The Ten Virgins by John Melhuish Strudwick (1849-1937). 1884. Oil on canvas. 30 by 60 inches (74 x 153 cm). Private collection, image courtesy of Sotheby's. [Click on the image to enlarge it.]
Strudwick exhibited The Ten Virgins at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1884, no. 45. In the well-known parable of the wise and foolish virgins in the New Testament, when ten virgins go to meet the bridegroom, five wisely take oil with their lamps, while the other five are less circumspect, and do not. Consequently, these five are forced to go and buy oil when the bridegroom is delayed, and are late for the wedding feast: "they who were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other Virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matthew 25: 10-13.)
Christopher Newall has described Strudwick's version of the story and speculated about what may have influenced his treatment of it. As he says, the bridegroom, Christ, is
visible on the right surrounded by the haloed "Wise Virgins," seen through a window and the "Foolish Virgins" in various states of anguish at the locked door to the palace where the ringing bells denote that the marriage feast has begun without them. The composition, including several of the poses of the figures, appears to owe much to Burne-Jones's pen and ink drawing The Wise and Foolish Virgins of 1859 (private collection) but how Strudwick knew this picture is unexplained. Burne-Jones' drawing was in a private collection and not exhibited at a time when Strudwick could have seen it or been old enough to be influenced by it. However in the 1870s Strudwick worked in Burne-Jones' studio and it is possible that a photograph of the drawing was shown to him at this time. Alternatively it is conceivable that Strudwick may have seen the drawing in the collection of its owner George Rae of Birkenhead where Strudwick had several important patrons. [18]
Stephen Kolsteren reports that Strudwick would have seen the Burne-Jones drawing when it was exhibited at the New Gallery in 1893, no. 155 (5), but this of course was many years after Strudwick had completed his picture on this theme.
John Christian, another critic who notes that the "composition would appear to be inspired by Burne-Jones's pen-and-ink drawing of the same subject, executed 25 years earlier, in 1859," puzzles over this in much the same way as Newall does, making the same suggestion about Strudwick's possibly having seen a photograph of it. With that possibility in mind, Christian offers his own valuable insights into the nature of the influence, and Strudwick's handling of the scene:
True, Burne-Jones places the action, incongruously enough, on a bridge crossing the river, with the wedding taking place in a wooden shed over a lock or weir, while Strudwick opts for dry land and a more conventional building made of bricks and mortar. But the way in which both artists show the Foolish Virgins approaching the house from the left, only to find its door shut against them, while Christ and the Wise Virgins are seen through a window (windows in Burne-Jones's case) on the right, leave little doubt of the connection between painting and drawing. Strudwick even adapts the rich vegetation with which Burne-Jones festoons his wooden lock-house, a reflection of the ideals of Ruskin, who was trying so hard to influence Burne-Jones's development in 1859. [Christian and Morris 58-59]
Closer view of two of the foolish virgins at the door of the feasting-place, and the view inside the window.
Christian feels that Burne-Jones' drawing was itself probably influenced by D.G. Rossetti's pen-and-ink drawing of Mary Magdalene at the Door of Simon the Pharisee, executed a year before his own drawing was made, in 1858 (Christian and Morris 58-59). The closer view shown above certainly prompts such a comparison. Various other comparisons can be made. For example, the figure of the foolish virgin in red kneeling by the closed door looks remarkably like the work of Evelyn De Morgan, particularly her Demeter Mourning for Persephone of 1906, and a similar gesture can be seen as far back as her Deianira of 1878. Similar gestures and poses are also found in figures in the work of J.R.S. Stanhope such as in his The Waters of the Lethe by the Plains of Elysium of 1880 or Patience on a Monument, Smiling at Grief of 1884.
Contemporary Reviews of the Painting
When this painting was shown at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1884 it failed to garner favourable reviews. A reviewer for The Academy compared Strudwick's submissions to the Grosvenor to a work by J.R.S. Stanhope:
Mr. Strudwick sends two designs similar in style to the foregoing [Stanhope's Patience on a Monument smiling at Grief], and with even less real intensity of purpose. These are The Ten Virgins (45) and A Story Book" (193). F.G. Stephens in The Athenaeum felt that, although the work had been influenced by his mentors, it failed to reach their higher standards. He much preferred Strudwick's other submission The Story Book: "Very ambitious is the art of Mr. Strudwick, but unluckily his Ten Virgins (45) combines the characteristic shortcomings of Messrs. E.B. Jones and R.S. Stanhope. It lacks both the intensity and superb romance of the former painter and the chastened devotion and unflinching studies of the latter. It has none of the profound sincerity of the art of either. The design has little spontaneity (603).
The Builder did not admire any of the works by Burne-Jones's followers:
Among other figure pictures there are not many, apart from portraits, which give us pause. Mr. Spencer Stanhope, Mr. Strudwick, and Miss Pickering [later Evelyn De Morgan] play variations on the same string, which the first-named artist originally set going; doleful is their allegory and lanky are the figures through whose posturings it is told. Mr. Strudwick's illustration of the parable of The Ten Virgins (45) is a kind of thing which in conception strikes us as literally beneath contempt, or perhaps just fit to hang in the nursery as a "Bible picture" for children. [599]
The critic of The Spectatorfelt it was time for Strudwick to abandon Pre-Raphaelitism and do some original work of his own: "For Mr. Strudwick's Ten Virgins we can say little in praise; it is but a dull echo of his master, Burne-Jones, wearisome in its feeble iteration. Mr. Strudwick has been exhibiting for about 10 years, and we see in his work no signs of progress. Why does he not throw aside the pre-Raphaelitism which sits so ungracefully upon him, and do some original and straightforward work?" (680).
The first owner of The Ten Virgins was William Imrie of Liverpool who owned at least six pictures by Strudwick, including St Cecilia, Evensong of 1898, the larger version of Passing Days of 1904, and The Rampart of God's House of 1889.
Bibliography
"Art. The Grosvenor Gallery." The Spectator LVII (May 24, 1884): 679-80.
Blackburn, Henry. Grosvenor Notes. London: Chatto & Windus (May 1884): 13.
Christian, John, and Edmund Morris. Important British & Irish Art. London: Christie's (13 June 2001): lot 12, 56-61.
Christian, John. Important British & Irish Art. London: Christie's (9 June 2004): lot 21, 74-77. https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-2074808
"The Grosvenor Gallery." The Academy XXV (10 May 1884): 336-37.
"The Grosvenor Gallery." The Builder XLVI (3 May 1884): 599.
Kolsteren, Steven . "The Pre-Raphaelite Art of John Melhuish Strudwick 1849-1937." The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite and Aesthetic Studies I:2 (Fall 1988): 5-6, and no. 10.
Muther, Richard. The History of Modern Painting. London: Henry & Co., 1895-96, vol.III: 625.
Newall, Christopher. Victorian, Pre-Raphaelite & British Impressionist Art. London: Sotheby's (17 December 2015): lot 8, 16-19. https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/victorian-pre-raphaelite-british-impressionist-art-l15133/lot.8.htm
Shaw, George Bernard. "J.M. Strudwick." The Art JournalLIII (April, 1891): 100. [Note: the original image on this page, added by George P. Landow, was an engraving of the painting which appeared in this article.]
Stephens, Frederic George. "Fine Arts. The Grosvenor Gallery." The Athenaeum No. 2950 (10 May 1884): 603-04.
Created 8 April 2014
Last modified 27 September 2025