Furniture From the Utrecht Psalter - Part VII

Time flies and somehow more than five months have passed us by; it is time for the next-to-last installation of the Furniture of the Utrecht Psalter. We have now reached the letters 'S' and 'T' which are for stand and table. We have already looked at round tables, but this time we will be discussing those with  rectangular forms.

A servant returns a wine jug to a round stand next the dining table
after serving the guests in this scene from the Utrecht Psalter

This illustration is so abstract that it is
almost impossible to say what is on
the pedestal, but sculpture and artwork
would often be placed on such objects

Examples of pedestals and stands abound in medieval manuscripts and other artwork, but these mostly serve as candle or ink stands in scenes depicting the Four Evangelists. Unfortunately, like most forms of furniture from the first seven centuries of the Middle Ages, there are no surviving examples; the Utrecht, and Stuttgart Psalters, especially, inform us that there were many forms and uses for stands other than in the scriptorium. We see that, in addition to holding candles and ink, they could be used as a sideboard or serving stand, as a pedestal for a sculpture, (as they still are) and as a base to support artwork.

Essentially a stand, this "Pricina Pillar" serves
as a bowl for the holy water in a church

The forms and ornamentation for these usually followed after contemporary columns of the period and so we can draw some idea for design of them from looking at the holy water fonts in churches, such as this one from St Mary's Chapel, Marlston, a small hamlet some 40km west of where I used to live in Berkshire. It is made of stone, as are all of the others that one will find, still extant. It is probable that many such stone pedestals would have been found in the great houses, castles and palaces as well. It would also stand to reason, however, that wooden examples also existed, and would have been carved or decorated the same as the more permanent stone examples.

Bellow are some other examples from various artworks which demonstrate various forms and uses for pedestals and stands

From an 11th century book cover, in the MET, this stand
serves as a lectern

A relief sculpture in Maastrich  Cathedral, this shows
a servant tending the king; his towel is on a pedestal

From a 10th century ivory book cover
from Metz, this pedestal holds two
seated figures

From Dumbarton Oaks, this 11th century Italian ivory plaque shows a jug
supported on a tripod stand. Such a stand would clearly have been made
of wood. I saw a small example of this design, used to hold a glass, in the
Louvre, when I visited last year

Due to the somewhat loose execution of many medieval artworks, it is sometimes
 difficult to discern if an object was intended to represent a stand with a level top,
or a sloped surface, as one finds on a lectern. In the case with this sculpture,
however, there can be no ambiguity of the artists intention; he depicted both.
This is part of a beautiful late 12th century tympanum on the cloister church
of St Benoit Sur Loire, (Flurey) in France.

There are 13 of these pedestals or stands depicted in the Utrecht manuscript, each of them different from the others, but none of them, as with all of the other furniture illustrated, has any particularly well defined details.

Similarly, there are also seven tables, shown to have a rectangular form, (but usually not having much more detail than that.) All of them have legs on each of the table's four corners; two of them have the addition of a lower stretcher rail in the manner we are familiar with from tables of the 16th and 17th centuries. 

A rectangular table with a lower stretcher connecting the four legs

Another table, a thousand years newer, (but which most people would consider
very old) showing the same basic design

This mosaic from Ravena shows, again, the same basic table design; this
one was three hundred years old at the time of the Utrecht Psalter. 
It seems that this table design had staying power.

There are several factors which make it very difficult to trace the stylistic trends of tables over the course of the Middle Ages. First, as already stated, there are no examples of any table before the 12th century, and very few from before the 16th. Artists used what they wished, to portray the message they intended to convey,but  this is not always the same as depicting stylistic development and trends. One medieval trend, in fact, was to depict tables with no legs at all. This puts an huge gap in what could be a more informed segment of design history, but because from at least the 9th century, into the 13th, most tables are depicted as a flat or moulded plane with an elaborately draped table cloth, which seems to float in space having no legs at all, we are left to ponder what sorts of supports these tables had.

An ivory fragment from an 11th century box, which shows the typical trend
of portraying a table with no legs. This table does seem to show a moulded
frame around the perimeter. (from the Archaeological Museum, Madrid) 

Much is made of the so-called trestle table, and the table set upon donkeys or horses (depending on where your English comes from), which are supposed to have been so common in the medieval period. From the artwork, there is nothing to support the idea that these were the most prolific forms of tables. In fact, the earliest depiction I have found, to date, clearly showing such a medieval table comes from the 13th century. However, there is a Roman sculpture which shows such a table, so, like many other pre-medieval inventions, they must have continued on, un-portrayed in the artwork, all through the "dark ages", until they reemerged at the end, at which time there was a more prolific campaign of illustrating ordinary objects, and we again find them depicted. In other words, just because no one illustrated one, or more precisely, no illustration of one survives, we cannot say that they did not exist. There are dozens of tools (jeweler's tools, and vices for example) and objects which we have no illustrations of, but deductive reasoning tells us that they were there.

3rd century Roman depiction of a flower and vegetable vendor
His table is the familiar "A-frame" table of the late Middle Ages...

...Very much like this table, but without the Gothic ornament.

There is no such table portrayed in the Utrecht Psalter; the other rectangular tables (four of them) simply have four posts at the corners, and one more has cross stretchers at the ends, but no lateral braces.

A table with end stretchers but none running length-wise

A rare example of a table actually depicted with its legs. This one from the
middle of the 12th century and found in BSB Clm 2929

It is a shame that almost no early medieval furniture still exists, and therefore we have no real idea of what a 9th, 10th, or 12th century table would have actually looked like. We can, by studying the artwork however, at least see that our pre-conceived ideas are generally flawed. (I read a "history of medieval furniture" which stated that "early" [in that authors vocabulary, meaning pre-14th century] days, tables were simply "rough planks placed upon tree-trunks".) Even if the manuscripts present no life-like depiction of a table, we may still be able to realise that there were many forms and styles of tables, just as there are now. When we combine that with the knowledge that all objects were decorated and ornamented according to the the station of the person possessing them, and followed stylistic trends, we can begin to gain some insight into the potential appearance of medieval tables as they may have been.

Videre Scire

Early Depictions of the Nativity

Last Year at Christmas time I posted some examples of the "Three Wise Men ", as depicted in artwork from the first half of the Middle Ages. This year I thought it would be good to make another post about a different part of the "Nativity" Story; the birth of Christ, and how it has been portrayed through the ages.

A Carolingian Era Nativity scene from the British Museum

Art historians will often try to show evolutions and trends of certain themes or topics in art, and how they originated and shifted over time. When it comes to early art, this is not easy, and is sometimes impossible, because so few examples are left. We can take one image and compare it to another and see the differences, but since there would have originally  been hundreds, if not thousands of examples, it is impossible to deduct any meaningful or conclusive trend from the differences seen in the few surviving examples. All we can safely conclude, is that the subject being depicted is the same, and the imagery is different.

Having said that, however, change did occur, and the nativity scene, as we see it in front of churches today, is very different than it was in the early Middle Ages. As time marched on, some elements were dropped, others added, and still others took on different forms. Somehow, however, the basic core has remained constant, and we are easily able to recognise the earliest scenes for what they are even if many aspects of the iconography have changed,

Three stone relief carvings depicting the Nativity from the 4th and 5th centuries
from the Vatican, Athens and Palazzo Massimo, respectively. All of these
relief carvings are from before the Middle Ages,
and are technically "Roman" art. (often referred to as "Early Christian")

The Christmas story is at the very beginning of our modern era, so much so, that that event is the basis for the dates that we use today. As I am writing this, it is 24 December, 2017; that 2017 represents that many years since the very first Christmas, even if it was no actually celebrated as such in the year 1. Somehow, between that year and the 4th century, Christianity had taken hold as a major religion, and the artwork and iconography associated with it had come into full bloom, although the period we know as "medieval" was still another 200 years in the future. There are many representations of the Nativity on 4th and 5th century stone sarcophagi, which come from the regions under the influence of the Roman Empire. I have pictured a few of them here so that the similarities and differences with early medieval artwork can be seen.

Part of an ivory panel in the British Museum, depicting a 6th century
version of the Nativity (the 6th century marks the beginning of the
medieval period.)

Panel on the back of the "Throne of Maximian" in Ravena, 6th century

Not much had changed (at least as far as these examples are concerned) by the 6th century and the "dawn of the Middle Ages". No one had told the people of the 6th century that they were entering the "dark Ages" so they kept right on doing what they had been doing before the so-called "Fall of the Roman Empire". (meaning there is no distinction between "Byzantine" and "Roman" before the Middle Ages; Byzantium and Rome were one and the same) People who had been under the influence of Rome kept on being "Roman" and doing as they had done, and the Germanic tribes kept on with their "Celtic" roots and continued doing what they had done. A gradual fusion of those two styles eventually gave us the "Romanesque" style of the 11th through 13th centuries, but the clash of the two traditions gave us "Early Medieval" art, which incorporated distinct elements of both. There is much more of the Roman influence in most of the surviving early medieval artwork depicting the Nativity.

The one change that can be seen, in these 6th century examples, lacking in the others, is the inclusion of Mary lying on some sort of stuffed matres type bed. Doubtless this is not the first example which depicts this element of the scene, and it is impossible to say when it might have first appeared. - Even if we have an object depicting a particular element or event, and it is positively dated earlier than any other artifact portraying the same event, the only conclusion we can positively draw is that it is the oldest one we know of, not that that was the first time that event or idea had been represented.

Coptic styles mixing in with the fading Roman traditions;
the Nativity as portrayed in a possible 7th century icon
from St Catherine's (?) Egypt.
(if anyone has positive proof of date or location please let
me know)

I am not completely certain if the above pictured object is actually from the 7th century, I found it on the internet, and supposedly it comes from the monastery of St Catherine in Sinai, Egypt, but I was unable to verify that. It does look very similar to other artwork from that area and era, so until dis-proven, I will go along with the notion that it is. Here we can see elements of Egyptian art creeping into the Greco-Roman style, but it is still basically the same forms, just represented in a different medium, and with a colloquium influence to it.

In this painting, we have the Three Magi, but they have been around since at least the third century, though not always portrayed as "kings", as can be seen in another Roman sarcophagus, pictured below. Another element that is new, at least to the images we have looked at, is the "manger", here portrayed as a piece of carved furniture. Another element added here is the announcing angels; these guys became very prominent by the 9th century, after which one hardly sees a nativity scene without them, though in most of the early examples we have seen, they are nowhere to be found.

The Three Magi make an appearance in this sarcophagus

In fact, the one element which is constant throughout the entire narrative, but which, interestingly, has no biblical reference, is the "ox and the ass". These two characters are so wrapped into the tradition that were we to see a scene without them, we would doubtless not recognise it as being the Nativity. None of the gospel writers, however, mention anything about them, they are only a logical conclusion from the fact that he was, according to the stories, born in a manger, in a stable. (There is also an ambiguous passage in the book of Isaiah, sized upon by early theologians, referring to an ox and an ass, which was linked by them as being a prophetic reference to the birth of Christ)

Once again, the Ox and the Ass; not Mary, Joseph, shepherds or Wise Men,
only these two animals inform us of the intended meaning of this scene.
Also, like two other, out of eight images we have seen, no star.
My favorite part of this is the two birds eating fruit from the baskets ,which
have absolutely nothing to do with the Nativity, and everything to do with
ornament, for the sake of ornament. (4th century sarcophagus in Sant'Ambrogio)

Moving on to the 9th century, as we saw in the first image of this post, not much has changed yet. There are some slight stylistic changes that art historians can pick up on, which identify it as being 9th century, not 4th, 5th, or 6th, but essentially the scene remains unchanged. In this version, the manger is back to being made of stone, not a carved piece of furniture, but that is a decision of the artist, either as he wanted it, or as the model that he worked from had it portrayed; there are numerous variations in the portrayal of the manger and its style and composition by this time.

A 10th century ivory panel from Trier, still very much following the now
700+ year old Roman models; things changed much more slowly in the
Middle Ages than they do now.

Though this example looks very much like it could be from the previous century, that is perhaps a deliberate choice; much as people are still ornamenting things in the styles of bygone eras. The imagery had not changed very much, but the style of art had been shifting a bit more than one would guess from this picture. The trend for copying earlier decorative tastes goes back at least to the early Roman era, continued through the Middle Ages, and has never really gone away.

This one comes from just the other side of the 10th century, and is now in
the 11th, whereas the previous example was from the end of the 10th. Not
really a lot of time difference between the two, and still much the same, so
far as elements of the story are concerned, but this one is more in keeping
with central European artistic trends of the time.

the first real shift that I can find from Roman era depictions, to those of the Middle Ages, is the shift from the depiction of Mary lying on a matres to one of her lying on a wooden framed bed. The picture below is an example of this, but interestingly, shows an hybrid Greco-Roman era/ western style bed, as opposed to a purely Western European type. (the canted upright supports at the head of the bed) This tells me that there might be, or had been, earlier depictions of the Nativity with Mary on such a bed, and even this idea is not new to the Middle Ages. However, from this point on, one finds many more examples of Mary lying in a bed made with legs and sides, yet still into the 13th century we also see examples of the formless matres type bed repeated. (which is, incidentally, shown on top of this bed frame)

A late Ottonian depiction of the Nativity, from a manuscript in the Getty
Library. (1025-50 AD)

One can see the shift that this scene has taken from the original Roman period models, but to this point most of that shift has been purely in the style of art. Only later, toward the end of the medieval period do we find nativity scenes which begin to resemble those we are accustomed to seeing now. At the core of it all, though, one thing that has never gone away is the lowly Ox and Ass, the central un-credited characters of this story.

Thus concludes the second year of this blog. Thanks to all the readers and fans who have helped keep it going.

Videre Scire

Some Interesting Gleanings from "Theophilus"; Part I

A couple weeks ago, in the course of preparing different materials for my box, I picked up my copy of Theophilus to re-acquaint myself with possible medieval methods of faceting and polishing gems. I will be using some semi-precious stones as part of the box decoration, and was trying to think of how they might have been ground and polished in the early Middle Ages. I was right in remembering that he had written on that topic, but wound up reading the entire book again in the process.

At the beginning of the book, in his prologue, Theophilus makes mention of Germany producing "fine work" in many mediums, including "wood" Unfortunately, he does not elabourate on this, but there are a few very finely wrought, surviving wooden artifacts, both sculptural and furniture, which come from Medieval Germany. (Of course the same can be said of Italy, France, Spain, England and the North Countries.)

I have already mentioned, here, his writing about gluing up panels, which also includes the mention of planes; a couple of points of great interest to anyone such as myself, who is both a furniture maker and a student of Medieval History. As I went through the book, I began underlining all the passages that spoke of furniture and furnishings, and methods of applying ornament to those objects. In this blog I will share many of those passages with you; as well as a few of my own thoughts inspired by them,

12th century altar panel in the Vatican Museum
This panel was joined as described by Theophilus in his
De Diversis Atibus. The green arrows point to cracks
in the joins between the individual timbers which make
up the panel as a unit. Notice that not all the joins have
failed, however.

For me, the largest 'nugget' of information is the just-mentioned text about panels, planing, and glue. The book I have, was written/translated by John G. Hawthorn, and Cyril Stanley Smith in 1963 (available from Dover, in the States), but I have also read a couple on-line translations, looking for variations in the text. The on-line version I like best can be found here, I like it, because it has the Latin text to compare the English translation with. This version was written/translated by R Hendrie, in 1847. (the first "modern" version of this work was translated in the late 18th century; it has been a work of interest to historians for a long time.)

I do not want to get into the weeds of technical details of the book, and the issues of dating or authorship, all of which are highly subjective, and disputed, but the core text, as it has been preserved to our day, comes from a couple of mid 12th century copies of the work, as well as a few later copies bound with additional texts from other sources.

I will copy here, the version from my book, because it is the easiest to read, whilst trying to type this. The first part I will share is the much mentioned bit about gluing up panels;

"Chapter 17"

"The individual pieces for altar and door panels are first carefully fitted together with the shaping tool that is used by carpenters and vat-makers. Then they should be stuck together with cheese glue which is made in this way;
       "Cut soft cheese into small pieces and wash it in hot water, in a mortar, with a pestle, repeatedly washing it with water until it comes out clear. Thin the cheese by hand and put it in cold water until it becomes hard. Then it should be rubbed into very small pieces on a smooth wooden board with another piece of wood, and put back into the mortar and pounded carefully with the pestle, and water mixed with quick lime should be added until it becomes as thick as lees. When panels have been glued together with this glue, they stick together so well when they are dry that they cannot be separated by dampness or heat. Afterwards they should be smoothed with an iron planing tool which is curved and sharp on the inside and has two handles so that it can be drawn by hand. Panels, doors, and shields are shaved with this until they become perfectly smooth. Then the panels should be covered with the hide of a horse or an ass or a cow which should have been soaked in water. As soon as the hairs have been scraped off, a little of the water should be wrung out and the hide while still damp should be laid on the panel with the cheese glue."

There is a lot of information in this short bit, but what is interesting to me is the mention of "the iron planing tool" The authors of the version of the book I have, are letting their pre-conceived prejudices about medieval technology get in the way of their translating and put in bracket "i.e., a drawknife" but they obviously  do not know much about planing and joining, or how nearly impossible it would be to join up timbers with a drawknife, nor do they seem to be aware of existing medieval planes and plane illustrations which show that the planes often had two handles. (You can read St Thomas Blog, for a lot more information on medieval planes if you like.)

An early medieval/late antiquity plane made of ivory and iron

It is also worth noting that in order for timbers to be glued together in such a way as to stay glued, they must be absolutely uniformly mated together, as in, no gap between them. The only way to practically achieve this is with a plane. Notice in the first illustration of this post, a 900 year old panel which still has many of its glue joins intact.

Another interesting bit about planing timber can be inferred from a passage in section three, chapter 2, where he is giving instructions on setting up a goldsmith's workshop. Speaking about the workbenches, he states; "The table should be so flat and smooth that any little shavings of gold or silver that fall onto it can be carefully swept up" This sounds like a very different surface from what most people have in their minds when it comes to medieval tables. I even venture to be bold enough to say that these tables would need to either be waxed or varnished, because no matter how smooth they were planed, without a sealer, they would still trap gold filings.

Theophilus actually has a chapter specifically about making exactly that, varnish and coloured varnish, and especially mentions "making doors red" with this oil varnish. Mick Jagger could have even seen his red door in the 12th century apparently.

In later chapters of the first section, following those related to making the glue, (both cheese and hide) he speaks more about gluing and using hide or cloth to cover the timber before adding paint. In Chapter 22 he states that "Horse saddles and eight man carrying chairs, that is , curtained seats, and footstools and other objects which are carved and cannot be covered with leather or cloth", should still be covered with gesso before painting.

An interesting bit that I did not catch in the first couple of reads of this book, was a chapter on making paint with the resin of the "cherry or plum tree". I wonder how that works out? I have not heard of anyone using this method.

Still on the topic of paint, chapter 26 states;

"On wood, you should apply all pigment, whether ground with oil or with gum resin,[the just mentioned fruit-tree resin] three times. When the painting is finished and dried, carry the work into the sun and carefully coat it with the gluten varnish. [oil varnish mentioned above] When the heat begins to make it flow, rub it lightly with your hands. Do this three times, and then leave it until it is thoroughly dried out."

This brings to my mind, images of bright, gaily coloured, glossy painted panels, not the worn out battered bits of objects left to us in museums. As I have said many times before, medieval society loved vibrantly coloured and decorated objects. There are yet more snippets of information in this book to confirm that notion as well.

The third section of this book is the longest and most detailed, and is primarily concerned with the various arts of metalworking. Because of this, many historians believe Theopholis to have been a goldsmith himself. In chapter 72, he is writing about making copper foil and the things that can be done with it, such as punched work, openwork, and other types of sheet-metal decoration, both gilded and silver plate. he then says; 

"Copper plates are also made and engraved and coated with black and scraped. these are then put in a pan containing molten tin so that the scraped places become white, [silver] as if they had been silvered. Painted chairs, stools, and beds are bound with these plates and books of the poor are also ornamented with them."

This passage, to me, is nearly as exciting as the one about glued up panels. Here, he is making a distinction of less costly furniture, but it still obviously quite highly ornamented. He specifies "painted" furniture, to distinguish it from other types, unfortunately, we do not have any full record of what other types there might be, but they would obviously include furniture which was completely covered in, or even made of, gold and/or silver, furniture which was covered with ivory, and dare we think, perhaps, even furniture which was finished with "the gluten called varnish"? He does have a passage in chapter 75 which includes the mention of "precious wood" presumably this would be wood which had a beauty thought highly enough of, to not paint it or cover it with gilt foils.

It is also interesting that he states this type of work being applied to things related to "the poor" perhaps this is a relative term, but he uses it again in another chapter, this time on making foil of gold and silver soldered together. "This work has the appearance of silver that has been gilded on one side... Borders are made out of this sheet and are impressed with a die... Narrow strips are cut from this sheet and they are twisted around silk in spinning. Gold fringes are woven from them in the homes of the poor just as among the rich they are woven of pure gold."

Wow, that sound to me just like the drab grey or brown woolen clothing that is all too often seen in modern "medieval reenactment" scenes! 

Yet another passage of class distinction comes from chapter 92;

"When you have made spurs, bits, and saddle furniture for humble clerics and monks and have filed them smooth, heat them a little and rub them with the horn of an ox, or with goose feathers. For when these are slightly melted with the heat and stick to the iron, they will provide a black colour which is somewhat appropriate for them."

In contrast to this statement is the passage in chapter 78 on gilded or silvered repousse' work;

"Now gild the plates and polish them first with brass wire brushes as above, and then with burnishing tools. Colour it [gold requires some sort of treatment after being heated, to actually give it the 'gold' colour we know], fasten the gold settings, each one in its place, and insert the gems, and fasten the pearls round them. In the same way you can, if your inventory allows, make gold and silver on the books of the gospels and on missals; also animals, small birds, and flowers  [This is a distinction from the saints and angels of which he had been speaking of for the ornament of ecclesiastical furnishings.] on the outside of the riding saddles of matrons."

The last little tantalising allusion to opulence, insofar as furniture is concerned, comes from chapter 95; a short bit on working ivory. 

"Now fashion ivory handles, round or ribbed, and make a hole down the axis, Enlarge the hole with various appropriate files so that the inside is the same shape as the outside and the ivory is even throughout and moderately thin. Around the outside delicately draw little flowers or animals or birds or dragons linked by their necks and tails, pierce the grounds with fine tools and carve with the best and finest workmanship that you can. After doing this, fill the hole inside with a piece of oak covered with gilded copper foil so that the gold can be seen through all the grounds. Then seal up the hole with pieces of the same ivory...so cunningly that no one can see how the gold was inserted."

Unfortunately, he does not go into any detail about what one is meant to do with these "handles", but I like to think perhaps they belong on the doors of cupboards and desks.

A 12th century French capital showing a cabinet
Though this cupboard has no doors, it is likely depicted that way for
technical reasons, and to more easily show the contents of the interior.

In all, this is a fascinating book, and there is much more to be gleaned from it than I have time to share now, but I hope you have found these bits as enlightening and informative as well. As I have said before, the "Dark Ages" were dark because no one bothered to put the lights on; that is what I am trying to do, one blog entry at a time, however.

Videre Scire

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