NEW COLLEGE CHAPEL AND HALL, OXFOlU). 19

■oloured jL!;lasses, and consequently imparts to them its own lue ; of tlic actual depth and greenness of which we are not Lware so long as the white is intermixed with cool blues, reds, )urples, an(t apparently though not really faded greens, as n the Antechapel windows ; but which surprises us wdicn ully brought out by contrast with a warmer scale of colouring, IS will hereafter be show^n to be done in some of the iouth windows of the nave. Without expecting a ready icquiescence in the opinion hazarded, that a part of the pleasure excited by the colouring of these windows arises rom a perception of its harmony with the architectural character of the building ; I cannot but think that the idea s less fanciful than may at first appear. There is a gloominess in the style of Gothic ecclesiastical architecture which is very much opposed, not indeed to rich.but to warm and gay colouring. And though this gloominess in the present instance is, to a certain extent, disguised by the elegance of the modern fittings, and the warmth of the yellow wash with which the walls of the Antechapel and Choir are covered, it still exists, and grows upon the eye in Dii a subject of this kind, nor sliould I DOW allude to tlieni, if it were not to guard those who may be as inexperienced, or as careless observei'sas themselves, from the danijer of being misled by the misrepre- sentation of a matter of fact which occurs in the following passage. — "Mr. Winston reminds us that ' no cleaning is able to de- prive ancient glass, of a certain date, of its tone, richness, and general appearance.' This we entirely deny. The east window of Bristol, irhich is of middle-pointed date, has been lately cleaned, and it is neither better nor worse than Messrs. Wailes, or O'Connor, or Willement would produce. Rich is just what it is not," &c. &c. It unfortunately happens that about two- thirds of the Bristol window consists of modern glass. But the appeal to it is not useless, as it serves to show that an ability to distinguish modern from ancient glass is not a necessary qualification for an adept in the mysteries of ecclesiology. Of the various expedients resorted to for imitating the effect of the ancient material, Messrs. Powells', and Messrs. Hartleys' processes for roughening the surfaces of the glass, are the most successful, though but expe- dients after all. " Antiquating the gla.>-s," i.e., dulling it with enamel colour in imita- tion of dirt and the rust of age, is com- monly resorted to as a me.ans of destroy- ing the perfect pcUucidness of the modern VOL. IX. material : a quality resulting from refine- ments in the manufacture. Instead, how- ever, of making the glass look thick and rich like the old, it only makes it dull and heavy in effect : nor does it materially improve its tone of colour. Of three imitations of ancient glass in the late Exhibition, which I particularly examined, one by M. Lusson, which had been the most antiquated, was the least watery in effect. The second, by M. Gerente, which also had been antiquated, though in a less degree, was, in pro])ortion, more flimsy. The last, by Messrs. Pugin and Hardman, which had not been antiquated at all, was the most flimsy and watery. But they were all inferior to ancient glass in rich- ness, depth, and, particularly, in tone of colour : as was indeed easily shown by holding clear pieces of ancient glass beside them. M. Lusson'.s, on the whole, was decidedly the best imitation, but this was not owing to the greater antiquating of the glass. 1 am surprised that the eyes of the public are not yet open to the absurdity of literally copying designs of an early period in a material so different from that in which such designs were originally worked, and with reference to which we may sup- pose they were made. We might as well expect a literal copy, in wood, of a stone spire, or of a wooden spire in stone, to produce a .satisfactory effect. U