In the I 7th century we find the highest level of glass-painting in Switzerland, though actually that level had been surpassed in its own country during the 16th century, when Holbein and Burgk mair were leading designers of the panels typical of that country. But the real significance of Switzerland in the history of glass painting is that there alone was evolved an appropriate technique of enamel-painting. For various reasons of a social kind, glass painting in that country had acquired a more domestic char acter; it actually became part of the furniture of the people, and a panel for the window of a room was as natural, and even more usual, than a picture for the wall. Glass-paintings thus became intimate and portable—a kind of Kleinmalerei comparable to the development of Kleinplastik in sculpture. Within the limits of this littleness, the art of enamelling glass developed an appropriate technique. It was, indeed, the technique of painting—of trans lucent painting—but then the Swiss panel was in all essentials a painting. To the same category belong the roundels painted in grisaille which were produced in large quantities during the first half of the i6th century. In these types of glass-painting the specific problems of distance and architectural harmony did not enter into the question; everything was made for nearness and intimacy. And on this scale stained glass was inappropriate, un gainly and without effect.
The same observations might be made of the Dutch and Flemish glass-paintings of the 16th and 17th centuries, which illustrate the enamel technique in both its good and bad aspects, and it was through these, rather than the Swiss, that the new style penetrated to England. Abraham and Bernard van Linge (who flourished about 162o-4o and painted many windows in Oxford and elsewhere) were the chief of these immigrants, but they were ably imitated by native artists such as Henry Gyles of York (1645-1709), the Price and the Peckitt families of the same city, and by artists like Francis Eginton (1737-1805) and James Pearson (d. 1805), who carried the art right on to the threshold of the 19th century. At their best, the achievements of the glass-painters in this genre have a miniature delicacy and a perfection of means beyond reproach. But it must be realized that we have entered on a new art, with its own aesthetic, and we must beware of any confusions of judgment in this respect. The unfortunate truth is that in England (and elsewhere in Europe) it was the glass-painters who were guilty of confusion. Social custom never called upon them for a domestic art com parable with Swiss glass-painting, but nevertheless they attempted to apply the methods of the domestic glass-painters (but without their technical skill) to the quite different needs of ecclesiastical buildings. The result was generally ludicrous, and always in appropriate. The crowning example of this misalliance of two inconsistent arts is to be found in the window designed by Sir Joshua Reynolds for New College chapel, Oxford, which was actually carried out by a china-painter.
The art of glass-painting in England during the 17th and r8th centuries does not offer sufficient material for any comparative criticism or positive judgment. We see nothing but scattered individuals, each expressing his own wayward fancy, displaying some ingenuity, supplying some passing need, but achieving nothing of significance.
here into the general character of Morris's achievements, but the basic fact upon which all his ideals rested was an intense aesthetic appreciation of mediaeval art. As much, perhaps, can be said of the initiators of the Gothic revival, though we may suspect that as an aspect of romanticism their enthusiasm sprang from a sense of the remoteness, the strangeness, and the mysteri ous gloom of this earlier art rather than from any real under standing of its rational basis or religious significance. But Morris had a more logical appreciation of the Gothic, and his attitude was as free from insincerity as it was devoid of any desire to imi tate. He realized that without the spirit, the form could not exist, and his real greatness and overwhelming importance in the his tory of modern craftsmanship springs entirely from the fact that he attempted to evolve a style and invent a technique appropriate to the expressions of his age. Burne-Jones designed his first car toons for stained glass as early as 1857, and the St. Frideswide window in Christ church, Oxford, dates from 1859. These early windows were carried out by Messrs. Powell of the Whitefriars Glasshouse, but from 1861 Burne-Jones worked exclusively for Morris. Stained glass was included in the first exhibition of the work of Morris, Marshall, Faulkner and Company in 1862. But the work of this period is weak in design and uncertain in tech nique. No attempt had been made to work out the proper func tion of the leads in the design, and the enamels are either poor in quality or badly fired. But even so, there was a certain freshness of attitude and a revolt against the dead conventions of the time. But as the demand for stained glass increased, so more thought was given to these matters and the improvement was rapid. In Morris's fully developed style, as in the cathedral at Birmingham, there is little to complain of in the technique of his glass. Time has yet to show whether the materials will weather so well as the 13th century materials, but in this matter Morris was at the mercy of other people; he did not make his own glass, but ob tained the best he could find in the market. In other technical matters Morris need not fear comparison with any age. His se lection and disposition of colours is admirable, and he was not afraid of using new colours to achieve effects unknown to previous ages. In the use of leads to emphasize design he is masterly, and we must go back to the 13th century for an adequate comparison. The best examples of windows by Morris and Burne-Jones are to be found in Christ church, Oxford (the St. Cecilia and St. Catherine windows, 1874-75 and 1878), the "Judgment" window at Easthampstead (1875), the two windows in Salisbury cathedral (1879), the east window of St. Peter's, Vere street, London 0880, a window representing the Resurrection at Hopton (1882), the well-known windows in the cathedral at Birmingham, perhaps the finest of all (1887), and (perhaps the most impor tant in London) the windows at Holy Trinity, Sloane street. What is reputed to be one of the finest examples of their work (1882) is a window at Biarritz in France, representing the mar riage at Cana. In addition to all the work designed for churches, and confined in the main to Biblical subjects, Burne-Jones and Morris made a good deal of stained glass for domestic or secular purposes. In their choice of subjects for this profane glass, they perhaps unduly confined themselves to the romantic and literary predilections of their circle; but here again we cannot criticize their stained glass without entering into a discussion of their whole point of view. It is perhaps sufficient to say that it lacked the immediacy and the reality which we are entitled to expect from any contemporary expression of ideals.