Viewer an Imagined Spiritual Journey of St
Florida State University Libraries
Honors Theses The Division of Undergraduate Studies
2015 The Unidentified Blazonry of St. Margaret's Shoe Reliquary Jasmine Van Weelden
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS
THE UNIDENTIFIED BLAZONRY OF ST. MARGARET’S SHOE RELIQUARY
By
JASMINE VAN WEELDEN
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Art History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major
Degree Awarded: Spring, 2015
The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Jasmine Van Weelden defended on April 3, 2015.
Dr. Doron Bauer
Thesis Director
Dr. Geoffrey Thomas
Outside Committee Member
Dr. Lynn Jones
Committee Member
2 ABSTRACT THE UNIDENTIFIED BLAZONRY OF ST. MARGARET’S SHOE RELIQUARY
by
Jasmine Van Weelden
The Florida State University, 2015 Under the Supervision of Dr. Doron Bauer
The Shoe Reliquary from the Cloisters Collection is a leather-and-iron reliquary shaped in the form of a shoe. Believed to have once held the relic of St. Margaret of Antioch’s foot, the decorative program embossed and tooled into the leather features eleven scenes of the saint’s legend, as well as four unidentified coats of arms. Since the twelfth century, the practice of blazoning arms has produced specific heraldic terms, guidelines, and orders of standard for creating and describing coats of arms. The combination of tinctures (colors) used in a heraldic design was crucial to the construction of authentic armorial devices. Since the original tinctures used on the Shoe’s coats of arms are now lost, it is nearly impossible to reconstruct their original appearance. Although the Shoe’s coats of arms contain several formal heraldic elements seen in authentic armorial devices, certain features in their designs imply a striking resemblance to decorative coats of arms used in Limoges enameled works. Decorative arms intentionally did not follow the established guidelines of heraldry in order to produce ornamental designs. I will argue that it is evident the Shoe Reliquary’s armorial devices were used for decorative purposes that were not attributed to a specific family or institution.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures……………………………….…………………………………………………….5 Introduction…………………………………………………………...…………………..……….8 Chapter 1: Background Information……...…………………………………...……..………..…10 The Legend of Saint Margaret………...…………………………………………...…….10 The Art and Science of Blazonry………………...………………………………..…..…12 The Shoe Reliquary’s Coats of Arms………………………………………...…...... ……15 Coat of Arms #1………………………………………….……….………..…….16 Coat of Arms #2……………………..……………………...…………...…….…18 Coat of Arms #3…………………….……………………………………...…….19 Coat of Arms #4…………………………………………………..……………...20 Chapter 2: Analysis and Results…………………………………………………….………...…21 Patronage in the Middle Ages……………………………………………………………21 Patronage Historical Information Results……………………………………..…22 Decorative Coats of Arms………………………………………………………………..23 Decorative Coats of Arms Results……………………………………………….25 Images in the Style of Limoges and Illustrated Manuscripts………….…25 Tinctures…………………………………………………………………27 Figural Charges and Geometric Patterns for Field Designs……………...28 Non-enameled……………………………………………….……...…....31 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….33 References………………………………………………………………………………………..36 Appendix A: Glossary of Blazon…………………………..……………....…..…………..…….38 Appendix B: Figures...………………………………..………...………………………...……...41
4 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Shoe Reliquary, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 2: Shoe Reliquary, opened, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 3: Shoe Reliquary, back, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 4: Shoe Reliquary, side, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 5: Shoe Reliquary, back, first scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 6: Shoe Reliquary, right side, second scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 7: Shoe Reliquary, right side, third scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 8: Shoe Reliquary, front, fourth scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 9: Shoe Reliquary, right, fifth scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 10: Shoe Reliquary, right, sixth through eighth scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 11: Shoe Reliquary, back, ninth scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
5 FIGURE 12: Shoe Reliquary, top, tenth and eleventh scene of St. Margaret’s legend, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 13: Illustration of imaginary coat of arms. From: Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), viii.
FIGURE 14: Examples of field divisions. From: Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 16.
FIGURE 15: Examples of geometric ordinaries. From: Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 17.
FIGURE 16: Example of marks of cadency within a family. From: Michel Pastoureau, Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997), 76
FIGURE 17: Shoe Reliquary, right side, Coat of Arms #1 (CoA #1), ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 18: Shoe Reliquary, left side, Coat of Arms #2 (CoA #2), ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 19: Example of marks of cadency within the fifteenth-century Count of Harcourt’s family. From: Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 76.
FIGURE 20: Shoe Reliquary, back, Coat of Arms #3 (CoA #3), ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art). .
FIGURE 21: Shoe Reliquary, top, Coat of Arms #4 (CoA #4), ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
FIGURE 22: Reliquary with the Man of Sorrows, detail, 1347-49, gilded silver, champlevé enamel, & glass paste. (Photo: The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore).
6
FIGURE 23: Reliquary Arm of Saint Louis of Toulouse, detail, 1336-38, gilded silver, basse-taille enamels on silver, & rock crystal. (Photo: Musée du Louvre, Paris).
FIGURE 24: Heraldic Casket of Saint. Louis, 1234-7, multimedia coffer. (Photo: Musée du Louvre, Paris).
FIGURE 25: Applique From A Casket With A Coat of Arms, 13th century, partially gilt and champlevé enameled copper. (Photo: Sotheby’s, London).
FIGURE 26: Pyxis, second half 13th century, partially gilt and champlevé enameled copper. (Photo: Sotheby’s, London).
FIGURE 27: Morse, 1325-1350, champlevé enamel on gilt copper. (Photo: The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore).
FIGURE 28: Angel Carrying a Crown, ca. 1230-50, repoussé, engraved, chased, and gilt copper. (Photo: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).
FIGURE 29: Chrismatory, c. 1200, copper and champlevé enamel. From: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Enamels of Limoges: 1100-1350 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1996), 255.
FIGURE 30: Lover Looking Into a Fountain, Egerton 881 f. 11v, c. 1380, illuminated manuscript. (Photo: The British Library, London).
FIGURE 31: The Church Militant, Velislav Picture Bible, c. 1340, illuminated manuscript, (Photo: National Library, Prague).
7 Introduction
The Shoe Reliquary (c.1350-1400), from the Cloisters Collection, is a leather and iron reliquary case from the late medieval period (fig.1). Measuring slightly over eleven inches long and five inches high, a large iron hinge connects the two halves of the reliquary, along with an iron bar that wraps around the heel and joins the hinge to the latch on the opposite side.1
Believed to have once held a relic of St. Margaret of Antioch, who is the patron saint of pregnancy and childbirth, the Shoe Reliquary features two motifs in its decorative program: a
visual narrative of St. Margaret’s legend, and four coats of arms.2 Formed over a wooden core,
the tooled and embossed leather overlay creates a hollow, shoe-shaped case for the relic (fig.2).
This overlay includes eleven embossed and painted scenes of St. Margaret’s legend - most
framed in gothic trefoil arches – and constitute the majority of the surface decorations. In
addition, tooled sections of foliage are placed between each scene, which divide the narrative and
guide the eye upward towards the four unidentified coats of arms.
The Shoe Reliquary’s four coats of arms are also quite sizable within the decorative
program, occupying roughly a third of the decorations on the Shoe’s posterior section. Each measures approximately 1.5 inches high, and all are situated on the three sides of the heel and at the top of the shoe (figs.3-4). This prominence may lead one to naturally assume these have been used to indicate the patronage of the reliquary since, like a person’s signature, a coat of arms is a unique, visual documentation that signifies a specific owner (e.g., a family member, a guild, or a town).3 This assumption implies the Shoe’s coats of arms once held a civic, institutional,
1 The Shoe Reliquary’s small size, lightweight materials, and iron loop, which is large enough to thread a piece of cord or leather strap through it, implies it could have been worn at some point. 2 Margaret English Frazier, “Medieval Church Treasuries,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 43, no. 3 (Winter 1985-86): 49. 3 Michel Pastoureau, Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997), 20.
8 geographical, or familial importance.4 However, to date, no investigation of this particular
reliquary, or the four coats of arms embossed into the leather, has been published, and further
analysis must be completed before this assumption can be either proven or disproven.
Implying patronage via the Shoe’s coats of arms is difficult. This is because it has been
removed from its original context and the majority of the painted surface is missing, as tincture is
one of the chief elements that distinguish coats of arms. However, the remaining elements within
the heraldic designs, as well as the Shoe’s overall decorative program, are still present and will
be used as the basis of this paper’s analysis. Specifically, I will focus on the following areas: (1)
the depiction of St. Margaret’s legend in juxtaposition to the coats of arms, (2) the rule of
blazonry in relation to the coats of arms, (3) the types of medieval patronage, and (4) the use and
function of decorative coats of arms in the Middle Ages. From my analysis, I will argue that it is
quite evident the Shoe Reliquary’s armorial devices were used for decorative purposes rather
than as an indication of patronage or ownership. This conclusion will be explained using the
relationship between the aforementioned areas and the ornamental qualities of the Shoe
Reliquary’s coats of arms.
4 Roy Brogan, A Signature of Power & Patronage (New York: Peter Lang, Inc., 1993). The Medici family was well known for using heraldry on commissioned artworks to showcase their power and influence, and to show their support for the arts.
9 Chapter 1: Background Information
The Legend of Saint Margaret
The most notable account of St. Margaret’s legend was recorded in The Golden Legend, a thirteenth century collection of saints’ hagiographies written by Jacobus de Varagine.5 According to The Golden Legend, Margaret was the daughter of a pagan priest named Theodosius, but was
raised by a Christian nurse. Against her father’s religion, Margaret was baptized and declared her
virginity to God. Olybrius, a prefect, was struck by Margaret’s beauty and wanted her to be his
wife if she would renounce her faith. Margaret refused. This led to her torture by rods and iron
combs. Further, she was sent to prison, where a dragon confronted her.
At this point in The Golden Legend, Jacobus notes two different versions of Margaret’s
miraculous defeat of the dragon. The first mentions Margaret making the sign of the cross to
vanquish the dragon before he swallows her. In the second, Margaret was swallowed, and then
makes the sign of the cross once inside the belly of the dragon, which splits and issues her out
unharmed.
After the dragon’s defeat, a demon, which was disguised as a man, appeared before
Margaret in the attempt to deceive her.6 Recognizing what he really was, Margaret brought him
down to the ground and secured him with her right foot, stating: “Lie still, thou fiend, under the
feet of a woman.”7 Because the demon was overcome, the earth opened up and reclaimed him.
Margaret’s miraculous survival of further tortures of being burned alive and executed by
drowning, converted five thousand witnesses to Christianity. Olybrius, angered by the
5 Jacobus de Varagine, The Golden Legend, trans. William Caxton (1900; repr., New York: AMS Press Inc., 1973), 66-72. 6 Ibid., 69. One of the seventy-two demons mentioned in the Testament of Solomon. 7 Ibid.
10 conversion of these witnesses, ordered their execution. In the attempt to prevent further
conversions, Olybrius also ordered Margaret to be beheaded, which ultimately resulted in her
martyrdom.
The narrative scenes of St. Margaret’s hagiography on the Shoe Reliquary approximately follow the version found within The Golden Legend. Starting on the right side of the heel, an already nimbed Margaret is depicted tending her sheep, where she is approached by Olybrius in a fur-trimmed cloak (fig.5). Continuing towards the scene on the right, Olybrius declares his love for the plainly dressed Margaret, who declines because of her Christian faith (fig.6). The next scene depicts her bound to a whipping post, flogged by two other figures (fig.7). In the next two scenes, Margaret is pushed into a dungeon cell, where the demon disguised as a man confronts her (figs.8-9). Following the second account of Margaret’s defeat of the dragon in The Golden
Legend, three consecutive scenes depicting the dragon swallowing Margaret are placed underneath the sole of the shoe (fig.10). On the scene to the left of the heel, she emerges through the belly of the dragon after making the sign of the cross (fig.11). Margaret’s martyrdom culminates at the top of the foot with her beheading, and the scene above shows her flanked by two angels that lift her up into heaven (fig.12).
The hagiographic narrative tooled into the leather provides the viewer an imagined spiritual journey of St. Margaret’s legend. Ideally, the beholder of the Shoe Reliquary would have found strength and piety through the miraculous events leading up to her ultimate martyrdom. Like the rest of the Shoe, the figures would have been painted. Additionally, the stippled patterns discernable in multiple narrative scenes could possibly indicate the application of gold leaf to create non-descript backgrounds typical of later medieval illuminations (see figs.
11 6-12). These vivid depictions would have been realistically sufficient for the viewer to imagine
her entire legend as it enfolded itself scene by scene with the rotation of the Shoe Reliquary.
The Art and Science of Blazonry
Since the twelfth century, the practice of blazoning arms has produced specific heraldic
terms, guidelines, and orders of standard for creating and describing coats of arms. Armorial
bearings originally began as a mark of identification for knights in tournaments.8 The use of the
heraldic shield eventually spread to identify families, specific family members, guilds, the
Church, and states of government.9 These visual indicators were familiar and recognizable, and
could eventually come to symbolize what they represented or identified.10 Heraldic devices
revealed the “identity and the social and cultural environments in which the [bearers] lived.”11 A
unique and distinctive heraldic shield was required to be considered a successful coat of arms. Of
course, sometimes a truly unique heraldic design was unattainable due to the many creations
made throughout Europe, and eventually the world, during the Middle Ages. Many coats of arms
had identical or extremely similar heraldic designs in relation to those found in a larger
population or geographic area.12 To prevent repeated arms, creators of heraldic designs had a
multitude of ways to combine, alter, and add to the escutcheon (shield).
In its truest form, a coat of arms includes a shield, helm, crest, and mantling (fig.13).
Since the knight’s shield was one of the first emblazoned objects, the form of an escutcheon
8 Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), vii. 9 Ibid. 10 To this day, we still associate the fleur-de-lis with France and its past monarchs. According to Michel Pastoureau, the state always had a repertoire of signs and emblems that functioned to inform their “nature, aspirations or justifications, or powers that the state represents.” Figures et Couleurs: Études sur la symbolique et la sensibilité médiévales, Michel Pastoureau (Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1986), 61. 11 Pastoureau, Heraldry, 74. 12 Volborth, Heraldry, 9. Volborth gives an example of how the blazon “gules, a cross argent” heraldic design can be attributed to the arms of Vienna, the city of Pavia, the Order of Malta, and to the house of Savoy.
12 naturally became the main component of the coat of arms, and it could have been displayed by
itself or with other heraldic appurtenances.13 During the Middle Ages, the size and shape of the
heraldic shield occasionally varied by country or region, mimicking the shields used in battle.14
In its earliest conception, the field (surface of the shield) contained two contrasting tinctures
(colors, metals, or furs).15 The usable tincture colors were Gules (red), Sable (black), Azure
(blue), and Vert (green). The tinctures Argent (silver/white) and Or (gold/yellow) were classified as metals, whereas the furs were usually ermine or vair. Partitioning (equal divisions of a shield) allowed more than one tincture or pattern to be used on a single shield (fig.14).16 Additionally,
the partitioning line could be a straight line or an ornamental line, thus increasing the amount of
design possibilities.17 Charges could be added onto the field, which allowed even more possible combinations of tinctures and divisions. The options of charges were limitless, for they could be any animal, imaginary beast, plant, ordinary (geometric design), human figure, or object (fig.
15).18
Since its earliest representations, armorial devices were popular among people from all societal classes because the use of heraldic arms was not strictly a privilege of the nobility and gentry.19 By the thirteenth century the Church, town governments, guilds, burghers, artisans, and
13 L. G. Pine, International Heraldry (Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., 1970), 15; and Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 4-5. The need for heraldry began in the twelfth century as a way to distinguish one knight from the other in tournaments. Since a knight’s face would have been covered by his armor, heralds used armorial devices – such as the coat of arms on the knight’s shield – to recognize and announce to the crowd who was entering the lists and who had won the tournament. 14 Volborth, Heraldry, 13. 15 Pastoureau, Heraldry, 64. This allowed the knight’s shields to be visible from long distances, which made it easy to recognize opponents on the battlefield. 16 Ibid. 17 Volborth, Heraldry, 16. 18 Pastoureau, Heralrdy, 49. 19Ibid., 14. Within Europe, the only exception to this was in England, where only English gentlemen had the right to bear arms.
13 even peasants used heraldic arms.20 In most cases, the heraldic designs often referred to the owner’s livelihood and included a wider variety of charges in comparison to the nobility.21 These charges were usually plants, everyday items, and tools.22 The only social restrictions when bearing arms were the use of coronets, mantels, and other heraldic accessories that signified rank.23 Within families, marks of cadency were applied to the heraldic shield to indicate they were not the head of a family (fig.16).24 This applied to all sons and daughters that were not considered the heir of the family. New variations of coats of arms were created with each new generation, making each a form of identification that was specific to one person.
Before the use of armor became impractical, heraldic devices made their way on to stained glass, manuscripts, clothing, religious objects, coins, and everyday items as a mark of ownership.25 Over the centuries, many heralds and scholars have sought to record and organize the plethora of established coat of arms by annotating them in armorial rolls. These rolls featured either visual depictions of heraldic designs or a blazon (textual description). The language of blazon was comprised of specific vocabulary and grammar, which provided as much descriptive knowledge of the heraldic shield without being illustrated. In Germany, the Netherlands, and
Scandinavia, these heraldic devices and descriptions would have initially been common knowledge to the average layman in spoken terms, allowing the lower classes to recognize and
20 Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 96; and Michel Pastoureau, Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997), 20; 24. In western Europe, there are approximately one million medieval armorial bearings known in existence. 21 Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 97; and Michel Pastoureau, Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997), 15. 22 Pastoureau, Heraldry, 15. 23 Ibid., 14. 24 Volborth, Heraldry, 76. According to Volborth, additional bendlets and batons sinister usually indicated the owner of the shield was an illegitimate son. If a family member changed a tincture on their arms, then they created an entirely new coat of arms. 25 Michel Pastoureau, Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997), 24-5; and L. G. Pine, International Heraldry (Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., 1970), 18.
14 distinguish armorial devices.26 In other countries, such as France and England, the language of blazon was complex and decipherable only to those who were educated.27 Since all arms are composed by the layering of superimposed levels of tinctures, divisions, and charges, a coat of arms was only correctly blazoned, or interpreted, when each layer was identified in the right order.28 Thus, heraldic design was, and is still today, described in order by the main tincture or tinctures of the divided field, principal charge(s), secondary charges (including chiefs, bordures, and cantons), and objects placed on the charges.29
All heraldry must follow the rule of blazon: color must not rest on color, nor metal on metal.30 Conversely, furs and marks of cadency (e.g., borders or batons sinister) do not adhere to these rules. All coats of arms made in Europe have closely followed these rules for centuries.
Since the original objective for a coat of arms was to provide easy, visual identification, the field had to employ sharp, contrasting tinctures that were noticeable from a distance.31 In current analysis, all of these guidelines must be considered when observing the Shoe Reliquary’s coats
of arms.
The Shoe Reliquary’s Coats of Arms
26 Pastoureau, Heraldry, 88-9. This understanding among the lay classes would have depended on the country they resided. In some cases, the vocabulary and terminology was closely related to everyday language. This is one of the reasons why the percentage of noble arms in these countries was relatively small compared to the large amount of burghers and peasants who owned arms. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., 67. 29 Volborth, Heraldry, 67. If marks of cadency are present, they are described last. 30 Julian Franklin, Shield and Crest: An Account of the Art and Science of Heraldry (New York: Sterling Publishing Co. Inc.,1960), 29. There are very few coats of arms that break this rule, the most famous being the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which has Or crosses on a field of Argent. 31 Ibid.
15 Each coat of arms is framed in a uniquely designed barbed quatrefoil, of which two show
markings and remnants of pigments that are now indecipherable.32 Upon first inspection, the
markings resembled decorative elements similar to the coats of arms. However, further analyses
reveal these markings are actually the same stippled patterns systematically tooled into the
leather of the narrative scenes below. Within the coats of arms, three out of the four displays a
grid-like pattern scored lightly onto the leather. These grids may have been used as a guide to
measure equal division for the components of the fields. It is possible the grids on these coats of
arms would not been visible since they were originally covered with pigment.
The absence of tincture and possible painted charges reduces the probability of correctly
identifying and translating the original blazons of the Shoe’s coats of arms. The remaining
heraldic elements, however, can be analyzed through the complex lens of blazon to determine if
they were authentic coats of arms. Additionally, the scenes of St. Margaret’s legend embossed
into the leather may be used as a guide to place the coats of arms in order. Similar to the
narrative scenes of St. Margaret’s legend, the Shoe Reliquary must be physically turned to reveal all of the coats of arms.
Coat of Arms #1
Located above the first scene of St. Margaret’s legend, on the right side of the Shoe’s heel, is the first coat of arms (CoA #1). Visual inspection of this coat of arms reveals it is framed in a barbed quatrefoil that shows no indication of tooled decorations or embellishment (fig.17).
However, it does display a per fess division with at least two possible tinctures and a semé
(repeated pattern) of trefoils slipped.
32 Barbed quatrefoils appear behind the three narrative scenes of the dragon swallowing Margaret underneath the Shoe Reliquary. See figure 10.
16 The per fess division is a straight line that divides the field horizontally to create chief
(top) and base (bottom) segments on the escutcheon. If these segments were to conform to the rule of blazon, then a sharp contrast in tinctures from the combination of either dark colors
(Gules, Sable, Vert, or Azure) with metals (yellow for gold, and white for silver) or light-colored furs (ermine or vair) would be needed.33 While the pigment of the paint is unclear, the noticeably darker chief segment of the shield indicates it was probably a color tincture.34 If the chief segment was a color, then the rule of blazon would strongly suggest the base segment was a metal.
Regarding the base segment, observation reveals the charge of semé trefoils slipped was placed upon this segment, indicating the trefoils would have been painted in a contrasting tincture. If two tinctures were divided per fess with a charge of trefoils slipped upon the metal tincture at the base, then thirty-two tincture combinations are possible, which equates to thirty- two conceivable coats of arms the CoA #1 could represent.35 However, since the trefoil was a common heraldic charge used throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, no further identification of the specific location or owner can be determined.
Finally, a grid marked on to the field of CoA #1 is visible. These markings, which begin in the chief segment of the field and extend into the base segment, are most comparable to the fretty sub-ordinary, a pattern of interlaced bendlets and bendlets sinister. The grid in CoA #1, however, shows no sign of interlacing bendlets, which indicates that it was not intended to act as a fretty. Traditionally, sub-ordinary divisions did not cover an entire field in heraldry if the field was already divided, as this would break the rule of blazon. A possible explanation for this grid
33 Franklin, Shield and Crest, 26. 34 This follows the rules of blazon: no metal upon metal; no color upon color. 35 Assuming there were not any painted charges or sub-ordinaries. The possibility of furs is ruled out because a semé charge would not be placed on top of a fur.
17 is that it might have been used as a measurement guide for the artisan to place the semé trefoil slipped pattern in the base segment, which would have later been covered with pigment.
Coat of Arms #2
Following the narrative of the St. Margaret’s legend on the Shoe Reliquary, to the left side of the heel, is CoA #2 (fig.18). Examination of this coat of arms reveals it is framed in a barbed quatrefoil that shows the aforementioned stippled patterns. Furthermore, CoA #2 is divided into six bars fesswise (horizontal). This partition is called a barry, which is defined by two alternating bars that cover the entire field. The chief (topmost bar) shows remnants of a tincture and is charged with a wavy vine. In true heraldic form, this tincture, although indiscernible, would have contrasted with the tincture of the wavy vine, as the charge would have been superimposed on top of the division. Since the tincture could be a color, metal, or fur, the charge would have contrasted the tincture according to the rule of blazon. This results in twenty-eight possible tincture combinations for the chief.
Underneath the chief is a checky (checkered pattern), which also would have conformed to the rule of blazon by alternating a metal with a color.36 There are eight possible tincture combinations for the bars of checky. Therefore, the chief and the checky would create 224 tincture combinations, which would result in 224 combinations of coat of arms that could represent CoA #2. However, these alternating segments may indicate marks of cadency
(fig.19).37 If this is correct, then CoA #2 does not have to conform to the rule of blazon, and the possible number of combinations for this coat of arms is almost infinite.
36 Franklin, Shield and Crest, 40. 37 Ibid., 309.
18 Finally, there is no evidence of a discernible grid on this coat of arms. For example, the lines within in the checky from one bar to the next do not align, nor do the wavy vines to each other or to the checky. This indicates there was not a formal grid or measuring device in place for the artisan.
Coat of Arms #3
Located at the back of the heel is the next coat of arms (CoA #3), which is framed by a barbed quatrefoil that is scored similarly to the base of CoA #1 (fig. 20). The field of CoA #3 is tierced in fess, which creates three horizontal divisions that result in chief, fess, and base segments. The chief and base segments of this coat of arms are rendered stylistically in an identical manner. The pigment and lightly scored grid is arguably the same as the chief segment of CoA #1 (see fig.17). The fess (middle) is partitioned in either a bendy (six diagonal bars) charged with six wavy lines, or a bendy-wavy of six parallel, undulating segments. Since the straight lines in the fess align with the grid in both the chief and base segments, it could be argued that all six of the lines were originally not visible because they were covered in pigment.
Once again, without any indication of tincture distinctions, the identification of the field cannot be determined. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the lines indicate separate charges and sub- ordinaries, or if they were meant to be used as a guide to measure out each segment on the field.
Much like the partitioning of CoA #2, this coat of arms could be the result of indicating a mark of cadency. If a mark of cadency is present on a coat of arms, then the possible tincture combinations are almost infinite. However, if the tierced in fess division is not a mark of cadency, and all three segments would be eligible to include any of the three types of tincture,
19 then 2,816 tincture combinations are possible. This would ultimately imply there are 2,816
possible coats of arms that could represent CoA #3.
Coat of Arms #4
The fourth coat of arms (CoA #4) is placed at the top of the Shoe Reliquary above the final scene of St. Margaret’s legend (fig. 21). This coat of arms is similar to CoA #2, because it is framed in a barbed quatrefoil and it has a surface that features a stippled pattern. A line tooled fesswise on the shield indicates the field is divided per fess. If this line was used to partition the field, then at least two tinctures would have been applied within the heraldic design.
Furthermore, a grid pattern covers both the chief and base segments of CoA #4, which is also seen in CoA #1. If this, too, functions as a measuring guide to provide equally spaced segments for the charge of estencelé, then the grid would not have been visible. Instead, the tinctures of the field would have covered the markings of the grid.
The entire field of CoA #4 is charged with estencelé (semé of dot clusters), which according to the rule of blazon would invert the tincture of the charge across the field division.38
This would result in 12,288 possible tincture combinations, or 12,288 coats of arms the CoA #4 could represent. However, if the line was not used as a field division, then the heraldic design would have been one tincture charged with an estencelé of another tincture. In this scenario, the total outcome of tincture combinations, or coats of arms, would be sixteen.
38 Gerard J. Brault, Early Blazon: Heraldic Terminology in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries with Special Reference To Arthurian Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 62; 79; and Michel Pastoureau, Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997), 77.
20 Chapter 2: Analysis and Results
Patronage in the Middle Ages
The position of the four coats of arms on the Shoe Reliquary enables at least one to be
visible at all times regardless of the angle it is viewed. This arrangement would have allowed the
arms to be conveniently displayed as an indication of patronage or ownership, since it was one of
the functions of heraldry.39 However, in order to understand if this assumption is true, an
explanation of the role patronage had in regard to religious objects of the Middle Ages is
necessary. Medieval records suggest the use of the word ‘patron’ refers to the person or persons
that actively declared the means in which were vital for production.40 Those that gave,
established, endowed, granted, ordained, instituted, undertook, or decreed were considered
patrons during the Middle Ages.41 Physical evidence of patronage can be found on medieval art,
such as a portrait or a coat of arms, as well as in corresponding documentation.42
As one of the main functions of heraldry, coats of arms were visibly placed on or within
medieval art to indicate patronage or an affiliation with the patron.43 For example, the Reliquary with the Man of Sorrows was given as a gift in the mid-fourteenth century to the Holy Roman
Emperor Charles IV by the bishop of Olomouc to house the Holy Thorn (fig. 22).44 This
reliquary not only bears the heraldic device of the patron, the bishop of Olomouc, but also of the
receiver of the gift, Charles IV. Similarly, combining different coats of arms on reliquaries and
39 Pastoureau, Heraldry, 25. 40 Jill Caskey, “Whodunnit? Patronage, the Canon, and the Problematics of Agency in Romanesque and Gothic Art,” in A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, ed. By C. Rudolph (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006), 197. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid., 202. 44 “Reliquary with the Man of Sorrows,” The Walters Art Museum, accessed February 17, 2015, http://art.the walters.org/detail/29555/reliquary-with-the-man-of-sorrows/.
other devotional objects can also occur over time as they are passed from one owner to the next.
For example, a reliquary made for Queen Sancha of Majorca, the Arm Reliquary of Saint Louis
of Toulouse, features her coat of arms along with the arms of Doña Leonor, the widow of King
Fernando IV of Castile and Aragon, who donated the reliquary to the community nearly a
century after it was made (fig. 23).45 In the medieval period, multiple coats of arms on objects
displayed solidarity between political or social networks. An example of this is the Heraldic
Casket of Saint Louis, which is decorated with enameled medallions and heraldic shields of
twenty-one members of the French nobility (fig. 24). It has been argued this collection of
heraldic devices showcases the relationship of power and stability of Capetian order under the
rule of Blanche of Castile.46
Patronage Historical Information Results
Much like the Heraldic Casket of St. Louis, the four coats of arms on the Shoe Reliquary could indicate patronage and possibly be the result of a political or social alliance within a specific region or rule. However, investigation into the history of the Shoe Reliquary’s arms has
found no mention of these arms belonging to a specific region or rule. A plausible explanation
for this is that the coats of arms did not belong to noble families or individuals.47 Apart from the
customs of the English, non-noble arms would probably have been constructed using much
simpler materials due to the resources available to the patrons.48 Therefore, if the Shoe Reliquary
was devoid of any precious materials, such as gold, silver, or precious gemstones, then the four
45 “Arm Reliquary of Saint Louis of Toulouse,” Musée du Louvre, accessed February 17, 2015, http://www. louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/arm-reliquary-saint-louis-toulouse. 46 Audrey L. Jacobs, “The Heraldic Casket of Saint Louis in the Louvre” (master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin, 2014), 1, http://dc.uwm.edu/etd/359/ 47 See note 19 and 26. 48 Caskey, “Whodunnit?” 195. The materiality associated with patronage also expressed their social status.
22 coats of arms would most likely indicate four non-noble families or individuals that were either
partial patrons of the shoe or part of an alliance, similar to the Heraldic Casket. While many of these non-noble coats of arms can be found in heraldic records, others cannot.49 Consequently, the number of non-noble patrons the coats of arms on the Shoe Reliquary could represent, as well
as the probability these arms were not included in heraldic records, decrease the likelihood of
determining the specific non-noble patronage.
Decorative Coats of Arms
While the coats of arms on the Shoe Reliquary may indicate patronage, there is another
possible explanation to describe the heraldic devices within the overall design. Previous
scholarship declaring that a heraldic coat of arms must belong to a real family, individual,
institution, or imaginary persons (e.g., saints, beasts, etc.) was not always true during the second
half of the Middle Ages.50 In many cases, such as the enamels from Limoges, the heraldic coats
of arms were ornamental motifs that did not have precise attribution; and some heraldic arms
with stereotypical designs or armorial features were placed within the decorative program of
artifacts. These features were purposely rendered inaccurately, or loosely interpreted, to create
faux arms that served as decorations and not as indicators of patronage or ownership.
Since armorial devices were associated with the popular medieval theme of chivalry,
elements of heraldry were incorporated into the decorative designs of multifarious objects of
royal, ecclesiastical, and everyday use.51 As ornaments, faux arms evoked a false sense of
49 Pine, International Heraldry, 37-45. Some of the earliest recordings of medieval heraldic arms comes nearly two centuries after the start of using armorial devices. Armorial rolls were created firstly by heralds that recorded arms in tournaments and battlefields. This initial selection of recording and blazoning arms was partial to what the herald or ruling authority wanted in their records. 50 Michel Pastoureau, “The Use of Heraldry in Limousin Enamels,” in Enamels of Limoges: 1100-1350 ed. The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1996), 340. 51 Ibid., 340-1.
23 chivalry, which produced a semiotic element to the object, and, ultimately, to its owner or
patron.52 According to Oleg Grabar, a leading scholar in medieval ornamentation, decoration is
defined as “anything applied to a structure or an object that is not necessary to the stability, use,
or understanding of that structure or object,” while an ornament is “any decoration that has no
referent outside of the object on which it is found.”53 Although these definitions are often
interchangeable in current scholarship, both of these terms can be applied to non-authentic coats
of arms. Even though these arms are not specifically attributed to anything, they did mimic a
sense of geographic, civic, or familial importance that authentic arms possess. They also added a
level of complexity to the object by conveying meanings, whether of chivalry or other themes
associated with heraldry, which would have been visually transmitted to the viewer through the
display of such heraldic devices.54
All decorative armorial bearings generally feature similar characteristics to one another,
as well as differ greatly from authentic arms. The composition of an authentic heraldic design
used a combination of field divisions, charges, and ordinaries created out of six different
tinctures: Gules, Vert, Sable, Azure, Argent, and Or. Furthermore, authentic coats of arms
strictly adhered to the rule of blazon, in which metal could not rest upon metal, nor color upon
color. Conversely, in decorative coats of arms, only four tinctures were used: Gules, Azure,
Argent, and Or. The colors Sable and Vert were purposely omitted, for it was thought to have
“cut too much into the other colors.”55 The rule of blazon was also loosely followed in the
52 Marcia Kupfer, “At the Edges of Narrative. The Nature of Ornament in the Romanesque Wall Painting of Central France,” in Le role de l’ornement dans la peinture murale du Moyen Age: Actes du Colloque international tenu à Saint-Lizier du 1er au 4 juin 1995, (Poitiers: Université de Poitiers, Centre national de la recherché scientifique, Centre d’Études superieures de civilisation médiévale, 1997), 177. Kupfer, after discussing Oleg Grabar’s contribution to the study of medieval ornament, comments on how it provides an active role in a decorative program by engaging the viewer with symbolic meaning(s). 53 Oleg Grabar, The Mediation of Ornament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), xxiii-xxii. 54 Kupfer, “At the Edges of Narrative,” 178-9. 55 Pastoureau, “The Use of Heraldry,” 341.
24 creation of decorative coats of arms to better serve artistic purposes. For example, the colors
Azure and Gules, as well as Argent and Or, were frequently used together in ornamental heraldic devices. The pairing of Gules and Azure can be seen in a thirteenth century enameled medallion made in Limoges, whereas the tinctures Argent and Or can be seen in a thirteenth century pyxis also from Limoges (figs. 25 & 26). Finally, while the majority of decorative arms were found in
Limoges enamels, they also appeared on non-enameled objects, such as stained glass, coffrets, alms pouches, embroideries, and cushions from the late twelfth through the fourteenth centuries.56
Pastoureau notes that although faux arms imitate authentic heraldic arms in many ways, the heraldic elements used in medieval decorative arms did not have the same symbolic connotation as authentic coats of arms. Some faux arms emulated prestigious elements, such as figures and tinctures, and distorted them for decorative purposes. Examples of this include beasts that were distorted to fit within the design, or the choice of colors that were purposely employed without regard to the rule of blazon. Furthermore, marks of cadency were not included in decorative designs in order to avoid overcrowding.57 These changes would have clearly denoted to persons in the Middle Ages these were faux arms and should not be used for identifying civil attributes or provenance.58
Decorative Coats of Arms Results
Images in the Style of Limoges and Illuminated Manuscripts
The Shoe Reliquary does not provide evidence that it was once enameled; however, certain imagery used within the decorative program suggests it could have been made in the style
56 Ibid., 340. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., 341-2.
25 of Limoges. Otto von Falke, who compared the Shoe’s barbed quatrefoil motifs to some of those
used in Limoges enamels, first proposed this suggestion.59 A rare example of an enameled
fourteenth century French morse includes trefoil arches, flower motifs in the narrative, and an
overall shape of a barbed quatrefoil, all of which carries a strong resemblance to the same
features found in the Shoe Reliquary (fig. 27).
While Falke’s suggestion has yet to be conclusively proven, there are other similar
elements between the Shoe Reliquary and other Limoges enamels. For example, the enameled figure Angel Carrying a Crown features a diapered pattern on the angel’s clothing (fig.28). This
is comparable to the diaper and semé patterns on CoAs #1 and #3. Furthermore, the motif of an
undulating line placed within the arch of the beheading scene and within the borders surrounding
the Shoe is also a characteristic of the classic Limousin style, which is prevalent on religious and
secular objects from the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, such as the enameled work of
Chrismatory from the Church of Saint-Viance (fig.29).60
The imagery within the Shoe Reliquary’s decorative program also shares similarities to
illuminated manuscripts created in medieval central France. For example, the barbed quatrefoil
motifs present on the Shoe in CoAs #1 and #3, as well as some of the Limoges enamels, were
prevalent among French Gothic-styled illuminated manuscripts. Furthermore, when the analysis
extends to include the scenes of Saint Margaret on the Shoe Reliquary, the imagery was also
rendered in a similar fashion to illuminated manuscripts created in the French Gothic style. An
example of this includes the Shoe Reliquary’s narrative scenes of St. Margaret’s legend, which
feature figures with rounded faces, large eyes, longs limbs, outsized hands, an S-curved bend in
their posture, and V-shaped folds in their drapery. These features can be seen in The Lover
59 Otto von Falke, “Ledertreibarbeit Des 14.Jahrhunderts,” in Pantheon 4, no. 9 (September 1931): 370. 60 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Enamels of Limoges: 1100-1350 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1996), 254.
26 Looking Into A Fountain (London, The British Library, f. 11v, Egerton 881), a French manuscript circa 1380, which includes large foliate designs, a non-descript background, an undulating line within the border, and a figure with a round face, large hands, and an S-curve posture (fig. 30). The Shoe also contains a few narrative scenes set within gothic trefoil arches.
This is similar to the Church Militant manuscript, found within the Velislav Picture Bible from
Bohemia, which includes a gothic trefoil arch with a non-descript background for the narrative scenes (fig. 31).
While the Shoe Reliquary shares similar imagery with the Limoges enamels, as well as illuminated manuscripts created in the French Gothic style, the decorative program cannot be attributed to either region. This is because both the Limoges enamels and the illuminated manuscripts were not exclusive to the region of France.61 Appertaining to the motifs featured in the Limoges enamels, the popularity of this type of work, as well as the convenient location of the city along pilgrimage and ecclesiastical routes that lead into Spain and Italy, helped spread the Limousin style and motifs to other production centers across Europe.62 Similar to the dissemination of the Limoges enamels, the illuminated manuscripts created in central France during the mid-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were also found throughout Europe.63
Therefore, it is not possible to determine if the style of the Shoe Reliquary’s coasts of arms and narrative scenes came directly from central France and/or the Limoges region, or if the imagery on the Shoe was created elsewhere after these styles were disseminated.
Tinctures
61 Sabrina Mitchell, Medieval Manuscript Painting (New York: The Viking Press, 1965), 22-31; and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Enamels of Limoges: 1100-1350 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1996), 30-8. 62 The Met., Enamels of Limoges, 31. 63 Sabrina Mitchell, Medieval Manuscript Painting (New York: The Viking Press, 1965), 22-31.
27 The tinctures used on the Shoe Reliquary’s coats of arms are currently indecipherable;
however, it is possible the Shoe could have contained the most frequent tincture pairings in
decorative heraldic designs (i.e., Gules with Sable, or Argent with Or) within the partitioning
segments of the field, or the superimposed charges and ordinaries. However, the possibility of
reconstructing the exact colors of the Shoe’s arms is almost unattainable, and becomes even more so when considering the lack of heraldic guidelines within decorative designs. This disregard of the rule of blazon results in color combinations for each field division, charge, and ordinary within the Shoe’s coats of arms decorative program to be far greater than previously discussed.
Figural Charges and Geometric Patterns for Field Designs
All four of the heraldic designs on the Shoe’s coats of arms lack any figural charges, which are noticeable omissions since they are present on nearly thirty-five percent of known authentic armorial devices.64 While this finding is in contrast to many authentic arms, decorative arms are usually devoid of these adornments. For example, in the Limoges enamels less than ten percent contain figures in their heraldic designs.65 Scholars explain this is due to the use of
creating stereotypical armorial bearings that emphasized the partitions of the field.66 This may explain why the Shoe’s coats of arms lack figural charges, yet contain prominent field partitions.
Furthermore, most decorative arms have been found with only geometric patterns for field designs, which are visually complex and typically include a contrast of horizontal and vertical partitions, excessive use of diapered patterns, and the pairing of wavy and straight
64 Michel Pastoureau, “Le Bestiaire héraldique médiévale” in L’Hermine et le sinople. Études d’héraldique medieval (Paris: Le Léopard d’Or,1982), 105-16. 65 Ibid. 66 Pastoureau, “The Use of Heraldry,” 341.
28 lines.67 These designs elements have never been found in authentic coats of arms; however, they are present in three out of the four heraldic designs on the Shoe Reliquary. Specifically, CoA #3
has a contrast of horizontal and vertical partitions, CoAs #1 and #4 have excessive diapered
patterns, and CoA#3 has a pairing of wavy and straight lines. While the aforementioned design
elements strongly indicate CoA #3 was decorative, the diapered patterns on CoAs #1 and #4 are
less straightforward. My previous assumption was the diapered patterns were actually grids that
may have been a measuring device for the artisan to place other charges and ordinaries.
However, this assumption seems to be inaccurate when considering the heraldic designs used in
decorative arms. Thus, these markings suggest the grid was a part of a diapered pattern, and was
most likely meant to be visible as an integral part of the design, rather than hidden by the
pigment.
ñ COA #1 – contains a semé of roundels in the chief segment of the escutcheon, a
semé of trefoils slipped in the base segment, and a grid marked upon both the fess
and base segments. Typically, authentic medieval heraldic designs do not bear
two separate patterns divided by the field division unless they were to indicate the
joining of two noble families by marriage. This would incorporate the two coats
of arms into one heraldic design by the means of quartering the field. Assuming
the grid did not serve as a guide for the artisan to place the pattern of roundels and
trefoils slipped, but rather as part of the decorative elements of the heraldic
design, both the chief and base segments would then be charged with two patterns
that overlap each other, creating two diapered patterns within the overall field
design. Since this grid extends into both field divisions, the only way it would
have been part of the heraldic design was if it broke the rule of blazon by
67 Ibid. This is often considered a design of imitating water.
29 combining a color with another color, or a metal with another metal in one of the
segments. Thus, this coat of arms was most likely considered a decorative arm
rather than an authentic arm.
ñ COA #2 – contains a barry division of six horizontal bars that result in an
alternating pattern of a checky with a wavy vine subordinary. This pattern could
conceivably be rendered correctly within authentic blazonry. However, the
checky used in CoA #2 contains many small pieces within its design, which
makes the checky pattern visually complex. Furthermore, while the checky found
within most authentic heraldic designs consist of no more than twenty pieces on
the entire field, CoA #2 has over forty-five pieces in just one of the three checky
segments within the barry. Paired with the other three segments that are charged
with the wavy vine, this heraldic design is not only visually complex, but displays
the design elements of a decorative coat of arms.
ñ COA #3 – contains a tierced in fess division that is charged with six segments of
either a bendy-wavy or straight design. The chief and base segments contain the
same grid that is scored on the surface of its barbed quatrefoil and within the semé
of roundels. This results in an extensive diapered pattern that extends from the
escutcheon to the barbed quatrefoil, which is one of the design elements of a
decorative coat of arms. Thus, assuming the diapered pattern was not used as a
measuring guide, but rather as an integral design element, this coat of arms would
break the rule of blazon, as the lines, which extend into the fess segment, would
not be able to cover the entire field without combining tinctures that are within the
same group. Finally, the fess segment contains a pairing of straight and wavy
30 lines. While this design element does not necessarily break the rule of blazon, it is
also not very common in authentic arms. Thus, the combination of the extreme
diapered pattern, along with the pairing of straight and wavy lines, strongly
indicate this coat of arms was decorative.
ñ COA #4 – contains the same grid as seen in CoAs #1 and #3; however, it is paired
with an estencelé pattern to create a diaper of two overlapping designs. A fesswise
field division is visible, which normally indicates the boundary of a tincture or
pattern, yet both of the patterns extend across the entire field of the escutcheon.
The result of this design would not be found in authentic heraldic arms because it
would break the rule of blazon. Thus, the extensive diapered pattern, as well as
overlapping designs, strongly indicates this coat of arms was decorative.
Non-enameled
The Shoe Reliquary, with its leather surface, could not have been enameled because
objects that employed this technique at Limoges were only applied to a copper, gold, or silver
plate.68 Instead, the medieval technique of stamping small sections of leather with metal molds
would have been used to create the embossed images found on the Shoe.69 Therefore, this
reliquary is an example of a non-enameled object with decorative heraldic devices similar to
enameled works.
The stippled patterns found in some of the narrative scenes and barbed quatrefoils
indicate the leather might have been gilded at one point. This is because the punched surface,
68 The Met., Enamels of Limoges, 33-6. 69 Gerald W. R. Ward, ed., The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 338-9.
31 which is visible on the Shoe, is required for the gold leaf to adhere to the leather.70 However, the
stippled patterns do not appear on the entire surface of the Shoe, including the four coats of arms.
This indicates the gilded sections would have been used as an accent for decorative purposes beyond heraldic use.
70 Ibid., 232.
32 Conclusion
The Shoe Reliquary’s four coats of arms are quite sizable within the decorative program.
This prominence may lead to the natural assumption these armorial devices indicate patronage.
However, the analysis in this paper concludes the Shoe’s coats of arms were part of the overall decorative design for ornamental purposes. This conclusion was drawn from the following features within the heraldic designs.
The Shoe’s armorial devices contain contradicting elements, which, in some cases, would make it impossible to render according to the rule of blazon. Furthermore, no mention of these coats of arms can be found in armorial records. The Shoe Reliquary, while not enameled, does share similar qualities with some enameled works produced in Limoges, France, as well as in illuminated manuscripts created in the French Gothic style throughout Europe. However, the
Shoe’s decorative program cannot be attributed to a specific geographical region at this time. The tinctures of the Shoe Reliquary’s coats of arms are indiscernible; yet, as decorative arms, the rule of blazon would not have applied to the possible combinations of tinctures. The Shoe’s coats of arms are devoid of figural charges, similar to the decorative arms found on the Limoges enamels.
Additionally, most decorative arms have been found with only geometric patterns as field designs, which are visually complex and typically include: a contrast of horizontal and vertical partitions, an excessive use of diapered patterns, and the pairing of wavy and straight lines.
These field designs are present in three out of the four armorial devices on the Shoe Reliquary, but have never been found in any authentic coats of arms.
During the Middle Ages it would have been clear that decorative coats of arms would not have been recorded in armorial rolls, worn as a means of identification, borne by knights in tournaments, or worn on the battlefield. This does not imply that items with unknown heraldic
33 arms should be assumed decorative, but rather as an explanation for the arms that had purposely overemphasized and distorted heraldic elements. It is important to note that one of the sole purposes of authentic blazonry was for it to be recognizable, regardless of its attributed social class or institution. Armorial devices that were difficult for heralds to reproduce or decipher were most likely not considered authentic coat of arms. Thus, while the Shoe’s coats of arms contain several formal heraldic elements seen in authentic armorial devices, it is the emulation of these elements in combination that indicate the coats of arms were created for decorative purposes. As a decoration, or an ornamental device, the Shoe’s coats of arms would not have served as a means to identify a person, family, or institution – a main function of authentic arms. Instead, their presence within the decorative program enhances the reliquary by adding complexity to the tooled imagery on its surface, as well as providing a semiotic connotation that either referred to the Shoe Reliquary and its contents or to the owner of this reliquary.
While it may be evident that the Shoe Reliquary’s coats of arms were not authentic, this conclusion does not explain why they were included into the decorative program. It is still unclear to scholars today why some medieval objects – both religious and secular – have faux heraldic arms in their decorative program. It is possible that medieval artisans or workshops may have been influenced by the popular theme of chivalry or the notion of visually displaying an attribution of institutional, personal, or geographic importance, since this could have been achieved with authentic coats of arms. Further research is necessary in order to determine the reasons why faux arms were incorporated into the decorative programs of objects produced throughout Europe. This may prove to be difficult due to the many extant objects from the
Middle Ages that display heraldic devices. Additionally, only scholars who are truly knowledgeable in medieval blazonry would be able to detect faux arms, since they resemble
34 authentic arms in many ways. Regardless, this research could possibly reveal the reasons why
four decorative coats of arms are present on the Shoe Reliquary. This information could lead to
further study on determining how the Shoe Reliquary was originally used and who might have
owned or commissioned the reliquary. Until then, the Shoe Reliquary’s provenance remains unknown.
35 REFERENCES
Brault, Gerard J. Early Blazon: Heraldic Terminology in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries with Special Reference to Arthurian Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Brogan, Roy. A Signature of Power & Patronage. New York: Peter Lang, Inc., 1993.
Caskey, Jill. “Whodunnit? Patronage, the Canon, and the Problematics of Agency in Romanesque and Gothic Art.” In A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, edited by C. Rudolph, 193-212. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2006.
Falke, Otto von. “Ledertreibarbeit des 14.Jahrhunderts.” Pantheon 4, no. 9 (September 1931): 368-370.
Franklin, Julian. Shield and Crest: An Account of the Art and Science of Heraldry. New York: Sterling Publishing Co. Inc., 1960.
Frazier, Margaret English. “Medieval Church Treasuries.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 43, no. 3 (Winter 1985-86): 49.
Grabar, Oleg. The Mediation of Ornament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Hahn, Cynthia J. Strange Beauty: Issues in the Making and Meaning of Reliquaries, 400-circa 1204. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.
Jacobs, Audrey L. “The Heraldic Casket of Saint Louis in the Louvre.” Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin, 2014. http://dc.uwm.edu/etd/359/
Kupfer, Marcia. “At the Edges of Narrative. The Nature of Ornament in the Romanesque Wall Painting of Central France.” In Le role de l’ornement dans la peinture murale du Moyen Age: Actes du Colloque international tenu à Saint-Lizier du 1er au 4 juin 1995, 177-185. Poitiers: Université de Poitiers, Centre national de la recherché scientifique, Centre d’Études superieures de civilisation médiévale, 1997.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Enamels of Limoges: 1100-1350. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1996.
Mitchell, Sabrina. Medieval Manuscript Painting. New York: The Viking Press, 1965.
Pastoureau, Michel. Figures et Couleurs: Études sur la symbolique et la sensibilité médiévales. Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1986.
Pastoureau, Michel. Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997.
36
Pastoureau, Michel. “Le Bestiaire héraldique medieval.” In L’Hermine et le sinople. Études d’heraldiqe médiévale. Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1982.
Pastoureau, Michel. “The Use of Heraldry in Limousin Enamels.” In Enamels of Limoges: 1100- 1350, edited by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 339-342. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1996.
Pine, L. G. International Heraldry. Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc., 1970.
Varagine, Jacobus de. The Golden Legend. Vol. 4. Translated by William Caxton. London: J M Dent & Sons Ltd., Aldine House, 1900. Reprint, New York: AMS Press Inc., 1973.
Volborth, Carl-Alexander von. Heraldry: Customs, Rules, and Styles. Poole: Blandford Press, 1983.
Ward, Gerald W. R., ed. The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
37 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF BLAZON
Argent – Silver metal used for tincture; sometimes depicted as white.
Azure – Blue color used for tincture.
Barry – A shield or charges divided horizontally into an even number of equal parts of alternating tinctures.
Base – The bottom part of the shield.
Baton Sinister – A bend that descends from the sinister chief to the dexter base of the escutcheon.
Bend – An ordinary in the form of a broad band descending from the dexter chief to the sinister base of the shield.
Bendy – A shield or charge divided by bends into an even number of equal parts of alternating tinctures.
Bendy-Wavy – A shield or charge divided by undulating bars that descend from the dexter chief to the sinister base in alternating tinctures.
Blazonry – The technical language for the written description of armorial bearings.
Bordure – A band of contrasting tincture forming a border around the edge of an shield.
Canton – A square charge placed in the upper dexter corner of the shield.
Charge – An object or geometric pattern added to a field.
Checky – A checkered pattern.
Chief – The upper part of the shield.
Coat of Arms – The general term for a shield of arms.
Coronet – A support for a crest that is shaped like a crown.
Dexter – The location on the shield that is the bearer’s right.
Divisions – The partitioning of the field.
Ermine – A type of “fur” tincture that is depicted with a pattern that resembles the winter coat of a stoat.
38 Estencelé – A semé of clusters of three or four small dots.
Escutcheon – The shield of a coat of arms; can also be used as a small charge.
Fess – An ordinary in the form of a broad horizontal band across the center of the shield.
Fesswise – A horizontal division.
Field – The entire surface of the shield, of its parts, or of its charges.
Field Designators – All tinctures, partitions, patterns, and diapering.
Fretty – A pattern of interlaced bendlets and bendlets sinister resembling a trellis.
Gules – Red color used for tincture.
Heraldry – The art of creating and documenting heraldic arms.
Mantle – An ornament in the form of flowing drapery that is separate from the shield.
Marks of Cadency – Charges used to indicate the birth order of a male heir or to distinguish between different branches of a family with the same arms.
Or – Gold metal used for tincture; sometimes depicted as yellow.
Ordinary – Geometric charge placed on a field.
Per Fess Division – A division of the field that divides the shield horizontally.
Sable – Black color used for tincture
Semé – A repeated pattern of an ordinary or charge strewn over a field.
Shield – An area where heraldic arms are placed.
Sinister – The location on the shield that is the bearer’s left.
Sub-ordinaries – Secondary, geometric charges on a field
Tincture – Heraldic colors, metals, and furs
Trefoil Slipped – A stylized three-leaf clover with a stem.
Vair – A type of “fur” tincture that is depicted with a pattern that resembles the patches of squirrel fur.
39 Vert – Green color used for tincture.
40 APPENDIX B: FIGURES
Figure 1. French or Swiss, Shoe Reliquary, ca. 1350-1400, leather & iron, 5¼ x 11¼ x 45/8 in. The Cloisters Collection, New York.
Figure 2. (opened) Shoe Reliquary.
41
Figure 3. (back) Shoe Reliquary.
42
Figure 4. (side) Shoe Reliquary.
43
Figure 5. First scene of St. Margaret’s legend, (back) Shoe Reliquary.
44
Figure 6. Second scene of St. Margaret’s legend, (right side) Shoe Reliquary.
45
Figure 7. Third scene of St. Margaret’s legend, (right side) Shoe Reliquary.
46
Figure 8. Fourth scene of St. Margaret’s legend, (front) Shoe Reliquary.
47
Figure 9. Fifth scene of St. Margaret’s legend, (right) Shoe Reliquary.
48
Figure 10. Sixth, seventh, and eighth scenes of St. Margaret’s legend, (bottom) Shoe Reliquary.
49
Figure 11. Ninth scene of St. Margaret’s legend, (back) Shoe Reliquary.
50
Figure 12. Tenth and eleventh scene of St. Margaret’s legend, (top) Shoe Reliquary.
51
Figure 13. Illustration of imaginary coat of arms. Reprinted from Carl-AlexanderA von Volborth, Heraldry: Customtoms, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983),19 viii.
52
Figure 14. Examples of field divisions. Reprinted from Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 16.
Figure 15. Examples of geometric ordinaries. Reprinted from Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 17.
53
Figure 16. Example of marks of cadency within a family. Reprinted from Michel Pastoureau, Heraldry: An Introduction to a Noble Tradition (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1997), 76
54
Figure 17. Coat of Arms #1 (CoA #1), Shoe Reliquary.
55
Figure 18. Coat of Arms #2 (CoA #2), Shoe Reliquary.
56
Figure 19. Example of marks of cadency within the fifteenth-century Count of Harcourt’s family. Reprinted from Carl-Alexander von Volborth, Heraldry: Customs, Rules and Styles (Poole: Blandford Press, 1983), 76.
57
Figure 20. Coat of Arms #3 (CoA #3), Shoe Reliquary.
58
Figure 21. Coat of Arms #4 (CoA #4), Shoe Reliquary.
59
Figure 22. Bohemian, [detail] Reliquary with the Man of Sorrows, 1347-49, gilded silver, champlevé enamel, & glass paste, 115/8 x 83/8 x 5 in. The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore.
Figure 23. Neopolitan, [detail] Reliquary Arm of Saint Louis of Toulouse, 1336-38, gilded silver, basse-taille enamels on silver, & rock crystal, 115/8 x 83/8 x 5 in. Musée du Louvre, Paris.
60
Figure. 24. French, Heraldic Casket of Saint. Louis, 1234-7, multimedia coffer, 5½ x 141/8 x 7½ in. Musée du Louvre, Paris.
61
Figure 25. French, Appliqlique From A Casket With A Coat of Arms, 13th century,ce partially gilt and champlevé enameled copopper, 4 in. Sotheby’s, London.
Figure 26. French, Pyxis,s, second half 13th century, partially gilt and chamamplevé enameled copper, 33/4in. Sotheby’s, Londonon.
62
Figure 27. French, Morse, 1325-1350, champlevé enamel on gilt copper, 63/16 x 65/16 in. The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore.
63
Figure 28. French, Angel Carrying a Crown, ca. 1230-50, repoussé, engraved, chased, and gilt copper, 4¼ x 35/8 in. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
64
Figure 29. French, Chrismatory, c. 1200, copper and champlevé enamel, 55/8 x 45/8 x 35/8 in. Church of Saint-Viance, Saint-Viance.
65
Figure 30. French, Lover Looking Into a Fountain (Egerton 881 f. 11v), c. 1380, illuminated manuscript, The British Library, London.
66
Figure 31. Bohemian, The Church Militant (Velislav Picture Bible), c. 1340, illuminated manuscript, National Library, Prague.
67