The Glass Circle Journal No.7

The

Glass Circle

Number 7

_W 115 WPT
,
WI
…

L
.
3,
1

-…a.uelnuumotuoutmuumnao
..11111H(1111111111111111*111,11m

The

Glass Circle
Number 7

THE GLASS CIRCLE

CONTENTS

President
Robert J. Charleston

Honorary Vice-Presidents
Dr. Donald B. Harden
Paul Perrot

Hugh Tait

Committee
Kate Crowe

Wendy Evans
Dr. H. Jonathan Kersley

Jo Marshall

Barbara Morris

Anne Towse

Dr. David C. Watts

Cyril Weeden

Honorary Secretary

Janet Benson
Page

Dr. Syntax in the Glasshouse

by
Cyril Weeden

Nineteenth and Twentieth century

commemorative glass

by
Barbara Morris

Flashed glass — an English first?

by
Robert J. Charleston

Three Williamite Glasses
by
Mary Boydell

A note on the discovery of two engraved glasses
from the Pugh glasshouse

by
Mary Boydell

Honorary Treasurer
Tim Udall
Glass from 1850-1950 in the British Museum

by
Judy Rudoe

Editorial Sub-Committee

Janet Benson

Robert J. Charleston

Kate Crowe

Wendy Evans
Raymond Slack

Cyril Weeden

Advertisement Manager

John S. M. Scott
Some chemical and physical characteristics

of ancient glass and the potential of
scientific investigations

by
Dr. Julian Henderson

DOCTOR SYNTAX IN THE GLASS HOUSE

by Cyril Weeden

A
paper read to the Circle on 9 April, 1987

Summary
Glassmaking by hand is not a craft that has caught

the illustrator’s eye, which is surprising since both its

methods and its products are aesthetically pleasing.

Among the few illustrations that exist one of the best

known is that by Thomas Rowlandson where Dr Syntax,

on his travels, visits a glasshouse and tries his hand at the

craft with, as is usual, dire results. Rowlandson used

craft and industrial subjects on barely a handful of

occasions, his speciality being commentaries on social

and rural events. What then prompted him to introduce

glassmaking into the adventures of Dr Syntax, and from

where did he draw his inspiration?

The rise and decline of Dr Syntax
Early in 1820 the following advertisement appeared in

a number of journals throughout the country:

This day is published, at R Ackerman’s, 101
Strand, London and may be had at all

Booksellers No. 1 of the SECOND TOUR

of DOCTOR SYNTAX in SEARCH of the
PICTURESQUE. A Poem in Eight Monthly

Numbers, price 2s. 6d. each, forming a

Second Volume when complete. Written by
the same Author, with designs by the same

Artist, THOMAS ROWLANDSON ESQ., with

the same arrangements of them both as
produced the original Work with that Title, of

which EIGHT unexampled Editions have
been so eagerly demanded by the Public, and

which has given rise to so many shameless
DECEPTIONS, spurious IMITATIONS, and

gross IMPOSITIONS.’

The Second Tour of Doctor Syntax
was an attempt to

capitalise on the success of the
First Tour,
which had been

published in 1812 and had gone through five editions

within a year. The
Second Tour,
like its predecessor, was

published monthly in the
Poetical Magazine,
and whilst it

did not, when eventually published as a whole, have
quite the success of the
First Tour,
it still ran through

several editions. Eventually a
Third Tour

was published,

but by now the inspiration had run dry and the worthy
Doctor concluded his tours in this world and left in

order to sample those in a more celestial environment.
The basis for these episodes is believed to have come

from the journeys to various parts of England which
Rowlandson, accompanied by one or other of his

acquaintances, undertook from time to time, whilst the
origin of Doctor Syntax is credited to Rowlandson’s

friend from his student days, Jack Bannister who, when
they discussed the subject at dinner one evening, is

reputed to have said:
I have it. You must fancy a skin and bone hero,

a pedantic old prig, in a shovel hat, with a pony,
sketching-stool, and rattletraps, and place him

in such scrapes as travellers frequently meet

with — hedge alehouses, second and third rate

inns, thieves, gibbets, mad bulls, and the like.
2

Each drawing was accompanied by a text in the form

of a poem outlining the adventure. This, although
published anonymously, was written by William Combe
to whom, it appears, Rowlandson gave neither advice

nor instruction as to the treatment of the subject;

indeed, it has been suggested that they never met. So
popular were the caricatures that they were copied and

pirated in France and Germany, as well as at home. In

Doctor Syntax the public recognised some of their own

characteristics, not unlike the reaction of the British
public in the 1930s to Strube’s ‘little man’, or of the

French today with Asterix, and at the time there was a
popular demand for coats, hats and wigs similar to those

worn by the Doctor, as well as glass, porcelain and

pottery souvenirs (fig. 1).

The illustrator
Thomas Rowlandson (fig. 2) was born in 1757, the son

of a wool and silk merchant who became bankrupt when

his son was but two years old. As a result he came very

much under the care of an aunt of French Huguenot

descent who recognised his facility for drawing, and
encouraged it. It was she who persuaded him to visit
France, possibly thereby initiating his later enthusiasm

for travelling both in England and on the continent. It

has been said of Rowlandson that he could draw before

he could write. At sixteen years of age he was admitted to

the Royal Academy Schools where he seems to have been

a lively student, narrowly escaping expulsion on one
occasion for potting at the nude female model with his
pea shooter. Subsequently he chose to specialise in line

drawing and watercolour, which is surprising, since it

was generally felt by his contemporaries that had he

continued with oil painting he would have become one

of the most distinguished painters of his times
However, it is interesting that although Rowlandson

compiled a fascinating commentary on the social and

political life of the 18th and early 19th centuries he

recorded little of note on craft or industry. Where,

for example, are the Rowlandson illustrations of

the weavers, silversmiths, leatherworkers, cordwainers,

clockmakers, tallow chandlers, cabinet makers, indeed

any of the crafts with which England, and London

in particular, at the time abounded? The visit of
Doctor Syntax to a glasshouse is one of the rare

acknowledgements of the rich and varied craft society of

which Rowlandson, in his day to day activities, must have

been fully aware. Although intensely interested in

illustrating people at their leisure activities he seems to
have lacked an urge to show them at work. Even Doctor

Syntax looks a little out of place in the glasshouse
(fig. 3), since it is customary for him to blunder from one

social contretemps to another (fig. 4).

The Doctor at work
Even though it is not clear why Rowlandson should

have chosen glassmaking for his illustration we do know

where the event is supposed to have taken place, since
Combe introduces it in this way:

Through the long day he travell’d on;

The night he pass’d at Warrington;
Where, his keen, philosophic eye
Enjoy’d the highest luxury.

It seems, this venerable town
Retains a national renown,

For its superior skill display’d,

By which all kinds of glass are made;

And where the traveller, inclin’d

With curious art t’enrich his mind,

Will never fail to pass a day;
The scene will well reward his stay.

Combe then launches into a graphic and expansive

panegyric on the beauty and variety of the results of the

glassmaker’s skills.
Syntax with eager impulse fraught,

And pleasing hopes, the Glass-house sought,

Where each polite desire is shown,

To make the general fabric known.

The Doctor did himself proclaim,
Declar’d his dignity and name;

Nor did the Sage his fancy balk,

To show his learning by his talk.

That glass was known to distant ages,
He proved from philosophic pages;

But did not venture to decide

How in the ages ’twas applied;

But soon broke forth in rapt’rous tone,

To tell its uses in our own.
This fair transparent, substance bright,

Keeps out the cold, lets in the light,

And when the flame multiplies its rays,
Will imitate the diamond’s blaze.
But here’s the important point of view

Without it what would Beauties do!
They’d be but miserable elves,

If they could never see themselves.

How would they then arrange their graces,

And plant fresh smiles upon their faces,

If they had naught but polish’d mettle

Or the bright cover of a kettle?

Alas!
Old
England’s not the clime

Where maidens fair may pass their time

By a transparent fountain’s side,
To decorate their beauty’s pride;

No wat’ry mirrors we possess,
Which aided Dian’s nymphs to dress.

Our ladies, lack-a-day, would shiver,

To make their toilettes by a river.

Indeed it has not yet been shown

That he who first made glass is known;
Had it been so, he would have trod

Olympus as a Demigod,

And temples to his name would rise

As to those known divinities,

To whom their useful arts have given

A place within the Poet’s Heaven;
Though’, he exclaimed, ‘it doth appear,

Each Glass-house is his temple here,

Where Art and Commerce both combine

In gratitude and praise to join.’

Now the climax of the event is reached when Doctor

Syntax decides he must try his hand at the craft, whilst

his servant Pat in imitating him gets them both in all

sorts of bother.
Syntax now wishes to try his skill

In forming some neat utensil;

When ev’ ry part was duly fitted,

And to his hand the tube submitted;
The strict directions he obey’d,

And something like a bottle made.
Patrick too was prepar’d to blow

A shape, tho’ what he did not know;

But while he did apply his art,

A funny workman twitch’d a part,

Which modish modesty would blame
If I proposed to guess the name;

So that by some strange jerk uncouth,

Pat drew the flame into his mouth.

And while he amused the people round him,

By spitting, kicking, and confounding,

He scarce escaped the sad disaster,

Of setting fire to his master.

All were well pleas’d but Pat, who swore
He never swallowed fire before,

And was glass blown by such a whim,
It never should be blown by him.

Having encreas’d his stock and store

Of various scientific lore,

The Doctor took his leave gay-hearted,

And for his destin’d rout departed.4

If Rowlandson visited Warrington, and there is every

reason to suppose he did so since he was a much

travelled man, then the question is which glasshouse he

used for the illustration. Warrington was certainly a

centre of glassmaking when the visit is supposed to
have taken place, and had been so since the late

17th century, when it was recorded that window glass

was being made there.’ By the early 19th century
flint glass and bottles were being made by Perrin,

Geddes and Company at Bank Quay, also known as

Sankey Street; flint glass was also being made by T K

Glazebrook and Company at Orford Lane, and by John

Alderson at the Cockhedge glasshouse; whilst Clare,

Haddock and Brown, also on the Cockhedge site, were
making crown glass. Thus, if Rowlandson visited a bottle

glasshouse, and his illustration clearly shows bottles

being made, then it can only have been the glasshouse

worked by Perrin, Geddes and Company.
6

However, if

Rowlandson’s drawing is examined more closely it can

be seen that the furnace appears to be enclosed in a

wooden structure, and it is this that poses the next
question.

In 1615,
7
when the glass industry was forbidden to use

wood for firing the furnaces in which the glass was

melted a technical change took place, which resulted in

brick cone shaped buildings replacing the customary

wooden structures. The reason for this was that coal
fired furnaces required a greater draught than did

furnaces fired by wood, and the cone shaped building

with an opening at the top and the furnace at the base
was in effect the chimney that supplied the draught,

exhausting at the same time the waste gasses from the

working area. So much part of the English landscape did

this structure become that Diderot, in illustrating this

type of glasshouse referred to it as
la verrerie Angloise

(fig. 5).
The Warrington glasshouses of the early 19th century

were recorded by the artist Richard Booth (fig. 6) and
his sketches show that they were, without exception,

of the brick cone type. Although there are no

accompanying illustrations of their interiors, enough

is known of the layout of furnaces within cone

glasshouses to know that Rowlandson could not have

produced his drawing on site at Warrington (fig. 7).

From what source then came his inspiration, and

furthermore from where did William Combe, who

seems remarkably knowledgeable on glassmaking, get

his information?

The narrative
William Combe was an interesting man. Born in

Bristol in 1741, he had been educated at Eton and

followed this with a rather wasted period at Oxford,

which he left without taking a degree. He travelled

widely in Europe, returning to London with the
intention of reading law, an aspiration he never realised.
He was, by all accounts, a tall, handsome, scholarly man,

with an elegant disregard for certain social attributes, as
for example, honesty. He tried a number of occupations,

working at various times as a cook, waiter, an elocution

teacher, and on one occasion he joined the army as a

private soldier. Eventually he turned to writing for a
living and specialised in theatre criticism, poetry, satire

and political pamphleteering, from which on occasions
he received a stipend from William Pitt. As a journalist

he was employed by
The Times,

and Rowlandson’s friend

and publisher, Rudolf Ackermann, commissioned him

to write the text for each of the tours of Doctor Syntax.
9

However, Coinbe’s extravagant standard of living

landed him heavily in debt, and from 1780 he was
required to live within the Rules of the King’s Bench
prison, a nearby area set aside for certain types of

offenders, notably debtors, and here he remained until

his death in 1823. It was for this reason, presumably, that

Combe wanted his contributions to the Doctor Syntax
saga to be published anonymously. It has been said that

when a sketch from Rowlandson arrived it was his
practice ‘…to pin it up against the screen of his

apartment…and rattle off as much doggerel as was
required for the particular number.’
1
° Combe was a well

read man, covering in his writing a wide range of

subjects. Even if he had not seen glassmaking at first
hand there were, by the turn of the 18th century, several

important publications from which he could have
obtained all the information he needed to compose a

piece to complement Rowlandson’s illustration.
Just over a century earlier there had been what

has been termed ‘A notable British 17th century

contribution to the literature of glassmaking’, when

Christopher Merrett published his translation of
L’arte

vetraria.
11
This work, written in 1612, by a Florentine

chemist and glassmaker, Antonio Neri, had commanded
little interest until Merrett translated it into English,

adding observations of his own that enhanced the

importance of the work. Merrett was himself a reputable

scientist, a founder fellow of the Royal Society, and later
its librarian.
In
translating and commenting upon Neri’s

work his contribution to the then emerging English glass
industry was invaluable and no doubt influenced, a

decade later, the introduction of lead crystal glass in
England. Whether or not Combe knew this work is

not known but subsequently, either with or without
Merrett’s observations, Neri’s book was translated into

other languages and frequently plagiarised, of which the

most glaring example was
De l’art de la verrerie
by

Haudicquer de Blancourt, who passed off much of what

he copied as his own work. This was published in Paris in

1697, with an English translation two years later.
12

Merrett too, in his observations on Neri’s work, shows his

familiarity with earlier work by quoting extensively from
De re metallica,
a 16th century treatise on glassmaking by

Georgius Agricola.13

In 1747, two articles were printed in the

Universal

Magazine
outlining the origins of glassmaking, the raw

materials used, and the methods of making both hollow

and flat glass.” The author is referred to as ‘our

correspondent in Southwark’, and he claims that `…it
has been my peculiar Study to search into the deep

Mystery or Art of making Glass…’. The results of his

enquiry he offers with due modesty to the
Universal

Magazine
‘…not out of an ambitious Desire to see myself

in Print, but that I may in some Measure oblige your
Readers with so great a Secret…’. It is clear that he is

familiar with de Blancourt’s work, since he mentions the

author by name and liberally uses his material, in one

case to the extent of copying the reference to the wrong

chapter in the
Book of Revelations.

When a comparison is made with Combe’s verse, his

text is closer to de Blancourt and Merrett than to the
Universal Magazine.
For example, Combe writes:

`This fair transparent, substance bright,

Keeps out the cold, lets in the light.’

as against Merrett’s ‘Windows to keep us warm and dry,

and admits Light into our dwellings…’ and the
somewhat verbose translation of de Blancourt ‘…for

that transparent Substance guards them within from

too great Heat and Cold, without hindering the

Intromission of the light…’ The
Universal Magazine offers

no comment on this point, but there are many other

variations in the use of this phrase, including one by the

worthy Doctor Johnson, showing that he too was familiar

with the text: ‘Yet, by some such fortuitous liquefaction
was mankind taught to procure a body at once in a high

degree solid and transparent, which might admit the
light of the sun, and exclude the violence of the

wind…’
16

However, the couplet leading to the
denouement
is

possibly the one that lends itself more readily to

plagiarism. Combe puts it this way:
`So that by some strange jerk uncouth,

Pat drew the flame into his mouth.’

This passage has a venerable origin, having started its
career far earlier than the previous example, since it was
in the 12th century that the monk Theophilus on the

use of the blowing iron advised his readers:
16
‘…then,

withdrawing it, bring it to your mouth and blow slightly,
and instantly removing it from your mouth, hold it

near your cheek, unless, in drawing breath, you may by

chance attract the flame into your mouth…’
A similar version appears in Agricola’s treatise, which

Merrett adapted for his commentary. Subsequently it

was copied by de Blancourt and others until, five

hundred years after Theophilus had made this point, the

anonymous contributor to the
Universal Magazine
put it

this way: ‘…Every time he blows into the pipe, he
removes it quickly to his cheek, otherwise he would be in

danger, by often blowing, of drawing the flame into his

mouth…’
17

That Combe would have had to rely upon reference

material in order to complement the illustration is not

surprising since, despite his erudition, he could not be
expected to have had the comprehensive knowledge of

glassmaking that is revealed in his verse. But if Combe

had to rely upon references, what about Rowlandson?

Since he did not compose his sketch
in situ,

from what

source did his inspiration come?

The illustration
Neither the Neri publication nor the Merrett

translation contain drawings, but Merrett in his

observations refers to the furnace described and

illustrated a century earlier by Agricola (fig. 8). And

when Neri’s book was translated into Latin in 1668 by

Andreas Frisius
18
an illustration, virtually identical to

that in
De re metallica,
was added to the text (fig. 9.), and it

was this drawing with occasional concessions to the
mode of dress of the period that, for the next two

hundred years (figs.10;11;12), was used to illustrate a

variety of commentaries on glassmaking. Even so,
although Rowlandson’s drawing bears a more than
passing resemblance to these illustrations, there is

insufficient similarity to say that it was one of these he

used as a source.
However, the article in the
Universal Magazine
also

carries an illustration (fig. 13) which without too great a

stretch of the imagination could be said to be a refined
and updated version of the Agricola illustration, and it is

this that is remarkably similar to that of Rowlandson,

except that it is a mirror image. The circular ribbed

furnaces are identical, the workman shaping the
parison, the bottles on the shelves and the barred

windows, for example, appear in both illustrations,
whilst the glassblower is replaced by Doctor Syntax.

Rowlandson has gone a stage further by populating the

floor with an audience which, whilst appreciating
Patrick’s discomfiture when the servitor prods him with

his shears, eagerly anticipates the possibility of the

worthy Doctor’s wig going up in flames.
This illustration is signed by Charles Grignion,

sometimes spelt Grignon, an experienced engraver
born in London in 1717, who worked for many of the

well known illustrators of the time, as for example
Hogarth and Gravelot. In his later years he found it

difficult to support his family from his work and was

forced eventually to live on charity, until he died in 1810
at the age of 93. It was the realisation that such

destitution existed among artists that led initially to the
raising of a subscription to support Grignion, and later

to the funding of the Artists Benevolent Fund.
16

Grignion was a pupil of Hubert Francois Gravelot,

born Bourguignon, in Paris in 1699, a French illustrator

who lived in London for many years and became a close
friend, among other celebrities, of David Garrick. On

one occasion, in a letter to Garrick, he recommends that

certain work be put into the hands of a former pupil

of his, Charles Grignion ‘…s’il n ‘a pas degenere a du

gout et du merite…’
2
° Gravelot achieved a high degree

of delicate and minute skill with a wide variety in styles so

that, apart from run of the mill work such as trade cards

and headings for ballad sheets, he was much sought after

as a book illustrator.

In view of the pupil, master relationship between

Grignion and Gravelot it is not surprising to find there is

yet another illustration on this theme, this time signed

by Gravelot (fig. 14), which at first sight appears to be an

identical mirror image of the Grignion illustration,

except that in this case the engraving is by Benjamin

Cole, of whose work many examples exist, but of whom

very little is known. The glassmakers look the same and
stand in the same positions relative to one another, the

furnace, tools, bottles, doorway and window appear to be

similarly placed. Are they identical illustrations, one the
reverse of the other? A careful comparison shows that

there are a few minor differences between them, such as

the depth of the glass blower’s marver and the patches

of deterioration on the plasterwork of the furnace.

Otherwise they are identical if reverse copies, with the

linear dimensions of the Grignion drawing a little less
than half of those of the Gravelot. The principal

difference between them, however, is that the Grignion

drawing has an additional glassmaker, and shows more

of the glass furnace. To confuse the issue still further

an illustration identical to the Grignion version, but
reversed, appeared in the
New and Complete Dictionary of

Arts and Sciences
in 1754, bearing the signature of

T. Jefferys, whose work is introduced as ‘…curiously

engraved by Mr Jefferys, Geographer to his Royal
Highness, the Prince of Wales…’

Who copied from whom?
It is at this point that the realm of fact gives way to that

of speculation. On the face of the evidence it would

seem that the Grignion illustration, more detailed than

that of Gravelot, and earlier than that of Thomas Jefferys

was the master copy. However, it is not possible to give a

definitive view on this until the purpose for which the

Gravelot drawing was commissioned is known and, more

importantly, the date on which it was published. The

Grignion drawing appeared in the September issue of
the
Universal Magazine,
1747, and this is perhaps a

crucial factor since it is generally accepted that Gravelot

had returned to France two years earlier, in 1745, a

year of considerable importance in the relationship
between England and France. With the fear of invasion

ever present in English minds the Young Pretender,

supported by the French, had landed in Scotland, whilst

the Marechal de Saxe had defeated the English at

Fontenoy. In the wave of anti-French feeling Gravelot,

despite his many friends in London and the esteem

with which the publishing houses regarded his talent,
decided to return to France ‘…irritated, it is said, by

some London gallophobes who taunted the industrious
foreigner with being a spy in the pay of the enemy…
021

Opinion is divided as to whether he returned or not.
There is one further point to take into account.

Scarcely a decade earlier Hogarth had been successful in

his campaign against plagiarism to the extent that a law

had been passed giving protection against copying

a drawing without the permission of the artist.
22

Gravelot’s drawing was the earlier, and the evidence of
his departure for France suggests that it could have

been, had he agreed that it could be copied for

the smaller page size of the
Universal Magazini

23
or,

alternatively, with his absence in Paris were Grignion and
the publisher less inhibited by the legal restraint?

Whatever may be the answer to these interesting

examples of the art of the plagiarist the influence is
that in England between the 17th and 19th centuries

there were very few original descriptive and visual

contributions to the technology of glassmaking. But that

observation apart, the 18th century illustrations, which

appear to have their roots in the Agricola woodcut,

provided Rowlandson with an idea, the execution of

which never ceases to give a great deal of pleasure and
amusement, especially to those who have an interest in

the history of the glass industry.

Envoi
In the Paul Mellon collection of Rowlandson drawings

at the Yale Center for British Art there is a delightful

sketch,
24
(fig. 15) for which the catalogue compiled by

Baskett and Snelgrove carries the following caption: ‘In

a workshop strewn with tools and moulds the glassmaker,

wearing layers of cloth as protection, stirs a bowl in the
furnace. Behind him, his assistant looks on, wipes his

brow, and holds a hook in readiness for extracting the

bowl of molten glass.’

But is this a glassmaking scene? It is most improbable,

since there is nothing about the furnace, the tools, or the
demeanour of the two participants that suggest that the
craft of glassmaking is being practised in this workshop.

Is it not pertinent, therefore, to suggest that Rowlandson

in this sketch had in mind a late 18th, early 19th century

alchemist engaged in the perennial enquiry into the
transmutation of matter?

NOTES

1.
Taken from

Felix Farley’s BristolJournal,

29 January 1820.

It was in fact the First Tour that was entitled `…in Search

of the Picturesque’. The Second Tour was `…in Search

of Consolation’; an acknowledgement that the Doctor’s

overbearing wife was by now deceased.

2.
Quoted in J. Grego,

Rowlandson the caricaturist

(London,

1880). Janet Benson has drawn my attention to the

suggestion that the character of Doctor Syntax was a good
humoured satire on the Rev. William Gilpin, vicar of

Boldre, as advanced by W. Templeman,

The life and work of

William Gilpin (1724-1804)
(Univ. Illinois Press, 1939),

pp.292-293.

3.
For accounts of Rowlandson’s life, other than J. Grego, op.

cit.,
see:

A.P.Oppe,
Thomas Rowlandson – his drawings and watercolours

(London, 1923)

B. Falk,
Thomas Rowlandson: his life and art
(London, 1949)

J. Hayes,
Rowlandson: watercolours and drawings
(London,

1972).

4.
The text of the poem is taken from
The second tour of Doctor

Syntax in search of consolation
(London, 1903), pp.147-150.

5.
J. Houghton, A

collection for improvement of husbandry and

trade,
no.198, 15 May 1696.

6.
L.M. Angus-Butterworth, `Glassmaking at Warrington

1757-1933′,
Glass Technology,

v. 25 (1984), pp.192-202.

7.
Royal Proc. No. 42, 23 May 1615,

State Papers Domestic,

James 1.

8.
D. Diderot and J. d’Alembert,
Recueil de planches, sur les

sciences, les arts liberaux, et les arts michaniques
(Paris, 1772),

v.10.

9.
William Combe (1741-1843),

Dictionary of National

Biography
(henceforth abbreviated to

DNB)
Oxford.

(1937).

10.
Quoted in B.Falk,
op.cit.

11.
A. Neri,
L’arte vetraria

(Florence, 1612); translated with

observations by C. Merrett and published as
The art of glass

(London, 1662). See also W.E.S.Turner, ‘A notable
British 17th century contribution to the literature of

glassmaking’,
Glass Tech.

v.3 (1962), pp.201-213 and

W.E.S.Turner,
The Tercentenary of Neri-Merrett’s The art of

glass’
Ann. 6th. Int. Cong. on Glass, (Washington D.C.,

1962).

12.
H. de Blancourt,

De l’art de la verrerie
(Paris, 1697),

translated into English and published as
The art of glass

(London, 1699); facsimile published by the
Pottery Gazette,

no date.

13.
G. Agricola,
De re metallica,
(1556); translated from the

first Latin edition. H.C. Hoover and L.H. Hoover
(London,1912).

14.
Universal Magazine
(1774) Sept., pp.144-153; Nov., pp.

284-285. This article was reprinted in the
Pottery Gazette
on

1 May 1891 as a description `…of the manufacture of glass
as it was practised in England at the Southwark Glasshouse

in 1747.’

15.
S. Johnson,
The rambler;
17 April 1750; ed. W.J. Bate and

A.B. Strauss (Yale, 1969), v.1, pp. 49-50. The editors

comment, `The passage is in the vein of Antonio Neri, Art

of Glass, a Latin version of which was in Samuel Johnson’s
library.’ D. MacPherson,

Annals of Commerce,
(London,

1805) chides Pliny who, he says, `…appears to have been
ignorant of the most valuable application of in

admitting the light into, and excluding the cold and rain

from, our houses.’

16.
Theophilus
(c.
12th century)
Arts of the middle ages;

tr. R.

Hendrie, (London, 1847), p.125.

17.
The same expression, word for word, appears in
The new

and complete dictionary of arts and sciences
(London, 1754),

and a variation
in Dictionariutn Polygraphium
(London,

1758), 2nd ed. The interesting point is that although the
reference to the inadvisability of sucking on the blowing

iron has been copied by one writer after another for many

centuries, there is no evidence that this is in any way

dangerous. On the contrary, in making glass by hand there

are occasions where the glassmaker, in controlling the

shape of the glass he is making, has to suck instead of blow.

18.
A. Neri,
op.cit.
Latin tr. A. Frisius,

De arte vitraria

(Amsterdam, 1668).

19.
Charles Grignion (1717-1810),
DNB,

(Oxford, 1937).

20.
E. Dilke,
French engravers and draughtsmen of the 18th century

(London, 1902) p.120.

21.
H. Hammelmann, ed. T.S.R. Boase,
Book illustrators in 18th

century England
(Yale, 1975), p.41.

22.
8 George 11, c.13, 24June 1735,

known as Hogarth’s act.

23.
A copy of a drawing can be reduced or increased in size

by means of a pantograph, a procedure well known to

illustrators, and one that Rowlandson on occasions made
use of. By copying the drawing directly on to an engraving

plate a reversed image would be obtained.

24.
Keith Davey kindly drew my attention to the existence of

this illustration.

Acknowledgements
During the search for evidence the guidance received

from the British Museum, Guildhall Library, Science
Museum, Victoria and Albert Museum, was much

appreciated, as was the advice received from various
members of the Glass Circle and in particular, apart from
those mentioned elsewhere, Robert Charleston and

Hugh Tait.

For a detailed study of the development of glass making

furnaces see: RJ.Charleston,
Glass furnaces through the

ages,
J. Glass Studies, v. 20, (Corning, New York, 1978),

pp.9-33.

Figure 1. Tumbler with enamelled decoration, Doctor Syntax in the

glasshouse. Courtesy of Royal Brierley Crystal Limited.
Figure 2. Thomas Rowlandson, by J. Jackson, c. 1815, National

Portrait Gallery, London.

Figure 3. Doctor Syntax in the Glass-House, by Thomas Rowlandson, c.1820.
1
0

:
,1
11.1)11

Er II

Figure 4. Doctor Syntax

with a blue stocking

beauty, 1820.

Figure 5. Verrerie Angloise,
from Recueil de planches, sur
les sciences, les arts libiraux,
et les arts michaniques, D.

Diderot and J. d’Alembert,
Paris 1772.

Figure 6. The Bank
Quay glasshouse,
Warrington, from

Robert Booth’s

sketchbook, c.1830,
Warrington Library

Mss 36.

Fib

• -a

Figure 7. Verrerie Angloise op. cit.
rAPANF

AMIMIKIIIMIXXVOI

MigrainikiMMIS
1000110XIMMmo

Figure 8. Glass furnace from De re metallica,
by Georgius Agricola, 1556.

Figure 9. Glass furnace from the first Latin edition of
L’arte vetraria, by Antonio Neri, tr. Andreas Frisius and

Figure 10. Glass furnace from De l’art de la verrerie, by Haudicquer de

published in Amsterdam, 1668.

Blancourt, 1697, translated into English and published in London, 1699.

Figure 11. Glass furnace from Art de la verrerie de Nen, Merrett

and Kunckel, by Baron d’Holbach, 1752. This drawing is the

reverse of those shown in figures 8, 9 and 10 – see reference 23.
Figure 12. Glass furnace from Dictionarium Polygraphium, 1758.

Figure 13. Glass furnace from the Universal Magazine, Sept,
1747, engraved by Charles Grignion. This illustration also

appeared in the New Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, 1751, signed

J.Barron, and in reverse in the New and Complete Dictionary of

Arts and Sciences, 1754.
Figure 14. Glass furnace drawn by Hubert Gravelot, engraved by

Benjamin Cole, date and purpose not known.

Figure 15. Published by courtesy of the Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection. B1975.3.94.

NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURY

COMMEMORATIVE GLASS

by Barbara Morris

Based on a paper read to the Circle on 15 May, 1988

This paper should probably be called 19th and

20th Century commemorative and souvenir glasses

as some are souvenirs or mementoes of an event
or visit, rather than a strict commemoration. It is

obviously a vast subject of which it is impossible to
give a fully comprehensive survey. The choice is

perhaps somewhat arbitrary, but a slight bias toward

Scotland may be detected. Although the illustrations
have been grouped according to subject rather than

chronologically, a certain pattern emerges. In the early

19th century commemorative pieces are decorated by

wheel engraving, whilst for the latter half of the century
pressed glass seems to be the favourite medium with

acid-etching appearing in the 1880s, a practice that has
continued to the present day, particularly for the

cheaper souvenir glasses. In the 20th century, until the

Second World War, most of the English glasshouses were
producing wheel engraved decoration for their Royal
commemoratives, but after the war, apart from special

commissions and the work of individual artist-craftsmen,

this has largely been replaced by the cheaper process of

sand blasting.

It has been difficult to decide where to begin, but

there seems a certain logic in commencing with two

items commemorating the glassworks themselves. A
large punch bowl, dating from about 1815 (fig. 1),
depicts the brick cone of the Phoenix Glass Works at

Temple Gate, Bristol, operated by Henry Ricketts from

1816-1856, when the firm became Powell and Ricketts.
The engraving is fairly crude, but a nice sense of scale is

given by a tiny figure on the left. On the reverse are the

words
Peace and Plenty
within a wreath, and it was

probably made to celebrate the cessation of hostilities

with France in April 1814. A mammoth goblet (fig. 2)
34.5 cm, high which belongs to the Corning Museum,

also has a somewhat naive engraving of a glasshouse
inscribed
Cottage Glass Works,
with the Royal coat of arms

and the initials J & M McL. It depicts the glasshouse of

John McLachlan & Co., William Street, Lambeth, which
seems to have operated from about 1855 to 1886.
The glass probably dates from about 1860, but the

surrounding wreath is still very much in the 18th century

tradition and the engraving is probably the work of a
native rather than a Bohemian emigre engraver. Goblett

or rummers were the most popular objects for early 19th

century commemoratives.
More unusual is a jug of
c1820,

with allegorical figures
of Fame, Britannia etc., symbolising Nelson’s victories at

sea, and signed
John Williams, engraver, Newcastle.

John

Williams is recorded as a glass engraver in the Newcastle
directories between 1824 and 1827, although one would
expect a Nelson commemorative to be earlier in date.

The basket of flowers is a typical early 19th century
motif, appearing equally on ceramics, embroideries and
printed textiles.
Transport of various kinds provides an interesting

group of commemorative glasses. One glass with a
moulded ‘lemon squeezer’ foot (fig. 3) shows the

Rockingham coach which plied between London,

Leeds, Hull and Sheffield, and will be familiar to many of

you from the 1988 Glass Circle Jubilee Exhibition,
Strange and Rare. On the reverse are the initials
WSB

within a star. Above are the words
Success to the Town and

Trade of Leeds,
and below,
May the Last Journey we ever Mlle

be the Happiest we ever Make.
The initial may be those of

one of the last drivers of the coach, William Bramley,

who apparently was nearly always inebriated. This coach

service was withdrawn in 1840 owing to the competition
from the railways. Although not signed this glass appears
to be by the same hand as three other known coaching

glasses.

Another coaching glass, made at the Dudley

glasshouse of Thomas Hawkes and engraved by William
Herbert, was included in the 1968 Glass Circle
Exhibition. It depicts the London and Aylesbury coach

which was operated by Joseph Hearn (not Hearm as

shown on the door) between 1830 and 1837. The initials

J.J.
W. within a wreath which appear on the reverse are

probably those of the driver, James Wyatt, and it. was

possibly presented to him on his retirement in 1831.

Straight sided or bucket shaped rummers provide an

ideal surface for engraving and seem to have been a

speciality of the North East, which was an important
centre of wheel engraving in the early 19th century.

The most popular subject for the North Eastern
engravers was undoubtedly the Sunderland Bridge over
the river Wear, designed by Wilson and built between

1793 and 1796, and numerous examples can be found
throughout the first three decades of the 19th century.
A simple rummer with the bridge and sailing ship

dates from about 1800. This is the standard view of the
bridge, which appears also as one of the most
popular motifs on Sunderland lustre pottery. A more

sophisticated rummer with a band of strawberry cut

diamonds (fig. 4) was possibly engraved by a member of

the Haddock family. The Royal Exchange, opened in

1814, appears on the reverse, but the glass probably

dates from about 1825. It is perhaps not surprising

that the great technological achievements of the

industrial revolution — bridges, railways etc., should be

commemorated on glass.
A somewhat rarer example (fig. 5) shows the High

Level railway bridge over the River Tyne, erected by
Robert Stephenson. Work commenced on 24 April 1846,

and it opened to traffic on 16 January 1850. It is just
possible to see a train crossing the bridge. The original

bridge which has been superseded for rail traffic, has

been kept for emergency single track working. There
is also an unmarked pressed glass mug depicting the
High Level bridge, probably dating from the mid-19th

century.
Undoubtedly two of the finest railway glasses are

the two huge goblets or punch bowls in the Science

Museum, both engraved with Stephenson’s Rocket,

one with the addition of a portrait of Stephenson.
Regrettably no photographs of these are available.
Later in date are a pressed glass plate and a tumbler

(fig. 6) depicting the Forth Bridge, projected as early

as 1866, but on account of the Tay Bridge disaster of

1879 abandoned until 1882. Built by William Arrol
& Co., work commenced in January 1883 and was
completed on 6 November 1889. The first train crossed

the bridge on 24 January 1890, somewhat surprisingly

driven by the Marchioness of Tweedale — surely the

first lady train driver! It was officially opened on 4
March 1890 by the Prince of Wales in the presence

of the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of Fife, the
Marquis of Tweedale, the Earl of Rosebery, Monsieur
Eiffel who had completed the Eiffel Tower in Paris

the previous year, and other eminent engineers and

distinguished persons. Six people lost their lives during
the construction, but I do not know whether there

were any disaster glasses recording their deaths.

Among known disaster glasses is one

commemorating the tragedy at the Victoria Hall,

Sunderland, on 16 June 1883, where 186 children were
crushed to death against a doorway while rushing down

from the gallery to obtain toys given away by a Mr Fay, a

conjuror, at the end of his performance. Other disaster

glasses commemorated mining accidents, including

one featuring the Washington Colliery disaster of 1908,

or losses of life at sea.
Other wonders of the Victorian world were the

great international exhibitions. Most of the glasses
commemorating the Great Exhibition of 1851 were

of Bohemian manufacture, including ruby overlay or

stained cut glass vases and beakers with engraved views of
the Crystal Palace. Typical examples are in the Victoria
and Albert, and Brighton museums. Glasses were

produced as souvenirs of many of the later International

exhibitions. Most are fairly cheap glasses and often bear
the name of the purchaser as well as the date of the

Exhibition. One glass with acid etched decoration

(fig. 7) provides a link with Fig. 6 in that it has a

view of the Forth Bridge and the words East End
Industrial Exhibition. This was possibly the Edinburgh

International Exhibition, opened by the Duke and

Duchess of Edinburgh on 1 May 1890. It could

also perhaps be one of the East London Industrial
Exhibitions held in the Drill Hall, Whitechapel Road,

though if this is so it is difficult to understand why the
Forth Bridge should appear on it, other than it was one

of the wonders of the age.
Many other local exhibitions were commemorated

on souvenir glasses, including the Newcastle on Tyne

Jubilee Exhibition, 1887. A pressed glass plate with

typical dotted lettering, (fig. 8), commemorates the

Glasgow International Exhibition, the largest to be held
in the British Empire since the London International
Exhibition of 1862. The exhibition occupied a site of

about 16 acres and was opened by the Prince and
Princess of Wales on 8 May 1888. The motto of the city,
`Let Glasgow Flourish’ has now changed to ‘Glasgow’s

Miles Better’, with the smiling sun face. Profits from the

exhibition, plus public subscriptions went towards a new
building for the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum,

founded in 1870 and originally housed in the old
Kelvingrove Mansion House. The new fine sandstone
building, designed by John Simpson and B. J. Milner

Allen, was completed in 1902.
Glasgow’s second great exhibition, known as the

Groveries was held in 1901 and occupied 70 acres of the

same site. It was laid out by the architect James Miller,

and was conceived as a tribute to the progress in

art, science and industry during the century that had

just ended. A glass shows the exhibition buildings
surrounded by the typical rococo scrolls of the late 19th
century revival. The glass is engraved with the name
Jessie

Steven.
It seems to have been the general practice to have

one’s name engraved on a glass bought as a souvenir of a

visit to the exhibition.
The 1911 Glasgow exhibition, also held at Kelvingrove

Park, was on a more modest scale, extending from

Sauchiehall Street to Gibson Street, and from Kelvin
Way to Gray Street. Its purposes was to raise funds to
endow a chair of Scottish history and literature at the
University, and it was attended by over 9 million visitors.

The focal point was the Stewart Memorial Fountain

which can be seen engraved on a glass, surrounded
by representations of industry, history, fine art and
machinery, together with concert and conference halls.

There were also various sideshows on the site, including

a West African village, an aerial railway, a mountain slide,

and ships on the river Kelvin.

A pair of glasses, both of which are inscribed

Mrs Thomson
are souvenirs of the Scottish National

Exhibition, held in Edinburgh in 1908, which seems to
have been a more modest affair. The glasses bear the

name of the maker, John Board of Glasgow. Two later

glasses (fig. 9), commemorate the Empire Exhibition

(Scotland) 1938, which was held not at Kelvingrove, but

at Bellahouston Park, Glasgow. In spite of atrocious

weather the exhibition attracted some 13 million visitors.
The central feature was a 300ft. high tower designed by

the architect Thomas Tait, and erected on the top of

Bellahouston Hill. Known as Tait’s Tower it was intended

to be a permanent feature, but when war broke out in

1939 it had to be hastily demolished as it was seen as a
possible navigational aid to German airmen. One

of the glasses, with a Scottish lion in red, has
Lottie
inscribed on it in rather fancy lettering.

A fine magnum claret jug, (figs. 10 & 11) , was a

presentation piece engraved by a Bohemian Franz

Eisert, who had a workshop at 25 South Audley Street,
moving to 3 Grafton Street, Fitzroy Square, in 1872. It

bears an inscription,
Presented to Sir Sills John Gibbons,

Baronet, Lord Mayor of London, 1872, by Artizans and

Working Men in gratitude for his efforts to enable them to

become freeholders of the Alexandra Park.
The Alexandra

Palace, which appears on the reverse, was destroyed by

fire the following year and rebuilt two years later.
Moving from Lord Mayors to Prime Ministers this

pressed glass sugar basin and plate, (figs. 12 & 13) were

part of a whole suite made by Henry Greener,

Wear Flint Glass Works, Sunderland, registered on
31 July 1869 to commemorate Gladstone’s first

administration. A sugar bowl in opaque white glass,
(fig. 14) , was also made by Greener and registered on

31 August 1878. It commemorates the success of
Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, at the Berlin

Congress of 1878 on the Eastern question. There is

a matching cream jug, similarly decorated with
rose, thistle and shamrock. A frosted glass bust
of Disraeli, (fig. 15), probably also
c

1878, was

almost certainly made by John Ford, Edinburgh.
The American philanthropist George Peabody is

featured on a plate registered by Greener on 7

December 1869, (fig. 16). Peabody, an American
merchant, made his fortune in London, and gave a total

sum of half a million pounds to ameliorate the condition
of the London poor. The first block of the so-called
Peabody buildings, built in Commercial Street,

Spitalfields, opened on 29 February 1864, followed by
others in the East End, Islington, Westminster, Chelsea,

Bermondsey and elsewhere. His statue at the east end of
the Royal Exchange was unveiled by the Prince of Wales
on 21 July 1869. Four months later George Peabody

died.
A somewhat lesser mortal is commemorated on a

Greener mug, (figs. 17 & 18) , which shows the oarsman

Edward Hanlon, champion of the world, who beat

Edward Trickett of New South Wales, on 15 November

1880. Two years later the same design was re-issued with

a modified inscription when Hanlon beat the English

oarsman Boyd.
Not only individual victories but also great military

occasions were celebrated in pressed glass. The capture
of Pretoria in 1900 by Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Earl

of Kandaha, Pretoria and Waterford, who had a

distinguished military career before being sent out to

assume command of the troops in South Africa, was also
commemorated in glass, (fig. 19). He was created Earl in

1902, retired in 1904, but died in 1914 when visiting the
troops in France. Another Boer War event recorded

on a glass plate was the relief of Mafeking on

17 May 1900 (fig. 20). Robert Stephenson Smyth
Baden-Powell (1857-1941) first won fame as the

defender of Mafeking, but is now chiefly remembered as
the founder of the Boy Scouts in 1908, and the

Girl Guides two’ years later with his sister Agnes.

An unusual item from the Second World War is a

tumbler, which commemorates the Yalta Conference in

the Crimea, (fig. 21) , the last great wartime summit

attended by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. Held in

the Livadia Palace from 4-11 February 1945, its object

was to study the consequences of the imminent defeat
of Germany, and the conditions under which the war

against Japan was to be pursued, Roosevelt was by then a
sick man, and two months later on 12 April he died.
On a goblet made by Royal Brierley in 1965, (fig. 22),

Churchill is commemorated not only
4
a statesman,

but also with symbols indicating the wide range of his

activities as a writer and an artist.
A number of writers and poets were honoured in glass,

among them Scott and Burns. Two Scottish pieces,
each depict the Scott memorial on Princess Street,
Edinburgh, designed by G. M. Kemp and erected

in 1844. The statue within the monument, by
Sir John Steele, was added two years later. A

goblet, containing an 1870 coin in the hollow
knop, (fig. 23), was probably made by Alexander

Jenkinson and engraved in the workshops of J. H. B.
Millar, and shows typical Bohemian style engraving.

The claret jug (fig. 24), was made by John Ford’s
Holyrood glassworks. In both the pieces the monument
is appropriately surrounded with sprays of thistle.
The great Scottish poet, Robert Burns, was

commemorated in glass of many types and quality. A

superb decanter with the sulphide portrait of Robert
Burns (figs. 25 & 26) was made at the John Ford

Holyrood Glasshouse between 1875 and 1880. The

sulphide, signed
Moore,
indicates that it was the work of

the medallist Joseph Moore, who had begun his career

in Birmingham making dies for buttons, then one of the

chief industries of the city. Joseph Moore also worked at
the Birmingham Mint. He was awarded a prize at the

Great Exhibition of 1851, and died fifty years later. The

same cameo of Robert Burns, (fig. 27), appears on this

John Ford paperweight, probably of about the same
date. John Ford only made sulphides for a short period

as it proved not to be commercially viable.
A pressed glass plate with the gilded portrait of Robert

Burns, (fig. 28) , after Nasmyth, and a border of thistles

bears the registered number 84787, and was registered

by Sowerbys in 1887. The design appears both as a
flat plate and a bowl. A blue Pearline glass bowl made

by George Davidson & Company c.1889 has a printed
portrait of Burns which is painted on the back. The same

technique was used for four glass paperweights, two of

which have portraits of Burns painted on the back, one
has the Burns memorial on the banks of the River

Doon and the other his cottage at Ayr. The blanks for
the paperweights were made by a number of firms,

including Sowerby, and when decorated were probably

sold for a few pennies, mostly in stationers’ shops.
The maker of a pressed glass jug (fig. 29) illustrating

Burns poem
Tam O’Shanter
is not known, nor is the date

of manufacture. It has the same scenes and the same

wreath as on a Ridgeway earthenware moulded jug
published on 31 October 1835, yet it clearly was

produced much later. Whereas the Robert Burns

sulphide decanter was a luxury item, a more popular
market was catered for by acid etched mugs and

tumblers such as those shown on fig. 30. The mug on the

left bears the Sowerby peacock head trademark. The
other two glasses probably date from the 1920s or 1930s,

and were possibly made by John Baird of Glasgow.

John Baird was certainly the maker of a jug and glass

(fig. 31) commemorating J M Barrie’s novel, A
Window in

Thrums,
first published in 1889, and bear the registration

number for 1894. The Thrums of Barrie’s novel is

Kirriemuir in Angus, and the base of both the jug

and glass are inscribed
A McPherson Proprietor Kirriemuir

Registered No. 224994.
Mr McPherson was apparently a general contractor

and his grandson told me that the glass was a side line

and was often not sold but given away to clients when
they settled their accounts. He died in 1910 and the

business was continued by his son until 1930, when it

closed. This is the only glass associated with Barrie that I
have found, although glass statuettes of Peter Pan were

produced in the 1930s.
The most prolific group, that of Royal

commemoratives, has been left to last. Among examples
by Apsley Pellatt is a scent bottle with fine cutting and a

sulphide of George IV (fig. 32). Another scent or toilet
water bottle has an intaglio moulded head of William IV
(fig. 33) and it, together with a companion bottle which

has a portrait of Queen Adelaide, are marked
Pellat &

Co. Patentees.
This refers to a patent taken out in 1831

where a cake of ‘earthy composition’ impressed with the
desired image, was placed in a segment of the mould.
The cake adhered to the glass blown in the mould and

was not removed until after the glass had been finished
and annealed, after which it was then further decorated

by fine cutting. Such examples are fairly rare. Press

moulding of glass was used to produce some of the

earliest commemoratives of Queen Victoria, mostly in
the ‘lacy’ style first evolved in the United States. This cup
plate (fig. 34), which presumably commemorates her

Coronation in 1838, has the initials
WR
incorporated in

the pattern. Hugh Wakefield has identified these initials

with the Birmingham die-sinker William Reading, who
appears in the local directories from 1828 onwards. His
initials appear also in pieces made at Baccarat and Val St.

Lambert and another Birmingham die-sinker James

Stevens is known to have supplied moulds for pressed

glass salt cellars in the United States as well as for the
local firm of Rice Harris.
A fine pair of moulded busts of Queen Victoria

and Prince Albert are inscribed
Published by F &
C

Osle,; 44 Oxford Street, May 1st, 1845,
(fig. 35). Oslar

of Birmingham also produced busts of Shakespeare,
Milton, Scott and Peel, whilst the Birmingham firm of

Lloyd & Summerfield also made busts of Victoria and

Albert. A finely cut scent bottle and stopper by John Ford
of Edinburgh, was produced about 1875, some 15 years

or so after the death of Prince Albert, whose profile is
depicted in the enclosed sulphide, (fig. 36). So many

commemoratives of Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee

were produced that the
Pottery Gazette
of 1st March 1887

was provoked to comment that ‘Glass manufacturers

have not been behind those in other trades in the

production of what are called Jubilee Goods, and I only
hope none of the firms will find they have burnt their

fingers. Such an immense number of Jubilee articles
have been put on the market that I am afraid the public

appetite will be more than satisfied.’

Certainly a vast quantity has survived. A portrait plate

for the 1887 Jubilee was produced by Sowerby’s (fig. 37)
and, like their Burns plate, the actual portrait was

often gilded at the back. A design with the familiar
dotted lettering, a crown within a wreath and the

dates 1837 and 1887 is unmarked (fig. 38), but was
probably produced by George Davidson of the Teams

Glassworks, Gateshead on Tyne. Similar lettered items

were produced by other North Eastern glassworks. A
pressed glass bowl by Greener commemorates the Silver

Wedding Anniversary of the Prince and Princess of

Wales in 1888, and was registered in that year (fig. 39). It

was also made as a flat plate and the same design was
used for a jug.

Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897 also

produced a wealth of commemoratives, including a

paperweight with a gilded background. It was produced

by Sowerby’s and reproduces one of the popular

diamond Jubilee portraits. A scent bottle with an actual

photograph shows a much cheaper method of enclosing

an image in glass than that of using a sulphide. It is

unmarked and the maker is unknown. Acid etching also
provided cheap souvenirs, and jugs and tumblers were

produced by Richardson’s enhanced with gilding and

enamelling. Simple tumblers with an acid etched
portrait of the Queen would have been even cheaper.

Up to now all the examples mentioned are of

British manufacture, but various ruby-stained articles

with stencilled or painted lettering in white enamel
are obviously of Bohemian manufacture. A tumbler
commemorating the Coronation of Edward VII on 26

June 1902, was also a seaside souvenir, being inscribed A
Present From Ramsgate.
Incidentally, most ceramic seaside

souvenirs were produced in Germany.

The coronation of George V in 1911 and the 1935

Silver Jubilee were also commemorated in glass.

An elegant loving cup, designed by Keith Murray
(1892-1981), for Stevens and Williams, commemorated

the Coronation of George VI on 12 May 1937. The same

occasion was commemorated on this tumbler of
considerably inferior quality, albeit somewhat rarer
(fig. 41). Beneath the portraits of George VI and

Elizabeth are the words
Take Action,
and a lightning flash

enclosed in a circle.
Action
was the paper produced by

the British Union of Fascists, and the lightning flash

their insignia. It was bought for the sum of 50p, the

vendor having no idea of the significance of the words or
the badge.
A two-handled bowl with ribbed handles was also

Engraved by W H Cooke,
(fig. 42). On one side is the Royal
Coat of Arms with the titles of George VI and Elizabeth,

and on the other side the American and Canadian
Emblems with the words
Peace, Goodwill and Strength unite

our Great Democracies. To Commemorate the First Visit of
Britain’s reigning Sovereign May 1939.
A large footed bowl (figs. 42 & 44), with a diameter of

131/2 inches, decorated in intaglio and sandblast with the

monogram
ER
and the Royal Coat of Arms, national

emblems and inscriptions, was made by Webb Corbett to

commemorate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in

June 1953. It was designed by Irene Stevens.
Among items celebrating the investiture of the Prince

of Wales in 1969, was a Thomas Webb goblet with a
rather fierce Welsh dragon encircling the bowl (fig. 45).

It was probably engraved by George Pope or Cyril

Kimberley, who have carried out most of the wheel

engraving at Thomas Webb’s in recent years. A loving

cup with intaglio cutting and engraving was also made by
Thomas Webb’s to commemorate the marriage of
Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips on 14

November 1973. A mallet shaped decanter, also
produced by Thomas Webb, is 15’/4ins. high, with finely

cut and engraved decoration commemorates the Silver

Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II in 1977.
All of the recent commercially produced royal

commemoratives are very traditional in style, and the

most imaginative and skilful work has been produced by
individual craftsmen and women, some of whom are

members of the Glass Circle. A great stimulus was given
to the art by the founding, in 1975, of the Guild of Glass

Engravers. A glass with the portrait of Pope John XXIII,
(fig. 46) with the papal tiara and crossed keys on the

foot, was diamond point engraved by Lawrence Whistler
and predates the foundation of the Guild since it was
executed in 1961 and was included in the Glass Circle

1962 Exhibition.
But there can be no better way to end this paper than

with a reference to the superb loving cup engraved
by our member Peter Dreiser for presentation to our
President Robert Charleston and Joan, in appreciation

of their devoted service to the Glass Circle, and featured
in detail in
Glass Circle 6.

Figure 1. Punch Bowl, wheel engraved PEACE & PLENTY

within olive sprays; on reverse, PHOENIX GLASS WORKS.

c.1815. Height 19.9cm. City of Bristol Museum & Art
Gallery.

ait1
4
1:

—I,
o

ffl

x
,qk

-; wain

Figure 3. Rummel; with bucket bowl and le mo It-squeezer foot,
wheel engraved with the Rockingham coach, the sides marked

with the destinations London, Leeds, Hull, Sheffield, York,
Yarm. On the reverse the initials WSB within a star. Below,
May the Last Journey we ever Take be the Happiest we ever

Make, and above, ‘Success to the Town and Trade of Leeds’.

Height 15cm. Private collection.
figure 2. Goblet, wheel engraved with a view of the Cottage

Glass Works of John McLachlan & Co., William Street,

Lambeth. c.1860. Height 34.5cm. Corning Museum of
Glass.

Figure 4. Rummer, the bowl wheel engraved with views of
the Sunderland Bridge and the Sunderland Exchange
(opened in 1796 and 1814 respectively), with a band of

strawberry cut diamonds below, with knopped stem and cut
foot. Probably engraved by a member of the Haddock

family. c. 1825. Height 25.4cm. Sunderland Museum & Art
Gallery.

Figure 5. Rummer; the bowl engraved with a train passing

over the High Level Bridge, Newcastle-on-Tyne, opened
to traffic on 16th January 1850. Height 15cm. Private
ol le( lion.

Figure 7. Tumbler, with acid etched view of the Forth Bridge
and an unidentified buildingwith rose, thistle and shamrock

and inscribed EAST END INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION, c.

1890. Height 11.5cm. Victoria and Albert Museum.
Figure 6. Pressed glass plate, made to commemorate the

opening of the Forth Bridge in 1890, and a tumbler, acid

etched with a view of the Forth Bridge. Plate Diameter
25cm. Tumbler Height 11.5cm. Private collection.

1111111111111111111111111111111111
Figure 8. Pressed glass plate, lettered LET GLASGOW

FLOURISH MAY 1888 GLASGOW INTERNATIONAL

EXHIBITION, and with wreath of thistles, diameter 25cm.
Private collection.

Figure 11. Magnum claret jug, engraved with a view of

the Alexandra Palace, London, and a dedicatory inscrip-

tion to Sir Sills John Gibbons, Lord Mayor of London in

1872. Signed at base of handle ‘Eng. by F Eisert’. Victoria

& Albert Museum.
Figure 12. Pressed glass sugar bowl, registered by Henry

Greener; Wear Flint Glass
Works,
Sunderland, 31 July

1869 to commemorate Gladstone’s first administration.

Lettered GLADSTONE FOR THE MILLION. Bowl

Height 10.7cm. Private collection.

Figure 9. Two tumblers, with transfer printed decoration.

Left: printed in red with a lion rampant and EMPIRE

EXHIBITION SCOTLAND 1938, and wheel engraved on

reverse `Lottie’. Right: printed in white with views of

the EMPIRE EXHIBITION SCOTLAND 1938, PALACE

OF ENGINEERING, PALACE OF INDUSTRY, GARDEN
CLUB and DOMINIONS PAVILION, with the TOWER OF

EMPIRE IN THE CENTRE. Both Height 11.2cm. Private
collection.
I

Figure 10. Magnum claret jug, engraved with a view of
the Alexandra Palace, London, and a dedicatory inscrip-

tion to Sir Sills John Gibbons, Lord Mayor of London in
1872. Signed at base of handle ‘Eng. by F Eisert’. Victoria

& Albert Museum.

Figure 13. Pressed plate, registered by Henry Greener;

Wear Flint Glass Works, Sunderland, 31 July 1869

to commemorate Gladstone’s first administration. Let-

tered GLADSTONE FOR THE MILLION. Plate Diameter
19.7cm. Private collection.
Figure 14. Sugar basin, of opaque white pressed glass with

portrait head of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield.
Lettered on reverse, ‘Earl Beaconsfield, the Hero of the
Congress, Berlin, July 1878’. Registered by Henry Greener;
Wear Flint Glass works, Sunderland, 31st August 1878.

Height 14cm. Private collection.

Figure 15. Moulded frosted glass bust of Benjamin
Disraeli, probably made by John Ford’s Holyrood

Glassworks. c.1875. Height 24cm. Victoria & Albert

Museum.
Figure 16. Pressed glass plate, commemorating the American

philanthropist GEORGE PEABODY (1795-1869) Made by

Henry Greener, Wear Flint Glass Works, Sunderland, and

registered 7 December 1869. Diameter 19.7cm. Sunderland

Museum & Art Gallery.

Figure 19. Pressed glass plate commemorating the capture of

Pretoria by Frederic Sleigh Roberts on 5 June 1900. Maker

unknown. Diameter 25cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.
Figure 20. Pressed glass plate, commemorating the relief

of Mafeking on 17th May 1900. Diameter 25cm. Private

collection.

Figure 17. Pressed glass mug, showing the oarsman Edward

Hanlon, champion of the world, who beatEdward Trickett of
New South Wales on 15th November 1880. Made by Henry
Greener & Co. and registered 8 December 1880. Height
10.4cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.
Figure 18. Pressed glass mug, showing the oarsman Edward

Hanlon, champion of the world, who beat Edward Trickett of

New South Wales on 15th November 1880. Made by Henry
Greener & Co. and registered 8 December 1880. Height
10.4cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.

Figure 21. Acid etched tumbler, with portrait heads

of President Roosevelt, Marshal Stalin and Winston

Churchill, commemorating the Yalta Conference of 4 to 11

February 1945. Height 11.5cm. Private collection.
Figure 22. Goblet, engraved with a portrait of Sir Winston

Churchill and with inscriptions relating to his career as a

soldier; statesman, author and painter. Made by Stevens
and Williams Ltd. (Royal Brierley Crystal). Height 16.5cm.

Royal Brierley Crystal.

Figure 23. Goblet, engraved with a view of Sir Walter Scott’s
memorial, Edinburgh, surrounded by sprays of thistles.

Probably made by AlexanderJenkinson and engraved in the

workshop of f H B Millar. The hollow knop in the stem
contains a coin of 1870. Height 26.7cm. Private collection.
Figure 24. Claret jug, engraved with a view of Sir Walter

Scott’s memorial, Edinburgh, surrounded with sprays of

roses and thistles. Made byJohn Ford’s Holyrood Glassworks
c.1870, and probably engraved in the workshops of J H B

Millar. Height 30cm. Huntly House Museum, Edinburgh.

Figure 25. Decanter & stopper; with cut decoration and a

sulphide portrait of Robert Burns, surrounded by an

engraved wreath. Made by John Ford’s Holyrood Glass

Works, between 1870 and 1875. The sulphide signed

‘Moore’ (for the medallist Joseph Moore — died 1901).

Height 26cm. inc. stopper: Private collection.
Figure 26. Detail of the sulphide of Robert Burns.

Figure 27. Paperweight of clear glass, wheel engraved, with
cameo-head of Robert Burns signed MOORE. Diamond

point engraved on base ‘Robert Burns’. Made by John

Ford’s Holyrood Glass Works c. 1875. Height 5.6cm. Depth

6cm. Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh.
Figure 28. Pressed glass plate, with portrait of Robert

Burns, gilded at the back, and surrounded with a wreath

of thistles. Made
by Sowerby’s Ellison Glass Works,

Gateshead-on-Tyne, and registered in 1887. Diameter
24.5cm. Private collection.

-zt•

sue,

if=

4
tik

Figure 32. Scent or smelling salts bottle, with
sulphide of

George 1v, impressed on the back Pellatt and Green,

Patentees, Landon’. c.1820. Height 8cm. Private collection.

Figure 29. Pressed glass water jug, with scenes taken from

Robert Burns’s poem Tam O’Shanter: Based on a Ridgway

jug of 1835, but obviously later in date. Maker unknown.
Height 12.8cm. Private collection.

Figure 31. Water jug and tumbler, with acid etched view of
a cottage commemorating J M Barrie’s novel ‘A window in

Thrums’, first published in 1889. Base of both jug and glass

inscribed ‘A McPherson Proprietor Kirrientuir Registered No.

224994. Made byJohn Baird of Glasgow, 1894. Height, Jug
11.5cm, Tumbler 9.5cm. Private collection.
Figure 30. A Sowerby mug and two tumblers, probably

by John Baird of Glasgow, with etched portrait of

Robert Burns. Heights 8cm, 11.5cm and 9.2cm. Private

collection.

Figure

33.
Cul glass toilet water bottle, with intaglio moulded

head of William
iv
marked ‘Pellatt & Co. Patentees’. Made

by Apsley Pellatt, Falcon Glass Works, London. c.1831.

Height 10.5 cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.

Figure 35. Moulded glass busts of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert,
inscribed ‘Published by F & C Osier; 44 Oxford Street, London, May 1st

1845’. Heights 24.3cm and 23.7cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.
Figure 34. Pressed glass plate, with a crown and VR in the centre.

The

border includes the initials WR thought to be those of the mould maker
William Reading. Made to commemorate the coronation of Queen Victoria

on 28June 1838. Diameter 12.7 cm. Private collection.

Figure 36. Cut glass scent bottle and stopper, with sulphide
portrait of Prince Albert. Made byJohn Ford’s Holyrood Glass
Works c. 1875. Height 18.4cm. Royal Scottish Museum,

Edinburgh.

Figure 38. Pressed glass plate, lettered THE QUEEN’S

JUBII
FE
with a crown enclosed in a wreath and the dates

1837 and 1887. Probably made by George Davidson & Co.

Diameter 24cm. Victoria
& Albert Museum.

Figure 37. Pressed glass plate, with portrait of Queen Victoria, lettered YEAR

OF JUBILEE 1887. Made by Sowerby’s Ellison Glassworks 1887. Diameter

24.5 cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.

Figure 39. Pressed glass bowl, made to commemorate the Silver Wedding of the

Figure 40. Tumbler, with acid etched portrait of
Queen

Prince and Princess of Wales, in 1888. Made by Henry Greener and registered.

Victoria. Made to commemorate the DiamondJubilee of 1897.

Diameter 24cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.

Height 11.5cm. Private collection.

Figure 41. Tumbler with acid etched portrait of George VI

& Queen Elizabeth, lettered OUR KING AND QUEEN
LONG MAY THEY REIGN, with TAKE ACTION above a

lightning flash in a circle, the symbol of the British Union of

Fascists. Height 11.5cm. Private collection.
Figure 42. The Democracy Cup, designed by Keith Murray

and made by Stevens and Williams (Royal Brierky
Crystal), 1939, to commemorate the visit of George VI and

Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) to Canada and the

USA in May 1939. Victoria & Albert Museum.

Figure 43. Footed bowl, designed by Irene Stevens and
decorated in intaglio and sandblasting with monogram

ER and the Royal Coat of Arms, national emblems and
inscriptions, to commemorate the Coronation of Queen

Elizabeth H in June 1953. Made by Webb Corbett. Diameter

34.3cm. Victoria & Albert Museum
Figure 44. Footed bowl, designed by Irene Stevens and

decorated in intaglio and sandblasting with monogram
ER and the Royal Coat of Arms, national emblems and

inscriptions, to commemorate the Coronation of Queen
Elizabeth II inJune 1953. Made by Webb Corbett. Diameter
34.3cm. Victoria & Albert Museum.

Figure 45. Goblet, wheel engraved with a Welsh dragon and

Figure 46. Goblet, engraved with diamond point in stipple

lettering commemorating the investiture of Prince Charles as

and line by Lawrence Whistler with a portrait of Pope John

Prince of Wales in 1969. Made by Thomas Webb & Sons Ltd.

XXIII on the bowl, and the Papal tiara and crossed keys

Height 16.5cm. Thomas Webb & Sons Ltd.

on the foot, 1961. Private collection.

FLASHED GLASS – AN ENGLISH ‘FIRST’?

by R. J. Charleston

A Paper read to the Circle on 23 June, 1988

It is one thing to think of the subject for a paper, but

another to think of a title for it which will not give the

game away before one has opened one’s mouth. I should
prefer, therefore, not to be held strictly to the implied

terms of the title which I put to this paper some months

ago, but be allowed to anticipate the objections which

will certainly have sprung to your minds – ‘flashed and
cased glass? What about the Romans?’ The objection
must self-evidently be sustained, and its embodiment is

of course the Portland Vase, now reputedly once again in

more than two hundred pieces and due to enter

upon its third re-incarnation. The Portland Vase and
its kith have a layer of opaque-white glass over a
normally dark-blue barely translucent body-glass, and

the pieces of this whole class are carved, presumably on

the wheel, in the style of the contemporary cameos

in agate and other layered stones. (Why, incidently,

are they always of
blue
glass when the semi-precious

stones incline to brown, a colour which the Roman

glass-makers were fully competent to reproduce?). The
Roman cameo-glasses are widely regarded as having

been made by the cased rather than the flashed method,

and this was certainly the technique employed by the
first copyists of the Portland Vase who responded to

Benjamin Richardson’s challenge of a thousand pounds
to the first successful imitator.’ But what of that other

famous class of relief-decorated Roman glasses, the

so-called
diatreta?
These, with their sometimes three

bands of colours on an inner body of colourless glass,
could hardly have been produced by the cupping

method, and must have been made by applying the

coloured areas to a gather or thick paraison of colourless

crystal, the bottom area perhaps by a second gather, the

upper zones by application, perhaps thread-wound.
2
It is

perhaps not too fanciful to see in the different artistic

effects of these glasses two separate approaches to the

production of layered glasses apt for decoration on the

lapidary’s wheel – one opaque, sombre and rich in effect,

the other translucent and bright.
We may reasonably skip the Dark Ages, although they

too were not without their colouristic effects, and move

straight to the medieval period, when window-glass – at
least until the end of the 13th century – may be

deemed to have carried the artistic banner as far as

glass-making was concerned. Pot-metals of glorious
blue and green were used beside panels of imperfect

colourless metal and muddy tones of pink and yellow, all

transfigured by the magnificent firm
grisaille
painting of
the Romanesque artists and their successors. Red was a

problem, for a mix too saturated with copper produced a

colour that was black and almost totally opaque. Various
means seem to have been attempted to disperse the

copper thinly in a colourless matrix,
3
but ultimately

the approved method emerged in the technique of

flashing, whereby a colourless thick gather was covered

over by a second thinner gather of the ruby mix.

This seems to have occurred at latest by the 14th
century. The technique was later, probably from the 15th

century, applied also to blue and green. In the 15th

century the flashed glasses •were much used for the
heraldic themes beloved of the time, a wide variety

of effects being obtained by abrading the surface to
expose the colourless glass below, the chromatic effects

being greatly extended by the use of yellow silver-stain

which turned colourless to varying tones of yellow, blue
to green, and so on.
4
Nobody has produced a very

convincing account of how this abrasion was carried out

on a quite thin potash-lime glass prone to splintering.

It is generally recognized that, in England at least, the

art of stained glass went into decline in the 17th century,

mainly owing to the spread of the enamel-painted

technique, by which colours were painted on plain

colourless panels, in place of a mosaic of different

glasses coloured in their substance, with
grisaille
painting

supplying the details. The drift towards enamel-painting

was accelerated by the scarcity of good coloured glass,

which hitherto had been mainly derived from Lorraine,
a province laid waste by war at this time.
5
We shall return

to this theme later.

From northern European stained glass we turn aside

momentarily to another area of Europe, to consider an

isolated episode in the early years of the 18th century in

Saxony, an area with a long history of glass-making, and
in the years about 1700 greatly elevated in importance

by the fact that the Elector of Saxony was also the

King of Poland. Saxony was a country rich in mineral

resources, and in accordance with the mercantilist ideas

of the period, strenuous attempts were made to exploit
indigenous resources in local industries, to save on

imports from abroad. The most striking example of the

successful application of this theory was the founding

of the famous Meissen porcelain factory; but already

between 1699 and 1700 a glasshouse had been set

up in the outskirts of Dresden (Neuostra) to make

fine-quality glassware for the Court, as is implied by its
high-sounding title of ‘Royal Polish and Electoral Saxon

glasshouse’.

6
Largely instrumental in this enterprise was

Ehrenfried Walter von Tschirnhaus, a Saxon nobleman

who also played a dominant role in the setting-up of the
porcelain manufacture and who may lay a strong claim
to being the chief discoverer of the secret of making

hard-paste porcelain in Europe.? His chief assistant in
this, and ultimately the presiding genius of the Meissen

porcelain-factory, was the former alchemist Johann

Friedrich Mager. In the early days of the Meissen

factory much effort was expended on the development

of a fine-grained red stoneware inspired by the imported

Chinese red stoneware of Yi-Xing. Although Bottger’s
red stoneware could be decorated by bright jeweller’s

enamels, it was far more suitably ornamented by means
of cutting and engraving on the lapidary’s wheel. Saxony

was famous for its deposits of semiprecious stones, and a

cutting-shop had been installed at Dresden before the
turn of the century.
8

It was no doubt this connection with

cutting and engraving which drew Banger into the orbit

of the Neuostra glassworks. The old cutting-shop was

destroyed by the Swedish invasion of Saxony in 1706 and

1707, but was rebuilt at Neuostra by Bottger in 1711, and
he became engaged in other forms of activity, including

research, at the glasshouse. In the words of Johann
Melchior Steinbruck, who became Inspector of the

Meissen factory and who was Bottger’s brother-in-law:

‘He has also discovered a kind of ruby glass, a specimen

of which he sends to your majesty, and … believes that it is
the first that has ever been made’. This was written

some time after July, 1713.
9
By this date, in fact,

the knowledge of how to make ruby glass was fairly

widespread in Central Europe,
19

and the distinguishing

feature of Bottger’s discovery was made explicit in
a further passage from Steinbriick’s account: ‘The

invention consists in the fact that the glass is not red in its
thickness, but only on one side, that is, on the inside or

the outside, so that it seems nevertheless to be entirely
red. But if it is engraved either externally or internally, so

that the thin red layer is cut away, the colourless

glass shines out, and gives an extraordinarily beautiful

appearance:
11
In short, he made a ruby-flashed glass

which could be engraved to give a colourless pattern on
a red ground, and a few glasses of this character, one of

them decorated with the AR monogram of Augustus the

Strong, survive in the collections of the Grfines Gewolbe

in Dresden.” So Mager should properly be regarded as
the inventor of flashed engraved ruby glass in Europe,

and thus somewhat undermines again the terms of my

title. But the episode was an isolated occurrence and the

glasses in question exceptionally rare. The process now

slipped into oblivion for a matter of seventy years, so
there can hardly be any question of continuity, and the

story must be taken up afresh in England.
As I have already said, the 17th century saw a rapid

decline in the traditional art of stained-glass in England,

to be replaced by painting in enamel-colours on plain
panels of glass, in the manner of easel-painting, with

much use of
grisaille
and yellow-stain. The majority

of this work was devoted to heraldic panels, and
figural windows were relatively rare, although Abraham

and Bernard van Linge, immigrants from Emden
in Germany, executed a considerable number of

commissions during the Laudian revival of church art.”

The Civil War was clearly not a good time for stained

glass windows, but with the Restoration came a revival

which centred on London and York. In the latter city
Henry Gyles (1645-1709) did accomplished work

in
grisaille,
yellow-stain, red produced by repeated

applications of yellow-stain in place of pot-metal, and an

imperfect enamel blue,
14
while in London members of

the Price family kept the art alive for two generations

and are credited with having preserved the recipe for

ruby glass.
15
This handful of artists then, together with

John Rowell of High Wycomb,
16

Francis Egerton in

Birmingham, James Pearson of London (and later his

wife Eglington Margaret Pearson) and a few more,
precariously steered the art of stained glass in England
through the middle years of the 18th century. Probably

of greater stature than any of these, however, certainly in

the technical field, was the man who is really the hero of

this paper — William Peckitt of York, born in 1731 and

died in 1795.
17
He began his glass-painting career in

1751, so satisfactorily fills up the second half of the 18th
century. He helped to carry the torch through to the

time when the revival of ecclesiastical stained-glass

followed on from the Gothic revival in architecture.
Horace Walpole, himself a notable pioneer of Gothic
revival, who himself employed Peckitt and was roughly

his contemporary, summed the matter up succinctly in a

foot-note to his
Anecdotes of Painting in England . . . (1782)
:

`It may not be unwelcome to the curious

reader to see some anecdotes of the revival of
taste for painted glass in England. Price, as I

have said, was the only painter in that style for

many years in England. Afterwards, one

Rowell, a plumber at Reading, did some
things, particularly for the late Henry Earl

of Pembroke, but Rowell’s colours soon

vanished. At last he found out a very beautiful

and durable red, but he died in a year or

two and the secret with him. A man at

Birmingham began the same art in 1756, or

57, and fitted up a window for Lord Lyttelton
in the Church of Hagley, but soon broke. A
little after him one Peckitt at York, began

the same business, and has made good
proficience. A few lovers of the art collected

some dispersed panes from ancient buildings,

particularly the late Lord Cobham, who

erected a gothic temple at Stowe, and filled it

with arms of the old Nobility, &c. About the

year 1753, one Asciotti an Italian . .. brought a

parcel of painted glass from Flanders, and

sold it for a very few guineas . . . Upon that I

sent Asciotti again to Flanders, who brought

me 450 pieces …’

One point should be cleared at the outset. Peckitt was

not a pupil of Henry Gyles, of York, who died in 1709, 22

years before Peckitt’s birth. Peckitt was the son of
a glove-maker, who appears to have moved to York
in 1734, and there was apparently no glazier living

in York at that time to whom he could have been

apprenticed. It has been suggested that he might have
migrated to London for a while, perhaps learning

his craft from a member of the Price family. Peckitt

himself, however, seemed to suggest otherwise. In an

advertisement published in 1752 he describes himself:
‘William Peckitt, son of William Peckitt,
the noted glovemaker next door to the

Sandhill in Colliergate, York, thinks proper

to advertise all gentlemen, clergymen and

others that by many experiments he has
found out the art of painting or staining of

glass in all kinds of colours and all sorts
of figures, as scripture pieces for church

windows, arms in heraldry, etc., in the neatest
and liveliest manner, specimens of which may

be seen at the house aforesaid …’

After his death, his wife Mary maintained that he

was self-taught, and his daughter Harriet wrote in

The Gentleman’s Magazine
for May, 1817, confirming

the originality of his researches. The family indeed

seems to have been of an original and entrepreneurial

stamp, with links to both the sciences and the arts. His
brother became a respectable apothecary (a calling

not without relevance to glass technology) and his

wife’s father, Charles Mitley, was a York statuary and
carver. This is not the place in which to enlarge upon
Peckitt’s skill as a glass-painter. Whatever his technical

accomplishments, he did not always give satisfaction as

an artist. Although he excelled in heraldic work, large

figural panels strained his capacities as a draughtsman.

When he executed the West window of the chapel at

New College, Oxford, later replaced by Sir Joshua
Reynold’s design, the College was so dissatisfied that

they would only agree to his reglazing the windows on

the North side of the choir on condition that he found

an accepted artist to design the cartoons, a role finally
filled by the Italian Biagio Rebecca (1735-1808), a pupil

of G. B. Cipriani. I wish, however, to concentrate

primarily on one of his technical innovations.
In November, 1780, William Peckitt was granted a

patent for the production of his ‘new Invention of

Composing Stained Glass with Un-stained Glass, and
Grinding, with Variety of Ornaments, the Various Works

formed of the same . . . ‘
.
18
His specification for his

method of achieving this ran as follows:
‘Let the glass maker gather a required
quantity of uncouler’d glass, either crown,

flint, or any other sort, from the melting pot

while it is flexibly hot, upon the end of an iron

pipe or like instrument, which glass must

be then marbled level and smooth; then
immediately he must gather upon that, over

the whole or any particular place or places, a

quantity, as judged proper, of coloured or

stained glass of the same temper from another
pot, which
in
like manner he must marble,

blow, and spread level and smooth, heating in

again the same as often as occasion shall

require; or let him gather a required quantity

of the coloured glass from the melting
pot, first, upon the end of the iron pipe,

and marble it round and smooth, then
immediately upon that he must gather a

required quantity of the uncoloured glass,

and marble it level, heat it, blow it, open

it, and then form the same into tables,

sheets, vessels, or ornaments, according to his

intention and ingenuity, and immediately put
them respectively into the annealing furnace

to be properly cooled. Then the glass

cutter, by his apparatus of wheels and other
instruments (as commonly used), with water,

or oil, and emery, must grind off so much of
the coloured glass from the un-coloured glass,

which must appear in ornamental devices in
parts, polishing the same with oil, tripoli, and
putty, as his ingenuity shall dictate. Then the

work is finished …’

Peckitt practised what he preached, and a number

of panels survive which can be traced back to his

original possession (fig. 1). It may be objected that this

was no true invention, since the late-medieval glazier
had long since abraded the flashed glass which he

had obtained from the glass-maker or merchant. With

Peckitt, however, the process applied to the whole

decoration of the panel, and it was clear that he aimed to

control the glass-making process as well as the cutting of
the finished flashed panes. It has been objected that

Peckitt had, so far as is known, no glasshouse, although

he certainly had a furnace for firing his stained-glass

panels. He lived in Micklegate, and it has been suggested

that he may have bought the house previously owned by

Henry Gyles, perhaps with workshops which might have

included a glass-furnace. He was clearly not a full-scale

glass manufacturer, but he may have had a pot or two at
his own disposal, whether in Micklegate or in some local

glasshouse where he may have played a supervisory role

akin to that of a modern glass-designer overseeing the

production of his designs at a factory such as Orrefors.

Only one flint-glass house appears to be recorded for

York. This was the Fishergate Glass Works, established in

1794, according to L. M. Angus-Butterworth.
19

Since

Peckitt died in 1795 this hardly leaves time for the

production of a body of work in the engraved flashed

technique as extensive as that which has survived, to say
nothing of what must have been lost in the interim.

Indeed, some examples are known which can be dated
to the 1780s.

That Peckitt had an intimate and extensive knowledge

of the glass-making process there can be no doubt.

There survives in the York City Art Gallery a manuscript
entitled ‘The Principals
[sic]

of Introduction into that

rare but fine and elegant Art of painting and staining

of Glass’, dated 1793 and curiously signed ‘Pr. Wm.

Peckitt’. It is written out with great care in a fine

hand (fig. 2), and is evidently a recension of material

gathered together presumably in a less organised form..
It was no doubt intended for publication. Indeed, his

widow circulated a printed prospectus of the book. It

begins, as would be natural for a stained-glass artist,

with recipes for making fluxes and enamels, running
to sixteen pages. Then follow eight pages on the

dissolution and precipitation of gold and silver as the
basis of various colours, and ten on the management of
the furnace for stained-glass. Then, without further

preamble, the manuscript turns to glass-making, as

opposed to glass-painting, starting with three pages on

each of which are beautifully set out six recipes for the
making of various types of flint and other glasses, both

colourless and coloured, the colours comprising ruby,

yellow, blue, green, purple and blue-purple, the first

four of which are certainly found in surviving specimens

of Peckitt’s patent engraved glass. Two of the formulae
for flint-glass bear the initials evidently of the people

from whom Peckitt had obtained them — M. C. and G. P.,

neither of whom has been identified. The recipes show

considerable insight into the technology of the subject,

distinguishing between the desirability of introducing

`zaffre’ into the batch for blue glass
after

the glass was

fully melted (or ‘fluxed’ as he terms it), as opposed to

the calcined copper for green, where he notes ‘all to be

fluxed together from the first: for copper and iron cast

in after, turns the glass red.’ Manganese for purple, on

the other hand, ‘must be cast in at several times . . . and

tried, to ascertain the tint, after the Glass is fluxed. All

fluxed together is not so well’. Yellow flint glass is

coloured by ‘Iron Rust in powder’ and ‘Calcined Copper
in powder’, with the observation ‘all alcaline salts

distroys this colour; as such, must the Iron and Copper

(be) cast into the Glass after fluxed’. All these recipes

are for various colours of flint-glass
for windows.

The

third sheet registers formulae for coloured flint-glass

intended to be flashed on crown glass for windows — in
his own words ‘flint glass for windows to cover crown

Glass’, each formula including a percentage of ‘Old

Crown Cullet powdered and sifted’ to be compounded

in the coloured batch in the proportions roughly of two
parts of flint to one of crown glass. This common
ingredient presumably facilitated the cohesion of the

two types of glass in the flashing process.
These formulae are also accompanied by instructions

which seem to show a practical experience of actual
process as well as theoretical knowledge. Thus for the

recipe ‘Blue Flint Glass for Windows to cover Crown

Glass’ the zaffer ‘may be cast in and well stirred, after;
the glass is fluxed; is best. or if the Pielend is well closed.

The whole mixed before fluxed, not so well.’ The word

‘Pielend’ presumably stands for ‘pile end’ and refers to
the piling pot in which coloured glasses were melted and

which often stood on the main pots for crystal, glass.

The three pages of recipes are followed by a formula

`To stain a scarlet red in Glass to cover flint or crown

Glass’ which describes the making of a copper ruby in

meticulous detail. This complements the short formula

given in a preceding page and the more elaborate gold
ruby formula given towards the beginning of the Ms.

The copper-ruby recipe shows evidence of that practical

expertise already alluded to. This section is followed by a

surprise — a blow-by-blow account of the making of

a crown of flashed coloured glass, illustrated by two
diagrams.
`The Gathering of colourd Glass, marked A

under the ball of clear Glass B must be near

this form and size, taken out of the Pielend

and blown a little to pierce it, as at C by
the iron Pipe; as D upon the
end

of which

as near as possible it must be suspended:
(else the colour will be too deep collected

near the rim of the Table) then levelled or

marbled smooth from the wreaths, formed in

gathering. (Or else it will be likewise so

on the Table when flashed). The two next
Gatherings must be of Crown, or Flint, Glass,

in the form of a ball of near 8 inches in

diameter if crown (or 7 inches if Flint) Glass.

(A Table of this size will weigh about 14

pounds avoirdupoise, measuring 48 inches in

diameter when flashed, at about 1/10 of an
inch thick and the coloured Glass upon it

about 1/6 or 1/8 of that 1/10 if regularly

spread, which must be
so
maniged with all
due

Care, or the Tables is of but
little
value. A Table

so formed will yield above 12 sqr feet of Glass.)
Then this ball must be heated in, blown again,
and marbled from its wreaths into the shape

of E as the Glass Blowers very well know. The

Flint Glass must be of the temper of the

Composition No. 4 or it will bend in the

annealing in and if the coloured Glass is too
soft for the Crown Glass, it will vent it when
cold.

N.B. The
red
Colour’d Glass in flashing

becomes colourless: but the Annealing in

restores it.’

There follows yet another recipe ‘For a Ruby Red Flint

Glass to cover Tables of Crown, or Flint, Glass’ and a

formula for ‘a gold yellow Flint Glass to cover Tables of

Flint or Crown Glass’, which is basically coloured with

gold and iron combined.

After this another surprise. ‘For an Emerald Green

Flint Glass, to cover colourless Flint Glass,
for Vessels,

followed by similar formulae for `Saphire Blue’ and

`Amthist Violet’, both also ‘for Vessels’. Then come

instructions `To cover uncoloured Flint Glass with the

Stained Flint Glass’ (fig. 2)

`Having in readiness a covered Pot of Flint

Glass fluxed and fined, of the same temperwith
the coloured Glass (for therein consists the

safety of the vessel to be formed: or otherwise
this in the cold by contracting more then

the other Glass will vent it) make a first

gathering of the former upon your iron Pipe,

in proportion to the Vessel or Ornament
intended to be formed; and upon that make a

second gathering if necessary: then marble it

smooth from the wreaths, pierce it, and let

it cool a little: after which make a thin

gathering of the coloured Glass upon that,
and immediately while hot/or if not hot

enough., heat it in a little: but not to let
the first gatherings be made hotter) with

the Pucellars screwingly scrape off quickly

as much of this coloured Glass as thought
unnecessary (which nip of at the end, and put

into the melting Glass, close down by the
mouth of the Pielend.) Then heat in the

covered Glass on the Pipe, marble it smooth,
blow, and form it into the shape designed.

Anneal it then gradually for to temper it.
`Or if the design is intended for salvers or

Dishes. A first Gathering very small, or as

judged necessary, must be made on the iron

Pipe of the coloured Glass: which then must
be held in the heat to level the wreaths formed

in the gathering, then pierce, and marble it, if

necessary: after being a little cool, make a

second Gathering, and a third, if requisite,

(sufficient for the Vessel to be formed,) which

marble also, heat in, and blow; and the

coloured Glass will spread on the inside
thin and regular. Then fix it on a Puntee,

crack off the Pipe, heat it in, and flash it

out immediately; turning the coloured side

outward, and the edge towards the Puntee. so

Anneal it …’

Here is a clear parallel with the making of the

coloured crown, but the vessel is flint, whereas the

window was more usually flint on crown.
So we may be sure that Peckitt intended to make cased

vessels with engraved decoration, as the wording of his
Patent specification confirms: ‘let him (the glass-blower)

. . . heat it, blow it, open it, and then form the same into

tables, sheets, vessels or ornaments, according to his

intention and ingenuity . . There is in the Yorkshire

Philosophical Society’s Museum in York a small group

of seven largish double-ogee drinking-glasses. Three

of them are obvious failures, two being of bubbly

green-brown metal, and the third, now almost black, was

probably originally cobalt-blue or manganese-purple

(fig. 3). The fourth is a blue overlay glass cut with oval

panels and sun-bursts (fig. 4, b), and the fifth carried this

scheme of decoration even further, with a ring engraved
round each of the oval cuts and splits grouped as trefoils

below the rim (Fig. 4, c). The sixth is cut through a

manganese-purple overlay, but the cutting has gone too

deep and pierced the underlying crystal as well as the

overlay (fig. 4, a). The feet have been decorated with a

trail of coloured glass which has then been broken by

scalloping the feet on the cutting-wheel.
Associated with these drinking-glasses is a dish

of pinkish-brown bubbled glass, presumably an
experiment which failed. We know from the passage in

his manuscript just quoted that Peckitt specifically

foresaw making dishes by the crown process.
This group of glasses virtually certainly came to the

Yorkshire Philosophical Society’s collection through the

offices of Canon J. Raine, who went to York in 1856;

became Curate and then Vicar of All Saints, PAvement,

and ultimately a Canon of York Minster; and died there

in 1896. An edition of the
Handbook to the Antiquities of the

Yorkshire Philosophical Society
published in 1891 states:

`In the Council Room in the Museum are some most

interesting specimens (the only ones known) of his
(i.e. Peckitt’s) attempt to adapt colours to drinking

glasses and plates. These were purchased on the death of
his daughter or granddaughter and were given to the

Society by the Curator of Antiquities’, who was of course
Canon Raine. There was at one time in the case with

the glasses a label in Raine’s handwriting: ‘Coloured

Drinking Glasses, etc. made by Peckitt the York glass

stainer, circa 1760. Exhibited by J. R.’ The sale from

which Raines acquired the glasses was that of Harriet
Peckitt, the artist’s daughter, who died in 1864 and

the sale of whose effects took place in February, 1866,

including ‘3 Magnificent Stained Glass Windows’ and a

number of portrait panels. The circumstantial evidence

lining the Museum glasses with Peckitt seems very strong

indeed, and would care to lay his hand on his heart

and ever that these double-ogee glasses
could not
date

from about 1795, although we may readily,
scout Canon

Raine’s suggested date of c.1760.

If we can screw ourselves up to accept that Peckitt

might indeed have made these glasses in an

experimental phase about the time he prepared his Ms.

(1793), we may suppose that this phase succeeded the

mastery of the art on flat glass, a succession of events

entirely natural to a glass-stainer. His mention of vessels

in the patent specification in 1780 was no doubt made
`in spe’.

One point remains. If we grant that Peckitt had a

complete grasp of glassmaking technique, are we also to

suppose that he was equally proficient in the arts of

cutting and engraving? Some of the flashed panels are of

great beauty and would have called for both consulate

technique and considerable artistry on the part of the

executant. I doubt whether we need to attribute these

additional skills to Peckitt.
2
° There was already in York a

possible source from which they might have derived.

On 22 July, 1774,
Etherington’s York Chronicle
advertised:

`Thomas Surr, shopman to the late Mr. Marfitt, Glass

Seller, has purchased his late master’s stock in trade,
consisting of a large and elegant assortment of Cut,
Flowered and Plain Glass, and purposes carrying on the

business in all its branches in the same shop. The same
hands are engaged for cutting and engraving.’
21
From

March, 1775 until July, 1778, Surr advertised in the same

journal ‘The best manufactured cut engraved and plain

glass of the newest and most fashionable patterns . .
:
22
,

and he may well have continued beyond this date. There

seems to be every reason to suppose that such a concern
might have supplied the cutting skills which Peckitt

needed.

We arrive, therefore, at a position where we must

accept that William Peckitt, whether with his own hands
or by direct oversight of subordinate craftsmen, knew

how to flash flint and crown glass with a variety

of colours, for it then to be cut and engraved

through the flashing to obtain designs in colourless

glass on a coloured ground — in fact, the classic

`i.Jberfang’ glass of Bohemian/German glassmaking.

The earliest Bohemian firm known to have produced

`i
•
Jberfang’ glass appears to be the Harrach concern in

Nuewelt, recorded as having mastered the technique of

flashing ruby on vessel-glass in 1828, and showing

lampshades and window-panels in this technique as ‘new
production’ at the Prague Exhibition of 1829.
23
In the

production of flashed engraved glass, as in the successful
evolution of ruby overlay (both copper- and gold-based),

Peckitt was thirty years ahead of his time. It gives a

slightly uncanny feeling to read among his recipes: ‘For
an Opaque Milk white to cover colourless Flint Glass for

Vessels’, a process which has no place in a glass-stainer’s

repertory but which was a
cliche

in the glass industry of

the Biedermeier epoch.

NOTES
1.
Geoffrey W. Beard,
Nineteenth Century Cameo Glass

(Newport, 1956), pp.12

2.
See, e.g., the `Trivulzio’ and Kaln-Braunsfeld

diatreta

the
Catalogue
of the Corning/British Museum/Cologne

Exhibition
Glass of the Caesars
(Milan, 1987), pp.238-41.

3.
M. Spitzer-Aronson, ‘Physique et Recherche

fondamentale au Service de l’Histoire des Vitraux
Medievaux’,

Annales du 7e. Congres de l’Association

Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre
(Liege, 1978),

pp.309-20.

4.
Cf. B. Rackham,
A Guide to the Collections of Stained Glass

(Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1936), pp.17-19.

5.
J. Knowles, ‘The Source of the Coloured Glass used in

Medieval Stained Glass Windows’,
Glass
(March, 1926),

pp.157-9; (April, 1926), pp.201-3; (June, 1926), pp.295-6.

6.
Gisela Haase,
Sachsisches Glas

(Leipzig, 1988), pp.116

7.
W. B. Honey,

Dresden China
(London, 1954), pp.41 ff.

8.
Haase, op.
cit.,
p.115.

9.
Walter Holzhausen, `Sachsisches Rubinglas und

Steingefasse von J. F. Mager’,
Belvedere,

XII. Jahrgang

(1934/37), p.17.

10.
F. A. Dreier, ‘Glass imitating Rock Crystal and Precious

Stones — 16th and 17th Century Wheel Engraving and
Gold Ruby Glass’
The Glass Circle,

6 (1989), pp. 13-14.

11.
loc.cit.
in n.9.

•

12.
Haase, op.

cit.,
Pls. 86-7, p.319, No.100 cf. the flasks made

by flashing colourless over ruby,
ibid.,

Pls. 88-90, p.320,

Nos. 101-2.

13.
Rackman, pp. 120-1; E. Liddall Armitage,
Stained Glass

(London, 1959), pp. 50-1, etc.

14.
Rackham, pp. 121-2.

15.
J. A. Knowles, ‘The Price Family of Glass-painters’,

AntiquariesJournal,
XXXIII, Nos. 3, 4 (1953), pp. 184-92.

16.
S. M. Gold,
John Rowell,
privately printed (1968).

17.
The information given in what follows is derived essentially

from the work of the late J. A. Knowles and of Dr J. Trevor
Brighton: JAK, ‘Glass Painters of York’,
Notes and Queries,

12th Series, IX (1921), pp. 323-5, 363-6, 404-6 and 4424;
‘On some XVIIth and XVIIIth Century Designers for

Stained Glass Windows . . .’,
Proc.
Yorks. Phil. Soc.

(1926),

p.85; ‘William Peckitt glass -painter’,
Walpole Soc.,

(1929) JTB,

Peckitt, the greatest of the Georgian

Glass-painters’,
York Georgian Soc. j.
(July, 1968), pp. 14-24;

`Cartoons for York Glass — William Peckitt’,
Preview 85, City

of York Art Galleries Quarterly,
XXII (Jan. 1969), pp. 779-83.

See also the Note at the end of the present contribution.

18.
Public Record Office ref. C.210/21. Published

specification No. 1268.

19.
L. M. Angus-Butterworth,
British Table and Ornamental Glass

(London, 1956), p.70.

20.
It should, however, be borne in mind that Knowles records

a goblet inscribed ‘William Peckitt’, once offered for sale
in York (1Glass-Painters of York’ — see note 17.)

21.
R. J. Charleston, ‘Some English Glass-engravers . . .’,

The

Glass Circle,
4 (1982), p.8.

22.
Ibid.

23.
G. E. Pazaurek,
Gldser der Empire — und Biedermeierzeit

(Leipzig,
1923),

p. 257.

Note:
Since this paper was composed, the following articles

on Peckitt have appeared: Trevor Brighton and Roy Newton,
`Peckitt’s Red Glass’,
Stained Glass Quarterly,
81. No. 3 (Fall,

1986), pp. 213-20; R. G. Newton, J. T. Brighton and J. R. Taylor,

`An Interpretation of Peckitt’s treatise on making glasses and

the stains for them’,
Glass Technology,
30, No. 1 (Feb. 1989), pp.

33-8; R. G. Newton and J. R. Taylor, Teckitt’s 18th century
treatise: staining glass With red tones’,
Glass Technology,
31, No. 2

(April, 1990), pp. 69-71.

Dr. Brighton has kindly drawn to my notice some flashed

engraved panels signed by one Barnett, a successor of Peckitt’s
(Spurriergate).

g
ure 1. Panel of
g

lass en
g
raved

throu
g
h a silver stain of oran
g

e colour.

William Peckitt
;
about 1785. Victoria

and Albert Museum. Crown Copyri
g

ht.

_ %

_ ,..,„,,,,,,,ey-6.4.
–

getfr.-ilt
,

i(u-dti.

Aea’,a.gaiip.

sli-a,:frn
t
i,,,

i
,
a
,
i46 , ,…,,,,„.e9,91q- epti,L4-,94 _

i
te.,..,5 2.;,;,L,,,.
0

,
44
,,,,,,

144,,,purrliarilttlitt
,

co-Po-t+re9

8 tap.
(fri
,
Yu.’ co-n-s,40 “91.,..,,,t

44
7 1
4

4
.,._„„
v
„,_

44,7mA 0,- 041,..e., ,.7-3,.., 464.;,,i–0,..
,

…
,
e..c.L ai
l

cernfh-…,:z;

‘1 On

Ore-lile47-114_,
:
,

tipLi..4.1L v.e4it,o–.)…9″,..tAx. 8.. fi,Flevitmi- of-ga-1
,

-,,,,.,. ‘,.

11
,,,_

le
,,, ;,,,,,,,
pip,/

1r
O

rrO
r
-entY;’

+
–
4
-i-fix-Pep-d–o-t D
r

yta,,,14444714ite435…

6.,…fr

i
.,9

;
,,,,

ifi,xx
–

,,
A
,

..„ x
i

ei-411
_5
g

ailizrvri
t

.
4—qatzetstry-

i
:

_
I-i-AL,7)

9
,
…

ree
,

….;..4„,,,,,,44

-4,2..„…,,,,zikk .
N
,-one

r.e…,:u1
7
4119 6-0,14-2co-ed_a-eilit&

–

:._
olte-e—4

4;eik..ftut12-4_4..
1
4.4i,,_

c.
ctil”

,t,r;

v
ef-1-4„_, ca-ee,444-08eal4
tt.ipty-ri–Y24,47 aZ

;o.n>tegia;fr,

0
.4,

4
„p_
o
_
tic7;/

.
1

*2-4 4.04=e4
,

4,
,
g11
1

.
1
14.2401-4-t4,
a- edlit:

1,444-
,t4

,
–1—ti, ex.4-4-40._,;,-,,,

e
,44
0
,-;,

73 gsc
4

Sini3 0.- gerttFr) -,….4ti
—

44c,94,-etecro .

. 1 frf.. e
y

J C. rap-e-
o

f
?fii

:”
Day to onua,

‘,.

-fILLs co-ea44- r e 5 ,241 a4Otiltli- tvilme-eyoar ilr-,114:eh 91.4
i

p
o

f
0
444
4
_,..„,q

ans)
via.

entrD3-!,.c.
911.¢.64-rilj
,

y,e61 a

i
cf-0-cr–Q Purn Oi
l

MG.,971-4,-tOttlifitsi

.6.„a )

git-e-n luza.4-:,,k
a:

Cou-elayas oilOL.e-4-t:ip-e,on-a4b
4-.P740644 gee

-0,

a0
fo-,-,44 ;Ji_;,,
v

r,-, -o„,
j &fp,

9
et, i
r
0 .
rimitzed-d-ge,t,

‘

4,09 kali.
? 7

41-e-stirit,,,
i
p-et! 4.

_ ______

Ittjf-414.e3

41.- 4,,,jatflen9L_tor,ScatAt47-5

_oil; s

Kt
&

_al; ,-,

zow

aRets
i
Amut-P-Zbt_ei-ar3 __1,44414 a 4 1, _9,44444- Et-e_ 9,La-$1„

6-n-Aj

z
.,I
irr

y
7t
.4

4.
_
A

, 4

eolo,i,..,:s e…16L; _…4„
.

…4,_:iA
tett

9n4,4 /— g-e.

/12/-.

;11-141,414,6-t
c

g
e
,,,,alt
aL z

,
,
,
e41,445
7
.

Fi
g
ure 2. Pa
g
e of Peckitt’s Ms. The Principals of Introduction into

that

rare but fine and ele
g
ant Art of

paintin
g
and stainin
g
of Glass’ dated 1793. York City Art Gallery.

Figure 3. Three

goblets with
flashing, bubbly

green-brown and
blackish.

Probably Peckitt’s

experimental
pieces. Yorkshire

Museum, York.

Figure 4. Three flashed goblets with cut and/or engraved decoration. Probably Peckitt’s experimental pieces. Yorkshire Museum,
York.

THREE WILLIAMITE GLASSES

by Mary Boydell

A
paper read to the Circle on 16 February, 1989

The three Williamite glasses which are the subject of

this evening’s talk are:

The Cobbe mammoth Loving Cup now in the
Ulster Museum

The Longfield glass in the Victoria and Albert
Museum

The Richmond glass in the Richmond collection at
Goodwood House.

The Cobbe Loving Cup which is 12’/2 inches high (fig.

1) , was disposed of by the Cobbe family in 1936. It came
into the possession of Sir Harrison Hughes and was

subsequently sold by his widow through Sotheby’s, when

it was purchased by Cecil Davis Ltd on behalf of the
Ulster Museum. Originally it belonged to Charles Cobbe

D.D. 1687-1765, who was born and educated in England,

came to Ireland in 1717 as Chaplain to Charles, Duke

of Bolton, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Cobbe was

appointed Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin
in 1731, and in March 1742/3 became Archbishop of

Dublin. He died in 1765 and was buried at Donabate
near his home, Newbridge House, the building of which

was started in 1740 and completed in 1760.
1

The Cobbe

family have recently sold Newbridge House and it is now

owned by Dublin County Council, who have carefully
restored it and opened it for public visits.
The round funnel bowl of the glass is set on a

knopped stem and domed and folded foot. The scene

engraved on this glass consists of an equestrian
portrait of King William III (fig. 2) at the Battle

of the Boyne accompanied by the following toast

`THE GLORIOUS AND IMMORTAL MEMORY OF

KING WILLIAM AND HIS QUEEN MARY AND
PERPETUAL DISAPOINTMENT
[sic]
TO THE POPE

THE PRETENDER AND ALL THE ENEMIES OF THE

PROTESTANT RELIGION’. Both the rim of the bowl

and the foot are engraved with florid foliate scrollwork

(fig. 3).
The Longfield glass is 10’/2 inches high (fig. 4) ,

somewhat smaller than the Cobbe goblet. It was donated

to the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1973 by Brigadier
R. C. Longfield, who lived in Hampshire. The glass was

damaged on being brought to London in the 1930s. The

donor of this glass stated that it had been in his family in
Ireland for many years.
2
Brigadier R. C. Longfield is

descended from John Longfield, who came to Ireland

from Denbigh in Wales in the 17th century and founded
the Mallow (Co. Cork) branch of the family that built

the imposing 18th century mansion outside the town
of Mallow, known as Longueville House. The family

disposed of the property earlier in the present century,

and it is now being run as a hotel. The Longfield crest is a
Ducal coronet with a rampant half-lion.

The drawn trumpet-shaped glass with a teardrop in

the stem and folded foot is inscribed with the same toast

as that on the Cobbe Goblet. In addition there is the

remains of a short toast surmounting the equestrian

figure (fig. 5) which reads ‘BOYNE JULY 1st 1690’. The

rim is engraved with scrolls (fig. 6) , daisy-like floral

motifs and sprays of leaflets (fig. 7). The foot is engraved

with similar foliate motifs to those on the foot of the

Cobbe glass.
The third glass is from the Richmond collection at

Goodwood House; standing 14 inches high (fig. 8) , it is
the largest of the three. The Richmonds have had long

associations with Ireland.
Three daughters of the 2nd Duke of Richmond

married into Irish families: Lady Louise Lennox in

1758 married Thomas Connolly of Castletown House,
Celbridge, Co. Kildare: Lady Sarah, who married the
Hon George Napier, also lived in Celbridge. The eldest

daughter, Emily Lennox, married James, Earl of Kildare,

later Duke of Leinster, in 1747. Their son, Lord Edward

Fitzgerald, as an ardent member of the United Irishmen,

who encouraged French support for their ideal of an

Independent Irish Republic, died in prison in 1798 as a
result of a wound suffered during his arrest. His wife

Pamela had already left Ireland some weeks earlier with
her children, the Duke of Richmond having assured

them that there would always be room for the family at

Goodwood.
3

Charles, 2nd Duke of Richmond, fought at

the battle of Culloden in 1746
4
when the Jacobites

suffered a crushing defeat which had particular

relevance to Irish political history, since the threat to the

Protestant ruling class was finally removed. Many years

later, between 1807 and 1813, Charles Lennox, 4th Duke

of Richmond, was Lord Lieutenant in Ireland.
5

The flared funnel bowl is set on an inverted baluster

stem containing a teardrop. The foot is a replacement.

The extended inscription is the same as that on the
previous two glasses; and as in the case of the Longfield

glass, the equestrian figure (fig. 9) is surmounted by a

short toast (within a ribbon), which in this instance
reads ‘HIS MAJESTY AT THE BOYNE 1st JULY 1690′.

The rim of the bowl is engraved with a border of formal

scrollwork (fig. 10).

The original title that I suggested for this paper was

`Three Williamite Goblets by a Master Engraver’. As the

result of additional research in which I engaged in the
preparation of this paper, I should, strictly speaking,

retract the implications of the title; since I have now

come to the conclusion that the Richmond glass is not
engraved by the same hand as the other two. Among the

indications, some of which may stem from the instinctive
reaction of experienced observation, it is noted that

the engraved border on the rim shows little or no
resemblance to that on the other two glasses.

A short account of the battle of the Boyne stressing

certain details, has particular relevance to a discussion

of the engraving on the three glasses which are the

subject of this paper. It took place on 1 July 1690; the
protagonists being King William III and King James II.

The main fighting took place in the vicinity of Oldbridge
(figs. 11 and 12), a small village just a few miles up-river

from Drogheda on the south bank. At this point in the
tidal stretch of the river, it was sufficiently shallow for
horses and men to cross at low tide.
6
Writing about the

battle from a first-hand account, George Story has this

to say about the fighting in about Oldbridge. ‘Little Irish
houses close to the river; there was likewise a house of

stone that had a court; and some little works about it, this
the Irish had filled with soldiers, and all the hedges, and

the little houses we saw were filled with Musquiteers,

there were also several breast works cast up to right, just

at the ford … I have often observed the Irish very fond of

shouting and Hallowing before an engagement.’
There have been numerous accounts of this historic

event, mostly written with a strong bias in favour of

Williamite propaganda. The incorrect account, that

during the battle, King James was a passive spectator
from the ruined Church on Donore Hill overlooking the

battlefield, is an example (figs. 13 and 14).

According to modern historians, the Williamite

forces consisted of 36,000 men, which included many

well-trained mercenaries from the continent; whereas

the Irish army of 25,000 included only 6,000 who had

experienced battle. The battle began at about 6 a.m.,

King William having ordered that every man should

wear a green bough or sprig in their hats (fig. 18) to

distinguish him from the enemy who wore white paper
badges in their hats in compliment to the house of

Bourbon.
8

When the Williamite forces crossed the river,

eight or ten abreast, they encountered fierce opposition

at the village of Oldbridge where the enemy had

occupied the houses and had erected breastworks and
round wickerwork fortifications beyond the village.

However, after vigorous attacks by the Williamite forces,
the Jacobites retreated southwards to a house called
Platten Castle about one and a quarter miles south of

Oldbridge, where the Irish cavalry made a last stand.
9

Loyal Societies founded to commemorate the Battle

of the Boyne and the birthday of King William III existed

in Ireland as early as 1691.
One of these early Societies was in Bandon, Co.

Cork.”
)
This could possibly have some significance in

relation to the Longfield glass which we are discussing
this evening; since family tradition relates that the father

of Brigadier R. C. Longfield, the Reverend Claude
(1871-1903) was brought up by an uncle in Bandon”

which is not far from the family home in Mallow. Boyne
Societies were formed in Dublin (in the early 18th

century), in Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh
12
and in the

town of Drogheda, near the scene of the battle. In

addition, there were Hanoverian Societies, which were
politically related to the Boyne Societies, in Dublin’s and

Youghal
14
during the first half of the 18th century.

At meetings of these Societies it was the normal

procedure for the company present to drink toasts such

as ‘In Glorious Memory’ or `The Glorious and Immortal

Memory’. On one such occasion in Portarlington in

1740,
15
`the bells rang, many loyal toasts proper for the

day were drunk’ and again in 1745
16

in Sligo in

the west of Ireland the Loyal Irish Protestant Society,

among other loyal toasts, drank to `The Memory of the

Exclusioners and Lord Russell at the Head of them’,
17

`A speedy defeat to the rebels and destruction to their

friends’ and ‘Prosperity to Ireland’.
18
In 1745 the Earl of

Chesterfield, then Lord Lieutenant, dined with the
Boyne Society in Dublin,
19

and it is reasonable to assume

that Archbishop Cobbe, a member of the Privy Counci1
29

would also have been present. In the same year on the
outbreak of the rebellion in Scotland, Archbishop

Cobbe addressed a letter to the clergy in which he
directed ‘Firstly to remind those committed to their

charge of the excellency of that holy Protestant religion

… to inculcate frequently and earnestly the dangerous
absurdity there is in supposing that their religion, their

liberty, and their properties, could by any acts or

conditions be secured under a prince of popery.
,21

However it is worthy of note that in 1757 Archbishop

Cobbe and the Primate spoke out against a bill of a very

severe nature against the Roman Catholic clergy, in the

Irish House of Lords.
22

In general, toasts on Williamite glasses are concisq and

to the point. As far as I am aware the three glasses
under discussion are the only ones with the particular

extended toast which they share in common.
There are at least three other glasses with even longer

inscriptions, such as the one cited by WA. Seaby in
Irish

Williamite Glass”
which reads ‘TO THE GLORIOUS

PIOUS AND IMMORTAL MEMORY OF THE GREAT

AND GOOD KING WILLIAM WHO FREED US
FROM POPE AND POPERY KNAVERY AND SLAVERY

BRASS MONEY AND WOODEN SHOES AND HE

WHO REFUSES THIS TOAST MAY BE DAMNED

CRAMMED AND RAMMED DOWN THE GREAT GUN

OF ATHLONE’. However the glasses with this style of
toast appear to be of a later date than our three. There is

a series of jugs, two of them in the Ulster Museum24

engraved with the following toast: ‘THE GLORIOUS

MEMORY OF OUR KING WILLIAM THAT ROUTED

THE FRENCH ARMIE AT THE BOYNE THE FIRST

JULY 1690’. The rims of these jugs are engraved with a
similar daisy-like motif to that on the border of the
Longfield glass (fig. 7).

Although not a Williamite glass it is worthy of note

that a wine glass in the Ulster Museum engraved with

the toast ‘PROSPERITY TO IRELAND’ and also the
Longfield crest, has engraved on the rim of the bowl a

similar border as that on the foot of the Longfield and
the bowl of the Cobbe goblet. This same border also

occurs on the foot of the 10 inch high William and Mary

double portrait glass from the Rose Collection which

was sold through Sotheby’s in 1978 and subsequently
Christie’s in 1988.
25
Furthermore, the foliate border

(fig. 7) on the rim of the Longfield Williamite goblet

(omitting, however, the daisy motif) is also to be found

on the rim of the Rose glass and on a regimental
Williamite glass in the Ulster Museum.
26
This regimental

glass cannot be dated earlier than 1751 since it was in

that year that the name of the regiment was changed

from The Royal Regiment of Ireland to The Royal Irish
Regiment of Foot.
27

From the late 17th century on into the 18th century,

King William at the Battle of the Boyne was a popular

subject for artists and engravers. Most of those I have

studied show the river, the church on Donore Hill and

small buildings on the south side of the river. A tapestry
depicting King William at the Batle of the Boyne was
made in Dublin in 1728-32 for the Irish House of
Lords.
28
It still hangs in this hall, which is now the

property of the Bank of Ireland. Medals were also struck

from the 1690s to commemorate the battle, some of

which portray the battle formation and King William
in the act of crossing the river.
29
However, none of

the sources that I have consulted have revealed the

inspiration for the detailed scene depicted on the glasses

we are studying. Although all three glasses are engraved

with the same inscription and a similar view of the battle

scene, in the case of the Richmond glass there are some
major differences, such as the border on the rim of the

bowl (fig. 10), the very prominent house or castle on

what appears to be Donore Hill (fig. 15), and the

equestrian group of trumpeter and timpanist, engraved

against a clear background (fig. 16), thus making them
much more prominent than on the other glasses (figs.

17 and 19). The small village of Oldbridge is not
depicted on the Richmond glass.

On the Cobbe goblet there is a bird on the tree next to

the church on Donore Hill (fig. 13). This could possibly

be taken to represent a raven, generally taken to signify
ill omen. However, a legend treasured by the present-day

Orange Order” tells of how a lark was reportedly seen to

ascend not far beyond King William’s tent as he emerged

to give orders for the battle of the Boyne. Poised in the
air, it poured forth a wild and spirited song, descended

to where the King stood, and flew singing across towards

the enemy camp at Donore, seemingly to invite the King

to follow that way. The engraver, being no doubt of

urban origin, would hardly be expected to be aware of

the true appearance of a lark.

On the Longfield glass and not on the other two

glasses, two mounted figures on the opposite side of the

glass to King William can be observed (fig.18); and on
this glass the mounted group of musicians are portrayed

in the act of crossing the River Boyne (fig.19).

On both the Cobbe and the Longfield glasses King

James is seen observing the battle from the Church on

Dunore Hill (figs.13 and 14).
The lettering on all three glasses is what has been

described as of Roman form. On the Cobbe glass

an unsuccessful attempt has been made to correct

`disapointmene (fig. 20) and on the Longfield glass

no attempt to correct the incorrect spelling of the

same word (fig. 21). On the Richmond glass the
correct spelling has been achieved after three visible

corrections. (fig. 10).

We can be reasonable certain that the Round

Glass-House in Dublin was producing large-scale goblets

during the second quarter of the eighteenth century;

and unless I have mistakenly overlooked the existence of

numerous similar goblets originating from English

glassworks during the same period, it seems probable,
that with their Irish political implications and imposing

dimensions, the Cobbe and Richmond examples would
have been commissioned in Ireland, which at that

period meant Dublin. In spite of its different

dimensions, there is no cogent reason to suppose that
the Longfield goblet did not originate in Dublin.

Furthermore, presuming that these goblets were

manufactured in Dublin, it would seem highly unlikely

that such glasses would be exported elsewhere to be

engraved with a scene of Irish political importance. This

suggests that they were engraved in Dublin. The name of
only one engraver is known from this period and that is

Joseph Martin who, in the
Dublin Evening Post

February 1735, states the following: ‘whereas several

gentlemen and ladies whose curiosity led them to have

their arms, crests, words letters or figures carved on their

glassware, and as several have had cause to complain of

the extravagant prices, these are therefore to advertise to

the public that Joseph Martin living in Fleet Street,

Dublin, opposite the Golden Ball, is the only person that

was employed by the managers of the Glasshouse in Fleet
Street in carving said wares and there is no other person

in the Kingdom that does profess to do the like work.’
Later in 1752 the Round Glass-House advertised that ‘All

sorts of cut and flowered glasses may be had to any

pattern, viz:- wine glasses with a vine border, toasts or any

flourish whatsoever.’ If this reasoning is correct, we are

left with the conclusion that Joseph Martin may have

goblets, or the Goodwood glass. Who the other engraver

may have been remains a mystery.

With the outbreak of the Jacobite rebellion in

Scotland in 1745, the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland
felt increasingly threatened by the possibility of the

Roman Catholic majority in the country gaining

supremacy. These feelings of anxiety, which were

reflected in the newspapers of the time, provided an
urgent stimulus for Williamite and Boyne Societies,

which were founded to cement Protestant loyalty. With
the defeat of the Jacobities at Culloden on 16 April

1746, the Catholic threat was finally removed.
3
‘ It is

therefore suggested that the date of Culloden would be

the latest likely date for the commissioning of these

three goblets, and the period of anxiety shortly

proceding, the most likely.

NOTES
1.
Dictionary of National Biography,
Volume 4, p.598.

2.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

3.
Lena Boylan, ‘The Conollys of Castletown’,

Irish Georgian

Society,
October-December 1968, p.36.

4.
The DublinJournal,
10-14 June 1746.

5.
A
New History of Ireland,
Volume IX (Oxford, 1984) p.498.

6.
T.W. Moody and F.X. Martin,
The Course of Irish History

(Cork, 1987) p.212.

7.
George Walter Story, A
true and Impartial History of the Most

Material Occurances in the Kingdom of Ireland, During the Last
Two Years
(London, 1691) p.74.

8.
T.B. Macaulay,
History of England from the accession ofJames II,

Volume 4 (5 vols, London 1849
–
61) p.1872

9.
Ibid.

10.
Creswell,
Irish Medals

(Belfast, 1961) p.1.

11.
Information supplied by the late Mrs Ada Leask, nee

Longfield.

12.
See note 10.

13.
The DublinJournal,
11

–
15
May 1736.

14.
In
The Connoisseur
for January 1927 a wine glass with

the following inscription is illustrated: ‘THE GLORIOUS

AND IMMORTAL MEMORY OF YE GREAT K. WILLIAM

A GIFT TO THE YOUGHAL HANOVER SOCIETYFROM

AN OLD MEMBER RD.
HICKMAN WATKINS’.

15.
The DublinJournal,
11-18 November 1740.

16.
Ibid,
13-14 November 1745.

17.
William, Lord Russell was executed in 1683 for his

allegedly being involved in the Rye House plot to
assassinate James II because of his pro-Catholic policies.

Lord Russell was lauded as a martyr by the Whigs, who

claimed he was put to death for his efforts to exclude King

James from the succession to the throne.

18.
A wine glass in the Uster Museum Belfast is engraved with

this toast and the Longfield crest.

19.
The
Dublinjournal,
2-5 November 1745.

20.
Dictionary of National Biography,
Volume 4, p.598.

21.
John D’Alton,
Memoirs of the Archbishops of Dublin

(Dublin,

1838) p.340.

22.
Ibid,
p.341.

23.
W.A. Seaby,
Irish Williamite Glass

(Ulster Museum Belfast,

1965) is undoubtedly the most important and informative
pioneer work on this subject. Unfortunately it is now out of

print.

24.
The two jugs are illustrated in the above publication

(Plates IV and V).

25.
Sotheby’s, 6 March 1978, lot 54; Christie’s, 7 June 1988, lot

216.

26.
This border is also to be found on a goblet engraved with

a portrait of Dean Swift and inscribed ‘The Revd. Dr.

Swift, Dean of St. Patrick’s. In a Bumper.’ Dean Swift died

in 1745. The glass is in the Philadelphia Museum and

illustrated in Antiques, March 1950. No height given.

27.
W. A. Seaby,
op.cit.,
p.4. This glass is inscribed on the

reverse side ‘THE ARMS OF THE ROYALL
[sic]

IRISH

REGIMENT OF FOOT. 1751 was the year in which this
regiment received a Royal warrant.

28.
Ada K Longfield, ‘Tapestry-making in Ireland in the 17th

and 18th
centuries’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries

of Ireland,
Volume LXVIII-1 (1938) pp.91-105.

29.
The Life of William HI
(London, 1705), 3rd Edition, p.168.

30.
Official Lodge History and Information Booklet of the Prince

Albert Temperance L.O.L.,
No 1892 (Belfast, 1989), p.51.

31.
The 2nd
Duke of Richmond attended the Duke of

Cumberland at Culloden in 1746
(Dictionary of National

Biography,
Volume II, p.921).

I wish
to acknowledge the assistance given by the

following:

D. Legg-Willis, House General Manager, Goodwood

House, Chichester

Michael Robinson, Assistant Keeper, Ulster Museum

Belfast
The Department of Ceramics, Victoria and Albert

Museum.
Photographs by Brian Boydell.

Figure 4. The Long field glass. Height 101/2″.

Figure 1. The Cobbe Loving Cup. Height 12’/2″.

Figure 2. Portrait of King William III; Cobbe glass.

Figure 3. Florid foliate scrollwork on rim of the bowl• Cobbe glass.

Figure 6. Engraved border on rim of the Long field glass.

Figure 5. Part of the equestrian portrait of King William III;
Longfield glass.

Figure 7. Engraved border of the Long field glass showing the daisy-like floral motifs

Figure 8. The Richmond glass. Height 14″.

and sprays of leaflets.

Figure 10. Rim of the Richmond glass engraved with formal scroll-work. On the glass

the correct spelling has been achieved after three visible corrections.

Figure 9. Equestrian portrait of King William III on the Rich-
mond glass.

Figure 11. Oldbridge village on the south side of the Boyne river; Cobbe glass.

Figure 12. Oldbridge village as shown on the Longfield glass.

Figure 13. View of Donore Church showing King James watching the battle from its

tower with bird on the tree to left; Cobbe glass.

Figure 14. Church and King James as depicted on the
Longfield glass.

Figure 15. The building on Donore Hill possibly representing
the Church; Richmond glass.

Figure 16. Musicians engraved against a clear background on the Richmond glass.

Figure 17. Group of musicians on the Cobbe glass.

Figure 18. Two mounted figures on the opposite side ofthe glass
to King William showing sprigs on both hats; Long field glass.

Figure 19. The mounted musicians portrayed in the act of

Figure 20. Details of lettering on the Cobbe glass showing an unsuccessful attempt to

crossing the river; Longfield glass.

correct DISAPOINTMENT.

Figure 21. The Longfield glass showing no attempt to correct the spelling of DIS-

APOIN7’1VIENT.

Figure 23. Similar details on t h e Longfield glass.
Figure 22. Detail showing the Horse’s tail and unidentified

tree; Cobbe glass.

Figure 24. Horse’s tail and tree on the Richmond glass.

RECENTLY DISCOVERED SIGNATURES ON GLASS

FROM THE PUGH GLASSWORKS IN DUBLIN

by Mary Boydell

In my paper on
The Pugh Glasshouse in Dublin,

published in Volume Two of
The Glass Circle
1975, I

discussed some of the Bohemian glass engravers
employed by the Pughs, and in particular Franz Tieze.

His sketch book survives and is in the Victoria and Albert
Museum. This has been the main source of information

concerning the work of this engraver; since it contains-

sketches and detailed drawings of proposed designs for
glassware on which attributions have been based, along

with documented pieces such as those held by the

National Museum of Ireland.
It is therefore of the greatest importance that a jug

and a wine glass have recently been found to bear the

signature of the engraver Franz Tieze. He was born in

1842
1
in Bohemia and died 8th January 1932.
2
He came

to Dublin via London in 1865
3
and it seems probable

that he remained in Dublin until his death in 1932.

Both the jug and the wine glass are engraved with

the same design: the Irish round tower, Irish harp and

the so-called Irish wolfhound,
4
surmounted by the toast

ERIN GO BRAGH° within a ribbon. The lettering on the

jug is of better quality than that on the wine glass. The
harp in both cases is very similar that on the jug having

many more strings. The round tower on the jug has four

windows, while that on the glass has only three, the
door at ground level being divided into sections. The

wolfhound in both cases is of the furry type,
6
unlike

the majority of engraved hounds portrayed on glass

attributed to Tieze which are hairless. The jug bears a
monogram.

The sprays of shamrock with tendrils in both cases are

exceptionally well executed, demonstrating a sure and

confident hand obviously familiar with the shamrock

motif. The arrangement of the round tower harp,

wolfhound and toast are similarly positioned
to
those on

the goblet illustrated in
The Glass Circle,
Volume 2,

Figures 8 and 9, p.47.

In both the jug and the wine glass the two sprays of

shamrock spread out in a curve to right and left from the
mound on which the main features are portrayed. It is at

the lower part of the garland on both glasses that the

engraver has signed TIEZE. In the case of the jug he
has added an additional signature on the outside of the

left-hand spray, half way up the side of the jug. All the

signatures are similar to those in his sketch book.?
In addition to these two important glasses there exists

a goblet with the initials F T engraved on the underside
of the bowl.° This goblet is engraved with garlands of

shamrock and dated 1916. It is reasonable to assume that

it is also by Franz Tieze.
9

I wish to record my gratitude to Mr Eoin Dickie,

who first discovered the signature on the goblet in his

Possession; and to Mairead Dunlevy, Keeper of Ceramics

in the National Museum of Ireland for her co-operation

in the examination of the engraved specimens of Pugh

glass in the Museum collection.

Postscript
While these notes were in proof stage, two engraved

carafes each bearing Tieze’s signature have come to

light. The signatures are executed in a similar manner to
those described. These carafes are now in the possession

of the National Museum of Ireland. It is also relevant to
mention that recent research has established that Tieze

suffered impairment of his vision in the early years of the
present century, becoming blind about the year 1910.
10

NOTES
1.
The Glass Circle,
Vol. 2, p.38.

2.
Franz Tieze sketch book, inside of front cover. Victoria and

Albert Museum.

3.
I bid;
p.38.

4.
As note 1, p.47.

5.
IRELAND FOR EVER is the correct translation of ERIN

GO BRAGH: not as stated in
The Glass Circle,
Vol. 2, note

39, p.4l.

6.
Two large goblets in the National Museum of Ireland

attributed to Franz Tieze also depict furry Wolfhounds.
One of these glasses is illustrated by Catriona MacLeod in
Glass in the National Museum of Ireland by Thomas fo’ Richard

Pugh
(1983) p.50.

7.
As note 2, p.126.

8.
Mary Boydell,
Annales du 8″” Congress de L’Association

Internationale Pour L’Histoire Du
Verre, September 1969,

(Liege, 1981), pp.335-343. Illustrated p.338.

9.
The present whereabouts of this glass is not known.

10.
As described in the author’s paper on Franz Tieze

delivered at the Glass Circle meeting on 14 May.

Illustrations by Brian Boydell.

Figure 1. Jug, engraved with round tower, harp etc., and motto

ERIN GO BRAGH. Signed in two places TIEZE. About 1870,

height 10
1

/2″. Writer’s collection.
Figure 2. Wine glass, engraved .1

711i

those
on the
Jug.

Signed TIEZE. About 1870, Height 6″. Collection of Eoin and Hilary

Dickie.

Figure 3. One of two signatures on the Jug.

Figure 4. Signature on the wine
glass.

Figure 5. Detail showing the round tower; harp and wolfhound on the

Figure

6. Detail showing
the harp, round tower and toast
on the wine

jug.

glass.

GLASS FROM 1850-1950 IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM

by Judy Rudoe

Based on a Paper read to the Circle on 15 June, 1989

All the items discussed below are to be included in the

writer’s forthcoming catalogue
Decorative Arts 1850-1950:

A Catalogue of the British Museum Collection
(1991),

where the reader will find full references and further
discussion.

The collections of later 19th and 20th century applied

arts in the British Museum have been largely built up

since 1979 when the Director and Trustees decided that
the collections of the Department of Medieval and

Later Antiquities should be brought into the 20th

century alongside those of the other Departments that

collected western European art. The collections are

centred around influential designers, firms, schools or

art movements in Europe and America; their greatest

strengths are in continental, especially German, applied
arts of the period 1890-1940. There is as yet little

post-war material because it is a historic collection. The
emphasis is on documentary pieces and in several cases
the objects are signed, dated or provenanced. Many of

the designers represented are artists or architects who

also made designs for pottery, porcelain and metalwork,
so some of the glass has been acquired as part of the work
of a particular designer as much as for its technical

interest. Often, these artists were not trained in industry,
but were brought in to modernise existing production.
Thus, the acquisitions made over the last ten years

have a consistency of approach which cannot be claimed

for contemporary items acquired in the 19th century,

which came to the Museum almost by default, rather

than out of any consistent interest. It is, however, with

some of these early acquisitions that I would like to
begin. Two of these came from the collection of the

British Museum’s greatest glass benefactor, Felix Slade,

and were both acquired by him shortly before his death

in 1868. The first of these is an engraved glass tazza made
by the Cristalleries de Clichy, near Paris, and shown at
the International Exhibition in London in 1862 (fig.1).

The catalogue of the Slade Collection, published by

Alexander Nesbitt in 1871, notes that this tazza ‘was

selected as one of the best examples of engraving on

glass in the exhibition, and this must be the excuse for
introducing so modern a specimen into this catalogue’.

The Cristalleries de Clichy, under the direction of
Clemandot and Maes, exhibited in London in 1851 and
in 1862 and in Paris in 1867. A detailed illustration shows

the expert wheel-engraved decoration more clearly, with

its contrasting matt and polished areas (fig.2). This type

of foliate ornament with scrolls and tendrils, seems to
derive from German engraved glass of the 18th century,

though the shape is based on Venetian models.

The second is a small dish of opaque red crystalline

glass, in gilt-bronze mounts, purchased by Slade at the

Paris Exhibition of 1867. The Slade catalogue describes
this glass as of ‘a very brilliant colour, and full of

crystals. It is made with copper, in imitation of the

antique porporino, and is a production of the Imperial

manufactory of St Petersburg, under the direction of the

chemist, Leopold Bonafede.’ L. Bonafede (1833-78), a

mosaic chemist of Rome, was invited to St. Petersburg in

the early 1850s. By the nineteenth century, the term
`porporino’ was commonly used in Italy to denote red

glass, hence Nesbitt’s use of the term, despite the fact
that Pliny uses it to refer to colouring matter only; the

term used by Pliny for opaque red glass is `ematinon’ or
blood-red ware, and it is this Greek term that is used

to describe the Imperial Glassworks’ pieces in the

Catalogue of the Russian Section of the Paris Exhibition.

The crystalline structure can be clearly seen under
magnification. Analysis carried out by Mavis Bimson of
the British Museum Research Laboratory has shown the

glass to be a lead potash glass with crystals of cuprous

oxide. It has previously been suggested that this tazza was
made in the Faberge workshops where purpurine glass

was also produced, but Roger Harding of the Geological
Museum has shown that Faberge purpurine is a soda

glass which was not used until much later in the 19th

century.
The year 1867 also saw the first attempts of

P.J. Brocard to revive Middle-Eastern enamelling
techniques. Philippe-Joseph Brocard (d.1896) was

among the first to copy Islamic methods of applying

vitreous enamels to the surface of the glass and then
fixing them by firing so that they fused to the surface. He
began by copying Islamic mosque-lamps from Mamluk

Egypt and Syria, but examples as early as 1867 are

extremely rare. Most other known pieces in European

collections date from the 1870s or ’80s, by which time
Brocard’s technique had improved considerably.

However, in 1902, Charles Hercules Read presented to
the British Museum an enamelled and gilded glass

mosque lamp signed and dated round the foot I’

Brocard a Paris Xre 1867 Faubourg St Honore No. 216′
(figs. 3 and 4). Brocard’s early lamps were much closer

to original models than his later pieces. This lamp is

copied directly from a 14th-century mosque lamp then
in the collection of Baron Gustave de Rothschild in

Paris. Brocard may well have studied the lamp himself,

but if not, he would certainly have known the colour

lithograph published in one of the most important

French source-books for Islamic art, the
Recueil de dessins

pour l’art et l’industrie,
issued in Paris in 1859 by E. V.

Collin ot and A. de Beaumont. Brocard’s version has

misunderstood elements of the Islamic design, the

enamelling is uneven and the pattern is not well drawn.

Curiously, Brocard did not patent his methods of

enamelling on glass until 1891 and it is worth noting that
the patent applies only to enamelling methods. It is not

certain whether Brocard made his own glass, or whether
he used blanks supplied by other manufacturers, as in

the case of his friend and contemporary, Eugene
Rousseau, who decorated blanks supplied by the firm of

Appert Freres of Clichy La Garenne.

It was another Frenchman who was responsible for the

next group of glass to enter the British Museum

collections. On 3 April 1878, Monsieur P. R. de F.
D’Humy, describing himself as ‘managing director of

Aurora Glass Company Ltd., 21 Litchfield Street, Soho’,
presented twenty-five pieces of glass
,
with gold or

platinum embedded inside the glass or encrusted on the

surface (figs. 5 and 6) . At first sight, some of this
multi-coloured glass could easily be mistaken for

contemporary Venetian work, for example, the wine

glasses, with blue blobs and rims, or a small handled cup

with striped decoration (fig.6) . But the way in which the
gold and platinum foil is used is most unusual,

particularly at such an early date, as it precedes by many

years Northwood’s Silveria, produced by Stevens and
Williams in Stourbridge at the turn of the century. The

technique used for Silveria glass involved sandwiching

silver foil between two layers of clear or coloured glass.

The primary bulb was blown almost to full-size before
the foil was picked up from the marver, and it was then

coated by dipping it into a pot of fluid metal. The
process patented by D’Humy, however, as early as

October 1876, differed in that the primary bulb was not

blown to full size before picking up the foil from the

marver; consequently when the bulb was expanded to

full size, the foil tore apart giving a patchy effect.
Fig. 5 shows three bottles or vases each eight or nine

inches high and all made of thick, heavy glass. The bottle

on the left is made of clear glass cased with blue glass

with gold foil sandwiched between the two layers. The

right-hand vase is described by D’Humy as ‘antique vase

with stripes, the gold fused and encrusted inside and

outside the glass’. This piece is chipped and it can
therefore be seen that the glass is blue throughout

with a casing of clear glass; here, the blue has been
blown into a mould lined with gold rods cased in clear

glass, so that the blue goes into the spaces between

the rods, leaving fused gold and crystal as a stripe on

the surface. Patches of gold occasionally appear on the

surface, but mostly the gold is encased in the clear
rods. The central vase in this group, which is pale blue

in colour, has a clear glass body; pale blue powder
has then been picked up on the marver, with lots of

bubbles, and then gold has been applied, which has

cracked as the glass was worked. A typical patchy effect is
produced but it has a particularly unusual characteristic:

round each gold patch there is a blue edging. A patchy

effect could easily be obtained by dipping the vase in

water to cool it after the blue layer had been applied

and then blowing it again, but how was it that the

glass-blower managed to arrange the patches so that the

gold was always outlined with blue? Three small D’Humy

bottles demonstrate further variations: a striped bottle,

in which the gold rods are covered with crystal glass and

sandwiched between two layers of blue; a bottle to which
platinum has been applied onto blue glass and then

cased in clear glass, and a bottle of thin-walled green

glass with platinum encrusted on the surface, described

by D’Humy as ‘blown with a blow-pipe’.
All these pieces are described by D’Humy as ‘antique’.

He promoted his encrusted glass as ‘reproductions of
the murrhine vases of the ancients’. However there is

some confusion here: murrhine’ is being applied to the

marbled and mosaic glass of the Roman period but Pliny

makes it clear that `murrina’ were made not of glass but

of fluorspar, and were prized for their glistening veins

of purple and white. Pliny also notes, however, that
murrina’ vessels were imitated by the Romans in glass.
Figure 7 shows a bottle which has been blown into a

woven wire cage. This is a combination of two different
Roman types. One of these can be found in the British
Museum, in the form of a cobalt blue beaker blown

into a silver cage. It is from the Slade Collection and
therefore would have been known to D’Humy, but the

silver cage is formed of sheet silver which has been
pierced, rather than woven wire. The second Roman

type is a common mould-blown vase of the 3rd-4th

century AD, where the lower body is covered with a
honeycomb pattern of raised bosses looking like a bunch

of grapes.
All of D’Humy’s glass vessels have their original paper

labels on the bases, presumably written by D’Humy
himself. For example, the label that appears on the base

of a pink plate which has gold encrusted on the inside

surface and which is extremely thin and light reads
`April 2nd 1878, no. 7 Plate – unique in the world, the

gold inside the plate, the most inexplicable work extant.
Presented by P. R. F. D’Humy, managing director,

Aurora Glass co. Ltd., 21 Litchfield Street, Soho, WC,
inventor’ (fig. 8). Two further plates consist of one heavy

example where gold has been embedded in two layers’ of

clear crystal glass, and a smaller blue glass plate which is

truly extraordinary. Here gold and platinum, in separate

layers, have been embedded between blue glass so that
the layers comprise, in order: blue glass, gold, blue glass,

platinum, blue glass.

Sometimes the gold was encrusted on the surface in a

very smooth and regular manner, a good example
being the tall, narrow champagne glass shown in fig.6.
Presumably this sort of narrow simple shape was ideally

suited to all-over gold encrustation. A goblet owned
by Asprey’s, London, in 1988 (recently acquired by

Broadfield House Glass Museum) is formed of a bowl of

identical gold-encrusted glass, with a silver-gilt stem and

foot bearing the maker’s mark of Thomas Johnson and
the London date-letter for 1879. The glass is so similar

that attribution to D’Humy is without doubt. The

mounting in silver-gilt suggests that this was considered

to be a very special piece and may perhaps have been

mounted because the stem broke or the bowl became

separated from the stem. D’Humy also made pieces with

platinum encrusted to the surface in the same way,
illustrated by the small bottle and another wine glass

with a ruby-coloured glass rim (fig. 6), but in both these

pieces it occurs in the more characteristically patchy or

strip-form. Finally, D’Humy’s collection includes a series
of fragments each labelled with descriptions. They

include pieces `cut from the vase during the process of
manufacture’ and there are two examples where one

can see the gold overlay before the glass has expanded

and the gold has cracked. There is a lump of glass which

is in fact a piece of an end of the blowing-iron and a glass
rod described as the ‘first attempt at encrustation of gold

dust into the glass while in fusion’.

The Pottery Gazette
of 1 April 1880 complained that

D’Humy’s glass was too expensive to be commercially

successful and was generally critical of the lack of
attention to form in his vessels ‘which was the more to be
regretted since the invention deserved all the care which

could be bestowed upon it’. It also found the wirework

vessels `graceless in appearance’ and compared them to

`the wire-encased bottles in which seltzer and other

mineral waters are sold’. In 1879,
The Art Journal,
which

was aimed at a very different market, referred its readers
to D’Humy’s gallery at 294 Regent Street.
Who was Monsieur D’Humy? Revi, in his book on

19th-century glass, notes that a very similar process of
applying a layer of gold between two layers of glass was

patented in England in November 1878 by Messrs
Monot, Pere & Fils, & Stumpf, of Paris, to produce an

ornamental effect known in France as `rouge de chine’;

the mixture of copper and gold was sandwiched between

glass layers. This technique was shown at the 1878

exhibition in Paris. Could there be a connection, and

were the two methods both developed in France?

This question requires further research, but it is clear
that D’Humy’s London venture was short-lived. We
know that he took out an English patent in 1876, but

he was not necessarily living in London before 1878

when he presented his glass to the British Museum

from Litchfield Street. He did not manage to get
himself into the London Directories until 1881, when he
appears not as ‘Aurora Glass Company’ as in the British

Museum records, but as ‘Vasa Murrhina Company’.

The Directories give the Litchfield Street address as

well as the Regent Street gallery and, significantly, a

manufactory in York Place, York Road, Battersea. By

1882, D’Humy had opened another office in Great

Winchester Street in the city but by 1883, only the

address of the manufactory in Battersea was given,
suggesting that the Regent Street gallery had closed and
by 1884, he was out of the Directories altogether.

The second part of this paper looks at acquisitions

of the last ten years, beginning with examples of

glass designed by Christopher Dresser and made by

James Couper & Sons of Glasgow, marketed under the

trade name ‘Clutha’, an old word for the river Clyde.

According to Revi, a gather of pale ruby or pale yellow
glass was rolled over the marver, which was strewn with

bits of coloured glass and mica flecks; it was reheated,
blown and tooled to the final form. The glass, like its

name, was consciously archaic, in its use of bubbles and

streaks. Dresser’s designs for glass relate closely to
his designs for pottery of the 1880s; both glass and

pottery shapes and decoration were often derived from

ethnographic or oriental sources. The vases in the

British Museum are inspired by Safavid glass from Persia
of the 17th-19th centuries. But the glass appears to have

been produced later than the pottery, probably not
before the early 1890s when it was advertised in Liberty’s

Christmas Gift catalogues as ‘decorative, quaint, original

and artistic’. In accordance with Liberty’s policy of not

acknowledging their designers, Christopher Dresser’s
name is absent. He nevertheless insisted that his initials

were incorporated in the Liberty trademark acid-etched
on the base of pieces sold by Liberty.
Applied arts of the Art Nouveau period and the

early 20th century are among the collection’s greatest

strengths. There are five pieces of glass by Louis Comfort
Tiffany of New York, including two lustre pieces: a

golden-yellow jack-in-the-pulpit vase and a blue vase with
decoration of coloured glass pulled to form a wave-like

pattern (fig. 9). The lustrous surfaces were initially

produced by Tiffany in an attempt to imitate the
iridescence caused by natural decay in ancient glass. It

was obtained by applying metallic salts to the hot glass,

which were absorbed into the glass to create the lustre,

in addition to the coloured glasses that produced
the pattern. Bronze and glass are combined in the

remaining three pieces: a bronze candlestick in the form

of a tree with a glass shade, a bud candlestick, in which
the glass is blown through a bronze cage (fig. 9), and a

lamp with `spider-and-web’ shade. It is difficult to date

Tiffany pieces with any accuracy since the same shapes

were produced from the early 1890s until 1928 when the

firm closed.
Tiffany glass was first shown in London at an

exhibition at the Grafton Galleries in 1899 and

throughout the 1890s and early 1900s it was also shown

in Paris at Siegfried Bing’s Maison de L’Art Nouveau, a

gallery of modern design established in 1895. Alongside

Tiffany’s glass was displayed the delicate lamp-blown

glass of Karl Kopping. Kopping trained as a painter and

print-maker in Munich and Paris. He taught etching in

the 1890s at the Berlin Academy and from 1896 he

replaced Julius Meier-Graefe as editor of the luxury art

magazine
Pan

where Kopping’s first designs for glass

were illustrated in 1895. The studio report of the 1896
exhibition of the Paris Salon refers to Kopping’s glass

as ‘delightfully simple and light, supremely artistic.

How infinitely preferable this plainly treated, graceful

material, which is really glass, to the over-elaborate
metallic complications of Tiffany’. Initially, Kopping’s

glasses were made by Friedrich Zitzmann who had

previously worked as a freelance glass-blower in Luascha,

Thuringia, and in Murano, and was one of the few

people able to execute Kopping’s designs. But the

association between the two lasted barely a year, because

Zitzmann committed a breach of contract by employing

for his own work production methods developed for
Kopping’s designs. The scandal broke in the summer of

1896 when the Director of the Copenhagen Museum of

Applied Arts, Pietro Krohn, went to see Mopping in

Berlin to buy glasses, telling Mopping that he had heard

about the excellent glasses bought by the Oslo Museum

from the Berlin retailers E. Kayser. Kopping was
apparently furious at this news because his glass had
never been sold by Kayser and what Oslo had bought

was Zitzmann’s glass produced without Kopping’s
permission. After 1896, Kopping’s glasses were made by

the School for Glass Instrument Makers in Illmenau,

Thuringia, founded in 1894 under the patronage of the

Grand Duke of Saxony. The glass instrument makers had
the requisite skill for these finely-blown pieces and it was

at Illmenau that the British Museum glass (fig. 10) was

almost certainly made. After his break with Zitzmann,

KOpping began to sign his glass as a measure of

protection and the British Museum glass is acid-etched

with his name on the upper surface of the foot. It

probably dates from after 1898 when glasses of this type

with simple profiles first appear in contemporary
illustrations.

Next to the glass of Tiffany and Kopping at Bing’s

Maison de L’Art Nouveau, there is a third name that is

always mentioned in contemporary descriptions, that of

James Powell & Sons, Whitefriars Glassworks. In 1988,

the British Museum acquired one, of the finest pieces of

British Art Nouveau glass: the tazza designed by Harry
Powell for the Turin exhibition of 1902 (fig. 11). It is

free-blown with an air-twist stem; the bowl and foot are in
Powell’s typical pale sea-green, the stem in a contrasting

brighter green. The bowl is ornamented with four

engraved gannets surrounding a web-like wave pattern

in trailed deep green glass applied after the engraving. It
is illustrated in

The Studio
for 1902 in an article on the

British section at Turin and is also illustrated in Harry
Powell’s book
Glassmaking in England
of 1923, modestly

described as an example of a ‘fine air-twist stem’. It is
possible that it is the very example shown in Turin; no

others have been recorded, and at most two or three

would have been made. A detail of the bowl shows the

engraving and the unusual matt acid-etched surface in

selected areas of the green trailing (fig. 12). The
Museum of London’s Powell archive holds a sketch for

this tazza, contained in Harry Powell’s source notebook

and annotated in his own writing ‘fine threading, green

and white to look like waves, new air-twist.’ Next to it is a

sketch for one of the flying birds labelled ‘gannet’.

Whether he is referring to another version with green

and white threading or whether an example with

both colours was never made, is impossible to say.

Harry Powell’s notebook also contains a photograph

of the tazza, captioned ‘engraved seagulls, streaked
bowl, air-twist leg: sea green’. A further group of

Whitefriars glass was presented to the British Museum by

Powells themselves in 1923. It comprises examples of

glasses designed by Philip Webb
c.

1860 and by T. G.

Jackson in the 1870s, though probably executed shortly

before 1923; some interesting study pieces based on

18th-century prototypes and a very thin-walled soda-lime
vase in ‘Alsatian blue’, designed by Harry Powell in 1906,

with a rigaree foot and five dents in the body. Powell’s

new soda-lime glass was first shown at the Arts and Crafts

Exhibition of 1890.

Germany at this period was undergoing an

extraordinarily fertile period for new design, much of it

the result of patronage by aristocrats, industrialists or

enterprising manufacturers. Hans Christiansen, like

Mopping, also trained as a painter; from 1899 to 1902, he

joined the artists’ colony at Darmstadt, set up in 1898
under the patronage of the Grand Duke of Hesse.

Financial backing from the Grand Duke and from local

industry gave artists and designers unprecedented

freedom without commercial restraint. They were
commissioned to design their own houses with

furnishings and fittings which formed the central

feature of the colony’s epoch-making exhibition of 1901
entitled ‘En Dokument Deutscher Kunst’. Views of

Christiansen’s house were illustrated in the lavish
commemorative volume produced by the Darmstadt

publisher, Alexander Koch, and on the dining table can

be seen a set of optic mould-blown glasses with

expanding stems which Christiansen designed for his

own table. The glasses were made by the Theresienthaler
Kristallglasfabrik, Theresienthal, Bavaria. From this

service, the British Museum owns a large white wine

glass; the design is revolutionary for its period in that the
line of the stem continues unbroken into the line of the

bowl. It was a successful service and remained in
production until at least 1907.

Peter Behrens, also initially a painter, was another

prominent member at the Darmstadt artists’ colony. In

1902, after he had left the idealistic world of Darmstadt
and before his involvement in commercial graphic and

product design for the AEG in Berlin, he designed a

glass service for an exhibition of modern interiors held

by the Warenhaus Wertheim department store in Berlin.

This glass service was made by the Kristallglasfabrik

Benedikt von Poschinger of Oberzwieselau, Bavaria.

The service was an expensive one, being free-blown with
a broad gold band applied round the rim; the Museum’s

wine glass is notable for its square-shaped bowl, which

must have seemed very modern at this date.
Benedikt von Poschinger also executed a number of

glass services by the Munich designer, Richard
Riemerschmid. It is thought that Poschinger

approached Riemerschmid for designs, but, as in many

cases at this period, the documentation does not survive
to tell us how the association came about. The various

Poschinger factories are especially complicated,

with branches in Oberzwieselau, Buchenau and

Theresienthal, most of which no longer survive. The
British Museum has glasses from two separate services by
Riemerschmid, firstly a glass for red wine from the

so-called ‘Riemerschmid’ service, designed in 1900. This
free-blown glass with pinched stem is an extremely rare

survival. Many of Riemerschmid’s glasses are still known
from contemporary illustrations only, one of the factors

being that they are made of very thin and fragile glass.

The other glasses owned by the Museum are from a later

set designed around 1911, with bulging profiles
characteristic of Riemerschmid’s designs (fig. 13). This

group was formerly owned by Riermerschmid himself

and came from his daughter who died in 1982.

In Vienna, the prominent glass retailers, Bakalowits &

Saline, commissioned designs from artists associated

with the Vienna Secession and, later, the Wiener

Werkstatte. Koloman Moser was a founder member both
of the Vienna Secession in 1898 and of the Wiener

Werkstatte in 1903; from 1899 he taught at the School of

Applied Art in Vienna. The mould-blown dimpled
service shown in fig. 15 was designed in 1899-1900

initially without the dimples, which may be a later
modification. Research is still needed to find out which

of the various Austro-Bohemian firms were actually

supplying Bakalowits, who did not make their own glass.

The firms always cited are Lotz and Meyr’s Neffe, but the
manufacturers of this service are not known. It gives a

good idea of the size and composition of the standard

glass service current in Germany and Austria at this
period. It comprises a Schnapps glass, a sherry glass,

three sizes of wine glass, and a champagne or sparkling

wine glass. It also offered a water glass, lemonade glass,

beer glass, jug and fruit bowl.
The well-known cut glasses designed by Otto

Prutscher on the other hand are generally credited to
the firm of Meyr’s Neffe at the Adolfshutte, near

Winterberg, Bohmerwald. Otto Prutscher also studied at
the Applied Arts School in Vienna, under Josef

Hoffmann, and he later taught there. He designed a
range of geometrically patterned glass from about 1907
to 1910, made of clear glass cased in a variety of colours

and then cut in patterns of squares and circles (fig. 14).

After the First World War the Viennese style changed
dramatically and the austere geometry of the designs of
the early 1900s gave way to a much softer, more

free-flowing style, represented in the museum’s
collections by a blue glass vase designed by Josef

Hoffman in about 1923. It is mould-blown, with fluting
throughout the body and the foot and was probably

made by Ludwig Moser & Sons in Karlsbad, who are

known to have executed Hoffmann’s designs of this

period.
During the 1920s a number of enterprising glass

manufacturers in Europe invited outside artists to design

for them, in particular the Holmegaard factory in

Denmark and the Leerdam glass factory in Holland.

One of the early artists invited to work at the
Holmegaard glass factory was Jacob Bang, who trained as

an architect and worked initially with the silversmith Kay
Fisker until 1925, when he set up the Danish pavillion

at the Paris Exhibition of that year; as a result
Holmegaard’s director, Riis-Hansen, invited him to

design alongside Orla Juul-Nielsen, the factory’s first

artist-designer. Bang’s prototypes were first shown in the
spring of 1928 and were then put into production as the

‘Kunstglasservice Viol’, a 54-piece everyday table glass

service without ornament. The British Museum owns a

carafe, decanter and goblet from this service (fig. 16).
Initially it was produced in a violet colour, the ‘viol’ of

the title, and the carafe is in this colour, but from May

1929, the most popular colour was smoky topaz, the
colour in which the Museum’s decanter and goblet are

executed; production in this colour ceased by 1935. The

pieces are mould-blown with grooved stoppers and

stems, and the bowl to the goblet is optically blown. The

jug also illustrated in fig. 16 is from another service
designed in December 1928. The vase is a separate

ornamental piece from around the same time. Previous

publication on Jacob Bang is entirely in Danish and he is
therefore little known outside Denmark. He wrote

widely on his designs for glassware; his overriding
concern was to design practical everyday wares which

were easy to produce. This was demonstrated by his
‘functional programme’, a series of sketches contrasting

old and new models. He favoured smooth contours

instead of sharp edges, to cause least wear to the wooden
moulds that were used in the manufacturing process and

also so that the shapes could be formed with regularity
by the average glass-blower, thereby avoiding both

unnecessary time spent in sorting out faulty pieces and

also the cost of rejecting faulty pieces. He objected to his

glass being promoted as `art glass’ and disliked the then

fashionable coloured glass. He would have preferred it

all to be made in clear glass. From the 1930s he
produced more ornamental cut and engraved pieces

which were sold in London through the Royal

Copenhagen Porcelain Company’s shop in Bond Street.

In Holland, the enterprising managing director of the

Leerdam factory, P. P. Cochius, commissioned several

outside architects and industrial artists to design

mass-produced glass from as early 1915. The graphic

designer and painter, Chris Lebeau, began to work for

Leerdam in 1923. As a teetotaller, he refused to design

wine glasses and is chiefly remembered for his

remarkable series of modernist vases, many with

mould-blown bowls set on pressed glass bases in

strikingly bold colours (fig. 17). The series was designed

in 1924-5 and produced for three to four years only.

The British Museum vase has a characteristic colour
combination of a bright green bowl resting on a deep
purple base.
A. D. Copier is undoubtedly the most celebrated

of the Leerdam designers. Born in 1901, he is still

designing, and in 1989 the Leerdam factory held a
retrospective exhibition of his work. His studio glass in

the `Unica’ range has always been popular but his series

production glass has been unjustly neglected. Copier

joined Leerdam in 1914 as a graphic artist, turning to

glass design in about 1920. His designs of this period are
based on natural forms with geometric proportions, a

typical example being the ‘Peer’ (pear) service of 1927,

widely regarded as his most successful combination of

the two styles. The bowls are free-blown with moulded

stems and feet, the feet cut to produce ten facets.

Copier’s construction drawings, which survive in the
Gemeente Museum in The Hague, show how the shape

of the bowl was based on an inverted pear shape (hence

the name), while the circumference of a pear and the

ten-faceted foot fit into a pentagon. Copier’s whisky

decanter of 1927, with its faceted stem and octagonal cut

stopper, is equally characteristic of his use of blown and

cut glass in the same piece.
Another successful service which was widely exported

was the `Romanda’ service of 1924, and there are

examples in the British Museum, but Copier’s most

successful design for large-scale production and one

which is still produced today, though it is machine-made
rather than blown, was the glass which he designed in

1930 for the Dutch Wine Merchants’ Guild. He designed
a complete service known as the `tilde’ (guild) service

and the signet of the Guild is etched on the base in

addition to the signet used by Leerdam for Copier’s
designs. It illustrates Copier’s more streamlined 1930s

designs influenced by the De Stijl movement in art and
by the new functional architecture; he has rejected

natural forms and the cutting of glass, relying on simple

geometric shapes. The Gilde service was so highly
regarded that a service engraved with a crowned `E’ was

presented to Queen Elizabeth by Leerdam on the

occasion of her marriage to Prince Philip in 1947.

During the 1930s Copier turned to the design of heavy

ornamental wares such as the vase of around 1936
illustrated in fig. 18. Free-blown in pale amber-coloured

glass, it is cased with several thick layers of colourless

glass so that the wall increases in thickness round the
rim, producing the optical illusion of an undulating

internal contour.

Continental glass of the 1920s had a significant

influence on the New Zealand architect Keith Murray,

who settled in England and turned to the design of glass

in the early 1930s, when he became associated with the
Stourbridge firm of Stevens and Williams. The British
Museum owns three pieces of glass designed by Murray

for Stevens and Williams, two of which were illustrated

by Murray himself in an article which he wrote in 1933

for
Design for Today
on designing for glass. Firstly, a

well-known clear-glass decanter of conical form with
hand-cut hexagonal stopper, and secondly, a rarely seen

smoky green vase with ribbon decoration round the

lower part, applied during the blowing so that the profile
bulges slightly below the ribbon (fig. 19). The third
piece is a tall, very heavy, dark green bubbled and cased

vase, dating from 1939. In his writing Murray appears to
be committed to designing for mass-production by

machine but it is interesting that in his article the hand

processes used in the manufacture of the glass are always

stressed and, in practice, none of his glass was ever made
by machine.

Nor were the Bauhaus ideals of machine production

easily applied to glass at this date. Wilhelm Wagenfeld

studied and taught at the Bauhaus School of Design in

Weimar from 1929-31 and was one of the few Bauhaus

artists to establish continued involvement with industry

in Germany. In the early 1930s he designed a number of

mass-produced glassware items for the firm of Schott

& Genossen at Jena including a glass tea service.
Wagenfeld himself, writing about his work, noted that
the teapot was blown in an iron mould while the spout

was free-blown and therefore always variable. The lid
and the glass sieve were pressed; thus, three different

methods were involved in the production of one object.
From the later 1930s he designed further glassware for

the Vereinigte Lausitze Glaswerke, including his famous
`Kubusgeschire or stacking storage vessels of 1938.

Finally, I wish to look at some of the American glass of

the 1930s, and in particular at two sets made by the

Libbey Glass Manufacturing Company in Toledo, Ohio.

In 1931 Libbey hired Arthur Douglas Nash, who had run

the Tiffany furnaces in New York until their closure in

1928, when he formed his own firm, but this also closed

in 1931. On his arrival at Libbey he created a new line of
luxury glassware which was formally introduced in 1933.

The series comprised eighty new patterns, one of which,

the so-called `Knickerbocker’ pattern, is represented in

the British Museum and comprises a set of glasses with

free-blown bowls set on heavy moulded bases, cut to a

square form. However, much of the new Libbey-Nash

series was too expensive. It was hit by the Depression and
admitted a failure after two years. Nash left Libbey in

1935 and made no further designs for glass. The pattern
however stayed in production until at least 1942 and

comprised a 12-oz tumbler, a 10-oz tumbler, a 6-oz

sherbert, a 4-oz cocktail and a 1-oz cordial glass. They

were custom-built, that is, they were not regularly
carried in stock, and so they could be decorated at the

factory with the purchaser’s monogram at an extra

charge. The text accompanying the illustration in a

contemporary Libbey trade catalogue assured its clients,

with justification, that `The heavy crystal block gives each
item perfect balance and delightful feel’. Libbey used

hand-made methods in high-quality crystal but its glass

was nevertheless advertised as `well within the reach of
the modest income’. Square bases were also used at this

time by George Sakier for the Fostoria Glass Company

and by Walter Dorwin Teague for the Steuben Company
at Corning, but in these cases the glasses have stems.

Nash’s bowls rest directly on the square bases, an

innovation first made by the French firm of Baccarat at
the Paris Exhibition of 1925 in a service designed by

Georges Chevalier with flared bowl. Later examples with

straight-sided bowls were designed in the early 1930s by

Jean Luce.
Walter Dorwin Teague was one of America’s foremost
industrial designers of the 1930s. While principally

known for his cameras, cars and trains, he also made

several designs for glassware and among his most

striking designs is the so-called `Embassy’ service
designed in 1939 for the New York World’s Fair (fig. 20).
Its name came about because it was designed for the

State Dining Room in the Federal building at the Fair

and the original service was engraved with a crest
incorporating the American eagle beneath thirteen

stars. The specially created columnar stems are unusual
in being the same height for all items; they are in the
form of a flattened column, rectangular in section. The

design is credited jointly to Teague and to Edwin Fuerst,

Teague being design consultant to the Fair and Fuerst
being at that time Libbey’s in-house designer. After

the failure of the Libbey-Nash series in 1935 the
Libbey company was bought up by Owens-Illinois, who

employed Fuerst, formerly head of Owens Illinois’

package design department, to design a new line of

crystal called `Modern American’. The first catalogue of

the new designs was printed in 1939 but production was

ended by the restrictions of the war in 1941-2.
In conclusion, it should be stressed that this is a

collection in the making, to which the Museum is

continually adding, and there is still a long way to go.

Acknowledgements:
The author wishes to thank Charles

Hadjamach, John Smith, Wendy Evans, Jeannette

Hayhurst and Mavis Bimson for their help in the
preparation of this paper.

Figure 1. Engraved glass

tazza.

Cristalleries de Clichy, 1862. H. 16.1cm. British Museum, Slade 829.

Figure 2. Detail of engraving
on Clichy tazza.

Figure 3. Enamelled

glass mosque lamp by

Philippe-Joseph Brocard,
1867. H. 35.6cm.

British Museum,
1902, 11-18,1.

Figure 4a. Details of signature on Brocard mosque lamp. The abbreviation
‘X”‘ indicates that it was made in December, 1867 (X = decem).
Figures 4b. Details of signature on Brocard mosque lamp. The abbreviation

‘X”‘ indicates that it was made in December, 1867 (X = decem).

Figure 5. Three vases. Vasa Murrhina Company,

London, 1878. 11.
of
left vase 24.1cm.
British Museum 1878, 4-13,1 (140, 2 (right) and 5.

Figure 6. Group of glass incrusted with gold and platinum. Vasa Murrina Company, London, 1878. H. of champagne glass 19.5cm. British Museum,
from left to right, 1878, 4-13, 10, 16, 12,14, 11, 9,15.

Figure 7. Blue glass cage vase. Vasa Murrhina Company,

London, 1878, H.13.5 cm. British Museum, 1878, 4-13, 13.
Figure 8. P R. de E D’Humy’s original label on base of pink glass

incrusted plate. Vasa Murrhina Company, London, 1878. British
Museum, 1878, 4-13,7.

Figure 9. Vase and bud-candlestick by L C. Tiffany & Co.,
Corona, Long Island, New York, H. of vase 15.6cm, H. of

candlestick 44.1cnz. British Museum, 1980, 11-8,1 and 1981,
7-13,1.
Figure 10. Liqueur glass, designed by K Kipping and made by the

Fachschule fiir Glasinstrumentenmachet; Illmenau, Thuringia,

c1898. H.11.8cm. British Museum, 1982, 11-2,2.

Figure 11. Tazza with

engraved and applied
decoration. Designed by Harry

Powell and made byJames

Powell & Sons, Whitefriars
Glassworks, London, 1902.

H.21 cm. British Museum,
1988, 4-2,1.

Figure 12. Detail of engraved decoration on Powell tazza.
64

Figure 13. Liqueur glass, champagne cup and champagne flute, designed by R.

Riemerschmid c1911 and made by the Kristallglasfabrick B. von Poschinger,
Oberzwieselau, Bavaria. H. offlute 13.7cm. British Museum 1987, 11-7,1-3.
Figure 14. Wine glass, cased and cut, designed by

0. Prutscher and made by Meyr’s Neffe, Adolfshiitte

Glassworks, Winterberg, Bohmerwald. FL21cm.
British Museum 1982, 5-12,3.

Figure 15.
Glass service designed by Koloman Moser to the commission of E. Bakalowits & Sohne, Vienna. H. of decanter 21.2cm. British
Museum,

1982, 10-6, 1-8.

Figure 16.Group of
glass designed by J.

Bang in 1928 and
made by Holmegaards

Glasvaerk, Naestved,

Denmark. H. of vase
25.6cm. British

Museum, from left to

right 1988, 1-6, 2, 1,
4, 3, 5.

Figure 17. Vase with mould-blown bowl and pressed glass base, designed by

C. Lebeau in 1924-5 and made by the NV Glasfabriek Leerdam, Holland,
H. 27.5cm. British Museum 1988, 7-11, 1
.

Figure 19. Free-blown glass vase with applied ribbon, designed by Keith
Murray in 1933 and made by Stevens & Williams Ltd, Brierley Hill
Glassworks, Stourbridge. H. 26.2cm. British Museum 1980, 3-3, I.
Figure 18. Free-blown cased glass vase designed by A. D. Copier and made

by the NV Glasfabriek, Leerdam, Holland, c1936. H. 21.6cm. British
Museum, 1980, 7-3,
1.

Figure 20. Four glasses from the Embassy’ service designed in 1939
by

W. D. Teague and E. Fuerst and made by Libbey Glass Manufacturing

Company, Toledo, Ohio. H. of water goblet 22cm. British Museum 1988,

5-1, 1-4.

SOME CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

OF ANCIENT GLASS AND THE POTENTIAL OF
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS

by
Dr Julian Henderson

Based on a paper read to the Circle on 13 March, 1990

Introduction
This paper deals with the definition of glass as a

material and its properties. It also includes a description
in outline of some of the techniques of scientific analysis

used to investigate glass, and a discussion of some of the

information that can be obtained about the production

of glass.

By chemically analysing glass one can help to define

the physical and chemical properties of glass, suggest

the possible raw materials used for its manufacture,

provide a reason for the glass being a particular

colour, and explain why the glass is translucent,
transparent or opaque. In an archaeological context,

if one analyses sufficient well-dated glass one can

establish changes in the use of raw materials over

time and sometimes relate specific compositional and

technological characteristics to production processes in

specific geographical locations and/or regions. Leading
from this, one is ultimately able to identify copies and

fakes made in antiquity and more recently.
The rest of this paper falls into five sections:

1.
A discussion of the scientific nature of glass.

2.
The working properties of glass.

3.
The wide range of artefact types which have been

made, using these working properties.

4.
Techniques of analysis.

5.
Results of some analytical investigations.

1. The nature of glass
Glass is an extremely complex material, since

although it appears to be, and feels, solid, it is in fact a
liquid in a super-cooled state with an amorphous
`structure’. If allowed to cool at the wrong speed, stresses

building up in the glass which make it fragile and can

cause it to shatter; once it has shattered it can be

described as a solid (i.e. silicate crystals). Glass
exists because there is a delicate balance between

amorphous and solid states during its manufacture,

which glass-makers and workers are only too aware of; if
they get it wrong the glass shatters and is of little use to

anyone. The extent to which glass resists flow when hot is

known as its viscosity and is measured in units of poise
(after the physicist Poiseuille). Because when glass is hot

it can flow and be poured, it can also be worked into

shapes. Glass can be defined in the following way: some
liquids can solidify on cooling without crystallisation and

form a rigid amorphous solid. If this solid on heating
softens and turns into a liquid in a reversible fashion, the

solid is called a glass.’

In passing it is worth noting that there is a

naturally-occurring glass, obsidian. This is formed at

high temperatures, and by chemically analysing it it is
possible to identify exactly which eruption from a

volcano produced it. Obsidian melts at such high
temperatures that it can only be cold-worked by man.
When molten glass cools from its fusion temperature,

there are two features of the system which are especially

important: temperature and volume (see fig. 1) and they

are inter-related. One reason why glass needs to be

annealed is so as to allow such stresses built up during its
manufacture to dissipate. During manufacture, cooling

of the contracting glass needs to be sufficiently slow to
prevent dangerous stresses from building up, but at the

same time the cooling rate should also be sufficient
to prevent crystallisation. Glass may shatter or crack

spontaneously due to insufficient annealing and this

may occur some considerable time after manufacture.

As a material, glass is what is known as a
super-cooled liquid.

When cooling from above its melting point to slightly
below it, no nuclei form within the glass (around

which crystals could form) and the non-crystalline
amorphous state mentioned above is retained at lower

temperatures.
Glass is usually mainly composed of silica in the form

of a random network of units composed of oxygen and

silicon. Each oxygen atom is shared by two silicon atoms

and the glass is built up by the sharing of the corners
by pairs of ‘oxygen tetrahedra’. The structure of pure

silica (SiO
2
) is very open and has many ‘holes’ which

sodium (amongst other ions) can fill (fig. 2) gives the
arrangement for a mixed glass). The chemical oxides

which fit into the holes are the so-called glass modifiers
and stabilisers. These substances flux the silica, increase
the durability of the glass and in some cases allow it to be

worked for longer. Glass is an
amorphous
material (as

opposed to a disordered gas or an ordered crystal).
Therefore, one of the characteristics of glass is that

structural units do not recur on a regular basis and this

is described as a lack of long range order.
2
Because

glass is normally non-crystalline when it breaks, instead
of producing an irregular broken surface full of small
facets of varied orientations as with crystals, it produces a

conchoidal fracture and the surface is gently curving
and smooth.

Structurally, glass is a supercooled liquid which is

composed of a network of inter-linked units, but which is

apparently solid. Glass is also a complex material as far as

its chemical constituents are concerned, as can be seen

in Table 1.

Table 1 THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF MAN-MADE GLASS

SOURCE

COMPONENT

COMPOSITION NAME

Sand, Quartz

Silica

Sio2

silica

Plant ash, mineral

alkalies

Na20

sodium oxide

K20

potassium oxide

Lime-rich material

Lime

CaO

calcium oxide

Lead oxide

PbO

lead oxide

Borax

Boron

B205

boric oxide

Mineral:

Colorants

copper

cobalt

iron

Mineral:

Opacifiers

antimony CazSb

2
0

7
calcium antimonate

tin

Pb2Sn2 07 lead-tin oxide

Mineral:

Decolorants antimony S6203

antimony trioxide

manganese MnO

manganese oxide

To produce it silicon oxide (Si0
2
) is fused with certain

basic oxides such as sodium, magnesium, calciuni and

potassium. The chemical compounds which are found

in glass occur in a wide range of combinations which
lead to a correspondingly wide range of appearance. If

we consider some examples of the effects of these
different materials on the appearance of glass, some are

quite obvious and others are complicated by the effect of

other factors. Figures 3 to 7 show how the presence

of different compounds in the glasses can produce

differences in glass opacity and colour. From the ancient

glass that has survived today it is worth noting that it
represents only a proportion of that which was originally

made. Some ancient glass will have weathered out of

existence completely.

2. Working properties
Differences in the compositions of glass are relatable

to variations in working properties, allowing the glass to

be pressed into moulds, blown, spun and trailed. A

change in the chemical composition of glass, can affect
its fluidity, melting and softening temperatures and the

length of time the glass is workable. When used as a

decorative material, a change in composition can affect
its relative properties of contraction and expansion

when compared to the parent glass or metal object it is
decorating. Another very important consideration in

this context is the relative melting points of the metal or

glass – the decorative glass must have a lower melting
temperature than the object being decorated or both

will melt and distort together. It may however be noted
that the chemical analysis of Roman-age enamelled

brooches has shown that there is apparently no close
relationship between the variation in composition of the

copper alloys and brasses used, and the compositions of
the enamels This would therefore appear to indicate

that in the case of the Roman manufacture of brooches

at least the selection of metal for decoration with enamel

was not closely monitored, or
vice
–
versa
;

3.
Range of artefacts

A range of objects can be made from glass. Where

glass is applied as decoration it must be used so as

to exploit the properties imposed on the glass by its

chemical composition and working properties.
An important and obvious function for which glass has

been used is the manufacture of vessels. Here the

working period during which the glass is still soft is very
important, as is the temperature at which the glass

softens and can be manipulated, moulded or blown.

Some vessels are blown into moulds, others are cast and
for others decoration may be applied to the outside

and rolled and marvered into the vessel. The most
productive by far of the blowing techniques in terms of

the number of vessels manufactured was free-blowing.

All these procedures are only possible because of the

ability of glass to retain heat and remain maleable and

sufficiently soft for a finite length of time.

A second use for glass is the manufacture of windows.

In danger of stating the obvious, windows make use of

the transparent, water-tight properties of glass. Muff or

crown window glass is produced because glass can be
expanded by one means or another into thin layers.

With crown glass it is spun into a disc with the central
thickest piece forming the ‘bull’s eye’ which is later
removed. With muff windows a cylinder of glass is sliced

longitudinally and opened out on a flat surface. Roman

cast window glass, frequently found in excavations of

villas and other sites, often still exhibits the signs of being
cast into moulds, where the glass has been pushed into

the corners of the mould.
A third use of glass is the manufacture of beads, where

the range of forms results from the ability to mould,

press, blow, cut, marver and decorate the beads with

applied trails. Related to beads is the manufacture of

glass armlets, which requires the glass to be spun into an

annular shape, sometimes on the end of a pointed metal

tool.
A fourth use is the manufacture of enamels. In

cloisonné enamel, cells are created using strips of metal

which are attached to the surface of the metal vessel or
other object. Layers of ground glass are applied to the

vessel and fired between each application so as to
fuse the enamel particles. Another type of enamel is

champleve in which cells are essentially indentations in
the metal surface and powdered glass, applied as a paste

is fused in position. The enamel itself is powdered glass

which is mixed with a liquid so as to produce an
amalgam. Sometimes the metal surface is roughened so

that the glass enamel has something to key into. Once

attached the enamel is normally polished down with a
range of polishing materials to produce a smooth

CuO

cupric oxide

CoO

cobalt oxide

Fe203

ferric oxide

surface. As already mentioned, the relative expansion

and contraction of the glass and metal is obviously very

important. Some of the earliest European cloisonné

enamels have been found in 16th century B.C. Cyprus.
Later, a kind of champleve enamel was used to decorate

the famous Iron Age shield found in the river Thames at

Battersea.

Another use for glass is in the manufacture of tesserae

for the production of mosaics. Tesserae normally start
life as large blocks which are then cut down into smaller

square blocks for decoration of walls, swimming pools or
other structures (fig. 8).

A final use for glass, which normally goes by another

name, is its use as glaze (fig. 9). Glaze is essentially a

glass which is designed for the decoration of pottery

surfaces, often to make pottery water-tight and which

would normally be water-resistant (and durable). It is
important that the bond between the glaze and pottery
body be a good one. The glaze must be of exactly the
right composition so that it cannot crack off when both

the pot and the glaze contract after firing. The term used

to describe the way in which the glaze adheres to the pot

surface is glaze ‘fit’.

It should be evident that the properties of glass enable

it to be manipulated in many ways. Its ability to remain
fluid and to flow by remaining hot for a sufficiently long
time and its property of being ‘sticky’ and bonding to a

range of materials allow it to be used in a range of ways in

artefact production.

4. Techniques of analysis
Before describing some archaeological examples of

scientific analysis and examination of glass, a brief
description of some of the techniques which can be used

to analyse various characteristics of glass follows.
The most commonly used techniques rely on the

generation of X-rays at the glass surface which are

characteristic of the chemical composition of the glass.
Examples of these techniques are X-ray fluorescence

spectroscopy (XRF) , proton-induced X-ray emission
(PIXE) , scanning-electron microscopy (SEM) and

electron-probe microanalysis (EPMA). The analysis

using XRF can be non-destructive, but unless the surface

of the glass is prepared properly the composition will be

influenced by surface weathering. The penetration of
the X-ray beam during XRF is also often too deep for the

separate analysis of a thin surface decorative
layer. Scanning-electron microscopy and EPMA have

significantly shallow analytical depths and can deal with

much smaller microscopic sample sizes. The SEM is
particularly good for examining opaque glasses in which

the minute crystals which cause the opacification can be

photographed and analysed separately. EPMA is one of
the more comprehensive techniques for the chemical

analysis of glass. One of its advantages is that it only
requires minute samples for analysis; each of these

samples can be analysed several times because the
analytical spot is less than one tenth of a millimetre.

Ancient glass is surprisingly homogeneous so the

analysis of micro-samples contain enormous amounts of
information. The results from such an analysis are

normally expressed as weight percent element oxides

and it is possible to analyse around 25 oxides in each

sample. These would include major, minor and trace

elements (i.e. those used to make the glass, colour it,

opacify it and clarify it, as well as impurities inadvertently

introduced into the glass batch which would help to

identify and source the materials used).
In electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) electrons

produced in an electron gun are fired at the sample

surface within a pre-determined geometry. The actual

area of sample in which electrons interact with the

sample depends on the application. The beam can he
focused so that the effective diameter is
c.

31.tm.

However, in glasses the density of electrons hitting the

sample surface is such that unless the electron beam is

defocused to
c.
801.tm. sodium (a common alkali in

glass) may migrate away from the point of impact and

the analysis which results is deficient in sodium, and

apparently too rich in silica and therefore does not

represent the true chemical composition of the glass.
The technique relies on the interaction of electrons

with superficial layers of glass which in turn generates

secondary X-rays. These X-rays are generated at specific
energies which result from specific electron energy

transitions occurring in the atoms of the elements

present. The secondary X-rays which result are therefore

characteristic of the elements present in the glass.

Two forms of EPMA employ different types

of spectrometers, one energy-dispersive and the
other wavelength-dispersive. Although generally more

time-consuming, the wavelength-dispersive technique,

relying as it does on the use of specific crystals and crystal

angles for dispersing specific X-ray wavelengths,

provides higher quality quantitative results.
As with XRF, EPMA is a surface analytical technique.

One difference is that the secondary X-rays generated

during XRF may derive from a depth of up to 40-50
microns within the glass sample, though this also

depends on the matrix composition of the object being

analysed. In EPMA the maximum depth from which
X-rays derive is
c.
5 microns. Because it is a surface

technique, EPMA is very sensitive to the effects of surface
roughness and degradation. This is why micro-samples

of glass are mounted in epoxy resin blocks and polished

through a series of grades of powder down to .25 micron

grade; only then is it possible to be confident that good
quantitative analyses can be achieved.

The quantitative analysis of glass relies on calibrating

the EPMA system with glass and geological standards.

The principle is that following calibration, several
analyses of a secondary standard of known composition

(which has not been used during calibration) provide

the analyst with a definition of precision and accuracy.

Levels of detection vary according to (amongst other

factors) the matrix composition of the glass and the

geometry of the system. In a soda-lime-silica glass matrix
the lowest level of detection (in parts per million) are:

760 for Na
2
O, 250 for
K
2

0, 170
for CaO, 640 for Fe
2
O
3
,

1200 for CuO and 200 for PbO.

Electron microprobe systems are often fitted with

microscopes so that with cross-wires it is possible to

see exactly the centre of the spot on the sample

which is being analysed. Some EPMA systems have
scanning facilities. However, it is the Scanning Electron
Microscope which is dedicated to imaging the sample in

a way in which EPMA is not, and provides both secondary
electron (topographical) and backscattered electron

(atomic contrast) images.
The EPMA system can incorporate an automated

sample stage which allows the analyst to select a number

of points on the sample for analysis, to record
co-ordinates and leave the system to analyse and print

out quantitative results. EPMA is therefore ideal for
the comprehensive analysis of individual (glassy or

crystalline) phases in glasses, producing high quality

analyses of pre-selected and recorded areas on the

sample surface. It is particularly suitable for the
analysis of micro-samples, and forms a very powerful
combination with Scanning Electron Microscopy.

More specific details of analytical techniques applied

to the investigation of glass are given elsewhere.
4

5. Some examples of scientific research
The general aims of carrying out a series of

chemical analyses are wide-ranging and each set

of results is dependent on a painstaking series of

sampling, sample-preparation, analysis and interpretive
techniques. Chemical analysis of ancient glass deals

purely with those which have survived today for us to

study; an unknown proportion will have decayed away

completely.
Some of the aims are:

1.
To establish major, minor and trace components in

the glass;

2.
To identify colourants, opacifiers and decolorants;

3.
To define technological traditions based on material

found on production sites such as crucibles, slags,
half-formed objects, semi-fused raw materials, waste

glass and also diagnostic vessel or object types;

4.
To re-create the techniques of ancient glass industries;

5.
To relate ( technologically) areas through trade in

glass of the same composition and of the same

artefact type and, thus, to assess possible relationships

between chemical composition and typology. There is

a danger in over-simplifying the interpretation of
the distribution of glasses with the same chemical

compositions, though it is worth stressing that glass
made using the same technological tradition in two

different areas using slightly differing raw materials
will probably contain recognisably different trace

elements and oxygen isotope signatures.

6.
To generate a value for glass given a specific social and

economic context and the use of exotic or unusual

raw materials;

7.
To recreate the history of the development of a glass

industry over time.

Of course all these aims need to be linked to other

areas of glass study such as art history, archaeology,

vessel form, glass colour, and so on. The following three

examples of the application of scientific analysis will

focus on Bronze Age, Roman and Early Medieval glass

and will involve some of the listed aims. However, there is
not space to provide comprehensive examples of all the

points listed above.

a.
The use of Bronze Age glass in Europe between c. 1400

and c. 700 B.C., and its relationship to Egyptian and Middle

Eastern glasses.

European Bronze Age glass occurs mainly as beads of

a variety of types. Early in the sequence is a large bead

from Wilsford in Wiltshire’ of a dull red glass, and from
this time on beads of mainly a translucent turquoise

green colour occur of annular and globular shape. After

c.
1100 B.C. however a wider range of bead types occur;

one of the main concentrations is in the Swiss Lake

Villages, for example at Hauterive-Champreveyres on
lake Neuchatel in Switzerland.
6
Here beads with ‘eyes’

have been found and others decorated with a spiral of

opaque glass, a strip of glass which winds from one end

of the bead down to the other. Other Bronze Age sites

which have produced beads are Frattesina
7
in northern

Italy and Rathgall in Ireland.

From a compositional point of view, until recently

European glass beads were found to have had a

soda-lime-silica composition which is similar to that used
for the manufacture of core-formed vessels from the

eastern Mediterranean, of second millenium B.C. date.

This type of soda-lime-silica glass can mainly be

categorised further by having a relatively high level of

magnesium oxide which is thought to be related to the
kind of plant ash soda source used (henceforth it will be

referred to as HMG, high magnesia glass, for con-

venience). Given this generalised compositional link
between glass used in the Mediterranean and in Europe

at this time, the presumption has been made that the glass
from Europe was either imported as beads, imported as

blocks of glass to be made into beads, or less likely that the
primary raw materials (sand, an alkali and a calcium

source) were imported to be made into glass for bead

manufacture. European glass compositions even reflect

the change in chemical composition from a high

magnesia to a low magnesia glass which occurred in the

circum-Mediterranean area in around the 8th century
B.C. Up to this point there appeared to be a relatively

simple link between Europe and the Mediterranean as
far as glass compositions are concerned.

However, chemical analysis of glass from Switzerland

(fig. 10) has shown that towards the end of the 2nd

millenium B.C. an entirely new composition of glass

was introduced. This glass composition was new in

the context of glass technology world wide, so it

completely changes our concept of how ancient glass
technology developed. The new glass composition is

characterized by low magnesium oxide (MgO) and high
potassium oxide (K
2

O) levels, both features which go

against the generally accepted picture of ancient glass
compositions. I have labelled this new compositional
type low magnesia-high potassium oxide glass, or

LMHK
8

; it has also been found in Irish and northern

Italian glass. The glass finds from northern Italy are

particularly important to the history of glass technology.

A high density of LMHK has been found at the three
hectare site of Frattesina in the Po valley which has been

excavated by Dr. Bietti-Sestierri. This site has produced
masses of LMHK glass, including many unworked lumps,

crucibles with glass adhering, malformed beads, fully
formed beads and a possible lump of glass frit. The

LMHK glass was certainly being worked at Frattesina in

large quantities, and possibly made there.

We have, at Frattesina, the evidence which is

partly based on the chemical characteristics of glass

for the first true European glass industry dating

back 3000 years. The scale of the glass industry at

Frattesina and the composition of the glass found there

makes it comparable to that at Tell-el Armarna in
Egypt in its importance, but the glass raw materials

involved were very different. The glass composition is

different in many ways from earlier glass compositions

which have been reported from the Middle East,
Mycenean Greece and Egypt; the latter areas were mainly

using glass of the high magnesia composition not the

LMHK composition (fig. 11). The reasons why this

revolutionary technological innovation apparently took
place, perhaps in northern Italy in the late 2nd

millenium B.C., are still being carefully considered. The

nature and status of Frattesina are two important factors

here, since the site was apparently a kind of entrepot

which has yielded a large amount of ivory, and this must

indicate it had firm connections with warmer climes.

Another important consideration is that the site dates to

a time just after the collapse of the Mycenaean
civilization, so perhaps intense industrial activity there

filled a vacuum created by the collapse of Mycenean
Greece and a breakdown of communications with other
centres in the east.

b. Luxury Roman glass
Although a limited amount of analytical research has

been carried out on luxury Roman glass vessels, the small

amount that has been done is instructive and shows
interesting compositional characteristics. The Portland

vase has recently received media attention because it

has been restored. During the time that the British
Museum carried out this restoration small samples of

glass were removed for chemical analysis.
9
Partly based

on art-historic factors, the Portland vase can probably be
dated to the late 1st century B.C. The blue matrix of

the vase was found to be coloured by cobalt oxide,

and the scene carved on the outside in opaque white

glass was found to be both coloured and opacified by

calcium antimonate in a glass-containing 12.84% lead

oxide. The white glass would have been carved into a

decorative frieze on the outside of the vessel, so the use
of a softer relatively high lead oxide glass indicates
that the artisans concerned understood their materials

well. Another vessel, which possibly dates to the 1st

century B.C. and which incorporates opaque white glass
is currently in the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna.
It is a large spherical two-handled mosaic jar which is cast

and polished.° Here the opaque white glass is marbled

with translucent purple and brown glasses, coloured
mainly by manganese and iron oxides respectively, and

again the white glass contains a relatively high lead oxide

leve1.
11
A series of analyses of opaque white glasses used

in the manufacture of mosaic ribbed bowls, some of

which probably also date to the late 1st century B.C.,
has revealed that the opaque white glass used contains

significantly lower lead oxide levels,
12
and at present can

therefore be easily distinguished from the glass used in

the larger vessels. This simple distinction appears to be
related to the difference in the technology used. The

Portland vase of 1st century B.C. date was cast and

cased, with the opaque white glass being carved; the
Kunsthistorische museum vessel, although probably also

of 1st century B.C. date, was not carved but highly
polished and in it too the white glass contains a relatively

high lead oxide content.
The mass-produced mosaic ribbed bowls were also

cast but not carved and neither opaque nor translucent

glasses contained a high lead oxide content. It is
therefore possible that the stock of opaque white glass

used for the manufacture of large luxury glass vessels

such as the Portland vase and the Kunsthistorische
museum vessel, both probably produced in the

Mediterranean world, was manufactured in the same
tradition irrespective of vessel form. To the author’s

knowledge, none of the common mosaic ribbed bowls

have been found to contain opaque white glass with high

lead oxide levels. This distinction suggests a difference

in workshop practice together with an increased

production volume.

Another luxury Roman glass vessel which exhibits

the refined use of colorants to produce an impressive

visual result is the Lycurgus cup. In reflected light the

Lycurgus cup appears to be a pale green colour, whereas
in transmitted light it appears to be a pink colour. This

visual property is known as diachroism. In physical terms
the effect can be explained by the presence of minute

particles of a gold-silver alloy which refract light, and

because the particles are so small in transmitted light

the matrix glass allows light to be transmitted but also

modifies the colour.
13

In compositional terms, the colouration of many early

Roman red glasses is due to a dispersion of opaque red

crystals within the glass (fig. 12). Their composition is

the reduced form of copper, cuprite or cuprous

oxide (Cu
2
O) and sometimes metallic copper. Like

diachroic glasses, opaque red glasses were difficult

to produce, particularly with the respect to the

oxidising-reducing balance in the glass furnace, the

maximum temperatures achieved, the composition of
the glass and the heat treatment used to develop the

crystals. However the crystals developed in opaque red

glasses were significantly larger than the dispersion of
metal droplets in the Lycurgus cup. When opaque red

cuprite glass is full of dendritic crystals it is rendered
totally opaque; reddish glass of a browner hue contains

smaller crystals and the overall colour is likely to be

dominated more by the major components in the clear

glass matrix.
14

c. Early Medieval glass
A fine example of the use of chemical analysis to

investigate ancient glass is the study of Anglo-Saxon

and Viking-age material. Much of the discussion is
based on data which is about to be published or is

unpublished.

As we saw in section 5a, some Bronze Age glass is of

the soda-lime-silica composition with a high magnesia

content (HMG) and Roman-age glass is principally

soda-lime-silica but with a low magnesia content (less
than
c.
1%), LMG. Much Anglo-Saxon vessel glass is

also of this ‘Roman’ SLS compositional type
16
which

raises the obvious though problematic question of

whether Anglo-Saxon glass is re-cycled Roman glass or
did Dark Age glasshouses continue to use the same
basic raw materials? A low potassium oxide content in

Roman glass (also less than
c.
1%) accompanies the low

MgO level – this means that the principal alkali is likely
to be a mineral form of soda or a mineral alkali

with the same chemical characteristics (see Table 1).

Occasionally there are exceptions when we find HMG in
the Roman period, such as some from Silchester,
16

and conventionally this would infer that the glass was
derived from the Middle East
17
– which may indeed be

the case. From amongst the Anglo-Saxon glass there

are a small number of exceptional compositions with
elevated potassium oxide levels, particularly amongst
red glasses. Analysis of Roman red enamels and glass

mosaic tesserae has revealed that similar
anomalous

compositions were in use between the 1st and 4th
centuries for both.
14
For some reason (perhaps because

of the technological problems of making it) the
red
glass

used for Roman enamel and glass tesserae has this

unusual chemical composition, so it is well characterized

and easily distinguished from other colours of glass.

Another colour which has a very similar chemical
composition to the red is orange. Indeed, variation in

chemical composition is even found within this unusual

class of glass compositions, which relates to the hue of

the red, orange and yellow glass. In this instance

therefore it is highly probable that Roman glass was
recycled – and there is some evidence for the use of

Roman opaque glass in Europe Limoges enamels.
18

It is when Viking-age glass of the later 1st millenium

A.D. (9th and 10th centuries) is examined that one
detects distinct deviations from the ‘normal’ Roman or

Anglo-Saxon soda-lime-silica glass composition. These

differences have so far only been found to occur in

some English and Scandinavian glass.
19
When compared

to High Medieval glass compositions from York (for

example)
29
the Viking-age low lead glass is found to be

transitional between Anglo-Saxon and High Medieval

compositions. This transitional Viking-age glass is of a
mixed-alkali composition; it therefore contains both

potassium oxide, which is normally the predominant

alkali in High Medieval glass, and soda – characteristic

of most Roman and Anglo-Saxon glass. Also, while

Anglo-Saxon glass contains
c.

6.5-8.0 calcium oxide and

High Medieval glass
c.

14-24% calcium oxide, some

Viking-age glass contains
c.

11-16%. There are other

compositional features in some of this Viking-age glass

which can be described as transitional.
How can we explain such a radical compositional

change? A possible explanation for the occurrence of

compositionally transitional Viking-age glass is that

soda (probably natron or a mineral with a similar

composition) was in short supply and had to be

supplemented with terrestrial plant ash as an alkali

source which would be potassium-rich. Maritime plants
used as a soda source would be characterized by elevated

MgO and K
2

O levels
21
as found in HMG (see section 5a).

Perhaps an extra demand was created because it was
needed for windows in ecclesiastical buildings (such as at

Lurke Lane, Beverley, North Humberside) combined

with a rapid rise in the population of Europe. This new

information certainly infers that glass artisans were

experimenting with new recipes as a response to a

change in the scale of production and demand for glass.

Conclusions
Glass is a complex material which normally exists as a

single physical phase containing mixtures of element

oxides which determine its melting and softening
points, working period, strength, viscosity, colour,

durability, transparency and opacity. It has been
used for the manufacture of vessels, windows, beads,

armlets, enamels, tesserae and glazes. After some

experimentation, the selection of raw materials by man

to manufacture glass with specific fusion and working

properties has led to the manufacture of a wide range

of artefact forms and the development of a wide range of
colours. During each cultural phase man chose to

manufacture glass objects not only often of a diagnostic

shape, but also of characteristic compositions.

In the scientific investigation of glass chemical

compositions, it is often possible to show how the kinds

of raw materials used by man changed over time,

providing the analyst with a chemical fingerprint for

glass production at that time and in a particular place.

Many societies were apparently quite conservative about

selecting raw materials for glass manufacture and it is

therefore possible to place a glass composition into a

technological and/or chronological bracket according

to the levels of major, minor and trace element oxides
present. The use of plant ash rather than a mineral alkali

source introduces different minor and trace elements
into the glass batch providing a means of characterising

the glass. Sand, the principal silica source in ancient

glass, also often contains various levels of mineral
impurities which provide another way in which the glass

can be characterized, though locating the original

source of the sand is almost out of the question given the

complex depositional histories of many sand deposits. At

a third level the use of glass colorants, opacifiers and

colorants, often either directly or indirectly deriving
from minerals, also introduces an interesting suite of

trace elements. There are therefore at least three levels

at which the glass can be chemically characterized, and
given sufficient compositional data for well-dated

archaeological glasses it becomes relatively easy to

identify a fake or later copy of a glass vessel.

The scientific analysis of European Bronze Age

glass has revealed the existence of an entirely new
composition in a world context. It is characterized by

mixed alkalies (sodium and potassium oxides), low

magnesia and low calcium oxide. This composition has

been found in a large concentration of glass in northern
Italy, at the late 11th-10th century B.C. site of Frattesina

in the Po valley, where the scale of the industrial

evidence is such that it can be compared in scale and

importance to the debris of the glass industry at Tell el

Amarna in Egypt. The especially important feature of

this glass is that the evidence suggests it is quite distinct

from that being used in Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia

in the 2nd millenium B.C.
While the scale of glass production was obviously

larger in the Roman period, examination of luxury

Roman vessel glass has revealed a high level of

sophistication in the industry. When the famous carved

opaque white outer face of the Portland vase is
compared technologically with opaque white glass used
for the mass production of ribbed pillar moulded bowls

it is found that the high lead content of the Portland vase

was deliberately used because it would have been softer
to carve than the white glass in pillar moulded bowls; the

latter have been found to contain negligible lead oxide

levels. Another instance of a high level of sophistication

in Roman glass technology, is the development of

minute droplets of metal or metal alloys to produce ruby

glasses, imparting a diachroic effect in the Lycurgus cup
(the glass is a different colour when viewed in reflected

and transmitted light).

Later, at the end of the first millenium A.D., European

early medieval glass is often considered to be of a

soda-lime-silica (so-called ‘Roman’) composition, and to
provide evidence for the continuation in the use

of Roman glass. There are now specific examples,
particularly in red glass/enamel where this has been

found to be the case. Moreover, at the end of the first
millenium A.D., in the 9th and 10th centuries,

glass was being used which appears to reflect a
changeover from the ‘Roman’ composition to the High
Medieval composition in Europe and can be considered

transitional. Here, glasses used for windows, vessels and
beads from recent excavations have been found to

contain alkali and lime levels which can be described as

transitional. The explanation offered is that demand

outstripped the supply of available glass raw materials

and scrap glass in the 9th and 10th centuries, and that
new raw materials were added to existing stocks. This

suggests that experimentation with raw materials took
place. The rise in population coupled with a demand for

window glass appears to have created this demand.
Overall, the scientific study of ancient glass clearly

provides data which infer a complex organisation for

ancient glass industries for which it is difficult to

find parallels amongst other industries (ancient metal

industries involve a relatively restricted range of raw

materials in comparison). The wide range of visual

effects which can be produced in glass result from man’s

skilful use and manipulation of glass raw materials

and the interaction of light rays with the glass.

The incorporation of ‘impurities’ in the glass batch as

part of a glass production ritual may have occurred

because secret recipes were passed from generation to

generation of glass artisans. The effect might be noted in

the finished product, but apart from the use of textual

evidence, there is no scientific way of ‘identifying’ the
presence of additives which were incorporated as part of

a ritual.

Acknowledgements. I
am very grateful to Doctors

Colleen Batey and Hilary Cool for reading through a

draft of this paper, and making very helpful comments.

NOTES

1.
W. A. Weyl and E. C. Marboe,

The Constitution of glasses: a

dynamic interpretation
(London, 1962), vol. 1, p.125. A

useful and comprehensive discussion of the nature of

glass is given in a paper by R. H. Brill: ‘A note on the
scientist’s definition of glass’,
Journal of Glass Studies
4

(1962), pp. 127-138.

2.
A. Guinier,

The Structure of Matter

(Edward Arnold,

London, 1984).

3.
J. D.

Bateson and R. E. M. Hedges, ‘The scientific

analysis of a group of Roman-age enamelled brooches’,
Archaeometry
17,2 (1975), pp. 177-190.

R. H. Brill, ‘The scientific investigation of ancient

14. J. Hendei
–

son, ‘Chemical characterization of Roman glass

glasses’,
Proceedings of the VIIIth International Congress

vessels, enamels and tesserae’,
Materials issues in Art

of Glass, London,
(The Society of Glass Technology,

and Archaeology II
(1990), Proceedings of the Spring

Sheffield, 1968), pp. 47-48. See also J. Henderson, ‘The

meeting of the Materials Research Society, San Francisco.

scientific analysis of ancient glass and its archaeological

Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, pp. 601-608.

interpretation’, Chapter 2 in J. Henderson (ed.)
Scientific

15. D. C. W. Sanderson, J. R. Hunter, and S. E. Warren,

Analysis in Archaeology, and its interpretation,
Oxford

‘Ebergy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence analysis of 1st

University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph no.

millennium A.D. glass from Britain’,
Journal of

19 and UCLA Institute of Archaeology Research Tools 5,

Archaeological Science
11, 1, (1984), pp. 53-69. See also M.

(Oxbow Books, Oxford, 1989).

P. Heyworth, J. R. Hunter, S. E. Warren and N. Walsh,

5.
M. Guido, J. Henderson, M. Cable, J. Bayley and L. Biek,

‘The role of inductively coupled plasma spectrometry in

‘A Bronze Age glass bead from Wilsford, Wiltshire;

glass provenance studies’,
Archaeometry. Proceedings of the

Barrow G42 in the Lake Group’,
Proceedings of the

25th International Symposium, Athens
(Elsevier, Amsterdam,

Prehistoric Society
50, (1984), pp. 245-254.

1989), pp. 661-670.

6.
A report on the glass by J. Henderson will be published

16. The analytical results and discussion by J. Henderson will

as part of the site report by Madame Rychner-Faraggi.

be published in the full excavation report by Professor M.

Other discussion of the bead types is given in T. E.

Fulford, the Director of the excavations.

Haevernick, ‘Urnenfelderzeitliche Glasperlen’,
Zeitschrift

17.

E. V. Sayre and R. W. Smith, ‘Compositional categories of

fur schweizerische Archaologie and Kunstgeschichte
35, (1978),

ancient glass’,
Science,
133, June 9, (1961), pp. 1824-1826,

pp. 145-157.

and E. V. Sayre and R. W. Smith, ‘Some materials of

7.
Excavations at Frattesina have been directed by Dr.

glass manufacturing in antiquity’. In (ed. M. Levey)

Anna-Maria Biette-Sestierri for the Soporintendensa in

Archaeological Chemistry. A Symposium,
third Symposium

Rome. Full compositional analyses of the glass will

on Archaeological Chemistry, Atlantic City (New Jersey,

be published as a joint paper by Bietti-Sestierri and

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967), pp. 279-312.

Henderson.

18. Unpublished data produced by the author.

8.
J. Henderson, ‘Glass production and Bronze Age Europe,

19. Glass of this composition has been found at Peel Castle,

Antiquity,
62, (1988), pp. 435-451.

Isle of Man (J. Henderson, ‘An archaeological and

9.
M. Bimson and I. C. Freestone, ‘An analytical study of

scientific study of the glass beads from Peel Castle’, in D.

the relationship between the Portland vase and other

Freke
Excavations at Peel Castle, Isle of Man,
University

Roman cameo lasses’,
Journal of Glass Studies
25, (1983),

of Liverpool, Monograph, in press) and Lurk Lane,

pp. 55-64.

Beverley, U. Henderson, ‘The Glass’, in Peter Armstrong,

10.
D. F. Grose,

The Toledo Museum of Art Early Ancient Glass,

David Tomlinson and D. H. Evans,
Excavations at Lurk

(Hudson Hills Press, New York, 1989), pp 259-260 and

Lane, Beverley 1979-82,
Sheffield Excavation Report 1,

Fig. 152.

1991, pp. 124-130 and Mf. I. B6-C1).

11.
Unpublished data produced by the author.

20. K. J. S. Gillies and A. Cox, ‘Decay of medieval stained

12.
Unpublished data produced by the author.

glass at York, Canterbury and Carlisle’,
Glastechniche

13.
R. H. Brill, ‘The chemistry of the Lycurgus cup’,

Berichte
61, 3, (1988), pp. 75-84.

Proceedings of the VII International Congress on Glass, Brussels

21. R. H. Brill, ‘The chemical interpretation of the texts in

(National Institute of Glass, Belgium, 1965), 223.1-223.12

Glass and glassmaking in ancient Mesopotamia
(ed. ‘A. L.

and J. Barber and I. C. Freestone, ‘An investigation of the

Oppenheim, R. H. Brill, D. Barag and A. von Saldern),

origin of the colour of the Lycurgus Cup by analytical

pp. 105-128, (Corning, New York: Corning Museum of

transmission electron microscopy’,
Archaeometry
32, 1,

Glass 1970); J. Henderson, ‘Electron probe microanalysis

(1990), pp. 33-45.

of mixed-alkali glasses’,
Archaeometry,

30, 1 (1988),

pp. 77-91.

C
Temperature

Figure I. The relationships between glassy (G), liquid (L) and solid

Figure 2. Schematic two-dimensional representation of a mixed glass

(S) states.

(0=silicon, o=oxygen atom, O=singly charged metal ion).

Figure 3.
A thin slither of glass containing yellow lead antimonate

(Pb2Sb2O7) crystals. A much thicker piece of glass containing such
crystals is totally opaque (x 100).
Figure 4. A scanning-electron micrograph of a fragment of opaque

yellow glass showing yellow lead stannate (PbSn03) opacifying
crystals which appear ‘white’. Two other crystalline species are ‘black’
blocky crystals (probably remnant raw materials) and elongated

crystals developed out of solution when the glass was heat treated
(x 500).

Figure 6. Bubbles, and inclusions which remain undissolved in the glass can cause

or contribute to opacification (x40).

Figure 5. A detail of a 17th century Chinese opaque
cloisonné enamel: powdered glass is applied within the
metal framework.

I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

III

III I 1 1 1 1 1

I I I I

IIII

I I I I I I I I I I I 1

1111111111111

I I I I

Figure 8. Blocks of glass, and tesserae which were made from the blocks
(two

Figure 7. Polychrome mosaic plate from Canosa, Apulia of

tesserae on the left from Mount Sinae c.565 A.D., two blocks in the centre from

late 3rd century B.C. date, mainly composed of opaque

Tivoli, Serapium 117-138 A.D., four tesserae on the right from Rome, Palatine

glasses.

100-190 A.D.)

x o
0

I
4

o
0

14—

Weight
K
2
0

6
2

Weight °I4 Mg0
European 7

mntury B.C.

Glass of 11
th

– 7
th
centuries B.C. date to 1S
t

century A.D.

low Mg0 soda-lime
silica glass

UAW composition from

Northern Italy,

Switzerland and Ireland

6
Glass of 13
th

century B.C.to 6
th
century B.C.date

from Southern, Central and Western Europe

0
8

0.
0 v

•

1
o

°
o
go
+

i
f

a
+

See

Inset
6

0 +

0
+

2
Figure 10. European Bronze Age glass: row 1, 2 and

3 beads from Hauterive-Champreveyres, Switzerland; row
4 left and middle from Hauterive-Champreveyres, right

Potterne, Wiltshire; row 5 left Wallingford, Oxfordshire,
middle and right Freestone Hill, Ireland. Scale: bead in

top left hand corner is 1.2cm long.

Figure 12. The occurrence of opacifying cuprite crystals in early Roman
opaque red glass (x 4000).

Figure 9. Detail of a Famille rose glaze. Chinese, second quarter

of
the 18111 centuty.

Figure 11. Bivariate plot of weight % K
2
0 vs. weight % MgO in

2nd and 1st millennia B.C. European glass. • = Rathgall;

=
Laugh Gur; • = Frattesina; • = Hauterive-Champreveyres;

= Wilsford;

=
Potterne; O= Czechoslovakian 13th-7th

century BC glass; 0 = Hallstatt D glass; • = Knackboy

Cairn; V = Galgenburg;

= Yugoslavian and Hungarian

Hallstatt C glass; + = Greek and Rhodian Hallstatt C; INSET

(low MgO glass): 0. = La Negade; • = Wetwang Slack;

0 = see above; X = Hallstatt Clow MgO glass.
04

4
0

111

41
,

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Join

Search

Member

Recent Posts

Address

Email

Instagram

Facebook