DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36284#0013
so far as we know, just as little of Arabic as of Byzantine
production.
The single example adduced by Carl Friedrich* as the
initial instance from which he developes his theory that
Alexandria was the birthplace of Arabic enamel-painting on
glass vessels—that namely which bears in Cube letters the
title of the second Fatimite Khalifa of Egypt, A1 'Aziz billah
(975-996), and which is now in the Treasury of St. Mark's*}*
—is not glass at all, but a cut piece of rock-crystal, like the
other similar vessels, bearing Outic inscriptions and the
names of Khalifas, in the French Bibliotheque Nationale
and the Louvre, and the South Kensington Museum in
London.
In Friedrich's book, so remarkable trom many points of
view, the author likewise mentions a plate (tig. 4) and
a large bottle (tig. 5) in the possession of Baron Lionel
Rothschild (London) ; which, as examples of gilt and
enamelled glass-work, have no connexion whatever, in style
or technique, with the specimens of cut glass and rock-crystal.
We must also refuse to accept his opinion concern-
ing the deep bowl in the Musee de Cluny, that, because
among the inscriptions on it he professes to bnd the titles
of one of the Malik 'Adil princes who ruled in Egypt, j it
must have been produced in an Egyptian, that is Alexan-
drian, glass-foundry. The name of the person who orders
a piece of work of that kind would have no necessary
connexion with the place of its production.
The bowl of deep violet-brown glass already men-
tioned as being in the Treasury of St. Mark's, is also
ascribed by Friedrich to Alexandria—while Nesbitt tor the
same reason assigns it to Sicily—Because, around the edge
on the inside, and on the lower part of the body of the
vessel, it has a border, painted white, of illegible, presum-
ably Guhc, writing (?) from which the two critics draw their
conclusions. They say that the vessel can only have been
produced in a place in which three types of art were at once
tound in combination; namely, the Antique, because of the
representation of heathen figure-subjects; the Byzantine,
because of the circular compartments and the style of
ornamentation; and the Arabic, because of the apparently
Cube inscription.
Pasini, who was in a position enabling him to examine
thoroughly all the pieces in St. Mark's Treasury, informs us
in his grand work upon the Treasury (published two years
* Die altdeutschen Glaser, p. 127.—Dr. Albert Ilg also, in Lobtneyr's
Glas-Industrie, Stuttgart, 1874, p. 48, speaks of this rock-crystal vessel as
a specimen of Arabic glass-work in Alexandria.
Figured by Pasini, Tav. LII, No. 118, description p. 98.
I The exact wording of the inscription is " Glory to our Lord the
Sultan the Wise the Just." It is therefore the ordinary anonymous
epigraph, and cannot be said to refer to any particular prince.
later than Friedrich's book) that both those white friezes or
borders were added over the original painted surface,* and
with so little solidity that they are now partly effaced, the
lower one almost completely; while the old colouring
beneath remains fresh and undisturbed. There is con-
sequently a rather strong argument in favour of the late
origin of the presumed Cube border—Pasini is inclined to
regard the lettering as a simply decorative imitation of
letter-forms ;—and the possibility arises that the work was
not all done in one place. In the available illustrations
representing this beautiful and highly interesting vessel, the
supposed bieze-inscriptions are not distinguishable, and as
Fm. 5. Lnrpe BottZe. <S'ec. AV7T. Zw the CoZZert/oK os ZZrroK ZZoneZ
BoZ^eehZZd, ZowdoM. (dZoMt the size o/*t/;e w7yZ<mZ.)
our own examination of the pieces in the Treasury was a
hurried one, some years ago, we are unable now to deal with
the subject more amply.
If the opinion be correct which the eminent Arabist,
Prof. Ignazio Guidi, has expressed, that " the frieze —the
upper one of course is meant, since there is nothing now to
be seen of the lower—is actually a Cube inscription, but so
transbgured by ornamentation as to be almost undecipher-
* This circumstance has been overlooked by Molinier in his work on
Le Tresor . . already cited, in which he deals with the Byzantine origin
and decoration of the vessel.
production.
The single example adduced by Carl Friedrich* as the
initial instance from which he developes his theory that
Alexandria was the birthplace of Arabic enamel-painting on
glass vessels—that namely which bears in Cube letters the
title of the second Fatimite Khalifa of Egypt, A1 'Aziz billah
(975-996), and which is now in the Treasury of St. Mark's*}*
—is not glass at all, but a cut piece of rock-crystal, like the
other similar vessels, bearing Outic inscriptions and the
names of Khalifas, in the French Bibliotheque Nationale
and the Louvre, and the South Kensington Museum in
London.
In Friedrich's book, so remarkable trom many points of
view, the author likewise mentions a plate (tig. 4) and
a large bottle (tig. 5) in the possession of Baron Lionel
Rothschild (London) ; which, as examples of gilt and
enamelled glass-work, have no connexion whatever, in style
or technique, with the specimens of cut glass and rock-crystal.
We must also refuse to accept his opinion concern-
ing the deep bowl in the Musee de Cluny, that, because
among the inscriptions on it he professes to bnd the titles
of one of the Malik 'Adil princes who ruled in Egypt, j it
must have been produced in an Egyptian, that is Alexan-
drian, glass-foundry. The name of the person who orders
a piece of work of that kind would have no necessary
connexion with the place of its production.
The bowl of deep violet-brown glass already men-
tioned as being in the Treasury of St. Mark's, is also
ascribed by Friedrich to Alexandria—while Nesbitt tor the
same reason assigns it to Sicily—Because, around the edge
on the inside, and on the lower part of the body of the
vessel, it has a border, painted white, of illegible, presum-
ably Guhc, writing (?) from which the two critics draw their
conclusions. They say that the vessel can only have been
produced in a place in which three types of art were at once
tound in combination; namely, the Antique, because of the
representation of heathen figure-subjects; the Byzantine,
because of the circular compartments and the style of
ornamentation; and the Arabic, because of the apparently
Cube inscription.
Pasini, who was in a position enabling him to examine
thoroughly all the pieces in St. Mark's Treasury, informs us
in his grand work upon the Treasury (published two years
* Die altdeutschen Glaser, p. 127.—Dr. Albert Ilg also, in Lobtneyr's
Glas-Industrie, Stuttgart, 1874, p. 48, speaks of this rock-crystal vessel as
a specimen of Arabic glass-work in Alexandria.
Figured by Pasini, Tav. LII, No. 118, description p. 98.
I The exact wording of the inscription is " Glory to our Lord the
Sultan the Wise the Just." It is therefore the ordinary anonymous
epigraph, and cannot be said to refer to any particular prince.
later than Friedrich's book) that both those white friezes or
borders were added over the original painted surface,* and
with so little solidity that they are now partly effaced, the
lower one almost completely; while the old colouring
beneath remains fresh and undisturbed. There is con-
sequently a rather strong argument in favour of the late
origin of the presumed Cube border—Pasini is inclined to
regard the lettering as a simply decorative imitation of
letter-forms ;—and the possibility arises that the work was
not all done in one place. In the available illustrations
representing this beautiful and highly interesting vessel, the
supposed bieze-inscriptions are not distinguishable, and as
Fm. 5. Lnrpe BottZe. <S'ec. AV7T. Zw the CoZZert/oK os ZZrroK ZZoneZ
BoZ^eehZZd, ZowdoM. (dZoMt the size o/*t/;e w7yZ<mZ.)
our own examination of the pieces in the Treasury was a
hurried one, some years ago, we are unable now to deal with
the subject more amply.
If the opinion be correct which the eminent Arabist,
Prof. Ignazio Guidi, has expressed, that " the frieze —the
upper one of course is meant, since there is nothing now to
be seen of the lower—is actually a Cube inscription, but so
transbgured by ornamentation as to be almost undecipher-
* This circumstance has been overlooked by Molinier in his work on
Le Tresor . . already cited, in which he deals with the Byzantine origin
and decoration of the vessel.