Bob R. was just saying that medieval furniture doesn't have a high finish, but examples are usually painted to highlight details.

Jeff J. says that a cabinet scraper yields a good finish, and if cabinet scapers per se aren't period, that a wood chisel held at a high angle will yield the same result.

Several folks weighed in with various combinations of oil and beeswax finishes.

Now we're looking for some example of furniture to back up the "quality of finish" arguements.

Did I miss anything?

Gwen

1. do we know this is used in our period, vs "they had it and so must have used it"? Bob, did I hear right that you had source info? (bouncy bouncy bouncy )

2. where does one find sharkskin to give this a shot? is the bit of skin on the shark for eating ok to use?

it amazes me that a skin as high in oil as shark can be tanned this easily! has anyone actually DONE this?

can you tell I'm intrigued?

Now, I understood Bob to be saying that medieval CAMP furniture wouldn't have a nice finish, at least not as nice as what one would see in a dwelling of said economic class. I can certainly see his point in that this stuff would be constantly taken down, put up, thrown into wagons, pulled out of wagons, sat on, slept on, kicked, etc. Why spend too much time and money on something that would recieve this treatment?

Col. John Gardiner sacrificed years of his life in the late 19th c. rummaging through the official Ducal records pertaining to the Burgundian Army. He stated in the forward to his book "That he could only concentrate on the documents pertaining to artillery (including by Burgundian accounting anything "shooty" - including bows, crossbows, handguns, artillery, and any ammunition or supplies pertaining to them - plus a lot of little odds and ends) as there was simply too much information for him to print in one book". The book is titled "L'Artillery de la Ducs de Burgogne", and was published in Brussels in 1895 - in French of course. I do not have the book, and it is one of those books we look for on every search engine every week as we feel we really need a copy, although a friend is photocopying bits of it for us as he has the time available.

In describing the requirements of the arrows to be purchased for the ordinance companies, there is a reference to their shafts being smoothed with sharkskin. This is where that information comes from. I have yet to see any carpenter or joiner depicted in any painting or illumination with such an item in their workshop, nor do I remember any mentioned in any inventories. Perhaps it was a tool of the fletchers trade.

Now, I find this odd, as I have seen a fair amount of medieval woodwork myself, and there is certainly a patina of some sort on quite a lot of it. Many pieces appear to have had oil and/or wax finishes applied at some point, but it would be almost impossible to determine when.

On the other hand, I think the evidence suggests that finishes as we think of them were not generally applied to woodwork in the MA. Paint was certainly applied, but it was used artistically rather than protectively, and it was generally applied to highlight or decorate rather than "all-over." I have yet to discover any conclusive evidence that linseed oil or wax were applied as a finish coat to a piece of wooden furniture in the MA. Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but...

I would love to be shown such evidence. I suspect it will require some original research; previous studies of medieval woodwork focus on forms and artistic styles, rather than technical details.

Both sides of this argument are correct, in that there are examples of surviving medieval furniture with poor-quality surfaces, and some with extremely high-quality surfaces. Don't you just hate it when the answer is, "It Depends?" ;->

I have seen several examples where the front, or public side, was planed and scraped to a smooth, planar surface; while the backs of the same pieces were frequently left quite rough. (As an aside, the backs and the cross-sections of some of these boards verify that prior to the 16th c. most boards were riven, not sawn.)

It seems clear to me that the level of effort expended to "dress" the surface depended on the intended use of the piece, as well as the status of the object and its owner. Some objects were simply utilitarian, whereas others were both functional and decorative; some were clearly ostentatious. Just looking at chests, one can see wide variations in quality of finish.

Higher-status objects were generally decorated by carving, so you don't usually see a plain smooth chest front with a high degree of finish. This is, of course, at odds with Modern esthetics.

If you are making a wooden object for your own use, I think you are free to finish it to whatever degree you want; you are going to use it both for its actual function, and to impress your friends - certainly a period activity!

Ok, so why do we ASSUME that they had special stuff ONLY for campaigning? And why do we assume that that gear had a poorer finish?

In the WoR, we know that the total campaigning time amounted to but a few weeks. Does it seem reasonable that those on campaign had the bucks, the foresight and the time to have special stuff made ONLY for campaign use, or does it seem more reasonable that they just grabbed what they needed from what they used everyday?

------------------
Cheers,

Wrench two. Jeff, I am not making an assumption based on thin air. The evidence I have seen - from the V&A book on Medieval English Furniture (looking specifically at chests), from the few pieces I have personally seen, and from Diehls hewn timber chest at Hereford Cathederal seem to divide the furniture up into two types based on size of the piece and intent of use. The V&A book in many cases states wether the chests in this case were intended to be portable or not. The ones that are readily portable in most cases have the rougher finish. The ones that have the more elaborate finishes are of a size that they were most likely dormant, and resided in the great houses they were found in until being sold to the museum collection. As an example of a piece that was specifically designed to be dormant (although from its size it could have been portable) cat # 300, which is carved elaborately on the back & one end - the museum concludes it belonged to a guild (the carving and advertisement) and it was designed to stand in one particular spot in a room as a counter chest. The carving is from the customers viewpoint, with the lock and plainer side to the merchant.

The problem with your theory is this. The people of a class to lug a lot of luggage with them were not sedentry, rather, they were extremely mobile. Their position in society - whether moving between several manors or a manor and say, a center like London due to business or a government 'post' that the gentry typically filled in the beaurocracy, or whether they were inviolved in manor administration for their superiors - they were extremely mobile. Not as mobile as their social superiors who would move from lordship to lordship as their households would consume the supplies in store at each residence, transact business in the region, then move on to the next. They were mobile enough to seem as gypsies to our very modern mobile age, as they lugged a portion of their household and goods with them.

Each residence would have showpieces that were difficult to move (carved settles, livery cupboards, large beds, and large chests) that filled a need in each residence as the household (of whatever size and station within the second estate) moved from residence to residence. The dormant furniture is beautifully carved. Small coffers were beautifully covered with tooled leather and ironwork, the Medieval equivilant of a packing crate or luggage that was moved over rough roads in all weather and thrown on and off carts by possibly the village idiot was probably not to the same degree of finish.

The English gentleman spent little time on campaign during the Wars of the Roses. His primary activity was the daily business of life, the legal defence of and attack on property in an age as litigeous as our own with a rapacious apatite for property of ones neighbors and relations, and the following about of patrons who would hopefully give one the leverage & clout to successfully conclude ones business. A must read for how the gentry lived their lives would be The Paston Letters, or The Stonor Letters. Even as the number of residences maintained by the gentry were much reduced with redundant manor houses allowed to fall in ruin, the custom of 'seasonally' moving remained as families would retain residences in town and country well into the 19th, and to the beginning of the 20th century.

I think it is interesting that the most commonly used containers in transit (and at home) were not even chests or coffers, but that Medieval equivilant of the cardboard box - the barrel. Inventories exist in the hundred describing the humble barrel containing everything from salt fish to my lords harness, and everything in between. Thing is, barrels make keen tables if they are of a size but are tough to sit on. You would need a chest or two for sitting.

My two groats.

Yes I know the upper class medieval household was somewhat mobile. I took that as a given. I was specifically referring to stuff made only for campaigning.

I understand that it may have been less of a stretch for people who were already accustomed to seasonal moves to pack up and go on campaign, I just don't think they had a totally separate set of furniture, chests, baggage, etc. that they only took and used on campaign, and that that stuff was more poorly finished because it was transported often.

I think the medieval attitude toward to furniture finishing was only a little different than our own. The degree of finish fit the intended use of the object. However, we have a completely different set of stuff we take with us to reenactments, so we look at campaign gear as "special purpose", where maybe our medieval counterparts didn't, since they used that kind of stuff every day in their lives.

Am I getting my point accross or am I still being obscure?

------------------
Cheers,

On the left, click on crafts. Then choose the polishes-msg thread. Some references are listed lower in the post.

Including use of ash and sharkskin.

Regarding the finish of furniture. I would say almost any finish as exists in a museum would be suspect, as the piece will have been waxed at some time to preserve it. This however does not address whether it was waxed when new or in normal use within a decade or so after it was made.

I decided to look at some Flemish artwork of the 15th c. to see how furniture is presented in situ in an upper class household. The woodwork I have seen thus far is either rough, or shows no high degree of finish.

Here is a list of selected paintings with furniture prominent. I examined images from "Early Flemish Painting", by Jean-Claude Frere ISBN 2-87939-120-2

Heinrich von Werl Tryptich by Robert Campin c 1438 1 wall closet, 1 cupboard, 1 settle. The settle and coupboard (both walnut?)have the highest finish, and it seems to show unpolished wood.

Merode Altarpiece by Robert Campin woodwork as above, shown - 1 door (rough) one dormant table, one elaborate settle(white oak), one firescreen. The dormant table and settle seem to be unfinished save for perhaps a lick of linseed. A close up of the settle showing the foot and side confirms this.

St. Luke drawing a portrait of the Virgin, by Rogier Van der Weyden. 1 elaborate settle (white or red oak) with an awning of cloth of gold. Wood appears to be again unfinished - perhaps a lick of linseed oil.

The Annunciation 1 bed fully covered with cloth - no wood showing,1 settle,1 cupboard - some small chair I really can't make the full details out on. I'd say they settle and cupboard were walnut or elm, neither has a high finish or appears polished.

I see where you are coming from Jeff, but I just don't agree with your conclusion. Different societies value different objects more, and I just don't think as much emphasis was placed on furniture until society became more sedentary. Carving made the object rather than finish, unless you look at objects like gold leafed reliqueries.

OK guys, I'm the one putting forward solid evidence in the form of surviving objects and paintings of them. I'm not an expert, I don't mind being wrong - but please show some solid evidence for your position if you are going to refute me.

I think you missed the whole of my position. I don't think I mentioned "polishing" of medieval furniture.

As for paintings showing finish of furniture, I don't necessarily think they can be relied on. Something so particular as furniture finish may not have been portrayed accurately by many Medieval painters. I don't necessarily think much Medieval wood furnishings were "polished" either, but I also don't think they were all rough, just because they MAY have been moved often. I also don't believe that most medieval people lived a nomadic existence.

------------------
Cheers,

It's a pity that no piece of surviving furniture is above suspicion as regards finish, but the fact is that scarcely anything which has survived has done so unless it was maintained, and therefore subject to the varying maintenance attitudes of several centuries. This very fact may account for the indifference on the part of museum reports in regards to original finish: original surface is impossible to detect.

As regards interpretation of furniture finishes as depicted in paintings, I think that is an interesting exercise but one with obvious shortcomings - too subjective to be effective as evidence, and besides you can find anything you want. Nobody's going to convince me that the furniture in Van Eyck's Arnolfini Betrothal is unfinished.

Speaking of paintings, there is early evidence for scrapers in Theophilus and Cennini, for preparing wooden surfaces for painting. Theophilus is more specific in mentioning a tool like a drawknife for shaving: "panels, doors and shields are shaved with this until they become completely smooth." (Hawthorne and Smith ed, ch.17) Cennini is more concerned with scraping gesso, which is not surprising since on Italian panel paintings the wood is often roughened to accept the gesso ground, rather than smoothed. Both Cennini and Theophilus are well versed in varnishes and we should not discount the use of varnish on early furniture, either as an alternative or supplement to oil.

In re travelling furniture, Eric Mercer discusses it some in "Furniture 700-1700". Certainly the Italian curved-front cassoni of the 15th century were designed to be carried on donkeys or horses, as can be seen in a number of period pictures. These were usually painted, the wood often coated with canvas and bound with iron. The Public Records Office in England has a gable-topped travelling chest which purportedly belonged to Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII. It is irom bound, partly gessoed and painted, and partly covered in leather. I know that's not a complete answer, but certainly there was a class of rugged furniture for people on the move. We might ask ourselves at what point the painted chest becomes too fancy to have plausibly been slung on the side of a donkey, and also at what point a chest is considered a piece of furniture and at what point it is like a piece of Samsonite to be put in the attic when we get home.

JKV

A point of clarification here- "rough" to me means "irregular enough to snag fabric during casual contact". I also take rough to mean "exhibiting poor or inferior construction methods".

John says "Nobody's going to convince me that the furniture in Van Eyck's Arnolfini Betrothal is unfinished." I agree.

I spent a good amount of time going over the Merode alterpiece (along with several other paintings in the Met's "Van Eyck to Bruegel" book) with a magnifying glass, and I can't be convinced that this furniture could in any way be described as "unfinished". Not glass smooth, not having the glass-smooth varnished finishes characteristic of later periods yes, but certainly not any degree of "rough" or "unfinished" I would recognize. Just doesn't make sense to me that someone who could afford a beautifully made and carved piece such as those under discussion would constantly risk having their clothing damaged by contact with their furniture. It would be like driving around in a Porsche that had only been primed. Just doesn't make sense.

Bob R says "I just don't think as much emphasis was placed on furniture until society became more sedentary. Carving made the object rather than finish." Bob, I don't follow your leap of faith that society was nomadic, and I don't even want to pursue that line; however, your logic regarding value completely lost me.

Using the bench/settee behind Mary in the Merode as an example- how could anyone look at the intricate and infinitely delicate carving in the lattice in the back of the piece, and the very ornate and exquisitely delicate carving in the arches of the legs and think for a moment that this was not an important piece with high intrinsic value? Even the "rough" settle that Joseph occupies is carefully mortised and dowelled. The lattice behind his head is not as delicate as that in Mary's settee, but it is still very clearly contructed of half-round molding joined at the intersection of the pieces. And this a workbench for a carpenter!! Not a jewler or goldsmith, a guy making *mousetraps*! I think it is pretty clear that these pieces have been carefully fabricated and thoughtfully decorated by a skilled artisan. Even the carpenter's utilitarian settle is carefully made and decorated - the shaped finials are a design element, not a structural necessity.

I don't think the finish on surviving pieces can be used for the reasons John cites. Neither do I think that bringing in additional "solid evidence in the form of surviving objects and paintings of them" is going to help, as the best we can do is speculate on what we see. We may have to agree to disagree on a matter of semantics on this one.

In regards to lifestyles and moving about, the habits of the 2nd estate are well documented in this aspect. It was an imperative brought about by widely spread out land holding. Down the pecking order, the bottom rung of that estate were Estate managers for greater lords than themselves and were also called upon to fill the role of county government.

I did not mean the furniture was rough as in having snags to catch clothing - although the doorways, shutters, and firescreen seen in the pictures I have quoted all fall into this catagory. The pieces I have quoted appear to be unfinished as in modernly available unfinished furniture -smooth to the touch but unpainted. They would be rough to our eys because they are unpolished.

As to the Early Flemish Masters being incapable of showing a polished surface, any cursory examination of their paintings shows this not to be the case. In the case of the Arfinaldi Wedding Gwen quotes, one can see the room from the reflectance of the mirror behind the couple - this is a theme repeated in every Flemish masterwork I am aware of. You can argue they hadn't mastered perspective, but the one are they have mastered quite obviously is the little niggling details. Reflectance of objects and textures of objects are repeatedly mastered by these artists.

Thanks J.K. for the reference to Margaret Beauforts travelling chest and the other references. You have shown that a class of luggage designed for travel exists, which I believe backs up my original point on the camp furniture thread.

You know, thinking about things we may be arguing semantics here more than anything else. Jeff H., Gwen, Jeff J. - you have all seen the peaked chest I made. If you remember the finish on it, it is what I personally would consider a "rough" finish compared to modern furniture - it is planed smooth and has several coats of boiled linseed oil worked into it.

In my opinion, this is what a 'typical' 15th c. piece of furniture would have looked like new, and this is the type of finish I believe I am seeing when I look at those settles, table, and cupboards in the paintings by Campin et al.

On the other hand, for what it is I believe I over finished it, as it is the 15th c. equivilant of a WWII olive drab ammunition crate. When I finally finish it, it will even have the 15th c. equivilant of the white GI stenciling on it - an egg tempra Burgundian coat of arms and a firestriker. I ought to have painted the whole thing red and painted the arms or left the wood bare and ditto..... Instead, I finished it like a settle. Oh well, it looks pretty.