E. W. Godwin (1833-86) was a Victorian architect-designer who balanced historical precedent with innovation, “high” with “low” art, and exotic with vernacular to become the master of “judicious eclecticism.” Two recent books on his practice, E. W. Godwin: Aesthetic Movement Architect and Designer and The Secular Furniture of E. W. Godwin, should be read as a pair. Undoubtedly, Susan Soros—editor of the first and author of the second—agrees, as she often refers the reader of one to the other. The former was published in conjunction with an exhibition of the same title held at the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, New York; the latter is a catalogue raisonné of furniture by Godwin based on Soros’s dissertation for the Royal College of Art. Both are coffee-table books that belong on library shelves. Although they are lavish, packed with color illustrations, and fun just to leaf through, they balance glamour with substance and beauty with scholarship.

Many authoritative biographies about nineteenth-century British architects have appeared during a relatively recent wave of pro-Victorian scholarship, beginning with Andrew Saint’s Richard Norman Shaw (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976). Although Soros and her team of authors deliver good material, they fall short of Saint’s stellar scholarship and elegant prose. These Godwin books, however, are a testament to the high standard of architectural exhibition catalogues of late. Soros benefited from recent blockbuster exhibitions of the work of A. W. N. Pugin, William Morris, and C. R. Macintosh, and, appropriately, enlisted the help of organizers of and contributors to those projects, namely Linda Parry, who edited William Morris (New York: Abrams, 1996); Clive Wainwright, who coedited Pugin: A Gothic Passion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994) with Paul Atterbury; and Juliet Kinchin, who contributed a masterful chapter to Charles Rennie Mackintosh, edited by Wendy Kaplan (New York: Abbeville Press, 1996).

In E.W. Godwin: Aesthetic Movement Architect and Designer, eleven scholars from myriad disciplines seek to dispel myths about this previously marginalized Victorian. The consensus throughout is that Godwin was a brilliant designer whose difficult personality and controversial life undermined his actual legacy. He had as many guises as he had interests: you’ll find photographs of him in medieval dress in his early thirties; as a distinguished gentleman, nearly fifty years of age; and as a friar posing with the cast of As You Like It. Although no account of a complex human can be simple, all of the book’s chapters contribute to the whole with little overlap and few omissions, a surprising success for such a comprehensive undertaking. Soros, already having triumphed as founder and director of the Bard Graduate Center, edited the volume and wrote the introduction, along with Chapters 7 and 8 on Godwin’s interior design and furniture. In Chapters 1-5, contributors trace the development of Godwin’s rearing, education, training, and influences, while in Chapters 6-12, they reveal the complexity of his career and multifaceted talents. We are given seven fields in which he designed: architecture, interior design, furniture, textiles, wallpaper, ceramics, and theater. The authors endeavor to prove Godwin’s ability in a particular field, but a synthetic overview of these disparate aspects of his career would have been especially useful. For example, Chapters 9-11—focusing more on decorative arts—beg for a single, continuous narrative. This could enrich the text, identify patterns of influence, and construct an overall evolution, or lack thereof, in his design process. Moreover, Chapters 2 and 4 would benefit from being consecutive: first “E. W. Godwin as an Antiquary” and then “E. W. Godwin and Modernism”—a vital pair in contrasts.

With Lionel Lambourne’s opening and concluding chapters, Soros creates a subtle symmetry. Lambourne begins by comparing Godwin’s career to a Japanese puzzle and ends with an observation by Sherlock Holmes, “Art in the blood can take strange forms.” These chapters are highly original, dealing with Godwin as an aesthetic polymath and his legacy of formal influence—two topics previously unexplored. This is where we glimpse Godwin’s humanity and personality, revealed in both the text and photographs. We move beyond the genius of the designer and the legacy of a thirty-year career to begin to understand the complexities of one man. He was, after all, not only a designer, but also a Victorian, a son, a brother, a lover, a husband, and a father. He surrounded himself with beauty, like Persian rugs and Nankin china, and personalities, such as Oscar Wilde, J. M. Whistler, and Ellen Terry. All seemed to inspire greatness in him. This is where we begin to make connections between the designs we know (or think we know) and the designer. We link Godwin’s inner self with his creations. Lambourne pulls Godwin from the shadows and reveals him to us in at least partial daylight.

A project of this magnitude inevitably reveals a disparity in the quality of scholarship. On the one hand, Juliet Kinchin’s illuminating discussion of Godwin and modernism in Chapter 4 reveals him to be a protomodernist and cult figure, as well as a risk-taker (artistically, financially, and emotionally). Convincingly, she presents his designs as a bridge between the historicism of the nineteenth century and the originality of the twentieth. On the other, consider Chapter 5: even though Richard W. Hayes alludes to Godwin’s architecture criticism, the reader is permitted only snippets of Godwin’s artistic sensibilities, acerbic wit, and cunning intellect. This is a missed opportunity.

If the quality of the chapters is inconsistent, the contributors agree in their assertion that Godwin achieved depth in each of his many endeavors. Admirably, Godwin broadened his scope and tested his greatness in many fields. One wonders what further depths he might have reached had he focused his genius intently on just one medium. As Wainwright attests in a brilliant preface, Godwin may, as a result of this volume, finally compare favorably with his more appreciated colleagues, Pugin in particular. Godwin is no longer just the creator of scattered architectural masterpieces (e.g., Northampton Town Hall [1861-64], Dromore Castle in County Limerick [1866-73], or Frank Miles House and Studio [1878-79]) who strayed from a promising architectural practice to dabble in the “low” arts of product design and the theater. With this scholarship, Godwin is shown to be a gifted designer whose flexibility and versatility enabled him to advance distinct disciplines. While predecessors and peers were tormented by genius (Pugin) or cowered from it (Nesfield), Godwin was propelled by it. In spite of harsh criticisms during his lifetime, he persevered, and after more than a century of subsequent admonishments and obscurity, his career and legacy may now stand uncontested.

No less revelatory than the text are the chronology, checklist of more than 150 exhibits, and bibliography in E. W. Godwin: Aesthetic Movement Architect and Designer. Their usefulness as reference materials inextricably link them to The Secular Furniture of E. W. Godwin. This superior furniture catalogue is divided by type: chairs, tables, cabinets, miscellaneous, and other designs inspired by Godwin’s work. Within the sections, objects are arranged chronologically, and Soros carefully attributes doubtful pieces. Unfortunately, Godwin’s business records and ledgers have been lost; nevertheless, Soros has done a commendable job reconstructing his practice. She divides the introduction into nearly two dozen sections and ties together disparate projects, styles, influences, and sources. Sections range from the expected—Gothic, Anglo-Egyptian, Anglo-Greek, Jacobean or Old English, Cottage, Queen Anne, Anglo-Japanese—to the unexpected—"The Sanitary Approach to Furniture Design," “Designs for Pianos and Other Music-Related Items,” and “Plagiarism of Godwin’s Designs.” Although an extensive list of his writings appears in the bibliographies of both books, the section entitled “Godwin’s Publications Relating to Furniture and Interior Design” is tantalizingly brief. After all, Soros admits that Godwin used his architectural journalism to promote himself and his designs. What a gem for a biographer to have such a wealth of opinions and ideas of her subject, yet we—presumably never before having had the opportunity to read all these articles—learn little in either of these volumes about Godwin’s penchant for writing. These complaints do not diminish the value of the text; they merely point the way for future endeavors.

Soros has memorialized more than just E. W. Godwin. Both books contain the spirit of the late Dr. Clive Wainwright. Soros dedicates the exhibition catalogue to Wainwright, as he died shortly after he wrote the preface. She also formally acknowledges him in the furniture catalogue as her doctoral supervisor, “friend, scholar, and mentor.” He, like Godwin, was an antiquarian with a pioneering spirit. Alas, they both died in their fifties—too soon.