CHAPTER XXXIII.

A WORD ON RESTORATION.

If old windows have suffered at the hands of time, they have also gained, apart from sentiment, a tone and quality which the glass had not when it was new.

Their arch-enemy is the restorer, at whose hands they have suffered cruel and irreparable wrong. He is the thief who has robbed so much old glass of its glory, and a most impenitent one: there are times when any one who cares for glass could find it in his heart to wish he were crucified. So greedy is he of work, if not of gain, that restoration cannot safely be left even to the most learned of men; to him, perhaps, can it least of all be entrusted.

The twelfth century windows at S. Denis should be among the most interesting extant. They are ruined by restoration. The beauty which they may have had, which they must have had, is wiped out; and, for purposes of study, they are of use only to those who have opportunity and leisure to ferret out what is genuine amidst the sham. The S. Chapelle is cited as a triumph of restoration, an object lesson, in which we may see a thirteenth century chapel with its glass as it appeared when first it was built. If that is so, then time has indeed been kinder even than one had thought. No less an authority than Mr. Ruskin (in a letter to Mr. E. S. Dallas, published in the _Athenæum_) praises the new work there, and says he cannot distinguish it from the old. There is at least a window and a half (part of the East window, and the one to the left of that) in which, at all events, the old is easily distinguishable from the new. But if the new is not more obvious throughout, that is not because the new is so good, but because the old has been so restored that it is unrecognisable--as good as new, in fact, and no better. The old glass is so smartened up, so watered down with modern, that it gives one rather a poor idea of unspoiled thirteenth century work. A more adequate impression of what it must have been, may be gained from the few panels of it, comparatively unhurt by restoration, now in South Kensington Museum.

The story of destruction repeats itself wherever the restorer has had his way. Sometimes he has actually inserted new material if only the old was cracked, obscured, corroded; and has effaced the very qualities which come of age and accident. Sometimes he has indulged in a brand-new background. There, at least, it seemed to his ignorance, he might safely substitute nice, new, even-tinted, well-made glass for streaky, speckled, rough, mechanically imperfect material. Invariably he has thinned the effect of colour by diluting the old glass with new. Many quite poor new-looking windows, spick and span from the restorer (those, for example, at the East end of Milan Cathedral), turn out to contain a certain amount of old work, good perhaps, lost in garish modern manufacture. At Notre Dame, at Paris, the considerable remains of Early and Early Decorated glass go for very little. One has to pick them out from among modern work designed to deceive. Certain windows at Mantes have suffered such thorough restoration that one begins to wonder if they are not altogether new; and you have precisely the same doubt at Limoges and at scores of other places. At Lyons an Early Rose has been made peculiarly hideous by restoration. Much of the harsh purple in Early French mosaic is surely due to the admixture of crude new glass. It is needless to multiply examples; they will occur to every one. All this old work swamped in modern imitation goes inevitably for nought. If the new is good it puzzles and perplexes one; if bad, one can see nothing else. What is crude kills what is subdued. It is as if one listened for a tender word at parting, and it was drowned in the screech of the steam-engine.

Early glass was so mechanically imperfect, and age has so roughened and pitted it, that its colour has, almost of necessity, a quality which new work has not; and one is disposed, perhaps too hastily, to ascribe all garish glass in old windows to the restorer. Many a time, however, the new work convicts itself. At Strassburg it is quite easily detected. You may check your judgment in this respect by surveying the windows from the rear. It is a very good plan to preface the study of old work by examining it from the churchyard, the street, the close, or in the case of a big church from its outer galleries. The surface exposed to the weather, with the light upon it, explains often at a glance what would else be unaccountable. A vile habit of the restorer is to smudge over his glass with dirty paint, perhaps burnt in, perhaps merely in varnish colour; this he terms "antiquating."

The worse the new work added to the old, the more thoroughly it spoils it; the better the forgery, the more serious the doubt it throws upon what may be genuine. The modern ideal of restoration is thoroughly vicious. All that can be done is mending; and it should be an axiom with the repairer, that, where glass (however broken) can possibly be made safe by lead joints, no new piece of glass should ever be inserted in its place. Better any disfigurement by leads than the least adulteration of old work.

It is absurd to set good old work in the midst of inferior reproduction of it, as the common practice is, more especially in the case of Early work. Every bungler has thought himself equal to the task of restoring thirteenth century glass. It was rudely drawn and roughly painted. What could be easier than to repeat details of ornament, or even to make up bogus old subjects, and so complete the window? To paint figures anything like those in the picture windows of the sixteenth century was obviously not so easy, and the difficulty has acted as a deterrent. Where it has not, the discrepancy between old and new is usually unmistakable. Men like M. Capronnier, however, have sometimes put excellent workmanship into their restoration of Renaissance work, to be detected only by a certain air of modernity, which happily has crept into it, in spite of the restorer. But was it not he who flattened the grey-blue background to the transept windows at S. Gudule? The fine window at S. Gervais, Paris, with the Judgment of Solomon, has lost much of its charm in restoration. To compare it with the two lights in the window to the right of it, is to see how much of the quality of old glass has been restored away. That quality may be due in part to age and decay. What then? Beauty is beauty; and if it comes of decay (which we cannot hinder), let us at least enjoy the beauty of decay.

It has been proved at Strassburg that thirteenth or even twelfth century work may be quite harmoniously worked into fourteenth century windows. And even in the sixteenth century there were artists who managed to adapt quite Early mosaic glass to Renaissance windows, in which abundant stain, and even enamel, was used. The effect may be perplexing, but it does not deceive. Why will not a man frankly tell us what is new in his work? Then we could appreciate what he had done. But it is only once in a while that he takes you into his confidence. This happens, by way of exception, in a window at S. Mary's Redcliffe, Bristol, in the case of some figure work on quarry backgrounds, in which the new work is all of clear unpainted white or coloured glass, but so judiciously chosen that you do not at first perceive the patching. The effect is absolutely harmonious; and when you begin to study the glass, you do so without any fear that imposition is being practised upon you. Where the painting has in parts been made good, there is always that fear, as, for example, at S. Mary's Hall, Coventry: the windows have been restored with great taste; but one cannot always be quite sure as to what is modern.

The merest jumble of old glass, more especially if it be all of one period or quality, is far better than what is called restoration. Who does not call to mind window after window in which the glass is so mixed as to be quite meaningless, and is yet, for all that, beautiful? The Western Rose at Reims is an unintelligible jumble mainly of blue and green. It may not be design, but it is magnificent. Again, the Western lights at Auxerre, in great part patchwork, are simply glorious when the afternoon sun shines through.

At the East end of Winchester Cathedral is a seven-light window, reckoned by Winston to be one of the finest of a fine period. At the West end is an enormous window, which seems to be a mere medley of odds and ends. On examination you can trace in perhaps twelve out of forty-four lights of this last the outline of canopy-work, and in two or three that of the figure under it; but for the rest, certainly in the two lower tiers (which are best seen), it is mere patchwork, including some quite crude blue, and a certain amount of common clear white sheet. The effect, when you examine it closely, is anything but pleasing. But as you stand near the choir screen on a not very bright morning, and look from one window to the other, the effect is just the opposite of what might have been expected. For the really fine East window has been restored; and, whether to preserve it or to bring old work and new into uniformity, it has been screened with sheets of perforated zinc! On the other hand, the really considerable amount of crude white and colour with which the West window has been botched is, so to speak, swallowed up in silvery radiance. Probably it helps even to give it quality; anyway, the effect is delightful. Indeed, it recalls the impression of the Five Sisters at York, or suggests some monster cobweb in which the light is caught. Beauty, forbid that any busybody should restore it! At Poitiers (S. Radegonde) is a grisaille window of the fourteenth century, all patched, defaced, undecipherable--mended only with thick bulbous bits of green-white glass--which is quite all one could desire in the way of decoration.

In very many churches there remain fragments of old glass in stray tracery openings, not enough to produce effect. The question has been what to do with them. A common practice is to use up such scraps in the form of bordering to common white quarry glass. That is quite a futile thing to do. The effect of setting old glass amidst plain white is to put out its colour; and this, not only in the case of deep-coloured glass, but equally of Early grisaille; which when framed in clear glass, looks merely dirty. The most beautiful and sparkling of thirteenth century glass so framed would be degraded. At Angers are some windows consisting of a mosaic of scraps worked up into pattern (before the days of restoration as we know it); and the mere introduction amidst it of a strapwork of thin white sheet (above) is enough to take from it all charm of colour, all quality of old glass. Massed all together in one window, without such adulteration, the most miscellaneous collection of chips makes usually colour. In the hands of a colourist it would be certain to do so. What if it be confused? Mystery is, at all events, one element of charm, and even of beauty.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to marry old work with new; but the union is rarely happy. It wants, in the first place, good modern glass. Further than that, it wants an artist, and one who has more care for old work than for his own. There is some satisfactory eking out old glass with new at Evreux, where a number of small subjects, many of them old, are framed in grisaille, in great part new, in a very ingenious way. At Munster is a window in which little tracery lights (you can tell that by their shapes) are used as points of interest in a modern composition--with a result, only less happy than where, at S. Mary's Redcliffe, a window is made up almost entirely of old glass, very much of one period, the more fragmentary remains forming a sort of broken mosaic background to circular medallions, heads, and other important pieces, arranged more or less pattern-wise upon it. Old glass must needs be mended sometimes, patched perhaps; new may have to be added to it; it has even to be adapted on occasion to a new window, with or without the admixture of new; but none of this is restoration of the glass in the modern sense. That implies restoring it to what once it was--which is, on the face of it, absurd.

The effect of windows made up (as at S. Jean-aux-Bois, page 409) of segments of two or three old windows satisfies the artistic sense perfectly. What the restorer does is to take each pattern he finds in it for what he calls "authority," and to make two or three windows, all of which have much more the appearance of modern forgeries (which in great part they are) than of old work. The "antiquation" of the new glass in them deceives none but the most ignorant; but it does throw doubt upon the genuineness of the old work found in such very bad company.

If there remain enough old glass to make a window, let it be judiciously repaired; if there be not enough for that, let it be piously preserved, best of all, in a museum, where those who care for such scraps may see it: scattered about in stray windows in out-of-the-way churches they are practically unseen. Better than what is called restoration, the brutality of the mason who plasters up gaps in the clerestory windows of great churches with mortar, or the plumber's patch of zinc, which temporarily at least keeps out the weather and the crude white light, leaving us in full enjoyment of the colour and effect of old glass. How grateful we are when it is only cobbled, and not restored. Restoration is a word to make the artist shudder.

In a window at Auch, representing the Risen Christ, with, on the one side, the doubting Thomas, and on the other the Magdalene, the customary inscription, "Noli me tangere," is followed (in letters of precisely the same character) by the signature of the artist, Arnaut de Moles. It is the reverend Abbé responsible for the authorised description of the church, who suggests that it may have been with intention he signed his name just there. He has come off, as it happens, very much better at the hands of the restorer than most men. Had it been possible for him to foresee what nineteenth century "restoration" meant, well might he have written over his signature "Leave me alone"!

INDEX.

(The ordinary figures refer to the numbers of the illustrations, and those in black type to the pages of the book.)

ABRASION, =60=, =62= AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, 14 ALABASTER windows, =380=, =381= ALENÇON, =366= ANGELS, =375= ANGERS, 61, 62, 63, 256 " museum, 168 " (S. Serge), 17, 85, 86 ANNEALING, =63= ANTWERP, =80=, =82=, =226=, =227=, =258= ARAB glass, =19=, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ARCHITECTURE (due consideration of), =356= AREZZO, =248=, 41, 43, 181, 254 ASSISI, =262=, 53, 177, 187 AUCH, =233=, =280=, =393=, =410= AUGSBURG, =118= AUXERRE, 55, 75, 220

BACKGROUND, =251= " (architectural), =209=, =211= " (landscape), =209=, =211= BARS, =101=, =113=, =114=, =122=, =158=, =267=, =275= " (shaped), 68, 69 BEAUVAIS, =374=, =394=, 247 BEVERLEY minster, =74= BLACK PAINT (used for local colour), =89= BOLOGNA, =264=, 180 BONLIEU, =11= BORDERS (Early), =114=, =327= " (Decorated), =174-7=, =335= " (Perpendicular), =190=, =344= BOURGES, =392=, 70, 72, 234 " (S. Bonnet), =208=, 157 BRABOURNE church, 16 BRISTOL (S. Mary's), =407= BRITISH Museum, =1= BROU, =393= BRUSSELS (S. Gudule), =69=, =79=, =80=, =233=, =395=, 42 BULL'S-eye windows, =267=

CAMBRIDGE (King's College), =216=, =257=, =396= CANOPIES (Early), =135=, =313=, =334= " (Decorated), =155=, =197=, =313= " (Italian), 264=, 265= " (Perpendicular), =184= _et seq._, =340= " (Renaissance), =205=, =221=, =224=, =225=, =347= CANOPY (the beginning of the), =135= CANTERBURY, =385=, 23, 73, 79, 81, 214 CARCASSONNE, =362=, =369= CARTOUCHES, =229= CHÂLONS, =393=, 12, 13, 98, 121, 122, 227 CHANTILLY, =303=, 160 CHARTRES, =144=, =387=, 27, 71, 76, 103, 117, 216, 219 " (S. Pierre), 96, 115 CHETWODE church, 201 CHOICE of glass, =60=, =101= CLERESTORY windows, =283= CLOK (Cornelius) =399= COATED glass, =49= COLOGNE, =392=, 147 " (S. Kunibert), 25, 28, 77, 222, 223 " (S. Peter), 240 COLOUR (Early), =122=, =328=, =330= " (Decorated), =338= " in quarry windows, =287= " (Italian), =268=, =270= " (Perpendicular), =346= CONCHES, =394= CONFUSED effect, =42=, =134=, =217= COSTA (Lorenzo), =264= COUTANCES, 101 CRABETHS (the), =247=, =399= CUTTING, =8= " (economy of), =25=

DA UDINE (Giovanni), =300= DECAY, =219= DECLINE of glass painting, =86= DECORATED borders, =176=, =335= " canopies, =155=, =313=, =334= " colour, =338= " composition, =334= " figure design, =157=, =337= " grisaille, =163=, =337= " Jesse windows, =363= " medallion windows, =152= " quarries, =290= " style, =333-338= " tracery, =278= DESIGN (banded), =160= " (Early), =36=, =111=, =112= " (effect of window-shape upon), =113= " (essential conditions of), =96= " (Perpendicular), =187=, =340= DETAIL (ornamental), =328= DEVILS, =374= DIAPER (geometric), =133= " (German), =171= " (painted or picked out), =35=, 32, 33, 36, 49, 56 DONORS, =221= "DOOM" windows, =372= DRAMATIC effect, =378= DRAWING, =346=

EARLY canopies, =313= " colour, =328=, =330= " design, =36=, =111=, =112= " English, =327= " figures, their crudity, =41= " glass (confusion in effect of), =42= " glazing, =330= " grisaille, =137= _et seq._, =408= " Jesse windows, =362= " mosaic windows, =32= _et seq._ " ornament, =40=, =115=, =130= " rose windows, =273= " tracery, =274= ECOUEN, =394= ENAMEL, =12= _et seq._, =77= _et seq._, =99=, =232= " (influence of Byzantine), =17= " (objections to), =84= " (use of in ornament), =78= ENAMEL _plus_ POT-METAL, =79= ENGLISH (Early), =327= " (Perpendicular), =190= EVREUX, =176=, =177=, 113, 118, 190, 191

FAIRFORD, =374=, =391=, 34, 143, 144, 150, 173, 236, 237, 248, 249, 250, 253 FIFTEENTH century glass, =322=, =340= FIGURE-AND-CANOPY windows, =326= FIGURE design, =157=, =337= FIGURES (Early), =41=, =42= FIGURES and ornament, =126=, =319= FIVE Sisters (the), =146=, =147= FLASHED glass, =49=, =50= FLESH tints, =77=, =106= FLORENCE, =264=, =270=, =300=, 179, 182, 183 " (Certosa in Val d'Ema), 202, 203, 204, 242 " (S. Maria Novella), 178, 199 FOURTEENTH century glass, =322=, =333= " " painting, =47= FREIBURG, 105, 126, 127, 244 FRENCH glass painting, =75= " medallion windows, =125=

GEOMETRIC diaper (German), =171= " " (mosaic), =133= GERMAN foliated pattern windows, =174= " geometric diaper, =171= GLAZING, =6=, =15= _et seq._, =80=, =82=, =101=, =229=, =282=, 168 " (Early), =330= " (economy in), =144= " (ingenuity in), =56= GLAZING _plus_ PAINTING, =43=, =44=, =53=, =54= " in rectangular panes, =80=, =225= " shadows in pot-metal, =72=, =224= GONTIER (Linard), =80=, =81=, =229=, =230= GOTHIC influence, =203= " (Italian), =263= " landscape, =253= " pattern windows, =291= " tracery, =280= GOUDA, =223=, =256=, =258=, =398=, =401=, 46, 161, 162, 165, 172, 176 GRISAILLE (Early), =137= _et seq._, =331=, =408= GRISAILLE (Decorated), =163=, =337= " (Perpendicular), =192=, =343= " and colour, =106=, =120=, =157=

HERALDRY, =198= HITCHIN church, 21

INTERLACING, =167= ITALIAN canopies, =265= " Gothic, =263= " glass, =248=, =260= _et seq._, =299=

JESSE windows, =360= _et seq._ " (Early), =362= " (Decorated), =363= " (Renaissance), =367= JEWELLERY (glass related to), =21= JOHNSON (N.), =399=

KALEIDOSCOPIC effect, =42= KING'S College, Cambridge, =216=, =257=, =396=

LANDSCAPE, =209=, =251=, =256= LAST Judgment windows, =372= LATE GOTHIC pattern windows, =291= " " style, =343= " " technique, =346= " " tracery, =280= " " windows, =178= _et seq._ LATE RENAISSANCE canopies, =225= LEAD lines, =38= " outlines, =23= LEADING (its influence on colour), =39= LEADS (contrivances for avoiding), =61=, =62=, =63=, =97= " (scheming of), =27=, =28= LE MANS, 20, 218 LICHFIELD, =214=, =395= LIÈGE, =214=, =395= LINCOLN, 67, 93, 95, 185, 189, 192 LISIEUX, 167 LOCAL schools, =261= LONDON (S. George's, Hanover Square), =214=, 159 LUCERNE, =403= LYONS, 26, 83, 84, 153, 188, 239

MALVERN, =55=, 37 MANY lights (windows of), =151= _et seq._ MAP of a window, =8= MARSEILLES (William of), =248= MATERIAL and design, =107= MEDALLION windows, =123= _et seq._, =324=, =325= " " (Decorated), =152= " " (French), =125= " " of many lights, =153= MEDIÆVAL artlessness, =376= MENDING (judicious), =407= MIDDLE GOTHIC glass, =162= _et seq._ MILAN, =263= MISUSE of shading, =68= MONTMORENCY, =394=, 40, 158 MOSAIC, =5=, =6= " (marble and glass), =29= " diaper, =133= MULLIONS, =151=, =195=, =197=, =198=, =240=, =272= MUNICH museum, 124, 128, 129, 131

NATURALISM, =337= NEEDLE-POINT work, =87= _et seq._ NETHERLANDISH glass, =73=, =302= NEW departures, =109= NIMBUS (the), =208= NORBURY, 114 NUREMBERG, =224=, 125 " (S. Lorenz), 164 " (S. Sebald), 163

OBSCURATION, =68=, =79=, =82= OLD work (the spirit of), =358= ORNAMENT (a plea for), =317= _et seq._ " (Early), =40=, =115=, =130= " (Decorated), =160= " (Perpendicular), =343= " (possibilities in), =321= " (Renaissance), =349= ORVIETO, =380=, 19 OXFORD (All Souls' College), 35, 141 " (New College), =179=, =401=, 48, 109, 137

PAINT (brushing out), =64= " (early use of), =33= " (first use of), =11= PAINT as local colour, =57= PAINTED mosaic glass, =43= _et seq._ PAINTER as glass designer (the), =69= PAINTING, =6=, =44=, =45=, =47=, =53=, =59= _et seq._, =64=, =68=, =85=, =89=, =103=, =105=, =190=, =211=, =247=, =263=, =331=, =338=, =346= PAINTING out, =11=, =34=, =35=, =44=, =45=, =278= PALETTE (the early), =328= PARIS (Louvre), 208 " (Musée des Arts Décoratifs), 243 PARIS (S. Eustache), =223= " (S. Gervais), 166 PATTERN windows (German), =174= " " (Late Gothic), =291= PECKITT, =233= PERPENDICULAR, =340= " (English), =188=, =190= " (German), =188= PERPENDICULAR borders, =344= " canopies, =184=, =340= " colour, =346= " design, =187=, =340= " detail, =343= " drawing, =346= " grisaille, =343= " ornament, =343= " style, =340= " tracery, =278=, =279=, =343= PICKING out, =35=, =103= PICTORIAL _versus_ DECORATIVE, =238= PICTURE (achievement in), =250= " (the ideal glass), =246= PICTURES (a medley of), =195= PICTURE-WINDOWS, =236= _et seq._ PISA, =263= PLAIN glazing, =226=, 166, 167 " " and painted grisaille, =139= POICTIERS, =388=, 24, 58, 59, 60 POSSIBILITIES in the way of ornament, =321= POT-METAL, =5= PRATO, 184

QUARRIES, =146=, =168=, =192=, =283= _et seq._ QUARRY-LIKE patterns, =169= QUARRY windows (colour in), =287=

REGENSBURG, =389=, 123, 128, 131, 252 REIMS, 92, 99 " (S. Remi), =118=, 22, 65, 66, 213 RENAISSANCE canopies, =205=, =347= " " (Late), =225= RENAISSANCE Jesse windows, =367= " landscape, =255= " ornament, =349= " tracery, =280-282=, =349= RESOURCES of the glass painter, =95= _et seq._ RESTORATION, =404= _et seq._ REYNOLDS (Sir Joshua), =401=, =402= ROSE windows, =272= _et seq._, =326= " " (Early), =273= ROSS (S. Mary), 55, 145, 232 ROUEN, =392=, =394=, 45, 119, 238 " (S. Godard), 154 " (S. Ouen), 29, 229 " (S. Patrice), =377=, =378=, 155 " (S. Vincent), =375=, =377=, 44, 156, 175 ROUNDELS, =293=, 199

S. DENIS, =404= S. JEAN-AUX-BOIS, 87, 88, 100, 224, 257 S. MINIATO, =381= SALISBURY, =385=, 15, 30, 64, 97, 102, 221, 225, 251 SCRAPS, =409= SENS, 90 SEVENTEENTH century glass, =233=, =323= " " style, =352= SHADING (misuse of), =68=, =70=, =73=, =79=, =80=, =247= " (the beginning of), =13=, =45= SHREWSBURY, 38, 39, 57, 139, 142, 152, 171, 174 SILVER stain, =52= SINGLE-FIGURE windows, =118=, =197= SIXTEENTH century glass, =323=, =347= " " style, =348= " " technique, =350= " " windows, =201= _et seq._ SOISSONS, 89, 91 SOUTH KENSINGTON Museum, 205 STAIN, =50=, =52=, =60=, =61=, =62=, =105=, =182=, =336=, =344= STANTON S. John, 120 STORIED windows, =195=, =209=, =371= _et seq._ STRASSBURG, =388=, 134 STYLE, =111=, =112=, =156=, =177=, =178=, =323= " (Early), =324= " (Decorated), =335=, =338= " (Late Gothic), =343= " (Perpendicular), =340= " (16th century), =348= " (17th century), =352= " (the characteristics of), =322= _et seq._ " in modern glass, =354= _et seq._ SUBJECTS not within mullions, =198= SUBJECT-WINDOWS, =197= SWISS glass, =87=, =94=, =308=

THIRTEENTH century glass, =322= " " ornament, =130= TIBALDI (Pellegrino), =264= TIBAULT (Wilhelmus), =399= TIME of day to see windows (the), =382= TOURS, =362=, =389= TRACERY (Early), =274= " (Decorated), =278= " (Gothic), =280= " (Perpendicular), =343= " (Renaissance), =280-2=, =349= TRACERY lights, =272= _et seq._ TRANSITION, =165=, =178=, =181=, =333= " from Gothic to Renaissance, =65=, =202=, =204= " from plain glazing to painted grisaille, =139= TREE of Life (the), =370= TRIFORIUM windows, =284= TROYES, =32=, =366=, =401=, 112, 148, 149, 151, 228, 246 " (museum), 211 " (private collection), 207 " (S. Jean), 241 " (S. Martin ès Vignes), =230=, 47, 169, 170, 255 " (S. Urbain), 31, 108, 114, 226

VAN LINGE, =233= VAN ORLEY (Bernard), =69=, =222=, =245= VAN ORT (Lambrecht), =399= VAN THULDEN, =233= VERONA (S. Anastasia), 199

WARWICK Castle, 54, 206, 209 WATER Perry, 94 WELLS, =390=, 136, 231, 245 WHITE and colour (combination of), =193= WHITE as a frame for colour, =192=, =315= WHITE-LINE work, =91= WINCHESTER, =407= WINDOW plane (the), =242= WINDOW shape (effect of, upon design), =113=, =211=, =212=, =240= WINDOWS (how to see), =380= _et seq._ WINE press (the), =368= WORKMANLIKENESS, =244= WORKMANSHIP (Early), =330=

YELLOW stain, =52= YORK, =147=, =192=, =277=, =387=, 146 " (All Saints), =371=, 36

NOTE--_The name of a town without mention of a church may be taken to mean that the glass is in the cathedral or principal church._

THE END.

BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS, LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.

* * * * *

TRANSCRIBER NOTES:

Archaic, alternate and misspellings of words have been retained to match the original work with the exception of those listed below.

Missing punctuation has been added and obvious punctuation errors have been corrected.

Illustrations have been moved so as not to interrupt the flow of the text.

Page 85: the printing of several lines was transposed in the original. They have been corrected.

Page 125: "borders-lines" changed to "border-lines" (He frames his little pictures with sufficient border-lines to keep them distinct).

Page 226: "(16R5)" changed to "(1615)" (as in the cathedral at Antwerp (1615)).