Owning Gothic Ivories: Buying, Giving, Circulating

Speculum, 2011

The medieval collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum have few rivals in terms of size, range (of medium, date, geographical origin), and quality. The recent reinstallation of the medieval and Renaissance galleries, which opened to great acclaim in 2009, arranges the rich collections in thematic and other groupings. Those of us who love medieval ivory carvings cannot help but remember when those ivories were presented as an ensemble, in the large gallery just inside the main entrance. Truly the ivories can claim preeminence even within the stupendous V&A medieval collections, not only because of sheer numbers but also because they include some of the most famous canonical masterpieces, such as the late Roman Symmachorum panel, the Lorsch Gospels front cover, the Veroli Casket, and the Basilewsky Situla. The V&A ivories also have another claim to fame, brilliantly elucidated in this volume, which is their place in the history of collecting and studying these objects. The first catalogue of the museum's collection was written by the collector William Maskell in 1872, and four years later J. O. Westwood published the strange catalogue of the museum's collection of nearly one thousand "fictile ivories," that is, plaster casts of ivories from many different collections, which constituted the first publication of many of them. Working at the V&A before the Second World War, Eric Maclagan and then his assistant and successor as keeper Margaret Longhurst produced many studies of ivories, and after the war John Beckwith continued the tradition, with many publications of the V&A ivories and others. This tradition culminates triumphantly in the current publication by Paul Williamson, keeper of sculpture, metalwork, ceramics, and glass. It is a superlative achievement, setting a high standard for all future catalogues and making an immense contribution to scholarship. This volume presents 120 items in the V&A collections, from the late Roman period through the twelfth century, including at the end 6 pieces in the medieval style made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries under the heading "copies and fakes." It is wonderful to see these pieces illustrated and fully discussed, rather than shoved under the rug, and the varied reasons for regarding them as modern works of art make fascinating reading. Each item of the catalogue is illustrated with at least two full-color images, front and back, of superlative quality. All the photographs of the fronts are reproduced in the size of the object represented, with the exception of a few large pieces, where the percentage of reduction is specified in the entry's heading. In the case of three-dimensional objects, notably boxes, there is also a photograph of each side. On occasion, when it seems significant, even the edges of panels are reproduced in color or the object is shown as photographed under ultraviolet light or backlit. In addition there are many enlarged details of superlative quality and impact and many comparative objects from other collections, shown frequently in color. There are even handsome photomontages of some hypothetical reconstructions. Altogether the volume is very beautiful, and its photographs will be an inestimable boon to further research; that the photographer, James Stevenson, is credited on the title page is entirely appropriate. The text is every bit as outstanding as the illustrations. Each entry is headed by Williamson's summary conclusion about place and date of origin, material or materials (elephant ivory, bone, or walrus ivory), and careful measurements, followed by a detailed provenance history. The body of the entries usually begins with an overall description, giving transcriptions of any inscriptions (often with bibliographical citations), and then has a very full and detailed description of the physical condition of the plaques and a detailed discussion of the history of scholarship on the object, followed by a bibliography (com

Sculpture Journal, 2014

American Journal of Archaeology, 1994

A recently published challenge to the authenticity of the ivory plaque of the Symmachi, now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, is refuted, and its late fourth-century origin is confirmed by comparison with other plaques whose fourth-or fifth-century date is secure. The charge of forgery is related to patterns in recent art historiography, and these are traced to an anachronistic critical vocabulary that entails inappropriate norms of illusionistic depiction. A different vocabulary is proposed, based on a reexamination of the plaque's visible structure and of its artistic sources. A pendant note by Anthony Cutler scrutinizes the fabric of the Symmachi diptych leaf and the manner in which it was worked. Recognizing both resemblances to and differences from the companion leaf of the Nicomachi, the author argues that these fit a known pattern of Late Antique workshop production and that the technical arguments underlying the claim that SYMMACHORVM is a 19th-century creation are therefore groundless.* In an essay entitled "The Aesthetics of the Forger," published in the spring of 1992, Jerome Eisenberg cited several well-known objects generally believed to be authentic antiquities to exemplify the "stylistic criteria" that he claimed are symptoms of forgery. Among these objects is an ivory plaque inscribed SYMMACHORVM (figs. 1, right, and 2) that is usually associated with the Roman senator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (fl. 365-402).' Despite some dubious assertions, noticeable even in the essay's title (the very notion of "the" aesthetics of "the" forger implicitly denies the historical relativity of aesthetics [not to mention style], and with it a fundamental premise of art history), Eisenberg's essay elicited a chorus of approbation from art professionals who wrote to express their own rejection of the object. Alan Shestack confessed that he had been "duped for decades" but was now converted; Christoph Clairmont proclaimed that "the forgery of the panel ... is blatant!"; and so on.2 Thus encouraged, Eisenberg went on to publish a second article devoted exclusively to the case against SYM-MACHORVM.3 The published responses to this article are more noteworthy, as they came from prominent authorities on Late Antique art. Neither Ernst Kitzinger nor the late Kurt Weitzmann disavowed Eisenberg's proposal; on the contrary, both allowed its possibility, while cautioning that it required further demonstration.4 In fact, Eisenberg's arguments are very easy to refute. Were it simply a matter of exposing their failings it might be most productive to ignore them; but the willingness of connoisseurs and scholars to embrace his judgment suggests that there is something more meaningful at work here. That other "something" is the real concern of this essay, although I will begin by attending to the specifics of Eisenberg's case and the evidence that disproves it. Eisenberg acknowledges that the plaque of the Symmachi and its presumed companion, NICO-MACHORVM (fig. 1, left), can be traced almost con-* The following abbreviations are used below: Claussen PC. Claussen, "Das Reliquiar von Montier-en-Der: Ein spitantike Diptychon und seine mittelalterliche Fassung," Pantheon 36 (1978) 308-19. Cutler 1984 A. Cutler, "The Making of the Jus

2003 “Beckwith Revisited: some ivory carvings from Canterbury”, Karkov, Catherine E., and George Hardin Brown, eds. Anglo-Saxon Styles, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003, 101–113, 2003

The material under consideration in this paper lacks the kind of associated information that allows scholars to address it in historical terms. The origins, dates and purposes of the objects are unknown, and their histories before they were acquired by various relatively late collectors are also mysterious. This, indeed, is probably why the material has tended to be neglected despite its potentially rich implications. Two notable and relatively early exceptions to this scholarly uninterest are the "corpus" scholars Goldschmidt and Beckwith, whose concept of completeness, in accordance with the values of their time, ensured these objects' inclusion in their work. The method they used to classify the material, which is the same method used perforce by any historian faced with objects (not texts) that have become divorced from all useful information pertaining to them, is stylistic analysis. It is perhaps unfortunate that stylistic analysis has become associated, in some scholars' minds, exclusively with the connoisseur's search for "great" works, and that the concept of greatness itself has come to be seen as undesirably elitist. Since the connoisseur and the great artist are both products of a Romantic consciousness which favoured the production of large scale, emotionally expressive works of a kind that did not, and could not, exist in the early Middle Ages, it is doubly unfortunate that this perception should undermine the most powerful and useful tool historians (not critics) have available to them, and that the use of this tool should now have to be justified for the benefit of critical theorists. In this paper, stylistic analysis involves the detailed analysis and comparison of form, iconography, and technology (where visible). The purpose is to demonstrate that the objects belong together in coherent groups, and that provenances can be suggested for these groups that throw new light on our understanding of the ivory trade, the transmission of ideas and ages, and the presentation of royal and institutional identity. The attempt to do so is justified, as I have

Sculpture Journal, 2014

After Constantine 1, 2021

Yannis D. Varalis, "The Nativity of Christ on Late Antique Ivories", After Constantine 1 (2021) 55-67

Gothic Ivories Between Luxury and Crisis, 2024

The various objects for daily use that were crafted from ivory in the XIIIth and XIVth centuries have evoked growing scholarly interest over the past decade. Caskets and mirror backs are intriguing artifacts whose workmanship, design and pictorial decoration have stimulated hypotheses about their iconography, recipients and place in late medieval cultural practices. Of the various ivory objects whose primary function was not Christian worship, writing tablets are probably the most enigmatic. It remains unclear exactly how ivory writing tablets were integrated into late medieval people’s daily life, to what degree they were decorative accessories or actually used and, if so, for what purposes. The questions posed by the geometrical partitioning that some of them display on their back also remain unsolved. A dive into the history of writing tablets – not just those made of ivory – sheds light on the precious late medieval specimens under discussion here. A longue durée of writing tablets, statistical evaluations of the Gothic ivory examples, observations on their design, workmanship and iconography as well as written sources all allow for some new hypotheses on late medieval ivory writing tablets and their users.

Gothic Ivory Sculpture: Content and Context, 2017

From proceedings of the V&A Museum - Courtauld Institute of Art conference entitled Gothic Ivories: Content and Context, 5-6 July 2014

The Art Bulletin, 2013

The problem of properly presenting physical vestiges of the divine—relics, images, and the Eucharist—was a preoccupation in France during the thirteenth century. With the specters of idolatry and sacrilege haunting either end of the spectrum, viewers needed adequate visual cues to calibrate their modes of veneration. An examination of Gothic ivories, with their characteristic forms (diptychs and polyptychs) and micro-architectural frames, reveals one strategy devised to alert viewers to the presence of the sacred. Two Old Testament typologies—the Ark of the Covenant and the Throne of Solomon—furnished a tripartite visual metaphor to prompt proper adoration of the divine.

Studies in Iconography, 2012

Transactions London Middlesex Archaeology. Society, 1983

The two ivories which form the subject of this short paper were among the finds recovered during excavations in 1902 on the site of a Roman building in Greenwich Park and were subsequently published by Webster in his discussion of the site'. Both objects are now deposited, together with a small number of other finds2 from the 1902 excavation, in the British Museum. The site has been the subject of recent small scale excavations by Mr. H. Sheldon and Mr. B. Yule in advance of tree planting though no comparable objects were recovered3.

A Arte de Coleccionar. Lisboa, a Europa e o Mundo na Época Moderna (1500-1800). The Art of Collecting. Lisbon, Europe and the Early Modern World (1500-1800), 2019