1200–1550 part 1paul wi ll iamson and glyn davies

medieval ivory carvings

victoria and albert museum

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 2GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 2 11/02/2014 08:1611/02/2014 08:16

VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM

MEDIEVALIVORYCARVINGS1200–1550

PAULWI LL IAMSON AND GLYN DAVIESPhotography by James Stevenson and Christine Smith

V&A PUBLISH ING

PART I

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 3GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 3 11/02/2014 08:1611/02/2014 08:16

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 2GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 2 11/02/2014 08:1611/02/2014 08:16

VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM

MEDIEVALIVORYCARVINGS1200–1550

PAULWI LL IAMSON AND GLYN DAVIESPhotography by James Stevenson and Christine Smith

V&A PUBLISH ING

PART I

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 3GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 3 11/02/2014 08:1611/02/2014 08:16

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 20GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 20 12/02/2014 17:3312/02/2014 17:33

21

elephant ivory but also walrus ivory (morse), bone, and even mammothivory.The different raw materials have been identified wherever possibleand are given at the beginning of each entry.

A Note on the Entries

Every object in the catalogue has been measured personally by theauthors. As was the case for the first volume (Williamson 2010)it was found that the dimensions of the pieces given in MargaretLonghurst’s 1929 catalogue were in many cases inaccurate, and thishas led on several occasions to erroneous assumptions about theirrelationship with other carvings (see cat. no. 229 for an example).The first illustration of each piece is normally reproduced actual

size. In those cases where the dimensions of the object exceedthe page size, the images have been reduced: the percentagereduction is then indicated after the dimensions given in thecatalogue entry (e.g. ‘reproduced 75%’, as in cat. no. 63).Bibliographical references are given in parentheses within the text

and at the end of each catalogue entry, in abbreviated form.The fullcitations will be found in the bibliography at the back of Part I I . Insome cases comparable pieces are unpublished, but images of theseivories will in almost every instance be found on the Gothic Ivorieswebsite of the Courtauld Institute of Art, which should be used as acomplementary tool to this catalogue (www.gothicivories.courtauld.ac.uk).Additional images of theV&A ivories, including different views and olderphotographs, can be accessed here, as well as on the Museum’s website.At the end of each entry a full bibliographic history is usually given,

with the exception of a few of the most celebrated pieces, which havehad a very large body of material dedicated to them, some of it oflittle value. In these cases, a ‘Principal Bibliography’ is provided, whichincludes all the most significant publications and especially those that citeearlier works in full. Many of the carvings have been lent to importantexhibitions with scholarly catalogues and these publications are citedunder the ‘Exhibited’ section at the end of the entry.The titles of theseexhibitions are given in full in the second section of the bibliography.

CAT. NO. 32

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 21GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 21 04/02/2014 15:2204/02/2014 15:22

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 20GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 20 12/02/2014 17:3312/02/2014 17:33

21

elephant ivory but also walrus ivory (morse), bone, and even mammothivory.The different raw materials have been identified wherever possibleand are given at the beginning of each entry.

A Note on the Entries

Every object in the catalogue has been measured personally by theauthors. As was the case for the first volume (Williamson 2010)it was found that the dimensions of the pieces given in MargaretLonghurst’s 1929 catalogue were in many cases inaccurate, and thishas led on several occasions to erroneous assumptions about theirrelationship with other carvings (see cat. no. 229 for an example).The first illustration of each piece is normally reproduced actual

size. In those cases where the dimensions of the object exceedthe page size, the images have been reduced: the percentagereduction is then indicated after the dimensions given in thecatalogue entry (e.g. ‘reproduced 75%’, as in cat. no. 63).Bibliographical references are given in parentheses within the text

and at the end of each catalogue entry, in abbreviated form.The fullcitations will be found in the bibliography at the back of Part I I . Insome cases comparable pieces are unpublished, but images of theseivories will in almost every instance be found on the Gothic Ivorieswebsite of the Courtauld Institute of Art, which should be used as acomplementary tool to this catalogue (www.gothicivories.courtauld.ac.uk).Additional images of theV&A ivories, including different views and olderphotographs, can be accessed here, as well as on the Museum’s website.At the end of each entry a full bibliographic history is usually given,

with the exception of a few of the most celebrated pieces, which havehad a very large body of material dedicated to them, some of it oflittle value. In these cases, a ‘Principal Bibliography’ is provided, whichincludes all the most significant publications and especially those that citeearlier works in full. Many of the carvings have been lent to importantexhibitions with scholarly catalogues and these publications are citedunder the ‘Exhibited’ section at the end of the entry.The titles of theseexhibitions are given in full in the second section of the bibliography.

CAT. NO. 32

GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 21GI 001-021 Prelims Part 1 p8.indd 21 04/02/2014 15:2204/02/2014 15:22

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 22GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 22 11/02/2014 09:5411/02/2014 09:54

Figures of theVirgin and Child

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 23GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 23 11/02/2014 09:5511/02/2014 09:55

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 22GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 22 11/02/2014 09:5411/02/2014 09:54

Figures of theVirgin and Child

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 23GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 23 11/02/2014 09:5511/02/2014 09:55

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 28GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 28 11/02/2014 09:5511/02/2014 09:55

29

[2] The Virgin and Child

French (Paris or Amiens); about 1240Elephant ivory; h. 26 cm, max. w. at base 7.4 cmInv. no. 209–1867

In the possession of John Webb, London, by 1862 (London1862, cat. no. 105); purchased from Webb in 1867 (£46).

The Virgin stands supporting the Christ-Child on her left arm.The Child raises his right hand in benediction and holds anapple in his left. The Virgin wears a veil, and a mantle, drawnacross her body but open at the waist and above, covers herlong gown; the gown, gathered in as if belted, falls to theground in overlapping folds and covers both her feet, whichare visible through the cloth. She stands on an integrally-carved cylindrical base, on which are the remains of a gildedinscription with the angelic salutation (Luke, I, 28): AVEMA[r ia grat ia ple]NA DOM INVS TE(cvm) (Hail Mary, Fullof Grace, the Lord is with Thee).The figure is in good condition, although the Virgin has

lost her right hand and forearm. This part was either madeseparately originally and fitted to the main body of the armwith a dowel secured in place with two pins on each side, or itwas broken off and repaired at a later date. She was presumablyoriginally holding a fruit or flower. When shown at the 1862exhibition, there were ‘remains of painting on the dressesand a metal crown on the Virgin’s head’ (London 1862, p. 9,no. 105; see fig. 1). The crown was later removed and is keptin store, and is very similar to that on an ivory Virgin in theBritish Museum (Dalton 1909, pl. LXXIV, cat. no. 330). Thepainted decoration and gilding is now confined to the hemsof the Virgin’s mantle and the collar of her robe; and thereare traces of gilded patterns on the bottom hem of her robe.In addition there is gold paint, presumably not original, onthe vertical surface of the Virgin’s veil once below the metalcrown; the latter was held in place by small metal pins, two ofwhich remain, and there is a chip missing from the front ofthe Virgin’s head in this area, probably caused by the removalof the crown. The sculpture was examined under a binocularmicroscope in 1999 and the following observations were made:there are traces of red, green and brown glazes over gold onthe borders of the Virgin’s mantle; the parts formerly gildedreveal that the gold was applied on a yellow ochre ground;a small amount of lapis lazuli was found at the back of thefigure, inside a fold of drapery, indicating that the inside of theVirgin’s gown was originally blue; and a trace of vermilion wasfound on the inside of the Virgin’s mantle. The pattern on thehems consists of a repeating chevron within which is a crosswith a dot on each side, and the Virgin has a single gold crossat the centre of her upper chest. The back of the Christ-Child’s

tunic is decorated with a series of delicate three-lobed plants ofclover-like appearance.On the underside of the base is a circular hole of 3 cm depth

(1 cm in diameter), presumably a dowel hole for securing thefigure on a base plate rather than a cavity for a relic. The backof the Virgin is marked with the natural cloud-like cementof the ivory, lighter in colour than the surrounding material,both behind her left shoulder and at the bottom of her mantle;this indicates that the figure was cut from a section of the tuskclose to the outer edge of the tusk, just below the husk.

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 29GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 29 11/02/2014 09:5511/02/2014 09:55

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 28GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 28 11/02/2014 09:5511/02/2014 09:55

29

[2] The Virgin and Child

French (Paris or Amiens); about 1240Elephant ivory; h. 26 cm, max. w. at base 7.4 cmInv. no. 209–1867

In the possession of John Webb, London, by 1862 (London1862, cat. no. 105); purchased from Webb in 1867 (£46).

The Virgin stands supporting the Christ-Child on her left arm.The Child raises his right hand in benediction and holds anapple in his left. The Virgin wears a veil, and a mantle, drawnacross her body but open at the waist and above, covers herlong gown; the gown, gathered in as if belted, falls to theground in overlapping folds and covers both her feet, whichare visible through the cloth. She stands on an integrally-carved cylindrical base, on which are the remains of a gildedinscription with the angelic salutation (Luke, I, 28): AVEMA[r ia grat ia ple]NA DOM INVS TE(cvm) (Hail Mary, Fullof Grace, the Lord is with Thee).The figure is in good condition, although the Virgin has

lost her right hand and forearm. This part was either madeseparately originally and fitted to the main body of the armwith a dowel secured in place with two pins on each side, or itwas broken off and repaired at a later date. She was presumablyoriginally holding a fruit or flower. When shown at the 1862exhibition, there were ‘remains of painting on the dressesand a metal crown on the Virgin’s head’ (London 1862, p. 9,no. 105; see fig. 1). The crown was later removed and is keptin store, and is very similar to that on an ivory Virgin in theBritish Museum (Dalton 1909, pl. LXXIV, cat. no. 330). Thepainted decoration and gilding is now confined to the hemsof the Virgin’s mantle and the collar of her robe; and thereare traces of gilded patterns on the bottom hem of her robe.In addition there is gold paint, presumably not original, onthe vertical surface of the Virgin’s veil once below the metalcrown; the latter was held in place by small metal pins, two ofwhich remain, and there is a chip missing from the front ofthe Virgin’s head in this area, probably caused by the removalof the crown. The sculpture was examined under a binocularmicroscope in 1999 and the following observations were made:there are traces of red, green and brown glazes over gold onthe borders of the Virgin’s mantle; the parts formerly gildedreveal that the gold was applied on a yellow ochre ground;a small amount of lapis lazuli was found at the back of thefigure, inside a fold of drapery, indicating that the inside of theVirgin’s gown was originally blue; and a trace of vermilion wasfound on the inside of the Virgin’s mantle. The pattern on thehems consists of a repeating chevron within which is a crosswith a dot on each side, and the Virgin has a single gold crossat the centre of her upper chest. The back of the Christ-Child’s

tunic is decorated with a series of delicate three-lobed plants ofclover-like appearance.On the underside of the base is a circular hole of 3 cm depth

(1 cm in diameter), presumably a dowel hole for securing thefigure on a base plate rather than a cavity for a relic. The backof the Virgin is marked with the natural cloud-like cementof the ivory, lighter in colour than the surrounding material,both behind her left shoulder and at the bottom of her mantle;this indicates that the figure was cut from a section of the tuskclose to the outer edge of the tusk, just below the husk.

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 29GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 29 11/02/2014 09:5511/02/2014 09:55

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 56GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 56 11/02/2014 09:5911/02/2014 09:59

57

[13] The Virgin and Child

Probably French (Normandy); about 1340–50Elephant ivory; h. 20 cm, w. at base 10 cmInv. no. 201–1867

In the possession of John Webb, London, by 1862 (London1862, cat. no. 103); purchased from Webb in 1867 (£46).

The seated Virgin supports the Christ-Child on her left knee.The Child is shown semi-naked, wearing a loincloth – perhapsa prefiguration of his crucifixion – and holding a small birdby its wing in his left hand, also a reference to the Passion(see cat. no. 3). The Virgin sits on a backless throne withoverhanging seat and the back of her mantle is fully carved.On the underside of the seat is a cylindrical cavity 2.7 cmin depth; Maskell suggested that this was for a peg to hold aseparately-made bench of ivory (Maskell 1872, p. 76). However,the back of the throne is clearly visible and it is more likelythat the cavity contained a relic; it was sealed with a recessedrectangular base plate (2.2 cm x 1.2 cm) held in place with fourpins at the corners. The bottom of the base is pierced withtwo square-sectioned dowel holes for attachment to a separatepedestal, now missing.The ivory is slightly desiccated at the front (probably due to

exposure to the sun) and there are numerous vertical cracksto the surface throughout. At the time of the 1862 exhibitionand on acquisition the Virgin wore a metal or silver-giltcrown, presumably a post-medieval restoration and apparentlyremoved by 1872 (now kept in store). The Virgin’s right handand Christ’s right arm were also restored and these wereremoved later (fig. 1). The crown of the Virgin’s head wasrecessed to take a crown from the beginning, and the four pinholes were made to secure it. The Christ-Child has been brokenaway from the Virgin and refixed: a diagonal line above hisleft ankle, a crack though his toes on his right foot and twovertical fissures on the Virgin’s left forearm under the Christ-Child indicate where the figure came away. The bird’s head hasalso been restored with a piece of lighter-coloured ivory, anda deep hole in the back of Christ’s head must once have held ahalo (not original). A semi-circular section has been cut awayat the lower left of the back of the throne (but curiously not atthe right), the folds of the Virgin’s mantle extending over themoulded base.The present Virgin is closely related to others in the Musée

du Louvre in Paris and in the Hermitage in St Petersburg,and one formerly in the collection of Mme Bernard Baudry inRouen (Gaborit-Chopin 2003, cat. no. 190; Stratford 1983,pl. LXXXV I Ib; Rouen 1932, p. 64, pl. XLV I I; unfortunatelyonly the V&A ivory retains the Christ-Child, the Hermitageexample being a restoration and the others now missing).

All four share the highly distinctive method – almost asignature – of showing the Virgin’s mantle folded back over herknees, so that the edge forms a diagonal line running towardsthe feet of the Christ-Child; and all display the same treatmentof the deep curved lines of the mantle drawn across theVirgin’s chest. A further Virgin and Child, the celebrated groupnow in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York said bytradition to have been offered to Jean de Dormans when hewas made Bishop of Lisieux in 1359, also has the diagonal foldof the mantle across the Virgin’s knees, but the mantle is hereleft open to reveal a fine belted gown beneath and it may beslightly earlier (see Detroit-Baltimore 1997, cat. no. 35).Although the New York, Paris and V&A Virgins have been

attributed to England and dated anywhere between c.1300and the third quarter of the fourteenth century, so far therehave been no sufficiently close comparisons brought forwardto confirm this unequivocally; nor is there any compellingdocumentary or historical evidence to link the figures withEngland. Rather, the Virgins of Paris, St Petersburg (formerlyin the Basilewsky collection in Paris), Rouen and New Yorkall have French provenances, and those of Rouen and New Yorkmay perhaps be linked with an origin in Normandy.It is also highly likely, although unrecorded, that John Webbpurchased the present Virgin in Paris, where many of his otherivories were acquired. The likelihood of all five ivories havingbeen made in England but ultimately ending up in Franceseems far-fetched, and the balance of probability suggests a

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 57GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 57 11/02/2014 10:0011/02/2014 10:00

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 56GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 56 11/02/2014 09:5911/02/2014 09:59

57

[13] The Virgin and Child

Probably French (Normandy); about 1340–50Elephant ivory; h. 20 cm, w. at base 10 cmInv. no. 201–1867

In the possession of John Webb, London, by 1862 (London1862, cat. no. 103); purchased from Webb in 1867 (£46).

The seated Virgin supports the Christ-Child on her left knee.The Child is shown semi-naked, wearing a loincloth – perhapsa prefiguration of his crucifixion – and holding a small birdby its wing in his left hand, also a reference to the Passion(see cat. no. 3). The Virgin sits on a backless throne withoverhanging seat and the back of her mantle is fully carved.On the underside of the seat is a cylindrical cavity 2.7 cmin depth; Maskell suggested that this was for a peg to hold aseparately-made bench of ivory (Maskell 1872, p. 76). However,the back of the throne is clearly visible and it is more likelythat the cavity contained a relic; it was sealed with a recessedrectangular base plate (2.2 cm x 1.2 cm) held in place with fourpins at the corners. The bottom of the base is pierced withtwo square-sectioned dowel holes for attachment to a separatepedestal, now missing.The ivory is slightly desiccated at the front (probably due to

exposure to the sun) and there are numerous vertical cracksto the surface throughout. At the time of the 1862 exhibitionand on acquisition the Virgin wore a metal or silver-giltcrown, presumably a post-medieval restoration and apparentlyremoved by 1872 (now kept in store). The Virgin’s right handand Christ’s right arm were also restored and these wereremoved later (fig. 1). The crown of the Virgin’s head wasrecessed to take a crown from the beginning, and the four pinholes were made to secure it. The Christ-Child has been brokenaway from the Virgin and refixed: a diagonal line above hisleft ankle, a crack though his toes on his right foot and twovertical fissures on the Virgin’s left forearm under the Christ-Child indicate where the figure came away. The bird’s head hasalso been restored with a piece of lighter-coloured ivory, anda deep hole in the back of Christ’s head must once have held ahalo (not original). A semi-circular section has been cut awayat the lower left of the back of the throne (but curiously not atthe right), the folds of the Virgin’s mantle extending over themoulded base.The present Virgin is closely related to others in the Musée

du Louvre in Paris and in the Hermitage in St Petersburg,and one formerly in the collection of Mme Bernard Baudry inRouen (Gaborit-Chopin 2003, cat. no. 190; Stratford 1983,pl. LXXXV I Ib; Rouen 1932, p. 64, pl. XLV I I; unfortunatelyonly the V&A ivory retains the Christ-Child, the Hermitageexample being a restoration and the others now missing).

All four share the highly distinctive method – almost asignature – of showing the Virgin’s mantle folded back over herknees, so that the edge forms a diagonal line running towardsthe feet of the Christ-Child; and all display the same treatmentof the deep curved lines of the mantle drawn across theVirgin’s chest. A further Virgin and Child, the celebrated groupnow in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York said bytradition to have been offered to Jean de Dormans when hewas made Bishop of Lisieux in 1359, also has the diagonal foldof the mantle across the Virgin’s knees, but the mantle is hereleft open to reveal a fine belted gown beneath and it may beslightly earlier (see Detroit-Baltimore 1997, cat. no. 35).Although the New York, Paris and V&A Virgins have been

attributed to England and dated anywhere between c.1300and the third quarter of the fourteenth century, so far therehave been no sufficiently close comparisons brought forwardto confirm this unequivocally; nor is there any compellingdocumentary or historical evidence to link the figures withEngland. Rather, the Virgins of Paris, St Petersburg (formerlyin the Basilewsky collection in Paris), Rouen and New Yorkall have French provenances, and those of Rouen and New Yorkmay perhaps be linked with an origin in Normandy.It is also highly likely, although unrecorded, that John Webbpurchased the present Virgin in Paris, where many of his otherivories were acquired. The likelihood of all five ivories havingbeen made in England but ultimately ending up in Franceseems far-fetched, and the balance of probability suggests a

GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 57GI 022-081 Virgin & Child Part 1 p8.indd 57 11/02/2014 10:0011/02/2014 10:00

GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 100GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 100 11/02/2014 11:2011/02/2014 11:20

101

[29] Saint Martin and the Beggar

German (Cologne or Mainz); about 1320Elephant ivory, gilded; h. 13.7 cm, w. at base 8.9 cm, max. d. at base 4.7 cmInv. no. A.28–1939

Purchased through Mallett & Son at Sotheby’s, London, 29 June1939 (lot 142, ill.; £440). In reply to an enquiry from MargaretLonghurst, Sotheby’s stated on 31 July: ‘As desired, we wroteto the late owner and asked if he knew the history of the littleivory group and he has replied as follows:– “As far as I can findout it was purchased by the people from whom I acquired itprivately from a Repository Sale held in Norwich. I have foundit was sold there with other sundry ivories of little importance.Apparently little was thought of it by the original owners.Beyond this I can find no family or other interesting history.”We are sorry that this information is so meagre.’ (Letter inV&A Sculpture Departmental Archive.)

The young St Martin is shown on horseback, in the act ofdividing his cloak and covering the beggar, who standssupporting himself with a crutch. The saint is bare-headed anddressed in a long robe, belted and with a scabbard hangingfrom his waist, his feet in spurs; the saddle, with girth, isshown below him. The beggar, wearing only loose trousers,looks up at St Martin and reaches out with his right arm to takethe cloak.The group is carved in the round, the back following

the natural convex curve of the tusk. The sculpture retainsconsiderable traces of gilding and its red ground in the hairof both figures (and the beard of the beggar), on the edges ofthe garments, on the sword handle, hilt and scabbard, and onthe reins of the horse. It is in good condition, although thereare a number of long vertical surface cracks, most notably onerunning the length of the back of the beggar and into the cloakabove. The short blade of the saint’s sword is now missing. Thismust have been made separately and glued to the protrusion atthe hilt, and a small hole in the fold of the cloak, directly abovethe beggar’s head, shows where a pin would have held the tipof the blade in place. The end of the beggar’s crutch has beenbroken away, with the ground beneath it, and a section of thebase between the front feet of the horse has also been lost. Thegroup is mounted on a shallow modern wooden block, fixedwith darkened plaster at the back and a wooden dowel througha hole in the centre of the base; at the time of acquisition it wasset on an Empire-style metal base (illustrated in Sotheby’s salecatalogue).The episode represented here is narrated in the thirteenth-

century Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine: ‘Once, in thewintertime, Martin was passing through the city gate ofAmiens when a poor man, almost naked, confronted him. No

one had given him any alms, and Martin understood that thisman had been kept for him, so he drew his sword and cutthe cloak he was wearing into two halves, giving one half tothe beggar and wrapping himself in the other. The followingnight he had a vision of Christ wearing the part of his cloakwith which he had covered the beggar, and heard Christ sayto the angels who surrounded him: “Martin, while still acatechumen, gave me this to cover me.” The holy man saw thisnot as a reason for pride, but as evidence of God’s kindness,and had himself baptized at the age of eighteen.’ (Ryan 1993,I I, p. 292).This scene was translated into visual form by the eleventh

century, becoming one of the most common individual imagesof the Middle Ages. Groups of St Martin and the beggar wereespecially popular in sculpture on a larger scale, and numerousexamples survive from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries(for a representative sample of French pieces see Paris 1961).Despite the scene’s ubiquity in wood and stone, no other

ivory figures of St Martin and the beggar appear to survive,although an ivory diptych in Cleveland, probably made inCologne and of about 1320–40, shows the scene in verysimilar form on its right leaf (Detroit-Baltimore 1997, cat.no. 41). However, a directly comparable ivory group,presumably of the same date but with the compositionreversed, was once attached to a small casket in the Hallesches

GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 101GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 101 11/02/2014 11:2011/02/2014 11:20

GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 100GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 100 11/02/2014 11:2011/02/2014 11:20

101

[29] Saint Martin and the Beggar

German (Cologne or Mainz); about 1320Elephant ivory, gilded; h. 13.7 cm, w. at base 8.9 cm, max. d. at base 4.7 cmInv. no. A.28–1939

Purchased through Mallett & Son at Sotheby’s, London, 29 June1939 (lot 142, ill.; £440). In reply to an enquiry from MargaretLonghurst, Sotheby’s stated on 31 July: ‘As desired, we wroteto the late owner and asked if he knew the history of the littleivory group and he has replied as follows:– “As far as I can findout it was purchased by the people from whom I acquired itprivately from a Repository Sale held in Norwich. I have foundit was sold there with other sundry ivories of little importance.Apparently little was thought of it by the original owners.Beyond this I can find no family or other interesting history.”We are sorry that this information is so meagre.’ (Letter inV&A Sculpture Departmental Archive.)

The young St Martin is shown on horseback, in the act ofdividing his cloak and covering the beggar, who standssupporting himself with a crutch. The saint is bare-headed anddressed in a long robe, belted and with a scabbard hangingfrom his waist, his feet in spurs; the saddle, with girth, isshown below him. The beggar, wearing only loose trousers,looks up at St Martin and reaches out with his right arm to takethe cloak.The group is carved in the round, the back following

the natural convex curve of the tusk. The sculpture retainsconsiderable traces of gilding and its red ground in the hairof both figures (and the beard of the beggar), on the edges ofthe garments, on the sword handle, hilt and scabbard, and onthe reins of the horse. It is in good condition, although thereare a number of long vertical surface cracks, most notably onerunning the length of the back of the beggar and into the cloakabove. The short blade of the saint’s sword is now missing. Thismust have been made separately and glued to the protrusion atthe hilt, and a small hole in the fold of the cloak, directly abovethe beggar’s head, shows where a pin would have held the tipof the blade in place. The end of the beggar’s crutch has beenbroken away, with the ground beneath it, and a section of thebase between the front feet of the horse has also been lost. Thegroup is mounted on a shallow modern wooden block, fixedwith darkened plaster at the back and a wooden dowel througha hole in the centre of the base; at the time of acquisition it wasset on an Empire-style metal base (illustrated in Sotheby’s salecatalogue).The episode represented here is narrated in the thirteenth-

century Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine: ‘Once, in thewintertime, Martin was passing through the city gate ofAmiens when a poor man, almost naked, confronted him. No

one had given him any alms, and Martin understood that thisman had been kept for him, so he drew his sword and cutthe cloak he was wearing into two halves, giving one half tothe beggar and wrapping himself in the other. The followingnight he had a vision of Christ wearing the part of his cloakwith which he had covered the beggar, and heard Christ sayto the angels who surrounded him: “Martin, while still acatechumen, gave me this to cover me.” The holy man saw thisnot as a reason for pride, but as evidence of God’s kindness,and had himself baptized at the age of eighteen.’ (Ryan 1993,I I, p. 292).This scene was translated into visual form by the eleventh

century, becoming one of the most common individual imagesof the Middle Ages. Groups of St Martin and the beggar wereespecially popular in sculpture on a larger scale, and numerousexamples survive from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries(for a representative sample of French pieces see Paris 1961).Despite the scene’s ubiquity in wood and stone, no other

ivory figures of St Martin and the beggar appear to survive,although an ivory diptych in Cleveland, probably made inCologne and of about 1320–40, shows the scene in verysimilar form on its right leaf (Detroit-Baltimore 1997, cat.no. 41). However, a directly comparable ivory group,presumably of the same date but with the compositionreversed, was once attached to a small casket in the Hallesches

GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 101GI 082-109 Other than V&C Part 1 p8.indd 101 11/02/2014 11:2011/02/2014 11:20

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 110GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 110 11/02/2014 11:3011/02/2014 11:30

Reliefs fromAltarpieces

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 111GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 111 11/02/2014 11:3011/02/2014 11:30

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 110GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 110 11/02/2014 11:3011/02/2014 11:30

Reliefs fromAltarpieces

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 111GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 111 11/02/2014 11:3011/02/2014 11:30

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 140GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 140 11/02/2014 11:3411/02/2014 11:34

141

[43] Tabernacle Polyptych

French (Paris); about 1300–20Elephant ivory, painted and gilded; h. including base 38.9 cm, h. without base33.5 cm, w. open 28.6 cm (reproduced 68%)Inv. no. 4686–1858

Previously in the Humann collection, Paris (Catalogue de laprécieuse collection d’objets d’art et haute curiosité … composant le cabinet defeu Monsieur Humann, Paris, 8–15 February 1858; sold 8 February,lot 1; NB Longhurst was mistaken in stating that it wasformerly in the Daugny collection, the sale of which took placein Paris in March 1858); purchased from John Webb, London,in 1858 (£350).

In the centre, beneath a canopy supported on slendercolumns, is the standing Virgin crowned by a wingless angelemerging from clouds. In her right hand she once held aflower, now lost, and she supports the Christ-Child on her leftarm; he holds an apple in his left hand and blesses withhis right. The architectural details of the canopy are especiallyfinely executed, setting it apart from the majority of ivorytabernacles: note especially the openwork cusps of the centralarch and the beautiful naturalistic capitals. The crocketedwings are carved with scenes from the infancy of Christ, butnot in narrative order: the Visitation, the Annunciation, theNativity with Joseph holding the Christ-Child, the Adorationof the Magi and the Presentation in the Temple. The lowerscenes are set beneath canopies with crocketed pedimentsand flanking pinnacles; in the gables are quatrefoils, with theexception of that above the Virgin and Christ-Child, which hasa trefoil. Rosettes decorate the upper borders of the wings andcentral canopy, and the thin strips dividing the upper fromthe lower scenes on the wings.The polyptych is attached at its base to a separate plaque

of ivory (a nail is driven through the drapery at the foot of theVirgin): this allows the wings – which hang below the levelof the central section – to close around the core. This ivoryplaque is in turn fixed to an ivory-faced pedestal. Contraryto Longhurst’s assumption that the latter is of later date, it islikely that it is original but the front was modified, probablyin the seventeenth or eighteenth century, to display a relic ofthe Early Christian martyr St Chrysogonus. The inscribed label(S:Chrysogoni.M.) covers a small red silk bundle containing therelic, set against a textile panel of gold thread and two redtin stars.The polychrome decoration of the tabernacle now consists

of two distinct layers in most places. The later layer – probablyadded in the mid-nineteenth century – is a thick, crudely-applied coat of gold, red and light blue paint covering theoriginal colours. Some of the raised gilded designs of the

bottom edge of the Virgin’s mantle are visible through thelater paint, and the original designs on the collar band ofher gown have escaped overpaint. Flesh-coloured paint wasapplied to the faces and hands of the figures throughout inthe nineteenth-century restoration. This has not survived wellbut is most clearly visible on the two wings on the left side(a report prepared by Agnès Cascio and Juliette Levy in 1988is kept in the departmental archive; see also Cascio and Levy1998, pp. 17–20).The canopy is now missing its crockets at the front and half

of the sides; these have been replaced in wood at the back.Corner pinnacles were once attached to the roof of the canopy;only the footing of one of these survives at the back, but holes(filled with wood plugs) and cross-hatching indicate thatlater replacements were added. Likewise a central pinnacle,probably made in ivory and fitted separately, was fixed to themiddle of the roof. An idea of the original appearance may begained from a similar and once well-preserved central sectionof a tabernacle in Berlin (sadly reduced to ten fragments atthe end of the Second World War), which had ivory pinnaclesat the corners and centre (Volbach 1923, no. 2113, pl. 42).The brass hinges are post-medieval but may predate thenineteenth century, and are constructed integrally with thickstrips rivetted into the wings and central section. Two rivets,visible from the front, have been driven through each sceneon the wings and four through the central back panel. Thesehorizontal strips terminate with a simple closing mechanismwhich replaced the earlier pairs of clasps (the holes for whichare visible at the edges of the outer wings above each strip).The pedestal originally had four feet (probably claw) at thecorners, the holes for which remain, and the right section was

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 141GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 141 11/02/2014 11:3411/02/2014 11:34

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 140GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 140 11/02/2014 11:3411/02/2014 11:34

141

[43] Tabernacle Polyptych

French (Paris); about 1300–20Elephant ivory, painted and gilded; h. including base 38.9 cm, h. without base33.5 cm, w. open 28.6 cm (reproduced 68%)Inv. no. 4686–1858

Previously in the Humann collection, Paris (Catalogue de laprécieuse collection d’objets d’art et haute curiosité … composant le cabinet defeu Monsieur Humann, Paris, 8–15 February 1858; sold 8 February,lot 1; NB Longhurst was mistaken in stating that it wasformerly in the Daugny collection, the sale of which took placein Paris in March 1858); purchased from John Webb, London,in 1858 (£350).

In the centre, beneath a canopy supported on slendercolumns, is the standing Virgin crowned by a wingless angelemerging from clouds. In her right hand she once held aflower, now lost, and she supports the Christ-Child on her leftarm; he holds an apple in his left hand and blesses withhis right. The architectural details of the canopy are especiallyfinely executed, setting it apart from the majority of ivorytabernacles: note especially the openwork cusps of the centralarch and the beautiful naturalistic capitals. The crocketedwings are carved with scenes from the infancy of Christ, butnot in narrative order: the Visitation, the Annunciation, theNativity with Joseph holding the Christ-Child, the Adorationof the Magi and the Presentation in the Temple. The lowerscenes are set beneath canopies with crocketed pedimentsand flanking pinnacles; in the gables are quatrefoils, with theexception of that above the Virgin and Christ-Child, which hasa trefoil. Rosettes decorate the upper borders of the wings andcentral canopy, and the thin strips dividing the upper fromthe lower scenes on the wings.The polyptych is attached at its base to a separate plaque

of ivory (a nail is driven through the drapery at the foot of theVirgin): this allows the wings – which hang below the levelof the central section – to close around the core. This ivoryplaque is in turn fixed to an ivory-faced pedestal. Contraryto Longhurst’s assumption that the latter is of later date, it islikely that it is original but the front was modified, probablyin the seventeenth or eighteenth century, to display a relic ofthe Early Christian martyr St Chrysogonus. The inscribed label(S:Chrysogoni.M.) covers a small red silk bundle containing therelic, set against a textile panel of gold thread and two redtin stars.The polychrome decoration of the tabernacle now consists

of two distinct layers in most places. The later layer – probablyadded in the mid-nineteenth century – is a thick, crudely-applied coat of gold, red and light blue paint covering theoriginal colours. Some of the raised gilded designs of the

bottom edge of the Virgin’s mantle are visible through thelater paint, and the original designs on the collar band ofher gown have escaped overpaint. Flesh-coloured paint wasapplied to the faces and hands of the figures throughout inthe nineteenth-century restoration. This has not survived wellbut is most clearly visible on the two wings on the left side(a report prepared by Agnès Cascio and Juliette Levy in 1988is kept in the departmental archive; see also Cascio and Levy1998, pp. 17–20).The canopy is now missing its crockets at the front and half

of the sides; these have been replaced in wood at the back.Corner pinnacles were once attached to the roof of the canopy;only the footing of one of these survives at the back, but holes(filled with wood plugs) and cross-hatching indicate thatlater replacements were added. Likewise a central pinnacle,probably made in ivory and fitted separately, was fixed to themiddle of the roof. An idea of the original appearance may begained from a similar and once well-preserved central sectionof a tabernacle in Berlin (sadly reduced to ten fragments atthe end of the Second World War), which had ivory pinnaclesat the corners and centre (Volbach 1923, no. 2113, pl. 42).The brass hinges are post-medieval but may predate thenineteenth century, and are constructed integrally with thickstrips rivetted into the wings and central section. Two rivets,visible from the front, have been driven through each sceneon the wings and four through the central back panel. Thesehorizontal strips terminate with a simple closing mechanismwhich replaced the earlier pairs of clasps (the holes for whichare visible at the edges of the outer wings above each strip).The pedestal originally had four feet (probably claw) at thecorners, the holes for which remain, and the right section was

GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 141GI 110-159 Altarpieces Part 1 p8.indd 141 11/02/2014 11:3411/02/2014 11:34

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 162GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 162 11/02/2014 11:3911/02/2014 11:39

163

Triptychs

As was suggested in the introduction to the previous section,the Gothic triptych was to all intents and purposes a sub-branch of the tabernacle polyptych, with a shallower centralpanel and two, rather than four, hinged wings. The subjectmatter was the same, dominated by single images of thestanding Virgin with Child and scenes from the infancy ofChrist, and medieval inventories did not distinguish betweenthe two types. Although it could be argued that triptychsshould be viewed as modest alternatives to the often larger andmore iconographically complex tabernacle polyptychs, theymight instead be seen – like diptychs – as better suited to theneeds of a travelling clientele, who would wish to take thesesmall portable altars with them as aids to prayer.Unlike the tabernacle polyptych, which is a Northern

European phenomenon, the Gothic ivory triptych appearsto be inspired by Byzantine models. The ivory triptych anddiptych were not forms which were found in the North inthe Romanesque period immediately preceding the earliestGothic pieces of the second quarter of the thirteenth century(see Little 1979, pp. 63–64, and Guérin 2009, pp. 328–32).The triptych format, however, was popular in Byzantiumfrom the tenth to the twelfth centuries, invariably featuringthe Virgin and Child or the Crucifixion on the central paneland often with standing saints on the wings (for examples,see Goldschmidt and Weitzmann 1934, cat. nos 38 and 73,pls XV and XXIX, and passim). Such pieces had certainlymade their way into French and Italian church treasuries andprivate ownership even before the Sack of Constantinoplein 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and after that date theywould have been even more widely available. The presenceof these models, an increasing public devotion to the Virginand the growth of private worship all combined to inspire theproduction of a northern version of the Byzantine archetype.Like diptychs, the method of fabrication of the triptychs

sometimes reveals that they were intended to be carried incases, usually of cuir bouilli (boiled leather). The careful bevellingof the backs of the central panel and inner edges of the wingson a good number of the triptychs, for example, would haveallowed them to slide without hindrance into such cases, anda rare set of triptych and leather case survives in the remoteparish church at Alba Fucens in the Abruzzo (Leone de Castris1994, fig. 13). Unlike diptychs, however, the triptychs wereoften constructed in an additive manner, especially at top andbottom. Many of them, like the tabernacle polyptychs, have (orhad – they are often lost) separately-made bases or pedestalsto allow them to stand with stability; and the decorativeembellishments to the central gable and wings, usuallyconsisting of rows of crockets and a terminal fleuron, werefrequently added to the main body of the triptych by glueing

to cross-hatched surfaces or by using pegs to secure them. Insome cases, the actual tips of the gable and wings were madeseparately and attached by means of a tongue-and-groovemechanism (see cat. nos 55–56): this was an economical use ofivory, as the plaques employed could be smaller. PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYKoechlin 1924, I, pp. 116–41.

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 163GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 163 11/02/2014 11:3911/02/2014 11:39

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 162GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 162 11/02/2014 11:3911/02/2014 11:39

163

Triptychs

As was suggested in the introduction to the previous section,the Gothic triptych was to all intents and purposes a sub-branch of the tabernacle polyptych, with a shallower centralpanel and two, rather than four, hinged wings. The subjectmatter was the same, dominated by single images of thestanding Virgin with Child and scenes from the infancy ofChrist, and medieval inventories did not distinguish betweenthe two types. Although it could be argued that triptychsshould be viewed as modest alternatives to the often larger andmore iconographically complex tabernacle polyptychs, theymight instead be seen – like diptychs – as better suited to theneeds of a travelling clientele, who would wish to take thesesmall portable altars with them as aids to prayer.Unlike the tabernacle polyptych, which is a Northern

European phenomenon, the Gothic ivory triptych appearsto be inspired by Byzantine models. The ivory triptych anddiptych were not forms which were found in the North inthe Romanesque period immediately preceding the earliestGothic pieces of the second quarter of the thirteenth century(see Little 1979, pp. 63–64, and Guérin 2009, pp. 328–32).The triptych format, however, was popular in Byzantiumfrom the tenth to the twelfth centuries, invariably featuringthe Virgin and Child or the Crucifixion on the central paneland often with standing saints on the wings (for examples,see Goldschmidt and Weitzmann 1934, cat. nos 38 and 73,pls XV and XXIX, and passim). Such pieces had certainlymade their way into French and Italian church treasuries andprivate ownership even before the Sack of Constantinoplein 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and after that date theywould have been even more widely available. The presenceof these models, an increasing public devotion to the Virginand the growth of private worship all combined to inspire theproduction of a northern version of the Byzantine archetype.Like diptychs, the method of fabrication of the triptychs

sometimes reveals that they were intended to be carried incases, usually of cuir bouilli (boiled leather). The careful bevellingof the backs of the central panel and inner edges of the wingson a good number of the triptychs, for example, would haveallowed them to slide without hindrance into such cases, anda rare set of triptych and leather case survives in the remoteparish church at Alba Fucens in the Abruzzo (Leone de Castris1994, fig. 13). Unlike diptychs, however, the triptychs wereoften constructed in an additive manner, especially at top andbottom. Many of them, like the tabernacle polyptychs, have (orhad – they are often lost) separately-made bases or pedestalsto allow them to stand with stability; and the decorativeembellishments to the central gable and wings, usuallyconsisting of rows of crockets and a terminal fleuron, werefrequently added to the main body of the triptych by glueing

to cross-hatched surfaces or by using pegs to secure them. Insome cases, the actual tips of the gable and wings were madeseparately and attached by means of a tongue-and-groovemechanism (see cat. nos 55–56): this was an economical use ofivory, as the plaques employed could be smaller. PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYKoechlin 1924, I, pp. 116–41.

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 163GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 163 11/02/2014 11:3911/02/2014 11:39

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 196GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 196 11/02/2014 11:4111/02/2014 11:41

197

[63] Triptych

French; middle of the fourteenth centuryElephant ivory; max h. right side of central panel 30 cm, w. of central panel14.8 cm, total w. at base 29.9 cm (reproduced 75%)Inv. no. 141–1866

Purchased from John Webb, London, in 1866 (£448); previousprovenance unknown, but not displayed with the other Webbivories in the 1862 London exhibition so presumably acquiredby him between 1862 and 1866.

In the centre is the monumental standing figure of the Virgin,in the act of being crowned by an angel above; she looksfondly at the Christ-Child, supporting him on her left arm andholding a lily in her right. The Child, looking up to the Virgin’sface, grasps her veil with his right hand and holds a smallapple in his left. The canopy above them consists of a trefoilarch on slender columns and is flanked by two turrets withniches. The central gable and the side turrets were completedwith separate pieces of ivory (not cut down as reported byLonghurst). Cross-hatching on the upper surfaces indicatesthat these were glued in place and a single hole in each turretwould have held a peg to secure the pinnacles above. On thewings are the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Annunciationto the Shepherds (only one shown), the three Magi and thePresentation in the Temple; above, in the semi-gables, aretwo angels, that on the left holding the sun, that on the rightthe moon. The narrative scenes take place under trefoilarches, with single rosettes in the spandrels.The tips of the wings are also missing; like the central gable

these were probably originally glued on but here there are nosigns of cross-hatching for adhesion. The wings were originallyattached to the central panel with long ‘straw hinges’, set inshallow recesses, riveted to the ivory in three places on eachside; the present brass hinges were added later, as were thetwo rings and clasps on the wings to keep them shut (for therare employment of straw hinges see cat. nos 78, 79; Gaborit-Chopin 2003, cat. nos 111 and 113; and Williamson 2010,p. 44, for their use on the sixth-century Anastasius Diptych).The underside of the central panel is cross-hatched and hastwo dowel holes to hold in place a separately-made ivory wedgeand to fix the triptych to a pedestal.When the triptych was acquired in 1866, the central panel

was backed with a wooden board (seen most clearly in thephotograph in Maskell 1872). This was only removed atan unknown date after both Koechlin and Longhurst hadcatalogued the triptych, and it is clear that neither had seenthe ivory back of the panel. The backboard had presumablybeen added after the central panel had been restored (probablyin the early 1860s) with the addition of a substantial section

of ivory on the right side, after the original thin backgroundhad split from top to bottom and fallen out. Once the woodenboard had been removed it could be seen that the back of thecentral panel had originally been painted with a large standingfigure with halo below a trefoil arch with foliate crockets. Onlythe negative ‘ghost’ of this figure now survives (where thepaint and gilding, now lost, has left the lighter-coloured ivoryvisible), so its identification must remain conjectural (Christ?).Extremely faint remains of tracery also survive in the upperparts of the wings.Apart from the losses already noted, the triptych is in good

condition. The apex of the central arch was restored in ivoryafter 1929, but none of the figures has been restored (despiteKoechlin’s erroneous assertion that ‘la main droite de la Viergeest refaite et le bout du pied droit’). A natural ‘pearl’ in theivory slightly disfigures the left cheek of the Virgin, and thereis a large fissure caused by a hinge rivet to the left side of theNativity scene, above the head of the Virgin. No paint remainson the front face of the triptych, but the now very faintghosts of gilded rosettes can still be seen in the backgrounds,especially on the left wing.The central panel of this triptych constitutes one of the

largest ivory plaques known from the Gothic period (it is

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 197GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 197 11/02/2014 11:4111/02/2014 11:41

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 196GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 196 11/02/2014 11:4111/02/2014 11:41

197

[63] Triptych

French; middle of the fourteenth centuryElephant ivory; max h. right side of central panel 30 cm, w. of central panel14.8 cm, total w. at base 29.9 cm (reproduced 75%)Inv. no. 141–1866

Purchased from John Webb, London, in 1866 (£448); previousprovenance unknown, but not displayed with the other Webbivories in the 1862 London exhibition so presumably acquiredby him between 1862 and 1866.

In the centre is the monumental standing figure of the Virgin,in the act of being crowned by an angel above; she looksfondly at the Christ-Child, supporting him on her left arm andholding a lily in her right. The Child, looking up to the Virgin’sface, grasps her veil with his right hand and holds a smallapple in his left. The canopy above them consists of a trefoilarch on slender columns and is flanked by two turrets withniches. The central gable and the side turrets were completedwith separate pieces of ivory (not cut down as reported byLonghurst). Cross-hatching on the upper surfaces indicatesthat these were glued in place and a single hole in each turretwould have held a peg to secure the pinnacles above. On thewings are the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Annunciationto the Shepherds (only one shown), the three Magi and thePresentation in the Temple; above, in the semi-gables, aretwo angels, that on the left holding the sun, that on the rightthe moon. The narrative scenes take place under trefoilarches, with single rosettes in the spandrels.The tips of the wings are also missing; like the central gable

these were probably originally glued on but here there are nosigns of cross-hatching for adhesion. The wings were originallyattached to the central panel with long ‘straw hinges’, set inshallow recesses, riveted to the ivory in three places on eachside; the present brass hinges were added later, as were thetwo rings and clasps on the wings to keep them shut (for therare employment of straw hinges see cat. nos 78, 79; Gaborit-Chopin 2003, cat. nos 111 and 113; and Williamson 2010,p. 44, for their use on the sixth-century Anastasius Diptych).The underside of the central panel is cross-hatched and hastwo dowel holes to hold in place a separately-made ivory wedgeand to fix the triptych to a pedestal.When the triptych was acquired in 1866, the central panel

was backed with a wooden board (seen most clearly in thephotograph in Maskell 1872). This was only removed atan unknown date after both Koechlin and Longhurst hadcatalogued the triptych, and it is clear that neither had seenthe ivory back of the panel. The backboard had presumablybeen added after the central panel had been restored (probablyin the early 1860s) with the addition of a substantial section

of ivory on the right side, after the original thin backgroundhad split from top to bottom and fallen out. Once the woodenboard had been removed it could be seen that the back of thecentral panel had originally been painted with a large standingfigure with halo below a trefoil arch with foliate crockets. Onlythe negative ‘ghost’ of this figure now survives (where thepaint and gilding, now lost, has left the lighter-coloured ivoryvisible), so its identification must remain conjectural (Christ?).Extremely faint remains of tracery also survive in the upperparts of the wings.Apart from the losses already noted, the triptych is in good

condition. The apex of the central arch was restored in ivoryafter 1929, but none of the figures has been restored (despiteKoechlin’s erroneous assertion that ‘la main droite de la Viergeest refaite et le bout du pied droit’). A natural ‘pearl’ in theivory slightly disfigures the left cheek of the Virgin, and thereis a large fissure caused by a hinge rivet to the left side of theNativity scene, above the head of the Virgin. No paint remainson the front face of the triptych, but the now very faintghosts of gilded rosettes can still be seen in the backgrounds,especially on the left wing.The central panel of this triptych constitutes one of the

largest ivory plaques known from the Gothic period (it is

GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 197GI 160-207 Triptychs Part 1 p8.indd 197 11/02/2014 11:4111/02/2014 11:41

GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 216GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 216 11/02/2014 12:1311/02/2014 12:13

217

[68] Diptych (‘The Soissons Diptych’)

French (Paris); about 1270Elephant ivory, painted and gilded (restored); h. of left leaf 32.1 cm; h. of rightleaf 31.9 cm, max. w. of each leaf 11.8 cm (reproduced 75%)Inv. no. 211–1865

In 1861 Alfred Darcel stated that the diptych was alreadyin England, having been removed from the abbey of Saint-Jean-des-Vignes in Soissons during the French Revolution(‘un magnifique diptyque en ivoire qui fut enlevé à l’abbayeSaint-Jean-des-Vignes de Soissons pendant la Révolution,et qui est aujourd’hui en Angleterre’: Annales Archéologiques, XXI,1861, p. 193). It was presumably at that time in the possessionof John Webb in London, although by the following year it wasdescribed as ‘from the treasury of the Cathedral of Soissons’rather than from Saint-Jean-des-Vignes (London 1862, cat. no.72). The diptych was purchased from Webb in 1865 for £308,the curator J.C. Robinson again noting that it was ‘formerlyin the treasury of the Cathedral in Soissons’ (V&A Archive,Robinson Papers, 65/15475, List of ancient ivories selected for purchasefrom the Webb Collection).

The abbey of Saint-Jean-des-Vignes in Soissons, mentioned byDarcel as the original home of this diptych, was an Augustinianhouse, the main church of which was largely reconstructedduring the thirteenth century. Since the Revolution thebuildings have been ruined, and they were further damagedduring the First World War. Only a few documents remain toshed light on the organization of the abbey, the most significantof which is an obituary (Paris, BNF, MS. nal. 713), which listsmany of the benefactors of the institution and the gifts theymade to it. Unfortunately, it makes no mention of an ivorydiptych, and nor do the published inventories of the abbey andother churches of Soissons, including the cathedral (Koechlin1924, I I, p. 18); it therefore seems unlikely that the putativeprovenance from the abbey will ever be proved, even if aSoissons provenance is likely. Danielle Gaborit-Chopin has alsopointed out that the extensive sack of the abbey carried out bythe Calvinists in 1567 suggests that if the diptych was at Saint-Jean-des-Vignes, then it may not have arrived in the treasuryuntil after that date (Paris 1998, p. 141). To Darcel’s claim forSaint-Jean-des-Vignes, Koechlin added the note that membersof the antiquarian society of Soissons in the mid-nineteenthcentury maintained a tradition that the diptych had indeedcome from the abbey (Koechlin 1924, I I, pp. 18–19).The diptych is formed of three registers, each topped

with an arcade of trefoil arches. Each arch is pierced, andis supported on a corbel. Above each arch is a tall gable,decorated with small crockets and pierced in the tympanumwith a cinquefoil rose window decoration surrounded by

three small trefoils. Between each gable is a tower, withbattlementing on the summit. Between each register, there is amoulding decorated in relief with vine leaves. The architectureof the topmost register projects above the body of the diptychto form an uneven row of gables and towers. Despite itselaborate construction, the architectural frame is surprisinglyuneven. The gables are not exactly the same size, and manyof them lean to the left or right; for example, the central gableof the topmost row on the left leaf has a pronounced lean tothe right. The two central gables of the topmost row have deepcircular holes pierced into their top edges, for the attachmentof separately-carved finials (now lost).The carved scenes each take place beneath one of the trefoil

arches, although there are no divisions between them, so thatthey spread out across the diptych to appear as a single reliefof figures. The narrative follows the ‘boustrophedon’ pattern,starting in the lowest register and reading from left to right,moving to the middle register and reading from right to left,and concluding in the topmost register reading from left toright. They depict: Judas receiving the thirty pieces of silver;

GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 217GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 217 11/02/2014 12:1311/02/2014 12:13

GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 216GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 216 11/02/2014 12:1311/02/2014 12:13

217

[68] Diptych (‘The Soissons Diptych’)

French (Paris); about 1270Elephant ivory, painted and gilded (restored); h. of left leaf 32.1 cm; h. of rightleaf 31.9 cm, max. w. of each leaf 11.8 cm (reproduced 75%)Inv. no. 211–1865

In 1861 Alfred Darcel stated that the diptych was alreadyin England, having been removed from the abbey of Saint-Jean-des-Vignes in Soissons during the French Revolution(‘un magnifique diptyque en ivoire qui fut enlevé à l’abbayeSaint-Jean-des-Vignes de Soissons pendant la Révolution,et qui est aujourd’hui en Angleterre’: Annales Archéologiques, XXI,1861, p. 193). It was presumably at that time in the possessionof John Webb in London, although by the following year it wasdescribed as ‘from the treasury of the Cathedral of Soissons’rather than from Saint-Jean-des-Vignes (London 1862, cat. no.72). The diptych was purchased from Webb in 1865 for £308,the curator J.C. Robinson again noting that it was ‘formerlyin the treasury of the Cathedral in Soissons’ (V&A Archive,Robinson Papers, 65/15475, List of ancient ivories selected for purchasefrom the Webb Collection).

The abbey of Saint-Jean-des-Vignes in Soissons, mentioned byDarcel as the original home of this diptych, was an Augustinianhouse, the main church of which was largely reconstructedduring the thirteenth century. Since the Revolution thebuildings have been ruined, and they were further damagedduring the First World War. Only a few documents remain toshed light on the organization of the abbey, the most significantof which is an obituary (Paris, BNF, MS. nal. 713), which listsmany of the benefactors of the institution and the gifts theymade to it. Unfortunately, it makes no mention of an ivorydiptych, and nor do the published inventories of the abbey andother churches of Soissons, including the cathedral (Koechlin1924, I I, p. 18); it therefore seems unlikely that the putativeprovenance from the abbey will ever be proved, even if aSoissons provenance is likely. Danielle Gaborit-Chopin has alsopointed out that the extensive sack of the abbey carried out bythe Calvinists in 1567 suggests that if the diptych was at Saint-Jean-des-Vignes, then it may not have arrived in the treasuryuntil after that date (Paris 1998, p. 141). To Darcel’s claim forSaint-Jean-des-Vignes, Koechlin added the note that membersof the antiquarian society of Soissons in the mid-nineteenthcentury maintained a tradition that the diptych had indeedcome from the abbey (Koechlin 1924, I I, pp. 18–19).The diptych is formed of three registers, each topped

with an arcade of trefoil arches. Each arch is pierced, andis supported on a corbel. Above each arch is a tall gable,decorated with small crockets and pierced in the tympanumwith a cinquefoil rose window decoration surrounded by

three small trefoils. Between each gable is a tower, withbattlementing on the summit. Between each register, there is amoulding decorated in relief with vine leaves. The architectureof the topmost register projects above the body of the diptychto form an uneven row of gables and towers. Despite itselaborate construction, the architectural frame is surprisinglyuneven. The gables are not exactly the same size, and manyof them lean to the left or right; for example, the central gableof the topmost row on the left leaf has a pronounced lean tothe right. The two central gables of the topmost row have deepcircular holes pierced into their top edges, for the attachmentof separately-carved finials (now lost).The carved scenes each take place beneath one of the trefoil

arches, although there are no divisions between them, so thatthey spread out across the diptych to appear as a single reliefof figures. The narrative follows the ‘boustrophedon’ pattern,starting in the lowest register and reading from left to right,moving to the middle register and reading from right to left,and concluding in the topmost register reading from left toright. They depict: Judas receiving the thirty pieces of silver;

GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 217GI 208-343 Diptychs & Polyptychs Part 1 p8.indd 217 11/02/2014 12:1311/02/2014 12:13

346

Religious Writing Tablets and Boxes

Ivory covers for writing tablets survive in good numbers fromthe fourteenth century. Wax writing tablets, or panels of ahard material filled with layers of wax that could be inscribedwith a stylus, were common in Antiquity, and continued inuse throughout the early Middle Ages (for a survey, see Büll1968). Given their portability, the lack of need for ink, andthe fact that their surfaces could be erased and reused, theywere particularly suitable for note-taking and are often shownbeing used for this purpose in the miniatures of medievalmanuscripts (ibid., figs 605, 608–9). Other evidence suggeststhat they were often used for accounting purposes; an Englishtreatise on manorial accounting known as the Seneschaucie,for example, warned reeves not to write their notes on waxtablets but on parchment, presumably because of the risk oferasure (Oschinsky 1947, p. 53). The state archives of the Polishcity of Torun contain 127 wooden wax writing tablets datingfrom the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which bear listsof rents, debts and other financial dealings of the municipalcouncil (Szczuczko 2001). Small sets of tablets could be usedfor more whimsical purposes: a set of eight fourteenth-centurywooden tablets in a cuir bouilli cover excavated in York still bearsa fragment of love poetry, as well as a list of accounts and anextract of a legal document (Brown 1994). Writing tablets werealso used in religious houses, such as the booklet described inthe 1480 inventory of the treasury of the nuns of Maubeuge inFrance: ‘Item, six foelletz à manières de taulettes tout d’yvor, aux quelz sontentretaillés pluiseurs hystoires de la Vierge Marie et de la Passion’ (quoted inSerbat 1913, pp. 306–7).The majority of such tablets would have been made of

wood, although other materials such as gold, silver and bonewere also used (for a bone example, see London 1987, cat. no.428). The Parisian guild of ‘tabletiers’ was allowed to work witha variety of materials, including ivory (for a discussion, seeKoechlin 1924, I, pp. 434–35, but see also Lalou 1989, p. 126);the earliest surviving Gothic ivory writing tablets date fromno earlier than the 1320s, and it is unclear whether they werebeing made in the thirteenth century.In most cases, the tablets formed part of a group of up

to eight panels, only the covers of which were carved withimagery on their outer faces. Although Koechlin’s discussiongives the reader the impression that the majority of survivingwriting tablets bear secular imagery, the larger portion ofthose surviving in fact depict religious scenes. The majority ofsurviving tablets have a simple raised border around the areafor writing. Others, however, are subdivided into smaller fields;a tablet in Liverpool, for example, is divided into two columns(fig. 1). Several tablets in the V&A’s collection are divided intofour, with a large central circular depression carved moredeeply than the surrounding fields (see cat. nos 132–33, 135 and

FIG. 1. Reverse of a cover for writing tablets; Northern French or Mosan, late fourteenth century(National Museums Liverpool, inv. no. 53.114.280)

FIG. 2. Illustration of writing tablets published by Bernard de Montfaucon, L’antiquitéexpliquée et représentée en figures, Paris, 1722, vol. I I I/2, pl. cxciv

GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 346GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 346 11/02/2014 13:1511/02/2014 13:15

347

243). Both these types of tablet can be seen in an ivory bookletreproduced in the early eighteenth century by Montfaucon(fig. 2). The purpose of such divisions is unclear, but must havereflected the tablet’s intended function and may have beenused for mixing wax or coloured inks. The booklets could behinged with an applied strip of parchment (cat. no. 121); orwith cords, as in the example reproduced by Montfaucon; orwith a fixing pin, from which the leaves could be fanned out,as in an example in the Musée du Louvre in Paris (Gaborit-Chopin 2003, cat. no. 222). Such booklets would often havebeen provided with leather travelling cases: the best-preservedexample pertaining to an ivory booklet is that at Namur (fig. 3).Some booklets have paintings on their inner leaves (see cat.

no. 121). In some cases these are later additions, but otherexamples seem to have been deliberately manufactured in thisway. These are not writing tablets but devotional booklets,since the images are always religious. A booklet of this type inthe Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Wixom 1999,cat. no. 152) has covers that are carved on both sides, a featuresometimes encountered in individual surviving plaques, suchas cat. no. 127.

In addition to writing tablets, and sometimes confusedwith them, several shallow ivory boxes also survive (see cat.no. 119). These could have sliding lids, or be formed from twohinged leaves. Richard Randall proposed that one type of boxwas intended to carry a small set of balance and weights, of thetype that would have been useful for any merchant (Randall1985a; but see also the view of Élisabeth Taburet-Delahaye inParis-Écouen 2009, pp. 49–50). It has been suggested thatother types may have been used as painters’ pigment boxeswhile the function of further examples, such as cat. no. 119,remains mysterious.The imagery on most surviving religious writing tablets and

boxes derives primarily from diptychs, typically the type thatKoechlin called ‘à frises d’arcatures’. In many cases, the quality ofthe carving is lower than that commonly found on diptychs, atleast partly as a result of the fact that writing tablets are thinnerthan diptych leaves. However, as cat. no. 135 demonstrates,writing tablets could bear innovative and high quality carving.GD

B IBLIOGRAPHYMéril 1860; Serbat 1913; Koechlin 1924, I, pp. 176–78, 432–45;Büll 1968; Randall 1985a; Lalou 1989; Brown 1994; Bousmanne2002.

FIG. 3. Set of writing tablets with cuir bouilli case and stylus; French, middle of the fourteenthcentury (Musée des Arts anciens du Namurois, Namur, inv. no. 29)

GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 347GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 347 11/02/2014 13:1511/02/2014 13:15

346

Religious Writing Tablets and Boxes

Ivory covers for writing tablets survive in good numbers fromthe fourteenth century. Wax writing tablets, or panels of ahard material filled with layers of wax that could be inscribedwith a stylus, were common in Antiquity, and continued inuse throughout the early Middle Ages (for a survey, see Büll1968). Given their portability, the lack of need for ink, andthe fact that their surfaces could be erased and reused, theywere particularly suitable for note-taking and are often shownbeing used for this purpose in the miniatures of medievalmanuscripts (ibid., figs 605, 608–9). Other evidence suggeststhat they were often used for accounting purposes; an Englishtreatise on manorial accounting known as the Seneschaucie,for example, warned reeves not to write their notes on waxtablets but on parchment, presumably because of the risk oferasure (Oschinsky 1947, p. 53). The state archives of the Polishcity of Torun contain 127 wooden wax writing tablets datingfrom the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which bear listsof rents, debts and other financial dealings of the municipalcouncil (Szczuczko 2001). Small sets of tablets could be usedfor more whimsical purposes: a set of eight fourteenth-centurywooden tablets in a cuir bouilli cover excavated in York still bearsa fragment of love poetry, as well as a list of accounts and anextract of a legal document (Brown 1994). Writing tablets werealso used in religious houses, such as the booklet described inthe 1480 inventory of the treasury of the nuns of Maubeuge inFrance: ‘Item, six foelletz à manières de taulettes tout d’yvor, aux quelz sontentretaillés pluiseurs hystoires de la Vierge Marie et de la Passion’ (quoted inSerbat 1913, pp. 306–7).The majority of such tablets would have been made of

wood, although other materials such as gold, silver and bonewere also used (for a bone example, see London 1987, cat. no.428). The Parisian guild of ‘tabletiers’ was allowed to work witha variety of materials, including ivory (for a discussion, seeKoechlin 1924, I, pp. 434–35, but see also Lalou 1989, p. 126);the earliest surviving Gothic ivory writing tablets date fromno earlier than the 1320s, and it is unclear whether they werebeing made in the thirteenth century.In most cases, the tablets formed part of a group of up

to eight panels, only the covers of which were carved withimagery on their outer faces. Although Koechlin’s discussiongives the reader the impression that the majority of survivingwriting tablets bear secular imagery, the larger portion ofthose surviving in fact depict religious scenes. The majority ofsurviving tablets have a simple raised border around the areafor writing. Others, however, are subdivided into smaller fields;a tablet in Liverpool, for example, is divided into two columns(fig. 1). Several tablets in the V&A’s collection are divided intofour, with a large central circular depression carved moredeeply than the surrounding fields (see cat. nos 132–33, 135 and

FIG. 1. Reverse of a cover for writing tablets; Northern French or Mosan, late fourteenth century(National Museums Liverpool, inv. no. 53.114.280)

FIG. 2. Illustration of writing tablets published by Bernard de Montfaucon, L’antiquitéexpliquée et représentée en figures, Paris, 1722, vol. I I I/2, pl. cxciv

GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 346GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 346 11/02/2014 13:1511/02/2014 13:15

347

243). Both these types of tablet can be seen in an ivory bookletreproduced in the early eighteenth century by Montfaucon(fig. 2). The purpose of such divisions is unclear, but must havereflected the tablet’s intended function and may have beenused for mixing wax or coloured inks. The booklets could behinged with an applied strip of parchment (cat. no. 121); orwith cords, as in the example reproduced by Montfaucon; orwith a fixing pin, from which the leaves could be fanned out,as in an example in the Musée du Louvre in Paris (Gaborit-Chopin 2003, cat. no. 222). Such booklets would often havebeen provided with leather travelling cases: the best-preservedexample pertaining to an ivory booklet is that at Namur (fig. 3).Some booklets have paintings on their inner leaves (see cat.

no. 121). In some cases these are later additions, but otherexamples seem to have been deliberately manufactured in thisway. These are not writing tablets but devotional booklets,since the images are always religious. A booklet of this type inthe Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Wixom 1999,cat. no. 152) has covers that are carved on both sides, a featuresometimes encountered in individual surviving plaques, suchas cat. no. 127.

In addition to writing tablets, and sometimes confusedwith them, several shallow ivory boxes also survive (see cat.no. 119). These could have sliding lids, or be formed from twohinged leaves. Richard Randall proposed that one type of boxwas intended to carry a small set of balance and weights, of thetype that would have been useful for any merchant (Randall1985a; but see also the view of Élisabeth Taburet-Delahaye inParis-Écouen 2009, pp. 49–50). It has been suggested thatother types may have been used as painters’ pigment boxeswhile the function of further examples, such as cat. no. 119,remains mysterious.The imagery on most surviving religious writing tablets and

boxes derives primarily from diptychs, typically the type thatKoechlin called ‘à frises d’arcatures’. In many cases, the quality ofthe carving is lower than that commonly found on diptychs, atleast partly as a result of the fact that writing tablets are thinnerthan diptych leaves. However, as cat. no. 135 demonstrates,writing tablets could bear innovative and high quality carving.GD

B IBLIOGRAPHYMéril 1860; Serbat 1913; Koechlin 1924, I, pp. 176–78, 432–45;Büll 1968; Randall 1985a; Lalou 1989; Brown 1994; Bousmanne2002.

FIG. 3. Set of writing tablets with cuir bouilli case and stylus; French, middle of the fourteenthcentury (Musée des Arts anciens du Namurois, Namur, inv. no. 29)

GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 347GI 344-387 Tablets & Boxes Part 1 p8.indd 347 11/02/2014 13:1511/02/2014 13:15

418 CROZ IERS

[146] Head of a Crozier

French (Paris); about 1310–20Elephant ivory; h. 13 cm, w. 11 cm (reproduced 88%)Inv. no. 365–1871

Purchased from John Webb, London, in 1871 (£120); on loan tothe Museum from 1867.

The pierced volute is carved with vine leaves and contains onone side the Crucifixion, with Christ on the cross between theVirgin and St John the Evangelist, who both stand on foliateconsoles growing out from the inside of the volute. On theother side, carved back-to-back with the Crucifixion, is theseated Virgin, holding the stem of a flower in her right hand

and supporting the Christ-Child with her left; he wears along tunic and holds a small apple in his left hand. TheVirgin and Child are flanked by two standing angels holdingcandlesticks (with no candles) who, like the Virgin andSt John on the other side, stand on foliate consoles.The crozier head is in good condition, having suffered only

one minor chip to the bottom edge of the stem on the sideof the Crucifixion. There is a series of small vertical cracks,most notably on the stem, and a more serious diagonalbreak where the leaf joining the volute to the stem has split.The underside of the stem has been scored with lines toaid adhesion to a further section; the ivory peg dowel set inthe original round hole is probably a modern addition. It isnot now possible to know whether the continuation of thestem once terminated with a dragon’s head, as in the following

GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 418GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 418 11/02/2014 13:2511/02/2014 13:25

419

example (cat. no. 147) or whether it was plain, although theformer seems more likely.The carving is of fine quality, the vine leaves precisely

delineated and undercut and the figures carefully incorporatedinto the circular spaces on each side of the volute. Althoughthe decorative scheme follows the canonical arrangement forcroziers of Crucifixion and Virgin and Child, the Virgin is hereshown seated rather than standing, and is the only Frenchfourteenth-century example of this type so far recorded. TheVirgin and Child can be linked stylistically with several ivorystatuettes and other carvings which clearly indicate a datearound 1310–20. The arrangement of the Virgin’s drapery, herfacial type, and the standing Christ-Child with long tunic areall close to those found on a small group of ivory seated Virginsin Baltimore, London (British Museum and V&A), Villeneuve-

lès-Avignon and in the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection(see cat. no. 6 and Williamson 1987, cat. no. 22,pp. 118–21). Additionally, there are similarities with ivoryreliefs of the seated Virgin on diptychs which may bedated early in the fourteenth century, such as one in theV&A (cat. no. 75) and another in Lyons (Paris 1998, cat.nos 92–93). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYMaskell 1872, p. 128; Middleton 1894, p. 245, pl. on p. 260;Koechlin 1924, I, pp. 271, 274; I I, cat. no. 754; I I I, pl. CXXV;Watts 1924, cat. no. 24; Longhurst 1929, pp. 33–34, pl. XXXI I.

EXH IB ITEDMagdeburg 2008–9, cat. no. I.26 (M.T. Kloft).

GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 419GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 419 11/02/2014 13:2511/02/2014 13:25

418 CROZ IERS

[146] Head of a Crozier

French (Paris); about 1310–20Elephant ivory; h. 13 cm, w. 11 cm (reproduced 88%)Inv. no. 365–1871

Purchased from John Webb, London, in 1871 (£120); on loan tothe Museum from 1867.

The pierced volute is carved with vine leaves and contains onone side the Crucifixion, with Christ on the cross between theVirgin and St John the Evangelist, who both stand on foliateconsoles growing out from the inside of the volute. On theother side, carved back-to-back with the Crucifixion, is theseated Virgin, holding the stem of a flower in her right hand

and supporting the Christ-Child with her left; he wears along tunic and holds a small apple in his left hand. TheVirgin and Child are flanked by two standing angels holdingcandlesticks (with no candles) who, like the Virgin andSt John on the other side, stand on foliate consoles.The crozier head is in good condition, having suffered only

one minor chip to the bottom edge of the stem on the sideof the Crucifixion. There is a series of small vertical cracks,most notably on the stem, and a more serious diagonalbreak where the leaf joining the volute to the stem has split.The underside of the stem has been scored with lines toaid adhesion to a further section; the ivory peg dowel set inthe original round hole is probably a modern addition. It isnot now possible to know whether the continuation of thestem once terminated with a dragon’s head, as in the following

GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 418GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 418 11/02/2014 13:2511/02/2014 13:25

419

example (cat. no. 147) or whether it was plain, although theformer seems more likely.The carving is of fine quality, the vine leaves precisely

delineated and undercut and the figures carefully incorporatedinto the circular spaces on each side of the volute. Althoughthe decorative scheme follows the canonical arrangement forcroziers of Crucifixion and Virgin and Child, the Virgin is hereshown seated rather than standing, and is the only Frenchfourteenth-century example of this type so far recorded. TheVirgin and Child can be linked stylistically with several ivorystatuettes and other carvings which clearly indicate a datearound 1310–20. The arrangement of the Virgin’s drapery, herfacial type, and the standing Christ-Child with long tunic areall close to those found on a small group of ivory seated Virginsin Baltimore, London (British Museum and V&A), Villeneuve-

lès-Avignon and in the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection(see cat. no. 6 and Williamson 1987, cat. no. 22,pp. 118–21). Additionally, there are similarities with ivoryreliefs of the seated Virgin on diptychs which may bedated early in the fourteenth century, such as one in theV&A (cat. no. 75) and another in Lyons (Paris 1998, cat.nos 92–93). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYMaskell 1872, p. 128; Middleton 1894, p. 245, pl. on p. 260;Koechlin 1924, I, pp. 271, 274; I I, cat. no. 754; I I I, pl. CXXV;Watts 1924, cat. no. 24; Longhurst 1929, pp. 33–34, pl. XXXI I.

EXH IB ITEDMagdeburg 2008–9, cat. no. I.26 (M.T. Kloft).

GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 419GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 419 11/02/2014 13:2511/02/2014 13:25

GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 432GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 432 11/02/2014 13:2611/02/2014 13:26 GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 433GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 433 11/02/2014 13:2611/02/2014 13:26

GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 432GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 432 11/02/2014 13:2611/02/2014 13:26 GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 433GI 410-449 Croziers Part 1 p8.indd 433 11/02/2014 13:2611/02/2014 13:26

GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 500GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 500 11/02/2014 13:3611/02/2014 13:36

501

[172] Casket

Upper Rhenish or Eastern French (Alsace?); about 1420–50Bone, ivory, horn and silk on a wooden carcase with gilt-copper fittings; h. notincluding handle 20.6 cm, w. 28.7 cm, d. 12.6 cm (reproduced 50%)Inv. no. 7660–1862

Purchased from John Webb, London, in 1862 (£100); accordingto William Maskell it was ‘said to have been found hidden ina recess of a wall, a few years ago, on the final demolition of aruined chateau in France’ (Maskell 1872, p. 34).

The wooden carcase is very simply made, the sides connectedwith mitred joints. The casket has warped over the years anddoes not close properly. Each face of the casket is coveredwith chequered patterns of bone and horn, and borders ofcarved strips of pierced bone, held in place by brass nails,with coloured strips of silk beneath. The silk fabrics alternatein colour, between green and a lighter colour, which is eithera faded red or yellow. Each long side has two figurativeplaques, while the short sides have one. The front of the casketdepicts two wild men under elaborate canopies, that on theleft shooting an arrow skywards, the other holding a club.Reading from left to right around the casket, the remainingfigurative plaques depict St Catherine, a bearded figure holdinga triangular object (tentatively identified by Longhurst as StPhilip the Apostle), St Barbara and St Peter. Each of the figureshas black dots of applied pigment to indicate their eyes.The borders of each face of the casket have applied plaquesrepresenting foliage and flowers. At each of the upper cornersis an applied ivory corbel representing the head of a greenman. The lid has two decorative plaques of flamboyant tracerydesigns. The hinges and handles are of copper-gilt. The lockplate has been removed, and the clasp that fitted into it hassnapped off. The underside is decorated with plain bone panelsand a thick resinous coating. The interior is lined with greenvelvet, much worn.This unique and problematic box is difficult to place. The

combination of both high and low quality elements (thelozenge-shaped intarsia work is particularly poor), the mixtureof secular and religious imagery, the unusual techniques, andstrange elements such as the ivory corbels combine to give theinitial impression of an object of dubious authenticity. In itsfavour, on the other hand, is the likelihood that a forger wouldnot have created such an unusual and original work. All thestylistic indicators, including the architectural canopies abovethe figures, point to a date in the first half of the fifteenthcentury. Broad similarities between the pierced foliate panelsand the bone openwork panels of caskets such as cat. no.240 might indicate the Upper Rhineland as a place of origin,although the comparison is too general to allow any certainty.

The ivory corbels are an odd feature, although they may beintended to evoke the projecting towers that can be seen onthe upper parts of buildings of the fifteenth century; examplescan be found across Europe, although the style seems to haveoriginated in the Netherlands (such corbel towers can be seenin the early fifteenth-century ‘Nine Worthies’ tapestries nowin New York, for which see Cavallo 1993, pp. 94–124, and Paris2004, cat. no. 134). GD

B IBLIOGRAPHYMaskell 1872, pp. 33–34; Longhurst 1929, p. 69, pl. LXI I I.

GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 501GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 501 11/02/2014 13:3611/02/2014 13:36

GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 500GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 500 11/02/2014 13:3611/02/2014 13:36

501

[172] Casket

Upper Rhenish or Eastern French (Alsace?); about 1420–50Bone, ivory, horn and silk on a wooden carcase with gilt-copper fittings; h. notincluding handle 20.6 cm, w. 28.7 cm, d. 12.6 cm (reproduced 50%)Inv. no. 7660–1862

Purchased from John Webb, London, in 1862 (£100); accordingto William Maskell it was ‘said to have been found hidden ina recess of a wall, a few years ago, on the final demolition of aruined chateau in France’ (Maskell 1872, p. 34).

The wooden carcase is very simply made, the sides connectedwith mitred joints. The casket has warped over the years anddoes not close properly. Each face of the casket is coveredwith chequered patterns of bone and horn, and borders ofcarved strips of pierced bone, held in place by brass nails,with coloured strips of silk beneath. The silk fabrics alternatein colour, between green and a lighter colour, which is eithera faded red or yellow. Each long side has two figurativeplaques, while the short sides have one. The front of the casketdepicts two wild men under elaborate canopies, that on theleft shooting an arrow skywards, the other holding a club.Reading from left to right around the casket, the remainingfigurative plaques depict St Catherine, a bearded figure holdinga triangular object (tentatively identified by Longhurst as StPhilip the Apostle), St Barbara and St Peter. Each of the figureshas black dots of applied pigment to indicate their eyes.The borders of each face of the casket have applied plaquesrepresenting foliage and flowers. At each of the upper cornersis an applied ivory corbel representing the head of a greenman. The lid has two decorative plaques of flamboyant tracerydesigns. The hinges and handles are of copper-gilt. The lockplate has been removed, and the clasp that fitted into it hassnapped off. The underside is decorated with plain bone panelsand a thick resinous coating. The interior is lined with greenvelvet, much worn.This unique and problematic box is difficult to place. The

combination of both high and low quality elements (thelozenge-shaped intarsia work is particularly poor), the mixtureof secular and religious imagery, the unusual techniques, andstrange elements such as the ivory corbels combine to give theinitial impression of an object of dubious authenticity. In itsfavour, on the other hand, is the likelihood that a forger wouldnot have created such an unusual and original work. All thestylistic indicators, including the architectural canopies abovethe figures, point to a date in the first half of the fifteenthcentury. Broad similarities between the pierced foliate panelsand the bone openwork panels of caskets such as cat. no.240 might indicate the Upper Rhineland as a place of origin,although the comparison is too general to allow any certainty.

The ivory corbels are an odd feature, although they may beintended to evoke the projecting towers that can be seen onthe upper parts of buildings of the fifteenth century; examplescan be found across Europe, although the style seems to haveoriginated in the Netherlands (such corbel towers can be seenin the early fifteenth-century ‘Nine Worthies’ tapestries nowin New York, for which see Cavallo 1993, pp. 94–124, and Paris2004, cat. no. 134). GD

B IBLIOGRAPHYMaskell 1872, pp. 33–34; Longhurst 1929, p. 69, pl. LXI I I.

GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 501GI 450-519 Miniature Reliefs Part 1 p8.indd 501 11/02/2014 13:3611/02/2014 13:36

564 M IRROR BACKS

[191] A Lady Crowning her Lover

French (Paris); about 1300Elephant ivory; h. 10.6 cm, w. 10.3 cmInv. no. 217–1867

In the Préaux collection, Paris, by 1846 (Du Sommerard1838–46, V, p. 110); Préaux sale, Paris, 10 January 1850, lot 148;Rattier collection, Paris (sale, Paris, 21–24 March 1859, lot 193);in the possession of John Webb, London, by 1862 (London1862, cat. no. 138); purchased from Webb in 1867 (£48).

A lady crowns her lover, who kneels before her and offers hisheart in covered hands. On the left a hooded groom raises hiswhip at their two horses, whose muzzles only protrude intothe picture. The rim is decorated with four crawling monsters.There are substantial remains of gilding in the hair of bothprincipal figures. On the reverse, the originally raised circlefor a bayonet mount has been shaved down; the broad border

with a recess for the mirror is still extant, however, although ithas been chamfered at the sides. The recessed centre has beenincised with numerous cross-hatched lines, especially at theedges, presumably to hold a mirror in place. There are manyflecks of vermilion paint around the border, and in additionto the South Kensington Museum label and inventory number,the number 138 has been written in pencil (for the 1862exhibition) and scraps of paper remain.The mirror back has had three holes drilled through it

around the kneeling lover, a further hole through the rim atthe top centre, and a larger hole (which does not pierce theivory) in the middle of the reverse; these are presumablypost-medieval and may have been connected with the fittingof a later mirror.Koechlin catalogued four other mirror backs showing the

single scene of a kneeling suitor being crowned by a lady,and another in Münster illustrates the action of the kneelinglover presenting his heart to the object of his desire, but noneof these includes the horses and groom on the left (Koechlin

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 564GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 564 18/02/2014 07:5218/02/2014 07:52

565

1924, I I, cat. nos 996, 998–1001; for the Münster mirror backsee also Arnhold 2001; for the Ravenna example see furtherMartini and Rizzardi 1990, cat. no. 17; cat. no. 1001 is now inthe Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, for which see Randall1985, cat. no. 320). It has been proposed that the presence ofthe horses and the kneeling pose of the suitor, making hisoffering to the lady, should be seen as a secular translationof the iconography of the Adoration of the Magi, where thefirst king kneels before the Virgin and Child and the kings’horses are shown being lashed with a whip by an attendant,although the latter feature is also seen on mirror backs withoutthe offering of the heart (Blamires 1988, pp. 20–21; Detroit-Baltimore 1997, pp. 226–27; see also Camille 1998, pp. 111–12and Roy 2003, p. 237).This celebrated mirror back is one of the finest of the earlier

examples, and has been linked by Danielle Gaborit-Chopin totwo mirror backs in the Musée du Louvre, showing a game ofchess and a hunting party (see most recently Gaborit-Chopin2003, cat. nos 127–28). It is closer stylistically and technically,and in size, to the second piece, and there are compellingreasons – in the carving of specific details, for instance, suchas the execution of the pupils of the eyes and the identicalmanner of carving the monsters around the rim – for seeingit as by the same hand. It is also perhaps not insignificantthat both mirror backs have been trimmed in exactly thesame manner on the reverse, with chamfers at the sides,indicating that they at least shared a post-medieval history and

may even have been physically associated (for the reverse ofthe Paris mirror back, now filled with a nineteenth-centurymetal mirror, see Gaborit-Chopin 2003, fig. on p. 354; it waspreviously in the Sauvageot collection and was given to theLouvre in 1856, so must have been on the Paris art market atabout the same time as the V&A mirror case). The presenceof the two horses on the V&A mirror back would also supportsuch a pairing, as the crowning of the suitor might naturallyfollow the scene of the mounted hunting party on the otherside (see Blamires 1988, p. 19). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYDu Sommerard 1838–46, V, p. 110, Album, 5th series, pl. X I,3;Maskell 1872, pp. 82–83; Koechlin 1924, I, p. 378, I I, cat. no.1002, I I I, pl. CLXXV I; Longhurst 1929, pp. 44–45, pl. XLI I;Grodecki 1947, p. 116; Gaborit-Chopin 1978, pp. 148, 207,fig. 219; Paris 1981–82, p. 171 (D. Gaborit-Chopin); Williamson1982, p. 44, pl. 27; Blamires 1988, pp. 18–21, fig. 2; Camille1989, pp. 308–10, fig. 167; Campbell 1995, pp. 14–15, fig. 6;Camille 1998, pp. 111–12, fig. 97; Arnhold 2001, p. 1, fig. 1;Gaborit-Chopin 2003, pp. 352, 354, fig. 128a; Roy 2003, p. 237,fig. 4; Carns 2009, p. 84; Gaborit-Chopin 2011, p. 173, fig. 16.

EXH IB ITEDLondon 1862, cat. no. 138; Ottawa 1972, cat. no. 76, pl. 101(P. Verdier); Detroit-Baltimore 1997, cat. no. 55 (P. Williamson);Paris 1998, cat. no. 96 (D. Gaborit-Chopin).

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 565GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 565 18/02/2014 07:5218/02/2014 07:52

564 M IRROR BACKS

[191] A Lady Crowning her Lover

French (Paris); about 1300Elephant ivory; h. 10.6 cm, w. 10.3 cmInv. no. 217–1867

In the Préaux collection, Paris, by 1846 (Du Sommerard1838–46, V, p. 110); Préaux sale, Paris, 10 January 1850, lot 148;Rattier collection, Paris (sale, Paris, 21–24 March 1859, lot 193);in the possession of John Webb, London, by 1862 (London1862, cat. no. 138); purchased from Webb in 1867 (£48).

A lady crowns her lover, who kneels before her and offers hisheart in covered hands. On the left a hooded groom raises hiswhip at their two horses, whose muzzles only protrude intothe picture. The rim is decorated with four crawling monsters.There are substantial remains of gilding in the hair of bothprincipal figures. On the reverse, the originally raised circlefor a bayonet mount has been shaved down; the broad border

with a recess for the mirror is still extant, however, although ithas been chamfered at the sides. The recessed centre has beenincised with numerous cross-hatched lines, especially at theedges, presumably to hold a mirror in place. There are manyflecks of vermilion paint around the border, and in additionto the South Kensington Museum label and inventory number,the number 138 has been written in pencil (for the 1862exhibition) and scraps of paper remain.The mirror back has had three holes drilled through it

around the kneeling lover, a further hole through the rim atthe top centre, and a larger hole (which does not pierce theivory) in the middle of the reverse; these are presumablypost-medieval and may have been connected with the fittingof a later mirror.Koechlin catalogued four other mirror backs showing the

single scene of a kneeling suitor being crowned by a lady,and another in Münster illustrates the action of the kneelinglover presenting his heart to the object of his desire, but noneof these includes the horses and groom on the left (Koechlin

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 564GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 564 18/02/2014 07:5218/02/2014 07:52

565

1924, I I, cat. nos 996, 998–1001; for the Münster mirror backsee also Arnhold 2001; for the Ravenna example see furtherMartini and Rizzardi 1990, cat. no. 17; cat. no. 1001 is now inthe Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, for which see Randall1985, cat. no. 320). It has been proposed that the presence ofthe horses and the kneeling pose of the suitor, making hisoffering to the lady, should be seen as a secular translationof the iconography of the Adoration of the Magi, where thefirst king kneels before the Virgin and Child and the kings’horses are shown being lashed with a whip by an attendant,although the latter feature is also seen on mirror backs withoutthe offering of the heart (Blamires 1988, pp. 20–21; Detroit-Baltimore 1997, pp. 226–27; see also Camille 1998, pp. 111–12and Roy 2003, p. 237).This celebrated mirror back is one of the finest of the earlier

examples, and has been linked by Danielle Gaborit-Chopin totwo mirror backs in the Musée du Louvre, showing a game ofchess and a hunting party (see most recently Gaborit-Chopin2003, cat. nos 127–28). It is closer stylistically and technically,and in size, to the second piece, and there are compellingreasons – in the carving of specific details, for instance, suchas the execution of the pupils of the eyes and the identicalmanner of carving the monsters around the rim – for seeingit as by the same hand. It is also perhaps not insignificantthat both mirror backs have been trimmed in exactly thesame manner on the reverse, with chamfers at the sides,indicating that they at least shared a post-medieval history and

may even have been physically associated (for the reverse ofthe Paris mirror back, now filled with a nineteenth-centurymetal mirror, see Gaborit-Chopin 2003, fig. on p. 354; it waspreviously in the Sauvageot collection and was given to theLouvre in 1856, so must have been on the Paris art market atabout the same time as the V&A mirror case). The presenceof the two horses on the V&A mirror back would also supportsuch a pairing, as the crowning of the suitor might naturallyfollow the scene of the mounted hunting party on the otherside (see Blamires 1988, p. 19). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYDu Sommerard 1838–46, V, p. 110, Album, 5th series, pl. X I,3;Maskell 1872, pp. 82–83; Koechlin 1924, I, p. 378, I I, cat. no.1002, I I I, pl. CLXXV I; Longhurst 1929, pp. 44–45, pl. XLI I;Grodecki 1947, p. 116; Gaborit-Chopin 1978, pp. 148, 207,fig. 219; Paris 1981–82, p. 171 (D. Gaborit-Chopin); Williamson1982, p. 44, pl. 27; Blamires 1988, pp. 18–21, fig. 2; Camille1989, pp. 308–10, fig. 167; Campbell 1995, pp. 14–15, fig. 6;Camille 1998, pp. 111–12, fig. 97; Arnhold 2001, p. 1, fig. 1;Gaborit-Chopin 2003, pp. 352, 354, fig. 128a; Roy 2003, p. 237,fig. 4; Carns 2009, p. 84; Gaborit-Chopin 2011, p. 173, fig. 16.

EXH IB ITEDLondon 1862, cat. no. 138; Ottawa 1972, cat. no. 76, pl. 101(P. Verdier); Detroit-Baltimore 1997, cat. no. 55 (P. Williamson);Paris 1998, cat. no. 96 (D. Gaborit-Chopin).

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 565GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 565 18/02/2014 07:5218/02/2014 07:52

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 590GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 590 18/02/2014 07:5418/02/2014 07:54

591

[203] The Attack on the Castle of Love

French (Paris); second quarter of the fourteenth centuryElephant ivory; h. 13.5 cm, w. 12.9 cmInv. no. 9–1872

When illustrated by Du Sommerard in 1838–46, the mirrorback was in the Préaux collection in Paris, and is describedin the Préaux sale catalogue (Paris, 9–11 January 1850,lot 147, bought Rarent): ‘Beau bas-relief de forme ronde,provenant d’une boîte à miroir du XIVe siècle, il représentel’attaque du château d’Amour par des chevaliers couvertsd’armures en usage alors; sujet tiré du Roman de la Rose, deJean de Meung’; collection of Prince Petr Soltykoff, Paris, until1861; Soltykoff sale (Soltykoff 1861, lot 355); collection ofHenry Farrer, London; Farrer sale, Christie’s, London, 13June 1866, lot 328; on loan to the Museum from 1867 andpurchased from John Webb, London, in 1872 (£110).

At the centre of the composition is a three-tiered tower-likecastle, with portcullis partly open, before which five mountedand armoured knights, divided into two groups, confront oneanother for the attentions of the ladies above. The four maidenshurl roses down at the knights, while two trumpeters at thesides blow fanfares while perched on the branch of a tree(the latter figures, rare in this context, are repeated in arecently acquired mirror back in the Duclaux collection inAngers: see Angers 2011, cat. no. 33). At the top of the castle thewinged God of Love takes aim with his bow, and has alreadypierced with an arrow the right eye of one of the knightsbelow, who has lifted his helmet to look upwards towards theladies. Four lions crouch around the rim; those at the upperleft and lower right are restorations (apparently from before1838–46, as they are included in Du Sommerard’s plate), madefrom separate pieces of ivory attached to the remains of theoriginals (of which only parts of the paws and the tips of thetails survive). On the reverse there is a raised and bevelledinner rim set back from the edge; this has been broken attop and bottom, and it is likely that there was formerly aflange in the area of the upper break to secure the mirrorback to its matching disc. The deep edge of the mirror backis angled from front to back to form a channel, and in thecentre at the top is a carved rosette with a hole at its centre,perhaps to hold a hook or clasp. Three further holes in thecentres of the sides and at the bottom (the last now filledwith plaster) may have had the same function (see below).The back of the rim has been stained a dark brown,

probably by oil, and at the top of the plain border onthe front, above the head of the God of Love, there isa small chip. A long vertical dirt-filled crack runs upto the centre of the disc from the bottom edge.

The attack on the Castle of Love was one of the most popularimages of l’amour courtois in the first half of the fourteenthcentury (see the still-classic study of Loomis 1919; Koechlin1924, I, pp. 403–10; and Timothy Husband’s admirable briefaccount in New York 1980–81, pp. 71–74). The Castle of Loveis an allegorical representation of the heart of the lady, to beconquered only after a trial of determination, courage andstrength, and the image was thus particularly appropriate forthe decoration of the accoutrements of beauty and grooming,such as ivory mirror cases and jewel or marriage caskets(see cat. no. 227 and Carns 2005, pp. 82–83). Koechlincatalogued no fewer than 27 mirror backs with this subject,including eight with the God of Love present, as here(Koechlin 1924, I I, cat. nos 1092–99). A virtually identicalmirror back is in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello in Florence(ibid., cat. no. 1093; see now Chiesi 2011, cat. no. 17).Stylistically and technically this mirror back – of the highest

quality – is very close to the following example (cat. no. 204)and one in the Musée du Louvre in Paris (Gaborit-Chopin 2003,cat. no. 189). Indeed, the extremely refined undercutting of thefigures, the treatment of fine detail, the animated poses, thedramatic compositions, and the unusual choice of lions ratherthan the more common monsters on the rims seen in all threepieces are not the only factors linking their production. Boththe Louvre mirror back and the present example (but not cat.no. 204) have precisely the same thick channelled edges anda carved rosette with hole in the centre of the top edge (ibid.,fig. on p. 438, but note that the case has been turned on its

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 591GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 591 18/02/2014 07:5418/02/2014 07:54

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 590GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 590 18/02/2014 07:5418/02/2014 07:54

591

[203] The Attack on the Castle of Love

French (Paris); second quarter of the fourteenth centuryElephant ivory; h. 13.5 cm, w. 12.9 cmInv. no. 9–1872

When illustrated by Du Sommerard in 1838–46, the mirrorback was in the Préaux collection in Paris, and is describedin the Préaux sale catalogue (Paris, 9–11 January 1850,lot 147, bought Rarent): ‘Beau bas-relief de forme ronde,provenant d’une boîte à miroir du XIVe siècle, il représentel’attaque du château d’Amour par des chevaliers couvertsd’armures en usage alors; sujet tiré du Roman de la Rose, deJean de Meung’; collection of Prince Petr Soltykoff, Paris, until1861; Soltykoff sale (Soltykoff 1861, lot 355); collection ofHenry Farrer, London; Farrer sale, Christie’s, London, 13June 1866, lot 328; on loan to the Museum from 1867 andpurchased from John Webb, London, in 1872 (£110).

At the centre of the composition is a three-tiered tower-likecastle, with portcullis partly open, before which five mountedand armoured knights, divided into two groups, confront oneanother for the attentions of the ladies above. The four maidenshurl roses down at the knights, while two trumpeters at thesides blow fanfares while perched on the branch of a tree(the latter figures, rare in this context, are repeated in arecently acquired mirror back in the Duclaux collection inAngers: see Angers 2011, cat. no. 33). At the top of the castle thewinged God of Love takes aim with his bow, and has alreadypierced with an arrow the right eye of one of the knightsbelow, who has lifted his helmet to look upwards towards theladies. Four lions crouch around the rim; those at the upperleft and lower right are restorations (apparently from before1838–46, as they are included in Du Sommerard’s plate), madefrom separate pieces of ivory attached to the remains of theoriginals (of which only parts of the paws and the tips of thetails survive). On the reverse there is a raised and bevelledinner rim set back from the edge; this has been broken attop and bottom, and it is likely that there was formerly aflange in the area of the upper break to secure the mirrorback to its matching disc. The deep edge of the mirror backis angled from front to back to form a channel, and in thecentre at the top is a carved rosette with a hole at its centre,perhaps to hold a hook or clasp. Three further holes in thecentres of the sides and at the bottom (the last now filledwith plaster) may have had the same function (see below).The back of the rim has been stained a dark brown,

probably by oil, and at the top of the plain border onthe front, above the head of the God of Love, there isa small chip. A long vertical dirt-filled crack runs upto the centre of the disc from the bottom edge.

The attack on the Castle of Love was one of the most popularimages of l’amour courtois in the first half of the fourteenthcentury (see the still-classic study of Loomis 1919; Koechlin1924, I, pp. 403–10; and Timothy Husband’s admirable briefaccount in New York 1980–81, pp. 71–74). The Castle of Loveis an allegorical representation of the heart of the lady, to beconquered only after a trial of determination, courage andstrength, and the image was thus particularly appropriate forthe decoration of the accoutrements of beauty and grooming,such as ivory mirror cases and jewel or marriage caskets(see cat. no. 227 and Carns 2005, pp. 82–83). Koechlincatalogued no fewer than 27 mirror backs with this subject,including eight with the God of Love present, as here(Koechlin 1924, I I, cat. nos 1092–99). A virtually identicalmirror back is in the Museo Nazionale del Bargello in Florence(ibid., cat. no. 1093; see now Chiesi 2011, cat. no. 17).Stylistically and technically this mirror back – of the highest

quality – is very close to the following example (cat. no. 204)and one in the Musée du Louvre in Paris (Gaborit-Chopin 2003,cat. no. 189). Indeed, the extremely refined undercutting of thefigures, the treatment of fine detail, the animated poses, thedramatic compositions, and the unusual choice of lions ratherthan the more common monsters on the rims seen in all threepieces are not the only factors linking their production. Boththe Louvre mirror back and the present example (but not cat.no. 204) have precisely the same thick channelled edges anda carved rosette with hole in the centre of the top edge (ibid.,fig. on p. 438, but note that the case has been turned on its

GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 591GI 553-605 Mirror Backs Part 2 p9.indd 591 18/02/2014 07:5418/02/2014 07:54

GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 608GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 608 18/02/2014 08:0918/02/2014 08:09

609

Combs

The comb has since Antiquity been a fundamental tool forpersonal grooming, used both by men and women (fig. 1).Before the thirteenth century combs for private, rather thanecclesiastical, use were invariably plain, and carved ivory wasalmost exclusively used for liturgical combs, some of whichwere embellished with narrative scenes: a splendid Englishtwelfth-century example is in the V&A collection (Williamson2010, cat. no. 97). In the Gothic period, however, ivory wasoften employed for the production of deluxe decorated combs;and as we have seen on p. 562 these were often sold withmirror backs and gravoirs and presented in leather cases(fig. 2). The comb-makers of Paris (pigniers) seem to have beenat the centre of this trade for all three items, and there arenumerous documentary accounts of them supplying thesetoilet cases to aristocratic clients (Koechlin 1924, I, pp. 532–33,534, 536–37, 538–39). In Italy, ivory combs were made for theMedici in Florence, including Cosimo the Elder (1389–1464),Lorenzo di Giovanni (1395–1440) and Piero il Gottoso (1416–69) (Schmidt 2012, p. 19).The Gothic comb is always carved on both faces and consists

of two registers of teeth, one fine, the other broader, aboveand below the narrative strips. There appears to have been nohard-and-fast rule about the relative positions of the differentrows of teeth; as will be seen from a cursory inspection ofthe examples in the Museum’s collection, the fine teeth are

sometimes on the top, sometimes on the bottom of the comb.The carved scenes between the two sets of teeth were recessedin a horizontal band, and in the later examples foliate designsfilled the side panels.Compared with the large number of surviving French

fourteenth-century mirror backs there are surprisingly fewcombs of this period and place, and the V&A only possessesone example (cat. no. 209). This might be because combswere more vulnerable to breakage and disposal than mirrorbacks, and it is of interest that most of the existing pieces from1300–1550 are in excellent – in some cases pristine – condition,suggesting that they owe their survival to being kept in theircases or put aside. They may have been presented as gifts butseem not to have been used, perhaps being considered by therecipients as too precious to put at risk. The numbers increaseafter the end of the fourteenth century, and of these laterpieces many are Italian or Netherlandish rather than French.As with the mirror backs, most of the scenes found on the

combs are connected with romance and courtship. Hardlysurprisingly, the subject matter often celebrates the powerof beauty, such as the stories of David and Bathsheba andthe Judgement of Paris, and its transforming effect, as in theFountain of Youth (cat. nos 215, 218–19). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYKoechlin 1924, I, pp. 423–31, I I, cat. nos 1147–60, I I I,pls CXCI–CXCIV; Gay 1928, pp. 217–18; Saviello 2012.

FIG. 1. A lady with comb, attended to by her maid with a mirror; English, c.1325–35; theLuttrell Psalter (British Library, London, Add. MS 42130, fol. 63r)

FIG. 2. Leather carrying-case for a mirror, comb and gravoir; French, late fourteenth century; h.17.5 cm, w. 14.5 cm (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, inv. no. CA. T.1602)

GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 609GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 609 18/02/2014 08:0918/02/2014 08:09

GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 608GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 608 18/02/2014 08:0918/02/2014 08:09

609

Combs

The comb has since Antiquity been a fundamental tool forpersonal grooming, used both by men and women (fig. 1).Before the thirteenth century combs for private, rather thanecclesiastical, use were invariably plain, and carved ivory wasalmost exclusively used for liturgical combs, some of whichwere embellished with narrative scenes: a splendid Englishtwelfth-century example is in the V&A collection (Williamson2010, cat. no. 97). In the Gothic period, however, ivory wasoften employed for the production of deluxe decorated combs;and as we have seen on p. 562 these were often sold withmirror backs and gravoirs and presented in leather cases(fig. 2). The comb-makers of Paris (pigniers) seem to have beenat the centre of this trade for all three items, and there arenumerous documentary accounts of them supplying thesetoilet cases to aristocratic clients (Koechlin 1924, I, pp. 532–33,534, 536–37, 538–39). In Italy, ivory combs were made for theMedici in Florence, including Cosimo the Elder (1389–1464),Lorenzo di Giovanni (1395–1440) and Piero il Gottoso (1416–69) (Schmidt 2012, p. 19).The Gothic comb is always carved on both faces and consists

of two registers of teeth, one fine, the other broader, aboveand below the narrative strips. There appears to have been nohard-and-fast rule about the relative positions of the differentrows of teeth; as will be seen from a cursory inspection ofthe examples in the Museum’s collection, the fine teeth are

sometimes on the top, sometimes on the bottom of the comb.The carved scenes between the two sets of teeth were recessedin a horizontal band, and in the later examples foliate designsfilled the side panels.Compared with the large number of surviving French

fourteenth-century mirror backs there are surprisingly fewcombs of this period and place, and the V&A only possessesone example (cat. no. 209). This might be because combswere more vulnerable to breakage and disposal than mirrorbacks, and it is of interest that most of the existing pieces from1300–1550 are in excellent – in some cases pristine – condition,suggesting that they owe their survival to being kept in theircases or put aside. They may have been presented as gifts butseem not to have been used, perhaps being considered by therecipients as too precious to put at risk. The numbers increaseafter the end of the fourteenth century, and of these laterpieces many are Italian or Netherlandish rather than French.As with the mirror backs, most of the scenes found on the

combs are connected with romance and courtship. Hardlysurprisingly, the subject matter often celebrates the powerof beauty, such as the stories of David and Bathsheba andthe Judgement of Paris, and its transforming effect, as in theFountain of Youth (cat. nos 215, 218–19). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYKoechlin 1924, I, pp. 423–31, I I, cat. nos 1147–60, I I I,pls CXCI–CXCIV; Gay 1928, pp. 217–18; Saviello 2012.

FIG. 1. A lady with comb, attended to by her maid with a mirror; English, c.1325–35; theLuttrell Psalter (British Library, London, Add. MS 42130, fol. 63r)

FIG. 2. Leather carrying-case for a mirror, comb and gravoir; French, late fourteenth century; h.17.5 cm, w. 14.5 cm (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, inv. no. CA. T.1602)

GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 609GI 606-651 Combs & Knife Handles Part 2 p9.indd 609 18/02/2014 08:0918/02/2014 08:09

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 706GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 706 18/02/2014 08:4018/02/2014 08:40

Secular WritingTablets

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 707GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 707 18/02/2014 08:4018/02/2014 08:40

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 706GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 706 18/02/2014 08:4018/02/2014 08:40

Secular WritingTablets

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 707GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 707 18/02/2014 08:4018/02/2014 08:40

744 M ISCELLANEOUS RELIFS AND VAR IA

lately in the possession of a noble English family.’ (Maskell1872, p. ci). It is divided longitudinally in the same way andthe decorative vocabulary, with numerous figures and animalsamongst lush foliage, including scenes of hunting, is very close(although the Zagreb horn also includes apes: see Topic-Mimara 1990, fig. 10). The V&A horn is certainly the granderof the two, with a more ambitious and varied decorativescheme and with an unmatched level of technicalaccomplishment in such features as the integrally-carvedsuspension loops and the recurring device of figures emergingfrom or entering holes in the surface of the ivory. It issignificant that the present horn is embellished with fourcrowns on the uppermost curving band, near the mouthpiece,suggesting that it was a royal or aristocratic commission.The parallels drawn by Topic-Mersmann with English

manuscripts of the first half of the fourteenth century, suchas the Ormesby Psalter, Queen Mary’s Psalter and the LuttrellPsalter, with misericords at Ely and Chester and with thewood Warwick gittern or citole at the British Museum, werewell made, and further English monuments – such as therelief carvings of the Winchester Cathedral choirstalls(Tracy 1987, pp. 16–24; Tracy 1993) – can also be broughtforward in support of an English origin. The imagery ofthe two horns, replete with the ‘babewyns’ so popular in

English manuscripts and other works of art in the fourteenthcentury (Stone 1955, pp. 150–51), is also indicative; althoughsome of the costume details, such as the dagged hems ofthe hunters’ hoods and especially the soft cap on one of thefigures on the V&A horn suggest a date at the beginning ofthe fifteenth century. The use of walrus ivory and the Englishprovenance of the Zagreb horn lend further weight to aninsular production, and the radiocarbon date obtained for theraw material also supports placing the carving of the V&Ahorn in the years around 1400. It fits comfortably into theinternational courtly environment of the late fourteenth andearly fifteenth century, exemplified by such books as GastonPhébus’s Le Livre de la chasse (see Paris 2004, cat. no. 139, esp.fig. on p. 234). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYDu Sommerard 1838–46, I I, pl. XXXV I; Maskell 1872,pp. ci, 36–37; Maskell 1875, p. 113, ill.; Gay 1887, fig. on p. 423;Molinier 1896, p. 197, note 3 (confuses with Zagreb horn);Maskell 1905, p. 243, pl. L I; Longhurst 1929, p. 88, fig. 6; Tardy1966, p. 140, ill.; Topic-Mersmann 1990, passim, figs 4–5, 14.

EXH IB ITEDMunich 1876, cat. no. 549.

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 744GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 744 18/02/2014 08:4318/02/2014 08:43

745

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 745GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 745 18/02/2014 08:4318/02/2014 08:43

744 M ISCELLANEOUS RELIFS AND VAR IA

lately in the possession of a noble English family.’ (Maskell1872, p. ci). It is divided longitudinally in the same way andthe decorative vocabulary, with numerous figures and animalsamongst lush foliage, including scenes of hunting, is very close(although the Zagreb horn also includes apes: see Topic-Mimara 1990, fig. 10). The V&A horn is certainly the granderof the two, with a more ambitious and varied decorativescheme and with an unmatched level of technicalaccomplishment in such features as the integrally-carvedsuspension loops and the recurring device of figures emergingfrom or entering holes in the surface of the ivory. It issignificant that the present horn is embellished with fourcrowns on the uppermost curving band, near the mouthpiece,suggesting that it was a royal or aristocratic commission.The parallels drawn by Topic-Mersmann with English

manuscripts of the first half of the fourteenth century, suchas the Ormesby Psalter, Queen Mary’s Psalter and the LuttrellPsalter, with misericords at Ely and Chester and with thewood Warwick gittern or citole at the British Museum, werewell made, and further English monuments – such as therelief carvings of the Winchester Cathedral choirstalls(Tracy 1987, pp. 16–24; Tracy 1993) – can also be broughtforward in support of an English origin. The imagery ofthe two horns, replete with the ‘babewyns’ so popular in

English manuscripts and other works of art in the fourteenthcentury (Stone 1955, pp. 150–51), is also indicative; althoughsome of the costume details, such as the dagged hems ofthe hunters’ hoods and especially the soft cap on one of thefigures on the V&A horn suggest a date at the beginning ofthe fifteenth century. The use of walrus ivory and the Englishprovenance of the Zagreb horn lend further weight to aninsular production, and the radiocarbon date obtained for theraw material also supports placing the carving of the V&Ahorn in the years around 1400. It fits comfortably into theinternational courtly environment of the late fourteenth andearly fifteenth century, exemplified by such books as GastonPhébus’s Le Livre de la chasse (see Paris 2004, cat. no. 139, esp.fig. on p. 234). PW

B IBLIOGRAPHYDu Sommerard 1838–46, I I, pl. XXXV I; Maskell 1872,pp. ci, 36–37; Maskell 1875, p. 113, ill.; Gay 1887, fig. on p. 423;Molinier 1896, p. 197, note 3 (confuses with Zagreb horn);Maskell 1905, p. 243, pl. L I; Longhurst 1929, p. 88, fig. 6; Tardy1966, p. 140, ill.; Topic-Mersmann 1990, passim, figs 4–5, 14.

EXH IB ITEDMunich 1876, cat. no. 549.

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 744GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 744 18/02/2014 08:4318/02/2014 08:43

745

GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 745GI 706-747 SecTablets, Chess & Misc. Part 2 p9.indd 745 18/02/2014 08:4318/02/2014 08:43

GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 818GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 818 18/02/2014 08:5718/02/2014 08:57

819

[268] Hexagonal Casket with the Storyof Pyramus and Thisbe

Workshop of Baldassare UbriachiItalian (Florence or Venice); about 1390–1410Bone, horn and intarsia on a wood base; h. 30.5 cm, w. 28 cm, h. of narrativeplaques 9.1 cm (reproduced 78%)Inv. no. 5624–1859

In the collection of Jules Soulages, Paris and Toulouse (probablyacquired by him in Italy in 1830–40: see Robinson 1856,p. iii); bought together with the rest of the Soulages collectionin 1856 by a subscription committee and then purchased bythe Museum in 1859 (£15).

The casket is decorated around the sides with a continuousfrieze of bone panels. The lid rises steeply to a finial orpinnacle, the top of which is plugged and which must oncehave had a metal attachment, possibly a ring, inserted here.The underside of the casket is painted red, and there is nosign that it ever had feet. Attached to the base is a label, whichreads ‘SOULAGES No. 304’, and there are traces of anotherlabel, now removed. The casket no longer opens. The intarsia,which is formed of several friezes running in bands around thecarcase and lid, is made in the typical Embriachi manner, withprefabricated strips. In the lower border beneath the narrativescenes, the prefabricated intarsia ribbons were not longenough, and so each face is formed from two unequal sections.The narrative frieze, which tells the story of Pyramus and

Thisbe, is divided into six scenes by corner panels representingstanding male figures with clubs and shields. Each scenecomprises three plaques. The upper area of the carcase behindthe plaques has been painted blue, visible through those plaquesthat are pierced. Unusually, the narrative does not begin on thecasket’s front face, a peculiarity which is discussed below. Scene1 shows Thisbe with her mother and Pyramus with his fatherfollowing two men, one of whom wears a toga-like garment;the two children carry writing slates. Scene 2 depicts the twochildren walking arm in arm behind their tutors; in the thirdpanel of this scene, Pyramus is taught by a tutor pointing to anopen book. In scene 3, the lovers whisper through the crackin the wall; the tension is heightened through the proximityof Thisbe’s parents (who converse with one another), and aservant or nurse holding a distaff. Scene 4 shows Pyramussetting out to meet Thisbe with his possessions in a scarfhanging from his sword, carried casually over his shoulder;ahead, Thisbe runs from the lioness, which is pawing a bloodyscarf near a well. Scene 5 shows Pyramus waiting alone atthe well; he then falls on his sword, as the lioness walks off.Finally, in scene 6 Thisbe mourns over Pyramus’s body, before

falling on the sword; to the right, a stag watches the scene. Thecarved plaques of the lid represent naked winged boys amongstleaves, who catch at each other and wrestle; the plaque abovethe lock depicts two amorini holding blank shields. The shieldsare pierced at top and bottom, as on several other caskets,probably for fixing metal heraldic plaques.A photograph of the casket published by Alfred Maskell

in 1905 (and subsequently, with further views, by Longhurstin 1929), shows that its current state is the result of somerestoration, although there is no record of this in the Museumarchives. In the older photograph, the upper border of thecasket, and the lower part of the lid, are badly damaged, as isthe casket’s lower border; by contrast, the casket now appearsalmost complete. The horn upper moulding of the maincarcase has been repaired in numerous places, most notablyaround the area of the new hinges. The odd projecting panelsof the lid’s lower border, as well as the ebony facing betweenthem, seem to be entirely modern. This is also true of theebony-faced lower moulding of the carcase, and the projectingmoulding around the finial. The intarsia patterns have beencarefully repaired in places, for example in the area above thestag in scene 6, and on the corner of the lid immediately above.The narrative panels around the lock plate have been damagedand repaired with glue. The photograph also reveals that theplain bone panels beneath the narrative scenes were oncepartly painted, probably with inscriptions, although no traceremains of this decoration.The scenes are each composed of three plaques, but the

width of each plaque varies widely; this means that the scenesmust have been carved in groups of three to ensure that theywould fit. It also indicates that the plaques retain their originalorder on the casket. The fact that the lock hole is integral toscene 5, and the blank shields are above this face, furtherconfirms that the casket has been designed to emphasize themoment in the story where Pyramus kills himself. OtherEmbriachi caskets habitually begin their stories on the frontface. Indeed, another hexagonal Pyramus and Thisbe casket,sold in London in 1994, followed this pattern, as the lockhole within the first scene in the story’s sequence confirms(Sotheby’s, London, 8 December 1994, lot 13).The story of Pyramus and Thisbe was a popular choice

on caskets of this sort, and appears on octagonal, hexagonaland rectangular examples in Bologna, Paris, Vienna, Milanand elsewhere (Pincelli 1959, cat. no. 115; Paris, Bibliothèquenationale de France, inv. no. 330; Schlosser 1899, p. 264,fig. 25; Merlini 1988, fig. 3). The source for the Embriachidepiction of the story has been the subject of some debate: vonSchlosser, basing his argument on the notion that the sourcemust have been a popular one, suggested a mid-fourteenth-century French fabliau (Schlosser 1899, p. 263). The mostnotable peculiarity in the way the story is depicted by the

GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 819GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 819 18/02/2014 08:5718/02/2014 08:57

GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 818GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 818 18/02/2014 08:5718/02/2014 08:57

819

[268] Hexagonal Casket with the Storyof Pyramus and Thisbe

Workshop of Baldassare UbriachiItalian (Florence or Venice); about 1390–1410Bone, horn and intarsia on a wood base; h. 30.5 cm, w. 28 cm, h. of narrativeplaques 9.1 cm (reproduced 78%)Inv. no. 5624–1859

In the collection of Jules Soulages, Paris and Toulouse (probablyacquired by him in Italy in 1830–40: see Robinson 1856,p. iii); bought together with the rest of the Soulages collectionin 1856 by a subscription committee and then purchased bythe Museum in 1859 (£15).

The casket is decorated around the sides with a continuousfrieze of bone panels. The lid rises steeply to a finial orpinnacle, the top of which is plugged and which must oncehave had a metal attachment, possibly a ring, inserted here.The underside of the casket is painted red, and there is nosign that it ever had feet. Attached to the base is a label, whichreads ‘SOULAGES No. 304’, and there are traces of anotherlabel, now removed. The casket no longer opens. The intarsia,which is formed of several friezes running in bands around thecarcase and lid, is made in the typical Embriachi manner, withprefabricated strips. In the lower border beneath the narrativescenes, the prefabricated intarsia ribbons were not longenough, and so each face is formed from two unequal sections.The narrative frieze, which tells the story of Pyramus and

Thisbe, is divided into six scenes by corner panels representingstanding male figures with clubs and shields. Each scenecomprises three plaques. The upper area of the carcase behindthe plaques has been painted blue, visible through those plaquesthat are pierced. Unusually, the narrative does not begin on thecasket’s front face, a peculiarity which is discussed below. Scene1 shows Thisbe with her mother and Pyramus with his fatherfollowing two men, one of whom wears a toga-like garment;the two children carry writing slates. Scene 2 depicts the twochildren walking arm in arm behind their tutors; in the thirdpanel of this scene, Pyramus is taught by a tutor pointing to anopen book. In scene 3, the lovers whisper through the crackin the wall; the tension is heightened through the proximityof Thisbe’s parents (who converse with one another), and aservant or nurse holding a distaff. Scene 4 shows Pyramussetting out to meet Thisbe with his possessions in a scarfhanging from his sword, carried casually over his shoulder;ahead, Thisbe runs from the lioness, which is pawing a bloodyscarf near a well. Scene 5 shows Pyramus waiting alone atthe well; he then falls on his sword, as the lioness walks off.Finally, in scene 6 Thisbe mourns over Pyramus’s body, before

falling on the sword; to the right, a stag watches the scene. Thecarved plaques of the lid represent naked winged boys amongstleaves, who catch at each other and wrestle; the plaque abovethe lock depicts two amorini holding blank shields. The shieldsare pierced at top and bottom, as on several other caskets,probably for fixing metal heraldic plaques.A photograph of the casket published by Alfred Maskell

in 1905 (and subsequently, with further views, by Longhurstin 1929), shows that its current state is the result of somerestoration, although there is no record of this in the Museumarchives. In the older photograph, the upper border of thecasket, and the lower part of the lid, are badly damaged, as isthe casket’s lower border; by contrast, the casket now appearsalmost complete. The horn upper moulding of the maincarcase has been repaired in numerous places, most notablyaround the area of the new hinges. The odd projecting panelsof the lid’s lower border, as well as the ebony facing betweenthem, seem to be entirely modern. This is also true of theebony-faced lower moulding of the carcase, and the projectingmoulding around the finial. The intarsia patterns have beencarefully repaired in places, for example in the area above thestag in scene 6, and on the corner of the lid immediately above.The narrative panels around the lock plate have been damagedand repaired with glue. The photograph also reveals that theplain bone panels beneath the narrative scenes were oncepartly painted, probably with inscriptions, although no traceremains of this decoration.The scenes are each composed of three plaques, but the

width of each plaque varies widely; this means that the scenesmust have been carved in groups of three to ensure that theywould fit. It also indicates that the plaques retain their originalorder on the casket. The fact that the lock hole is integral toscene 5, and the blank shields are above this face, furtherconfirms that the casket has been designed to emphasize themoment in the story where Pyramus kills himself. OtherEmbriachi caskets habitually begin their stories on the frontface. Indeed, another hexagonal Pyramus and Thisbe casket,sold in London in 1994, followed this pattern, as the lockhole within the first scene in the story’s sequence confirms(Sotheby’s, London, 8 December 1994, lot 13).The story of Pyramus and Thisbe was a popular choice

on caskets of this sort, and appears on octagonal, hexagonaland rectangular examples in Bologna, Paris, Vienna, Milanand elsewhere (Pincelli 1959, cat. no. 115; Paris, Bibliothèquenationale de France, inv. no. 330; Schlosser 1899, p. 264,fig. 25; Merlini 1988, fig. 3). The source for the Embriachidepiction of the story has been the subject of some debate: vonSchlosser, basing his argument on the notion that the sourcemust have been a popular one, suggested a mid-fourteenth-century French fabliau (Schlosser 1899, p. 263). The mostnotable peculiarity in the way the story is depicted by the

GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 819GI 748-861 Embriachi Workshops Part 2 p9.indd 819 18/02/2014 08:5718/02/2014 08:57

1200–1550 part 11paul wi ll iamson and glyn davies

medieval ivory carvings

victoria and albert museum