Introduction

John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, the 3rd Marquess of Bute (1847–1900), was a prolific patron of architecture and the arts. Described as ‘the best unprofessional architect of his generation’, Bute was a passionate, eccentric, and meticulous client.¹ He enjoyed actively participating in the design process and worked collaboratively with architects, artists, and craftsmen. Together with his wife Gwendolen (née Fitzalan-Howard), the Marquess and Marchioness formed some of the most productive creative partnerships with makers and designers in Victorian Britain.

As one of the richest men in Britain, Bute was afforded the luxury of being liberal with his budgets and timelines. On the subject of his many lengthy building projects, the Marquess remarked, ‘Why should I hurry over what is my chief pleasure […]. I have a considerable taste for art and archaeology and happily the means to indulge them.’² He was involved in some sixty building projects during his lifetime, including the houses and properties that were owned by the Bute family during the late nineteenth century. Within this vast portfolio were Mount Stuart, Dumfries House, Cardiff Castle, Castell Coch, St John’s Lodge, House of Falkland, and Old Place of Mochrum, and Bute commissioned significant architectural work at each property.

In 1877, after a devastating fire destroyed the central block of Mount Stuart, his eighteenth-century ancestral seat on the Isle of Bute in Scotland, the Marquess chose to reconstruct in the Gothic Revival style. He employed the Edinburgh architect Sir Robert Rowand Anderson (1834–1921) to lead on the rebuilding of the fantastical mansion. Mount Stuart would occupy Bute for twenty years, from 1880 until his death in 1900.

Despite having a long and fruitful partnership with Anderson, there was one architect who the Butes preferred to all others — William Burges (Fig. 1). With a shared sense of humour, a love of travel, colour, animals, and a passion for the romantic medieval past, the dynamic between client and architect transformed into friendship. Bute’s vast wealth and Burges’s playful imagination and exacting standards combined to create carefully crafted buildings and interiors, and it can be argued that the trajectory of their partnership can be traced through the objects they created. Each item marks a significant milestone, and reveals another facet of the collaborative friendship between Burges and Bute. The complementary contribution of another important figure in the shared creative lives of Burges and Bute — Lady Gwendolen, the 3rd Marchioness — will also be examined.

Fig. 1: From left to right: John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart; William Burges, after Henry Van der Weyde, watercolour over photograph (c. 1878–81), NPG P552 © National Portrait Gallery, London. CC BY 4.0; Lady Gwendolen, 3rd Marchioness of Bute (c. 1872). Photograph by J. Collins of 47 Bute Street, Cardiff. Image courtesy of author.

The young 3rd Marquess of Bute

The early influence of Bute’s mother, Lady Sophia Crichton-Stuart (née Lady Sophia Frederica Christina Rawdon-Hastings), had an enormous impact on the future Marquess (Fig. 2). Sophia was highly intelligent, decisive, and fiercely determined in character. After the sudden death of her husband in 1848, his ambiguous will left her battling with her brother-in-law Lord James Stuart for the occupation of Cardiff Castle. Motivated by the advantages that the castle afforded for her son, she ultimately succeeded and finally took residence two years later.³

Fig. 2: James Rannie Swinton, Young 3rd Marquess and His Mother (1855), oil on canvas, 236 × 146 cm. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Sophia prioritized travel and education, and took her son on his first trip to the Continent at the age of 8, where his interest in travel, religion, and ceremony were first established.⁴ She surrounded herself with a close circle of well-read female friends, including Norah Boyle and Lady Elizabeth Moore, and hosted evening parties and tableaux vivants.⁵ Lady Sophia also encouraged her son to take an interest in Welsh culture and the maintenance of Cardiff Castle, and spent much time devoted to his education and in the development of his interests. At the tender age of 11, young Bute had already shown an enthusiastic interest in architecture and restoration. In Bute’s ‘newspapers’ — The Pilgrim’s Gazette and Mount Stuart Weekly Journal — he describes the repairs to the Ladies’ Walk in 1859:

A rather important work of repair was concluded at Cardiff Castle on Monday — a part of the old walls called Ye Ladye’s Walke, had become much overgrown and was found to be in a dangerous state — the parapet especially, having much crumbled away — a thorough repair has been executed by Mr. Burnett, Clerk of the works, at the express wish of Ld Bute — the wall has been freshly cemented, and the parapet is now, on the inner side, as complete as possible, having been nearly rebuilt; the outer side is not at all present meddled with, we presume, on account of the luxuriant ivy which covers it.⁶

Sophia died at the young age of 50 in 1859 of Bright’s disease. Bute, who was only 12, was devastated and left orphaned. While he had gained lifelong interests in theology, travel, languages, and a firm belief in the equality of the sexes from his mother’s circles and influence, the next period of his life was marked by the unhappy custody battle that ensued. Bute subsequently retreated into the worlds of art, history, and religion for comfort, and grew up to be a mature, studious, and rather intense young man.

Bute and Burges

Bute first met William Burges in Cardiff in 1865, one year before he started at Christ Church, University of Oxford.⁷ This meeting likely came about through a connection to Burges’s civil engineer father Alfred, whose chief engineer John McConnochie at his firm Walker, Burges & Cooper was involved in the construction of the Bute Docks in Cardiff. While outwardly, the two men may have seemed an unnatural pair, particularly since the shy 18-year-old Bute was twenty years younger than Burges, the two men had many common passions. Both wanted to immerse themselves in the romantic medieval past, and both had fathers who were actively engaged in the engineering, commerce, and subsequent wealth of the Industrial Revolution. The 2nd Marquess of Bute had been responsible for the development of the Bute Docks and the export of the vast mineral weath from his South Wales lands, and Alfred Burges likewise left his son William with wealth totalling £113,000.⁸ In their own ways, Burges and Bute both rejected their fathers’ entrepreneurial spirits for their shared belief in a life filled with artistic beauty and the educational benefits of antiquarianism.

Bute and Burges were deeply interested in the study of antiquities, literature, iconography, artefacts, archaeology, heraldry, and heritage. In 1873 Bute wrote that ‘my luxury is art, and perhaps the favourite pursuit Antiquarianism, as History is the favourite reading’.⁹ A conscientious writer, editor, and academic, Bute contributed thirty-six articles to the Scottish Review, including the translation of Bikelas’s Seven Essays on the Byzantine Empire in 1886.¹⁰ He was a supporter of the British School at Athens and the leading patron of the Byzantine Research Fund. However, his most monumental achievement was the translation of the Roman Breviary in its entirety from Latin to English and totalling 1330 pages. He was an avid and enthusiastic traveller, visiting, among other countries, Iceland, Russia, Palestine, Egypt, Malta, Greece, Italy, Armenia, Germany, Syria, Turkey, Kurdistan, and Spain.¹¹

The Marquess also worked exclusively with architects who approached their designs and buildings with a near archaeological respect to historical detail — Robert Rowand Anderson, John Kinross, Robert Weir Schultz, Horatio Walter Lonsdale, Nathaniel H. J. Westlake, and William Burges included. In his series of published lectures, Art Applied to Industry, Burges described two uses for antiquarian studies:

One of them is to enable us to conjure up as if by the magician’s wand the dress, furniture, architecture &c., of past ages, so that we can live, as it were, in many centuries almost at the same moment […]. The other use of antiquarian studies is to restore disused arts, and to get all the good we can out of them for our own improvement.¹²

Burges championed the artistic education of architects and designers, and was constantly travelling and cultivating his broad range of expertise. In 1862 and 1863 alone he wrote on vast and varied subjects including a Florentine exhibition of medieval art, loans at the South Kensington Museum in London (renamed the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1899), Swedish ecclesiastical work, the Japanese Court at the 1862 International Exhibition, salt cellars and ornamental altar cloths in Austria, and cathedrals, cemeteries, and mosaics in France.¹³ Burges was also a voracious collector, and regularly supplemented his antiquarian interiors with genuine antiques. His collection of armour, ivories, and illuminated manuscripts was bequeathed to the British Museum.¹⁴ The initial meeting of two like-minded men led to one of the first pieces of work that Burges produced for Bute — a report on the rebuilding of the Southern Wall of Cardiff Castle, containing elegant calligraphy, vivid watercolours, and detailed plans throughout (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: William Burges, Cardiff Castle Report on the Southern Wall (1866), pencil, pen/ink, and watercolour on paper. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Burges went on to prepare hundreds of designs for Cardiff Castle, and it was arguably the most important artistic opportunity of his career. His work at Cardiff continued from 1866 until his death in 1881, and he designed across the media of painting, mosaic, stonework, metalwork, marquetry and wood, stained glass, and textiles. Among his rich decorative schemes and gilded interiors was a group of exuberant silver objects, produced for use on the dining table at Cardiff Castle, and nearly all made by Jes Barkentin (Fig. 4). The trajectory of the partnership between Bute and Burges can be traced through these objects. Representing the riches of the Bute Collection at Mount Stuart, each item discussed below marks a significant milestone, and reveals another facet of the friendship between Burges and Lord and Lady Bute.

Fig. 4: Cardiff Castle Plate, designed by William Burges. From left to right: water bottle (1880), Cat Cup (1867), cruet set (1877), chalice and cover (1875), claret jug (1869); front: cutlery (1879) and fish plate (1868). © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Claret jug

The claret jug (or decanter) was a favourite object type of Burges. He made at least three of these vessels — including one for the merchant James Nicholson, and two for his own use at Tower House in Kensington, London — with the similar form of a spherical glass bottle mounted in silver, with straps featuring round bosses and set with gemstones. Today, there are examples of Burges’s jugs in the Fitzwilliam Collection, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the Higgins Bedford.

However, the iconography of the claret jug made for Lord Bute is without any known comparative examples (Fig. 5). It is an apt dedication to Dionysus. The leopard, one of the characteristic symbols of the hedonistic Greek god, features twice. The handle takes the form of a twisted tree trunk with a leopard stalking towards the lid, with another spotted cat atop the lid itself, sitting docilely between two enamelled ronde bosse figures in medieval dress. While several suggestions have been proposed identifying the couple who feature beside the leopard, all theories are presently unconfirmed speculation. Bute and Burges discussed most of their design choices in person, and the remarks recorded in both men’s letters and diaries are extremely brief. As a result, there are several iconographic references that continue to elude scholars. While frustrating, it emphasizes both the specificity of Bute’s and Burges’s mythological and historical reference points and the diversity of Burges’s sources of inspiration that are still being untangled today.

Fig. 5: Claret jug (1869), designed by William Burges, made by Jes Barkentin, silver gilt with rock crystal, enamel, pearls, coral, and semi-precious stones. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

The claret jug is also significant for being one of the first items of silver made for Cardiff Castle in 1869, only one year after the Marquess came of age and gained independence from his trustees, and four years prior to his marriage. It is Bute working with Burges with complete financial independence and creative freedom.

The marriage brooch

Bute scandalized society when he converted from Scottish Presbyterianism to Roman Catholicism upon coming of age at 21. Four years later in April 1872, he married Lady Gwendolen Fitzalan-Howard, who shared his new faith. It was a love match, and they were a happy pairing. Importantly, Gwendolen also truly enjoyed the company of her husband’s favourite, William Burges.

Burges designed a brooch to commemorate the marriage as a gift for the bride, though we know from Gwendolen’s letters to her sister Angela that it was not complete until one year after their wedding (Fig. 6). Her letters contain rich detail, with some mischievous and lively commentary on Burges himself. In September 1873 Gwendolen sketched Burges and famously proclaimed, ‘this is ugly Burges who designs lovely things, isn’t he a duck […] in his hand his round glasses and he’s so short, quite tiny.’ Despite her harsh physical description, she is captivated by his designs. She also sketched the marriage brooch, writing again to her sister that ‘Dear Burges was present and quite content with his own work. He gave me a most beautiful brooch the other day. I have drawn it as well as seen but my best is bad. It is really quite beautiful.’¹⁵

Fig. 6: Letter from Gwendolen, 3rd Marchioness of Bute to her sister Angela Mary (1873), pencil, pen and watercolour. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Made from ruby, emerald, sapphires, enamel, and gilt metal, the brooch is topped by the coronet of the Marchioness in pearls, enamel, and gold (Fig. 7). Formed in the shape of a Gothic letter G for Gwendolen, it encloses the Crichton-Stuart and Howard family coats of arms. The reverse is inscribed with the date of the wedding and the biblical phrase ‘loving as Rachel, wise as Rebecca, faithful as Sarah’ in intricate enamelwork. Gwendolen’s initials are repeated on the central pendant shield, and hanging below are her initials before marriage (GMAH — Gwendolen Mary Anne Howard) and her husband’s (JPCS — John Patrick Crichton-Stuart) twice.

Fig. 7: Marriage brooch of Gwendolen, 3rd Marchioness of Bute (1873), designed by William Burges, gold, enamel, ruby, emerald, sapphires, pearls. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

It is a quintessential Burges design — full of imagination, with precious materials handled meticulously. Burges was saddened by the state of jewellery made in the early nineteenth century; he bemoaned the lack of antique examples for study and the poor craftsmanship that was available. Instead, he looked to the antique past to stimulate his creativity. The likely historical inspiration for Gwendolen’s marriage brooch came from portraits of Tudor royalty, specifically the crown-topped jewel in the portrait of Katherine Parr attributed to Master John.¹⁶ In 1866 the painting was on loan to the South Kensington Museum’s exhibition of Tudor and Stuart portraits, where it is highly possible that Burges saw the picture. His serious interest in the revival of historical techniques — particularly in the use of cabochon and uncut stones — left a distinctive and unforgettable stylistic stamp on the jewellery and metalwork that he created.

The marriage brooch was Burges’s first piece of work for Gwendolen, and it marked the beginning of an eight-year period of fruitful creativity. The Marchioness commissioned whimsical, beautifully detailed work directly from Burges for her husband’s birthdays and the couple’s anniversaries. It is important to emphasize that Burges was not working in isolation or sole partnership with Lord Bute — he also found friendship and creative chemistry with Gwendolen. While the Marchioness has frequently been dismissed as a minor character in the story of Bute and Burges, her multiple commissions and distinction as a separate client from her husband must be credited.

Lady Gwendolen, 3rd Marchioness of Bute

Gwendolen soon began participating in the process of designing objects, though her own patronage and agency has been consistently overlooked in previous literature. The daughter of Lord Howard of Glossop and the granddaughter of the Duke of Norfolk, Gwendolen was patient, warm, and good-humoured. An accomplished horsewoman and lover of animals, she found kinship with Burges in their shared affection for pets. Burges even gifted her a pet dog, which she named Lady Scamp.¹⁷

While past studies of the objects designed by Burges for the Butes have credited the 3rd Marquess as client and patron, it is notable that Gwendolen is listed separately from her husband as ‘Lady Bute’ in Burges’s estimate book.¹⁸ While her commissions do include gifts for her husband, the objects are significant in scale, exceptionally detailed, and expensive, and should be credited to her name. The entries in Burges’s estimate book that list Lady Bute under the heading ‘Client Name’ are:

7 Aug, 1877: ‘Lord Bute’s pepper box in silver gilt + enamelled in color arms … also a box. Contractor: Barkentin. £40.0.0’

July 1879: ‘Fish knife + fork. Dinner knife + fork + spoon. Silver gilt enamelled + engraved with case. Contractor: Barkentin. £50.0.0. model of spoon included.’

22 July, 1880: ‘Lady Butes bottle. Bottle with separate cup to fit, enamel in bottom of cup, all gilt — £58.0.0’ with separate, more economical options for ‘No cup, bottle only — gilt as drawing — £55.0.0’ and ‘As before — but with fishes and arms only — £50.0.0. Contractor: Barkentin.’

26 July 1880: ‘Bottle and cup for Lord Bute’s birthday, with enamel at bottom of cup — fish have jewelled eyes. The whole gilt with a wooden box … Contractor: Barkentin. £58.0.0.’

The lack of recognition for women as patrons of the arts in their own right, independent from their husbands, is complicated by the structural obstacles that limited married women’s activites throughout the eighteenth and the majority of the ninteenth century. It is also possible that Gwendolen’s role as one of Burges’s patrons may have been overlooked in past scholarship due to the lack of archival evidence relating to her commissions in the Bute family archive. There are no direct invoices or surviving correspondence with Burges’s office regarding the items she collaborated on in her papers at Mount Stuart. However, this lack of documentary evidence must be considered within the legal and economic framework which governed women in the mid to late nineteenth century. While the Women’s Marriage Act of 1870 allowed women to keep earnings and property acquired after marriage, it was not until the 1882 Married Women’s Property Act that women were acknowledged as legally independent and responsible for their own debts.¹⁹

As a wealthy, aristocratic woman, Gwendolen would have had a degree of purchasing power and authority as dictated by her class, rank, and the law of necessaries. Yet she would still be restricted by her lower legal status as a woman, as stipulated by the common law practice of coverture — the doctrine ‘which subsumed a married woman’s legal and financial identity under that of her husband’.²⁰ With Gwendolen operating as patron to Burges for objects that were designed primarily in the late 1870s, before the Married Women’s Property Act was passed, she was legally unable to claim true ownership over her own commissions. While she was able to acquire expensive objects and engage designers due to her husband’s rank and fortune, the lack of documentation relating to these items can likely be attributed to her preclusion from entering into debt and sole contractual agreements with designers.

The Bute cruet set

The Bute cruet set, commissioned by Gwendolen as a birthday gift for her husband in 1877, provides further insight into Lord and Lady Bute’s working relationship with their favourite architect. The cruet set was first described in Burges’s estimate book as ‘Lord Bute’s pepper box in silver gilt + enamelled in color arms … also a box. Contractor: Barkentin. £40.0.0.’

Made of silver gilt with enamel and a small piece of coral, the design breaks down into fifteen individual pieces (Fig. 8). It features two comical figures struggling to hold up the heavy burden of salt, pepper, and mustard pots between them, both with their tongues stuck out. It immediately gives an impression of the humour appreciated by the Butes and Burges, though this is intertwined and underpinned by scholarly interest. The two medieval figures were likely inspired by bas-de-page images in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century manuscripts that Burges collected, where animals and humans were frequently depicted in humorous and futile labours.²¹ Sketches by Burges in his many small notebooks (now held in the RIBA Collections) show that he had toyed with the idea of having knights and clerics as supporters instead.²² The alternative poses and costumes for each figure showcase Burges’s attention to detail, and how his own keen interest in historical dress trickled into his work for clients.

Fig. 8: The Bute cruet set (1877), designed by William Burges, made by J. Barkentin, silver gilt with enamel and coral. Commissioned by Lady Gwendolen for John, 3rd Marquess of Bute. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

To bring these richly layered, personal, and imaginative objects to life, close collaboration between client and designer was essential; however, a relationship with a trusted and highly skilled maker would also be paramount. In this instance, the completed set was made by Burges’s preferred London goldsmith Jes Barkentin. After working as a jeweller to the Danish court, Barkentin immigrated to London and entered into a partnership with German-born Carl Christopher Krall in 1873.²³ They produced domestic and church silver of the highest quality for Burges and other architects and designers, including George Gilbert Scott and George Frederick Bodley.

The cruet set is particularly unique for its maquette of electroplated silver — a remarkable survival that was only rediscovered in 2015 (Fig. 9). It was common for the Butes to request preliminary models prior to approving designs, and it is known that models were also made for furniture, fittings, and most architectural projects, though their survival is incredibly rare today. The maquette was acquired for the Bute Collection and finally returned to Mount Stuart in 2021, thus reuniting the original drawing, the finished object, and the model within the family collection, at the ancestral seat of the Crichton-Stuarts. The maquette provides a more holistic understanding of Burges’s working practices, and the specific, multistep design process that was demanded and expected by the Marquess and Marchioness.

Fig. 9: Metalwork design of the Bute cruet set, designed by William Burges (6 August 1877), the Bute cruet set (1877), maquette for the Bute cruet set (1877). © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Water bottle

Bute’s water bottle was another cheerful birthday present from Gwendolen, and there are three accompanying design drawings in the Bute Collection that show the range of Burges’s practical and artistic talents.²⁴ In the section drawing (centre, Fig. 10), Burges expertly illustrates how the bottle is composed of multiple layered materials, with the construction of the glass vessel and silver gilt body illustrated with the exactness of a technical drawing by an engineer.

Fig. 10: Metalwork design of water bottle (July 1880), designed by William Burges, pencil, pen, and watercolour on paper. Commissioned by Lady Gwendolen for John, 3rd Marquess of Bute. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

On the same sheet are three pragmatic estimates: for the cost of the bottle with separate cup, bottle without cup, and the bottle with less decorative elements — reflecting the same options Burges describes in his estimate book in July 1880. On subsequent pages of drawings for the water bottle held in the Bute Archive, we see Burges’s more illustrative and artistic sensibility, with naturalistic sketches for the swimming fishes that feature on the neck of the bottle in the final design (Fig. 11). The fish are possibly influenced by Chinese or Japanese ink paintings. They sit harmoniously alongside the more stylized fish, drawn by Burges within architectural ogee shapes (bottom, Fig. 11). Burges is adeptly combining distinct references and exploring global design inspirations with obsessive care. The bottle is surmounted by a domed lid with an alternating red, blue, and green fishscale pattern in enamel, and an amethyst finial (Fig. 12).

Fig. 11: Metalwork design of water bottle (July 1880), designed by William Burges, pencil, pen, and watercolour on paper. Commissioned by Lady Gwendolen for John, 3rd Marquess of Bute. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Fig. 12: Water bottle (1880), designed by William Burges, made by Barkentin & Krall, silver gilt, glass, enamel, amethyst, and semi-precious gems. Commissioned by Gwendolen for John, 3rd Marquess of Bute. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Over the course of fourteen years from 1867 to 1881, Burges returned to Barkentin repeatedly and entrusted his workshop with bringing his eclectic and complex designs to reality. The quality of the craftsmanship is especially impressive when the variety of materials is accounted for — enamelling and silver gilt set with precious and semi-precious stones, and frequently incorporating mounted ceramics, shells, glass, and rock crystal — suggesting a variety of highly specialized skill sets within Barkentin’s workshop. Furthermore, each object had to withstand regular use, for Burges was known to say, ‘What is the object of having pretty things unless one makes use of them?’²⁵ While business records for Barkentin & Krall have unfortunately not yet been located, it is hoped that future archival discoveries and research may reveal more information on the working practices and individuals who contributed to this talented team.

Cat Cup

The Cat Cup went on a fascinating journey of transformation — both of materials and ownership — and it signifies important milestones in the lives of both Burges and the Butes. It was made to commemorate Burges’s entry into the competition for the design of the new London Courts of Law in 1866. While Burges did not win the commission, it was customary for him to have a present made for himself on such occasions. Similarly, two decanters that Burges designed for his personal use (now in the Higgins Bedford and the Fitzwilliam Museum) were also created to celebrate the publication of his 1865 book Art Applied to Industry, and for his participation in the Crimea Memorial Church competition.

In the Cat Cup, Burges turned his loss in the Courts of Law competition into a decorative arts victory. Using silver, enamel, pearls, emeralds, rubies, opals, and other semi-precious stones, Burges collaborated with Barkentin to transform an eighteenth-century antique Chinese rock crystal beaker into a jubilant and multidisciplinary object (Fig. 13). The rock crystal, carved with pine boughs, bamboo, and Chinese characters, was mounted with a silver gilt foot, rim, and lid. It was topped with a figure of a sitting cat, whose body encompasses a large natural pearl, with eyes inset with emeralds, wearing a collar with a hanging sapphire pendant, and playing with a coral ball.

Fig. 13: The Cat Cup (1867), designed by William Burges, made by Jes Barkentin, silver gilt with rock crystal, enamel, pearls, coral, and semi-precious stones. © The Bute Collection at Mount Stuart.

Burges poured his many passions into the Cat Cup — his love of animals, medieval architecture, storytelling and fairy tales, goldsmithing, Chinese art, and a magpie-like attraction to lustrous and rich materials. Below the lid on the rim of the cup, six silver rats run under castellated detailing and among cabochon gemstones. The interior of the lid and interior rim of the cup depict key scenes from the European tale of Puss in Boots in enamel. A small frog made of semi-precious green stone (possibly jade) sits in the bottom of the cup as a jolly surprise.

An assessment of the Chinese characters carved into the antique rock crystal cup indicate a couplet of botanical landscapes. Recent research has highlighted that the content of the couplet matches the Chinese and English text that is engraved onto the silver mount on the rim of the cup. As the mounts were designed entirely by Burges, it suggests that he was working closely with a sinologist, and that Burges’s enthusiasm and curiosity for collecting non-European antiques surpassed aesthetics, with his interest extending into language, literature, and tradition.²⁶

The Cat Cup was intended for Burges’s personal cabinet of curiosities, and it was used and frequently displayed en masse with other treasures on tables in Tower House (Fig. 14). It was only after Burges’s death in 1881 that it entered the Bute Collection. The Marquess and Marchioness felt enormous loss for the man who they had described with humour and affection in their letters as ‘the soul-inspiring one’ and ‘the great man’. The strength of Burges’s friendship with the Butes and the special bond they shared is emphasized when the couple were invited to select ‘mementos’ of Burges from his personal collection in 1881.²⁷ While the Marquess chose the sang-de-boeuf claret jug (now in the Victoria and Albert Museum) for himself, Gwendolen rejected her husband’s encouragement to select the Mermaid Bowl, and instead chose the Cat Cup for herself.

Fig. 14: ‘A Table with Articles of Domestic Use’ No. 40 (c. 1876), including the Cat Cup, decanters, sugar basin, and pomegranate teapot, in The House of William Burges, ed. by R. P. Pullan (Batsford, 1886).

Perhaps more than any other work by Burges, the Cat Cup reveals his mastery of materials and understanding of ornamentation at any scale. As Mordaunt Crook described the piece, ‘the overall conception, range of materials, the ingenuity, the inventiveness, the sheer gusto of the design, is peculiarly, triumphantly Burgesian.’²⁸ It seems most fitting that one of Burges’s most playful and personal objects ended up in the collection of his friends, who shared and appreciated his taste and genius completely.

Conclusion

Bute once happily remarked that he had the means to indulge his taste and appetite for art, architecture, and archaeology. While this unlimited budget would undoubtably have appealed to Burges, an architect renowned for overspending, it is the resulting collaborative friendship and output of eclectic objects that remains exhilarating 145 years later.

In Lord and Lady Bute, Burges found clients whose breadth of scholarship and antiquarian passions rivalled his own, and who viewed design as an intellectual exercise where the creative process outweighed considerations of cost. Such freedom provided a vehicle for Burges’s own fantasies. However, it also gave him repeated opportunities to develop his technical skills and understanding of historical techniques, a facet of Burges’s character that is often overlooked in preference for his more eccentric personality traits.

The group of silver objects made for Cardiff Castle by Barkentin & Krall showcase the precision, perfectionism, and technical mastery demonstrated by Burges through his metalwork designs. The claret jug, marriage brooch, cruet set, water bottle, and Cat Cup each mark and celebrate milestones in the lives of Bute and Burges — independence, marriage and newfound friendship, a birthday, a career highlight, and the death of a friend. Yet a richer and more comprehensive understanding of Burges’s taste and working process can be gleaned by expanding his social and creative circle to acknowledge the contributions of Lady Gwendolen and other women who supported and commissioned his work.

Burges’s trusted network of craftspeople and specialist makers brought his creative fantasies to fruition. Working closely with the talented makers at Barkentin & Krall, Saunders & Co, Hardland & Fisher, and John Hardman & Company over many years allowed him to increase his knowledge of the handling of different materials and their manufacturing methods. This inseparable connection between maker, designer, and client resulted in the innovative and highly personal objects that remain in the Bute Collection today, and that continue to indulge our own imaginations.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.