The Alchemy of Glass Counterfeit Imitati

ch00_5350.
qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page i
The Alchemy
of Glass
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page ii
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page iii
The Alchemy
of Glass
Counterfeit, Imitation,
and Transmutation in
Ancient Glassmaking
Marco Beretta
Science History Publications/usa

a division of
Watson Publishing International llc
Sagamore Beach
2009
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page iv
First published in the United States of America

by Science History Publications/USA
a division of
Watson Publishing International LLC
Post Office Box 1240, Sagamore Beach, MA 02562-1240, USA
www.shpusa.com
© 2009 Watson Publishing International LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any
manner whatsoever without written permission of the copyright holder except
in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.
If the publishers have unwittingly infringed the copyright in an illustration

reproduced, they will gladly pay an appropriate fee upon being satisfied as to
the owner’s title.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Beretta, Marco.
The alchemy of glass : counterfeit, imitation, and transmutation in ancient
glassmaking / Marco Beretta.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-88135-350-1 (alk. paper)
1. Glassware, Ancient. 2. Glass blowing and working—Historiography.
3. Glass manufacture—Historiography. 4. Glass manufacture—
Chemistry. I. Title.
TP850.B47 2009
666'.1093—dc22
2009035119
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page v
To Alice
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page vi
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page vii
Contents
preface ix
abbreviations xvii
chapter 1
Artificial and Natural Glass in Mesopotamia and Egypt 1
chapter 2
The Greek Philosophers: Between Crystal and Glass 23
chapter 3
A Technical Revolution:
The Introduction and Cultural Impact of Glassblowing 57
chapter 4
Glass and Alchemy 83
chapter 5
From Byzantine Glass to Early Modern Alchemy 125
Epilogue 165
Bibliography 175
Index of Names 193
vii
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page viii
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page ix
Preface
A
fter centuries of fierce debate, the question of the ancient origins
of alchemy remains one of the favourite themes in the historiog-
raphy of chemistry.1 The very origin of the word “chemistry” has been a
matter of violent dispute among philologists and historians, who have
not yet agreed upon a commonly-accepted definition.2 Does chemistry
derive from the Egyptian term kmt 3, the black pigment used to paint
the eyes, or is it the result of the evolution of the Greek verb chema, in-
dicating the operation of fusion?4 Connecting alchemy to our present
investigation, we might add another possible etymology by recalling
that the Egyptian word for natural black glass, obsidian, is Aner chem
(black stone). Is this material connected to the origins of the chemical
arts? Or would we be better off abandoning the ambiguous etymology
of alchemy and substituting it with a more operative term such as chym-
1 The bibliography on this subject is both rich and ancient. On the ancient and
modern historiography see Jost Weyer, Chemiegeschichtsschreibung von Wiegleb
(1790) bis Partington (1970): eine Untersuchung über ihre Methoden, Prinzipien und
Ziele (Hildesheim: H. A. Gerstenberg, 1974); For a survey of the contemporary de-
bate see Lawrence M. Principe and William R. Newman, “Some problems with the
historiography of alchemy,” in William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton (eds.)
Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in early modern Europe (Boston: The MIT
Press, 2001), pp. 385–431.
2 Otto Lagercrantz, “Das Wort Chemie,” Kungl.Vetenskapssocietetens Årsbok,
(1937), pp. 25–44.

3 Alfred Hermann, “Das Buch kmj. T und die Chemie,” Zeitschrift für ägyptische
Sprache, (1954), 79:99–105.

4 For a survey of different positions see Jack Lindsay, The Origins of Alchemy in
Graeco-Roman Egypt (London: Frederik Muller, 1970), pp. 68–89 and the impor-
tant introduction by Robert Halleux to Les alchimistes grecs. Papyrus de Leyde–Pa-
pyrus de Stockholm–Fragments de recettes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981), pp. 24–78.
ix
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page x
x The Alchemy of Glass
istry: a fresh linguistic start aiming at overcoming the controversies?5

Whatever the answer to these questions, the issue seems still to lack a
satisfactory solution.
Indeed, the scarcity of ancient alchemical sources on the one hand,
combined with the corruption of those transmitted by the third century
CE onwards on the other, makes it difficult to reach conclusive argu-
ments on the origins of ancient alchemy and its identity. This difficulty
is further underlined by the little consensus among historians on the
theoretical purposes and the practical contents of alchemical research.
The tendency to reduce alchemy to the sole operation of transmuting
vile metals into gold has led to a focus on the few passages of ancient lit-
erature in which such an intention is clearly identifiable,6 leaving aside
many interesting texts containing detailed descriptions of chemical
techniques and original theoretical insights.7 But projecting alchemy’s
dominant focus in the Middle Ages onto ancient chemical technology
has resulted in interpretations which bear only few literary traces in an-
cient texts.8 After all, gold was not seen as the most valuable material
5 Lawrence M. Principe (ed.), Chymists and Chymistry. Studies in the History of Alchemy
and Early Modern Chemistry (Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications/USA,

2007).
6 This is particularly apparent in the title of one of the earliest works published on
the subject: Johann Christian Wiegleb, Historisch-kritische Untersuchung der Al-

chemie, oder der eingebildeten Goldmacherkunst: von ihrem Ursprunge sowohl als Fort-
gange, und was nun von ihr zu halten sey (Weimar: Hoffmann, 1777). Wiegleb’s
definition of alchemy as goldmaking can be found also in Eric J. Holmyard’s influ-
ential work Alchemy (Harmondsworsh: Penguin, 1957), pp. 15–16. See also the re-
cent article by Jost Weyer “Alchemie, antike,” in Claus Priesner and Karin Figala
(eds.), Alchemie. Lexikon einer hermetischen Wissenschaft (München: C.H. Beck,
1998), pp. 22–25 where the main aim of ancient alchemy is reduced to the opera-
tion of transmuting metal into gold or silver.
7 As shown by Robert Halleux, Les textes alchimiques (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979).
8 One of the earliest associations between alchemy and goldmaking is a report,
compiled around the tenth century CE, in the Byzantine lexicon Suda. Under the
heading Chêmeia we in fact read: “The preparation of silver and gold. Diocletian
sought out and burned books about this. [It is said] that due to the Egyptians’ re-
volting behavior Diocletian treated them harshly and murderously. After seeking
out the books written by the ancient [Egyptians] concerning the alchemy of gold
and silver, he burned them so that the Egyptians would no longer have wealth from
such a technique, nor would their surfeit of money in the future embolden them
against the Romans.” Ada Adler (ed.), Svidae Lexicon, 5 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner,
1928–1938) heading: chi, 280. English translation by Ross Scaife.
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xi
Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking xi
until Late Antiquity; rather, precious gems and lapis lazuli were often
regarded as the most valuable minerals, and these stones were easily and
often imitated in glass. The fact that glassmaking could already count
on a rich ancient tradition of imitating precious stones by the Hellenis-
tic period alone certainly merits the attention of historians of alchemy,
as it points to an important field through which it is possible to better
understand the historical background of the Chrysopoeia.
The aim of the present study is not to propose a conclusive solution
to the controversial issue of the origins and definition of alchemy, but
rather to draw our attention to an aspect of early alchemical texts which
has so far been neglected. In what follows, I attempt to show that glass
played an important role in ancient technical and alchemical literature,
and that the chemical operations devised to improve glassmaking in-
spired alchemists to better define the theoretical boundaries of their
discipline and, more specifically, the concept of transmutation.
In Antiquity, glass, more than any known product of the earth, was
a material that could be easily shaped and colored to imitate any pre-
cious stone or mineral substance; its natural lustre and transparency in-
spired ancient naturalists and philosophers at a very early stage to find
an explanatory theory that could give a rational account of these marvel-
lous properties. Such efforts increased after the technical revolution in-
spired by the introduction of glassblowing during the first century BCE,
and were intimately connected with the history of alchemy. However,
given the scarcity of information provided by ancient alchemical texts on
this matter, I have expanded my examination by taking a large variety of
sources into consideration. Literary texts, epigraphic inscriptions and,
above all, archaeological remains have often offered the most helpful in-
formation for deciphering the few extant textual fragments that describe
the techniques and theory behind ancient glassmaking. In this respect,
this study is a contribution to the material history of science. It is an at-
tempt to study the development of alchemy by following the history of
a material which, in my view, offers inspiring insights into the histori-
cal debate concerning the structure and identity of matter.
Attention to archaeological data reveals that Egypt played an excep-
tionally important role in directing early Greek philosophers and natu-
ralists’ interests in the properties of glass. Egyptian priests projected a
religious meaning onto the mineral kingdom, and each mineral was en-
dowed with special properties that evoked the presence of the gods.
When it was discovered that glass could imitate lapis lazuli, Egyptian
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xii
xii The Alchemy of Glass
craftsmen began to reflect upon the properties of matter and the value
that should be attributed to imitations. Were imitations mere counter-
feits or faithful replicas of the natural stones? This was a critical question
because, with the XVIIIth dynasty, the production and trade of both ar-
tificial and natural lapis lazuli became an important aspect of Egyptian
religious ritual and culture. For example, a recent exhibition at the Met-
ropolitan Museum in New York City displayed items found in a fifteen-
meter long vessel dating to the fourteenth century BCE; among these
were 350 kilograms of turquoise and purple glass ingots from Egypt,9
revealing the considerable size and scope of a glass industry which was
highly appreciated throughout the Mediterranean. Moreover, such a
find reveals the diffusion of the practice of using glass to counterfeit
lapis lazuli and other precious stones.
The Egyptian glassmaking tradition survived in Hellenistic Alexan-
dria, exporting both technical know-how and theoretical insights to
Palestine and, during the Roman Empire, along the Mediterranean
coastline. Such an influence explains the Greek alchemists’ admiration
for Egyptian culture and reveals it to be due only in part to a rhetorical
leitmotiv, as has been often claimed. Ideas circulated in the Mediter-
ranean along with commodities and technical knowledge. Thus the de-
velopment of alchemy, like glassmaking, is the result of a fusion of
multi-cultural traditions. As much as ancient alchemy was characterised
by a remarkable attention to the chemical arts, we must always bear in
mind that its first definition regarded it as a “holy” and “sacred” art, and
that its philosophical and spiritual background were no less essential
features of its identity than divination and magic were connotative ele-
ments of astrology. This side of ancient alchemy once more underscores
its debt to Egyptian culture and religion.
Regrettably the corpus of alchemical texts is mostly made up of a
few fragmentary works of a collection that was considerably larger in its
original form. Moreover, the fragments that survive in our time are
often of an uncertain date. The scarcity of sources for Greek alchemy is
aggravated by Bethelot and Ruelle’s publications in the nineteenth cen-
tury, which have been only partially replaced by the excellent texts and
9 Joan Aruz, Kim Benzel, and Jean M. Evans (eds.),Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade, and
Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2008). In the same discovery, several glass beads and precious stones were also
found.
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xiii
Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking xiii
interpretations by Robert Halleux, Michèle Mertens and Andrée Col-

inet. Pseudo-Democritus—undoubtedly the most important author in
Greek alchemy, who seems to have played a crucial role in the story pre-
sented in this book—also badly needs a modern editor. The forthcom-
ing edition by Matteo Martelli of Pseudo-Democritus’ complete
collection of extant fragments will hopefully resolve those doubts that I
was unable to disentangle at this stage in my research. However, the
near chronological simultaneity between the appearance of Pseudo-
Democritus’ works in Egypt and the outstanding progress that glass-
making experienced in the same period and geographical area at the very
least least reveals a possible connection which must certainly be explored
in further depth.
* * *
This project began as an interdisciplinary seminar on glass and the sci-
ences from Antiquity to the Early Modern era that I organised in the
Faculty of Cultural Heritage at the University of Bologna in 2002.10 To
my surprise, it soon became clear that Antiquity offered much more ma-
terial than expected, and that glass played an extremely important role
in several scientific disciplines. Together with Giovanni Di Pasquale, I
proceeded to organize an exhibition devoted to glassmaking and the
natural sciences in Rome, which gave me the unique opportunity to ex-
amine the extraordinary treasure-troves of the Museo Archeologico
Nazionale in Naples, the Antiquarium of Pompei and the Museo Arche-
ologico of Ercolano. While the exhibition also surveyed the chemical
heritage of ancient glassmaking, its main purpose was to illustrate to the
public the dual impact of glassblowing on both Hellenistic society and
scientific culture. During my research for the exhibition, I collected
plenty of material which I present here for the first time in a systematic
form.
As this project is the result of a long period of gestation, I have ac-
cumulated important debts to scholars, curators and colleagues who had
the patience to help me on many occasions with the greatest generosity.
I wish to thank in particular Antonio Clericuzio, E. Mariann Stern,
Cristina Viano and Matteo Martelli, who have read extensive parts of
10 The results of the seminar were published in M. Beretta (ed.), When Glass mat-
ters: Studies in the History of Science and Art from Graeco-Roman Antiquity to the Early
Modern Era (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004).
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xiv
xiv The Alchemy of Glass
the manuscript and provided me with useful criticism. Without their

help this work would have not been published. I presented the prelimi-
nary results of my research to the international conference organised by
Antonio Rigo and Cristina Viano Les alchimistes grecs. Textes, doctrines,
comparisons (Venice, December 5–7, 2007), and I wish to thank its par-
ticipants for providing me with useful criticism and suggestions.
I also wish to thank Robert G. Anderson, Ilva Beretta, Andrea
Bernardoni, Eve Borsook, Paola Carusi, Silvia Ciappi, Annamaria Cia-
rallo, Francesco Citti, Sabina Crippa, Ernesto De Carolis, Giovanni Di
Pasquale, Cesare Fiori, Thierry Hocquet, Bernard Joly, Vincent Ilardi,
Daniela Majerna, Mara Miniati, Michela Pereira, João Neto, Gabriele
Pratesi, Andrea Scotti, Sara Schechner, Erkinger Schwarzenberg,
Giorgio Strano, Luigi Taborelli, Maria Grazia Tagliavini, Federico
Tognoni, Alessandro Tosi, and Mariangela Vandini, with whom I have
discussed several questions related to alchemy, glassmaking and chemi-
cal technology.
For three years my students in Ravenna have shared, with different
degrees of enthusiasm, my interest in glass and often helped me to bet-
ter explain, in primis to myself, the trajectories of my research.
I thank Stefano Casati and Alessandra Lenzi of the Institute and
Museum of History of Science in Florence for seconding my continu-
ous requests of books. I am grateful to the director of the Museo Arche-
ologico Nazionale of Naples and of the Soprintendenza Arcehologica of
Pompei, Pietro Giovanni Guzzo, who granted me permission to use the
beautiful photos taken by Pio Foglia in 2003 and 2004, which appeared
in the catalogue of the exhibition Vitrum.
I am deeply indebted to the seminal studies by Wilhelm Ganzen-
müller and Robert Halleux who have often referred to glass as an impor-
tant material for alchemy; their lessons paved the way to my approach to
this topic and constantly reminded me of the conservative inclination of
the alchemical tradition, as well as of the risk entailed in the extrapola-
tion of positive scientific results from alchemical speculations.
I thank the Department of Philosophy and the CIRESS at the Uni-
versity of Bologna for supporting the publication of the book. I thank
Neale Watson, with whom I had fruitful discussions about the produc-
tion of this book, and Janet Vertesi for copy-editing and revising my
English.
I have benefited twice from a research fellowship at the Centre for
History of Science at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stock-
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xv
Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking xv
holm, which gave me the opportunity to work with Otto Lagercrantz’s

collection of books preserved at the Uppsala University Library. I thank
Tore Frängsmyr and Karl Grandin for making my stay possible.
When this book was almost finished, the Corning Museum of
Glass in New York opened a most interesting exhibition on glass and
alchemy during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Directed by
Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, the exhibit admirably illustrated the
importance of glass in the development of chemical philosophy and
manufacturing through well-chosen examples. Although Early Modern
chemists introduced important innovations in glassmaking, notably
gold-ruby glass and the imitation of porcelain, many of the recipes
which the same authors claimed to be modern—for instance, the imita-
tion of rock crystal and lead glass—were in fact rooted in an ancient cor-
pus of alchemical knowledge which this book attempts to explore. In
examining the origin and the intellectual ambition of this tradition,
then, this book could be seen as the introductory chapter to the Corn-
ing exhibition.
Marco Beretta
Le Ville, January 2009
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xvi
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xvii
Abbreviations
SAP: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei
SANC: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici delle Province di

Napoli e Caserta
xvii
ch00_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page xviii
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 1
chapter 1
Artificial and Natural Glass in

Mesopotamia and Egypt
“neque est alia nunc sequacior materia” Pliny the Elder,

Naturalis historia, 36:198.
glass in mesopotamia: practice and theory
A combination of archaeological evidence and the analysis of ancient

sources points to a Mesopotamian origin for glassmaking, dating to
around 2500 BCE.1 Around 1400 BCE, this craft and its makers mi-
grated to Egypt, where glassmaking soon developed as an independent
technology, achieving results that would be unsurpassed for several cen-
turies to come.2 This chronology is now commonly accepted, even if the
1 Axel von Saldern, A. Leo Oppenheim, Robert H. Brill and Dan Barag, Glass and
Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia (Corning: The Corning Museum of Glass
Press, 1970 reprinted 1988) and Peter Roger Stuart Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian
Materials and Industries: the Archaeological Evidence (Oxford: The Clarendon Press,
1994).
2 The most up-to-date reconstructions of the history of Egyptian glassmaking are
those by Paul T. Nicholson and Julian Henderson, “Glass,” in Paul T. Nicholson
1
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 2
2 The Alchemy of Glass
analogies between glassmaking, glazing and the production of faience

has made it difficult to determine both an unequivocal date for the in-
vention of glass as well as a certain geographical location for its first
appearance.3
What is certain is that glass played an important role in both
Mesopotamia and Egypt, and that technological progress achieved in
the glassmaking context led craftsmen to reflect upon the marvellous
chemical effects of their art. The ability to transform a combination of
siliceous sand, an alkali and metal oxides into a rich variety of colored
and translucent bodies must have attracted the attention of artisans and
craftsmen at a very early stage. Many tablets containing glassmaking
recipes survive even today, testifying to Mesopotamian glassmakers’ ca-
pabilities to produce colored glass and to their efforts to keep a literary
record of their results.
Mesopotamian glass texts from about the twelfth century BCE on-
wards bear a resemblance to medical tablets in their literary form: that
is, they prescribe instructions in the form of recipes, and some even rec-
ommend religious rituals and prayers, invoking the need to perform cer-
tain experiments during propitious days.4 According to these early
and Ina Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge UP, 2000), pp. 195–224 and by Birgit Schlick-Nolte and Rosmarie Lierke,
“From Silica to Glass: on the Track of the Ancient Glass Artisans,” in Robert
Bianchi (ed.), Reflections on Ancient Glass from the Borowski Collection (Mainz: von
Zabern 2002), pp. 9–40; still useful is the work by A. Lucas and J.R. Harris, An-
cient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed. (London: E. Arnold, 1962), pp.
155–194.
3 According to one of the major experts in the history of ancient glass, “Glazing of
small objects was practised as far back as c 4000 B.C., or even earlier, while the
manufacture of free-standing glass object is thought to have begun about 2500
B.C., both in Egypt and in Mesopotamia. The first glass vessels are about 1000
years later.” Donald B. Harden, “Glass and Glazes,” in Charles Singer et al. (eds.),
A History of Technology (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1956), vol. 2, pp. 311–346
on p. 311.
4 A. Leo Oppenheim, Robert H. Brill and Dan Barag Glass and Glassmaking, Cit.,
pp. 5–7. The association between chemical operations and propitious days is typi-
cally alchemical. Although referring to the Hellenistic period, Ingeborg Hammer
Jensen has remarked that: “die alten Alchymisten haben [. . .] die astrologischen
Theorien gekannt, haben sie aber nur rhetorisch gebraucht, ohne ihnen Bedeutung
für die Alchymie beizumessen; nur in einem Punkt: dass bestimmte Operationen an
bestimmten Tagen and zu bestimmte Zeiten zu machen sind, scheint die Alchymie von
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 3
Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking 3
Mesopotamian recipes, the chemical operations required to produce

colored glass were preceded with a ritual including the worship of im-
ages and a libation offering; when the glass was placed into the kiln, a
sheep was sacrificed before images of the Gods.5 Such rites are impor-
tant because their association with a holy discipline such as medicine
supports the scientific and literary dignity of glassmaking.
One of the most important achievements of Mesopotamian glass-
making was the imitation of lapis lazuli. Given lapis lazuli’s importance
to both Mesopotamian and Egyptian art and culture, the ability to pro-
duce notable quantities of artificial stone represented an important tech-
nological advance, although glass was still valued as highly as gold.6 In
this connection it is interesting to note that one of the extant recipes de-
scribes the procedure to make “zukû-glass which has the look of gold,”7
and that the experiment is accompanied by a prescribed ritual offering
by the craftsmasters.
But the ability to create imitations of precious stones in the labora-
tory posed the problem of the counterfeit’s value and of its relationship
to natural lapis lazuli. In brief, chemical technology allowed for the ar-
tificial emulation of nature, but it was not clear whether this emulation
was faithful to the original or simply a false imitation. Mesopotamian
glassmakers linguistically distinguished the natural blue stone as lapis
lazuli “from the mountain” (uqnû sadi) and designated the artificially-
produced version as “lapi lazuli from the kiln” (uqnû kuri). This clear
distinction between the natural and the artificial is critical as it recog-
der Astrologie beinflusst.” (My italics). I. Hammer Jensen, Die älteste Alchymie
(Copenhagen: Andr. Fred. Høst & Søn, 1921), p. 14. Compare this with the cita-
tion of next footnote.
5 “When you set up the foundation of a kiln to (make) glass, you (first) search in a
favorable month for a propitious day, and (then) you set up the foundation of the
kiln. As soon as you have completely finished [. . .], you place (there) Kūbu images,
no outsider or stranger should (thereafter) enter (the building) [. . .] You regularly
perform libation offerings before them . . .” A. Leo Oppenheim, Robert H. Brill
and Dan Barag Glass and Glassmaking, cit., p. 32.
6 Birgit Schlick-Nolte, Die Glasgefässe im alten Ägypten (Berlin: B. Hessling, 1968)
and E. Marianne Stern and Birgit Schlick-Nolte, Early glass of the Ancient World,
1600 B.C.–A.D. 50 : Ernesto Wolf collection (Ostfildern : Verlag G. Hatje, 1994), p.
128.
7 A. Leo Oppenheim, Robert H. Brill and Dan Barag Glass and Glassmaking, cit.,
p. 52.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 4
nises the technical capability to create a perfect imitation of a natural

object in the laboratory.8
Another contribution from Mesopotamian texts which would have
important consequences for the history of glassmaking was the defini-
tion of glass itself: the term baŝlu abnu (molten stone), which recalls the
Greek líthos chytè (molten stone), eventually used by Herodotus and
other Greek authors.9 The reference to the chemical operation of melt-
ing is significant because the melting or fusing property of glass was also
associated with other mineral substances, especially metals. In this re-
spect, it seems that at a very early stage glass was not seen as an entirely
artificial product but as a natural stone which, like metals, could be
fused and modified. As a matter of fact, glass was treated as a compound
with the same chemical properties as metals; glasses of different colors
were classified with distinctive names such as sāndu for red glass, duŝû
for yellow glass, or šeršerru for generic colored glass. The use of differ-
ent names for different kinds of glass probably followed the classifica-
tion of metals and stones, which was mostly based on the idea that color
was the main quality according to which one might differentiate among
minerals.
Mesopotamian craftsmen introduced several technical terms related
to the chemical operations of glassmaking. These seem to refer to a
specific furnace for glassmaking (kūru ša abni) which was probably di-
vided into different two compartments: one for the wood-fueled fire, at
the top of which the second, melting chamber was used for the actual
fusion of glass. Although the temperature was probably not high
enough for fusion, the outstanding progress achieved in the construc-
tion of these furnaces allowed the craftsmen to produce a surprisingly
rich variety of colored glass.
Despite their cultural importance, textual and archaeological evi-
dence is insufficient if we wish to draw a fully reliable historical picture
8 The possibility of artificially producing natural bodies has been justly identified as
one of the main features of alchemical thought by William R. Newman in
Promethean Ambitions. Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature. (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2004), pp. 11–36. See also the collection of essays edited by
Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and William R. Newman, The Artificial and the Nat-
ural. An Evolving Polarity (Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 2007).
9 Mary Luella Trowbridge, Philological Studies in Ancient Glass (Urbana: University
of Illinois, 1930), p. 19.

ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 5
of the social and theoretical position of glassmaking in Mesopotamian

culture. However, the reading of the extant recipes reveals a few notable
aspects; namely,
1. Glassmaking seems to have been perceived by Mesopotamian au-

thors as a craft suspended between art and nature which enabled the
imitation of precious stones;
2. The literary style of using short and instructive recipes to transmit
the secrets of the art appears to be the point of departure for a liter-
ary tradition which met with enormous success among ancient al-
chemists.
However, as much as the Mesopotamian glass texts are important

to our understanding of the origin of this recipe literature, they do not
appear to contain any reference to alchemical transmutations.10 Thus
the use of glass to imitate native stones and minerals did not result in a
systematic reflection upon the power of chemical manipulation of mat-
ter and its theoretical implications. Indeed, despite the production of a
considerable number of texts, it seems that Mesopotamian glassmakers
did not develop theories about the problematic and ambiguous nature of
glass, but rather contented themselves with perfecting their technical
skill in this craft to a limited extent.
Even if the technical literature of Mesopotamian glassmaking did
not seem to rely on an alchemical philosophy of matter, many of the ex-
perimental procedures of coloring or the theoretical distinction between
genuine and artificial stones set forth by these texts paved the way for a
set of notions which would be more systematically developed by the
Egyptians.
a phoenician discovery?
The only surviving ancient text devoted to the origin of glass challenges
the Mesopotamians’ supremacy in the history of this material. In a work
composed by Pliny the Elder in the first century CE, we find out that
10As maintained, for instance, by R. Eisler, “Der babylonische Ursprung der Al-
chemie,” Chemiker Zeitung, (1925), Nos. 83 and 86.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 6
glass was discovered by chance by Phoenician merchants. The narrative

by Pliny is worth quoting at length:
That part of Syria which is known as Phoenicia and borders on

Judea contains a swamp called Candebia amid the lower slopes of
Mount Carmel. This is supposed to be the source of the river
Belus which, after traversing a distance of 5 miles, flows into the
sea near the colony of Ptolemais. Its current is sluggish and its
waters are unwholesome to drink, although they are regarded as
holy for ritual purposes. The river is muddy and flows in a deep
channel revealing its sands only when the tide ebbs. For it is not
until they have been tossed by the waves and cleansed of impuri-
ties that they glisten. Moreover, it is only at that moment, when
they are thought to be affected by the sharp, astringent properties
of the brine, that they become fit for use. The beach stretches for
not more than half a mile, and yet for many centuries the pro-
duction of glass depended on this area alone. There is a story that
once a ship belonging to some traders in natural soda [nitri],11
put in here and that they scattered along the shore to prepare a
meal. Since then, however, no stones suitable for supporting their
cauldrons were forthcoming, they rested them on lumps of soda
from their cargo. When these became heated and were com-
pletely mingled with the sand on the beach a strange translucent
11 The etymology of this word to designate soda is rather problematic. It may de-
rive from the Egyptian Ntr and the Hebrew verb netar (to effervesce). The Greek
term, nitron or natron, was translated into Latin as nitrum to designate where the
soda along with other nitrates were gathered near Alexandria in Egypt. This gen-
erated so much confusion that even in 1556, Georgius Agricola, in his De re
metallica (Basel: Froben, 1556), was unable to distinguish between the substances
so named by this single term. On this see Eug. Peligot. Le verre. Son histoire, sa
fabrication (Paris: G. Masson, 1877), pp. 308–310. For an up-to-date compre-
hensive treatment, see also James R. Partington, A History of Greek Fire and Gun-
powder, 2nd ed., (Baltimore-London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), pp.
298–309; Marco Beretta, “Stampa, incisioni e terminologia nel De re metallica di
Giorgio Agricola,” in Massimo Galuzzi, Gianni Micheli and Maria Teresa.
Monti (eds.), Le forme della comunicazione scientifica (Milano: F. Angeli, 1998),
pp. 191–216).
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 7
liquid flowed forth in streams; and this it is said, was the origin
of glass.12
Pliny’s story, the original source of which remains unknown, is

often considered unlikely by archaeologists, even though the passage is
cited in most histories of glass. Pliny’s version, however, is of great in-
terest not only because it emphasizes the semi-natural origin of glass but
also because it evokes, albeit implicitly, glass’ typical characteristic as a
product of trade. Pliny underlines the marvellous event witnessed by the
merchants who, by submitting the siliceous sand and the soda to the ac-
tion of fire, saw the formation of glass filaments following a nearly spon-
taneous chemical reaction.
It is well known that the Phoenicians are often credited with many
ancient technical inventions whose origins are either Mesopotamian or
Egyptian. However, the Phoenicians’ connection here to the introduc-
tion of glass, ungrounded as it now seems, is in actuality rooted in both
the technical skills achieved by Phoenician glassmakers at the time of
Pliny’s writing (first century CE), and in the fundamental role that
Phoenician merchants played in exporting glass products throughout
the Mediterranean world. In this respect, it is interesting to note that
during the XVIIIth Egyptian dynasty, when glass was first introduced
to Egypt, the Phoenicians intensified their trade, thus becoming an es-
sential medium of contact between the Far East, the Minoans and the
Egyptians.13 The trade of increasingly large quantities of glass products
stimulated an interest in appropriating a technique that promised the
ability to imitate nearly any mineral or precious stone. While the Mi-
noans and other Mediterranean civilizations showed limited interest in
12 Pliny The Elder, Naturalis Historia, Book. 36, 65; Loeb Classical Library,
transl. D.E. Eichholz, (Cambridge Mass.-London: Harvard University Press-/
Heinemann), vol. X, 1962, p. 151. In order to illustrate the plausibility of Pliny’s
account, experiments have been carried out to demonstrate the possibility of ob-
taining glass paste; H. Löber, “Hatte Plinius der Ältere Recht mit seinem Bericht
über das Entstehen des Glases?” in Thea Elisabeth Haevernick & Axel von Saldern
(eds.), Festschrift für Waldemar Haberey (Mainz, 1976), pp. 85–88; E. Marianne
Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art. Roman Mold-blown Glass. The First through Sixth
Centuries (Roma: L’Erma di Breitschneider, 1995), pp. 65 ff.
13 J. R. Partington, Origins and Development of Applied Chemistry (London: Long-
mans, 1935), p. 433.

ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 8
glassmaking and were content to trade with the Phoenicians for the
products they brought from the Far East, the Egyptians aimed for the
creation of their own independent, domestic industry.
glassmakers in egypt:
craftsmen or alchemists?
Although the influence of Mesopotamian glassmaking on Egyptian

craftsmen is now generally accepted,14 the priority disputes over the in-
vention of this material have overshadowed the different approaches
and technologies developed within the two civilizations. In fact, Egypt-
ian craftsmen displayed an extended knowledge of primary ingredients,
developed advanced metallurgical techniques which led them to pro-
duce a richer variety of colors, and, at last but not least, manifested a
theoretical interest in the classification of glass within a “philosophy” of
matter, apparently absent in Mesopotamian texts. As these advances
are rarely expressed in literary evidence, most of our knowledge of them
is derived from archaeological contexts and from the later histories pro-
vided by Greek travellers of the fifth century BCE, such as Herodotus,
or in alchemical texts produced by Hellenistic or Late Antiquity authors
such as Pseudo-Democritus and Zosimos of Panopolis. The difficulty of
combining Egyptian archaeological evidence with these later textual re-
constructions of the craft is usually seen as a strong argument against the
hypothesis of the Egyptian origins of ancient alchemy, which recent
historians view as little more than legend. On this Garth Fowden has
recently remarked the following:
In the case of alchemy, the ancient Egyptians are known to have

been interested in the origin and nature of precious stones and
metals, while the Greek alchemical texts of late antiquity contain
14 H. C. Beck, “Glass before 1500 B.C.,” Ancient Egypt and the East, (1934),
19:7–21; J. F. S. Stone and L. C. Thomas, “The Use and Distribution of Faience
in the Ancient East and Prehistoric Europe,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,
1956, 22:37–84; for a convincing recent reconstruction see Nicholson and Hen-
derson, “Glass,” cit. and C. M. Jackson, P. T. Nicholson and W. Gneisinger,
“Glassmaking at Tell El-Amarna: An Integrated Approach,” Journal of Glass Stud-
ies, (1998), 40:11–23.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 9
various allusions to Egypt and its tradition; but there is no sign of

anything approaching the continuous evolution that links the
Pharaonic to Graeco-Egyptian magic.15
Fowden’s sceptical remark is justified as long as it refers to the his-

toriography of alchemy since the seventeenth century16 which, relying
on medieval sources, considered the Egyptians to be the founders of the
holy art. Indeed, as knowledge of Ancient Egypt remained poor until
the second half of the nineteenth century, such historical reconstruc-
tions mostly relied upon Hellenistic sources and often confused beliefs
and practices developed in a Greek context with those of the ancient
Pharaohs. But the recent publication of works devoted to the develop-
ment of mineral and chemical arts in Pharaonic Egypt17 has brought
new texts to light which enable us both to better contextualize Egypt-
ian craftsmen’s opinions about their own activities, and to partially re-
assess the scepticism inspiring the contemporary historiography of
alchemy. Moreover, within these texts glassmaking seemed to have
played an important role.
The glass industry made its first appearance in Egypt from 1400
BCE during the kingdom of Akhenaten. As in Mesopotamia, the in-
vention of glass was probably derived from the crafts of faience and
glaze. These materials consisted of the same ingredients—silica, alkali
and lime18—but their technical treatment was completely different, thus
resulting in many vitreous bodies which cannot be directly reduced to
15 Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan
Mind (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 67.
16 See for instance Ole Borch’s Hermetis, Ægyptiorum, et chemicorum sapientia ab
Hermanni Conringii animadversionibus vindicate (Hafniae: Sumptibus Petri

Hauboldi, 1674); Friedrich Josef Wilhelm Schröder, Geschichte der ältesten Chemie
und Filosophie, oder sogenannten Filosofie der Egyptier (Marburg, 1775).
17 F. Daumas, “L’alchimie a-t-elle une origine égyptienne?,” in Römisch-Byzanti-
nische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 26–30 September 1978 in Trier
(Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1983), pp. 109–118; P. Derchain, “L’Atelier des
Orfèvres à Dendara et les origines de l’Alchimie,” Chronique d’Egypte (1990),
65:219–242; Sydney Aufrère, L’Univers Minéral dans la Pensée Égyptienne (Cairo:
IFAO, 1991) 2 vols.
18 Ancient artisans did not recognise the necessity of lime. Their recipes mentioned
only silica and alkali: “the lime came, unrecognized, either with silica or with alkali”
E. Marianne Stern and Birgit Schlick-Nolte, Early glass of the Ancient World, cit.,
p. 19.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 10
F i g . 1. Head of an Egyptian priest made of vitreous material. Ca. Seventh

century BCE. Ernesto Wolf collection—Stuttgart. Stern and Schlick-Nolte, Early
Glass of the Ancient World, No. 26.
glass.19 “Both glass and faience were treated as artificial precious stones”20
and Egyptian craftsmen seemed to have mastered both techniques with
the greatest dexterity (Fig. 1). In fact the variety of glassy artifacts pro-
duced in Egypt includes “the largest known until Roman times. [It also
19 These differences are exhaustively dealt with in Robert James Forbes, Studies in
Ancient Technology 2nd ed. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966), vol. 5, pp. 111–117. As for the
chronology of the three arts see Donald B. Harden, “Glass and Glazes,” in Charles
Singer et alia (eds.), A History of Technology, cit., pp. 311–318.
20 Nicholson and Henderson, “Glass,” cit., p. 195.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 11
shows] an array of glassworking techniques never surpassed until the

fifth century BCE.”21 However, faience had been practiced as an art
since the earliest dynasties, such that by the time glass was discovered,
the production of glazed ware was so common that artisans were al-
lowed to cultivate their profession without the rigid administrative con-
straints which regulated royal crafts.22 By contrast “glass, a new
technology, was the subject of tight royal control, amounting almost to
the monopoly. It was produced in large specialised facilities probably
under some degree of secrecy, and exchanged between courts principally in
the form of ingots, but also of glass vessels.”23 Despite the social and cul-
tural differences between them and the glazers, Egyptian glassmakers
greatly benefited in their craft’s development from the millenary expe-
rience achieved in faience coloring and in glazing.
The production of glass and its necessary technical know-how im-
plied the following advancements:
1. Fritting the raw materials in low-temperature furnaces;24

2. The construction of melting furnaces25 capable of producing tem-
peratures above 1000°C to soften the ingredients in crucibles;26
21 Birgit Schlick-Nolte, “Glass,” in Donald B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclo-

pedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001), vol. 2, pp. 30–34 on p. 31.
22 On this Andrew Shortland, Paul Nicholson and Caroline Jackson, “Glass and
faience in Amarna: different methods of both supply for production, and subse-
quent distribution” in Andrew J. Shortland (ed.), The Social Context of Technologi-
cal Change. Egypt and the Near East, 1650–1550 BC (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001),
pp. 147–160.
23 Ibid., p. 158 (my italics).
24 Interestingly the glass furnaces found in Tell el-Amarna by Flinders Petrie (see
next note) show glass manufacture without fritting and without losing its quality:
on this see Paul T. Nicholson and Caroline M. Jackson, “Tell el-Amarna and the
Glassmakers’ Shop of the Second Millenium BC,” in Marie-Dominique Nenna
(ed.), La route du verre. Ateliers primaries et secondaires du second millénaire av. J.-C.
au Moyen Age (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, 2000), pp. 11–21.
25 A recent attempt to reconstruct a glass furnace is described in C. M. Jackson, P.
T. Nicholson and W. Gneisinger, “Glassmaking at Tell El-Amarna: An Integrated

Approach,” cit. This attempt was based on the finding at Tell El-Amarna of a fur-
nace dating around 1350 B.C.E. described in William Matthew Flinders Petrie’s,
Tell el Amarna (London: Methuen & Co., 1894) pp. 25–27.
26 The fusion temperature of pure glass is 1700°C, which can be drastically reduced
by adding alkali such as soda and other alkaline compounds which change some of
the physical-chemical characteristics of the vitrifying agents. The highest temper-
ature reached in glassmaking during antiquity reached 1000–1100° only around the
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 12
3. An extensive knowledge of the time required to cool glass in order

to avoid its crystallization and consequent loss of translucency.
At an early stage of glassmaking the main ingredient, silica, was ini-

tially made from powdering quartz stone; only at a later stage would
craftsmen learn to use the silica sand that was largely available through-
out Egypt. The fact that craftsmen understood that quartz and rock
crystal provided the main ingredients for glass represented an important
step towards a chemical classification of glass which, as we shall see, had
significant consequences for early alchemical thought.
At least between 1400 and 1050 BCE,27 the role of glass in Egypt-
ian culture was of great importance for the production of amulets, beads,
vessels, inlays and—essential to the present work—for the imitation of
precious stones. Probably due to its characteristic ability to imitate so
many materials, Egyptians did not coin a specific name to denote glass
until the third century CE, when the demotic yl was used for the first
time in the magical papyrus of London.28
An invention which seems exclusively Egyptian was the so called
blue frit, better known as Egyptian blue, a pulverized compound consist-
ing of the same ingredients as glass which was heated at a relatively low
temperature (around 685°C) and which resulted in a pigment used to
decorate amulets, seals and several other objects. The oldest recipe de-
scribing the ingredients of the Egyptian blue is given by Vitruvius (VII,
2), who called it caeruleum (Fig. 2). But rather than providing his read-
ers with a reliable account of its contents, he describes one of the nu-
merous attempts made during Hellenistic times to imitate Egyptian
blue.29 Vitrivius writes the following:
first century BCE. This was a major achievement because, as Neuburger has
pointed out, the highest temperature reached by the ancients to reduce copper-ores
was 1100°, and this was probably “die höchste Temperatur [. . .] die man in Alter-
tume bei hüttenmännischen Prozessen zu erreicht vermochte,” Albert Neuburger
Die Technik des Altertums (Leipzig: R. Voigtländer, 1919), pp. 25–26.
27 A. Lucas and J.R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, cit., p. 179.
28 Edda Bresciani, introduction to Le vie del vetro. Egitto e Sudan (Pisa: Giardini ed-
itori, 1988), p. 11.

29 François Delamare, “La recette du caeruleum de Vitruve. Le point de vue de la
science des matériaux,” Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, (2003),

53:3–18.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 13
F i g . 2. Vase containing sample of caeruleum Vestorianum. First century CE. SAP

inv. 9649.
Methods of making blue were first discovered in Alexandria, and

afterwards Vestorius set up the making of it at Puzzuoli. The
method of obtaining it from the substances of which it has been
found to consist, is strange enough. Sand and the flowers of natron
are brayed together so finely that the product is like meal, and cop-
per is grated by means of coarse files over the mixture, like sawdust,
to form a conglomerate. Then it is made into balls by rolling it in
the hands and thus bound together for drying. The dry balls are
put in an earthen jar, and the jars in an oven. As soon as the cop-
per and the sand grow hot and unite under the intensity of the fire,
they mutually receive each other’s sweat, relinquishing their pecu-
liar qualities, and having lost their properties through the intensity
of the fire, they are reduced to a blue color.30
30Vitruvius, De Architectura, VII, 11 translated into English by Morris Hicky Mor-

gan (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1914), pp. 218–219.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 14
Even if Vitruvius’ recipe is not a reliable description of the prepara-

tion of the blue frit in Ancient Egypt, it still confirms that the main in-
gredients were the same as those used in glassmaking.
The Egyptians did not find it necessary to establish a clear-cut dis-
tinction between glass and faience on the one hand, and glazing mineral
stones on the other.31 One definition of glass appropriated the term
faience, thnt, which was derived from the verb thn: to sparkle, to scin-
tillate, or lightning flash.32 As the etymology would have been equally
effective to denote colored glass, the term later became synonymous
with this new artifact. Pursuing the chemical properties of glass, Egypt-
ian craftsmen, like their Mesopotamian counterparts, also defined glass
as (aA.t-wdh) “molten stone” or “molten precious stone,”33 but by in-
cluding glass products within a comprehensive classification of metals
and mineral products they went farther than their predecessors. As a
matter of fact, this vision was contained within a philosophy of matter
that seems to have prefigured Empedocles’ concept of the four elements.
According to Hecataeus of Abdera, a fourth century CE skeptic
philosopher and author of a book on the history of Egypt,34 Egyptians
31 “It is not a distinction of which the Egyptians themselves were ever acutely con-
scious, and it is evident that the name of almost any stone could equally be applied
to its imitation in faience and glass, it being quite impossible in many cases to tell
which is meant . . .” John Richard Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egypt-
ian Minerals. Institut für Orientforschung. Veröffentlichung. no. 54 (Berlin: Deutsche
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1961), p. 13.
32 John Richard Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, Cit..
This word already appeared in the era of the Pyramids (Old Kingdom) although it
was exclusively used to denote faience. I have used the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae
published on the internet by the Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften. The Thesaurus contains also the classical Wörterbuches der ägyptischen
Sprache by Adolf Erman published in 1897.
33 John Richard Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, cit., p.
100. See also Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, cit., p. 123 and Adolf Erman
and Hermann Grapow, Das Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache; zur Geschichte eines
großen wissenschaftlichen Unternehmens der Akademie (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1953).
34 Oswyn Murray, “Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic Kingship,” The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology, (1970), 56:141–171; M. Stern and Oswyn Murray,

“Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians,” The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology, 1973, 59:159–168; Stanley Mayer Burstein, “Hecataeus of
Abdera’s History of Egypt” in, Life in a multi-cultural society: Egypt from Cambyses
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 15
believed in the principle of matter that, divided into the four elements,
became the basis of all living beings.35 Diogenes Laertius (I, 10) syn-
thesised Hecataeus’ report with the following words:
They [the Egyptians] say that matter was the first principle, next
the four elements were derived from matter, and thus living things
of every species were produced.36
An intimate relation was then established between the various ele-

ments and gods. As Diodorus Siculus points out (I, 11, 5–6), matter was
nothing less than a direct, divine emanation:
Practically all the physical matter which is essential to the genera-

tion of all things is furnished by these Gods [Osiris and Isis], the
sun contributing the fiery element and the spirit, the moon the wet
and the dry, and both together the air; and it is through these ele-
ments that all things are engendered and nourished.37
This cosmological vision that conceived of mineral products as di-

rect manifestations of the gods38 had important implications for the
Egyptians’ efforts to classify the subterranean world. In many instances,
the Egyptians thought of gods as made of minerals.39 Such a funda-
mental ingredient of glass as Natron (ntr),40 for instance, was written
to Constantine and beyond, edited by Janet H. Johnson (Chicago: Oriental Institute

of the University of Chicago, 1992), pp. 45–49; see also Thomas Cole, Democritus
and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 153–163.
35 Felix Jacoby (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Dritter teil. Geschichte
von Städten und Völkern 3A (Leiden: Brill, 1940), pp. 12–15.

36 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of eminent Philosophers. With an English translation by R.
D. Hicks. The Loeb classical library (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press,
2000), p. 11.
37 Diodorus of Sicily, The Library of History, (Historiarum libris aliquot qui extant)
translated by C. H. Oldfather - The Loeb classical library (Cambridge Mass.: Har-

vard University Press, 1984), vol. 1, p. 41. Seneca (Naturales Quaestiones, 3, 14) also
pointed out that the Egyptians outlined the doctrine of the four elements.
38 A comprehensive and updated survey of this system is given in Sydney Aufrère,
L’Univers Minéral dans la Pensée Égyptienne, cit., especially in vol. 2.

39 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 314.
40 The soda alkali used to lower the temperature of fusion of glass.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 16
with the same hieroglyph used to denote “God.” According to religious

tradition, in fact, natron originated as a direct emanation from Osiris.41
Moreover, while the eye was considered the main organ of human per-
ception, the Gods’ eyes were said to produce light, and the chromatic
glaze of minerals was the material effect of this divine production.42
Significantly, statues of gods and pharaohs were decorated with eye in-
lays made of glass and rock crystal, indicating the importance of these
materials for religious and funerary practice. Not surprisingly, the color
of precious stones and minerals, namely gold, silver, and lapis lazuli,
evoked the spirit of the god and thus produced magical effects.
But the colors of minerals were important independent from their
supernatural effects. Egyptians in fact paid particular attention to min-
eral colors since the analysis of this secondary quality was “one of the
chief criteria by which [they], differentiated between semi-precious and
other stones.”43 Connected to this criterion was a belief in an intimate
relationship between noble metals such as gold, silver and electrum and
precious stones such as lapis lazuli, turquoise, red jasper, green feldspar,
carnelian and other gems.44 There was no physical-chemical difference
between stones such as gold and lapis lazuli, but the difference lay in
their qualities of color and brilliance.45 Both bodies in fact shared the
same chemical property of being meltable, but their external character-
istics displayed the chromatic differences that allowed for their mutual
distinction.
As the gods’ influence over the mineral kingdom was so pervasive,
craftsmen who were engaged in the manipulation of metals and stones
were in touch with godly particles and fluids, and their capacity to trans-
form matter thus placed them in the position of demiurges. It is not
41 Sydney Aufrère, L’Univers Minéral, cit., vol. 2, pp. 606–636.

42 Ibid. vol. 1, p. 314.
43 John Richard Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, cit.,
p. 13
44 Ibid, p. 21.
45 The relation between the four constituent elements of matter and the importance
projected by Egyptians to colors in order to classify the products of the mixtures of

the fours elements would eventually find important echo in the Greek philosophy
of matter.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 17
without significance that while in Mesopotamia there was no term de-

noting glassmakers,46 in Egypt irw h sbd denoted the craft of “makers of
(artificial) lap lazuli,”47 thus revealing the degree of professionalization
of a skill which would enjoy significant importance within Egyptian so-
ciety and culture.48 As a matter of fact, craftsmen enjoyed a higher so-
cial status in Egypt than in Classical Greco-Roman economic contexts.
In Egypt, Galen claimed, new artisanal discoveries were always submit-
ted to the approval of scholars, who provided public notice of the new
inventions through inscriptions fixed on sanctuary columns.49 It was
due to the tradition of omitting inventors’ names from these inscriptions
that, according to Galen, a multitude of anonymous writings on occult
sciences were attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.
Laboratories are known to have existed not only in major urban
centres but also within the walls of great temples and sanctuaries.50 For
example, in a sanctuary erected at Dendara between the first century
BCE and the beginning of the Common Era, the French archaeologist
Dercahin identified an inscription introducing a goldsmiths’ workshop.
While goldsmiths were differentiated from the Priests of the temple,
their status was recognized within the ritual activities of the sanctuary.
Such rituals were kept secret (a tradition with solid roots in Egyptian
history) and there is reason to believe that the technical activities asso-
ciated with the temple’s adornment were integral to the rites; one may
46 Leo Oppenheim, Robert H. Brill and Dan Barag Glass and Glassmaking, cit., p. 6.
47 John Richard Harris, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals, cit.,
p. 128. For a contextualization of technical professions in Ancient Egypt see R. J.
Forbes, “Professions and Crafts in Ancient Egypt,” Archives Internationales d’His-
toire des Sciences, (1950), 12:559–618.
48 A comprehensive survey of the high social status reached by metal craftsmen in
Ancient Egypt is Sydney Aufrère, L’Univers Minéral dans la Pensée Égyptienne cit.,
vol. 2, pp. 363 and ff.
49 Galen, Adversus ea quae Juliano in Hippocratis aphorismos enunciata sunt libellus in,
Id., Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia. Editionem curavit C. G. Kühn, Reprint of the orig-
inal edition Leipzig 1829 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965) vol. 18:1, p. 247.
50 Marcellin Berthelot, Les origines de l’alchimie. (Paris : Georges Steinheil, 1885),
pp. 43–45 ; Franz Cumont, L’Egypte des astrologues. (Bruxelles: Fondation Egyp-
tologique Reine Elisabeth, 1937), chapter 7.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 18
well wonder to what extent such ritualistic origins encouraged the se-
crecy surrounding metallurgical and chemical operations.51 This seems
to be confirmed in a funerary inscription on an Official’s coffin declar-
ing him “superior of the secrets and chief of the metallurgists of the
house of Amon.”52 Further, the glass furnace discovered in Tell el-
Amarna by Flinders Petrie was directly connected with the decoration
of the temple, indicating that glassmakers were favoured by Royal pro-
tection and monopoly.
In the third century CE, Zosimos of Panopolis reported the exis-
tence of an alchemical furnace in the sanctuary devoted to the God Ptah
at Memphis53 (Fig. 3). Zosimos’ testimony shows the proximity be-
tween the chemical arts and Egyptian priests’ activities, which must
have been relatively old, as they can be traced back at least to the Hel-
lenistic period.54 It is therefore difficult to share Festugière’s belief that
the Egyptians’ only contribution to the emergence of ancient alchemy
was their technical skill, and that it was the Greeks alone who furnished
these practical notions with an adequate theoretical foundation.55
51 Derchain, “L’Atelier des Orfèvres à Dendara,” cit.

52 Gaston Maspero, Guide to the Cairo Museum (Cairo: French Institute of Orien-
tal Technology, 1908), p. 284.
53 “J’ai vu dans le sanctuaire dans l’antique de Memphis un fourneau gisant en
pièces, que même les initiés aux choses sacrées n’avaient pas trouvé le moyen de re-
constituer.” From Michèle Mertens (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs. Zosimos de Panopolis.
Mémoires authentiques (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2002), p. 23. For a commentary on
the meaning of this citation Ibid. pp. 187–188. Zosimos’ text was published in
Marcellin Berthelot, Charles Emile Ruelle (eds.), Collections des anciens alchimistes
grecs (Paris: Georges Steinheil, 1888), vol. 2, p. 216.
54Berthelot, Ruelle, cit., vol. 2, pp. 97–98. Johannes Dümichen, “Ein Salbölrecept
aus dem Laboratorium des Edfutempels,” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Al-
terthumskunde, 1879, 17:97–128; Walter Otto, Priester und Tempel im Hellenistis-
chen Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. (Leipzig-Berlin:
Teubner, 1905), vol. 1, pp. 291–315; P. Derchain, “L’Atelier des Orfèvres á Den-
dera et les origins de l’Alchimie,” in Chronique d’Egypte, 1990, 65:219–242.
55 “L’alchimie gréco-égyptienne, d’où ont dérivé toutes les autres, est née de la ren-
contre d’un fait et d’une doctrine. Le fait est la pratique, traditionnelle en Egypte,
des arts de l’orfèvrerie. La doctrine est un mélange de philosophie grecque, em-
pruntée surtout à Platon et à Aristote,” Jean André Festugière, La révélation d’Her-
mès Trismégiste (Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 1986), vol. 1, pp. 218–219. Against this
thesis see the work by Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach
to the Late Pagan Mind, cit.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 19
Glazed statue of Ptah, Egyptian God, patron of the artisans. First century
F i g . 3.
CE. SANC 22607.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 20
The history of Ancient Egypt attests strongly to the social relevance

of crafts and craftsmen: only gods, kings and priests were ranked higher
than the artisans’ guilds.56 In reference to Egyptian blue (kyanos57), for
instance, Theophrastus (Fig. 4) wrote the following:
The Egyptian [blue] is the best for making pure pigments. [Its] va-
riety is manufactured and those who write the history of the kings
of Egypt state which king it was who first made fused kyanos in im-
itation of natural kind; and they add that kyanos was sent as tribute
from Phoenicia and as gifts for other quarters, and some of it was
natural and some had been produced by fire.58
Unfortunately Theophrastus’ succinct reference does not enable us

to identify the King to whom we might attribute the important techni-
cal invention that assured a perfect imitation of the blue color of lapis
lazuli.59 It is important to point out, however, that such an invention en-
joyed royal recognition, a sign of the high social status of the craftsman
who succeeded in its artificial production. Lapis lazuli was in fact con-
sidered to be the hair of the gods, and therefore possessing a specimen
had deep religious meaning. For this reason the demand for lapis lazuli
increased enormously long before the Hellenistic era, thus favouring
large production of its artificial imitation.60
56 Forbes, “Professions and Crafts,” cit., p. 601; Sydney Aufrère, L’Univers Minéral,
cit., vol. 2, p. 439. This recognition was pervasive enough that it must have played
a role in the credit given to the applied Arts in Ptolemaic Alexandria.
57 Kyanos is the Greek term introduced to denote both the Egyptian blue and col-
ored blue glass; see Trowbrigde, Philological Studies, cit. On Egyptian blue and
other pigments see Daniel Le Fur, “Les pigments dans la peinture égyptienne” in,
Pigments et colorants de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Age. Teinture, peinture, enluminure –
études historiques et physico-chimiques (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2002), pp. 181–188.
On the Roman production of Egyptian blue an its literary background see François
Delamare, “La recette du caeruleum de Vitruve. Le point de vue de la science des
matériaux,” cit.
58 Theoprastus, De lapidibus 55; Theophrastus, On stones. Introduction, Greek Text,
English Translation and Commentary eds. Earle R. Caley and John F. C. Richards
(Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1956) p. 57.
59 On this see Carl Richard Lepsius, “Les métaux dans les inscriptions égypti-
ennes,” Bibliothèque de l’école des hautes études – Sciences philologiques et historiques,

1877, 30 : 1–72, on pp. 28–29.
60 Sydney Aufrère, L’Univers Minéral, cit. vol. 1, pp. 464–465.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 21
The relevance Egyptians attributed to the

mineral kingdom, its role within their cos-
mology and the status of the craftsmen em-
ployed in its study resulted in a classification
of glass and what were believed to be similar
stones, which combined the practical chemi-
cal know-how acquired in the laboratory with
theoretical and religious beliefs. As we have
already pointed out, natural lapis lazuli (h sbd
mAa61), which to Egyptians was one of the
most precious and important stones, could be
also artificial (h sbd irit): manufactured using
powdered glass combined with copper oxide
or even cobalt.62 The ability to produce high
quality imitations of lapis lazuli underlined
the potential of the chemical arts and, at the
same time, the amazing results that glassmak-
ing promised. In effect, by adding different
metallic oxides (i.e. iron, manganese), Egypt-
ian glassmakers discovered how to perfectly
imitate other precious stones such emerald
(mfkt), ruby (xenem), topaz (thnt) and crystal
(inr ). These stones were classified along with
noble metals (gold, electrum and silver) not
F i g . 4. Herm of Theophrastus found in
merely because of their value but, in virtue of the Cassius Villa near Tivoli.
the technical procedures used to produce their
imitations, because of their chemical property
of being meltable. The fact that the artificial lapis lazuli, ruby and emer-
ald were obtained by bringing glass powder to a state of fusion indicated
61 By this term was also meant “to be blue, to shine like heaven.”
62 “The finding of cobalt in Egyptian glass, especially at so early a date as the Eigh-
teenth Dynasty, is of considerable importance, since cobalt compounds do not
occur in Egypt except as traces in other minerals, and their presence of glass, if con-
firmed, would seem to indicate that the Egyptian glass makers of that time were in
contact with glass makers elsewhere, who were using this material,” A. Lucas and
J.R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials, cit. p. 189. On the use of cobalt see also
Lepsius, “Les métaux dans les inscriptions égyptiennes,” cit. pp. 32–33 and the
more recent article by Julian Henderson, “The raw Materials of early Glass Pro-
duction,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1985, IV/3:267–291.
ch01_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:35 PM Page 22
to the Egyptians that the natural minerals were somehow analogous to

noble metals. This classification was adopted, as we shall later see, with-
out substantial changes by Greek philosophers of nature as well as by
the Alexandrian alchemists.
An additional aspect of the Egyptian classification of glass products
should be taken into consideration. As a chemical and manipulative
craft, glassmaking made it possible to create stones that were not sim-
ply counterfeits or imitations, but rather re-creations of native minerals.
It is interesting to note that in their naming of the chemical products,
Egyptians preserved the original definition of the native stone (emer-
alds, lapis lazuli etc.), but added the adjective “artificial,” which meant
that the results obtained in the laboratory were identical to those pro-
duced in nature. This philosophy was consonant with the Egyptians’
cosmological vision of the mineral kingdom, and with their idea that
each stone possessed a precise divine identity. The meaning of artificial
lapis lazuli would have drastically diminished if its chemical nature was
perceived as different from the true lapis. Thus, for Egyptian craftsmen,
chemical operations entailed more than mere practical and technologi-
cal skills: it also involved a philosophy of matter which presupposed the
possibility of reproducing natural minerals and transforming, if not
transmuting, sands and other vile materials into translucent and colored
stones. Color, destined to play a central role in Alexandrian alchemy,
was of crucial importance for Egyptian craftsmen in order to recognise
a body’s chemical essence. The ability to change this color, not only on
a body’s surface but in its entirety, was evidence that matter could be
transformed and transmuted.63 While both literary and archaeological
evidence show that glassmaking played a significant role in the emer-
gence of a theory of matter in Ancient Egypt which embodied sophis-
ticated notions about the origins of chemical changes, the evidence for
the influence of Egyptian doctrines and techniques on Greek natural
philosophers is forcibly indirect, albeit no less significant.
63On the theoretical importance of colors in ancient alchemical thought see Arthur
John Hopkins, “Transmutation by Color” in Studien zur Geschichte der Chemie, Fest-
gabe Edmund O. von Lippmann zum siebzigsten Geburtstag dangebracht (Berlin:
Springer, 1927), pp. 9–14; Robert Halleux, “Pigments et colorants dans la Mappae
Clavicula” in Pigments et colorants de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Age. Teinture, peinture,
enluminure – études historiques et physico-chimiques (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2002),
pp. 173–180.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 23
chapter 2
The Greek Philosophers:

Between Crystal and Glass
“An si mihi quispiam dixerit aeneum esse caelum aut vitreum

[. . .] statim ne adsentiar, quia caelum ex qua materia sit
ignorem?”
Lactantius, De Opificio Dei, 17, 6.
the classification of glass and the greek

philosophy of matter
Like their predecessors, the Classical Greek philosophers did not be-
lieve that glass was a combination of ingredients obtained through the
exclusive intervention of technology. They considered it a material en-
dowed with particular characteristics, whose combinations could occur
as the natural effect of the melting of a metallic substance. As Robert
Halleux shows in his fundamental monograph on classical metallurgy,
the Greeks identified metals with products of mineral extraction that
23
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 24
were meltable or soluble.1 These included not only metals such as gold,
silver and copper, but also composite bodies such as glass and some
mineral pigments that, under the ancient philosophy of matter, were
considered metals. What curiously associated these disparate materials
was their common property of being products of mineral extraction and,
above all, their quality of being meltable materials. Their macroscopic
differences were believed to be due to the combined action of fire and
metallurgical techniques.2
The most important feature of this pre-Aristotelian philosophy of
matter stems from the combination of Empedocles’ theory of the four
elements with Heraclitius’ emphasis on the central role of fire in the
transformation of material substances.3 Neither of the two theories,
however, was entirely new and it is quite natural to suppose that the
Greek philosophers of nature explored the mineral world by appropri-
ating several notions and theories that had already been developed by
the Egyptians. In this respect, Empedocles’ philosophy of nature is par-
ticularly striking. In his poem on nature he associated the four elements
with the gods: “shining Zeus, life-bringing Hera, Aidoneus and Nestis
who with her tears waters mortal springs.”4 Empedocles explained the
mechanism supporting this quadripartition of matter5 by resorting to a
particular craft:
1 Robert Halleux, Le problème des métaux dans la science antique (Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1974), pp. 36 ff.; see also Harlad Othmar Lenz, Mineralogie der alten
Griechen und Römer (Gotha: G.F. Thienemann, 1861), pp. 20–24; F.X.M. Zippe,
Geschichte der Metalle (Vienna: W. Braunmüller, 1857), pp. 1–17.
2 E. Robert James Forbes, Metallurgy in Antiquity: A Notebook for Archaeologists and
Technologists (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1950).

3 “All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods are for
gold and gold for goods” [Fr. 219], G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M. Schofield (eds.),
The Presocratic Philosophers. A Critical History with a Selections of Texts. 2nd edition.
(Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 1983), p. 198.
4 G. S. Kirk, J. F. Raven, M. Schofield (eds.), The Presocratic Philosophers, cit., p.
286. The fragment was originally published in Hermann Diels, Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker. Herausgegeben von Walther Kranz. Sixth edition. (Berlin: Wied-
mannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1951) (hereafter DK) A37. Zeus represents Fire,
Hera Air, Aidoneus Earth and Nestis Water. On Empedocles’ theory see Peter
Kingsley, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic. Empedocles and the Pythagorean
Tradition (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995).
5 Empedocles, a follower of Pythagoras, was probably influenced by the doctrine of
tetraktys which stated that the first quaternary (the perfect number 10) it is formed
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 25
Moreover he added a clear model of the way different things come

from the same: “As when painters are decorating offering, men
through cunning well skilled in their craft—when they actually
seize pigments of many colours in their hands, mixing in harmony
more of some and less of others, they produce from them forms re-
sembling all things, creating trees, and men and women, beasts
and birds and water-bred fish, and love-lived gods, too, highest in
honour.”6
Interestingly, the analogy to how painters could mix the four ele-
mentary colors to evoke both material and metaphysical entities, ex-
plained how the immense variety of things composing the universe
could be created from the sole four elements. Moreover, colors did not
merely represent the thing painted; they also evoked its essence, thus
participating in its identity even when such an identity was metaphysi-
cal. The connection Empedocles drew between the cosmological theory
of the four elements and a technical craft was far from an exception;
much of the nomenclature used by pre-Socratic philosophers to denote
the cause of natural phenomena was taken directly from the technical
jargon of the arts and crafts.7
by the addition of the first four numbers. The geometric translation of this arith-
metic statement established the tetrahedron as the first three dimensional form,
thus making of the number four the basis of solid matter. On Pythagoras’ mathe-
matics see Thomas Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1921), vol. 1, pp. 65–67; see also G. S. Kirk, J. F. Raven, M. Schofield (eds.),
The Presocratic Philosophers, cit., p. 232–234. The ontological value of number four
in other scientific disciplines such as logic, music and medicine was pointed by
Varro (first century BCE) in his De lingua Latina X, 45–46. The importance of
Egyptian culture on Greek philosophers and naturalists has been recently stressed
with little originality and with some far fetched arguments by Théophile Obenga,
L’Egypte, la Grèce et l’école d’Alexandrie. Histoire interculturelle dans l’Antiquité. Aux
sources egyptiénnes de la philosopie greque (Paris: l’Harmattan, 2005). On Heraclitus
and Empedocles see Ibid., pp. 67–86. On the influence of Egyptian culture on
Greek science see also Martin Bernal, “Animadversions on the Origins of Western
Science,” Isis, (1992), 83: 596–607.
6 G. S. Kirk, J. F. Raven, M. Schofield (eds.), The Presocratic Philosophers, cit., p.
293–294; DK (fr. 356).

7 Rodolfo Mondolfo, “Sugestiones de la técnica en las concepciones de los natural-
istas presocráticos,” Archeion, (1941), 23:36–52.

ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 26
Empedocles’ theory of the four elements was conceived in order to

give an empirical foundation to the macroscopic changes visible in mat-
ter,8 and metals occupied an important place in his work. As a result of
his assumption that all bodies release a discharge and, at the same time,
have pores capable of absorbing other discharges in certain conditions,
Empedocles understood that metals “like all other bodies possess a
structure” and for this reason the differences among the elements and
the compounds were due to the different configurations of their molec-
ular structure.9 Empedocles’ theory of pores was taken up again by his
follower, Gorgias (ca. 483–376 BCE) in order to explain how bronze,
silver and glass could each form mirrors capable of concentrating sun-
light and causing burning.10 It is interesting to note that, contrary to
what we continue to believe today,11 the Greeks had made glass mirrors
and were well aware of the different reflecting properties of metals. For
a distinction of this kind it was necessary to have a much greater famil-
iarity with the workings of glass and metals than that attested to by frag-
mentary archaeological evidence and, especially, from what one can
extract from later Latin texts.12
8 H. L. Burnstyn, “The Empirical Basis of the Four Elements,” in Actes du XIIe

Congrés International d’Histoire des Sciences (Paris: Hermann, 1971), vol. 3A, pp.
19–24.
9 Halleux, Le problème des métaux, cit., p. 70.
10 Theophrastus, De igne: A post-Aristotelian View of the Nature of Fire. Edited with
Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Victor Coutant (Assen: Royal Vangor-

cum, 1971), par.73.
11 In the catalogue of a recent exhibition (Miroirs. Jeux et reflets depuis l’Antiquité,
Rouen: Somogy, 2000, p. 25), one reads: “Les textes [de l’antiquité] font souvent
allusion à des miroirs en verre, dont l’archéologie n’a livré que des modestes ves-
tiges.” See also Jean Morin, Vitrum, in Charles Daremberg and Edmond Saglio,
(eds.), Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines d’après les textes et les monu-
ments (Paris: Librairies Hachette, 1875), vol. 5, pp. 934–949 in particular p. 947.
Significantly, the few archaeological finds are considered to be more authoritative
evidence than the literary sources and the curators of the catalogue surprisingly
maintain that glass mirrors had a certain diffusion only from the second century
CE, notwithstanding that glass mirrors were found in excavations at Herculaneum
where they can be dated earlier by at least a century. Furthermore, the catalogue
makes no mention of Archimedes’ use of burning mirrors or those used by his
Alexandrian and Byzantine imitators.
12 On burning mirrors, see now Catoptriciens Grecs. Edited by Roshdi Rashed
(Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000) where one finds explicit references to the use of
glass in the treatises of Diocles and Anthemios of Tralles.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 27
It is not surprising then that, with specific regard to glass, Empe-

docles held the position that the sky consisted of a mass of crystal (crys-
talloeides) resulting from the solidification of air submitted to the action
of fire.13 Although Lactantius might have misinterpreted Empedocles’
doctrine, he translated crystal as glass and thus wrote:
If any one should say to me that the heaven is of brass, or glass, or,
as Empedocles says, that it is frozen air, must I at once assent be-
cause I do not know of what material the heaven is?14
Lactantius’ translation referring to glass seems to be appropriate as

the earliest reference to this doctrine is found in Anaximenes’ writings,
where it is stated that the “heavenly bodies [were] implanted like nails
in the krystalloeidei,”15 i.e. in the crystalline sphere, and that meteoro-
logical phenomena such as hail were the effects of fragments falling
from the celestial sphere.16 Hence the belief that both the crystalline
sphere and the mineral rock crystal were made of the same material and
both contained, like glass and metals, water. The doctrine of the crys-
talline sky was again taken up in a fragment by the Pythagorean thinker
Philolaus. Among other works, Philolaus is known for his original he-
liocentric cosmology, in which he describes the sun as a sphere made of
13 Aetius, Placita, II, 11,1 in Hermann Diels (ed.), Doxographi graeci. Collegit, re-
censuit, prolegomenis indicibusque instruxit H. Diels (Berlin, 1879), p. 339.
14 “An si mihi quispiam dixerit aeneum esse caelum aut uitreum aut, ut Empedo-
cles ait, aerem glaciatum, statim ne adsentiar, quia caelum ex qua materia sit ig-
norem?” Lactantius, De Opificio Dei, 17, 6. In a later work he seems to mix
Empedocles’ and Philolaus’s theories (see next note) with his own when he writes:
“Orbem uitreum plenum aquae si tenueris in sole, de lumine quod ab aqua refulget
ignis accenditur etiam in durissimo frigore.” Lactantius, De ira Dei 10, 19. In the
Book of Revelations by Saint John, probably compiled in the second century CE,
we find the following variant of the analogy of glass/crystal: “et in conspectu throni
tamquam mare vitreum simile crystallo.” (Revelations, 4: 6).
15G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M. Schofield (eds.), The Presocratic Philosophers, cit.,
pp. 154–155. DK (fr. 154). The idea of the crystalline sphere would eventually be
taken up by Empedocles too.
16 On this see the ingenious interpretation by Paul Tannery, Pour l’histoire de la sci-
ence Hellène. 2nd edition. (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1930), pp. 160–161 and 170.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 28
glass (hyaloeides), “which receives the reflected light of the fire in the
universe and transmits it to us.”17
The surprising extension of glass and crystal as complementary ma-
terial models18 among Greek natural philosophers has been recently sur-
veyed in an exhibition shown in Paris.19 The relevance of such a material
to ancient science and technology certainly needs further exploration,
but it is difficult to believe that the spread of these cosmological doc-
trines did not depend on either the development of chemical knowledge
through metallurgy or on the influence of Egyptian doctrines. This lat-
ter influence is certainly in evidence in the technical terminology used by
the Greeks, who defined glass using the knowledge they had acquired
from Near Eastern technology. As discussed above, Herodotus, like the
Egyptians and Mesopotamians, used the term líthos chytè (‘molten
stone’) to designate glass, but what is interesting to point out here is that
he introduced this particular term in his ample chapter devoted to the
history and development of Egyptian civilization. While talking about
religious rites he writes:
The crocodile is esteemed sacred by some of the Egyptians, by

others he is treated as an enemy. Those who live near Thebes, and
those who dwell around Lake Moeris, regard them with especial
veneration. In each of these places they keep one crocodile in par-
ticular, who is taught to be tame and tractable. They adorn his ears
17 Aetius, Placita 2, 25, 11 Hermann Diels (ed.), Doxographi graeci., cit., p. 356;
Robert Temple, The Crystal Sun. Rediscovering A Lost Technology of the Ancient
World (London: Arrow Books, 2000), pp. 365–386) offers another interpretation of
this passage suggesting that the light of the fire undergoes a refraction in the sun,
which acts more like a lens than a mirror.
18 Glass (hyalos) and crystal (crystallos) were considered by the Greeks and later
Latin naturalists to be made of similar ingredients. The first was thought to consist
mainly of solidified water while the second was regarded as melted earth. On this
see; Mary Luella Trowbridge, Philological Studies in Ancient Glass, cit., pp. 53–54,
Robert Halleux (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs, vol. 1. (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981),
p. 51 and E. Marianne Stern, “Glass and Rock Crystal: A Multifaceted Relation-
ship,” Journal of Roman Archaeology, (1997), 10:192–206.
19 Marco Beretta and Giovanni Di Pasquale (eds.), Le verre dans l’empire Romaine.
Arts et sciences. Exposition, Florence, Museo degli Argenti, palais Pitti du 27 mars au 31
octobre 2004, Paris, Cité des sciences et de l’industrie du 31 janvier au 27 août 2006
(Florence: Giunti, 2006).
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 29
with ear-rings of molten stone [líthos chytè]

or gold, and put bracelets on his fore-paws,
giving him daily a set portion of bread, with
a certain number of victims.20
It seems likely that Herodotus (Fig. 1)

translated the word “molten stone” directly
from Egyptian (aA.t-wdh) into Greek.
Apparently the use of a periphrasis was
not satisfactory because Herodotus himself,
in another passage of his historical work, in-
troduced the neologism hyalos.21 When re-
porting the marvels that the Egyptians
showed to the spies sent by Cambyses, he
wrote:
Also, last of all, they were allowed to be- F i g . 1. Bust of Herodotus. First century
CE after a Greek model. SANC inv. 6239.
hold the coffins of the Ethiopians, which
are made (according to report) of crystal,
after the following fashion: When the dead body has been dried,
either in the Egyptian, or in some other manner, they cover the
whole with gypsum, and adorn it with painting until it is as like the
living man as possible. Then they place the body in a glass [hyalos]
pillar which has been hollowed out to receive it, glass being dug up
in great abundance in their country, and of a kind very easy to
work. You may see the corpse through the pillar within which it
lies; and it neither gives out any unpleasant odor, nor is it in any re-
spect unseemly; yet there is no part that is not as plainly visible as
if the body were bare. The next of kin keep the glass pillar in their
houses for a full year from the time of the death, and give it the
first fruits continually, and honor it with sacrifice. After the year is
out they bear the pillar forth, and set it up near the town.22
20 Herodotus, 2, 69.
21 Interestingly Kisa (Das Glas im Altertume Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann, 1908,
vol. 1, pp. 164–166) suggests the Egyptian and Copt origin of the Greek terms
líthos chytè and of hals. See also Trowbrige, (cit. n. 8), pp. 33–53.
22 Herodotus, 3, 24
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 30
F i g . 2. At the beginning of the Common Era, the Romans used glass, probably
due to its transparency, for their cinerary urns. Found at Pompeii. First century C.E.
SAP inv. 12067.
The use of glass coffins would later be reported again by Diodorus

Siculus23 in the first century CE24 (Fig. 2). While it is unlikely that such
large quantities of glass could be made available before the introduction
23 Diodorus, 2, 15, 1–4

ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 31
of glass blowing, it is nevertheless interesting that as early as the fifth

century BCE the use of hyalos was connected to its property of being
transparent, and that glass was regarded as a material more precious
than gold.
The introduction of the term hyalos in the fifth century BCE
brought with it a more precise understanding of glass. According to
some philologists, the substantive hyalos derived from the verb hyein (to
rain), signifying drops of water,25 while others, e.g. Daremberg and
Kisa, say that it derives from hals (salt).26 The first exalts the physical
characteristics of glass, particularly its brightness and transparency,
while the second alludes to its chemical constitution. Whatever the so-
lution adopted, in both cases science and technology are at the basis of
the Greek definition of glass. This is confirmed by the fact that the first
clear associations between the new term and glass appear in scientific
contexts. This is the case with the celebrated passage in Aristophanes’
comedy The Clouds (768) where a technique is described based on the
burning property of glass27 for destroying, at a distance, an inscription
made on wax. From the moment it was impossible to make the sun’s
rays converge on a single point without using a transparent medium, it
is clear that for Aristophanes hyalos meant a glass or rock crystal whose
principle properties were transparency and according to its form, had
the capacity to make the sun’s rays converge on a point at a given dis-
tance.
Plato (Fig. 3), who along with Herodotus is one of the first to use
hyalos in the Greek language, described its chemical composition in the
Timaeus. There, he defined glass as a fusible substance with the same
characteristics as metals:
24 Strabo, 17, 2, 3 and 17, 1, 8, in addition to confirm this use, declared that
Alexander the Great was moved from a gold coffin into a glass sarcophagus.
25 Ibid., pp. 22–23.
26 Jean Morin, Vitrum, in Charles Daremberg & Edmond Saglio, (eds.), Diction-
naire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines d’après les textes et les monuments, cit., vol. 5,
pp. 934–935 ; Anton Kisa, Das Glas im Altertume, cit., vol. 1, pp. 165–172.
27 Even though there is no reason for the basis of this interpretation, the term hya-
los as used by Aristophanes is usually translated as crystal. Perhaps this translation

is due to the widespread opinion that the Greeks were unable to make objects of
perfectly transparent glass. However, E. Marianne Stern has recently demonstrated
with convincing arguments that hyalos always meant glass: E. Marianne Stern,
“Ancient Glass in Philological Context,” Mnemosyne, (2007), 60:341–406.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 32
As regards the classes of bodies which are

compounds of earth and water, so long as
the water occupies the interspaces of earth
which are forcibly contracted, the portions
of water which approach from without, find
no entrance, but flow around the whole mass
and leave it undissolved. But when portions
of fire enter into the interspaces of the water
they produce the same effects on water as
water does on earth; consequently, they are
the sole causes why the compound substance
is dissolved and flows. And of these sub-
stances those which contain less water than
earth form the whole kind known as “glass”
and all the species of stone called “fusible”;
while those which contain more water in-
clude all the solidified substances of the type
F i g . 3. Bust of Plato. Roma Musei of wax and frankincense.28
Capitolini inv. 571.
Thus Plato, guided by the Egyptians’

classification of the mineral world, thought that both the glaze and the
fusibility of its substance made glass a material that could have been
arranged together with noble and less noble metals.29
Plato also believed that metals, among which ancient naturalists
listed rock crystal,30 were composed of water particles: the forms of
which were those of icosahedra.31 The transformation between the
28 Plato Timaeus, 61 b, Loeb Classical Library, transl. R.G. Bury (London-New

York: Heinemann-Putnam’s, 1929), pp. 153–155. Plato’s theory was further de-
veloped within Aristotle’s doctrine of exhalations.
29 Aristotle and Theophrastus would eventually follow this idea.
30 “Le crystal de roche et toutes les pierres transparentes sont faits d’une liquide qui
peut être figé soit par le froid, soit [. . .] par le chaud.” Robert Halleux, Les
alchimistes grecs., cit., p. 51. See also Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, 37, 9–10,
where he also describes the prodigious way (prodigii modo) in which crystal was per-
fectly imitated by glassmaking in his time.
31 Plato, Timaeus, 59 and Francis Macdonald Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology. The
Timaeus of Plato translated with a running commentary (London: Kegan Paul, 1937),
pp. 252–253. See also Ronald F. Kotr č, “The Dodecahedron in Plato’s Timaeus,”
Rheinisches Museum, (1981), 124:212–222.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 33
grades of the icosahedra made them “one

convertible into any other,”32 thus hinting at
the possibility of the transmutation of met-
als.33 Interestingly, recent archaeological ex-
cavations have transmitted several specimens
of rock crystal icosahedra (Fig. 4). Although
these objects have mostly been interpreted as
toys, it is likely that they are related to the
Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy of mat-
ter which we have briefly outlined. Further-
more, the Platonic belief in the similar
chemical composition of glass, rock crystal,
metals, and their material representation in
geometrical rock crystal models, shows the F i g . 4. Rock crystal icosahedra. First
degree to which these materials were at the century CE. SAP inv. 59839.
center of a reflection on the constituent ele-
ments of matter which was destined to have
an enormous influence on early alchemical theories.
A further investigation of the Platonic philosophy of matter on
metals in general and on glass in particular is found in the fourth book
of Aristotle’s Meteorologica. Although part of this text’s attribution to
Aristotle has often been disputed, it can certainly be traced back to his
school. As has been rightly emphasized by Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd,34 this
fundamental part of the Aristotelian work perhaps represents the first
attempt to make a theoretical formulation concerning the properties of
32 “All the metals consist solely of water icosahedra, and free transformation be-
tween grades of icosahedra should make any one convertible into any other. It
would be interesting to know whether the alchemists were encouraged by this the-
ory to attempt the transmutation of metals.” Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology, cit., p.
252.
33 Cristina Viano, “Les alchimistes gréco-alexandrins et le Timée de Platon,” in
Cristina Viano (ed.), L’alchimie et ses racines philosophiques. La tradition grecque et la

tradition arabe (Paris: Vrin, 2005), pp. 91–107. In this highly interesting essay,
Cristina Viano seems to reach a different conclusion; while she acknowledges that
Plato and Aristotle provided alchemy with “les instruments conceptuels fonda-
mentaux pour penser la matière physique et ses transformations” (p. 92), she argues
that the key concept of transmutation is incompatible with their philosophy of na-
ture (pp. 104 and ff.).
34 Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience. Studies in the Origin and De-
velopment of Greek Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), Ch. 3.

ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 34
chemical matter.35 Without falling into the speculative examples of ear-

lier thinkers, Aristotle’s treatment of this theme takes its cue from wide-
spread practical and craftsmanly activities: such as that of the art of the
potter when speaking of the properties of clay, or the treatment of oil
when describing differences in the solubility of liquids, accompanying
these with an elaborate interpretation of the cause of chemical changes
in matter. The properties of solid bodies are sifted through a system of
categories derived from the arts and technical crafts.36 In this way, Aris-
totle (Fig. 5) proposes to distinguish bodies along the lines of the fol-
lowing properties:
. . . capable or incapable of solidification, meltable or unmeltable,

softenable or unsoftenable by heat, softenable or unsoftenable by
water, flexible or unflexible, breakable or unbreakable, capable or
incapable of fragmentation, capable or incapable of taking an im-
pression, plastic or non-plastic, capable or incapable of being
squeezed, ductile or non-ductile, malleable or non-malleable, fis-
sile or non-fissile, viscous or friable, compressible or incompress-
ible, combustible or incombustible, capable or incapable of giving
off fumes.37
Although showing careful attention to empirical research, Aristo-

tle’s primary interest was to construct a coherent philosophy of matter
capable of overcoming the limitations of Plato’s philosophy. Thus un-
like Plato, who derived the combination of different material substances
from their geometric configurations, Aristotle (on the basis of the the-
35 I. Düring, Aristotle’s Chemical Treatise. Meteorologica, Book IV (Göteborg, 1944);

D.E. Eichholz, “Aristotle’s Theory of the Formation of Metals and Minerals,”
Classical Quarterly, (1949), 43:141–149; R.A. Horne, “Aristotelian Chemistry,”
Chymia,” (1966), 11:21–27; J.E. Bolzan, “Chemical Combination according to
Aristotle,” Ambix, (1976), 23:134–144.
36 The influence of the arts on Greek scientific thought has been brought out con-
vincingly by Rodolfo Mondolfo, Polis, lavoro e tecnica (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1982),

pp. 35–50 and by Mario Untersteiner, Problemi di filologia filosofica (Milano:
Cisalpino Gogliardica, 1980), pp. 249–321, in particular pp. 291–94.
37 Aristotle, Meteorologica, Book IV, 385a; Loeb Classical Library, transl. H.D.P.
Lee, (London-Cambridge Mass.: Heinemann-Harvard University Press, 1952),

pp. 339, 341.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 35
F i g . 5. Roman bust of the head of Aristotle. Second century CE, after a Greek
model from the fourth century BCE. Firenze, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 9.
ory of the four elements) imagined that the formation of metals and
many other mineral bodies was due to a double exhalation.
In fact, the sun’s heat generated two types of exhalation on Earth,
according to Aristotle. The first liberated watery vapour that situated it-
self between bodies, entering their composition and, at least potentially,
constituting water; the second type of exhalation was very inflammable,
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 36
was derived directly from the Earth, and was dry. Applied to mineral-
ogy, the Aristotelian concept of matter reached the following result:
For there are, we maintain, two exhalations, one vaporous and one
smoky; and there are two corresponding kinds of body produced
within the earth: ‘fossiles’38 and metals. The dry exhalation by the
action of its heat produces all the ‘fossiles’, for example, all kinds of
stones that are infusible—realgar, ochre, ruddle sulphur and all
other substances of this kind . . . Metals and the product of the va-
porous exhalation, and are all fusible or ductile, for example iron,
gold, copper. These are all produced by the enclosure of the va-
porous exhalation, particularly within stones, whose dryness com-
presses it together and solidifies it, just as dew and frost solidify
when they have been separated—only metals are produced before
separation has taken place. So they are in a sense water and in an-
other sense not: it was possible for their material to turn into water
but it can no longer do so, nor are they like tastes, the result of
some change of quality in water that has already formed.39
Therefore, Aristotle does not limit himself to characterizing metals

as meltable bodies extracted from mines, as Plato did, but instead seeks
the cause of their meltability. This he identifies with the vaporous or
watery exhalation which, because of its intrinsic humidity, renders these
bodies susceptible to melting into a liquid state. Further, the different
degrees of the fusibility of various metals was, according to Aristotle,
due to the different proportions of water and earth existing in their in-
ternal composition. Nevertheless, in the fourth part of the Meteorolog-
ica, Aristotle maintains that this type of composition was common to all
solids to the point of claiming that “that all definite physical bodies in
our world require earth and water for their composition (and each body
manifests the properties of the one which predominates in it) . . .”.40 In
metals, as in some other substances, the aqueous element seems to pre-
vail: “gold, silver, bronze, tin, lead, glass and many kinds of stone which
have no name, for all of these are melted by heat.”41 Thus, glass makes
its appearance together with metals and meltable stones.
38 Meaning, ‘minerals’.
39 Aristotle, Meteorologica, Book. III. vi, 378a; Loeb Classical Library, pp. 287, 288.
40 In the sublunary world. Ibid., Book. IV. 382a, p. 313.
41 Ibid., Book. IV, 389a, p. 365.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 37
In the light of Aristotle’s classification one could think that the idea
of defining hyalos as glass, deriving from the verb ‘to rain’, was perhaps
not unrelated to the chemical property of this material of reaching a
melted state at high temperatures. The possibility of producing per-
fectly transparent glass crucially relied upon the availability of furnaces
capable of producing temperatures of 1000° C. Therefore, the fourth
century BCE substitution of the terms kyanos and lithos chytê for hyalos
may reflect an awareness of technological progress in the art of glass-
making.42
Thus, the ancient Greek definition of metals relied upon two dif-
ferent considerations. In the first place, metal was defined as a natural
subterranean product, identifiable through various features such as met-
alliferous veins which were extractible by applying mining techniques.
Second, metal was defined by virtue of its property of meltability, which
was directly derived from metallurgical chemistry. One can clearly see
from this definition that for the ancient Greeks, philosophy of matter
was not distinct from or primary to manipulative procedures, resulting
in the definition of differences between various classes of minerals.
Rather, as the citations assembled here show, it is precisely the tech-
niques and technologies of metallurgy that made possible such defini-
tions of classes of minerals in the first place.
In any case, the association of artificial practice with nature was
problematic not only because most of the ancient philosophies of nature
usually contrasted physis (nature) to techne (art), subordinating the latter
to the former, but also because of all the manual arts, metallurgy was re-
garded as one of the least noble.43 Considering the rapid progress that
metallurgy made since the fifth century BCE (including glassmaking),
a theoretical explanation was needed to reconcile the study of the min-
eral realm with that of techniques which, apparently, served as the sole
guide for the scientific explanation of a body’s chemical composition. A
solution to this cultural tension is demonstrated in various philosophers’
42 It will be seen when we discuss the role of glass (hyalos) in theories of vision, that
also other fundamental aspects of scientific knowledge in Antiquity were once again
subject to Aristotle’s influence.
43 Yvon Thébert, “Lo schiavo,” in Andrea Giardina (ed.), L’uomo romano (Bari:
Laterza, 1989), pp. 143–185 and Jean-Paul Morel, “L’artigiano,” in Ibid., pp.
233–268.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 38
attempts to reconstruct the origins of metallurgy. Pseudo-Aristotle

wrote this passage regarding a fire broken out in an Iberian forest:
In Iberia they say that when the undergrowth has been burned by
shepherds and the earth heated by wood, that the ground can be
seen to flow with silver and that after a time earthquakes have oc-
curred and the ground split, that much silver has been collected,
which supplied the Massaliots with considerable revenue.44
Seneca also says that Posidonius believed in the natural origin of

metallurgy on the basis of a similar story.45 And Lucretius presents the
same explanation in the De rerum natura with a more detailed variation:
. . . copper and gold and iron were discovered, so also heavy silver
and massive lead, when fire upon the great mountains had burnt
up huge forests with its heat: whether by some lightning stroke
from heaven, or because men waging war in the forests had
brought fires upon their foes to affright them . . . which flaming
heat with appalling din had devoured the forests deep down to the
roots and parched up the earth with fire, through the hot veins into
some hollow place of the earth would ooze and collect a stream of
silver and gold, of copper also and lead . . . 46
The creation of a myth about natural events which caused the fusion
of metals, a technique only subsequently appropriated by man to imitate
nature through the introduction of chemical technology, provided an
ingenious way to reduce the contrast between an art apparently founded
solely on the artificial manipulation of matter, and the classical ideal of
nature. The rivers of metal that ancient man could see imprisoned
within the smith’s unhealthy workshop were nothing else but the repe-
44 Aristotle, De mirabilibus auscultationibus in Minor Works: On Marvellous Things

Heard, 87; Loeb Classical Library, transl. W.S. Hett, (London-Cambridge, Mass.:
Heinemann-Harvard University Press, 1936), p. 273.
45 “Philosophers discovered iron and copper mines, when the earth, burnt by forest
fires in molten form cast surface veins of ores;” F.G. Kidd (ed.), Posidonius, The
Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), vol. 2, p. 964;
Halleux, Le problème des métaux, cit., pp. 132–133.
46 T. Lucretius Caro, De rerum natura, Book. V, 1241 ff.; Loeb Classical Library,
transl. W.H.D. Rouse, (London-New York: Heinemann-Putnam’s, 1924), p. 429.

ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 39
tition and emulation of that which nature had provided at the origins of
civilization.47 This analogy therefore offered a cultural legitimatization
of these activities and, even more importantly, allowed the products of
metallurgy, including glass, to be seen as something inspired by philos-
ophy and knowledge of nature.
These passages about the origins of metallurgy are also illuminating
from another point of view. Clearly, Pliny’s passage on the origin of
glass (see Chapter 1) also establishes a legend that constructs glass as a
chance invention—or, better, one derived from an almost natural com-
bination of its main ingredients. Without any premeditated intention,
the Phoenician merchants who landed on the bank of the river Belus lit
the fire, inadvertently mixing natron with silica, and giving life to those
shining rivulets which like the Lucretian streams of gold, allowed man
to grasp the meaning of this marvellous combination. Here too, art and
nature complement each other.48 Further, the ingredients of glass were
integral parts of the Earth and it may be that they were all present si-
multaneously, transformed into glass because of a sudden fire. Thus, na-
ture and artisanship competed to produce similar effects through
analogous procedures.
While the chemical classification of glass set forth by Greek
philosophers was similar, at times identical, to that of the Egyptians, in
the fourth century BCE glass did not play the same role for the Greeks
as it did in Egypt. It seems that much of the glass circulating in ancient
Greece during this period was imported,49 and although there was no
47 In this regard, the vivid images of Vulcan’s laboratory should be remembered,

which first Homer and then Empedocles located inside an actual volcano. Here too,
the mythological origins of metallurgy were in nature.
48 It is interesting to note that Pliny’s legend on the origins of metal somewhat
modifies earlier stories told by the Hebrews. The Renaissance metallurgist, Bernard
Palissy, testifies to this in his Traité des eaux et fontaines (published in Oeuvres,
Paris, 1777): “Aucuns disent que les enfants d’Israël ayant mis le feu en quelques
bois, le feu fut si grand qu’il échauffa le nitre avec la sable jusque à faire couler et
distiller le long des montagnes et que dès lors on chercha l’invention de faire artifi-
ciellement cequi avait esté fait par accident pour faire le verre.”
49 See George Kordas (ed.), Hyalos Vitrum Glass. History, Technology and Conserva-
tion of Glass and vitreous Materials in the Hellenic World (Athens: Glasnet, 2002). For
an updated picture of glass manufacture in classical Greece see E. Marianne Stern,
“Glass Production,” in John Peter Oleson (ed.), Engineering and Technology in the
Classical World (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008), pp. 520–546 especially pp. 529–531.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 40
production of glass in Egypt during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE,
earlier glass of Egyptian provenance circulated widely in Greece. Ar-
chaeological evidence supports this claim: for example, an Egyptian
glass goblet and other adornments of unidentified date have been found
in the Greek colony of Emporiom, which flourished between the fifth
and fourth centuries BCE.50
It is therefore extremely interesting that a material which was
mostly imported from Egypt became a relevant source of inspiration for
Greek philosophers, who were fascinated by the multiform chromatic
translucency of glass. Ancient Greece lacked a glass industry compara-
ble to that in Mesopotamia or in Egypt, and this may have hindered a
deeper analysis of the peculiar nature of glass which the Greeks ad-
mired mostly for its property to imitate the transparency of rock crystal,
rather than for its ability to enhance coloring techniques. This latter ap-
plication, combined with those in other crafts, would eventually inspire
alchemical practice.
alexandria and glass production

in the hellenistic period
The founding of Alexandria in 332 BCE not only marked one of the
most significant events in the Greek policy of geographical expansion; it
also had more permanent effects on the cultural exchanges which, since
the eighth century BCE, regulated the relationship between Egypt and
Greece. The admiration that Greek philosophers and historians so often
expressed for Egyptian civilization found in this very city the ideal con-
text in which to appropriate Egyptian values and cultural institutions. It
is therefore not surprising that among the many cities that took the
name of the Greek king, only Alexandria of Egypt flourished for cen-
turies to come.
Alexander was never to return alive to the city he founded. On this
matter Strabo reports the following anecdote which is interestingly con-
nected to the history of glass:
50The colony was situated in the Gulf of the Roses (now in Catalonia) and was in
a most favourable position for trading with the Phoenicians. I have personally in-
spected the Egyptian collection of glass items kept in the Museu d’Arqueologia de
Catalunya in Girona.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 41
Ptolemy carried away the body of Alexander, and deposited it at

Alexandreia in the place where it now lies; not indeed in the same
coffin, for the present one is of glass whereas Ptolemy had de-
posited it in one of gold: it was plundered by Ptolemy surnamed
Cocce’s son and Pareisactus, who came from Syria and was quickly
deposed, so that his plunder was of no service to him.51
Great scepticism has surrounded the reference to Alexander’s glass

coffin, although Herodotus (3, 24) referred to the Ethiopian and Egypt-
ian funerary custom of burying mummified bodies in coffins covered
with a block of transparent glass. As Strabo showed himself to be well-
acquainted with glassmaking, it is difficult to agree with the majority of
interpreters who think that by the word hyalos Strabo in fact meant al-
abaster, especially since he saw the coffin first-hand.
Regardless of the veracity this episode, Alexandria soon became an
important center for the manufacture of glass.52 Thanks to the huge nat-
ural deposits of natron (soda) in Wadi Natrun, located nearby, glass-
makers of Alexandria could exploit this resource and create an industry
for the production of raw glass ingots, which were then exported
throughout the Mediterranean (Fig. 6).
Cicero attests to an important source for this trade in his Oratio Pro
Rabirio Postumo (14, 40) written in 54 BCE, where we find one of the
earliest occurrences of the term vitrum in the Latin language:
We have heard that ships belonging to Postumus arrived [from

Alexandria] at Puteoli, and merchandise belonging to him was
seen there, only showy things and of no real value, made of paper,
and linen, and glass; and there were several ships entirely filled
with such articles; but there was also one little ship, the contents of
which were not known.
51 Strabo, Geographia, 17.1.8, English trans.

The Geography of Strabo. Literally trans-
lated, with notes. ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A. 3 vols. (London.
George Bell & Sons: 1903), vol. 3, pp. 229–230.
52 “The main industries of Alexandria seem to have been various kinds of metal-
work and glass-ware,” P.M. Fraser, 3 vols., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 2001), vol. 1, p. 136.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 42
F i g . 6. Glass ingots found at Pompeii. First century C.E. SAP inv. 13111.
About a century later, Strabo (16, 2, 25) confirmed a flourishing

glass industry based in Alexandria where glassmakers experimented
with new techniques:
I heard at Alexandria from the glass-workers, that there is in Egypt

a kind of vitrifiable earth, without which expensive works in glass
of various colours could not be executed, but in other countries
other mixtures are required.53
During the same period, an anonymous author of a Periplus of the

Red sea, reported how glass gem stones were exported from Diospolis
and other Egyptian cities to India:
In this area there is a market for: [. . .] numerous types of glass

stones and also millefiori glass of the kind produced in Diospolis.54
53The Geography of Strabo. Literally translated, cit., vol. 3, p. 175.

54 The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with introduction, translation and commentary
by Lionel Casson (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989), p. 53, see also p. 85.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:36 PM Page 43
The glass stones imitated the gems and precious stones which, upon
the expansion of the Greek territories, invaded the Roman market and
were used not only for decorative purposes but also in medicine and
magic. Such a prosperous trade reinforces the hypothesis of a well-struc-
tured glass industry based in Egypt.
Last but not least, during the first half of third century CE the
grammarian Athenaeus of Naucratis wrote the following in his Deip-
nosophistae (11, 784):
Men of Alexandria make glass, working it into varied shapes of

cups, and copying the shape of every kind of pottery that is im-
ported among them from everywhere.55
Regrettably archaeological evidence does not provide us with any

relevant example of Alexandrian glassware, so the speculations that, for
instance, the luxury cameo vases such as the Portland vase in the British
Museum (see Fig. 1, on p. 172) or the Blue Vase at the National Archae-
ological Museum of Naples (Fig. 7) can be traced to the Alexandrian
industry remain ungrounded.56
Although the literary sources on the Alexandrian glass industry are
relatively late, there is no doubt that they refer to a much older tradition.
As we shall see, after the introduction of glassblowing in Palestine and
other techniques developed in Campania during first century BCE,
Alexandria lost its primacy, so much so that Pliny the Elder, the most
authoritative ancient source on the history of glass and its progress
achieved before 79 CE, does not even mention the Egyptian city as a
significant center of production.
A question of great importance at this point would be to know more
about the glass industry in Alexandria between its foundation and the
discovery of glassblowing. We have already pointed out that the Greeks,
until the fourth century BCE, showed little interest in creating a large
55 Translated by Charles Burton Gulick for the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge
Mass., Harvard University Press, 1937).
56 This deduction is based on the following argument : “Cameo-carving in layered
stones seems to have originated in Ptolemaic Alexandria; and since Alexandria was
also one of the most important centres of ancient glass-making, it is a reasonable
guess that ‘ cameo glass’, as it is usually called, was likewise an Alexandrian inven-
tion. “ D. E. L. Hayes, The Portland Vase (London: The Trustees of the British
Museum, 1964), p. 23.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 44
F i g . 7. Blue vase. Cameo glass of uncertain provenance found at Pompeii. First

century C.E. SANC inv. 13521.
glass industry and that their relatively rapid change of attitude on this
material by the end of the century must have been inspired or even
guided, perhaps, by Egyptian craftsmen. Fraser has pointed out that
several arts flourished in Alexandria thanks to the Hellenomemphites, a
mixed Graeco-Egyptian population who influenced “the Egyptian-
flavoured Greek work which is characteristic of the early Ptolemaic
finds.”57 As glassmaking was a highly developed craft in Egypt, it is
probable that the industry that developed in Alexandria soon after the
57 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, cit., vol. 1 p. 137.

ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 45
city’s foundation was influenced more by the local technical craftsmen

than by imported knowledge. This is confirmed by some recent discov-
eries of Mosaic glass production which showed that “this craftsmanship
is a traditional Egyptian one, and that before the arrival of the Greeks
there was already a very strong tradition and an excellent savoir-faire in
handling the glass, which is not known in other parts of the Ancient
World during the same period [fourth century BCE].”58 Another piece
of evidence is the Serapeum of Alexandria, the temple built by Ptolemy
III in the third century BCE to worship the Egyptian-Hellenistic god
Serapis. The monumental statue of Serapis is described by Clement of
Alexandria as follows:
For he had filings of gold, and silver, and lead, and in addition, tin;
and of Egyptian stones not one was wanting, and there were frag-
ments of sapphire, and hematite, and emerald, and topaz. Having
ground down and mixed together all these ingredients, he gave to
the composition a blue glass [kyanos], whence the darkish hue of
the image; and having mixed the whole with the colouring matter
that was left over from the funeral of Osiris and Apis, moulded the
Serapis, the name of which points to its connection with sepulture
and its construction from funeral materials, compounded as it is of
Osiris and Apis, which together make Osirapis. 59
As the Serapeum became an institution in which secret, magic and

alchemical activities were practiced by Egyptian priests,60 Clement’s ci-
tation underlines the close connection between the artisans and the
Egyptian belief in the divine power of minerals, especially lapis lazuli.
The kyanos mentioned by Clement in fact was the glass imitation of
lapis lazuli.
There is one more element pertinent to our theme which connects
Egyptian civilization to Greek culture during the Hellenistic occupa-
tion. As we have seen in Chapter 1, one of the main virtues that the
58 M.-D. Nenna, “New Research on Mosaic Glass: Preliminary Results,” in Hya-

los Vitrum Glass, Georges Kordas ed., cit., p. 153.
59 Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, IV.
60 Marcellin Berthelot, Les origines de l’alchimie, cit., pp. 196–199; James R. Part-
ington, A History of Chemistry (London: MacMillan, 1970), vol. 1, p. 171.

ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 46
Egyptians attributed to glass was that of imi-

tating precious stones, like lapis lazuli. The
Greeks’ knowledge of stones was not particu-
larly developed and only with the publication
of Theophrastus’ De lapidibus, at the end of
the fourth century BCE, did a few precious
stones become known. However, this situa-
tion changed quite rapidly after the Greek
settlement in Egypt. The poet Posidippus of
Pella (c. 310 BCE–240 BCE) (Fig. 8), while
at the court of Ptolemy I Soter, composed nu-
merous epigrams in which he evoked the
splendour and varieties of gems such as ru-
bies, lapis lazuli, emerald, carnelian, topaz,
mother of pearl, jasper and precious stones
such as rock crystal.61 Strabo (I, 379) reported
that more than a century later, the explorer
Eudoxus of Cyzicus returned from his travels
to India “with a cargo of perfumes and pre-
cious stones, some of which the rivers bring
down with the sand, while others are found
by digging, being solidified from a liquid
F i g . 8. Roman statue of Posidippus.
state, just as our crystals.”
Rome, Vatican, Galleria delle Statue, inv.
735. Accompanying the expansion of this
knowledge of the mineral kingdom was an ap-
propriation of a complex symbolism, originating in Egypt and the far
East, which associated special meanings and powers to the stones. While
not immediately related to glassmaking, the old tradition of reproducing
copies of these stones with glass must have attracted attention to aspects
of technical practice of which the Greeks were not yet aware.
the lapidaries
The expansion of the Greeks’ geographical horizon and its immediate

consequences for trade inevitably brought an extension of the knowl-
61A recent edition of Posidippus epigrams is Posidippi Pellai quae supersunt omnia.
Ediderunt C. Austin et G. Bastianiani (Milano: Led, 2002).
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 47
edge of natural resources of previously unknown territories and reflec-

tion upon the most efficient way to study and classify them. Mineralogy,
a discipline little studied by Greek naturalists before the Hellenistic era,
was no exception. The fourth book of Aristotle’s Meteorologica encour-
aged a disciplinary specialization within this rich combination of stud-
ies, and it is not by chance that his favourite pupil, Theophrastus,
became the spokesman for this approach in several works.62 The lost
treatise De metallis, the fragmentary De Igne, and De lapidibus63 are all
the fruits of this progressive specialization that combined Aristotelian
classification of mineral entities with the careful consideration of the ef-
fects produced by chemical technologies, and the acquired knowledge of
new mineral specimens coming from the East and from Egypt.
De lapidibus examines all the stones and earths except for metals
which, as already mentioned, were treated in another work, now lost. In
his interpretation, Theophrastus combines Aristotle’s theory of exhala-
tions with Plato’s consideration on the internal constitution of matter.
Theophrastus also gives special attention to the techniques for melting
and working stones, which he often uses to identify them. As for glass,
both direct and indirect references are very frequent, and despite the un-
certainty as to whether Theophrastus could have had first-hand experi-
ence of glassworking techniques, he provides the richest treatment of
the subject in Greek literature before Strabo.
We have already had occasion to note how Theophrastus was the
first to classify the different kinds of kyanos, one of which, produced ar-
tificially by Egyptian artisans, may be identified as colored glass paste.
Theophrastus also mentions stones similar to glass with special optical
properties: “There are several other stones from which seals are cut,
such as the hyalocides which reflect images and are also transparent.”64
This stone is difficult to identify because, like his predecessors,
Theophrastus makes no precise distinction between natural and artifi-
cial products. Among the examples suggested are specular stones, or
mica (lapis specularis) (Fig. 9), which however do not seem to have the
property of reflecting images; an asteroid; or (that which seems the most
62 For a long time a work on stones was attributed to Aristotle himself, but has
since been revealed as a compilation of later texts; F. De Mely (ed.), Les lapidaires
de l’antiquité et du moyen age, 3 vols. (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1902), vol. 3, p. xl.
63 Halleux, Le problème, cit., pp. 115–128.
64 Theophrastus, On Stones, cit., 1956, p. 51.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 48
probable) a kind of natural crystal. For that

matter, the Greeks considered glass (hyalos)
and crystal (crystallos) (Fig. 10) to be very sim-
ilar materials. The first was thought to consist
prevalently of solidified water while the sec-
ond was regarded as melted earth.65
To sustain this analogy, almost immedi-
ately following the passage cited, Theophras-
tus goes on to speak of the properties of crystal
which seem to coincide with those attributed
to the mysterious stone. It is noteworthy here
F i g . 9. Specimens of lapis specularis used that a term derived from hyalos was used to
by the Roman for windows and greenhouses. define a stone endowed with transparency as
First century CE. SANC inv. 11791, 11792,
well as reflection. Therefore, glass, by now,
11793.
was commonly considered a perfectly trans-
parent and reflectant material. Furthermore, Theophrastus in the De
Igne (par. 73) explains the cause for the reflection of solar rays in mirrors
of silver, bronze and glass. As for the reflectivity of glass itself,
Theophrastus deals with it almost at the end of his book on stones:
. . . of such kinds are the special qualities and powers found in

stones. Earth has fewer of these, though they are more peculiar; for
it is also possible for Earth to be melted and softened and then
hardened again. It melts [along with] substances which are dug up
and can be liquefied, just as stone also does. It is softened, and
stones are made of it. These include the variegated ones and other
composite stones . . . .; for all of these are made artificially when
they are fired and softened. And if glass is also formed, as some
say, from vitreous earth, this too is made by thickening66.
The most unusual earth is the one mixed with copper; for in
addition to melting and mixing, it also has a remarkable power of
improving the beauty of the color. 67
65 Robert Halleux (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs (Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 1981), vol.
1, p. 51.
66 In Aristotle this effect was possible by subjecting the material to the action of fire.
Following Aristotle, Theophrastus imagined that glass was formed by compressing

vitreous earth due to heat.
67 Theophrastus, On Stones, cit., p. 55.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 49
It is not easy to understand if by “vitreous

earth,” Theophrastus meant only the sand
necessary to the production of glass, or
whether, as seems more likely, he meant the
combination of sand and the melting agents
(flux) of soda and potassium. But it is impor-
tant to emphasize here the awareness, ex-
pressed for the first time in a scientific text, of
the coloring property of copper once it is
combined and melted together with glass
paste. In fact, there has been much debate
concerning the fortuitousness of colors in an-
cient glass and how deliberate the different
F i g . 10. Specimen of rock crystal. First
chromatic gradations in the production of
century CE. SAP inv. 1481.
glass artifacts actually were. The fact that one
of the most important Greek philosophers
was familiar with the technique of coloring shows that such results
were obtained by tested chemical recipes and were known beyond the
circles of artisans.68
For that matter, Theophrastus’ treatise shows that in his time the
art of glassmaking was undergoing considerable development. In fact,
when speaking of emeralds, the Greek philosopher seems to be aware of
the counterfeits for this stone which could be made by the working of
glass and rock crystal. Anticipating Pliny by four centuries, Theophras-
tus exalts the optical qualities of this stone stating that, “it is good for
the eyes, and for this reason people carry seals made of it, so as to see
better.”69 That the contours of things appear clearer to sight through a
green light is a finding of modern optics, but it is possible that the an-
68 The best study of the chemical treatment of pigments in antiquity is the essay by
Elisa Romano, “I colori artificiali e le origini della chimica,” in Gilbert Argoud and
Jean-Yves Guillaumin (eds.), Sciences exactes et sciences appliquées à Alexandrie (Saint-
Étienne: publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 1998), pp. 115–126.
69 Theophrastus, On Stones, cit., p. 99. This quality was, however, already noted by
Aristotle in Problemata (959a) where he asks: “why does our vision deteriorate if we
stare at other things, but improve if we look at green and grassy things such as veg-
etables, and the like”; Aristotle, Problems, vol. II, transl. W.S. Hett, Loeb Classical
Library, (London–Cambridge, Mass.: Heinemann-Harvard University Press,
1937), p. 193.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 50
cients knew intuitively of this property from the simple working of

stones and gems.
Theophrastus’ treatise was not only important for providing the lit-
erary model for treating minerals, but also because it stimulated further
specialization. In fact, a series of lost works entitled On Salt, On Nitre,
On Alum, On Petrification, and On the Flow of Lava in Sicily have all
been attributed to Theophrastus.70
The influence and diffusion of this literature was undoubtedly con-
siderable. Pliny, in his books dedicated to metals and stones, mentions
the main sources for his work, which besides Theophrastus amount to
forty authors for most of whom nothing but their names remain. But
the existence of a technical literature cannot be ignored or undervalued,
as Robert Halleux and Jacques Schamp have shown.71 From what one
can gather by browsing Pliny’s bibliographic references it is clear that
many of the lapidaries he commented upon were written by Egyptian
and Persian authors; further, the nearly two thousand observations (ob-
servationes) and data (historiae) he gives in the mineralogical books (36
and 37) of his Naturalis historia reflect a richness and variety of ap-
proaches—of which Theophrastus’ work represents the most authorita-
tive, but not necessarily the most popular and influential, work of the
field.
According to Halleux and Schamp, the ancient lapidaries derive
from four distinct literary traditions. The first was still indebted to the
Theophrastian model privileging a descriptive method of classification
and, notwithstanding some concessions to superstitious beliefs, placed
stones within a taxonomic perspective. The second tradition, inspired by
the spread of apocryphal texts from the Orient, openly adopted a mag-
ical and esoteric approach. The third, connected to this, associated min-
eralogy with astrology—an approach that would be taken up with great
success by Paracelsus in the Renaissance. The last tradition, directly in-
spired by Judeo-Christian beliefs, discussed stones and the mineral
world by means of allegories. Although references to glass are not absent
in the magical-esoteric tradition, the approach inaugurated by
Theophrastus would have greater scientific relevance and was destined
70 Robert Halleux and Jacques Schamp (eds.), Les lapidaires grecs (Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1985), pp. xiii-xiv.
71 Ibid.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 51
to have the most enduring influence. Lapidaries, however, were not the
only books which treated the properties of stones and gems, and the
tendency to the production of specialized texts led to compilations of
lists of minerals as parts of pharmaceutical textbooks. An example is
Dioscorides’ De materia medica (first century CE), the first pharmaco-
logical treatise, and the only complete text belonging to the catalogue
tradition. The work by this Greek author lists remedies taken from the
vegetable, animal and mineral worlds, not presented in alphabetical
order, but classified according to scrupulous descriptions without con-
cessions to occult or magical beliefs. This approach must have had a
rather important tradition since Pliny in his treatise almost always stops
to describe the therapeutic properties of stones and gems—an aspect
completely absent from Theophrastus’ work. The therapeutic purpose
of the treatise put the different methods of preparing substances in the
forefront, although, not unsurprisingly, glass is not mentioned among
the remedies. Dioscorides shows that he was up to date with the tech-
nical experiments introduced by alchemists for handling chemical sub-
stances. Moreover, the preparation of remedies derived from mineral
substances presupposed a familiarity with such chemical operations as
calcination and more generally—the use of furnaces. However, there is
no reference in Dioscorides’ work to the imitation of precious stones
with glass or other materials, and all the stones described are genuine.
The treatment of glass in the pharmaceutical literature is mentioned
in another work, published in the second century CE by Galen who,
after Hippocrates, was the most important figure in classical medicine.
In his De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus libri
undecim, Galen examines the nature of metals and their chemical com-
position, stating that some of these contain a non-melting earth:
One of the peculiarities of the earth is that is does not melt when
subjected to the action of fire, a property possessed by lead and by
tin, silver and gold. Thus, when one hears of silver-bearing earth,
auriferous or ferrous—from the moment that some refer to these
earths in this way by those who dig them out from the mines—one
must not think that silver, gold or iron are perfectly mixed with the
earth, but that small particles of earth are juxtaposed pell-mell with
small particles of gold in the auriferous earth, silver in the argen-
tiferous, and iron in the ferrous and that in the furnace these par-
ticles liquefy because of the fire. In the same way, the earth
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 52
containing glass is sandy, because, and above all, in the sand one
finds small [filaments] of this mineral. 72
Therefore, even in the second century CE, glass was treated along-
side metals, and its principle constituents were regarded as analogous to
those of metals too. This approach is all the more surprising in a phar-
macological treatise, wherein the therapeutic qualities of minerals and
metals had to be examined rather than their physical constitution. In
any case, even though glass was never included in the lists of remedies,
an exhaustive treatment of these substances apparently could not avoid
mentioning it. Moreover, the association of glass with metals became so
diffuse that even several Late Antiquity astrologers did not hesitate to
associate glass, instead of silver, with the moon.73 The lapidaries and the
lists of pharmaceutical remedies included glass as an important mater-
ial although of difficult identification. Then, as well as now, the diffi-
culty was not generated by the absence of notions concerning its
fabrication, but because of the intrinsic problem of its classification in
the natural world.
Although little remains of the lapidaries published during Hellenis-
tic times, the literature on stones must have been quite popular. A work
on stones and gems attributed to the Greek physician Xenocrates of
Ephesus (first century CE) was used by Pliny and was probably a com-
pendium of the lapidary written by King Juba. According to the Byzan-
tine Suda, the Greek sophist Philostratos (first century CE?) published
a work entitled Lithognomicus74 of which some echoes are evidenced in
his most famous Vita Apollonii.75 Of these works very little evidence re-
72 Quoted in Halleux, Le problème, cit. p. 136.

73 Ibid., pp. 154–155.
74 “The first; of Lemnos; son of Verus; father of the second Philostratus.[1] Also
himself a sophist. He was a sophist in Athens, and lived in the time of Nero. He
wrote very many panegyric speeches; four Eleusinian Speeches; declamations;
Questions in the Orators; Rhetorical Resources; On the Noun (this is in reply to
the sophist Antipater); On Tragedy (3 books); Gymnasticus (about what is per-
formed at Olympia); Lithognomicus; Proteus; Dog, or Sophist; Nero; Spectator; 43
tragedies; 14 comedies; and very many other works worth mentioning.” Suda, cit.
Adler, phi 422. English translation by Malcom Heath.
75 On this and the genealogy of Hellenistic lapidaries see Max Wellmann, “Die
Stein- und Gemmenbücher der Antike,” Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Na-
truwissenschaften und Medizin, (1935), 4:426–489.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 53
F i g s . 11–12. Two mirrors made of obsidian or black glass. First Century CE. Pompeii Casa degli
Amorini Dorati and Pompeii, Casa dell’Efebo. Courtesy of SAP.
mains. The Greek poem Orphei lithica (ca. second century CE), which
deals with the magic virtues of stones and gems, surprisingly begins
with the properties of rock crystal which, despite being a relatively com-
mon stone, held the highest position in the hierarchy of gems. The
poem later exalts the virtue of topaz and its glassy transparency. Inter-
estingly, in this lapidary as well as in Damingeron’s De lapidibus,76 ob-
sidian, which is a kind of natural glass (Figs. 11–12), held a place of
distinction. These lapidaries did not mention the imitation of gems and
their reference to the mineralogical properties of the stones described is
often disappointing. On the other hand they are useful for appreciating
the variety of approaches to the mineral kingdom developed by Hel-
lenistic authors. Furthermore, Orphica lithica and, to a greater extent,
Damigeron’s lapidary are important because they exerted a notable in-
76A Latin translation made of a Greek lapidary around the sixth century related its
contents to Orphica lithica.
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 54
fluence during the Middle Age; their descriptions of stones are also
recognisable in the Byzantine lapidary by Michael Psellus (eleventh cen-
tury CE)77 and in the Latin poem De lapidibus by Marbodus (twelfth
century CE).78 Last but not least, both works seemed to bear the traces
of the lapidary composed by Zoroaster, an author often cited by Pliny
among the sources of the Naturalis historia.79
The interest in gems and precious stones is evidenced in the nu-
merous dactylothecae, or collection of engraved gems, that Pliny men-
tions. Engraved stones in fact added a special magical virtue to the
natural power of gems. We shall return to the importance of glass in the
production of false carved gems and on their magic and medical mean-
ings in Chapter 4.
The astrological lapidaries demonstrate an important role for glass,
as it is in this literary context that the association between the moon and
glass first appears. In his treatise De planetarum natura ac vi the Egypt-
ian astrologer Retorius (fourth century CE) associated planets with
stones, and when discussing the nature of the moon he wrote that
“among the metals it presides glass.”80 This belief, which made its ap-
pearance relatively late, seemed to have inspired later the alchemical
doctrines on the glassy composition of both the moon and the Earth, to
the importance of which we shall return.
When in the thirteenth century, Albertus Magnus took up the
Greek lapidary tradition, adding to it metallurgical knowledge acquired
during the Middle Ages, he put a long-forgotten literary model back
into circulation, destined to arouse great attention for its subject matter,
77 Pierpaolo Galigani, Il De Lapidum virtutibus di Michele Psello (Firenze: Clufs,

1980); Annibale Mottana, “Storia della mineralogia antica. I. La mineralogia a
Bisanzio nel XI secolo D.C.: i poteri insiti nelle pietre secondo Michele Psello,”
Rendiconti dell’Accademia dei Lincei, Serie 9, (2005), 16:227–295.
78 John M. Riddle ed., Marbode of Rennes’ De Lapidibus considered as a medical trea-
tise with text commentary and C.W. King’s translation. Together with text and trans-
lation of Marbode’s minor works on stones (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1977).
79 Joseph Bidez, Franz Cumont, Les mages hellénisés. Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe
d’après la tradition greque (Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 1938), vol. 1, pp. 128–130 and
vol. 2, pp. 197–206.
80 De planetarum natura ac vi in Franz Boll. Ed. Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, vol. 7, (Bruxellis: in aedibus Lamertin, 1908) p. 223. One century ear-
lier in the Romance of Alexander, the moon was associated with the diamond and
the sun with crystal (Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio a, 1, 4, 6).
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 55
including glass.81 Synthesizing the magical, the astrological, the de-

scriptive, and to some extent, the experimental approaches expressed by
the above-mentioned traditions, he provided his readers with a com-
prehensive view of the mineral kingdom which raised a renewed and
widespread interest in this matter. Interestingly, instead of beginning
his treatise with the examination of metals, Albertus decided in the first
chapters to deal with a theoretical problem directly related to glassmak-
ing and its connection to Aristotle’s philosophy of matter. In account-
ing for the difference in the transparency of stones, he wrote:
Of stones that are transparent to a greater or lesser degree, like

those called gems, it can be said in general that their common ma-
terial is not pure Water. For these stones are a sort of glass pro-
duced by the operations of nature; and therefore they are of a more
subtle mixture and a clearer transparency than glass made artifi-
cially. For although art may imitate nature nevertheless it cannot
reach the full perfection of nature. And evidence of what we have
said—namely that Water acted upon by dryness, either hot or cold,
is the common material of these [transparent] stones—is that glass
is made from a moisture of this sort, which is melted out of vari-
ous ashes, either of lead or flint or iron or anything else, by the
strongest fire.82
The “intense roasting” and other technical operations that helped to

transform this solidified moisture into glass brought Albertus to con-
clude that: “the art of glassmaking clearly [depended] upon alchemy.”83
Albertus’ attention to glassmaking might have been inspired by a direct
knowledge of the art, but it might also be argued that its source was an
ancient literary tradition, of which we have evidence only in a few texts,
that ranked glass as an important material in the classification and ma-
nipulation of stones.
81 Albertus Magnus, Book of Minerals (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 14–18.
82 Ibid., pp. 14–15.
83 Ibid., p. 15
ch02_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:37 PM Page 56
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:43 PM Page 57
chapter 3
A Technical Revolution:
The Introduction and Cultural
Impact of Glassblowing
“Cuperem Posidonio aliquem vitrearium ostendere, qui spiritu

vitrum in habitus plurimos format qui vix diligenti manu
effingerentur.”
Seneca, Ep. XIV, 90, 31.
During the first half of the first century BCE, a technological revolution
was destined to change the nature of glass production and, to no small
extent, the economy of the Roman territories as well. It seems that the
first attempts to blow glass were made in Jerusalem, where a few inflated
glass tubes have been excavated and are thought to be the first pipes to
be used in glassmaking.1 These rudimentary pipes were soon replaced
1 The earliest historical account of the spread of glassblowing and its geographical
origins is in Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, 36, 65–66. The best modern account
is that by E. Marianne Stern, “Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context,” Amer-
ican Journal of Archaeology, (1999), 103:441–484. See also E. Robert James Forbes,
57
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:43 PM Page 58
with blowpipes, probably ceramic at first, which in their turn were even-
tually replaced with those made of iron. The evolution of this new de-
vice is thought to have been relatively rapid: the immediate advantage of
producing glass using the technique of blowing must have stimulated
research into the best and cheapest tools to perfect the art. By the end
of the first century BCE, the degree of flawlessness achieved in glass-
making reveals to the archaeologist’s eye that the most important tech-
nical advances were already made. Thus, in less than forty years,
glassblowing rapidly replaced earlier techniques and paved the way for a
revolution that would change the face of glassmaking.
Archaeologists and historians agree that glassblowing was first in-
troduced in the Syro-Palestinian coastal area, and that the related tech-
nical expertise was soon exported to Southern Italy, where new technical
innovations were devised. Classical sources confirm these recent find-
ings. For example, Flavius Josephus, considered alongside Pliny to be
the earliest source on glass production in the Syro-Palestinian literature,
provides the following interesting account:
The very small river Belus runs by it, at the distance of two fur-
longs; near which there is Menmon’s monument, and hath near it
a place no larger than a hundred cubits, which deserves admiration;
for the place is round and hollow, and affords such sand as glass is
made of; which place, when it hath been emptied by the many
ships there loaded, it is filled again by the winds, which bring into
it, as it were on purpose, that sand which lay remote, and was no
more than bare common sand, while this mine presently turns it
into glassy sand. And what is to me still more wonderful, that
glassy sand which is superfluous, and is once removed out of the
place, becomes bare common sand again. And this is the nature of
the place we are speaking of.2
Some decades later, Strabo (16, 2, 25) pointed out that the Syro-
Palestinian area was particularly receptive to this craft because “between
Studies in Ancient Technology, vol. 5, 2nd ed. (Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1966), pp.
112–235.
2 Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum libri VII, II, 188 (Engl. Translation by William
Whiston).
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:43 PM Page 59
Ace and Tyre is a sandy beach, the sand of

which is used in making glass.”
Following his description of the Phoeni-
cian origin of the discovery of glass, Pliny
(Nat. Hist., 36, 193) (Fig. 1) pointed out the
recent progress of glassmaking as follows:
Next, as was to be expected, man’s inven-

tive skill was no longer content to mix soda
with the sand. He began to introduce mag-
net stone [megnes lapis] also, since there is a
belief that it attracts to itself molten glass
no less than iron. Similarly, lustrous stones
of many kinds came to be burnt with the
melt and, then again, shell and quarry sand.
Authorities state that in India glass is made
also of broken rock-crystal and that for this F i g . 1. Eighteenth-century engraved
reason no glass can compare with that of portrait of Pliny the Elder, after an ancient
India. To resume, a fire of light, dry wood (medieval?) painting found during the
fifteenth century in Sicily.
is used for preparing the melt, to which are
added copper, soda, preferably Egyptian soda. Glass, like copper,
is smelted in a series of furnaces, and dull black lumps are formed.
[. . .] After being reduced to lumps, the glass is again fused in the
workshop and is tinted. Some of it is shaped by blowing [flatu fig-
uratur], some machined on a lathe and some chased like silver.
Sidon was once famous for its glassworks, since, apart from other
achievements, glass mirrors were invented there.3
The earliest iconographic evidence of the new technology is pic-

tured on an oil lamp from the first century CE, which illustrates a small
glass furnace with two craftsmen, one of whom is holding a pipe (Fig.
2). These iconographic figures, along with the few archaeological re-
mains of glass furnaces, indicate that the most common form of fire
chamber was the rounded one.4 As no chimney is visible, the wood was
3 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, Book. XXXVI, 66, 193, Loeb Classical Li-
brary, trans. D.E. Eichholz, vol. 10. (Cambridge Mass.-London: Harvard Univer-
sity Press-Heinemann, 1962), pp. 151–153.
4 Mark Taylor and David Hill, “Experiments in the Reconstruction of Roman
Wood-Fired Glassworking Furnaces,” Journal of Glass Studies, (2008), 50:249–270.

ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:43 PM Page 60
probably burned in a chamber beneath the fu-

sion chamber. Although we cannot exclude
the possibility that larger furnaces existed
during the same period, the ease of attaining
high temperatures in relatively small kilns
must have privileged artisans’ decisions to use
smaller ones.
Glassmakers preferred to use preheated
chunks of glass: indeed, “the use of glass
chunks was so common in antiquity, that the
Greek word for ‘gathering’ was harpazein
bolon ‘snatching a chunk’ (sc. of glass).”5 This
operation is described in a fragmentary poem
on a third century CE papyrus from
Oxyrhnchus in Egypt:
First he [the glassblower] heated the tip of

the blowpipe, then snatched from nearby a
F i g . 2. Oil lamp with the illustration of a
glass workshop on the disk. On the right an
chunk of bright glass and placed it skillfully
artisan is visible blowing glass through a pipe. within the hollow furnace. And the crystal
At the center is a glass furnace, and on the as it tasted the fire was softened by the
right another artisan is holding the finished strokes of Hephaistos like . . . He blew in
product. First century CE. Ferrara, Museo del from his mouth a quick breath . . . like a
Belriguardo, inv. 52196.
man essaying the most delightful art of the
flute. The glass received the force of his
breath and became swollen out around itself like a sphere before it.
It would receive another onslaught of the divine breath, for often,
swinging it like an oxherd his crook, he would breathe into . . .
(end of fragment).6
The success of glass production in the Middle East inspired Roman

craftsmen. Strabo (16, 2, 25) points out that, “at Rome, it is reported,
there have been many inventions both for producing various colors, and
5 E. Marianne Stern, “The Glass Banausoi of Sidon and Rome,” in Marco Beretta
(ed.), When Glass Matters. Studies in the History of Science and Art from Graeco-Roman
Antiquity to Early Modern Era (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), p. 93.
6 The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, (London, 1983) vol. 50, pp. 57–58, no. 3536 cited in
Ibid.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:43 PM Page 61
for facilitating the manufacture, as for example in glass wares, where a

glass bowl may be purchased for a copper coin, and glass is ordinarily
used for drinking.” Pliny confirms this testimony following his discus-
sion of the Syro-Palestinian of method of producing glass:
Now, however, in Italy too a white sand which forms the river
Volturno is found along 6 miles of the seashore between Cuma
and Literno (Fig. 3). Wherever it is softest, it is taken to be ground
in a mortar or mill. Then it is mixed with three parts of soda, ei-
ther by weight or by measure, and after being fused is taken in its
molten state to other furnaces. There it forms a lump known in
Greek as ‘sand-soda’ [hammonitrum]. This is again melted and
forms pure glass, and it is indeed a lump of clear colourless glass.
Nowadays sand is similarly blended also in the Gallic and Spanish
provinces.7
These and other references to Roman glassmaking reveal the new tech-
nology’s innovative impact and the fascination it produced in its con-
temporaries.
Glassmaking also challenged philosophical notions of craftsman-
ship. While arguing against the Stoic philosopher and naturalist Posi-
donius (Fig. 4), who attributed a philosophical role to technology and
the arts, Seneca (first century CE) (Fig. 5), in his Epistulae ad Lucilium
(90, 30) wrote the following:
[30] In my opinion, therefore, it is not that, as it seems to Posido-

nius, the Wise Man has abandoned these crafts: rather he never
had anything whatsoever to do with them, since he would never
have deemed anything worth inventing, if he might decide later
that it did not deserve perpetual use. The Wise Man would not
adopt things which might in future be laid aside.
Posidonius retorts: ‘Anacharsis invented the potter’s wheel by
whose rotation pottery is formed.’ Because Homer mentions the
potter’s wheel, some people prefer that his verses be taken as false
rather than Posidonius’ story. For my part I maintain that
Anacharsis was not the inventor of this device: even if he were,
then a Wise Man invented it, not as a Wise Man, since Wise men
7 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, Book. 36, 66, 194, cit., pp. 153–155.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 62
F i g . 3. The shore of Campania after the Tabula Peutingeriana (Fifth century CE).
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 63
F i g . 4.Bust of Posidonius. First century F i g . 5. Copy of bust of Seneca, after an

BCE, from life. SANC. original made from life. Third century CE.
Staatliche Museum, Berlin.
do many things as men, not as Wise men. I would like to show

Posidonius a glass-blower who with his breath alone forms glass
into many shapes which could hardly be produced by the most
skilful hand. No, these things were invented after men ceased to
discover Wisdom.
Seneca’s example here is deliberately chosen. Glassblowing was a

technology which only a century beforehand, during Posidonoius’ time,8
was still unknown, and as much as its marvellous productions demon-
strated an outstanding victory over the limits of the earlier handcraft, it
had not yet attained the status of a kind of wisdom granted by philoso-
phy: it was still a craft. Nevertheless, it is interesting that in glassblow-
8 On the other hand Posidonius does not seem to be irrelevant to the history of
glass. A fragment of the Anthologia Palatina (XLIII, 54) in fact contained the fol-
lowing reference: “Possidonius. His specularis renitens fert et crystalline mira.”
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 64
ing, Seneca saw the most challenging example to his philosophy of

knowledge.
The introduction of glassblowing enabled not only the production
and manipulation of larger quantities of glass, but also an extraordinary
variety of new colors among the objects produced. According to Pliny
(Nat. Hist. 36, 198) “there is no other material nowadays that is more
pliable.” Thanks to this double advantage, the new technology enabled
craftsmen to attain a hitherto unknown level of achievement and to cre-
ate imitations of nearly any solid material. Such results were possible
thanks to the combination of two factors:
1. The construction of furnaces which reached high temperatures

(above 1000°) and which made raw glass liquid (Fig. 6);
2. The use of the pipe, which enabled easy handling of the glass
melted in the crucibles.
The introduction of glassblowing radically transformed the tradi-

tional craft over the course of a few decades, and it developed into such
a prosperous industry that it is estimated that at the beginning of the
second century CE, when the Roman Empire reached its greatest ex-
pansion and a population of 54 million people, “glassworkers had to
turn out close to 100 million items annually just to keep pace with cur-
rent demand—production on a industrial level indeed.”9
Glassmaking’s qualitative revolution was no less impressive than its
quantitative one.10 Less than a century after the introduction of the new
glassbowing technique, glass and glass paste were used in architectural
decorations, wall mosaics11 (Fig. 7), and windows to illuminate interior
9 Stuart J. Fleming, Roman Glass. Reflections on Cultural Change (Philadelphia: Uni-

versity of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1999), p. 60.
10 Both aspects were the subject of the exhibition, Marco Beretta and Giovanni Di
Pasquale (eds.), Vitrum. Il vetro fra arte e scienza nel mondo romano (Firenze: Giunti,
2004).
11 Just before coming to the story of how glass was discovered, Pliny wrote: “. . . or-
dinary tessellated floors were driven from the ground level and found a new home
in vaulted ceilings, being now made of glass. Here too we have a recent invention.”
Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, Book. 36, 64, Loeb Classical Library, trans.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 65
F i g . 6. The amorini fabbri of the Casa dei Vettii at Pompeii illustrates a metallurgical furnace and,
on the left, an amorino blowing into an iron pipe in order to fuel the fire. First century CE. SAP.
D.E. Eichholz, (Cambridge Mass.-London: Harvard University Press-Heine-

mann, 1962), vol. 10, p. 149. On glass mosaics see the interdisciplinary collection
of essays, Eve Borsook, Fiorella Gioffredi Superbi and Giovanni Pagliarulo (eds.),
Medieval Mosaics. Light, Color, Materials (Florence: The Harvard University Cen-
ter for Italian Renaissance Studies at Villa Tatti, 2000).
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 66
F i g . 7. Glass mosaic portraying Plato’s Academia. At the bottom a crystal spherical model of the
universe can be seen. First century CE. SANC, inv. 12545.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 67
F i g . 8. Glass window (51 x 45,5 cm). First century CE. SAP, inv. 18031.
spaces12 (Fig. 8); glass was also used in lamps, mirrors, tableware, aquar-
iums,13 for jars for unguents and the preservation of foods, for panels
used in greenhouses, cinerary urns, sarcophagi,14 ornaments, for the im-
12 There is no comprehensive study of the diffusion of window glass panes in the

ancient world and particularly in Rome; see Achille Deville, Histoire de l’art de la
verrerie dans l’antiquité (Paris: A. Morel, 1873), pp. 94–97; Donald B. Harden,
“New Light on Roman and Early Medieval Window-Glass,” Glastechnische
Berichte, (1959), 32:8–16; Id., “Window-glass from the Romano-British bath-
house at Garden Hill, Hartfield, Sussex,” The Antiquaries Journal, (1974),
54:280–281; Francesca Dell’Acqua, “Lux et vitrum: the Evolution of Stained Glass
from the Late Roman Empire to the Gothic Age,” in When Glass Matters, cit., pp.
221–248.
13 Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Naturales quaestiones, Book. III, 17:2.
14 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica, Book. III, 5.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 68
F i g . 9.Denarius minted on the occasion of the aedilician games of 58 BCE by

Marcus Scaurus and Publius Plautius Hypsaeus.
itation of gems and the most precious stones,15 and the glass frit was
even employed to produce certain colors for fresco painting, such as
blue. Spectacular evidence of the role of glass in Roman architecture can
be seen in the colossal theatre built in 58 BCE by Marcus Scaurus in
Rome on the occasion of the aedilician games, celebrating the defeat of
King Aretas III of the Nabateans (Fig. 9). Here is the Pliny’s descrip-
tion of the theatre (Nat. Hist., 36, 114):
As aedile he [Marcus Scaurus] constructed the greatest of all the

works ever made by man [. . .] This was his theatre, which had a
stage arranged in three storeys with 360 columns [. . .]. The low-
est storey of the stage was of marble, the middle one of glass [media
e vitro] (an extravagance unparalleled even in later times), while the
top storey was made of gilded planks.
We may well wonder what such a large part of the theatre made of
glass looked like and if, as it has been suggested, it was in fact one of the
first examples of a parietal mosaic. What is certain is that the quantity
of glass necessary for such a construction could only have been obtained
when glassblowing was already a well-established technique.
15 I shall examine this aspect in connection with alchemy in the next chapter.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 69
The high level of craftsmanship achieved by Roman, Sidonian and

Alexandrian glassmakers is alluded to in the famous episode, mentioned
by Pliny (36, 66) and Petronius, of a Roman craftsman’s invention of
unbreakable glass. Here is Petronius’ report:
There was once a workman who made a glass cup that was un-
breakable. So he was given an audience of the Emperor with his
invention; he made Caesar give it back to him and then threw it on
the floor. Caesar was as frightened as he could be. But the man
picked up his cup from the ground: it was dented like a bronze
bowl; then he took a little hammer out of his pocket and made the
cup quite sound again without any trouble. After doing this he
thought he had himself seated on the throne of Jupiter especially
when Caesar said to him: ‘Does anyone else know how to blow
glass like this?’ Just see what happened. He said not, and then
Caesar had him beheaded. Why? Because if his invention were
generally known we should treat gold like dirt.16
Whether real17 or legendary, this episode sheds light on the eco-

nomic importance of glass after the technical revolution of glassblowing.
No other material in antiquity played a comparable role and, following
the impact of this technological revolution on society, several naturalists
and philosophers began to reflect again upon the mysterious properties
of glass and to take it up as inspiration in the development of several sci-
entific disciplines.
For example, glassblowing had an impact on the study of the
anatomy of the eye. Knowledge of the eye’s anatomy had progressed
considerably with the work of Herophilus, an Alexandrian doctor who
lived around 300 BCE and to whom many anatomical discoveries con-
cerning the nature of the nervous system are attributed. But only frag-
ments of his work have been handed down; everything that we know
about his observations on the eye have been transmitted by Celsus and
Rufus of Ephesus, both doctors active in the first century CE. The lat-
ter, in his work on the names of the parts of the human body, gives us
16 Petronius, Satyricon, LI, transl. M. Heseltine, Loeb Classical Library (London-

New York: Heinemann-Macmillan, 1913) pp. 89, 91.
17 As suggested for instance by E. Marianne Stern in her essay “”Roman Glass-
blowing in a Cultural Context,” cit.

ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 70
an idea of the progress that had been made on

the eye’s anatomy since Aristotle. What is
important to note here is that in Rufus’ time
alone, the nomenclature for parts of the eye
underwent some extremely important
changes. In this regard it is worthwhile quot-
ing this passage from Rufus in full:
The first tunic of the eyeball is the hornlike

tunic [the cornea]. The next is called both
the ‘grape-like tunic’ [the urea, or iris] and
the ‘chorion-like tunic’. The term ‘grape-like’
is applied to the portion subjacent to the
cornea, since its outward face is smooth like
F i g . 10. Rock crystal lens. First century
the skin of a grape, and the inside rough, as it
CE. SANC inv. 27647.
is that of a grape. The appellation ‘chorion-
like’ is given to that portion which inwardly
lines the white tunic [the sclera], which because of the meshwork of
its blood vessels, resembles the membrane that envelopes the fetus.
The third tunic encloses the glasslike humor [hyaloëidés hygrón, the
vitreous]. Because of its thinness, its ancient name is the ‘spider web
tunic’. Since, however, Herophilos compared it with a fishing net
drawn together, some also call it ‘tunic resembling a net [the retina].
Still others call it the ‘glassy tunic’ [hyalöidés hytón] because of the
glassy humor which it encloses. The fourth tunic envelopes the crys-
talline humor [krystalloëidés hygrón]. Before it did not have a name of
its own. The name given to it is ‘lenticular tunic’ [phakoëidés hytón],
[Fig. 10] because of its shape, and ‘crystalline tunic’, on account of
the crystalline humor which it encloses.18
This is a passage of great importance since most of the names attributed

to the tunics of the eye have remained unchanged, at least in Greek and
Latin, and constituted the basis of modern anatomical nomenclature.
18 Rufus, Oeuvres de Rufus d’Ephèse, Ch. Daremberg and Ch. Emile Ruelle eds.
(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879), pp. 154,170–171. The English translation is
by S.L. Polyak, The Retina. The Anatomy and the Histology of the Retina in Man, Ape,
and Monkey, including the Consideration of Visual Function, the History of Physiologi-
cal Optics, and the Histological Laboratory Technique (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1941), p. 96.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 71
It is unclear exactly when and by whom these new terms were in-
troduced into the Greek language and it was only at the beginning of
the first century CE that they were adopted by many Latin and Greek
authors of medical treatises. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude
that such a linguistic reform cannot have taken place before the begin-
ning of the introduction of glassblowing. Other examples of this type of
anatomical nomenclature help to complete the picture. In the section
devoted to the eye in an anonymous treatise on the anatomical parts of
the body, from the corpus of writings that Daremberg and Ruelle at-
tribute to Rufus, we find an interesting variation with respect to the
work on the naming of the parts of the organ. According to this author,
the retina encloses a “liquid analogous to egg white that is called liquid
similar to melted glass.”19 This description resonates with that of Celsus
written at least a half-century earlier in his treatise De medicina:
[the retina] at its centre is slightly hollowed out, and this concavity
contains a substance which because of its similarity to glass the
Greeks call hyaloëidés. It is neither liquid nor dry but a kind of a co-
agulated humour which according to the colour of the pupil is black
or blue, while the outer tunic is completely white and it is contained
in a thin membrane that comes from within. Beneath this mem-
brane there is a drop of liquid similar to egg white from which
comes the faculty of sight that the Greeks called crystalline.20
It is significant that Celsus attributes this reform to the Greeks and it is

likely that the source, now lost, was the same used by this Latin author
and by Rufus.
Rufus’ synthesis was adopted by the greatest anatomist of Antiquity,
Galen, who deals with it in his work De usu partium (Lib. X) in the book
dedicated to the eyes.21 Besides completely appropriating the new
nomenclature, Galen tried to better define the relationship between the
19 Rufus, Oeuvres, cit., p. 171.

20 Celsus, De Medicina, Book VII, chapt. VII, 13.
21 The anatomical description of the eye is also found in the De Anatomicis Admin-
istrationibus, Lib. X. Of the tenth book of this work, which contains the description
of the eye, only the Arabic version exists. I have used the following edition: Galen,
Procedimenti anatomici. Traduzione e note di Ivan Garofano, (Milano: Rizzoli, 1991),
vol. 3, pp. 857–884.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 72
new names and the nature of the objects they described. First of all, the
Greek doctor established that the crystalline lens is “the primary organ
of sight” and receives its nourishment not from blood vessels (which
would alter its purity and brightness), but from the glassy humour,
which,
is much more dense and clear than blood though less fluid and
brilliant than the crystalline lens. In fact, the latter is proportion-
ally hard luminescence while the glassy humour is like glass melted
by heat, it is clear to the degree that one can imagine that perfect
clarity is polluted if a little black is mixed with much white every-
where else. 22
The crystalline lens is not only a different membrane constitutionally

than the others, but because of its biconvex form it seems to become the
principal site of the formation of images.
Within the theory of visual perception, too, the new technical rev-
olution seemed to have played an important role. In this regard, it is in-
teresting that Lucretius, one of the original supporters of Epicurean
atomism, was also convinced that vision was only made possible through
light, and that its propagation required the transparency of an interme-
diate space. Studying the peculiar characteristics of the atoms of light
such that they could pass through transparent media and give life to im-
ages (simulacra), in Book IV of De rerum natura Lucretius writes:
Now [let me tell you] how easily and quickly these images arise,
constantly flowing off from things and gliding away . . . For there
is always something streaming from the outermost surface of
things for them to shoot off. And this is when it meets some
things, passes through particularly through glass [in primis vitrum].
But when it meets rough stone or solid wood, there at once it is
broken up so that it can give back no image. 23 [Italics mine]
22 C. Galen, De usu partium. Book. X, 1–2, Opera Omnia. Editionem curavit C.G.
Kühn, Reprint of the 1822 edition, (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964), vol. 3, pp.
761–763.
23 Lucretius, De rerum Natura, 4, 147 and ff. Loeb Classical Library, transl.
W.H.D. Rouse (London-New York: Heinemann-Putnam’s, 1924), p. 259.

ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 73
Lucretius adds that the simulacra (the atoms of light) are both very
light in weight and endowed with a high speed equal to that of light it-
self, because they are made of the same material. The transmission of
the simulacra is like the transmission of light; thus the passage recalls the
question of vision.
Further, Lucretius clearly had Aristotle in mind when he speaks of
simulacra; note, for example, another passage where he reviews the dif-
ference between the propagation of sounds and of images:
. . . the voice can pass unimpaired through the sinuous channels of

the body without harm and the simulations [simulacra] refuse to do
so because they break up when they do not travel along rectilinear
ducts like those of glass that every image can traverse with its
flight. 24
Compare this to the following passage from Aristotle’s Problemata:
Why does air which is denser than light, penetrate through solid
bodies? It is because light only travels in straight lines, so that vi-
sion cannot see through porous substances, such as pumice stone?
For the channels change direction, but this is not the case with
glass. 25
And again in another passage, in which Aristotle inquires into the rea-
sons for which sight, unlike the voice, does not pass through most solid
bodies, he states:
. . . in liquid sight can penetrate, but voices are not heard or very
little . . . This is why it is possible to see through glass which is
dense, but not through a fennel stalk which is thin.26
It is likely that the passages from Lucretius’ De rerum natura that we

have cited were stimulated by Aristotle’s earlier work, which also made
direct reference to glass. This is not the place to inquire further into the
24 Ibid., 601–603, p. 291.

25 Aristotle, Problems, Book XXV, 939 a, Loeb Classical Library, transl. W.S. Hett
(London-Cambridge(Mass.): Heinemann/Harvard University Press, 1937), p. 63.
26 Ibid., Book XI, 905 b, p. 291.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 74
degree to which Lucretius depended upon Aristotelian doctrine, but it

is pertinent that in the passage cited from De rerum natura, the Latin
word vitrum is present for perhaps the first time.27 Interestingly, as we
argued in Chapter 1, it is in a scientific, and more specifically an opti-
cal, context that Lucretius was inspired to use the new term hyalos (vit-
rum).
The etymology of the Latin word for glass, vitrum, demonstrates
that Lucretius likely paid as much attention to the coining of expressive
technical and scientific terms as the Greeks—if not more so.28 Isidorus
of Seville29 and Claude Saumaise were the first to derive vitrum more or
less directly from the verb videre; regardless of its philological accuracy
in terms of modern standards, this etymology of vitrum would signify a
transparent tool for seeing or showing.30 Considering that both Aristo-
tle and, later, Lucretius explained the process of vision as one that took
place through a diaphanous, transparent medium, it is notable that in
Lucretius’ etymological attempt to find a suitable Latin word to desig-
nate ‘glass’ he simultaneously expressed a precise theory of vision. Ob-
27 Mary Luella Trowbridge, Philological Studies in Ancient Glass (Urbana: University

of Illinois, 1930), pp. 59–78. Most historians maintain that Cicero used vitrum in
his Oratio pro Rabirio C. Postumo (XV). The context in which he cites glass, how-
ever, is rather causal: “. . . ductae naves Postumi Puteolis sunt, auditae visaeque
merces, fallaces quidem et ducosae, chartis, et linteis, et vitro delatae . . .”. On the
other hand, since Cicero was the editor of Lucretius’s De rerum natura where the
use of the term is better defined, we might well wonder if he did not borrow the
term from the Lucretian poem. Recently, according to E. Marianne Stern, “the et-
ymology of vitrum has given rise to many conjectures, but linguistics agree that the
origin of the word is not Latin . . . [but rather] of Celtic derivation, perhaps from
a root uei ‘bond, twist’ (cf. English wire) as preserved in the Celtic word viriolae.”
E. Marianne Stern, “Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context,” cit., p. 442.
However, the arguments used to support the Celtic origin of the term are not con-
clusive and we prefer to rely on a contextual reading of the sources where vitrum ap-
peared for the first time.
28 It is well known that Lucretius effectively translated the Greek concept of atom
as semina, for the purpose of emphasizing the auto-organizational property of the

elementary particles of matter.
29 “Vitrum dictum quod visui perspicuitate transluceat.” Isidori Hispalensis Epis-
copi, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988),
Book. XVI, p. 210.
30 Trowbridge, Philological Studies, cit., pp. 59–60.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:44 PM Page 75
viously, in the process Lucretius also sought to render the expressiveness

of hyalos in Latin, but we must emphasize that the term vitrum in De
rerum natura is always found in contexts where the nature of simulacra
and their mechanisms of transmission are explained.
Therefore, it is an absolutely singular circumstance that glass, a
rather common material in everyday Roman life, was re-named only in
the middle of the first century BCE in a scientific work that was emi-
nently theoretical in character. Before the Lucretian term, Latin authors
used hyalos and crystallus, apparently without much concern for the sci-
entific properties of the material. Moreover, the Lucretian term vitrum
coincided, chronologically, with the technological revolution introduced
by glassblowing techniques. Although this may be a fortuitous coinci-
dence, it is still interesting that this term was introduced exactly at the
time when it became possible, thanks to the new technique, to manu-
facture ever more diverse and refined glass objects. Moreover, the new
Latin term had an immediate success and very rapidly replaced the old
names used to designate glass.
Seneca summarizes the principal scientific uses of glass during the
first century CE in his Naturales quaestiones when he discusses the na-
ture of rainbows:
I have already said that there are mirrors which increase every ob-
ject they reflect. I will add that every thing is much larger when
you look at it through water. Letters, however tiny and obscure
are seen larger and clearer through a glass ball filled with water
[vitream pilam]. Fruits seem more beautiful than they actually are
if they are floating in a glass bowl (Fig. 11). Stars appear larger
when you see them through a cloud because vision grows dim in
the moisture and is unable to apprehend accurately what it wants
to. This will be demonstrated if you fill a cup with water and
throw a ring into it. For, although the ring lies on the bottom, its
image is reflected on the surface of the water. Anything seen
through moisture is far larger than reality. Why is it so remarkable
that the image of the sun is reflected larger when it is seen in a
moist cloud, especially since this results from two causes? In a
cloud there is something like glass which is able to transmit light;
there is also something like water. Even if the cloud does not yet
have water it is already forming it; that is, there exists already the
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:45 PM Page 76
F i g . 11. Fresco with still life. First century CE. SANC inv. 8611.
property of the water into which the cloud may be enlarged from
its own property.31
The correspondence between the effects of sight through glass,

water or clouds is clear: as we have seen, in the first century CE,
anatomical sources on the eye related the transparency of the ocular “tu-
nics” to glass and crystal. This is an important relationship because his-
torians of optics usually stress that one of the major limits of ancient
optics was the sharp separation between the anatomical-physiological
approach, privileged by physicians and naturalists, and the geometrical
approach adopted by the mathematicians. With the exception of
31Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones, Book I, 6, 5–6, Loeb Classical Library, transl.

T.H. Corcoran (Cambridge (Mass.)- London: Harvard University Press-Heine-
mann, 1971), vol. 1, pp. 57–59.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:45 PM Page 77
Galen’s work, historians often note how in the ancient world, there
were no points of contact between the two disciplinary approaches; they
were only synthesized many centuries later, first timidly with the Arabs,
and then more completely with the work of Johann Kepler and René
Descartes, who were said to correctly explain the phenomenon of vi-
sion.32 However, while the ancients were far from our modern explana-
tion of the function of sight, it is significant that both opticians and
doctors used glass as a reference material to reconstruct models for the
complex mechanism of vision on a plausible empirical base.
That glass served to enhance a scientific outlook on nature is further
evidenced in Ptolemy’s Optics, where several glass instruments were de-
vised to experimentally demonstrate his theory of astronomical refrac-
tion.33 This proliferation of optical glass apparati would have been
inconceivable before the invention of glassblowing and the subsequent
progress achieved by craftsmen in making highly sophisticated and ac-
curate optical devices. While the reconstruction of these devices remains
hypothetical, the results obtained by Ptolemy through their use are a re-
vealing indicator of their importance.
Even though glass eyes had been used in busts and statues in An-
cient Egypt,34 Roman portraiture’s struggle for realism (Fig. 12) com-
32 David C. Lindberg, Nicholas H. Steneck, “The Sense of Vision and Origins of

Modern Science,” in Allen G. Debus (ed.), Science, Medicine and Society in the Re-
naissance. Essays to honor Walter Pagel (London: Heinemann, 1972), vol.1, pp.
29–45: David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1976); Id., The Science of Optics, in Id., Science in
the Middle Ages (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 338–368.
33 Giorgio Strano, “Glass and Heavenly Spheres: Astronomic Refraction in
Ptolemy’s Optics,” in M. Beretta (ed.), When Glass matters, cit., pp. 121–134.
34 “A glass eye—the right eye—had been removed from a larger than life-sized
marble head . . . The head, along with hands, feet, and bronze earrings, had been
recovered from a lake near Feneos. It was described as dating to 180–160 B.C.
Even though other glass inlay eyes are known, this piece is really quite extraordi-
nary. . . . It consisted mainly of colorless glass . . . and purple glass. Its overall di-
ameter was 2.50 cm. The purple glass was used to represent the circular pupil and
the outline of the iris; the colorless glass filled the iris but was probably backed by
some other material, thus giving that part of the eye a colored transparency”; R.H.
Brill, “Chemical Analysis of Various Glasses excavated in Greece,” in Hyalos Vitrum
Glass. History, Technology and Conservation of Glass and vitreous Materials in the Hel-
lenic World, George Kordas ed. (Athens: Glasnet, 2002), p. 13. The Greek and
Roman tradition of inserting glass or crystal eyes into the heads of statues seems to
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:45 PM Page 78
F i g . 12. Portrait of a man on a glass lens. First century CE. SANC, inv.
1324424.
go back to Egypt (first millennium B.C.) as shown recently in E. Marianne Stern

& Birgit Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass of the Ancient World. 1600 B.C.–A.D. 50.
Ernesto Wolf Collection (Ostfildern: Verlag Gerd Hatje, 1994), pp. 174–175. See
also Jay M. Enoch, “Archaeological Optics,” in International Trends in Applied Op-
tics, Arthur. H. Guenther (ed.), vol. 5, (Bellingham WA: Spie, 2002), pp. 629–666
and, by the same author, “First Known Lenses Originating in Egypt about 4600
Years Ago,” Documenta Ophthalmologica, (1999), 99:303–314. In the latter essay
Enoch points out that the degree of technical sophistication reached by Egyptian
artisans in manufacturing these lenses was combined with “a very advanced under-
standing of ocular anatomy” (p. 305). I thank Vincent Ilardi for bringing these two
articles to my attention.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:45 PM Page 79
bined with the exceptional properties of

blown glass made this practice extremely
common in Rome (Fig. 13). It has also been
shown that Roman eye doctors produced arti-
ficial eyes for medical use in a variety of mate-
rials including glass and crystal35 (Fig. 14),
This technique may also have been imported
from Ancient Egyptian medicine. In his work
on the history of Egyptian ophthalmology,
Richey L. Waugh Jr. has shown that “inlaid
eyes were used in ancient Egypt for coffins,
mummies, mummy masks, statues, and stat-
uettes, and also occasionally in relief.”36 Al-
though no evidence of their medical use has
been so far identified, these eyes were often of
natural size and the analogy between the arti-
ficial product and the actual organs to be sub-
stituted clearly did not escape the notice of
the ancient anatomists. Julius Hirschberg F i g . 13. Bust of Pseudo-Seneca with
rightly points out that a number of sources at- glass inlay eyes. First century CE. SANC,
test to their use.37 inv. 5616.
35 Domenico Maria Manni (Degli occhiali da naso inventati da Salvino Armati, gen-
tiluomo fiorentino. Trattato istorico. Firenze: Anton Maria Albizzini, 1738, pp.
15–22), mentions several Roman inscriptions testifying to the existence of the pro-
fession of faber ocularius and that of oculararius. Both these artisans produced arti-
ficial eyes and apparently were not doctors. Celsus (De Medicina, Book. VI, Chapt.
VI, 8) mentions, under this name, the existence of specialised physicians: “Evelpi-
des autem, qui aetate nostra maximus fuit ocularius medicus . . .” (italics mine). On
Roman oculists see Vivian Nutton, “Roman oculists,” Epigraphica, (1970), 32:3–29;
an interesting comment of some epigraphic inscriptions reproduced at the Museo
della Civilità Romana (Rome) can be found in Clotilde D’Amato, La medicina. Vita
e costumi dei romani antichi (Roma: Edizioni Quasar, 1993), pp. 48–50 and pp.
76–77. For the Egyptian tradition see J. Royer, “Les ocularistes de la statuaire
Egyptienne,” Bulletin de la Société Francophone d’Histoire de l’Ophtalmologie, (1997),
4 :49–52.
36 Richey L. Waugh Jr., The Eye and Man in Ancient Egypt (Oostende: J.P. Wayen-
borgh, 1995), vol. 2, p. 345.

37 Julius Hirschberg, Geschichte der Augenheilkunde, (Hildesheim: G. Olms Verlag,
1977), vol. 1, par. 30.

ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:45 PM Page 80
The science of weights was a very impor-

tant aspect of the Roman economy, and the
widespread practice of counterfeit and falsi-
fied weights in trade promoted extensive re-
search on the construction of accurate and
reliable balances.38 Glass also played a role
within this specialized field of applied me-
chanics. The scale pans (Fig. 15) found in
Canosa39 present exceptional testimony as to
the spread of this material across the Roman
F i g . 14. Glass eyes. First century CE. territories: their transparency was probably
SAP, inv. 13273c and 13273d. used to assert the reliability of the scale.
At about the same time that glassblowing
was introduced, the engineer Hero of Alexan-
dria recommended its use in several pneumatic and medical experi-
ments.40 The appearance of such literature, which would eventually be
taken up in alchemical recipes, was contemporaneous to the above-
mentioned explosion in the development of glassmaking, and although
it is impossible to ascertain a direct relationship between its appearance
and the introduction of glassblowing, many important authors wrote ex-
tensively about the marvellous nature and history of this material. Given
the technological advances in glassblowing and the introduction of the
term vitrum in the Latin language that occurred during the first half of
the first century BCE, I believe that the amazing varieties and quanti-
ties of references to glass in the Latin literature of the first century and
subsequent decades cannot be regarded as a mere coincidence.41 The
38 On this see Giovanni Di Pasquale, Tecnologia e meccanica: trasmissione dei saperi

tecnici dall’età ellenistica al mondo romano (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), pp.
277–345.
39 E. Marianne Stern, Birgitte Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass of the Ancient World, cit.,
pp. 270–271.
40 Giovanni Di Pasquale, “Scientific and technological use of Glass in Graeco-
Roman Antiquity,” in M. Beretta (ed.), When Glass matters, cit., pp. 31–76.
41 In addition to Pliny we may add Cicero, Varro, Lucretius, Vitruvius, Horatius,
Apicius, Statius, Ovidius, Scribonius Largus, Propertius, Pomponius Mela, Seneca,

Columella, Celsus, Petronius, Martialis, Tacitus, Svetonius and Juvenalis. Among
the Greeks authors of the first century C.E. those who cite glass in several passages
of their works are Strabo, Rufus of Ephesos, Dioscorides, Hero of Alexandria and
Flavius Josephus.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:45 PM Page 81
F i g . 15. Glass scale pans. First century BCE. Ernesto Wolf Collection, Stuttgart.
(Photo: Peter Frankenstein & Hendrik Zwietasch).
number of occurrences only declined when the role of glass was so com-
mon that it no longer generated the same sense of wonder. Indeed, con-
sidering that the association between metals and human civilizations
was common knowledge in classical antiquity, it would not be an exag-
geration to define the short period between the invention of glassblow-
ing and the beginning of the Roman Empire’s period of greatest
decadence, as The Glass Age.
ch03_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:45 PM Page 82
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 83
chapter 4
Glass and Alchemy
“Smaragdum ad quam rem viridem, pretiosum vitrum?”

Petronius, Satyricon, LV.
a chemical art or a theory of matter?
It is difficult, and perhaps historically unacceptable, to try to relate the

practical craft of glassmaking to the development of a theoretical and
philosophical framework completely extraneous to practical necessities.
However, it is nonetheless odd that historians of glass have neglected al-
chemical sources, concentrating principally on the examination of ar-
chaeological remains and ignoring authors such as Pliny who, in
addition to their original examinations of technical information and nu-
merous notes on the impact of glass on everyday life, referred their read-
ers to ideas that evoked a distinct philosophy of matter, the extension of
which included mineral and metals. The procedures used by the Greek
alchemists, on the one hand, were grafted on to the technical tradition
taken for the most part from Egyptian artisans;1 but on the other hand,
1 J. Lindsay. The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Op. cit.
83
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 84
they depended upon philosophies of matter which, from the pre-So-

cratic philosophers onwards, had tried to provide a rational explanation
for the change in substances subjected to the action of fire. Moreover, in
most of the alchemical texts of Late Antiquity, we find the names of
Thales, Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle listed among Egyptian sages as
the authorities and founders of alchemy.
Furthermore, there is another profound reason that binds the de-
velopment of Greek alchemy, which flowered in the Alexandrian pe-
riod, to classical philosophy. The idea of the transmutation of
substances was not only accepted by most philosophies of matter in An-
tiquity, but in the case of Aristotle it actually constituted one of the most
important ways to explain chemical combination by means of only the
four elements and their qualities. If all the bodies in the sublunary world
were composed of Earth, Air, Water, and Fire, then all bodies could be
modified from one to the other by changing the proportions of their
constituent materials. This basic philosophy permits us to understand
why the identities of substances listed in the lapidaries, and in other
works of this type, were so often confused with counterfeits or with ar-
tificial products such as glass. If one accepted that substances could be
transmuted from one thing to another, then the sharp distinction be-
tween natural and manufactured products could be easily blurred. It was
thus possible to put the substances under chemical examination into re-
lation and analogy with each other. This is almost certainly the reason
why glass was so often associated with various crystals, metals, stones
and gems which, in their turn, could assume characteristics similar to
those displayed by glass.
Alongside the importance that philosophers attributed to transmu-
tation for explaining chemical reactions, we must recognize another
principle for its enormous influence on the development of classical
alchemy. One of the Greek philosophers’ chief preoccupations, as al-
ready emphasized, was to resist putting art and nature into open con-
tradiction. Attempts to evaluate the former required the ability to
demonstrate its intimacy with the latter; art imitated nature or—as we
have seen with respect to the legends on the origins of metals and
glass—nature itself generated art. It is not insignificant that the creator
of the universe in Plato’s Timaeus was called demiourgos: the artisan.
The field of chemistry repeatedly stressed the coexistence of art and
nature. Speaking of a kind of sand with special properties, Theophras-
tus noted a way to imitate nature efficaciously in both experiment and
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 85
technology, thereby outlining a theoretical principle that would be car-

ried out by classical alchemy. He wrote:
It is clear from three facts that art imitates nature and creates its
own peculiar products, some of them for use, and some only for
show, such as paints, and others for both purposes equally, such as
quicksilver.2
Once they identified the main philosophical principles, alchemists

could rely on an ample supply of technical information from artisans.
Even though we lack sufficient direct evidence, it is likely that the fre-
quent references to Egyptian learning, as well as the Egyptian and
Midle-Eastern provenance of most of the Greek alchemists, situated the
development of artisanal metallurgical techniques in this area. This is
particularly apparent in glassmaking which, as we pointed out in Chap-
ter 1, enjoyed substantial progress in ancient Egypt and again, under
Greek and Roman dominance, in Alexandria. It is worth noting that
after the introduction of glassblowing, Egyptian craftsmen also contin-
ued to practice glassmaking. In a apocryphal letter from Hadrianus Au-
gustus to Servianus, compiled around the end of the third century CE,
we read:
The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting
to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded,
unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those
who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call
themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis.
There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no
Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an
anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is
forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.
They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to in-
jury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one
is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at
least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the
lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind
2 Theophrastus, On stones, Op. cit., p. 58.

ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 86
have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle.3
(My italics)
This testimony is quite important because while historians and ar-

chaeologists have often regarded Alexandria as one of the most impor-
tant centers of glass production, the ethnic identity of the craftsmen has
been left uncertain, or it has been taken for granted that Alexandrian
glassmakers were either Greeks or Jews. The presence of a community
of Egyptian glassmakers during the third century CE requires us to
recognise the variety of traditions that were in competition during the
art form’s development.
The introduction of glassblowing and its spread throughout the
Roman provinces transformed this art into a new discipline which, as we
shall see below, was regarded highly enough to attract the attention of
authors of philosophical, medical and technical texts. The importance of
glassmaking within the chemical arts is further attested to by the fol-
lowing comment by Pliny, which he uses as a conclusion to his recon-
struction of the history of glass:
We cannot help marvelling that here is almost nothing that is not

brought to a finished state by means of fire. Fire takes this or that
sand, and melts it, according to the locality, into glass, silver,
cinnabar, lead of one kind or another, pigments or drugs. It is fire
that smelts ore into copper, fire that produces iron and also tem-
3 “Aegyptum, quam mihi laudabas, Serviane carissime, totam didici levem, pendu-
lam et ad omnia famae momenta volitantem. illic qui Serapem colunt, Christiani
sunt et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi episcopos dicunt, nemo illic archisyna-
gogus Iudaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter non mathe-
maticus, non haruspex, non aliptes. ipse ille patriarcha cum Aegyptum venerit, ab
aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur Christum. genus hominum seditiosissi-
mum, vanissimum, iniuriosissimun, civitas opulenta, dives, fecunda, in qua nemo
vivat otiosus. alii vitrum, conflant, aliis chartha conficitur, omnes certe linifiones aut
cuiuscumque artis et professionis videntur; et habent podagrosi, quod agant, habent
praecisi, quod agant, habent caeci, quod faciant, ne chiragrici quidem apud eos
otiosi vivunt. unus illis deus nummus est. hunc Christiani, hunc Iudaei, hunc omnes
venerantur et gentes.” Flavius Vopiscus, Vita Saturnini in Scriptores Historiaae Au-
gustae 29, 8, 1–6. English translation Scriptores Historiae Augustae, with an English
Translation by David Magie, Loeb Classical Library. (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1921–32) vol. 3.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 87
pers it, fire that purifies gold, fire that burns the stone which causes
the blocks in buildings to cohere. There are other substances that
may be profitably burnt several times; and the same substance can
produce something different after a first, a second or a third firing.
Even charcoal itself begins to acquire the special property only
after it has been fired and quenched: when we presume it to be
dead it is growing in vitality. Fire is a vast unruly element, and one
which causes us to doubt whether it is more a destructive or a cre-
ative force.4
This beautiful image of the extraordinary creative power of fire

combined the Heraclitean doctrine of fire,5 the relatively new Stoic no-
tion of pyr technikòn6 (Fig. 1) and the extensive attention that Hellenis-
tic natural philosophers paid to the prodigious progress of the chemical
arts—and to glassmaking in particular.7 The fascination with the
changes caused by the action of fire enhanced the works of the al-
chemists and may even have inspired them to develop the new doctrine
of transmutation. One may well wonder, however, if behind such en-
thusiastic words on the power of fire, alchemy8 was already becoming a
coherent corpus of doctrines among Greco-Roman writers of chemical
operations and recipes, or if these were only hints at a philosophy of
4 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, 36, 68, transl. D.E. Eichholz, Loeb Classical
Library, (Cambridge Mass.-London: Harvard University Press-Heinemann, 1962)
vol. 10, p. 159.
5 As rightly pointed out by Tannery (Pour l’histoire de la science Hellène. 2nd edition.
Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1930), Heraclitus’ emphasis on the central creative power

of fire was directly influenced by Egyptian doctrine.
6 Or as it was called by the Latin authors, ignem artificificiosum (artificial fire). See
Hans Friedrich August von Arnim (ed.), Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (Leipzig:
Teubner 1903), vol. 1, p. 44.
7 The combination between the stoic concept of pneuma (spirit) and of ignem arti-
ficificiosum was probably embodied in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip (III–IV c.

CE) in a passage in which the superiority of the spiritual power of the pneuma is
shown by using the following example taken from glassblowing:
“Glass decanters and earthenware jugs are both made by means of fire. But if glass
decanters break they are done over, for they came into being through a breath. If
earthenware jugs break, however, they are destroyed, for they came into being with-
out breath.” (Translated by Wesley Wisenberg).
8 I use the word alchemy here being well aware of its anachronism. A more accurate
definition for it would be Holy or Sacred Art.

ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 88
F i g . 1. Vulcan’s workshop. First century CE. SANC inv. 9531.
matter which was yet to come. Although it is impossible to give a con-

clusive answer, the sources, both literary and archaeological, are not as
silent as it is often assumed. If, instead of looking in the literature of this
period for the chrysopoeia or the transmutation of metals into gold, we
pay due attention to the numerous references to glassmaking and to
similar chemical operations, we are faced with a lively intellectual con-
text which, to say the least, provided ideas and practices comparable to
those outlined by later alchemists.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 89
counterfeit, imitation, transmutation and

the treatment of gems
In the last book of his monumental Naturalis historia, Pliny (37, 1–2)
begins with the following statement:
In order that the work that I have undertaken may be complete, it

remains for me to discuss gemstones. Here Nature’s grandeur is
gathered together within the narrowest limits; and in no domain of
hers evokes wonders in the minds of many which set such store by
the variety, the colours, the texture, and the elegance of gems that
they think it a crime to tamper with certain kinds by engraving
them as signets, although this is the prime reason for their use;
while some they consider to be beyond price and to defy evaluation
in terms of human wealth . . .
[2] The origin of the use of gemstones and the beginning of
our present enthusiasm for them, which has blazed into so violent
passion, I have already discussed to some extent in my reference to
gold and rings.
Due to the expansion of the Empire, mineralogical knowledge of

gems greatly increased, and the general appreciation of their beauty cre-
ated a luxury market which competed with, and at times even exceeded,
that of gold. Indeed, by the end of the second century CE, the connec-
tion between glassmaking, gold and precious stones would be cemented
in the biblical description of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revela-
tions, where we read that “the building of the wall thereof was of jasper
stone: but the city itself pure gold, like to clear glass.”9
During the second half of the first century BCE, Diodorus Siculus
mentioned chemical operations involving the manipulation of gems
which were ultimately used to produce gold. While describing Arabia’s
extraordinary natural resources, Diodorus (Bibliotheca historica, II, 52)
wrote:
In these countries are generated not only animals which differ

from one another in form because of the helpful influence and
9 “Et erat structura muri eius ex iaspide, ipsa vero civitas aurum mundum simile
vitro mundo.” Apocalypsis Ioannis, 21:18.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 90
strength of the sun, but also outcroppings of every kind of precious

stone which are unusual in colour and resplendent in brilliancy.
For the rock-crystals, so we are informed, are composed of pure
water which has been hardened, not by the action of cold, but by
the influence of a divine fire, and for this reason they are never sub-
ject to corruption and take on many hues when they are breathed
upon. For instance smaragdi and beryllia, as they are called, which
are found in the shafts of the copper mines, receive their colour by
having been dipped and bound together in a bath of sulphur, and
the chrysoliths, they say, which are produced by a smoky exhala-
tion due to the heat of the sun, thereby get the colour they have.
For this reason what is called “false gold,” we are told, is fabricated
by mortal fire, made by man, by dipping the rock crystals into it.
And as for the natural qualities of the dark-red stones, it is the in-
fluence of the light, as it is compressed to a greater or less degree
in them when they are hardening, which, they say, accounts for
their differences.10
A few lines later, Diodorus hints at a new kind of literature devoted to

the investigation of natural phenomena:
And it is from these facts that the students of nature draw their ar-
guments when they affirm that the variety of colouring that is put
forth by the things which we have mentioned above was caused by
the heat coincident with their creation which dyed them, the sun,
which is the source of life, assisting in the production of each sev-
eral kind. And it is generally true, they continue, that of the dif-
ferences in the hues of the flowers and of the varied colours of the
earth the sun is the cause and creator; and the arts of mortal men,
imitating the working of the sun in the physical world, impart
colouring and varied hues to every object, having been instructed
in this by nature. For the colours, they continue, are produced by
the light, and likewise the odours of the fruits and the distinctive
quality of their juices, the different sizes of the animals and their
several forms, and the peculiarities which the earth shows, all are
generated by the heat of the sun which imparts its warmth to a fer-
10 Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, Loeb Classical Library, English trans-
lation by C. H. Oldfather (Harvard University Press, 1933), vol. 2, pp. 55–57.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 91
tile land and to water endowed with the generative power and thus
becomes the creator of each separate thing as it is.11
Gems were new luxury products, particularly sought-after because

of the virtues attributed to them. Pompeius Magnus and Caesar were
the first to build up important collections of gems: e.g. “however, it was
this victory of Pompey over Mithridates that made fashion veer to pearls
and gemstones.”12 During his third triumph (61 BCE), Pompeius
brought to Rome what he believed to be his most precious war booty:
the myrrina vasa, extraordinarily beautiful vases made of such a precious
material that two generations later, the Emperor Nero manage to ensure
for himself one single bowl at the astronomical price of 1,000,000 ses-
terces.13 Without the help of archaeological evidence, the identification
of myrra has been so problematic that for a long time, this mysterious
substance has been thought to be millefiori glass.14 Only recently has it
been demonstrated beyond doubt that myrra should be identified with
fluorite.15 Given the exceptional rarity of this mineral, Pliny reported
that glass was used to imitate and counterfeit the myrra. While describ-
ing the characteristics of white glass he remarked:
There is, furthermore, opaque white glass and others that repro-
duce the appearance of murrina, blue sapphire, or lapis lazuli, and,
indeed, glass exists in any colour.16
Thanks to the combination of the new passion for gems and the
state of the art of Roman glassmaking, Pliny mentioned several meth-
ods in subsequent chapters that were used during his time to counterfeit
precious stones of any kind. In connection with this discussion, he men-
tioned the publication of treatises devoted to glass, underlining the im-
portance of glassmaking. In the Naturalis historia (37, 75), while
11 Ibid., pp. 57–59.

12 Pliny, Naturalis historia, 37, 11–12.
13 Ibid., 37, 20.
14 Anton Kisa, Das Glas im Altertume (Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1908), vol. 2, pp.
533–535.
15 Alain Tressaud and Michael Vickers, “Ancient Murrhine Ware and Its Glass
Evocations,” Journal of Glass Studies, (2007), 49:143–152.

16 Pliny, Naturalis historia, 36, 198.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 92
F i g . 2a. Cameo in sardonic portraying two F i g . 2b. The same cameo as 2a in glass. First
Ptolemaic sovereigns as Isis and Serapis. First century CE. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di
century CE. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Firenze.
testifying to the recent discovery of “a method of transforming genuine

stones of one kind into false stones” and lamenting “considerable diffi-
culty in distinguishing genuine stones from false,” Pliny mentioned the
existence of treatises (commentarii), the authors of which he preferred to
omit, that gave “instructions how to stain crystal in such a way as to im-
itate smaragdus and other transparent stones, how to make sardonyx of
sarda, and other gems in a similar manner.”17 A spectacular example is
17 “Veras a falsis discernere magna difficultas, quippe cum inventum sit ex veris
generis alterius in aliud falsas traducere, ut sardonyches e ternis glutinentur gemmis
ita, ut deprehendi ars non possit, aliunde nigro, aliunde candido, aliunde minio
sumptis, omnibus in suo genere probatissimis. quin immo etiam exstant commen-
tarii auctorum—quos non equidem demonstrabo—, quibus modis ex crystallo
smaragdum tinguant aliasque tralucentes, sardonychem e sarda, item ceteras ex
aliis; neque enim est ulla fraus vitae lucrosior.” Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia,
37, 75. On the imitation of gems as an alchemical genre see Robert Halleux, Anne
Françoise Cannella, Entre technologie et alchimie: de la teinture du verre à la fabrica-
tion des fausses pierres précieuses, in Il colore nel Medioevo. Arte Simbolo Tecnica. Atti
delle Giornate di Studi, Lucca, 2–4 May 1996 (Lucca: Istituto Storico Lucchese e
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 1998), pp. 45–46.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:39 PM Page 93
the glass replica of a cameo, originally made

in strata of sardonic (Figs. 2a–2b).18 The cir-
culation of literature of this kind is extremely
important because, as we shall later see, it at-
tested to the existence of authors who wrote
about topics which for centuries had either
been kept secret or treated in general and en-
cyclopedic works such as Pliny’s.
The amazing dexterity that Roman glass-
makers demonstrated in imitating precious
stones justified the diffusion of this literature.
Even more common stones were also worked
in such ways that they soon became luxury
objects. Rock crystal was so highly regarded
by the Romans that in Pliny’s day, “a re-
spectable married woman” paid 150,000 ses-
terces for a single dipper (Nat. Hist., 37, 29).
As a consequence of these follies, the manu-
facture of imitation and counterfeit materials F i g . 3. Glass imitation of gemstone.
First century CE. SANC inv. 109581.
was encouraged. “Glassware,” says Pliny (37,
29) on this matter, “has now come to resem-
ble rock-crystal in a remarkable manner, but the effect has been to flout
the laws of nature and actually to increase the value of the former with-
out diminishing that of the latter.” That false crystal artifacts did not
create a fall in price for the real luxury items was probably due to the
perfection of the counterfeits, which are often still difficult to distin-
guish from true ones without the help of chemical analysis. For exam-
ple, a combination of glass and rock crystal served to imitate beryl, a
gem particularly admired because of its virtues (Nat. Hist., 37, 79). As
for opal, Pliny says that “there is no stone which is harder to distinguish
from the original when is counterfeited in glass by a cunning craftsman.
The only test is sunlight.” (Nat. Hist., 37, 83) (Fig. 3). Rubies and garnet
stones were also “counterfeited very realistically with glass” (Nat. Hist., 37,
99) and the only way to detect fraud was to assess their specific gravities.
18On this the essay by Gemma Sena Chiesa, “Arte e prestigio nella glittica ro-
mana,” in Cristalli e gemme. Realtà fisica e immaginario, simbologia, tecniche e arte,
Bruno Zanettin ed. (Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere e arti, 2003), pp.
387–421 particularly on pp. 398–400.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 94
F i g . 4.Gold earrings with glass decorations imitating emeralds. First century

CE. SAP inv. P. 7664 A and B.
“No gemstone is more easily counterfeited by means of imitation in

glass” than topaz, Pliny continues (Nat. Hist., 37, 112), Indeed, many
other gems such as jasper and sapphire were mentioned by Pliny in con-
nection to glassmaking. This is also evident in a fragment of Varro’s
Saturae Menippeae (first century BCE), appearing some decades before
Pliny, wherein the author connects the imitation of the emerald with
the fraudulent nature of glassmaking, indicating that the industry of
imitation must have flourished at the same time that glassblowing be-
came a widespread technique.19 (Fig. 4).
Such a practice eventually became so common that the early Church
fathers often used it as an example in their works. Around 180 CE, in his
main work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus put forth the following example
concerning counterfeit in his account of the demystification of errors:
19“Imperito nonnumquam concha videtur margarita, vitrum smaragdos,” Marcus

Terentius Varro, Saturae Menippeae Fr. 379 (sometimes numbered as Fr 382).
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 95
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being
thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked
out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it ap-
pear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem)
more true than the truth itself. One (4) far superior to me has well
said, in reference to this point, “A clever imitation in glass casts
contempt, as it were, on that precious jewel the emerald (which is
most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of
one able to test and expose the counterfeit. Or, again, what inex-
perienced person can with ease detect the presence of brass when
it has been mixed up with silver?20
While the practice of imitation was, as we have already pointed in

Chapter 1, as ancient as glassmaking itself, the publication of treatises
explicitly devoted to it must have been relatively recent as no similar ref-
erences can be found in earlier sources.21 This literature, which would
eventually be taken up in alchemical recipes, appeared at the same time
as the extraordinary developments of glassmaking in the first century
CE. Again, although it is impossible to ascertain a direct relationship
between its appearance and the introduction of glassblowing, the num-
ber of distinguished authors who wrote extensively about the marvelous
nature and history of glass at the very least suggests that the progress
achieved in the art also inspired a systematic reflection on the effects of
glassmaking upon the traditional philosophy of matter.
After the enumeration of the gems and their imitations, Pliny con-
cluded the Naturalis historia by addressing his reader with the following
interesting statement:
20 Iraeneus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Preface Translated by Alexander Roberts and

William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts,
James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Pub-
lishing Co., 1885). Compare this with the nearly contemporary Book of Enoch
XVIII 7: “And as for those towards the east, [one] was of colored stone, and one of
pearl, and one of jacinth, and those towards the south of red stone. 8. But the mid-
dle one reached to heaven like the throne of God, of alabaster, and the summit of
the throne was of sapphire.”
21 In particular, such absence is notable in Theophrastus’ De lapidibus where the
difference between artificial and natural precious stones is often mentioned.

ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 96
We must not forget to mention that gold, for which mankind has
so mad a passion, comes scarcely tenth in the list of valuables,
while silver, with which we purchase gold, is almost as low as
twentieth.22
Alchemy, from the Middle Ages onward, has principally been iden-
tified with the art of transmuting vile metals into gold, i.e the
chrysopoeia, however, the hierarchy of valuables that Pliny mentions,
which concerned the placement of gems into first positions, confines
gold to a lower ranking. Pliny’s authority here provided a reason why
craftsmen preferred to produce false gems and precious stones rather
than embarking upon what would eventually become the main occupa-
tion of alchemists: making gold. In addition to this argument, the im-
portance of which is usually underestimated, the existence of a
glassmaking literature reveals that it was in this context that the first sys-
tematic ideas about the possibility of imitating minerals took place for
the first time.
The fact that Pliny deliberately chose not to mention the name of
the authors of these treatises on glassmaking reveals that the debate
about the relationship between natural and artificial stones must have
been particularly lively, and that the ambition of creating gems by the
chemical arts was regarded with contempt by traditional naturalists. In-
spired by a conservative philosophical standpoint, Pliny, like Seneca, de-
spised the pretentious attitude of craftsmen who contended with nature
over the act of creation. The ancient philosophers’ position seemed to be
incompatible with the proliferation of opinions and practices which, in
Pliny and Seneca’s eyes at least, revealed the cultural and moral deca-
dence of their contemporaries. The high social status of both these au-
thors justified their negative attitude towards the Commentarii and their
authors, but one wonders if their perceptive attention to the recent tech-
nical progress in glassmaking was not itself a sign of the power such
products exerted on the intellectuals of the epoch.
But there were authors who held a different opinion, and by taking
the chemical arts as their point of departure they developed new theo-
22 Nat. Hist., 37, 204.

ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 97
ries on the properties of matter. This was the case of the enthusiastic
followers of the Pythagorean philosophy who spread in Rome as early as
the first century BCE, and made systematic efforts to combine the arts
with magic and philosophy.23 Pliny refers to this philosophy when de-
scribing the problematic properties of the diamond:
Now throughout the whole of this work I have tried to illustrate

the agreement and disagreement that exist in Nature, the Greek
terms of which are respectively ‘sympathia’, or ‘ natural affinity’,
and ‘antipathia’ or ‘natural aversion’.24 Here more clearly than any-
where can these principles be discerned.25
Here Pliny likely refers to a work entitled Perì antipatheiôn kaì sym-
patheiôn lìthon, which invoked a doctrine that exerted a considerable in-
fluence on the natural sciences of the time. The author of this work is
uncertain26 although, given its astrological contents, Bolus of Mendes
seems the most likely candidate.27 We have already mentioned the lit-
erary tradition of astrological lapidaries in Chapter 2, but since Bolus of
Mendes has also been credited with writing the earliest known work on
alchemy, the identity of this author as well as his chronology are of cru-
cial importance here.
23 On this crucial topic the most important study is still that by Jérôme Carcopino,
La basilique pythagoricienne de la Porte Majeure (Paris: L’artisan du livre, 1926).
24 See also Nat. Hist., 24, 1.
25 Nat. Hist., 37, 59.
26 In Book 11, 3, 53 of De re rustica, Columella attributed a work On Sympathy and
Antipathy to Democritus.The Suda (X century CE) attributed it to an Egyptian au-

thor; Bolus “Of Mendes, a Pythagorean. [He wrote] Concerning the accounts
which have come down to our attention from readings, Concerning marvels, Potent
Remedies—it is with regard to sympathies and antipathies of stones in alphabeti-
cal order; Concerning the signs of the sun and the moon and the bear and lamp and
the [lunar] rainbow.” (Beta 482). Ada Adler (ed.), Svidae Lexicon, 5 vols. (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1928–1938).
27 Patricia Gaillard-Seux, “Sympathie et antipathie dans l’Histoire Naturelle de
Pline l’Ancien,” in N. Palmieri (ed.), Rationnel et irrationnel dans la médecine anci-

enne et médiévale. Aspects historiques, scientifiques et culturels (Saint-Étienne: Centre
Jean Palerne, Mémoires, 2003), pp. 113–128.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 98
bolus, pseudo-democritus and the

treatise on gems
Egyptians believed that color was not merely a secondary quality of a

body, but its very constituent essence.28 The consequence of this belief
not only favored the artificial production of pigments which were used
to cover the surface of minerals, precious stones and metals, but it also
implied that the artificial production of gems was considered to be
within glassmakers’ reach. The metallic oxides used to color glass, the
Egyptians believed, spread their particles throughout the body, not just
on its surface. Interestingly, the same assumption was applied to the so-
called gold-glass technique, wherein gold leaf was used to spread bril-
liancy and substance to the whole vitreous body with which it was
combined. The introduction of glassblowing resulted in the extraordi-
nary production of amazingly beautiful artifacts as all gradations of col-
ors and transparency became easily reproducible. Thanks to new kinds
of furnaces that could reach higher temperatures,29 it became easier to
produce transparent color glass and to graduate its opacity in order to
imitate any existing solid material model.
Within this technological context, the imitation of precious stones
reached new heights. But, in order to distinguish such a practice from
fraud, some authors felt the need to provide it with a theoretical justifi-
cation, combining the Egyptian philosophy of matter with the Greek
literary tradition on natural philosophy.30 The authors usually men-
tioned in this connection are Bolus of Mendes and Pseudo-Democritus,
two authors who have been often regarded as a single person, thus cre-
ating further confusion. Indeed, the identity and chronology of both au-
28 On this matter, Hopkins makes an interesting remark: “It was natural that the
color industry of Alexandria should have been interpreted by a philosophy of color,
a philosophy which defined gold as the result of the progressive action of mercury,
increasing the Water, and sulphur increasing the Fire.” Arthur John Hopkins,
“Transmutation by Color,” cit., p. 12.
29 The archaeological evidence of this progress is still scarce. A glass furnace from
the first century CE has recently been found in Puteoli, but its poor state did not
allow for an adequate assessment. See Costanza Gialanella, “Una fornace per il
vetro a Puteoli,” in Ciro Piccioli and Francesca Sogliani (eds.), Il vetro in Italia
meridionale e insulare (Napoli: De Frede, 1999), pp 151–160.
30 In particular, Theophrastus’ De lapidibus.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 99
thors is particularly problematic. Some historians have maintained that

the Egyptian Bolus of Mendes, mentioned by Columella31 and in the
Suda,32 lived sometime between the second century BCE and the be-
ginning of the first century CE, that he was not an alchemist, and that
he was surely a different person from Pseudo-Democritus.33 Others
have claimed that Bolus was the very author of the works on the artifi-
cial imitation on precious stones mentioned by Pliny as well as of the
earliest alchemical treatise, indicating his interest in the manipulation of
matter.34 On the basis on new and more compelling evidence, the edi-
tor of the works of Pseudo-Democritus,35 Matteo Martelli, maintains
that Bolus and Pseudo-Democritus were indeed two different authors
31 “The celebrated writer of Egyptian race, Bolus of Mendesium, whose commen-

taries, which in Greek are called Hand-Wrought Products [Cheirokmēta] and are
published under the pseudonym of Democritus . . .” Columella, On Agriculture (De
re rustica). Transl. E.S. Forster and E.H. Heffner. Book. 7, 5, 17. (London-Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Heinemann-Harvard University Press, 1954), vol. 2, p. 273.
32 On Bolus: “Democritean, philosopher. [He wrote] Inquiry and Medical Art. It
has natural medical remedies from some resources of nature.” (Beta 481). Ada
Adler (ed.), Svidae Lexicon, 5 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–1938). Both entries
have been translated by Jennifer Benedict. On Bolus see Edmund O. Lippmann,
Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Alchemie. Mit einem Anhang zur älteren Geschichte der
Metalle. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte, Vol. 1. (Berlin: Julius Springer, 1919), pp.
27–46 and Max Wellmann, Die Physika des Bolos Demokritos und der Magier Anax-
ilaos aus Larissa (Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission
bei Walter de Gruyter, 1928).
33 “Rien ne permet de considérer Bolos comme précurseur de l’alchimie, et il faut
impérativement le distinguer du pseudo-Démocrite alchimiste” Jean Letrouit,

“Chronolgie des alchimistes grecs” in Didier Kahn and Sylvain Matton (eds.),
Alchimie. Art, histoire et mythes (Paris: S.E.H.A., 1995), p. 17. See also P. M. Fraser,
Ptolemaic Alexandria, cit., vol. 1, pp. 440–444 and vol. 2, pp. 636–646 and Jackson
P. Hershbell, “Democritus and the Beginnings of Greek Alchemy,” Ambix (1987),
34:5–20.
34 Hermann Diels, Antike Technik. Sieben Vorträge. 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Teubner,
1924), pp. 129–130 ; Joseph Bidez, Franz Cumont, Les mages hellénisés. Zoroastre,
Ostanès et Hystape d’après la tradition Greque (Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 1938), vol.
1, pp. 197–198, Jack Lindsay, The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Lon-
don: Frederik Muller, 1970) pp. 111–130. While more nuanced, in a recent essay
Peter Kingsley adds new evidence to this thesis in his interesting essay “From
Pythagoras to the Turba Philosophorum: Egypt and Pythagorean Tradition,” Journal
of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes, (1994), 57:1–13, in particular on pp. 5–9.
35 The edition is forthcoming in the series “Textes et Travaux de Chrysopeia.”
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 100
and that only the latter should be credited with alchemical writings.
Bolus then was probably the author of many popular works on magic
and natural philosophy, and was a protagonist of the Hellenistic revival
of Pythagorean philosophy, which successfully spread in Rome during
the first century BCE.
Even if we accept this conclusion, the identity of Pseudo-Democri-
tus is no less puzzling. In a letter to Lucilium in which he argues against
Posidonius’ positive evaluation of the arts,36 Seneca listed Democritus’
contributions as follows:
Posidonius again retorts: ‘Democritus is said to have invented the

arch in which the curvature of stones leaning towards the middle
little by little is joined by the middle stone.’ I say that this is false
since there must have been bridges and gateways before Democri-
tus which are curved near the top. [33] It seems to have escaped
you that this same Democritus discovered how to soften ivory,
how, by boiling, a stone might be changed into an emerald, the
same boiling process which is used today to change the colors of
suitable stones. Even if a Wise Man discovered these things, it was
not as a Wise Man that he discovered them for a Wise man does
many things which we see being done as skillfully or even more ex-
pertly by men of no understanding whatsoever.37
Seneca called Posidonius’ attention to Democritus’ work on the ar-

tificial production of emeralds, which is most likely one of the Com-
mentarii of which Pliny refused to disclose the name of the author. Its
36 Interestingly, this passage follows the one on glassblowing mentioned in Chap-

ter 3: “Cuperem Posidonio aliquem vitrearium ostendere, qui spiritu vitrum in
habitus plurimos format qui vix diligenti manu effingerentur. Haec inventa sunt
postquam sapientem invenire desimus.” Seneca, Epistulae ad Lucilium, 90, 31.
37 “‘Democritus’ inquit ‘invenisse dicitur fornicem, ut lapidum curvatura paulatim
inclinatorum medio saxo alligaretur.’ Hoc dicam falsum esse; necesse est enim ante
Democritum et pontes et portas fuisse, quarum fere summa curvantur. [33] Excidit
porro vobis eundem Democritum invenisse quemadmodum ebur molliretur, que-
madmodum decoctus calculus in zmaragdum converteretur, qua hodieque coctura
inventi lapides <in> hoc utiles colorantur. Ista sapiens licet invenerit, non qua sapi-
ens erat invenit; multa enim facit quae ab inprudentissimis aut aeque fieri videmus
aut peritius atque exercitatius. “Ibid., 90, 32–33, English translation by Niall Mc
Closkey.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 101
contents must have been widely known and relatively influential. As

Robert Halleux points out,38 several of Pseudo-Democritus’ recipes
were mentioned in the Papyrus Holmiensis,39 a miscellaneous collection
of recipes dating to around the third century CE, found in a tomb in
Thebes in 1828. In these recipes, different instructions were given as to
the purification and manufacture of gems, and how to dye and soften
rock crystal in order to fabricate an emerald. For the fabrication of pearls
(n. 18) the anonymous author suggested the use of the lapis specularis
(mica): a stone which was known to have the same chemical properties
as glass.40 One recipe for softening crystal was identical to the treatment
of glass,41 thus connecting two materials which, as we have already
pointed out, were regarded as similar; and at the end of the instructions
for the artificial preparation of beryl, the author was confident that “only
experts [could] discover the fraud.”42
While the recipes listed in the Papyrus Holmiensis only vaguely echo
Democritus’ work on gem fabrication and coloring, Seneca’s above-cited
testimony is nevertheless quite interesting because it hints that such a
work, unknown to Posidonius, might have been published between the
first century BCE and sixty years into the first century CE, when Seneca
wrote to Lucilius. Last but not least, the relative chronological proxim-
38 Robert Halleux (ed.), Les alchimistes Grecs, cit., p. 68.

39 Ibid., p. 119–120, 129–132. The fabrication of emerald is mentioned several
times in several ancient alchemical treatises published by in Marcellin Berthelot,
Ch. Em. Ruelle (eds.), Collection des anciens alchimistes Grecs (Paris : Georges Stein-
heil, 1888) ; see for example vol. 2, pp. 334–349 but see also pp. 83–84 and p. 213.
On the same topic, see Marcellin Berthelot, Introduction à l’étude de la chimie des an-
ciens et du Moyen Age. (Paris: Georges Steinheil, 1889), pp. 271–274.
40 “Take and grind an easily pulverised stone such as window mica. Take gum tra-
gacanth and let it soften for ten days in cow’s milk. When it has become soft, dis-
solve it until it becomes as thick as glue. Melt Tyrian wax; add to this, in addition,
the white of egg. The mercury should amount to 2 parts and the stone 3 parts, but
all remaining substances 1 part apiece. Mix the ground mica and the molten wax
and knead the mixture with mercury. Soften the paste in the gum solution and the
contents of the hen’s egg. Mix all of the liquids in this way with the paste. Then
make the pearl that you intend to, according to a pattern. The paste very shortly
turns to stone. Make deep round impressions and bore through it while it is moist.
Let the pearl thus solidify and polish it highly. If managed properly it will exceed
the natural.” Halleux (ed.), Les alchimistes Grecs, cit., p. 116.
41 Ibid., p. 125.
42 Ibid., p. 124.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 102
ity between Pseudo-Democritus’ life and Pliny and Seneca’s is further

confirmed in the occurrence of the term klaudianos—an alloy of lead,
copper, tin and zinc introduced under the Emperor Claudius (41–54
CE)43—in a recipe for the fabrication of gold, published in Pesudo-
Democritus’ most well-known work, the Physikà kai Mystikà.
On the basis of this scant and fragmentary evidence it is impossible
to identify with precision who lies behind the name of Democritus,44
and we probably must accept Aulus Gellius’ statement that, as late as the
second century CE, it became quite common to exploit the prestige
surrounding Democritus of Abdera by using his name as a pseudo-
nym.45 The use of the pseudonym, however, should not be regarded as
accidental. Hershbell has pointed out that “Democritus wrote exten-
sively on colours, and the composition of objects having colour”46 and
recent reassessments47 of the list of Democritus’ works, compiled by
Trasyllus in the first century CE and published by Diogenes Laertius
(IX, 46–49), have revealed that the Abderite philosopher was interested
in the arts, and that it was therefore common for later authors writing
on the same subjects to use his name as a pseudonym. Diogenes’ report
of Democritus’ life is no less interesting, because he points out that “he
[Democritus] traveled into Egypt to learn geometry from the priests,
43 Marcellin Berthelot, Ch. Em. Ruelle (eds.), Collection des anciens alchimistes Grecs,
cit., p. 45. While referring to a work of Democritus on dye (Ibid., p. 184), Zosimos
also mentioned the alloy.
44 The confusion with the real Democritus (fifth century BCE) was certainly en-
couraged by the fact that a work on colors and extensive knowledge of the art were
attributed to him (see Diogenes Laertius, Lives of eminent Philosophers, 10, 7). No
less significant is Diodorus of Sicily’s testimony (1, 98) about Democritus sojourn
in Egypt for five years, where he was supposedly instructed in astrology. On the
confusion around the name see also Christoph Lüthy, “The Fourfold Democritus
on the Stage of Early Modern Science,” Isis, (2000), 91:443–479.
45 “Multa autem videntur ab hominibus istis male sollertibus huiuscemodi com-
menta in Democriti nomen data nobilitatis auctoritatisque eius perfugio utentibus.”

Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, Liber 10, 12, 8.
46 Hershbell, “Democritus and the Beginning of Greek Alchemy,” cit., p. 9.
47 Democritus: Science, the Arts, and the Care of the Soul. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Colloquium on Democritus (Paris, 18–20 September 2003), edited by Aldo

Brancacci and Pierre-Marie Morel, (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007), in particular on
pp. 207–237: M. Laura Gemelli Marciano, Democrito e l’Accademia. Studi sulla
trasmissione dell’atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio (Berlin-New York: Walter
de Gruyter, 2007).
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 103
and he also went into Persia to visit the Chaldaeans as well as to the Red
Sea. Some say that he associated with the Gymnosophists in India and
went to Aethiopia.”48 This peculiar education which connected Dem-
ocritus with both the Egyptians and the Persians, allows Diogenes to
underline his acquaintance with various arts. This is further evidenced in
the lists of Democritus’ works prepared by the Pythagorean philosopher
Trasyllus under the Emperor Tiberius, and is consistent with Pliny’s
portrait (Nat. Hist., 30, 8, 10) of him as a follower of a Persian Magus
such as Ostanes. Aside from the work on colours, Trasyllus also in-
cluded medical treatises on prognostication, on diet, the Causes Con-
cerned with Seeds, Plants and Fruits, on agriculture, Concerning the
Magnet, and on painting. Diogenes concludes:
Some include as separate items in the list the following works

taken from his notes:
Of the Sacred Writings in Babylon.
Of those in Meroë.
A voyage round the Ocean.
Of the Right Use o History.
A Chaldaen Treatise.
A Phrygian Treatise.
Concerning Fever and those whose Malady makes them
Cough.
Legal Causes and Effects.
Hand-Wrought Products. [Cheirokmeta].49
48 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, with an English Translation by

R. D. Hicks, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press,
2005), p. 445.
49The reading of cheirokmeta was first suggested by Salmasius and thereafter ac-
cepted by several editors of Diogenes’ work. However, since the this part of the text
is corrupted Salmasius’ rendering is still conjectural. Vitruvius (9,2) remarked that
in this treatise Democritus “sealed with a ring, on red wax, the accounts of those
experiments he had tried out.” As we have already pointed out, Columella attrib-
utes the work to Bolus. Pliny (Nat. Hist. 24, 102, 160) writes: “That Democritus
was the author of a book called Cheriokmeta. Yet, in it this famous scientist, the
keenest student next to Pythagoras of the Magi, has told us of far more marvellous
phenomena.” Pliny then provides a list of the magical properties of plants and their
magical remedies, thus confirming the hypothesis that the treatise in question con-
cerned botany and magic rather than alchemy.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 104
The other works which some attribute to Democritus are ei-

ther compilations from his writings or admittedly not genuine.50
Browsing this miscellaneous list of the arguments treated in these

works, it is clear that treatises by different authors were published under
Democritus’ name, and that only some of them were authored by that
alchemist whose production is of our concern. The appropriation of
Democritus’ name must have been the effect of a deliberate design to
connect the contents of Pseudo-Democritus’ work with the biblio-
graphical tradition of an author who paid more attention to the theo-
retical relevance of the arts than did other philosophers of nature.51 It is
certainly for this reason, combined with the little knowledge we have of
Democritus’ authentic works, that several historians have erroneously
identified Bolus of Mendes with Pseudo-Democritus and have faced the
problem of reconciling their conflicting interests and chronology.52
Whatever the real identity of the alchemist, it is nevertheless im-
portant to point out the connection between the appearance of Pseudo-
Democritus’ works with the development of glassmaking: an art that
enjoyed both considerable social reputation and ‘philosophical’ impor-
tance. Such a reputation, reflected in the publication of treatises devoted
to this topic, reached its peak during the first century CE when Pliny as-
sociated this literature with fraud, no doubt because he felt the threat-
ening effects of its pervasive diffusion. The chronological coincidence
between the appearance of the Pseudo-Democritus’ work and the
progress in glassmaking is of crucial importance, because the Egyptian
alchemist is the first author to proclaim that “one metal may be made
from another,” and to refer to the possibility of the alchemical operation
of transmutation, even giving practical instructions.
Additional biographical information concerning Pseudo-Democri-
tus is both late and somewhat unreliable. The most comprehensive source
50 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, cit., pp. 461–463.

51 As pointed out by M. Laura Gemelli Marciano, Democrito e l’Accademia, cit.
52 As rightly pointed out by Jack Lindsay, The Origins of Alchemy, cit., p. 126: “If we
knew more of the collection of Demokritos’ works made by Thrasyllos in the first
half of the first century A.D., we should be able to estimate more clearly the dif-
ference between Demokritos and Bolos. [. . .] On the whole we are driven to the
conclusion that there was much in the writings of the historical Demokritos that
had affinities with the later tradition of Bolos, Anaxilaos, and Dioskorides.”
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 105
is the writings and commentaries by the alchemist Synesius (fourth cen-

tury CE), who reports that Democritus came to Egypt and was initiated
into the mysteries of alchemy in the sanctuary of Memphis by Ostanes
and his disciples, who were Egyptian priests.53 The account of Democri-
tus’ initiation is given at the beginning of his Physikà kai Mystikà:
After learning these things from the master [i.e. Ostanes] and aware
of the diversity of matter, I set myself to make the combination of
natures. But, as our master had died before our initiation was com-
pleted and we were still all taken up in learning the matter, it was
from the Hades, as one says, that I have tried to evoke him. [. . .]
He said only ‘the books are in the temple’ [. . .]
As we were in the temple, all of a sudden a column of its own
accord opened up in the middle. But at first glance there seemed
nothing inside. However the son [of Ostanes] told us that it was in
this column his father’s books had been placed. But when we bent
to look, we saw in surprise that nothing has escaped us except this
wholly valuable formula which we found there: ‘Nature rejoices
with Nature; Nature conquers Nature; Nature restrains Nature.’
Great was our admiration for the way he had concentrated in a few
words all the Scripture.54
The famous formula on the occult powers of nature was therefore

the fruit of an encounter between the Persian Ostanes and the secret
knowledge preserved by Egyptian priests in their temple. As we pointed
out in Chapter 1, the archaeological study of the Egyptian temple in
Dendera has confirmed Pseudo Democritus’ description. In the al-
chemical texts compiled in late antiquity where Democritus is men-
tioned, the double origin, Persian and Egyptian, of his knowledge is
often remembered. However, the very fact that the initiation temple was
Egyptian and that most of the geographical references in Pseudo-Dem-
ocritus’ works concern either Egyptian or Syrian sites, there are good
reasons to belief that he lived in those areas. From this we may conclude
that Pseudo-Democritus was an Egyptian-Greek philosopher of nature
cit., vol. 2, p. 61.

54 Ibid., pp. 44–45.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 106
living in the first half of the first century CE,55 acquainted with the
chemical arts and eager to give them a theoretical systematization and a
superior philosophical meaning. Given the numerous references to his
works by many different authors in the first century CE, his attempts
seemed to have been quite successful and widely appreciated.
The known works by Pseudo-Democritus include four books de-
voted to the fabrication of gold, silver, the tincture of purple and the
fabrication of false gems respectively. Synesius in fact reports that, “after
getting his impetus from Ostanes, Democritus composed four books on
tinctures, on gold, on silver, stones and purples.”56 Of these works only
fragments of a tome entitled Physikà kai Mystikà remain: a work which
was published for the first time at the end of the nineteenth century by
Marcellin Berthelot and the Greek scholar C. E. Ruelle.57 In this vol-
ume only the fragments related to the fabrication of gold, silver and the
purple have been identified with a reliable degree of certainty, whereas
the recipes concerning the lost treatises on gems have only recently be-
come the objects of critical re-examination.58 It seems that the later
compilers of Pseudo-Democritus’ writings kept the contents of Perì
lithon separated from his Physikà kai Mystikà; the reason for this selec-
tivity might be due to the fact that from Late Antiquity onwards, the
disciplinary boundaries of alchemy became more rigid and principally
(although not yet exclusively) centered around the Chrysopoeia.
Martelli has rightly suggested that parts of the Perì lithon ended up
in the Byzantine tract devoted to the coloring of stones, emeralds and
other precious stones derived from the sanctuary of the temples.59 Some
significant fragments of this work have been preserved in the Syrian tra-
dition of alchemical literature.60 In this version of the work devoted to
55 See note 43.

cit., vol. 2, p. 61.

57 Ibid., pp. 42–49
58 By Matteo Martelli (see below).
59 Martelli’s contribution is forthcoming in Ambix. The text is Coloration des pier-
res, des émeraudes, des escarboucles et des amethysts d’après le livre tire du sanctuaire des
temples published in Marcellin Berthelot, Ch. Em. Ruelle (eds.), Collection des an-
ciens alchimistes Grecs, cit., vol. 2, pp. 334–349. Democritus is quoted once. See also
Halleux, Les alchimistes grecs, cit., p. 74.
60 Marcellin Berthelot, La chimie au Moyen Âge, tome II, L’alchimie Syriaque (Paris:
1893), vol. 2.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 107
the Philosopher’s Stone, Pseudo-Democritus wrote a chapter of the first

book on the tincture of glass and the fabrication of precious stones, such
as the emerald, crystal, and pearls.61 In the sixth book there is a recipe
for making alabaster with glass.62 In the tenth book the author provides
a detailed recipe for the production of millefiori glass and the coloring of
glass.63 These recipes, along with those eventually included in the Pa-
pyrus Holmiensis, provide evidence of a reappraisal of the Egyptian tech-
nical tradition of fabricating false gems. Although the contours of the
Perì lithòn remain obscure, it is difficult to deny its significance.
Another important aspect which can hardly be dismissed as a for-
tuitous coincidence is the publication of Perì lithòn during the same pe-
riod when glassblowing made its first appearance in the Middle East.
The marvelous effects achieved through the development of glassmak-
ing surely encouraged the idea that the imitation of nature could be
brought to such extraordinary heights that the artificial fabrication of
natural objects was within reach. Such a possibility invoked the “con-
tradictory alliance between the irrational and the rational”64 which
would be called holy art.
The debate on the nature of glassmaking and a resulting new the-
ory of chemical change became so pervasive that it found an interesting
echo in the works of the early Church Fathers. In the second half of the
fourth century CE, John Chrysostom marvelled:
Others who work in glass, how they transform the sand into one
compact and transparent substance?65
About a generation later the Bishop of Cyrus, Theodoret, wrote a

theological dialogue between Orthodoxos and Eranistes in which the
transmutation of sand into glass was used as an example of the possibil-
ity of transforming Divine word into flesh:
61 Ibid., pp. 29–30. See also pp. 171–176 and 194–197.

62 Ibid., p. 72.
63 Ibid., p. 95.
64 Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, cit., vol. 1, p. 443.
65 John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, 17, 1, Translated by Talbot W.
Chambers. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 12. Edited by
Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.)
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 108
Orth.—If He was made flesh by mutation He did not remain what

He was before, and this is easily intelligible from several analogies.
Sand, for instance, when it is subjected to heat, first becomes fluid,
then is changed and congealed into glass, and at the time of the
change alters its name, for it is no longer called sand but glass.
Eran.—So it is.
Orth.—And while we call the fruit of the vine grape, when
once we have pressed it, we speak of it no longer as grape, but as
wine.
Eran.—Certainly.
Orth.—And the wine itself, after it has undergone a change,
it is our custom to name no longer wine, but vinegar.
Eran.—True.
Orth.—And similarly stone when burnt and in solution is no
longer called stone, but lime. And innumerable other similar in-
stances might be found where mutation involves a change of name.
Eran.—Agreed.
Orth.—If therefore you assert that the Divine Word under-
went the change in the flesh, why do you call Him God and not
flesh? For change of name fits in with the alteration of nature. For
if where the things which undergo change have some relation to
their former condition (for there is a certain approximation of
vinegar to wine and of wine to the fruit of the vine, and of glass to
sand) they receive another name after their alteration, how, where
the difference between them is infinite and as wide as that which
divides a gnat from the whole visible and invisible creation (for so
wide, nay much wider, is the difference between the nature of flesh
and of Godhead) is it possible for the same name to obtain after
the change?66
Similarly, the connection between glassmaking and alchemy was

made explicit in the fifth century CE by a prominent Platonic philoso-
pher, who stated:
There is nothing incredible about the metamorphosis of matter

into a superior state. In this manner those versed in the art of mat-
66 Thedoret, Dialogues, 1, From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cit.

ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 109
ter take silver and tin, change their appearance, and transmute
them into excellent gold. Glass is manufactured from divisible
sand and dissoluble natron, and thus becomes a novel and brilliant
thing.67
In this explicit reference, the Alexandrian philosopher Aeneas of

Gaza clearly saw in glassmaking the practical application of the theory
of transmutation of matter. For anyone interested in challenging the
traditional views on chemical change, the transformation of sand into
glass provided a powerful and visible demonstration that transmuting
vile matter into a superior body was possible and practically acheiveable.
glass enters the laboratory
The attention that the ancient alchemists gave to instruments and ex-
perimental practices is relatively well known.68 Scarce attention, how-
ever, has been paid to the reflections of Greek alchemists on the use of
materials such as glass for the construction of vessels, receptacles and in-
struments.69 Perhaps, looking at the past through the eyes of modern
chemistry, it seems to historians of chemistry (many of whom were also
chemists)70 that the use of glass in the laboratory was completely natural
and, to a certain extent, taken for granted. In a modern chemical labo-
ratory, experimental practice is unthinkable without the mass use of in-
67 Aeneas of Gaza, Theoprastus in M. E. Colonna ed., Enea di Gaza. Teofrasto.

(Naples, 1958) pp. 62–63; PG, 85, col. 992A. Quoted in Trowbridge, Philological
Studies, pp. 104–105. On Aeneas and his connection with Late alchemy see also
Jack Lindsay, The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt, pp. 62–63.
68 See Marcellin Berthelot, Les origines de l’alchimie (Paris: Georges Steinheil,
1885); Id., Introduction à l’étude de la chimie des anciens et du Moyen Age, (Paris : G.
Steinheil, 1889) and Halleux, Les alchimistes grecs, cit.
69 Exceptions to this tendency are the essays by Frank Sherwood Taylor, “The evo-
lution of the still,” Annals of Science, (1945), 5:185–202; Stephen Moorhouse, “Me-
dieval distilling-Apparatus of Glass and Pottery,” Medieval Archaeology, (1972),
16:79–121; Robert G. Anderson, “The Archaeology of Chemistry,” in Instruments
and Experimentation in the History of Chemistry, Frederic L. Holmes and Trevor H.
Levere (eds.) (Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 2000), pp. 6–34.
70 Marcellin Berthelot is an example.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 110
F i g . 5. Pharmaceutical glass receiver and chemical (?) apparatus found in the Casa del Fabbro in
Pompeii during the first half of the twentieth century. All the items were destroyed during WWII.
Courtesy SAP.
struments made entirely, or partly, of glass. In Antiquity, however, the

situation was quite different. Although chemical technologies existed
long before the introduction of glassblowing, the development of high
temperature furnaces during the first century BCE and the introduction
of glass into the apparatus radically transformed traditional experimen-
tal practice in terms of both glassmaking and chemical technology.
The historical role of glass in these first chemical laboratories can
hardly be overstated. Its chemical neutrality and resistance to high tem-
perature made it an ideal material for numerous operations and reac-
tions. During the first centuries CE, we find a few but significant
references to glass apparatus in literary, scientific and alchemical texts
(Fig. 5). But as early as the first century CE, the appreciation of glass’
chemical neutrality was extremely common. The protagonist of Petro-
nius’ novel Satyricon, Trimalchus, seeing wine served in bronze vases
from Corinth, exclaimed:
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 111
You will forgive me if I say that personally

I prefer glass; glass at least does not smell. If it
were not so breakable I should prefer it to
gold, as it is, it is so cheap. (Italics mine)71
Such a statement was confirmed at about

the same period by Pliny the Elder72 and Col-
umella,73 who often mentioned vasa or am-
pullae vitrea (glass vases) in connection with
pharmacy and food preservation. In the mid-
dle of the first century CE, Scribonius
Largus, physician to the Emperor Claudius,
wrote a pharmaceutical list of 271 recipes
where he frequently mentions glass vases and
recipients (vasa and ampullae) to preserve his
remedies.74 The same author often discusses
the unguentarii, which appeared after the in-
troduction of glassblowing and soon became F i g 6 . Glass ungunentarii found in the
extremely common as small recipients for Hospitium in Pompeii. First century CE. SAP
inv., 12041m, 12041i, 12041h, 12041g.
preserving medical remedies75 (Figs. 6–8).
Svetonius mentions a deep glass bowl (catino
vitreo) containing incense, serving a sacrifice ordered by the Emperor
Galba at the Tusculum.76 And Petronius tells a story of an infrangible
phialam vitream, the shape and function of which are not possibly to
identify.77
A Greek professional physician at the service of the Roman army,
Dioscorides acknowledged the properties of glass recipients as resis-
71 Petronius, Satyricon, L, transl. M. Heseltine, Loeb Classical Library. (London-

New York: Heinemann-Macmillan, 1913) p. 89.
72 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, 20, 52; 21, 73; 27, 48; 29, 38.
73 Columella, De re rustica, 11, 3, 52 and 12, 4, 2.
74 Scribonius Largus, Compositiones medicamentorum, chapters 41, 60, 63, 106, 107,
110, 111, 121, 122, 125, 145, 170, 173, 175.

75 Ibid. Chapters 66, 118, 129, 206 and 269.
76 Svetonius, Galba, 18. It is difficult to identify how this special recipient was
shaped, but one might think it was not too different from those used in during
Christian rites.
77 Petronius, Satyricon, LI. The same account, slightly modified, is in Pliny, Natu-
ralis historia.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 112
F i g . 7. Glass ungunentarii found in the Hospitium F i g . 8. Glass ungunentarii found in the

in Pompeii. First century CE. SAP inv., 12041b, Casa e Bottega in Pompeii. First century CE.
12041f, 12041b. SAP inv., 10217 and 10246.
tant to the volatile action of mercury,78 showing that he was up to date

with the alchemists’ technical experiments introduced for the han-
dling of chemical substances. Moreover, the preparation of remedies
derived from mineral substances presupposed a familiarity with such
chemical operations as calcination and, more generally, the use of fur-
naces (Fig. 9). Speaking of mercury, Dioscorides writes:
Quicksilver is extracted from red lead, inappropriately called

cinnabar. One places an iron receptacle containing cinnabar on an
earthenware plate and covers it with a lid. Covered with clay, heat-
ing it with burning coals, the residue as it cools which sticks to the
lid is quicksilver. It is also obtained by melting silver from the mo-
ment that it collects, drop by drop, on the lids of the crucibles.
There are some who say that natural quicksilver is found in mines.
It is kept in vases of glass, lead, tin or silver since it corrodes any
other material.79
78 Dioscorides (Book V, 95), De Materia medica. (Book V, 95)Translated by Lily Y.

Beck., (Hildesheim: Olms, 2005), p. 375.
79 Ibid. My translation.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 113
Fig 9. Amorini working in a pharmaceutical laboratory. Fresco, Pompeii Casa dei Vettii. First
century CE. Courtesy SAP.
In the next paragraph he vaguely deals with alchemical equipment,

but here it is enough to demonstrate that even doctors knew about the
properties of glass. And when literary sources are silent, archaeological
evidence shows that glass test tubes were produced to study the proper-
ties of fluids (Fig. 10). All in all, the references to glass apparatus in the
alchemical sources of the Late Antiquity are numerous and, given the
above-mentioned evidence combined with the scarcity of chemical and
alchemical texts prior to the third century CE, it is likely that many of
these pieces of equipment were introduced soon after the introduction
of glassblowing.
In the surviving alchemical texts published by Berthelot and Ruelle
at the end of the nineteenth century, one finds several references to
glass recipients and vases,80 the shape and function of which are often
80 Berthelot & Ruelle, Collection, cit., vol. 2, pp. 83, 143–144, 174, 181, 196, 218
(the description of the Tribikos), 227, 229, 237–240, 251, 289, 300.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:40 PM Page 114
difficult to identify.81 This difficulty is due

both to the lack of archaeological correspon-
dence between a given name and the item it
refers to, and to the frequent reference to the
use of vases and recipients in alchemical and
pharmaceutical texts, of which we know only
the ordinary uses established by the archaeol-
ogists. Examples of the latter case are vases,
made also of glass, such as the following ty-
pologies: amphora, ampulla, aryballos, askos,
calyx, catinum, crater, guttus, matula, oinochoé,
patella, patera, phiala, poculum, pyxis, rython,
scaphium, and schyphus. These types of recip-
ients were used both in everyday life and in
more specialised and scientific contexts. The
case of the rython is especially revealing
(Figs. 11a and 11b): although it was mostly
used for drinking, in chapter 52 of his Pneu-
matikà, Hero of Alexandria modified it to
F i g . 10. Blown glass test tube. First conduct an experiment on the pressure of air
century CE. SANC (no inventory number).
on fluids. In a few instances, however, the
description and nomenclature is more precise
and specialized, providing us with useful in-
dications of the progress achieved in constructing glass chemical appa-
ratus. One example of this is the botarion, a glass instrument shaped
like a breast (mastarion) which was used as the receiver of an alembic
described by Synesius in the fourth century CE in the following report
of a distillation:
81 For the identification of everyday glass, a classical reference work is that by C.

Isings, Roman Glass from Dated Finds. (Groningen, 1957) but all the unfamiliar
glass apparati, including those items that might have served experimental purposes,
have been omitted despite the wealth of archaeological findings. A useful contri-
bution filling this gap is the survey published by Evangelia A. Varella, “Experi-
mental Techniques and Laboratory Apparatus in Ancient Greece. Drug and
Perfume Preparation,” Medicina nei secoli, (1996), 8:191–201 and by Robert G.
Anderson, “The Archaeology of Chemistry” in Frederic L. Holmes, Trevor H.
Levere (eds.), cit., pp. 6–34; Michèle Mertens (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs. Zosimos,
cit., pp. cxiii–clxix.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 115
F i g . 11a. Rython. First century CE. SAP F i g 11b. Modified version of 11a made by
inv. 12493. Hero of Alexandria for his pneumatic experiments.
Hone your wits, Dioscorus, and be careful of his words: if you

handle properly the substances you can extract the nature: Chian
earth and asterites and white calamine. This is what he said,
Dioscorus: mix the bodies [i.e. the solid substances] with the mer-
cury, file them finely and add any other mercury: in fact the mer-
cury draws to oneself anything. Let this ripen for three or four
days and put it in a vessel that is set not in hot ashes having a high
flame, but in mild ashes [that is the kerotakis see infra]. With this
emission of heat, a glass instrument having a breast-shaped protu-
berance is slotted into the vessel; put it on the top of the vessel and
turn it upside down; catch the water going up through the breast
and keep it for the fermentation. This water is the divine water,
and this is her extraction. By this distillation you extract the nature
hidden inside. This is called dissolution of the bodies [i.e. solid
substances]. The name of this water, when it ferments, is vinegar,
Aminaios wine [i.e. Italian wine] and similar.82
82 Berthelot and Ruelle, Collection des alchimistes grecs, cit., vol. 2, p. 65 and vol. 1,
p. 164. English translation by Matteo Martelli.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 116
F i g 12. Test tube for testing liquid (angeion?). First century CE. Museo Vetrario
di Murano, Inv. VE 366.
In order to avoid the volatility of arsenic, Olympiodorus (fourth

century CE) suggested the use of a special glass apparatus coated with
earthenware, called asympoton by Africanus (third century CE), the aim
of which was to cover the recipient in which the sublimation of arsenic
was performed:
The use of salt was thought up by the ancients to keep arsenic from
sticking to glass vases. This glass vase is called asympoton by
Africanus.83 It is covered with clay; a glass lid of cup form is set on
top. On the upper part another cup covers it all so as to prevent the
dispersion of the burned arsenic.84
The Angeion often mentioned by the Alexandrian alchemists was

probably a test tube85 (Fig. 12). Glass recipients called poteria and igdis86
83 Africanus has been identified with Sextus Julius Africanus born in Palestine be-
fore 150 CE and died after 240 CE. It is unknown whether the instrument on the
glass support described in this passage was of his invention or, whether, more likely,
it refers to an already extant one. On Africanus, see Lippmann, Entstehung, cit., p.
25 and Halleux (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs, cit., p. 70.
84 Berthelot and Ruelle, Collection des alchimistes grecs, cit., vol. 2, p. 82.
85 Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 75, 141, 261, 313, 350.
86 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 353 and p. 350.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 117
were used during the coloring of gems, in their turn a product of glass-
making. And large glass jars called bikoi were intended as parts for use
in distillation apparati.87
In a work that Berthelot and Ruelle attribute to Zosimos (third
century CE), a difference between the male and a female parts of a glass
alembic is briefly mentioned.88 In a letter devoted to the Philosopher’s
Stone, compiled posthumously, Zosimos pointed out that the apparatus
used for the combination of water of sulphur (the iosis) should be made
of glass both to allow the alchemist to see without the need to use his
hands, and due to the corrosive nature of the ingredients used during
the reactions.89 The Egyptian alchemist also mentions another appara-
tus called phanos, partly made of glass, which was used for the fixation
of mercury.90 Among the devices that served a specialized purpose,
Zosimos mentions the Pneumatikà by Archimedes and Hero of Alexan-
dria as useful sources.91 While Archimedes did not publish anything
under this title, Hero of Alexandria’s (first century CE) Pneumatics con-
tained the description of several devices, many made of glass, which
could have been useful in the alchemical treatment of fluids.92
Zosimos’ reference is too vague to allow us to positively identify
such an apparatus, but it is nevertheless quite interesting that he refers
to sources that historians usually categorize as pertaining exclusively to
mechanics. As a matter of fact, the classification of Hero’s work within
the mechanical tradition is doubtful. In the introduction of his small
treatises he focusses on the transformation of the elements, and one of
his set of experiments aimed to demonstrate the possibility of transmu-
87 Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 226–227 and 234. See the also improved edition edited by
Michèle Mertens (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs. Zosimos, cit., p. 10 and p. 121.
88 Berthelot and Ruelle, Collection, cit., vol. 2, p. 143
89 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 197. On the origin of the notion of Iosis see Arthur John Hopkins,
“A Study of the Kerotakis Process as given by Zosimus and later alchemical writ-
ers,” Isis, (1938), 29:326–353.
90 Michèle Mertens (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs. Zosimos, cit., pp. cliii–clxi.
91 Ibid., pp. 17–18. Mertens thinks that these citations are not authentic and that
they have been added later. In contrast to this, Jean Letrouit (“Chronologie des
alchimistes grecs,” in Didier Kahn and Sylvain Matton (eds.), Alchimie. Art, histoire
et mythes Paris: S.E.H.A., 1995, p. 43) thinks that the sources are cited by Zosimos
and I agree with his interpretation.
92 Bennet Woodcroft (ed.), The Pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria. Introduced by
Marie Boas Hall. First published in 1851. (London: MacMillan, 1971).

ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 118
tations. In the case of Water and Earth, Hero mentioned an experiment

destined to accompany the history of alchemy until Lavoisier’s time. He
wrote:
Water, again, is transformed into an earthy substance: if we pour

water into an earthy and hollow place, after a short time tile water
disappears, being absorbed by the earthy substance, so that it min-
gles with, and is actually transformed into, earth. And if any one
says that it is not transformed or absorbed by the earth, but is
drawn out by heat, either of the sun or some other body, He shall
be shewn to be mistaken: for if the same water be put into a vessel
of glass, or bronze, or any other solid material, and placed in the
sun, for a considerable time it is not diminished except in a very
small degree. Water, therefore, is transformed into an earthy sub-
stance: indeed, slime and mud are transformations of water into
earth.93
Seventeen centuries later, Lavoisier still had a difficult time refuting the
validity of Hero’s experiment, which he regarded as typically alchemi-
cal.94
The marvellous transformation of matter obtained by the ingenious
devices that Hero constructed surely attracted the attention of others in
his city of Alexandria who were engaged in developing the chemical
arts. We might even speculate that Hero himself was not peripheral to
such an interest, and that his engagement with glassmaking throughout
his treatise shows that he was an attentive observer of developments in
fields beyond simply the mechanical arts.
Zosimus is also the main source for the works of Mary the Jewess,
which are extremely difficult to date.95 It is known that she wrote after
93 Ibid., p. 6.
94 Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, “Dissertation sur cette question: L’eau la plus pure
contient-elle de la terre, et cette eau peut-elle être changée en terre?” Observations
sur la physique, (1771), pp. 78–83.
95 Jack Lindsay, The Origins of Alchemy, p. 243 claims she was living “not very long
after Bolos,” i.e. during the second century BCE. Raphael Patai is of a different
opinion: in The Jewish Alchemists. A History and Source Book (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1995), p. 60, he tentatively assigns “her to the early third century
CE at the latest.” See also E. Lippmann, Enstehung, cit., p. 46.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 119
Pseudo-Democritus96 and before Zosimus, i.e. between the first and the
third century CE. Both her name and religious affiliation have been a
matter of dispute, but historians almost unanimously agree that she must
have come from Alexandria or the Syrian-Palestinian coast. Interest-
ingly, it seems that in Hellenistic Egypt, educated women took an active
interest in the chemical arts. As Sarah Pomeroy pointed out “Cleopatra
was reputed to be an expert in the arts and accoutrements of seductive
women and to have used these to bewitch Antony. For many genera-
tions, Ptolemaic queens, including Arsinoë II and Berenice II, had taken
a special interest in perfumes and unguents. These concoctions have
affinities with drugs.”97 In this connection is worth noting that several al-
chemical works were attributed to an author named Cleopatra.
According to Zosimus, Mary wrote a treatise entitled Perì kaminon
kai organon (On Furnaces and Instruments)98 which dealt with experi-
mental practice and which was destined to have an enormous influence
on the history of alchemy during the following centuries. In this and
other works, Mary mentions more than 80 pieces of apparatus, thus
showing the high degree of specialization reached by Alexandrian
alchemy. Among the instruments attributed to her, Zosimos mentions
the Trìbikos, still used for distillation, connected by three tubes, and
three glass bikoi “large and strong, so that they may not break with the
heat coming from the water in the middle”99 (Figs. 13a–13b). The in-
vention of the balneum Maria (the double-boiler)100 is also attributed to
96 Jean Letrouit, “Chronologie des alchimistes grecs.” cit., p. 21.

97 Sarah B. Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt. From Alexander to Cleopatra (New
York: Schocken, 1984), p. 27.
98 Published for the first time in Berthelot and Ruelle (eds.), Collection, vol. 2, pp.
117 ff. but for a much better edition see Michèle Mertens (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs.
Zosimos, cit., pp. 23–25 and its commentary pp. 185–200.
99 Berthelot and Ruelle (eds.), Collection, vol. 2, p. 62 and Michèle Mertens, Les
alchimistes grecs. Zosimos, cit., p. 15 and pp. 133–134. On this apparatus and its
background see Hermann Schelenz, Zur Geschichte der Pharmazeutisch-chemischen
Destilliergeräte. (1911) Reprint. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), pp. 22–25;
Frank Sherwood Taylor, “The evolution of the still,” cit. See also Stephen Moor-
house, “Medieval distilling-Apparatus of Glass and Pottery,” cit; Michèle Mertens,
Les alchimistes grecs. Zosimos, cit., pp. cxvi–cxxx.
100 This procedure consists of the heating of two pots one on top of the other. The
larger functions as a container filled with water, while the smaller contains the sub-
stance to be heated at a moderate temperature in indirect contact with the fire’s heat.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 120
F i g . 13a. Trìbikos of Maria the Jewess (on the left upper part) and other
alembics. Codex Parisinus 2327. Bibliothèque Nationale de France–Paris.
Mary, although it was already known in Theophrastus’ time. Mary also

worked with precious stones, and she is credited with having found a
method to make them shine in the dark.101 She also introduced many
new instruments made of metal, clay, and above all, glass. Among the
latter category, the most important was the kerotakis (a still): an instru-
ment of cylindrical form for softening metallic foils and for the produc-
tion of compounds with chemical colorants, capable of making artificial
gold and silver. This is how Zosimus describes them:
On Other Furnaces. Since the continuation of our discourse has

for its subject furnaces and the tincture, I do not want to repeat to
you what is found in the writings of others. In effect, the descrip-
tion of furnaces presented here does not figure in [the writings of]
Maria [Mary the Hebrew]. The philosopher [Democritus] does
101Raphael Patai, “Maria the Jewess—Founding Mother of Alchemy,” Ambix,

(1982), 29:178–197, on p. 181.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 121
not mention [them], but only prisms and

other [apparatuses], of which I have spo-
ken in passing, in [his] commentary on the
rules of fire. But so nothing should be lack-
ing in your writings, speak there of the fur-
nace of Maria, the one of which
Agathodaimon mentions in these terms:
“Here is the description of the glass kero-
takis destined to sulphur put in suspension.
Taking a cup, make divisions that is to say
with a stone make a central and circular
groove in the bottom of the cup, so as to
catch there at the lower part a saucer of F i g . 13b. Reconstruction by Taylor
corresponding dimension. Take a slender (1945) of the Trìbikos.
earthenware vase, fitted and suspended on
the cup, retained by it in its superior part,
and projecting toward the kerotakis of fire. Arrange the [metallic]
foil as you wish, conforming to the writing, on top of the vase and
under the kerotakis, at the same time as the cup, so that you should
be able to see the interior. After having luted the joints, cook as
many hours as our writing says. This is for sulphur in suspension.
For arsenic in suspension one operates similarly. Make a little
needle-hole in the center of the vase. Another glass cup placed be-
neath . . .102
F. Sherwood Taylor has meticulously described how Mary’s kero-

takis worked.103 Indeed, the small lid of the upper part was made of glass
so as to allow the alchemist to observe the progress of the reaction. In-
terestingly, too, the term kerotakis also denoted the painter’s palette for
102 Raphael Patai, The Jewish Alchemists, cit., p. 90. For a better edition of this text
see now the edition made by Michèle Mertens, (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs. Zosimos
de Panopolis, cit., p. 24 as well as her accurate reconstruction of the instrument on
pp. cxxx–clii.
103 “Sulphur, sometimes mixed with arsenic sulphides, was placed in the lower part
of the apparatus and on the kerotakis (P) were placed the several metals to be
treated: copper, lead, perhaps gold and silver also. The condensing covers were then
luted into position, a small hole being provided to allow escape of the heated air.
This was covered by a little cup. The fire was then started; the vapor of sulphur at-
tacked the metal and the sulphide which was formed dissolved in or mixed with the
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 122
F i g . 14. Glass head of a still, excavated in Egypt. Late Roman Period ? Petrie
Museum, University College (London). Inv. UC2213.
keeping the colors,104 which recalls Empedocles’ equation between the

four elements and the primary colors used by painters. The alchemical
idea of softening metals to change their color as well as their inner na-
ture was rooted in the pre Socratic analogy between the four elementary
colors and the four constituent elements.
Mary’s attention to glass apparatus epitomizes ancient alchemists’
creativity in exploring new methods of conducting chemical experi-
ments and, at the same time, reveals again the closeness of the connec-
excess of liquid of sulphur and ran through the sieve, or grating into the base or
‘Hades’. The black mixture of sulphur and sulphides remaining there as the ‘scoria’
or ‘black lead’. This was desulphurized by heating or by treatment with lime or ‘oil
of nitre’ and then smelted. The resulting metal was, of course, an alloy of the met-
als originally used, but probably also contained some sulphur and some arsenic.”
Taylor, The Alchemists. (New York: Collier, 1962), pp. 45–47.
104 “The coloring of metals grew out of the dyeing of fabrics. The list of colors and
their sequence followed that of the painter, who contributed also his palette in the
form of the kerotakis.” Arthur John Hopkins, Alchemy Child of Greek Philosophy.
2nd edition. (New York: Ams Press, 1967), p. 86.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 123
F i g . 15. Glass alembic. Egypt. University College of London at the Petrie

Museum, University College (London). Inv. UC22032.
tion between the progress of glassmaking after the introduction of the

blowpipe, and the first steps of alchemy. Even if there is no conclusive
evidence that it generated the principles of alchemy, glassmaking cer-
tainly established the material conditions for it.
The presence of glass apparatus in the ancient alchemical laboratory
showed a surprising degree of specialization, although their appropriate
identification will be possible only through a systematic comparison be-
tween archaeological finds and literary records. The exceptional findings
(Figs. 14–15) excavated by William Matthew Flinders Petrie in Egypt
are difficult to date and to contextualize,105 but the accuracy of their de-
sign alone reveals the degree of sophistication reached by ancient al-
chemists. Indeed, with the works of Zosimus, Greek alchemy achieved
its peak. As we shall see, even the political turmoil following the fall of
the Roman Empire would not eradicate this tradition.
105 While it is probable that these pieces of apparatus belong to the Late Antiquity,
Flinders Petrie’s manuscript notes on Egyptian glass are nearly silent on the exca-
vation of these items. The finds are preserved at the University College of London
at the Petrie Museum.
ch04_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:41 PM Page 124
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 125
chapter 5
From Byzantine Glass to Early

Modern Alchemy
“Le verre paroît être la véritable terre élémentaire”

Buffon, Histoire naturelle (1749)
glassmaking continues
in byzantium
While the Roman Empire prospered, glass manufacturing spread

steadily throughout its territories and, as evidenced in the episode of
Emperor Tiberius’ appreciation for the invention of unbreakable glass
(see Chapter 2), the social status of glassmakers (vitrearii) was higher
compared to that of other guilds of craftsmen. Unfortunately, we only
possess a few literary and epigraphic hints as to who these glassmakers
were and the degree of their specialization. An inscription by Iulius
Alexander (Fig. 1), a glassmaker from Carthage operating in Lyon
sometime in the second to third century CE, reveals a certain degree of
125
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 126
wealth.1 We know that the margaritarii2 who traded pearls and precious
stones from the Eastern Provinces were so well represented in Rome
that the Officinae Margaritariorum were active in the Forum. And an in-
teresting undated inscription reports the existence of the glassmaker “C.
Fufio zmaragdo margargaritario,”3 revealing that the margaritarii also
fabricated false emeralds. Emperor Constantine’s donation of a table of
gold and emerald (tabulum de auro et smaragdo) to the altar of Saint
Peter also attests to the importance of this kind of profession:4 we may
wonder whether the tabula smargdina, the size of which could be hardly
be made entirely of emerald, was fabricated with green glass instead, the
product of the Roman tradition of manufacturing these kinds of arti-
facts.5 The historical record also suggests that glass was used to imitate
pearls and, more generally, margaritae, and we may presume that this
profession did not disappear during the Byzantine Empire and later pe-
riods, given the appearance of the earliest statutes regulating glassmak-
ing in Venice during the thirteenth century CE. These documents still
referred to the guild of the margaritari in order to designate those glass-
1 “D(is) M(anibus)//et memoriae aeternae Iul//i Alexandri, natione Afri,

civi//Carthaginesi omini optimo, opif//ici artis vitriae, qui vix(it) anos
LXXV,//mensen V, dies XIII, sene ulla//lesione animi cum coniuge//sua virginia,
cum qua vix//sit annis XXXXVIII, ex qua//creavit filio<s>III et filiam,//ex quibus
his omnibus ne//potes vidite deos supest//ites sibi reliquit. Hunc//tumulum po-
nendum cu//raverunt Numonia Ba//llia, uxor et Iulius Al//exius, filius, et Iulius
F//elix, filius, et Iulius Gal//lonius, filius, et Num[o]//nia Belliosa, filia;
it[em]//nepos eius Iulius An[ct]//us, Iulius Felix, Iuliu[s Alex]//sander, Iulius
Galon[ius Iuli]//us Leontius, Iulius Gall[onius?]//Iulius Eonius p(ro) p(arte)
c(u)r(averunt) et sub asc(ia)//dedicav(erunt).” Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
XIII, 2000.
2 An epigraph was found in Rome in 1907 bearing the following inscription dating
from the first century CE: “Euhodus ma[rgari]/[t]arius de Vela[bro] / sibi et

Tampiae L(uci) l(ibertae) / Stratonice et liber[is?].”
3 Achille Deville, Histoire de l’art de la verrerie dans l’Antiquité (Paris: Morel, 1873),
p. 61. On recently-discovered inscriptions see Pavlos Triantafyllidis, “Glassmakers

of Late Antiquity in Greece: Philological References and New Archaeological Ev-
idence,” Journal of Glass Studies, (2007), 49:262–264.
4 Francesca Dell’Acqua, Illuminando colorat. La vetrata tra l’età tardo imperiale e
l’alto Medioevo: le fonti, l’archeologia (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto

Medioevo, 2003), p. 119.
5 On the tabula, see the still-useful synthetic reconstruction given in Eric J. Holm-
yard, Alchemy (Harmondosworth: Penguin Books, 1957), pp. 97–100.

ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 127
makers who specialised in the fabrication of

glass enamels and pearls.6 It is unclear, how-
ever, if the gemmarii, about whom only one
inscription seems to have survived,7 were spe-
cialised in the fabrication of gems or simply in
their trade.
Glassmaking as a specialist profession
seems to have reached its peak in 337, when
the Emperor Constantine promulgated an
Edict commanding that the glassmakers
should be exempted “from all public services,
on condition that they devote[d] their time
to learning their crafts. By these means they
may desire all the more to become more pro-
ficient themselves and to train themselves.”8
The list of this edict’s beneficiaries included,
among others, the architects, the physicians
and, in relation to glassmaking, the laquer-
arii, the diatretarii, the mosaicists, thus
demonstrating that new specialisations were
emerging within the art form. It is an inter-
esting coincidence that when the edict was
written, the founding of the Nova Roma Con- F i g . 1. Copy of the glassmaker Iulius
Alexander’s inscription. Rome, Museo della
stantinopolitana, Byzantium, was still a recent Civiltà Romana.
event. Its foundation marked both the drift
of Roman power to the East, and the birth of a new era for the Chris-
tian religion.
Even in the intermediate phase that links two such distant epochs as
Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, glass remained a material of great
importance not only for daily life and the development of illumination
6 Glassmakers migrated from Ravenna to Torcello at the end of the sixth century.
On the margaritari during the Middle Ages in Venice see Luigi Zecchin, Vetro e
vetrai di Murano. Studi sulla storia della vetro, vol. 2 (Venice: l’Arsenale Editrice,
1989), p. 250 where he refers to statute entitled Mariegola dei cristalleri, margariteri,
paternostrer.
7 “M. Lollius Alexander Gemmarius.” Cit. in Achille Deville, Histoire de l’art de la
verrerie dans l’Antiquité. Cit., p. 61.

8 Codex Theodosiamun, XIII, 4, 2.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 128
for architectural spaces, but also for scientific purposes in optics and
alchemy. It is necessary to distinguish two traditions that arose during
Late Antiquity and which were destined to have separate trajectories
and developments. While the Latin West witnessed a rapid decline of
scientific knowledge, in Alexandria and, above all, in Constantinople
and Syria, the Greek scientific tradition continued to be developed by a
series of naturalists who kept scientific investigation distinct from
Christian orthodoxy. It is therefore not surprising that while in the first
century CE, many Latin authors still explicitly refereed to alchemical
authors, from the third century CE onwards the pursuit of alchemical
research remained confined to the Greek and then the Byzantine tradi-
tion. More interesting is the fact that glassmaking progressively mi-
grated from the Roman centers of production to the Southeastern
capital and other associated cities. Alongside several Syrian centers and
the Alexandrine area, Constantinople represented a cultural site capable
of assuring favourable conditions for scientific and technical research,
however briefly. The widespread opinion that the omnipresence of reli-
gion in Byzantine culture made scientific endeavours suspect and ster-
ile9 is due both to the scarcity of studies of a tradition which has often
remained in manuscript form, and to the prominent role played by the
occult sciences which, until recently, have been identified as revealing
sign of a lack of interest in the “positive” natural sciences.10
From the first half of the fourth to the end of the sixth century CE,
a remarkable number of scholars, such as Zosimus, Proclus, Anthemius
and Alexander of Tralles, Euthochius, Philoponos, and Aetios of
Amida, distinguished themselves in developing the works of Pseudo-
Democritus, Aristotle, Archimedes, Apollonius and Galen in original
ways.11 Despite the fact that several Byzantine scientists kept the Greek
9 Norman H. Baynes, The Byzantine Empire (London: Oxford UP, 1949), p. 23

and ff.
10 An extremely useful reassessment of this historiographical image is published in
the recent collection edited by Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, The Occult
Sciences in Byzantium (Geneva: La Pomme d’Or, 2006).
11 An adequate historical reconstruction of Byzantine science is still a desideratum.
Useful but generic and outdated information can be drawn from George Sarton,
Introduction to the History of Science (Baltimore: Carnegie Institution of Washing-
ton, 1927), vol. 1, pp. 414–442; Aldo Mieli, La science arabe et son rôle dans l’évolu-
tion scientifique mondiale (Leyden: Brill, 1938), pp. 39–47. Although mostly devoted
to a later period, on the history of medicine see Symposium on Byzantine Medicine.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 129
scientific tradition alive during the preceding centuries, especially in

mathematics, it was only during this brief period of rebirth lasting little
more than a century that significant results were achieved in many sci-
entific and technical fields. In this favourable context, there is evidence
of an active and important community of glassmakers in Constantino-
ple.12 Unfortunately, apart from the massive archaeological remains, our
knowledge of Byzantine glass production and of its uses is confined to
exceedingly few literary sources, most of which are late and Medieval.
However, the spectacular evidence of a flourishing glass industry during
the early centuries (fourth-sixth centuries CE) of the Byzantine Empire
are undoubtedly the monumental mosaics which adorned the newly-
conceived basilicas and mausoleums.
The construction of the Hagia Sophia, the most important architec-
tural building of Late Antiquity, during the reign of the Emperor Jus-
tinian (Fig. 2) provides us with useful information on the changing
importance of glass in the Byzantine cultural milieu. Anthemius of
Tralles, one of the basilica’s architects, was a mathematician and engi-
neer who died in 534. He wrote an important treatise on burning mir-
rors in which he demonstrated the plausibility of the Archimedean
project of burning ships from a distance through flat glass mirrors.13 We
have already emphasized that Theophrastus (De Igne) claimed the exis-
tence of glass mirrors even though he did not clearly explain their use.
Aside from the material used for the production of these instruments,
this kind of literature is important because it combines the principles of
an abstract science—geometry—with practical techniques used for
building these instruments—glassmaking. In fact, between the Byzan-
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 38, John Scaraborough ed. (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 1985).
12 Joseph Philippe, Le monde Byzantin dans l’histoire de la verrerie. (Ve–XVIe siècle)
(Bologna: Editrice Patron, 1970). Regrettably Philippe’s classical work does not
take scientific and technological literary sources into consideration and mostly fo-
cuses on archaeological findings.
13 Roshdi Rashed (ed. and transl.), Les Catoptriciens Grecs. I, Les miroirs ardents.
Textes établis, traduits et commentés par Roshdi Rashed (Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
2000), pp. 317–319. On Anthemius see also Thomas Heath, A History of Greek
Mathematics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921), vol. 2, pp. 200–203 and pp.
541–543 and G. L. Huxley, Anthemius of Tralles. A Study in Later Greek Geometry
(Cambridge Mass.: Eaton Press, 1959).
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 130
F i g . 2. Portrait of Justinian in glass mosaic in the Basilica of San Vitale in

Ravenna (sixth century CE).
tine naturalists and their Arab translators and interpreters, catoptrics

(the study of light reflection) developed as a mixed science: a combina-
tion of theory (theoria) and practise (techne). It is for this reason that one
finds spherical and helixoidal mirrors alongside geometrical demonstra-
tions of the reflection of luminous rays on parabolas, with several refer-
ences to the type of instruments used and the material with which they
were made. It is therefore not surprising that Anthemius’ work on mir-
rors was one of the Arabs’ main sources for developing ancient
catoptrics in new ways. As has recently been shown,14 the first geomet-
14 Roshdi Rashed, “A Pioneer in Anaclastic. Ibn Sahl on burning mirrors and

lenses,” Isis, (1990), 81:464–491.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 131
rical studies on the optical properties of lenses belong to this specific tra-
dition, a point that emphasizes how Byzantine scientists tried to make
a more advanced synthesis between the technical and geometrical tradi-
tions than their predecessors.
Besides his works on geometrical optics, Anthemius is above all
known for his employment by the Emperor Justinian to rebuild the
basilica of the Hagia Sophia. In this project, Anthemius collaborated
with another mathematician and engineer, Isidorus of Miletus, who ac-
cording to Sarton was at that time “the centre of a school of mathe-
maticians who were especially interested in Archimedean and
Apollonian geometry.”15 As it has been rightly pointed out, Anthemius
and Isidorus “were not just master-builders who knew from experience
what could be done, but people able to bring a fresh theoretic insight to
new problems. What else we know of Anthemius and Isidorus suggests
that they may have been primarily academics.”16
Praised by contemporaries and throughout history as the greatest
achievement of Byzantine architecture, the basilica of the Hagia Sophia
defied the conventions of its time in both its size and interior decora-
tions.17 In this project, glass occupied a central role. In the absence of di-
rect sources, it is not possible to clarify the reasons that led to
Anthemius’ employment in the basilica’s reconstruction. But one can
formulate several hypotheses. For example, it is important that in the
chapter devoted to the burning mirrors in the Suda, glass is confused
with an element, élektron, described as a combination of glass and gold
that completely covered “a table in Sancta Sophia.”18 Similarly, an
15 George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, cit., vol. 1, p. 415.

16 Rowland J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia. Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Justin-
ian’s Great Church, 1st ed. 1988 (London: Thames and Hudson, 2001), p. 137. On
Anthemius’ and Isidorus’ academic and scientific background see G. Downey,
“Byzantine architects, their training and methods,” Byzantion, (1946–48),
18:99–118.
17 The literature on the Hagia Sophia is exceedingly rich. An outstanding contri-
bution which focuses primarily on technical and architectural features is that of

Rowland J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia. cit., 2001. See also W.R. Lethaby and
Harold Swainson, The Church of Sancta Sophia Constantinople. A Study of Byzantine
Building (London: Macmillan & Co. 1894).
18 Trowbridge, cit., p. 31. A reference to a mirror made in élektron has been found
in an alchemical manuscript in Syriac attributed to Zosimos (Cambridge, Ms.

6,29). The manuscript has been recently edited and translated in Alberto
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 132
anonymous author speaks of covering the walls with a substance called

hyalinos that was probably “gold colored glass mosaic.”19 Paul the Silen-
tiary, in his poem dedicated to the basilica, adds: “Thus rises on high the
deep-bosomed vault, borne above triple voids below; and through five
fold openings, pierced in its back, filled with thin plates of glass comes
the morning light scattering sparkling rays.”20 Procopius provides us
with a more expressive image of the first visitors to the Basilica’s spec-
tacular experience:
So the church has become a spectacle of great beauty, overwhelm-

ing to those who see it and altogether incredible to those who only
hear of it. For it soars to a height to match the sky and . . . looks
down upon the rest of the city . . . Its breath and length have been
so fittingly proportioned that it may rightly be said to be both very
long and unusually broad. And it exults in an indescribable beauty.
For it subtly combines mass with harmony of proportions, having
neither excess nor deficiency, inasmuch as it is both more pompous
than the other buildings we are accustomed to and much more
decorous than those which are huge beyond measure and abounds
exceedingly in sunlight and gleaming reflections. Indeed one
might say that its interior is lit not by the sun from without but by
a radiance generated within, such is the abundance of light that
bathes this shrine all round.21
The combination of grandiose wall mosaics in glass and large and

numerous windows to let in natural light leads us to speculate that An-
Camplani, “Procedimenti magico-alchemici e discorso filosofico ermetico,” in G.

Lanata ed., Il Tardoantico alle soglie del Duemilla. Diritto Religione Società (Atti del V
colloquio Nazionale dell’Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi) (Pisa-Roma: ETS, 2000),
pp. 73–98.
19 Trowbridge, cit., p. 45.
20 Cited in W.R. Lethaby & Harold Swainson, The Church of Sancta Sophia, cit.,
p. 40. In addition, Paul the Silentiary informs us that the basilica was also illumi-
nated at night with glass lamps.
21 Procopius, Buildings [De Aedificiis], Book I, 1, 27–30, Trans. By H.B. Dewing,
Loeb Classical Library, (Cambridge Mass.-London: Harvard UP–Heinemann,

2002), pp. 13–17. In other passages of his work (Book I,3; I, 4; I,5, I,11), Procopius
emphasized the contrast between the darkness of old churches and buildings with
the new light brought about in Byzantine architectural spaces by Justinian and his
master-builders.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 133
themius’ theoretical competency regarding the reflective property of

mirrors found practical application in the basilica, which so aroused the
marvel of his contemporaries. In fact, it is difficult to imagine that such
a vast use of mosaic tesserae in glass with such vivid and shining colors
could have been achieved without both specialised chemical knowledge
of the properties of minerals, and a profound optical study of the most
effective means of admitting light to reflect on the great mosaics that
transmitted an impressive representation of colored forms to the faith-
ful.22 The metaphysics of light which permeated the Christian religion23
combined with the Byzantine scientists’ inheritance of the Greek opti-
cal and philosophical traditions, perhaps found in this grandiose archi-
tectural creation one of its few expressions in which the names of the
makers have survived.
The earliest glass mosaics of Hagia Sophia are no longer in place,
but an example of the extraordinary skill of Byzantine glassmakers is ev-
ident in the beautiful vaults and walls of the Mausoleum of Galla
Placidia (fifth century CE) in Ravenna. In fact the churches, baptister-
ies (Fig. 3) and the basilicas built in Ravenna and in Classe between the
fifth and the sixth centuries CE are all adorned with wall and vault glass
mosaics which, in terms of both the quantity and the quality of their
production, offer a unequalled example of glass industry in Late Antiq-
uity. Regrettably, however, we do not have any texts providing us with
information on the provenance of these glassmakers, on the techniques
22 A recent investigation on the mosaics of Hagia Sophia by Liz James seems to

reach the same conclusion: “Light striking a mosaic acts as a dynamic force, a force
which has to be carefully and deliberately employed by the mosaicist. The Byzan-
tines exploited this to the full, combining geodesy, the art of measuring volume and
surface, with optics . . . It seems impossible to believe that mosaicists were not
aware of these effects, that light was not deliberately used to create space and colour
. . .”. Liz James, “What Colours were Byzantine Mosaics,” in Medieval Mosaics.
Light, Color, Materials, Eve Borsook, Fiorella Gioffredi Superbi, Giovanni
Pagliarulo eds. (Florence: The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance
Studies at Villa I Tatti, 2000), p. 43.
23 On this topic see Graziella Federici Vescovini, “Luce,” in Enciclopedia dell’Arte
Medievale, (Rome: Treccani, 1997), vol. 8, pp. 25–35 (with updated bibliography).
The same author has investigated in depth the relation between the metaphysics of
light, Medieval optics and Perspectiva in her study Studi sulla prospettiva medievale,
Reprint of 1965 edition, (Torino: G. Giappichelli, 1987).
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 134
F i g . 3. Glass mosaic of the dome of the Arian baptistery in Ravenna depicting the baptism of
Christ by Saint John the Baptist (right), and a pagan god on the left. First half of the fifth century CE.
they used to color the tesserae, on their division of labour, or on the fur-
naces and other tools they used to perform their work.
In addition to church decoration, Byzantine glassmakers developed
new techniques combining glassmaking and metallurgical knowledge. A
typical example of this is represented by the technique of gold leaf, de-
scribed in some detail by Theophilus (Roger of Helmarshausen?) in his
treatise De diversis artibus (first half of the twelfth century CE). As a de-
tailed recipe it is worth quoting at length:
The Greeks24 also make from these blue stones precious goblets for
drinking, embellishing them with gold in this way.
24 By ‘the Greeks’, Theophilus referred to the Byzantines.

ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 135
Taking gold leaf [. . .] they fashion from it the likeness of men

or birds, or animals, or foliage, and apply them to the goblet with
water in whatever place they choose. This leaf ought to be some-
what thicker than usual. Then they take very clear glass, like crys-
tal, which they make themselves, and which soon melts when it
feels the heat of the fire, and they carefully grind it on a porphyry
stone with water and lay very thinly over the whole leaf with a
paintbrush. When it is dry, they put in the kiln (of which we shall
speak later) where the painted glass for windows is fired, and light
a fire underneath of beechwood thoroughly dried in smoke. When
they see the fire penetrate the goblet so far that it finally shows a
slight red colour, they immediately withdraw the wood and block
up the kiln until it cools by itself. This gold will never come off.25
In his De coloribus et artibus Romanorum (ca. eleventh century CE),

Eraclius described another technique adopted by the Romans to pro-
duce gold glass by which the “gold-leaf [was] carefully inclosed between
the double glass.”26 Theophilus (II, 15) attributed the so-called sand-
wich technique to Byzantine glassmakers who exclusively used it in their
mosaics. By inserting gold leaf between two strata of transparent or col-
ored glass, gold appeared even more luminescent (Fig. 4). Moreover,
this technique gave the impression that glass was infused with gold the
whole way through.
Although its origins are problematic, the Pala d’oro of the Basilica
di San Marco in Venice is also a highly significant example of the
Byzantine re-interpretation of ancient glassmaking techniques. While
the present structure of the Pala, dating to 1347, was the result of the
collaboration of Venetian and Byzantine artists (Fig. 5), its entire nu-
cleus was made four centuries earlier in Constantinople.27 Made of gold
and silver, the Pala was adorned with enamel and thousands of precious
stones which an inventory in 1796 enumerated as 1300 pearls, 300 sap-
25 Theophilus, The Various Arts. De Diversis Artibus. Edited and annotated by C. R.

Dodwell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) [book II, 13] p. 45.
26 Published in Mary P. Merrifield (ed.), Medieval and Renaissance Treatises on the
Arts of Painting. Original Texts with English Translations, 2 vols. (London: John
Murray, 1849), vol. 1, p. 188.
27 On the Pala see Sergio Bettini, “Venezia, la Pala d’Oro e Costantinopoli,” in Il
Tesoro di San Marco (Milano: Olivetti, 1986), pp. 43–72.

ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 136
F i g . 4. Mary, between Peter and Paul in a gold glass medallion. Fourth Century
CE. Stuttgart. Ernesto Wolf Collection.
phires, 300 emeralds, 90 amethysts, 15 rubies, 4 topaz and other rare

stones and minerals (Fig. 6). During recent restoration work, it was dis-
covered that many of these stones were in fact made of glass, and al-
though it was suspected that the original stones were substituted in
various epochs with their imitations, in light of what we have argued in
the previous chapters one may wonder if it is not more likely that many
of the precious stones were in fact made of glass from the very begin-
ning. After all, in the case of the Evangelarius of Ariberto (Fig. 7), glass
was indeed used to create artificial precious stones. Interestingly for our
purposes, the systematic use of these decorative techniques coincides
with both significant progress in glass production and the evolution of
alchemy as an independent discipline.
ch05_5350.qxd
Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking
9/15/09
2:48 PM
Page 137
F i g . 5. Engraving by Dionisio Moretti of the Pala d’Oro taken from Antonio Quadri, La piazza di San Marco in Venezia, printed in Venezia in
137
1831.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 138
F i g . 6. Enamelled Christ in his throne adorned with precious stones (or glass
stones?). Tesoro di San Marco Venice. Photo by Mario Carrieri.
alchemy and byzantine culture
Byzantine science has until recently been a neglected chapter of the his-
tory of ancient science.28Byzantine culture has been credited for the
28Maria Mavroudi, “Occult Science and Society in Byzantium: Considerations for

Future Research,” in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, cit.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 139
F i g . 7. A glass emerald between two pearls. Detail of the Evangelarius of

Ariberto (eleventh century CE). Tesoro del Duomo di Milano.
preservation of what is often characterized as an arbitrary selection of

Greek sources and their transmission to the Arabic civilization, but the
originality of its own scientific tradition has not been appreciated. The
case of alchemy shows, by contrast, that Byzantine culture played a cru-
cial role in directing the heritage of the Greco-Egyptian tradition onto a
new path, as epitomized in the writings of Zosimos of Panopolis.29 The
corpus of ancient alchemical writings was collected probably for the first
time in Constantinople between the seventh and the beginning of the
eleventh century, when the Codex Marcianus Gr. 299 was compiled.30
This manuscript, preserved in the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, is the
primary source of most of the known ancient alchemical texts, and while
29 On this see Michèle Mertens, “Graeco-Egyptian Alchemy in Byzantium,” in The
Occult Sciences in Byzantium, cit., pp. 205–230.

30 This is the most important ancient collection that has transmitted the main cor-
pus of Greek and Byzantine alchemical writings. On this codex see Henri Dom-
inque Saffrey, “Historique et description du manuscrit alchimique de Venise
Marcianus Graecus 299,” in Alchimie. Art, histoire et mythes, cit., pp. 1–10 and the
forthcoming contribution by Antonio Rigo and Birgitte Mondrian, “L’histoire d’un
manuscript alchimique: le Marc. gr. 299 de Byzance (XIème s.) à M. Berthelot.”
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 140
it includes the writings of Pseudo-Democritus and Zosimus, among oth-

ers, it also presents writings by Byzantine authors such as Stephanos of
Alexandria (first half of the seventh century CE)31 and, in the table of
contents, reports of lost works attributed to authors bearing the names of
the Byzantine Emperors Justinian and Heraclius.32 These titles, the text
of which are lost, show that alchemy attained an unprecedented height of
cultural and social status in Byzantium. The remarkable strength and
prestige of the Byzantine alchemical tradition is further evidenced in the
works by Michael Psellos (eleventh century CE), the most influential in-
tellectual of the period, on the making of gold33 and on the virtues of pre-
cious stones.34 While these works do not contain anything particularly
original, they demonstrate that alchemy was an integral part of high
Byzantine cultural circles, and it is highly possible that, like astrology,
alchemy too was included in higher education.
Mertens notes that the original Byzantine contribution to the al-
chemical corpus “were several practical recipes” dealing, “among other
things, with the practice of silversmiths and goldsmiths, the tempering
and dyeing of metals, glass-making, the coloring of precious stones, the
manufacture of pearls and the making of moulds.”35 It is therefore prob-
able that the prosperous glass industry and its prominent role in the ar-
chitectural decoration of Byzantine churches and basilicas was a source
of inspiration to the alchemists in their search for the transmutation of
matter. This hypothesis finds confirmation in a work by Stephanos of
Alexandria36 included also in another manuscript, the Parisinus Ms.
31 Maria Papathanassiou, “Stephanos of Alexandria: A Famous Byzantine Scholar,

Alchemist and Astrologer,” in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, cit., pp. 163–204.
32 Apart from a few fragments these works have been lost or, as suggested by Saf-
frey, deliberately omitted.

33 Michael Psellos, Letter on Chrysopoeia, in Joseph Bidez, Catalogue des manuscrits
alchimiques grecs, vol. 6, (Bruxelles : M. Lamertin, 1928), pp. 1–47. Interestingly, in

the manuscript, the letter was followed (Parisinus Ms 2327 at the Bibliothèque na-
tionales in Paris) by a recipe on the fabrication of glass. On Psellos’ alchemy see Gi-
anna Katsiampoura, “Transmutation of Matter in Byzantium: The Case of Michael
Psellos, the Alchemist,” Science and Education, (2008), 17:663–668.
34 Pierpaolo Galigani, Il De lapidum virtutibus di Michele Psello. Introduzione, testo
critico, traduzione e commento (Florence: CLUFS, 1980).

35 Michèle Mertens, “Graeco-Egyptian Alchemy in Byzantium,” in The Occult Sci-
ences in Byzantium, cit., p. 225.

36 Stephanos of Alexandria moved to Constantinople as early as 617 CE.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 141
2327,37 where the author describes the artificial fabrication of precious

stones by means of colored glass and enamels.38
Many of these recipes probably derived from the Greco-Egyptian
tradition, and without textual evidence it is impossible to determine
what exactly was added during the Byzantine period. However, it is in-
teresting to point out that once again, the progress of glassmaking went
hand in hand with the development of alchemy. The earliest explicit de-
finitions of the latter discipline as a holy art during the fifth century CE
coincided with widespread experimentation with new glass techniques.
It is therefore not surprising that the definition of transmutation set
forth by Aeneas of Gaza, mentioned at the end of the previous chapter,
took glassmaking as its point of departure.
The survival of the Marcianus Graecus ensured a future for the
Greek alchemical tradition, and its acquisition by Cardinal Bessarion
probably favoured its study after 1468, when it was donated to the Bib-
lioteca Marciana in Venice.39 However, the Western and Latin cultures
had already raised an interest in alchemy and its connection to glass at
an earlier stage.
the latin tradition from the mappae clavicuale

to the sedacina
Recipes on glass making and the fabrication of precious stones circu-

lated in Latin texts from the fourth and fifth century onwards.40 Their
origin is unclear. It is difficult, however, to reduce them to a compilation
of exclusively Latin sources, principally of Pliny’s mineralogical books.41
37 Bilbiothèque Nationale–Paris. The index and examination of its contents are

given in Marcellin Berthelot, Le origines de l’alchimie, cit., pp. 335–347.
38 Ibid., p. 278.
39 On the fortune of Corpus during the Renaissance see Sylvain Matton, “L’influ-
ence de l’humanisme sur la tradition alchimique” Micrologus, (1995), 3:279–345.

40 On the Latin tradition of glassmaking and its relation to alchemy, see Wilhelm
Ganzenmüller, “Die Anschauungen vom Wesen des Glases vom Mittelalter bis
zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, “ in Id., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technologie
und der Alchemie (Weinheim: Verlag Chemie, 1956), pp. 128–155 as well as the
subsequent articles.
41 For a still-useful overview of this literature see Lynn Thorndike, A History of
Magic and Experimental Science, vol. 1 (New York: The MacMillan Company,
1929), pp. 760–773.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 142
Despite the meagre documentation of glassmaking in Late Antiquity, it

is now accepted that the most innovative techniques introduced after
the fourth century CE were the work of Byzantine glassmakers and
that, when needed, their expertise was exported to Western cities, as
was the case in Ravenna. We cannot therefore exclude the possibility
that the literary interest in glass shown by Byzantine authors also spread
to the West, and that key texts were translated into Latin. It should be
noted that in 405, Ravenna became the Byzantine capital of the West-
ern Empire, and that Byzantine culture exerted a considerable influence
there until the middle of the eighth century, when the city fell to the
Lombards. Interestingly, it was in this critical moment of Ravenna’s
history that a new glass center was founded in Torcello, the island next to
Venice. As Philippe points out,42 during its Byzantine period Ravenna
communicated with the North through Aquileia, a Roman city that had
been an important glass center as early as the third century CE. The
shortest way to reach Aquileia from Ravenna was to pass through the
Venetian sea. Thus, the foundation of a glass center in Torcello after the
fall of Ravenna cannot come as a surprise, and illustrates the fascinating
migration of glassmaking from Constantinople to Venice through
Ravenna, as well as its progressive translation from the Greek culture to
the Latin one. This may also explain why many early Latin recipe books
contain technical terms with Greek roots.
The first and most important collection of such texts is the so called
Mappae Clavicula: a collection of chemical and alchemical recipes, the
original nucleus of which dates to the fourth century CE and was cer-
tainly Greek. This was translated into Latin about one century later.43
This older corpus included some two hundred recipes, a significant part
of which were devoted to the fabrication of precious stones through the
use of glass as well as one, probably derived from Pliny’s account, giving
instruction on the manufacture of unbreakable glass.
42Philippe, Le monde Byzantin dans l’histoire de la verrerie, cit. pp. 85 and ff.
43 Robert Halleux and Paul Meyvaert, “Les origines de la Mappae Clavicula,”
Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen-Age, (1987), 54:7–58; The most
up-to-date essay is Francesca Tolaini, “De tinctio omnium musivorum. Technical
Recipes for Glass in the so-called Mappae clavicula,” in When Glass Matters, Marco
Beretta (ed.) (Florence: Olschki, 2004), pp. 195–219. See also Cyril Stanley Smith
and John G. Hawthorne, Mappae Clavicula. A Little Key to the World of Medieval
Techniques (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1974).
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 143
Around the end of the sixth century, Isidorus of Seville included a

long digression on glass and precious stones in Book XVI of his Ety-
mologiae, which took most of its information from Pliny’s Naturalis his-
toria but already hinted at an independent contemporary tradition of
ideas and techniques related to glassmaking. So, after having pointed
out that glass was “colored in many ways so that it [might] imitate hy-
acinth-stones, sapphires, green stones, and onyx, and the color of other
gems” he reported that obsidian was also used “to make gems out of
it.”44 About one century later, Rabanus Maurus also dedicated a chap-
ter of the sixteenth book of his De Universo to glassmaking. Indeed,
during the eight and ninth centuries, glassmaking seemed to experience
something of a renaissance. A collection of recipes entitled Composi-
tiones ad tingenda et musiva45 (ninth century CE) included several recipes
from the Mappae with a few new additions. Eraclius’ De coloribus et art-
ibus romanorum (ca. eleventh century CE) contained recipes devoted to
the fabrication of gems and precious stones with glass. One of them al-
luded to the alchemical procedures that we have invoked in earlier chap-
ters. The author in fact wrote:
You will thus be able to make beautiful shining gems of every sort
with Roman glass. Hollow out some clay for yourself as a mould
for the stone; and put into it some glass broken into small pieces.
You may easily prepare this by this artifice. Let a certain reed be
skilfully turned round and round, and when it [the clay] begins to
harden, and the rod sticks tight, then fix it on the rod on both
sides, and let the rod be held by the glass placed round it; and then
put the clay, guarded by a hollow iron, into the fire, and when the
glass is thoroughly liquefied, press in into the hollow with a bright
iron, so that you may have no bubble or flaw in it.46
The reproduction of the gems was made possible by the addition of

colors, and Eraclius’ treatise contains several recipes devoted to them.
The lack of reference either to the quantities of the ingredients em-
44 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, XVI, 16, 4–5 English translation The Etymologies
of Isidore of Seville (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008), p. 328.
45 Compositiones ad tingendo musiva. Hjalmar Hedefors (ed.) (Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 1932).
46 Marriefield, Medieval and Renaissance Treatises, cit., vol. 1, p. 196.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 144
ployed or to the design of the furnace(s) makes it extremely difficult to

translate Eraclius’ recipes into modern terms. To be sure, his attitude
was clearly different from the earlier compilers, and at the beginning of
his work he proudly proclaimed that he presented nothing that he had
not first tried himself.
In addition to the anthologies of recipes, it is worth mentioning an
illustration of a glassblowing scene which adorned a manuscript dating
to 1023, representing the chapter of Book XVII of Rabanus Maurus’ De
Universo devoted to glass (Fig. 8). In comparison to the Roman icono-
graphic and textual sources on the technical procedures of glassmaking,
in this picture the furnace seems to have changed radically as it now
shows three fusion chambers instead of one, thus underlining a consid-
erable increase in size. Additionally, at the top of the furnace another
chamber was constructed for annealing. The date of the original illus-
tration (of which this is a later copy) is uncertain, but it nevertheless re-
veals that after the Carolingian revival of glassmaking, significant
technical changes were introduced.
Although other literary sources hint at glassmaking during the pe-
riod between the Carolingian epoch and the end of the eleventh cen-
tury,47 it seems that the Latin West, unlike the Byzantine tradition, was
less inventive in developing this art and in introducing significant inno-
vations. This difficulty was no doubt also due to the shortage of mineral
alkali that ceased circulation after the fall of the Empire. From the sev-
enth and eighth century onwards, glassmakers from the West could no
longer rely on the trade of nitrum (soda) coming from Egypt and were
forced to obtain potash from vegetable ashes: a costly procedure that
yielded an ingredient of poorer quality.
At the beginning of the twelfth century, however, the situation
changed rapidly. The use of stained glass, introduced by the Abbé Suger
in decorating the windows of the cathedral of Saint Dénis, opened a
new chapter for glassmaking throughout Europe. On this topic Suger
remarked:
Now, because [these windows] are very valuable on account of

their wonderful execution and the profuse expenditure of painted
glass and sapphire glass, we appointed an official master craftsman
47A systematic survey of these sources is given in Francesca Dell’Acqua, Illumi-

nando colorat, cit., pp. 99–169.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 145
F i g . 8. Rabanus Maurus, De universo. Chapter 10 De vitro. Montecassino,

Biblioteca ms. Casin. 132, l. 429.
for their production and repair, and also a skilled goldsmith for the
gold and silver ornaments . . .48
48 Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Arts Treasures, Edited, trans-
lated and annotated by Erwin Panofsky, 2nd edition (Princeton: Princeton UP,
1979), p. 77.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 146
As stained glass became an important element of the practical and

metaphysical aspects of the new Church architecture, it was not sur-
prising that the craftsmen who were working on this task were highly
regarded, and worked hand in hand with goldsmiths. It is also worth
noting the common reference to sapphire glass, which evoked the fab-
rication of gems and precious stones. This was consistent with the
Abbey’s treasure, which contained several vessels made of rock crystal
and gold adorned with precious stones.
At about at the same time that Suger was engaged in building his
abbey, Theophilus wrote the first manual of medieval metallurgy, De di-
versis artibus, which for the first time described techniques and experi-
ments that were not directly tied to either the Roman or Byzantine
traditions. The second book of this work was devoted to glass, and
Theophilus declared in the preface that all the procedures described
therein had been examined individually, “with careful trial and proved
them all with hand and eye.”49 The first chapter was devoted to a de-
tailed description of glass furnaces and of the various phases of the
process of production. In addition to the techniques of making vases,
flasks, mosaics, and gold glass—which were known in antiquity and
which, as we have already pointed out, were mostly attributed to the
Byzantine glassmakers—Theophilus included careful examinations of
the fabrication of glass for windows and stained glass in his textbook.
Although the textbook is very practical and does not contain any direct
reference to alchemical doctrines, Theophilus devoted one chapter to
setting gems in painted glass, with instructions on how to “make the
emeralds of green glass.”50 For centuries to come, De diversis artibus was
an important and unique attempt to systematize existing knowledge on
glassmaking. It would be necessary to wait for the progress achieved in
Murano and Venice during the fourteenth century and the Early Re-
naissance to read more innovative recipes.
The cultural importance of glass during the late Middle Ages fos-
tered renewed interest in its properties among philosophers of nature
and alchemists. In the second half of the fourteenth century, Albertus
Magnus connected glassmaking with alchemy, and in the third book of
his lapidary he questioned the conclusion reached through some al-
chemical experiments by a “certain Gilgil, of Moorish Seville” by which
49 Theophilus, The various arts, cit., p. 37.

50 Ibid., p. 57.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 147
he pretended to demonstrate that ash “liquefied into glass.” Albertus

maintained, following Aristotle, that ash contained a certain degree of
moisture and that in this specific case transmutation was not possible.51
If the discussion connecting glassmaking to alchemy mentioned by Al-
bertus was philosophical, the theory of matter set forth by the Catalan
alchemist Sedacer at the end of the fourteenth century was the result of
a full appreciation of the marvellous effects of glassmaking and, proba-
bly, of first-hand experience in this art. According to Sedacer, glass was
“a transparent body, artificially brought to the nature of quintessence”
and it could be transmuted into any other body: hence its name of “lapis
convertibilis.”52 Sedacer was undoubtedly the most explicit Medieval
author in terms of reducing the opus magnum to glass’ natural ability to
imitate any mineral.
Sedacer’s emphasis on the central role of glass in alchemical trans-
mutation has often been treated as a secondary and eccentric example of
a tradition centered on the concept and practice of the chrysopoeia. How-
ever, although glassmaking was not as important for Medieval alchemy
as it was for the Ancient and the Byzantine alchemists, it still played a
significant role in directing reflections on the transmutation of matter.
In her seminal study on Medieval glassmaking and on the work of Jean
d’Outremeuse, Anne Françoise Canella has shown that between the
second half of the fourteenth and the end of the fifteenth centuries, no
less than twenty-five different works contained recipes on the fabrica-
tion of precious stones with glass.53 With very few exceptions, these
manuscripts put recipes into circulation that were rooted in a much
older tradition.
glassmaking goes public: the origins and

advent of the Arte vetraria
Glassmaking had always been a secret art. Both individual craftsmen

and guilds of glassmakers systematically protected the secrets of their
51 Albertus Magnus, Book of minerals, cit., pp. 163–164.

52 “Corpus diaphanum artificialiter ad naturam quinte essencie redactum.” Pascale
Barthélemy (ed.), La Sedacina ou l’Oeuvre au crible. L’alchimie de Guillaume Sedacer,
carme catalan de la fin du XIVe siècle, 2 vols. (Milan: Arché, 2002), vol. 2, p. 164.
53 Anne Françoise Canella, Gemmes, verre coloré, fausse pierres précieuses au Moyen
Age (Geneva: Droz, 2006), pp. 79–94.

ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:48 PM Page 148
knowledge. Although this practice had often little to do with the mean-
ing attributed to secrecy by alchemists, the conditions by which glass-
making developed since antiquity often entailed the awareness of
performing an art that was intimately interwoven with the most hidden
mysteries of matter. It is indeed remarkable that, in spite of the grow-
ing importance of glass and the spread of recipe books during the Re-
naissance, no monographic study was published until Neri’s treatise
appeared at the beginning of the seventeenth century.
The greatest uncertainty surrounded the discovery of artificial
cristallo and other precious stones in the first half of the fifteenth cen-
tury, attributed to the Venetian Angelo Barovier. As we pointed out in
previous chapters, Roman glassmakers managed to imitate crystal with
unsurpassed skill, such that Barovier’s achievements are not necessarily
superior in manufacture to their ancient predecessors. Whether Barovier
had access to manuscripts containing ancient recipes or he re-invented
a method on his own is impossible to determine. Crystal glass in fact
had been reinvented several times in its history, and continued to be
reinvented after Barovier’s time. This is not surprising because the
vagueness of the recipes which circulated in manuscript form, and
which can still be found in the archives of Venice and Murano, show
that the secrecy in which the techniques of glassmaking were kept made
it impossible to attribute the inventions for which craftsmen credited
themselves in each epochs.54 Furthermore, the so-called glass à la façon
de Venice involved recipes which were Byzantine and, in a few cases,
even Egyptian-Greek in origin. The appropriation of these recipes be-
came one of the leitmotivs of Renaissance craftsmen, who saw in the
production of glass luxury artefacts a means of exceptional revenue and
reputation. Leonardo da Vinci himself gave a recipe for preparing ruby
glass and melting pearls, but the contents of which do not allow us to
understand the details of the procedure.55 As a matter of fact, Leonardo
also associated alchemy with glassmaking. In criticising the occult sci-
ences in the Quaderni di Anatomia, he remarked:
54 Ricette vetrarie del Rinascimento. Trascrizione di un manoscritto anonimo veneziano,

Cesare Moretti, Tullio Tonnato (eds.) (Venice: Marsilio, 2001); Ricette vetrarie
muranesi. Gaspare Brunoro e il manoscritto di Danzica, Cesare Moretti, Carlo Stefano
Salerno, Sabina Tommasi Ferroni (eds.) (Florence: Cardini Editore, 2004).
55 The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. Arranged, Rendered into English and Introduced
by Edward MacCurdy (New York: Braziller, 1954), p. 1005 and pp. 1175–1176.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 149
But of all human discourses that must be

considered as most foolish which affirms a
belief in necromancy, which is the sister of
alchemy, the producer of simple and nat-
ural things, but is so much the more worthy
to blame than alchemy, because it never
gives birth to anything whatever except to
things like itself, that is to say lies; and this
is not the case with alchemy, which works
by the simple products of nature, but whose
function cannot be exercised by nature her-
self, because there are in her no organic in-
struments with which she might be able to
do the work which man performs with his Fig 9. Sculpted portrait medallion of
hands, by the use of which he has made glass.56 Vannoccio Biringuccio, made during the
(Italics mine) nineteenth century. Florence, Specola.
The first relatively comprehensive survey of glassmaking would be

published only in 1540 by a friend of Leonardo’s, Vannoccio Biringuc-
cio (Fig. 9), in his metallurgical treatise entitled De la pirotechnia. The
treatise was published posthumously and was, significantly, printed in
Venice, where Biringuccio had studied the glass furnaces and techniques
he encountered during his visit to Murano (Figs. 10–11). Biringuccio
devoted one chapter to glass where, unlike the very practical instructions
that characterized his treatments of minerals and metals, he introduced
the subject with a theoretical digression. This was due to the inner na-
ture of glass, to which Biringuccio compared that of stones, metals and
minerals:
Thus in this chapter I shall speak to you of glass, not as a proper

semi-mineral, nor yet as a metal, but as a fusible material that is al-
most made mineral by art and by the power and virtue of fire, born
from speculation of good alchemistic savants [buoni ingegni
alchimici], through whose efforts it imitates the metals on the one
hand and the transparency and splendour of gems on the other [. .
.] Certainly, in this art surpasses Nature; for although she has pro-
56 Ibid., 81.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 150
F i g 10. Glass furnace for melting and annealing, probably seen by Birnguccio during is visit to
Murano. De la Pirotechnica (Venice, 1540) fol. 44.
duced crystal and all the other kinds of gems that are much more
beautiful of than this, no way has yet been found for working with
these as is done with glass.57
Interestingly Biringuccio identified the glassmakers of Murano as an ex-

ample of these “ingenious alchemists,” who were able “to counterfeit
emeralds, diamonds, rubies, and all other gems of any color whatso-
ever.”58
Alchemy and glassmaking were notably central to the cultural mi-
lieu which favoured the publication of Biringuccio’s treatise. Both
Leonardo and Biringuccio worked in Florence, where Cosimo I and his
57 Vanoccio Biringuccio, The Pirotechnia of Vannoccio Biringuccio. Translated from

the Italian with an introduction and notes by Cyril Stanley Smith & Martha Teach
Gnudi (New York: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers,
1959), pp. 126–127.
58 Ibid., p. 132. The association between alchemy and the counterfeit of precious
stones was accomplished two decades later by Giovan Battista della Porta in his
Magia Naturalis sive De miraculis rerum naturalium libri IIII (Rome: apud Matthiam
Cancer, 1558), pp. 117–126.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 151
F i g . 11. The same furnace as Fig 10, in a woodcut published by G. Agricola in

1556 in his De re metallica (Lib. XII).
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 152
son Francesco de’ Medici showed a remarkable interest in alchemy and

created the most conductive conditions to perform the art. While
Cosimo I’s alchemical interests initially centered on the manipulation of
metals and vegetable substances, in a later period of his life he seemed
to have a predilection for making experiments on the production of pre-
cious stones and, more generally, for connecting alchemy to glassmak-
ing.59 For this purpose, he had a chemical laboratory built in the Palazzo
Vecchio.60 This interest is further evidenced by the acquisition of several
manuscript treatises on glass and on the fabrication of gems during the
sixteenth century, which are now preserved at the National Library of
Florence and have been edited by Maria Grazia Tagliavini.61
Cosimo’s son and heir Prince Francesco also appreciated the im-
portance of glass for the attainment of the Philosopher’s Stone, and in
1574 he transferred the workshops and laboratories from the Palazzo
Vecchio to new spacious quarters built by Bernardo Buontalenti in the
Casino of San Marco. The Venetian ambassador Andrea Guissoni re-
ported with admiration the activities of the laboratory where masters
from Murano, employed by the Medici sovereigns, had invented a new
method for the fusion of rock crystal.62 Francesco himself also delighted
in producing false precious stones of such quality that even jewellers
were unable to recognise the difference; this was particularly true for a
recipe he invented to imitate the emerald.63 Michel de Montaigne com-
59 Maria Grazia Tagliavini, Il gusto della meraviglia: bicchierografie tra arte e scienza
nel XVI e XVII secolo, PhD doctoral dissertation, 2 vols. (Pisa: Università di Pisa,
2005), vol. 1, p. 156.
60 Alfredo Perifano, L’Alchimie à la Cour de Côme Ier de Médicis: savoirs, culture et
politique (Paris : Honoré de Champion, 1997).

61 Maria Grazia Tagliavini, Il gusto della meraviglia, cit., pp. 211–278. Although
some of the manuscripts of the Medici collection, many of which came from Mu-
rano, are of a later date, the beginning of the interest in glassmaking is to be at-
tributed to Cosimo I. For the collection see also Gabriella Pomaro, I ricettari del
fondo Palatino della Biblioteca Centrale di Firenze. Inventario (Florence: Giunta Re-
gionale Toscana and Editrice Bibliografica, 1991).
62 “Ha ritrovato il modo di fondere il cristallo di montagna . . . e perciò ha salariato
alcuni maestri dei nostri da Murano molto sufficienti.” Cit. in Detlef Heikamp,
Studien zur mediceischen Glaskunst: Archivalien, Entwurfszeichnungen, Gläser und
Scherben (Florence: Kunsthistorisches Institut, 1986), p. 68.
63 “Francesco si diletta anche di formar delle gioie false così simili alle vere, che alle
volte i gioiellieri medesimi ne restano ingannati, e mi mostrò un vasetto fatto da lui

di smeraldo in vero molto bello.” Cit. in ibid., p. 68.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 153
firmed the Venetian ambassador’s report during his visit in Florence: on

November 22, 1580, he remarked:
The same day we saw a palace of the duke, where he himself takes
pleasure in working at counterfeiting oriental stones and cutting
crystal; for he is a prince somewhat interested in alchemy and the
mechanical arts . . .64
It was in this context that the skilful artist Agostino del Riccio compiled
his treatise on the Istoria delle pietre, most of which was devoted to the
examination of crystal and precious stones.65
While the experiments were performed in the laboratories of the
Casino, the Prince’s residence in the Palazzo Vecchio also underwent an
important renovation, aiming to emphasize the central importance of
alchemy and the chemical arts within the Medici Court. In his marvel-
lous Stanzino commissioned from Giorgio Vasari and several younger
painters under his direction, a complex visual narrative evoked the
process of the opus magnum through sixty three scenes.66 Apart from the
famous painting by Johannes Stradanus of the alchemists’ laboratory
(Fig. 12), which illustrated the laboratory of the Casino of San Marco,
other paintings were directly connected with the chemical arts: for ex-
ample, the allegories of the four elements on the vault, at the center of
which was a painting illustrating Prometheus taking a specimen of rock
crystal from nature.67 (Fig. 13) This central figure both emphasized the
alchemical narrative of the studiolo as well as one of the Prince’s main in-
64 Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Works. Newly Translated by Donald M.

Frame (Standford: Standford University Press, 1958), p. 930.
65 Agostino Del Riccio, Istoria delle pietre. Raniero Gnoli and Attilia Sironi (eds.)
(Turin: Umberto Allemandi, 1996).

66 On the stanzino see Marco Dezzi Bardeschi (ed.), Lo Stanzino del Principe in
Palazzo Vecchio. I concetti, le immagini, il desiderio (Florence: Le Lettere, 1983); Lu-

ciano Berti, Il Principe dello Studiolo. Francesco I dei Medici e la fine del Rinascimento
fiorentino (Pistoia: Maschietto, 2002) and the recent thorough study by Valentina
Conticelli, “Guardaroba di cose rare et preziose.” Lo studio fiorentino di Francesco I De’
Medici: arte, storia e significati (Milan: Lumières Internationales, 2007).
67 Prometheus was credited as the inventor of precious stones. For the alchemical
narrative of the studiolo see the cited work by Valentina Conticelli.

68 Detlef Heikamp, Studien zur mediceischen Glaskunst, cit.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 154
F i g . 12. Johannes Stradanus’ painting of the alchemical laboratory at the Casino of San Marco,
with Francesco de’ Medici (on the right) guided by an experienced alchemist in his experiment. Palazzo
Vecchio, Florence.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 155
F i g . 13. The central fresco on the Stanzino vault, depicting Nature giving a piece
of rock crystal to Prometheus. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 156
terests. The studiolo was additionally adorned with a painting of Vul-

can’s workshop (Fig. 14), the pharmaceutical foundry, the laboratory for
the production of gunpowder, the gold mine, the goldsmiths’ workshop
(portraying Prince Francesco working with precious stones), the dia-
mond mine, the textile workshop, the collection of amber and pearls,
and two further images depicting the discovery of glass and the glass
foundry (Figs. 15–16). The painting devoted to the discovery of glass il-
lustrated Pliny’s story, recounted above, while the glass foundry by Gio-
vanni Maria Butteri showed Prince Francesco’s visit to the workshop at
the Casino, in which a large furnace is visible in the background. Sig-
nificantly, Butteri’s painting on glass was put next to Stradanus’ The al-
chemists, thus insisting on a relationship between alchemy and
glassmaking which had to be apparent to contemporary viewers.
The Medici rulers’ special interest in the marvellous properties of
glass remained constant throughout the century,68 and nearly became an
obsession for Prince Antonio de’ Medici who, in 1597, moved his resi-
dence to the Casino of San Marco in order to better monitor and con-
trol all the phases of production of the alchemical work there.69 Antonio
kept a detailed record of his experiments, which were probably intended
for publication, and of the apparatus he used (Fig. 17). Among the peo-
ple employed in the Casino we find Antonio Neri: an expert alchemist
who had travelled in Germany and in the Netherlands and was partic-
ularly well-versed in glassmaking, the secrets of which he learned dur-
ing a visit to Murano.70 In 1612, Neri published a work entitled L’arte
69 Pier Francesco Covoni, Don Antonio de’ Medici al casino di San Marco (Florence:
Tip. Cooperativa, 1892). On Paracelsian chemistry in Florence see Paolo Galluzzi,
“Motivi paracelsiani nella Toscana di Cosimo II e di Don Antonio dei Medici :
alchimia, medicina chimica e riforma del sapere,” in Scienze, credenze occulte, livelli
di cultura: Convegno internazionale di studi: Firenze, 26–30 giugno 1980 (Florence:
Leo S. Olschki, 1982), pp. 31–62.
70 On Antonio de’ Medici, Antonio Neri, alchemy and glassmaking see the well-
documented introduction by Ferdinando Abbri to Antonio Neri, L’arte vetraria.

Introduzione e cura di Ferdinando Abbri (Florence: Giunti, 2001), pp. 5–23. Paul
Engle has recently published the illustrations (with plenty of glassware) of an al-
chemical treatise which Neri was preparing in 1598–99; Paul Engle, “Depicting
Alchemy: Illustrations from Antonio Neri’s 1599 Manuscript,” in Dedo von
Kerssenbrock-Krosigk (ed.), Glass of the Alchemists: Lead Crystal-Gold Ruby,
1650–1750 (Corning, N.Y.: Corning Museum of Glass, 2008), pp. 48–61.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 157
F i g . 14. Vittorio Casini, Vulcan’s workshop. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence.

ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 158
F i g . 15. Giovanni Maria Butteri, The discovery of glass or Aeneas in Italy. The
putto in the front is holding a piece of transparent glass. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 159
F i g . 16. Giovanni Maria Butteri, The glass foundry at the Casino of San Marco. Palazzo
Vecchio, Florence.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 160
vetraria (Fig. 18), in which he offered a syn-

thesis of what he had learned during his trav-
els and what he had proven with his
experiments in the Casino. It was the first
treatise on glassmaking to go to press and was
published only two years after Galileo’s revo-
lutionary Sidereus Nuncius: the astronomical
booklet through which the Florentine as-
tronomer announced to the world the spec-
tacular observations he was able to make
through glass telescopic lenses.
Glass was poised to become the principal
material of the Scientific Revolution, but the
progress by which all this was made possible
followed an obscure history which had little
to do with the philosophy of nature promoted
by the Galilean credo. And Neri’s work was
not in fact, as it is often credited, a technical
F i g . 17. Printed frontispiece of the textbook, but a revised and updated collection
manuscript record of Antonio de’ Medici’s of recipes designed to connect glassmaking
experiments. Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale with alchemy. Like the recipes of ancient al-
Centrale di Firenze, Magl. XVI, 63/1. chemists, Neri too provided his readers with
instructions on how to color glass and make it
transparent, but like his predecessors he omitted the quantities of the
ingredients, the kinds of combustibles and the size or instruments of the
furnaces. In glassmaking, everything had to be guessed at or experi-
mented. Indeed, at the end of the third book, in a recipe devoted to the
color of the pearls, Neri remarked that the only way to attain a good re-
sult was by following trials and experimentation. The search for stan-
dards and rules was seen as an impossible, if not useless, task.71
In the first book of the Arte vetraria, Neri mentioned a technique of
manipulating rock crystal that he saw in Murano, which served to de-
71 “Che in questo non si può dare regola poiché sta nella pratica, laquale si fa con
l’esperimentare, quando il colore sta bene si facci lavorare subito perché facilmente
si ismarisce questo colore, che così io l’ho praticato e sperimentato più volte.” L’arte
vetraria, cit., p. 79.
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 161
termine which kinds of gems could be trans-

muted by means of glass;72 and in the fifth
book he listed eighteen recipes, many of
which were ancient as the art itself, for the
fabrication of emerald, topaz, sapphire and
other precious stones. A detailed reconstruc-
tion of the genealogy of Neri’s recipes would
undoubtedly illustrate the history of two mil-
lennia of glassmaking, thus revealing the
strata of a tradition jealously preserved by the
cultivators of the art.
The publication of Neri’s work met with
immediate success, but it soon became clear
that glassmaking was too important an art to
be left in the exclusive hands of the al-
chemists. Promoted by Robert Boyle and the
Royal Society, the English edition of Neri’s
work produced by the physician Christopher
Merret73 was heavily annotated, and con- F i g . 18. Frontispiece of Neri’s L’arte
tained several illustrations explaining the vetraria.
function of different glass furnaces; so did the
Latin (1668) and the German (1678) edi-
tions, which followed soon after. But despite the effort to make Neri’s
treatise a useful textbook for modern chemical technology, glassmaking
remained associated with alchemy for a long time to come. In 1679, Jo-
hann Kunckel published an fully edited version on Neri’s work,74 with
72 “Ogni pietra che con l’acciaiolo, o vero fucile, fa fuoco, e atta a vetrificare e a fare
il vetro e cristallo e tutte quelle pietre che non fanno fuoco con acciaiolo, o fucile
come sopra non vetrificano mai; il che serva per avviso per poter conoscere le pietre
che possono trasmutarsi in vetro da quelle che non si possono trasmutare.” Ibid., p.
38.
73 The Art of Glass, Wherein Are Shown the wayes to make and colour Glass, Pastes,
Enamels, Lakes and other Curiosities (London: Octavian Pulleyn, 1662).

74 Johann von Kunckel, Ars vitraria experimentalis, oder, Glasmacher-Kunst: lehrende,
als in einem commentario über die sieben Bücher P. Anthonii Neri, und denen Anmerck-
ungen Christophori Merretti (so aus den Ital und Latein, beyde mit Fleiss ins
Hochdeutsche übersetzt) die allerkurtz bundigsten Manieren, das reineste Chrystall-Glas,
alle gefärbte oder tingirte Gläser, künstliche Edelstein oder Flüsse zu machen: sampt
einem II. Haupt-Thiel, so in mehr als 200 Experimenten bestehet, darinnen von
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 162
the report of more than two hundred original experiments and a new
recipe for gold-ruby glass: a combination of dissolved gold and tin in
aqua regia (purple of Cassius) combined with glass which resulted in the
most spectacular specimen of ruby glass.75 As much as Kunckel credited
himself with this invention, ruby glass was reported to have been man-
ufactured by Pliny in antiquity, as well as by several subsequent authors
who, with different degrees of confidence, vindicated the discovery of a
method of coloring glass in such a way as to imitate the purple shade of
the ruby.76 Two most prominent chemists of the seventeenth century,
Rudoph Glauber77 and Johann Joachim Becher,78 continued to see in
this art a key to unveiling the mysteries of the transmutation of matter
and, taking inspiration from Venetian glassmakers, tried several recipes
by which they could imitate precious stones and crystal.
One century later, in the very first volume of his Histoire naturelle
(1749), Comte Buffon, one of the protagonists of the French Lumières,
gave glass a central role in his theory of the geological evolution of the
Earth. Buffon set forth a hypothesis concerning the structure of our planet
which revived opinions and ideas rooted in the history of glass. After hav-
ing claimed that the Earth was made of glass,79 Buffon concluded:
Glasmahlen, Vergulden und Brennen Türckische Pappier, [et]c. und viel andere unge-
meine Sachen zu machen, gelegret werden: mit einem Anhange von denen Perlen und fast
allen natürlichen Edelsteinen (Leipzig: Gedruckt bey Christoph Günthern, 1679).
75 Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, Rubinglas des ausgehenden 17. und des 18.
Jahrhunderts (Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 2001); Anna-Elisabeth

Theuerkauff-Liederwald, “Becher-Gläser, daran die Farben aus denen Metallen
gezogen, von dem berühmten Kunckel verfertiget,” Journal of Glass Studies, (2007),
49:179–190; Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, (ed.), Glass of the alchemists: lead
crystal-gold ruby, 1650–1750 (Corning, N.Y.: Corning Museum of Glass, 2008).
76 For a survey of these claims, see Wilhem Ganzenmüller, “Beiträge zur
Geschichte des Gold rubinglases,” in Id., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technologie und
der Alchemie (Weinheim: Verlag Chemie, 1956), pp. 85–128.
77 Werner Loibl, “Johann Rudolph Glauber und die ‘gläsernen’ Folgen,” Journal of
Glass Studies, (2007), 49:81–101.

78 Martin Mádl, “Johann Joachim Becher and the Beginnings of Baroque Glass-
making in Central Europe,” in Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, (ed.), Glass of the

alchemists, cit., pp. 97–105.
79 “Le feu a produit par la fonte des matières une croûte vitrifiée, et la base de toute
la matière qui compose le globe terrestre est du verre, dont les sables ne sont que des
fragmens ; les autres espèces de terre se sont formées du mélange de ce sable avec
des sels fixes et de l’eau, et quand la croûte fut refroidie, les parties humides qui s’é-
toient élevées en forme de vapeurs, retombèrent et formèrent les mers.” Buffon,
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 163
Je conçois donc que la terre dans le premier état étoit un globe, ou

plûtôt un sphéroïde de matière vitrifiée, de verre, si l’on veut, très-
compacte, couvert d’une croûte légère et friable, formée par les
scories de la matière en fusion, d’une véritable pierre ponce.80
From this it followed that nearly all known matter originated as glass,
and could therefore be transmuted:
Le verre paroît être la véritable terre élémentaire, et tous les mixtes

un verre déguisé ; les métaux, les minéraux, les sels, etc. ne sont
qu’une terre vitrescible.81
Buffon’s theory elicited strong reactions. While the hypothesis on

the epochs and evolution of the Earth caused immediate scandal and
censorship, the original view on glass as the matrix of our planet was the
object of scorn,82 even if it was appreciated within a more restricted cir-
cle of savants. Probably inspired by Buffon’s theory, the Baron d’Hol-
bach translated Neri’s treatise into French and added all the comments
published by German chemists, many of whom were alchemists.83 It
was the most comprehensive edition of treatises on glassmaking ever
published, and contained references both to the technical tradition and
to the alchemical sources and beliefs which still made glass a material
Histoire naturelle, (Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1749), vol. 1, p. 195. I thank Thierry
Hocquet for bringing this passage to my attention. This and the follwing citations
from the electronic edition of Buffon’s Histoire naturelle are taken from the Buffon
website http://www.buffon.cnrs.fr/.
80 Ibid., p. 259.
81 Ibid., p. 261.
82 Tomas Maurice Royou, Le Monde de verre réduit en poudre, ou Analyse et réfuta-
tion des époques de la nature de M. le Comte de Buffon (Paris: Couturier, 1780).

83 Antonio Neri, Art de la verrerie de Neri, Merret et Kunckel : auquel on a ajouté le Sol
sine veste d’Orschall, l’Helioscopium videndi sine veste solem chymicum, le Sol non sine
veste, le chapitre XI du Flora saturnizans de Henckel sur la vitrification des végétaux, un
Mémoire sur la maniere de faire le saffre, le Secret des vraies porcelaines de la Chine & de
Saxe : ouvrages ou l’on trouvera la maniere de faire le verre & le crystal d’y porter des
couleurs, d’imiter les pierres prétieuses, de préparer & colorer les emaux, de faire la potasse,
de peindre sur le verre, de préparer des vernis, de composer des couvertes pour les fayances
& poteries, d’extraire la couleur pourpre de l’or, de contrefaire les rubis, de faire le saffre,
de faire & peindre les porcelaines &c traduit de l’allemand par M. D.***. (Paris: Durand
1752).
ch05_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:49 PM Page 164
which defied unequivocal classification. While chemistry was becoming

an autonomous discipline and the criticism against the alchemical tra-
dition grew ever more frequent, glassmaking remained a field in which
even the most enlightened savants and philosophers felt free to defend
theories and ideas which were nearly heresy for any professional
chemist.
As late as 1778, under the auspices of the Académie Royale des Sci-
ences de Paris, Fontanieu published a booklet entitled L’art de faire les
cristaux coloré imitans les pierres précieuses (Paris: Imprimerie de Mon-
sieur), where the ancient alchemical recipes on how to produce artificial
emerald and other precious stones still found an attentive and qualified
readership. Fontanieu’s booklet was one of the last works to evoke a tra-
dition which, as we have tried to show throughout this study, never
completely disappeared, instead accompanying the history of alchemy
from its first beginnings, reminding glassmakers of the achievements
and ambitions of their predecessors.
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 165
Epilogue
“Materiam superabat opus”

Ovid, Metamorphoses, II, 5
Modern chemists know that the ingredients contained in glass are not
the key to its chemical identity “since hundreds of thousands of differ-
ent chemical compositions can be made into glasses.”1 The definition of
glass, therefore, is problematic and it is often construed on the basis of
its negative characteristics. Modern chemists regard glass as an amor-
phous material which lacks the solid characteristic of crystalline sub-
stances. “Although glasses have the mechanical rigidity of crystals, they
have the random or disordered structure of liquids. It is therefore nec-
essary to define a fourth state of matter, the glassy state, which combines
these two properties.”2
As I have argued in the preceding chapters, the chemical ambiguity
of glass was well known to ancient, medieval and early modern alchemists
1 Robert H. Brill, “A Note on the Scientist’s Definition of Glass,” Journal of Glass

Studies, (1962), 4:127–138, on p. 127.
2 Ibid., p. 129.
165
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 166
and rather than seeing it as puzzling problem, they envisaged in the very
nature of glass the possibility of producing unlimited chemical transfor-
mations. What now appears as an unstable and yet solid arrangement of
molecules, in ancient times evoked the hidden virtues of matter and, at
the same time, the marvelous potentials of chemical manipulations of in-
gredients that, brought to a glassy state, could take nearly any natural
form. The chemical nature of glass indeed fitted the ancient philosophies
of matter and the belief in the possibility of transmuting one substance
into another.
During the eighteenth century, however, attitudes toward glass
changed quite radically. While the fascination of its properties remained
intact, the need to reveal the secrets behind the myriad of recipes com-
municated by ancient authors became more and more urgent. During
the second half of the seventeenth century, the commercial potential as-
sociated with the manufacture of glass was being investigated. The in-
troduction of innovative methods in glassmaking became the necessary
condition for economic advancement. Despite the strict regulations of
the glass guilds, Venetian and, more generally, Italian glassmakers found
ways to broker their expertise in the Netherlands, France, England and
in the German states, thus giving a significant impulse to a competition
which soon spread throughout Europe. The small workshops for the pro-
ductions of refined artifacts which enjoyed the direct control of the
sovereigns were rapidly transformed into large factories in which the pro-
duction of mirrors, windows, bottles and other common glassware was
regulated by the economic competition of early industrial capitalism. It
was at this stage that the secrets of glassmaking were systematically an-
alyzed and scrutinized. The invention of flint glass is a typical example
of the new kind of entrepreneurship surrounding glassmaking. Although
the chemical quality of lead in making glass similar to crystal and to other
transparent stones had been known since the Renaissance and several
recipes had already been published in Neri’s treatise, George Ravencroft
understood that by using lead oxide and by multiplying the quantitative
tests, the quality of the artifacts could be considerably improved. Several
decades of work were necessary to perfect a standardized and economic
method for producing flint glass but Ravencroft’s effort paved the way
for an approach to glassmaking which emphasized the central role of
chemical analysis. It is indeed not surprising that between the end of the
seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century, professional
chemists were involved in systematic research which had a direct con-
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 167
nection to glassmaking. Ravencroft’s discovery of flint-glass made it clear

that ingredients were to be examined more systematically. The first in-
gredients to be chemically analyzed were the fondants: soda and potash.
In his Specimen Beccherianum, Georg Ernst Stahl identified the chemi-
cal differences between soda and potash and that only the base of the
marine salt was a natural alkali.3 A few years later, Andreas Sigismund
Marggraff found a method for distinguishing soda and potash that he
named respectively “fixed mineral alkali” and “fixed vegetal alkali.”4 At
the end of the century chemists throughout Europe discovered at least
eight methods for producing soda artificially from common salt5 and the
Académie Royale des Sciences de Paris actively engaged in promoting
innovative research in this field, and more generally in glassmaking, by
awarding four prizes (in 1758, 1781, 1786 and 1788). Thus, the success
of Nicolas Leblanc’s process at the end of the century was the culmina-
tion of the intense research involving the best chemists in Europe.
The unveiling of the secrets of glassmaking concerned most of the
aspects of the art. During the 1760s, Pierre Delaunay Deslandes,6 di-
rector of Saint-Gobain, the largest glass manufacture in Europe, discov-
ered the stabilizing role of lime. The progress of quantitative analysis
favored the identification of the substances contained in precious stones
and the role of metallic oxides in the coloring of glass.
The intersection of industrial entrepreneurship, experimental skills
and pure research are also highlighted in Réaumur’s successful imitation
of Chinese porcelain with white opaque glass in 1740. This invention
stimulated further chemical research on the properties of glass at the
Royal manufacture of Sèvres and within the Académie des sciences.
Significant improvements were also made in the selection of the
combustibles and in the manufacture of new furnaces and crucibles. Paul
Bosc-d’Antic was among the most successful researchers in this specific
3 Georg Ernst Stahl, Physica subterranea profundum subterraneorum genesin, e prin-

cipiis hucusque ignotis ostendens: opus sine pari . . . et Specimen Beccherian, fundamen-
torum documentorum, experimentorum 2nd edition (Lipsiae: ex officina
Weidmanniana, 1738), p. 139.
4 Philippe Véron, Verre d’optique et lunettes astronomiques (Florence: Fondazione
Giorgio Ronchi, 2009), pp. 14–15.

5 Jean Antoine Chaptal, Elémens de chimie (Paris: Déterville, 1796), vol. 1, p. 260.
6 J.R. Harris and C. Pris, “The Memoirs of Delaunay Deslandes,” Technology and
Culture, (1976), 17:201–216.

ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 168
area. The rise and fall Bosc-d’Antic’s career offers a good example of the
radical transformation of glassmaking during the Englightenment and of
its definitive separation from the alchemical tradition.
Trained as a physician in Montpellier, d’Antic became interested in
chemical technology in Paris while attending Réaumur’s and Nollet’s
courses. Sent by the Académie Royale des Sciences to direct the glass
manufacture of Saint Gobain in 1755, Bosc-d’Antic solved the difficulties
of the royal manufacture by introducing new furnaces and by testing
new chemical combinations to imitate the crystal glass of Bohemia.7 In
1760, Bosc-d’Antic’s memoir on the means for improving glassmaking in
France was awarded a prize by the Académie des sciences.8 Encouraged
by this recognition, Bosc-D’Antic’s scientific ambition grew and, in ad-
dition to the publication of several memoirs of technical glassmaking, he
outlined a theory of matter based on the experience he gained in Saint-
Gobain. In 1777 he submitted to the Académie des sciences a memoir
entitled Observations sur les matières à convertir en verre, sur la nature du
verre et sur le principe vitrifiant9 in which he claimed that by submitting
the fondants and the silica to calcination separately before combining
them, they became infusible and lost their property of producing glass.
This led Bosc to conclude that both the fondants and silica, as well as
most substances, contained a vitrifiable principle and that this was
volatile. The alchemical background of glassmaking was resurgent with
new arguments and through the authoritative voice of a respected ex-
pert. At the Académie the memoir was examined in January 1778 by
Lavoisier and Macquer and in their severe report the two chemists
pointed out that the sustainability of a theory had to be supported by a
more thorough knowledge of the recent development of theoretical
7 Paul Bosc-d’Antic, Oeuvres de M. Bosc d’Antic; contenant plusieurs mémoires sur

l’art de la verrerie, sur la faïencerie, la poterie, l’art des forges, la minéralogie, l’électricité,
& sur la médicine (Paris: Rue & Hôtel Serpente, 1780) 2 vols.
8 Mémoire qui a remporté le prix extraordinairement proposé par l’Académie royale des
sciences, pour l’année 1760. Quels sont les moyens les plus propres à porter la perfection &
l’économie dans les verreries de France? Par m. Bosc D’Antic (Paris: A Paris, Chez Du-
rand,1761). The memoir was eventually published also in Bosc’s Oeuvres.
9 Paul Bosc-d’Antic, Oeuvres, cit., vol. 1, pp. 241–250.
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 169
chemistry and by a greater deal of experimental evidence than the one

set forth by Bosc-d’Antic.10 Glassmaking was becoming a too important
part of chemistry to allow bizarre theories to be legitimized. It is cer-
tainly not a coincidence that during the 1780s, Lavoisier multiplied his
efforts to make glassmaking an integral part of the new chemistry. In
addition to the new prize for the production of flint-glass and glassmak-
ing that he promoted in 1788,11 Lavoisier resumed the work on the pub-
lication of the Descriptions des arts et métiers and appointed a young,
promising chemist, Pierre Loysel, to write a new systematic work on the
art de la verrerie and its relation to physics and chemistry. With a back-
ground as an engineer and with the advantage of working in close con-
tact with Lavoisier, Loysel was able to produce a first draft of the treatise
which was highly appreciated in a long report drafted by a commission of
the Académie des sciences composed of three of Lavoisier’s distinguished
collaborators: Jean Darcet, Claude Louis Berthollet and Antoine
François Fourcroy. 12 At the beginning of their report the three chemists
remarked:
La verrerie est peut-être de tous les arts, celui qu’on peut soumettre
le plus rigoureusement à des principes déterminés par la physique,
celui par conséquent qui peut parvenir h la plus grande précision;
mais il demandoit un observateur qui fût également familiarisé avec
tous ses procédés et instruit en physique. M. Loysel possède ces
deux qualités.13
10 Lavoisier and Pierre Joseph Macquer, “Rapport sur un mémoire relatif à la na-
ture du verre,” in Lavoisier, Oeuvres, (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1868), vol. 4, pp.
290–292.
11 Lavoisier, “Prix extraordinaire proposé par ordre du Roi par l’Académie des sci-
ences pour l’année 1788 (précis de ce qui a été fait pour perfectionner le flint-glass
et le verre en général),” in Id., Oeuvres, cit., vol. 6, pp. 20–30. The prize was not
awarded and the competition was again promoted by the Académie in 1791.
12 Jean Darcet, Claude Louis Berthollet, Antoine François Fourcroy, “Rapport su
un ouvrage de M. Loysel, qui a pour titre Essai sur les principes de l’art de la verrerie,”
Annales de chimie, (1791), 9:113–137 following in the subsequent issue of the An-
nales. The whole report was eventually published at the end of Loysel’s Essai the
first edition of which appeared only in 1799–1800.
13 Ibid., p. 113.
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 170
During the preparation of his work, Loysel wrote to Lavoisier and

justified his delay with the need of updating his knowledge on the recent
discoveries made in pneumatic chemistry:
Il faudroit qu’un verrier fût bon chimiste et les verriers ne veulent

pas entendre parler de chimie. L’explication de la plupart des
phénomenes de la vitrification dépend de la science des gaz.14
Furthermore the precision achieved in this branch of chemistry sug-

gested that the application of the quantitative methods would be fruit-
ful in glassmaking. Indeed Loysel’s Essai was centered on quantification
and, on specific topics, even on the mathematization of glassmaking.
Loysel pointed out in the synthetic historical sketch introducing the
Essai, that Neri’s Arte vetraria contained nothing useful on the principles
of the art and that it was only thanks to the works of recent chemists that
more significant progress had been made.15 The exact and systematic
determination of the specific gravities of the ingredients contained in
glass was one important key to the understanding of the chemical prop-
erties of this material. All different kinds of glass were qualified by Loysel
on the sole basis of the specific gravities of their ingredients, an analytical
method which had been advocated by Lavoisier and several other modern
chemists.16 Moreover, the emphasis on the central importance of precise
measurements of heat had to rely on Laplace’s and Lavoisier’s researches
on caloric rather than on the empirical assessment acquired by experience.
Unlike his predecessors, Loysel paid no tribute to the history of
glassmaking and claimed that his work represented the opening a new
era which finally emancipated the art from the secrecy and the ambigui-
ties of alchemy. Loysel ultimately proved to be right and glassmaking be-
came an integral part of modern applied and industrial chemistry.
However, the innovative methods proposed in the Essai were not equally
successful in guiding glassmakers in the production of artworks as perfect
as those made during the Antiquity and the Renaissance when it seems
14 Letter dated December 30, 1787 in Lavoisier, Correspondance (Paris: Académie

des sciences, 1993), vol. 5, p. 103.
15 Pierre Loysel, Essai sur les principes de l’art de la verrerie (Paris: Desenne,
1799–1800), pp. xiii–xvi.

16 Ibid., pp. 200–203.
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 171
as if the art’s alchemical status added something extra to its productions,

never to be repeated again.
A striking example of this is the story of the Portland vase (Fig. 1).
Recovered during the Renaissance,17 this beautiful glass blue vase im-
mediately attracted the attention of collectors as a unique masterpiece of
Roman craftsmanship. Like the blue cameo vase found at Pompeii (see
p. 44, fig. 7), the Portland vase is made by two layers of glass, the most
external one being finely cut to illustrate a mythological scene, while the
bulk of the vase is made with a dark blue glass.18 While it is now widely
accepted that these kinds of vases were made around the end of the first
century BCE, historians and archaeologists are still uncertain with re-
gard the techniques required in their creation.
Purchased by William Hamilton in 1778, the Portland vase was
sold at a private sale to Margaret Cavendish, the Duchess of Portland, in
1786. Josiah Wedgwood, who was present at the sale, bid up to £1000
“until, it is related, the duke, stepping across the room to him, asked his
object in wishing to possess the vase. On learning his object, the duke
offered, if Wedgwood would give over bidding and permit him to be-
come its purchaser, to place it in his hands, and allow him to keep it suf-
ficiently long to reproduce and do what he required. This arrangement
being as frankly accepted as it was offered, the duke became the pur-
chaser of the vase for £1,029, and Wedgwood took with him the price-
less gem.”19
By the 1780s Wedgwood was not only a successful entrepreneur,
one of the most skilful potters in Europe and an expert glassmaker, but
he was also a renown instrument maker and an innovative chemical
technologist whose expertise was appreciated by the most innovative
scientists of the period. A member of the Lunar Society, Wedgwood
shared with Loysel and Lavoisier the conviction that glassmaking con-
cealed no mystery to the experienced and enlightened chemist. The
challenge he took to produce a replica of the Portland vase was guided
by the confidence that the progress achieved within his factory ensured
17 D. E. L. Hayes, The Portland Vase, cit.

18 The vase is now kept at the British Museum of London.
19 Llewellynn Frederick William, Jewitt, The Wedgwoods: being a life of Josiah Wedg-
wood; with notices of his works and their productions, memoirs of the Wedgwood and
other families, and a history of the early potteries of Staffordshire (London: Virtue
Brothers and Co., 1865), p. 307.
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:51 PM Page 172
F i g . 1. The Portland Vase. First century BCE. Courtesy of Trustees of the

British Museum-London.
him the possibility to show his superior skills. However, events took a
different turn. At the beginning Wedgwood did not appreciate that the
whole vase was made of two kinds of glass and only after several years did
he manage to produce the first satisfactory replica; not made of glass but
of the more economic and easy to handle black jasper ceramic (Fig. 2).
Even then, due to the astronomic expenses suffered during the en-
deavor, Wedgwood abandoned his original project of producing prof-
itable copies of the vase. After several unsuccessful efforts, finally in
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:52 PM Page 173
F i g . 2. Josiah Wedgwood’s copy of the Portland vase (1789). Image by courtesy

of the Wedgwood Museum Trust, Barlaston, Staffordshire.
1876 the first replica in glass was successfully produced but the tech-
niques used by ancient glassmakers remained obscure.20
After over two millennia of history the alchemical tradition of glass-
making was brought to an end but the mysteries behind many of its
most beautiful realizations remained veiled.
20David Whitehouse, Roman Glass at the Corning Museum (New York: The Corn-
ing Museum of Glass, 2003), vol. 3, pp. 86–87.
ch06_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:52 PM Page 174
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 175
Bibliography
primary sources
For Greek and Roman authors I have used the English translations of
the Loeb Classical Library, as well as the texts published in the Perseus
Digital Library edited by Gregory R. Crane (www.perseus.tufts.edu). As
for the Medieval authors, I have used the Library of Latin texts pub-
lished by Brepols (http://clt.brepolis.net). For the epigraphic sources, I
have often relied on the data-base edited by Christian Witschel and
published at the website www.epigraphische-datenbank-heidelberg.de/
The following list includes all the cited primary sources, both an-
cient and medieval, which have been published in other series.
Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Arts Treasures, Edited, trans-
lated and annotated by Erwin Panofsky, 2nd edition (Princeton: Princeton
UP, 1979).
Adler, Ada (ed.), Svidae Lexicon (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–1938), 5 vols. An
English translation of the Suda has been published by the Stoa Consor-
tium at the web address http://www.stoa.org/sol/
Aeneas of Gaza—see Colonna
Agricola, Georg, De re metallica. translated from the first Latin edition of 1556
with biographical introduction, annotations and appendices upon the develop-
ment of mining methods, metallurgical processes, geology, mineralogy & mining
law from the earliest times to the 16th century by Herbert Clark Hoover and
Lou Henry Hoover (New York: Dover, 1950).
175
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 176
Albertus, Magnus, Book of Minerals (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967).

The ante-Nicene fathers. Translations of the writings of the fathers down to A.D.
325. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors. American reprint of the
Edinburgh edition. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces
and occasional notes, by A. Cleveland Coxe (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons,
1911–1926), 10 vols.
Arnim, Hans Friedrich August von (ed.), Stoicorum veterum fragmenta
(Leipzig: Teubner 1903–1924), 4 vols.
Bacci, Andrea, Le XII pietre pretiose. Aggiuntevi il diamante, le margherite e l’oro
(Roma: Giovanni Martinelli, 1587).
Barthélemy, Pascale (ed.), La Sedacina ou l’Oeuvre au crible. L’alchimie de Guil-
laume Sedacer, carme catalan de la fin du XIVe siècle (Milan: Arché, 2002), 2
vols.
Bertand, Elie, Dictionnaire universel des fossiles propres, et des fossiles accidentels,
contenant une description des terres, des tables, des sels, des soufres, des bitumes,
des pierres simples & composées, communes & prétieuses transparentes &
opaques, amorphes & figurées, des minéraux, des métaux, des pétrifications du
règne animal, & du règne végétal &c., avec des recherches sur la formation de ces
fossiles, sur leur origine, leurs usage &c. (La Haye: P. Gosse Junior et D.
Pinet, 1763), 2 vols.
Berthelot, Marcellin and Charles Emile Ruelle (eds.), Collections des anciens
alchimistes grecs (Paris: Georges Steinheil, 1888), 3 vols.
Berthelot, Marcellin, La chimie au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1893), 3 vols.
Bidez, Joseph and Franz Cumont, Les mages hellénisés. Zoroastre, Ostanès et
Hystaspe d’après la tradition greque (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1938), 2 vols.
Biringuccio, Vannoccio, De la pirotechnia libri X: doue ampiamente si tratta non
solo di ogni sorte & diuersita di miniere, ma anchora quanto si ricerca intorno à
la prattica di quelle cose di quel che si appartiene a l’arte de la fusione ouer gitto
de metalli come d’ogni altra cosa simile a questa (Venice: per Venturino
Roffinello: ad instantia di Curtio Nauo & fratelli, 1540).
Biringuccio, Vanoccio, The Pirotechnia of Vannoccio Biringuccio. Translated from
the Italian with an introduction and notes by Cyril Stanley Smith & Martha
Teach Gnudi (New York: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineers, 1959).
Boodt, Anselmus de, Gemmarum et lapidum historia (Lugduni Batavorum: ex
officina Ioannis Maire, 1647).
Bosc-d’Antic, Paul, Oeuvres de M. Bosc d’Antic ; contenant plusieurs mémoires sur
l’art de la verrerie, sur la faïencerie, la poterie, l’art des forges, la minéralogie,
l’électricité, & sur la médicine (Paris: Rue & Hôtel Serpente, 1780) 2 vols.
Bresciani, Edda (ed.), Letteratura e poesia dell’antico Egitto (Turin: Einaudi,
1999).
Buffon, Georges Louis Leclerc comte de, Histoire naturelle (Paris: Imprimerie
Royale, 1749), vol. 1.
Colinet, Andrée (ed.), L’Anonyme de Zuretti, ou L’art sacré et divin de la chrysopée
par un anonyme (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2002).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 177
Colonna, M. E. (ed.), Enea di Gaza. Teofrasto. (Naples, 1958).

Cornford, Francis Macdonald, Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato Trans-
lated with a Running Commentary (London: Kegan Paul, 1937).
Della Porta, Giovan Battista, Magia Naturalis sive De miraculis rerum natural-
ium libri IIII (Rome: apud Matthiam Cancer, 1558).
Del Riccio, Agostino, Istoria delle pietre. Raniero Gnoli and Attilia Sironi (eds.)
(Turin: Umberto Allemandi, 1996).
De Mely, F. (ed.), Les lapidaires de l’antiquité et du moyen age (Paris: Ernest Ler-
oux, 1902), 3 vols.
Diels, Hermann (ed.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Herausgegeben von
Walther Kranz. Sixth edition. (Berlin: Wiedmannsche Verlagsbuchhand-
lung, 1951), 3 vols.
Diels, Hermann (ed.), Doxographi graeci. Collegit, recensuit, prolegomenis indi-
cibusque instruxit H. Diels (Berlin, 1879).
Dioscorides, De Materia medica. Translated by Lily Y. Beck. (Hildesheim: Olms,
2005).
Düring, I., Aristotle’s Chemical Treatise. Meteorologica, Book IV (Göteborg, 1944).
Galen, Opera omnia, editionem curavit C.G. Kühn (Leipzig, 1821–1833), 22 vols.
Galen, Procedimenti anatomici. Traduzione e note di Ivan Garofalo, (Milano:
Rizzoli, 1991), 3 vols.
Galigani, Pierpaolo, Il De Lapidum virtutibus di Michele Psello (Firenze: Clufs,
1980).
Halleux, Robert (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs. Papyrus de Leyde—Papyrus de Stock-
holm—Fragments de recettes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981).
Halleux, Robert and Jacques Schamp (eds.), Les lapidaires grecs (Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, 1985).
Haudicquer de Blancourt, François, De l’Art de la verrerie . . . Nouvelle édition,
augmentée d’un traité des pierres précieuses (Paris: Jombert, 1718), 2 vols.
Hedefors, Hjalmar (ed.), Compositiones ad tingendo musiva (Uppsala: Almqvist
& Wiksell, 1932).
Isidorus of Seville, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1988), 2 vols.
Isidorus of Seville, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2008).
Kidd, F.G. (ed.), Posidonius, The Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1988), 2 vols.
Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven and M. Schofield (eds.), The Presocratic Philosophers. A
Critical History with a Selections of Texts, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Cam-
bridge UP, 1983).
Kunckel, Johann, Ars vitraria experimentalis, oder, Glasmacher-Kunst: lehrende, als
in einem commentario über die sieben Bücher P. Anthonii Neri, und denen An-
merckungen Christophori Merretti (so aus den Ital und Latein, beyde mit Fleiss
ins Hochdeutsche übersetzt) die allerkurtz bundigsten Manieren, das reineste
Chrystall-Glas, alle gefärbte oder tingirte Gläser, künstliche Edelstein oder Flüsse
zu machen: sampt einem II. Haupt-Thiel, so in mehr als 200 Experimenten
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 178
bestehet, darinnen von Glasmahlen, Vergulden und Brennen Türckische Pappier,

[et]c. und viel andere ungemeine Sachen zu machen, gelegret werden: mit einem
Anhange von denen Perlen und fast allen natürlichen Edelsteinen (Leipzig:
Gedruckt bey Christoph Günthern, 1679).
Lavoisier, Antoine Laurent, Œuvres, (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale-Nationale,
1862–1893), 6 vols.
Leonardo da Vinci, The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci: Arranged, Rendered into
English and Introduced by Edward MacCurdy (New York: Braziller, 1954).
Lichtheim, Miriam (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: a Book of Readings
(Berkeley: University of California press, 1975–1980), 3 vols.
Loysel, Jean Baptiste, Essai sur les principes de l’art de la verrerie (Paris: Desenne,
1799–1800).
Mappae Clavicula—see Smith
Marbode—see Riddle
Merrifield, Mary P. (ed.), Medieval and Renaissance Treatises on the Arts of
Painting. Original Texts with English Transations (London: John Murray,
1849), 2 vols.
Mertens, Michèle (ed.), Les alchimistes grecs. Zosimos de Panopolis. Mémoires au-
thentiques (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2002).
Montaigne, Michel de, The Complete Works. Newly Translated by Donald M.
Frame (Standford: Standford University Press, 1958).
Neri, Antonio, L’arte vetraria distinta in libri sette del r.p. Antonio Neri: ne’ quali
si scoprono effetti meravigliosi et s’insegnano segreti bellissimi del vetro nel fuoco
ed altre cose curiose (Florence: nella Stamperia de’ Giunti, 1612).
Neri, Antonio, The Art of Glass, Wherein Are Shown the wayes to make and colour
Glass, Pastes, Enamels, Lakes and other Curiosities (London: Octavian Pul-
leyn, 1662).
Neri, Antonio, Art de la verrerie de Neri, Merret, et Kunckel, auquel on a ajouté le
Sol sine veste d’Orschall, l’ Helioscopium videndi sine veste solem chymicum le
Sol non sine veste, le chapitre XI du Flora saturnizans de Henckel sur la vitri-
fication des végétaux, un mémoire sur la manière de faire le saffre, le secret des
vraies porcelaines de la Chine et de Saxe (Paris: Durand, 1752).
Neri, Antonio L’arte vetraria. Introduzione e cura di Ferdinando Abbri (Florence:
Giunti, 2001).
Neri, Antonio, L’Arte Vetraria, The Art of Glass, Translated & Annotated by Paul
Engle (Hubbardston, Massachusetts: Heiden & Engle, 2003–2005), 3 vols.
Palissy, Bernard, Œuvres (Paris, 1777).
Patai, Raphael, The Jewish Alchemists: A History and Source Book (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1995).
Pereira, Michela (ed.), Alchimia: i testi della tradizione occidentale (Milan:
Mondatori, 2006).
The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with introduction, translation and commentary
by Lionel Casson (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989).
Pliny the Elder, The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on Chemical Subjects. Edited, with
Translations and Notes by Kenneth C. Bailey (London: Edward Arnold,
1929), 2 vols.
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 179
Posidippus, Posidippi Pellai quae supersunt omnia. Ediderunt C. Austin et G. Bas-

tianiani (Milano: Led, 2002).
Psellos, Michael—see Galigani
Psellos, Michael, “Letter on Chrysopoeia,” in Joseph Bidez, Catalogue des man-
uscrits alchimiques grecs (Bruxelles: M. Lamertin, 1928), vol. 6, pp. 1–47.
Rashed, Roshdi (ed.), Catoptriciens Grecs. I, Les miroirs ardents. Textes établis,
traduits et commentés par Roshdi Rashed (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000).
Ricette vetrarie del Rinascimento. Trascrizione di un manoscritto anonimo veneziano.
Cesare Moretti and Tullio Tonnato (eds.) (Venice: Marsilio, 2001).
Ricette vetrarie muranesi. Gaspare Brunoro e il manoscritto di Danzica. Cesare
Moretti, Carlo Stefano Salerno and Sabina Tommasi Ferroni (eds.) (Flo-
rence: Cardini Editore, 2004).
Riddle, John M. (ed.), Marbode of Rennes’ De Lapidibus considered as a medical
treatise with text commentary and C.W. King’s translation. Together with text
and translation of Marbode’s minor works on stones (Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 1977).
Royou, Tomas Maurice, Le Monde de verre réduit en poudre, ou Analyse et réfuta-
tion des époques de la nature de M. le Comte de Buffon (Paris: Couturier, 1780).
Rufus, Oeuvres de Rufus d’Ephèse. Ch. Daremberg and Ch. Emile Ruelle (eds.)
(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1879).
Saldern Axel von, A. Leo Oppenheim, Robert H. Brill and Dan Barag, Glass
and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia (Corning: The Corning Museum
of Glass Press, 1970 reprinted 1988).
Sedacer—see Barthélemy
Smith, Cyril Stanley and John G. Hawthorne (eds.), Mappae Clavicula. A Lit-
tle Key to the World of Medieval Techniques (Philadelphia: The American
Philosophical Society, 1974).
Theophilus, The Various Arts: De diversis artibus. Edited and annotated by C. R.
Dodwell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).
Theophrastus, De igne: A post-Aristotelian View of the Nature of Fire. Edited
with Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Victor Coutant (Assen:
Royal Vangorcum, 1971).
Theophrastus, On stones. Introduction, Greek Text, English Translation and Com-
mentary, Earle R. Caley and John F. C. Richards (eds.) (Columbus: The
Ohio State University, 1956).
Varchi, Benedetto, Questione sull’alchimia: codice inedito (Florence: Stamp.
Magheri, 1827).
Wiegleb, Johann Christian, Historisch-kritische Untersuchung der Alchemie, oder
der eingebildeten Goldmacherkunst: von ihrem Ursprunge sowohl als Fortgange,
und was nun von ihr zu halten sey (Weimar: Hoffmann, 1777).
secondary sources
Anderson Robert G., “The Archaeology of Chemistry,” in Instruments and Ex-
perimentation in the History of Chemistry. Frederic L. Holmes and Trevor
H. Levere (eds.), (Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 2000), pp. 6–34.
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 180
Argoud, Gilbert and Jean-Yves Guillaumin (eds.), Sciences exactes et sciences ap-
pliquées à Alexandrie (Saint-Étienne: publications de l’Université de Saint-
Étienne, 1998).
Arslan, Ermanno A. (ed.), Iside. Il mito il mistero la magia (Milan: Electa, 1997).
Aruz, Joan, Kim Benzel, and Jean M. Evans (eds.), Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade,
and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2008).
Arveiller-Dulong, Véronique and Marie-Dominique Nenna, Les verres
antiques—Musée du Louvre (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux,
2000–2005), 2 vols.
Aufrère, Sydney, L’Univers Minéral dans la Pensée Égyptienne (Cairo: IFAO,
1991), 2 vols.
Baynes, Norman H., The Byzantine Empire (London: Oxford UP, 1949).
Beck, H. C., “Glass before 1500 B.C.,” Ancient Egypt and the East, (1934),
19:7–21.
Beretta, Marco, “Stampa, incisioni e terminologia nel De re metallica di Gior-
gio Agricola,” in Massimo Galuzzi, Gianni Micheli and Maria Teresa
Monti (eds.), Le forme della comunicazione scientifica (Milan: F. Angeli,
1998), pp. 191–216.
Beretta, Marco (ed.), When Glass Matters: Studies in the History of Science and Art
from Graeco-Roman Antiquity to the Early Modern Era (Florence: Leo S.
Olschki, 2004).
Beretta, Marco, “Between Nature and Technology: Glass in Ancient Chemi-
cal Philosophy,” in When Glass matters: Studies in the History of Science and
Art from Graeco-Roman Antiquity to the Early Modern Era, Marco Beretta
(ed.) (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), pp. 1–30.
Beretta, Marco and Giovanni Di Pasquale (eds.), Vitrum. Il vetro fra arte e
scienza nel mondo romano (Florence: Giunti, 2004).
Beretta, Marco and Giovanni di Pasquale (eds.), Le verre dans l’empire Ro-
maine. Arts et sciences. Exposition, Florence, Museo degli Argenti, palais Pitti
du 27 mars au 31 octobre 2004, Paris, Cité des sciences et de l’industrie du 31
janvier au 27 août 2006 (Florence: Giunti, 2006).
Bernal, Martin, “Animadversions on the Origins of Western Science,” Isis,
(1992), 83:596–607.
Bernal, Martin, Black Athena: the Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization (Lon-
don: Free Association Books, 1987–2006), 3 vols.
Berthelot, Marcellin, Les origines de l’alchimie (Paris: Georges Steinheil, 1885).
Berthelot, Marcellin, Introduction à l’étude de la chimie des anciens et du Moyen
Age (Paris: Georges Steinheil, 1889).
Berthelot, Marcellin, Archéologie et histoire des sciences; avec la publication nouvelle
du papyrus grec chimique de Leyde et impression original du Liber du Septau-
genta de Geber (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1906).
Berti, Luciano, Il Principe dello Studiolo. Francesco I dei Medici e la fine del Ri-
nascimento fiorentino (Pistoia: Maschietto, 2002).
Bettini, Sergio, “Venezia, la Pala d’Oro e Costantinopoli,” in Il Tesoro di San
Marco (Milan: Olivetti, 1986), pp. 43–72.
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 181
Bolzan, J.E., “Chemical Combination according to Aristotle,” Ambix, (1976),

23:134–144.
Bonacasa, Nicola (ed.), L’Egitto in Italia: dall’antichità al Medioevo. Atti del III
Congresso internazionale italo-egiziano, Roma, CNR, Pompei, 13–19 novem-
bre 1995 (Rome: CNR, 1998).
Borsook, Eve, Fiorella Gioffredi Superbi and Giovanni Pagliarulo (eds.), Me-
dieval Mosaics. Light, Color, Materials (Florence: The Harvard University
Center for Italian Renaissance Studies at Villa Tatti, 2000).
Brancacci, Aldo and Pierre-Marie Morel (eds.), Science, the Arts, and the Care of
the Soul. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Democritus (Paris,
18–20 September 2003) (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007).
Bresciani, Edda (ed.), Le vie del vetro. Egitto e Sudan (Pisa: Giardini editori,
1988).
Brill, Robert H., “A Note on the Scientist’s Definition of Glass,” Journal of
Glass Studies, (1962), 4:127–138.
British Museum. A Guide to the Exhibition illustrating Greek and Roman Life 3rd
ed. (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1929).
Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis, The Gods of the Egyptians, or Studies in Egyptian
Mythology (London: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1904), 2 vols.
Burnstyn, H. L., “The Empirical Basis of the Four Elements,” in Actes du XIIe
Congrés International d’Histoire des Sciences (Paris: Hermann, 1971), vol.
3A, pp. 19–24.
Burstein, Stanley Mayer, “Hecataeus of Abdera’s History of Egypt,” in Janet
H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to
Constantine and Beyond (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 1992), pp. 45–49.
Camplani, Alberto,”Procedimenti magico-alchemici e discorso filosofico er-
metico,” in Il Tardoantico alle soglie del Duemilla. Diritto Religione Società
(Atti del V colloquio Nazionale dell’Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi), G.
Lanata (ed.) (Pisa-Roma: ETS, 2000), pp. 73–98.
Canella, Anne Françoise, Gemmes, verre coloré, fausse pierres précieuses au Moyen
Age (Geneva: Droz, 2006).
Carbonelli, Giovanni, Sulle fonti storiche della chimica e dell’alchimia in Italia
(Rome: Istituto Nazionale Medico Farmacologico, 1925).
Carcopino, Jérôme, La basilique pythagoricienne de la Porte Majeure (Paris: L’ar-
tisan du livre, 1926).
Cole, Thomas, Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology (Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press, 1990).
Conticelli, Valentina, “Guardaroba di cose rare et preziose.” Lo studio fiorentino di
Francesco I De’ Medici: arte, storia e significati (Milan: Lumières Interna-
tionales, 2007).
Covoni, Pier Francesco, Don Antonio de’ Medici al casino di San Marco (Flo-
rence: Tip. Cooperativa, 1892).
Crisciani, Chiara and Michela Pereira, L’arte del Sole e della Luna: alchimia e
filosofia nel Medioevo (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo,
1996).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 182
Cumont, Franz, L’Egypte des astrologues (Bruxelles: Fondation Egyptologique

Reine Elisabeth, 1937).
Daremberg, Charles, and Edmond Saglio (eds.), Dictionnaire des Antiquités
Grecques et Romaines d’après les textes et les monuments (Paris: Librairies Ha-
chette, 1875), 5 vols.
Daumas, F., “L’alchimie a-t-elle une origine égyptienne?,” in Römisch-Byzan-
tinische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 26–30 September 1978
in Trier (Mainz am Rhein:P. von Zabern, 1983), pp. 109–118.
Delamare, François, “La recette du caeruleum de Vitruve. Le point de vue de la
science des matériaux,” Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences,
(2003), 53:3–18.
Dell’Acqua, Francesca, Illuminando colorat. La vetrata tra l’età tardo imperiale e
l’alto Medioevo: le fonti, l’archeologia (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sul-
l’alto Medioevo, 2003).
Dell’Acqua, Francesca, “Lux et vitrum: the Evolution of Stained Glass from the
Late Roman Empire to the Gothic Age,” in When Glass matters: Studies in
the History of Science and Art from Graeco-Roman Antiquity to the Early Mod-
ern Era, Marco Beretta (ed.) (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), pp. 221–248.
Derchain, P., “L’Atelier des Orfèvres à Dendara et les origines de l’Alchimie,”
Chronique d’Egypte, (1990), LXV:219–242.
Deville, Achille, Histoire de l’art de la verrerie dans l’antiquité (Paris: A. Morel,
1873).
Dezzi Bardeschi, Marco (ed.), Lo Stanzino del Principe in Palazzo Vecchio. I con-
cetti, le immagini, il desiderio (Florence: Le Lettere, 1983).
Diels, Hermann, Antike Technik. Sieben Vorträge, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Teubner,
1924).
Di Pasquale, Giovanni, Tecnologia e meccanica: trasmissione dei saperi tecnici dal-
l’età ellenistica al mondo romano (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004).
Di Pasquale, Giovanni, “Scientific and technological use of Glass in Graeco-
Roman Antiquity,” in When Glass matters: Studies in the History of Science
and Art from Graeco-Roman Antiquity to the Early Modern Era, Marco
Beretta (ed.) (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), pp. 31–76.
Downey, G., “Byzantine architects, their training and methods,” Byzantion,
(1946–48), 18:99–118.
Dümichen, Johannes, “Ein Salbölrecept aus dem Laboratorium des Edfutem-
pels,” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde, (1879),
17:97–128.
Eichholz, D.E., “Aristotle’s Theory of the Formation of Metals and Minerals,”
Classical Quarterly, (1949), 43:141–149.
Eisler, R., “Der Babylonische Ursprung der Alchemie,” Chemiker Zeitung,
(1925), Nos. 83 and 86.
Engle, Paul, “Depicting Alchemy: Illustrations from Antonio Neri’s 1599
Manuscript,” in Glass of the Alchemists: Lead Crystal—Gold Ruby,
1650–1750, Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk (ed.) (Corning, N.Y.: Corn-
ing Museum of Glass, 2008), pp. 48–61.
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 183
Erman, Adolf and Hermann Grapow, Das Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache;
zur Geschichte eines großen wissenschaftlichen Unternehmens der Akademie
(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1953).
Federici Vescovini, Graziella, Studi sulla prospettiva medievale, Reprint of 1965
edition, (Torino: G. Giappichelli, 1987).
Federici Vescovini, Graziella, “Luce,” in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale,
(Rome: Treccani, 1997), vol. 8, pp. 25–35.
Festugière, Jean André, La révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste (Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1986), 3 vols.
Fleming, Stuart J., Roman Glass. Reflections on Cultural Change (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
1999).
Forbes, E. Robert James, “Professions and Crafts in Ancient Egypt,” Archives
Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, (1950), 12:559–618.
Forbes, E. Robert James, Metallurgy in Antiquity: A Notebook for Archaeologists
and Technologists (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1950).
Forbes, E. Robert James, Studies in Ancient Technology. 2nd ed. (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1966), vol. 5.
Fowden, Garth, The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan
Mind (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2001), 3 vols.
Gaillard-Seux, Patricia, “Sympathie et antipathie dans l’Histoire Naturelle de
Pline l’Ancien,” in Rationnel et irrationnel dans la médecine ancienne et
médiévale. Aspects historiques, scientifiques et culturels, N. Palmieri (ed.)
(Saint-Étienne: Centre Jean Palerne, Mémoires, 2003), pp. 113–128.
Galluzzi, Paolo, “Motivi paracelsiani nella Toscana di Cosimo II e di Don An-
tonio dei Medici: alchimia, medicina chimica e riforma del sapere,” in
Scienze, credenze occulte, livelli di cultura: Convegno internazionale di studi:
Firenze, 26–30 giugno 1980 (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1982), pp. 31–62.
Ganzenmüller, Wilhelm, Die Alchemie im Mittelalter (Paderborn: Bonifacius-
Druckerei, 1938).
Ganzenmüller, Wilhelm, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technologie und der Al-
chemie (Weinheim: Verlag Chemie, 1956).
Gemelli Marciano, M. Laura, Democrito e l’Accademia. Studi sulla trasmissione
dell’atomismo antico da Aristotele a Simplicio (Berlin-New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 2007).
Gialanella, Costanza, “Una fornace per il vetro a Puteoli,” in Il vetro in Italia
meridionale e insulare, Ciro Piccioli and Francesca Sogliani (eds.) (Napoli:
De Frede, 1999), pp. 151–160.
Halleux, Robert, “Lapis-Lazuli, azurite ou pâte de verre? A propos de Kuwano
et Kunawoko dans les tablettes mycéniennes,” in Studi Micenei ed Egeo-
Anatolici (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1969), vol. 9, pp. 47–66.
Halleux, Robert, Le problème des métaux dans la science antique (Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1974).
Halleux, Robert, Les textes alchimiques (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 184
Halleux, Robert, “Les techniques du verre dans les manuscrits médiévaux de re-
cettes,” in Actes des journeés techniques et scientifiques ‘Les arts du verre’
(Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur, 1990), pp. 19–29.
Halleux, Robert, “Pigments et colorants dans la Mappae Clavicula,” in Pigments
et colorants de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Age. Teinture, peinture, enluminure—
études historiques et physico-chimiques (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2002), pp.
173–180.
Halleux, Robert and Anne Françoise Cannella, “Entre technologie et alchimie:
de la teinture du verre à la fabrication des fausses pierres précieuses,” in Il
colore nel Medioevo. Arte Simbolo Tecnica. Atti delle Giornate di Studi Lucca,
2–4 May 1996. (Lucca: Istituto Storico Lucchese e Scuola Normale Supe-
riore di Pisa, 1998), pp. 45–46.
Halleux, Robert and Paul Meyvaert, “Les origines de la Mappae Clavicula,”
Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen-Age, (1987), 54:7–58.
Hammer, Jensen I., Die älteste Alchymie (Copenhagen: Andr. Fred. Høst &
Søn, 1921).
Harden, Donald B., “Glass and Glazes,” in A History of Technology, Charles
Singer et al. (eds.) (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1956), vol. 2, pp.
311–346.
Harden, Donald B., “New Light on Roman and Early Medieval Window-
Glass,” Glastechnische Berichte, (1959), 32:8–16.
Harden, Donald B., “Window-Glass from the Romano-British Bath-House at
Garden Hill, Hartfield, Sussex,” The Antiquaries Journal, (1974),
54:280–281.
Harden, Donald B. (ed.), Glass of the Caesars (Milan: Olivetti, 1986).
Harris, John Richard, Lexicographical Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals. In-
stitut für Orientforschung. Veröffentlichung. no. 54 (Berlin: Deutsche
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1961).
Hayes, D. E. L., The Portland Vase (London: The Trustees of the British Mu-
seum, 1964).
Heath, Thomas, A History of Greek Mathematics (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1921), 2 vols.
Heikamp, Detlef, Studien zur mediceischen Glaskunst: Archivalien, Entwurfszeich-
nungen, Gläser und Scherben (Florence: Kunsthistorisches Institut, 1986).
Henderson, Julian, “The raw Materials of early Glass Production,” Oxford Jour-
nal of Archaeology, (1985), IV/3:267–291.
Hermann, Alfred, “Das Buch kmj. T und die Chemie,” Zeitschrift für ägyptis-
che Sprache, (1954), 79:99–105.
Hershbell, Jackson P., “Democritus and the Beginnings of Greek Alchemy,”
Ambix (1987), 34:5–20.
Hirschberg, Julius, Geschichte der Augenheilkunde (Hildesheim: G. Olms Verlag,
1977), 7 vols.
Holmyard, Eric J., Alchemy (Harmondsworsh: Penguin, 1957).
Hopkins, Arthur John, “Transmutation by Color,” in Studien zur Geschichte der
Chemie, Festgabe Edmund O. von Lippmann zum siebzigsten Geburtstag dan-
gebracht (Berlin: Springer, 1927), pp. 9–14.
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 185
Hopkins, Arthur John, Alchemy child of Greek Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford UP,
1934).
Hopkins, Arthur John, “A Study of the Kerotakis Process as given by Zosimus
and later alchemical writers,” Isis, (1938), 29:326–353.
Horne, R.A., “Aristotelian Chemistry,” Chymia,” (1966), 11:21–27.
Huxley, G. L., Anthemius of Tralles. A Study in Later Greek Geometry (Cam-
bridge Mass.: Eaton Press, 1959).
Il colore nel Medioevo. Arte Simbolo Tecnica. Atti delle Giornate di Studi, Lucca,
2–4 May 1996 (Lucca: Istituto Storico Lucchese e Scuola Normale Supe-
riore di Pisa, 1998).
Il Tesoro di San Marco (Milano: Olivetti, 1986).
Isings, Clasina, Roman Glass from Dated Finds (Groningen, 1957).
Jackson, C. M., P. T. Nicholson and W. Gneisinger, “Glassmaking at Tell El-
Amarna: An Integrated Approach,” Journal of Glass Studies, (1998),
40:11–23.
James, Liz, “What Colours were Byzantine Mosaics?” in Medieval Mosaics.
Light, Color, Materials, Eve Borsook Fiorella Gioffredi Superbi and Gio-
vanni Pagliarulo (eds.) (Florence: The Harvard University Center for Ital-
ian Renaissance Studies at Villa I Tatti, 2000), pp. 35–46.
Jewitt, Llewellynn Frederick William, The Wedgwoods: being a life of Josiah
Wedgwood; with notices of his works and their productions, memoirs of the
Wedgwood and other families, and a history of the early potteries of Staffordshire
(London: Virtue Brothers and Co., 1865).
Katsiampoura, Gianna, “Transmutation of Matter in Byzantium: The Case of
Michael Psellos, the Alchemist,” Science and Education, (2008), 17:663–668.
Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, Dedo von, Rubinglas des ausgehenden 17. und des 18.
Jahrhunderts (Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 2001).
Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, Dedo von (ed.), Glass of the Alchemists: Lead Crystal—
Gold Ruby, 1650–1750 (Corning, N.Y.: Corning Museum of Glass, 2008).
Kingsley, Peter, “From Pythagoras to the Turba Philosophorum: Egypt and
Pythagorean Tradition,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes,
(1994), 57:1–13.
Kingsley, Peter, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic: Empedocles and the
Pythagorean Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon press, 1995).
Kisa, Anton, Das Glas im Altertume (Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann, 1908), 3
vols.
Kordas, George (ed.), Hyalos Vitrum Glass: History, Technology and Conservation
of Glass and Vitreous Materials in the Hellenic World (Athens: Glasnet,
2002).
Kotr, Ronald F., “The Dodecahedron in Plato’s Timaeus,” Rheinisches Mu-
seum, (1981), 124:212–222.
Lagercrantz, Otto, “Das Wort Chemie,” Kungl.Vetenskapssocietetens Årsbok,
(1937), pp. 25–44.
Le Fur, Daniel, “Les pigments dans la peinture égyptienne,” in Pigments et col-
orants de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Age. Teinture, peinture, enluminure—études
historiques et physico-chimiques (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2002).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 186
Lenz, Harlad Othmar, Mineralogie der alten Griechen und Römer (Gotha: G.F.
Thienemann, 1861).
Lepsius, Carl Richard, “Les métaux dans les inscriptions égyptiennes,” Biblio-
thèque de l’école des hautes études—Sciences philologiques et historiques, (1877),
30:1–72.
Lethaby, W.R. and Harold Swainson, The Church of Sancta Sophia Constan-
tinople. A Study of Byzantine Building (London: Macmillan & Co. 1894).
Letrouit, Jean, “Chronologie des alchimistes grecs,” in Alchimie. Art, histoire et
mythes, Didier Kahn and Sylvain Matton (eds.) (Paris: S.E.H.A., 1995),
pp. 11–93.
Lindberg, David C., Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicaco: The
University of Chicago Press, 1976).
Lindsay, Jack, The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt (London: Fred-
erik Muller, 1970).
Lippmann, Edmund O., Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Alchemie. Mit einem
Anhang zur älteren Geschichte der Metalle. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte
(Berlin: Julius Springer, 1919–1954), 3 vols.
Lloyd, Geoffrey E.R., Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and
Development of Greek Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1979).
Löber, H., “Hatte Plinius der Ältere Recht mit seinem Bericht über das
Entstehen des Glases?” in Festschrift für Waldemar Haberey, Thea Elisabeth
Haevernick and Axel von Saldern (eds.) (Mainz, 1976), pp. 85–88.
Loibl, Werner, “Johann Rudolph Glauber und die ‘gläsernen’ Folgen,” Journal
of Glass Studies, (2007), 49:81–101.
Lucas, A. and J.R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed.
(London: E. Arnold, 1962).
Lüthy, Christoph, “The Fourfold Democritus on the Stage of Early Modern
Science,” Isis, (2000), 91:443–479.
Mádl, Martin, “Johann Joachim Becher and the Beginnings of Baroque Glass-
making in Central Europe,” in Glass of the Alchemists: Lead Crystal—Gold
Ruby, 1650–1750, Dedo von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, (ed.) (Corning, N.Y.:
Corning Museum of Glass, 2008), pp. 97–105.
Magdalino, Paul and Maria Mavroudi, The Occult Sciences in Byzantium
(Geneva: La Pomme d’Or, 2006).
Mainstone, Rowland J., Hagia Sophia. Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Jus-
tinian’s Great Church, 1st ed. 1988 (London: Thames and Hudson, 2001).
Manni, Domenico Maria, Degli occhiali da naso inventati da Salvino Armati, gen-
tiluomo fiorentino. Trattato istorico (Firenze: Anton Maria Albizzini, 1738).
Martelli, Matteo, “L’opera alchemica dello Pseudo-Democrito: un riesame del
testo,” Eikasmos, (2003), 14:161–184.
Martelli, Matteo, Zosimo di Panopoli e Sinesio. Due commentatori dell’opera al-
chemica pseudo-democritea, PhD thesis defended at the University of Bologna
(Bologna, 2007).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 187
Martelli, Matteo, “‘Divine Water’ in the Alchemical Writings of Pseudo-

Democritus,” Ambix, (2008), 56:5–22.
Maspero, Gaston, Guide to the Cairo Museum (Cairo: French Institute of Ori-
ental Technology, 1908).
Matton, Sylvain, “L’influence de l’humanisme sur la tradition alchimique,” Mi-
crologus (1995), 3:279–345.
Mavroudi, Maria V., “Occult Science and Society in Byzantium: Considera-
tions for Future Research,” in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, Paul Mag-
dalino and Maria Mavroudi (Geneva: La Pomme d’Or, 2006), pp. 39–95.
Mertens, Michèle, “Graeco-Egyptian Alchemy in Byzantium,” in The Occult
Sciences in Byzantium, Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi (eds.) (Geneva:
La Pomme d’Or, 2006), pp. 205–230.
Miroirs. Jeux et reflets depuis l’Antiquité (Rouen: Somogy, 2000).
Mondolfo, Rodolfo, “Sugestiones de la técnica en las concepciones de los nat-
uralistas presocráticos,” Archeion, (1941), 23:36–52.
Mondolfo, Rodolfo, Polis, lavoro e tecnica (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1982).
Moorey, Peter Roger Stuart, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: the
Archaeological Evidence (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1994).
Moorhouse, Stephen, “Medieval distilling-Apparatus of Glass and Pottery,”
Medieval Archaeology, (1972), 16:79–121.
Morel, Jean-Paul, “L’artigiano,” in L’uomo romano, Andrea Giardina (ed.)
(Bari: Laterza, 1989), pp. 233–268.
Mottana, Annibale, “Storia della mineralogia antica. I. La mineralogia a
Bisanzio nel XI secolo D.C.: i poteri insiti nelle pietre secondo Michele
Psello,” Rendiconti dell’Accademia dei Lincei, Serie 9, (2005), 16:227–295.
Murray, Oswyn, “Hecataeus of Abdera and Pharaonic Kingship,” The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology, (1970), 56:141–171.
Neuburger, Albert, Die Technik des Altertums. (Leipzig: R. Voigtländer, 1919).
Newman, William R., Promethean Ambitions. Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect
Nature. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).
Nicholson, Paul T. and Julian Henderson, “Glass,” in Ancient Egyptian Mate-
rials and Technology, Paul T. Nicholson and Ina Shaw (eds.) (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2000), pp. 195–224.
Nicholson, Paul T. and Caroline M. Jackson, “Tell el-Amarna and the Glass-
makers’ Shop of the Second Millenium BC,” in La route du verre. Ateliers
primaries et secondaires du second millénaire av. J.-C. au Moyen Age, Marie-
Dominique Nenna (ed.) (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, 2000),
pp. 11–21.
Otto, Walter, Priester und Tempel im Hellenistischen Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur
Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. (Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1905), 2 vols.
Papathanassiou, Maria, “Stephanos of Alexandria: A Famous Byzantine
Scholar, Alchemist and Astrologer,” in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium,
Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi (eds.) (Geneva: La Pomme d’Or,
2006), pp. 163–204.
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 188
Partington, James R., Origins and Development of Applied Chemistry (London:

Longmans, 1935).
Partington, James R., A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, 2nd ed., (Balti-
more-London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).
Patai, Raphael, “Maria the Jewess—Founding Mother of Alchemy,” Ambix,
(1982), 29:178–197.
Pereira, Michela, The Alchemical Corpus Attributed to Raymond Lull (London:
The Warburg Institute, 1989).
Pereira Michela—see Crisciani
Perifano, Alfredo, L’Alchimie à la Cour de Côme Ier de Médicis: savoirs, culture et
politique (Paris: Honoré de Champion, 1997).
Petrie, William Matthew Flinders, Tell el Amarna (London: Methuen & Co.,
1894).
Philippe, Joseph, Le monde Byzantin dans l’histoire de la verrerie (Ve–XVIe siècle)
(Bologna: Editrice Patron, 1970).
Polyak, S.L., The Retina. The Anatomy and the Histology of the Retina in Man,
Ape, and Monkey, including the Consideration of Visual Function, the History
of Physiological Optics, and the Histological Laboratory Technique (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1941).
Pomaro, Gabriella, I ricettari del fondo Palatino della Biblioteca Centrale di
Firenze. Inventario (Florence: Giunta Regionale Toscana and Editrice
Bibliografica, 1991).
Pomeroy, Sarah B., Women in Hellenistic Egypt: From Alexander to Cleopatra
(New York: Schocken, 1984).
Priesner, Claus and Karin Figala (eds.), Alchemie. Lexikon einer hermetischen
Wissenschaft (München: C.H. Beck, 1998).
Principe, Lawrence M. (ed.), Chymists and Chymistry: Studies in the History of
Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry (Sagamore Beach: Science History
Publications/USA, 2007).
Principe, Lawrence M. and William R. Newman, “Some problems with the
historiography of alchemy,” in Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in
early modern Europe, Anthony Grafton and William R. Newman (eds.)
(Boston: The MIT Press, 2001), pp. 385–431.
Rashed, Roshdi, “A Pioneer in Anaclastic. Ibn Sahl on burning mirrors and
lenses,” Isis, (1990), 81:464–491.
Romano, Elisa, “I colori artificiali e le origini della chimica,” in Sciences exactes
et sciences appliquées à Alexandrie, Gilbert Argoud and Jean-Yves Guillau-
min (eds.) (Saint-Étienne: publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne,
1998), pp. 115–126.
Saffrey, Henri Dominque, “Historique et description du manuscrit alchimique
de Venise Marcianus Graecus 299,” in Alchimie. Art, histoire et mythes, Di-
dier Kahn and Sylvain Matton (eds.), (Paris: S.E.H.A., 1995), pp. 1–10.
Scaraborough, John (ed.), Symposium on Byzantine Medicine. Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 38, (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collec-
tion, 1985).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 189
Scatozza Höricht, Lucia Amalia, I vetri romani di Ercolano (Rome: l’Erma, 1986).
Schelenz, Hermann, Zur Geschichte der Pharmazeutisch-chemischen Destillierg-
eräte. (1911) Reprint. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967).
Schlick-Nolte, Birgit, Die Glasgefässe im alten Ägypten (Berlin: B. Hessling,
1968).
Schlick-Nolte, Birgit, “Glass,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt,
Donald B. Redford (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001), vol. 2, pp. 30–34.
Schlick-Nolte, Birgit and Rosmarie Lierke, “From Silica to Glass: on the Track
of the Ancient Glass Artisans,” in Reflections on Ancient Glass from the
Borowski Collection, Robert Bianchi (ed.) (Mainz: von Zabern 2002), pp.
9–40.
Schwarzenberg, Erkinger, “Colour, Light and Transparency in the Greek
World,” in Medieval Mosaics. Light, Color, Materials, Eve Borsook, Fiorella
Gioffredi Superbi and Giovanni Pagliarulo (eds.) (Florence: The Harvard
University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies at Villa I Tatti, 2000),
pp. 15–34.
Sena, Chiesa Gemma, “Arte e prestigio nella glittica romana,” in Cristalli e
gemme. Realtà fisica e immaginario, simbologia, tecniche e arte, Bruno Zanet-
tin (ed.) (Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere e arti, 2003),
pp. 387–421.
Shortland, Andrew, Paul Nicholson and Caroline Jackson, “Glass and faience
in Amarna: different methods of both supply for production, and subse-
quent distribution,” in The Social Context of Technological Change. Egypt
and the Near East, 1650–1550 BC, Andrew J. Shortland (ed.) (Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 2001), pp. 147–160.
Stern, E. Marianne, The Toledo Museum of Art. Roman Mold-blown Glass. The
First through Sixth Centuries (Roma: L’Erma di Breitschneider, 1995).
Stern, E. Marianne, “Glass and Rock Crystal: A Multifaceted Relationship,”
Journal of Roman Archaeology, (1997), 10: 192–206.
Stern, E. Marianne, “Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context,” American
Journal of Archaeology, (1999), 103:441–484.
Stern, E. Marianne, “The Glass Banausoi of Sidon and Rome,” in When Glass
Matters. Studies in the History of Science and Art from Graeco-Roman Antiq-
uity to Early Modern Era, Marco Beretta (ed.) (Florence: Leo S. Olschki,
2004), pp. 77–120.
Stern, E. Marianne, “Ancient Glass in Philological Context,” Mnemosyne,
(2007), 60:341–406.
Stern, E. Marianne, “Glass Production,” in Engineering and Technology in the
Classical World, John Peter Oleson (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008), pp.
520–546.
Stern, E. Marianne and Birgit Schlick-Nolte, Early glass of the Ancient World,
1600 B.C.–A.D. 50: Ernesto Wolf collection (Ostfildern : Verlag G. Hatje,
1994).
Stern, M. and Oswyn Murray, “Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews
and Egyptians,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, (1973), 59:159–168.
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 190
Stiaffini, Daniela, Il vetro nel Medioevo. Tecniche strutture manufatti (Rome:

Fratelli Palombi editore, 1999).
Stone, J. F. S. and L. C. Thomas, “The Use and Distribution of Faience in the
Ancient East and Prehistoric Europe,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,
(1956), 22:37–84.
Strano, Giorgio, “Glass and Heavenly Spheres: Astronomic Refraction in
Ptolemy’s Optics,” in When Glass Matters. Studies in the History of Science
and Art from Graeco-Roman Antiquity to Early Modern Era, Marco Beretta
(ed.) (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), pp. 121–134.
Tagliavini, Maria Grazia, Il gusto della meraviglia: bicchierografie tra arte e scienza
nel XVI e XVII secolo, PhD thesis defended at the University of Pisa (Pisa:
Università di Pisa, 2005), 2 vols.
Tagliavini, Maria Grazia, “Opere di cristallo delicatissime e meravigliose: works of
art for connoisseurs and scientific instruments for the Accademia del Ci-
mento,” Nuncius, (2007), 22:309–333.
Tannery, Paul, Pour l’histoire de la science Hellène 2nd edition. (Paris: Gauthier-
Villars, 1930).
Taylor, Frank Sherwood, “The Evolution of the Still,” Annals of Science, (1945),
5:185–202.
Taylor, Mark and David Hill, “Experiments in the Reconstruction of Roman
Wood-Fired Glassworking Furnaces,” Journal of Glass Studies, (2008),
50:249–270.
Temple, Robert, The Crystal Sun. Rediscovering A Lost Technology of the Ancient
World (London: Arrow Books, 2000).
Thébert, Yvon, “Lo schiavo,” in L’uomo romano, Andrea Giardina (ed.) (Bari:
Laterza, 1989), pp. 143–185.
Theuerkauff-Liederwald, Anna-Elisabeth, “Becher-Gläser, daran die Farben
aus denen Metallen gezogen, von dem berühmten Kunckel verfertiget,”
Journal of Glass Studies, (2007), 49:179–190.
Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York:
MacMillan and Columbia University press, 1923–1958), 8 vols.
Tolaini, Francesca, “De tinctio omnium musivorum. Technical Recipes for Glass
in the So-Called Mappae clavicula,” in When Glass Matters, Marco Beretta
(ed.) (Florence: Olschki, 2004), pp. 195–219.
Tressaud, Alain and Michael Vickers, “Ancient Murrhine Ware and Its Glass
Evocations,” Journal of Glass Studies, (2007), 49: 143–152.
Triantafyllidis, Pavlos, “Glassmakers of Late Antiquity in Greece: Philological
References and New Archaeological Evidence,” Journal of Glass Studies,
(2007), 49:262–264.
Trivellato, Francesca, Fondamenta dei vetrai. Lavoro, tecnologia e mercato a
Venezia tra Sei e Settecento (Rome: Donzelli Editore, 2000).
Trowbridge, Mary Luella, Philological Studies in Ancient Glass (Urbana: Uni-
versity of Illinois, 1930).
Untersteiner, Mario, Problemi di filologia filosofica (Milano: Cisalpino
Gogliardica, 1980).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 191
Varella, Evangelia A., “Experimental Techniques and Laboratory Apparatus in

Ancient Greece. Drug and Perfume Preparation,” Medicina nei secoli,
(1996), 8:191–201.
Véron, Philippe, Verre d’optique et lunettes astronomiques (Florence: Fondazione
Giorgio Ronchi, 2009).
Viano, Cristina, “Alchimie gréco-alexandrine,” in Dictionnaire critique de l’é-
sotérisme, J. Servier (ed.) (Paris: P.U.F., 1998), pp. 52–55.
Viano, Cristina, “Aristote et l’achimie grecque: la transmutation et le modèle
aristotélicien entre théorie et pratique,” Revue d’histoire des sciences, (1996),
49:189–213.
Viano, Cristina (ed.), Aristoteles chemicus: il IV libro dei Meteorologica nella
tradizione antica e medievale (Sankt Augustin: Academia, 2002).
Viano, Cristina, “Les alchimistes gréco-alexandrins et le Timée de Platon,” in
L’alchimie et ses racines philosophiques. La tradition grecque et la tradition
arabe, Cristina Viano (ed.) (Paris: Vrin, 2005), pp. 91–107.
Waugh, Jr Richey L., The Eye and Man in Ancient Egypt (Oostende: J.P.
Wayenborgh, 1995), 2 vols.
Wellmann, Max, Die Georgika des Demokritos (Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der
Wissenschaften, in Kommission bei Walter de Gruyter, 1921).
Wellmann, Max, Die Physika des Bolos Demokritos und der Magier Anaxilaos aus
Larissa (Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission
bei Walter de Gruyter, 1928).
Wellmann, Max, “Die Stein- und Gemmenbücher der Antike,” Quellen und Stu-
dien zur Geschichte der Natruwissenschaften und Medizin, (1935), 4:426–489.
Weyer, Jost, Chemiegeschichtsschreibung von Wiegleb (1790) bis Partington
(1970): eine Untersuchung über ihre Methoden, Prinzipien und Ziele
(Hildesheim: H. A. Gerstenberg, 1974).
Whitehouse, David, Roman Glass at the Corning Museum (New York: The
Corning Museum of Glass, 2003), vol. 3.
Zecchin, Luigi, Vetro e vetrai di Murano. Studi sulla storia della vetro (Venice:
l’Arsenale Editrice, 1989), vol. 2.
Zippe, F.X.M., Geschichte der Metalle (Vienna: W. Braunmüller, 1857).
ch07_5350.qxd 9/15/09 2:53 PM Page 192
ch08_5350.qxd 9/16/09 12:14 PM Page 193
Index of Names
Abbri, Ferdinando 156n Arslan, Ermanno A. 180

Adler, Ada x, 97n, 99n, 175 Aruz, Joan xii
Aeneas of Gaza 109, 141 Arvellier-Dulong, Véronique 180
Aetius 27n–28n Atheneus of Naucratis 43
Aetius of Amida 128 Aufrère, Sydney 9n, 15n–17n, 20n, 180
Africanus, Sextus Julius 116 Aulus Gellius 102
Agricola, Georgius 6n, 151, 175
Aidoneus 24 Bacci, Andrea 176
Akhenaten 9 Barag, Dan 1n–3n, 17n
Albertus Magnus 54–55, 146–147, 176 Barovier, Angelo 148
Alexander of Tralles 128 Barthélemy, Pascale 147n, 176
Alexander the Great 31n, 40–41 Baynes, Norman H. 128n, 180
Amon, 18 Becher, Johann Joachim 162
Anaximenes, 27 Beck, H.C. 8n, 180
Anderson, Robert G. xiv, 109n, 114n, Benedict, Jennifer 99n
179 Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette 4n
Anthemios of Tralles 26n, 128–131, Benzel, Kim xii
133 Beretta, Ilva xiv
Antonio de’ Medici 156, 160 Beretta, Marco xiii, 6n, 28n, 60, 64n,
Apicius 80n 77n, 80n, 142n, 180
Apollonius 128 Bernal, Martin 25n, 180
Archimedes 26n, 117, 128 Bernardoni, Andrea xiv
Aretas III 68 Bertand, Elie 176
Argoud, Gilbert 49n, 180 Berthelot, Marcellin xii, 17n–18n, 45n,
Ariberto 136, 139 101n–102n, 105n–106, 109n, 111,
Arnim, Hans Friedrich August von 87n, 115n–117, 119n, 141n, 176, 180
176 Berthollet, Claude Louis 169
Aristophanes 31 Berti, Luciano 153n, 180
Aristotle 31n–32, 34–37, 47–49n, 55, Bessarion, Basilius 141
73–74, 84, 128, 147 Bettini, Sergio 135n, 180
Aristotle, see also Pseudo-Aristotle Bianchi, Robert 2n
193
ch08_5350.qxd 9/16/09 12:14 PM Page 194
Bidez, Jean 54n, 99n, 140n, 176 Cornford, Francis Macdonald 32n–33n,
Biringuccio, Vannoccio 149–150, 176 176
Boll, Franz 54n Cosimo I de’ Medici 150, 152
Bolzan, J.E. 34n, 181 Covoni, Per Francesco 156n, 181
Bolus of Mendes 97–99, 103n–104 Crane, Gregory R. 175
Bonacasa, Nicola 181 Crippa, Sabina xiv
Boodt, Anselmus de 176 Crisciani, Chiara 181
Borch, Ole 9n Cumont, Franz 17n, 54n, 99n, 176, 182
Borsook, Eve xiv, 65n, 133n, 181
Bosc-d’Antic, Paul 168–169, 176 D’Amato, Clotilde 79n
Boyle, Robert 161 Damigeron 53
Brancacci, Aldo 102n, 181 Darcet, Jean 169
Bresciani, Edda 12n, 176, 181 Daremberg, Charles 26n, 31, 70–71,
Brill, Robert H. 1n–3n, 17n, 77n, 165n, 182
181 Daumas, F. 9n, 182
Budge, Ernst Alfred Wallis 181 De Carolis, Ernesto xiv
Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte Debus, Allen G., 77n
de 125, 162–163, 176 Delamare, François 12n, 20n
Buontalenti, Bernardo 152 Dell’Acqua, Francesca 67n, 126n, 144n,
Burnstyn, H.L. 26n, 181 182
Burstein, Stanley Mayer 14n, 181 Della Porta, Giovan Battista 150n, 177
Butteri, Giovanni Maria 156, 158–159 Delaunay Deslandes, Pierre 167
Del Riccio, Agostino 153, 177
Caesar 91 De Mely, F. 47n, 177
Caley, Earle R. 20n Democritus 97n, 100–106
Camplani, Alberto 132n, 181 Democritus, see also Pseudo-Democritus
Canella, Anne Françoise 92n, 147, 181, Derchain, P. 9n, 17–18n, 182
184 Descartes, René 77
Carbonelli, Giovanni 181 Deville, Achille 67n, 126n–127n, 182
Carcopino, Jérôme 97n, 181 Dezzi Bardeschi, Marco 182
Carusi, Paola xiv Diels, Hermann 24n, 27n–28n, 99n,
Casati, Stefano xiv 177, 182
Casini, Vittorio 157n Diodorus Siculus 15, 30, 67n, 89–90,
Cavendish, Margaret 171 102n
Celsus 69, 71, 79n–80n Diocles 26n
Chaptal, Jean Antoine 167n Diogenes Laertius 15, 102–104
Chrysostom, John 107 Dioscorides 51, 80n, 112, 177
Ciappi, Silvia xiv Di Pasquale, Giovanni xiii–xiv, 28n,
Ciarallo, Annamaria xiv 64n, 80n, 182
Cicero 41, 74n, 80n Dodwell, C.R. 135n
Citti, Francesco xiv Donaldson, James 95n
Claudius 102, 111 Downey, G. 131n, 182
Clement of Alexandria 45 Dümichen, Johannes 18n, 182
Cleopatra 119 Düring, I. 34n, 177
Clericuzio, Antonio xiii
Cleveland, A. 95n Eichholz, D.E. 34n, 59n, 65n, 182
Cole, Thomas 15n, 181 Eisler, R. 5n, 182
Colinet, Andrée xiii, 176 Empedocles 14, 24–27, 122
Colonna, M.E. 109n, 176 Engle, Paul 156n, 182
Columella 80n, 97n, 99, 103n, 111 Enoch, Jay M.
Conticelli, Valentina 153n, 181 Eraclius 135, 143–144
Constantine 126–127 Erman, Adolf 14n, 183
ch08_5350.qxd 9/16/09 12:14 PM Page 195
Eudoxus of Cyzicus 46 92n–94, 101, 106n, 116n, 142n,

Euthochius 128 177, 183–184
Evans, Jean M. xii Hamilton, William 171
Hammer Jensen, Ingerborg 2n–3n, 184
Federici Vescovini, Graziella 133n, 183 Harden, Donald B. 2n, 10n, 67n, 184
Festugière, Jean André 18n, 183 Harris, John Richard 2n, 12n, 16n–17n,
Figala, Karin x 21n, 184
Fiori, Cesare xiv Haudicqeur de Blancourt, François 177
Flavius Josephus 58 Hawthorne, John G. 142n
Flavius Vopiscus 86n Hayes, D.E.L. 43n, 171n, 184
Fleming, Stuart J. 64n, 183 Heath, Malcom 52n
Foglia, Pio xiv Heath, Thomas 25n, 129n, 184
Fontanieu, 164 Hecateus of Abdera 14–15
Forbes, Robert James 10n, 14n, 17n, Hedefors, Hjalmar 143n, 177
20n, 24n, 57n, 183 Heikamp, Detlef 152n–153n, 184
Fourcroy, Antoine François 169 Henderson, Julian 1n, 8n, 10n, 21n, 184
Fowden, Garth 8–9, 18n, 183 Hera 24
Francesco de’ Medici 152, 154, 156 Heraclitus 24–25n, 87n
Frängsmyr, Tore xv Heraclius 140
Fraser, P.M. 41n, 44, 99n, 107n, 183 Hermann, Afred ix, 184
Hermes Trismegistus 17
Gaillard-Seux, Patricia 97n, 183 Hero of Alexandria 80, 114–115,
Galba 111 117–118
Galen 17, 51, 71–72n, 77, 128, 177 Herodotus, 4, 8, 28–29, 41
Galigani, Pierpaolo 54n, 140n, 177 Herophilus 69
Galilei, Galileo 160 Hershbell, Jackson P. 99n, 102, 184
Galluzzi, Paolo 156n, 183 Hill, David 59n
Galuzzi, Massimo 6n Hippocrates 51
Ganzenmüller, Wilhelm xiv, 141n, Hirschberg, Julius 79, 184
162n, 183 Hocquet, Thierry xiv, 163n
Gemelli Marciano, M. Laura 102n, Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry d’ 163
104n, 183 Holmes, Frederic L. 109n, 114n
Gialanella, Costanza 98n, 183 Holmyard, Eric J. x, 126n, 184
Giardina, Andrea 37n Homer 39n
Gioffredi Superbi, Fiorella 65n, 133n Hopkins, Arthur John 22n, 98n, 117n,
Glauber, Rudolph 162 122n, 184–185
Gneisinger, W. 8n Horatius 80n
Gnoli, Raniero 153n Horne, R.A. 34n, 185
Gorgias 26 Huxley, G.L. 129n, 185
Grafton, Anthony ix
Grandin, Karl xv Ilardi, Vincent xiv, 78n
Grapow, Hermann 14n Irenaeus 94–95n
Guenther, Arthur H. 78n Isidorus of Miletus 131
Guillaumin, Jean-Yves 49n Isidorus of Seville 74, 143, 177
Guissoni, Andrea 152 Isings, C. 114n, 185
Gulick, Charles Burton 43n Isis 15
Guzzo, Pietro Giovanni xiv Iulius Alexander 125, 127
Hadrianus Augustus 85 Jackson, C.M. 8n, 11n, 185

Haevernick, Thea Elisabeth 7n Jacoby, Felix 15n
Halleux, Robert ix–x, xiii–xiv, 22n–24n, James, Liz 133n, 185
26n, 28n, 32n, 47n–48n, 50, 52n, Jewitt, L.F.W. 171n, 185
ch08_5350.qxd 9/16/09 12:14 PM Page 196
Johnson, Janet H. 15n Mainstone, Rowland J. 131n, 186

Joly, Bernard xiv Majerna, Daniela xiv
Juba 52 Manni, Domenico Maria 79n, 186
Justinian 129–132n, 140 Marbodus 54, 178
Juvenalis 80n Marcus Scaurus 68
Marggraff, Andreas Sigismund 167
Kahn, Didier 99n, 117n Martelli, Matteo xiii, 99, 106, 115n,
Katsiampoura, Gianna 140n, 185 186–187
Kepler, Johann 77 Martialis 80n
Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, Dedo von xv, Mary the Jewess 118–122
156n, 162n, 185 Maspero, Gaston 18n, 187
Kidd, F.G. 38n, 177 Matton, Sylvain 99n, 117n, 141n, 187
Kingsley, Peter 24n, 99n, 185 Mavroudi, Maria 128n, 138n, 187
Kirk, G.S. 24n–25n, 27n, 177 Medici sovereigns, see Cosimo I, Francesco
Kisa, Anton 29n, 31, 91n, 185 I, Antonio
Kordas, George 39n, 77n, 185 Merret, Christopher 161
Kotr, Ronald F. 32n, 185 Merrifield, Mary 135n, 143n, 178
Kunckel, Johann 161–162, 177 Mertens, Michèle xiii, 18n, 114n, 117n,
119n, 121n, 139n–140, 178, 187
Lactantius 23, 27 Meyvaert, Paul 142n
Lagercrantz, Otto ix, xv, 185 Micheli, Gianni 6n
Lanata, G. 132n Mieli, Aldo 128n
Laplace, Pierre Simon Miniati, Mara xiv
Lavoisier, Antoine Laurent 118, Mondolfo, Rodolfo 25n, 34n, 187
168–171, 178 Mondrian, Birgitte 139n
Leblanc, Nicolas 167 Montaigne, Michel de 152–153n, 178
Le Fur, Daniel 20n, 185 Monti, Maria Teresa 6n
Lenz, Harald Othmar 24n, 186 Moorey, Petere Roger Stuart 1n, 187
Lenzi, Alessandra xiv Moorhouse, Stephen 109n, 119n, 187
Leonardo da Vinci 148–150, 178 Morel, Jean-Paul 37n, 187
Lepsius, Carl Richard 20n–21n, 186 Morel, Pierre-Marie 102n
Lethaby, W.R. 131n–132n, 186 Morin, Jean 26n, 31n
Letrouit, Jean 99n, 117n, 119n, 186 Moretti, Cesare 148n
Levere, Trevor H. 109n, 114n Moretti, Dionisio 137
Lichtheim, Miriam 178 Mottana, Annibale 54n, 187
Lierke, Rosmarie 2n Murray, Oswyn 14n, 187
Lindberg, David 77n, 186
Lindsay, Jack ix, 83n, 99n, 104n, 109n, Nenna, Marie-Dominique 11n, 45n
118, 186 Neri, Antonio 148, 156, 160–161, 163,
Lippmann, Edmund O. 99n, 116n, 186 166, 170, 178
Lloyd, Geoffrey E.R. 33, 186 Nestis 24
Löber, H. 7n, 186 Neto, Jõao xiv
Loibl, Werner 162n Neuburger, Albert 12n, 187
Loysel, Pierre 169–171, 178 Newman, William R. vii, 4n, 187
Lucas, A. 2n, 12n, 21n, 186 Nicholson, Paul T. 1n, 8n, 10n–11n,
Lucilius 101 187
Lucretius 38, 72–75, 80n Nollet, Jean Antoine 168
Lüthy, Christoph 102n, 186 Nutton, Vivian 79n
Macquer, Pierre Joseph 168–169n Obenga, Théophile 25n

Mádl, Martin 162n, 186 Olympiodorus 116
Magdalino, Paul 128n, 186 Oppenheim, Leo A. 1n–3n, 17n
ch08_5350.qxd 9/16/09 12:14 PM Page 197
Osiris 15–16 Pseudo-Seneca 79

Ostanes 103, 105–106 Ptah, 18–19
Otto, Walter 18n, 187 Ptolemy 77
Ovid 80n, 165 Ptolemy I Soter 46
Ptolemy III 45
Pagliarulo, Giovanni 65n, 133n Publius Plautus Hypsaeus 68
Palissy, Bernard 39n, 178 Pythagoras 24n–25n, 84
Palmieri, N. 97n
Panofsky, Erwin 145n, 175 Quadri, Antonio 137
Papathanassiou, Maria 140n, 187
Paracelsus 50 Rabanus Maurus 143–145
Partington, James R. 6n–7n, 45n, Rashed, Roshdi 26n, 129n, 179, 188
187–188 Raven, J.E. 24n–25n, 27n
Patai, Raphael 118n, 120n–121n, 178, Ravencroft, George 166–167
188 Réaumur, René Antoine Ferchault de
Paul the Silentiary 132 167–168
Peligot, Eug. 6n Redford, Donald B. 11n
Pereira, Michela xiv, 178, 188 Retorius 54
Perifano, Alfredo 152n, 188 Richards, John F.C. 20n
Petrie, William Matthew Flinders 11n, Riddle, John M. 54n, 179
18, 123, 188 Roberts, Alexander 95n
Petronius 69, 80n, 83, 110–111 Rigo, Antonio xiv, 139n
Philip 87n Romano, Elisa 49n, 188
Philippe, Joseph 129n, 142, 188 Royer, J. 79n
Philoponos 128 Royou, Tomas Maurice 163n, 179
Philolaus 27 Ruelle, Charles Emile xii, 18n, 70n–71,
Philostratos 52 101n–102n, 105n–106n, 111,
Piccioli, Ciro 98n 115n–117, 119n
Plato 31–34, 36, 47, 66, 84 Rufus of Ephesus 69–71, 80n, 179
Pliny the Elder 1, 5–7, 32n, 39, 43,
49n–52, 54, 57n–59, 61, 64, Saffrey, Henri Dominique 139n–140n,
68–69, 80n, 83, 86–87n, 89, 188
91–92, 95–97, 100, 102–104, 111, Saglio, Edmond 26n
141–142, 162, 178 Saldern, Axel von 1n–3n, 7n, 179
Polyak, S.L. 70n, 188 Salerno, Carlo Stefano 148n
Pomaro, Gabriella 152n, 188 Sarton, George 128n, 131
Pomeroy, Sarah 119, 188 Saumaise, Claude 74, 103n
Pompeius Magnus 91 Scaife, Ross x
Pomponius Mela 80n Scaraborough, John 129n, 188
Posidippus of Pella 46, 179 Scatozza Höricht, Lucia Amalia 188
Posidonius 38, 61, 63, 100–101 Schamp, Jacques 50
Pratesi, Gabriele xiv Schechner, Sara xiv
Priesner, Claus x, 188 Schelenz, Hermann 119n, 188
Principe, Lawrence M. ix–x, 188 Schlick-Nolte, Birgit 2n–3n, 9n–11n,
Proclus 128 78n, 80n, 189
Procopius 132 Schofield, M. 24n–25n, 27n
Prometheus 153, 155 Schröder, Friedrich Josef Wilhelm 9n
Propertius 80n Schwarzenberg, Erkinger xiv, 189
Psellus, Michael 54, 140, 179 Scotti, Andrea, xiv
Pseudo-Aristotle 38 Scribonius Largus 80n, 111
Pseudo-Democritus xiii, 8, 98–102, Sedacer 147, 179
104–107, 119, 128, 140 Sena Chiesa, Gemma 93n, 189
ch08_5350.qxd 9/16/09 12:14 PM Page 198
Seneca, see also Pseudo-Seneca Tognoni, Federico xiv

Seneca, 15, 38, 57, 61, 63–64, 67n, Tolaini, Francesca 142n, 190
75–76n, 80n, 96, 100–102 Tommasi Ferroni, Sabina 148n
Serapis 45 Tonnato, Tullio 148n
Servianus 85 Tosi, Alessandro xiv
Shaw, Ina 2n Trasyllus 102–103
Shortland, Andrew J. 11n, 189 Tressaud, Alain 91n, 190
Singer, Charles 2n, 10n Triantafyllidis, Pavlos 126n, 190
Sironi, Attilia 153n Trivellato, Francesca 191
Smith, Cyril Stanley 142n, 179 Trowbridge, Mary Luella 4n, 20n,
Sogliani, Francesca 98n 28n–29n, 74n, 109n, 131n, 190
Stahl, Georg Ernst 167
Statius 80n Untersteiner, Mario 34n, 190
Steneck, Nicholas H. 77n
Stephanos of Alexandria 140 Vandini, Mariangela xiv
Stern, E. Marianne xiii, 3n, 7n, 9n–10, Varchi, Benedetto 179
28n, 31n, 39n, 57n, 60, 69, 74n, Varella, Evangelia A. 114n, 190
78n, 80n, 189 Varro 25n, 80n, 94
Stern, M. 14n Vasari, Giorgio 153
Stiaffini, Daniela 189 Véron, Philippe 167n, 190
Stone, J.F.S. 8n 189 Vertesi, Janet xiv
Strabo, 31n, 40–42, 46–47, 59, 80n Vestorius, 13
Stradanus, Johannes 153, 156 Viano, Cristina xiii–xiv, 33n, 191
Strano, Giorgio xiv, 77n, 190 Vicker, Michael 91n
Suger of Saint Denis 144–146 Vitruvius, 12–14, 80n, 103n
Svetonius 80n, 111 Vulcan 39n, 156–157
Swainson, Harold 131n–132n
Synesius 105–106 Watson, Neale xiv
Waugh Jr., Richey L. 79, 191
Taborelli, Luigi xiv Wedgwood, Josiah 171–173
Tacitus 80n Wellmann, Max 52n, 99n, 191
Tagliavini, Maria Grazia xiv, 152, 190 Weyer, Jost ix, 191
Tannery, Paul 27n, 87n, 190 Whiston, William 58n
Taylor, Frank Sherwood 109n, 119n, Whitehouse, David 173n, 191
121–122n, 190 Wiegleb, Johann Christian x, 179
Taylor, Mark 59n, 190 Wisenberg, Wesley 87n
Temple, Robert 28n, 190 Witschel, Christian 175
Thales 84 Woodcroft, Bennet 117n
Thébert, Yvon 37n, 190
Theodoret 107–108n Xenocrates of Ephesos 52
Theophilus 134–135, 146
Theophrastus 20–21, 26n, 46–51, Zanettin, Bruno 93n
84–85n, 95n, 98n, 120, 129, 179 Zecchin, Luigi 127n, 191
Theuerkauff-Liederwald, Anna- Zeus, 24
Elisabeth 162n, 190 Zippe, F.X.M. 24n, 191
Thomas, L.C. 8n Zoroaster 54
Thorndike, Lynn 141n, 190 Zosimos of Panopolis 8, 18, 102n,
Tiberius 103, 125 117–120, 123, 128, 131n, 139–140

The Alchemy of Glass Counterfeit Imitati

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Alchemy of Glass Counterfeit Imitati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ch00_5350.

qxd 9/15/09 2:34 PM Page i

Science History Publications/usa

First published in the United States of America

© 2009 Watson Publishing International LLC

If the publishers have unwittingly infringed the copyright in an illustration

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Index of Names 193

(1937), pp. 25–44.

Sprache, (1954), 79:99–105.

x The Alchemy of Glass

istry: a fresh linguistic start aiming at overcoming the controversies?5

and Early Modern Chemistry (Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications/USA,

the subject: Johann Christian Wiegleb, Historisch-kritische Untersuchung der Al-

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking xi

xii The Alchemy of Glass

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking xiii

interpretations by Robert Halleux, Michèle Mertens and Andrée Col-

xiv The Alchemy of Glass

the manuscript and provided me with useful criticism. Without their

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking xv

holm, which gave me the opportunity to work with Otto Lagercrantz’s

SAP: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei

SANC: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici delle Province di

Artificial and Natural Glass in

“neque est alia nunc sequacior materia” Pliny the Elder,

glass in mesopotamia: practice and theory

A combination of archaeological evidence and the analysis of ancient

those by Paul T. Nicholson and Julian Henderson, “Glass,” in Paul T. Nicholson

2 The Alchemy of Glass

analogies between glassmaking, glazing and the production of faience

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking 3

Mesopotamian recipes, the chemical operations required to produce

4 The Alchemy of Glass

nises the technical capability to create a perfect imitation of a natural

of Illinois, 1930), p. 19.

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking 5

of the social and theoretical position of glassmaking in Mesopotamian

1. Glassmaking seems to have been perceived by Mesopotamian au-

However, as much as the Mesopotamian glass texts are important

6 The Alchemy of Glass

glass was discovered by chance by Phoenician merchants. The narrative

That part of Syria which is known as Phoenicia and borders on

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking 7

Pliny’s story, the original source of which remains unknown, is

mans, 1935), p. 433.

8 The Alchemy of Glass

Although the influence of Mesopotamian glassmaking on Egyptian

In the case of alchemy, the ancient Egyptians are known to have

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking 9

various allusions to Egypt and its tradition; but there is no sign of

Fowden’s sceptical remark is justified as long as it refers to the his-

Hermanni Conringii animadversionibus vindicate (Hafniae: Sumptibus Petri

10 The Alchemy of Glass

F i g . 1. Head of an Egyptian priest made of vitreous material. Ca. Seventh

Counterfeit, Imitation, and Transmutation in Ancient Glassmaking 11

shows] an array of glassworking techniques never surpassed until the

1. Fritting the raw materials in low-temperature furnaces;24

21 Birgit Schlick-Nolte, “Glass,” in Donald B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclo-

T. Nicholson and W. Gneisinger, “Glassmaking at Tell El-Amarna: An Integrated

12 The Alchemy of Glass

3. An extensive knowledge of the time required to cool glass in order

At an early stage of glassmaking the main ingredient, silica, was ini-

itori, 1988), p. 11.