The Alfred Jewel

8/13/2019 The Alfred Jewel

1/6

he lfred Jeweleuse of oman poliBy GENEVRA A. K O RN BLU TH

TH E LF RED J EW EL S covering panel of rock crystal is anomalous in the context ofAnglo Saxon art. Typology indicates that it was probably not imported from a contemporaryContinental workshop. Markings on the stone s surfaces show that it was, however, used in anothercontext beftre being set in its present mount. Roman comparanda crystal panels in Rom e andopus sectile elements from Kenchreai) best parallel the crystal s size and shape. The Oxftrdpanel was probably a Roman decorative inset, possibly salvagedfrom a wall or piece offurniture.It must have determined the unusual shape of the Alfred jewel.

The Alfred]ewel in th e Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, isjustly on e of th e mostfamous works of Anglo-Saxon art PI. III, A l An open-work inscription on its side, AE L FR E D MEC H E H T GEWYRCAN, probably attributes the jewel to Alfred th e Great.As th e only surviving object directly associated with Alfred s patronage, thejewel central to an y discussion of 9th-century English art. This is, however, virtually theonly p oi nt o n which consensus ha s been reached. Scholars have long disputed bothth e function of th e object an d th e meaning of its enamelled figure.

The overall form of th e jewel ha s substantially contributed to its mystery.Unlike the related Minster Lovelljewel,2 th e Alfred]ewel ha s a c ur io us tear-dropshape that seems to cramp the figure it displays. Also unlike the smaller w ork, thisha s a large piece of rock c rys tal naturally-occurring q ua rt z) p ro te ct in g th eenamelled design. No other known Anglo-Saxon object ha s this shape, and no othercontains a flat panel of polished crystal.

M r D. A Hinton has suggested that these curious features could be connected:that th e crystal unique because it was no t n at iv e to its Anglo-Saxon context, an dthat as an import it dictated the shape ofthejewel in which i t wa s set. He has furthertheorized that th e shaped stone could h av e c om e from t he Frankish kingdom on th eContinent. 3 A comparative typological examination of contemporary Frankishcrystals demonstrates that the jewel s stone probably not of Carolingian origin.Ne w t ec hn ic al e vi de nc e s ug ge st s, h owe ver , t hat Hin ton s major hypothesis isprobably correct. The crystal on th e Al f r e d] ewel a lmos t c erta in ly no t ofAnglo-Saxon manufacture, an d probably di d determine the form of th e jewel. appears to be reused, salvaged from so me e ar li er ob je ct , probably Roman.


2/6

A L F R E D J E W E L

BFIG. I

Th e Alfred Jewel: diagram of t he c ry st al p an el

The Alfred Jewel s crystal panel shares the tear-drop form of its setting. It isquite thick, nearly ten millimetres from th e edge rising above its gold mount to th eback resting directly on th e enamel. It s sides tilt down from th e front at a wide angle,then become perpendicular to the back surface for about their lower 2.5 mm Fig. I).This distinctive form s quite different from the shapes typically used by Frankishartists.

On the Con tine nt, a rt is ts we re at this time producing highly-sophisticatedengraved and polished gems. Best-known s th e Lothar crystal in the BritishMuseum, with eight scenes illustrating the Old Testament story o f S us an na a nd a ninscription identifying King Lothar II 855-69) as th e patron. A total of twentysuch gems survive, seventeen of them rock crystal. Their forms vary, from oval thirteen stones) to circular five stones) or rectangular two stones). All of them,however, ar e symmetrical around a horizontal as well as a v er ti ca l axis. No t on e ofth e extant gems h as t he AlfredJewel s tear-drop shape, symmetrical from side to sideof th e front surface, but no t from its to p to its bottom.

Continental stones also differ from th e Anglo-Saxon work in profile. TheSusanna crystal a nd m an y other Carolingian gems are convex on one or both majorfaces. There ar e also, however, narrative panels as flat as t he AlfredJewel, and it s tothese less well-known intaglios that the jewel s stone ca n best be compared.s Again,no t one has the large bevel and short perpendicular side of t he O xf or d crystal. 6

That highly distinctive form which has caused scholars to look for sourcesoutside Anglo-Saxon art must likewise force us to look outside Carolingian glyptic.The shape fits no b ette r o n the 9th-century Continent than in the British Isles. Theattractive suggestion that th e Alfred Jewel crystal s Carolingian must therefore beabandoned. Technical analysis may, however, open to us other possibilities.There ar e on th e crystal six distinctly different types of markings see Fig. I fordesignation of the stone s faces).I . The front surface of the stone p ar alle l to t he en am el , face A) s heavilyscratched, and there is a small chip in its left edge, near th e lower point of th e jewel. 7These marks a re irregularly shaped and randomly spaced, indicating that they wereproduced by n or ma l w ea r d ur in g use. By far the largest n um be r o f scratches runsapproximately parallel to th e vertical axis of th e figure.


3/6

34 G. A. KORNBLUTH2. Between scratches, th e surface of face A is exceptionally s mo oth, s ho wing themarks of polishing-grit only under high magnification more than 20X). Thepolishing marks a re mo st easily visible on t he upper edge offace A PI. III B . Allform a regular series of lines running parallel to each other. This formation, asopposed to abrasive-lines crossing each other in random patterns, is characteristically produced by a mechanical polishing wheeLS The wheel is no t known to havebeen used for polishing flat surfaces before th e 3t h century. These marks thereforeindicate polishing of th e stone after the jewel s completion. It seems likely that thisrestoration was done after th e object s rediscovery in 1693, perhaps when the jewelwa s taken apart in the Museum before 1906.93. The sides of the crystal w it hi n t he openwork inscription f aces B and C) , an dmost of its back surface resting directly on the enamelled figure face D), are lessfinely polished than face A. Abrasive-marks on these surfaces ar e larger and moreeasily visible, indicating use of a large r g rit for polishing. They form no regularpattern, but rather cross ea ch other at random angles PI. III c). Randomlydistributed, relatively coarse marks ar e characteristically produced by polishingwith a hand-held plate, rather than a mechanically-turned wheeL 10 The marks werealmost certainly made before th e 13th century and probably represent the originalpolishing of the crystal.4. Face D appears slightly roughened in strips following th e course of severalcloisons. This roughness is probably th e result of the metal cloisons rubbing the backsurface of th e stone, and indicates that th e crystal was for a substantial period of timemore loosely held in its mo un t th an is presently th e case. Th e p ad di ng whichcurrently tightens the fit of the jewel s parts is modern. 11 )5. The side of the crystal is damaged in two places. Face C is slightly cracked at itsjoin with face D, o n t he upper right of th e jewel to th e viewer s right of the enamelledfigure s head). More significantly, face B is chipped behind th e lower left point of th einscription s W PI. IV , A an d B ).12 The chip must h av e b ee n made after the s to neha d b ee n s ha pe d an d p ol ish ed , since its edges a re s ha rp , and not smoothed byabrasion. It s centre isjust below th e edge of the jewel s metal frame, and there is novisible damage to th e gold at that point. The stone must therefore have been struckwhile it was u np rotec te d b y its current setting.6. At th e pointed tip, th e shape of the stone is modified PI. IV , c). The overalltear-drop shape does no t en d in a sharp angle, b ut r at he r in a narrow flat striprunning the entire depth of th e stone, from the front to th e back, within themetalwork frame face E). This flat strip continues up on to t he front of th e stone,joining faces A an d E with a shallow bevel face F, PI. IV , D ). The stone is muchrougher here than elsewhere, with a coarse matt surface. Such a surface is producedby relatively large abrasive grit, less fine than the grit used anywhere else on the crystal.

Another similarly rough area appears on the upper portion offace B, above theenamelled figure s head.

Both coarse patches are located on parts of th e stone particularly vulnerable tochipping, at the extreme edges of th e panel. These areas may have been damaged,an d then restored by grinding a wa y the c hipp ed portions. The flattened point of th e


4/6

A L F R E D W L 35tear-drop is probably the result of such grinding. The coarseness of th e ne w surfaces,parti cularl y when compared to the demonstrably modern restoration of face A PI. III B shows that this grinding was no t p art of the jewel s modern repair. Thealteration must still, however, have been m ad e w he n th e crystal was unmounted,since it runs under the current setting. The most likely time for this is when th e partsof the jewel had no t yet been assembled, though i t cou ld also have b ee n d on e whenth e mount was later so damaged that its animal-head socket ha d to be resoldered. 13

The physical evidence of the c rystal indic ates th e following chronology: th epanel was shaped and polished marking-type 3). Loose or in an unknown mount, itwas subjected to wear a nd d am ag e type 5). I t was subsequently set in the Alfred] ewel, where it a cq uire d the marks of cloisons type 4). Some damage to t he s to newa s repaired type 6 either before i t was set o r during a later medieval restoration.In either a pre vious or th e current set ti ng, t he c rys tal was subject to more wear type I), an d ultimately its fr ont sur face was r epo li shed type 2).

W hi le n ot all of this evidence is conclusive, on e fact is readily apparent. Thecrystal on th e Alfred] ewel was no t specially made for that object, but was rathersalvaged from s ome other c on te xt i n w hi ch it ha d sustained appreciable damage.As th e typological examination of Carolingian crystals makes unlikely on epossible source for the jewel s panel, this technical evidence opens u p o th er avenuesofresearch. Since the s tone is no t necessarily a product of the 9t h century, on e ma ylook for its provenance in e arlier c ulture s.

Although there are no precise parallels for the form of th e Alfred]ewel s crystal,remarkably similar objects survive from the Roman Empire. Twenty-nine flatrock-crystal panels are preserved in th e Vatican collections. 14 They range from 56 t o144 mm in the longest dimension, an d from 7 to 8 mm thick reasonably close to th eOxford stone s 33 mm long an d mm thick). Their major surfaces appear to be asflat as the jewel s crystal, and at lea st two have edges s imilarly bevelle d. IS Thesebevelled edges probably served to anchor th e panels when t he y w er e set i nt o other,larger objects. 16 Tw o more Roman crystal panels from th e E sq ui li ne , ea ch 7 mmthick, were found with a large number of p ol ishe d g em- st ones or igi nal ly set in aceremonial throne or, mor e pr ob ab ly, i n architectural surfaces. 1 7

The Alfred]ewel crystal s tear-drop shape may be compared to p ar ts o fth e opusse tile panels abandoned in Kenchreai, A.D. 365 or 375. 18 In th e non-figural bordersof eleven recovered mural panels, t ear-drops are liberally strewn between otherdecorative motifs. These glass inserts are much t hinner than th e crystal panel on th ejewel, but otherwise ofsimilar dimensions. While not proofpositive, they do stronglysuggest that th e tear-drop shape was a common one for Roman decorative inlays.These objects do no t exactly parallel the form of the Alfred] ewe crystal. Theydo, however, document th e existence in Roman times of decorative inserts of th eappropriate size and thickness, in crystal an d with bevelled edges Esquiline andVatican panels), and of th e same t ear-drop shape as our panel Kenchreai glass).Such comparisons suggest that th e jewel s crystal ma y have originally functioned asa decorative inset on a Roman wall or piece of furniture. 19

This conclusion does n ot a ns we r th e questions most frequently asked of th eAlfred] ewel, th e meaning of its iconography an d its origina l func tion. does,


5/6

G. A. KORNBLUTHhowever, suggest that a new approach be taken to understanding the object s placein Anglo-Saxon art. The jewel s shape should be seen as an accident of availablespolia rather than a freely chosen element of design. Given the rarity of suchacquisitions, the Alfred Jewel can no longer be regarded as the chance survival of aform once widespread. must always have been unique, and of unique value, bothto its creators and to its patron.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks are due to Margaret M. Reid for drawing the diagram of the crystal. I am grateful toP. R. S Moorey and Arthur MacGregor of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, for allowingmeto examine and photograph the jewel in detail. I am also grateful to Mildred Budny forcalling the Collins article (op. cit. in note I) to my attention. Earlier versions of this paperwere presented at the 22nd International Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo, Mich.,1987) and the 7th International Conference ofthe Charles Homer Haskins Society (HoustonTexas, Ig88).

NOTES1 A full discussion of thejewel, with extensive bibliography, is given in D. A Hinton, A Catalogue ofthe Anglo-SaxonOrnamental Metalwork 70 }-IIOO in the Department ofAntiquities Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1974), 2g-48. For morerecent bibliography, see R. L Collins, King Alfred s Aestel Reconsidered , Leeds Studies in English n.s. XVI ([985),

37-58.2 Hinton, op. cit. in note 27-29.3 Ibid., 34 and 39.4 On the Carolingian engraved gems, see G. A Kornbluth, Carolingian Treasure: Engraved Gems of the Ninthand Tenth Centuries (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Univ. North Carolina, [986), with bibliography.5 These gems are crystals engraved with the following images: the Crucifixion (Paris, Cabinet des Medailles, no.2167ter; Venice, Cini Collection); the Baptism of Christ (Rouen, Musee Depart,emental des Antiquites de laSeine-Maritime, no. 473; Freiburg im Breisgau, Miinster, Treasury); St Paul (Paris, Ecole NationaleSuperieure desBeaux-Arts, housed in the Cabinet des Medailles, no. H3416); and the winged man of St Matthew (Berlin,Kunstgewerbemuseum, no. 88, 635).6 The Freiburg Baptism and Paris Crucifixion profiles are divided into three roughly equal zones, bevelled on bothfront and back, with a perpendicular in the centre. The Par is St Paul is bevelled front and back, the two angledplanes having the same size and meeting in an acute angle. The Rouen Baptism is bevelled on one side only, andperpendicular for the rest of its depth; but the angled por tion occupies only about one-tenth of the side, notthree-fourths as on the AlfredJewel. The profile of the Berlin stone is hidden by its current mount, and the CiniCrucifixion has not been available for close examination.7 The surface scratching is noted by Hinton, op . cit. in note 34. On the history of the wheel used on glass and gems, see R.J. Charleston, Wheel-engraving and -cutting, someearly equipment: 1 , Glass Studies 6 (1964), 83-100. On the chronology of application to rock crystal, see H. R.Hahnloser, heophilus Presbyter und die Inkunabeln des mittelalterli chen KristallschlifTs an Rhein und Maas , inRhein und Maas: Kunst und Kultur 80 }- 400, II (Cologne, 1973), 287-96.9 Hinton suggests that the object was dismant led to make replicas, op. cit. in note 34.

10 For a full discussion of manual polishing in the 9th century see Kornbluth, op. cit. in note 4,73-74 and notes.11 Hinton, op. cit. in note 34.12 This chip was noted without fur ther comment by Hinton, ibid., 31 and 34.13 See ibid., 34.14 Catalogued by F Fremersdorf, Antikes Islamisches und Mittelalterliches Glas sowie kleinere Arbeiten auS Stein Gagat undverwandten Sto ffen in den Vatikanischen Sammlungen Roms vol. 5 of Catalogo del Museo Sacro della Biblioteca ApostolicaVaticano (Citta del Vaticano, 1975), nos. 1034-62, pp. 116-17.15 Ibid., nos. 1046 and 1059. Many of the panel-edges are currently inaccessible. Although Fremersdorfdeclines todate most of the panels, he does designate no. 1046 as friihe Kaiserzeit (117).16 For his no. 1042, for example, Fremersdorf notes, Vielleicht handelt es sich urn einen kleinen Fenstereinsatz(luminare) (ibid., 116).17 M. Cima, prezioso arredo degli Horti Lamiani , 105-44 in Le tranquille dimore degli dei (Venice, 1986). Theedges of the crystal panels (141-42) are not visible in the published photographs. A similar role is suggested by thefind-spot of two large cameo-glass panels from Pompeii, 7 to 1 and 6 to 7 mm thick, probably used as inlays forfurniture: A Maiuri, Due pannelli vitrei figurati da Pompei , Bollettino d Arte 46 (1961),19. On the use ofgem-stones


6/6

LFRE JEWEL as inlays, see G. :\1. Richter, The Furniture the Greeks Etruscans and Romans London, 1966 , 126, an d th e excellentanalysis in Cima.

18 L Ibrahim, et al. Kenchreai Eastern Port orinth II: the Panels Opus Sectile in Glass Leiden, 1976 , nos. 29, 31,32, 49-52, 55-58; dated ibid., 252, 268-69.19 Investigations of the precise origin of this Roman panel an d its transmission to England a re o ut sid e t he scope ofthis paper. Roman objects have been found in many Anglo-Saxon contexts a t Sut t on Hoo, for example: see G.

G rai n ge r a n d M. Henig, A bone casket an d relief plaque from Mound 3 at Sutton Hoo , Medieval Archaeol. XXVII[1983J, 136-41 . Fo r a convenient summary, see M. H u nt e r, G e rma ni c a n d R o ma n a nt iq ui t y an d the sense of th epast in Anglo-Saxon England , Anglo Saxon England 1974 , 29-50, esp. 35-38.

The Alfred Jewel

Documents

Transcript of The Alfred Jewel