THE INDUSTRY OF ALL NATIONS.

expended itself in this rather than any other channel, and why, as knoVledge grewand taste became refined, the art of glass painting did not maintain its placeamong the other arts then invented or revived. In the windows constructedbefore the close of the fourteenth century, figures are the occasional exceptions,and when introduced, they are little else than very brilliant mosaics, which,except by their outlines and local color, it is difficult to distinguish from theborders and background of the composition. In the Gothic paintings, which maybe said to have sprung from the mosaic, single figures or groups occupy the centreand are surrounded with borders and canopies of rich and intricate pattern; buteven here, the drawing plays only a subordinate part, and the outlines are heavyand rude. To produce a pictorial effect, the artist has evidently relied most uponthe skilful disposition of brilliant and positive colors. Finally, the revival of thearts in the sixteenth century had its influence upon glass painting. A more deli-cate and correct style of drawing was adopted; the depth of the colors was in-creased by the use of a purer and better quality of glass; broad and graduatedshadows took the place of the stiff and narrow outlines of earlier times; perspec-tive was attempted; and unsuccessful efforts were made to imitate in a trans-parent material the atmospheric and picturesque effects of nature, and to rival thedetails and refinements of oil and fresco paintings. The mosaic paintings werecarried to greater perfection than had been hitherto arrived at, and the discoveryof the enamel colors still further extended the resources of the art. The use ofenamels was, however, attended with corresponding disadvantages. In proportionas glass paintings became strictly pictures, their depth of color diminished; trans-parency was sacrificed to variety of tints, and what was gained in sentiment waslost in vivid impressions upon the senses. This wrong estimate of the capabilitiesof glass painting hastened its decay. It must also be remembered, that popularfavor and the patronage of princes, which had been so long the exclusive pos-session of this art, were powerfully attracted by the masterly productions of oiland fresco painting, and by the new art of engraving on copper. By these, glasspainting was finally supplanted altogether.

The decay of which we have spoken was not immediate. Its causes werebusy while the best works of the art were being produced—those which havebeen selected by competent authority as the standards of comparison, by whichall other glass paintings are to be judged. Such are the works of the Dutchbrothers, IDirck and Wouter Crabeth, which were executed in the middle of thesixteenth century, and still adorn St. Jan’s Kirk, at Gouda, in Holland. Fewthings in Europe possess greater intrinsic beauty, still fewer are more wonderfulin their effect upon an American than these lofty windows, whose large sur-faces are glowing with the richest and most brilliant hues, arranged with ar-tistic regard to the laws of harmony and contrast as well as richness of ensemble.They have always been the admiration of natives and travellers, and by con-noisseurs they have been declared to exhibit every conceivable excellence of thisspecies of art, and to be unsurpassable in execution and coloring. When Rubensvisited them, he could only be satisfied by mounting a ladder to examine themclosely and minutely; and one-—the Sacrilege of Heliodorus—he pronounced tobe of inestimable value, for which no money was an equivalent. The materialsof which the windows of the sixteenth century were composed, so closely resemblethose now in use, that they are for this reason, in addition to others, more justlyselected as the standards of comparison. The composition of the more ancientglass is widely different, and its peculiar effects cannot be reproduced by arti-ficially weathering the surface of recent glass, in imitation of the obscui-ing andcorroding results of age and long exposure. •

As in every other art and decoration, the art of glass painting is subject tocertain limitations, which arise partly from the object it desires to accomplish,and partly from the nature of the materials it employs. The true artist will notseek fame by transcending these conditions,'but while rigidly complying withthem, he will show his appreciation of liis- art and mastery over it, by convertingits obstacles into the means of his own success. The design for a painting onglass should be in itself beautiful and pleasing, and in harmony with the archi-tecture and object of the building it is intended to adorn. Besides these points,the artist in choosing his composition will have to consider, the great distance atwhich it must be viewed, the brilliant and transparent nature of the materials, andthe mechanical construction of the window. This, if it is not a mere toy orcabinet window, must consist of a great number of pieces of glass, which areunited with lead and strengthened by an arming or frame-work of iron bars. Acondition which would be fatal in any other kind of painting is far from being adisadvantage in painting on glass. This will be apparent when their use aswindows is thought of. They are not mere decorations, but serve also totemper the intensity of the sun’s rays, and shed a “dim religions light,” inharmony with the solemnities of church service and the devout feelings ofthe worshippers. This purpose is excellently fulfilled by the division of thewindow into a great number of parts, whose pure deep tints disperse the sun-light, and mingle their richness with it. In the most effective works thefigures and their draperies are subjected to the same treatment, and the lead-ing is ingeniously made to follow the drawing and increase its effect. In manyinstances, the bars of the arming are conspicuous in the lights of the window

so ’

which the artist would surely have been at pains to conceal, if he had not in-tended his work to be a symbol or a monument, rather than a picture in thesense of the word as applied to an oil-painting. The transparency of the glass isto be carefully preserved, and its brilliancy heightened. The object of the artistis not to produce the best possible picture, but the best bright and transparentone. With this end in view, enamels are used sparingly, the coloring being mostlyproduced by glass colored in the manufacture (pot-metal and flashed glass), whosepure and vivid tints cannot be imitated by enamels. IIow much of the beautifuleffect of a glass painting depends upon its brightness and transparency, may beeasily ascertained by comparing some of the ancieht windows with modern resto-rations placed beside them, in which these conditions have not been preserved.Although the latter may be far superior in composition, drawing, and those ar-tistic qualities which make a good picture , they are far from being good glasspaintings, and have a dark, dull, and unpleasing effect. The contrast would bemuch more favorable to the ancient method, if incorrect drawing and similar un-intentional errors, not properly belonging to the method, but to the time in whichit prevailed, were separated from its simplicity and vivid coloring.

The distance at which a glgps painting must be placed from the eye of thespectator, is one of the most important limitations of the art, and requires a modeof treatment altogether distinct from that of any other species of painting. Theminute details which would be possible and effective on an opaque surface, arewholly lost on the distant and translucent surface of a cathedral window, if indeedthe process of burning in the colors has not already destroyed them—an accidentmost likely to happen.

The nice gradations of color which contribute to the harmony of an oil-paint-ing are inappropriate for the same reason. They inevitably blend together into asingle color, which, nevertheless, fails of t.he lively appearance that constitutes anessential charm of the art: The inexperienced artist, who bestows his labor inthe elaborate arrangement of the half-tints of his cartoon, -will be surprised andmortified to find that this very labor has spoiled the effect of his completed work.He may also draw this conclusion from his failure, that the best masters were notso much ignorant of the mode, as aware of the inexpediency of copying the de-tails and delicacies of oil-painting, and that it is well to imitate the ideas of sisterarts, but not their methods.

The material of a glass painting and its position exclude shadows also, or admitonly such as are quite transparent. A glass painting is not, like any other, illu-minated from some exterior source, but the light which makes the figures visible,shines through them. To paint an opaque or very obscure shadow under suchcircumstances is nothing else than an artistic absurdity, and it meets with anotherobjection equally important, that it destroys the utility of the window as a meansof admitting light into the interior'—the very object for which the painting hasany existence at all. IVe repeat that the art of glass painting does not contem-plate the production of pictures in the strict sense of that word, but architecturaldecorations, which are employed to add a new charm to the structure, by present-ing the symbol of some scene or thought in harmony with it. Even could thepoint of deception be reached in imitating some oilier method or style of art, itwould not be a high merit. In this, as in all other decorations applied to usefulobjects or purposes, we hold it to be a sound principle, that whenever ornamentinterferes with or destroys utility, it is misapplied or radically wrong.

At the revival, about twenty-five years ago, of this beautiful art, its restorersdivided .themselves into two schools, according to their widely different views andpractice. The artists of the one have adhered to the flat and simple treatmentgenerally practised by our forefathers, and found so effective by them; the fol-lowers of the other, belonging mostly to the continent of Europe, have beengoverned by principles quite the opposite, and have done every thing to treat theirwindows as true pictures. The latter have been very skilful in the managementof their materials, and wonderfully successful in overcoming what would seem tobe insurmountable difficulties in imitating the delicate details and harmonies ofoil-painting. But here our praise must end. Their success has not been complete;whatever softness and high finish has been arrived at in the painting, has beenfatally injured, as we have before pointed out, by the harsh effect of the mechani-cal construction of the window, or lost in the distance at which it must be viewed.For reasons already mentioned, we must regard these works with all their separatebeauties as instances of architectural unfitness, and of the misapplication of laborand materials—results which must always follow when the principles of two dis-tinct arts are confounded together. In regard to those who have adopted theseverer style of the earlier artists, we have only to remark, that it is a grave faultto associate in one work imitations of the stVles belonging to different times andplaces. A work made up of fragmentary reproductions will always be incon-gruous and unpleasing, even to those who are unable to explain the cause of theeffect of which they are conscious. The style which the artist professes to imitateshould be reproduced faithfully, but to do this it is not necessary, as some havedone, to repeat incorrect drawing and the similar unintentional errors of ignorance.

In estimating the excellences of the two distinct classes of glass painting, Mr.Redgeave justly remarks that the greater strength and durability of the ancientmethod should be noticed. A modern pictorial window, constructed of a single