gems, glyptic, engraved gems, agate, cameo, intaglio

According to the preface, this work is an expansion of the dissertation on chalcedony vessels. In the introduction (p. 1), appropriate reference is made to Pliny’s Natural History; however, throughout the book it is cited in the old, cumbersome chapter-based manner (whereas in this review it is cited by paragraph). Among the gemstones from which vessels were made (pp. 2 f.) are the “chalcedony group,” fluorite, rock crystal, and to a lesser extent plasma, garnet, lapis lazuli, and possibly jasper and amethyst (the last three are not represented in the catalogue). The text continues with information on the trade in chalcedony from India via the Persian Gulf (pp. 4 f.) and the magical properties attributed to gemstones (p. 6). The history of gemstone vessels is traced (pp. 7 ff.) from antiquity (the pieces cited in notes 16–30 are not included in the catalogue), through the Hellenistic period—with the Tazza Farnese (no. 13)—and the “era of art looting”—with the Coupe des Ptolémées (no. 18)—into the early imperial period—with the jug from St. Maurice (no. 35) and the unguent vessels in Berlin (no. 68) and Braunschweig (no. 74)—and on into late antiquity—with the Waddesdon and Rubens vases (nos. 108/09). Some of the late antique vessels listed are also missing from the catalogue, including the so-called drinking bowl of Helena in the Trier cathedral treasury (Büttner, Festschrift v. Mercklin, 1964, pp. 27 ff., and Frühchristliche Zeugnisse, Trier catalogue 1965, pp. 248 f., no. 47). In an appendix (pp. 14 ff.), the history of gemstone vessels in the Middle Ages and early modern period is briefly touched upon. The long-debated question of the murrina follows (pp. 18 ff.); the author identifies them—following Harden and Loewenthal, 1959—as vessels made of fluorite. He accordingly distances himself from Kisa’s theory that millefiori glass was an imitation of murrina. The final group discussed is vessels made of rock crystal (pp. 22 f.). When the author (note 51) expresses doubts about Trowbridge’s comments regarding imitations in glass, it is because he has not sufficiently engaged with the interesting subject of glass as a gemstone imitation.