I give here an illustration of a mosaic so treated a good specimen of the very fine work which can be produced by the Venetians, and an excellent contrast to the decorative mosaic which was last thrown on the screen.

This, then, in brief, is the method which is now known as the Venetian method. For its successful application considerable skill and practice are necessary, but the experimental stage has been passed long ago, and experience has shown that the Venetians are capable of good work. They smile at the notion of a

In the course of this paper I have called the working mosaists "workers" or "workmen," but, in truth, those in the higher grades are entitled to be more suitably designated. They have studied every style of mosaic construction and thoroughly understand the possibilities as well as the limitations of the material with which they work. Their wide practical experience has given them freedom and assurance in shaping and placing the tessera, and in adding all those subtle touches which mark the difference between a mere slavish copy

of a design and a work of art. To make my meaning clearer I will read a letter received from Cavaliere Giovanale, Architect to His Eminence Cardinal Rampolla, on the completion of the mosaics recently executed for His Eminence, and now placed in the Crypt of St. Cecilia in Trastevere at Rome; and while doing so I shall ask my assistant to place on the screen one or two of the mosaics to which Signor Giovanale refers :

"The mosaics are a perfect copy of the cartoons, reproducing with fidelity not only the outlines, but retaining in the treatment of light and shade, and in the expression of the faces, all the intentions of the artist who designed them, and truly interpreting the scheme of colouring expressed in the small sketches which accompanied the cartoons. Nor must I fail to express my admiration, and the admiration of those who have examined these mosaics, at the perfect technique and wise distribution of the tessera by means of which all the most delicate effects of modelling and colouring have been obtained. This proves the artistic taste and technical skill of those who executed the work."

Men who can produce work of this kind are, I think, entitled to be called artists, and in this opinion I am supported by the late Sir Edward Burne-Jones who addressed the following letter to the chief of some Venetian mosaists who had executed mosaics from his designs

"To the artists at Venice, who have been so indefatigable in carrying out my designs, I owe much gratitude, and I should be obliged to you if you would convey to those who executed the work some expression of my delight at the result of our cooperation, and my trust that it is only a beginning of our labours together. Will you kindly do this for me, because I know their skill and workmanship have been of an unusual kind."

Such words, addressed to them by such an authority, go far to establish the claim of the Venetians to be the best mosaists in the world.

DISCUSSION.

The CHAIRMAN, in inviting discussion on the paper, said that, except for the few introductory remarks on the history of the revival of mosaic work 'during the past fifty years in this country, Mr. W. L. H. Hamilton's paper was restricted to the technical, and thoroughly practical, but, from his own point of view, rather narrow question of the comparative merits of two methods of mosaic construction: the older, that of fixing the tessera on the wall directly, one by one; and the newer, in

which the tessera were first fixed face downwards on paper, and then fixed en bloc on the wall. Mr. Hamilton had argued this question with thorough knowledge, and had placed his arguments before the meeting in the concisest and clearest manner possible, and with a generous impartiality. Of course Mr. Hamilton was all through thinking of mural mosaics, and had not dealt with mosaics in general, any more than with their general history. He had, therefore, and he supposed, intentionally, omitted the earliest of all forms of mosaic construction, followed alike by the ancient Egyptian and the Assyrians, in the decoration of sumptuary furniture, such as ivory thrones, and the incrustation of large jewelry. This method was to chisel the design out of the solid ivory or gold in a series of small sockets in which the pieces of mosaic were each separately held within its own tight socket of gold or ivory. In fact, it was cloisonnée work, but with solid instead of fluid colouring materials. Now did not this afford a practical suggestion for the construction of mural mosaics which would present the advantages of both the methods described by Mr. Hamilton? Why should not the decorative or the pictorial design be laid down in cement in a shallow, tray-like frame, in Venice, or elsewhere, and then fixed on the wall for which it was intended, either by means of concealed clamps, or by embedding the whole framed mosaic in cement? He used, in Bombay, to do something like that himself, with living flowers, working out enlarged patterns with them on a wooden framework, for the annual decoration of St. Thomas's Cathe dral on Christmas Day in the morning. What Mr. Hamilton had said of the recent date of the revival of mosaic work in England was most interesting; and it was very wonderful, considering how the Romans propagated the art of their mosaic pavements over every part of their wide empire, in Spain, throughout Northern Africa, in Asia Minor, throughout Germany, and in France and in England. The art of mural mosaics reached its zenith at Byzantium; but, of course, the revival of painting, as a fine art, gave the death blow to its extended use. Yet nothing was so effective for the internal decoration of churches as mosaics, decorative and pictorial, and nothing so consonant with the spirit of the historical Christian order of Church service. The Normans, who themselves learnt the art of mosaic work from the Saracens, in the Mediteranean, never introduced it into England; and although there can be no doubt of Wren having intended to use it in St. Paul's, it was really not till about 1851 that the art was revived in this country; and initiated through the cumulative impression made by the discoveries of numberless old Roman mosaics of the type of those to be seen at Cirencester, Woodchester, and York. Mr. Blashfield's work, so far as he recollected it, was based on these discoveries. Of course, the revival of the art of Venetian mosaics was entirely due to the initiative of Salviati, and the encouragement he

received from Sir Austen Henry Layard, and also, let it be added, from Castellani, and Saulini, who, in Italy, warmly welcomed their fellow-countryman's success; and, again, from Lepec, the enameller, in France, and from Robert Phillips, formerly of Cockspur-street, the greatest of the English jewelers of his generation. He had known them all, they had all passed away, and he recalled their names with deep reverence.

Mr. LEWIS F. DAY said that in 1895 Sir William Richmond, at the Society of Arts, claimed that he had killed the paper mosaic, and from that time most people were prepared to think that artistic salvation was to be found only in working from the front. The author had shown in his paper that there was life in the old method yet. Whether it was right or wrong, it was in the interests of all concerned that the two ways should be brought forward and discussed. Sir William Richmond claimed that the method he adopted in working from the front was quicker, better, cheaper, more certain, and more interesting to the artist. Probably it was more interesting to the artist, but he doubted very much whether it was cheaper, quicker, or more certain. The author had given very good reasons for stating that the method of working on paper was more convenient; that it freed the artist from the necessity of lying on his back or side when doing the work; that he could do it without suffering from extreme heat or cold; that he need not wander about the face of the earth in order to follow his pursuit, and that any number of workmen could be put on to a particular mosaic without getting in each other's way. Under those circumstances he thought the author must fairly claim that time and money were on his side. He thought the author had fairly well answered all the objections raised by artists, the first being that the worker did not work in the dark, the tesseræ being coloured all through. He did not think it was necessary that the worker should see precisely what he was doing, because every artist worked towards an end, which he did not see until it grew in completion at the finish of the work. In so far as there was a danger, he thought the Chairman had pointed out the remedy, the practice suggested, which was sometimes used, of doing a little piece on the front and then transferring it. The advantage of working in situ appeared enormous, but when a mosaist was working he was nearly always encumbered by scaffolding, the light thereby being excluded, and when the scaffolding was taken down it was too late to alter the design. He thought the author was not certain of his case in regard to flatness. Artists were appalled at the flatness of a good deal of mosaic done, especially in some modern restorations. The mosaics at Ravenna, which were being restored, were being ruined, and that was only one instance out of thousands of miserable flat mosaic which was being done all over the world. It was reassuring to hear

from the author that the tessaræ could be manipulated when they were on the wall whilst the plaster was not quite set, and that a little push could be given to the tessaræ, so as to produce an uneven surface. Whether that little push was ever given or not was another question. He thought the general mosaic worker would require to learn a great deal more than giving a little push in order to break the surface of the mosaic and supply that variation of facet which was such a charm in mosaic; but there was no real reason why the experienced decorator should not employ the transfer method which had many practical advantages. In considering the question it was impossible to ignore the conditions of time and cost. The conclusion he drew from the paper was that there were two methods of working and that either method must be followed by the artist according to his genius. Looking into the matter it was apparent that one method had been taken up largely for purposes more or less directly connected with trade, whereas the other method had been taken up by a few artists. Everything really depended upon the artist. A man with no idea beyond making money out of his decoration would be equally dull and uninteresting, whether working from the front or on paper, whereas if an artist with his soul in his work adopted either method and trained his men, the result would be equally satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN, in commenting on Mr. Day's remark that the inherent effect of the method of laying the tessera face downwards on paper did tend to smoothness, said, at the same time, it must be remembered that the designs of Lord Leighton and Sir Edward Poynter at South Kensington, where the mosaic was laid directly on the cement, were spoilt by their smoothness. He believed at the time there was a desire for smoothness, and that the desire for roughness had grown up later. The specimens exhibited, in which the paper method had been followed, showed very considerable roughness of the face with a very pleasing effect.

Mr. WILLIAM BURTON thought that Mr. Lewis Day had stated the conclusion quite correctly when he said it was a question of personal predilection, and that one method was just as good as the other. It all depended on how one went to work. In the old days people did not care how much they paid for the work, and how long it took to do; nowadays it was a question of working for very little pay, and for a very little time. Under those circumstances, there was every advantage in working on paper. In regard to the question raised as to why the new work was so smooth, and with regard to the cartoons at South Kensington, one fact had been omitted, namely, that some of the cartoons were made by Minton. They did not grow out of the true mosaic, but out of the modern method of making dust tiles. So much had been heard of the Venetian

mosaics that it had almost seemed as if there had been no effort at making mosaic in England. As a matter of fact there was a good deal more mosaic made in England to-day than in Venice, aud a great many more men were employed here than in Italy. The people of England were really the first to revive mosaic, not the Venetians. The experiments of Blashfield were made as far back as 1826, and the first patent for making mosaic was taken out in 1837; while the modern method of making tiles by compressing clay-dust was undertaken as a possible method of making tessera for mosaic. It was through experiments made by the late Herbert Minton to make tesseræ suitable for mosaic purposes that the modern method of making tiles arose. As it was found that the method of making tessera was a difficult one, they followed the idea that if the things were made in large pieces they would be a great deal cheaper to make and fix, and then they commenced making geometrical tiles of considerable size, and to that alone was due the modern development of tiles in this country. Certain other tile makers later on took up the matter of mosaics pure and simple. There were two main faults in all modern mosaic ; firstly, that the mosaic pieces were made far too thin, which tended to flatness, and, secondly, that they were laid with far too great precision. Most people tried to hide the joints, instead of emphasizing the fact that the joint was the most important part of the finger-pieces of mosaic, and that it ought to be very much wider than was usually the case. It was to be hoped that architects would learn that in mosaic the idea was not to simulate the perfection of a watercolour drawing.

Mr. R. PHENE SPIERS expressed his admiration for the extremely clear description of mosaics given in the paper.

Mr. W. H. BURKE asked the Chairman and the author what authority they had for saying that all the old mosaic was put on in situ and that paper was never used.

The CHAIRMAN replied that the ancients did not have any paper, they had papyrus, which would not have been used because it was too expensive and not suitable.

paper,

Mr. BURKE said that within the last month he had been in Venice, and after very carefully examining the mosaic there, both Mr. John Clayton and himself were strongly of the opinion that the ancients did put a good deal of it on which opinion was supported by the director of the restoration of the mosaics in St. Mark's. He formed the opinion from his experience that it was much easier to arrange the colours in the light than in the dark. Almost all the mosaic done in St. Mark's must have been interfered with, so far as the choice of colours was concerned, by the

scaffolding and want of light, and he contended that the subtle colour effects produced could not have been obtained if the work had been carried on with the restricted light, probably candles, available at the time. He had frequently tried to produce mosaics in frames working face upwards, and had found on every occasion that there was no advantage, except where gold was concerned. When a strong colour came by the side of the gold it was as well to work face upwards, because the sheen of the gold had a sensible effect upon the colours put at the side. In many of the mosaics carried out by his firm, where there is strong colour and gold by the side of it, that piece was made face upwards and then turned down, the remainder being finished face downwards. That was the only instance where he had found any advantage in working face upwards. In regard to the surface being regular, when mosaic was introduced, fifty or sixty years ago, art and taste had not developed to their present extent, and at the time of the 1851 Exhibition the people were governed by the mechanical feeling which existed. He did not think the ancients ever attempted to obtain a true surface, but they made the tesseræ very small. He had brought with him some specimens of pieces of mosaic which he collected 26 or 27 years ago when the restorations were going on at St. Mark's, and it would be seen that one of the causes of the old mosaic looking so well was the smallness of the tessera. The workers had not attempted to make an unequal surface, but the smallness of the tesseræ, together with their leaving cleavage faces, gave the surface an irregularity which it otherwise would not have had. It would be of great interest if the author could state whether paper was used in that instance. Extremely thick and long tessera were used in the pavements of Rome, where they were one and a half inches thick, compared with half an inch at Pompeii. A great deal of the excessive flatness was due to the size of the tesseræ. In one of the pieces in St. Mark's he found the tesseræ never exceeded threeeighths of an inch thick, and that, together with the cleavage surface, gave the mosaic its charming appear. ance. He had also obtained specimens of mosaics showing that tessera made of brick were used.

Mr. MATTHEW WEBB said that Sir Edward BurneJones had, by implication, been cited as supporting the method of working from the back, the statement being made that he was gratified with the result. He thought it was only fair to Sir Edward BurneJones to remember that it was with reluctance he decided that the work must be done by that method which he felt, at an early stage, for many reasons, was unavoidable, but he would have been glad if it had been possible to carry it out in the other way. Reference had been made to the pictorial development of mosaic. It might be interesting to state that when the mosaic work of Sir Edward Burne-Jones first appeared, he (Mr. Webb) heard Sir Edward state his conviction that it was the growing pictorial