the poor, we should hardly be disposed to depreciate his act on the ground that he expected to increase rather than diminish his temporal happiness by the sacrifice-in short, that with him alms-giving was only a hobby. And why should that which is offered directly to God in church-decorations be the only kind of charity which does not bless the giver?

But another reflection somewhat less trite, and more immediately connected with the subject in hand, arises from the fact of an amateur attaching himself, so peculiarly as the author of this work must have done, to a single and distinct branch of medieval art. Now in this exclusive following out of one vein in the mine of antiquity lies, we imagine, both the secret of all high attainments in art, and the seed of all decay. Without it no one branch will ever come near perfection, and yet in it lurks the worm which attacks the fruit still short of maturity. There may be, for instance, and there certainly are, men who practise simultaneously, with success, several distinct branches of church-decoration; but it will be found that the natural gifts proper to each, with the means of cultivating and supporting all by acquired knowledge, are seldom combined in one person in sufficient degree to rise very far above mediocrity. This is not refuted by instances such as those of Michael Angelo and Leonardo da Vinci, men who in their own persons served as the guides of the age in architecture, painting, sculpture, mechanics, mathematics and anatomy, simultaneously. These were giants whom no one looks for again, luminous bodies from which the arts once radiated, never to be reunited. And even they, with all their success in these arts severally, were examples of our other position-instances of that law of nature by which the arts, once developed, cease to act in harmony. Of course, however, this is less observable in such rare instances of concentration than in the coalition of different arts practised by different professors, each professor making the most of his own art, each art struggling for the first place, with no subordination such as is required to combine them in one symmetrical body. Thus it was only while the assistant arts were undeveloped that architecture, the master art, could mould them to submission in its service. Painting shook off its allegiance, renounced conventionally, and all its obedience to what was not nature, though it might be something more; and though the immediate result was seen in the productions of the divine' Raffaelle, it was a rebellious divinity: painting was no longer the handmaid of architecture, nor, in a short time, of Religion. Sculpture, again, while contented with retirement in a gothic niche, not seeking to be prominent, exposed, and great, but purely supplementary to architecture, served that art efficiently without raising its

own professors to great eminence. But sculpture too climbed to the position of an independent and perfected art, and then ceased to aid the source which gave it birth. Hence it seems as if each art demands an exclusive and unreserved devotion to bring it to a degree of excellence, which, when attained, breaks it from the parent stem like an overladen branch of fruit, and that a well-proportioned system of the arts in their highest state is not granted for the embellishment of the church on earth.

Now there is a connexion between all these remarks and the work we are discussing, though our readers may have sought it hitherto in vain. We have stated them as an introduction to, and, perhaps we may say, an apology for, certain positions of the author, which may seem unsatisfactory to some who yet must consider the opinions of one so deeply versed in his subject as authoritative. We think that, though the author's views, on the whole, appear deliberate, well-grounded, and just, still an amateur devoted peculiarly to one branch of art, and to whom, as we may suppose, the interests of that one branch are paramount, cannot complain if his statements are taken cum grano salis by those whose survey of art, though less minute, is more general and comprehensive. At the same time, so carefully are the opinions of this book supported by observation and reasoning, that a hasty dissent is not unlikely to be reversed upon an examination of the facts and arguments adduced.

The work is divided into two principal divisions, viz. I.Rules to point out the leading distinctions of the various styles of glass-painting, and, II. Observations on the present state of the art, and suggestions for its application to particular purposes, and as to the best means for its advancement. At the very outset, the author, (in the preface), gives some intimation of the way in which he intends to limit the connexion between the first and second divisions of his subject, when he asserts that 'it is an error to suppose that glass-painting cannot be properly 'exercised now without a strict recurrence, in all respects, to the 'practice of the middle ages.' The division of styles adopted follows Mr. Rickman's Architectural Nomenclature for the most part, commencing with the early English style, which includes what little Norman glass exists, followed by the decorated and perpendicular periods, with the addition of the Cinque Cento style, (that of the 16th century), and what is here called the Intermediate style that is, the period of unsuccessfullyattempted revival of the older styles, which is the questionable boast of our own times.

Now each of these periods had its own method of execution on which its distinctive effect depended, and these methods

resulted, not only from variety in the use made of the material, but also from variety in the material itself. So that in the first place we must avail ourselves, to a certain extent, of the author's very practical and complete knowledge of the more mechanical part of the art. And, as a fitting introduction to this part of the subject, we will quote, with a very hearty assent, the adage which is chosen as the motto of the work-Proba est materia, 'si probum adhibeas artificem.' Let no one consider the brittle material here treated of as even comparatively insignificant, or unworthy of the strict and jealous regard which our author claims for it.

Glass in its original manufactured state is either white or coloured. Coloured glass is either what is called pot-metal, that is, coloured throughout its entire substance, or coated glass, which is white glass covered with a coat, more or less thick, of pot-metal colour. The beautiful deep-red or ruby-glass, brought to such perfection in the middle ages, and so unapproachable in ours, is commonly of the latter sort, other colours generally of the former. In some of the styles, however, coloured effects are produced by neither of these kinds, but by painting or staining glass originally white. done either by stains which are transparent and penetrating, or by enamels which are opaque, and applied merely superficially, like oil-colours, though they are afterwards fixed by burning.

This is

Such being the variety in the material itself, the methods of employing it are equally various and distinct. There is the mosaic method, in which fragments of uniformly-coloured glass are cut to the forms required, and combined with the aid of lead into a transcript of the artist's design, with little employment of any colouring-matter besides. There is the enamel method, in which glass originally white is employed, and the design painted upon it and burnt in. Thirdly, there is a combination of these two, called the mosaic-enamel method, in which the broader and more positive masses of colour are formed by inserted pieces of coloured glass, and the remainder executed after the enamel method.

The character which the author gives of these several methods is worth observing. The mosaic system, he says, is admirably adapted to the nature of the material, but unsuited for mere picturesque effect, the colouring being produced by broad pieces of glass whose tints can scarcely be varied either in the lights or shadows, which imparts to works executed in this style the flat and hard, though brilliant character of an ancient oil-painting. The prevalence of the enamel method he considers to have arisen from the revival of art in the six

teenth century, and the efforts then achieved in oil-painting. The glass-painters of that day strove to render their own 'art more completely an imitation of nature, and to produce in 'a transparent material the atmospheric and picturesque effects 'exhibited by the reflective surfaces of oil and fresco-paintings. The glass-paintings of this style lost in transparency what they 'found in variety of tint; and in proportion as their picturesque qualities were increased by the substitution of enamel colouring for coloured glass, their depth of colour sensibly diminished.' Now without assigning that precise limitation of each of these methods to its own period which may be found in the work itself, or defining the proportions in which they were combined at different times, it will be safe to say that the earliest specimens are the most strictly mosaic, and that the increasing use of enamels to give a greater finish to the paintings marks all the later styles, though a purely enamel style was not introduced before the latter half of the 16th century. The author, as might be expected from any one whose tastes have been formed from medieval models, professes a preference for the mosaic above the other methods. With this preference, and after his disparaging remarks upon the enfeebling refinements which grew up with the increasing ambition to make windows independent works of art, with a more perfect pictorial effect than the early specimens, the reader would be disposed to fix the period of the author's choice at least somewhere previous to the 16th century. We shall find, however, such a conjecture

erroneous.

The

But before we can even form any judgment of the author's principle of selection, we must make a cursory comparison of the styles of glass-painting from which he had to choose, according to the characteristics which he himself assigns them. The general features of the early English style are these. The windows consist of either coloured glass arranged in pictures, or white glass in patterns, surrounded by a border in either case. Coloured windows in this style are perfect mosaics, with a rich, gem-like effect, and exclude light more than any others. design appears undefined at a distance, with something of the characters of a Turkey-carpet pattern. The glass is commonly arranged either in medallions, or in the form of single figures under canopies. Pattern windows in what is called white glass, are brilliant and silvery in appearance, and are composed of either quarries, that is, diamond-shaped pieces, each bearing small pattern, or of foliage drawn on white glass and disposed in various forms furnished with borders. The foliage itself is conventional, and resembles the sculptured foliage of the same style. Great mechanical skill and ingenuity is displayed by the

6

artists in several points. For instance, figures at a great elevation are exaggerated in height to counteract the shortening effect of perspective. This certainly seems to indicate something more than sheer ignorance of perspective as a motive for the conventional drawing of early English times. The arrangement of the lead-work and iron frames (in medallion windows) affords further evidence of both artistic and mechanical dexterity. The general merits of the style are thus summed up by the author: Notwithstanding their rudeness and defective drawing, the early English windows in general possess great merit. Simple and unaffected, they are often grandly conceived, though they may be imperfectly executed. A deep and lively feeling often pervades the entire figure, and its countenance, though exaggerated, exhibits expression and character. The early English artists were happy in their representations of deified and sainted personages." And in allusion to the narrow lancet windows of this style, he says, "The intensity of colours ' in windows diminished as the number and size of the windows ' themselves increased.' There is certainly a general approbation in this account, which hardly prepares us for the deliberate and unreserved rejection of the style, afterwards proclaimed. Windows of the decorated period assumed a less mosaic and more lively character, which is attributed partly to the introduction of the yellow stain at the beginning of the 14th century, which imparted a paler and more lemon-like tint than the potmetal yellow glass which had been in use before. Severe drawing still characterized the figures, but of a more refined nature than that of the preceding style, and dignified by ample and flowing draperies. The foliage is natural, so as to be easily recognised, and the dark outlines of the design become less coarse and heavy than in the earlier specimens.

In the period which followed, that of the perpendicular style, began that fatal diminution in the intensity of tints, which, more and more encouraged as the artists' ambition of pictorial effect increased, ended at last in the washy imbecility of the purely enamel method. Still it was long before the subordination of glass to the architectural members of the building was so entirely lost sight of as it was in days when mullions and tracery were unsparingly swept away to make room for the broad divisions of a feeble transparency. The glass-stainer did what he could to force his art into prominence, without proceeding to this violence; his figures were expanded to nearly the full width and height of the respective lights they occupied, but the stone divisions of those lights circumscribed their growth, and the consequence of this half acknowledgment of their subordination was, a disproportion in the figures themselves,