Enamelled or Stanniferous Glazed Wares.

It was found that by the addition of a certain portion of the oxide of tin to the composition of glass and oxide of lead the character of the glaze entirely alters. Instead of being translucent it becomes, on fusion, an opaque and beautifully white enamel, the intervening process of covering the surface of the clay with a stratum of white earth before glazing being unnecessary. It, moreover, was found to afford a better ground for the application of coloured ornament. The process of application was the same as for the “slip;” after immersion in the enamel bath, and subsequent drying, the painting is applied upon the absorbent surface; the piece being then subjected to the fire which, at one application, fixes the colours and liquifies the glaze. This “enamelled” pottery (ÉmaillÉe) is by far the more important group of the glazed wares, being susceptible of decoration by the lustre pigments, as well as by painting in colours of great delicacy; and it comprises the Hispano-moresque, the real Maiolica, and the perfected earthenware of Italy and other countries.

It is true that the first trace of the application of oxide of tin to produce a white opaque glazed surface is to be met with upon Babylonian or Assyrian bricks, but we are disposed to think that it was then merely used as a pigment to produce a white colour, and not as an application to pottery for the production of a white opaque glaze capable of receiving coloured enrichment by painting in other pigments. A corroboration of this opinion would seem to exist in the fact that throughout Asia Minor, Syria, Persia, and Egypt, a purely stanniferous glaze on pottery has never been generally adopted, or taken the place of that simple and beautiful siliceous coating, so dexterously applied and with such richness of effect upon the Persian and Damascus earthenware. Engraved is an example of an early Damascus plate (no. 6590), at South

Kensington. Perhaps isolated and lying dormant in remote localities for centuries, its use may have been learned by the Arabs, for its next appearance is upon fragments of tiling apparently of their manufacture or fashioned under their influence. How the knowledge of this enamel travelled, when and where it was first used, and to what extent applied, is still doubtful. We meet with an occasional fragment generally upon mural decoration of uncertain date on various Arab sites, till at length it becomes palpably appreciable in the Moorish potteries of Spain and of the Balearic islands. The baron J. Ch. Davillier, in his excellent work on pottery, states that he has not been able to discover any piece which could reasonably be ascribed to a date anterior to the fourteenth century, some two hundred years after the expulsion of the Saracens from Spain. In Valencia, however, anterior to its conquest by Jayme I. of Arragon in 1239, potteries had been long established, and were of such importance that that monarch felt himself bound to protect the Moorish potters of Xativa (San Filippo) by a special edict.

We must bear in mind that there were two periods of Mahommedan sway in Spain, the first on the expulsion of the Gothic monarchy by the Arabs and the establishment of the Caliphate at Cordova, in the eighth century. Of the ceramic productions of this early period we have no accurate knowledge, but we should expect to find them of similar character to the siliceous glazed wares prevalent in the east. The second period is after an interval of five centuries, in 1235, when the Moors founded the kingdom of Granada, having driven out the Arabs. Then first appear the wares usually known as Hispano-moresque, like the fine vase (engraved) no. 8968, at South Kensington; for we find the tiles of the Alhambra dating about 1300, the Alhambra vase about 1320, and continuous abundant examples of tin glazed wares of Moorish origin, until the period of the conquest of the country by Ferdinand and Isabella; after which the pottery becomes more purely Spanish and speedily declines.

Mr. Marryat remarks, in reference to the second or Moorish period, that the art of the new invaders had the same origin as the old, but as we have no specimens known to have been of the earlier or Arabian period we cannot accept this verdict as conclusive. Moreover, some confusion has arisen in classing together the glass glazed or siliceous pottery, with or without metallic lustre, and the Moresque wares produced in Spain, which are so distinctly characteristic as being enamelled with the oxide of tin.

We particularly refer to those somewhat rare examples of early siliceous pottery, like the deep Rhodian plate next engraved, some enriched with metallic lustre, others without, the designs upon all of which are eminently Arabian or Saracenic, unreadable mock Arabic inscriptions occurring (as in the textile fabrics of the same period) among the ornaments; as in the thirteenth century vase in the woodcut, p. 17. Such are the tiles of early date from various

places in Persia and Arabia. Similar wares, of which there are specimens at South Kensington, are supposed to have been made by oriental potters in Sicily but it is difficult to say at what time. That island was conquered by the Saracens in 827. Again, there is another variety of pottery of Moresque character and ornamentation with vermicular pattern in copper lustre on a seemingly stanniferous glaze, which is ascribed to Moorish potters who went to Sicily and established works at Calata Girone in the fourteenth century.

It is not improbable that the existence in Spain of tin ores in considerable abundance may have accidentally led to the discovery or to the adoption of the stanniferous enamel, obtained by an admixture of the oxide of that metal with glass and oxide of lead. We have no positive proof of its use on pottery at an earlier date in any other country, since the period of the Babylonian bricks. May there not be some truth in the story of the Majorcan dishes built into the Pisan towers, and that the single specimen of “Persian” ware found by the writer on the church of Sta. Cecilia in that city, which in all probability was placed there early in the twelfth century, may be one of the dishes brought home by the Pisans, at a time anterior to the use of the tin enamel in Majorca?

There is generally a foundation for fabulous stories, and it is not unlikely that some few of those trophies were so applied; the more so as the taste for such architectural decoration prevailed at that period. At the same time there can be no doubt that many of the bacini adorning churches in various parts of Italy, including Pisa, were of native Italian manufacture, as would seem probable from their compositions and designs. Engravings of these, and of the fragment of oriental ware above alluded to, are published in the ArchÆologia, vol. xlii. We are indebted to the council of the Society of antiquaries for permission (see next page) to use the latter block.

The earliest traces of the use of stanniferous enamel glaze in Europe, known to us, is always in connection with a decoration, produced by the reduction of certain metallic salts in the reverberatory furnace, leaving a thin film upon the surface, which gives that beautiful and rich effect known as reflet mÉtallique, nacrÉ, cangiante, rubino, reverberato, &c., and in England as lustred ware. In Italy the use of a metallic lustre was apparently known and practised previous to the introduction of the tin enamel, for we have abundant examples of early “mezza-maiolica” from the potteries of Pesaro or Gubbio, glazed only with the oxide of lead and glass, and which are brilliantly lustred with the metallic colours. None of these can, however, be referred to an earlier date than the latter half of the fifteenth century.

Of whom, then, did the Italian potters learn this art? We have no answer to the question in any historical record, and we are forced to infer that the name by which this lustred ware was known at the time and in the country of its production, reflected that of

the place from which it was derived. Accordingly we find that the coarser lead glazed lustred ware was known as “mezza-maiolica,” while that more nearly resembling its original, by the use of the tin enamel, was known as “maiolica.” That the Moorish potters of Majorca conveyed this knowledge, and that the Italians named their ware after that of the island, would seem a reasonable conclusion. M. Jacquemart, however, thinks it equally probable that although the Majorcan wares were well known in Italy, this art may really have been communicated by Persian potters, or their pupils, coming to the eastern ports of Italy; and that the style of decoration on the early Italian lustred wares is more Persian than Moresque. This would also in some measure explain why the lustrous colours were used at some potteries anterior to the adoption of the stanniferous enamel. The woodcut represents a bowl at South Kensington, no. 503, possibly of this manufacture, and of great rarity. In date it is somewhat late; about 1490.

The general term “Maiolica,” also spelt “Majolica,” has long been and is still erroneously applied to all varieties of glazed earthenware of Italian origin. We have seen that it was not so originally but that the term was restricted to the lustred wares, which resemble in that respect those of the island from which they had long been imported into Italy. It is a curious fact, proving their estimation in that country, that nearly all the specimens of Hispano-moresque pottery which adorn our cabinets and enrich our museums have been procured in Italy; comparatively few pieces having been found in Spain.

Scaliger states in reference to the Italian pottery as comparable with the porcelain of China, that the former derived its name from Majorca, of which the wares are most excellent. Fabio Ferrari also, in his work upon the origin of the Italian language, states his belief “that the use of majolica, as well as the name, came from Majorca, which the ancient Tuscan writers called Maiolica.” Thus Dante writes:—“Tra l’isola di Cipri e Maiolica;” showing the then mode of spelling the name of the island, and it would seem but natural to distinguish an imitation of its produce as “À la Maiolica.”

The “mezza-maiolica” was the coarser ware, formed of potter’s earth, covered with a white “slip” upon which the subject was painted; then glazed with the common “marza-cotto” or lead glaze, over which the lustre pigments were applied. The “maiolica,” on the other hand, was the tin enamelled ware similarly lustred. As before stated, these terms were originally used with reference only to the lustred wares, but towards the middle of the sixteenth century they seem to have been generally applied to the glazed earthenware of Italy. We think with M. Jacquemart, M. Darcel, Mr. J. C. Robinson, and others, that the word maiolica should be again restricted to the lustred wares, although in Italy and elsewhere it is habitually used to designate all the numerous varieties of glazed earthenware, with the exception of the more common “terraglia” and in distinction from porcelain.

The Germans ascribe the discovery of the tin enamel glazing to a potter of Schelestadt, in Alsace, whose name is unknown but who died in the year 1283; and in the convent of St. Paul at Leipzic is a frieze of large glazed tiles, with heads in relief, the date of which is stated to be 1207. The potters’ art is said to have developed itself in that country at an earlier period than in Italy; rilievo architectural decorations, monuments with figures in high relief, and other works of great artistic merit having been executed in 1230 at Breslau, where there is a monument to Henry IV. of Silesia who died in 1290, an important work in this material. Later, at Nuremberg, the elder Veit HirschvÖgel was born in 1441, and by him the use of the tin glaze was known. Specimens ascribed to his hand and dating from 1470 are preserved in museums. At Strehla a pulpit of glazed terra-cotta is of the date 1565, and at Saltzburg is the wonderful chimney-piece of the fifteenth century, still in its original position in the Schloss. At that time, also, Hans Kraut, of Villengen in Swabia, produced good works, but it is probable that many of these larger examples are covered with an admirably manipulated green or brown glaze which is produced without the admixture of tin.

In Italy history has always awarded the honour of its discovery to Luca della Robbia, whose first great work was executed in 1438; and however recent observation may lead to the assumption that its use was known in the Italian potteries before his time, there can be no doubt that his was not merely an application of a well-known process to a new purpose, but that he really did invent an enamel of peculiar whiteness and excellence, better adapted to his purpose and of somewhat different composition from that in use at any of the potteries of his time.