deiﬁcation in the early century - yale university pressyalebooks.co.uk/pdf/9780300159097.pdfturned...

in 7 at the expense of Dublin Corporation, wascarefully positioned on a high pedestal facing the seatof power in Dublin Castle, and in close proximity, butwith its back to the seat of learning in Trinity College.A second equestrian statue, a portrait of George I byJohn van Nost, the elder (d.), was originally placedon Essex Bridge (now Capel Street Bridge) in . Itwas removed in , and was re-erected at the end ofthe century, in ,8 in the gardens of the MansionHouse, facing out over railings towards Dawson Street.The pedestal carried the inscription: ‘Be it rememberedthat, at the time when rebellion and disloyalty were thecharacteristics of the day, the loyal Corporation of theCity of Dublin re-elevated this statue of the illustriousHouse of Hanover’.9 A third equestrian statue, com-memorating George II, executed by the younger Johnvan Nost (fl.–, cousin of the elder), and erectedin , was to be seen in St Stephen’s Green (fig. ).10

While the green was not yet open to the public and thestatue was located at its centre, late eighteenth-centuryengravings reveal that the monument was positioned onsuch a substantial pedestal that it was clearly visiblefrom outside the park.11

All three royal portraits adopted a military presenta-tion in the guise of a Roman emperor. Such equestrianportrait imagery has a lengthy and revered legacy in arthistory, in its line of descent from the statue of MarcusAurelius ( –) on the Capitol in Rome. Itwitnessed a marked revival and popularity in the eigh-teenth and nineteenth centuries.12 With its inherentimperial and military connection, the equestrian formatpresented a very particular ideology and stood as arepresentation of power, authority and control.13 Inde-structibility and longevity are also suggested in thismonument-type, given that the Marcus Aurelius statueis not only one of the few large-scale Roman bronzesto survive, but is the only surviving equestrian monu-ment from ancient Rome. It was inevitable that suchpropagandist presence in the centre of Dublin would

chapter 1

Deification in the early century

‘Interesting, dignified, and impressive’1

Public monuments were scarce in Ireland at the begin-ning of the nineteenth century and were largely con-fined to Dublin, which boasted several monumentalstatues of English rulers, modelled in a weighty andpompous late Baroque style. Cork had an equestrianstatue of George II, by John van Nost, the younger (fig.), positioned originally on Tuckey’s Bridge and subse-quently moved to the South Mall in .2 Somewhatmore unusually, Birr, in County Offaly, featured a sig-nificant commemoration of Prince William Augustus,Duke of Cumberland (–) (fig. ). Otherwiseknown as the Butcher of Culloden,3 he was com-memorated by a portrait statue surmounting a Doriccolumn, erected in Emmet Square (formerly Cumber-land Square) in .4 The statue was the work ofEnglish sculptors Henry Cheere (–) and hisbrother John (d.). The paucity of such monumentsand their isolated and elevated presentation augmentedtheir impact. Impossible to ignore, they became focalpoints in a variety of ways – artistic, geographical andpropagandist. While serving as an artistic feature andadding a stylistic dimension to their individual locations,monumental statuary also had a role in town planningin relation to the movement of both pedestrians andvehicles. The issue of propaganda, however, appearsultimately to have dominated. This is confirmed by thefact that not one of these portrait commemorations isstill in place.5

Citizens of Dublin and those visiting the city in theyear would have witnessed the emphasis on royalportraits and most particularly equestrian monumentsof which there were three. The equestrian statue ofWilliam III produced by Grinling Gibbons (–),the eminent English sculptor of Dutch origin, was themost prominently located, at what would become animportant junction in the centre of the city (fig. ). Thiswas to be the most controversial public monument inthe country, serving as a focal point for various propa-gandist displays.6 The statue, erected in College Green

Nineteenth-century Irish Sculpture Deification in the early century

. John van Nost, younger, George II,, South Mall, Cork. Engraving byW. H. Bartlett.

. Duke of Cumberland Pillar, ,Emmet Square, Birr. Courtesy of theNational Library of Ireland.

. Grinling Gibbons, William III,, lead, College Green, Dublin.Reproduced by permission of theRoyal Society of Antiquaries ofIreland.

. John van Nost, younger, George II,, bronze, St Stephen’s Green,Dublin. Courtesy of the NationalLibrary of Ireland.

Nineteenth-century Irish Sculpture

promote opposition. From the time that they were putin place, and particularly in the aftermath of the Act ofUnion, these monuments were attacked frequently,with the William III statue singled out for particularlyaggressive attention. With annual celebrations activatedaround the statue to mark the anniversary of the Battleof the Boyne and the birthday of the king, thismonument was rarely out of the news.14 A descriptionof the festive rites that were performed throughout theeighteenth and into the nineteenth century reveals theserious politicising of the undertaking. On theseoccasions, ‘it was usual for the Lord Lieutenant,attended by the great officers of state, and of his house-hold, to proceed from the castle with drums beating,colours flying, and in all the magnificence of statepomp, to march in grand procession round the statue .. . which was formally decorated . . . and the garrisonturned out to fire a feu de joie’.15 In time these formali-ties were dispensed with, under the auspices ofsubsequent Lord Lieutenants. The Duke of Bedfordsuspended the state procession in ,16 and in

the Marquis of Wellesley proposed that the dressing ofthe statue be discontinued, thus putting an end towhat was described as ‘a disgraceful and dangerouscustom’.17 However it was simultaneously recognisedthat dressing and not dressing the statue were bothgoing to cause rioting in the capital18 and the statueremained a controversial presence for a furtherhundred years.

additional equestrian monuments. Yet ultimately onlyLord Gough, among them, was to be commemoratedin this manner, and not in connection with the bridge,but in a separate and individual equestrian portraitcommissioned later in the century. Gough, who wasIrish born, had served as Field Marshall in the Britisharmy and the commemoration was financed by his

With three eighteenth-century equestrian monu-ments already in place in Dublin, further such statueswere proposed for the capital city in the course of thenineteenth century. The first, in , was in the formof a Corporation resolution to celebrate the Jubilee ofGeorge III, a proposal that seems not to have proceededbeyond the suggestion that a public subscription beopened for the purpose of erecting such an equestrianstatue.19 Another proposal was intended to commemo-rate the Duke of Wellington and formed part of thedesign of the Wellington Testimonial erected in thePhoenix Park in (fig. ). The equestrian portrait,however, was never carried out.20 In , the designcompetition for the widening of Carlisle Bridge (nowO’Connell Bridge) in the centre of the city revealed aparticular focus on equestrian portraiture. The bridgecommittee, in their guidelines to submitting artists, hadhighlighted the importance of incorporating sculpturalwork.21 Proposals ranged from the placing of a singleequestrian statue at the centre of the bridge to thepositioning of one equestrian statue at each of its fourcorners. In an elegant and sophisticated design, thejoint submission of George Gordon Page of Londonand Richard Turner of Dublin proposed that QueenVictoria and Prince Albert be depicted at one end ofthe bridge, with the Duke of Wellington and LordGough correspondingly placed at the other end, all fouron horse-back (fig. ). It is evident therefore that, by theend of the century, Dublin might have displayed several

friends. The commission was offered to John HenryFoley and the statue was unveiled in the Phoenix Parkin (fig. ).22 In spite of the popularity of such com-memorative imagery outside the country, only oneequestrian statue was erected in Dublin in the course ofthe nineteenth century. Outside the capital city therewas little interest in the equestrian format. Less than ten


. Robert Smirke, design for WellingtonTestimonial, Phoenix Park, c., RIBADrawings and Archives Collections.

. Page and Turner, competition designfor widening of Carlisle Bridge, Dublin,, Dublin Builder, August . IrishArchitectural Archive.

. John Henry Foley, Lord Gough, ,bronze, Phoenix Park, Dublin. Courtesyof the National Library of Ireland.


years after the Gough statue was put in place, in ,a colossal equestrian portrait of William III wasunveiled in Belfast. Commissioned by the OrangeOrder to be positioned above the Clifton Street OrangeHall, the bronze statue is the work of mason sculptorand wood-carver Harry Hems of Exeter.

Pedestrian sculptural portraits of English kings wereas numerous in Dublin at the beginning of the nine-teenth century as their equestrian counterparts, butmuch less public and therefore less overt symbols ofdominance. A statue of George II by BenjaminRackstrow (d.) was erected on the façade of theWeavers’ Hall in the Coombe in .23 George III wascommemorated by a statue in the Royal Exchange (nowthe City Hall), a gift of the Earl of Northumberland,then Lord Lieutenant, to the merchants of the city.24

Depicted in ancient armour, the portrait, which is thework of the younger van Nost, was erected in the s(fig. ).25 Further royal portraits were commissioned andexecuted in the nineteenth century, one of which wasanother statue of George III for the Bank of Ireland, thework of John Bacon, the younger (–), to a designof Thomas Kirk, (fig. ).26 The coronation ofGeorge IV in and his visit to Dublin in the follow-ing year resulted in several portrait commissions, manyof which were simply busts. Kirk was particularlyfavoured among local sculptors and is noted as having

comment on the absurd nature of ‘these pompousimages . . . of defunct majesties, for whom no breathingsoul cares a halfpenny’ and identified a ‘simpering’quality in the statues of George III and George IV.32 Onthe other hand his praise for the commemoration ofWilliam III as someone who had ‘done something tomerit a statue’ was inauspicious and ultimately muchcontested, as is evident in the many attacks on the statuein the course of the century.33

The nineteenth century was to be identified as aperiod of statuemania in Western countries as a resultof the proliferation of monuments in the public spaces.It was even suggested at the time that statuary was‘exclusively commemorative’ and had as its purpose to‘eternalize or propagate the memory of the departed’.34

In this regard Ireland would prove to be as active as anyof her European neighbours. The divided loyalties inthe country, Unionist and Nationalist, ensured thatinternal politics was played out on the streets in thepublic statuary. It was not simply the case that theperson who was to be commemorated was a consider-ation, but scale, location and choice of sculptor wouldall be important factors throughout the century. If com-memorative work of an Irish nature would begin to findits place in the public spaces eventually, imperial com-memorations, monumental in scale, dominated theearly part of the century.

The royal statues already in place in Dublin at thebeginning of the century were joined early in the sby further commemorative monuments symbolic ofexternal power. The soldier hero was perhaps the mostsignificant commemoration to become evident in theearly century. The presentation of victorious militaryand naval commanders reached virtual deification withViscount Nelson ‘skied’ on top of a triumphal columnin Sackville Street, in the centre of Dublin, in (fig.), and the Duke of Wellington commemorated by agigantic obelisk close to the entrance of the PhoenixPark at the edge of the city (fig. ). In both instancesthe architectural design was by an Englishman, whilethe sculptural work was given to Irish artists. It wascommon in this period for monumental commemora-tive work to involve collaboration between architectsand sculptors, and submissions for design competitionswere usually received from members of the two profes-sions, individually and jointly. The rival claims ofsculpture and architecture and their use in publicmonuments were to be widely canvassed in the nine-

taken a model of the king during his visit.27 He executeda colossal statue of George IV for the Linen Hall inDublin and a bust for the Bank of Ireland, both of whichwere exhibited at the RHA in the mid s.28 Kirk’sroyal statue, commissioned by the linen merchants,passed from the Linen Hall to the Royal Dublin Societyin , where it joined yet another monumental por-trait of the same monarch. This second statue, instigatedby members of the Society, was also commissioned inthe aftermath of the royal visit in . English sculptor,William Behnes, who had trained for a period in Dublin,was chosen to execute the work.29 This appears to be thecommission that launched Behnes career, but such wasthe extent of his eventual success, that he overreachedhimself financially, ultimately ending up bankrupt.30

The checkered history of the royal portrait saw it trans-ported, in an incomplete state, to Dublin, almost twentyyears after the original commission. In , in some-thing of a role reversal, Constantine Panormo, who hadbeen supported by Behnes in his early student years inLondon, was given the unfinished statue of George IVto complete. Both of these statues, in which the monarchis presented as a Knight of St. Patrick, are recorded asbeing publicly displayed in Leinster House, which wasthen the RDS premises, on Kildare Street, in the earlyyears of the new century.31 In a description of his visitto Ireland in the s, William Thackeray was to

teenth century. Early in the century, the eminent archi-tect James Gandon made his position clear in an essayon testimonials, where he recommended the uniting ofarchitecture and sculpture to create ‘more interesting,dignified, and impressive’ compositions.35 In due course,sculptors liberated themselves from their dependenceon architects and, in , at the height of theO’Connell Monument controversy, the committee con-sidered a proposal that architecture was dumb, whilesculpture was eloquent.36 Certainly, unadorned archi-tectural monuments were considered unsatisfactory andboth the Nelson and Wellington monuments in Dublinwere to meet with criticism in this regard in the s,the Nelson column for its lack of relief panels and theWellington Testimonial for being left so long in anincomplete state, minus its intended sculptural work.37

Both monument types drew their inspiration fromantiquity and were erected at the height of the Greekrevival in Britain. Columns, obelisks and triumphalarches proved to be the most popular designs generallyin Europe for heroic work commemorating victory. JohnWilson Croker, who, as deputy chief secretary inIreland in and friend of the Duke of Wellington,was involved in both the Nelson and Wellington com-memorations in Dublin, advocated the importance ofheight for this type of work, identifying it as ‘thecheapest way and one of the most certain of obtaining


. John van Nost, younger,III, s, bronze, NGI on loanfrom Dublin City Council.Photograph courtesy of theNational Gallery of Ireland.

. John Bacon, George III, ,marble, House of Lords (nowBank of Ireland), College Green,Dublin, (now in St Patrick’sCollege, Maynooth). Reproducedby permission of the Royal Societyof Antiquaries of Ireland.

. View of Sackville Street and Nelson Pillar, engraved byBrocas for Dublin Monthly Museum, July . Courtesy ofthe National Library of Ireland.


sublimity.’38 Such a positive opinion of tall monumentswas not universal. The view was also held that the stat-uary column did no more than ‘put out of sight the veryobject it would hold up to public gaze’,39 a point of viewthat was substantiated in the case of the columnar com-memoration of Daniel O’Connell in Ennis later in thecentury (fig. ). It was proposed, for the Ennis monu-ment, that ‘a rough-cut statue’ would suffice on thecolumn, as it ‘would be folly to expend money on afinely chiseled statue placed at such an elevation’.40

Increased knowledge of ancient art and architecturein this period, resulting from the intense interest inantiquarianism in the eighteenth century, promotedmonumental commemorations of this nature. Trajan’scolumn, – , in Rome, commemorating theEmperor’s successful military campaigns, served as theinspiration for similar monumental commemorations inthe modern period in Europe and beyond. Contempo-raneous with the initiative to memorialise Nelson in thismanner in Dublin early in the nineteenth century, theVendome column was being erected in Paris to com-memorate Napoleon’s victory at Austerlitz and wasinaugurated in . Directly inspired by the ancientRoman work, this monument includes a spiraling friezeof relief sculpture depicting the Napoleonic campaign.However most of the imitations were simple flutedcolumns, considerably less ornate and with reducedsculptural input, resulting in a significantly more austerepresence. Hawksmoor and Herbert’s monument toJohn Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, com-pleted in and erected in the grounds of BlenheimPalace, was the first fluted Doric column surmountedby a portrait statue erected in the British Isles. Thismonument engendered many similar works, almostreplicas, with one notable development. WhereChurchill is depicted in the guise of a Roman general,conforming to the standards of heroic presentation, thenineteenth-century figures are portrayed in contempo-rary costume, as a result of which the classical require-ment of timelessness in the portrait element of the workis somewhat diminished, if not entirely lost.

One might ask, ‘why Dublin for a Nelson commem-oration?’, as he appears to have had no connection with

Ireland in the course of his life.41 Yet there seems to havebeen little that was considered unusual about the deci-sion in its day. At the beginning of the century, Dublinwas the second largest city42 in what had become theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in ,and, as the second citizens in the British Empire,Dubliners were noted as holding considerable ‘affectionfor the memory of the departed hero’, and his victoryat Trafalgar was greeted in the city with much celebra-tion.43 It is noteworthy that, in a design for a nationalmonument to commemorate Nelson in London, theItalian sculptor Antonio Canova included a representa-tion of Ireland. His proposed monument, which wasnever taken beyond the model stage, includes a paneldepicting the death of Nelson, which shows threemourning figures, England, Scotland and Ireland, posi-tioned to receive his body.44

Nelson died on October and in November ofthe same year it was already being suggested in Dublinthat the erection of a statue, funded by public sub-scription, would be a fitting commemoration and a ‘per-manent proof of respect’.45 Public monuments weresimilarly being suggested for Birmingham46 andLiverpool,47 and a monument (–) by JohnFlaxman (–) was also erected in St Paul’sCathedral in London, which had been designated therepository of national monuments at the beginning ofthe century. These were to be a public celebration ofthe life of a national hero and national commemorativemonuments of this nature would proliferate in thecourse of the century. It must have seemed perfectlylogical to many, therefore, that the second city of theempire would commemorate the man who defeatedNapoleon and saved Britain from invasion by theFrench, and, of more local concern, who attempted toprotect trade by securing the Irish sea. Nonetheless, itis not insignificant that the Dublin column was the firstsuch commemoration of the naval hero. The Birming-ham and Liverpool monuments are more strictly sculp-tural works than architectural presentations and lessheroic than the triumphal column erected in SackvilleStreet. The proposal in for a national monumentto be positioned in a public location in Londonfoundered initially48 and it was not until that aNelson monument was commissioned for TrafalgarSquare and completed in .49 Dublin, therefore,received its Nelson Column several decades beforeLondon, and it was the only Irish city to commemorate


. Robert Smirke, Thomas Farrell, John and ValentineHogan, Joseph Kirk, Wellington Testimonial, /,Phoenix Park, Dublin.


the hero. Thomas Robinson’s inclusion of a statue ofNelson in his painting of the Review of the Belfast Yeomanryby the Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Hardwicke, August

(, Belfast Harbour Commissioners) represents theimagination of the artist.50 While Robinson appears tobe filling a void in what was a troublesome painting, nosuch statue was ever placed in Belfast. At the date of theexecution of the painting, the artist might have antici-pated the erection of such a commemorative work inthe northern capital, but the date represented in theimage predates the death of Nelson and the subsequentconcentration on commemorating him in Dublin.

The laying of the foundation stone for the Dublinmonument by the Lord Lieutenant, the Duke ofRichmond and Lennox, on February (fig. ),the anniversary of the Battle of Cape St Vincent (),was an important ceremonial occasion. A processionthrough the city comprised various groups of people,including the different Yeomanry, the Fellows of TrinityCollege and the members of the monument commit-tee. The route of the procession, from the Castle to thechosen site in the centre of Sackville Street, was linedby the garrison of the city, thus establishing a divisionbetween the participants and the public. This was amilitary display, a powerful and controlled spectacle.Sackville Street, the development of which had takenplace over the course of the eighteenth century, was awide, grand and fashionable boulevard, which at thebeginning of the nineteenth century incorporated

the century progressed, leading to an aggressive cam-paign in the s with the national commemoration ofDaniel O’Connell.54

The competition to select a design for the Nelsonmonument was advertised early in , with a shortsubmission date, ultimately prolonged by two monthsuntil the beginning of May that year.55 It is regrettablethat no detailed account of the submitted work appearsto be extant but it is possible to identify a number of thecompetition entrants, several of whom exhibited theirdesigns at subsequent exhibitions in Dublin andLondon. Certainly four London and four Dublin basedarchitects participated.56 The seeming absence ofindependent sculptural submissions suggests that itwas understood the successful design would be anarchitectural feature. The lack of any form of contem-porary display of the submissions means that there islittle record of public opinion about the work. No com-parison is possible between the rejected designs and thefinished monument. The English architect, WilliamWilkins (–) won the competition at the close of for his design of a Greek Doric column raised ona plinth and surmounted by a capital and abacus sup-porting a Roman galley.57 The abacus incorporated aviewing platform. However lack of sufficient funds, asnoted at the laying of the foundation stone, necessitateda reduced plan and the Irish architect, Francis Johnston,who was also a participant in the competition, wasinvited to adapt Wilkins’s design.58 The Doric columnwas retained and the most significant alteration was therejection of the galley in favour of a portrait statue. Thissculptural element, confined as it was to the top of thegiant column, must have appeared almost incidental.Yet, the statue of Nelson, the work of Thomas Kirk,was an important commission for a local sculptor andwould establish Kirk as the leading sculptor in Dublinat the beginning of the century.59 Standing feet talland leaning on a ship’s capstan, the figure of Nelsonwas executed in Portland stone and, positioned on acircular pedestal, was more than feet from theground (fig. ). According to a contemporary source,the statue presented a strong resemblance to Nelson.60

In spite of its remote location, the outline of the figure

residential, commercial and leisure premises. Theselected site for the monument marked the point whereupper and lower Sackville Street met and crossed withthe narrower Henry and Earl Street. There was someopposition from local residents to the siting of the mon-ument in their midst. The massy block-like base of thestructure must have seemed like a colossal imposition tothose residing on the street, concerned, as they musthave been, about circulation in the area and vista. Thefact that it was possible to climb by way of a spiral stair-case to the top of the monument, permitting a form ofactive participation and thus rendering the work evenmore public, would not have made the monument anymore acceptable, as this only encouraged visitors to thesite. In spite of such local unease, the crossing onSackville Street was without doubt the perfect locationfor the giant column, which stood at well over feetand, although absorbed into the street over time, itmaintained a substantial and significant presence in thecity for a century and a half.51

The Nelson column was funded by public subscrip-tion. But on the very day of the ceremony to instigatethe work, the public was informed that not enoughmoney had been raised to carry out the design as orig-inally intended.52 Such lack of cash was to prove a con-tinuing problem throughout the century, as so manymonuments were funded by public subscription.Despite initial enthusiasm and acknowledging that dif-ferent members of the public supported different com-memorations, the success of a work was dependent onthe funds available and the money subscribed oftenproved insufficient. It is worth considering the extent towhich the Nelson commemoration and its managementcould actually be considered public. Sculptural com-missions of this nature at the beginning of the centurywere controlled by the Corporation, but administeredby a committee, that comprised members of the Cor-poration, of Parliament, of the aristocracy and of thebanking and business communities. Money and statuswere the most important criteria, and, inevitably in theperiod in question, gender was not a concern on theseall male committees. The public at large, ‘the person onthe street’, had no input, beyond being expected to con-tribute money. In this instance, the designs for the mon-ument were not even exhibited publicly, which deniedthe possibility of popular comment and public debate.53

The issue of public involvement in such commemora-tive work was to become increasingly controversial as


. Laying of Foundation Stone for Nelson Monument, February . Reproduced by permission of the RoyalSociety of Antiquaries of Ireland.

. Thomas Kirk, Viscount Nelson, , marble, SackvilleStreet (O’Connell Street), Dublin, detail of engraving by Jamesdel Vecchio, c.. Courtesy of the National Library ofIreland.


was marked and the monument as a whole made animpact. So much so that when John Hughes was teach-ing modelling at the Metropolitan School of Art inDublin at the end of the century, he advised students tolook at the statue and to notice the elegance and dignityof the work and the beauty of the silhouette.61 Theabsence of relief panels at the base of the monumentconfirmed its architectural emphasis. This was aninstance of text displacing image, with the names anddates of four of Nelson’s key victories inscribed withutmost clarity, rather than illustrated, on the squaredsides of the base.

Comparison with the London column is revealing.Positioned in the open space of Trafalgar Square andboth incorporating and surrounded by sculptural work,this represents a less brutal display. The work of WilliamRailton and E.H. Baily, the slim column reads as asupport for the statue and the squared bronze panels atthe base create a greater sculptural emphasis. In Dublin

and the Irish Magazine noted a display of indifferenceon the part of the Irish public to the opening of themonument.63 Therefore, depending on the individualobserver, the monument was either a success or animposition. As a manifestation of ‘the feeling of Protes-tant Ireland’,64 it was certainly a success, and within ashort space of time those members of the populationwho were active in promoting the Nelson commemo-ration addressed the issue of recognising the achieve-ments of the Duke of Wellington in a similar fashion.

In the spirit of the age, and celebrating his victoriouscampaigns against the French, it was proposed that a‘public national testimonial’ erected to the Duke ofWellington in Ireland would prompt ‘the imitation ofhis example’ among the people.65 That Wellington wasborn in Ireland and had served as Chief Secretary theresuggests the probability of more local interest than wasthe reality with the Nelson commemoration. One of themanagers of the Wellington testimonial proposed, in apublished letter, that the monument was to ‘become themost characteristic of the ornaments of our Capital,commemorating to all future ages the victories whichhave accomplished the deliverance of Europe, anddisplaying the just pride of Ireland in having producedthe Hero by whom they have been won’.66 SeveralWellington commemorative monuments were alsobeing proposed in England in the aftermath of thesomewhat temporary peace of . Applauding theclassical aspect of the Nelson monument, the commit-tee established to administer the Irish Wellington com-

the column was somewhat more contained by thestreetscape. Emphatically architectural, the columndwarfed the statue, which, at thirteen feet, was of insuf-ficient stature for the monumentality of its support. Thefigure of Nelson in London is four feet taller, and theCorinthian capital, on which the statue is positioned,has inherent artistic elegance that was lacking in thestark rigidity of its Doric counterpart in Dublin.Nonetheless the Nelson monument had a commandingpresence in Dublin, not just because of its size but alsobecause of its location. Sackville Street was a more fash-ionable area than College Green at this stage in thenineteenth century and, in any case, the lofty positionof the statue made it widely visible. Engravings of thecity in the first half of the century (fig. ) reveal thedominating nature of the structure, which was rein-forced by the absence of any accompanying monu-ments in the vicinity for some sixty years. However itwas this isolation and dominance that also encouragedopposition and there were those who immediately con-sidered the column ill-placed and the commemorationinappropriate.62 It is evident that, from the standpointof the colonised, this was a form of triumphalism

memoration initially proposed a Corinthian column.67

Croker, who was actively involved in the Dublin com-memoration, supported the idea of a column, andadvocated that, whatever the design, it be at least ‘stu-pendously high’.68 That there was already a column inthe Park, the fluted Corinthian Phoenix Columnerected there in , seemed not to concern him. TheWellington committee certainly favoured emphasis onthe architectural aspect, indicating that they would be‘very sorry to exclude the art of sculpture altogetherfrom the testimonial, but it appears to us very unadvis-able to trust principally to its resources for the charac-ter of the trophy’.69 Ultimately a competition for theWellington commission was held in and submis-sions were received from architects in Ireland, Englandand Scotland, six of which were short-listed (fig. ) andexhibited in the RDS premises. These included twoobelisks, three columns and a temple housing a statueof Wellington. The obelisk designs of Glasgow archi-tect David Hamilton and London architect RobertSmirke emerged as the favourites, to such an extent thatthey were even considered to outdo those of antiquity.70

William Wilkins was an unsuccessful competitionentrant on this occasion. He came third with his designfor a column crowned with a circle of caryatids, whichwas to support a seated statue of either the Duke or a


. Dublin, Sackville Street (now O’Connell Street) withNelson Column. Engraving by W.H. Bartlett, mid s.Photograph courtesy of the National Gallery of Ireland.

. Short-listed designs for Dublin Wellington Testimonial,c., National Library of Ireland. Courtesy of the NationalLibrary of Ireland.

Mathew Jones monument in Glasnevin, under whichJones’s brother-in-law, sculptor Thomas Farrell isburied, which is a largely unadorned obelisk.

Any monument commemorating the Duke ofWellington required a prominent site, for which variousgreen spaces in the city were suggested. In , someswapping around of statues in Dublin was being pro-posed, particularly with regard to the equestrian GeorgeII in St. Stephen’s Green, which was considered to bein a poor state of preservation, aggravated by anattempt to steal portions of the metal. It was suggestedthat the royal portrait be removed initially for repair andsubsequently be re-erected in Merrion Square, thusleaving the site in St Stephen’s Green vacant to accom-modate the Wellington commemoration. Failing thesuccessful location of the obelisk in the Green, MerrionSquare was proposed as a more than acceptable alter-native.77 But happily the folly of such confined locationsfor the bulky obelisk was recognised, and in a moreappropriate site was selected in the Phoenix Park.78

James Gandon considered the entrance to the Park themost appropriate location for the Wellington commem-oration, but favoured a Triumphal Arch, the design forwhich he was working on in , in spite of being inpoor health and, seemingly, ignoring the fact that thecommission had already been offered.79 The chosen sitefor Smirke’s obelisk, inside the Park yet close to theentrance and therefore retaining some proximity withthe city, was assured by the laying of the foundationstone on June . As the Lord Lieutenant, LordWhitworth, was to oversee the ceremony, and the Vice-Regal Lodge, home of the king’s representative inIreland, was also located in the Phoenix Park, the neces-sity for any procession through the city was dispensedwith on this occasion. The event consisted of a con-tained, yet ‘warlike’ ceremonial enacted by lancers, foran audience that was acknowledged to display consid-erable rank.80 Three years later in the obelisk,constructed out of Wicklow granite, was completed.Simultaneous with the commission, Smirke had begunwriting a treatise on architecture in which he discussedthe importance of archaeological accuracy in Greekrevival work, while adapting it to modern needs. Advo-cating simplicity, he stated that ‘An excess of ornamentis . . . the symptom of a vulgar and degenerate taste’.81

His Wellington obelisk is certainly an exercise in sim-plicity. The starkness of the form was initially com-pounded by the absence of any sculptural adornment.

In fact, the committee’s original desire to favour archi-tecture over sculpture was to prove ominous, as themonument fund was insufficient to commission thesculptural features, notably the equestrian statue forwhich the great pedestal was already in place, but alsothe bronze panels which were intended to representimportant military and political events in the Duke’scareer. The Wellington Testimonial stood in its unfin-ished state until the mid-century and was soondescribed as ‘one of the most unsightly, ill disposedworks of art’ in the city.82 The absence of sculpturalfinish was not only to be seen on a visit to the PhoenixPark. A view of the testimonial in by GeorgePetrie, even accounting for artistic license, illustrateswhat was at that stage its extraordinary presence over-looking the city.83

In the aftermath of the death of the Duke ofWellington in , it was considered both insulting andlacking in aesthetic sensitivity that the monument hadbeen allowed to remain incomplete. In the same year,with a view to adding the sculptural details, Patrick Mac-Dowell (–), a leading Irish sculptor based inLondon, was approached and declared interest inthe execution of the statue but not the bronze panels,offering the opinion that such bas-reliefs were noteffective out of doors and that a single statue would bemuch less costly. 84 MacDowell was keen to get the com-mission and likely saw this as his opportunity to worknot just on a heroic portrait, but to concentrate on anequestrian statue. Such commissions were consideredchallenging at the time and were much sought afterby sculptors as a means of displaying their skill, andMacDowell had not had such an opportunity thus far inhis career. As MacDowell’s proposal was not acceptable,Terence Farrell (–) was subsequently invited tosubmit a design. His elaborate presentation included afifteen-foot statue of the Duke flanked by two figures ofVictory and Peace, four colossal military trophies andthe bronze narrative relief panels. However Farrellwished to work in Portland Stone, which was consideredunsatisfactory by the monument committee as it weath-ered badly and, in time, precision and detail would besacrificed.85 The extent of the challenge in carrying outsuch work and the difficulties in selecting a sculptor areevident in the suggestion in that, instead of com-missioning an original design, a cast of Marochetti’sequestrian statue of Wellington in Glasgow be placed onthe Dublin pedestal. This too was rejected.



representation of Victory.71 The commission wasoffered to Robert Smirke (–), whose obeliskdesign incorporated an equestrian portrait of the Dukeaccompanied by guardian lions placed on individualpedestals (fig. ).

Several obelisk commemorations were already to beseen in Ireland, most of them purely architectural mon-uments, without any accompanying sculptural features.The obelisk at Oldbridge in , on the site of thebattle of the Boyne, was erected by the ‘protestants ofGreat Britain and Ireland’ to commemorate the eventsof .72 The erection of these seemingly simple mon-umental architectural commemorations continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. Bulky or slight, theirsoaring height or high location often afforded them acommanding presence wherever they were positioned.This can be witnessed in early illustrations of the‘slender and graceful’ obelisk to commemorate GeneralRoss (–) erected at Rostrevor, Co. Down in.73 A further example, the Brindley Testimonial atAshbourne, Co. Meath, , was erected to com-memorate a local huntsman. This is an instance ofheroic grandeur being afforded a local domestic com-memoration. Sculptural panels at the base of the mon-ument include an image of Charles Brindley onhorseback and related elements of the hunt. On asmaller scale, a stepped obelisk, mounted on four ballsand supporting a crown, was erected in Dun Laoghaire,on the outskirts of Dublin, in (fig. ). More road-side decoration than prominent monumental structure,the diminutive obelisk specifically commemorates thevisit of George IV ‘to this part of his dominions’ in.74 However the monument may also be identifiedwith the construction of Dun Laoghaire harbour, whichwas begun in and whose naming by the king isrecorded in the inscription. As this was the entry pointinto Ireland for most visitors in the course of thecentury, the ‘hideous’75 or, alternately ‘handsome mon-ument raised by the loyal Irish’,76 served to indicate notsimply the ruling power in the country, but also theguiding hand in matters of taste and aesthetics. Small-scale obelisks, with and without sculptural decoration,were also popularly employed for tomb monuments.These can be found in several cemeteries, such as, forexample, Joseph Kirk’s monument to Alderman SamuelWarren (died ) in Mount Jerome, Dublin, withcarved figures at the four corners of the base of theobelisk and sculpted heads above them; and the

. Robert Smirke, Design for Dublin WellingtonTestimonial, c., drawn by George Petrie, engraved byJas Archer. Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland.

. George IV Obelisk, , Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin.Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland.

Hogan work is classical and ordered in its composition,displaying a reasoned calm, the Farrell relief, occupyingthe prime location on the obelisk, facing the main roadthrough the Park, is a vigorous depiction of the chaosand the very physical nature of battle. Farrell’s paneldepicts the final moments at Waterloo when the Earl ofUxbridge falls wounded and the cavalry rushes toavenge him.91 The bold nature of the modeling welldescribes the disarray of fierce battle, and makes aninteresting comparison with Matthew Noble’s Waterloorelief on the Wellington Monument in Manchester,. While Noble’s panel is tiny by comparison withthe colossal work in the Phoenix Park, it is also a morecontrolled composition, making use, somewhat obvi-ously, of the serried ranks of battle. Farrell sacrificedclarity in favour of energy, which, in spite of its size,does not facilitate a clear reading of the panel from adistance. Contrary to all the horses and men in Farrell’sWaterloo scene, Kirk chose in his depiction of theIndian campaign to create a sense of location, incor-porating the implements and the environment of war.With a view to accuracy, Kirk sought information froma senior officer.92 No less vigorous than the Farrellimage, he depicts organization, preparedness and lead-ership in an orchestrated composition that developsacross the panel. The Hogan work removes the viewerfrom the battlefield, to focus on the Duke’s politicalcareer. However, with the death of the sculptor in

in the early stages of the commission, his teenage son,John Valentine, took over the work. He completed it inRome under the direction of, and probably with morethan a helping hand from Giovanni Benzoni.93 As therelief depicts many contemporary political figures thatparticipated in the instigation of Catholic Emancipa-tion, including Lord Carlisle and Lord Grey, DanielO’Connell and Richard Lalor Sheil, portrait imageswere dispatched to Rome to assist Benzoni in his under-taking.94 The finished panel shows the Duke flanked bykneeling representations of Hibernia and Britannia inthe midst of seated and standing dignitaries. A refinedand classical depiction, with clear reference to theseated groups of figures on the Parthenon frieze, thishas little of the statuesque grace of neoclassical sculp-ture as witnessed in the hands of Canova.

With the cancellation of the accompanying eques-trian statue and the removal of the supporting pedestal,the absence of any significant portrait image ofWellington on the testimonial, beyond his inclusion in

the bronze relief panels, has resulted in comment beingfocussed on the architectural feature. The Dublin mon-ument (fig. ) is in marked contrast to commemorationsof the Duke in England and Scotland, where equestrianor pedestrian portraits are numerous. Smirke’sWellington Testimonial was described as ‘a magnificentobelisk’ in ,95 nearly years after it was erected,but within a year of being completed, in , the DublinBuilder described it as ‘an overgrown milestone’. Thewriter was critical of obelisks in general, consideringthem ‘meaningless and graceless’ and ‘devoid of poeticexpression (so essential to a memorial)’.96 However, itwas the absence of any monumental portrait image ofWellington that would save the Testimonial fromdestruction when public statuary was being targetedacross the country, and most particularly in Dublin, inthe course of the twentieth century.97 In fact, the obeliskhas considerable presence at the edge of the PhoenixPark and its position and scale ensure that it is visiblefrom a distance and in different parts of the city. The



Continuing shortage of funds eventually resulted inalterations to Smirke’s original design and, what was themost attractive feature for a sculptor, the proposedequestrian monument was ultimately abandoned, itspedestal was removed, and only the three bronze panelswere commissioned. John Hogan (–), JosephKirk (–) and Terence Farrell’s son, Thomas(–) were selected to execute the representationsof the Duke’s achievements in the domestic and mili-tary fields. The choice of subject matter was agreedbetween the sculptors and the Lord Lieutenant, the Earlof Carlisle, who ultimately approved the designs. ‘LetKirk have Asia; I should think Seringapatam would bebest but he might chose’, said Carlisle, whose sugges-tion prevailed.86 Wellington’s earliest great victory inIndia is depicted, showing him (then Colonel Wellesley)directing his rd regiment in the trenches during thesiege of Seringapatam (fig. ). Although three militaryscenes were originally suggested and Farrell was evenworking on a scene illustrating the Indian campaigns of

the Duke, Carlisle was adamant that there would beonly two military panels, Asia and Europe.87 Farrell wasin the end to depict Wellington’s greatest triumph thebattle of Waterloo (fig. ), while Hogan, with his sig-nificant if declining reputation, received the domesticsubject, ‘Civil and Religious Liberty’, in which heportrays the Duke positioned between Hibernia andBritannia (fig. ). Yet again there is evidence that thesculptors, along with the Lord Lieutenant, favoured theuse of marble for the execution of the relief panels.88

However, this proposal appears to have been dictatedby their inexperience in working with bronze ratherthan any serious belief that marble was more suitablefor the location. In the end, bronze was the chosenmaterial and the panels were cast outside the country.89

This is one of the rare instances in Irish sculpture inthe nineteenth century when several leading sculptorswere commissioned to work on a single monument.90

These panels, colossal in size, some thirty-five feet inlength, reveal considerable stylistic differences. If the

. Joseph Kirk, The Siegeof Seringapatam, –, bronze,Wellington Testimonial, Phoenix Park,Dublin.

. Thomas Farrell, Battleof Waterloo, –, bronze,Wellington Testimonial, Phoenix Park,Dublin.

. John & Valentine Hogan,Civil and Religious Liberty, –,bronze, Wellington Testimonial,Phoenix Park, Dublin.

. John Edward Carew, Battle of Trafalgar, , bronze,Nelson Column, Trafalgar Square, London.

Gillespie monument, in Comber, Co. Down (),commemorating Comber born army officer SirRobert Rollo Gillespie (–), who fell inaction at Kalunga; the sculptor has not beenidentified (fig. )

Cole monument on Fort Hill in Enniskillen, Co.Fermanagh (), commemorating army officerSir Galbraith Lowry Cole (–), son of thefirst Earl of Enniskillen; statue by Terence Farrell(fig. )

These are all columnar presentations except for theComber work, where more unusually Gillespie is por-trayed at the top of an obelisk. Less imposing in the townsquare, the monument design and scale address the loca-tionmore successfully in this instance than is usual. Takinginto account the controversial and propagandist nature ofpublic statuary, it was a remarkably trouble-free unveilingceremony. Gillespie was honoured by approximately, people ‘of various shades of religious and politicalopinion’, who came together for the occasion ‘without theslightest disturbance’.102 Not far away in Hillsborough, the



Duke of Wellington is further commemorated inIreland by a monument in Trim, County Meath, theDuke having lived as a boy at Dangan Castle, threemiles away. Erected in in Emmet Street, the mon-ument, comprising a portrait statue by Thomas Kirksurmounting a Corinthian column (fig. ), was com-pleted long before the Phoenix Park commemoration.

It is noteworthy that shortly after the mid nineteenthcentury, with the Nelson monument long in place andthe Wellington Testimonial recently completed inDublin, London had still not completed a substantiallyheroic monument to either man. The Nelson column inTrafalgar Square was already in train and twoequestrian portraits of Wellington were in place:the Chantrey/Weekes statue, , outside the RoyalExchange and Matthew Cotes Wyatt’s colossal bronzerepresentation, , on Decimus Burton’s Arch at HydePark Corner. However, commemoration of a more sig-nificant type instigated considerable debate over thenature of such tributes. Elaborate architectural schemesand various monumental forms were considered, agreedand rejected. There was also confusion with regard tothe dedication in each case. It was unclear whethersimply the individuals and their victories should be com-memorated or, more inclusively, the navy and the army.98

The response in Ireland seems to have been more prag-matic and the monuments were expedited with consid-erably more deliberation. Any delays encountered, as isso often the case with public monuments, were usuallythe result of insufficient funds. Lack of money oftenresulted in alterations to the selected design, frequentlyto the detriment of the intended sculptural work.

Designs for the Nelson Monument in London wereinvited in two open competitions in , and with theexperience of the Dublin commemoration long behindthem, one might have expected some input from Irisharchitects and, perhaps, even sculptors. However, thiswas not the case and it was not until the s that Irishsculptors would begin to assert themselves in competi-tions there. Only John Edward Carew, who, by thistime, had already established himself in London, isnotable as an Irish entrant and only to the first compe-tition.99 With no previous experience of monumentalsculpture, Carew had recently been invited to partici-pate in a closed submission, along with such eminentsculptors as J.H. Baily, Francis Chantrey, John Gibsonand Richard Westmacott, among others, when designswere invited for a monument to commemorate the

Duke of York in Carlton House Square in London.Although Carew’s submission to the competition wasnot successful at the time, the fact of being included insuch lofty company may have been the stimulus herequired to encourage him to submit a design for themore significant Nelson monument. On this occasionhe was selected for participation in what became a col-laborative exercise, when he was commissioned tomodel Nelson’s death at the Battle of Trafalgar, themost important and the most strategically positionedrelief for the base of the monument (fig. ).

Monumental architectural forms were not reservedexclusively in Ireland for the commemoration of suchheroic figures as Nelson and Wellington, but continuedto be employed for public commemorative work throughthe first half of the nineteenth century, with a prolifer-ation of them in the s. A significant number ofcolumns and obelisks were erected across the country inthis period, with a concentration of them evident in thenorthern counties. The people who were singled out forrepresentation in this manner were mostly contempo-rary military and political figures, the majority of whomwere Anglo-Irish and all but one Protestant. While suchwork is replete with imperial connotations, and some ofthose commemorated spent little time in Ireland in spiteof owning estates there, it is also the case that othersundertook active participation in local politics with aview to improving the lot of the Irish Catholics.

Monuments erected in the North include:

Walker column in the Royal Bastion in Derry(/),100 commemorating Protestant clergymanRev. George Walker (/–), an activeparticipant in the Siege of Derry and killed inthe Battle of the Boyne; statue by John Smyth(fig. )

Caledon monument on the family estate inCaledon, Co. Tyrone (early s),101

commemorating Du Pré Alexander, nd Earl ofCaledon (–), a politician and colonialadministrator; statue by Thomas Kirk (fig. )

Downshire column in Hillsborough, Co. Down(), commemorating Arthur Trumbull Hill(–), rd Marquis of Downshire, lieutenantof Co. Down; statue by Joseph Robinson Kirk(fig. )

. John Smyth, Rev. George Walker, Walker Monument,–, Derry. Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland.

. Thomas Kirk, nd Earl of Caledon, Caledon Monument,early s, Caledon, Co. Tyrone. With the kind permission ofthe Earl of Caledon.

. Joseph Robinson Kirk, rd Marquis of Downshire,Downshire Column, , Hillsborough, Co. Down.

early century, as the leading local (i.e. Irish and workingin Ireland) sculptor. In the early s, he headed afamily workshop in which his son Joseph (J.R. Kirk)worked initially alongside him and, over time, assumedthe leading role in the studio. The Farrell family ofsculptors, with whom the Kirks would experience somerivalry later in the century, was considerably younger.The fact that Thomas Kirk was a Protestant will alsohave been a significant factor in the commissioningprocess. It is not surprising therefore that five ofthese largely imperial monumental statues, includingWellington at Trim, can be identified as having beencarved in the Kirk family workshop.

The very active taste for lofty heroic presentations ofa columnar nature met with artistic disapproval in some



Doric column supporting the Marquis of Downshire isconsiderably more imposing at feet tall.103 Positionedon a hill overlooking the town, the statue has a grand vista,looking out towards Lough Neagh, which, on a good day,is visible in the distance.

Examples of such work are more dispersed in theSouth and, along with the already mentioned Wellingtoncolumn in Trim, include:

Spring Rice monument, commemorating ThomasSpring Rice (–), Unionist politician andst Baron Monteagle, erected in the New Square(now Pery Square) in Limerick in ; statue byThomas Kirk (fig. )

O’Malley monument (s) in Castlebar, Co.Mayo, commemorating General George O’Malley(–), who helped defeat the French and Irishrebels in Mayo in ; statue by Thomas Kirk(fig. )104

Glendenning monument (s) in Westport, Co.Mayo, commemorating local banker andphilanthropist, George, Lord Glendenning(–); the sculptor has not been identified(fig. )105

Browne-Clayton column () in Co. Wexford,erected by General Robert Browne-Clayton tocommemorate his commanding officer in Egypt, SirRalph Abercrombie. The monument was designedby Thomas Cobden and is a replica of Pompey’scolumn at Alexandria. This monument is simply anarchitectural feature with no accompanying portraitimage

O’Connell monument () in Ennis, Co. Clare,commemorating nationalist leader DanielO’Connell (–); statue by James Cahill(fig. )

Many of the columnar commemorations had a mili-tary impetus. In Enniskillen, for example, General Cole,who commanded the th Regiment in the PeninsularWar, is shown leaning on his sword and the inscriptionindicates that the monument, erected by his friends,commemorates his participation in numerous battles.However, George Glendenning was commemorated inWestport for his support of the local community duringthe early stages of the Famine. If the Kirk family nameappears to dominate among the sculptors who werecommissioned to execute these works, there are severalreasons for this. Thomas Kirk was recognised, in the

. Anonymous sculptor, Sir Robert Rollo Gillespie, GillespieMonument, , Comber, Co. Down. Courtesy of theNational Library of Ireland.

. Terence Farrell, Sir Galbraith Lowry Cole, ColeMonument, , Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh. Alistair Rowan,Irish Architectural Archive.

. Top left: Thomas Kirk, Thomas Spring Rice, Spring RiceMonument, , Pery Square, Limerick. Courtesy of theNational Library of Ireland.

. Centre left: Anonymous sculptor, George, LordGlendinning, Glendenning Monument, s, Westport,Co. Mayo. Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland.

. Bottom left: James Cahill, Daniel O’Connell, O’ConnellMonument, , Ennis, Co. Clare. Courtesy of the NationalLibrary of Ireland.

. Top right: Trim, Wellington Column, engraving,Illustrated London News, September . Reproduced bykind permission from the Board of Trinity College Dublin.

the local commercial outlets that surround its base. Ifboth of these statues are visible at some distance andthe grandeur of the monuments can be appreciatedfrom afar, this is not sustained on making a closerapproach to them. Both monuments appear to havebeen positioned without due consideration for presen-tation or display. In spite of the fact that the O’Connellcolumn is located evocatively on the site of the oldCourt House in Ennis, there is no visual evidence of thisfact in the environs.

If, as Pliny noted in the first century, ‘the use of thecolumns was to raise the statues above ordinary men’,108

tall columns and obelisks positioned in cityscapes nolonger have the effect that was originally intended. Afterthe advent of high-rise building in the modern period,such monumental structures have considerably lessimpact today. In the second half of the century, whenmonuments to men of peace – poets, philosophers andphilanthropists and, indeed, some nationalist heroes –became a more popular form of public commemora-tion, the portrait statues are seen to descend closer tothe people, placed more often on simple pedestals.Towards the close of the century Oscar Wilde, whosefather served on several monument committees andactively engaged in the issue of public sculpture, was tocomment on monumental sculptural work in the lightof a visit to Washington in and his experience ofcommemorative work in that city. Reared in Dublin andwitness to the change in sculptural commemoration andpresentation in the course of the century, he noted thatquite enough motives had been taken from war, andwarned in particular against the putting in place offurther equestrian monuments, suggesting that it wastime to ‘try the motives that peace will give you now’.109

Just one year earlier, in , a statue of Erin wasplaced on a column in Ennis to commemorate theManchester Martyrs, Allan, Larkin and O’Brien, whowere hanged in Manchester in (fig. ). Instigatedby the local Trades Association and the Nationalists ofClare, the monument was the joint effort of architectT.S. Cleary and stone-cutter James Sullivan. The primemover behind this commemoration, M.S. Considine ofthe Ennis Trades, was also the driving force behind thelocal monument to Daniel O’Connell. The nationalistmonuments that were erected in the s and semploy the same classical form as the imperial com-memorations, however they are more delicate in designand are less pompous and imposing than their imperial

counterparts. Slender and relatively short at feet, theTuscan column at Ennis affords the supported statueclear visibility. In this instance the architectural supportprojects rather than dominates the image. To ensureidentification of the female figure, Celtic symbolsaccompany Erin on her support, which in turn is encir-cled with shamrocks. The memorial at Bandon incounty Cork, erected in ,110 is equally slight in form,if more militant in its representation (fig. ). Thesemonuments appropriate the classical imperial columnto communicate, rather than to dominate. Positioningfamiliar symbols in such a way that they can be clearlyread facilitates engagement with the viewer. Thispopular imagery, which was to proliferate in the latterpart of the century, was a concentrated visual manifes-tation of Irish cultural identity. The hangings inManchester ushered in ‘a new era of nationalist massagitation’,111 and the monuments that were erected tocommemorate the event became the focus of annualnationalist celebrations not unlike those enacted aroundthe William III statue in Dublin. Late in Novembertorchlight processions were organised, winding theirway through the streets to end at the monumentwhere speeches were made. For the occasion, thestatue of Erin was ‘draped from the neck down inmourning garb, her waist encircled by a broad band ofgreen silk’.112

As a result of their source in antiquity, monuments inthe form of obelisks and columns suggest permanenceand timelessness. In the case of the work created earlierin the century, the lofty bulk of their form serves to rein-force their durability. However, the volatile character ofthe Irish ensured that several of the monuments wouldbe the focus of targeting over decades and well into thetwentieth century. Imperial monuments, in whatevershape or form they took, were subject to various typesof attack often from the moment they were put in place,and many would meet their inevitable fate in the courseof the twentieth century. Pliny was also to point out thatthe raising of statues to honour individuals in thismanner must inevitably incorporate the possibility ofsubsequent rejection. He recounts how some statuesof philosopher and governor of Athens Demetrios ofPhaleron, set up in Athens in the fourth century ,were ‘afterwards broken up’. 113 In Ireland in the twen-tieth century the ‘breaking up’ of statues appeared tobe something of a national pastime.114



quarters, most particularly from those who identifiedthe isolated column variously as an erroneous use ofwhat was in fact an architectural support, as evidenceof declining imaginative powers, as a misinterpretationof what instigates the sublime and as detrimental to theart of statuary. ‘All the sensations, which can be excitedby an isolated column, surmounted by a statue oremblem, . . . standing in a crowded city, must be notmerely less sublimated, but the very reverse of the highand pure emotions of a secluded spectator of theenshrined representative of a hero, patriot, or genius,whom we wish to make triumph over time’.106 It is cer-tainly the case that when such monuments are posi-tioned in the narrow streets and confined spaces ofrelatively small Irish towns the effect can be over-whelming. The Wellington column in Trim still has animmense presence in the small town. In the nineteenthcentury, Thackeray was reproachful of the fact that amonument of this type should be positioned in themidst of what he found to be such a poor community

(fig. ).107 The narrow column shaft leads the eyeupwards to the elegant Corinthian capital and the loftyportrait of the Duke with his arm raised. However thislightness is not maintained into the squared support,whose bulky form seems oversized in its location. TheO’Connell column in Ennis is located on the main streetin the heart of the town. A simple Doric structure, rel-atively contained in height, it nonetheless soars above

. James Sullivan (stone cutter), Manchester MartyrsMonument, , Ennis, Co. Clare. Courtesy of the NationalLibrary of Ireland.

. Memorial, , Bandon, Co. Cork.

deiﬁcation in the early century - yale university pressyalebooks.co.uk/pdf/9780300159097.pdfturned...

Documents