Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 6.djvu/607

 NOTICES OF AKCHAEOLOGICAL I'UBLICATIONS. 425 pointed ; and that the rules laid down, and the examples furnished, for the guidance of others, are mostly founded on erroneous or mistaken principles. The work may be considered under three points of view : as a history of glass painting ; as a description of the styles which have successively prevailed in J'lngland ; and, thirdly, as inculcating certain principles upon which the art of glass painting must he exercised or practised. As a history of glass painting, the work is very deficient. It gives little or no account of the progress and vicissitudes of the art on the Continent ; and, with regard to many countries, is so perfectly silent, that a reader might infer that glass painting had remained entirely unknown to them. There is no mention of Swiss painted glass ; Spain, for instance, is not mentioned ; neither is Italy. Even Germany, and the Netherlands — countries where it so extensively flourished — are passed over without notice, if we e.xcept a brief account of some windows at Cologne and at Gouda, taken from another publication. France is brought more promi- nently forward; but the history, even with regard to this country, does not do more than give descriptions of some well-known windows, such as those at St. Denis, Rouen, &c. There is no attempt at discriminating the varieties of style which prevailed in France at different periods, and in its various provinces; nor^ there any accomit of the universal prevalence of this kind of decoration at one time, and of its subsequent rapid decline, or of the causes which led to it — subjects, as to all which some interesting particulars are given by Le Vieil.' The account of the origin and early employment of the art is also very trite and meagre. This, perhaps, is excusable, as nothing very satisfac- tory is known upon the subject ; but it is hardly excusable to omit all mention of the Treatise of Theopliilus, which is so imjiortant in proving the antiquity of glass painting, and throwing light on its practice, both at an early period and during subsequent ages. Of Theopliilus, indeed, Mr. Warrington does not appear to have heard ; certainly, he can never have read him, or he would not say, as he does (p. 12), speaking of the glass painters, of the twelfth century : " It is pretty clear, therefore, that these primitive maiuifacturers did not understand the method of blowing glass, but that they fused their coloured metals in earthen pots or crucibles, and then cast them as nearly as possible to the requisite sizes, afterwards grozing them to the exact shape wanted." Or he would not remark, after noticing Suger's statement that they fused sapphires to make blue glass for the windows of St. Denys : " Some have doubted the supposed reality of the sapphir(>s, but the evident care and precaution about them makes the matter pretty conclusive." (Note to p. 15). " The work is equally doficient in inquiries into and information I'especting the processes usetl by the medieval glass painters for colouring their glass ; and though the period of the introduction of the yellow stain is duly ' L'Art (le la printuro siir vprro ct dc la from liis statement, that the term " S.ipiiliiros," vitrcric. P.ir feu IM. Le Vieil, 177-1. was jriven to the bine te-sera? found in ancient - Theopliilus distinctly describes the art of mosaic work, which the ^lass-makers of his glass blowiucr, and the method of openinj; out time fused with the white plass in order to cj/li)nh'}'s of ffla-s into sheets. It is also clear, gve a blue colour to it. VOL. VI. ;3 L