Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 6.djvu/614

432 NOTICES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS. Works so bad and so deficient in effects of colour and combination, that we look on the washy transparencies of this school with unmixed regret at their ignorance and presumption. The reason of all this is explained in very few words. People did not know that medieval glass painting was entirely conventional. They saw, indeed, that somehow or other, an ancient saint, with his unreal countenance, his diapered nimhus, his quaintly-pro- portioned members, and yet heavenly and devotional attitude, the very ideal of holy contemplation and heavenly portraiture ; that this form, with reclined head and clasped haiids, had infinitely more of character, if not of grace, than the comely and comfortable form produced, on imjJroved prin- ciples, by the modern pencil ; yet no one could solve the mystery why it should be so. We now see that the ancient painters had the deepest know- ledge of blending and combining colours, and that this style of painting was not only in its delineation strictly conventional, but was adapted to the material : in a word, that they did not wish to treat glass like canvas or any opaque surface." (p. iv.) Again, in his remarks on the glass " of the sixteenth century to the present time," he proceeds (p. 61), " These periods introduce us to styles (if they may be so termed) differing so much in all respects from medieval works, that with all the talent and ingenuity employed on them, they seem from first to last to have been a misconception and misapplication of this art. As at the time engraving and oil painting had become the ruling passion, so Church architecture to which these arts bore little analogy, became capricious and debased, assuming any form or style which the humour and fency of the architect, or his employer, might think fit, irre- spective of order or precedent. Great artists in engraving and oil painting had now arisen, whom the practitioners on glass, misunderstanding its capa- liilities, vainly strove to rival. Now, as the latter art mainly depends for its beauty and effects on its association with appropriate architecture, and on principles opposite to those of oil and shadowing painting, it follows that the attempt to treat glass like canvas, must prove a complete failure." . . . . " Partly from this cause, but still more from a voluptuous and sen- sual school of painting having arisen and attained popularity, the designs of the glass of this age exhibit a grossness and indelicacy which speak little for the religion of those who admitted them into their churches. The art, in fact, was secularised It is true, that other buildings than Gothic may be advantageously embellished l)y works of this art ; but to accom- plish this, the design must be in harmony with the architecture, and if this be of a classic character, must be treated with the utmost devotion, delicacy, and skill. But the portrait style of glass painting, however l)eautifully and skilfully managed, can scarcely equal the mosaic richness, the beautiful and poetic symbolism of the primitive ages, for the very simple reason, that the effect of the painting depends upon delicacy of colouring and the concealment of outlines, whereas the latter requires vigorous outlines, and depth of tone for its effect." According to these extracts, it appears (if we understand them aright) that glass painting is not a pictorial or imitative art ; as it aims neither at the representation of natural nor artificial objects, but consists merely of conventional signs, which, to those who have learnt the language, may