The Oxford University Museum of PhysicalSciences (Figure 1) aroused bitter criticismeven before its construction started. Britain’sfirst major Gothic building since the Houses ofParliament, it offended two important groupssimultaneously: architectural campaigners,who insisted that Victorians should turn to theclassical rather than the mediaeval past fortheir inspiration; and modernizing propa-gandists, who ridiculed the choice of a Gothicstyle, traditionally used in churches and townhalls, for a scientific teaching centre. Was itreally appropriate, they asked, that the chem-istry laboratory should be modelled on thekitchen at Glastonbury Abbey? Yet despitesuch sneers, the central iron-and-glass roof re-lied on the latest engineering techniques and,although it was never completely finished,from 1860 the Museum strongly influencedVictorian public buildings1.

Now the home of the Pitt Rivers col-lection, the Museum remains a massive neo-Gothic cathedral that incorporates scientificknowledge within its very framework, andalso stands as a tribute to the collective en-deavours of the scientific heroes portrayedalong its aisles. The fundraising guideclearly expressed the designers’ ambitions:‘All the building was intended to teach somegreat lesson, not only in art and architecture,but also in the illustrations afforded by the

several parts of the purposes to which thewhole is devoted’2. The man most responsiblefor realising these didactic aims was JohnRuskin, who seized on the Museum as anopportunity to put three guiding principlesinto practice: to create great public art, tomake decorations realistic and informative,and to ensure that craftsmen executed theirown designs. For Ruskin, Gothic Revivalismentailed reforming architecture’s culturalfunctions, as well as its appearance.

The latest scientific theories were hewn, lit-erally, into the structure. Geological epochsare displayed in the stone columns – igneousrocks on the ground floor, sedimentary onesupstairs – while the delicate plants carvedon the capitals are no mere decoration butshow accurate botanical specimens, eachcarefully labelled to show its classification.Native and exotic foliage twine round thespaces between the wrought iron pillarssupporting the controversial roof.

0160-9327/99/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0160-9327(00)01356-9 Endeavour Vol. 25(2) 2001 47

Group portraits – the Oxford University Museum

Figure 2 The first six statues to be completed. Illustrated London News, 13 Oct 1860, p. 339.Figure 1 Modern photograph of the Museum.

As well as teaching students about thenatural world, their place of learning should,Ruskin argued, envelop them in morallessons. He tried to persuade Dante GabrielRossetti to paint a large mural of ‘Newtongathering pebbles on the shores of the Oceanof Truth,’ a potent mythological symbol forVictorian educationalists of the humilitydisplayed by England’s greatest genius. Al-though that project failed, Ruskin had farmore success in organizing statues of sci-entific heroes. He energetically solicited fi-nancial contributions for a new type of‘portrait-sculpture’ that would not be sitedamidst ‘the blighted trees of desolate squares’but in educational institutions. Optimisticallyhymning progress through dedication, heclaimed that statues in the Museum wouldbe regarded ‘with the emulative, eager, un-stinted passionateness of honour, whichyouth pays to the dead leaders of the causeit loves, or discoverers of the light by whichit lives’3.

Donating £300 from his own pocket,Ruskin compiled a long list of suitablecandidates for this stone roll-call of honour,available at £70 each. He convinced severalwealthy benefactors to subscribe to hisscheme, including Queen Victoria (whobought five) and his own father; he evenmanaged to raise £55 from the Oxfordundergraduates. The project rapidly degen-erated into chaos, as patrons and architectsargued about the size and location of thestatues, while the sculptors procrastinated,complaining that they had been inade-quately paid. Nevertheless, by 1860 eightfigures had been installed, and a further nineeventually followed, the last not beingerected until 19144.

The Illustrated London News strongly dis-approved of the Museum’s Gothic style, butpublished drawings of the first six statues tobe completed (Figure 2). Reporting that theQueen’s Aristotle and the undergraduates’Bacon had been placed on either side of themain portal ‘as those who have laid thedeepest and widest foundations of science’,the journal praised these ‘happy specimensof portrait-sculpture, full of mind, variouslydeveloped’5. Like religious figures identi-fied by a holy attribute, each one bears asymbolic reminder of his achievements: forinstance, Humphry Davy holds his miner’slamp, Newton gazes down at his gravitationalapple, and Hippocrates (wrongly labelledSocrates) leans on a caduceus. Later ad-ditions include Euclid, George Stephenson,Charles Darwin and Hans Oersted (only aplaster cast because of protracted squabbles).Lined up on their pedestals, these smallerthan life-size sculptures appear as scientificsaints in this secular Gothic cathedral.

Although the statues themselves were seenby relatively few people, their reproductionin such a prominent weekly meant that theywere discussed all over the country. Decid-ing who should be commemorated, andwhere, were major national concerns. Thegovernment did allocate money for mem-orials to soldiers and statesmen, but middle-class people were becoming more interestedin celebrating civic heroes. This was a timewhen – as Ruskin’s scathing commentsindicate – statues of famous scientists andengineers were being erected in townsthroughout Britain. Like Ruskin’s, thesestatues were funded by private subscriptionsbut were often local initiatives organised bywealthy industrialists. Rather than inspiring

students, these statues of recent individualswere designed to promote regional pride,and to advertise technological contributionsto the country’s booming economy.

By contrast, although constrained by thepreferences of individual donors, Ruskin’sstatues were a collective tribute to the powerof scientific thought, in which Greek physi-cians rub stone shoulders with Victorianengineers and continental experimenters.Embodying ideals of international cooper-ation and transcendent genius, Ruskin’sfraternity of excellence stretches backthrough time and ignores national borders.This sculpted portrait gallery implicitlytaught students that they could gain entryinto an eternal, international brotherhood byinheriting and continuing the work of theirscientific ancestors.

Patricia FaraClare College,Cambridge,UK CB2 1TL.e-mail: pf10006@hermes.cam.ac.uk

References1 Blau, E. (1982) Ruskinian Gothic:

The Architecture of Deane and Woodward 1845–61, pp. 48–81, PrincetonUniversity Press

2 Henry Acland and John Ruskin, quoted in Blau, E. (1982) Ruskinian Gothic:The Architecture of Deane and Woodward 1845–61, p. 76, PrincetonUniversity Press

3 Acland, H. and Ruskin, J. (1893) The Oxford Museum, pp. 79, 80, GeorgeAllen

4 O’Dwyer, F. (1997) The Architecture ofDeane and Woodward, pp. 252–257, CorkUniversity Press

5 Illustrated London News, 6 Oct 1860, p. 320and 13 Oct 1860, pp. 339, 344

48 Endeavour Vol. 25(2) 2001