THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

So far as regards the first half of this epoch, but little can be said with reference to thepractice of the art which will not apply to the last. The same disposition to produce the effects ofoil-paintings on glass was continued, and even further attempts were made towards this object, byenamelling colours only. These last proved at once that the art had exhausted itself in vain attemptsto rival oil-painting, which had in fact in this sense entirely and long previously superseded it. Wefind, accordingly, that Francis Langlois, master glazier and glass painter, discontinued his avocationof painting glass altogether ; he afterwards became a china painter and merchant, with which hisformer profession bore some affinity, and he died in Paris whilst pursuing that calling in 1725.Afterwards, John Francis Dor died, leaving John Le Viel, who was the only person of any notethen practising this art in France . Its position in the Low Countries is found at this time to havebeen very similar. It is however to England that we must look for the continuation and revival ofthis art, for, during the time of its utter prostration and discontinuance elsewhere, we find that itwas still indefatigably pursued in this country, from the early part of this century downwards, andthat, too, in connexion with many sacred and noble edifices.

Therefore it is that we find windows in Christ Church , Oxford , and Northill, Bedfordshire , byIsaac Oliver , of about 1700; in Queen’s College , Oxford , by the elder William Price, of about 1715;in the New College chapel, Oxford , we find the windows restored in about 1730 by William Pricethe younger; and new windows in Magdalen College chapel, Oxford , by the same artist, of about1765. There are others in New College chapel, Oxford , of about the same date, by Peckett, ofYork. Salisbury cathedral and Brazenose College chapel, Oxford , contain works of about 1776, bythe Pearsons. The windows in New College chapel, by Jarvis, were executed about 1777. Theeast window of St. George’s chapel, Windsor, was executed by his pupil Forest; and the west win-dows of New College chapel, Oxford , were executed in 1794 by Eginton.

The preceding facts, and these works, which still remain, bear ample testimony of this arthaving been continuously pursued, and will contradict the erroneous notion of its having been lost.It is true that most of these works are very far from being in the true spirit of the art, and that theywill not bear the criticism of the more correct taste now brought to bear on them; but it should notbe forgotten that the authors of these works were practising at a time when corrupted taste had to besatisfied, and a carelessness prevailed whether they harmonized with the architecture, or whether theyembraced any sacred character in their design. It should also be remembered that Walpole, whosetaste was far in advance of most of those of his time, held in derision and contempt the windows byJarvis from the cartoons of the great Sir Joshua Reynolds , still remaining in New College chapel,Oxford ; he well knowing then, what has only latterly been discovered by others, namely, that theywere utterly devoid of the properties and principles which constitute the beauties and effects of thisart, and therefore he appropriately called them a the washy virtues.” Nevertheless, difficult as itmust have been at this time to produce a specimen of this art upon true principles, both from theabsence of taste towards its encouragement, and from a paucity of the means of carrying it out, itwas even then, under all the disadvantages, accomplished. This was made evident by Robert ScottGodfrey, an English glass-painter, who was exhibiting at Paris in 1769 a large window, painted “inthe style of ancient church windows,” which, according to the Mercure de France , July, 1769,“ offered all the character and variety of tones so much admired in ancient glass.” This work there-