ヴィクトリアン・ゴシック末期の様式論 : その 3. アン女王様式形成における J. J. スティーヴンソンと E. R. ロブソンの位置

Reviewed by: Critical Voices: Women and Art Criticism in Britain, 1880-1905 Julie F. Codell (bio) Meaghan Clarke, Critical Voices: Women and Art Criticism in Britain, 1880-1905 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. xi + 214 , 37 illus.,$99.95/£55.00 cloth. Meaghan Clarke's groundbreaking study of Victorian women art writers examines their writing from different aesthetic and institutional frameworks and across all levels of periodicals-art journals, women's magazine, quarterlies, monthlies and newspapers-and reveals a female presence in art criticism more active than Victorians and subsequent scholars have recognized. "Both visually and textually, art was crucial to the market of journals, but simultaneously journals were crucial to the art market" (2), Clarke observes, succinctly articulating a vital relationship that embraced class, symbolic capital, and cultural nationalism. Furthermore, Clarke's explorations of the intersections among Victorian feminisms, art writing, and periodicals reveal women critics' elastic views about gender, itself ever-changing during the period. Positioned within and outside institutional loci (Royal Academy, other artists' professional organizations, journalism, individual periodicals' cultural authority), women art critics occupied diverse positions and used their writing about art as a vehicle for social and political, as well as aesthetic, agendas. Clarke deploys a notion of "tactic" as a planned means of intervening without having authority to do so (from Michel de Certeau), often from a border or "para-site" that is marginal yet subversive (from Rey Chow). Chapter 2 surveys Victorian art journalism, several women critics' careers, books for women on professions, editors' attitudes, women in public spaces, the role of university education as journalism became professionalized, and how women negotiated low pay, marriage [End Page 256] (their names were trademarks), and New Journalism. Clarke explores women's criticism in relation to institutions like salons and socio-professional networks both mixed in gender and all-female, to underscore the irony that women "were establishing the field and marginalized within it" (18-19) in "a complexity of masculine and feminine performances, concealing and revealing named identities, a tactic which enabled women to claim discursive authority in a variety of contexts" (23). Here Clarke conveys women's unstable positions on several fronts (femininity, journalism). Chapter 3 focuses on Alice Meynell's prolific career. Meynell and husband Wilfrid wrote under the pseudonyms Alice and John Oldcastle, which disguised them when promoting Wilfrid's work and that of their artist friends. Meynell also wrote anonymously for many different periodicals, including the Pen, the Weekly Register, Merry England, the Magazine of Art, the Pall Mall Gazette, the National Observer, and the World. Her growing reputation assisted that of her popular painter-sister Elizabeth Thompson Butler. (Such puffing was so widespread that Meynell's was hardly unusual.) Meynell contributed to popular artists' biographies and studio interviews by writing on male academicians and women artists. She championed the Royal Academy and was engaged in debates over the nude which, as Clarke notes, were often about women seeing or painting nudes, not nudes per se. Meynell argued that women were not morally compromised by seeing nudes. Admiring the Pre-Raphaelites, Meynell also appreciated impressionism and French-influenced Newlyn painters. She later devoted herself exclusively to suffrage. Chapter 4 is on Florence Fenwick Miller, who wrote in over a dozen periodicals between the 1870s and the 1910s. From a less cultured family than Meynell's, she received a medical degree from the Ladies' Medical College, ran for the London School Board, and became a "platform" woman. She focused on women artists' biographies, which Meynell did not, promoting those she considered "great" (her A-list included Rosa Bonheur, Louise Jopling, Henrietta Rae, Henrietta Ward). Writing a women's column in the London Illustrated News, she "conjoined dress and art, slipping between the two discourses" (94). As editor of the Woman's Signal (1895-99), she wrote to promote feminism through biographies and reviews of women's art in international exhibitions, largely ignored or denigrated by male critics. Through art, she promoted women's equality to a broad readership. Chapter 5 focuses on American Elizabeth Robins Pennell, who, like Meynell, worked in collaboration with her British husband. Clarke offers new archival information about Pennell's authorship, information badly needed for many women journalists. Unlike...

A VERY remarkable Report has been received by the London School Board from a Special Committee appointed by it a year ago “to consider the present subjects and modes of instruction in the Board schools, and to report whether such changes can be made as shall secure that children leaving school shall be more fitted than they now are to perform the duties and work of life before them.”1

Focusing upon the twenty-nine female members of the London School Board, this thesis examines the position of women Involved with the institution of elementary education in late-Victorian and Edwardian England. It is usually assumed that the responsibility for mass schooling mostly lay with men working within both central and local government, I have gone beyond this perspective in order to examine the problem of class and gender as competing power structures in the development of an English school system. The Issue of gender Is addressed by investigating both gender relations on the various School Boards for London, and the relationship between contemporary notions of masculinity and femininity and elementary education between 1870 and 1904. In exploring the ways in which the social inequalities of gender shaped and influenced women's experience of public office, the study goes some way towards correcting the emphasis upon predominantly male agents in existing historical accounts of the relationship between the educational structure and society and the inter-relationship of its component parts. Focusing upon the biographies of female members of the London School Board, the thesis explores the links between private life, social networks and the entry of women to the public domain. It examines the stance adopted by individual London School Board women on the formal curriculum, the adminstration of reformatory institutions, and attitudes towards working class children In school, considered In terms of the Interplay of the social divisions of gender and class.

AN impression seems to prevail that only those persons should be placed on the Metropolitan School Board who are already acquainted with the details of education. Against this principle we protest. We Lope the new schools will be great improvements upon those which already exist. When we are told by the Bishop of Manchester that a third of these schools only are efficient, that a third are inefficient, and that a third are wholly useless, if not pernicious, it is high time that the whole system should be looked into by those who will come fresh to the inquiry, unencumbered with the ideas that have led to such disastrous results. We think, then, the public should look to that instructed body of men who are known as cultivators of science to represent them on the London School Board. Already we are glad to see signs that the class of persons we have named have found favour in the eyes of London electors. The selection of Professor Huxley and Dr. Elizabeth Garrett, as candidates for Marylebone, is highly creditable to that district of the metropolis; but their hands must be upheld by a very much larger number of candidates, if common sense and intelligence are to prevail at the councils of the School Board.

Page 281, col. 2, line 24, for 'school boards' read 'board schools.' Page 285, col. 1, line 18, for '$68,500' read '$342,500.'

This thesis provides the first comprehensive examination of how children’s abilities were ‘classified’ and managed in London, following the creation of school places under the 1870 Elementary Education Act. It explores how new schools (known as Board Schools), shaped and were shaped by the diverse social, physical and mental capabilities of London’s children. I argue it was only through administering the 1870 Education Act across such a diverse city that a right to schooling was shown to be not enough, children needed a right to learn. Yet learning was not uniform and different authorities could not agree on how and what children needed for successful learning. The idea of the Board School and its students would become increasingly pluralistic. In 1874 the School Board for London (SBL) described it as its ‘duty’ to educate London’s near half a million child-population. In order to realise this duty ideas of school and child were challenged. This thesis examines how these ideas developed from the implementation of the Education Act in 1870 to the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913 prior to the Great War. I unpick how children and their learning began to be classified by teachers, inspectors, doctors and local and national government bodies. In so doing I demonstrate how children’s abilities and disabilities, their origins and impact, could be both challenged and reinforced by the education system. Legislation and reports of Royal Commissions and government departments provide some of the voices and context for this study, but it is only by focusing on individual schools within The Capital that the day-to-day realities of classification emerges. Such focus reveals how and why the identification and treatment of children with perceived physical and mental ‘defects’ is a history which must be seen as part, not set apart, from the development of elementary schooling.

The rapid programme of school building undertaken across Glasgow by the School Boards (1873–1919) left the city with a rich legacy of architecture designed by the top architects of the day. This was in contrast to most other UK cities whose Board schools were designed by a single, directly employed architect. Most analysis of the Glasgow Boards’ output has tended to focus on individual schools in isolation, primarily (and with good reason) Charles Rennie Mackintosh's Martyrs’ and Scotland Street Schools. However, this approach overlooks the context within which the Board Schools were designed, built and operated. This paper aims to redress the balance, by providing an overview of the creation of the School Boards, the commissioning of architects, development of school design and the educational and social impact of the Boards, with a view to highlighting the importance of what remains of Glasgow's often neglected School Board heritage today.

In 1873, 38-year-old Jane Agnes Chessar was elected to serve on the new single-purpose educational authority called the London School Board. She had already won for herself considerable standing in the metropolis, where she spent most of her adult life, and was returned with the support of some among the leadership of the nineteenthcentury women’s movement. Her successful election illustrates the tenacity of the social relationships that underlay feminist organizations due to her close connections with the Langham Place group, established in the 1850s and named after its cultural centre in London’s West End. Employment in teacher education meant she shared professional concerns with the headmistress, Frances Buss, and with Emily Davies, the founder of Girton College, Cambridge, who were both equally dedicated to the foundation of new educational opportunities for women. Emily Davies was a very close friend of the pioneer doctor, Elizabeth Garrett, another prominent member of the Langham Place Circle. This forum served as a conduit for political patronage in the school board division of Marylebone, where Jane Chessar took over the Garrett seat.

This article explores the process by which different elements of the material culture of educational settings, including learning tools, classroom design and other aspects of the physical environment that embody a particular educational philosophy, become transmuted when taken over by those with very different pedagogical aims. The article focuses on the adaptation of Froebel’s kindergarten pedagogy for the Babies’ Classes and Infant Schools established by the London School Board from 1870 to 1904 and opens with a brief historiography of infant education in London in this period. The development of infant education in the UK was underpinned by a very different approach to the education of young children from that evident in the Froebelian kindergarten and the article identifies the role played by Samuel Wilderspin in shaping practice in London’s Infant Schools and the control exerted by the Education Department through Her Majesty’s Inspectorate. Key aspects of Froebel’s educational philosophy are described, suggesting how the physical environment, the learning materials (the Gifts and Occupations) and elements of the curriculum embodied his ideas. An account of the reception of Froebel’s kindergarten pedagogy in the UK precedes an interrogation of practice in London’s Babies’ and Infant classes, demonstrating the hiatus between the aims and intentions of Froebel and those of the School Board and central government, which funded the provision of infant education. However, tensions arose between those infant teachers seeking to introduce less rigid methods drawing on Froebel’s pedagogy and the Inspectorate. Reference to visual evidence from schools and kindergartens, together with committee minutes and logbooks, is used to support the argument. The changing emphasis in Froebel’s writings between free play and creative activity and a more prescriptive, adult‐led model of practice provided grounds for differing interpretations of his ideas, exemplified by the revisionist debate within the Froebel movement at the turn of the century, which reveals dissenting voices concerning orthodox practice within the Froebel camp itself. The conclusion suggests that, despite the limitations in the interpretation of his educational philosophy, Froebel’s pragmatism may have led him to approve the use of his materials in London’s Babies’ Classes and Infant Schools

Drawing on the autobiographical writings of Florence Fenwick Miller in regard to the development of mass education, the article explores the part women played as education-makers in the period 18701904. The articles focuses on the 29 women elected to serve on the School Board for London, examining contributions from Miller in order to consider the links between gender and the politics of education. Moving on, the article discusses the varied influence and policy priorities of women members through the use of three case studies: the schoolgirls’ curriculum, the interests of women teachers and school attendance. Analysis of these activist women reveals the tension between more radical independent women who wanted to change the business of politics and those who gave high priority to their role as party representatives.

List of Illustrations Acknowledgements 1. Apprenticeship in Education 2. The Board School Teacher, 1882-1892 3. The 'Schoolmaster' 4. The London School Board, 1894-1897 5. President of the NUT 6. The London School Board, 1897-1900 7. Parliament, 1900-1902 8. The 1902 Education Act 9. The End of the London School Board 10. The Decline of the Unionist Government, 1903-1905 11.Outside and Inside the Government, 1905-1908 12. Financial Secretary to the Admiralty I: 1908-1914 13. Financial Secretary to the Admiralty II: 1914-1920 14. Minister of Labour 15 Exclusion Notes Bibliography Index

(2000). Working for the people? Mrs Bridges Adams and the London School Board, 1897-1904. History of Education: Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 49-62.

(1982). Parents, children, school fees and the London School Board 1870‐1890. History of Education: Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 291-312.

The conflict of interests between the idea of children as cheap labour and the idea that children could serve the nation’s economy better if they were educated and healthy took some time to resolve during the nineteenth century. Factory and Workshops Acts, introduced from 1819, regulated the age from which children could work, the type of work they could do, and the hours of their employment. The first Elementary Education Act was introduced in 1870 and further Acts were put in place in 1873, 1874, 1876 and 1880. These operated in conjunction with the Coal Mines’ Regulation Act (1872) and the Factory and Workshops Act (1833–78), to regulate both the hours of education of employed children and the hours of their labour. School Boards were established across the country to manage educational activities within local authorities, but they only had jurisdiction over schools which were subsidised by the local rates and at which it was forbidden to teach any ‘religious catechism or religious formula which is the distinction of any particular denomination.’580 Although Board Schools were subsidised there was still a fee for attendance: the maximum fee was 9d per week, while the average fee in England was 3d per week. Alongside Board Schools there were Voluntary Schools. These were not subsidised by the rates, the attendance fee was generally higher than 3d per week, and they were at liberty to teach the religious creed of any denomination.

The origins of William Hunter’s town house at 16 Great Windmill Street, Westminster, began with a petition to the First Lord of the Treasury, the third Earl of Bute, requesting a piece of land on which to build a ‘great school’ of anatomy. Hunter believed a school dedicated to the science and patronised by the King, would reflect a work of ‘publick magnificence’ commensurate with the capital’s cultural and commercial ambitions. In this sense, Hunter’s project belongs amongst the fiercely contested sites of London’s elite environs during the second half of the eighteenth century; sites such as those delineated by John Gwynn in his London and Westminster Improved (1766). While Hunter’s proposed scheme was never realised, his house at Great Windmill Street surpassed its initial objective, as Robert Mylne’s design incorporated a school of anatomy alongside an extensive collection of natural history, books, coins, paintings, prints and drawings. The interiors were designed to reflect the pre-eminence of Hunter’s collections overall, with marble fireplaces, richly painted ceilings, and mahogany cabinets. As this paper explains, an interior dedicated to scientific research quickly emerged behind the domestic facade of Great Windmill Street, animating the worlds of anatomy, natural history, and the fine arts. William Hunter’s museum, like the Soho Square mansion of Sir Joseph Banks, acted as a centre to the periphery of a nascent scientific community with one distinctive feature however; as the home of the first Professor of Anatomy at the Royal Academy of Arts, it not only served to provide instruction to physicians and surgeons but to artists also. As one contemporary remarked: ‘Dr. Hunter’s fine injection [anatomical preparation] is like a painters’, (Cruickshank, 1779) demonstrating how Hunter and his London home foregrounded anatomy within the cultural sphere of fine art practice.. As this chapter explains, Hunter’s house, of which only the facade remains today, initiated a model building type in London during the second half of the eighteenth century, when the capital became a focal point for the material and visual projections of Britain’s imperial ambitions. While prospective plans for garden squares, symmetrically aligned terraces and monumental vistas aimed to please the geographical and topographical aesthetics of the city, the domestic interiors of London’s town houses encased the physical expressions of enlightenment commerce and trade, travel, exploration, art and architecture. In this chapter, Hunter’s house is compared with that of William’s younger brother, the surgeon John Hunter (1728-1793) and the naturalist Sir Joseph Banks (1743-1820). These homes contained the collections of gentleman naturalists, acquired over their lifetimes, and are representative of a form of early science dominated by a single-minded motivation. They acted as centres to the periphery of scientific experiment and exploration, and the contents of their drawing rooms, libraries, herbariums and galleries were directly and physically connected to the wider realms of street and city, nation and empire. The lasting significance of all three of these men’s homes lies in the formation of collections as products of knowledge, interconnected with the pedagogical aims of two of the most prominent public institutions with which they were aligned: the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Arts.