

J.L. Behrend

A bill for electricity for £0-2-7. The meter was read August 20, 1948.

414, 1946-50

1948, November 7

JL Behrend

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

Behrend returns the cost estimate form for the annual running of the chapel (presumed missing from archive), explaining that repairs are heavy this year due to a burst boiler. He guesses that maintenance costs will increase too as the price of coal may go up and he can no longer provide kindling free of charge. Gardening wages may also increase as Behrend's gardener is now too old to pleach the lime trees.

414, 1946-50

1948, November 27

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

1948 Statement of work completed (August - October) and a receipt of payment received for £28-6-6. The statement includes plumber's time and metal to repair lead guttering on the chapel roof.

414, 1946-50

1948

187

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1948, December

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

J.L. Behrend

Statement of Expenditure & Receipts from January 1948 until December 1948, Sandham Memorial Trust

414, 1946-50

1949, April 20

L.G. Pearson, Architect

J.L. Behrend

Pearson asks Behrend to provide the best photographs of Stanley Spencer's work in the chapel for Clough Williams-Ellis who has contacted Pearson with the view to including the Sandham Chapel in the 2nd volume of his National Trust book "On Trust for the Nation".

414, 1946-50

1949, April 25

J.L. Behrend

L.G. Pearson, Architect

Behrend sends Pearson the recent Penguin book on Spencer and a copy of the Illustrated London News issue that covered the opening of the chapel. He hopes that Williams-Ellis will seek the proper permissions before reproducing any images. In passing he mentions that visitors are coming to the chapel 'in thousands'. He reminds Pearson that Spencer is no longer an A.R.A and closes by stating that he and Mrs Behrend 'seem to rub along fairly well, although things are very difficult'.

414, 1946-50

1949, May 14

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

Head's estimate for exterior painting work - windows, gutters, downpipes, etc. and other maintenance for the sum of £3.13.6. He awaits instructions.

414, 1946-50

1949, May 16

J.L. Behrend

The Secretary, The National Trust

Behrend thanks the Secretary for transferring £20-0-0 to the Westminster Bank for the current expenses associated with the chapel, but fears that he underestimated the amount for repairs and requests that further remittance be sent, once the Trust's endowment funds become available. He notes that he has sent a copy of the letter to Buxton.

414, 1946-50

1949, May 30

Valuation Assessment Committee

Sandham Memorial Trust

Assessment of the value of the almshouses (Sandham Cottages).

414, 1946-50

1949, June 13

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

A cover letter for Behrend with an attached Memorandum regarding Local Appeals.

414, 1946-50

1949, June 13

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

Local Committee

Memorandum to all Local Committees regarding Local Appeals (fundraising). Those seeking funds from the public must inform the National Trust's Finance Committee.

414, 1946-50

1949, August 8

L.G. Pearson, Architect

J.L. Behrend

Pearson returns the books and photographs which Behrend sent to him, and regrets that Williams-Ellis 'seems to have got into a muddle with the result that the latest illustration in his book will be of a cotton mill of the Regency Period instead of being, as was intended, an illustration of your chapel.'

414, 1946-50

1949, August 10

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

George Behrend

A letter to 'My Dear George' suggesting that George chase up Trollope & Colls to re-do the sign or replace it, as the paint is peeling and bubbling. Eardley also recommends a little sign out on the road to point people to the chapel, with a small hand-drawn suggestion for the road sign.

414, 1946-50

1949, August (estimated)

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

George Behrend

George agrees that the sign requires replacing and notes that it's terrible state 'rather pleases those who never really liked the idea of having to have one!'. He is not convinced about the necessity of the road sign, but will put it to the Committee and make enquires.

414, 1946-50

1949, October 22

The Contemporary Art Society, The Tate Gallery, Millbank

J.L. Behrend

Gladys Gordon-Ives writes to take Behrend up on his kind offer to loan them three artworks - The Kennedy Family and An Early Portrait of a Girl, both by Henry Lamb, and Swan Upping by Stanley Spencer - for an exhibition in March 1950 at the Tate Gallery. They promise to be back in touch in February to arrange collection.

414, 1946-50

December 16, 1949

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

Buxton thanks Behrend for his letter of December 7 and tells Behrend that the National Trust's accountant assures him that all amounts received have been handed over to Behrend. He says that he will go through the accounts when he has a moment and will send Behrend a copy.

414, 1946-50

1949

188

1949, December 17

J.L. Behrend

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

Behrend is disappointed to hear that there are no further funds from the Trust's endowment fund to come. Behrend 'does not feel disposed to make further loans out of [his] own pocket' and requests a remittence to pay off outstanding debts and trademen and to retain a small balance for himself.

414, 1946-50

1949, December 20

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

Buxton has arranged with Mr Shepherd for a remission of rates for the two cottages at Burghclere, on grounds of poverty. He requests statements of accounts for the past year and any comments that Behrend would care to make.

414, 1946-50

1950, January 4

E. & O.E, Chairman Committee of Management

J.L. Behrend

Statement of Expenditure & Receipts from February 1949 until December 1949, Sandham Memorial Trust.

414, 1946-50

1950, January 11

The Country Gentlemen's Association Ltd.

J.L. Behrend

Advice regarding Behrend's widower tenant, namely that the widower's son becomes the statutory tenant once the widower dies. Advice also about building a house under licence and the difficulties of obtaining one.

414, 1946-50

1950, February 13

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

A belated reply to Behrend from Buxton saying that as far as Buxton knows, the National Trust has always charged interest on 'special trusts' such as the Sandham Memorial Trust, as these smaller trusts do not contribute the National Trust's general funds.

414, 1946-50

1950, February 18

J.L. Behrend

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

Behrend chases up a credit from Head for some oak for the chapel doors which Head 'appear[s] to have mislaid'.

414, 1946-50

1950, February 21

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

In a handwritten note, Head explains that he has the oak carefully stored at his house, in case future work was needed for facing the doors. He passes on his thanks to Mrs Behrend for 'sending the lovely peaches to Harry at the hospitalâ&#x20AC;Ś' and that he is in much better health.

414, 1946-50

1950, March 1

J.L. Behrend

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

Behrend thanks Buxton for his February 26 letter to the Rating Officer at Kingsclere, but doubts that Buxton's efforts will be successful. He notes that since he last heard from Buxton he has had 'to make further advances in order to meet daily expenses.'

414, 1946-50

1950, March 3

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

Buxton responds to Behrend saying that he understands Behrend's concerns but that had the Westminster Bank remained the Trustees, one could hardly have expected 'them to have called on their reserves to help the Sandham Trust out!' He hopes that their argument will have some weight with the Rating Authority.

414, 1946-50

1950, March 16

William Drown, Picture Restorers, London

J.L. Behrend

Mr Drown lets Behrend know that he spoke to Mr Spencer and that Spencer agreed to the suggested treatment of the paintings - to revive the surface and apply a matt varnish. Drown suggests this would best take place toward the end of April, when it will be warmer.

414, 1946-50

1950, March 21

J.L. Behrend

William Drown, Picture Restorers, London

Behrend is glad to hear that Spencer has agreed to the proposed works on his paintings and notes that as he understands it, the work will be carried out free of charge.

414, 1946-50

1950, June 1

William Drown, Picture Restorers, London

J.L. Behrend

Drown lets Behrend know that he has been waiting for more settled weather to arrive before comencing the works, and that at last it seems to have arrived. They plan to come to the chapel the following Tuesday and ask that Behrend confirm that the keys will be left with the caretaker.

414, 1946-50

1950, July 7

The Studio Ltd, London

The Secretary, Oratory of All Souls (Behrend)

The Studio is publishing a book by Anthony Bertram called A Hundred Years of British Painting, 1851-1951 and would like to include 'a reproduction of the fresco in the Oratory by Stanley Spencer The Resurrection of the Soldiers.' The Studio asks Behrend to provide a photographic print.

414, 1946-50

1950, July 11

J.L. Behrend

The Studio Ltd, London

A response to The Studio's request, wherein Behrend encloses a print of Resurrection and corrects the use of the term 'frescos', explaining that 'it should be noted that this (and all of the pictures in the Oratory) are not frescos but painted in oil on canvas.'

414, 1946-50

1950

189

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel 1950, September 27

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

Mr Buxton writes regarding an account from Messrs Drown for attention to the paintings at the chapel. Knollys has told Buxton that Behrend has been so kind as to refund this expense to the Trust and to provide fuel for the buildings. Buxton expresses his gratitude saying, 'may I say how much your generosity is appreciated.'

414, 1946-50

1950, October 14

Head, Builder, Decorator, Undertaker

J.L. Behrend

A quote for plumbing works to the bungalows. Head awaits Behrend's instructions.

414, 1946-50

1950, October 19

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

A letter from Mr Buxton asking Behrend for his cost estimates for 1951.

414, 1946-50

1950, October 20

The National Trust, Secretary, J.F.W Rathbone

J.L. Behrend

The Secretary has sent Behrend a parcel of membership leaflets, at the request of Behrend's son, George. The Secretary regrets that he has not yet had the chance to meet Behrend or his son, but notes that Knollys 'has told [him] of all the invaluable help which [the Behrend] family gives to us...'.

414, 1946-50

1950, October 21

J.L. Behrend

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

Behrend writes to Mr Buxton, enclosing his projected costs for the chapel's operations, for 1951 (estimates presumed missing from archive). He suggests that they may be able to repay the loan of £15 by the end of 1950, and that if this is the case, the funds from the collection box will be put towards redecorating the chapel's interior (which has not been done in over 20 years).

414, 1946-50

1950, October 24

The National Trust, Area Agent, Simon F. Buxton

J.L. Behrend

A reply thanking Behrend for his cost estimates for 1951.

414, 1946-50

1950, December 11

Southern Electricity Board

J.L. Behrend

A bill for £0-2-6 based on a meter reading on November 14, 1950. An attached receipt shows Behrend made the payment on December 14.

414, 1946-50

1950, December 19

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

Eardley relates the outcome of the Historic Buildings Committee meeting about the chapel roof. The Committe has decided that it would be best to consult the original architects (Adams, Holden and Pearson) regarding the state of the roof and seek their advice about damp. He asks if 'Bow' (Behrend) or George might approach the architects for advice only, suggesting that once the cause is diagnosed the Trust 'might get it done quite cheaply'.

414, 1946-50

1950, December 19

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Messrs Heelas, Carrier Van Department, Reading

Copy of a letter (the original was sent to Heelas, Reading) to George Behrend, for information, in which Eardley notes that Mr Christie at Christies Auctions in London advised that Heelas 'are accustomed to handing valuable pictures' and have trucks which often travel to London. He requests their assistance in transporting two unframed canvasses from Mr Behrend to Mr Rees-Jones at the Courtauld Institute in London and seeks assurance that they will be careful with the works.

414, 1946-50

1950, December 23

The Chairman, Local Committee, The National Trust

The Secretary, The Courtauld Institute

After Mr Rees-Jones and Professor Blunt's visit to the chapel to inspect the state of Spencer's pictures, the chairman lets the Secretary at The Courtauld Institute know that the pictures will now be sent to him for his inspection on Wednesday December 27 (weather permitting). He asks for the pictures to be returned 'in connection with a course beginning on 1st January, which [his] son hopes to attend.'

414, 1946-50

1950, December 23

J.L. Behrend

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Behrend expresses concern about the carriers and suggests that he and George deliver the canvasses themselves on December 27, in their trailer, and keep Heelas as back-up in case it snows. This will 'of course save money', he notes. He also confirms that he has booked Pearson and Head, the original 'perpetrators' (as he describes them) when the chapel was built, to report on the condition of the roof and the possible cause of the damp.

414, 1946-50

190

1950, December 28

Charles Clare, Registrar, University of London, Courtauld Institute of Art

J.L. Behrend

A letter from Charles Clare assuring Behrend that the two unframed canvasses from the Memorial chapel have been safely received and that in due course, Behrend can expect a report on their reconditioning.

414, 1946-50

1950, December 28

Heelas, of Reading

J.L. Behrend

A note from F.S. Hibbs, Removal Manager, confirming that the pictures have been transferred to the Courtauld Institute.

414, 1946-50

1950, December 28

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

J.L. Behrend

A handwritten postcard from Eardley assuring Behrend that George delivered the paintings safely, and asks that he cancels the Heelas booking. He still plans to employ them in the future as they were recommended by Christies. He closes by expressing an interest in the outcome of the architect's visit to the chapel.

414, 1946-50

1950, December 29

L.G.Pearson, Adams, Holden & Pearson Architects

The Chairman of the Trustees, Burghclere, Newbury

Pearson writes at length of his visit to the chapel on December 27 where he met with Head. Following their inspection, he claims that the cause of the 'trouble' is not damp from outside, but condensation, 'caused by the warm air inside the chapel striking the walls which are cold during the winter months'. The newly applied varnish is a contributing cause which exacerbates the problem. He suggests three measures (such as better ventilation in the walls and ceiling, and a layer of felt applied to the roof) to be put in place to mitigate the difference in temperature. He also suggests that the National Trust commission a report from the Building Research Station in Watford as the matter is 'of extreme importance for the future of the murals.'

414, 1946-50

1950, December 30

J.L. Behrend

Eardley Knollys, The National Trust

Behrend confirms that Heelas had already been cancelled. He recounts that Pearson and Head have met at the chapel and concluded that there is nothing structurally wrong with the building. Head will have a closer inspection once the weather is milder as 'both he and Pearson are too old to risk their health in those arctic surroundings'. They consider the streak damage on two pictures to be due to condensation (from the difference in temperature between the warmth of the chapel and the cold of the roof). George will gather more information in the coming weeks as to whether Drown may be at fault for 'using the wrong varnish or putting it on without sufficient care'.

414, 1946-50

1975, July 4

M.D. Thomas for Sir Thomas Bates

Mr G. Wall, Sandham

A memorandum from Sir Dawson Bates listing details of the dimensions of the alms dish, paten and chalice. These have been kept at the chapel but not on show and are now being taken for temporary storage at Barclays Bank, Faringdon.

1975, July 4

M.D. Thomas for Sir Thomas Bates

Mr G. Wall, Sandham

Black and white separate photographs of the alms dish, paten and chalice designed by W. Herbert Durst in 1927.

1970-1990

1993

A portfolio of photographs (each marked with the label 'Pam Keeling, October 1993') of details of the chapel's Altar Frontal, showing the highly wrought embroidery by Madeline Clifton.

191

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Palmer’s Hill Farm Burghclere Thursday

Page 2/ for him to have made a plan of his own, it would have caused much less trouble. However that was not his fault as he was told to it from this scribble of mine. Well that little rough drawing of mine wasn’t exactly what I meant, so I knew Mr Head couldn’t draw it out right, from that, & it seemed to me a waste of his time for him to do it. However, as it was being done so, the only thing to do was to go on drawing it myself. I did it for one day in London, but had no more time, so I continued doing it as I got here & the drawing you saw here was that drawing; it wasn’t an addaptation (sic) of Mrs Head’s drawing, it was my design properly carried out.

Page 1/ Dear Mr Behrend I have come to the conclusion that you are obviously under a misapprehension about at least two points in this matter. Firstly your there seems to be no doubt that you imagine Mr Head has designed this cottage, whereas he hasn’t made any designs for it at all. The drawing he did before we eventually came here was done from my design, he had got my little scribbled drawing by him & did his drawing from that. It was an absurd arrangement as that was an immature scribble & I knew when I drew it that it was not exactly what I meant, but it was difficult without doing it out carefully to make it as I meant. It would have been much better

XXX XXX When you saw it at the Chapel & didn’t like the windows X X XX X XX I tried to alter the windows them, & I thou kept puzzling

192

Page 3/

page 4/

it out & puzzling it out, x but couldn’t make things fit, & I suddenly realized that by adding a little on to the building it would all fit beautifully, & the windows would come right & it would be a good job, instead of a patched up job that never would be satisfactory. So far that was the only alteration I had made. The addition of the bath was Stanley’s idea & didn’t affect the plan at all, or the expense, as Stan was going to buy it , it was no different from our deciding to buy a bit of furniture & having it fixed onto the building instead of loose.

at it in the field. Mr Head said that the width he had got for the building was 21ft & some inches (I forget how many) & I said, “well I have now made it 22ft”. He said the length he had got was 26ft & some inches & I said “well I had now made it 27 feet”: XXX that was discussed & apparently considered alright & Mrs Behrend asked Mr Head whether that would add much to the cost, & I think he said it wouldn’t. Then as it was considered alright I said to Mr Head that I would finish drawing it out & shew it him, so he said well il in that case you can leave the drawing with me when you have done it & I can work from it.

XXX XXXX The day we went to see the well being found, I told Mrs Behrend that I had added a bit onto the size of the building & I wondered whether it would be alright. She suggested I should bring the plan along there, so I did. & we looked /

XXX Then I wrote that rather upset letter to Mrs Behrend, & when she came to see me after that, she said that you had agreed to the extra size, & would I draw it out as X quick as possible, & not make any alterations.

193

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Page 5/

Page 6/

It never occurred to me that you would subsequently change your mind and make all my subsequent work useful useless, by after all deciding to make the building smaller. I thought everything was quite straitforward (sic) then; Mrs Behrend said that it was preferrable (sic) to continue with my plan than to make any new arrangement, then. So I spent the following nearly 3 weeks, doing it. I could only done it in the evenings from after 8.30, & sometimes about ¾ hours in the day time, when Shireen slept and everything has been neglected so that we are in a complete muddle now, but it was the only way I could do it, by leaving everything else. And I have done it up the till midnight every night. At least I got it finished & I know Mr Head must have either started the building or be just going to, so there was no time for delay & when I saw him I found found that the walls are going to be 11 inches

thick instead of nine inches as I understood at first they were going to be, so that meant taking off 4 inches from the width + 4 inches from the length, & we spent some time puzzling out how it could be done & eventually we settled how it could be done & Mr Head suggested adding two inches to the length of the building so it would only amount to taking two XX inches from the length & 4 from the width. Well after this had been arranged it turned out that six inches was being taken off from the width as well, & this completely flummoxed me; that was 10 inches off the width (six intentional + 4 due to the thicker walls): we XX couldn’t go on thinking it out then it was too late & besides it means redoing the whole interior of the building, & I don’t see how it can be done at all in fact. So I didn’t know what to suggest & said I had better see you &

194

Page 7/

page 8/

ask what you thought about it. It naturally was a surprise to me As I thought the dimensions had Been agreed upon. I could see That I should have to take the 4 inches off due to thicker walls, wb but I didn’t know what to do about taking the six inches off as well.

suggestions to Mr Head, but this would not constitute it being my design, so there was no particular reasons to consult me over the plan further than you wished. But this idea is wrong. I haven’t made any additions to any plan of Mr Head’s, I have merely completed my own.

When Mr Head talks of adding Six inches or a foot it all Depends on what he is adding It to, & as I wasn’t using his drawing as a foundation to mine I know nothing about it. I only know that my dimensions had been agreed upon & I have made no deviation from them.

Also if you had not let me know yesterday, (in an easier way than you did), about Mr Head’s telephone message the matter could have been arranged without quite such a mess up; under the circumstances I would have suggested (if you still want the six inches taken off) to make the width 26ft 5 & the 21 22 ft 9 ins. & the length 26 ft 11 ins. this is the same as 26.6. 27 ft 2 ins x 21 ft 6 ins as now arranged. & would be the best arrangement under the circumstances.

Now I think this explains The misunderstanding. I imagine Your outlook has been: - that Mr Head had made the design & that you are seeing my drawing had allowed me to make a few

Yours truly Hilda Spencer

195

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

196

BIBLIOGRAPHY, PICTURE LIST AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alison, Jane with Timothy Hyman and John Hoole, Stanley Spencer: The Apotheosis of Love (London, Barbican Art Gallery, 1991). Anon, ‘Chapel & Almshouses. Unusual Memorial at Burghclere. A Generally Original Scheme. Stanley Spencer’s Work in Prospect’, The Marlborough Times, March 1927. Anon, ‘Paint and Peculiarities’ Times Literary Supplement, 8 June 1962. Avery-Quash, Susanna, ‘Stanley Spencer’s Literary Images for the Proposed Decoration of the Cambridge University Library, 1933-35’, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.404-418. Avery-Quash, Susanna, ‘ “Valuable Assistance”: Stanley Spencer’s Friendship with Gwen and Jacques Raverat’, Apollo, Vol. 150, No. 452, 1998, pp.3-11. Behrend, George, Stanley Spencer at Burghclere (London, Macdonald, 1965). Behrend, George, An Unexpected Life (Jersey, Jersey Artists Ltd, 2007). Bell, Keith, with Richard Carline and Andrew Causey, Stanley Spencer RA (London, Royal Academy of Arts with Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980). Bell, Keith, Stanley Spencer: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings (Oxford, Phaidon Press, 1992). Bell, Keith, Sir Stanley Spencer (London, Bernard Jacobson Gallery, 1992). Bell, Keith, with Martin Hammer, James and Julie Lawson, Andrew Patrizio and Duncan Thompson, Men of the Clyde: Stanley Spencer’s Vision at Port Glasgow (Edinburgh, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, 2000). Bradley, Amanda, David Taylor, Paul Gough et al, Stanley Spencer: Heaven in a Hell of War (Chichester, Pallant House Gallery, in association with the National Trust, 2014).

197

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Bromwell, Tom, ‘The God-Box of Burghclere’, National Trust Historic House and Collections Annual 2014, pp. 54-59. Brown, Aimee B., ‘Stanley Spencer’s The Builders’, Yale Art Gallery Bulletin, Vol. 29, No.2, December 1963. Carline, Richard, ‘New mural paintings by Stanley Spencer’, The Studio, 96 (November 1928) pp. 316 – 23. Carline, Richard, Stanley Spencer at War (London, Faber, 1978). Carline, Richard, ‘New Mural paintings by Stanley Spencer’, The Studio, November 1928, pp. 316-18. Clements, Keith, Henry Lamb: the artist and his friends (Bristol, Redcliffe Press, 1985). Collis, Maurice, Stanley Spencer (London, Harvill Press, 1962). Collis, Louise, A Private View of Stanley Spencer (London: Heinemann, 1972). Cork, Richard, “Redemption of an Unknown Soldier”, Times, London, 12 January 1991, Supplement, pp.18-19. Dreweatt, Watson & Barton, Sale Catalogue, Sale of the Outlying Portions of the Highclere Estate, Hants. 1926. E. M. O’R. D. ‘Mr J. L. Behrend’, Times, London, 25 February 1972, 17, available The Times Digital Archive, 14 June 2013. Evans, Mark L., ‘Stanley Spencer’s Triptych, Souvenir of Switzerland’, Burlington Magazine, Vol. 141, No. 1150, 1999. Fry, Roger, ‘Mr Frank Dobson and Mr Stanley Spencer’, Nation and Athenaeum. Vol. 40, No. 23, 12 March 1927. Glew, Adrian (ed.), Stanley Spencer: Letters and Writings (London, Tate Publishing, 2001).

198

Gormley, Anthony, ‘The sacred and the profane in the art of Stanley Spencer’, Stanley Spencer, exhibition catalogue, Arts Council, (1976), pp. 21-23. Gough, Paul, Stanley Spencer: Journey to Burghclere (Bristol, Sansom and Company, 2006). Gough, Paul, Your Loving Friend, Stanley: The Great War Correspondence between Stanley Spencer and Desmond Chute (Bristol, Sansom and Company, with the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham, 2011). Harpley, Melissa, ‘Stanley Spencer’, in Ted Gott, Laurie Benson and Sophie Matthiesson (eds.), Modern Britain 1900-1960: Masterworks from Australia and New Zealand Collections (Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria, 2007). Hauser, Kitty, Stanley Spencer, (London, Tate Publishing, 2001). Haycock, David, A Crisis of Brilliance: Five Young British Artists and the Great War (London, Old Street, 2009). Hyman, Timothy and Wright, Patrick, Stanley Spencer, (London, Tate Publishing, 2001). Hyman, Timothy, ‘The Sacred Self’, in Stanley Spencer: The Apotheosis of Love (London, Barbican Gallery, 1991) pp.29-33. Leder, Carolyn, Stanley Spencer: the Astor Collection (London, Thomas Gibson, 1976). MacCarthy, Fiona, Stanley Spencer: An English Vision (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1998). Malvern, Sue, ‘Memorizing the Great War: Stanley Spencer at Burghclere’, Art History, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2000, pp.182-204. Malvern, Sue. Modern art, Britain, and the Great War: Witnessing, Testimony and Remembrance, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2004). Newton, Eric, Stanley Spencer, (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1947).

199

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Nesbitt, Judith and Anthony Gormley, Stanley Spencer: A Sort of Heaven (Liverpool, Tate, 1992). Ottinger, Didier, ‘Life Distortions’, in Jean Clair (ed.), The 1930’s: The Making of ‘The New Man’, (Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada, 2008). Ottevanger, Alied, Stanley Spencer: Schilderkunst tussen hemel en aarde (Zwolle, WBooks, 2011). Pople, Kenneth, Stanley Spencer: A Biography (London, HarperCollins, 1991). Postle, Martin, ‘The Importance of Being Stanley’, Apollo, Vol. 133, No. 348, 1991. Rapport, Nigel, ‘Envisioned, Intentional: A Painter Informs an Anthropologist about Social Relations’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol.10, No.4, 12, 2004, pp.861-881. Rapport, Nigel, Distortion and Love: an Anthropological Reading of the Art and Life of Stanley Spencer (London, Taylor and Francis, 2016). Rawson, I. M. ‘Patrons of Talent: the Behrends of Burghclere’, Country Life, 26 October, 1978. Robinson, Duncan with Richard Carline, Anthony Gormley, Robin Johnson and Caroline Leder, Stanley Spencer (London, Arts Council of Great Britain, 1976). Robinson, Duncan, Stanley Spencer : Visions from a Berkshire Village (Oxford and London, Phaidon Press, 1979). Robinson, Duncan, Stanley Spencer: A Modern Visionary (New Haven and London, Yale Center for British Art, 1981). Robinson, Duncan, Stanley Spencer at Burghclere (London, National Trust, 1991). Rothenstein, Elizabeth, Stanley Spencer (Oxford and London, Phaidon Press, 1945).

200

Rothenstein, Elizabeth, Stanley Spencer (London, Purnell, 1967). Rothenstein, John (ed.), Stanley Spencer: The Man, Correspondence and Reminiscences (London, Paul Elek, 1979). Sitwell, Christine. ‘Research project on the Stanley Spencer paintings, Sandham Memorial Chapel.’ Views, 32, Summer 2000, pp.33-34. Spalding, Frances, ‘Working for an Imaginary Temple: Stanley Spencer, Eric Gill and Jacques and Gwen Raverat’, Burlington Magazine, Vol. 143, 2001, pp.290-295. Spencer, Gilbert, Stanley Spencer by His Brother Gilbert (London, Gollancz, 1961; reprinted Bristol, Redcliffe Press, 1991). Spencer, Gilbert, Memoirs of a Painter (London, Chatto & Windus,1974). Spencer, Stanley and Spencer, John, Looking to Heaven: a Biography. Volume One (London, Unicorn Press, 2017). Sylvester, David, Drawings by Stanley Spencer (London, Arts Council of Great Britain,1954). Wilenski, Reginald H., Stanley Spencer (London, Ernest Benn, 1924). Willsdon, Clare, Mural Painting in Britain: Image and Meaning (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000). Wilson, Simon, ‘Stanley Spencer at le Réalisme britannique dans les années 30’, Les Réalismes 1919-1939 (Paris, Centre Pompidou, 1980). Winter, Jay, Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995).

201

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

A NOTE ON SOURCE MATERIAL Most of the material for this book is drawn from the correspondence and papers held by the London and South East regional archive of the National Trust at Micheldever Station, Winchester in Hampshire. The detailed inventory that comprises the final section of this book summarises the contents of the five boxes that relate to the Sandham Memorial Chapel: Box 411 covers the period 1925-29, Box 412 covers 1929-33, Box 413 contains a smaller body of correspondence from 1936-37 and 1943-46, Box 414 contains letters and papers from194650, and Box 418 has a small amount of more recent material from 1951-53, 1960, and 1977. Other items relating to the chapel can be found in the archive at Micheldever as indicated in the notes to each chapter. Little of this material has previously been made widely available to the public. The authors are indebted to the National Trust for their collaboration in this project. The custodians of the Sandham Memorial Chapel in Burghclere, some 17 miles north of Micheldever, also retain copies of key documents relating to the design, construction and decoration of the building. These are readily available to visitors. Similarly, the Stanley Spencer Gallery in Cookham has a considerable amount of material relating to the genesis of the chapel. This includes significant correspondence between Stanley Spencer and Desmond Chute, and many photographs, notes and letters between the artist and the patrons of the building at Burghclere. It is referred to here as the Behrend Collection. There is an extensive collection of private letters and papers by, and about, the artist in the Tate Gallery Archive (TGA) in London. Extracts of this vast holding have been made available through the edited work of curator Adrian Glew and others, and more recently in a generously illustrated series of publications by the artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grandson, John Spencer. The relevant Tate Gallery Archive references are: the Tate Archive Microfilm (TAM) which comprises letters between Spencer and Henry Lamb, Florence Image, James (Jas) Woods, and Richard Carline. Boxes 825 and 8212 form the Spencer-Carline papers and correspondence. Of these, the letters to Mary Behrend and Henry Lamb are directly relevant to this volume. The 733 series comprises the

202

extensive Stanley Spencer Collection. It consists of many interlocking parts, for example TGA 733.4.1 contains the artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s diary for 1926, TGA 733.4.3 his diary for 1928, TGA 733.2 the numbered writings made between 1932 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 37, and so forth. A small number of these are referenced throughout this book and are largely drawn from existing publications and material in the public domain. The contributors acknowledge the support of the Tate Gallery, the Spencer family and the Estate of Stanley Spencer.

PICTURE CREDITS In addition to the photographs and letters illustrated in this volume, the following paintings, drawings and letters are reproduced with grateful permission from the following galleries, museums, owners and libraries, in particular the Estate of Stanley Spencer and The Bridgeman Art Library. Page 13, Stanley Spencer, Self Portrait, 1914, oil on canvas, 63 x 51 cm, Tate. Reproduced with permission of Tate, Estate of Stanley Spencer and The Bridgeman Art Library. Page 26, Illustrated page (four) from a six-page letter from Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, written from Tweseldown Camp, received in Bristol 10 June 1916. Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham, reproduced with kind permission of John Spencer and the Estate of Stanley Spencer. Page 28, Stanley Spencer, Wounded being carried by Mules in Macedonia, 1918-19, pen and wash on paper, 14 x 17 cm, Stanley Spencer Gallery (acquired in memory of Tessa Sidey with assistance from her bequest, 2012). Page 32, Illustrated letter from Stanley Spencer to Desmond Chute, written from Salonika, 4 January 1916, but corrected to read 4 January 1917. Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham, reproduced with kind permission of John Spencer and the Estate of Stanley Spencer. Page 48, Stanley Spencer, Portrait of Louis Behrend, date not known, graphite on paper, 29 x 22 cm, Tate. Presented by Mrs Nancy Carline in memory of Richard Carline 1982. Reproduced with permission of Tate, Estate of Stanley Spencer and The Bridgeman Art Library.

203

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Page 52, Henry Lamb, The Behrend Family, 1927, oil on canvas, 53.5 x 67.5 cm, Brighton and Hove Museums. Page 65, Henry Lamb, Portrait of Stanley Spencer,1921, oil on canvas, 33.9 x 24.5 cm, Art Gallery of Western Australia, Perth. Page 84, Stanley Spencer, Hilda Studying a Model for Burghclere, c.1930, oil on paper, 24.5 x 35.5 cm, Collection of Catherine and William MacDougall. Page 129, Stanley Spencer, Builders, 1935, oil on canvas, 111.8 x 91.8 cm Yale University Art Gallery, USA. Reproduced with permission of Tate, Estate of Stanley Spencer and The Bridgeman Art Library. Page 134, Stanley Spencer, Portrait of Leslie Mercer, 1932, graphite on paper, private collection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book would not have been possible without the insightful contributions and enthusiastic support of each of my fellow writers - Amanda Bradley, Sarah Rutherford, and James Rothwell. Nor would it have been possible without their colleagues at the National Trust, including Alison Paton, Operations Manager at the Sandham Memorial Chapel in Burghclere. I am also deeply indebted to friends and colleagues at the Stanley Spencer Gallery in Cookham - Carolyn Leder, Ann Danks, Chrissy Rosenthal, and Stuart Conlin, Chair of the Trustees. I am grateful to the family of Stanley Spencer for their support and in particular to John Spencer, grandson to the painter, and creator of the recent volume of writings, Looking to Heaven. There are a great many colleagues in the UK, Europe and Australia who have helped in different ways during the long gestation of this book: Meg Courtney, Valerie McLeod, Leon van Schaik, Richard Heathcote, Anna Jug, Kitty Hauser, Catherine Speck, Jeremy Harvey, Roger Conlon, Andrew Daniels, Ivan Eastwood, Andrew Kelly, Gemma Brace, Alison Bevan, and Amanda Findlay.

204

I would like to acknowledge those galleries, libraries, museums and private collectors whose works are reproduced with permissions in this book and are credited throughout, in particular The Bridgeman Art Library, the Behrend Collection at the National Trust, and the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. Very special thanks to my creative designer Verity Lewis, and to John Sansom and Clara Hudson for keeping the faith with quality arts publishing. My deepest appreciation and love as ever to Kathleen, Rachel, Harry and Izzy.

205

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencer’s Sandham Memorial Chapel

CONTRIBUTORS Amanda Bradley is an independent art historian and trustee of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. Whilst Assistant Curator of Pictures and Sculpture at the National Trust, she co-curated the exhibition about the Sandham Memorial Chapel at Burghclere, Heaven in a Hell of War, held at Somerset House, London and Pallant House Gallery, Chichester. She also edited and contributed to the accompanying catalogue. Amanda previously worked as a curator at the National Gallery, London, and was a supervisor and guest lecturer for the Department of Art History at the University of Cambridge. She has curated numerous exhibitions and published extensively on Spencer, Titian and Rubens. A painter, broadcaster and writer, Paul Gough has exhibited globally and is represented in the permanent collection of the Imperial War Museum, London; Canadian War Museum, Ottawa; National War Memorial, New Zealand. He has published widely in arts and cultural history, cultural geography and heritage studies, with five books on Stanley Spencer, John and Paul Nash, and British art from the Great War, as well as publications on commemoration, remembrance and the street artist, Banksy. During a decade in British television he presented arts programmes for BBC, C4 and ITV, and on occasion contributes to television and radio in Australia. Professor Paul Gough is Pro Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President of RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Carolyn Leder is a scholar specialising in the work of Stanley Spencer, and a long-standing Trustee of the Stanley Spencer Gallery, for which she writes the exhibition catalogues. Other publications include an essay in the Arts Council’s Stanley Spencer catalogue 1976 and a book on Spencer’s Scrapbook drawings (Stanley Spencer: The Astor Collection, 1976). Carolyn was Historical Advisor to BBC Television and Arts Council Spencer films, appeared with Unity Spencer at the Henley Literary Festival, is a judge in the Spencer Poetry competition, and was keynote speaker in Australia at Carrick Hill’s Spencer exhibition 2016. Recent lectures include An Autobiography in Pictures for the Hepworth Wakefield’s Spencer show. Carolyn is the consultant to three volumes of Spencer writings, edited by John Spencer, and is regularly consulted by Sotheby’s on Stanley Spencer.

206

James Rothwell is Senior Curator at the National Trust. Trained at Warwick University and the Courtauld Institute of Art, he has worked for the National Trust since 1995 and is the organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adviser on silver, carrying out extensive research on the collections and guiding displays, interpretation and acquisitions. In collaboration with the Goldsmiths Company he has overseen a series of exhibitions of works by contemporary silversmiths in National Trust houses. His most recent book, Silver for Entertaining: the Ickworth Collection (2016) is a comprehensive guide to one of the most important collections of 18th century silver in Europe. Sarah Rutherford is an historic environment conservationist whose main field is designed landscapes. As a Kew-trained Horticultural Officer for Brighton Parks Department, she then took an MA in Conservation Studies at York University, and a PhD part time while Head of the Historic Parks and Gardens Register at English Heritage (2000-03). A freelance consultant since 2003, she has undertaken projects for a wide range of properties for both Historic England and the National Trust as well as Heritage Lottery Fund public realm schemes and private owners in the UK and States of Jersey. Sarah prepared the conservation statement for Sandham Memorial Chapel in collaboration with National Trust staff in 2013.

207

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

208

209

Holy Box: The Genesis of Stanley Spencerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandham Memorial Chapel

Sir Stanley Spencer RA CBE worked at the Beaufort Military Hospital as a medical orderly during the First World War. He later served on the forgotten Macedonian Front with a field ambulance unit and an infantry regiment. He saw action, was traumatized and suffered acute bouts of malaria. Five years after the Armistice he started making numerous drawings recalling in great detail his war service. So impressed were two generous patrons, the Behrends, that they built a small chapel near Newbury to house a cycle of paintings. For five years Spencer toiled in the chapel. The resulting murals are quite extraordinary; they stand comparison with the great painted chapels of early Renaissance Italy. The Sandham Memorial Chapel ranks alongside the poetry of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, and Brittenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s War Requiem, as one of the most moving monuments to 20th-century war. This book draws extensively on archive material to tell the complicated and often intense relationship between the architect, the patron and the painter. Told by leading academics and curators it offers a rich insight into one of the greatest war memorials in northern Europe.

210