صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

be more successful in catching the spirit of their models. But it is not want of taste or skill alone which makes our rescripts of ancient models so unsuccessful. Physical causes are leagued against us. For instance, the very rudeness and defective working of the machinery employed in the manufacture of ancient glass was a source of beauty when it was used for ornamental purposes. The flimsy, though unblemished material of our own day is far less effective than the thick, rugged, coarse, uneven, half-opaque substance which was the vehicle of rich, deep colours in the middle ages. Still we suppose there is an analytical process by which the progressive improvements in the manufacture of glass may be made to retrograde, till a voluntary rudeness is reached for this special purpose, leaving the refinements of modern invention available for ordinary use. We are not aware whether this has been

'tried.

6

[ocr errors]

While on the subject of modern imitations, the author gives his view of the causes which led to the decay of the art at the close of his favourite style. Glass-painting,' he says, deteriorated not in consequence of any want of encouragement, for 'the causes of its decline were in full operation at the period of 'its greatest prosperity, [the Cinque Cento style, we presume,] 'but from confounding its principles with those of other systems ' of painting, from a disregard of its peculiar conditions and distinctive character.' In short, its decline was the natural issue of that principle of decay which, as we have intimated, all art inherits, and which naturally shows itself just at the time when any branch of it has put forth its full power of growth. Perhaps it was hardly necessary to assure the public that the Reformation did not corrupt the art, and that the mosaic system of glass-painting would equally have been forgotten had it never taken place.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Having completed his survey of the styles, the author, or, in place of a somewhat wearisome circumlocution, Mr. Winston, (for it is hardly presumptuous, we believe, thus to interpret the initials at the end of the preface) looks at them collectively in order to make his selection, and pronounce, ex cathedrâ, (for there is no English writer of equal pretensions on the subject) what style church-builders and church-restorers shall adopt. We can fancy that he must have done so with considerable embarrassment, judging both from his manner of considering the subject throughout, and from the conclusion to which he comes. He seems persuaded that the earlier styles exhibit brilliancy and depth of colour, with grandeur of conception and general solemnity of character, all however inseparable from preposterous and outrageously false drawing. On the other hand, in the latest of all genuine

styles, he discerns correct drawing and unshackled pictorial display, not unattended, certainly, with a deterioration in tints, and (though he says, and appears to think, little of this point,) with a disregard of the architectural members to which it should be subordinate. Having attained this conviction, he next determines that edification and all the higher objects of the art require that good drawing should be the primary consideration, and therefore that if any ancient style be reproduced, it ought to be the Cinque Cento. But Mr. Winston (as might be expected) is only relatively satisfied with this (perhaps the genii and Cupids, the festoons and tassels of the style are perplexing to him), and he boldly resolves to cut the knot by recommending no ancient style for general use, but clearing a path for one entirely new. Accordingly, with many apologies for his originality, he proceeds to throw out suggestions for the formation of a new style. And first he endeavours, as a preliminary step for his own guidance, to investigate the principles which should be kept in view by a painter on glass. His first proposition is excellent. An artist, he says, ought to endeavour to develope the resources of his particular branch of painting to the fullest extent, but not to seek excellences which are incompatible with its inherent properties. The translucency of glass-painting enables it to display effects of light and colour beyond all other modes, but the same quality involves certain defects, e. g. a limited scale of colours and an inherent flatness for want of transparent shadow. Another peculiarity, viz. its mechanical construction with respect to lead-work and saddle-bars, excludes several applications of design, for instance, landscapes (except in back-grounds) long perspective views of interiors, fore-shortened groups, &c. These peculiarities must be either evaded or turned to account. The painter is bound to exhibit the translucency of glass, which is easily done in patterns, but far more difficult in pictorial designs, but, at the same time with the translucency, he must display the effect of atmosphere and distance. So, at least, says Mr. Winston, and proposes to accomplish it by using clear lights, transparent (stippled) shadows, strong contrasts of light and shade, and, lastly, narrow leads, which he recommends even at the risk of sacrificing security from weather. All these, however, may be recovered from the ancient styles, and therefore the necessity of a new one must arise only from the requirements of the design in outline.

After so grave an investigation of first principles, the reader will be disposed to expect more originality in Mr. Winston's professedly new style than he is likely to find. So far as we can understand a somewhat indistinct course of suggestions, his plan goes no further than the adoption of the exist

ing styles respectively, in all their leading features, according to the date of the building in which they are to be embodied, with such a transmutation as would result from rectified drawing, and some few other emendations of less importance. Now surely, even granting that an attention to these points would create any considerable deviation from ancient precedents, this is hardly to set up a new style, any more than if an architect should build a church, following in its outline models of the twelfth or thirteenth century, but aided in its execution by the newly-invented instruments and improved manual skill of our own times. But the truth is, as we believe, that correct drawing, &c. would not really effect any change in the true character of ancient glass-painting at all. The author himself takes special pains to impress upon us that incorrect drawing is no essential element in the spirit of the ancient styles, but a mere accidental deficiency. And we have the authority of one not less learned in the subject than even Mr. Winston, and more practically acquainted with it-one whose attainments in the art have gained him the highest patronage which France, his own country, can bestowfor saying that those who search for the very best examples, such as are the real types of their respective styles, will find the most excellent drawing in the early periods. M. Gerente, in his recent visit to this country, has displayed a depth of information which makes him no despicable ally to those who, with him, are disposed to maintain the thirteenth century as the true golden age of glass-painting, against Mr. Winston with his devotion to the sixteenth. If, then, even accurate and beautiful drawing is among the attributes of the early styles, what becomes of Mr. Winston's cry for change on the plea of inferiority in this respect? Parturiunt montes: we cannot see that his suggestions amount to anything like the sketch of a new style.

If necessary, it is quite possible to take considerable liberties with the ancient styles, and it may be advantageous to introduce new forms and features as well as to refine upon the old. Nay more, it would not be very difficult, as the last half century has shown, to design windows entirely without regard to any precedent whatever. And this method of proceeding would certainly be new, so far as any reverence for antiquity is concerned, though its ignorance and lawlessness are, we imagine, prominent characteristics of the whole course of our author's Intermediate style.' But even if we had no results of the system before us as warnings, it would be a bold and incongruous experiment, since we do not profess to abandon all precedent in the composition of the structure itself which the glass is designed to adorn. This method, however, it is fair

6

to say, is very far from what the author proposes. He has a vague idea of the growth of a new eclectic style of universal application out of the several distinct styles of antiquity, combining the merits and rejecting the faults of all, without being classed under any one. Now we think this cannot well be. Glass-painting must be subordinate, and cannot be independent. The painter has not to design a picture, but to adorn a building, and that building will either be an ancient one, or a new one formed on the principles of the old. Hence there will not only be associations in the general aspect of the place demanding a chronological conformity in the glazing of the windows, but the very construction of the fabric-the hard, unbending masonry, will limit or expand the design, according to the style, in such a way as to make as strong a line of demarcation between periods in glass as in stone. At least, if the character of the different architectural styles be at all observed in glazing, we cannot ourselves realize such a consanguinity between the design for an early lancet and a broad perpendicular sevenlight window, as can bring them together as examples of one and the same style. There seems to be some confusion in the author's mind between refinements upon an old style and the origination of a new one. When an entirely new style in architecture is started, it may be attended by an equally original movement in glass-painting; but any such movement would be premature if designed to introduce novelty into one portion of a structure substantially unchanged.

Admitting, however, that defective drawing is not so inseparable from early examples as to put them out of the pale of imitation, and that M. Gerente's view of the period of perfection in glass-painting is more just than Mr. Winston's, backed, as the former is, by a triumphant appeal to our own Cathedral of Canterbury, still there is scope enough for genius and judgment in modern artists. Even if in design we closely follow existing precedents, there is sufficient variety among them to exercise at least the faculty of selection. For instance, there is no one style, we suppose, from Norman to Cinque Cento, which does not in some measure allow us the option (no unimportant one) of employing either groups in action, or single figures. Again, though the figures of the different periods respectively have a peculiar and distinctive character, of repose in one case, of more excited action in another, still this is not so indispensable to the propriety of the style selected that any deviation in obedience to individual taste amounts to an innovation in style. Here, then, are two points, at any rate, fairly open to discussion; points, too, of considerable interest and importance, since they influence not only the mere pictorial

effect of a window, but also the amount and character of the edification which may result from the contemplation of it. Yet these points, and all questions connected with the composition of glass-painting, are omitted by our author on the ground that they do not fall within the province of an amateur. (Preface, p. 5.) This is a view which we cannot quite apprehend. For our own part, we should have considered that such questions of taste and propriety fell far more within the jurisdiction of an amateur than the dry though important facts, and profusion of technical details, which our author has collected with such incredible patience and perseverance.

The two questions which have presented themselves to us, out of many which might arise, are really less distinct than they may appear at first sight to be. The alternative of groups or single figures involves in a considerable degree that of repose or action. A group must be actually historical, or, at least, possess so much action as to connect the figures with one another. On the other hand, violent action in a single figure is unintelligible, except by an extraordinary effort of the imagination.

Reducing these, therefore, to one question, it is obvious that historical groups or figures in action will operate upon the spectator otherwise than single figures, and those in attitudes of repose, or such conventional postures as do not require that the imagination should supply other figures to join in the action, and consider the scene as one directly historical. The former would edify undoubtedly, for pictures are the poor man's books, and they would impress upon the mind historical events and even doctrinal facts of which he might otherwise be ignorant. Nor would this effect be confined to the unlettered. The most refined and intellectual among us may with advantage be made to realize what we have learnt, by seeing it thus embodied, if the design is correctly conceived and faithfully executed. It cannot, therefore, be desirable entirely to exclude historical groups, such as the scenes of the Gospel, or of Church history, from glass-painting. Still we conceive that this sort of edification is not its highest function. A church is not, except secondarily, a place of instruction: My house is the 'house of prayer.' Hence we consider that the proportion of directly historical representations should not be greater than that of catechetical instruction in our systems of devotion to the portions designed for meditation and prayer. A solitary figure offered to our contemplation, not acting its history, but tranquilly indicating it by some conventional symbol; not seeking to refresh our memory, but to stimulate our devotion and provoke our zeal,-harmonizes most with the solemn purpose of

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »