CHAPTER IIIEIGHTEENTH-CENTURY GLASS

Fig. 38.Saxon Glass.—1, 2, 3, Trumpet Cups; 4, a Ribbed and Lobed Vase; 5-9, Palm Cups and Vases.

Fig. 38.

Saxon Glass.—1, 2, 3, Trumpet Cups; 4, a Ribbed and Lobed Vase; 5-9, Palm Cups and Vases.

statements as that of the Venerable Bede previously referred to. Only, while similar vessels are found both in France and Germany, it is claimed that a greater number and a greater variety are found in England, the inference being that they were made in this country.

So remarkable is the paucity of evidence and so absolute the dearth of authenticated examples in these Dark Ages of glass manufacture, that it has often been asserted that no glass vessels were made in England before the fifteenth century. Glass vessels were, of course, known and used, but these were probably, in the main at any rate, imported from Venice and the East. On the other hand, it is known that before the thirteenth century window glass—blown glass too, and not cast glass—was made, and very successfully. Indeed, old English coloured glass was particularly fine, and this being so, it is not easy to understand why the same art should not be applied to vessels.

Coarse glass vessels were certainly made at a very early date. The records of Chiddingfold refer to LaurenceVitreariusin 1230, William leVeririn 1301, and JohnGlasewrythin 1380. The record, in its transition from Latin toNorman-French, and then to Anglo-Saxon, has its philological interest as well, but it may be mentioned that John theGlasewrythmade both “brode glas and vessel.”

There is, too, in existence an ancient cup of glass, disinterred from a tomb in Peterborough Abbey Church, which, from the records of the Abbey, must have been buried there, in all probability, in the first half of the thirteenth century. In the accounts of Henry, the second son of Edward I., who died in 1274, there is mentioned the purchase of a glass cup for the sum of twopence halfpenny, a fact which seems to imply that to be sold so cheaply the vessel must have been of domestic manufacture. It should not, however, be forgotten that this sum represented the daily wage of a skilled artisan in the thirteenth century. In the Taxation Roll of Colchester in 1295, three of the principal burgesses are referred to as “verrers,” and it seems hardly likely that so many important citizens were merely glaziers and not glass-makers. However, it is more than probable that the use of glass was confined to the noble and wealthy, while the common folk used vessels made of wood, horn, or leather.The “Leather Bottel” has passed into a proverb, and the Black Jack was so universal in its use that the French, naturally curious as to English habits, referred to us as a nation of savages who habitually drank out of their boots. It follows that the Black Jack of the thirteenth or fourteenth century had few of the graces of its silver-mounted and aristocratic descendant of the seventeenth century. It might be further suggested that English habits and customs in those early times were not such as to make fragile drinking vessels either useful or acceptable. Those that did exist were probably rather valued curiosities than articles of everyday utility.

There was, undoubtedly, produced during this period considerable quantities of window glass, much of it highly decorated, and exhibiting characteristics peculiar to the period to which it belongs, so that experts find little difficulty in distinguishing between the vigour of the thirteenth and the brilliancy of the fourteenth century. It would appear, too, that the home product won an increasing appreciation from the architects who employed it in their buildings; for whereas in 1547 the contractorbinds himself not to use it for the windows of the Beauchamp Chapel at Warwick, in 1485 it is mentioned in such a way as to imply that it was either better or dearer, or both, than “Dutch, Venice, or Normandy glass.”

In the sixteenth century, however, the fashion of using vessels of glass became almost universal in the west of Europe. Most of these came from Venice, and, spurred by the desire of establishing so lucrative an industry at home, the rulers of various countries—notably France, Holland, and England—sought to induce Venetian craftsmen to settle in them.

The glass-workers of Murano—the great glass-making centre in Venice—were, however, a close corporation, the workmen being stringently bound, under penalty of death, not to carry their trade secrets to any other country or to teach them to foreigners. In spite of this, eight Muranese glass-workers were induced to settle in England in 1549, and built their furnace in the monastery of the Crutched Friars—one of the minor orders. They derived their name Crutched (i.e.Crossed) from the ornamental cross which adorned their habits. Ofthe eight, seven returned to Venice in 1551, having previously petitioned the Council of Ten to remit the penalties against them. It is a reasonable assumption—but still only an assumption—that during their stay they did much to further the art of glass-making, although they merely produced glass and sedulously refrained from teaching their “mystery.”

The “Breviary of Philosophy,” published in 1557, remarks:

“As to glassemakers they be scant in this landYet one there is as I doe understand,And in Sussex is now his habitacion,At Chiddingfold he works by his occupacion.”

Evidently, therefore, the old Sussex industry had survived. The product of the Chiddingfold furnaces was probably, however, a coarse green glass, and by no means to be compared with the Venetian article.

In 1564 Cornelius de Lannoy, an alchemist from the Netherlands, came to England, at the invitation of the Government, to teach the art of glass-making as practised in the Low Countries. He took up his abode and set up his furnace in Somerset House. He failed,however, with the materials then available, to produce any very effective results; in particular, the clay used for the pots failed to withstand the great heat required to produce transparent glass. Moreover, de Lannoy proved to be more alchemist than glass-maker, and left various persons in England the poorer for their quest after the philosopher’s stone which they had undertaken under his guidance.

In 1567 Pierre Briet and Jean Carré sought a licence to make glass after the French fashion, and to teach to English craftsmen the art of its manufacture as practised in Lorraine and Normandy. Elizabeth, always with an eye to the main chance, made no difficulty and, joining forces with a rival licencee, Becker, set up in opposition to the English glass-makers in Sussex and later at Stourbridge and Newcastle. The fact that the native workers openly confessed their inability to compete with the French craftsmen did not prevent their stirring up a strong opposition against them, which found vent in popular tumult and, in at least one instance, in a conspiracy to murder the workers, pillage their stores and destroy their furnaces. There seems little doubt, however, that theirpresence must have influenced the quality of English glass and given an impetus to its manufacture. So did the advent of political and religious refugees from the Low Countries and from France, and also, though, of course, to a far greater degree, the influx of French artisans in the seventeenth century after the revocation of the famous Edict of Nantes. In spite of their efforts, however, it does not appear that the importation of fine Venetian glass was in any way checked; it continued, indeed, on an extensive scale for a long time after.

The most famous name in the history of Elizabethan glass manufacture is that of Jacob Verzelini, who came to London in 1575 and stayed for the remainder of his life—about thirty years. He obtained a patent giving him the monopoly of manufacturing glass after the Venetian style for twenty-one years. He set up his establishment in the hall of the Crutched Friars, where the eight Venetians had built their furnace in 1549, and there made “glass of divers sorts to drink in.” There is little doubt as to his success, although, with one possible exception, no tangible evidence of it remains. Butif one may judge by the very considerable outcry that arose at this period against permitting foreigners to practise the art of glass-making to the detriment of native practitioners, he succeeded sufficiently well to arouse a strong feeling of jealousy. This was intensified by the traders who had hitherto sold imported Venetian glass, and the seamen who carried it in their vessels and who now saw their livelihood menaced.

The general public, too, showed itself greatly concerned over the great consumption of wood in the glass-houses. Indeed, during this period the wasting of the woods was a general complaint wherever furnaces were set up. So strong was this feeling, indeed, that in 1584 an act was passed against the making of glass by strangers and outlandish men and for the preservation of woods spoiled by glass-houses; and in 1589, the year after the Armada, it was proposed to reduce the number of glass-houses from fifteen to four, transferring the rest to Ireland, where the loss of trees did not matter so much, the timber not being urgently needed, as in England, for the purpose of shipbuilding. One curious fact is that for a long time—fromthe twelfth century at least in unbroken record—English window glass of a high order had been produced, as witness the windows of King’s College Chapel at Cambridge, which date from 1515-31; and it seems impossible to conceive that, with Venetian and Eastern glass to copy, the craftsmen who produced the windows should not have also turned their skill to the making of drinking vessels, particularly as the fashion for vessels of glass had strongly set in.

“It is a world to see in these our daies wherein gold and silver most aboundeth how that our gentilitie as lothing these mettals (because of the plentie) do now generalie choose rather the Venice glasses both for our wine and beere than anie of those mettals or stone wherein beforetime we have beene accustomed to drink....

“The poorest also will have glasse if they may but sith the Veneccian is somewhat too deere for them they content themselves with such as are made at home of ferne and burned stone, but in fine all go one way that is to shards at the last.”

On the other hand, when Sir Richard Manselapplied in 1624 for a patent to manufacture glass and to train Englishmen in the art, it was opposed, on the ground that fifty years before a similar patent had been granted to Jacob Verzelini and that it had been altogether neglected, and very few Englishmen had been brought up in the art. Mansel, in his reply, stated that he himself had brought many strangers from beyond seas to instruct his fellow-countrymen in making all sorts of glass, crystalline, Murano, spectacle glasses, and mirror plates.

I have stated these facts in the early history of English glass at some length not only for their intrinsic interest, but also to illustrate the curious fact that just as there is from Saxon times to 1550 a gap in the history of its manufacture, which no authenticated examples assist to fill, so from the accession of Queen Elizabeth to that of King Charles I. there exist to-day very few indisputable examples of the English glass-blower’s art of this period; and yet it is hardly possible to believe that they were not produced in considerable quantity. For, in spite of specimens bearing the Tudor rose—an ornament, by the way, largely employedat a later date—and of others with detailed and more or less accredited histories, “Elizabethan glass,” so glibly spoken of by some collectors, is chiefly conspicuous by its absence. Happy, therefore, the collector who acquires even a dubious example.

One famous specimen which may safely be assumed to be authentic is that from the British Museum Collection shown in Fig. 1. This drinking cup or goblet stands about 5¼ in. in height and bears the initials G. S.—probably those of the person for whom it was made—the date 1586, and the motto, “IN: GOD: IS: AL: MY: TRVST.” Experts generally concur in attributing it to Jacob Verzelini.

Four years after the Armada, Elizabeth granted to one Thomas Bowes a monopoly to make drinking glasses “to be as good cheape or better cheape than those imported from Venice.” As to the success of his venture history is silent. In the reign of her successor—that British Solomon, James I.—glass-making seems, however, to have made considerable progress; for in 1610 a licence was granted for “the invention of coal-heated glass-houses,” and in the following year Sir Edward Zouche expendedno less a sum than £5000 in erecting glass-houses in Lambeth and perfecting the production of glass with sea-coal. This change is a momentous one in the history of glass-making, inasmuch as it became necessary to cover the pots, and this brought about various improvements. They are mainly associated with the name of Percival, and it is to be presumed that they included the introduction of oxide of lead into the frit in quantity, with the result of producing a more brilliant crystal than had yet been produced. From this time English glass began to acquire fame, and the industry became a definitely British art.

One outcome of this change in the method of manufacture was that the industry became localised, the glass-houses springing up in those districts where it was easy to obtain fuel as on the coal-fields, where the sand was of exceptional quality as at Reigate, or where there was an abundance of clay suitable for making the pots as at Stourbridge.

One of the most interesting discoveries in connection with the history of the glass industry in England was made some sixty or seventy

FIG. 1.—AN EARLY ELIZABETHAN GLASS, DATED 1586.

FIG. 2.—AN OLD ENGLISH GLASS TANKARD AND COVER.

years ago at the little Hampshire village of Buckholt Wood. Excavations here brought to light fragments of glass, some clear, others with a greenish or bluish tinge, evidently portions of broken vessels of various kinds—drinking glasses, jugs, bottles, and so forth. These were in such quantity that it was evident chance had brought to light one of the old glass-houses, which were founded in well-wooded districts, and kept going as long as sufficient wood remained to burn.

We have seen how, in the beginning, English glass-workers were a nomad race. As the woods in one place were exhausted they moved to fresh fields and forests new—much to the annoyance of the populace, who depended upon those woods for their household firing, and of the Government, who sought to preserve them for the maintenance of the fleet.

In 1615 a proclamation was made forbidding the use of wood for glass smelting, the furnaces being in future compelled to burn sea-coal or charcoal or other fuel. The same ordinance prohibited the importation of foreign glass or the immigration of foreign glass-workers.

In the same year Sir Richard Mansel, a man of considerable standing in the realm, who had been experimenting in glass-making with the aid of Venetian workmen, was granted a licence for making glass with coal, and set up furnaces in London and at Purbeck, Milford Haven and Newcastle. It is a matter for regret that no product of his furnaces is known to exist to-day, a fact the more surprising in that his licence was renewed at various times, and so covers a considerable stretch of the most interesting period of the art. At any rate we find him petitioning in 1641 that he might be protected against persons importing glass from abroad, whereas he was paying a rent of £1000 per annum for his monopoly. His name is mentioned as late as 1653, so that for nearly forty years he controlled, more or less, the business of glass production in England.

It is a matter for some congratulation, however, that Mansel employed, in some kind of managerial capacity in his Broad Street works, a certain James Howell, who enjoys the reputation of being one of the liveliest and most pleasing writers of the period. Inthe famous Howell’s letters, “Epistolæ Ho-Elianæ,” which were published between 1645 and 1655, we have a delightful commentary on the events of his time, and incidentally a number of curious and useful sidelights on the conduct of glass manufacture both in England and on the Continent.

It is said that Sir Kenelm Digby, of Royalist fame, invented in 1632 the art of making glass bottles to contain the wine which hitherto had been drawn straight from the wood. But Fame which credits him with this discovery would seem to have forgotten that in Elizabeth’s time ale was sold in glass bottles, and a quaint old volume yclept “The English Housewife” refers in 1575 to round bottles with narrow necks for “bottle ale,” the corks being tied down with stout string.

The Commonwealth, save for what may be gleaned from Howell’s pages, adds but little to our knowledge of glass. The Puritans were, perhaps, more addicted to smashing it, in the form of stained-glass windows, than manufacturing it for domestic utilities. But with the Restoration there came a greatchange. The then Duke of Buckingham, who appears, like others of his name, to have had a keen eye to the main chance, started a glass furnace at Greenwich. In 1663 he petitioned the King that he might be granted a licence to make mirrors, he having been at great expense in finding out the art and mystery thereof—“a manufactory not known nor heretofore used in England”—a curious contradiction to Mansel’s claim in 1620, and one which seems to imply that the Duke was by no means particular as to what he said provided he might gain his ends.

There were numbers of competitors at the time all claiming to be the inventors of crystal glass. The authorities, however, awarded the palm to one Thomas Tilson, who in 1663 was granted a patent, in which he is described as the inventor of crystal glass. It appears clear that Tilson had produced a material of greater merit than any of his predecessors or contemporaries. It is probable that this material was lead glass—flint glass as it was and is still called. One point in support of this theory is that it was toobrittle to be used in making vessels, and Tilson consequently confined himself to the manufacture of mirrors, windows for coaches, etc.

Specimens of the work of this period may be found in many places—country houses, mansions, halls, etc.—throughout the country. At Hampton Court Palace there are, for example, several magnificent mirrors that testify to the skill of the craftsmen—Venetian and English—of this period. Some of the window glass is of the same date and may be readily distinguished by its mauve tinge—a possible result of the action of light on the peroxide of manganese, which was one of the constituents. At a slightly later date other glass-houses were founded in Lambeth, Stourbridge, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and other places, notably in Surrey and Sussex.

All this while, however, there was a great trade in imported Venetian glass, which the Council was, time and again, petitioned to prohibit. Fortunately both for the future of the art of glass-making in England and for the cheapness and quality of the ware, which was now in great demand, the efforts of the protectionists were unavailing.

Much of our knowledge of the glass of the period is due to the discovery of the trading books and order sheets of one John Greene, who seems to have dealt in imported glass, ordering from the Venetian furnaces vessels to his own specification and design. Fortunately some specimens of these are still in existence, but it need hardly be said that examples of the seventeenth century, both home manufactured and imported, are of the extremest rarity. He would be a fortunate collector who should discover, say, “a speckled emerald coverd beere glasse” or a “milk-whit cruet” either with or without “feet and ears of good hansom fashion.”

In point of shape the Venetian and English glasses of this period differ very little, but there is a considerable difference in the character of the metal. The glass from Venice is colder to the eye, whiter and softer than the English, which is more brilliant and of a peculiar steely lustre, while it is far weightier—a fact probably due to the use of a considerable proportion of lead. The English glasses, too, are heavier in appearance, with stems, thick and lumpy, of the baluster type. Often, too, the bulbous stem is blown with a bubble,

FIG. 3.—AN EARLY GLASS FEEDING CUP.

FIG. 4.—A SIXTEENTH CENTURY PANEL GLASS, WITH PORTRAIT OF CHARLES II.

often of considerable size—a primitive attempt at ornamentation. Not unseldom a coin is inserted in the bulb of the stem or the knop of the cover. One famous example of Caroline glass is the magnificent posset cup in the possession of Miss Whitmore Jones, which is shown in Fig. 2. This unmistakably dates from the time of Charles II. and is a genuine example of English art. It was probably, as to design, copied from a Venetian model, but the texture of the glass and the weight of the piece are strong evidences of its English origin. With the accession of William, the craft was further stimulated by the importation of many models, and possibly craftsmen from the Low Countries. Speaking generally however, the vessels of the reigns of William and of Anne are but improved specimens of those of Charles. Some, however, have spiral lines cut round the stems, and are, to this extent, the prototypes of the twisted stems of the eighteenth century.

The illustration of a feeding cup (Fig. 3) provides an excellent example of the work of this period. Its admirable shape and style and its exquisite workmanship will readilyappeal not only to connoisseurs but also to all who are capable of appreciating artistic merit.

In Fig. 5 we have portrayed the prototype of the modern tankard. Judging by the shape and style it was probably an ale glass. But that it was intended rather as a specimen to be preserved is evidenced from the fact that a coin of the period has been blown into the base. Fig. 6 is a photograph showing the coin. Such a piece has almost the value of a dated specimen, for though it was, of course, possible to insert a coin of any previous date, the reason for doing so is by no means obvious. It is hardly likely, for example, that anyone living in William’s reign would have so enthusiastic a regard for Charles II. as to cause a coin of that monarch to be embedded in a piece that he had made as an heirloom. This specimen is in the British Museum, whose mark appears to the right of the photograph.

The quaint glass panel seen in Fig. 4 is an interesting relic of the attention paid to glass-working at this period. The portrait is that of Old Rowley (Charles II.) himself, and the piece was in all probability made at Greenwich, possibly in commemoration of his visit

FIG. 5.

FIG. 6.—THE CENTRE SHOWING THE COIN BLOWN IN THE STEM OF THE TANKARD SHOWN ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.

there. It was taken from a house in Purfleet and is now in the National Collection.

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 gave a vast impetus to glass-working as to other crafts. This measure, and the terrible persecutions which followed it, cost France a number, variously estimated at from 250,000 to 600,000, of her best citizens. Great numbers of these immigrants settled in England, and founded in their new home the industries which had become famous in the country of their birth. Among them came glass-workers from Paris, Lorraine, and other parts of France, who were deservedly famous for their skill in their craft. Coming as they did at a time when the discovery of the brilliant so-called flint glass gave to English glassware a distinction possessed by no other, it is small wonder that the next half-century saw such developments in the art of glass manufacture in England that English glass became superior to all other kinds, even to the famous glass of Bohemia, which seemed dull and lustreless beside it.

For these reasons the close of the seventeenth century is an epoch in the history of English glass, and the period which followedit saw the art of glass manufacture in England attain its zenith.

It is therefore with eighteenth-century glass that we are chiefly concerned, and as the great bulk of eighteenth-century glass consisted of drinking glasses, a great portion of our space will be devoted to these.

At the outset some attempt at classification is desirable. We may refer the reader to the very exhaustive list of varieties which that great authority, Mr. Albert Hartshorne, has made in his standard work on this subject. For our purpose it will be sufficient, however, to make a broad and simple division of drinking glasses into wine glasses, ale and beer glasses, and cordial or spirit glasses. It is the custom, too, to draw a distinction between the rude vessels made for common household or tavern use and the finer and more highly finished examples designed for the use of better-class people. Here, however, the distinction is rather one of quality than of kind.

The three great groups to which we have referred fall into various classes according to the diversity of shape in bowl and stem and, to a less degree, of foot.

The bowls are variously funnel-shaped, with straight sides, or waisted, that is, with the sides curved inward to form a waist, bell-shaped, and ogee or double-ogee shaped—the last named showing in section the ogee curve, so widely employed by the architect for his mouldings.

The stems are of two great classes—drawn stems or stuck stems. The former are parts of the same lump of molten glass of which the bowl is formed; the latter consist of a separate piece fused into the bowl.

As regards shape, stems may be plain rods, rods with knops, rib-twisted, faceted, air-twisted, air-drawn, or opaque-twisted. We shall deal with each variety in its appropriate place.

With regard to the foot, the generality were folded, that is to say, the edge of the rim was turned under to form a fold or welt, so that the glass stands on the rim, and not on the flat of the foot. Apart from this, the only variations are those bearing on the flatness of the foot and its diameter. In old glasses the feet were never quite flat. There is always a perceptible slope from the centre to the rim, and very often the central portion rose up into a dome. The foot was also wider incomparison with the width of the bowl than in the modern type.

The decoration is of two kinds, engraved and cut. The character of the engraving is little to the credit of the native designer or craftsman. Indeed, both as regards artistic design or skilful execution, English glass ornamentation is distinctly inferior to that of the Continental pieces. The usual design is the rose, at first heraldic and conventional, and then more and more natural, with at first a butterfly, which gradually dwindled to a moth, and then finally disappeared. Other designs are based upon the nature of the liquids drunk, or refer to politics, domestic or business affairs, or to some famous personage. The largest group of designs is associated with Jacobitism—“Charlie-over-the-water-ism,” as some one has wittily called it. In rare cases these bore a portrait; more commonly the emblem selected was the use of two buds—the latter explained as referring to the two sons of James II., or to the two sons of the Old Pretender, Charles Edward of “Charlie-is-my-darling” fame, and Henry, who died at Rome in 1807, as Cardinal York.

THEeighteenth century is the “Golden Age” of the collector of English glass. At the beginning of the century glass manufacture was already a flourishing industry. Vessels of all kinds for ornament, keepsakes, and for domestic use were being produced in great quantities, and there was a strong and growing competition between the native craftsmen and the glass-workers of Venice, Bohemia, Germany, and the Low Countries, a competition which, thanks to the superiority of the new English “flint” glass, was steadily trending in favour of the English product.

As a result, the collector is at once on firmer ground. His knowledge of earlier periods had been gleaned haphazard from drawings, paintings, tapestries, mosaics, and historical documents, with only here and there a specimen, and that of dubious authenticity, to guide him. From thistime he is able to observe at first hand, compare, classify, note differences, excellences, and defects. There is no longer any lack of material, either of the finer sort suitable for the tables of the great and wealthy, or of the coarser kind whose only merit was utility.

With the growing profusion, however, came a veritable confusion of types, which renders any attempt at classification a matter of very considerable difficulty. To a great extent this arose from the toping habits of our forefathers in perhaps the most convivial period of our history. There was a vast improvement in social conditions and amenities, and the variety of glasses that sprang into existence affords ample testimony to this, as well as to the variety of drinks in favour and to the ingenuity of the times in devising toasts and sentiments, no less than to the skill of the English craftsmen and the individuality of the various makers.

At the beginning of the century, however, the use of different glasses for different kinds of wine had not yet arisen. A bowl of water was placed on the table in which the drinkers rinsed their glasses when a new vintage made its appearance. Subsequently each guest had

Fig. 40.Examples of Baluster Stems and Tear Glasses.

Fig. 40.

Examples of Baluster Stems and Tear Glasses.

his special bowl for this purpose. These bowls are exceedingly rare, and are generally described as wine-coolers. Their modern equivalent is the finger bowl.

There was naturally a vast difference between the glass of the early part of the century and that of the later part. Speaking very broadly, the order of progress was as follows:—

Many of these glasses are still in existence and it is even possible for the amateur collector to acquire an occasional specimen. This early eighteenth-century glass is of remarkable quality, both as regards form and lustre. It is true that it is less perfect in shape and texture than the products of to-day, but it is superior in artistic merit, in originality of design and softness of outline. The lack of perfect symmetry is one of its charms, as it is in the case of old lace which, so far as absolute and meticulous perfection of detail is concerned, is often far behind the modern machine-made product. But what itlacks in symmetry and precision is more than compensated by artistic feeling.

Mr Hartshorne in his monumental work on “Old English Glasses,” a work to which the present writer and every other writer on the subject must acknowledge a vast indebtedness, makes an exhaustive classification of the various types of eighteenth-century glasses. To his order one is bound closely to conform, although it is far from the province of the present work to attempt to deal exhaustively with the various types he so fully and admirably describes.

The earliest examples have funnel-shaped bowls with tall stems. These are of great variety of shape. Some are quite plain, others are twisted, others ribbed. Some, again, are “baluster” shaped,i.e.formed after the pattern of the columns of a balustrade. Many have a knop or button in the middle, others are ornamented with twisted lines, either hollow or filled with glass of different colours, interwoven in spirals, twists, networks and plaits in all kinds of ingenious ways.

Of course, all these things being distinctive are imitable, and here the peril of the collector begins. The expert is rarely deceived as towhether any specimen is genuine old glass; but so pervasive and so perfect are the imitations that exist, and so plausible the conditions under which they are found, that it behoves the amateur to use the extremest caution. I propose to deal at some length with some of the more obvious and frequent frauds and fakes in a subsequent chapter. But for the moment it may be said that the best test of genuineness is neither shape nor any particular design—for these can be closely imitated—but the colour. There is a curious tint in old glass which the new never quite achieves. The would-be small collector will be well advised if, before riding his hobby, he goes through a brief course of eye-training under the guidance of an expert, until he gets the exact tone of the old glass firmly impressed upon his memory. As an additional factor, it should always be borne in mind that the old glass is invariably heavier than its modern imitation.

It will be desirable at this point to describe in brief detail the more important of the types of eighteenth-century glass enumerated on page 59.

Glasses with Incised and Ribbon-twisted Stems.—The incised or ribbon-twisted stemmed glass

Fig. 41.

as shown in Fig. 36, is usually about 6 inches high with, generally, a flanged or outward curved top and a comparatively slender stem. A series of ribs was impressed by a mould on the stem whilst yet plastic. The stem was fixed to its bowl, heated till soft, and then gently twisted and, at the same time, stretched. The result was a twist, produced in exactly the same way as in a stick of candy—close at the top and gradually loosening toward the bottom. Near the foot, by the way, the spiral generally disappears entirely as the effect of the heating process necessary when the foot was joined to the stem. The bowl was almost invariably waisted, that is, its sides were bent inwards. The foot was folded and there was a characteristic lessening in the diameter of the stem as it neared the bottom, which the “puller” of toffee will readily understand.

Air-twisted Stems.—The air-twist probably began with a “tear.” The tear of the glass-blower is a bubble of air blown into the centre of a mass of molten glass, possibly at first by accident and afterwards by design, as a form of ornamentation. When the stem was

FIG. 7—AIR-TWIST STEMS.(From the Rees Price Collection, by permission of the Connoisseur).

FIG. 7—AIR-TWIST STEMS.

(From the Rees Price Collection, by permission of the Connoisseur).

drawn out, the bubble elongated into a tube, and when the stem was twisted, the tube acquired a spiral shape. Now as the tube was filled with air, which had a different refractive capacity to the glass which surrounded it, the effect of the light falling upon it was to produce a kind of silvery radiance like that of quicksilver. The phenomenon is familiar to anyone who has ever plunged a substance like wool, which contains air-bubbles entangled among its meshes, under water. The bubbles are transformed into drops like quicksilver. So with the tear and the tube drawn from it in the air-twisted stem. Naturally the decorative potentialities of this phenomenon were speedily recognised and utilised, and the air-twisted stems are among the most characteristic and the most beautiful features of all old English glasses.

The bowls were usually of the same general shape as those with incised and ribbon-twisted stems. The earlier varieties are “waisted,” the later ones frequently assume the bell shape. They are often engraved, the early ones with the Tudor rose, with its five petals, while the later ones affect theStuart variety with six petals. The earliest stems have necks and collars—there was considerable difficulty in joining the air-twisted stem on to the bowl without damaging the twist. Later varieties have necks only. The collars are sometimes knopped,i.e.have knobs attached, and the stems themselves are shouldered.

I have dealt at some length with the air-twisted stems, since this is a characteristic English variety, and one to which the brilliant English flint glass was specially adapted. Consequently the type persisted for a considerable period. The later varieties, however, achieve some little distinction by the adoption of the bell-shaped bowl.

Drawn Stems.—I have already suggested that the fusion of the air-twisted stem, in order to join it to the bowl, not unfrequently resulted in damage to the twist. It was an obvious solution of the difficulty to draw the stem out from the surplus molten metal at the base of the bowl. If, previously, a series of air-bubbles was introduced into this mass, each in the process of drawing out became elongated into a tube, and we have the possibility, by planting “tears” in effective positions, and then

Fig. 42.The figures given above illustrate certain of the characteristic features of Old English glasses. Thus Fig. 1 is an example of a double-knopped stem, each of the bulges being technically known as a “knop.” The foot is “domed.” No. 2 is an illustration of a shoulder and collar, the shoulder being the bulge near the top, and the collar the ring above it, which was originally devised to hide any clumsiness in joining the stem to the bowl. No. 3 is a “flanged” bowl, No. 4 a “waisted” bowl, and No. 5 shows an air-twisted stem.

Fig. 42.

The figures given above illustrate certain of the characteristic features of Old English glasses. Thus Fig. 1 is an example of a double-knopped stem, each of the bulges being technically known as a “knop.” The foot is “domed.” No. 2 is an illustration of a shoulder and collar, the shoulder being the bulge near the top, and the collar the ring above it, which was originally devised to hide any clumsiness in joining the stem to the bowl. No. 3 is a “flanged” bowl, No. 4 a “waisted” bowl, and No. 5 shows an air-twisted stem.

judiciously twisting the drawn stem whilst still plastic, of producing an infinity of pleasing patterns. Thus a number of small “tears” close together produced a spiral like a yarn of silk; or a central tear might be blown, and side ones twisted round in encircling spirals.

Baluster-stemmed Glasses.—The baluster stem is a reproduction of a moulded pillar. It is by no means peculiar to eighteenth-century glasses. Indeed it formed the almost invariable means of support for the glasses of Caroline times. The early baluster stems are, to an eye accustomed to the lighter modern glass, extremely heavy and clumsy in appearance, and with the development of taste and skill, they were speedily supplanted by the slenderer and more graceful drawn and air-twisted stems. But the effect of the baluster moulding was soon pressed into the service of this more dainty ware, the baluster becoming more slender and symmetrical, and sometimes, indeed, being modified into a slight swelling—either gradual or abrupt or a single ring round the stem. The bowls of this period were almost invariably funnel-shaped, and were often engraved—the appropriate figure of the vine leaf appearing for the first time in the

1. AIR-TWISTED STEM GLASS.2. BUTTON STEM.3. BALUSTER STEM WITH ROYAL MONOGRAM.

(From the Rees Price Collection, by permission of the Connoisseur.)FIG. 8.

history of English glass. The feet are almost always of the folded variety. Occasionally, in the later specimens, however, the feet are domed.

Opaque-twisted Stems.—The opaque-twisted stem made its appearance about the middle of the century. In this case, rods of opaque white or coloured glass were alternated with rods of clear glass around the circumference of a circular mould, care being taken to preserve proper regularity.

They were then heated, and molten clear glass poured into the central hollow, filling up the interstices between the rods, binding the whole when cooled into a solid rod, with a clear centre surrounded by a particoloured circumference. The mass, being softened by heating, was then drawn out into slenderer rods, and twisted into spirals.

The ease of the process accounts for the infinite variety of patterns in existence. Flat bars could be used, giving tape-like spiral bands, and the rods could be of various sizes and colours. Many specimens came over from Holland and from the north of France, generally of inferior quality, the inferioritybeing displayed in the character of the stems and the poorness of the metal.

The simplicity of the manufacture has also given rise to hosts of modern imitations, largely from the Continent. In a great number of these the spirals turn to the left, which has given rise to an idea that all glasses with right-handed opaque spiral stems are modern imitations, which is by no means the case. All such specimens, however, are sufficiently suspect to demand careful scrutiny, and the amateur, before purchasing a right-handed spiral opaque-twisted glass, will do well to submit it to the judgment of an expert.

Points to be considered are the colour of the metal, the perfection of the twist, its opacity, and the character of the foot. The colour and weight of the glass are probably the best criteria. The forgeries are generally light, and the beautiful mellow tone of the real old English glass is replaced by a cold white tint or even a tinge of green. The twist is often more translucent than in the genuine pieces, and is frequently imperfectly produced, becoming looser as it descends, the loosening being particularly pronounced just before its junction with the foot.

The appearance of the foot is of the utmost

Back to Index Next