Read Ebook: Old Glass and How to Collect it by Lewis J Sydney

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 574 lines and 45325 words, and 12 pages

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 from the ornamental cross which adorned their habits. Of the 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 land Yet 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 Carr? 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 their presence 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. But if 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--from the 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 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 Mansel applied 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.

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 5 1/4 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.

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

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. In the famous Howell's letters, "Epistolae Ho-Elianae," 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 great change. 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 too brittle 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,

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

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 himself, and the piece was in all probability made at Greenwich, possibly in commemoration of his visit

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 followed it 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 in comparison with the width of the bowl than in the modern type.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY GLASS

The eighteenth 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 this time 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

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 it lacks 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.

Of course, all these things being distinctive are imitable, and here the peril of the collector begins. The expert is rarely deceived as to whether 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.

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.

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.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet