TY - JOUR
AU - Lewis,, Paul
AB - Abstract For audiences not familiar with antiquity, the shattering of the Portland Vase at the British Museum in 1845 raised awareness of a classical past which was claimed by many European nations as their cultural heritage. This article explores how the British ceramics industry quickly exploited a ready market, prompted by such interest. A new genre of wares was produced industrially, mainly in Stoke-on-Trent until the 1870s, although manufacture continued sporadically until 1900. Modern techniques, including moulding and transfer-printing, allowed the creation of versions of black- and red-figure ancient Greek ceramics, sometimes in vivid polychrome. Hitherto largely overlooked by museums and standard histories of ceramics, the material evidence of this fashion endures. Although the resulting artefacts were often marketed without reference to their origins in antiquity, an argument is presented here for their having more than merely decorative significance. The chronological focus of this chapter is 1845–75, starting with the accidental breakage of the Portland Vase in the British Museum in February of 1845. This period witnessed the domestication, and to some extent democratization, of works and images formerly enjoyed by the aristocracy and social elites. I pursue two themes: first, the continuing prominence of engravings of items from collections of mainly Greek antiquities made in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Second, the use of those engravings by many mid-nineteenth-century British ceramic factories to produce classicizing wares for audiences of classes very different from those of the preceding period. These factories, large and small, were almost all situated in the Staffordshire Potteries in the area now embraced by Stoke-on-Trent. In this article I introduce a selection of their classicizing products and discuss the origins of their designs; by means of four case studies, I present some of the most popular motifs; and finally I suggest who might have bought these wares and the context in which they were viewed. The producers of the items discussed here include G. L. Ashworth & Bros; James Dudson; Liddle, Elliot and Son; S. and A. Alcock and their successors at the Hill pottery, Burslem; Sir James Duke & Nephews; Bates, Brown-Westhead and Moore; T. & R. Boote Ltd; Bradbury, Anderson & Bettany; Copeland; Davenport, Beck & Co.; James Kent Ltd; Minton; and Spode Copeland. However, there are many surviving unmarked pieces, particularly at the cheaper end of the market.1 Classicizing works from the Swansea firm of Dillwyn are discussed in this themed issue by Janett Morgan.2 The leading firm in the exploitation of classical designs was that of Samuel Alcock and Co. The youngest of nine siblings, Samuel Alcock (1799–1848) was largely self-made, very ambitious, and hard-working. He owned factories at Cobridge and Burslem producing ceramics for new middle markets. The resulting wares, though never of quite the high quality of Copeland, Wedgwood, and Minton products, were nevertheless remarkable for their range of materials, objects, and styles.3 Rising in social position, Alcock was able to associate himself with his broadly middle-class audience. Elected Chief Constable for Burslem in 1842, he raised a militia to suppress the Chartist demonstrations of that year, one that might have threatened his business interests and his clients; the militia’s action resulted in deaths.4 The factory, demolished in the late twentieth century, boasted a grand classical portico that suggests Alcock and his family saw themselves in the classical tradition, a classical tradition established by Wedgwood with his Etruria.5 The Alcock firm was bought in 1861 by Sir James Duke and Nephews (see below), who continued to produce some of the Alcock wares, at higher quality. Unlike the handmade and painted ceramics of antiquity, those manufactured between c.1840 and 1870 (there are later examples) were mass-produced and moulded, transfer-printed and further decorated using the latest materials and technology (fig. 1). They comprise hollow wares and flat wares, objects of utility and of decoration. Classical designs, sometimes claimed to be facsimiles of ancient precedents, are to be found on vases, table wares, and toilet articles, such as basins and ewers. Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock and Co., James Duke & Nephews, and anonymous Stoke-on-Trent factories. Classicizing wares produced between c.1845 and 1875. Private Collection, England. Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock and Co., James Duke & Nephews, and anonymous Stoke-on-Trent factories. Classicizing wares produced between c.1845 and 1875. Private Collection, England. Undaunted by the fact that some forms were unknown in ancient Greece, classical designs for the surfaces extended to tobacco jars, spill vases, biscuit barrels, and teapots, though examples of teacups are rare. With the exception of these, most wares followed a limited repertoire of Greek forms, the oinochoe being much favoured. There were variations on the amphora, the lekythos, and squat lekythos. Kylix types appear rarely. Many of these wares were finely made and very expensive, but evidence remains of cheaper productions. This suggests that a range of classes was choosing to purchase objects with classical subject matter, which was sometimes explained by titles printed on the base, but more often not. At the same time there were novelty pieces with Egyptian motifs and, following the findings between 1845 and 1847 at Nimrud and Nineveh by Austen Henry Layard, even a few attempts at Assyrian designs. This was generally confined to surface decoration, but factory photographs reveal that, in the period 1868–94, Copeland made Parian reproductions in reduced scale of figures and of the winged bulls which had excited public interest when brought to the British Museum in February 1852.6 While neo-Gothic was becoming evident in architecture, it featured rarely in ceramics. However, the classical past had two strong appeals: one was the idea of inheritance by modern Western nations; the other, entirely practical, was that many Greek ceramic forms were already designed for domestic use or could easily be adapted to modern use. Antique sources were increasingly augmented by designs drawn from neoclassical artists, and in particular from John Flaxman (1755–1826) and, to a lesser extent, Bertel Thorvaldsen (1770–1844). Both became almost honorary ancients, with the advantage that their images were already in outline and chaste in tone. The materials used by the factories were mainly earthenware and translucent bone china, sometimes considered as English porcelain. Another material occasionally used for these wares was Parian, which as its name implies was developed to imitate white marble. This was a feldspathic, high-fired, dry-bodied ware. Its use was mainly in the production of portrait busts.7 The Alcock firm produced almost identical designs in all three materials. The use of Parian for statuary reinforced ideas of sculpture being white. The complex three-stage firing technique of Greek pottery was unknown to the period reviewed and, had it been known, it is unlikely that any but those pursuing very up-market wares would have attempted the process, as the technique would have been expensive, due to fuel consumption and labour costs. Imitations of black- and red-figure wares were produced by quite different means, and these were entirely modern and in keeping with the demands of mass production.8 The most original productions were those in polychrome with additional gilding. Colour, often brilliant, is to be found on wares both up- and down-market. From the 1840s the expanding railway network enabled the distribution of these wares to centres of consumption throughout Britain and beyond. ORIGINS OF THE DESIGNS AND TECHNIQUES OF MANUFACTURE The history of the Grand Tour and its consequences has been extensively examined in recent years, two still authoritative exhibitions and their catalogues opening a new era of interest.9 Those who made the extended visit to Italy or, for the more intrepid, to Greece, were representative of new and old aristocracy, the upper classes, and a group of artists and dealers. They were by no means exclusively British, and some further research on the interaction between those from different countries is suggested below. Johann Zoffany’s painting The Tribuna of the Uffizi of 1772–77 presents not only the developing canon of art history but also the multifarious British presence in Florence at the time.10 As travel abroad was not possible for George III, his wife Queen Charlotte commissioned Zoffany, who had become a trusted, almost in-house figure, to produce a painting showing the great collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany as displayed in Florence. Neither of the royal pair expected to find the Tribuna animated with the staffage that so delights and informs modern audiences and scholars. Here, viewing and discussing, and perhaps dealing, is a mix of wealthy, aristocratic, classically educated patrons and artists, dealers, and cicerones, and some political or sexual refugees. The innuendo seems not to have been lost on the commissioners, and the painting was banished to a corner of Kew Palace, and its painter never employed by them again.11 Sir William Hamilton (1730–1803), Envoy Extra-ordinary to the Spanish Court at Naples, and other diplomats who had known the king in childhood, were able to use their contacts and academic knowledge to secure excavated works from across Italy. Hamilton’s decision to publish his collection seems to have been driven as much by his passion for vase collecting as the possibility of financial gain through the future selling of the collection. At the same time Hamilton seems to have recognized the potential advantage this publication offered to British industry.12 His correspondence with Josiah Wedgwood (1730–95) reveals that both saw an opportunity to produce and market wares not only to the upper but also to the emerging new middling classes.13 This history is well known, as is the importance of other Staffordshire-based ceramic firms, notably Spode, whose Greek patterns, ultimately using ‘translations’ from vase to print, first by Hancarville and later Tischbein, reached a wider audience from around 1810 in the form of blue-and-white under-glaze printed table wares.14 Some of these patterns were intermittently revived in other colours by Spode’s successors, Copeland, throughout the nineteenth century, and again, in very limited repertoire, by Spode until the factory closed in 2008. The man who made the very expensive Hancarville engravings and less expensive Tischbein engravings available to many more ceramic producers, large and small, was Thomas Kirk.15 Kirk’s 1804 digest of Hancarville and Tischbein began what was to be a process of, if not quite democratization, access to classical imagery for an expanding market composed of a class-base that went beyond that of the Grand Tourist. The publication was intended to provide a range of manufacturing industries, including textiles, furnishing, and ceramics, with a cheap alternative, almost a handbook, to his grander sources. Once in the libraries of manufacturers, these books remained there, sometimes for decades, only moving to other firms following financial failure, closure, and the sale of all stock, including moulds and copperplates. Both Tischbein and Kirk were facilitating the process of more rapid reproduction of designs, because their images, unlike Hancarville’s, were in outline and more easily transferred to copperplates, though the engraving was a demanding and specialized process. There was a tendency in the more sumptuous, and coloured, plates of Hancarville to turn the images from the curved surfaces of Greek vessels into flat pictures. While Tischbein and Kirk also necessarily flattened the designs, their images isolated the main motifs without addition, shading, or perspective. The great expense of producing the black and red images of Hamilton’s first collection deterred him from employing a similar mode in the Tischbein volumes. Money, the almost invisible but powerful motive in all that follows in this chapter, certainly did play a part, but, by the time Tischbein addressed his task, economy of outline was becoming an essential feature of what we now recognize as Neoclassicism across Europe, as demonstrated by Flaxman and the followers of Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825), such as Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780–1867), and the Primitifs. Kirk was part of an industry serving a wider audience both in terms of wealth and class. He demonstrated his astute understanding of the new public in providing drapery for Tischbein’s undraped figures.16 This catering to the sensibilities of new classes can be traced through Tischbein’s, and Kirk’s, Iphigenia being Told of the Death of Agamemnon, undraped and draped respectively, to the draped image on Minton’s so-called Roman-patterned (though Greek) blue-and-white plates of c.1812, to the use of the same image in brilliant polychrome on a Bates, Browne-Westhead and Moore vase of 1859–61 which is stamped beneath with the title ‘A Lady dressing for the Theatre’. None of Spode’s Greek pieces carried any information about the subjects, demonstrating an early divorce between motif and meaning. Some Victorian producers were more inclined to offer a note on origins, perhaps to flatter their audience. It was not always very specific: another vase by Bates, Browne-Westhead and Moore imitates black-figure ware, assuring the purchaser it is a ‘Fac-simile of a painting on a very ancient Greek vase’. Other publications from the early nineteenth century will be referred to below, but a later, very influential, combination of chromolithography and scholarship was the 1856 publication The Grammar of Ornament by Owen Jones, a figure already dominant in the design of the Crystal Palace. This book was reprinted in 1862 and again in 1910, by which time its attitude to design had been superseded by aspects of Art Nouveau. It became a standard text in art schools and remained influential into the twentieth century. It was reprinted in 1986, and again in 2006, continuing a significant period of revaluation of Victorian art and design. Buildings by Jones proved more ephemeral. Lost now is his spectacular Crystal Palace Bazaar, which opened off Regent Street in 1858. This was one of several bazaars in the capital, essentially early department stores, in which many of the glass and china manufacturers found their buyers.17 Jones was not uncritical of Greek design: Greek ornament was wanting, however, in one of the great charms which should always accompany ornament,—viz. Symbolism. It was meaningless, purely decorative, never representative, and can hardly be said to be constructive; for the various members of a Greek monument rather present surfaces exquisitely designed to receive ornament, which they did, at first painted, and in later times both carved and painted.18 It might have been precisely this meaninglessness, extended even to the figures on many Stoke pieces, that constituted a charm for the purchasers. Perhaps they were seen as ‘purely decorative’, undemanding, unthreatening, and enjoyable. Subject matter was more restricted in the period from the 1840s to the 1870s; there are no excited satyrs chasing bacchantes around Alcock’s chaste productions. The skill of transfer-printing from copper plates is now a rarity, remaining with a few engravers now retired from the ceramics industry. Superseded by new printing technologies, it survives as both an art form and in the demonstration rooms of museums, notably the Spode Museum, in Stoke-on-Trent. The plate was engraved and a proof made on tissue paper. Thus, the original design was reversed. The application of the paper to transfer the print to the pot again reversed the image, restoring it to the original arrangement. This, though exacting, was coincidentally labour-saving. Engravers who reproduced paintings to be sold as prints had to engrave the original in reverse to achieve the same effect. Nineteenth-century firms eagerly adopted processes that synthesized the labour-intensive methods of the eighteenth century as they attempted to increase their volume of production and keep prices competitive. The tissue prints offered another advantage—that of cut and paste. For example, designers were happy to rearrange selected figures from the famous Meidias Hydria in the British Museum, a favoured quarry for motifs.19 There follow below four case studies of cheap ceramic reproductions of famous antique objects; particular attention is given to the role of cheap graphic illustrations of the antiquities to publicize them widely, and in some cases perhaps to act as sources for the reproductions. These case studies, then, instantiate the transmission of antique designs from the world of scholarship and privilege of the late eighteenth century to an audience only a century away but inhabiting an entirely different cultural milieu. CASE STUDIES (a) The Portland Vase The Portland Vase was on public view at the British Museum with free access to a wide public since 1810. The fame of the vase was paradoxically secured by its shattering on 7 February 1845, and its rapid restoration brought it to the attention of a national audience in a spectacular way.20 The publicity was certainly useful for the British Museum.21 But even before this, its fame was amplified by Wedgwood’s obsessive recreation of it in sprigged ceramic (it remains in production to this day). And it was significant enough to feature as a full front-page engraving, with an elucidatory article reflecting contemporary scholarship, in the Penny Magazine of 29 September 1832. This magazine was the initiative of Charles Knight (1791–1873), for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, founded in 1826. It prefigured the Illustrated London News in its variety of topics;22 for those seeking to discover what classical knowledge was available to the working classes it is noteworthy that between September 1832 and January 1833 the front page of the Penny Magazine featured the Warwick Vase, the Apollo Belvedere, and the Dying Gladiator, all with supporting text. The circulation, in a period of a still small railway network, was given as high as 200,000, and the readership, or viewership, would have been much higher. Knight was aware of the low literacy rates of his audience and thus invested in clear woodcut illustrations. Even so, to give one example, the essay ‘On the Quadrature of the Circle’, following the article on the Portland Vase, might daunt modern readers, but the piece on the vase itself gives, in 600 words, a clear, up-to-date account of the scholarship of the time. The vase is ‘one of the proudest ornaments of the Museum’ and ‘undoubtedly a work of Grecian genius … fortunately still as perfect as when it left the hands of its fabricator’. It is, therefore, in its still undamaged state and claimed for Greece, not Augustan Rome.23 The dimensions are given and the shape described as ‘very elegant’. The material is thought to be ‘undoubtedly a sort of vitrified paste, or glass, although long supposed to be some species of stone’. ‘Of the scene represented no satisfactory explanation has yet been given, and therefore any description of the figures would be little better than a catalogue of unconnected particulars.’ But the figures are ‘fashioned with admirable grace and animation, and are full of expression in every look and attitude’. The author finds it ‘impossible not to feel that there is great dramatic force and pathos’, even if it cannot be interpreted. A concise history of the discovery of the vase, incorporating the tale that it was ‘enclosed … within the monument of the Emperor Alexander Severus and his mother, Julia Mamaea’ follows, up to the time of its acquisition by Sir William Hamilton. The reader is informed that, apart from sixty casts by James Tassie, ‘Some very beautiful imitations of it have … been fabricated by the Wedgewoods [sic].’ ‘Modern art, however, cannot imitate the vitrified appearance of the material in the ancient vase’. In part perhaps as a result of the publicity caused by its breakage, there was public demand for a version of the Portland Vase for the home, and ceramic firms were swift to supply them (fig. 2). They came in a great variety of sizes, forms and finishes, and, not least, colours, and they initiated new production processes enabling cheap, if crude, but certainly cheerful, replicas. The Portland Vase appeared on the market in the form of a vase, but also lent itself to replication in the form of jugs. Alcock produced it in white on lavender or, if preferred, in lavender on white, the inlay process allowing both. Labour-intensive sprigging was, for more three-dimensional reproductions, replaced by moulding. Several older processes were rapidly conflated for mass production. Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock & Co. and anonymous, ‘Portland Vases’ c.1850. Private Collection, England. Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock & Co. and anonymous, ‘Portland Vases’ c.1850. Private Collection, England. In the absence of written or graphic evidence it is difficult to say how these items were used. The fact that some looked like small ewers or vases does not mean they had any function other than decoration. Perhaps motives for purchasing classicizing vases did not differ much from those of the early nineteenth century: Maxine Berg writes that ‘vases became fashionable because they evoked familiarity with travel, with a classical past, with complementary interiors and architecture’.24 Some of these concerns appear to have remained those of later consumers. (b) The Cumaean Vase An example of business acumen and risk-taking is presented by the publication in the Illustrated London News on 16 February1856 of an article by ‘our own Correspondent’, identified only by the initials H. W., on ‘A Vase Recently Found at Cumae’. Unusually, the article was printed in landscape format, though the verso is the usual portrait format. The reader would have had to turn the paper 90 degrees to view the hot-metal printed text and woodcut illustrations. These offered a panorama of the vase, an oinochoe excavated under the auspices of the Count of Syracuse that proved most useful to Alcock (fig. 3). The firm swiftly marketed reproductions of this vase in black and terracotta, and in gilded polychrome. The engraving was used as a template but with drapery added to the figures. Despite this modification, Alcock felt confident in quoting the Illustrated London News and its publication date on the base of each vase, pronouncing it to be a ‘fac-simile’ of the original. The image was described as a battle between the Greeks and the Amazons. It was a venture that, to judge from the large number of surviving examples, met with an enthusiastic public. In various modifications, in earthenware and bone china, and in polychrome, it continued until the end of the century, when Spode Copeland reissued it with yet more colour and gilding, just as the refinements of Art Pottery were becoming available (fig. 4). Appreciation of this design did not require abstruse knowledge of the classical past, and it was an up-market precursor to the pieces later produced in quantity by G. L. Ashworth and Co., and many others. The Alcock firm had cannily identified an audience through the Illustrated London News, which, at that time, had a circulation of at least 150,000. This was an audience of broad class-base desirous of news and wishing to be connected to broader cultural issues. Figure 3. Open in new tabDownload slide The Illustrated London News, p. 188, 16 February 1856, ‘A Vase Recently Found at Cumae’, Private Collection, England. Figure 3. Open in new tabDownload slide The Illustrated London News, p. 188, 16 February 1856, ‘A Vase Recently Found at Cumae’, Private Collection, England. Figure 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock and Co. and James Duke & Nephews, ‘Fac-Simile of a Vase Found at Cumae’ and variants, c.1856. Shown with the source. Private Collection, England. Figure 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock and Co. and James Duke & Nephews, ‘Fac-Simile of a Vase Found at Cumae’ and variants, c.1856. Shown with the source. Private Collection, England. A clue to buyers is offered by the presence of a black and terracotta Cumaean vase at Brodsworth Hall, near Doncaster. This is one of a suite of related pieces displayed there. The Brodsworth inventory of 1885 informs us that at the time all the vases and candlesticks were located in bedrooms.25 Brodsworth was designed by Philip Wilkinson in a severe Italianate style and built between 1861 and 1863. It was fitted out in the early 1860s, and much of the original furnishings remain. Charles and Sabine Thellusson, the owners, employed the Lapworth Brothers of London to supply curtains, carpets, and furniture, and they acquired a collection of contemporary Italian marble sculpture from the Dublin International Exhibition of Arts and Manufactures of 1865. It is not impossible that the owners or their agents saw the vase among those other classicizing wares displayed, to acclaim, by Sir James Duke and Nephews, of the Hill pottery, at either the International Exhibition of 1862 or the Dublin Exhibition, which they visited. (c) The de Lamberg Vase The Cumaean vase was not the only ‘fac-simile’ offered by the Alcock factory and its successors at the Hill pottery. The most audacious and probably one of the most expensive Alcock ventures—continued by the Hill pottery until about 1865—was a series of pieces issued in both black, white, and terracotta and in polychrome. The origin of the design was a krater owned by Sir William Hamilton, depicting the sacrifice of a bull. The vase was bought by the Austrian diplomat Anton von Lamberg-Sprinzenstein (1740–1822) and later sold to the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. The Vienna porcelain factory had already used the design based on the engraving in Hancarville’s publication.26 Marked by Samuel Alcock & Co., this earthenware vase bears text stating that it is a ‘FAC-SIMILE OF AN ANTIQUE VASE, IN THE COLLn OF M.LE COMTE DE LAMBERG. SUBJECT: A SACRIFICE AT DELPHOS’ (fig. 5). The catalogue of 1972 notes: ‘This, or a vase identical to it, was shown at the London International Exhibition of 1862’. However, illustrations which appear in the Art Journal Catalogue for that exhibition, and in Cassell’s Illustrated Exhibitor, 1862, both credit the vase to Sir James Duke & Nephews of the Hill pottery, Burslem.27 The Alcock business was acquired by Sir James Duke & Nephews in January 1861.28 This firm was ready to show a range of their productions, including classicizing pieces, by the May opening of the 1862 exhibition. They continued the Alcock repertoire, but would have been unlikely to exhibit wares with any but their own marks. Both firms used this design on other forms, including ewers, and in various bodies. Figure 5. Open in new tabDownload slide James Duke & Nephews, ‘Sacrifice at Delphos’, c.1861, Private Collection, England. Figure 5. Open in new tabDownload slide James Duke & Nephews, ‘Sacrifice at Delphos’, c.1861, Private Collection, England. What was the Alcock source, and why was it assumed that this design would attract customers? The source is the very fine and expensively produced set of aquatints with colour produced by Alexandre, Comte de Laborde, friend of Lucien Bonaparte. He was well acquainted with von Lamberg and from 1813 undertook the publication of the Collection des vases grecs de M.r le Comte de Lamberg (fig. 6). The Alcock factory must have acquired at least the volume in which this print appears. Perhaps the exotic name of de Lamberg was an attraction to a public with pretensions, but unlikely to have heard of the count. Figure 6. Open in new tabDownload slide Benedikt Piringer, Sujet d’un Vase No. 4, c.1813 from Laborde’s Vases grecs. University of Heidelberg. Figure 6. Open in new tabDownload slide Benedikt Piringer, Sujet d’un Vase No. 4, c.1813 from Laborde’s Vases grecs. University of Heidelberg. (d) The Nuptials of Paris and Helen To judge from the number of surviving examples, the design of the ‘Nuptials of Paris and Helen’ was a bestseller for the Alcock factory. It was used on small ewers and spill vases and made in earthenware, bone china, and even Parian, and in a great variety of colour combinations. It offers a good example of the link and simultaneously of the gulf which existed between those furnishing palatial interiors in the preceding century and those furnishing smaller-scale Victorian interiors. The origin of the design is a wellhead found in the region of Naples and purchased in 1769 by the sometime banker, cicerone, unofficial but useful ambassador to the Holy See, and, above all, dealer, Thomas Jenkins. His world was very much that of the staffage in Zoffany’s Tribuna so offending to its royal commissioners. The puteal did not much resemble the imposing so-called Jenkins Vase now at the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.29 Jenkins had purchased the piece in 1769 and, in 1772, had it mounted as a vase with a vine-leaf frieze and lip above and a cup with satyr heads, stem, and base below, bringing it to its present height of 172 cm. This work was carried out for the purchaser James Hugh Smith Barry of Marbury Hall, Cheshire (fig. 7).30 The form of the puteal and its semi-processional relief decor was very suitable for translation onto cylindrical hollow wares (fig. 8). The depictions were chaste but, had they reflected on it, the subject matter might have been problematic to the new audience: the marriage of the already married Helen to Paris. Bryant Davies indicates that some did indeed reflect on the problematic nature of this mythological episode. Discussing burlesques and reactions to them she writes: ‘Unsurprisingly, reviewers of Burnand’s Helen in 1866 writing for cheaper papers disapproved of their elopement being “freely represented on the sanction of the Lord Chamberlain”.’ She goes on to quote the Penny Illustrated Paper for 7 July 1866, asserting that ‘[c]onjugal infidelity is not a funny theme according to our English notions’.31 As is observed elsewhere in this article, the public for these goods was probably taken only with the generalities of the design, not detailed scholarship. Few pieces announced their origins. Most members of this public were unlikely to have known the provenance of the design and the history of the vase. Figure 7. Open in new tabDownload slide Anonymous, The ‘Jenkins Vase’ after Restoration. Plate from Orazio Orlandi’s Le Nozze di Paride ed Elena, rappresentate in un vaso antico del Signor Tommaso Jenkins, 1775. Trustees of the British Museum. Figure 7. Open in new tabDownload slide Anonymous, The ‘Jenkins Vase’ after Restoration. Plate from Orazio Orlandi’s Le Nozze di Paride ed Elena, rappresentate in un vaso antico del Signor Tommaso Jenkins, 1775. Trustees of the British Museum. Figure 8. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock & Co. ‘The Nuptials of Paris and Helen’, production c.1850 onwards. The left vase, bone china; the spill vase and right, Parian ware. Private Collection, England. Figure 8. Open in new tabDownload slide Samuel Alcock & Co. ‘The Nuptials of Paris and Helen’, production c.1850 onwards. The left vase, bone china; the spill vase and right, Parian ware. Private Collection, England. THE MARKET In the absence of invoices or contractual documents, the question of who purchased the varied wares considered here, from soap-dishes to ornate vases, must remain a matter of informed speculation. Occasionally a firm clue appears, but more research is needed on the movement between factories, retailers, and customers. Sometimes the absence of information is revealing: my research to date has not found evidence of the presence of cheap reproductions in the wealth of extant paintings, drawings, and photographs of contemporary interiors.32 Perhaps it is precisely because these newly forming classes were not likely to have the interiors of their homes recorded that this is so. The investigation of retailers’ marks is very useful in indicating an intended market. These, unlike maker’s marks, are very rare. In the past, retailers wished to retain their position as middlemen and preferred not to have wares marked by the factory, but by the 1840s they were more confident that the customer would deal with them directly as part of the growing culture of shopping. An example of one retailer’s mark appears on a large ewer which, from the registration mark on its base, can be firmly attributed to the prolific firm of F. and R. Pratt & Co. of Fenton. Pratt was innovative in high-quality colour printing. A Flaxman design, coloured and glazed and three-dimensionalized, decorates this piece. The raised mark gives the date of registration of the design (a process protecting a company’s interests) as October 1857. The retailer’s mark is that of James Muggleton, whose shop in New Street, Birmingham, supplied household wares to the newly affluent mercantile classes of that city. These ewers came in graded sizes and with matching bowls to be placed in bedroom washstands. The largest ewer was heavy, with a capacity of five litres. That they were used by the well-to-do is clear, but domestic servants would also have handled them and perhaps noticed their decoration. No doubt the classical motifs were differently appreciated by the bather, seeing a lustrous Thetis being welcomed by Vulcan beneath the water in the bowl (Greek names were usually Latinised on these wares), and by the servants who had to carry them up and down flights of stairs. A similar diversity of experience applies to the many earthenware dinner plates produced by such firms as Liddle, Elliott & Son and bearing designs by Henry Moses. The motif on the plates of groups of Greek vases on a shelf would gradually be revealed to the diner, and visible to the staff doing the washing up (fig. 9). Moses had been employed by Thomas Hope to engrave, in outline, the plates for Costumes of the Ancients (1809 and 1812).33 This book and others by Moses illustrating classical collections, such as Examples of Antique Vases, Altars, &c., from Various Museums and Collections (1814) were frequently reprinted throughout the nineteenth century and were raided for unacknowledged motifs to decorate table wares. They demonstrate a continuation of availability of neoclassical designs, and their movement from exclusive upper-class homes to the dining tables of people of more modest means. Figure 9. Open in new tabDownload slide G. L. Ashworth & Bros., Liddle, Elliot & Son, and others. Plates bearing prints derived from Henry Moses, Vases from the Collection of Sir Henry Englefield, 1819. 1860s. Private Collection, England. Figure 9. Open in new tabDownload slide G. L. Ashworth & Bros., Liddle, Elliot & Son, and others. Plates bearing prints derived from Henry Moses, Vases from the Collection of Sir Henry Englefield, 1819. 1860s. Private Collection, England. Figure 10. Open in new tabDownload slide G. L. Ashworth & Bros. Cheap wares bearing prints derived from Flaxman, 1860s. Private Collection, England. Figure 10. Open in new tabDownload slide G. L. Ashworth & Bros. Cheap wares bearing prints derived from Flaxman, 1860s. Private Collection, England. Muggleton also stocked fine colour-printed cabinet plates and cups. These were for display, not use. These, too, were by Pratt. They reproduced genre paintings by modern British artists popular with the new middle classes, such as William Mulready and Thomas Webster. This taste is exemplified by the Robert Vernon bequest to the National Gallery in 1847.34 Vernon was a very wealthy tradesman, inheriting the family business supplying horses to the London gentry and aristocracy. His central London house was two doors from the British Institution (formerly Boydell’s Shakespeare Gallery) on the south side of Pall Mall. In terms of his class origins he was close to Muggleton’s customers, and those visiting similar shops in the centres of the major industrial cities. His pictures became the basis of the later Tate Gallery, and his gift was intended to represent modern British art. There were some major names of the past century, such as Reynolds and Gainsborough, but Vernon’s collection was mainly of modern genre painters. There were few historical or classical paintings in the collection, the notable exception being William Etty’s sensuous, even sensual, Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as she Goes to Bed, exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1830. This was never reproduced on wares for the Muggleton audience. His stock, not untypical of that of similar retailers in the expanding provincial cities, demonstrates the multiplicity of visual experience available in the home. They were offered modern designs made by modern industrial methods, and customers bought them—genre scenes for the cabinet and classical motifs for the dressing room. CONTEXTS OF CONSUMPTION The objects under review here were not consumed in isolation from broader contemporary experiences of the classical. Women and men on the Clapham and other omnibuses might not have subjected every building they passed to scrutiny and analysis, but they moved under classical porticoes to enter banks, insurance companies, many churches (not all were Gothic Revival), theatres, art galleries, and museums.35 As the British Empire reached its zenith, and still later, Victorian and Edwardian buildings, modern in their construction, were faced with an eclectic variety of classically based styles. What are now termed immersive experiences were available to urban audiences of broad class-base throughout the century. These were usually ephemeral and included the pre-cinema spectacles of panoramas and dioramas. At the Sydenham Crystal Palace until the fire of 1936, Digby Wyatt and Owen Jones provided generations of often casual visitors with the opportunity to walk through coloured replicas of the past in the form of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Pompeian courts. Photographs of these courts, which had been restored in the 1930s, show them to have been both scholarly and impressive.36 Nichols gives a tour of the classical courts illustrated with contemporary photographs.37 Some of these are from stereoscopic pairs, demonstrating how sometimes monumental classical subjects could assume an early version of virtual reality in the home. Classical and other figures could also enter the home in plaster and cheap ceramic form from itinerant image-sellers.38 Public art galleries proliferated throughout the century and often incorporated classical elements in their architecture. Here visitors were presented with many genres of painting, but classicizing images remained a constant. In 1865 Edward Poynter caught the public mood with a steadfast Roman centurion remaining at his post while volcanic debris rained on Pompeii and its citizens panicked. Faithful unto Death (Manchester Art Gallery) conveyed a message endorsing the British imperial project. The source was the immensely popular novel The Last Days of Pompeii by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, published in 1834 and enjoyed in stage, equestrian, and early film form, with continuous success until the early twentieth century and even beyond.39 This genre arguably began in the theatre, two of the most successful spectacles being Wilson Barrett’s The Sign of the Cross, which ran for 700 performances at the Lyric Theatre, London in 1893, and Ben Hur at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, in 1902. This featured a chariot race on a revolving stage with revolving cyclorama. Connections across genres and media could also be found: for example, chariots and horses as well as sword fights were favoured depictions on down-market ceramic wares. G. L. Ashworth & Co. offered teapots with prints after Flaxman in two versions—one showing Achilles in his chariot and the other adding Hector in tow (fig. 9). The most assiduous, and successful, presenter of the Roman and Greek past was the Dutch-born artist, Lawrence Alma-Tadema, who settled in London. His work and long influence were most recently reassessed at the exhibition at Leighton House and elsewhere in 2017.40 Two of his tableaux are particularly relevant to this article: the first, a tour de force of perspectival skill, presents Phidias and his guests on a scaffold viewing the highly coloured Parthenon frieze. Titled Phidias Showing the Frieze of the Parthenon to his Friends (Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery), this painting of 1868 was often, in past reactions against Victorian art, dubbed ‘Varnishing Day at the Acropolis’. A comparison was thus made between this private view and those at the Royal Academy. However much contemporary critics might have seen Alma-Tadema’s paintings as holding antique mirrors to Victorian life, his scholarship in the non-human details has proved enduring. It might appear to be a controversial painting, confronting the public with the idea that the apparently pure white sculpture of the classical past, here slabs XLI and XLII of the Parthenon frieze, was polychromed.41 As Jenkins recounts, polychromy in architecture and sculpture had been a much debated topic at least since the publication of Hittorf’s L’Architecture polychrome chez les grecs of 1851.42 Nichols refers to a cast of the Parthenon tympanum polychromed by Owen.43 She notes that Alma-Tadema probably saw this in 1862, before he painted his Phidias, and that this painting was not displayed in public until 1877.44 By that time the debate about polychromy had cooled; yet this painting suggests popular awareness of the topic. The polychrome ceramics discussed in this article should be seen in the context of this broader debate about colour and classical art. The other Alma-Tadema painting pertinent to this chapter is that of 1871 now at Manchester Art Gallery, titled both Etruscan Vase Painters and Greek Vase Painters.45 This was not purchased by Manchester until 1980, by which time the artist’s reputation was enjoying a rehabilitation. This has, for the time, a novel element: the vase-painter most prominently featured is female. Doubt remains as to the extent women worked in the ancient ceramics industry, the ambiguous name of Douris being cited. The Alma-Tadema painting appears to be making a pioneering claim here. The painter’s attire is decidedly not that of a Stoke paintress, and she strikes a coy note in an otherwise apparently archaeologically authentic scene. However, the smoke and dirt of both the ancient Kerameikos and contemporary Stoke give way to an ideal classicizing setting. But, as Jenkins has demonstrated in an essay on Frederic Leighton, Alma-Tadema, and Albert Moore, the pots are real and traceable.46 Moore is the artist who comes close to an aesthetic divorced from narrative.47 His aesthetic compositions, sometimes transforming classical statuary into human form, were produced from the 1860s, finding a sympathetic audience at the Grosvenor Gallery from 1877. He was a friend of James McNeill Whistler, supporting him in the famous Whistler v. Ruskin trial.48 Bryant Davies has shown how the Trojan Horse and its cargo of heroes, in the guise of toy theatre scenes and figures, penetrated the walls of the Victorian home. Hales discusses the relative domesticity of the Pompeian Court at the Sydenham Crystal Palace compared to the perceived grandeur of the Greek and Roman courts. She notes that this domesticity could be realized. Close by the courts, the firm of R. Horne offered furnishings that included wall panels in Pompeian mode ready to be carried into the home.49 Such slippage across media and contexts of display is the backdrop against which the consumption of cheap classicizing ceramics should be seen. CONCLUSION It is not the intention of this article to overestimate the number and appeal of the ceramic works discussed here. They were never a sole line of production of any company, but for many they were a steady one. However, it could be argued that evidence of this genre of ceramics is scarce in British public collections. The Potteries Museum has a few fine pieces, as does the Victoria and Albert Museum. Of the items discussed here, Alcock’s de Lamberg vase is owned by a British public collection—the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.50 The role of public collections in presenting exemplars of perceived museum quality inevitably, at least to date, has excluded down-market, popular pieces, often cheaply made. Where these have survived, they are often damaged and repaired with rivets, something which suggests that they were cherished by and had lasting significance for their purchasers and descendants. However crude or naïve these items, they offered some connection with an idea of a deeper European past. This article is intended to be inclusive in presenting all of these objects as worthy of consideration. It is a genre that has defied classification. It would not have fitted Ruskinian views, but falls somewhere between those ‘Commercial Tours-de-Force’ of the 1972 Handley-Read exhibition and the Art Pottery of the later nineteenth century. Many ancient Greek painted pots show traces of blue, green, and pink pigments. But these were cold-painted colours, not fired, and therefore not permanent. Perhaps the Victorian manufacturers were more authentic than they knew. At some future point, a cultural historian might ponder the significance of the tradition, continuing throughout the twentieth century and beyond, of tourists in Greece and Italy purchasing either expensive, finely made reproductions or just cheap souvenirs, dismissed as tourist wares. Both give evidence of a desire for some connection to a classical past by newer classes of visitor who were not, and are not, Grand Tourists. Footnotes 1 For details of dates, marks, and succession of firms see Godden 1991. 2 See the article by J. Morgan in this issue of BICS. 3 Godden 1983: 322–25, 376; Hampson 2000: 2–3. 4 See discussion by E. Hall in this issue of BICS. 5 Though it is unlikely that Staffordshire firms were aware of it, this was the policy of the Giustiniani family, whose Naples factory also had classical pretensions. They produced works large and small for tourists, into the 1830s, often making playful and anachronistic use of classical modes. See Tarizzo, Davies, and Maxwell 2014: 62–63. 6 Atterbury 1989: 174. 7 Atterbury 1989. 8 For an account of the ancient Greek process of production see Williams 1999: 14–16. 9 Wilton and Bignamini 1996; Jenkins and Sloan 1996. 10 Postle 2011: 230–32. 11 For relations and social interaction between connoisseurs, patrons, and dealers see Coltman 2009: 48–83, 159–90, 233–72. 12 For Hamilton’s motivation see Jenkins and Sloan 1996: 59. 13 Dolan 2004: 198, for Wedgwood’s fruitful connection with Lady Jane Cathcart, Hamilton’s sister. See also article by A. Petsalis-Diomidis in this issue of BICS. 14 Hancarville 1766–67, Hamilton and Tischbein 1791–95; Drakard and Holdway 2002: 248–50. 15 T. Kirk’s Outlines from the Figures and Compositions upon the Greek Roman and Etruscan Vases of the Late Sir William Hamilton was published posthumously in London by Bulmer & Co in 1804. 16 For the range of Spode Greek patterns and sources see Moore 2010: 66–150. 17 Morrison 2006: 300–01. Morrison notes the secure environment for women shoppers in the London bazaars of this period. 18 Jones 1986: 31. 19 Drakard and Holdway 2002: 31–42 and 43–59. 20 Walker 2004: 25. 21 The vase remained a symbol of identity for the Potteries. At the historical pageant in May 1930 to celebrate the bicentenary of Josiah Wedgwood young women paraded dressed as Portland vases. 22 See A. Baker in this issue of BICS on the nineteenth-century popular press. 23 See Walker 2004: 37–38 for chemical analysis and 41–63 for interpretation. 24 Berg 2005: 251. 25 I am indebted to Eleanor Matthews, Curator at Brodsworth, for this information. 26 Tarizzo, Davies, and Maxwell: 2014: 8–9. 27 Jervis 1972: see n. 19. 28 Hampson 2000: 3. 29 NMW A14. 30 Wilton and Bignamini 1996: 268–69. 31 Bryant Davies 2018: 253–54. 32 None appear in Cohen 2009. 33 On this publication and Thomas Hope see Petsalis-Diomidis Forthcoming. 34 Hamlyn 1993. 35 See Jenkyns 1991 for comprehensive accounts of the classicizing art and architecture of this period and Goldhill 2011: 23–64 for discussion of contemporary painting. 36 For full accounts and illustrations see Aldridge 1978: 483–684 and Waterfield 2015: 221–22 and 279–80. 37 See Nichols 2015: 10–15. 38 Varick Lauder, in Aymonino and Varick Lauder 2015: 228–31. 39 For the influence of Lytton on the Pompeian Court at the Sydenham Crystal Palace see Hales 2006: 105–07 and Nichols 2015: 60–62. For discussion of Bulwer-Lytton see Goldhill 2011: 193–202. 40 Prettejohn and Trippi 2016. 41 Barrow 2001: 42–45. 42 Jenkins 1992: 48–50. 43 Nichols 2015: 74–75. 44 Nichols 2015: 111. 45 See article by E. Hall in this issue of BICS. 46 Jenkins 1983: 602–05. 47 See Asleson 2000. 48 See Green 1972: 5–29. 49 Hales 2006: 116. 50 It was purchased from the Handley-Read estate and catalogued online as a ‘Two-handled Vase in Antique Style’. It regained public attention, after more than a century, through inclusion in the ground-breaking exhibition Victorian and Edwardian Decorative Art; The Handley-Read Collection, at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1972 (Jervis 1972: 48–49 (no. C18). This collection introduced to a new audience historicist and proto-Modernist works by William Burges and Christopher Dresser and other designers not then well appreciated. The polychrome vase was displayed in a section entitled ‘Commercial Tours-de-Force: Renaissance and Eclectic Influences’, where it sat incongruously with examples of the other Victorian historicist styles. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldridge R. 1978 : The Shows of London , Cambridge, MA . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Asleson R. 2000 : Albert Moore , New Haven, CT and London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Atterbury P. (ed.) 1989 : The Parian Phenomenon , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Aymonino A. , Varick Lauder A. 2015 : Drawn from the Antique: Artists and the Classical Ideal , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Barrow R. J. 2001 : Lawrence Alma-Tadema , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Berg M. 2005 : Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth-Century Britain , Oxford . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bryant Davies R. 2018: Troy, Carthage and the Victorians , Cambridge . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Cohen D. 2009 : Household Gods: The British and their Possessions , New Haven, CT and London Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Coltman V. 2009 : Classical Sculpture and the Culture of Collecting in Britain since 1760 , Oxford . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Dolan B. 2004 : Josiah Wedgwood: Entrepreneur to the Enlightenment , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Drakard D. , Holdway P. 2002 : Spode Transfer Printed Ware 1784–1833 , Woodbridge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Godden G. 1983 : Staffordshire Porcelain , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Godden G. 1991 : Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Goldhill S. 2011 : Victorian Culture and Classical Antiquity , Princeton, NJ . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Green R. 1972 : Albert Moore and his Contemporaries , Newcastle upon Tyne . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hales S. J. 2006 : ‘Re-casting Antiquity: Pompeii and the Crystal Palace’ , Arion , 14 , 99– 134 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Hamilton W. , Tischbein J. H. W. 1791 –95: Collection of Engravings from Ancient Vases of Greek Workmanship: Discovered in Sepulchres in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies but Chiefly in the Neighbourhood of Naples during the Course of the Years MDCCLXXXIX and MDCCLXXXX Now in the Possession of Sir Wm. Hamilton, His Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extry. And Plenipotentiary at the Court of Naples with Remarks on Each Vase by the Collector (3 vols), Naples. Hamlyn R. 1993 : Robert Vernon’s Gift: British Art for the Nation , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hampson R. 2000 : Pottery References in the Staffordshire Advertiser 1795–1865 , Hanley. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hancarville P. d’ 1766 –67: Collection of Etruscan, Greek, and Roman Antiquities from the Cabinet of the Hon. W. Hamilton, etc (4 vols), Naples . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hope T. 1809 and 1812: Costumes of the Ancients , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Jenkins I. 1983 : ‘ Frederic, Lord Leighton and Greek vases’ , Burlington Magazine , 125, 597–605 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Jenkins I. 1992 : Archaeologists & Aesthetes in the Sculpture Galleries of the British Museum 1800–1939 , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Jenkins I. , Sloan K. 1996 : Vases and Volcanoes: Sir William Hamilton and his Collection , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Jenkyns R. 1991 : Dignity and Decadence: Victorian Art and the Classical Heritage , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Jervis S. 1972 : Victorian and Edwardian Decorative Art: The Handley-Read Collection , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Jones O. 1986 [1856]: The Grammar of Ornament , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC de Laborde A. L. J. 1813 : Collection des vases grecs de Mr le Comte de Lamberg, expliquée et publiée par le Comte de Laborde , Paris . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Moore N. 2010 : Spode Greek [place of publication not stated]. Morrison K. A. 2006 : ‘ Bazaars and bazaar buildings in Regency and Victorian London’ , Georgian Group Journal , 15 , 281– 309 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Nichols K. 2015 : Greece and Rome at the Crystal Palace , Oxford . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Petsalis-Diomidis A. Forthcoming : ‘The graphic medium and artistic style: Thomas Hope (1769–1831) and two-dimensional encounters with Greek vases’, in Meyer C., Petsalis-Diomidis A. (eds), Drawing the Greek Vase: Classical Reception between Art and Archaeology , Oxford . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Postle M. (ed.) 2011 : Johann Zoffany RA: Society Observed , New Haven, CT and London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Prettejohn E. , Trippi P. (eds) 2016 : Lawrence Alma-Tadema: At Home in Antiquity , Munich, London, and New York, NY . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Tarizzo E. , Davies E., Maxwell C. 2014 : Il Grand Tour , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Walker S. 2004 , rev. 2015: The Portland Vase , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Waterfield G. 2015 : The People’s Galleries: Art Museums and Exhibitions in Britain 1800–1914 , New Haven, CT and London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Wilton A., and Bignamini I. (eds) 1996 : Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Williams D. 1999 : Greek Vases , London . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Institute of Classical Studies. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Archaeology in the home: neoclassical ceramics for new audiences in mid-nineteenth-century Britain
JF - Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
DO - 10.1093/bics/qbaa008
DA - 2020-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/archaeology-in-the-home-neoclassical-ceramics-for-new-audiences-in-mid-bZ2m1TFEpP
SP - 72
EP - 88
VL - 63
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -