.“ a . .
. .e. 4 . . 1. , 1 .
‘4 .. . .. - . f< ¢.. . -_.. ... . . .~. ~.- .
1‘ .~. 1.. .. C .. . .. . ‘7 ~¢;.. .;.. . - 75.. {1 - . . : .. T. < I. I... Q w. ~* "ii..- 41 ~. $2 . < T“ @u .~ J" . Q a a . 4 m '3 a» 1 .. . . . .
. 1-. A. . 4. .. . . . - f4... 1 . .5; i . Ta. . v . , . a 1 . .i 1. 1 f“.-
.. . .. I . . ..¢. 1... ‘4. 3- .J.=~ a M. .@ a
.3 . . q p . 9. . ffifL‘. t. . 101.178....» _.~ “
. v :2 1 1.4 . . . Ii. .. m
.-
.v 'v 0- . .. .1 -1¢1
. Ls... . . . . . .... . . . i .2... .
. . . . .4.-....-._ ..
. . . .. .:-<~»~ . . . . .
_- . o . . . . . ..
1.1 . . . .. .. . . .n»
4, . ._ . H . .
_ . _ . . . . 5-: . . .. . _ . . ..
af-wQQZ .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . :5... .... . . .1 .N. I . . . . . . .
Z . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .
Al. ‘ _ .
. . J a w
. Z... . . 433$ _ a I
...;._...<. . - . .-¢vf-. .
. . . . .~~. . -. .33....2. .. . . . J... .11
.... . . A“ .n... . -711... 1 .. . .
.L- -W~\-.. - . . . . . 4
._ _. . . . . .
-..-.1.._. . . q
4
in... a . . .
....T...:.‘.~ . . 1.”
~11... .
i... . . .
.1...
. ...
- .- .
.
.
..
.4
-
f
u
_
Q
0.. d. _..
. ..
. . .-
. .. .
q
.. .......
..._..-<..'._.
.-.. ...- .
-@|.u--qn."_.. -. .. . ¢ .0
..¢~. ,J._-...L.. . . . .-¢.-n~ - .....¢».
.¢. . 3. .- . . ...-.
....... .nmv. . h. ;
. . .
q uv_-vc>.> .
. .l... . . . .
. _ .... .
._. . . -
- ..'. . . .
...... _.,.
......._-,_ .
. .
¢-__- . . . . .
. . v
--
-~.-...
.
-_- l0—I‘Ii‘ ~-
u a -I- . >-.I
...-.aa...; . - i.¢.
{.4 . . 21.... ..b.:
- .0 ‘ l.
. . . . . . .. . .
. .. v
. . .
... .2... -
..... . .
. ._ .52.... , .
..-..~. . ,
n'lon . . . . . .
..__¢... . . ‘
. . . .. .
I“ . ..-...<.o~. . . \
0~nn . . . .
.. _. . . .. .
...¢.-..
. '.-‘.¢¢
-..\. 0
.-
....<
._.
.-
.-.¢....n
...!.....
........
-
¢ ...~<
. _ 5:. 1....
-....-o ...
....-..-.
....-_-.~.
.-:..¢..-.
. . .Z...
.n . “ﬁt-.0.- . . .
v-__.-T.-.Z_:
......2..£,..
. .1...
...
. 2..
....-Zo..
l~n~awu \\-~| ~M§
.-~--.“.- .
. r .
.
L6 . . .
. . . ,. . . . . . . . . . .2 . . .
,1 if»; .. . .n. . .2 3:. .
: u .1... 1.14. . . . . A I; ' 0K . . 10...."I ..
. . . 3- .F .11.. . 1. .
. . 1.. . .
2.11.. 333"}. . I :
. .
'a - .
2.. .
:7. - ii-
i». h ‘i
12. ..-.. . . . w L . IA
. . -30... f. . . I...
21...... 3.1.1... .. . . . . . , ~
._ ... £13....» 1...: J... . . . . . . . .~
Frﬂﬂvpié . . LQSG . . , . . . , ..
. . . .. . . Q?
. m
3.31%... :1.
-~
.3"
1.. v . 7.0.3.
Q. ~ . ‘ . 1.... .1 tr. .1. . .
, u r _ .
3W1 w .- . 2... .3.» . _
T . 1. . . n
v"... . . .
“an
.- :
n~ . . 1r
. 4... .v... .
J.». m: . I _
?~ v. n “
In a.» . v
.5311 s
2» .
. .
.
~ . . . . .
. . i l l .
w. A} , . . u....ru.331.m..m..v. . . . . .
L... .6.- . h h . no...» .1.“ 5&5... . . . L
. . r a“. . ,
. . . “la
, . ..
w m 21 - u I - pu-
. L “:mai. :
a
.
“Pa-
qua
n1...
.\\
.. . . .
.11.. win“:
I
l mu . K..." .
7... .v
.7". . . .9
3 24:1
13R .
v. 1- 1
¢ 0; . . a LHZJLIZ. J 2“
. . _ . 43.. .3“, -
. . # J
..,‘
I
.
1M
3 -'.
l ‘ ~0<
m A? z “5.: .
v . <
L. .
Z
.
. 1:14..
Hrs... .22 . .
£34 MK . , . _. .
. u a. . E. .
N». .a . :. .... .. . . 1.. . .
. .2 mm.“ . 7... . .253- . . .
ii ~ .I“ . 1:211 . .
‘1313. . . I <J- .
w. an. . , . . a. mi. .H- . ,.. .. .
\nn...?223~»~ 1M n . . . . . . - .l-mﬂmov 1:»21 .BMZL .
:wa . . . , . . . . . . . siumnsnﬁxﬁ M“ 555“ . .
M... .u . . , . . . . .. 5.. .. Wei»... E ,
1...... ~ ; . . . 8.1. , . d . .
11.x...1 ~ . . . .. . .. . . . . . ' ‘
.. TGIF. “LL-7.7.1.... 15.... ...~.......-T.€..Y~ v - . . . vi 0 . . f. 1. 7. ~ . . . _ . .. . .
. . . ~ . I _ . .f . .
J. .25; z Z... .1. “.3 .4? . 13.2.1.1“, 32:?
.,. .
- ~~
u“
.3.
.7"-
. 1...... 0.. - 3
. ~ A: 15%“... . . .
_ .9! a. .15 f .
..|un.~n|ur.11:?:iflv-s. m. Cir-32.x!
I, 1:: 2%,! 11.5113.
' a. $.12.
H
H: .
M”-
“av-1....
v
I» A)
.U “.33.. ~ 3!;
.. v ‘ 4
Tv \Z ‘nlaawmw
}
I1<~v
4‘32 1.. 3:.
:-
v¢u>lt¢lvmf I i.
In._lr»-.I_suwP.0.\_v._n 1
~16: 1 ; ¢ vi. 1112 .
as _ u :1 u a 1 3A 1:
I I. . . z . .8. ‘
can
.910»!
0...: i
-
1.9:
u",
.u ~ 1~
"u.
i
“
.. .... 7 .M . . .
LL. .21..L:1.$.2 . 1;? - E- . . .flihil. ..
if... Eu 1.}; .
. ~ . .‘F

2' i Q ~ " ' ' ' ‘ v x!
’ ~.
1 I“ s
i :1“ 15%;; I -§'
‘ :_ ﬂllllll lllﬂlilll '- M 4 ; ‘
g f' E v - U" ‘ .' '
E - ' vﬁRrrAs W i > "g I
Q - _ . r s - ‘ . . _~ I E mmmm \ 1181* THE; " MEMEEYGEMEQ‘ -- Y 1‘
1 1' 7 IA * I I l} .
<. @N, -~-~-~\\~» ~-
i.
1:5 " g 1 ~ Q ‘-_ g 1 j
i ‘ :1); k 2' > h. I
’a ‘ 5 ‘
i - 1 $
* '1. r' , ‘ (i? ' i
ii 55 ;
L ' {g -
s ' ' ,
5 _ . ' 1
1 is I
s - -‘ ‘ s
@ 22 i
5 3* {a ' 1
i- -: ""2 '5 _
i :‘5 ' ; >'
3 ‘ I :i: - Q
: > .:’ ‘ 3
i3 3
E ’7‘ ‘
.. 0 1 a - -, I:
I» =1 . ‘ . ~'—'~'~.*— :5 : }
F" 1. '1, - = '7" ‘ ‘ . u:- .' ‘
> 5* » ~ ‘ ' ~-
"wk '55 > f . ~ . _, Illllll l lllllllllllllllllllg‘": i .
.5 3 5m?ﬂiﬁmﬁﬁﬁ'ifﬁiﬂﬁiiﬁiﬁﬁiﬁiﬁﬁiﬁﬂﬁﬂﬂifﬁﬁﬁiiﬁﬁﬁiiﬂhﬁiiﬁim'i - ,
; i
-'. . ; i
ii 3 X \ ‘ 'i

yI3L4."-;.,,",--q‘~f-".,-.-nJ “i. p “.14 “ff:- n-v'; 6'. ﬂy “up-u: ,,
.,.",’\|<.n 1
7“
a ‘
L
'1.
,
Y"
“‘4
:.

Architecturi
Library 3 H
N /<
53 04—
,c "r 5
STAIN E D GLASS
\\§\
\.
\_
I» l .
a
f
I
at
4V,
4- .
Q
"44%
ﬂ
\\
l
, L
_' _
l~ ~
.ﬁ.”
:14;
- '_- 1‘4,
no.5") “b1!
‘kw' .
I I ‘ ‘ ‘fr ii: ‘ .-
‘g'gglﬁmrg

x
v-Ak‘ h > { ( ,' y f c.“
. is. 2?
FIG. L—ITALIAN RENAISSANCE GLASS BY WILLIAM OF MARSEILLES.
In the Museum (No. 634—1902).
‘ I
.
,.
. _ ~ I
' UV.
7 \ ‘
- _\
~
\ l i
I .e
. ‘ y
I \-
_—-;
" .
. ’ "r V
w i H
.5qu I ‘
m“
\Jl I A
‘ .
‘ l. '
' .
1 -_ > -: ‘_:
.. » Va
I ._ I: h
L ' ‘ -
I“ ' - .l f
.!9 ~ ‘
V\ \ v _
‘ 1‘
_

Frontisﬁi'ttr.
STAINED GLASS

BY
(w/
LEWIS F‘ZMI/DAY,
Author of “ Windows—A Book about Stained Glass.”
WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS.

Published for the Board of Education
I BY
CHAPMAN & HALL, LIMITED,
11, HENRIETTA STREET,
LONDON.
1903.
CONTENTS.
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTORY .. .. .. .. .. .. I
II. THE STYLES .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
S III. EARLY GOTHIC .. .. .. .. .. .. 14
IV. MIDDLE GOTHIC .. .. .. .. 7 .. .. 38
V. LATE GOTHIC .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 58
VI. RENAISSANCE .. .. .. .. .. .. 93
VII. DOMESTIC .. .. .. .. .. .. 112
VIII. A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN .. .. 123
IX. IN REFERENCE TO MATERIALS .. .. .. 135
X. THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.. .. .. .. 13g
INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS EXHIBITED
IN THE MUSEUM .. .. .. .. 146
INDEX .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..153
151342
LZST 0F [LL USTRA TIONS.
Fig. Page
I.—Italian Renaissance, by William of Marseilles (in the Museum)
_ Frontispi'ece
2.-Geometric pattern Glazing at Cologne Cathedral (from a water-
colour sketch in the Art Library of the Museum) 3
3.——Early French detail from a fragment of a border (in the Museum) 5
4.-—One of a series of small shields surrounding a picture of Daniel
before Nebuchadnezzar, from a panel of Swiss glass (AD. 1660)
(in the Museum) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.—Early quarries at Lincoln (from tracings in the Art Library of
the Museum) . . . . . . 7
6.—Parts of two side-lights Of a jesse window from the Sainte
Chapelle at Paris (in the Museum, given by Henry Vaughan, Esq.) 9
7.—Early Grisaille at Salisbury with cross-hatched ground (from a
tracing in the Art Library of the Museum) ‘ . . . . . II
8.-—Shield at Norbury Church, Derbyshire (f1 om a tracing in the
Art Library of the Museum) . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.—-Early borders at Canterbury (from a tracing in the Art Library
of the Museum) . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I5
IO.—Early borders at Lincoln (from tracings in the Art Library of the
Museum) .. .. .. ' .. .. .. .. .. I7
II.—-Grisaille in the north transept of Lincoln Cathedral (from a
tracing in the Art Library of the Museum) . . . . 21
12.-Early ﬁgure in the window at the east end of the choir of
Lincoln Cathedral (from a .tracing in the Art Library of the
Museum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.—Ear1y Decorated Glass from St. Urbain at Troyes 24
I4.—Details of Early Medallion Windows at Canterbury_Cathedral
(from tracings in the Art Library 0] the Museum) .. . . 25
I5.—Portion of a thirteenth century Jesse window from the Sainte
Chapelle at Paris (in the Museum, given by Henry Vaughan, Esq.) 29
I6.-—Portion of a Tree of jesse in the East window of Canterbury
31
Cathedral (from a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum)“
x LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Fig. ‘ g _
I7.—-Parts of side-lights of a )esse window from the Sainte Chapelle
' at Paris (in the Museum, given by Henry Vaughan, Esq.)
18.--Early mosaic borders with subsidiary painting, at Lincoln
Cathedral (from tracings in the Art Library of the Museum) ..
19.—Decorated tracery light at Wells Cathedral, showing more
natural treatment of foliage (from a tracing in the Art Library
of the Museum) . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.——Early decorated grisaille at Stanton St. john, Oxon. (from a
tracing in the _Art Library of the Museum) .. ..
21.—-Part of a decorated quarry window (in the Museum, the bequest of
Henry Vaughan, Esq.) . . . . . . . . . . . .
22.—Decorated grisaille (from a window in the Museum, the bequest of
Henry Vaughan, Esq.) . . . . . . . . . . . .
23.—Quarry lights, with portraits of donors, in Water Perry Church,
Oxon. (from a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum)
24.-Decorated grisaille in Norbury Church, Derbyshire (from a
tracing in the Art Library of the Museum) . . . . . .
'25.-—~Part of a decorated jesse-tree in the East window at Wells
Cathedral (from a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum)..
26.—Decorated tracery (from a tracing in the Art Library of the
Museum) .. . .. .. .. ..
27.—-Decorated tracery light in Wells Cathedral (from a tracing in
the Art Library of the Museum) .. . .
28.——Decorated tracery light in Wells Cathedral (from a tracing in
the .A rt Library of the Museum) . . . . . . . .
29.— Fourteenth century grisaille, with pattern in white and stain
(in the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq.)
3o.—-Exterior view of part of a window at Troyes, showing the
planning of the design . . . . .
ster College Chapel (in the
3I.-—Perpendicular lights from Winche
Museum) . . . . . .
32.—-The “ Blackburn” window in the east aisle of All Saints’
Church, North Street, York (from a , water-colour drawing in the
Museum) . . . - . . . .
Page
33
35
38
39
at
42.
43
45
47
51
53
56
57
59
63
65
33.—Window, “ The Corporal Works of Mercy,” in the north aisle
of All Saints’ Church, North Street, York (from a water-colour
drawing in the Museum) ' . . . . . . . . . .
34.—Panel of old glass (in the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan,
‘0 ..
35.—-Perpendicular tracery light (from a tracing in th
e Art Library of
the Museum) . .
69
7I
72
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Xi
Fig.
36.—The “Bede” window in the north aisle of All Saints’ Church,
North Street, York (from a water-colour drawing in the Museum)
37.-—Figure of St. Bartholomew from Winchester College Chapel
(in the M use-um) . . . . . . . . . . . .
38.-—-Portion of an early sixteenth century window (in the Museum) . .
39.-Head of a bishop in the east window at York Minster (from a
water—colour drawing in the Art Library of the Museum)
40.--Late Gothic ﬂesh painting from fragments of ﬁfteenth century
Flemish glass (in the Museum) . . . . . . . . . .
4I.-—Porti0n of the “Blackburn” window in the east aisle of All
Saints’ Church, North Street, York (from a water-colour drawing
in the Museum). . .
42.———Two late Gothic lights at Fairford Church, Gloucestershire
(from coloured tracings in the Museum) . . . . .
43.—Figures of donors in St. William’s window, York Minster (from
a coloured drawing in the Art Library of the Museum)
44.-—From glass in the Museum (the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq.)
45.-—-The Circumcision, forming part of the east window at Santa
Maria Novella, Florence, 1491 (from a water-colour drawingin
the Jl'Iuseum) . . . . . .
46.—-—Panel of a windowin Milan Cathedral
47.—P0rtion of “The Adoration of the Magi,” in
three lights.
French. Ca. I 525 (in the Museum) . . . .
48.-—P0rtion of “ The Last Supper,” in three lights. Flemish, I 542
(in the Museum, lent by His Majesty the King) . . . . .
49.——-Corner quarry from a Dutch domestic window, I638 (in the
Museum) . . . . . . . . . . .
50.—From a working drawing for glass by G. A. Vischer, I588 (in
the Art Library of the Museum) . . . . . . . . . .
5I.——Quarry from a Dutch domestic window, 1638 (in the Museum)
52.-—From a working drawing for glass by G. A. Vischer, 1603 (in the
Art Library of the Museum) . . . . . .' . . . . . .
53.——From a working drawing for glass (in the Art Library of the
Museum) . . . . . . . . . . . .
54.—-From a working drawing‘for glass (in the Art
Library of the
Museum) . . . . . . . . . .
O.
Page
73
77
79
81
83
87
89
91
93
95
99
103
107
I12
113
115
116
116
117
xii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Fig.
55.—From a working drawing for glass, 1585 (in the Art Library of the
Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
56—Fer a working drawing for glass (in the Art Library of the
Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
57.—Frorn a working drawing for glass (in the Art Library of the
Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
58.—-From a working drawing for glass (in the Art Library of the
Museum) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59.——Panel of old glass (in the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan,
60.—-Characteristic specimen of direct ﬂesh painting (in the Museum)
6I.--Characteristic specimen of ﬁnished ﬂesh painting (in the
Museum) . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
62.—Ear1y quarries at Salisbury (from a tracing in the Art Library of
the Museum) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63.—Part of a quarry window (in the Museum, the bequest of Henry
Vaughan, Esq.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64.—-Portions of decorated grisaille and quarry windows in Merton
College, Oxford (from tracings in the Art Library of the Museum)
65.—-Examples of late Gothic quarries (in the Museum, the bequest of
Henry Vaughan, Esq.) . . . . . . . . . .
66.—Subject Panel from a window designed by Sir E. Burne-
Jones, Bart., and executed by Messrs. Morris & Co. (in the
dining-room of the Museum) . . . . . . . . .
Page
117
118
119
121
125
126
127
128
129
131
I33
I37
PREFACE.
THE aim of this handbook is to trace, as clearly as possible
in a short compass, the historic sequence of stained glass—
the development, that is to say, of its design, and the
gradual perfection of its technique. It has not been thought
necessary to dwell upon the period of its decadence.
In choosing my illustrations almost entirely from glass
in the Victoria and Albert Museum or from drawings
belonging to it, I have deliberately sacriﬁced the oppor-
tunity of making a much Showier book; but it seemed to
me that in a handbook for the Museum that was the only
right thing to do. It may be the means, too, of drawing
attention to the tracings of Old English glass made by the
late Octavius Hudson, and to the interesting sixteenth-
century working drawings for domestic work in the Art
Library.
LE WIS F. DAY.
I 3, Mecklenburgh Square,
London, W.C.
November, I 90 2.
I.
INTRODUCTORY.
HE term “ stained glass” applies, if we go to the root of
T the matter, to all glass which, by the addition of some
metallic oxide to the ingredients, has been coloured in
the melting pot. Strictly speaking, the Sham jewels Of
the ancients, the Portland Vase and the little phials zigzagged
with blue, white, and yellow, are stained glass. But that is
not what the words imply. They have been, as it were,
appropriated, and are commonly taken in a more limited
sense. “Stained glass” is understood to signify windows,
the production of which (beginning as it practically did
with Gothic Architecture, or, at the earliest, with the
Byzantine and Romanesque out of which it was just emerging,
and declining after the early part of. the Sixteenth century,-
when the Renaissance still owed much to the survival Of
Gothic tradition) was an art, we may say, identiﬁed with the
Middle Ages.
No art certainly is more thoroughly informed with the
spirit we call Gothic. It naturally followed the course of
Mediaeval design, and differs from enamel, sculpture, illumi-
nation, wall painting, and so forth,'only in as much as the
nature of the material and the exigencies Of its manipulation
made special treatment necessary, or as the qualities of the
glass tempted the worker in the direction of its peculiar
beauties. ' i
The design Of a window is, mutatis mutandis, that of a seal,
an ivory, a brass, a monument. "‘ Windows are set out on a
grand scale much on the same lines as triptychs and other
2 INTRODUCTORY.
devotional panelssof the same period are designed in small,
with subjects in medallions, or in panels, with ﬁgures under
canopies, and pictures gradually as years went on more
pictorially conceived. "And in the character of the drawing
and detail, there is no wide difference between glass-painting
and other crafts. Such as it is, it is due more to the condi-
' tions of cutting, glazing, and painting upon glass, and to the
way a window is built up, than to any determination on the
part of the artist to go his own way. No doubt he made the
most of the gorgeous quality of vitreous colourgibut so did
the enameller,whose work alone is comparable to it in this
respect. ‘ 3' '
Stained‘glhss, as the term is used, is taken to include also
painting upon glass. ' As a matter of fact, glass staining and
glass painting are two quite different things. To build up a
mosaic with pieces of coloured glass, each separate tint cut
out of a separate sheet of “ Potmetal,” is one thing ; to paint
upon a sheet of white or coloured glass is another thing
altogether. 'In fact, they are not merely two different ways
but two opposite Waysof arriving at a result. But there is
.this excuse for grouping them (as it is the custom to do)
under one title, that from very early days the two processes of
work were used together. '
The very ﬁrst windows were in all probability mosaics of
unpainted glassF\Logically it would seem as if this must
have been so, and that, since painting was for a long while
only used to supplement the work of the gl'azier, the stained
and painted windows of the twelfthand thirteenth centuries
I muSt have been preceded by glazing pure and simple. But
the glass in which least paint is used (as for example, the
geometric pattern window from Cologne (Fig. 2), in which
only the small square blocks upon the broader bands are
Painted) is not always the most ancient; and though early
windows of the pure mosaic kind exist, there is nothing to
INTRODUCTORY. 3
show that they are of earlier date than others into which
painting (of the subsidiary kind before mentioned) enters.’ /-
In fact, the existing remains even of twelfth-century glass
do not distinguish themselves by any want of paint upon
i' u!!!" “- QW' '1 I
\ '3" " ,(o>.'\ a '.
\\
t
I
\
- a
i
8
b
= .\\r
I;
- I
I] Q
..\
11 2 *
fro- _ .
. 4“ l"
M“
l!
‘-
x.-
’A
. \‘~;~'
.2: -
IA ..
Via
a. p In
‘-{ "
“<7
‘1
\‘
2&\
P3“ .; .3' f“ 45'
Q
a.
‘J
‘ I r v.
a ‘ . d - ’4‘ ‘
" 9 it"). "
. 1‘ 4 0'. .\\ _ i 7
FIG. 2.—GEOMETRIc PATTERN GLAZING AT COLOGNE CATHEDRAL.
From a. water-colour sketch in the Art Library of the Museum.
I
l
I
i
l
I
1
HQ
I
I
,
;l
l,
I
l-
‘l
I

their surface. They are to be recognised rather by a severity
of treatment in the design alike of ﬁgures and ornament
which bespeaks Byzantine tradition. Scraps of such early
work are to be found in this country, for example, in the
_‘__”M
’4 INTRODUCTORY.
tracery ofbcertain windows at York Minster; and remnants
of more importance, if not whole windows, in France and
Germany; in' the cathedrals of Chartres (West windows),
Le Mans, Dijon 5(North transept), Angers, Vendome, and at
the abbey church of St. Denis ; in the cathedral at Augsburg
(claimed by the Germans to be eleventh-century work and q
the earliest windows extant), and at Strasburg, where, in the
thirteenth-century windows on the North side of the nave, are
to be found ﬁgures of kings or emperors evidently saved from
the older church (which was burnt down) and incorporated '
in the. glazing of the present building. These, by the way,
are‘beautiful, which the Augsburg windows are not. The
_ character of the earlier ornamental detail, reminiscent of the
Romanesque, is shown in the fragment of a border (Fig. 3),
preserved in the museum. i ‘
Although, therefore, there is not very much existing glass
to whiCh we can with certainty ascribe a date earlier than the
thirteenth century, there is enough to prove to us by the
evidence of our eyes that stained glass had by the twelfth
century been brought to a point of execution arguing the
development of a craft already long in practice; and the
ever-quoted Theophilus, writing presumably in the latter half
of the twelfth century, refers to it as though that were so.
An interdict of 1134; restricting the Cistercians to the use of
white windows only, argues already at that date luxurious
indulgence in coloured’glass ; and Church records before that
tell of stained glass. There is an account, for example, of a
series of 'lwindows for the decoration of the Benedictine
Monastery at Monte 'Cassino in the year 1066.' There are
‘ yet to be discovered, no doubt, incorporated in thirteenth
century or even later windows, fragments of tWelfth-century
glass; they are certainly to be found at Bourges; but only
an experienced antiquary could hope to identify them with
any certainty. It is an interesting problem for his solution,
INTRODUCTORY. 5
how much of the glass in Romanesque or Early Gothic
churches may belong to the twelfth century or earlier, and
what is the very earliest date to which existing examples
can safely be attributed. The further question as to how'
early windows (of which no trace remains) may conceivably
have been executed, leads yet deeper into the mists of
speculation.

FIG. 3.--EARLY FRENCH DETAIL.
From a fragment of a border in the Museum (No. 5814—1858).
The idea of a mosaic of translucent glass came to us
doubtless, like other good things, from the East—the plaster
Windows of Egypt, though for the most part later in date
than much of our leaded work, carry on most certainly an
ancient tradition, and point to the likely origin of European
glass. There is record of a settlement of Venetians at Limoges
about 1000, and they were closely in touch with the East.
no"
INTRODUCTORY.

In Europe stained glass was the nursling of the Church,
and takes accordingly, in the main, ecclesiastical shape. So
much so that the study of Gothic glass resolves itself into
the study of church Windows. Few indeed of the windows
which must once have enriched the palaces and public halls
of the Middle Ages (such as the Late Gothic windows in
St. Mary’s Hall at Coventry) remain to us. As to domestic
glass, it is a luxury almost unknown until about the sixteenth
century. Soon after that enamel colours came into use, and
it is in domestic work that their use in glass painting was to
some extent justified—by the Swiss at all events, who were
masters of glass painting in miniature. Early Renaissance
glass, it was said, may be regarded as the aftermath of
Gothic. This later and more pictorial art was a craft in
itself, only distantly related to the earlier monumental work
chieﬂy in mosaic.

FIG. 4.—ONE OF A SERIES or SMALL San-mus SURROUNDING A PICTURE
OF DANIEL BEFORE NEBUCHADNEZZAR.
From a panel of Swiss glass (1660) in the Museum (No. 3005—1857).

FIG. 5.—EARLY QUARRIES AT LINCOLN.
From tracings in the Art Library of the Museum.
II.
THE STYLES.
Glass has been divided by Mr. Winston, who based his
classiﬁcation upon that of Rickman in his Gothic Archi-
tecture; and, with regard to Gothic glass at all events, there
is no occasion to depart from his periods. BIit it is easier to
deﬁne styles than to conﬁne them within ﬁxed dates. It is a
simple matter to say that at a given time a fashion prevailed. To
ﬁx the year at which a given work in that fashion must certainly
have been executed is quite another thing, and a dangerous
one. Who Shall say when a practice, which marked itself at
a certain date, may, in isolated cases, have occurred? We
naturally attribute glass in which we trace Byzantine inﬂuence
to the twelfth century, but we know that, as a fact, artists
were working in one part Of the country towards naturalism,
when in another they still kept close to a ﬁxed tradition.
The date Of a particular example may bedetermined by
documentary evidence; but that does not tell us with any
certainty that similar work elsewhere belongs to the same
year. The character, for example, of the glass at the Saints
Chapelle (portions of which have strayed from their hOme
and found a resting-place in the Museum) does notsimply
8 ' THE STYLES. “
mark a period; it marks also the difference between what was
done in the neighbourhood of Paris and in the outlying
provinces where fashion did not move so briskly, to say
nothing of more distant England, Where again national and
local tendencies affect design and execution.
Plainly as the historic periods may, at their most
characteristic, be marked, the periods of transition encroach
so upon them that it is really impossible to draw the line
except between sufﬁciently divergent examples, and it is wiser
not to try and draw that line too closely. Winston, for
example, gives us as the date of the Decorated Period the
year 1280. But the earlier Decorated work has, by his own'
admission, so much the character of Early English that, but
for a tendency towards more natural foliation of detail and the
omission of the cross-hatched background to grisaille, it is
hardly to be distinguished from other work of the century;
and it would be at least as logical, and less confusing, to
include the transitional work of the last years of the century
in the Early English period. It is not really till the end of
the reign of Edward I. (1307) that the style 'of the fourteenth
century asserts itself pronouncedly. The omission of the
crosshatched background is a detail slight in comparison with
, the ﬂourishing of- natural foliage, with the new departure in
technique involved in the use of silver stain, and with the
practice of combining in somewhat equal proportions grisaille
and colour in the same window. The close of the century gives
a more convenient line of demarcation, in any case arbitrary.
The precise beginning of the Renaissance spirit, marked
as its forms ultimately were, is again impossible to date.
The fresh spurt in glass-painting at the end of the ﬁfteenth
century may be taken as the mark of the budding
Renaissance, just as the Early Renaissance may be considered
to be the last fruits of Gothic. When two styles run parallel,
as did the Gothic and the Renaissance, it is often only by the
THE STYLES. 9
accident of architectural, ornamental or other detail, that
they are distinguishable—if indeed distinction should be made
between them. The famous series of windows at Anch might
safely, but for Renaissance details in them, be classed as
Gothic: the traditions of Mediaeval workmanship are
faithfully observed throughout.
\
l
l
6

. J. .IUIII

FIG. 6.—-PARTS OF Two SIDE-LIGHTS OF A JESSE WINDOW FROM THE
SAINTE CHAPELLE AT PARIS.
In the Museum. Given by Henry Vaughan, Esq. (No. 5—188r).
The design of glass~pa1nting followed loyally in the steps
of architecture of which it was, and is, the ally. That is to
say, glazier and glass-painter worked in the manner of the
time, knowing no other. In designing windows for a Church
of earlier date they naturally accommodated their design. to
the shape of the window opening; and that may have
l—Aun
10 THE STYLES.
necessitated some modiﬁcation of the lines on which they
would traditionally have worked; but they had never any
thought of adopting the style of an ancient building—that was
a futility reserved for the nineteenth century. '
The course of glass design is, consequently, the course
of Gothic and Renaissance architecture (and glass is con-
veniently classed according to those styles) but it must be
remembered that, waiting as it did upon architecture, it
kept naturally a little in the rear of it as it advanced. Still
Rickman’s division of Gothic Architecture into Early English,
Decorated and Perpendicular holds good. Winston, to-
whose “Hints on Glass—Painting ” we owe our ﬁrst intro-
duction to the “styles ” of Gothic glass, accepted them; and
we may, as far as Gothic is concerned, in the main accept
Winston’s classiﬁcation, as follows :—
Early Gothic to about 1280 (leaving out of account the
earlier Byzantine, barely represented in this country).
Decorated Gothic, 1280 to 1380.
Perpendicular Gothic, 1,380 to 1530. ,
A slight shifting of these dates will make these periods
easier to remember, even if it does not actually more closely
ﬁt them, thus :—
Twelfth century and earlier, Byzantine.
Thirteenth century, Early Gothic.
Fourteenth century, Middle Gothic, 0r Decorated (in
Germany, Geometric Gothic).
Fifteenth century (and later so long as Renaissance
forms do not occur), Late Gothic, 0r Perpendicular (in
France, Flamboyant; in Germany, ﬂorid Gothic)—th0ugh
perhaps it '- is straining the point of convenience to
ascribe the beginning of the last Gothic period to the
fifteenth century: it may be said to-beg-in some twenty-ﬁve
years earlier. a . .
- ' It has always to be remembered that style did'not advance
THE STYLES. II
in one straight line, but here encroached and there hung back,
so that it is impossible, apart from documentary evidence
(even if that were always to be trusted) to speakzcertainly as
to the precise date of a window. Whatever is in the manner
of a period belongs, for all practical purposes, to that

FIG. 7.—EARLY GRISAILLE AT SALISBURY, WITH
- CROSS-HATCHED GROUND.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
period, no matter what the precise date of its execution.
Heraldry is often of great assistance in ﬁxing a. date.
Just as the Gothic periods overlap, so do the Gothic and
Renaissance. There is, in fact, a period in which Gothic is
so evidently in a state of transition to the Renaissance that
it may well be described as Transitional. It may be Gothic
12 THE STYLES.
glass with every indication in it of the coming change, or it
may be Renaissance not yet fully understood, or with
lingering traces in it of the expiring manner. There is
abundant and most beautiful work of this character halting
as it were between two manners and not justly to be described
as pledged to either.
The best Renaissance work in glass was done well within the
1'. ‘- ' m;
%
..
Jill'ltllliil
h
ltlllll 1‘ ”

F10. 8.—SH1ELD AT NORBURY CHURCH, DERBYSHIRE.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
ﬁrst half of the sixteenth century. The Cinque-Cento certainly
embraces more than the best. Later work (“intermediate,”
Winston calls it, between old glass and modern) belongs
already to the period of decadence, which there is no occasion
THE STYLES. 13
to subdivide into stages of decay. The falling-off was
gradual but sure. In the seventeenth century the painter
had more and more his own way, not, alas, by any means the
way of glass. In the eighteenth, glass becomes of less and
less account in the hands of the painter, and the art all but
dies outright—to revive only in the nineteenth, when, with
the Gothic Revival, it entered on a new lease of life.
111.
EARLY ' 0011—110
The earlier the window the more emphatically it was
mosaic, that is to say built up of a great number of small
pieces of pot-metal glass held together by strips of lead——
glaziers’ work in short. It is true that the glass was also
painted; but, as the tracings from Canterbury (Fig. 9)
clearly show, the paint was strictly subservient to the leaded
glass. It was an opaque brown pigment, not used as colour
but only to stop out or subdue the light.
The leads gave naturally a broad black outline to the
forms which they surrounded, very valuable in deﬁning
them and giving brilliance to the coloured light between
heart-shaped piece of green glass, but not the veins of it, nor
the serrations of its outline; to represent these it was found
necessary to resort to the brush. As a matter of fact, the
outline itself was not left to be given by the leads, bu was
painted round the glass, the lead partly covering and oreatly
thickening it.
The pigment used was vitreous, consisting, that is to say,
of powdered glass (or its components) mixed with ﬁnely-
ground oxide to colour it,/ copper oxide according to
Theophilus, but analysis of twelfth and thirteenth century
glass gives only p ide of iron, with perhaps some oxide of
manganese. (£5 what modern glaés-painters use. It
was mixed with some vegetable medium (such as gum or
sugar), eventually burnt away, but giving it hold upon the
glass until the ﬁre ﬁxed it. For the glass, when painted, was
put into the kiln and ﬁred to about a red heat, at which
his
but it was not possible by means of them to give small ,
detail; a leaf, for example, would be represented by a“
\
EARLY GOTHIC. 15
temperature the powdered glass was dissolved and melted
into the surface of the pot-metal, incorporating itself and the
accompanying metallic oxide with it. This glass paint
(always brownish in colour) was opaque, and was used only
to stop out the light, in the ﬁrst place to stop it quite out, as
it did when solidly applied. If'ﬁ happened to be thin, or the
brush not to be fully charged, it gave a line which was only

l.
FIG. 9.—EARLY BORDERS AT CANTERBURY.
From a tracing in the Art Liblary of the Museum.
semi-opaque, of which, no doubt, the painter from the ﬁrst
took advantage. A thin smear of diluted pigment merely
lessened the amount of light shining through, and so qualiﬁed
the colour of the glass; but paint was never used to give it
colour. It served in the ﬁrst place to give detail, by deﬁning
the outline of forms: it marked the features of the face, the
folds of drapery, the serration and veining of foliage, and so
' 16 EARLY GOTHIC.
forth, none of which lead-glazing could give. But lines and
hatchin‘gs of brown were from the ﬁrst (twelfth century) used
not only to give form but to qualify colour and regulate the
distribution of the rays of coloured light shining through.
From the ﬁrst also a certain amount of thin smear tint was
used to soften 'the solid lines of brown and to prevent the
spreading of the light, always voracious of intervening lines
of dark. Light is not so easily stopped out.
At ﬁrst, if we may accept the statement of Viollet-le-Duc
(whose essay in the famous Dictionary, under the word
Vitrail, is a mine of information on the subject) the solid
lines were not traced, nor the thin scum of tint laid on, until
the heavier shading had ﬁrst been ﬁxed in the ﬁre; but in
the thirteenth century they began already to ﬁre the painting
all at one operation instead of two. The result is a slight
merging of the lines into the tint, not in itself amiss; but the
greater demand for glass, and the hastier way of painting
induced by it, seem in the later part of the century to have
led to less careful work, indeed to a kind of scamping which
we associate rather with the nineteenth 0r twentieth century
than with the thirteenth.
The use of smear shading seems in early days to hav been
more with the purpose of lowering the light than of rgnding
the forms, which were ﬁrmly drawn in lines of solid paint laid
on with a full brush. The exception to the rule of not using
pigment as colour, and it is so inevitable that it hardly
counts as an exception, is where it is used for black, as in the
representation of hair, the details in that case being scratched
out of it. It was from the ﬁrst the practice of the glass-
painter to scratch the‘curls 0f the hair, or it might be a
pattern, out of a solid layer of pigment, with the stick end of
his brush.
The colour in an Early window was given by the glass;
each separate patch of colour meant always a separate piece
\
U/MPKKA...

. e l I ‘0‘00000960. 0:: .
\\. .. . .a.q..a.....o..a.o..o 9091......) .
n , . v ,ewm...» k..\l,.,./4
enl~ lﬁhmtr .
4 . c m
1. N W...

. EARLY GOTHIC. 19
of glass, laboriously brought to shape, not cut out with a
diamond (that was an invention of the seventeenth century). A
The thirteenth century practice was, by passing the point of a
red-hot iron across the surface of the glass, to dispose it to
break inthat direction, and then to chip it painfully to the
precise shape required. This implied simple shapes, and so
to some extent inﬂuenced design. It was possible by inﬁnite
patience to shape, for example, a V-shaped piece, but the
risks of its snapping at the elbow were very great, and even
when such a piece was safely cut it was likely to snap at the
ﬁrst pressure of the wind upon the ﬁnished window, if not in
the process of being ﬁxed in its place. The glazier, therefore,
was but Wise in his generation when he adopted simple shapes-
for the main lines of his design, identical of course with the
lines of lead.
It is curious to compare these lead lines with the lines of
grey cement in marble mosaic, with the couched cord
marking the joints of inlaid or appliqué embroidery, or with
the strips of metal dividing the coloured pastes in cloisonné
enamel, in all of which it is an essential of design that the
lines of jointing shall form the outlines of the design. In the
Arab windows (of comparatively recent date, but carrying on
doubtless an ancient tradition) the pieces of glass are set in
plaster instead of lead. But, lead or plaster, the point is that
separate pieces of white and coloured glass are cut to shapes
not involving extravagant risk of breakage, and are framed
together strongly enough to withstand the persistent pressure
of the wind. The object of paint in Early Gothic glass was,
as before said, to give detail by stopping out the light in lines
ﬁner than lead could give; and artists availed themselves
liberally of it, using it for the most part solid, because, whilst
black gave brilliancy to the coloured glass, a scum or ﬁlm of
pigment dimmed it. .
Apart from these considerations, stained glass design did
C .
' 20 EARLY GOTHIC.
not materially differ from other design of the time. There
were practically four kinds of window design in vogue during
q the Early Gothic Period.
1. Pattern windows, chieﬂy in comparatively colourless
glass, “grisaille” as it was termed; occasionally devoid of
paint.
2. Figure windows in rich colour; with Saints and other
holy personages standing or sitting under some sort of
architectural canopy.
3. Medallion windows; in which pictures in medallion
form were set in a framework of ornament, all in rich colour.
4. jesse windows ; in which the genealogy of the Saviour
is set forth in heraldic, and at the same time most decorative,
fashion. ~ ~
Except for “ grisaille ” windows (designed to admit plenty
of light) deep colour is the keynote of Early glass. The
earliest glass was deep, rich, even sombre in its magniﬁcence.
Towards the end of the thirteenth century it grew lighter.
In fact, the tendency of taste was thenceforward towards
brighter and lighter colour. The intensity of tone character-
istic of the thirteenth century diminishes as the years go on.
. In later Gothic glass jewels of deep colour are set in silvery
white ; but the general effect is no longer jewel-like, rather it
might be described as silvery. Fourteenth century glass
hovers betWeen the two extremes.
Early grisaille runs almost of necessity to somewhat
geometric lines, and in particular into a form of strapwork
more typical of Romanesque than of
GRISAILLE. Gothic ornament. You have only to
look at the interlacing or banded forms of
Early grisaille to realize that they are essentially lines which
lent themselves to and could be readily expressed by glazing.
That accounts for the lingering of these earlier elements in
acentury (when they were already somewhat out of fashion.
EARLY GOTHIC. ' 21
F oliated detail, which is also a common feature in
grisaille, is usually supplementary to such strapwork, though
the straps themselves occasionally burst out into foliation, the
character of which differs from carved ornament of the twelfth
or the thirteenth century only in so far as tracing with a
long-haired brush differs from carving with a chisel. .
The detail is boldly outlined in brown, perhaps with a few
veins or ﬁbres lightly traced, and the background is covered
with a cross-hatching of ﬁne lines, which give the appearance

FIG. II.——GRISAILLE IN THE NORTH TRANSEPT OF LINCOLN CATHEDRAL.
From a tracing m the Art Library of the Museum.
of pure white ornament upon a tinted ground, whereas a tint
of thin colour all over the ground would have produced a
comparatively muddy eﬁ’ect. Patterns of rather later date
(not so common in English work ‘as in French), without
this cross-hatched ground, are comparatively ineffective.
Another device of the glass-painter was, to paint broad lines
or bands of solid brown, and with the stick end of the brush
pick out a zigzag or some pattern in light upon it. That is
seen in Fig. 3.
The interlacing of the bands or straps above referred to is
2.2 ‘ ‘ EARLY GOTHIC.
quite afeature in French grisaille. In English it was the
custom to plant, as it were, one series of shapes in front of
another series disappearing in part behind it.
Into some of the earliest known ornamental windows (at
I St. Denis, near Paris, and at St. Remi, Reims) there enters so
much coloured glass that one can hardly describe them as
grisaille ; but this half-and-half arrangement, happily unusual in
early thirteenth century work, is by no means pleasing in effect.
Many windows, however, which have a pronounced appearance
of grisaille (the Five Sisters, at York, for example) really contain
a great quantity of coloured glass, and good strong colour too. -
Windows with very little colour in them, perhaps a little
pot-metal yellow only (it was a favourite device of the French
to minimise the use of colour in grisaille), or pure white
wind0ws, are usually very beautiful. Viollet-le-Duc speaks of
plain glazing without paint done in the twelfth century, and
dates painted grisaille from the thirteenth. That is a question
rather hopeless of deﬁnite solution; but we know that the
Cistercians very early favoured white pattern windows.
' The triforium or the clerestory of a Gothic cathedral
is- often quite a picture gallery of apostles,
prophets, kings, bishops and others, set forth
on- a scale much above life size. .If the
windows are long the efﬁgies are most likely ranged in double
rows, one ab0ve the other ; if they are broad (which is usually
the case in Norman windows) a wide border brings the space
to more convenient proportions. The ﬁgures stand for the
most part fronting you, upon little mounds of green which
represent the earth, or upon straight labels inscribed with
their names, their feet pointing downwards in a quite impos-
sible way. They are framed in little niches of architectural
design, but the architecture does not assert itself. It is not
merely that the architectural framework is of insigniﬁcant
proportions, but that the scheme of the design is to blend
FIGURE
WINDOWS.
EARLY GOTHIC. 23
everything, ﬁgures, canopies, and border, into one blaze of
brilliant colour, from which you have more or less to pick out
the design : though absolute confusion is avoided by carefully
silhouetting the ﬁgures against a ground of deep blue or red. In
some cases the background is white ; but departure from the
A
I "i
A}? \
. Jr! “J .
quad? i
i‘. i ‘ I
3-
\.

FIG. 12.—EARLY FIGURE [N A Wmnow AT THE Eas'r END OF THE
CHOIR OF LINCOLN CATHEDRAL.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
orthodox ruby or sapphire ground is rare. The redeeming
feature in the Early canopy is that it does not call attention to
its ugliness. Individually, it is not a thing of beauty.
Figures seated on a sort of throne are less common than
standing ﬁgures. The length of tall Early English lancets
24 EARLY GOTHIC.
almost naturally suggests the standing position; just as the
broad lights of Norman-French architecture seem almost to
necessitate the broader border which prevails in France.
The rude and archaic drawing of such ﬁgures is of the
period, and by no means peculiar to glass; but there is a sort
of exaggeration in the lines of the faces, and an attenuation in
the ﬁngers of the hand, which, though grotesque when you
examine the work closely, is in reality very cleverly adapted
to express what the painter meant to convey, and especially to
counteract the spreading of the light, which would have made

FIG. 13.——EARLY Deccan-run GLASS FROM Sr. URBAIN AT TROYES.
less emphatic drawing vague and indistinct, seen from the ﬂoor
of the church.
' The bogey-like effect of some of the ruder ﬁgures is
enhanced by the introduction of white glass for the eyes (Fig.
I 3), which glare at you out of the dark brownish pink faces in a
way the artist, it may be presumed, did not foresee. It is a
peculiarity of Early glass that the flesh is in this reddish brown,
which was the nearest they could get to ﬂesh colour. To this
day no satisfactory ﬂesh tint has been produced in pot-metal
glass. The ﬁgures are at ﬁrst all of a type, very rigidly

FIG. I4.—EARLY DETAILS OF MEDALLION WINDOWS AT
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
From tracings in the A rt Library of the Museum
EARLY GOTHIC. ' 27
drawn, the drapery clinging, after the Byzantine fashion, in
close folds to the limbs, plainly distinguishable through it. In
the thirteenth century the action of the ﬁgure becomes more
spontaneous, and the drapery is looser, following and
expressing it.
The typical Early Window is the so-called Medallion
window. It has a broad border of ornament, in wide windows
often very broad (a full sixth or more \of
the .width of the light), and, within that,
a series of medallions (circles it may be,
quatrefoils, or other regular shapes) one above the other, occu-
pied by ﬁgure subjects on a small scale. The ﬁgures are simply
displayed on a single plane against the blue or ruby ground,
and the shape of the medallion is deﬁned by a broad band
of contrasting colour (red against blue or blue against red),
itself bounded by, narrow lines of white. The interstices
between the medallions are ﬁlled in with ornament, con-
sisting, in England of scrollwork (Fig. 14), in France
usually of geometric diaper. Prior to the device of the
Medallion window it was the practice simply to divide the
window space (between the borders) into' rectangular divisions
-——the iron cross bars, necessary to support the glass in its
place, naturally did that—and to treat each of these square
or oblong spaces as a picture panel framed by lines of
white and colour.
A window is ﬁxed in its place, it should here be ex-
plained, by means of copper wires soldered to the leadwork,
and tightly twisted round the iron saddle-bars which cross
the window horizontally at short intervals and are cemented
into the masonry. A very broad window may need also
vertical stanchions. These, in the case of a window with
a broad border, naturally follow and deﬁne the border line.
In Medallion windows it was found convenient, less hurt-
ful, that is to say, to the design, to shape the necessary
MEDALLION
WINDOWS.
28 ' EARLY GOTHIC.
bars to the outline of the medallions. That was clearly the
way to make them help the effect instead of marring it, to
emphasize the design instead of contradicting it. That this
practice of shaping the bars resulted from a form of design
which encouraged if it did not necessitate it, seems obvious.
In certain Early windows, not precisely of the medallion
type, at Poitiers, the bars follow and enforce other emphatic
forms than the medallions, such as the cross in the
case of a cruciﬁxion subject. In all other windows the
bars are carried straight across the window. No doubt,
however, the thirteenth century designer soon learnt to rely
upon the bars to deﬁne his medallions, and shaped the
divisions of his window with a View to the scaffolding which
the bars enclosing and connecting them would give.
' Very big medallion shapes were commonly cut up by other
bars into four or ﬁve divisions, each of which enclosed its
separate subject.
The “storied windows” in the mind of the poet must
certainly have been Medallion windows, which were designed,
as arule, to set forth in picture the history of the Saviour, or
of some saint, with all the legends which had grown round his
life. It was precisely their intention to tell a story, and of
course, in so doing, to convey a moral. It was possible even
by a sequence of subjects to enforce a dogma of the Church.
A less typical and far less satisfactory form of Medallion
window lingered on into the fourteenth century. In Germany
and in Italy it took eventually quite a new shape, characteristi-
cally German, in which one huge medallion (usually a cusped
circle) stretched right across the window through its \several
' lights. In Early French and English 'glass the medallion
keeps not only within a single light, but well within its
border.
The big Rose or Wheel windows, more characteristic of
French than English cathedrals, often contain ﬁgure subjects,

. air-.39
FIG. Ij.—POR‘[‘[0N OF A THIRTEENTH CENTURY jesse Wmnow FROM
THE SAINT-E CHAPELLE AT PARIS.
In the Museum. Given by Henry Vaughan. Esq. (No. 6—1881).
EARLY GOTHIC. 31
and are, in fact, adaptations of the medallion window to the
shape of radiating tracery, with only a narrow border to the
narrower lights. Sometimes they consist entirely of ornament,
in which case they are almost the only instances of deep rich
windows devoid of ﬁgure work. The big round windows of

FIG. I6.—PORIION on THE TREE 0F JESSE IN THE EAST WINDOW OF
CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.
From a traring in the Art Library of the Museum.
Italy are of later date, and are more nearly akin to the
German Medallion windows above mentioned.
In an Early jesse window (Fig. 15), the Tree of jesse,
though it stands for the vine, is of the conventional kind
peculiar not merely to twelfth or thirteenth century glass, but
32 EARLY GOTHIC.
to the ornament of the period generally, carved, illuminated,
or embroidered, inclining, according to its date, to the elaborate
Byzantine or to the simpler Gothic type
with trefoiled and cinque-foiled foliation.
It springs, of course, from the loins of Jesse,
couched at the foot of the 'WinOW, its straight upright main
stem almost entirely hidden by a genealogical series of kingly
ﬁgures, culminating towards the head of the window in the
ﬁgures of the Virgin and of our Lord in Majesty, surrounded
by the gifts of the Spirit, typiﬁed by seven doves. The
branches of the tree form, in many cases, vesica-shaped
medallions (Fig. 16), containing each its holy personage, and
affording opportunity for a change of colour in the background.
Either amidst the scrollery at the sides of the window or in
the border are often attendant angels or prophets, similar to
those in the narrow lights from the Sainte Chapelle (Figs.
6 and 17).
It is only by exception that thirteenth century glass ever
hesitates between colour and grisaille, as at the cathedral at
Auxerre, Where rich ﬁgure windows are framed in borders
of grisaille, or at Amiens and Poitiers, where ﬁgures in rich
colour are, as it were, planted upon a ground of grisaille.
Thirteenth century German glass is naturally Romanesque
in character, following the architecture of the country, where
Gothic was of later growth than in France or England.
The palette of the Early glass-painter was more restricted
than one would be disposed to think, seeing the variety of colour
eﬂ'ect obtained by means of it. But it was strong in deep,
rich tones; red, of the quality of ruby; blue, like sapphire;
*green, as pure as emerald, deep and velvety as moss, or of
sober olive tint; purplish-brown, or brownish purple, which
in its lighter shades gave the not very pleasant ﬂesh-colour
above mentioned; strong yellow, deep but not brassy;
turquoise or slightly greenish blue, which, however, is of
,
JESSE
WINDOWS.
EARLY GOTHIC. 33
rather rare occurrence ; greenish, yellowish, and dusky white;
—and that is all, or all upon which the glazier could rely.
There is no saying what colour might not by chance come
out of the melting pot, so freakish is the ﬁre, so far from pure
were the oxides used by the glass-maker, and so little scientiﬁc
the processes of his manufacture. And then, no sheet of glass
I-‘
I \~ '1
n \, .I"i
\
In!
‘I
'P
II
:sl-UUI. 4‘
\L "
. era
\\'

D'— ——-_
FIG. -17.—PARTs or SIDE-LIGHTs OF A Jesse WINDOW FROM THE
SAIN’IE CHAPELLE AT PARIS.
In the Museum. Given by Henry Vaughan, Esq. (N0. 5—1881).
was of even thickness, or ﬂat in colour, or free from specks
and bubbles. It might be strangely streaked and varied; a
disc of ruby in particular might be shaded from red to white
or to greenish smoke colour, according as the copper in it
happened to be converted into coloured stain or not. White

‘31, EARLY GOTHIC.
glass, so-called, was far from colourless, but very decidedly
tinged with green or yellow, owing to the iron in the sand of
which the glass was made; and it was happily not transparent,
but of a horny translucency.
The action of the weather has, in the course of centuries,
corroded the once plain surface of old glass to such a degree
as inﬁnitely to refract thefght shining through it ; lichen has
attached itself (especially on the southern side of the church)
to the outer surface; heavy curtains of cobweb overhang the
face of windows beyond the reach of brooms; and altogether
the effect of colour is mellowed by age. But time has only
deepened the effect at which the Early mediaeval glazier
aimed, an effect of jewelled light, produced by a mosaic of
quite small pieces of glass, coloured in the pot, and only so
far obscured by paint as was necessary to keep out the light,
to give coherence and deﬁnition to the ornamental details of
the window, to represent the person, or to tell the story, it was
designed to picture.
The simplicity and naivety of the telling belonged to the
period, the choice of subject to the Church. The meaning
of the picture is not always easy to make out, at the distance
at which the windows are placed from the ground; but the
interest of deciphering it is a thing apart from the study of
glass-painting in its decorative and technical aspect, with
which only this hand-book has to do.
The earlier the glass the more implicitly it relies for its
effect upon the mosaic of coloured pot-metal, and the more
absolutely subsidiary is the use of paint. The work of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries is naive in design and crude
in execution; but, alike for depth of colour, for conformity
with the architecture to which it belongs, and for the
impression of solemnity it gives, it was not surpassed by the
centuries to come.
To compare it with later work is, however, futile. There
EARLY GOTHIC. 35
is little in common between this rather archaic craftsmanship
and the more accomplished workmanship of the sixteenth
century, except that both are executed in glass. We admire
one or the other, according as we are more in sympathy with
the glazier or with the painter, with decoration or with
picture. '
Whatever progress was later made in glass-painting, the

FIG. 18.—EARLY MosAIc BORDERS AT LINCOLN CATHEDRAL,
WITH SUBSIDIARY PAINTING.
From tracings in the Art Library of the Museum.
twelfth century glaziers have never been excelled, if equalled
indeed, in their appreciation of glass, and of the way to treat
it. They took into full account, for example, the radiation of
the light as it fell through blue, red, or yellow glass, allowing
amply in their design for the much fuller radiation from blue
D
36 EARLY GOTHIC.
and the comparatively slight radiation from yellow; and,
where necessary, they put a stop to it by means of paint. In
particular, they qualiﬁed the effect of white glass, through
which naturally the light spreads most, by relatively heavy
painting. A line of (white had, for example, commonly a
pearl or head pattern painted upon it, so that about half the
light was excluded by solid paint.
These men knew their trade, and knew it thoroughly.
Indeed, glass-painting was, clearly, from the time we know
it ﬁrst, the work of cunning craftsmen, artists no doubt,
but craftsmen took The splendid windows of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries are in fact the work of unknown glaziers
and glass-painters, who raised their craft to the height of art.
Possibly the earliest glass we know of is at Le Mans,
parts of an Ascension and other windows, which date perhaps
even a little earlier than the twelfth
12TH CENTURY. century. At Chartres there are three
' windows at the West end of the
Cathedral, and parts of another known as “La belle
Verriere,” which belongs to about the middle of the century.
Even more often quoted is the glass atSt. Denis near
Paris, parts of a Jesse tree, of a window illustrating the Life of
Moses, and some ornamental grifﬁns in grisaille now worked
up into windows which are hardly to be called old.
At Angers there are some windows in the nave, and at
Bourges, Chalons, Vendome, and St. Quentin some remains;
as also at York, where are to be found a small portion of a
Jesse window and various pieces of border work, about the
only English work extant—if it is English : more likely it
is French.
Certain windows at St. Remi, Reims, and at Poitiers, date
perhaps a few years after the turn of the century, but preserve
_ all the Byzantine tradition.
Some of the ﬁgures of Emperors on the North side of the
EARLY GOTHIC. 37
nave-at Strasburg are of the twelfth century, but very
different in style from French work generally; they are, if
possible, more emphatically glazier’s work.
A fragment in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Fig. 3)
may possibly be earlier than the thirteenth century.
The treasure house of thirteenth century glass is Chartres.
Bourges also and Le Mans have each a wealth of beautiful
work ; Chalons-sur-Marne, Auxerre,
and many others of the great French
churches, are rich in Early glass.
In England, we have the greatest wealth of medallion
windows at Canterbury, and of grisaille at Salisbury. At
Lincoln there is good work, and at some smaller churches,
such as Westwell Church. The beautiful grisaille windows
at York Minster, known as the Five Sisters, betray symptoms
of an inclination to go over to the new manner. So, too, the
glass at the Sainte Chapelle, Paris, of which there are some
fragments in the Museum (Figs. 6, I5, and I7), thOugh
belonging to about the middle of the century, begins already
to show signs of a coming change of style.
13TH CENTURY.
IV.
MIDDLE GOTHIC.
The changes which, towards the fourteenth century, crept
into the design and treatment of stained glass, were deter-
mined by a variety of circumstances: the different shape of

FIG. 19.—DECORATED TRACERY LIGHT AT WELLs CATHEDRAL,
SHOWING MORE NATURAL TREATMENT OF FOLIAGE.
From a tracing r'n' the Art Library of the Museum. \
the windows, the growing desire for more light, the tendency
more and more pronounced towards pictorial treatment, the
increased resources of the glazier, and especially of the
glass-painter. A window of the Middle Gothic (or Deco-
MIDDLE GOTHIC. 39
rated) period is to be distinguished, therefore, from earlier
glass;.by the design being schemed to spread over several
lights; by the lighter, brighter, gayer key of colour; by the
natural forms of the ornamental foliage, now deliberately

H H"
l‘. "111' ill
l ll'n'lll' \ i'lllflilliillll

,,||“\\\\
,‘
‘-
_-
-
‘—
-
_
__
-
_

FIG. 20.~-EARLY DECORATED GRISAILLE AT STANTON ST. ]OHN, OXON.
From a tracing in theFArt Library of the Museum.
taken from growing plants (Figs. 19 and 20); by the more
serious attempt at realism in the drawing and painting of the
ﬁgure; and by the adoption, ﬁnally, of a practice, unknown
to glaziers of earlier times, of staining white glass yellow.
4o MIDDLE GOTHIC.
The net result of the endeavour at the same time to
connect in one group a series of long, narrow lights, and to
get more light into the window, is that windows are less
\' ' 7' ii
i w *
//.\‘

(r
\l
A
l
V
m mg

FIG..2L——PART 0E A DECORATED QUARRY Wmnow.
I n the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq. (No. 939—1900).
often to be described as in grisaille or rich in colour, both
white and colour entering more generally and more equally
'into all windows. White windows were enriched with

' its
. fly

FIG. 22..—DECORATED GRISAILLE.
' t a win 020 in the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq. (No. 932—1900).
MIDDLE GOTHIC. 43
coloured borders and bosses ; and bands of coloured subjects
were carried' across them, holding the separate lights, as it
were, together.
In windows of the simpler kind, the white glass was in

FIG. 23.-QUARRY LIGHTS WITH PORTRAITS OF DONORS IN
WATER PERRY CHURCH, OXON.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
the fourteenth century often cut into diamond-shaped
“lquarries,” as they are called, on which was painted a
pattern of trailing foliage, distinguishable as ivy, maple, oak,
vine, and so forth, at ﬁrst with, afterwards without, the
44 MIDDLE GOTHIC.
background of cross-hatching characteristic of .Early
work. '
The painting upon the glass being by this time more
delicate, the rigid lines of lead asserted themselves more
strongly than before. They formed, in fact, the pattern
which ﬁrst struck the eye.
For the rest, Decorated grisaille patterns did not so
greatly differ from the Early, except that details of foliation
were natural, and that the leading was not so thorough;
bands of white upon white, for example, would have a lead-
line often on one side of them only (Fig. 24); by degrees,
painted lines did duty for leads where it was possible.
In the case of ﬁgures or ﬁgure subjects in relatively
strong colour, forming bands across a relatively white
window, narrow borders of colour round the separate lights
connected the horizontal bands, and further lines or bosses
of colour amidst the grisaille prevented any appearance of
patchiness. The broad band of ﬁgure work pronounced
itself just enough to bind the window together, not enough to
destroy the individuality of the separate lights. _
Figures and ﬁgure subjects were still enshrined under
canopies, high-gabled and large-crocketed after. the Decorated
manner, shown always in ﬂat elevation, and readily distin-
guishable by their shape, proportion, and brassy colour from
the earlier variety. It was the kind of canopy to be found
also on coins, ivories, and brasses, and in other monumental
efﬁgies of the time.
Even in windows rich throughout (though never now so
deep in tone as Early glass), the characteristic horizontality
of design above mentioned was maintained by means of the
canopy work, which sufﬁciently separated one series of
ﬁgures or subjects from another, and formed itself conspicu-
ous bands of rather lighter and much yellower colour between
the tiers of ﬁgure work. The brassiness of these canopies is
MIDDLE GOTHIC. 45
characteristic, and so is their disproportion to the ﬁgures
beneath them, which they sometimes overpower entirely.
The Germans were the most ﬂagrant sinners in this respect,
but they sinned in company with the rest of Europe. The
rule was excess. The background to a fourteenth century
canopy was usually of a colour contrasting with that of the
i
l,-'@

.k.

FIG. 24.—DECORATED GRISAILLE IN NORBURY CHURCH, DERBYSHIRE.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
ﬁgure work; if one was red the other would most likely be
blue; and in the case of a series of ﬁgures upon a red ground
under canopies upon blue, or vice versri, this would again assist
the banded effect of colour before mentioned.
In German work the pinnacles of tall canopies appear
sometimes against a coloured diaper, such as we associate
46 MIDDLE GOTHIC.
with thirteenth century medallion windows. There, too, we
ﬁnd the above-mentioned form .of medallion whichqcrosses
three or more lights of awindow, and affords space for a
subject drawn on a proportionately large scale. Peculiar to
Germany also are pattern windows, all in tolerably rich
colour, with, instead of ﬁgure or canopy work, a growth of
rose, ivy, maple, or vine scroll.
A form of window to be found in all countries is where
the broad horizontal bars, together with the mullions, are
accepted as forming compartments, within each of which is a
small subject, with a very insigniﬁcant canopy, if any. This
is never a very readable form of design, the less so as the
practice arose of carrying here and there one picture, if so it
suited the artist, beyond the mullion into the next light. It is
not as if each of them occupied tWo lights; the arrangement
being only casual, you cannot always be quite certain whether
it is a complete subject you are trying to decipher or only
part of one.
On a larger scale the spreading of one picture over the
window has not this objection. There is not much difﬁculty
in realizing that a kneeling ﬁgure of the Virgin in one light,
facing an angel with a scroll inscribed “ Ave Maria ” in the
other, together represent the Annunciation, or that the ﬁgures
of Christ upon the cross with arms outstretching into the side-
lights, and of the Virgin and Saint john in these, together
form one subject. In the beginning, at least, pictures of this
kind were designed in such a way as plainly to acknowledge
the divisions of the stonework. In the jesse window at
Wells, to which the ﬁgure on page 47 belongs, the vine
branches through the lights, each with its canopy, across
the shafts of which the branches are carried. Such straying
of the design over a window of several lights is indi-
_.cation of a growing tendency, which led in the end to
disastrous results. But it would be absurd to say that the

FIG. 25.—PART OF A DECORATED jESSE TREE IN THE EAST WINDOW
AT WELLS.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
Lb.
MIDDLE GOTHIC. 49
separate lights, of a window should always be designed so
that each was complete in itself, no part of the design ever
extending beyond a single light : they form, after all, a window
of several lights, and not several separate windows. Every-
thing depends, of course, upon due acknowledgment of the
mullions. So long as the designer schemed his picture in
such a way that the mullions did not hurt it, the situation
was, artistically speaking, safe. The idea (eventually fatal
to glass design) of ignoring intervening stonework, had not.
yet occurred to the fourteenth century mind.
The increased area of the windows of this period offered a
means of representing ﬁgure subjects (as apart from rows of
standing ﬁgures, which do in the end become monotonous)
on a scale large enough to be effective and intelligible at a
distance from the eye. Clever designers did cunning things
in the way of scheming their ﬁgures and devising archi-
tectural landscape or ornamental accessories which, while they
held the lights of the window together, yet confessed the
limits of each separate opening. It is to be noted that
mullions do not actually interfere with the picture in glass to
anything like the degree which a design on paper would give
one to expect.
It is usual in Decorated work for the shafts of canopies, and
perhaps also an outer border, to be carried down on each side
of the light, broken only by quite indispensable portions of the
ﬁgure, such as, for example, the extended arms of the Christ
upon the cross, which are allowed to cut boldly across in front
of them. The outline of each light is, as a rule, deﬁned by a
marginal line of white, which, as it were, clears the glass from
the stone.
Jesse windows of the Middle Gothic period are, as would
be expected, much freer and less formal in design than was
the fashion before. The genealogical tree is no longer to be
mistaken for anything but a vine, though the leaves and grapes
5o MIDDLE GOTHIC.
maybe out of all proportion to the comparatively small ﬁgures
among its branches. Sometimes the ﬁgures are framed in
medallions of elongated shape, formed most likely by the stern‘
of the tree. The medallion, by the way, when it lingered on-=
into the fourteenth century is often longer than it is broad.‘
Small ﬁgure subjects in colour are sometimes introduced into
grisaille in much this way, but never with very happy effect. ‘
Conspicuous in fourteenth century glass are the tracery
' lights, covering sometimes as much as half the area of a large
window. It is clear that the ﬁlling of these small and variously
shaped openings necessitated some departure from the lines of
design appropriate to the lights below. BOrders, for example,
are of necessity narrower, and it is only in the larger and more
important divisions that ﬁgure subjects (Fig. 27) can well be
introduced. The smaller contain sometimes little ﬁgures of
angels, or demi-ﬁgures, or medallion heads of saints. The heads
- of bishops in the tracery lights at Wells (Fig. 28) are unduly
large for the space they have to ﬁll ; but this particular kind
of disproportion is exceptional. Very commonly, on the other
hand, the ﬁgure work is overpowered by the ornament, and
especially by the architecture surrounding it. A more
effective device than ﬁgure work is the introduction of heraldic
shields, which also form sometimes the central features in
important tracery lights. The display of heraldry is by this
time more the fashion than it was. Less important openings
are commonly in grisaille, with here and there a boss of
jewellery and narrow borders consisting perhaps only of a
line of colour. In fact, the usual scheme of design is : grisaille
with narrow coloured borders, dwindling in the smaller lights
to a mere ﬁllet of colour; and colour patches in the form of
ﬁgure work or heraldry, dwindling in the smaller lights to
mere rosettes. '
Even whilst ﬁgure drawing is still rude (it improves
perceptibly towards the end of the century), there is a—very
MIDDLE GOTHIC. 5r
obvious attempt at grace of pose, which has rather the
look of affectation.
Strongly traced line work is still a feature in fourteenth
century glass-painting; but there was a change in the method
of laying on a tint or shade of brown. The early shading
resulted in an unsatisfactory smear. It was, in fact, not within

FIG. 26.—DECORATED TRACERY.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
the brush power of the painter to lay upon the slippery surface
of glass a half tint that was anything like even. He found at
last, however, that he could bring it to a much pleasanter
texture by dabbing the wet paint with the bristle ends of a
brush. This he began towards the middle of the fourteenth
century to do, at the same time softening the edges of the
E
52 - MIDDLE GOTHIC.
shadows. And there was yet another advantage in this stipplin g
process. A smear of tint, spread as equally as could be over the
surface of the glass, dulled it very considerably. Stippled paint,
on the contrary, gathered itself together into little hillocks of '
pigment, with little dells between, where the glass was almost
clear, and proportionately translucent.- A further develop-
ment of this practice occurred towards the end of the century ;
but meanwhile the granular texture given to painted shadows
by stippling denotes the middle of the middle period.
A yet more eventful step in technique was the colouring
white glass yellow, not in the pot, nor yet by enamel colour,
i but by means of a stain developed in the
kiln. This yellow stain remains ’to the present
YELLQW
STAIN' day the only means we have of staining. glass
after it has come out of the pot.
It was discovered about the beginning of the fourteenth
century that a solution of silver, painted on to the glass, would,
under the inﬂuence of the ﬁre, stain white glass yellow; pale
or dark, greenish or orange, according to its strength and to
the heat of the ﬁre. ’ Silver stain Was thus a means of showing
white and yellow on the same piece of glass without lead. It
was absolutely permanent, removable only with the surface of
the glass itself, into which it penetrated. There was never
any great certainty as to the precise strength of the yellow
which the stain would give, but it was always pure and bright, '
never harsh and ﬂat in colour, more often accidentally
graduated from light to dark, from cool to warm; so different
is it in quality from potmetal yellow, that one can usually at a
glance distinguish the one fromjthe other; and a pleasing
contrast is afforded by the juxtapositionof the two. It is not
surprising, then, that va much I greater use of yellow_ is
characteristic of Decorated glass, more especially upon white ;
the glass-painter was, in fact, accustomed to use yellow stain
upon white glass, much as a gilder would use gold leaf upon
wood or stone, to give brilliancy to the points of interest, and

FIG. 27.—DECORATED TRACERY LIGIIT IN WELLS CATHEDRAL.
ing in the Art Library of the Museum.
a frat
MIDDLE GOTHIC. 55
to (heighten the effect generally. This, of course, made his
windows bright and gay.
A much less noticeable and important feature in
fourteenth century colour, but still a notable departure
from conservative tradition, was the more liberal use than
heretofore of green glass. The Germans had a particular
leaning to deep, rich, mossy green; a more sober shade
was used in England, as may be seen at Wells, Ely, and
elsewhere, even for the backgrounds to ﬁgure subjects and
canopies, where blue and ruby had once been almost a fore-
gone conclusion. As time went on, paler and ﬂatter tints of
colour were sought in glass. Amongst other shades, the
brownish pink, or ﬂesh colour, pales- perceptibly with the
century. Eventually it gives way to white ﬂesh, upon which
the hair was commonly stained yellow.
Transitional is a term we have no right to use as though it
applied only‘to certain periods of art. Art is always moving
on ; but this middle period of glass-painting is more plainly in
a state of transition than earlier or later work. From the
earlier tradition of barbarically beautiful mosaic eked out with
painting, to the later more accomplished painting upon a basis
of glass mosaic, is a very decided step; and it is this step
which we distinguished as the Middle Gothic Period—a period
of transition, which has neither the colour of the earlier, nor
the draughtsmanship of the later glass to recommend it. A
man prefers thirteenth or sixteenth century glass according to
his natural bias : no one would ever prefer to either the work
of the fourteenth century.
Excellent examples of the progress from Early to Decorated
glass are to be found at St. Urbain, Troyes, belonging by
date to the end of the thirteenth century. Richest of French
churches is perhaps the Cathedral of Evreux. The church of
St. Pierre at Chartres is full of fourteenth century glass.
The church of St. Ouen at Rouen is also to be mentioned ;
Se MIDDLE GOTHIC.
in Germany, St. Sebald’s at Nuremberg and Freiburg; in
Italy, Santa Maria Novella and Santa Croce, at Florence, and
the upper church at Assisi.
v In England some of the earliest transition work is in
Merton College, Oxford, thirteenth century work still, they
say, but plainly going over to the new style. The ﬁne array

FIG. 28.—DECORATED TRACERY LIGHT 1N WELLS CATHEDRAL.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Museum.
of windows in the Chapter House at York dates probably
from soon after the beginning of the new century. In the
nave of York Minster also are ﬁne Decorated windows later
in date and fuller in colour, the West window amongst
others, and the bell founders’ window. Famous Decorated
MIDDLE GOTHIC. 57
glass exists also at Wells, and numerous examples at
Tewkesbury, Bristol, and elsewhere. The great East
window at Gloucester Cathedral, belonging though it does
to the early part of the second half of the fourteenth cen-
tury, is not typically Decorated, on the contrary it is a strange
; l
5‘“ -'~'v' "t; Y. a
I as. __ r I
0 . jl if“
gain)“ "“ A/* .. . Vii.“
I'M . . - ea
-'. e '7' 4
= :-

.1
FIG. 29.-FOURTEENTH CENTURY GRISAILLE, WITH PATTERN IN
WHITE AND STAIN.
In the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq. [No. 940—1900).
forecast of the later manner, more particularly in regard to
colour. The ﬁrst impression of it is very much that of
Perpendicular glass; it is only when you begin to look into
its design that you ﬁnd the details to be earlier.
V.
LATE GOTHIC.
The term Perpendicular applies no less to English glass
than to the architecture of the Late Gothic Period. The
canopy work, upon which the artist now more than ever
, relied for his ornament, takes straight upright lines, as
marked almost as the tracery mullions which give the name
to the English style. It does not apply equally to foreign
work; and, indeed, in this style the similarity of English
to continental work is much less than in preceding cen-
turies. We seem to have developed a style more distinctly
our own, as the Germans did in their fourteenth century
work.
The development of glass painting in the ﬁfteenth
century, and in the last quarter of the fourteenth, was
further in the direction of picture and of light. It was the
glass-painter who now took the predominant part, no longer
the glazier, though the mosaic character of a window was
still not left out of sight; the painter continued to rely upon
pot-metal for his colour, and contrived to glaze it together
with something like the old cunning. '
One imagines a thirteenth century artist thinking out his
design as glazing ﬁrst, planning it, in fact, as so many
shaped pieces of glass, to be ﬁtted together like a puzzle;
and leaving the consideration of supplementary painted
detail to the last. As a matter of fact, you can read an
Early design from the outside of the church by help of the
leads alone. When the leads do not in any way explain
the composition of the design, or when, in looking at the
if? I]

l'lG. 30.—-EXTERIUR VIEW OF PART OF A WINDOW AT TROYES,
SHOWING THE PLANNING OF THE DESIGN.
LATE GOTHIC. 61
glass from' the inside of the church, they no longerseemto
have been inevitable, but appear as if they might perhaps
have been an afterthought, it may be taken for granted that
the work is not of earlier date than the third Gothic period.
For in the ﬁfteenth century the glass-painter reached a
stage when he must ﬁrst have sketched in his picture and
then bethought him precisely how he should glaze it. No
doubt he would be inﬂuenced from the beginning by the con-
- sideration of glazing, more or less ; otherwise he would not so
commonly have arrived at a satisfactory solution of the
difﬁculty ; but that was now never his ﬁrst thought. He was
no longer a glazier, thinking how he could carry his design
further by the aid of paint, but a painter, thinking how by the
aid of glazing he could get colour into his design. His window
consisting by this time largely of white glass, the problem
of design resolved itself into a question of introducing colour
in the midst of white, and (now for the ﬁrst time) avoiding, as
much as possible, the use of leads, which he began to think a
blemish upon it. ‘ '
This brings us to a very important pointin the design of
stained glass. So long as it was the practice to outline 'every
form with lead, leadwork was no hindrance to the artist;
one strong black outline kept the others in countenance ; but
so soOn as it became a question of throwing the leads into here
and thereean outline only, they were found to be in the way,
more and more so in proportion to the delicacy of the painting
and the desire of the painter to- avoid the necessity of lead
lines. The more white glass was used, the more pictorial the
aim of the painter, and the more delicate his work (and those
were the directions in which ﬁfteenth century glass pro-
gressed)—-the more difﬁcult it became to deal with leads. Still,
though the painter came, as he did' during this period, to take
precedence of the glazier, the two, as long asthey worked
together, produced Work which quite justiﬁes, by qualities of
62 LA TE GOTHIC.
its own, the departure of the artist from traditions of an
earlier state of craftsmanship.
The typical form of a Late Gothic or Perpendicular design
was a canopy window; arid the canopy (Fig. 31) was still archi-
tectural, more deliberately after the model of tabernacle-work in
stone, indeed, than the ﬂat-fronted niches of the preceding style.
But, in effect, the canopy was turned to very different, as well
as to more important, use. In the ﬁrst place, the Late form
. of canopy was almost entirely in white, whereas the Decorated
canopy, even when it had in it a fair amount of white glass,
produced the effect of colour, not quite so rich, may be, as that
of the ﬁgures beneath it, but distinctly colour. In the second
place, the white canopies were deliberately planned to enclose
4 and frame thericher ﬁgure work. The accepted scheme of
composition was, in fact, to present a screen of silvery
white tabernacle-work, in which were set great patches of
ﬁgure work relatively rich in colour. At times the key of
colour was anything but deep ; the ﬁgures may have been
draped for the most part, if not \entirely, in white also; but,
even when the colour was conﬁned to the backgrounds,
it was enough to distinguish the ﬁgure work from its
setting. The canopies of an earlier date may be regarded as
part of the picture, these were distinctly the frame to it.
Late Gothic canopies were conﬁned as a rule (though not
invariably) each to a single light. ,‘The shrine was,'as it were,
built up in the window opening. Its shafts separated the
coloured ﬁgure work from the mullions. Its pinnacles stood”
clear against the blue or ruby, forming now again almost
invariably the background in the window-head, but no longer
separated from the stone work by so much as a ﬁllet of white.
Its base was often almost a solid block of white, giving, in a
series of lights, the banded effect seen already in the windows
of the century before ; but the bands were 'now alternately of
white and colour, which produced a very different and quite
.. w.
imnuﬂ
3%.. ..
.3 I.
Q
~
k
:A
ﬁlm.
an
s .
_
.-
_.Y." ‘8"). l _...
. '-
haw...
. '
a“!
sav‘
.. . q ..
. .i a A. f.
...
um.
uhnunh
Emma? .. a.
t . . .
II
. - a.er
awllmt‘hl.llh
e... .. 2.....-
“Awanuﬂl..vu
,4. .
e.
name-i... g a n
. 1..
\w
Ll
.l. 4
.11.. . .. a1. . are
..Iq .
Ml. 'l‘lmnmﬂml‘llwnll‘ﬂu.“
.ihﬂ .. O -165“.
runaway ..
.. . an
i .l.
\
'1‘“
We... a? Reels... .
his»... eel Q.
. a. ' . y .L
ﬁe. nausea
-‘ r. ‘llll..“\‘
Il.lal|.|l.ll\llr I I I'il llllma.
A .I . .
.....;.. ’ \\ I J. .... ...I|---.A.U..Hv.
W. .

infl-
FIG. 3I.—-PERPENDICUI.AR LIGHTS. FROM WINcHESTER COLLEGE CHAPEL.
In the Museum (No. 4237—1855).
>1 hi-
I ihffitlihiux
. " .L‘ J"
a.
I
a
I
at =1
3 l
hiII-l
"P‘ Lilli ’ evil"
|r_..:. Gag] ' '
it I
l _ I
i lili
n.
, .
p l
I‘I
' .
. _ H
I
.‘4 l
“i;
l'l
I
if 1 0 "71:. l
“UV P‘ 1.6.} 1" Y
‘i; 7;?sege'ii‘
., “-“2"\' - ._ ,,
an
a

' q I ﬂy".
. ,w
_, \ Ill
I
_ . . ‘ I , ain‘
. ‘n CD
' .M
11
alga?“
we
If :2); o
. I s“. 2.
WEAR-ea.
Imam». 1.2!
2,2!
_ll-— M
lISIIIAI- ‘--_-|
'ereeeaére Intermittent-mil Imieeeeereeen
l
.“i'
Hill. Lilllljl
FIG. 32.—THI-: “BLACKBURN” WINDOW IN THE EAST AISLE or
\
ALL SAINTS‘ CHURCH, NORTH STREET, YORK.

From a water-colour drawing in the Museum.
a,
LATE GOTHIC. 67
distinctive effect. An alternative and hardly less usual treat-
ment was to introduCe into the base a subsidiary niche, in
which to depict, in small, some subject illustrative Of the life of
the personage represented on a larger scale above. Canopies
of two, three or even more tiers were thus employed (Figs.
32 and 33) ; but the use of the transom in Perpendicular
architecture did away with the difﬁculty of dealing with very
tall openings. 4
The yellow stain freely introdunced on the crocketing of
the pinnacles and on the sofﬁts of the arches, now represented
in a kind of not very well understood perspective, did not
materially affect the silvery look of the white canopy work.
But this applies more to English than to foreign glass. In
Germany the much more ﬂorid canopy in vogue there was
glazed occasionally in strong yellow; and the French
Flamboyant canopy also simulates gold sometimes.
The pattern of the design differs in different parts of
Europe, but the work of a school is apt to be very much all of
a pattern. The school, so called, was more properly a work-
shop: the element of economy entered more closely into
mediaeval manufacture than it is customary to admit.
Perhaps in those days, as certainly in these, the vogue of the
canopy was largely a matter of trade expediency.
In France, where the canopy was not so universal as with
us, another expedient was adopted which savours also of the
Shop, that, namely, of dividing the window horizontally, and
accepting the lines given by the bars and mullions as so many
oblong compartments, each enclosing its separate subject. The
eﬂect of this is often better than might have been expected to
result from such a perfunctory system of design ; but it is not
easy to make out what it is all about, and when some subjects
extend across the mullion into a neighbouring light, and some
.are conﬁned to a single opening, it is a work of discovery, and,
indeed, of a patient discoverer, to unriddle the design. Even
F
68- - LATE GOTHIC.
where the little subjects keep in bounds, and have an apology
for Canopy to frame them, as, for example, in the great East.
window at York Minster, the story might almost as well not
have been told- Of the many.th admire the'decorative effect
of theglass, how, fewever take the pains to read it 1 only here.
and there perhaps an antiquary.
T he. persistence of the architectural idea in glass design,
would strike one as strange, were it not that canopy-work
occurs frOm ﬁrst to last throughout the-Gothic. period, and
much. later too. The°notion of a stone-like niche in glass, to.
frame a picture already framed by real architecture, does not
as suchcom'mend itself to the logical mind. Supposing it
necessary to surround the glass picture with a frame of glass
(and it is true the stonework of the window does not effectively
frame it; you seem somehow to be looking at it through the
opening in the wall) the workmanlike way would be, to
' construct any such framework on the lines, not of masonry,
however far removed from stone, .but of glazing. Still,
granted the poverty of invention implied by the resort to
imitation architecture, and the little interest excited by the
forms it takes in glass, it must be allowed that the Perpen-
dicular canopy proved a singularly effective. means of
enshrining, in a mass of white glass, colour enough to give a
'window richness without great loss of light. Dull as a
Perpendicular canopy may be in detail, a better scheme for
the distributiOn of white and colour in a window remains yet
to be devised.
.J
Colour is the cause of a stained glass window; it condones
no matter what form; and the colour of good glass has a
charm which takes one willingly captive. The most
absolutely satisfactory windows will often not bear the least
critical examination of their design and drawing- That is
x'ery apparentwhen it comes to illustrating them (as in these
pages) in black and white. The result is often such as to
if“)
a,
‘ \
(ﬁiqf'zw l: ‘ .IFI
A - _ ':
.itiwitt '~'
‘ I FA"-
.Ii-‘III “lily ’4. a . r " F
I?» s 1' ' I- '-‘ a
MA.-
e
a“ .‘|'_'
e , r' - ~
~ 16
I Q
U
..
a
"easier page _t-I ;
7
‘h
0 .g b?"
- ’;_-e.rt!-.~‘ ' '1 I
‘3
K“
it
ea...
‘ ',_ .
*t‘h
Q ed
,
LII!
VEEE
wI-lnrm'"
‘w lie-3;.“ ".1;ng
I IAA'i-‘meﬂl
3
E5. Fe a:
£2.
Sweet list.“
"it
It
'52!
.____‘I|i|
1‘"
ill

FIG. 33.—WINDow, “THE CORPORAL WORKS OF MERCY,” IN THE
NORTH AISLE, ALL SAINTS’ CHURcH, NORTH STREET, YORK.
From a wafer-colour drawing in the Museum.
LA TE GOTHIC. 71
make those who have not seen the glass ask themselves,
whatever can there be to admire in things so ugly.
In glass-painting, as in other arts, such ornamental detail
as happened not to be in imitation of architectural features
was less naturalistic in the ﬁfteenth century than in the

4
l
'e a
'4
.k.
... ‘.' .
_ a
l
A.
/'.I‘. .
“D
,.
‘1‘.
k ‘ g,“
e a 111-"?
"A;

% l

\Q'.‘ .QQQ Q... .O.‘ Q... OI. GOOOQQGOQO
‘Q
'0
I
0
I
Q
.l
G
C
O
0‘
l
‘
l
O
I
‘
1
‘
j
FIG. 34.—PANEL OF OLD GLASS.
In the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq. (N0. 937—1900).
fourteenth. It was still, it may be said, founded upon natural
foliage, but the forms of nature were deliberately reduced to
the terms of ornament, of elaborate ornament it might be,
fantastic foliation, twisting about and curling over, or
embossed more after the manner of beaten metal than of
JLLJ
72 LATE GOTHIC.
painted glass; but in any case it was far removed from
realism.
Nowhere is this more plainly shown than in the treatment
of the tree of jesse. Its branches were sometimes more
nearly allied to scrollwork than to any actual growth in

F10. 35.-—PERPENDICULAR TRACERY LIGHT.
From a tracing in {he A r! Library of the Museum.
nature; but even when, as was usually the case in this
country, the vine-stock was the chosen type, it was removed
from its original, no less by_the character of the drawing than
by the colour of the foliage. Usually it was in white and
‘, V H v Ii _ g L-‘é'-'-._ A
' " l . . we? "flit/“II \. '
" 2;.iA/fiéai
IiiE‘J-h‘i‘Hif-‘i-

{Al e *'
I
H
'e'lggi'élgﬁ
.' i" ' a, l' 7" \I _,
i‘; I _ ‘ _W ‘
' ’ " “ an. {$53
if I tiﬁihﬁtt'ﬁgiarr
an.
., '
aim-Lemme:

FIG. 36.—THE "BEDE" WINDOW IN THE NORTH AISLE OF '
ALL SAINTS’ CHchH, NORTH STREET, YORK.
. From a water-colour drawing in the Museum.
LATE GOTHIC. 75
stain. \Nhere the leaves were coloured, the stems were white.
At ﬁrst the branches still make a bower for the ﬁgures, later
the tree bursts out, as it were, into demi-ﬁgures as though
they were ﬂowers or fruits upon it. The later the work the
freer the growth, and the less the pretence Of framing the
ﬁgures formally in foliage. Windows very rich 'in colour
throughout occur still in Late Gothic work, but comparatively
rarely.
W'indows all in white and stain are of not uncommon
occurrence, with ﬁgures, usually about as large in scale
as the width of the light will allow, on a background of
diamond-shaped quarries, very lightly diapered with paint
and stain. '
Merely ornamental grisaille takes now the form of simple
quarry work. Not seldom the white ﬁgure on a quarry
ground is emphasized by being shown against a coloured screen
or curtain ending somewhere below the shoulders of the
ﬁgure. The head is distinguished, as heretofore, by a nimbus,
but it is now almost invariably of white, or white and stain,
cut indeed out of one piece of glass with the white ﬂesh
(Figs. 34 and 35). This treatment of the head and nimbus in
one is the practice also in ﬁgure work into which a fair amount
of strong colour enters; and may be taken, indeed, as a Sign
of the period.
Since the tracery of a Perpendicular window took in the
main upright lines, there was no difﬁculty in treating the
smaller openings in it much in the same way as the larger
lights below. That is what was commonly done. And, though
there is something rather unsatisfactory in the abrupt change
'of scale necessitated by the smaller dimensions of the tracery
lights, the effect of the little canopied ﬁgures up there is
pleasing enough. -
The ﬂowing tracery of Flamboyant or other ﬂorid foreign
windows compelled a different treatment; but even the most
76 LATE GOTHIC.
fantastic shapes could be ﬁlled by ﬂoating angels with their
wings outspread, bearing scrolls or emblems. In England it
was customary to keep the tracery of a Late Gothic window
light in colour even whenv the lower part of it was fairly
rich. ' ..
; In pursuance of the pictorial idea it became at length not '
veryunusual to take the main lights of the window as the
ﬁeld for a single subject, or (if it happened to be a very large
window) to allot to each subject a group of lights, a practice
commenced already in the fourteenth century. The archi-
tecture or the landscape appropriate to the scene helped
materially to keep the picture together; and both alike
were now treated with some regard to perspective. The
background also developed into blue sky, painted so as to
suggest the clouds upon it. Something like aerial effect was
even attempted, not with-dint ameasure of success, when on a
small scale. The French glass-painters in particular excelled
in landscape backgrounds, painted upon grey-blue glass, their
success in this being largely due to the frank acceptance of a
convention based upon the conditions of glazing and painting.
In the earlier glass, when a deep blue pot-metal was used. .for
“the sky,,the only means of indicating clouds in it was to glaze
them in white or_ grey-blue glass, whether in the arbitrary
form of cloud patterns (as in the thirteenth century medallions)
or in streaks of conventional cloud banks. With the use of a
much lighter blue it became possible to paint upon it, not
clouds merely, but landscape receding into the distance, the
sky onthe horizon broken by tree trunks in the foreground
and by the roofs of quaintly towered buildings; or if the
subject called for aninterior, the vaults of a building, were
depicted, with a peep through the arches into the open.
The landscape effect was enhanced by the use of; yellow
stain, giving green, for the verdure; whilst, perhaps, dark
hills beyond were glazed in purple against the blue, not only

FIG. 37.—FIGURE on ST. BARTHOLOMEW FROM WINCHESTER
COLLEGE CHAPEL.
In the Museum (No. 4237-1855).
LATE GOTHIC. 79
producing always harmonious colour, but giving quite reality
enough to the impression. The beauty of it was that the
artist kept within the restrictions imposed upon him by his
means. He gave us pictures, only, not to be condemned,
“5! ,7'
ire; »

FIG. 38.—P0RTION OF AN EARLY SIXTEENTH CENTURY WINDOW.
In the Museum (NO. 5941—1858).
because they were honest glass-pictures. English glass-
painters of the period adopted as a rule a yet sterner
convention, using (always it seems with an idea of framing
their colour) a white background, and painting the landscape
8o LATE GOTHIC.
upon that, staining the trees, and the grass in places-yellow.
The effect of this, in, for example, the windows at Great
Malvern, is delightful. In the great windows at King’s College
Chapel, Cambridge, the more naturalistic landscape back-
grounds are in white andyellow, and the sky above is blue
with white clouds against it, but on a scale so vast that
glazing enters inevitably into the scheme of execution. The
charm of all painted background is in its delicacy, best to --be
appreciated in work of moderate dimensions, placed not far
from the eye. I
The more pictorial quality of Late Gothic glass is only,
justiﬁed by the extraordinary development in technical
accomplishment which took place during the century. The
artist is no IOnger feeling his way towards draughtsmanship,
or trying to paint on glass, he is a master of his craft, knowing
well what he can do and doing it with apparent ease. One
may prefer the naive mosaic of an earlier date, but there is no
denying its archaic character. It is mere pedantry to question
the right of an artist to do what he has proved himself able to
do right well. For either artist, his method was for him the
right, the only, one. I
What has been said about the great predominance of white
glass in Late Gothic does not apply so generally to foreign
work as to English. We get, until the end of the period,
together with light toned windows (as at Troyes, Chalons,
Rouen, Beauvais, as well as at Nuremberg, Ulm and else-
where in France and Germany), windows very deep and rich
in colour throughout. In Italy, too, full ‘rich colour is the
rule, reminding, one (as at Bologna and in the Duomo, at
Florence) more of the colour-scheme of the primitive painters
than of Perpendicular glass~workers. ' ~
Later Gothic glass~painting distinguishes itself always
more and more by the mastery of drawing shown. in it, by the
delicacy of its painting, and, above all, by the medelling of the
LATE GOTHIC. 81
ﬂesh, now painted by a more subtle process of stippling than
that used in the preceding century. Stippling or matting of
the coat of paint was especially necessary when it came, as it

.‘ 7»
FIG. 39.—HEAD OF A BISHOP m nu; East Wmoow AT
YORK Mms‘nm.
From a water-colour drawing in the Art Library of the Museum.
did in late work, to painting large surfaces of white glass, if
all its brilliancy was not to be lost; and the adoption of the
method went with, and encouraged, the employment of the
'82 , LA TE GOTHIC.
great quantity of white glass so characteristic of ﬁfteenth
century windows. . _
At ﬁrst the practice was, to paint'shadows thinly, stipple
them, and enforce them with hatchings or scribblings of ﬁne
lines Over that. A further development
was, having traced the outlines and
burnt them safely in, to coat the glass all
GLASS
PAINTING.
over with a ﬁlm of brown, to matt the painted surface, and
then to wipe out the parts where the glass was meant to be
clear, and with a stiff brush to scrub away from other portions
of it just so much of the paint as would give the gradation of
tint required; ﬁnally the painter put in crisp, dark touches
with the brush, and with the pointed end of the stick scraped
out sharp lines of light. In very delicate work the point
played a more important part than the pencil; in fact, the art
of the painter consisted rather in the removal than inthe
laying on of pigment. The process was really more like'
etching than painting. By means of it, and of its repetition
it might be several times, ﬁring the glass each time again, the
utmost degree of modelling was attained, without the use of
heavy masses of paint. - The effect was, in the happiest result,
as compared to forceful Chiaroscuro, what delicate low relief
is to sculpture standing out "from the ground. The all-
important thing was to get light into the shadows. When
that ceased to be attempted all the glory of glass was gone.
In later Gothic work the artist chose his glass with a care
which his predecessors had not so much occasion to exercise,
since accidental variations in colour did not seriously affect
their scheme of design. In proportion as the aim was pictorial,
it became necessary to select from amidst the unevenly coloured
sheets of glass the particular pieCe which, by its gradation from
light to dark, suggested the roundness of the fold of drapery to
be rendered, and so forth. Cunning use was made also of the
curiously streaked, spotted, orotherwise variegated, pieces of

F10. 40.—-LATE GOTHIC FLESH PAINTING FROM FRAGMENTS OF
FIFTEENTH CENTURY FLEMISH GLASS.
In the Museum (No. 513—1892).
LATE GOTHIC. 85
glass which often came out of the melting pot. Ruby glass
was especially subject to such freaks ; and these were turned to
account in the shafts of columns and other architectural
features, producing very much the impression
of marble. Glass-makers went so far as to
“ sprinkle ” the glass in the making, with a view
to variegated colour, and glaziers manipulated it after it was
made. This was possible owing to the composition of ruby,
and some, other kinds of glass, and to the device, adopted
towards the second half of the ﬁfteenth century, of abrading
its surface. .
Ruby glass, it should be explained, is an exception to the
rule that pot-metal glass is coloured throughout. The
colouring matter employed in it is so dense that a sheet of
ruby substantial enough for its purpose would be no longer
translucent. What is called ruby glass is therefore red only
RUBY
GLASS.
part of the way through—the coloured part relatively about as
thick as the jam upon a slice of bread. But the layer of red is
not laid upon a sheet of white: the blower wraps around the
lump of dough-like glass attached to his blowpipe a molten
coating of the other kind, and blows the two together into the
bubble which is the beginning of a sheet or disc of coated
glass. ,
When colour was conﬁned to one surface of the glass only,
it was quite possible, however laborious, to grind portions of
it away, leaving the white bare of colour. This is what the
men of the ﬁfteenth century did, producing by that means
dots, lines, and patterns even, of white upon ruby. To
'produce a yellow pattern they had only to stain the white;
and by yellowing only a portion of the exposed white they got
very much the effect of embroidery in gold and pearls upon
ruby velvet. ‘
They took also to making coated glass of other colours, blue
in particular, upon which, by the aid of abrasion and stain,
' 86 LATE GOTHIC.
they got white, yellow, and green upon blue glass. Stain
upon a palish purple glass gave olive. V
Another means employed to get colours upon white without
the use of lead was, to apply to white glass vitreous “ pastes”
of colour and to melt them on to it in the ﬁre. In that way they
got jewels of red and blue and purple in a mitre or king’s crown,
itself stained a golden yellow, with pearls of white encircling
the jewels. As it proves, these jewels are seldom found
intact; time has stolen them away; or to speak strictly the
action of the weather has in time prevailed. The substance of
the little pieces applied was not of the same consistency as the
white ground; the shrinkage and expansion of the white glass
and of the coloured pastes according to the temperature was
not equal; and the jewels were apt to work themselves free
from their setting. Theophilus, writing perhaps at the
beginning of the thirteenth cenfury, tells how to apply colour
in this way; but we do not ﬁnd examples of it until about
the fourteenth century, and even- then it was not a common -
practice. \
AReliance upon the combined expedients of abrasion and
stain.argues a date not much earlier than i450. Notwith-
standing the labour involved in abrasion, it occurs constantly
in late ﬁgure work of the richer kind, and may even be said
to give something of its character to late ﬁfteenth century
glass. Nowadays, what was once laboriously ground away is
easily eaten out by acid.
Deep toned glass continued always to be used even in
windows composed largely of. white; and the effect of
intense colour set judiciously in silvery light is extremely
happy; but paler tints also Were employed, with the result
sometimes of a much thinner look, though the material itself
-may‘ have been substantial enough. Red glass was in later
days often less ruby-like in colour, more scarlet; blue was
lighter and grayer in. tint; purple was no longer always
,' ,‘ libs-‘Ian-E}
Fl" .aatastarl I“! "N i. “git-"'2. ' 1'31: 7".“ .""~"‘*'I_‘
i" Wt “it!
are is ~ I A? aacfhl
r; 1' 21.1
it.
"1;" .
. ‘ I;
I ,:
M . ~41
ii 7 .1 ‘ ' A 1
.f. V a! H '4 ' \ y -I I
I. 1'? iii,
-
[w
I F 17:?
\
i
:1; l'tg'lt _ '1 ~
:- s.
‘ 't?
at“ t i". .
' I
__ ii
- \ \ v_ \\.\\\\\
5 ‘n-‘F‘
\ . J .' 48.22
,‘d'A-\:
if“
I...
1 B
in’l- >45
l". i q: "‘ li.‘
1' ‘ - i > “, .
- ,4 ' n
:i ‘ ' .‘r,
' 1 ' - A- i‘w - : r
A! _ - ,,__~ * 3
, 0* a}!
a f's'ﬁ

FIG. 4r.—P0RT10N OF THE "BLACKBURN" WINDOW m THE EAST AISLE
OF ALL Samrs’ CHURCH, NORTH STREET, YORK.
From a water-colour drawing in the Museum.

.'
i‘
‘I
q q. .
I‘ r“, ‘
s" ~ w 4
g » a
h 6“
5% . a: :5»
- 1?. 12..
2' ‘ “3‘
. r
l
J; '
t .F .
E k , =,
L
a.
I
2
‘2“.
'1‘,
P4;

'.
{4...
'5
H (I
I

FIG. 42.—Tw0 LATE Gorr-uc Lranrs AT FAIRFORD CHURCH,
GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
From coloured tracings in the Museum.
LATE GOTHIC. 91
brownish, but ranged to violet, and, in the lighter shades, to
lilac ; a peculiar rosy pink glass was made also.
As for white glass, the natural endeavour was from
the ﬁrst to get it purer. The attainment of that end
was not unmixed gain to art. The green, yellow, or
dusky tint, due to the impurity of the sand of which

FIG. 43.—F1GURES or DONORS IN ST. WILLIAM's WINDOW,
YORK Mmsrmz.
From a coloured drawing in the Art Library of the Museum.
it was made, gave mellowness to it ; and the horniness or
slight opacity which came of scientiﬁcally speaking im-
perfect manufacture, was a quality by no means lightly
to be sacriﬁced even for the sake of light. Late Gothic
glass was not yet clear and colourless, but it was already
lighter than it was, and cooler. There is blue or green
92 LA TE GOTHIC.
in it, but it does not look either green or blue, having, rather,
the effect of silvery white, which is indeed a characteristic of
Perpendicular glass.
In glass of the Late Gothic period England comes to the
front; though we have nothing perhaps so masterly as the
great windows on the North side of the nave at Cologne.
The Fairford windows (Fig. 42) are probably not English,
anxious as patriotism may be to claim them as such. In any
case these belong to the end of the period.
j Quite early in the style, belonging indeed to the last ten or
twenty years of the fourteenth century, are the ﬁne windows
in the ante-chapel of New College Chapel, Oxford. The credit
of this, as that of the Winchester glass, dating about the
beginning of the ﬁfteenth century, portions of ’which are now
in the Museum (Figs. 31 and 37), is attributed to William
‘ of Wykeham. - ,
Another work of the ﬁrst years of the century is the great
East window at York Minster, perhaps the biggest window in
the world. Not only the Minster but numerous other churches
in the old city of York are extraordinarily rich in Late glass,
rather typically English.
' The abbey church at Great Malvern is another storehouse
of good work, ranging from the beginning to the end of the
period. Other good examples are at Merton and All Souls
Colleges, Oxford. St. Mary’s, Shrewsbury, contains some
excellent Flemish or German work, as do the Church of St.
Laurence at Nuremberg, the cathedral at Ulm, and the
chapel of jacques Coeur in Bourges Cathedral.
VI.
RENAISSANCE.
The earlier Renaissance period widely overlapped the later
Gothic. Whether a window happened to be designed in one
style or the other, depended more upon where it was designed
than precisely when it was made. Many a time it was very
much a question of conservatism in the one case or of enterprise
in the other, and depended as much upon the artist’s age as

F10. 44.-—FR0M GLASS IN THE Museum.
In the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq. (No. 931—1900).
upon anything: older men would cling as naturally to the
way of their youth as a new generation would run to meet the
future.
The diﬂ'erence, then, between Late Gothic and Early
'94 RENAISSANCE.
Renaissance glass was almost entirely one of detail. Accord-
ing as the costume of the ﬁgures, the architecture,the foliage, or
the ornament, is in the older or the newer fashion, we attribute,
it to one style or the other. judged by details of ornament
and architecture most of the splendid windows in the choir
' at Auch (1507-1513) must be called Renaissance; but the
spi/rit of the work is expressly Gothic.
LRenaissa'nce technique was at ﬁrst the same as before; it
remained, that is to say, glass-painting on a baSis of mosaic ;
the colour (With the exceptions already mentioned) was in
the glass (pct-metal), the paint was always the same brown
pigment, used only to express form, to deﬁne details clearly,
to give roundness to the shapes, and at most to qualify colour.”
It may fairly be said, it was the salt of Gothic tradition”
which for a, time kept sweet the glass of the Renaissance. At
all events, as that died out the painter lost sight of the fact that
it was glass with which he, had to' do, and, in 'the vain attempt
at picture, lost qualities on which a window depends for all
its charm. Still, even in the early days of the new period the
effect of the glass was very different indeed from what it had
been ; and before long the new departure proclaimed itself in
terms there was no mistaking. -
The Renaissance canopy, even when it was planned more
of less on the lines of the Gothic, was strikingly different in
design, no longer all in white but richly stained, with colour
in the wreaths of foliage and other classical “properties” i
depending from it; even though, here and there, the cusping '
of a round larch showed the artist to be still in a state of
transition from one style to the other, anxious to be up-to-
date, but not yet quite at home in the new manner.
No doubt the Workmanlike traditions of the Gothic glazier;
yielded presently to the altogether pictorial practice which we. a
associate with the Renaissance, and which is admittedly the
characteristic most in evidence in sixteenth century work.
,
v .
. g - Q - .
v I‘l-"U:IIIII
’ pita.- "
-' .}§\If.‘ 3‘. ' I
"b\- 0‘
a missing:
. Mr, _

Fro. 45.-—THE Cmcumcrsron, FORMING PART OF THE EAST \anow
AT SANTA MARIA NOVELLA, FLORENCE (1491).
From a water-colour drawing in. the Museum.
RENAISSANCE. 97
But we are accustomed to take it too readily for granted that
Renaissance glass was entirely given over to the painter.
Eventually it was; but at the ﬁrst the colour was mosaic,
quite as mosaic as the later Gothic work contemporary with
it. You may see that in the windows of Santa Maria Novella,
at Florence (Fig. 45), no less than in the Cathedral windows
there, and in the windows at Milan Cathedral (Fig. 46).
Moreover, there are to be found in France, at Rouen for
example, and yet more commonly in Italy, at Arezzo, Where
the ﬁnest work of the famous William of Marseilles is to be
seen, at Bologna; at Florence, and elsewhere (Italian glass
is strictly mosaic), arabesque ornament of pronounced
Renaissance type, executed with as strict a regard to the
conditions of mosaic as the work of the thirteenth century.
Indeed, the old method in the hands of the new artist is
only more perfectly satisfactory than in those of the archaic -
workman, so satisfactory as to make us regret, for .all the
glories of pictorial glass-painting, that the men of the
Renaissance did not at all events work out this vein of glass
intrinsically mosaic, before forsaking it, as they did,_for
painting almost irrespective of the quality of pot-metal glass.
Even, as it was said, whilst the traditions of mosaic colour
were still preserved, marked change took place in window
design.)/Figure subjectslas in the case of the Last Supper and
the Adoration of the Kings, parts of which are here illustrated
(Figs. 47 and 48)L,iwere commonly carried right across a window
of many lights, and at last the whole area of the window came
to be accepted as thiefi‘el'd of one vast picture, extending as far
as it was possible into the tracery. And, where the idea of a
white canopy was retained, as it often was, it not only took
quite different shape but was conceived in a quite different
spirit. At most it merely framed the ﬁgures as some archi-
tectural composition frames an altar-piece. Frequently it did
not pretend to enclose them at all.
98 RENAISSANCE.
The artist used it often vmerely as~a background to his
ﬁgures, a shrine against which the forms of kneeling donors
and their patron saints were relieved; for by this time the
donor of a window had ceased to hide the light of his muniﬁcence
under any show. of modesty, and his portraiture had become
a feature in window design. The noblest examples of this
treatment are in the transept windows of St. Gudule at
Brussels, by Bernard Van Orle'y, not quite according to the
rules of glass,lbut in their way magniﬁcent.
A sPacious effect was produced by, as it were, building up
in the window an architectural composition, including rather
than enclosing ﬁgures framed, it might be, by some near
arch, but more or less entangled with receding architecture
seen through it in perspective. But this was a device of a
period no longer to be described as early Renaissance.
' The artists of the RenaisSance appear to have adopted the
idea_ if not of framing their picture in white canopy workjkiat
[least of binding it together by means of architecture painted on
. white glaSsl(Fig. 48) ; but, a_s‘t_he_sixteenth‘century advanced,
any .such- purpose was soon 'stultiﬁed by their so obscuring
large areas of the glass with paintthat it was no longer
to be accepted as white. Shadow will not fulﬁl the function
of light.
The divergence between the pictorial and the decorative
direction widened with the development of the newer pictorial
ideal. There was little ornothing in the pictures of the
Primitives which might not fairly be translated into glass.
On the other hand the qualities of time and shadow, as later
painters came to conCeive these qualities, were obtained, even
in the qualiﬁed degree in which they were obtainable, only
by a 10ss of the qualities of pure, luminous, and translucent
colour peculiar to glass. . "
Painting itself progresses by the sacriﬁce of qualities no
longer esteemed for others momentarily more highly prized.
‘ r 4 .
.. .. . v 1 . _
1.. I I -. _ v _ . \
, . till. 1 1.. .. l 01' l\ v _ \ l \
w. . .
I l

in. .. er “in ii...
a.\.. ‘1;
11R%
kn!!!
ill
. I
. 8...}.
| 1 .r . /
JO?

. - .. a .,
. i .. . AZ?“
I—‘io. 46.—PANEL or A WINDOW IN MILAN CATHEDRAL.
anno-
RENAISSANCE. , 101
New departures mayor may not be for the best, they are at
least inevitable. The artist is justiﬁed by his art. But the
sacriﬁce of qualities easy to get in one particular art for
others not to be got in it, recalls the fable of the dog who
dropped the substance for the shadow.
Painting upon glass, from having been in the beginning
absolutely subsidiary to glazing, became during the Gothic
period more and more its rival. Eventually it not only took
precedence of glazing but took the place of it, being used as ‘
a means, no longer only of rendering form, but ofgiving colour.
By the middle of the) Sixteenth century theiluse of enamel
colour was fully established.i,*"1‘he brown pigment used from
the ﬁrst was,‘literally speaking, enamel ; but
ENAMEL. what is generally speaking understood by
enamel colour, is the use of vitreous enamel
to give colour, and not merely to stop out the light.
(It began by degrees. It was used at ﬁrst for the ﬂesh
tints, an ochreish red being used for modelling the heads and
hands; and, earlier still, for tinting them on the other side of
the glass after they had been painted in brown. lﬁThen blue
enamel was used upon pale blue or white to give more delicate
gradations .of tint in the skies, and eventually other enamel
colours._"\Enamel colour was used also upon coloured glass
to give depth to the shadowsl; for by this time a thinner,
evener, and poorer quality ofglass came to be made, which
served the immediate purpose of the painter better than deep,
dense, and unequally coloured glass.
The extent to which thev consideration of painting took
precedence of glazing, is to be measured by the fact that in
the end even the practice of scheming the unavoidable glazing
so that it might fall into the outlines of the picture was
abandoned. The artist seems, rather, to have designed his
picture and left it to the glazier to lead it up in rectangular
panes of convenient size. He does not appear to have so
1.02 ' RENAISSANCE.
much as begun by setting out upon his cartoon the square
lines of the glazing, and accommodating his drawing to them ;
' they are allowed, at times, absolutely to cut across the flesh,
in a way that the least consideration would have shown to be
as unnecessary as it was awkward. It is strange how, in the
interests of the pictorial, the picture was thus spoilt. I
The astonishing skill of the later pictorial glass-painters
goes only to prove the futility of their endeavour. What the
brothers Crabeth of Gouda, and Linard Gontier of Troyes,
could not do, glass-painters may well despair of doing. It is
in the nature of things that colour upon the surface of glass
cannot have the limpid depth and luminosity of colour
suspended, as it were, In the glass itself, and that to deepen the
colour of glass by painting upon it is to dull it. Enamel
colour is by comparison with pot-metal, poor, thin, and garish.
Painted shadow is heavy, lacking at once the translucency of
glass and the transparency of shadow; for its depth is
obtained only by the density of the Opaque pigment used.
Otherwise the proceeding of the enamel painter was not
very different. from that of the painter in oils. His pigments
were metallic oxides, mixed with a sufﬁciency of powdered
glass, or its equivalent in the silicates, etc., which go to make
glass. At a sufﬁcient temperature in the kiln, the vitreous
compound was fused on to the glass ; but it did not penetrate
it; and, even when ﬁrmly attached, it was not secure. It was
difﬁcult to make sure that the contraction and expansion
should be equal in the case of the glass and of the vitreous
enamel upon it; and, unless that was so, the two were certain,
under exposure to the weather, to work themselves asunder.
As a matter of fact, a great part of the enamel painting in
old windows has ﬂaked off, exposing bare white glass, to the
utter ruin of that pictorial effect which was its cause.
The appliances, even of the seventeenth century glass
workers, did notperrnit the making of great sheets of glass,

FIG. 47.-—PORTION OF “THE ADORATION OF THE MAGI," IN THREE
FRENCH, ca. r525.
LIGHTS.
In the Museum (No. 2206—1855).
RENAISSANCE. 105
nor yet the ﬁring them, had they been made. The window
had still to be put together, the separate pieces connected, as
before, by strips of lead. Glass-painters continued, therefore,
to use pot-metal colour where it answered their purpose ; and,
in proportion as they used it, they succeeded in getting rich
colour. But ultra delicacy and reﬁnement (which were the
mison d’éti/e of enamel), and strong glazing lines did not go
well together. The leads were apt to look brutal, the painting
to look weak, by comparison.
The doings of the Early Renaissance glass-painters make
one hesitate to say they were not justiﬁed. They did a new
thing in their own way; and who shall say they had not a
right to go that way, when it led to such superb results?
But there is no denying that the way led to the degradation of
glass to the position of a mere translucent ground to paint on,
in colour which had neither the permanence nor the depth
and brilliance which had been the glory of older glass. In
fact, by the bitter irony of events, the new departure, which
glass-painters welcomed as the way to artistic triumphs
greater than had ever before been achieved, led not only out
of the right road but straight to the debacle of design.
The distinguishing characteristic of fully-developed
Renaissance glass is its pictorial treatment, pictorial, that is
to say, as the painter in oil conceived it, seeking ever more
and more the illusion of natural effect. Architecture was now
drawn in startling perspective, ﬁgures were rendered with all
possible actuality of light and shade, in landscape even some-
thing of atmospheric distance was attempted.
Glass was designed less as a Window than as a picture
supposed to be seen through it. The canopy was, as it were,
built up in the opening; above and behind it was, perhaps,
pale blue glass, by way of sky beyond, or plain white, glazed
in some simple geometric pattern, deliberately dissociating
itself from that part of the window which formed the picture.
106 . RENAISSANCE.
This may be regarded as a distinctly new idea. It is true that
you ﬁnd in many German churches (at St. Sebald’s, Nurem-
berg, for example), fourteenth century windows in which the
coloured glass does not extend to the top of the window, the
upper part of it being glazed with plain quarries or rounds;
but this appears to have been, either for the sake of economy
or with a view to getting some light into the building. In
any case, the glass itself was not white, nor clear and colour-
less enough to suggest, the idea of space; it was obviously
part of the window, though not of the colour scheme. Even
so, the idea of a window half in coloured glass half in white
was not a happy one. -
wThe canopy, at ﬁrst formal and severe, became by degrees
less a frame or setting to the ﬁgures than an architectural
“background to them. Ornamental detail, no longer arabesque,
"£66k the form of festoons, ribands, bunchesof fruit, etc.,
depending either from canopy-work or cartouches—betraying
. naturally a later period. Figure design was ,_the almost
invariablerule. Ornamental 'windows consisted sometimes of "
arabesque innwhite and stain, painted upon panes of clear
white, with or without a border; but the more typical tf'éat-
ment wasth to deﬁne the window shape by any border within
it, trusting to the masonry to frame the glass, which, as a
matter of fact, it does not satisfactorily do.
Painted quarries continued in this country to bexused,
bearing usually a cypher, monogram, badge, or other heraldic
or signiﬁcant device. The commoner practice abroad was, to
glaze, instead, plain. white glass in geometric patterns. But
the later artists did not show, in devising such patterns, the
art or ingenuity of the early glaziers. Evidently plaimglazing
was to the men of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries no
better than a makeshift. They showed in this the slight esteem
in which they held the material for which‘they deigned to design.
How should they esteem what they did not understand?

(1542)-
In the Museum. Lent by His Majesty the King.
FIG. 48.—PORTION OF THE LAST SUPPER, IN THREE LIGHTS.
FLEMISI-l
RENAISSANCE. ' 109
So it was that in the seventeenth century much skill of
draughtsmanship and painting was mis-spent on glass which
has none of the qualities which by rights belong to it. It is
difﬁcult, however, to speak generally of later glass. The
Renaissance was the period of “go as you please,” and the
personality of the artist counts more and more as we approach
modern times. Still, not even the most powerful designers of
the seventeenth century succeeded in compelling glass to the
purpose of mere pictorial painting.
The one quite new departure in the way of technique Was
the use of enamel; and by it you may safely date a window
as post-Gothic, though it was not until the beginning of the
seventeenth century that mosaic gave way to it almost
entirely.
All the technical devices of the later Gothic glazier and
glass-painter were carried to a further degre of perfection by
Renaissance artists of the early sixteenth century. Painting
was carried to a point of quite astonishing perfection, the
practice of scraping out lights, and of ﬁnishing with the
point, a needle point it might be, being especially developed.
Some painters were so skilful, also, in ﬂoating-on colour, that,
in many cases, they had no need to stipple it. They painted,
too, in stain, as it were modelling it, so as to give the effect of
embossed gold.
The effect of 'gold‘ and silver was mentioned as being
characteristic of late Gothic work; in Renaissance glass we
ﬁnd effects of gold and copper, produced by staining upon
stain, in such a way as to Show the complete control of the
artist over the ﬁre. ‘
A practice peculiar to the Renaissance was the coating of
White glass with a thin ﬁlm of White enamel at the back.
Absolutely clear white glass such as was now manufactured
had the effect of open space seen through the interstices of
the ornament painted on it. A portrait, or other head,
IIO ' RENAISSANCE.
painted on clear glass was, as it were, seen against the
light.
The maximum of pictorial effect to be got by painting
upon glass, without serious hurt to its_translucence, was soon
reached. After the middle of the sixteenth century, painters
sacriﬁced more and more of that precious quality, until, soon
after the beginning of the seventeenth, it was a thing of the
past.
The abandonment of all reliance upon glazing, and the
dependence upon glass-painting, mark at once the progress of
time and the decline of art. Eventually the traditions of
- craftsmanship were lost, only to be taken up again in our own
day. _The old secrets, of which we hear too much, have been
discovered anew; there is no longer any lost art. What we
have lost is the habit of submitting ourselves “duly and
reverently ” to the conditions imposed upon the artist by the
craft of his adoption. We may think ourselves above
obedience to the laws of light and optics, but they have their
revenge upon us, and play havoc with our would-be pictures.
The transition from Gothic to Renaissance is splendidly
illustrated at Auch, where there is a wonderful series of
windows, all by one man, and all executed between I 507 and
1513, in which the detail or the design is in the main
Renaissance, the manner of work Gothic. Somewhat in the
same spirit, though very different in manner, are the windows
in the churches of St. Patrice and St. Vincent at Rouen.
The famous windows of Van Orley, at St. Gudule, Brussels,
though fairly early in the new century strike an emphatically
new note in design. _
Splendid glass isv to be found at Liege, Brou, Conches,
Montmorency, Ecouen, Beauvais, St. Etienne at Paris, and in
numberless other French churches. In England we have at
Lichﬁeld Cathedral some ﬁne Flemish glass, and at King’s
College, Cambridge, a chapel-full of masterly pictorial work,
RENAISSANCE. III
which may or may not be of English design ; it appears, at all
events, to have been executed in England. There are remains
of a ﬁne Jesse window dispersed in the eastern Windows at
St. George’s, Hanover Square, London.
Dying traditions ﬂicker up again. for a moment with
extraordinary brilliance at Gouda, in‘ Holland, Where the
brothers Crabeth kept the glazier’s art alive to the very end
of the sixteenth century, and at Troyes, where Linard
Gontier made a name for himself in spite of the period at
which he lived.
As a warning against the evil ways of the seventeenth
century we have the seventeenth century windows of Lincoln’s
Inn Chapel, London.
More interesting work, into which enamel enters largely,
was done by the _Van Linges, at Oxford; but there, too, one
is impressed rather with what enamel will not do than with
what it can, even in skilful hands, accomplish.

FIG. 49.—CORNER QUARRY FROM A Durcn DOMESTIC Wmnow (r638).
I n the Museum.
VII.
DOMESTIC
There is no great quantity of church glass in the Victoria
and Albert Museum. What remains to us is happily yet in
the churches for which it was designed, and perhaps the
wonder is so much has found its way to the national collection.
And though the sentiment which clings to the art of other days
seems to evaporate in the dry air of a modern museum, such
places undoubtedly do afford opportunities of comparison very
valuable to the student; he is able there to study closely, and
at leisure, work which in its place in some high clerestory
was beyond the reach of investigation.
The larger portion of glass to be found in any museum is
almost invariably of domestic character, rounds of white and
stain, or other grisaille.
"f- '- '

>
i if“. _ .' n: his
.
l n > 7 V . A ~ - ___—-;-A
. y- 'f V ' 4 , ill-“00‘ Leakll'f’ 3" ». 4
. " e I A ' ‘ aim-3;; '
i
a
l
I
* we .r

, v5.99...“ “xvi we“
\ b - ~ ~
' “4’. Jeff a.
I ‘ ' f}: qt-rnaif’
1.) ‘ é ._: that and»;
'Wf ‘1 >0...- I’.'
I
_ .-- V ' _
FIG. 5o.—FR0M A ‘NORKING DRAWING FOR GLASS Br
G. A. VISCHER, 1603.
In the Art Library of the Museum.

DOMESTIC. 115
Chamber windows, domestic or civil, assumed inT‘fthe
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries very considerable import-
ance, and afforded, owing to their more modest dimensions,
and to their position so much nearer to the eye than most
church windows, excuse and scope for that more delicate
workmanship which the painter had come by that time (Fig.
51) to seek. In work of this description the Swiss glass-painters

Fro. 5r.—QUARRY FROM A DUTCH DOMESTIC Wmnow (1638).
In the Museum (No. 5943—1859).
greatly excelled. They were masters of technique. Traditions
both of treatment and workmanship survived among them
long after they had died out of general practice elsewhere. It
seems to have been the local custom of town councils and
trade guilds to present to neighbouring corporations or to
the freemen of friendly guilds, windows for their Halls, in the
1
116 DOMESTIC.
production of which the local glass-painter was put upon
his mettle, and showed what he could do. A wonderful

FIG. 52.—FROM A WORKING DRAWING FOR GLASS BY
G. A. VISCHER, 1588.
In the Art’ Library of the Museum.
series of such windows is to be found in the museum at
Lucerne ; but there is hardly an important municipal museum,
to say nothing of national collections, which does not contain

0
FIG. 53.-—FR0M A WORKING DRAWING FOR GLAss.
In the Art Library of the Museum.
examples of clever work of this kind. It claims, therefore,
in a museum handbook, rather more consideration than, on
DOMESTIC. 117
the ground of architectural dignity or decorative effectiveness,
it strictly deserves.
‘w-r-wr'
I» 1;"?
'5' r’ \ _ 1'
H in I. lljjﬁéai
. y, \ 7, f _ a. I. ,
.9"? ~ - \

FIG. 54.—FR0M A WORKING DRAWING FOR GLAss.
In the Art Library of the Museum.
The not very numerous examples in the Museum are
enough to show the form it generally took. Symbolic
ﬁgures, subjects from the Bible or from profane history, with
ornamental “ trimmings ’ as a rule more or less architectural,
are set forth in miniature with great elaboration. Heraldry,

FIG. 55.—FROM A WORKING DRAWING FOR CLASS, 1585.
In the Art Library 0] the Museum.
too, is a conspicuous feature, not here and there a shield of
arms, but groups of shields, with ﬂorid mantling, and gain
118 ' DOMESTIC.
dressed'supporters, the master of the house perhaps in festive
garb faced by his wife decked out in all her ﬁnery also.
There are to be found in these little domestic windows effects
of colour most ingeniously produced by the combined expedients
11:1 wm tram» _
rim 1" . '
erjrngegi’éiijwf , I
. m L ' )6 :1. li'
‘ _ bf till]? ’34 MW 6 k
. . _ . , ﬁt, a n f' ‘
‘ﬁt 1!. rebaflwyn‘fgiifghihi'g it
4 IMQQIQQIQJ .“m‘u .'
,9 Bull-:15 'u nowyucn. '3‘
ghyERZRtgm-ipr'pgrtm Div I h ‘
3Q“- wank, ormlmrtr Wright be:
(film!) bar grin; 23ml)“ ' - '
I

FIG. 56.-FROM A WORKING DRAWING FOR GLASS.
In the Art Library of the Museum.
of abrading the coloured surface of ﬂashed or coated glass (by
this time made in all manner of colours) and staining. The
practice was still to use by preference pot-metal glass when-
DOMESTIC. 119
ever the scale of the work allowed ; and in proportion as this
was done, depth and strength of tone were preserved ; but the
Swiss domestic glass-painters were not as a rule colourists.
It is extremely interesting to compare with the glass of
this period the drawings for it, which were not seldom by

‘I,
\B
" \fx
"‘7' - - ".
‘H s! r. e .
Q's _. \tsssrer- H - r

\
f." f ‘- 1'“ Y “ v: ‘
>30 a .f ,
.ﬁmdﬁlgtltl‘gé? t J l '
_ mm _| »

. “11'5" gijiu ‘ m1 ‘ r . .i-v
- <- is ‘g - t __ ,w _l . a - '1. i
9“, . s .v . ,7; J3: - s : “yaw ;. . r-.,. .~;
FIG. 57,—FR0M A WORKING DRAWING FOR GLASS.
In the Art Library of the Museum.
artists of repute. Tobias Stimmer, the Lindmeyers, and
other well known draughtsmen worked for glass, if not upon
it, and Holbein’s famous Stations of the Cross, at Bella, are
neither more nor less than cartoons for window-panes.
Naturally, a great number of these drawings have been
preserved. The designs in the Library of the Museum
120 - _ DOMESTIC.
(Illustrations 50 and 52 to 58) appear almost without exception
to have been the work of practical glass-painters. ' The
draughtsman has left out of his design such detail as he could
rely upon himself to ﬁll in spontaneously upon the glass. All
that is necessary for his guidance in the ﬁgures and so forfth
‘is carefully set down, penned, in fact, with a precision which
men of our daymight with advantage emulate. Nothing is
left vague; the drawing is at once careful and crisp; it does
not aim at effect, but gives all that is wanted to help him in
painting. You can see that the man thought out his design
thoroughly before going to work on the glass. With
drawings such as these he was free to give his whole
attention to the manipulation, which, upon glass, wants very
deft and dexterous doing.
And, as a fact, dexterity could hardly go further than in
these Swiss glass-paintings, if that can be called painting
which is in the main. the scratching away of colour. For the
painter relied mostly upon the needlepoint for elaborate ﬁnish,
thoughvclever men had often their own tricks of execution.
Some of them, for example, would ﬂoat on a tint of brown,
and,. while it was yet ﬂuid, manipulate it so as to get
gradations of modelling astonishingly delicate and subtle.
These latest glass painters were absolute masters of their
trade, but it was something too much a trade with them.
They could express themselves perfectly; but they had
nothing very decorative to say ; they never carry us away,
except by their skill. They stimulate the'craftsman in us,
they scarcely touch the artist.

Fro. 58.—-FROM A WORKING DRAWING FOR GLASS.
In the Art Library of the Museum.
VIII.
A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN.
The very shortest survey of the lines of design, the
methods of execution, and the qualities of material, charac-
teristic of the various periods at which the art of glazier or
glass-painter ﬂourished, will here sufﬁce: even that must
necessarily verge on repetition.
The “Medallion” window with shaped bars embodies
distinctly the form of composition most markedly peculiar to
the thirteenth century, the ﬁgure subjects of the twelfth
century being framed in the rectangular panels given by the
saddle-bars and the stonework of the window. Early
grisaille windows did not often include ﬁgures, and colour
was sparingly introduced into them. In richly-coloured
windows the ornament also was in rich colour. The detail of
the ornament, always conventional, was at ﬁrst somewhat
Byzantine in character; afterwards it became simpler, as it
did in stone carving.
The typical features of the Decorated period were :—the
prominence given to the canopy as a framework for ﬁgures,
and the combination of richly coloured ﬁgure work with
ornament in grisaille. A common scheme of design was by
means of alternate horizontal bands of ﬁgures and canopies,
or of rich ﬁgure work and grisaille, to, as it were, hold the
lights of a Decorated window together. Foliated ornament
was directly founded upon natural foliage.
This horizontality of treatment was continued in the next
period, bands of white canopy work pronouncing themselves
more plainly than ever in Perpendicular glass. This frame-
work of white architecture enshrining ﬁgures was used in the
ﬁfteenth century to the exclusion of all other ornament,
124 A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN.
excepting only very simple “Quarry ” work, which fulﬁlled
much the same purpose of isolating the coloured pictures.
It was a common practice in this country to plant ﬁgure
work (itself often in white and stain) upon a quarry back-
ground. With that exception, canopy-work was the rule,
unless the whole area of a window was devoted to
picture. Such ﬂorid foliated ornament as did occur was no
longer so natural in type, nor so ﬂat in treatment, as it had
been in the previous century.
Towards the sixteenth century the tendency of a picture,
not only to occupy the full space of a light, but to extend
beyond it, until it spread itself over the entire window,
became more and more pronounced.
The idea of the Renaissance was to conceive a glass
picture, with or'without architectural framing, as something
seen through the window opening, no longer as part of the
wall of a building. Pictorial composition followed the
fashion of the day into a direction less and less calculated to
do justice to stained glass. Ornament took, of course, in
the earlier Renaissance the form of arabesque, and in the later
of cartouche and strap work. Canopies were more or less
monumental in design, and the architectural accompaniment
of ﬁgure-work formed less the framework of a picture than
its background.
The progress in ﬁgure drawing was from archaism in the
twelfth century to consummate accomplishment in the early
sixteenth. The stifﬂy posed ﬁgures of the twelfth century,
all of one accepted type, clad in close-clinging drapery through
which the limbs showed plainly, gave way in the thirteenth
to more graphic ﬁgures, rude still, but various in expression,
and clothed in easier robes, more in the fashion of the
period.
Towards the fourteenth century drawing was more
mannered; ﬁgures were posed with some attempt at grace,
A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN. 125
with a swing about them, even when in a standing position,
more suggestive of motion than of repose, and not altogether
innocent of aﬂ'ectation.
In the ﬁfteenth century artists arrived by degrees at

FIG. 59.—PANEL or OLD Grass.
In the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq. (No. 938-1900).
adequate drawing, and eventually at modelling enough to
give relief more than sufﬁcient for a window. From that
time painting triumphed over glazing design, at the eventual
cost of translucency in the window. The initial art of
126 A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN.

glazing, all-important in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
important still in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and early sixteenth
centuries, took, as time went on, a less and less important
part in glass-design, and lived on at last only as the drudge
of painting.
Painting (as may be seen perhaps most plainly in ﬂesh

FIG. 60.—CHARACTERISTIC SPECIMEN OF Dmncr FLESH PAINTING.
In the Museum (No. 515-1892).
painting), proceeded from vigorous and emphatic line work,
strong enough to hold its own against the glazing, duly exag-
gerated so as to produce the desired effect in its place, and
supplemented only by rude smears of shading, to softly
stippled gradation and modelling; but, it was not until the
ﬁfteenth century that it arrived at delicacy.
A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN. 127
Flesh was‘at ﬁrst painted on pinkish glass, later upon
white, the hair, if fair, stained yellow upon it; and it was
the ﬁfteenth century custom to paint the head and nimbus of
a saint upon one piece of glass. The use of red enamel in
the ﬂesh marks the coming of the Renaissance; but the
ﬁnest ﬂesh-painting of that period was, as before, usually in
cool brown upon white.
L

Fro. 6L—CHARACTERISTIC SPECIMEN 0F ansmsn Frssn PAINTING.
In the Museum (No. 517—1892).
Costume and armour followed, like architecture and
ornament, the course of fashion; the shape of the heraldic
shield (heater-shaped at ﬁrst, then broader, then more
ﬂorid) tells its tale, as also do the form of the helmet
and the character of the mantling, more and more fantastic
in its folds. Great pomp of heraldry, and great prominence
of donors’ portraits, are marks of later date, which is
betrayed also by the twirling and twisting about of labels.
Inscriptions tell always more than the writer meant. At
ﬁrst Lombardic capitals were used ; but towards the ﬁfteenth
128 A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN.
century Black letter came in, to be superseded in its turn by
the Roman character. And,‘ whereas it had been the
common custom to scratch letters out of a ground of" solid
pigment, so that they shone out in clear white or yellow,
later it was more usual to paint them dark upon a white or
yellow ground. '
Diapering was, in all ﬂourishing periods of glass-painting,
a favourite device ; but it was more and more profusely used,
especially for backgrounds, as 'glass was made thinner and

F IG. 62.-—EARLY QUARRIES AT SALISBURY.
From a tracing in the Art Library of the Musemn.
more even in colour. At ﬁrst the pattern was rather
obviously suggested by the facility with which it could be
picked out with a point. In the end it was more deliberately
in imitation of damask or other stuff ; in either case indicating,
as did all ornament, the period of the doing.
Glazing inpainted squares or diamonds, “ quarries,” aS
they are called, was an expedient common to all Gothic
periods. In the thirteenth century the square form prevailed,

FlG. 63.—PART OF A QUARRY WINDOW.
0. 936-1900).
In the Museum, the bequest of Henry Vaughan, Esq. (N
A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN. 131
and the pattern consisted only of a rosette, or some very
simple form, strongly outlined, and thrown into relief by
cross-hatching the ground. vThe practice at ﬁrst was to
leave always a margin of clear glass between the hatched
ground and the leads, which resulted in a lattice of clear
glass enclosing tinted spaces diapered with;white pattern.

FIG. 64.-—PORTIONS OF DECORATED GRISAILLE AND QUARRY WINDOWS
IN MERTON COLLEGE, OXON.
From tracings in the Art Library of the Museum.
Towards the second period of glass-painting it was
realised that a band on two sides of the quarries only was
enough, when they were put together, to deﬁne the shape,
and at the same time give a band-work of eventually inter-
lacing lines. There is no mistaking the relation of this
second form of quarry work, with quasi-natural foliage
K
132 A SHORT SURVEY OF GLASS DESIGN.
growing through, to the grisaille of the period (Fig. 64),
glazed often in lines not far removed from the straight.
In the third period marginal lines were omitted altogether,
the hatched background having gone quite out of use. The
pattern, .now conﬁned as a rule to the centre part of the
quarry only, was very delicately traced in outline, and distin-
guished from the ground by yellow stain; but, whatever the
device upon it, it was always overpowered by the strong
glazing lines, for the most part diamond-shaped.
The “ quarry ” survived during the Perpendicular period
as a cheap, and not very signiﬁcant, form of white glass.
After the Gothic period, quarry work soon gave way to
plain glazing in geometric pattern.
In Germany and Italy roundels of white glass took com-
monly the place of quarries.

FIG. 65.—EXAMPLEs OF COMPARATIVELY LATE QUARRIEs.
In the Museum,'the bequest of Henry,Va.ughan, Esq. (No. 935—1900).
IX.‘ ‘
IN REFERENCE TO MATERIALS.
The quality of material betrays the date of glass. Its
texture tells something ; but it is mainly by its purity, and its
more even and more mechanically perfect manufacture, that
an artist traces the progress of time.
The glass of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is a long
way from colourless, though it may pass for white ; there was
always iron enough in the sand used in its making to give it a
decidedly greenish or yellowish tint. Neither was it quite
transparent (it was hOrny rather) nor of equal thickness
throughout the sheet, nor free from bubbles, streaks, and
other faults of manufacture which made for-beautifully broken
colour. , In coloured glass there was no certainty of tint; the
oxides used for staining it were found in an impure state, and
used verymuch in the state in which they were found; and
there were no scientiﬁc means of determining precisely to what
any accidental variation in the shade of colour was due. The
makers worked less from knowledge than by conjecture.
'The difference of make between the earlieSt and later
material is most plainly apparent in ruby glass. This was in
the beginning extremely varied and extraordinarily luminous,
owing, it seems, to ﬂakes of red held as it were in suspension
in the white pot-metal. The process of manufacture must
have been quite different from that employed in the latter half
of the fourteenth century, when a comparatively thin layer of
ruby gave a proportionately stronger but much less subtle
and beautiful colour.
The colours of the twelfth century palette were z—Ruby
(copper oxide); Blue (oxide of cobalt) from deep sapphire/to
greyish—duller shades resulted. from impurities in the cobalt;
136 IN REFERENCE TO MATERIALS.
Green (iron) from apple green to deep moss green, olive and
bottle green; Yellow (iron), deep, strong and rather brassy;
Purple-brown (manganese or manganese and iron) used in
its paler shades for ﬂesh tint. These were the principal
colours in use. Turquoise-blue (copper) and green glass of
emerald-like quality (copper) were used also, but not in great
quantities. It was a long while before this palette was added
to, though lighter and brighter shades of colour were produced.
The yellow produced in the fourteenth century by silver
stain was markedly different in quality from pot-metal yellow;
it was purer, more lemon in the pale shades, more orange
in the deep. As ruby became ﬂatter and less streaky, so
blue became purple and more neutral. “ Coated” blue began
to appear in the ﬁfteenth century, and was followed by other
coated glass; ruby on blue, for example, producing a purple
or violet, not otherwise to be obtained in glass. It is obvious
' how by coating one colour with another great variety of tint
maybe arrived at. The colour in some, late glass is said to
be in three or even more layers.
_ The discovery of the early sixteenth century was a pale
rose pink, quite different from pale ruby, and not produced
from copper, but from gold, the colour familiar in a rather
tawdry variety of Victorian table glass.
The preponderance of red and blue in a window marks
the Early period. In the Decorated, yellow and green
assert themselves. In the Perpendicular, red and blue are,
as it were, diluted with white; and we get also purple,
often in association with pale blue and abundance of white;
this last now of a purer quality (less green or yellow) and
more silvery looking. Painting upon clear glass belongs to
the Renaissance period. 'Absolute transparency was in fact
the ﬁnal achievement of the glass-maker; but, whatever its
merits for all practical purposes, the textureless material
was never of any great use to the glass-painter.
rial-mammm
"W'IJ‘WA'WI w ' é,
_
I, ~
‘ .
n! ’f
‘h
a“.
Isiah-“em ﬁM‘hW.
9-.\ Km.) I,
51/

74'
is
it
\
W13 i”
J
attache
‘3 '1'"! I“? I I] -i- (In 1"- . I4-

1%
FIG. 66.-—SUBJEcr PANEL FROM A WINDOW, DESIGNED BY
SIR E. BURNE-IONES, EARL, AND EXECUTED BY Messns. MORRIs & C0.
In the Dining-Room of the Museum.
X. _
THE LIGHT OF ‘HISTORY.
A word as to the zigzag and unequal course Of the
glazier’s and glass-painter’s art.
An art so absolutely belonging to ecclesiastical decora-
tion as stained glass, naturally followed the fortunes Of the
Church and its patrons. Its encouragement was. Often not
so much a consequence Of national progress as of the fame
of a shrine, the prosperity of a bishopric, or the pride of a
patron. Neither war nor pestilence seems to have hindered
its development: the more men died, the greater the need
of propitiating the Church; and how could that better be
done than by the donation of stained glass Windows?
They are distributed, accordingly, over the various
countries in which glass-painting was practised in a manner
which strikes us, in our ignorance of local history, as most
capricious. There is a surprising wealth of glass in places
now of so little importance that one wonders how ever it
came there; but it is seldom that the history of the place
does not throw some light upon our perplexity; and Where
that is not the case, its occurrence may fairly be put down
to the personal account of some art-loving ecclesiastic or
pious donor whose namewe have failed to trace.
The art seems to have arisen in France, perhaps as
early as the reign of Charlemagne, and the culture of his
Empire stands for that of Western Europe. The Crusades,
at the same time that they gave an impulse to ecclesiastical
art, relieved the “fest of some of its most turbulent spirits,
and left the artistic and religious portions of the community
comparatively at peace. Some glass we might almost
140 THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.
attribute directly to the Crusades, that for example at
Clermont, where the First Crusade was preached, and at
the Sainte Chapelle, which was built by Louis IX. after
his return from the Sixth.
The earliest glaSs extant is to be found always in places
of historic interest. It was at St. Denis that, in the twelfth
century, Louis VI. and Abbot Suger, his intimate adviser,
were educated; Reims was where the French Kings were
consecrated; Chartres was a famous place of pilgrimage;
Bourges was an Archbishopric; and Le Mans and Angers
were the capitals of hereditary countships.
The very early glass, of which rare vestiges are to be
found in England, is of FrenCh manufacture; and its im-
portation is only what might have been expected, considering
the close connection at the time between the two
countries. '
The growing prosperity of the glazier’s art in France
corresponds with the settling down of the country as the
thirteenth century advanced ; what more natural than that it
should thrive under a king who came to be canonised. Cities
of importance, like Auxerre and Amiens, their communal
charter granted to them, burst out into patronage of the art ;
as did also Poitiers, the capital of Poitou. It is not, however,-
only in famous towns that good glass is to be found. We
come occasionally in quite out-of-the-way places, as for
example, hidden in the forest of Compiegne, upon remains of
great interest; but then the nunnery of St. Jean-aux-Bois was
founded by the mother of the French king.
In England domestic war was not so unfavourable to art
as might have been expected. It was the policy of Simon de
Montfort to (make friends with the towns, which thus grew in
importance, further developed when the country settled down
under Edward I. Our important thirteenth century glass is
ound in cities of importance—at Canterbury, since Becket’s
THE LIGHT OF HIS-TORY. g 141
murder visited by pilgrims even from abroad; at Salisbury
and Lincoln, Where parliaments were held; and at York, '
whose archbishop, just about the time when the Five Sisters
were being put up, was carrying on the government of the
country during Edward’s absence at the Crusades.
What early glass there is in Germany is to be found at
places like Cologne and Strasburg, important towns of the
Rhenish Confederation, enjoying special privileges and
exemptions; but it is not until towards the end of the
thirteenth century, and the beginning of the second phase of
design, that German glass asserts its importance; about the
period, that is to say, when Free Cities Of the Empire were
mighty enough to form Leagues with which princes and other
potentates had to reckon. N o wonder if such cities, the seats
of industry, the centres of thought, the refuges from war and
its unrest, prided themselves upon the gloriﬁcation Of their
churches with richest stained glass! Strasburg, famous for
its glass, was one of the most ﬂourishing of the Imperial
towns, Nuremberg was another, greatly favoured by the
Emperors, who made it their residence and held diets there;
and Regensburg and Freiburg were important trade centres.
The prevalence of English glass during the fourteenth
century may be accounted for by comparative peace. Here,
too, towns were acquiring charters and privileges. Much of
the Decorated glass in York Minster (a treasure house of this
period) must have been put up under WVilliam de Melton, an
archbishop who mixed himself up with civil affairs, and was
at one time Treasurer of England. The ﬁne glass at Glou-
cester is subsequent to the burial .there of the murdered
Edward II. and the inﬂowing of pilgrims and donations to
his shrine.
France was less proliﬁc of glass while the Hundred Years’
War was being carried on within her borders, and the country
was being ravaged by the Black Death ; but even during that
142 THE LIGHT- OF HISTORY.
time good work was done there ; at Troyes, where famous fairs
Were held; at Chartres and Evreux, both important sees.
We ﬁnd in Italy, notwithstanding documentary mention of
very early glass at Monte Cassino, and the fame of the. glass
manufacture at Murano, few windows even of the fourteenth
century; and the occurrence of what does exist is not easily
accounted for. At the shrine of St. Francis, at Assisi, it
explains itself. There seems less reason why, at this particular
period, it should be found any more at Florence and Pisa than
at other important towns equally. in touch with glass-painting
countries. It seems, indeed, quite possible that this Italian
glass, differing only in design and not in manufacture from
contemporary work elsewhere, was executed, as some of it is
said to have been, either in Germany, or by German glass-
painters. . _ I
The industrious production of late Gothic glass in England
corresponds with the concession of privileges to the commons
by Henry IV., and the occupation of the turbulent nobles at
the seat of war in France under Henry V. Somesmall
propOrtion of glaSs may be put down directly to the French
war, All Souls at Oxford having been founded to provide
masses for the souls of its victims. The glass at Great
Malvern may or may not oWe something to the Priory having
been subject to Westminster Abbey. But good Perpendicular
glass occurs in smaller places too, and is, in fact, too prevalent
in this country to be acCounted for in detail.
In Germany there is also abrindance of Late Gothic work.
The war of the Margraves, it is true, broke the. power of the
cities; but the Empire prospered, and became under Maxi-
milian, the most important of European States; and this
prosperity is chronicled in glass. At Nuremberg, which had _
to bear the brunt of the war, there is a comparatively quiet
time in glass-painting until Maximilian’s time; but there is
good work at Ulm, a town in the height of its prosperity in
THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 143
the ﬁfteenth century, and frequently at the head of Swabian
Leagues ; and at Freiburg, consequent in date at least to the
founding of the university; and again at Cologne, always a
place of both ecclesiastical and commercial importance.
The Late Gothic glass in France suffered from the Hundred
Years’ War, at the end of which the land from the Somme to
the Loire was a waste. It was not until towards the end of the
century that the country began to right itself ; and soon after
that the movement of the Renaissance began, at a time when
in Germany and with us the Mediaeval spirit still survived.
The quality of the Late Gothic glass at Bourges explains itself
by its position in .the chapel of jacques Coeur, the counsellor of
Charles VII. As for the glass at Rouen, it is directly due to
the‘Cardinals d’Estoutteville, and the two Georges d’AmbOise,
who from the middle of the ﬁfteenth to the middle of the
sixteenth century‘made that city a centre of art. _
It was the fashion of the sixteenth century for great people,
from the Kings downwards, to patronisethe arts, and amongst
them glass-painting; and the origin of conspicuously ﬁne
windows is usually to be traced to a muniﬁcent patron; at
the church of Brou, to Margaret of. Savoy, at Ecouen and
Montmorency, to the family of the great Constable, at Liege
and Brussels, to Charles V., who also, by his successiOn to the
Spanish throne was directly or indirectly responsible for the
introduction of the art into Spain—probably the work, Of
Netherllanders, though distinctively Spanish in design. There
is no trace of glass there during the period of Moorish rule.
The noblest glass of the Renaissance is to .be found in
France and the Low countries, whence the best of what we
have in England was derived, the Windows, for example, at
Lichﬁeld, and at Hanover Square; an exception occurs in
the windows at King’s College, Cambridge, contracted for by
the King’s glazier, if we are to believe the “ indentures ”;
but at least two Flemings are mentioned as having worked
on them.
144 THE LIGHT OF HISTORY.
The relative rarity of Renaissance glass in Italy isno doubt
to be attributed to the practice of mural painting, with which
coloured glass would seriously have interfered. It is a
questiOn, even, whether it may not in some cases have been
removed to give light for pictures. The invitation of William
of Marseilles to Arezzo points rather to 1a dearth of competent
Italian glass painters. In the case of Renaissance windows,
by the way, we have often the record, faithful or false, of the
name of the artist, by this time a person of some importance ;
and the whereabouts of good glass may sometimes, as at
Beauvais, be traced to the fact that an able artist in glass
lived there ; but, then, there is that fact to be accounted for.
The great workshops in each country followed local
traditions, and formed, it may be said, schools of design,
where distinctive, if not always readily distinguishable, work
was done. There is a marked difference between the output
of Normandy, of the Limousin, of the Isle de France, and of
Champagne. The glass at Strasburg and thereabouts is quite
Rhenish and unlike other German work ; and Burgundian
glass has always a robust ﬂavour of its own. '
The smaller amount of Renaissance glass to be found in
Germany, is due partly to the lingering there of the Gothic
spirit, and partly to the Reformation, to which we also owe no
doubt a subsidence in the'fervour of church decoration, and a
consequent lull in glass~painting. In Protestant Holland,
however, the Burgomasters of reformed cities of the United
Netherlands, continued at Gouda the wonderful series of
windoWs begun by Philip and Mary, and the Catholic Bishops ;
and again in Troyes, at one time a Huguenot centre, there
was a sort of seventeenth century after-glow of the art which
had already in the sixteenth begun to sink below the horizon.
Itis perhaps not strange that domestic glasS-paintingshould
have ﬂourished in the homely atmosphere of the little Swiss
Confederacy.
THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 145
It is interesting thus to enquire into the connection of
events which cannot but have inﬂuenced the fortunes of
stained glass ; they throw some light on the art, but do not by
any means explain all that is obscure. They must be taken
for what they are worth. It would be dishonest to pretend
that they make clear the way to knowledge: they do but
indicate it. The course Of veritable history never did run
smooth.
V INVENTORY OF STAINED
GLASS ‘EXHIBITED IN THE MUSEUM.
Arranged approximately in chronological order.
Note.—The sPecimens of Stained Glass on loan to ProvincialSchools
and Museums are not included in this List.
2762 1855 Figure of a king. Part of a Jesse window. Ca. I300.
English. 8 ' I Y
546': 1858 Figure subject. Early 13th century. English.
5458 I858 Medallion subject. 13th century. English.
2282 I900 Circular tracery light with quatrefoil in grisaille.
English. Nata—From Southwell Cathedral.
2273 1900 Heraldic shield. Nata—The Arms of the Bures family.
5814 1858 Fragment of a border. 12th or 13th century. French.
5460 I858 Medallion subject. 13th century. French.
1223 I864 Portion of a Medallion window with subjects set in
geometric diaper. 13th century. French. Note.—
From the Saint Chapelle. In the lower Medallion,
two subjects separated only by the iron bar between
them.
1223 1864. Panel. 13th century. French.
Two panels of Mosaic diaper enclosing each a Medallion
with remains of ﬁgure work. A segment of a light
" 4 1221 with border and Mosaic diaper, in which is Set a
12?; 186g quatl'ﬁfOil ﬁgure Medallion. 13th century. French.
Nata—From the Sainte Chapelle, Paris. The
Medallion cuts across the border.
1222 I864 Portion of a light with Mosaic diaper, border, and
oddly-shaped Medallion subjects. 13th century.
, French. Nata—From the Sainte Chapelle, Paris.
8 I881 Fragments of two ﬁgure subjects with borders and
diaper. 13th century. French. Note—From the
Sainte Chapelle, Paris.
Narrow lights with ten ﬁgures of prophets in semi-
circular‘Medallions, and two kings. 13th century.
French. Nata—From the Sainte Chapelle, Paris;
apparently portions of a Jesse window.
2290 1900 Fragment of grisaille. 13thcentury. English. Note.—
From Chartham, Kent.
5465 1858 Two kneeling angels. 13th or early 14th century.
French. Note—Exceptional prevalence of green.
932 1900 Top portion of a grisaille light. 14th century.
English. Nata—Said to have come from York.
g}188[
INVENTORY OF STAINED' GLASS. 14.7
936 1900 Panel of Quarries. 14th century. English. Note.—
Said to have come from Bury St. Edmunds.
2309 1900 Panel of Decorated quarries. 14th century. English
2_289 1900 Two small pieces of Decorated tracery.
2294
2283 1900 _ Circles of Decorated grisaille.
2267
933}1900{Fragmentary panels containing each a small ﬁgure
934 under canopy. 14th and 15th centuries. English.
0
3§5}1900 Quarry panels. Iltlr to 16th centuries. English.
5459 I858 Circular tracery light with quatrefoil of ornament.
14th or early 15th century. German. '
7 1881 Angel. Nata—Said'to have come from the Sainte
’ Chapelle, Paris, but has more the character of I4th
than of 13th century work. Witness the crispingof the
quatrefoil, the white ﬂesh, and the colour generally.
It is probably the border only, obviously early, which '
came from the Saints Chapelle.
5464 1858 Pinnacle of a Decorated canopy on a ground of
Mosaic diaper. 14th century. German. N0te.—From
Cologne.
5466 I858 Portion of a window with borders, diaper work, and
circular ﬁgure Medallion. 14th century. German.
From Nuremberg.
940 '1900 Panel of grisaille with central quatrefoil, in which is a
head. First half of 14th century. French.
942 1900 Panel made up of Mosaic quarries, etc.
2279
2278}1900 Shields of arms. mm and 15th centuries.
947
2299 I900 Fleur-de-lis quarries. French.
2311 1900 Heraldic fragment. English. Nata—The Arms of
_ Cranmer. '
4484 1858 Figure subject (Annunciation). Italian. Nata—Said
to have come from a church at Torcello.
2630 I855 Circular Medallion or tracery light with a “pelican in
her piety.” Ca. I400. English.
4237 1855 Three perpendicular lights with ﬁgures andcanopies
complete-St. john the Evangelist, St. James the
Greater, and the Prophet Zephaniah. About 1415.
English. N0te.—Fr0m the chapel of Winchester
College.
L
148. INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS.
8718 1863 Figure ‘Of St. Bartholomew under mutilated canopy.
15th century. English. Note.—From the Choir of
Winchester Cathedral.
6905
to
6913 .
6917 1860 Shield in a garter. Ca. 1500. English. N0te.—From
the Strawberry Hill Collection.
6916 1860 Small tracery light with shield and grotesque supporter.
15th century. English. Now—Strawberry Hill
Collection.
928 1900 Panel of miscellaneous fragments. Chieﬁy of the 15th
century. English.
2307 1900 Head of a small round arched light with heraldic
device and side ﬁgures. Late 15th century.
2310 1900 Fragments of quarries, etc. Chieﬂy of the 15th century.
2266 1900 Panel of late Gothic quarries.
2286 1900 Fragment of late Gothic grisaille.
937}.1900{Panels of fragments—ﬁgure and ornament. 14th to
938 16th centuries. English.
2304
2305
939 1900 Panel of quarries.
293 1874 Figure subject. The Virgin and Child with the donor,
Joanna of Arragon, and St. John the Evangelist in
adoration. 15th century. Spanish.
931 1900 Panel of fragments. Chieﬂy 15th and 16th centuries,
English and Flemish. N0te.——A foot with splashes of
ruby.
516 1892 Panel of plain quarries with ornamental border in white
. and stain. 15th century. Flemish. I
-' 929 1900 Panel of fragments of various countries. Chieﬂy of the
early 15th century.
5463 1858 Mosaic diaper pattern. 14th or early 15th century,
German. Note—Said to have been brought from
Poissy, in France. ~
6914 1860 Kneeling ﬁgure of aknightly donor. Ca. 1450. Flemish.
1184 1864 Small panel with ﬁgures (the Virgin, etc.) in grisaille,
on a coloured ground. Ca. 1470. Flemish or German.
81 Two small angels, each under a canopy, bearing a
82 } I865l shield. Ca. 1490. Swiss or German.
2265 1900 Nine heads in a panel of blue.
2633 1855 Arms of a bishop or abbot. Ca. 1520. Flemish.
l1860 Shields of arms. 15th century. English. Nata;
From the Strawberry Hill Collection.
} 1900 Tracery lights—fragments of grisaille.
INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS.
149
87
2271
2270
2272
74-9
634
1201
252
6915
2206
2207
2208
2209
‘94;
2210
513
514
515
517
68
69
1896
1900
1900
1900
1902
1902
I872
I866
I860
I855
i1855
)
r900
1855
1892
Wt
70 1899 Three Angels.
M
Four armorial panels. 16th century. English. Note.—
~From Sizergh Castle, Westmorland.
Small circular subject—all in grisaille except for the
blue of the Virgin’s robe—cherubs in white upon
yellow stain forming the background. 1534.
Small circular subject, Annunciation to Shepherds.
Figures in white and stain upon a blue ground.
Circular subject, Cruciﬁxion, in colour.
Panel with St. Mary Magdalene and some Renaissance
fragments. 16th century.
Subject with lifesize ﬁgures, Adoration of the Magi.
Early 16th century. Italian. By William of Mar-
seilles—from the cathedral at Cortona.
16th century. Italian. From a
Nata—In a state of decay.
Subject, Cruciﬁxion.
church at Bologna.
Subject panel. 16th century. Italian. Nata—Obscure
with paint.
Kneeling ﬁgure of a knight with attendant St. John the
Baptist. Ca. I520. French.
Subject in three lights, Adoration of the Magi.
Ca. 1525. French. N0te.—Said to be from a church
in Normandy. '
Three subjects from the life of St. Peter. Ca. I530. '
French. N0te.—Said to be from a church in Nor-
mandy.
Small square panel of domestic glass, a ﬁgure Medallion
(Hercules) set in arabesque ornament. All in grisaille
and stain upon clear white glass. French or Flemish.
Two lights with ﬁgures of Guillaume de Croy, “Le
. Sage,” and his wife, with shields of arms below.
_Ca. I521. Flemish. From the church of Arschot.
Nata—Abraded ruby in the shields.
Three-light window, The Last Supper extending
across it. I542. Flemish. (Lent by H.M. the King.)
Panels of fragments, chieﬂy heads. Some arabesque in
white and stain. 16th century. Flemish. Note.—
Interesting examples of ﬂesh-painting upon glass.
Two subjects, The Annunciation and Christ preaching.
Ca. 1550. Flemish. Nata—Landscape painted on
the blue background.
Ca. I550. Flemish.
150 INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS.
5941 1858 Two-light window and its tracery. Figures of SS.
Peter and Paul under a canopy extending across the
two lights. Angels in the tracery. 16th century.
German. Note.-—The roundheaded light with its
cusping in the glass, and the gothic canopy beneath,
indicate the period of transition.
5467 1858 Fragment of a subject, the Flagellation. 16th century.
German. From Cologne.
603 1872 Small subject, under a canopy, The Nativity. 16th
century. German. Note.—-On the pale blue back-
ground, with landscape in green stain, is painted the
appearance of the angel to Joseph.
DOMESTIC.
6918 1860 Round. The Adoration of the Magi as background to
a shield of arms. Ca. 1550. German.
5639 (Three rounds. St. Peter preaching, Death on the
5640 1859 Pale Horse, St. John the Baptist preaching. Ca. 1520.
5641 l Flemish.
5645 'Four rounds. Gideon summoning the Israelites to
5647 I859 Battle, a Stabbing Affray, The Nativity, the Behead-
5655 \ ing of John the Baptist. 1530. Flemish.
5659 l
1258 1855 Panel with subject, the Holy Family, in white and
stain. After D'Lirer. German.
5634 1859 A round and fragments of border. Subject, Mary
Magdalene washing the feet of Christ. Ca. 1530.
German.
2204 1855 Small panel with redclad ﬁgure bearing the standard of
Nuremberg. 1538. German. Nata—The blue glass
of the background is painted with a landscape
stained green, out of which the white buildings are
abraded.
2306 1900 Panel, with shield of arms supported by an angel.
16th century. German.
6919 1860 Round, with arms in white and stain—the helmet only
in steel-grey. 1546. German.
5646 1859 Round, Death of Lucretia. Ca. 1550. French.
5649 1859 Round, Domestic scene. Ca. 1550. Flemish.
945}1900{R0unds with broad borders, St. Christopher and St.
946 Andrew. 16th century. Probably French.
1251 1855 Panel, The Cruciﬁxion. 16th century. Flemish.
2632 1855 Round, The Death of Absalom. Flemish.
393 1874 Round, The Betrayal. 16th century. Flemish.
INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS.
151
394
394A
2285
2211
2212
5643
601
944
2205
9052
2269
2268
I257
2213
9057
9061
5943
9059
604
602
1874
1900
1855
1855
1859
1872
1900
1855
1863
1900
1900
1855
1855
1863
1863
1859
1863
1872
1872.
Panel. The Annunciation. 16th century. Flemish.
Three very small rounds with ﬁgures.
Panel, the arms of Zurich, with the arms of the Guild of
the Camel (still existing) and border consisting of the
shields of its members on a very minute scale.
1572. Swiss. Now—Abrasion of glass of various
colours and most delicate needlework in the
painting.
The Seven Sacraments and a shield of arms. 1579.
Swiss.
Round, a card party. Ca. 1580. German.
A shield with arms of a Counsellor of Berne with
pikeman supporting it. 1587. Swiss. Nata—A
typical piece of highly-ﬁnished work.
Panel with arms and border and small subjects included
in a curious canopy. 1592. Swiss.
Panel with two halberdiers, each standing astride over
a small shield of arms. 1594. Swiss.
Armorial panel. 1597. Swiss. Nata—Very minute
and delicate needle-work in the painting. Battle
scene above canopy in the manner of the drawings
in the Library.
Circular armorial Medallion.
Chieﬁy in enamel colour.
Circular armorial Medallion in abraded ruby, white, and
enamel colour. 1608. Swiss.
Quarry window, with central cartouche enclosing a
quartrefoil with subject, Ahasuerus listening to the
chronicles of his reign. The outer quarries panelled
1604. Swiss. Note.—
with arabesque. Ca. 1615. Dutch.
Armorial panel. 1618. German (Nuremberg),
Armorial panel. 1618. Swiss.
The Building of the Tower of Babel. 1631. Swiss.
Quarry window with central shield of arms and
mantling in blue enamel and yellow stain, enclosed in
delicate arabesque scroll work, which runs through
the squares. 1638. Dutch.
Panel, with small shield supported by man in armour
and his wife. Ca. 1640. Swiss. Nata—Typical
design, with typical small subject above.
Kitchen scene. 17th century. German.
Round. Heraldic. 1655. German.
152 INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS.
3006 1857 Subject—Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar, with .small
shields of arms framingit. 1660. Swiss. NOte.-—The
painting is heavy but the shields are skilfully painted.
9060 1863 Allegorical subject—Good and Evil contending for the
soul. 1670. Swiss. '
2274
2276 } 1900 Three small rounds. 1680, 1667, 1674. Swiss.
2277
5942 1855 Cruciﬁxion. Ca. 1700. French.
, MODERN ENGLISH.
780 1864 The Vision of Beatrice. Designed by N. H. J.
Westlake. Executed by Lavers & Barraud. 1864.
781 1864 The Legend of Queen Dagmar. Designed byJ.'Milner
A Allen. Executed by Lavefs & Barraud. 1864.
773 Penelope. Poet Chaucer. Dido, and Cleopatra. The God
774 1864{ of Love and Alcestis. Designed by Sir E. Burne-Jones.
Executed by Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. 1864.
370 1865 Cupid and two heads. By J. T. Lyon. 1865. ‘
369 1865 Heads of Philosophers. Designed by G. Moody.
Executed by James Powell & Sons. 1865.
228 1865, The Potter at his Wheel. By R. Townroe. 1865.
229 '1865‘ The Seal Engraver. By M. R. Elden. 1865.
230 1865 The Ploughman. By James Gamble. 1865.
435 1865 Jurisprudence. By Alfred Hassan. 1865.
515 1873 Charitas. By F. Ashwin. 1872.
MODERN CONTINENTAL.
'Two Heraldic windowpanes, each with two shields and

55;) I86 two supporters in armour. Modern copies of 16th
55 9' century work. Originals in the Town Hall at Stein-
552 l -
am-Rhetn.
59 1844r St. Cecilia and St. Agnes. After Lucas van Leyden.
A Executed at the Royal Factory at Munich. Ca. 1840.
58 1844 Madonna and Child, designed by Antoine Beranger,
executed at the Royal Manufactory at Sevres. Ca.184o.
5468 1858 Holy Family. German.
8021 1862 Madonna and Child. Ca. 1860. Italian.
1786 1869 Figure subject in mediaeval manner, by M. Léon Ottin.
1869. French.
gg3j1872
IO; Copies of portions of an old German window in the
church of St. Laurence, Nuremberg. (Exhibited at
133.1873) the Bethhal Green- M Z-t86tt17t)
106j
INDEX.
ABRASION, 85.
Amiens, 32, 140.
Angers, 4, 140.
Arezzo, 97.
Assisi, 56, 142
Auch, 9, 94, 110.
Augsburg, 4.
Auxerre, 32, 37, 140.
B.
BALE, 119.
Bars, 27, 28.
Beauvais, 80, 110, 144.
Black pigment, 16.
Bologna, 80, 97.
Borders, 27.
Bourges. 4. 36. 37. 92, 143'
Bristol, 57.
Brou, 110, 143.
Brussels, St. Gudule, 98, 110.
Byzantine, IO, 123.
C.
CAMBRIDGE, King’s College, 80, 110,
143.
Canopies, Early, 23, 62.
Decorated, 44, 45 et seq., 123
Perpendicular, 58, 62, 123.
Renaissance, 94, 97, 124
Canterbury, 14, 37, I40.
Chalons, 36, 37, 80.
Chartres, 4, 36, 37, 140, 142.
St. Pierre, 55
Choice of Glass, 82, 85.
Clermont, r40.
Coated Glass, 85
Cologne, 2, 92, 141, 143.
Colour, 68, 71, 135.
Early, 16, 2o, 32, 136.
Decorated, 55, 136.
Perpendicular, 62, 80 86, 136.
Renaissance, 109, 136.
Grisaille, 32, 40, 123.
Colours, 135 et seq.
Conches, 110.

Coventry, St. Mary’s Hall, 6.
Crabeth, 102, 111.
Cross-hatching, 21, 44.
D.
DECAY, 34, 102.
Decorated, 8, 10, 38 et seq., 123.
German, 45, 46.
Canopies, 44, 45, 123.
Design, 39.
Grisaille, 43, 44.
Jesse windows, 49.
Design, Early, 19, 20, 58, 123.
Decorated, 39.
Perpendicular, 67.
Renaissance, 97.
Diapering, 128.
Dijon, 4.
Domestic Glass, 6, 112 et seq.
E.
EARLY CANOPIES, 23, 62.
Design, 19, 20, 58, 123.
English, 8, 23, 27, 28.
French, 24, 27, 28.
German, 32.
Gothic, 10, 14 et seq.
Grisaille, 20, 123.
Ecouen, 110, 143.
Ely, 55-
Enamel, 101, 109.
English, 22, 58, 67, 8o, 92.
Eighteenth Century, 13.
Evreux, 55, 142.
F.
FAIRFORD, 92.
Fifteenth Century, 10, 58, 61, 125.
Figures, 20, 22 et seq., 44, 124.
Five Sisters, The (see York).
Flamboyant, 10.
Flesh Tint, 24, 27, 55, 101, 127.
Florence, 80, 97, 142.
Santa Croce, 56.
Santa Maria Novella, 56, 97.
Florid Gothic, 10.
154
INDEX.
Fourteenth Century, 8, 10, 38, 43,
106,124.
French, 22, 24, 27, 28, 67, 8o.
Freiburg, 56, 141.
G.
GEOMETR10,10, 20, 106.
German, 28, 31, 32, 45, 46, 55, 67,80,
132.
Glass, 135.
Glazing, 19, 35, 58, 101, 106, 126.
Gloucester, 57, 141.
Gontier, Linard, 102, 11 1.
Gouda, 102, 111.
Great Malvern, 8o, 92, 142.
Green, 55.
Grisaille, Early, 20, 22, 123.
Decorated, 43, 44.
Perpendicular, 75
Colour, 32, 40, 123.
H.
HERALDRY, 50, 127.
Holbein, 119.
I.
ITALIAN, 28, 31, 80, 132, 144.
J.
JESSE WINDOWS, 20, 31 et seq., 46,
49, 72-
Jewels, 86.
L.
LABELS, 127.
Landscape backgrounds, 76, 79, 80.
Late Gothic, 58 et seq.
Leads, 14, 58, 61.
Le Mans, 4, 37, 140.
Lichﬁeld, 110, 143.
Liege, 110, 143.
Lincoln, 37, 141.
Lindmeyer, 119.
London,
Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, 111
St. George‘s, Hanover Square, 111,
143.
Victoria and Albert Museum, 37,
92, 112.
Lucerne, 116.

M.
MEDALLION WINDOWS, 20, 27, 46,
123.
German, 28, 31, 46.
Italian, 28, 31.
Middle Gothic, 38 et seq.
Milan, 97.
Montmorency, 110, 143.
Mosaic, 2, 14, 34, 97.
Mullions, 49, 67.
N.
NETHERLANDS, The, 144.
Nimbus, 75.
Nineteenth Century, 13.
Nuremberg, 80, 106, 141, 142.
St. Laurence, 92.
St. Sebald, 56, 106.
O.
ORNAMENTAL DETAIL, 27, 39, 71,
106, 123, 124.
Oxford,
All Souls’ College, 92, 142.
Merton College, 56, 92.
New College, 92.
P.
PAINTING, 2, 15, 16, 44, 51, 61, 80,82,
97, 98, 101, 102, 109, 120, 125.
Paris, St. Etienne, 110.
Sainte Chapelle, 7, 32, 37, 140.
Pattern windows, 20.
Perpendicular, IO, 58 et seq.
Canopies, 58,62, 124. \
Picking out, 21.
Picture, 79, 94, 98, 105, 110.
Pigment (brown), 14, 15.
Pisa, 142.
Poitiers, 28, 32, 36, 140.
Pot-metal, 2, 34, 105.
Q.
QUARRIES, 43, 75, 106,124, 128.
R.
REALISM, 39.
Regensburg, 141,
Reims, 140.
St. Remi, 22, 36.
INDEX.
I55
Renaissance, 8, 12, 93 et seq., 124.
Canopies, 94, 97, 124.
Colour, 109.
Design, 97.
Rose windows, 28, 31.
Rouen, 80, 97, 143.
St. Ouen, 55.
St. Patrice, 110.
St. Vincent, 110.
Ruby, 85, 135.
S.
ST. DENIS, 4, 22, 140.
St. jean-aux-Bois, 140.
St. Quentin, 36.
Sainte Chapelle, The, 7, 32, 37, 140.
Salisbury, 37, 141.
Seventeenth Century, 13, 102.
Shading, 16, 51.
Shadows, 82, 101.
Shrewsbury, 92.
Silver stain (see Stain).
Sixteenth Century, 12, 94, 124.
Stain, 39, 52, 67, 76, 85.
Stimmer, Tobias, 119.
Stippling, 51, 52, 81.
Strasburg, 4, 37, 141, 144.
Styles, The, 7-13.
Swiss, 6, 115.
T.
TEWKESBURY, 57.
Thirteenth Century, 4,
123, 124, 135.
I6, 32, 37’

Tracery, 31, 50, 75, 76.
Transition, 8, 11,55, 93, 110.
Troyes, 80, 102, 111, 142.
St Urbain, 55.
Twelfth Century, 3, 4, 5, 35, 36, 123,
124,135.
U.
ULM, 80,92, 142.
V.
VENDéME, 4, 36
Victoria and Albert Museum, 37, 92,
112.
Van Linges, The, 111.
Van Orley, Bernard, 98, 110.
W.
WELLS, 46, 55, 57.
Westwell, 37.
Wheel windows (see Rose windows).
White Glass, 91, 135.
William of Marseilles, 97, 144.
Winchester, 92.
Windows of many lights, 46, 76.
Y.
YELLOW STAIN (see Stain).
York. 4, 22. 36, 37. 56. 68. 92. 141-931,
‘il

“I : Aieaaar '-

UNIVIERSITIYIIOF IMICHIGAN
015 03342 '

~ ~ , A

' :ﬁtérsnr. osmium.
,4 a ' I iv _ ' ' ~ ' -
N“ i _ -. -1 ’ P- - .;

I'll“
i“ 3!
11;. i."
2.21 a. {$1.32
~>~.
.. . . I..-.... . . .. F
a... at Paw-.- iﬁs . . as...
. :1 0.. . .- I u . tiara...
. f. . . r I.
.2 “hazel... Ame... ~ ii
1 n a a
.7. R \
g.
I"
\"\ '1 <
"2N
......:a‘1
1-31.;
A on v»
P,
'n-
l
bk¢§~
9.1.1....
; x:- s;
.. 1.4;..U'
» .1 .
s
at»
1m new
7.
x 'Q
v‘
Jil w
"14' .
.:...
a e
0,.
‘ rem-1.1
~ n»<"_l n "W‘-
m as Q _»
v. ~r
a". . >.
)4 \.
. Us
I,
> w- Mli'iq'vi‘l
'0
‘1'
-’~
111’ 1 A
i.» 4; t
e a.“ 4:26....-
¢.
.1
. .v...
.rfwersfu} e \ .
14-.1s-. . . PQ...
...... _ e . Li. 5w v
>1.~..
‘r\\ s
- w 'b-st» p»
w.)-
2"; .
-.-..;._A-.
.v
-
A.
f.
I", .
-,* 1.1:"
p
. r
_.
. . ".113.
i. e. .
is
.. -
. . . k
. _. . . . . . . .. .. l R- .F
r47a4n .Qv . . . . . . . liuevvtn.n\
\. l. .9}... . . . . . . . . s r . . . .
t . 1.1.1.9.. . . . . . .
s .
.
.2 :4 s .. ._
5 Is. is; s s f!
blur-\yv ‘
mela-
. . . .. . . . . . I . A151...
.wa. . . . . . . . . . . . n q ..
..1..urk..v\.é . . . . . . . . . . .. . A
.3.» Te! ..n.... . . . . . .
.
s . . . x? » s. . . .
. . Iv Q ~ ‘
:1 I . . .. .5122
.1.» n... 24
-n~-1a‘n. 1~
.31.... .s .
i a
s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a tee...»
. . . . . . 40 n .
nevi». yiq
a v .
'1 .-»~
u, ~
>.\~<r~'h
-
. a ,
- A 1!.-
»vau on I .~_ .13“;
7 . i, .v . .
we}. w... 5.1 .v 1%.; >.!
32.1.» 1. a .
vn
I'vaA- Y I .
..',s
_....-
Ra‘-
!".*~-'I-h:~|-1
).- __ 3
a“
.
a».
l
1".
.».v.
.a
1.
“we. .&
.. -. . 4
.3 o.vﬂ>¢s .0 e 1 . int 1
~ .1, .~.a.....‘.~..
...
- t.\,.
I 'I'. ’¢
"Ik‘Qu-vs.‘> h
. M
4 . _ .>.. .
;i .e..i..>1
. .1. . 1....
>1 .1.» 4
- ~ III-4-,
on»
pith; lit ~_ ‘1
a .1}I.._....
11...“ -. v
A
s
e -.>. v m
‘1‘,»
..I s... .s .
~......~ .2}- ...LZS... a .
. e; a. _. 9.; 4..., ..
. .5... Q;
. .
.
v ‘ a T... - w J . .24 ...v. 11- ..3 ti... .
. r s 3.. s . ... .. .
. _ . .. . .r . r. . ._ A. f. . .
.x. L e 9.3.. _ .ﬁqw. 91$. can...“ 121.4%“ 136 stun-3....“ v.
ﬁrs? .1 ~ .1 . . . ..
."9.
. ...
R.- »Q. is 3...... f-
.21.; 515,31.
2S.» . emit
.s.
.rﬁru...
Q
m. . A L; f...
i2..b..2 I 2...:
4 a».
.v-vhar
v~.~ u
n m.“
1h,“- ~-
v.4“)- '_
’0
3m.an
‘\.-...
i f I n .3.
kw. - s 4
,._~:-......,
.s,.!
an; n: p
a. Q n!» e~
an”.
“537.
El.
-..
a.
:1.
w“ \-
a--
a 'v "n‘.“ 1.;
new
| . .
1 is... s w I. 1.3.1.. R. r...
. . s. v T?
. auras: . verve
~,-....L_
\
M.
v.
I.
<4“. - ~Q~
an“ I
n
-. “um, 1. ,
.1» I ....~. I
.....;...:.:?:. .
s
. . 22?.-
A;
.> (.1.
._1
.. 25-, j .
b.-
IEJ.‘
J.
.... - v .
v rap? 0 ii?“
. 7.» $2.; a.
L . .
‘95..
‘r!
ii a
.y‘. a
vn~<miup
-A.~)"~.'7,b—lr Q";-
,.1. .Nr.
r 0' -»
a
sol-~19 w‘ a
‘v
'-Jai~.\
- A...
1‘
' nab-u
.- u-
1
whrpjwiwg
'1 ‘Iiﬂ.
' 1“ 1w-
~i- \‘l'z'isﬁ
.
. u .1 .th
4 an... . 37x
; a a... .7.
“Q . ‘3;
my
yam"
~
mini!
.P, \ N“
.a-'
.
a
4... 2
.5...
‘4
N...A~.
8mm
4.» .
’“w-a.
.cMwnu
. t... n.
we...“ as.
“a .
’2
Q
.1?
:1 VP:
1. .w ‘4“!- a .,
. P.» as;
Q.
., J .
-.§1
.uJY
~ s.
“a.
51:»,
42-.“
m.
“7001‘”
7‘
".
94
.s
.7» e
—+
'.I
“.50..
1 w.
(rsex‘d
a u~>
'8
.5 1.;
O~I.
4"
a. was.»
.1 ..._ i... ... r...
“a. ,vwmnqutwhr a
“saw.
a?
~33:-
m
2N2:
U
.
.._~
-
- a i r.
‘~ I‘N .
e 2""
-H.)

rm;
\ rILI