British Museum Citole
British Museum Citole
British Museum Citole
ISBN 978-1-904982-35-7
www.archetype.co.uk
in association with
9
ARC-BritMusTRB-2008-COVER1-yello1 1
781904 982357
VOLUME 2 2008
Archetype
Publications
VOLUME 2 2008
11/10/2008 13:24:12
Summary The British Museums citole (1963,1002.1) is one of Britains earliest extant stringed instruments.
Dating from around 13001330, its survival can be attributed to three factors: the quality of craftsmanship
with its richly carved decorative elements, its association with Elizabeth I of England (15581603) and her
favourite Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and its modification to keep pace with changing musical fashion.
The refurbishment of the Medieval galleries at the museum during 20072008 allowed an opportunity to
re-evaluate past treatments of the instrument and investigate its present form scientifically. Throughout its
history the instrument has undergone periodic repair, including the replacement of soundboards, fingerboards, strings and other fittings, but its magnificently carved boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) body, neck and
headpiece remain virtually intact.
Detailed examination of the citole components prior to and during conservation revealed previously
suspected but unseen alterations. Radiography has been used to study features of the original construction
as well as internal alterations which show that it could have been played with a bow. The metal elements have
been identified by X-ray fluorescence analysis, while microscopic analysis enabled the identification of the
wooden components.
Interpreting past restorations and modifications allowed for informed judgements to be made about conservation treatments, while making more accessible important information about the instruments past.
INTRODUCTION
The British Museums citole (1963,1002.1: Figure 1) is an
object of extreme rarity. A virtuoso example of the Medieval
woodcarvers craft, it is one of perhaps only four stringed
instruments of comparable quality to have survived from
the Medieval period. It is, however, a confusing hybrid.
Part citole, part violin, it was described as a gittern by
Francis Galpin in 1910 [1], and the term stuck until 1977
when Laurence Wright extensively revised the terminology
surrounding the gittern and related instruments [2]. It
was described as a gittern (in inverted commas) by Mary
Remnant and Richard Marks when they published their
authoritative work on the instrument in 1980 [3; p. 83].
The inverted commas reflected Remnants reluctance to
accept Wrights recent judgement, which she expressed in
the following way: While Wrights reasons for changing the
terminology certainly carry weight, and have been readily
accepted by a good many organologists, there are others
who feel the need for greater time in which to consider the
13
figure 1. The British Museum citole (1963,1002.1) after recent conservation treatment: length 610 mm, height
147 mm and width 186 mm
14
THE CARVINGS
The fine, dense structure of boxwood (Figure 4) is ideal
for intricate, detailed carving and can be highly polished,
Figure 5. There is no narrative to the design of the carvings,
15
which seem to develop in a gravity-defying, proportiondenying mass that emerges from the mouth of a dragon. In
general the scenes are intimately connected with the dense,
dark forest which was an important feature of Medieval
life. Pastoral scenes such as a swineherd tending to his hogs
(Figure 6) and a woodman at work with his axe are juxtaposed with vigorous hunting scenes (Figure 7) that dominate much of the composition. Each of these topics had
great resonance for a Medieval audience since they signified specific occupations for particular months of the year.
The swineherd knocking down acorns to feed his hogs was
used to illustrate the months of November or December in
the Medieval calendar; the woodman chopping branches
was chosen as an appropriate activity for March; while the
hunt was regarded as a suitable pastime for May, the month
for lovers. The character of the carving contributes enormously to the citoles popular appeal today; careful scrutiny
is rewarded by the discovery of creatures of the forest within
a thicket of mulberry, hawthorn, oak and vine leaves in a
mysterious world occupied by men and hybrid monsters,
Figure 8.
The magnificent carved dragon headpiece can be identified as a wyvern, an ancient variety of the imaginary species
draco (dragon), Figure 9. The wyvern was originally thought
of as a forest-dwelling creature more akin to a snake than
the fire-breathing monster normally envisaged as a typical
dragon. The four-legged dragon of popular renown seems
to have been introduced around 1400 by the English heralds
[8]. A wyvern has two wings and only two legs, and is sometimes depicted in manuscripts, carvings and heraldry with
a knotted tail known as nowed or sometimes nou (from
the French for knotted). A smaller example of the creature
16
17
CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT
To assist in identifying the features of the citole referred to
in the following sections, an illustrated glossary is provided
in Figure 12. Prior to conservation, a number of past repairs
and replacements were discussed by conservators, curators
and musical instrument specialists and judged to be not in
keeping or historically correct for the instrument and its
context within the new Medieval gallery. The instrument
was dusty, both within the recesses of the carving and below
the bridge and strings. There were greasy marks and fingerprints on the soundboard as well as surface dirt. The citole
had been strung with a mismatched set of gut strings, which
was further confused by the winding of the four strings
onto three pegs (one peg head had snapped and the head
is lost), Figure 13. Pye states: poor condition may mask
significance [13]; failure to remove the mismatched strings
which were not, of course, original and to run each
string to an individual peg, would prevent a correct inter-
19
figure 14. Detail of the copper wire tie from the tailpiece to the button
before conservation
figure 15. Detail of the seam between the body and the soundboard showing the opening of
the join
figure 16. X-radiograph through the side of the citole revealing the internal false back (indicated with an arrow), parallel
to the soundboard
20
figure 17. X-radiograph through the side of the neck revealing a pin
and two large nails that were used to fix the latest fingerboard. The
features that appear darker in the image are more dense. The four
pegs can be seen end-on behind the dragon, with the broken peg at
the top; the edge of the internal false back is the dark feature seen at
the bottom, right of centre
figure 19. Detail of the truncated carving on the neck of the citole
21
TREATMENT
The old gut strings (made from sheep intestine) were
removed and archived. The surfaces of the soundboard,
fingerboard, body and carving were dry cleaned by brushing
with a soft (sable) brush and vacuuming with a low-suction
vacuum cleaner with nylon net filter. Smaller brushes were
required to remove dust from the recesses of the carved
areas. Chemsponge (vulcanised rubber) was used to trap
and further remove surface dirt.
The failing glue seam between the soundboard and
instrument body was investigated. A thin metal spatula was
inserted into the open seam and run along it until it met
with resistance. The gap was held open with metal spatulas
at intervals along the glue line and microcrystalline wax
(Renaissance wax) was applied to protect the finish (varnish)
on the areas above and below the glue line. (Renaissance
wax is used to protect varnished surfaces from moisture
[16, 17] and to act as a final protective layer or polish.) A 5%
solution of Laponite RD (a synthetic colloidal thixotropic
gel-like clay) in water was inserted into the seam on top of
the residual glue and covered with Clingfilm (low-density
polyethylene) to slow down evaporation. After 30 minutes,
the Laponite was removed and the glue surfaces cleaned
with moist cotton wool swabs. Fish glue (gelatine, water and
<1% phenol) was applied to the glue line within the seam
and both soundboard and body were clamped in position.
When partially gelled, the excess glue was removed from
the surface.
Pegs
It was necessary to soften the old glue on the broken peg end
to enable removal. The surrounding area of wood on the
pegbox cheek was coated with Renaissance wax to protect
the finish. Laponite was applied and covered as described
above. After 20 minutes the Laponite had softened and
partially absorbed the animal glue, permitting its easy
removal with a moist cotton wool swab. It is advisable to
remove tight pegs from their peg holes by rotating and
applying a light pulling pressure to prevent damage to the
Bridge
The modern bridge made from maple (Acer platanoides)
was removed and archived and a period design maple bridge
was made and colour matched to the soundboard, Figure
20. The bridge was fitted to the curved soundboard surface
by carefully sculpting and trimming away its feet using a
scalpel, until a good fit with the curvature was achieved.
Many modern luthiers use abrasive papers to fit bridges,
but Weisshaar and Shipman state that a bridge should be
fitted entirely with a knife [18]. The correct height and
curvature of the top edge of the bridge were determined
by fitting the two outside strings temporarily and measuring the heights of the strings above the fingerboard. A
working height was estimated and the bridge was trimmed
and shaped accordingly.
Top nut
Setting up the citole as an ostensibly playable instrument
required the ivory nut to be raised by approximately 2 mm
by means of a balsa wood block of the same dimensions
glued underneath. The ivory nut was then glued into position with cold-setting fish glue, a treatment that is considered to be fully removable. The combination of the raised
figure 20. The new bridge fitted to the citole after conservation
figure 21. Engraving of the citole 1776 (published by Sir J. Hawkins): British Library C.45.f.4-8. Reproduced by permission of
the British Library Board. All rights reserved
23
Restringing
Gut strings were used on early violins and a modern replica
set, equivalent in type and thickness to early strings, was
obtained from a specialist string supplier. The strings were
tied to the tailpiece employing a loop-tie method commonly
used with gut strings. The string tension used for set-up was
approximately one third of full tension, which was sufficient to hold the freestanding bridge in position under pressure without placing undue strain on the soundboard and
exerting undesirable forces on the instrument structure as
a whole. No supporting sound post exists; this would sit
below the underside of the soundboard at the bridge foot
position (on the treble side) and reach to the back of the
instrument, in this case the false back. Within the limits of
the evidence available and while following the principles of
sustainable conservation, it might be considered that the
instrument now closely resembles its playing configuration
and overall appearance around the time of Elizabeth I.
figure 23. X-radiograph of the trefoil (see Figure 14). The join to the
central lobe appears as a fine white line in the image (arrowed) and the
dowel of a less dense material (broad pale line) can be seen running
from the central lobe into the body of the trefoil
figure 24. Detail of the position of the cover plate hinge arms before
the additional wedge was fitted
25
date the players thumb with space for some limited hand
movement. This enlargement could date from as late as the
late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, when playing
styles for the violin demanded more movement of the left
hand along the fingerboard. Part of the tail and body of
the wyvern carving may have thereby been lost and it is
possible that the carved tail was originally nowed, as seen
on the small wyvern carved on the side below the proper
left f-hole, Figure 10.
The trefoil has also been altered and reconstructed.
The lobe farthest from the soundboard may have been
broken, although this is unlikely as boxwood is a strong,
dense wood. The lobe may have been worn away, but such
extreme wear is not evident elsewhere on the citole. A more
plausible reason for its alteration is that it was deliberately
rounded over to facilitate a conventional violin playing
position with the instrument at the shoulder or breast; a
flatter trefoil end is illustrated in Hawkinss 1776 engraving.
The trefoil appears complete in an 1874 engraving by Engel
and in an electrotype at the Victoria and Albert Museum
that is referred to by Buehler-McWilliams [6; p. 15]. An
X-radiograph of the trefoil reveals a clear join line around
the whole of the bottom lobe and what appears to be a
dowel-type fixing to hold a new lobe in place, Figure 23.
The replacement lobe is finely carved but there are subtle
differences in the style of the carving that would indicate
it was fashioned by a different hand to the rest of the original carving. It might be, therefore, that a bottom lobe was
partially removed or rounded over in the earlier conversion
and that this truncated lobe was later cut away completely
to allow a well-carved complete replacement lobe to be let
in to the trefoil. Other elements of carving elsewhere on the
citole also lack the fluidity of the original carvers hand and
appear darker, indicating that they could also be replacements by the carver of the trefoil lobe. These include acorns
and leaves in the tree above the swine herder and the head
of the woodman.
Comments from those privileged enough to play the
citole in its adapted state suggest that the experiment failed;
Charles Burney stated that it sounded like a mute violin
(a practice violin), and that the hand is so confined that
nothing can be performed but that which lies within the
reach of the hand in its first position [23]. The density of
the boxwood deadened the sound while the thickness of
the neck and the constraint of the neck aperture rendered
any dextrous manipulation of the strings impossible. That
the new violin could not be played satisfactorily probably
contributed to the subsequent indifference that surrounded
the state of the soundboard and the stringing of the instrument. It should be noted, however, that the soundboard was
made from spruce, a wood commonly selected in violin
making for the soundboard, sound post, and corner/top/
bottom blocks and linings, so it is possible that genuine
efforts were made to render it playable. At some point prior
to its acquisition by the British Museum in 1963, the citole
was given a modern bridge and strung with gut without any
attempt to sustain it as a potentially playable instrument.
26
CONCLUSIONS
Among Remnants concluding remarks in the 1980 study
was the comment: So far we have considered the external
appearance of the instrument; the inside will remain largely
a mystery until there is an opportunity to investigate it [3;
p. 95]. As a result of its imminent redisplay, that opportunity has now arisen. The treatment of the citole has been
prompted partly by aesthetic considerations: the shabby,
deteriorating state of the soundboard; the inappropriateness
of the bridge; the broken peg head; and the visual confusion of the pegs and stringing. The accompanying examination has responded to Remnants desire to see inside the
instrument and has offered long-awaited insights into its
construction. These investigations have not only offered
an insight into how the false back was fitted, but have also
provided an opportunity to re-evaluate the build up below
the fingerboard and make some considered judgements as
to the reasons for this sequence of alterations. In addition,
the original orientation of the citole pegs and the final reconstruction of the trefoil have been verified through X-radiography, shedding light on the stages in their evolution.
The use of X-radiography, coupled with knowledge of
early musical instruments, has allowed the best possible
explanation of the sequence of alterations throughout the
citoles long life to be pieced together. It is clear that the
citole was converted to a violin in c.1578 when a fingerboard, tailpiece and dated tailpiece button plate were fitted.
The frontal plugs and X-radiographs of original peg holes
suggest that the neck of the citole was hollowed out to take
a violin-type pegbox and peg configuration. The original
peg configuration and its subsequent alteration have been
discussed in great detail by Buehler-McWilliams [24]. The
cover plate, hinged from the top nut down towards the
bridge (described by Hawkins), has been reoriented. As can
be seen from the truncated carving, the neck was planed flat
and the wedge-shaped fingerboard fitted to allow a violin
bridge to be set up at a height that would accommodate
bowing of the instrument.
It has been suggested that the additional wedge is a repair
to account for a gap between the fingerboard and the neck
caused by the warping of the fingerboard [6; p. 12]. It seems
more likely that the wedge was inserted to raise the strings
in order to facilitate the fitting of a higher, convex soundboard. The date of this putative second modification is not
known, but must have been after the initial conversion in
1578 and prior to Engels 1874 engraving. It is also evident
from Hawkinss description of the cover plate that, between
1776 and the production of the electrotype in 1869, the
cover plate hinging was reversed. Hawkinss 1776 engraving
also shows a rounded-off trefoil which was reconstructed by
the time the Victoria and Albert Museums electrotype was
made in 1869, as noted by Buehler-McWilliams [6; p. 88].
There are still questions left unanswered; the precise
sequence in which other alterations took place, including
the opening up of the aperture within the neck and the
insertion of the false back, have still to be determined. One
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Kate Buehler-McWilliams for detailed
discussion, Mike Neilson (British Museum facsimile section), Trevor
Springett (British Museum photographer), Pat Cleary (wood turner
and furniture maker), Tony Simpson and Hannah Sherwin for assistance with the images. The authors would like to thank the Royal
College of Art/Victoria and Albert Museum conservation course
for facilitating the contribution of MA student Chris Egerton to this
project.
AUTHORS
Philip Kevin ([email protected]) is a conservator, and
Susan La Niece ([email protected]) and Caroline
Cartwright ([email protected]) are scientists, all
in the Department of Conservation and Scientific Research. James
Robinson ([email protected]) is a curator in the
Department of Prehistory and Europe at the British Museum. Chris
Egerton ([email protected]) is a stringed-instrument conservator in private practice.
REFERENCES
1. Galpin, F., Old English instruments of music, Methuen & Co.,
London (1910) 23.
2. Wright, L., The Medieval gittern and citole: a case of mistaken
identity, Galpin Society Journal 30 (1977) 841.
3. Marks, R. and Remnant, M., A Medieval gittern, in Music and
civilization: British Museum Yearbook, Vol. 4, ed. T.C. Mitchell,
British Museum Publications, London (1980) 83106.
4. Tiella, M., The violeta of S. Caterina deVigri, Galpin Society
Journal 28 (1975) 6070.
5. Spring, M., The lute in Britain: a history of the instrument and its
music, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001) 8.
6. Buehler-McWilliams, K.E., Retelling the story of the English gittern
in the British Museum: an organological study, ca.1300 present,
MA dissertation, University of Minnesota (2002) (unpublished).
7. Fleiner, C., Dulcet tones: changing a gittern into a citole, British
Museum Magazine 53 (2005) 45.
8. Bedingfield, H. and Gwynn-Jones, P., Heraldry, Bison Books, New
York (1988) 81.
9. Caple, C., Conservation skills: judgement, method and decision
making, Routledge, London and New York (2000).
10. Waitzman, M., Barclay, R.L., Odell, J.S., Karp, C. and Hellwig, F.,
Basic maintenance of playing instruments, in The care of historic
musical instruments, ed. R.L. Barclay, Museums and Galleries
Commission and the Canadian Conservation Institute (1997),
www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/cimcim/iht/index.html (accessed
25 April 2008).
11. Barclay, R., The preservation and use of historic musical instruments,
Earthscan, London (2005).
12. Watson, J.R., Beyond sound: preserving the other voice of historical instruments in Organ restoration reconsidered, ed. J.R. Watson,
Harmonie Park Press, Michigan (2005) 1526.
13. Pye, E., Caring for the past: issues in the conservation for archaeology and museums, James and James, London (2001) 77.
14. The National Trust, Musical instruments, in National Trust
manual of housekeeping, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2006)
353361.
15. Greville, F.E., Warwick Castle and its earls, Hutchinson & Co.,
London (1903) 353.
16. Rivers, S. and Umney, N. (eds), Conservation of furniture, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2003) 167.
17. Horie, C.V., Materials for conservation, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford (1987) 88.
18. Weisshaar, H. and Shipman, M., Violin restoration: a manual for
violin makers, Weisshaar-Shipman, Los Angeles (1988) 237.
19. Holman, P., Four and twenty fiddlers: the violin at the English court
15401690, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1993) preface.
20. Praetorius, M., Syntagma musicum II: De organographia Part I and
II, Elias Holwein, Wolfenbttel (1619) [facsimile, ed. and translated D.Z. Crookes, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1986)].
21. Hill, W.H., Hill, A.F. and Hill, A.E., Antonio Stradivari: his life and
work 16441737, Dover Publications, New York (1963) 202.
22. Hawkins, J., A general history of the science and practice of music,
Vol. 4, T. Payne and Son, London (1776).
23. Burney, C., General history of music from the earliest ages to the
present period, Vol. 3, printed for the author (1778) 15.
24. Buehler-McWilliams, K.E., The British Museum citole: an organological study, Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society
33 (2007) 541.
27