Among the Spires
Between medieval and modern, Oxford seeks equilibrium
- By Jan Morris
- Smithsonian magazine, January 2008, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 3)
Built over the course of nine centuries, huggermugger amid the medieval lanes of the inner city, or spilling out toward the open country, the colleges are also an idiosyncratic display of architectural history. They are all jumble, all enclaves of privacy and style, the older ones, indeed, actually fortified against potential louts or religious zealots. To wander around them, sometimes chivied away by officious college porters, sometimes spontaneously befriended by fellows of the Royal Society, under forbidding gatehouses, up and down venerable staircases, through a mesh of quadrangles, amid the miasmas of a dozen dining halls—to wander through those 39 colleges is to feel oneself stumbling through a separate world of idiosyncrasy.
But rationality keeps breaking in. Without it, of course, the equilibrium would collapse, and the University of Oxford would limp along as a mere nostalgic relic. In fact, the place is in a constant state of flux.
Between the two world wars, Oxford's architecture was largely stagnant, and almost the only beautiful contemporary structure was a little footbridge over the river Cherwell. A spirit of change was signaled in 1959 when Danish architect Arne Jacobson was commissioned to design the new college of St. Catherine's, on the outskirts of the medieval center among the water-meadows to the east. He did the whole thing from scratch, from pepper shakers to bicycle racks, in purest Scandinavian Modern, the dominant style of the day.
This was bold and exciting, but not very Oxford—it lacked the requisite elements of humor and intricacy. Fortunately for my instincts, though, over the years since then the university and its colleges have been developed in a more properly muddled manner. This has been dictated, of course, not by ethos but by the exigencies of finance, planning restrictions and social progress. A sprawling new science area appeared. A particle accelerator building arose above the topsy-turvy rooftops. Where there was once an old electrical power station, there is now a laboratory housing several wind tunnels. Another brand-new college, all glass and pebble dash, arose beside the Cherwell north of the old center. A big new law library materialized on one flank of the city; on the other flank, by the railway station, a Syrian-born multimillionaire sponsored the Said Business College, with a tower like a ziggurat.
Sidling in among the labyrinthine purlieus of the colleges too, sundry lesser new constructions gently remind us now that, despite its reputation, nothing in Oxford really stays the same. Squeezed between quadrangles may be a concrete dormitory, half-hidden behind a Georgian block, a modernistic new library. Put together all the buildings of Oxford that have been added during the past few decades and you would have an elegant new university of its own, complete with all faculties.
And through it all swarms a multitudinous cross section of contemporary humanity. Some 40,000 students are at large at Oxford, if it is term time, half of them from the university itself, half from the assorted educational establishments that flourish in its shadow. Another 149,000 townspeople jam the brassy shopping malls of the commercial center, and what seem to be a thousand buses from a hundred different companies parade the noble High Street. Some innocent visitors, expecting an idyllic haven of youth and contemplation, take one look at the city center and drive hastily away. Matthew Arnold called Oxford a sweet city of dreaming spires. No longer: it is a maelstrom of varied energies, the very antithesis of tradition's ivory tower.
But so it should be, to my mind, if a university is to reflect the full range of human energy—to be, for better and for worse, a microcosm of its culture. And at the heart of it all anyway, invested by suburbs and industrial quarters, Universitas Oxoniensis pursues as always its majestically ambiguous and perhaps unconscious purpose—to remain its esoteric self but to be a vital part of the great world too.
The head of one of the greatest colleges admitted to me recently that the world had defeated him, and he could no longer cope with the relentless criteria of a modern university. It was the dreaming spires for him, and he presently retreated into a gentler field of scholarship. In a harshly competitive age, Oxford has to sell itself, and shiny indeed are the brochures, lavish the functions, flattering the honorary degrees and fellowships, endless the hospitality of such college heads, by which it solicits the means for its survival.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (7)
This is a beautiful and informative article. However, I didn't see anything in reference to St. Anne's college. My daughter, Catherine, was a student there in the 1980's. Three years ago, my family and I visited Oxford and I was surprised to see how huge and rambling it is. My daughter's time spent there is among her most treasured memories.
Posted by Anne Boudousquie Harrell on May 29,2008 | 10:30 AM
Very nice article. However, I would like to know how you write an Oxford article for the Smithsonian, without mentioning that most illustrious of Oxford alumni, James Smithson (Pembroke College, 1782)? He is most famous for founding and funding an important Washington, DC museum, and in a roundabout way, the publication you are currently reading.
Posted by Cannon W. Flake on January 5,2008 | 11:38 AM
The sentence is phrased backwards (whether because of editing error or author misunderstanding I don't know). What is meant is that 9PM Oxford time is 9:05PM Greenwich (London) time, hence Great Tom is rung at five minutes after the hour. For an example, consider high noon, which occurs when the sun is at its highest elevation in the sky. This occurs at 12:00 at Greenwich, but the sun is actually highest in the sky in Oxford five minutes later, and that is when the bell is rung. Another way of stating this is that the time setting of Great Tom predates the synchronization of clocks across the U.K., and the mechanism remains set to Oxford (local) time.
Posted by Jonathan Clark on January 2,2008 | 12:32 PM
Yes, Morris has erred, but confusion remains. Here's the correct explanation: The bell was always rung at 9:00 p.m. local time until standard time was adopted. But being Oxford, the bell had to be rung forever at the "same time", which would be 9:05 by the "new clocks". In other words, the bell is still being rung at 9:00 p.m. Oxford sun time. Cheers, Jon Davidson
Posted by Jon Davidson on December 31,2007 | 01:32 PM
My father, William Davidson, emailed me the following draft letter to the Smithsonian. He is 79 years old and uses email but does his Smithsonian business on paper and ink so I am helping the web public. Jon Davidson Nashville, TN, USA "Smithsonian: I am puzzled by the statement in “Among The Spires” (January 2008) by Jan Morris that, in 1684 AD, “9 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time was 9:05 p.m. in Oxford” which was, and is, west of Greenwich. I do understand that “local” times were in use in 1684 and I would also mention that when I flew as a dropsonde operator in the USAF Air Weather Service in the western Pacfic during the Korean War, across many local time zones, I had to maintain a constant reference to Greenwich Mean Time, known to the USAF in those days as “ZEBRA” time. I assume that you know that when it is 9:00 p.m. in New York City, it is 6:00 p.m. in San Francisco, west of New York City. Thus, when it was 9:00 p.m. in Greenwich in 1684, it was 8:55 p.m. in Oxford, west of Greenwich; earlier in Oxford, not later. Perhaps the explanation is that they were simply mixed up at Oxford in 1684. If you are reading this in mid-morning, it is already past lunch time in London. I am sure the astronomy section of the Smithsonian would be pleased to offer an explanation."
Posted by Jonathan Davidson on December 31,2007 | 12:23 PM
Far be it from me, normally, to challenge Jan Morris on anything. But if Oxford is west of Greenwich, wouldn't 9 p.m. GMT be 8:55 in Oxford? Please advise; this question has been driving me crazy since I read the story in the magazine yesterday.
Posted by Diane Nottle on December 29,2007 | 10:10 AM
Am I confused, or is Great Tom (or is author Jan Morris)? I've checked the maps, and Oxford is, indeed, ". . . located 1 degree 15 minutes of longitude west of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich . . ." The sun, appearing to move from east to west, then, must pass over Greenwich before it crosses over Oxford. So, by my reckoning, when it is 9 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, it must be only 8:55 p.m. local mean time at Oxford. This puzzle is missing a piece somewhere. Ronald E. Daniel
Posted by Ronald E. Daniel on December 27,2007 | 09:16 AM