Ennion, Master of Roman Glass: Further Thoughts

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeEnnion, Master of Roman Glass: Further ThoughtsChristopher S. LightfootChristopher S. LightfootCurator, Department of Greek and Roman Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreDuring The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s recent exhibition “Ennion: Master of Roman Glass” (2014–15), I had the opportunity to study at close quarters the twenty-two intact or nearly complete vessels from Ennion’s workshop that formed the core of the show.1 Indeed, only four other vessels by Ennion have survived in such a complete condition. They were not in the exhibition but are featured or mentioned in the catalogue (cats. 3, 25 and figs. 5, 6 in that volume). This short article serves as an addendum, providing some corrections and adding further thoughts that were prompted by visitors’ questions. In the following discussion, catalogue numbers refer to the numbers assigned to vessels in the exhibition and its publication.2The Invention of GlassblowingThe glassblowing technique was introduced at some point in the first century b.c., probably in the Near East. The first archaeological evidence for attempts at using a short ceramic blowpipe to inflate small bubbles of glass comes from Jerusalem and dates to about 50 b.c. However, no true blown glass can be dated any earlier than the last decades of the first century b.c., putting the actual invention in the time of the first emperor Augustus (r. 27 b.c.–a.d. 14).3 Blown glass only starts to appear in any quantity at archaeological sites dating to the early years of the first century a.d.4The question of how glassblowing came to be invented can probably never be answered, but it is worthwhile considering why it did. In the Classical (ca. 480–323 b.c.) and Hellenistic (ca. 323–31 b.c.) periods, glass-workers made glass vessels that were either luxury cast tableware, often quite large and elaborately decorated, or core-formed containers that were also attractive but time-consuming to make. Today we might think that glassworkers who first experimented with the blowpipe did so in order to make their work easier and their products thus less expensive, but these are unlikely to be the reasons for the invention. A more compelling argument is that they needed a quicker method of making glass in sufficient quantities to compete with pottery as tableware and containers. The first century b.c. witnessed a great increase in pottery production, which exploited the expansion of markets and international trade by Roman merchants. Glassworkers wanted to be part of this boom, but with the existing technologies of core forming and casting, their output was limited. Their solution was to develop a new production method.Once the blowing technique had been perfected, the glass industry experienced an unprecedented expansion, not just in the size of its output but also in the variety of shapes, sizes, and types of vessels and objects (including window glass) that was produced. At first, it seems, Roman glassworkers continued to make luxury glass, such as cameo glass, which remained costly and time-consuming to produce, but they also created very plain and functional free-blown perfume bottles, perhaps made expressly for funereal purposes.5 Between these two extremes came moldblown glass, which served to furnish the market with good-quality tableware that could be mass-produced. The idea of using molds was probably taken from the Roman pottery industry, where this technique allowed potters to make large quantities of decorated tablewares, as well as terracotta oil lamps, of a consistent size and quality, enabling them to flood the market quickly with their goods.Makers of glassware were so successful at applying and developing the blowing technique that, during the course of the first century a.d., their products not only competed with similar wares in pottery but also, in some cases, supplanted them.6 In addition, the invention of glassblowing brought some beneficial and, perhaps, unexpected consequences. As glass grew more readily available, it also became fashionable and popular; its qualities and advantages were more widely appreciated, and finally, as demand for glassware rose, so the production of raw glass increased. This led to the fall in price of the raw material, which in turn was passed on to the consumer, making glass more affordable for a larger percentage of the population. As early as the first decades of the first century a.d., Strabo was able to claim that in Rome it was possible to purchase a glass bowl or small drinking cup for the price of a bronze coin.7 By the second half of the first century a.d., the poet Martial referred to peddlers in Rome who collected up broken glass in exchange for dry tinder soaked in sulfur.8Ennion, however, did not want to flood the market with cheap glass containers. Rather, he set up his workshop, probably in Sidon, Lebanon, in the first decades of the first century a.d., in order to compete with the local glass industry that was already producing cast tablewares.9 His surviving signed vessels show that he strove to produce quality blown glass that was attractive yet affordable. He put his name on the molds, clearly wanting customers to recognize them as his. He was, so far as is known, the first maker of glassware to do so.Sequencing Ennion’s GlasswareThe sequence in which Ennion made his glassware has long been debated. For example, it has been argued that he first made the jugs and then turned to making the cups. Nevertheless, this view, derived from the theory that he transferred his workshop from the East to the West, cannot be taken as a valid basis for understanding how his repertoire developed. Instead, it might be argued that as his skill and experience at making and using multipart molds increased, the forms of, and decoration on, his wares became more sophisticated. Thus, it could be reasoned that Ennion’s earliest products were the two-handled cups of the so-called Geometric style (cats. 21, 22, one of which was found in a tomb at Caresana, near Vercelli, Italy) or the globular bowls (cats. 23, 24, both of which are said to come from Sidon), since they have simpler and more regular forms of decoration. There is, however, no evidence to prove this was actually the case.A more valid and worthwhile approach may be to examine the inscriptions and to argue that his first attempts at labeling would be those that are poorly formed in terms of either grammar or layout. The largest of his cups, the single-handled examples from Tremithus, Cyprus, and Adria, Italy (cats. 11, 12), bear inscriptions in a plain square panel (fig. 1 [cat. 11]). They run on into four lines and appear to have been poorly planned. His signed inscription, for example, although it consists of only two words, is arranged so that his name is divided between lines 1 and 2, and the verb is spread out across three lines with the final letter appearing on its own in line 4. In other words, as a label it is very badly designed, suggesting that it might be one of Ennion’s first attempts at putting his name on his products. Perhaps, too, the plain frame is earlier than the tabula ansata (a rectangular frame with projecting handles at the sides) that appears on the majority of the signed vessels from his workshop. Certainly, the latter design is striking, calling attention to the labels and, as has been mentioned before, exploiting a well-known feature of Roman inscriptions.10 In addition, it may be argued that the molds for these large cylindrical cups were easier to make and, especially, to use than those for the vessels with more elaborate profiles or of smaller size (such as the two-handled cups cats. 15–20).fig. 1. One-handled cup signed by Ennion. Translucent pale green with handle in same color, H. 3¾ in. (9.5 cm), Diam. 5⅜ in. (13.5 cm). British Museum, London (GR 1876.11–14.4). Cat. 11. All catalogue numbers refer to Lightfoot 2014.We may speculate that Ennion first made his large cups (that is, cats. 11–13, which are one-handled, and 14, a two-handled example) and that he followed with his smaller two-handled cups, all of which have inscriptions within the tabula ansata frame. Other reasons may also be put forward for this sequence. Perhaps Ennion initially wanted to make large and impressive cups but subsequently found their functionality disappointing: such a vessel, filled with liquid, presumably wine, must have been very difficult to hold and prone to overbalancing. Thereafter, Ennion may have turned to making smaller cups with two handles that were better suited for use. By then, too, his labeling was more refined. He adopted the Roman tabula ansata and organized the inscription so that all of his name appeared on the first line (see cats. 1–7, 9, 15–26). The final version of his “brand label” may well be ENNIWN EΠOIEI in two lines (fig. 2 [cat. 1]). Of the twenty-six surviving vessels mentioned above, nearly half have this form of inscription. It should be noted that all of these examples, which include cups, beakers, bowls, and jugs, have convex or concave curving sides (rather than straight profiles) where the vertical sections of the mold were used. Aristeas, probably following Ennion, used the same label design for his products (fig. 3 [cat. 27]), inserting the word KYΠPIOC as an additional line in the case of his bowl (cat. 28). However, it is notable that fragments of two Aristeas cups found at Narona and Burnum in Croatia bear similar inscriptions, but in those the last letter of Aristeas’s name appears on the second line and the last letter of KYΠPIOC spills over from the second onto the last line. The fragments belong to vessels of two different shapes and designs, one with cylindrical sides and the other with a convex profile.11 So it would appear that Aristeas, too, experimented with the arrangement of his labels.fig. 2. One-handled jug (amphora) signed by Ennion. Translucent deep amber brown with handle in opaque white, H. 7¼ in. (18.4 cm), Diam. (rim) 2¾ in. (7 cm), Diam. (max.) 4⅛ in. (10.6 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 (17.194.226). Cat. 1fig. 3. Cup signed by Aristeas. Translucent light green, H. 2⅜ in. (6 cm), Diam. 3½ in. (9 cm). Strada Collection, Scaldasole, Pavia (68). Cat. 27Ennion’s MoldsPrevious detailed studies of the glass vessels signed by Ennion have allowed scholars to identify several as coming from the same molds. Thus, for example, the two globular bowls (cats. 23, 24) come from the same set of molds, and several of the different types of cups were also made in the same molds (cats. 16, 22). Although Donald Harden stated in 1935 that figures 2 and 6 (cats. 1, 4) were blown in the same mold, detailed comparison of all the jugs with the same decoration has not been attempted.12Having all of the known surviving examples on display together at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, however, provided the opportunity for close inspection and comparison. Particular attention was paid to the mold seams on the upper part of the body since they provide fixed points of reference. On all of the examples, they occur in the same places. Seam 1 runs through the downturned palmette with inward-facing leaves to the left of the tabula ansata; seam 2 is located at the rear, diametrically opposite the tabula, again splitting a downturned palmette with inward-facing leaves; and seam 3 is to the right of the tabula, running through another downturned palmette with inward-facing leaves.13 Just to the right of seam 2 at the rear on the horizontal ridge above the net pattern, there occurs an anomaly in the form of a slightly raised bump that extends upward. It is visible in five vessels (figs. 4–8 [cats. 1, 2, 4–6]), and it may be taken as a good indication that all of these jugs were blown in the same vertical mold sections. Sadly, the jug from Jerusalem (fig. 9 [cat. 7]) lacks this part of the body, but other details appear to confirm that this jug, too, was made in the same set of molds around the upper body. For example, the inscription and the network pattern, especially its arrangement to either side of the tabula ansata, match very closely on all of the jugs, although these details appear to be much crisper and better defined on the fragmentary Jerusalem example (see also figs. 2, 10 [cats. 1, 5]).14fig. 4. Detail of fig. 2 (cat. 1)fig. 5. Detail of two-handled jug (amphora) signed by Ennion (see also fig. 11). Translucent blue green with handles in same color, H. 6⅞ in. (17.5 cm). Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Cat. 2fig. 6. One-handled jug signed by Ennion. Translucent amber brown with handle and pedestal foot in same color, H. (to rim, including restored foot) 8¼ in. (21.1 cm), H. (to handle) 9⅜ in. (23.8 cm), diam. (rim) 2⅞ in. (7.2 cm). diam. (max.) 4¼ in. (10.8 cm). The Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, New York (59.1.76). Cat. 4fig. 7. Detail of one-handled jug signed by Ennion (see also fig. 13). Translucent cobalt blue with handle and pedestal foot in same color, H. 8⅝ in. (22 cm). Glass pavilion collection, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv (MHG1200.58). Cat. 5fig. 8. Detail of one-handled jug signed by Ennion (see also fig. 14). Translucent pale blue green with handle and pedestal foot in same color, H. (including restored foot) 9½ in. (24 cm). Shlomo Moussaieff Collection. Cat. 6fig. 9. Jug signed by Ennion. Translucent pale green with pedestal foot in same color, H. (including restored foot) 5¾ in. (14.6 cm). Israel Antiquities Authority, on permanent exhibition at The Israel Museum, Jerusalem (1982-1105). Cat. 7fig. 10. Detail of fig. 13, showing left side of the tabula ansata. Cat. 5If it is accepted that the same three vertical mold sections were used for all the jugs, the question then has to be asked whether the same bowl-shaped mold in which the lower body was formed was employed for all of them as well. Donald Harden, in stating that the Metropolitan Museum’s flat-bottomed jug (fig. 2 [cat. 1]) and the pedestal-footed example now in the Corning Museum of Glass (fig. 6 [cat. 4]) were “blown in the same mould,” clearly believed that such was the case.15 In order to explain the different ways in which the base was finished, he argued that the bowl-shaped mold “must have been open at the base.” This seems unlikely, and a more convincing explanation is needed that still allows for the use of the same mold. Harden also later stated, followed by Yael Israeli, that the jug now in the Eretz Israel Museum (fig. 13 [cat. 5]) came “from the same mold” as the jugs in figures 2 and 6 (cats. 1, 4), but he added that they were “finished off differently at the base,” since the plain, curving bulb below the bottom register of decoration on the footed jugs is pushed in on the Metropolitan Museum’s flat-bottomed jug.16 It is also worth noting that, whereas the handles on the jugs in figures 2 and 11 (cats. 1, 2) are applied in different ways, those on figures 6, 13, and 14 (cats. 4–6) are remarkably similar—so much so that they were probably formed by the same hand.fig. 11. Cat. 2 (see fig. 5)It is difficult to identify telltale marks on all the jugs that prove they were all blown in the same set of molds. Nevertheless, it does seem possible to identify one common anomaly: a small projecting bump, which is visible just above one of the vertical flutes formed in the bowl-shaped mold. Remarkably, this feature is more easily seen with the naked eye than captured in a photograph, but it does exist. Furthermore, the anomaly is found in exactly the same position on all the jugs—that is, it is to the left of seam 1 vertically below the right side of the next downturned palmette with outward-facing leaves (figs. 11–14 [cats. 2, 4–6]; see also fig. 2 [cat. 1]). The fact that the anomaly is located in the same position on all of the jugs strongly suggests that the mold sections were locked together in a set order. Although the bump is hard to detect on the fragmentary jug from Jerusalem (see fig. 9 [cat. 7]), other details (as noted above) indicate that this vessel may also have been blown in the same molds.fig. 12. Cat. 4 (see fig. 6)fig. 13. Cat. 5 (see fig. 7)fig. 14. Cat. 6 (see fig. 8)Little has been said in previous publications about the splayed foot, and one good reason for this reticence is that it has survived on only two of the jugs (figs. 9, 13 [cats. 5, 7]), together with the fragmentary foot of another jug (cat. 8). No mold seams can be detected on these examples, implying that they were made in a mold that had three parts—one for the foot itself and two detachable side elements for the moil (the excess glass between the blowpipe and the foot).17 The molds used for figures 9 and 13 (cats. 7, 5) appear very similar, but there is one clear difference on the finished jugs, for on the fragmentary jug from the Old City in Jerusalem (fig. 9), there is a solid horizontal ring around the top of the foot where it joins the base of the body. It may be, therefore, that different molds were employed to make the feet, just as different molds were used for the bottom section of some cups (see cat. 15). As pointed out by the foot moil an during the making of the jugs, especially during the adding of the handle and the of the The foot in served as the during the of the it is not to the use of of However, this does not the question of how the vessels with (figs. 2, 11 [cats. 1, and cat. were during the I right in that all of the jugs in the of whether they had a bottom or a pedestal were blown in the same molds, then there is good reason for that Ennion used only one set for jugs such as those in figures 2, 6, 9, 11, 13 and 14 (cats. 1, 2, he had made several of these molds, the are at that of the jugs blown in the other molds would have he did make another set of four molds, as the two-handled jug from in the (cat. but the design there is more elaborate and the vertical sections of the mold from the to the the tabula ansata and its inscription the I would this of jug later than the in his sequence of some and to the exhibition catalogue can now be For the one-handled jug in the collection, an was noted on the upper side of the body (see fig. 4 [cat. although no was made to explain this In the was probably the jug was on its side in the the of which was making the glass slightly This however, the question of why it was or to the vessel on its side it presumably already had a finished the catalogue it was stated that the two-handled cup from the Shlomo Moussaieff (cat. was blown in a inspection of the during three vertical mold that it was, in blown in a mold. The mold seams run across the near the handle to the right of the Ennion inscription, to the left of the palmette to the left of the Ennion inscription, and the right of the other panel on the with to the cup found at in (cat. I was of the provided in its first where it was argued that one of the handles had been or during of the cup that there are two raised on the side of the vessel where the handle should were not left or over by as would be the handle had broken off during they appear to be a that can only have been in the about Ennion and his glassware and further study and archaeological Nevertheless, the exhibition “Ennion: Master of Roman in together so examples of his has provided a and opportunity to study this and to his to the Roman glass Indeed, this new study of Ennion’s workshop has for understanding of Roman and Glass clearly a in and Ennion was at the in a market for it by using his name as a label and so developing a As a it may be argued that he was more in his own than he is he also a in the invention of years Harden the that mold blowing was the first of blowing In the in Jerusalem of providing evidence of glassblowing as early as the century b.c. and it is now ac

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.