excellence which in some respects has never been excelled or even perhaps equalled. It may appear a somewhat exaggerated assertion that glass was used for more purposes, and in one sense more extensively, by the Romans of the imperial period than by ourselves in the present day; but it is one which can be borne out by evidence. It is true that the use of glass for windows was only gradually extending itself at the time when Roman civilization sank under the torrent of German and Hunnish barbarism, and that its employment for optical instruments was only known in a rudimentary stage; but for domestic purposes, for architectural decoration and for personal ornaments glass was unquestionably much more used than at the present day. It must be remembered that the Romans possessed no fine porcelain decorated with lively colours and a beautiful glaze; Samian ware was the most decorative kind of pottery which was then made. Coloured and ornamental glass held among them much the same place for table services, vessels for toilet use and the like, as that held among us by porcelain. Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 26, 67) tells us that for drinking vessels it was even preferred to gold and silver.
Glass was largely used in pavements, and in thin plates as a coating for walls. It was used in windows, though by no means exclusively, mica, alabaster and shells having been also employed. Glass, in flat pieces, such as might be employed for windows, has been found in the ruins of Roman houses, both in England and in Italy, and in the house of the faun at Pompeii a small pane in a bronze frame remains. Most of the pieces have evidently been made by casting, but the discovery of fragments of sheet-glass at Silchester proves that the process of making sheet-glass was known to the Romans. When the window openings were large, as was the case in basilicas and other public buildings, and even in houses, the pieces of glass were, doubtless, fixed in pierced slabs of marble or in frames of wood or bronze. The Roman glass-blowers were masters of all the ordinary methods of manipulation and decoration. Their craftsmanship is proved by the large cinerary urns, by the jugs with wide, deeply ribbed, scientifically fixed handles, and by vessels and vases as elegant in form and light in weight as any that have been since produced at Murano. Their moulds, both for blowing hollow vessels and for pressing ornaments, were as perfect for the purposes for which they were intended as those of the present time. Their decorative cutting (Plate I. figs. 5 and 6), which took the form of simple, incised lines, or bands of shallow oval or hexagonal hollows, was more suited to the material than the deep prismatic cutting of comparatively recent times.
The Romans had at their command, of transparent colours, blue, green, purple or amethystine, amber, brown and rose; of opaque colours, white, black, red, blue, yellow, green and orange. There are many shades of transparent blue and of opaque blue, yellow and green. In any large collection of fragments it would be easy to find eight or ten varieties of opaque blue, ranging from lapis lazuli to turquoise or to lavender and six or seven of opaque green. Of red the varieties are fewer; the finest is a crimson red of very beautiful tint, and there are various gradations from this to a dull brick red. One variety forms the ground of a very good imitation of porphyry; and there is a dull semi-transparent red which, when light is passed through it, appears to be of a dull green hue. With these colours the Roman vitrarius worked, either using them singly or blending them in almost every conceivable combination, sometimes, it must be owned, with a rather gaudy and inharmonious effect.
The glasses to which the Venetians gave the name “mille fiori” were formed by arranging side by side sections of glass cane, the canes themselves being built up of differently coloured rods of glass, and binding them together by heat. A vast quantity of small cups and paterae were made by this means in patterns which bear considerable resemblance to the surfaces of madrepores. In these every colour and every shade of colour seem to have been tried in great variety of combination with effects more or less pleasing, but transparent violet or purple appears to have been the most common ground colour. Although most of the vessels of this mille fiori glass were small, some were made as large as 20 in. in diameter. Imitations of natural stones were made by stirring together in a crucible glasses of different colours, or by incorporating fragments of differently coloured glasses into a mass of molten glass by rolling. One variety is that in which transparent brown glass is so mixed with opaque white and blue as to resemble onyx. This was sometimes done with great success, and very perfect imitations of the natural stone were produced. Sometimes purple glass is used in place of brown, probably with the design of imitating the precious murrhine. Imitations of porphyry, of serpentine, and of granite are also met with, but these were used chiefly in pavements, and for the decoration of walls, for which purposes the onyx-glass was likewise employed.
The famous cameo glass was formed by covering a mass of molten glass with one or more coatings of a differently coloured glass. The usual process was to gather, first, a small quantity of opaque white glass; to coat this with a thick layer of translucent blue glass; and, finally, to cover the blue glass with a coating of the white glass. The outer coat was then removed from that portion which was to constitute the ground, leaving the white for the figures, foliage or other ornamentation; these were then sculptured by means of the gem-engraver’s tools. Pliny no doubt means to refer to this when he says (Nat. Hist. xxxvi. 26. 66), “aliud argenti modo caelatur,” contrasting it with the process of cutting glass by the help of a wheel, to which he refers in the words immediately preceding, “aliud torno teritur.”
The Portland or Barberini vase in the British Museum is the finest example of this kind of work which has come down to us, and was entire until it was broken into some hundred pieces by a madman. The pieces, however, were joined together by Mr Doubleday with extraordinary skill, and the beauty of design and execution may still be appreciated. The two other most remarkable examples of this cameo glass are an amphora at Naples and the Auldjo vase. The amphora measures 1 ft. 58 in. in height, 1 ft. 712 in. in circumference; it is shaped like the earthern amphoras with a foot far too small to support it, and must no doubt have had a stand, probably of gold; the greater part is covered with a most exquisite design of garlands and vines, and two groups of boys gathering and treading grapes and playing on various instruments of music; below these is a line of sheep and goats in varied attitudes. The ground is blue and the figures white. It was found in a house in the Street of Tombs at Pompeii in the year 1839, and is now in the Royal Museum at Naples. It is well engraved in Richardson’s Studies of Ornamental Design. The Auldjo vase, in the British Museum, is an oenochoe about 9 in. high; the ornament consists mainly of a most beautiful band of foliage, chiefly of the vine, with bunches of grapes; the ground is blue and the ornaments white; it was found at Pompeii in the house of the faun. It also has been engraved by Richardson. The same process was used in producing large tablets, employed, no doubt, for various decorative purposes. In the South Kensington Museum is a fragment of such a tablet or slab; the figure, a portion of which remains, could not have been less than about 14 in. high. The ground of these cameo glasses is most commonly transparent blue, but sometimes opaque blue, purple or dark brown. The superimposed layer, which is sculptured, is generally opaque white. A very few specimens have been met with in which several colours are employed.
At a long interval after these beautiful objects come those vessels which were ornamented either by means of coarse threads trailed over their surfaces and forming rude patterns, or by coloured enamels merely placed on them in lumps; and these, doubtless, were cheap and common wares. But a modification of the first-named process was in use in the 4th and succeeding centuries, showing great ingenuity and manual dexterity,—that, namely, in which the added portions of glass are united to the body of the cup, not throughout, but only at points, and then shaped either by the wheel or by the hand (Plate I. fig. 3). The
