glass correspond in position with the lights and shades of the picture; and, though many parts of the composition are strongly contrasted in colour to others, yet this is not sufficient to supply the want of deeper shadows and more decided outlines, and secure the distinctness of the design, or save the painting from the imputation of being little else than a congeries of flat spots of white and coloured glass.
When, in addition to this defect, the imperfection of the figure drawing[1] and want of proper perspective in the canopies are brought to mind, we are tempted to inquire what is it that renders these windows so beautiful, so infinitely more agreeable than those of modern times. It cannot be their discoloration, for modern windows that have been as much discoloured fail to please. The secret lies in the fine tone and harmony of their colouring: and, perhaps, I may venture to add in its perfect keeping with the architectural character of the building. There is not a harsh or discordant hue anywhere. The whole colouring is equally quiet and subdued, and is in entire agreement with the silvery grey of the white glass. It is without doubt to the excellent tone of the latter material that this satisfactory result is owing. For this same white glass, which has no modern representative,[2] forms the base of all the
- ↑ Should it be objected that most of these figures possess a certain degree of sublimity, I would respectfully warn my readers of the danger there is of engendering a false taste by recurring to such models for sublimity. Nothing is more true than that from the sublime to the ridiculous there is but a step. What can be more absurd, for instance, than the mode of representing the Passage of the Red Sea by a capering figure betwixt two cauliflowers; or the Plagues of Egypt by so many carcases, frogs and fish, &c., sprawling in a plate—as in the late M. Géreute's window at Ely; or the Raising of Lazarus, by a mummy jumping up like Jack-in-the-Box; or Sampson slaying the Lion, by a clown who, with much grimace and affected violence, caresses the royal beast; as in his brother's windows at Christ- Church, Oxford, and the late Exhibition; or, I may add, than the cat's-eyed saints of Messrs. Pugin and Hardman? Enthusiastic amateurs should recollect that they tolerate such things at the risk of being laughed at by the very persons they employ. Work of this description is even now nick-named, in derision, bogie-work by the glaziers' men. If sublimity is aimed at, we may be sure it will not be reached simply by rectifying the more palpable anatomical faults of the medieval artists.
- ↑ As I still meet with occasional assertions to the contrary, I think it is as well to repeat what I have constantly stated, that modern glass differs from old both in tone, colour, and texture, and this more widely in proportion to the difference of date; the nearest resemblance, though by no means an exact one, being between modern glass and that of the sixteenth century, and the greatest difference being between it and the glass of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries; and further, that the attempts hitherto made to disguise this difference have completely failed. I am able to make this assertion more positively, since it is borne out by certain chemical experiments which I have caused to be instituted during the last two years, the result of which I hope, ere long, to make known through the medium of this Journal. I, of course, should not be expected to notice any opinion of the writers in the Ecclesiologist
