40
were not confined to foliated parts, but applied in their full breadth to the canopies * and other archi-tectural representations in the place of crockets, t Although the principle of medallions was par-tially retained in this style, yet the system of minute and elaborate mosaics was almost wholly dis-continued, the main features being foliaged borders with figures and canopies, which generallyoccupied the entire opening, as in Tewkesbury Abbey church; sometimes a series of figures placedeach over the others, with storied or escutcheonal medallions under each, + was introduced where thewindows were lofty, as seen in many examples in York Minster , and this was a favourite mode ofconstruction at the time. Not unfrequently a large portion below the figures (where they weresingly used) was portrayed in rich and minute mosaics, as is to be seen in the principal window ofthe Lady Chapel of St. Chad’s, Birmingham. § This style also embraced the lighter kind of non-reticulated glass, such as greenish-white grounds, either of patterns or quarrels, generally banded,with foliage creeping over the whole surface, as in the latter part of the preceding century; withthese were occasionally used borders, medallions of subjects, heraldic escutcheons, bosses, &c., withvarious geometrical lines of colour, II and emblems, heraldry, or ornaments introduced in the tracery.It was also customary in these times to insert square compartments, containing figures and canopieson these foliaged grounds of white and pattern, continuing through a series of windows, so as to forma band of colour a little higher than the centre of the opening, the lighter ground appearing aboveand below. It was the practice to display figures and canopies independently, and not confined tothe square, letting the pinnacles and irregular parts take an accidental position on these lightgrounds. As the introduction of this style necessitated the rendering the designs into larger fea-tures by figure and canopy, it might naturally be concluded that the several parts would requiremore painting and shadowing, and therefore it may be as well here to enter into a consideration ofthis (a common mistake of nearly all modern painters,) as well as into the true principles of constructingdecorated designs. As the height of the lights was commonly five times their width from the cill tothe tracery, it left a large space to deal with, to diminish which they first applied a border of run-ning foliage of vine-leaves and stems, grapes, birds, &c., and next to the mullion an outer margin ofwhite, to delineate the architectural shapes. Between the borders, and occupying about two-thirdsof the height, was the canopy, drawn upon simple outline, and planned without attempt at perspective,similarly to those of monumental brasses, and consisting of straight-sided gables U pointed in anacute angle. These were in all their parts much enriched by patterns and detail, their groundsbeing diapered by damascenes of admirable design. As, therefore, no appearance of a recessedniche was attempted, so was shadow in a great measure unnecessary; nevertheless, they were notentirely without it, for, although the patterns much enriched the work, a certain shadow to mellowand subdue the glare was applied, but in such a skilful way as not superficially to appear evident. Ithas been thought by some that painting the glass on the exterior was not practised by the ancients, butnothing can be more erroneous, for this is common to every epoch. ** As the portion of each openingoccupied by the border and canopy was so considerable, the space left for the figure was of necessitysmall, less, indeed, than one-third of the opening; a rule which was never lost sight of, as therebythey avoided colouring in large pieces. The figures (which seldom exceeded three feet in height,and were oftener much less,) rested on a kind of battlemented frieze, (for pedestals, strictly speaking,were never used,) which sometimes bore the name of the saint inscribed thereon, or some other cha-racteristic ornament. By these means the work acquired a broad and mosaic effect, not broken by
* Vide Plate of East Window of Killamarsh Church, Derbyshire .
■f- Amongst the many examples are very fine ones of this description, supposed to be originally from Lichfield Cathedral , now in thechurch of Norton near Twycroft: these the Author recently restored for Lord Howe, and has a facsimile of one of them.
t See Plate of the Choir Windows, St. Chad’s, Birmingham.
% This window was drawn and also executed by the Author, from which his name has somehow been obliterated.
|| See Plate of East Window, Bishopstone Church, Plerefordshire.
Vide Plate of East Windows of Killamarsh, Blackbrook, and St. Chad’s, Birmingham.
** The Author has recently restored for J. H. P. Oakes, Esq. the East Window of Hessett Church near Bury St. Edmund ’s: it isdecorated glass of the early part of the fourteenth century, which is shadowed entirely on the outside of it, the lines of depiction being theonly painting on the inside. This glass, which is of the highest order of finish, is sufficient proof of this practice, independently of othergeneral evidences, of which the Author has considerable quantities of different examples and periods in his possession.