DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36284#0023
15
to be not Damascene but Venetian, and that consequently
the Venetians must "without doubt" have begun soon after
1360 to imitate the "ouvrages de Damas "—is illogical and
untenable for more reasons than one.
This esteemed and usually acute author says in so
many words (p. 131) " . . genuine Damascene glass is
described as blue. Most examples of the extant enamelled
glass of the East are blue or red, or consist at the least of
coloured glass. If then one specimen is described as only
s(yA, it
must be interred that the glass itself was tbrmed not from
a coloured but from an uncoloured mass. How is it that
among the extant specimens which appear to be of Arab
investigation, and from the general agreement of writers
upon the known examples of Oriental enamelled glass, it is
clear that the blue specimens (and all coloured glass in
general) reckon among the exceptions. From the chrono-
logical review above mentioned, it is further evident that
the latest dateable blue glass ^ was made sometime about
the year 1320, and that the great majority of all dateable
Oriental glass, including not only the unquestionably
genuine examples, but also those which seem to be possibly
Arabic, were produced betore 1360. At that time the
Venetians had not yet begun the practice of enamel-
painting upon hollowed glass. That branch of the art came
into existence about the beginning of the fifteenth century;
origin there are actually such as consist of colourless glass,
—thus making my argument unanswerable ? Certainly
there do exist some." As examples he cites the Soltykoff
bottle figured by Labarte, and the basin or dish on a high
stand in the Musee de Cluny, which Labarte held to be
Byzantine work. Of the bottle he says that its ornamen-
tation, although generally Arabic in character, shows
something of a foreign cast in comparison with genuine
Oriental glass-work. And of the basin, he states that the
catalogue of the Oluny Museum had already declared it to
be Venetian (notwithstanding that Labarte pronounced it,
like the bottle, to be Byzantine, and to correspond perfectly
with the description by Theophilus).
From the statistical table, as well as from our own
and it has long been a matter of general knowledge that
the credit of bringing the process to perfection was assigned
* The lamp of the Amir Arghun, who was a Mameluke of the Sultan
Malik Nasir Muhammad, and died A.H. 731 (1331). This Amir was the
predecessor of the Amir Almas in the viceroyalty of Egypt from A.H. 712
to 720 and after. According to the intitulation of the inscription, the lamp
must have been fabricated in that period.
Of this precious lamp, there exists at present nothing but a line copy
in the Musee des Arts Decoratifs, in Paris, and an etching inserted in Henri
Lavoix's article on "La Collection Albert Goupil" in the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 2e periode, tom. XXXII. The original itself is lost. After
the copy just referred to had been so successsully executed, Goupil took it
into his head to get some damaged portions of the enamel mended, the
result of the attempt being that this lamp, unique in its kind, was utterly
destroyed in the fre. The copy therefore figured alone in the artist's
celebrated collection, nntd the auction which took place after his death.
[Communicated by M. Charles Gerome, brother-in-law of the deceased
artist and collector.]
to be not Damascene but Venetian, and that consequently
the Venetians must "without doubt" have begun soon after
1360 to imitate the "ouvrages de Damas "—is illogical and
untenable for more reasons than one.
This esteemed and usually acute author says in so
many words (p. 131) " . . genuine Damascene glass is
described as blue. Most examples of the extant enamelled
glass of the East are blue or red, or consist at the least of
coloured glass. If then one specimen is described as only
s(yA, it
must be interred that the glass itself was tbrmed not from
a coloured but from an uncoloured mass. How is it that
among the extant specimens which appear to be of Arab
investigation, and from the general agreement of writers
upon the known examples of Oriental enamelled glass, it is
clear that the blue specimens (and all coloured glass in
general) reckon among the exceptions. From the chrono-
logical review above mentioned, it is further evident that
the latest dateable blue glass ^ was made sometime about
the year 1320, and that the great majority of all dateable
Oriental glass, including not only the unquestionably
genuine examples, but also those which seem to be possibly
Arabic, were produced betore 1360. At that time the
Venetians had not yet begun the practice of enamel-
painting upon hollowed glass. That branch of the art came
into existence about the beginning of the fifteenth century;
origin there are actually such as consist of colourless glass,
—thus making my argument unanswerable ? Certainly
there do exist some." As examples he cites the Soltykoff
bottle figured by Labarte, and the basin or dish on a high
stand in the Musee de Cluny, which Labarte held to be
Byzantine work. Of the bottle he says that its ornamen-
tation, although generally Arabic in character, shows
something of a foreign cast in comparison with genuine
Oriental glass-work. And of the basin, he states that the
catalogue of the Oluny Museum had already declared it to
be Venetian (notwithstanding that Labarte pronounced it,
like the bottle, to be Byzantine, and to correspond perfectly
with the description by Theophilus).
From the statistical table, as well as from our own
and it has long been a matter of general knowledge that
the credit of bringing the process to perfection was assigned
* The lamp of the Amir Arghun, who was a Mameluke of the Sultan
Malik Nasir Muhammad, and died A.H. 731 (1331). This Amir was the
predecessor of the Amir Almas in the viceroyalty of Egypt from A.H. 712
to 720 and after. According to the intitulation of the inscription, the lamp
must have been fabricated in that period.
Of this precious lamp, there exists at present nothing but a line copy
in the Musee des Arts Decoratifs, in Paris, and an etching inserted in Henri
Lavoix's article on "La Collection Albert Goupil" in the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 2e periode, tom. XXXII. The original itself is lost. After
the copy just referred to had been so successsully executed, Goupil took it
into his head to get some damaged portions of the enamel mended, the
result of the attempt being that this lamp, unique in its kind, was utterly
destroyed in the fre. The copy therefore figured alone in the artist's
celebrated collection, nntd the auction which took place after his death.
[Communicated by M. Charles Gerome, brother-in-law of the deceased
artist and collector.]