The (long and complex) History of Medieval Chairs - Part III; Throne Chairs

It has been a while since our last discussion on the topic of medieval chairs, so I felt another one was a bit overdue. There is probably no single form of furniture in which one can get "into the weeds" (or swamps, or mud) of ambiguity, than that of the "throne chair".

As already discussed in the introduction of this topic, here, a "throne" by definition is not a type of a chair or seat, but rather, the function of a seat as a symbol of state, by the person occupying it. In this post we will try to stay out of the weeds, but give some context into the ornamentation and various forms of the 'throne chair', which I am simply defining as a high backed chair of imposing form.

Detail from the Ashburnham Pentateuch (BNF Nouv. Acq. Lat 2334 fol 44r)
In this illustration we see two men moving an empty chair of elabourate form

I like the Ashburnham Pentateuch for its myriad illustrations of all manner of furniture and interiors as they were (representationally) at the onset of the Medieval Period. Though the Roman Empire had "collapsed" some 100-150 years before this manuscript was produced, we see that the Roman way of life and styles of furniture were still very much in vogue. In this illustration, which is part of a scene depicting the preparation of Joseph's brother's return to Canaan from Egypt, people are busy cleaning, packing, and preparing for a long journey.

Other 'throne chairs' depicted in this manuscript seem to be of the plinth chair form with a separate frame for a cloth hanging which gives the visual appearance of a "back" but is not something which the occupant can lean his weight against; this chair, on the other hand, is clearly a one piece unit, constructed in a manner which is still common to this day. The rear legs are taller than the front, have horizontal cross-members forming the back, and are joined to the rest of the chair at the rear of the seat and are further stabilised by stretchers joining the front legs. Throughout the entire millennium known to us as the "Middle Ages" this same basic chair type persisted; only changing in appearance by shifts in taste and fashion for the decorative elements.

Reconstruction of an 8th century chair using fragments
 found in the excavation of the Crypta Balbi, in Rome
(see here for more information - in Italian)

There are not many pieces of furniture which remain from the early Medieval period, so whenever anything comes to light, it is of particular fascination to me. In 2001, excavation was going on in the centre of Rome, and an ancient Roman theater was uncovered. The remains of this building complex and later medieval buildings which occupied the site are collectively part of the Museo Nazionale Romano, and are known as the Crypta Balbi. According to their web page, in the 7th and 8th century this area had a workshop in the Exhedra, (an area built into a wall such as a chapel or a workshop; or even a seat if it is small) which produced luxury goods. Apparently, from these workshops came a bishop's throne; the few surviving fragments of which have been incorporated into a probable reconstruction of the chair, and are on view in the crypt.

The design of this chair is essentially the same as the remains of the so called St Peter's Chair which comes from the  time of Charles the Bald of the 9th century, on display in the Vatican Museum, It is also not so different from an 8th century BC chair found in Cyprus. All three of these chairs I just mentioned are constructed of a wooden core with thin ornamental ivory plates affixed to the surfaces. They are in form, very similar to chairs depicted in 8th, 9th, and 10th century manuscripts, so they give us a good point of reference to help us interpret the artwork.


Not all such chairs would have been covered in ivory, as gilt metal and enamel plaques were also popular methods of ornamentation. In fact, I am quite sure that the entire gamut of ornamental options were available, depending on the amount the patron was willing to spend for the production of his chair. In the 7th century account of St Elugius (a goldsmith and member of the Merovingian court) there is a story of him having made two chairs of gold, ornamented with gems and semi-precious stones for King Clotaire (ca 584-629). These chairs would probably not have looked all that different to the chair from the Sacramentary of  Charles the Bald, pictured below.

Folio 3r Sacramentary of Charles the Bald
BNF Lat 1141 ca 1169-70

This chair form had staying power throughout the medieval period. An interior designer might quibble over the similarity of some of these designs from an ornamental standpoint, and they doubtless had some technical variations in their construction over the course of a millennium, but essentially this chair remained unchanged for thousands of years. I am speaking here as an archaeologist would see things; in the same way that he would find a relationships between Neanderthal and a modern humans, not in the way that an ethnologist finds differences between the Celts and Germanic people of early medieval Europe. (They were not the same people even though many early history enthusiasts like to treat them as one and the same)

BNF Lat. 8851 fol 115v
Evangelist Portrait of St John
10th century

The form of these throne chairs could have arched, triangular, or square backs, and could have panels and arms above the seat or not, as in the case of this 10th century illustration from the workshop of the monastery at Echternach. This manuscript has been attributed to the Meister des Registrum Gregorii, but, though it is very similar to his work, it is my belief that it was not done by the same artist. I would imagine it was more likely a member of his workshop. My basis for that assumption is that the illustrations are less technically detailed, (though that could be excused away by the speed in which their production required). A second argument that I give, however, cannot be excused away so readily, which is that the faces are not treated with such precision, and more importantly, the Grogorii Meister (master) makes his figure's fingers much longer than the artist of this manuscript. 

Meister des Registrum Gregorii
This illustration comes from the book which
this unknown painter is named after; it is
added here for comparison to the above work.

Whether this illustration was painted by him, or someone of his circle of influence, is not so important as the fact that the Registrum Gregorii Meister's work was so renowned that it influenced other work for over a century. The following illustration, also a portrait of Pope Gregory the Great, from some 60-80 years after that of the Gregorii Meister, bears witness to this fact. Though this chair differs from the others in that it has no panels, its structure is essentially the same concept. Other illustrations from the 10th century are more like the previous examples, but I wished to show this example to demonstrate the longevity of ornament, as influenced by one artist or school of artistic thought. Both the centres of St Gall and Echternach, where these three works were produced, exerted a far reaching impact on book illustrations of the Ottonian world.

Pope Gregory receives Inspiration from the Holy Spirit
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 376, zt. 82
ca 1050-70 

As time wore on, the throne chair did not so much change, as adapt the various trends in fashion and ornamentation. In the British Museum can be found a lovely collection of ivory chessmen which are believed to have been created in the first half of the 12th century. Known as the Lewis Chessmen, these pieces give wonderful representational designs for chairs done in the Romanesque taste of ornament; namely interlace and foliage, known in German as Flechtwerk and Rankenwerk (Flecht means to weave, and Ranken is a vine tendril). In many of the objects created in the 11th and 12th centuries the taste for panels with enamels and gems gave way to ornament of this type. This is an oversimplification, however, as the 11th -13th century was the "Golden Age" of enamel work from Mosan and Limoges, and the objects produced in these workshops went into the decoration of just about any sort of furniture one can think of. Nevertheless, as featured in other postings on this blog, there are actual surviving chairs from this period which prominently feature this vine and weaving type of Romanesque ornament.

One of the 12th century Lewis Chessman from the British Museum

Regardless of the elements of ornament, this chair still illustrates the basic principle of square corner posts and a panel back; (it also has side panels and shorter front posts, not visible from this angle) in this case the round finials have given way to carved animal heads. This might have been a variation which had persisted throughout the Middle Ages as well. Many illustrations from every century show them as terminals on the "X Chairs" so there is no good reason to doubt carved animals could have been used on these throne chairs as well. (They are also very common on throne chairs of the 14th and 15th century, as observed in artwork and actual surviving examples.)

Shrine of St Valerie, sold on Christie's
Late 12th or early 13th century

Sadly, I did not have an odd 50,000£ lying under my mattress, so was unable to purchase this lovely champlevé shrine when it came up for sale on Christie's a couple years ago. Because it is a shrine, the proportions have been somewhat altered, but this is still our basic throne chair made of gilt bronze and enamel. This is one of those products which I mentioned, coming from Limoges. As far as I know, there is no actual surviving chair made of this sort of enameled gilt bronze, but given the host of chest fittings, reliquaries and, caskets made in this manner, it would seem very probable that such chairs were also produced. Without a doubt, plaques of this type of ornament would have been affixed to the wooden structure of other chairs, giving a very bold and glittering appearance.

Coronation Chair of Westminster Abby
1296

Bold and glittering is certainly how this coronation chair of King Edward's would have appeared when first constructed in 1296. It was covered in gilded gesso with figures and diaper (repeating foliage or floral pattern) ornamentation; further enhanced by transparent glazes of colour to pick out certain elements of the design. Leaving off the cusps and crockets of Gothic ornament, this chair essentially brings us right back to the 8th century Italian one we began with.  Disregarding 700 years of abuse and continual use, this chair is also a wonderful testament to the degree of sophistication that existed in a period from which most people still hold the view that the furniture was of the coarsest form. 

I have brought you, century by century, through almost the whole of the Middle Ages here. We have now arrived at the 14th century and though there are hundreds of illustrations to choose from, both in manuscripts and painting, as well as sculptures and even actual chairs, I have chosen this one to hammer home a bit more, the last point I made.

BL Yates Thompson MS 21 fol 69v

Save for the baldaquin (overhanging 'roof') this chair is still basically the same as the others, having corner posts and panels to the sides and back. It comes from a ca 1380 addition of Roman de la Rose, a popular late medieval romance novel. I wanted to use it in order to contrast it with the following illustration, which comes from the same book. In the illustration above, we see representations of a fairly sophisticated and well ornamented study. The chair has carved panels, and the posts have elabourately turned elements. (One post has been omitted by the artist in order to avoid confusion, as it would have been mostly hidden by the lectern.) A highly carved and ornamented lectern stands in front of the seated scribe, and a revolving, adjustable round desk is placed to the side.

BL Yates Thompson MS 21 fol 4r

By contrast, the single unadorned (at least as it is depicted here) chest in this illustration would seem to speak of a very humble ill-furnished room. This illustration seems to be the model by which many people judge the furniture and furnishings of the medieval world, but this view completely ignores other illustrations such as the one above, and more importantly, all the actual artifacts which demonstrate that people in the Middle Ages loved to ornament their possessions. 

The richest kings, popes, and emperors would have had chairs of gold, or some other material covered in gold and gems, but other, slightly less well off rulers wishing to emulate that style, could have had gilded copper and enamel or glass. Still further down the economic ladder, one could have had gilded gesso and paint. Once any hope of gold ran out, there was still the option of bronze, and below that, brightly painted objects. 

If we look at the early modern period, when enough objects associated with a particular individual survive to give us a clear impression of their possessions, and compare that to the writings of the classical writers of Rome, (backed up by physical evidence from places such as Pompeii) we can see that people have not really changed much. The more money and power someone has, the more lavish his goods. In the will of Charlemagne is mentioned four elabourate tables made of either silver or gold; kings and emperors did not have crude unadorned furniture. People of lower social or economic situation have always striven to emulate, to the best of their ability, the tastes and fashions of their social and economical superiors. Even peasants of the 15th and 16th centuries had brightly painted furniture, why can we not assume then, that the same would have held true for the 12th or the 9th?

A 15th century throne chair and associated wall paneling in the Cluny, Paris

One thing that the study of a two thousand years of European furniture has revealed, is the slow change which took place in the basic forms and methods of construction. In a previous post, I showed a chair from the 6th century grave find of Trossingen, Germany, and how it differed very little in fundamentals from a chair of 17th century England. Museums and history books often quibble over whether such and such a piece was made before a certain date because the drool that dripped out of the makers mouth had a particular element not known in people's diets before a certain date, or some such thing. This is an exaggeration of course, but we often get lost in the forest and never see the trees. A certain design or technical element may well date a particular piece to a specific date, but this says nothing of the possibility of a very similar object existing in a much earlier time period. Throughout the Middle Ages, we can be certain, that throne chairs existed, and were not confined to the use of Kings, as thrones. They were also made for people's private use, and the degree of their decoration had as much to do with the amount the patron spent in their manufacture as to the their ultimate function or ownership.

Videre Scire

A Spectacular Find of Late 6th Century Furniture

A couple weeks, ago, whilst reading various topics related to the peoples of Europe at the beginning of the Medieval Period, I stumbled upon a picture of a small table which was found in a grave in Trossingen, a town in south-western Germany, renowned today for the harmonica. I was immediately transfixed by the picture, and began looking for more information about the table and where it came from. I actually found quite a bit about it on the internet, but almost all in German. Since most of the readers of this blog will be English speaking, I thought it would be good to dedicate this post to sharing this information so that the English speaking world can also share in the fascination of these early artifacts.

A fantastically preserved lathe-turned maple table from
a late 6th century grave in Trossingen, Germany.

I am not sure why someone would be out doing archaeological work in the snow, ice, and rain of winter, but according to the official web page of the Archäologische Landesmuseum, Baden-Württemberg (State Archaeological Museum of Baden-Württemberg), related to this archaeological find, that is precisely what was taking place in the winter of 2001/2. What they uncovered seems to be well worth whatever misery the archaeologist might have encountered whilst conducting their dig.

The treasure they were unearthing was a grave of an unknown person of the upper class of the Alemanni, a Germanic tribe in what is now the state of Baden-Württemberg, in south-western Germany. According to the information on the museum's website, and further reading I did on other websites, the occupant of the grave is believed to have been an approximately 40 year old warrior or knight. This conclusion has been drawn from the fact that he was buried with a shield, lance, sword, riding equipment (saddle and tack etc) and held in his left arm, an unbelievably well preserved lyre with figures of warriors facing one another, depicted on the front.

The lyre alone is an unbelievable find, not least-wise because it is seemingly the best preserved of some 15 similar objects found to date; but also because of the complexity of its construction. (more on that later) However, from the standpoint of this blog, it was an incredible find, overall, for the quantity and quality of all the furnishings found in this grave.

Bear in mind that these items have been undisturbed, in a low mound in the earth, for more than 1400 years. To find a single scrap of wood from that time period is remarkable, but to find whole identifiable pieces of furniture is truly amazing. This preservation was made possible because at some point in time, not long after the entombment of the deceased, the site was flooded, leaving a thick airtight layer of fine clay over the grave. (That must have been a miserable year for the residents of the region!)

The contents of the grave included a chair, a bed which had been cut down and converted into a sarcophagus, a table, a candle stick, and various treen ware, (small household objects made of wood). Because the time of this burial was at the very beginning of the Middle Ages, it is useful to study them for what they can tell us about the evolution of furnishings over the course of the next millennium. What I had already noticed from the 5+ years of research I have been involved in, primarily by examining manuscript illuminations, was the very slow changes which occurred with most forms of furniture during the course of much of the Medieval Period. Though this observation had been largely drawn from the study of medieval artwork, the goods from this grave bear witness to the accurateness of many of my conclusions. 

Lathe turned chair
late 6th century

Beginning with the chair; I will explain some of what I mean. I have already published a couple postings regarding the early medieval history of the chair, and you may refresh your memory here, and in other posts on the blog as well. What this 6th century chair shows, is that from the beginning of the Middle Ages through the 17th century, there was very little fundamental difference in the design of this type of turned chair. The artwork from the 7th century through the 12th, when we again find actual surviving objects, 'fill in' the gap in history, now that we have an actual example at the starting point.

Below are two photographs from a book in my library, written by Victor Chinnery, entitled Oak Furniture, the British Tradition. This is an excellent book and I have read it several times. Mr Chinnery is obviously fascinated with post medieval furniture, so does not touch on pre-16th century topics much, but in his book are several examples which show how medieval designs persisted even after the end of the Middle Ages; now we can see that some of those designs were indeed very long lived!

Turned chair from the late 17th century
Fundamentally, this is the same chair
but with the addition of arms, and
subtle changes in turning forms.

There are some easily observable differences in the two chairs pictured above; the most obvious being the inclusion of arms and a higher back. Other differences would be that the 17th century example has a solid seat, whereas the 6th century one had an "unidentified organic substance" (in other words, most probably, leather) which has not survived, and that the joinery in the earlier version goes right the way through the legs, but the later one has a more conventional "socket" mortise. Additionally, the 17th century chair is narrower at the back, and the turnings are more fluid/less static in form.

Notwithstanding those differences, look at the similarities; the finials to the back are near identical, the lower rung on the front has a double inverted arch form, all four legs are connected by horizontal stretchers near their base, and the back is comprised of round horizontal members filled in with reel shaped turnings, as is the back of the 6th century example.

So-called King Stephen's throne from Hereford Cathedral
This chair is missing several parts, but is overall, in
a good state of preservation.

Now consider another chair, also from Mr Chinnery's book, which he takes great pains to argue the fact that this chair "... may be an archaic product of the 16th century." To be fair, he does cite some possibilities of it being older, and admits that stylistically, it is nearly impossible to pin down to an accurate date. In his world of 16th-18th century furniture, when stylistic changes were taking place every decade or so, he has fallen into the pit of attempting to place a precise date on something which has a form spanning much more than a thousand years. What my research has shown is that throughout the medieval period, styles and even more so, forms, changed very slowly, if at all. As a case in demonstrating the conflict of these two ways of seeing the subject of dating an object, take one of Mr Chinnery's arguments for a later date of the chair, in which he cites the turning of a "circa 1680" candlestand as being "exactly" (he supplied the italics) the same as the turning on the back of the chair in question.

Turned candlestand

I do not have enough knowledge of 17th century furniture to try to argue with him about items from that time period, but I would argue the fact that it is not "exactly" like the candlestand, as the latter has no grooves to the bobbins, and the reels are much smaller on the earlier example. What I will point out, however, is that that the "circa 1680" candlestand does have much closer to the exact same form as the central pier of St Mathew's lectern in the Gospels of Saint-Médard de Soissons from the BNF. (Bibliothèque nationale de France) In fact, this 17th century candlestand would be completely at home in the 7th through 13th centuries, based on the forms of turnings on lecterns, chairs, and candle sticks, as depicted in the manuscripts.

St Mathew, from an early 9th century Gospel book
BNF lat 4450 fol 17v

Going back to the topic of chairs, though, it is also worth noting the similarity of the joinery of the Trossingen example and that of the "unknown dated" 12th century one from Mr Chinnery's book. In both cases, the construction utilises "through tenons'. This type of joinery is observed in all the surviving turned chairs of the 12th and 13th centuries that I know of. This 6th century find informs us that such techniques were already in use at the onset of the Middle Ages.

Other objects from this grave find include a bed, which "has been converted into a sarcophagus". When I first saw this picture, I knew it had been cut down, but thought, "oh, great; now someone is going to think that beds in the 6th century were very narrow." I am glad that the archaeological museum pointed out the fact that it had been re-purposed and altered. It does show more of the same forms of turnings as demonstrated in the chair, and again confirms, as does the turned candlestand and table, from the same grave, of the variety of forms utilised in turned objects. This is especially relevant, because we have actual objects with which to compare the designs illustrated in the medieval manuscripts.

6th century bed, converted to a coffin

Unlike the chair, this bed does not have through mortises. It also has very flat well formed timbers for the side panels. The decorative turnings seem to be sliced off of round turned segments, but look to be much less than true half turnings. Perhaps this is partially because of corrosion and shrinkage caused by the drying process during the post exhumation period. Although much is preserved, a lot has also been lost during these items long interment. One internet article that I found, states that originally, the chair had runic inscriptions on the upper back splat, but they are "worn away, or otherwise so altered" as to be "nearly impossible" to decipher.

Along with these photos from the Archäologische Landesmuseum, Baden-Württemberg, came instructions on the website on how to view high resolution images of some of the objects. In these pictures can be seen a lot more of the details and the remains of decoration, such as incise line carving, and fine groove clusters on the turned objects. Because of long exposure to damp and decay, what is left completely unknown, however, is how these pieces might have been further enhanced by paint, wax, or varnish. Unless things had greatly changed between the end of the 6th century and the end of the 8th, though, based on the miniatures, I would assume they would have been painted, as the people of that time seem to have liked colourful objects.

Oak candlestand 

Of all the forms represented in this group of grave-goods, the most remarkable to me, was that of the foot of this candlestand. As already discussed above, the fact that placing precise dates on objects of unknown provenance is sometimes quite challenging. Look at the base of this candlestand; I am sure that, were it not found with the other grave goods from a date-able period, most appraisers would give it a 14th or 15th century date, on account of the foot. Compare it to the foot of this 14th century ewer.

Ewer from the Copenhagen Museum 1st quarter,14th century

There are many other revelations from this grave find, and many questions which the finds raise. Some of the additional details worth mentioning are the fact that of the collection of more than 11 wooden objects found in this grave, only one was made of oak. (The timbers which formed the roof of the grave were also of oak.) That object was the candlestand. The chair is made of maple and ash, the bed is made of beech, and the table of maple. Other wooden objects include a spear with a shaft of hazel, a shield of alder, a bowl made from poplar and a turned and carved canteen of maple "burl wood". In fact, if the goods in this grave are anything to go on, maple, not the generally accepted oak, was the preferred medieval timber for furniture at this time.

The canteen would fall high on the list of questions which this find begs an answer for. It is made of a large chunk of wood, turned round on the face, but leaving some area from which to carve the handles and spout. In the rear, a separate plate has been fashioned to allow the centre of the object to be hollowed out. What fascinates me, is the question of what method the maker would have used to attach that plate in a 'beer-tight' manner. (it apparently held barley beer) To be watertight is a good achievement, but beer would pose an additional problem of pressure from a fermented drink, and therefore, whatever means was used to adhere the plate would have needed to be even stronger than would be required for water alone.

Turned and carved canteen
The process of drying out items left damp for more than 1400 years has
caused a lot of distortion to the original shape of these objects.
Notice how out of flat and round this opening now is, though it would
have been originally quite properly round due to the fact that it was
turned on a lathe.

Based on the fact that the internet is chock-a-block with pictures of people making all sorts of reconstructions of it, for the average person, the most remarkable object from this find is the lyre. This, too, presents some serious challenges to our contemporary notions of early medieval craftsmanship. There is a good article about this object on Wikipedia but it is in German, so English speakers beware. According to this information, and from the observation of additional photos not provided by the museum, the body of this lyre is made of a solid piece of maple between 11 and 20 mm thick and hollowed out to form the sound box. (it tapers toward the yoke) It is then covered over with a second plate of wood which forms the 'top' or cover, and ranges from a thickness of 1 to 6 mm. This is coming from the time when most people assume everything was carved out of a log with an axe. It must have been one fine axe wielding artist who was able to craft this instrument. Additionally, the top was originally only affixed with glue, but a later repair was made in which 5 tiny nails were used on the right lower edge. This too sounds exactly like the generally held view of life in 'the dark ages'.

In all, the finds from this grave site should give reason for most people to seriously question their notions of life, even in the earliest part, of the Middle Ages. This was a group of people outside the primarily romanised Gaul, Spain, and Italy or the sphere of the Eastern Roman Empire, yet these people had the ability to turn a 550 mm table-top on a lathe, cut comb teeth from a deer's antler, with a saw,  and make a wooden canteen with a water-tight glued on side. As I have said before, people have always had skills, and craftsmen have been producing fine objects in every century of human existence.

End view of the lyre showing the separate top. The bridge is made of willow.
What is not very clear from this view, is the incised decoration of the top,
which included "Celtic" knot-work and two groups of 6 warriors facing
each other.The thickness of this entire instrument is thinner than a modern
violin. In the background, a man is holding a modern replica.
Wikipedia photo

Note; all pictures from the museum are used with permission of Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, and were taken by Manuela Schreiner, unless otherwise specified.

Videre Scire

The (Long and complex) History of the Medieval Chair - part 1; Type-forms

There has been a lot written and discussed, concerning the chair, in the context of history and society. These discussions have often been influenced by our modern concepts of history and craftsmanship, they have also been clouded by an overlap of terms for different types of seating furniture. One of the most common misnomers on the subject, is the word "throne", which people often associate with large, elaborate, and ornate chairs; another is "stool" which is usually thought of as a simple or primitive object. This posting will address the basic types of chairs found in the artwork, (and surviving examples) of the Middle Ages; future posts will discuss the development and ornamentation these types of seating objects have taken.

To begin with, lets establish some basics of definition, utilising terms as we understand them today, then explain how those might have differed in various times in history. As was already mentioned, the biggest sticking point, in the discussion of chairs, is what constitutes a 'chair' as opposed to a 'throne'. The simple answer, based on the Oxford Dictionary and Wikipedia, is that a throne is a chair which is used in the context of a ceremony or official function. Adopting this definition, a three legged 'cricket stool' would be a throne, if a king or pope were sitting on it, in an act of office. By contrast, a massive carved and gilt ivory chair in a farmers house, (were he to, somehow, acquire such) would still just be a large and elaborate 'chair'. We can thus conclude that a throne is not a form of furniture, but any type of chair, with a specific function.

Whenever histories of medieval western furniture are discussed, it is helpful to introduce the topic with the origins of those objects, when their origins fall outside of the Middle Ages. This is most definitely the case with chairs, so we should have a quick check on what was used in antiquity, (meaning before the medieval period). In the case of chairs, I think it would be almost impossible to say, with any kind of empirical certainty, when they first appeared. There are, in the Athens Archaeological Museum, several marble sculptures of musicians, sitting in chairs, playing harp type instruments; these sculptures are thought to be nearly 5000 years old, so obviously chairs are even older than that.

Harp Player From Keros c2700BC as seen in the MET

 

If we jump to the Roman world, which is much closer to the time of our discussion, we find several bronze chairs and other types of seating furniture from Pompeii. Many extant depictions of various types of chairs in Roman artwork, as well as a couple charred remains of actual pieces, can be found in various museums around the world. We will use these examples to begin the study of how chairs did, and did not, change through the progression of the Middle Ages.

The Goddess Fortuna in the Capitoline Museum
(linked direct from website)

The above example is a marble relief depicting a chair made of bronze, several actual examples of which have been recovered from archaeological sites of the Roman world. This is a very basic form, as we know it today, of a chair. The fact that this chair is represented as being made of metal, as opposed to wood, is immaterial. There seems to have been a large quantity of metal furniture made throughout the Roman and medieval periods, and any serious discussion of medieval furniture must include non wooded furniture as well. In the museums we find many Roman examples of bronze chairs, and at least three (the "Dagobert Chair" from the 7th century, the 11th century "Kaiserstuhl" from Gosslar, and a remarkably elaborate 14th century gold and enameled Gothic style chair in Barcelona) from the Middle Ages. There also exists, in manuscript illustrations, several depictions of chairs which clearly indicate metal furniture. Even if these are the only three which I have mentioned, and there are not many others still in existence, they speak forcefully of a tradition of metal-fabricated furniture, which must have continued throughout the Middle Ages, as any type of industry needs continuous business in order to survive. In addition to chairs made of metal, there was also an ongoing practice of making objects of wood, and then covering them in gold or other metal foils, and further enhancing them with gems, crystals, and enamel.

The form which we associate today with the term 'chair', is that of one having four legs, and a back; if the front legs extend above the front of the seat and are connected by a cross member to the back, we term that an "armchair". An elaborate version of such a chair is what we usually associate with a "throne", so this will be our first form of chair; we will call it a "throne chair", though, as already stated, a throne indicates a function of a chair, not its form. When I discuss this form in greater detail, we will examine variations to this basic shape, but for now, here is one example of such a chair.

 

Shrine of Sainte Foy, Conques Abbey
originally 9th, century but with 10th
and 11th century alterations

This happens to be another example of a metal chair, but a piece of furniture of such form could just as easily have been made of wood or even stone, then covered with foil and other ornaments. In fact, the "Throne of Charlemagne" in Aachen, is very similar in form to this, and it would be ludicrous, given the opulence of other surviving objects associated with him, to believe that, as originally fashioned, it would not have also been ornamented in a similar manner.

As I am terming this type of chair a 'throne chair' I will make another category of objects of similar form, but less ornate in decoration, and call it a "common chair". Because we are discussing form, not function, we will find many pictures of kings, bishops, and other persons of importance, sitting in such chairs, these are, none the less, 'common chairs' in form. In the Middle Ages, these chairs usually were constructed with turned upright members, and often had turned horizontal elements as well. the complications begin to arise when we find such chairs ornamented and elaborated on, to the point of becoming 'throne chairs'; many examples of which can be found in medieval artwork. With these first two types of chair, it is often difficult to decide where to draw a line of distinction.

Isaac sends his son to hunt, in this detail from folio 25r 
of the 6th century Ashburnham Pentateuch
BNF Nouv. acq. lat 2334

In this illustration, Isaac is dispatching his son Esau on his infamous hunting expedition, as his wife, Rebecca, stands behind him; very conveniently, the artist has identified the figures in this picture. Isaac sits in a turned armchair with finials on all four uprights, but, since the back is directly in line with two of the columns, it is difficult to tell where the finials end and the columns begin. (This sort of problem was what later medieval artists attempted to avoid, as was discussed in last weeks posting.) In addition, but very difficult to discern, Esau is either siting on, or standing in front of, another turned chair or stool; one leg of which is green, the other lavender, both legs of which have splayed feet.

The study of this Pentateuch is most rewarding for anyone interested in early medieval furniture, as the illustrations are full of all sorts of examples of such. Since this book was produced at the beginning of the Middle Ages, (its exact date is disputed, as either late 6th or early 7th century) it gives us a reference to many forms of furniture which were in use at the onset of the medieval period. Nearly all the basic forms of seating, which will be discussed in this blog, are present in these early illustrations.

Another common type of seating form, found throughout history, is the stool. This type of furniture, in our modern thought, is a simple and seldom used item; it can still be found in many homes, but is usually relegated to an object for accessing places too high to reach when one stands on the floor. This type is most often constructed of wood in a very simple, unadorned, manner. By our current definition, a "stool" is a piece of seating furniture, having three or four legs (usually) and no back. Another form of this which seems to be rather modern in invention, (post medieval) is the "bar stool", which is a high legged stool, but, because of its late entry into the world, will not be discussed further.

Although we usually associate the stool with a simple, even primitive, object, this was not always the case. There are many illustrations of kings, emperors, popes, bishops and the Virgin Mary, seated on, often very lavish, stools. Because a stool form, in its broadest context, can be more simple than a chair, and we can find very ancient examples of it, people often assume it came before the chair. This is a case, however, which I believe is not possible to prove in a definitive way. In most historical contexts where we find stools present, such as Egyptian pyramids, or the ruins of Knossos, we find chairs as well.

Seated Madonna, seen from the rear.

New York Metropolitan Museum of Art

12th century

By the definition of having legs, but no back, this is a 'stool', but is certainly much more elaborate than our modern concept of such items of furniture. I chose this example because it has five legs as opposed to the usual three or four. This example also offers some idea of the ornamentation which could go into such a piece of furniture. Much of the paint has crumbled away, but there is still ample evidence of the manner in which it was decorated; further, there are some bits of a three-dimensional gesso remaining, which hint at additional ornamentation. This decoration is hard to make out clearly, but it consists of foliage and reel-and-dart mouldings in the spandrels.

A similar form of seating which is found throughout the medieval period, but no longer exists today, is what many people often mistake for a "chest". Though I have never found any discussion of this form of furniture in books or online, it is the single most common type of seat depicted in medieval artwork, (based on more than 5000 illustrations which I have, at present, already studied). Since there seems to be no name for these seats, I have termed them "plinth chairs". Just for curiosity, I typed that term into a Google Image search window, and what was revealed has nothing to do with a plinth at all, so I am not sure how one gets "plinth chair" from a doctors examination apparatus, but I will leave modern things to those interested in such.

A "plinth" is an architectural element to support a structure, or part thereof, (i.e. columns) or to support an object such as a vase or sculpture - or, in our case, a living person. A plinth is an interface between an object and the ground, and as such, this seems to be the perfect description for this type of chair. A case for the fact that these chair depictions are distinct from chests can be made from three points, The first is that in many of the depictions, the indentation to the main body, as compared to the base and the seat, make it quite impractical as a useful chest. The second point, is that in no single example of this type of furniture, have I seen a depiction of a lock, whereas, they are almost always portrayed on chests. In fact, a lock is one type of imagery which medieval artists used to designate an object as a chests. (One could argue that a person sitting on such an object would obscure the lock, so this point alone, is rather weak evidence.) The third, and best argument, comes from the fact that in many manuscripts, one can find both 'plinth chairs' and chests in the same manuscript, and sometimes even in the same illustration; in these cases, it is very easy to see that the artist was portraying two distinct types of furniture.

St Luke Composing His Gospel
BNF Lat 17968 fol 83v
first half of the 9th century

Here we see St Luke in a contemplative posture, as if pondering the gravity of what he has just written; his chair is clearly distinct from the chest which stands beside him. It is also worth pointing out that both of these pieces of furniture depict panels in their sides. Notice, also, the lock in the front, and the hasp to the lock, on the lid; symbols used to indicate a chest. The plinth chair, which may or may not be able to double as a storage device, has no indication of being anything other than a seating apparatus, in this illustration.

Another form, related to the armchair and the plinth chair, is a "box chair", This type is not found in the Ashburnham Pentateuch, but versions of it can be found in early 9th century manuscripts and possibly some of the Insular Art, of the 7th and 8th centuries, though it is often hard to tell exactly what they are portraying, due to the great abstraction of form that this art style takes on. In essence, a box chair is a plinth chair with a back, or in some cases, a back and partial sides. Two famous medieval chairs which have actually survived, are of this form, viz the 9th century,so-called, St Peter's Chair, and the 6th century Chair of Maximian. Perhaps, the already mentioned Kaisers chair of Gosslar, falls into this category as well, though its base is a solid block of stone, as opposed to a box.

Chair of Archbishop Maximianu of Ravenna
Archiepiscopal Museum, Ravenna
6th century (from Wikipedia) 

Though the 'plinth chair' is the most common seating form depicted in medieval artwork, a close competitor would be the "X chair" in its several forms. The folks over in The Netherlands, who have been doing their St Thomas Guild blog for the past four years, (and were my inspiration for starting this one) have already posted a lot of information on this type of chair and its various subcategories, they even featured a finely preserved Danish example which is over 3000 years old. Most of the depictions of these 'X chairs', from the Middle Ages, have animal head and feet terminals to the legs; some of them seem to have been very large and ornate. Other depictions of these chairs, however, are of a simple metal from, very much like many of the bronze examples recovered from the ashes of Vesuvius. 

Relief sculpture on St peter's Church, Utrecht.

c1200

Though much more common in paintings, these "X chairs"

can be found in sculpture as well.

In the artwork from all periods of the Middle Ages, we also find "benches". These pieces of furniture can take on any and all of the various forms of chairs and stools. I even have one illustration of a double length 'x chair' though I am not sure how possible such an apparatus would actually be. As I have said before, medieval illustrators were not concerned with reality, so much as a concept, and placing two or more rulers on one bench was simply a way to portray the notion of co-rulers. Some of the best examples of this concept can be found in illustrations from the Book of Revelation, in which John mentions "twenty four elders, seated on thrones, judging...", in many examples, the artist drew two long 'throne benches' each with twelve occupants. There is probably no way to know if such benches were made for any real occasion, perhaps at a tournament, or a synod of bishops, but regardless, it would obviously be possible for someone to make such a thing, should the need arise. There are a some actual late medieval benches which have survived, the earliest I know of, coming from the 12th century. One example of these benches are three individual items made of stone, and can be fiund in the 13th century Norman Castle of Gioia del Colle, in southern Italy. A second example comes from Gamla Uppsala in Sweden, this is a turned wooden bench which supposedly belonged to a bishop of the church there, and is of late 12th century construction. I swiped this image from St Thomas Guild because, right now, I cannot find my picture of another similar, even longer, bench which is in a church ambulatory in Northern Germany.

Late 12th century bench from Sweden

Of course, we can also mention the numerous surviving examples of choir stalls found throughout Europe, some of which date back the the end of the 12th century. These fixed units are no more than benches with individual dividers to separate each occupant from his neighbour. Many of these stalls have high paneled and carved backs, with baldaquins or canopies overhead, very much like those found pictured in contemporary medieval manuscripts.

Not so easily classified as the preceding forms, are other types of furniture which are rather like "none of the above", and for the use of this blog, I will term as "other seating forms" These include alternate shapes to plinth chairs, as well as chairs made from barrels or even hollowed from logs, and chairs with elaborate backs or bases. The best way to understand this category will be to wait until it is explained in its own future posting. Here is one example, however, from the British Library's Harley manuscript collection. 

St Luke Composes His Gospel

early 9th century

In this example, we find St Luke seated on some sort of barrel shaped chair with scrolled brackets supporting the drapery behind him. This chair seems to be round in diametre and bombé in form, which means that the French of the 18th century did not invent this form of furniture, though, perhaps, they did in the 9th? (sorry Encyclopedia Britannica). Although it seems to have a base to it, as a plinth chair, chest, or box would, the artist has indicated short feet on it as well. The "back" of this chair is not a back, as we understand it, nor were many of the other chairs illustrated in this period of the Middle Ages. Persons of importance have always, on ceremonial or important functions, been seated in front of ornate draperies or tapestries which are termed a "Cloth of Honour". It is the hanging apparatus for this sort of drapery that is depicted here, in what looks to our modern eyes, like a back. In many other medieval illustrations, which show this part in more detail, we see that there is no structure, save a top rail, which could support a sitter, were he to lean back against it. (This, in no way, is intended to suggest that chairs of this type could not have back, as many other illustrations clearly show they did.)

Lastly, in this group of furnishings which we are discussing, comes a piece of furniture, which is not actually a seating implement at all, but which, none the less, must be covered in a discussion of seating in the Middle Ages. This device is called a "foot rest", and was indispensable to nearly anyone sitting in a chair in the time period of our topic. Like the chairs which they accompanied, they had almost endless possibilities in form and ornamentation. The last illustration actually shows two of these, but I rather suspect that the second one was added to compensate for the fact that the evangelist's feet would not reach the first one, as the artist had positioned it. This theory is supported by examining other works which seem to be produced by the same artist, none of which have a second foot rest, and also, by its awkward relative position.

When one wishes to catagorise nearly anything, they will soon run into problems of exactly where to put some items, overlaps of multiple catagories, and items which just do not neatly fit into any single segment. The same is true for this attempt at breaking down the various types of chairs illustrated during the course of the Middle Ages. Often, life does not willingly fit into nicely packaged boxes. Our catagories of, Throne Chair, Common Chair, Stool, Plinth Chair, Box Chair, X Chair, Bench, Foot Stool, and Other Seating Forms, should cover most of what was made in the medieval world of Europe. In future postings, I will be examining each of these types in more detail. A longer term goal of mine is to actually make a chair from each of these catagories.

Videre Scire

Note to readers; Several of you have sent private emails to me, stating that you were not able to post comments to this blog. When you wish to add a comment, you must first be sure that Google has recognised that you have signed in, Even if you are already signed in to your Google, (or other supported system) you must still sign in again within the blog before you attempt to publish your comment. You accomplish this by clicking on the appropriate icon in the top right-hand corner of the comment dialog box, or by entering your email address where prompted. If you do not see your name in the "commenting as" box immediately above the comment box, your comment will not register.

Cheers

Interpreting medieval art; part I - perspective

Nearly anyone interested in medieval history will sooner or later find themselves pouring over illuminated manuscript paintings in search of information to their particular interests. Since the time of the Roman Empire, artists have been using paintings to illustrate the more important or expensive books. These illuminations are some of the best resources we have on many objects from the Middle Ages, and are therefore a great resource to call upon when one is in search of information from those long past ages. Those interested in military subjects will search for clues to armour and weapons, textile enthusiasts can glean forms of clothing and draperies, whilst still others, such as myself; a cabinetmaker, search for clues to furniture and interiors. The crucial thing to remember here, however, is that the key word is clues. No matter how realistic the illustrations seem to be, they are not photographs, and were not actually meant to portray anything other than ideas and concepts. In many instances, it would be utterly impossible to make the objects portrayed because they defy reality. This blog posting will be dedicated to the interpretation of some of the curiosities which may be seen in such artworks, and show that we cannot simply try to recreate what we see in a manuscript by using it as a 'plan' for an object.

What are they eating?
WLB Cod.bibl.fol.23 Stuttgart Psalter fol 146v

Many modern would-be medieval enthusiast put too much of their own way of seeing the world into the way they look at medieval artwork. They forget that those illustrating the manuscripts were not doing so to show us, in the 20th century, what life was like at the time of their original creation. We can no more gain a clear picture of medieval life from viewing them, than someone a thousand years from now, would know what objects from our century looked like by viewing an episode of the Simpsons and watching Steamboat Willie, even though we, on seeing those images, know exactly what they are in reference to. It was the same way with the medieval illustrators; they gave a few strokes of the pen and brush and created images which would have made sense to those who originally viewed them.

Just as I mentioned in my last medieval topic posting, however, there were also the factors of skill and personal style involved in the artwork of illuminations. To make a modern analogy of this point let us ask, "are the artists of Peanuts less skilled than those who created Robin Hood' (one of my favourite animations) 'for Disney?" I do not know, nor will I try to make such a judgement, but anyone can plainly see there is a marked difference in the style of the two; the Peanuts creators chose a much more loose and minimalistic approach to their work, significantly more detail is left to the imagination of the viewer, yet we are still able to grasp what is not represented by the fact that there are enough suggestions in the strips to give us references to the things we know. Although, representationally, Robin Hood may seem more "realistic" with its more careful renderings, it is in fact, less so because all the characters are portrayed as animals. We have no problem 'translating' them in our minds as we see them, and hardly notice that they are not even human as we watch the story unfold.

Since these cartoons were created in our lifetime, we have no problem understanding what they represent, but what would someone a thousand years from now get out of the cartoons we have? Would they think people were yellow? Our cars were boxes with wheels? Modern reenactors can, and often do, make the same sort of mistakes with medieval illustrations, by interpreting whatever is depicted in them at face value. There are likely things we understand to show one thing, whilst the original creator had something entirely different in mind, and there might be no way of us learning our error. The easiest way to make such mistakes is to look at the pictures through our modern eyes.Take the illustration above; I would not be a bit surprised if I found this picture on some blog declaring that "potato crisps were consumed in the Middle Ages" because, to our modern eyes, that is exactly what it looks like they are doing.

When it comes to objects, we can often get tripped up by a simple misunderstanding of the way the original artist drew them. We have grown up with cameras, which (usually) capture things as they appear, and we have also benefited from the fact that the art of perspective drawing was perfected more than 500 years ago, therefore, we are accustomed to seeing things in a more realistically portrayed manner. 

I taught perspective design at an architectural design school in Korea right after college. The comprehension of the concept of perspective drawing came rather naturally to me, but I have also learned to recognise the problems created by those who have a harder time understanding it. One of the simplest ways a novice gets tripped up, for instance, is in drawing buildings with four square walls and a 'hip' (triangular in elevation) roof. This very problem is present in the above illustration where a hand offers some sort of building (reading the text which accompanies this psalm might help a bit to know what it represents) from the sky. This building just does not look right because it seems to have one end sawn off.

St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 565, zt. 242

Here is another building from a different manuscript used to show how this sort of problem occurs. I actually got into a fight in middle school, with another kid in my class, because I was drawing houses in perspective and he thought they should be drawn like this. The problem comes from the fact that the artist is trying to combine two separate views into one. Basically, he is trying to incorporate a front and side elevation into one homogeneous image; he knows that the side wall is straight (green rectangle) and the roof is in line with it; he also knows that, seen from the end, the roof portion is triangular in shape (Orange). My classmate actually thought that a house drawn in proper perspective looked like the roof was cut off. I mention this because it might help to explain what a medieval artist could have been thinking as he worked.

The simple squared off building is only the beginning of the 'mistakes' one will encounter in many medieval illustrations. (It is also worth noting, that in all periods, some artists managed to get it closer to right than others.) Another common problem one encounters, is an attempt to depict too many sides of an object, Some pictures of buildings and furniture try to show three sides at once, which is quite impossible. I have even seen instances where all four sides have been attempted, leaving the uninitiated with the impression that the object must have had a polygonal form.

BNF Lat 8850 (Gospels of St. Medard de Soissons) c800
St Mathew composing his Gospel

Another problem that often crops up is getting all the parts to fit properly. Medieval artists did not have the advantage we have of a pencil rubber, therefore what they drew the first time was pretty much what they were stuck with. In the above illustration, we see a chair which appears to have a diagonal corner at the back. This comes from the fact that the artist wanted to have enough room on the seat to allow for the cushion, he also did not want to have the post at the back too close, or even overlapping, the column, which is what would have happened had he brought the back and side lines together. The solution, in his mind, was simple; just connect the two with a third line. As I said, he was not trying to show us what such a chair looked like, the original audience it was intended for, 1200 years ago, already knew.

Bodelaian MS Janius 11
the Birth of Cain and Abel from the Caedmon manuscript
c1000 AD

I already mentioned the attempts to depict too many sides of one object, but here is an example; Eve lies in her bed and has just given birth to her second son. Here the artist is completely uninterested in a "the way it would have been" sort of scenario, he is just trying, with a minimal amount of effort, to depict the notion of Adam and Eve and the birth of their first two children. Whilst this drawing might seem "crude", on first glance, if one looks more carefully, he will be able to notice the efficient use of  steady lines; the careful control of the pen gives weight and volume to the fabric and clothing of the figures, The equal of any modern cartoon artist; with the careful and deliberate execution of the most economical tick of his pen, this artist renders life and character to the faces of these figures, Though the perspective is all out of sorts, this is no slouch artist scratching around trying to get a picture together; this was simply his taste and style, as influenced by the other art he was exposed to, in his time and place in history.

To the modern person, looking for clues to medieval furniture, there is not much to go on here, the "bed" is simply a box; other illustrations from the time show us that beds looked like beds, with posts and so forth, so the artist was simply showing an object to represent any bed, not drawing a bed for us to reconstruct. (This is not meant in any way, however, to imply that there could not have been box beds; there certainly are existing examples from the 15th century.) One thing that is interesting, however, is the way he indicated framed panels for his box. In a world where the furniture was supposedly hacked out of logs, even this overly simplified drawing show more than that.

As topsy turvy as this illustration seems, it is less difficult to decipher than the chair in the next illustration.

Pope Gregory the Great
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 376, Zt. 319
11th century

In this painting, it seems that the artist wanted to make a full frontal image of the chair in order to maximise the grandeur of the sitter. This was a formal pose used for important people going back even earlier than the Roman period, where we find ivory panels with emperors depicted on thrones in this formula. In this case, however, the artist also wanted to show a little of the way the chair was constructed, so he added the back legs inside of the front legs; this allowed him to show the horizontal stretchers connecting the front and back. Of course this is an impossibility, as the back legs would be directly in line with the posts supporting the drapery behind the sitter. If true perspective were used, the back would seem narrower than the front, which would not suit the purpose of the artist who's primary goal was to portray the expanse of drapery behind the pope. He actually has a bit of 'reverse perspective' going on with the seat, which is trapezoidal in depiction. As was already mentioned, using proper perspective would have made the back narrower than the front, which the artist did not want to do, though he knew from observation, that a trapezoid is the shape that a flat rectangular surface takes on when one is looking at it from a natural view point.

One certainly could not use this drawing to construct an actual chair, but it does give us some clues as to what such a chair might have looked like in the 11th century. What we can learn from this image, is that at least some chairs had a form familiar to us; with a tall back set between two post, a seat, and stretchers connecting the front and back legs. We can also observe that this was intended to represent a very ornate seat, not a simple or plain one. What it does not show us, is the form the legs have; are they round or square? Since the parts are all drawn two dimensionally it is not possible to know that answer. In Part Two of this article, I will show how, using this drawing and other types of medieval art, we can begin to piece together a possible idea of the type of chair the artist had in mind when he produced this fascinating work nearly a thousand years ago.

Videre Scire