{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_66766/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_66766","id":"gutenberg_66766","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/66766","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Architecture","Category: Art","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Glass painting and staining","Grace Episcopal Church (Lockport, N.Y.)"],"text":"STAINED GLASS\n                                WINDOWS\n\n                               AN ESSAY\n\n                         WITH A REPORT TO THE\n                        VESTRY ON STAINED GLASS\n                       WINDOWS FOR GRACE CHURCH\n                  LOCKPORT NEW YORK [Illustration] BY\n                 WILLIAM FREDERIC FABER [Illustration]\n\n                            [Illustration]\n\n                           LOCKPORT NEW YORK\n\n                                  MCM\n\n\n\n\n                                 NOTE.\n\n\nThe first edition of the _Report on Stained Glass Windows for Grace\nChurch, Lockport_, which appeared in January, 1897, is now exhausted;\nas there is a constant demand for it, a second is deemed necessary; and\nthe occasion seemed favorable for a little further talk about Windows\nand Glass. Hence this pamphlet.\n\nThe project of four years ago is no longer an insubstantial dream.\nSince that time eleven windows and three mosaics have been placed in\nGrace Church; in them all the adopted scheme has been followed, with\nresults more and more obviously satisfactory.\n\nAlthough intending this pamphlet, in the first instance, simply for\na guide to his own people, to lead them to a more discriminating\nappreciation: the author is encouraged to hope, by many expressions\nfrom the outside, that it will, even more than the earlier _Report_, be\nof service beyond his parish; that it may perhaps stimulate elsewhere\nalso a study of Church Glass, and the erection of true Church Windows.\n\n                                                             W. F. F.\n\nGrace Church Rectory, Lockport, All Saints\u2019, 1900.\n\n\n\n\n                        STAINED GLASS WINDOWS.\n\n\nThe subject is certainly one of present interest. The advertisements of\nfirms who produce stained glass windows are numerous and conspicuous\nin our Church weeklies; glowing accounts of memorials just erected in\nthis place and that make up a large part of our \u201cDiocesan News.\u201d To\nsay nothing of the fact that we are in danger of forgetting what the\nreal business of the Church is,\u2015\u2015that it is not primarily to build and\nbeautify edifices, but to save men and to establish righteousness in\nthe earth; the uncomfortable question is forced upon us: For how much\nof this \u201cembellishment\u201d of our churches will posterity thank us?\n\nA revival of religious art we welcome with profound gratitude. But when\nfor the moment it threatens to take the form of an epidemic of stained\nglass, our joy may be turned to apprehension. Stained glass is simply\nbecoming fashionable; everybody is beginning to want some of it because\n\u2018all the other churches are getting some;\u2019 commercial enterprise\nstimulates a well-meaning zeal, taking advantage, too, of a vulgar\nspirit of rivalry; and the end thereof must be painful to contemplate.\nIndividuals are often given a free hand in God\u2019s House on the ground\nthat thus several hundred or several thousand dollars will be secured\nfor \u201cenrichment;\u201d and so the work goes merrily on.\n\nAnd such things can be because there is a lack of knowledge. Persons\nmay have the best intention in the world; their experience in other,\ndifferent fields may have been very wide; in a general way they may\nhave good taste; moreover, they may possess a long purse and a liberal\ndisposition; perhaps they may think to save themselves from going wrong\nby putting the whole matter into the hands of strongly advertised\nwindow-makers. But none of these things will supply the lack of a\nknowledge of stained glass. There is nothing for it but study and\neducation. The clergy first of all, and after them the vestries, must\ninform themselves on the subject as thoroughly as possible. In the\nmeantime, let them be slow to lend themselves to anything which they\nlater, or those who come after them, might bitterly deplore and be\nhelpless to remedy.\n\nNor is it to-day so forbidding a task to get this knowledge as it\nwas but a few years ago. Then one had to go to the libraries in our\nlargest cities, and laboriously gather from rare works the history\nand principles of this art. Now there is fortunately at least one\nsingle volume, easily obtainable, which may serve as a text-book to\nall who desire to study the subject. Mr. Lewis F. Day has given us in\nhis _Windows: A Book about Stained and Painted Glass_, published in\nLondon, 1897, by B. T. Batsford, imported by the Scribners, just that\ninformation which is needed. No vestry that has the matter of Stained\nGlass Memorials before it should permit its rector to be without this\nbook; he should read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it; but not he\nonly; they also, at least the members of any committee responsible\nfor such work; and intending donors likewise, who desire to have a\ncontrolling voice in regard to memorials to be erected. This is too\nimportant a thing to enter upon recklessly or at the dictation of mere\nfancy.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nMeanwhile it may not be out of place to tell briefly and simply what\nstained glass windows in a church ought to be; and what stained glass\nitself is.\n\nStained glass windows are still, after all, windows: and windows are\nessential component parts of a building. If in a church, the axiom\napplies the more inevitably: a church is a building presumed to conform\nrigidly to a certain type; and therefore, the idea which the whole is\nto exhibit and impress must not for a moment be hidden or dissipated by\nany component part.\n\nOur dwelling houses may be often built in a haphazard way, with a\nview simply to utility, regardless of style, laying no claim to\narchitectural art. But to build a church so is an offense, an offense\nto art, and, we believe, an offense to religion also. A church building\nis presumed and expected to have a certain character, technically\ncalled \u201cstyle,\u201d dignifying and elevating God\u2019s House above our common\nhouses, even though it be small and plain and not costly; small\nand plain it may be, and not costly, but it must not be tawdry or\nincongruous or mean.\n\nNow a window is, as we have said, a component part of the building.\nIn a church well conceived, the window is inevitable just as it is:\nto make it larger or smaller, to close one up where now there is one\nor to make one where there is none, is just so far to do violence to\nthe building. If such a change does not violate the integrity of the\nbuilding as a whole, the fact simply goes to show that the building had\nno plan worthy of honor.\n\nThe window-space is therefore always to be preserved for window\nuse\u2015\u2015just such and just so much as the architect gave us. The use of a\nwindow (barring for the moment the unscientific one of ventilation) is\nto give light while still affording shelter. And this light-space is\nalso to serve artistically as a kind of balance to the dark space of\nthe solid wall; hence this light-space is to art sacred, and must be\npermitted to the end to assert itself as just what it is and such as it\nis, so much rightly apportioned and correctly proportioned translucent\nwall-space.\n\nWhen this window-space has been first filled with a plain glass, which\nis then to give way to stained glass, the new treatment must say, just\nas obviously, only more beautifully, what the old said: it must still\nbe a window\u2015\u2015letting in light, though now the light is colored\u2015\u2015and in\nits architectural value it must be just what it was before, asserting\nthe shape and the design of the structural window, plainly and\nfaithfully.\n\nIn other words, the true stained glass window\u2015\u2015in a church building\nworthy of that name\u2015\u2015is not now to give the beholder the impression\nthat he is looking out through an opening and seeing, of something\nbeyond, so much as the size of the opening will permit: in a word, the\nspectacular impression of looking into some beautiful out-door world\nthrough a hole in the wall. The beholder must be conscious still of\nlooking at the wall itself, the translucent part of it, which confines\nhim within the edifice as much as the stone or the brick. Nor yet is\nthe true stained glass window merely a colored glass picture covering\nso much wall area: the outline form is to be so obvious, and the\ntreatment so non-realistic, that the architectural idea may never for a\nmoment be in danger of submersion under some other idea.\n\nFor, as is true in general of decorative art as contrasted with\npictorial art, the true church window is to be designed without\nperspective, without shadow, without attempt at realistic effect. It is\nto be conventional, symbolical; with that intent it may utilize as it\nwill forms, colors, attitudes, postures, accessories, fearless of the\ncriticism that \u2018this saint or that scene never in the world looked like\nthat.\u2019 No intelligent person standing before decorative painting would\nfor a moment think of demanding a representation of the actual. That,\nfrankly, was not its object.\n\nAnd the stained glass church window will further fulfill its particular\nend if all round the figure or group, or whatever be the subject matter\nof the composition, there runs a clear line or border of differently\ncolored glass, making a clear demarcation from the stone wall; drawing\nagain, as it were, the architect\u2019s line of his window construction.\n\nAll of which is but to say that windows were made for the sake of the\nbuilding, and so must remain; not that a building was made for the\nsake of windows,\u2015\u2015for the sake of furnishing so much space for so\nmany square yards of somebody\u2019s beautiful glass. Which ought to be\nself-evident, though to many persons it is not.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo regarding it now, the further question naturally occurs as to the\ntreatment of the several windows of one particular church. For, each\nindividual window might be in itself correct according to the above\nprinciples, and yet the total effect sadly lacking in unity and harmony.\n\nThere is first of all the consideration of style: a difficult matter\nto define, yet not, after all, so difficult to determine. What ought\ncertainly not to determine it is the chance ability of some wealthy\ndonor or donors to pay for the costliest work that could be produced;\nnor, on the other hand, the limited ability of others who could give\nonly something inexpensive. The style of the building and its general\ncharacter must determine the degree of splendor and ornateness which\nwill be right for each and all the windows. If there be wealth to do\nstill more, then exercise sober self-restraint. If there be available\nmeans only to do part of what the building demands, better do just so\nmuch as can be rightly and adequately done, though the scheme should\nwait many years for its entire completion. In building a new church,\nlet this also be thought of in advance.\n\nThen there is the question of a single scheme of subjects for all the\nwindows, so that all when completed shall tell, chapter by chapter,\none great story, or part by part, one great truth: say, the Christian\nFaith, or the Redemption of Man, or the Sacramental Economy of Grace,\nor the History of Religion, or the Mission of the Church in the\nWorld. Thus again, as in old time, will the church windows instruct\nthe people, and the sum total of that instruction will be a unity,\nwith harmony and interrelation of parts, of the utmost value to sound\nChristian thinking and feeling, and to symmetry of Christian character.\nFor it is just this which our modern religion so much lacks: the sad\nresult of sectarian thinking and teaching, where each hath a doctrine,\na truth, and few the whole doctrine and the wholeness of truth.\n\nIndividualism, let us realize, is not what the Church should foster:\nthough individuality, in its rightful place, be precious and sacred.\nThe application here is not fanciful. Sadly absurd examples there are,\nwhere ecclesiastical art has been pressed into service by sectarian\nminds (not among the sects alone) to teach some one portion or fragment\nof truth through the eye every time the eye gazed upon the interior of\nthe house of worship and fell upon the favorite symbol or picture.\n\nBut not this alone. Individualism is rampant in our day in the\nform of utterly arbitrary choice of subjects, as well as of their\nmode of treatment in point of material, color, scale of drawing,\nand\u2015\u2015expensiveness. A Babel of confusion is the result, and that in\nsome of our foremost churches, which have become thereby rather picture\ngalleries or museums adapted to the study of all schools and all\ntastes, than restful, devotional, solemnizing and uplifting temples for\nthe worship of Almighty God. A low motive ruled, and how can one help\nfeeling it as one looks upon the performance?\u2015\u2015here the wealthy donor,\nor the ambitious so-called artist, forgetting Whose this House was,\ndemanded worship for himself. \u201cVerily, they have their reward.\u201d\n\nTherefore let those who have such things in charge study first of all\nwhat a church should be, and then what their particular church, such\nas they have received it in trust, is. It will often be found that a\nbuilding very little esteemed has something to say for itself, and\nis worthy of respect as originally conceived, in its own structural\ncharacter as designed by its architect. And if not, and if it must\nbe borne with, then all the more reason, in planning to do anything\nfurther in it or upon it, to \u201cabhor that which is evil, and cleave to\nthat which is good.\u201d\n\nAnd after such careful study, determine (before the first enthusiast\nhas an opportunity to put into some one window chosen at random a \u201cmost\nsuperb\u201d production of the much advertised glass man) determine in\nadvance what should be your total result when every window shall have\nbeen filled with stained glass: what story the whole shall tell, how\nbest its parts may be distributed, what each part shall be, in what\nstyle, what design, what scale of drawing, scheme of color.\n\nAnd when this has been determined, in the fear of God, in soberness\nof judgment, in conscientious fidelity to a sacred trust, with a\nwillingness to be judged by a wiser posterity,\u2015\u2015then let such a plan\nbe adhered to as a law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not.\nTo sacrifice one window to the seductions of some alien grandeur is\nto sacrifice the whole principle at stake. The plain glass patiently\nawaiting its time to give way to the right thing is more eloquent\nof a truly reverent and truly artistic intention than a medley of\nincongruous splendors.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd now, what is stained glass? This simple question it is of the\nutmost importance to answer, because a little familiarity with the\nmaterials and the methods of workmanship will itself serve as a guide\nto the choice of good windows and to the avoidance of bad.\n\nStained glass, then, is simply glass which has been colored in the pot,\nglass which has its color within itself: while painted glass\u2015\u2015a term\nsometimes used as synonymous with stained glass\u2015\u2015is properly glass\nwhich has had the color painted upon its surface, and has then been\nfired so that the colored or enameled surface has been vitrified. Some\nstained glass is of so deep a color,\u2015\u2015red, for instance\u2015\u2015that a thin\ncoating of it blown over the surface of a white (that is, colorless)\nglass is sufficient to produce the desired color effect; if the entire\nthickness of the pane were of the colored glass, the effect would be\nmuch too dark: such glass is nevertheless true stained glass, and is\ncalled \u201cflashed.\u201d\n\nIn the early period of the art, beginning in the eleventh century and\nrunning parallel with the development of Pointed (commonly called\nGothic) Architecture, only true stained glass was used. The use of\nenamel paints applied to the surface to produce a different color\nmarks also the beginning of the decadence of the art; for the glory of\ntrue glass is in its jewel-like quality, its color being within itself\nand all absolutely translucent, while a painted glass will always be\nnecessarily dull in comparison. The temptation to paint color upon the\nsurface of glass is readily understood: it was an easier method, it\npromised wider scope, greater variety, in a word, the opportunity to\nmake pictures somewhat as the painter may upon canvas. But glass is\nnot canvas, and church windows are not to be pictures. Retribution has\novertaken this work, and the latest and most ambitious more speedily\nthan all; the enamel-painted glass has not stood the test of time,\nbecoming muddy and perishing while the true ancient stained glass is\nstill the joy and wonder of all who gaze upon it.\n\nFor, as we have said, the glory of true stained glass is in its rich,\njewel-like color. Its reds, which the makers called \u201cruby,\u201d its blues\nwhich they called \u201csapphire,\u201d with its \u201cemerald\u201d greens, its \u201cgold\u201d and\nits \u201cpearl,\u201d never entered the field to compete with the achievements\nof the painter\u2019s brush; to compare the delight they afford the beholder\nwith that derived from a painting would be in a sense as impossible as\na comparison between the fragrance of a flower and the cadence of a\nsong.\n\nThe early makers of stained glass windows contended with great, to\nmoderns they would be intolerable, limitations. They were almost\nabsolutely restricted to the primary colors. They had not at first the\nart of blowing glass, but cast their pieces in small panes of at most\nfour or five inches in diameter. The use of the diamond in cutting\nwas not known till the sixteenth century. Hence their work was simply\nmosaic. For variety they depended upon an arrangement of geometrical\npatterns, or patterns of familiar architectural form and of common\necclesiastical symbols. To construct these they leaded together their\npieces and bits of glass, elaborating their treatment as time went on,\nbut always in the main upon the same lines.\n\nWhen they began to portray, in panels on their windows, the forms of\nOur Lord, of His apostles, of saints and angels, sometimes in crude\nsettings of scenes or incidents from Holy Scripture or Church legend,\ntheir color principle was still the same; and it was still the same\nin the elaboration of the merely ornamental borders with forms of\nleaf or flower or fruit, or of sacred emblems and inscriptions. The\nbrown pigment with which they produced faces and features, hands,\nfeet, outlines and ornamentations, was not a color, nor intended for\na color, but simply a means of definition or delineation when this\nwas too minute to be carried out with leads. And the stained glass\nit was, still, which addressed the eye and compelled attention and\nadmiration. No more than in heraldry did the forms and emblems pretend\nto be pictures of the actual, realistic representations of men, or of\nscenes or incidents. The makers of early stained glass were, in one\nword, simply makers of ornamental windows of rich color and religious\nsymbolism.\n\nWe have said that their pieces of glass were small. This is but to say\nthat their windows were a network of leads. For there is but one way to\nhold together such pieces of glass in a window, and that is by leads.\nThese leads are not a misfortune. A square yard of simple red stained\nglass is artistically more beautiful if composed of a hundred pieces\nleaded together than if it were in a single sheet. The differences\nin texture themselves produce a better result, and the black leads,\nscarcely discernible individually, contribute an additional element\nof pleasure. And in arranging pieces of different color side by side,\nintelligent leading design was itself the artist\u2019s drawing, and\neffected results altogether admirable. So far was this art of leading\ncarried in France, for instance, that windows mainly of white glass\nwere produced, of rare beauty by simple virtue of their structural\ndesign.\n\nAll this was changed by the men who in a later age ground up their\nenamel pigments, glazed windows in large panes, and daubed upon them\ntheir muddy colors, with a sublime contempt for the crude laborious\nmosaic work of their predecessors. Would they have a representation\nof the earth for their figure to stand upon? it must be carpeted\nwith grass, with green grass, and they can paint green grass upon a\ncolorless surface; red flowers also, upon the same, with red paint, if\nsuch were desired. The Renaissance was coming; Gothic was barbarous\nanyway; antiquated crudities must give place to refined work worthy\nof the new enlightenment! Paint a picture on canvas, then paint that\npicture on your glass. It can be done, certainly, if you will not allow\nyourself to be bothered with the nuisance of leads, but just get an\nample pane of glass, unobstructed, and go at it with your brush and\npaints!\n\nThis miserable travesty did not long hold sway, it was scarcely\npermitted to go its own theoretical length. There came great political\nchanges, great religious changes, and for a long time few churches\nmore were built, nor even those standing kept in repair. The course\nof Ecclesiastical Architecture suffered an interruption for several\ncenturies, of which Mr. Ralph Adams Cram has told us feelingly in his\nrecent writings on that subject.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut within the memory of men now living there has also come the\nbeginning of a true revival. The awakening of the Catholic spirit\nin the Anglican Communion has been accompanied by an eager desire to\nrecover lost treasures and to restore sound traditions to their former\nhonor.\n\nAnd naturally all this has shown itself in the cultivation of Stained\nGlass also. As we have said, what is needed above all else is\nknowledge, to guide us to what is really good and worthy.\n\nNo sooner is any want of the public made evident than enterprising\ntrade springs up to supply that want. If you want colored church\nwindows, you can have them to-day at a trifle per square yard by\npurchasing a beautifully printed paper, of genuine ecclesiastical\ndesign, and pasting it upon your present windows. From this most\nabysmal horror of vulgarity you may pass through various successive\ngradations of so-called stained glass, all supplied by trade. If you\npass on to the costliest, you are not thereby sure to obtain what is\nnot horrible and vulgar, when regarded from the point of view of true\nStained Glass, of Architectural Art, and of Religion.\n\nThere are at this moment three rather diverse schools of Stained\nGlass most in evidence before those who seek and are willing to pay\nfor honest art work; the English, the German, and the American. Their\ncomparative merits are nowhere, to our knowledge, presented in a fair\nminded way; the makers of each claim superior excellence for their\nown, of course; if, indeed, they ever intimate to the public that there\nis any other kind at all. It should be said, however, that there is\ngreat merit in the best examples of each school; and that none of these\nschools can fairly be judged by the inferior stuff which is put out\nunder its name, for each of them is defamed by such stuff.\n\nThe English school naturally had, and still has, great prestige among\nChurchmen. Taking it at its best, as for instance in the work of\nMr. Henry Holiday, it is simple and vigorous in drawing, varied and\nharmonious in color, churchly in spirit, while free from medi\u00e6valism.\nThe English artist believes in stained glass, glass which has its color\nwithin itself; and good glass, the best he can obtain. His glass is\nflat, that is, of even surface and equal thickness. He believes in\npainting upon this glass, and upon, one may say, every piece and bit\nof it; but he does not paint a color upon it, he simply shades it,\ndraws folds of drapery, patterns of fabrics, details of ornamentations;\nalways, however, aiming to leave it, however much so painted, with\nthe color of the glass gleaming and glittering: that is, he does not\ndaub over the surface, but puts on mere lines, and picks out lights,\nso that his painted piece of green glass, let us say, is still green\nglass, only with design upon it, or texture, or light and shade. He\nfeels that only in this way has he done all which as an artist he is\nconscientiously bound to do; and he accounts a piece of mere stained\nglass which has not felt the brush at all, which has not had the touch\nof the conscious art of the maker, a poor thing, in a sort, crude and\nbarbaric.\n\nIn the hands of a master\u2015\u2015and there have been great masters in the\nEnglish school\u2015\u2015the results of this method have been very fine. But\neven so the fact remains that every line and every particle of even\nneutral pigment upon the surface of glass obscures so much light; which\nis to say, it detracts so much from its brilliancy and splendor. The\nfact is undeniable that the total effect of some great window of this\nschool will be charming, but withal just a little dull; the richness\nwhich gleams and glitters from it is yet half hidden as by some\nfluttering veil before it. Such work at its best is exquisite; it is\ndevotional; it is soothing; but hardly gives one a thrill of gladness.\nIn the hands of a master, it is a fit medium for strong individuality\nof a good kind, as witness Burne-Jones\u2019 windows executed at the works\nof William Morris. In the hands of the common multitude of English\nmakers, it degenerates into a wearisome, conventional repetition of\nstiff figures, draped in the same damask stuffs, with the same wooden\nlittle flowers growing up around their feet, the whole surrounded by\nthe same easily managed conventional border.\n\nOf the German glass, commonly called Munich glass, it is sufficient for\nour purpose to say that it is in principle the same as the English.\nIt relies much upon the brush. It is more in the medi\u00e6val spirit\nthan the English; its feeling is that of a simply traditional, not a\nmodern, devoutness. Its inspiration is Italian. Its colors are more\npredominatingly the old primary colors. Its decorative features are\nstrictly conventional, and applied in a mechanical spirit. In warmth,\nin splendor of color, German windows at their best are superior to the\nEnglish.\n\nAmerican glass is not simply glass made in America. The term denotes a\nnew method, which yet is, in the main, a restoration of the very oldest\nmethod, reinforced on its own lines by modern resources. Mr. John La\nFarge is its distinguished pioneer.\n\nAmerican glass is true stained glass; but it is not glass of even\nsurface and of equal thickness.[A] By its inequality of thickness\nthe American artist effects what the English artist accomplishes by\nbrushing dark lines upon his even glass; or he leads strips and pieces\nof glass on the back of his window to intensify and deepen his color,\nas in folds of drapery and the like. He paints nothing except faces,\nhands and feet; all the rest he binds himself to obtain by the mosaic\nmethod. He cannot obtain by the mosaic method everything that the\nEnglish artist obtains by the brush; but he feels that he obtains all\nwhich in a window is necessary, and by patient, thoroughly artistic\nwork he obtains what upon study proves marvelous; and he has all his\nglass free to exhibit the full glory of glass. His very necessities\ncompel him to compose in the true way, that is by lead lines; he is\nback upon first principles in this respect. The lead lines mark the\nstructural lines of his drawing. But he has still to contend with the\nnecessity of painting his flesh parts; and of overcoming the break\nbetween their flatness, between the dull hardness of painted faces,\nhands and feet, and the splendid jewel-like strength of all the rest\nof his window. The best he can do is to make this transition as little\nabrupt as possible.\n\n[A] The earliest glass was not glass of even surface and equal\nthickness. Therein lies one of its charms.\n\nNeedless to say, the American school has its dangers. The ease with\nwhich an ignorant eye may be imposed upon by great pieces of folded\nglass instead of conscientiously selected and leaded strips and pieces,\nis a snare, into which it is not necessary for an honest artist to\nfall. When, however, a customer demands something cheap, he can obtain\nit in so-called American glass, and it will be cheap enough. There has\nbeen also a deplorable tendency among some prominent American glass\nmakers toward startling theatrical effects. Of unchurchly windows,\nwindows hopelessly and utterly unchurchly, the great majority doubtless\nare of the American school; nor are they the windows which have cost\nthe least money. Novel and indescribable colors, as far removed as\npossible from all sober, reverent, devotional feeling, have been\nemployed; effects have been sought which actually destroy all the value\nof the window as what it was designed by its architect, a window in\na sacred edifice. And by the wide heralding of such performances, as\nif American glass meant simply this sort of thing, American glass has\nforfeited that just appreciation which in its essential principles it\nso richly merits. Let the American school remember that a window in\na church is and forever must remain just a window, subservient that\nis, to the architecture of the church; let it design in the spirit of\nworshipful, reverent, dignified, sober devotion; let it compose with\ntechnical conscientiousness and love its leads and spare no labor;\nlet it choose thoroughly good glass, and glass of predominantly the\nglorious colors so long honorable, eschewing startling and meretricious\neffects: and there will, to our mind, be no doubt of its being the\nStained Glass of the future.\n\nBut, to our thinking, one thing cannot safely be done; and that is the\nplacing of English and American, or Munich and American glass side by\nside in the same building. Let it be the one or the other; when you\nhave chosen which it shall be, adhere to that. To mingle the schools\nin the same edifice will be sure to prove fatal to the best effects of\neach.\n\nAnd before placing any permanent stained glass, again let us say, study\nthe subject; see all the windows you can; and make haste slowly.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n                         STAINED GLASS WINDOWS\n\n                      For Grace Church, Lockport.\n\n                A Report to the Vestry of the Parish by\n                     its Rector, January 5, 1897.\n\n\nAfter many months of inquiry, reflection, special study, and such\nvisits to churches as opportunity afforded, we are at last in a\nposition to bring together the facts bearing upon this important\nproject, and to submit the results for your consideration.\n\nGrace Church,[B] Lockport, is an edifice which though not striking or\nornate, is in point of architectural merit, of conspicuous importance\nin the community, in probable permanence and enduring interest second\nto none in our city. Erected more than forty years ago, of stone, its\ninterior chastely beautified and enriched at successive periods; its\nnave alone over one hundred feet long, forty-six feet wide, fifty\nfeet high; its lofty chancel with a window twenty-two feet in height,\nnearly ten feet in width: it impresses the educated eye on entering\nit as beautiful and churchly, characterized by simple grace and\nreverent dignity, and the exclusion of the tawdry and incongruous. We\nmay honestly admit some faults. What building, religious or other,\nis without them? But it is a church which grows upon us the longer\nwe worship in it; it becomes homelike to us, and yet excites our\nadmiration the more as we become better acquainted with it.\n\n[B] The design was one of Richard Upjohn\u2019s.\n\nThis is the building which is committed to our care. Not only that\nwe keep it clean and in repair, warmed and lighted, not only that\nwe preserve the fabric as a valuable piece of property; but that\ncontinuing to labor in the spirit of those who have preceded us, we\nsecure such further additions to it as will tend to make it complete in\nits kind.\n\nWe say, complete in its kind. And it is our sacred duty, therefore,\nto understand what it is that we already have, as well as to ask what\nfurther gifts and further embellishments might add thereto. For to\nadd, with the best intention and with lavish generosity, but without\nan understanding of the conditions and limitations imposed by the\nexisting edifice, might easily result in such disastrous incongruity\nas a future generation, if not ours, would deplore. The land is full\nof warning examples, and one is at times appalled to think of the vast\nsums embodied in worse than waste, from which our better educated\ndescendants after us will suffer in the years to come. Knowledge is\nbound to grow; travel and study cannot fail to make an understanding of\nthese things the common property of intelligent Church people as time\ngoes on. And it is a grave responsibility to be at the head of a parish\nin which permanent work is undertaken and executed, work on which the\nfuture is to pronounce judgment. This responsibility, let me add, your\nrector for one feels very seriously and deeply.\n\nA very common form of architectural enrichment in this day of growing\nwealth and of increasing commemoration of the departed is that of\nstained glass windows. No memorial can be more beautiful than this when\nwisely planned and well executed. None can be much more painful or\nincessantly offensive when inartistic, incongruous, or lacking in the\ntrue devotional spirit.\n\nAnd as touching our own case, it is reasonably certain that offers will\nbe made to place such windows in Grace Church. It would be ungenerous\nto decline them. Moreover, we cannot escape the moral obligation of\ndirecting what such memorials shall be, so far as the building itself,\nits style of architecture, its uses, and its history, shall impose the\nconditions. It is not a question of dictating to intending donors: for\nthe vestry to decline to exercise such control would be for us to fail\nof a sacred trust.\n\nOur church, we may be most thankful to bear in mind, is built in a\nstyle pure and self-consistent, plain as it is. It is Early English, of\nthe first and simplest of the periods of Gothic. To treat it as if it\nwere of some other style, in any changes or additions we might see fit\nto make hereafter, would be to do violence to the edifice, to wrong its\nintelligent and loving builders in the days of good Bishop De Lancey,\nand those who shall inherit it after we are gone. There is meaning and\npurpose in it, as it is: in every line of it, in every arch, every\ndimension, every grouping and distribution of parts.\n\nWe are not at liberty, therefore, to change the window openings, in\nsize or form, unless indeed we wish to rebuild the church. We may at\nour taste reconstruct the windows in the houses in which we live, but\nwe cannot alter the style of these windows without destroying the style\nof the architecture. The series of long narrow lancets, no matter how\nlong or how narrow, are right; and with all their severe simplicity,\ntheir beauty of outline and their grace and dignity grow upon one the\nmore they are studied. Medi\u00e6val builders had a meaning even in putting\nsuch windows in pairs; it may seem to us a little fantastic, but as\nthey made everything symbolical, so in this grouping they symbolized\nour Lord\u2019s sending out His Apostles two and two. Apart from such a\nconsideration, there is a quiet grace in this long succession of\nlancet pairs which may safely be left to speak for itself.\n\nThe development of window forms is itself very interesting, and should\nbe understood before an attempt is made to treat any church windows\nin particular. Mrs. Van Rensselaer, who has done so much to make the\nEnglish cathedrals known in this country, thus traces the successive\nsteps from style to style: \u201cFancy first a plain tall window with a\nround-arched head; then the round exchanged for a pointed head; then\ntwo, or three, or five perhaps, of these pointed windows set close\ntogether; and then a projecting moulding in the shape of an arch drawn\naround them, including them all and thus including, of necessity, a\nplain piece of wall above their heads. Then fancy this piece of wall\npierced with a few small openings, and we have a group of connected\nlights in which, as a plant in its embryo, lies the promise of all\nafter-development....\n\n\u201cThe small lights in the upper field enlarge and multiply until they\nform a connected pattern which fills its whole area, and the jambs of\nthe main lights diminish into narrow strips or very slender columns.\nThe great arch, which in the first place did but encircle the windows,\nthus becomes itself the window\u2015\u2015the \u2018plate-traceried\u2019 window which was\nrichly developed in early French Gothic, but less richly in English,\nowing to the persistent local love for mere groups of lancets. Then\nall the stone-work shrinks still farther\u2015\u2015the columnar character of\nthe uprights is lost, and the flat surfaces between the upper openings\nchange into mouldings of complex section. Thus the original tall\nlights and upper piercings surrender their last claim to independence;\nthe uprights are no longer jambs or bits of wall but mullions, the\narch-head is filled with genuine traceries, and all the elements of the\ndesign are vitally fused together within the sweep of the great window\nto form its multiple yet organic beauty.\u201d\n\nThe art of making stained glass windows went hand in hand with this\ndevelopment of architectural forms through the eleventh, twelfth,\nthirteenth and succeeding centuries. It has indeed been called\nthe \u201cprincipal branch of Medi\u00e6val Art;\u201d but was always treated as\nabsolutely subservient to the particular architecture itself. A most\neminent authority denies that the art of glass-staining has ever been\nlost. Glass itself was used by Christians in their churches from the\nearliest church-building times; the distinct art of painting on glass\nemerges, one might say, with the springing up of pointed architecture,\nthough the beginnings show themselves in Norman architecture in the\neleventh century. Four centuries the two arts flourished side by\nside; with the decadence of the greater came also the decline of the\nsubsidiary; a poorer taste in building was naturally accompanied\nby a poorer taste in glass. With the revival of interest in those\nlong-neglected periods of noble achievement, the Oxford movement of\nChurch Restoration giving men the religious guiding principles for an\nintelligent appreciation of the forms of Medi\u00e6val art, church building\nand glass staining were brought back again, the one with the other. And\nwhether such restoration can leave us satisfied with the mere recovery\nof the riches of by-gone ages, or must mean also, as I believe, the\ndevelopment of what the present can contribute in a reverent but not\nslavish spirit\u2015\u2015certain it is that the first step is to understand the\npast, to find out what was done in the great formative and classic\nperiods, why it was done as it was and not otherwise, in a word, to\nmaster the models before we proceed on our own course; and, as I said\nbefore, to remember to which period and style our own edifice belongs.\n\nIt was my good fortune when recently in the city of Philadelphia, to\nobtain access to a rare work over which I spent some very delightful\nhours. Its author was a William Warrington, himself a designer and\nproducer of windows, and a reverent student of ancient examples, who\npublished his great folio in London, in 1848. From him I learned many\nthings about the beginnings and progress of the art. Great were the\ndifficulties of the eleventh century pioneers. They had to contend\nwith defective methods of manufacture; not understanding glass-blowing\nthey fused their glass in pots and crucibles, and cast it to about\nthe required shape, in pieces not more than four or five inches in\ndiameter. Cutting with the diamond was not known till the sixteenth\ncentury. They designed and made and erected their own work. When\ngreat orders were to be executed, artists were brought together from\nthe different countries, and by a sort of \u201cfree-masonry\u201d they worked\ntogether in perfect agreement as to styles, rules, and principles.\n\nIn the course of time, different countries produced slightly differing\nschools.\n\nAs in heraldry, the colors of the glass were intended for colors of\nprecious stones; the representations of figures and objects were not\nmeant to be pictures, but being also strictly symbolical, the drawing\nwas conventional, with no intention to reproduce nature in color, or\nform, or position and perspective. The figures which excite ridicule\non the part of one who is without the clue, justify themselves by this\nprinciple; nor is it quite true to say the men of that time did not\nknow how to draw\u2015\u2015their ability in this respect was not that of artists\nto-day, but if their object had been to produce a figure or a scene for\nthe sole purpose of a picture, they might certainly and would certainly\nhave given us something very different from what they did. While the\nsmall separate pieces are often very minutely pencilled, all such work\nbeing afterward burned in\u2015\u2015there is no \u201cshadowing,\u201d as in a picture,\nsupposing the light to fall from a certain direction; but a kind of\n\u201crelief\u201d shading, making the view suitable to any aspect. In a word,\nthe drawing is the same as in MSS., tapestries and heraldic designs.\nRuby and sapphire were the ground colors. And in all the work the\nprimitive colors were adhered to.\n\nIn York Minister there is to be found the largest and finest specimen\nof thirteenth century glass in England in a group of lancets known\nas the \u201cFive Sisters.\u201d The lancets are each six feet wide and fifty\nfeet high, and each divided into thirteen compartments or squares\nof different patterns. Their designs being largely of an ornamental\ncharacter, they escaped destruction by the Puritans.\n\nIt is a curious fact that English stained glass at no time had large\nfigures. In the thirteenth century Continental art in this respect\ndiverged from ancient and English, under Italian influence.\n\nIn the Cathedral of Bourges there are one hundred and eighty-three\nstained glass windows, executed from the thirteenth century downwards.\nThe early lancets have figures occupying the larger part of the window,\nsometimes fifteen or twenty feet high; over each figure a sort of\ncanopy or tabernacle disproportionately small, and under it a kind of\npedestal or base about a foot high. Around the margin is the finest\nwork in the windows, in a broad band of mosaic.\n\nCologne Cathedral has four lancets each eleven times its width in\nheight, filled with early glass of this period; the figures in the\nwindows are in height one-third the height of the lancet, with a canopy\nabove them.\n\nThe developments of the centuries following are of less interest to our\npresent purpose. Suffice it to say that even in the rich Decorated\nStyle of Architecture the treatment of individual windows was not what\nwe might term ambitious: the effect was secured by not attempting\ntoo much in a single window, but by producing a rich harmony with\nsubordination of each to the whole. In the Perpendicular Style which\nfollowed, in the fifteenth century, while there was a very abundant\nproduction of glass, its quality was inferior, and much white glass was\nused. Figures with canopies were used when the single openings were\none foot wide and upward; panels, when they were considerably larger;\nand to fill the extreme length, story upon story. And there begins to\nappear a tendency to conform the glass less to the architecture itself.\n\nFrom the sixteenth century on there is marked decay. The attempts to\ntreat glass like canvas prove an entire failure. A voluptuous and\nsensual school of painting came in, debasing a religious art, which\nthus became secularized, and almost disappeared. The destruction of\nfine ancient examples in the Puritan revolution left England very poor,\nand the little that remained came to be less and less appreciated.\n\nCuriously enough, large importations of glass consequent on the French\nRevolution with its destruction of churches, put into the hands of\nEnglish churchmen what the religious revival of the Church soon\ntaught them to appreciate once more, and so it is that to-day England\nis enriching her cathedrals and churches with restorations and new\nwindows; and from her the impulse has naturally come to our own land\nalso. But the production of stained glass is in America of very recent\ndate.\n\nFrom facts like the foregoing we may conclude that the subject is one\nof importance and involving so much that it is well that we should\nproceed cautiously in the placing of stained glass in Grace Church.\n\nBut shall we encourage such a movement at all?\n\nIt seems to me that this is the moment supremely opportune for us to\ninaugurate a scheme of window treatment such as shall glorify our house\nof God more and more till it reaches completion. How long it may take\nto reach completion is in a sense immaterial. That we should begin now,\nand make every step a right one, is the great matter.\n\nThe practical question is, Shall we choose to admit one or a few\nstriking windows into this edifice, windows which may have no relation\nto each other, produced possibly by methods or on principles entirely\nat variance, in color-schemes discordant, in scale of drawing entirely\ndissimilar and unequal: or shall we guide intending donors to such\ngifts as shall be a satisfaction and a delight forever, beautiful\neach in itself, but more beautiful still when assembled? This I take\nit is the question. For I believe windows will be placed, whether we\nencourage it or not, within a decade, possibly much sooner. And when\nI put the question thus, it appears to me there is but one answer\npossible.\n\nLet us then get down to the practical details in the matter. Leaving\nthe great chancel window entirely out of consideration, we have five\npairs of lancets of equal size on either side of the nave, and a sixth,\nsmaller pair over the doors in continuation of the series up to the\nchancel. We have further, the magnificent group of three lancets at the\nfoot of the nave, with a fourth lancet a little smaller, and still much\nlarger than those in the pairs already referred to.\n\nHere is a considerable number of windows\u2015\u2015twenty-nine when we count\nin the chancel window; what an opportunity for discord and artistic\nanarchy! Let us say, rather, what a remarkable and rare opportunity for\nthe production of a rich and hallowed splendor, fitted not only to\nexpress the consecration of man\u2019s gifts to God, but to instruct the\nminds and quicken the devotions of generations to come.\n\nThe objection which most readily offers itself when stained glass is\nproposed for Grace Church is that the twenty lancets at the sides are\nso extremely narrow and so very high that nothing can be done with\nthem. If by \u2018doing something\u2019 is meant putting in scenes with several\nor many figures, it is most true. The breadth of wall between the two\nwindows constituting the pair is so large that the scene could not be\ncarried from the one to the other. But surely that does not exhaust the\npossibilities. The openings are wide enough to permit the treatment of\nsingle figures in full life-size if desired; figures with canopies,\nborders, and panels at the base, as in the best periods of ancient\nglass. The breadth of these openings is twenty-one inches; six inches\nmore than that of the small pair erected All Saints, 1895, at the side\nof the pulpit, in which the figures are certainly of dignified stature,\nand by no means poor in back ground and accessories. If such results\nare possible in a space fifteen inches wide and six feet high; how much\nmore in a space twenty-one inches wide and thirteen feet high.\n\nSingle figures, therefore, are demanded by the conditions which govern\nus, for the side lancets; unless we rest content with geometrical,\nor flower windows, or windows bearing emblems, more or less ornately\nbordered. I venture to say that at this stage of our history, when\nwe are not pressed to fill our window-openings with whatever may be\nobtainable, we desire the best that can be had. This best, for the side\nlancets is,\u2015\u2015single figures, with canopy, border and base panel.\n\nMr. F. S. Lamb of New York, who designed the beautiful work erected\na year ago, has prepared and sent me two pairs of colored sketches,\nsuggesting a noble and beautiful form which in the execution would, of\ncourse, far surpass what appears in the drawings. They are submitted\nfor your careful study, and may be seen at any time in my library.\n\nWhat then shall the figures be? Shall they be chosen at random?\nArtistically speaking, this might not be so disastrous, provided the\nsame artist drew all the designs and controlled the execution, so that\nthe scale of drawing and the scheme of color were kept in accord. And\nthat is a great deal more than can be said of some of the principal\nchurches in our greatest cities, where immense sums have been spent on\nthese works. No; there is something better still, open to us. It is a\nserial treatment, with unity, and progress: so that the whole, when\ncomplete, shall tell one great story, each part a chapter therein;\nthe whole impress one truth, each part contributing somewhat to the\ncumulative force of the great lesson.\n\nAnd, not to detain you with all the processes of thought and long\nreflection by which at last we reach our conclusion\u2015\u2015the figures we\nsuggest are those which are conspicuous and representative in the\nOld and New Testaments. Our Divine Lord Himself should be, as He is,\nexalted in the great window over the altar. Beginning from the angle\nof the chancel arch to pass around the church, we come first to the\npair of small windows next to the organ, from which now the light is\nexcluded by the parish building. They may be taken as in a sense going\nwith the organ, and scarcely a part of the general scheme. Let them\nbe treated, at some time, in mosaic, with SINGING ANGELS,[C] thus\ncorresponding to the Angels directly opposite in the corresponding\nsmall windows. Then we pass to the first pair of lancets of uniform\nsize, MELCHIZEDEK and ABRAHAM: the latter the great father of the\nfaithful, the head of the covenant people; the former even superior\nto him, a priest forever, without beginning or end of days, type of\nour Lord\u2019s own Highpriesthood. Melchizedek appears before Abraham,\nbearing bread and wine, foreshadowing of the Holy Eucharist. What more\nsuitable, as we look up to the altar and see above it the figure of Our\nBlessed Lord, than to turn to the head of the nave, and find here, at\nthe dawn of religious history, standing out as type of the Christ in\nwhom the course of the ages shall culminate, this King of Salem at the\nvery beginning?\n\n[C] Recently placed.\n\nWe pass on. The next pair will be MOSES and SAMUEL: both conspicuous\nas appointed of God to lead, to rule, to judge the people whom God had\nchosen; Founders of Israel as a nation. Surely these, if any, we must\ncommemorate as among the greatest in the covenant history.\n\nThis brings us to the third or middle pair. Woman, too, bears her\nconspicuous part in the spiritual history of mankind. DEBORAH[D] judged\nIsrael for forty years in a period of disorder and confusion, and led\nthe way to victory: RUTH,[D] a very different type, beautiful and\ngentle, became one of that line of whom David, and David\u2019s Greater Son,\nwere born. Other women might have been chosen, as well as other men;\nbut on the whole, none more typical, none better fitted to instruct and\nto impress.\n\n[D] Now in place.\n\nThe fourth pair continues the narrative. DAVID and ELIJAH, each so\nstriking in his way, bring back the kingdom in its glory and the\nkingdom in its disaster; religion sweetly ministrant with music, and\nreligion sternly denouncing national sin; the royal harp, and the\nprophetic mantle.\n\nAnd finally, the fifth pair on this side, ISAIAH and MALACHI: the\ngreatest of all the prophets, called the Evangelist of the Old\nTestament; and the last of seers, who most clearly foretold both\nMessiah and Forerunner.\n\nThus we arrive at one of the entrances, and turning the corner, we\nstand before the first of the windows at the lower end. It is large\nenough to admit more than one figure. It continues the story from\nMalachi, to him who went before the face of the Lord: it presents to us\nST. JOHN THE BAPTIST,[E] baptizing at Jordan; and close by it stands\nthe Font with its summons, as of old, to the washing away of sins.\n\n[E] To be erected in the near future.\n\nA splendid opportunity is presented by the great group next in order,\nthe three associated windows piercing the end wall of the nave.\nMajestic in their simple dignity of outline, what will they not be\nwhen filled with stained glass as they should be? Here is space,\nindeed\u2015\u2015ample room for that scene treatment of which the side-wall\nwindows are incapable.\n\nLet the middle one, which is much the largest, be the NATIVITY;[F]\nthat on the right side (next to St. John Baptist) the PRESENTATION IN\nTHE TEMPLE,[F] with Simeon\u2019s Nunc Dimittis; that on the left side, the\nEPIPHANY,[F] with the Gifts of the Magi. Thus will this entire end-wall\nset forth the Incarnation, up to which the Old Testament has led us,\nand out of which proceeds the New, and all the history of the Christian\nChurch.\n\n[F] Now in place.\n\nTurning again, and passing on, back once more toward the chancel,\nthe first and second pairs of lancets on the Cottage Street side are\ndevoted to the four Evangelists, STS. MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE and JOHN. No\nexplanation is needed of the propriety of putting these figures here.\nNot only as the biographers of the Lord Jesus Christ, but as chief\nFounders of that Church which is builded upon Historic Facts\u2015\u2015men of\ndeeds as well as writers\u2015\u2015we commemorate them.\n\nThe middle pair is again given to two great women of the New Testament,\nmothers both and as mothers supremely great: ST. ELIZABETH[G] and ST.\nMARY.[G] Of the son of the first one it was said, Among those born of\nwomen there hath not appeared a greater than John. To the other the\nAngel\u2019s word was, Hail, thou that are highly favored: the Lord is with\nthee; and blessed art thou among women. No two characters can lay more\nclaim to our gratitude and reverence than these two women to whom an\nAllwise God entrusted the tender formative years of the Forerunner and\nof the Messiah.\n\nThere is indeed a glorious company of Apostles, and a noble army of\nmartyrs, whom one would gladly set forth, two and two, in goodly\nsuccession. Two pairs must suffice us: first ST. ANDREW[G] and ST.\nSTEPHEN;[G] next ST. PETER[G] and ST. PAUL.[G] We begin with ST.\nANDREW, for he readily obeyed the calling of Christ and followed Him\nwithout delay, bringing his brother also: type of self-devotion and\npersonal service, forever. ST. STEPHEN, set apart for the Church\u2019s\ncharitable work, filled with the Holy Ghost and a mighty preacher,\u2015\u2015he\nwas the first Deacon, and became the first Martyr. ST. PETER and ST.\nPAUL bring us to a climax in the Church\u2019s realization of the great\ncommission; prince apostles, the former first led to the Gentiles but\nafterward distinctly charged with the Gospel to the Circumcision; the\nlatter sent out to the Uncircumcision, truest champion of a Catholic\nFaith and uncompromising leader of a Catholic Church. He brings us, as\nwe pass the two Angel figures over the door, up to the pulpit,\u2015\u2015who\nfitter than he to be set always before the preacher?\u2015\u2015and thence again\nwe see before us the altar and the figure of Our Blessed Lord from\nwhich we started on our circuit;\n\n[G] Now in place.\n\n    \u201cChrist is the end, for Christ was the beginning:\n     Christ the beginning, and the end is Christ.\u201d\n\nThis is the scheme which is hereby recommended to your attentive\nconsideration, your criticism, and if worthy, your adoption. When\nadopted, each opening will be available only for the subject assigned\nto it, treated in the best style, under the direction and approval\nof the vestry. Windows may be erected in any order, provided these\nconditions are complied with; though it is highly desirable that not\nless than a pair\u2015\u2015where there are pairs\u2015\u2015should be placed at a time.\nIt is immaterial how many persons join in donating a window. The use\nof the windows for memorials is very beautiful and very desirable; but\nthere is no restriction to such use, by anything in the scheme.\n\nAnd in closing let it be added, that if\u2015\u2015as undoubtedly they will\u2015\u2015the\nvestry and parish shall feel sincerely thankful to those who\nparticipate in this pious work, it is not there that the gratitude\nshould chiefly lie. It is an unspeakable privilege to be permitted\nto place a memorial like this in the house of God, bringing ever new\ncomfort and joy to hearts bereaved, and satisfaction to the donors;\nyes, if there is need to say it, it is an honor to be permitted to do\nit. Moreover, in the nature of the case, it is a privilege very limited\nas to the number of those who can be so favored; and with every window\nthat is taken, the number remaining available becomes rapidly less.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe above Report with its Recommendations was adopted, entire, by\nunanimous vote of the Vestry at the regular monthly meeting, January 5,\n1897.\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\n \u2015\u2015Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n\n \u2015\u2015Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.\n\n \u2015\u2015Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.\n\n \u2015\u2015Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.","title":"Stained Glass Windows: An Essay: With a Report to the Vestry on Stained Glass Windows for Grace Church Lockport New York","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9796}