exception of some faint traces in sheltered portions which serve to show that colour was, beyond question, extensively employed. Such traces remain in the portals of Senlis, Paris, and many other churches. But although colour was undoubtedly employed, there is nothing to indicate that it was carried to the extent of producing any imitative effect. The patches of colour still to be seen show, on the contrary, that it was employed merely to afford a pleasant play of quiet hues such as might relieve the monotony of the uniform stone and satisfy the mediæval craving for colour harmonies. It is impossible that anything more than this should have been accomplished; for the art of painting was not, at this time, enough developed to admit of realistic treatment.[1] Judging from the character of this painting, the colouring of the sculpture must have been very simple. The heads, hands, and feet were of a uniform yellowish-white, the cheeks and lips being slightly reddened. In the eyes a pale blue or brown colour may have been given to the iris, the pupil being black. Hair and eyebrows were black, brown, or golden; and draperies were of various hues, mostly red, blue, and purple, with white and black, while ornaments, as jewels and embroideries, were gilded. Foliage and animals were coloured in a purely conventional way, as in the ornamental borders of illuminated manuscripts, without regard to the colouring of nature. Such naturalistic colour treatment as that of the sixteenth-century choir screen of Amiens Cathedral was not only impossible, but it would have greatly offended the taste of the early Gothic sculptors.
Certainly no correct conception of the original colouring can be formed by reference to any of the styles of painting that have been practised since the thirteenth century.
- ↑ See the Chapter on Gothic Painting and Glass-Staining.
