Double-Sided Ivory Liturgical Comb

Pictured above is the "Double-Sided Ivory Liturgical Comb with Scenes of Henry II and Thomas Becket", a comb made of ivory. It was created around 1200-1210 and is actually quite small at 8.6 centimeters in length, 8.6 in height, and 1.2 in width. It was made in Canterbury, England, the place of the murder of Thomas Becket on December 29, 1170. This had a great influence on shaping the scenes portrayed on both sides of the comb.

Here are my drawings of the two sides of the comb!

Thomas Becket, the son of a merchant, was born in London around 1120. He was very well educated and soon began working for Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time. This connected him with Henry II, the two soon becoming friends. When Theobald died in 1161, Henry II replaced him with Becket. With his new position, Becket would stand for the church over the crown and soon went into exile in France because of the great conflict this posed. When he returned in 1170, four of the King's knights murdered Becket in the Canterbury Cathedral. In 1173, Becket became a saint and the pilgrimage to Canterbury Cathedral began in his honor. This context is vital to the images that are etched on the comb.

At first glance, the scenes in the middle of the comb are what is most notable. On the first side of the comb, scenes of Henry II telling Becket that he will be the archbishop of Canterbury are portrayed. The semicircle on the left shows the outside of a church while the semicircle on the right shows a boat. On the second side, the martyrdom of Thomas Becket it shown. The setting is the Canterbury Cathedral. The left semicircle shows an angel juxtaposed with the right semicircle showing a devil with a book.

Since the comb is made of ivory, the cream-colored base is consistent and does not detract from the scenes displayed. Instead, the lack of color draws the attention to the important scenes and circles on either side. But the organization of these scenes are most important to draw meaning from them. First, the boat and the church are significant because together they allude to Becket's murder in the Canterbury Cathedral. Furthermore, on the second side of the comb, the members of the church are standing on the left, next to the angel, while the knights are standing on the right, next to the devil. This creates the dichotomy of good versus evil with the idea that the Church represents all good and the knights and monarch represent evil.

On the second side of the comb, the four knights are standing together with their weapons drawn or ready to be drawn. They are all in armor. The clergymen on the opposite side are also together but are holding each other up in support. They are each wearing less strict clothing, with the folds of the cloth being etched in great detail. This creates the idea that each of the King's knights are standing next to each other but are actually isolated and individualized, each only acting in their own interest. This selfishness and greed is recognized by the devil looking over them. This is contrary to the clergymen who are working together as community for good, as represented by the angel looking them over. Their clothes are looser and able to move, rather than the knights who's armor only fits them.

On the first side of the comb, there are many swirls and flowers, while the second side has more straight lines. It also consists of mainly leaves rather than flowers. This is significant because it suggest how the first side, depicting the giving of power, showed a time of higher spirits and the growth of a new leader. On the other hand, the less decorative side of the comb suggests that something has intervened with the prosperity and growth. All of the plants stem from the middle of the comb with the scene of martyrdom, indicating that the King's knights had committed this treacherous act and had been the defining factor to disrupt the flowering growth of Becket. This reiterates the dichotomy between the King and his men being evil and the clergy being good.

This piece of art shows the religious values of the time. The context is very important because Thomas Becket was seen as a saint in the Catholic Church, a relatively new development. This shows how the Church at the time had sentiments that went against the monarchy because of their portrayal of the Church as good and the King's men as evil. Moreover, the purpose of the comb is to prepare the priest for Mass. Because of its religious purpose, it clearly favors the martyr rather than the monarch. This shapes the religious ideals of the time against the king and his establishment. This idea that art can convey societal values is still relevant today as art can reflect the thoughts of anyone at any time.

Works Cited:
"Double-Sided Ivory Liturgical Comb with Scenes of Henry II and Thomas Becket." The Met's Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1988.279/.

"History - Thomas Becket" BBC, BBC, 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/becket_thomas.shtml.

Marginalization In "Jane Eyre"

Writers often highlight the values of a culture or a society by using characters who are alienated from that culture or society because of gender, race, class, or creed. Explain how the author uses various literary devices (such as irony, characterization, and figurative language) to provide social commentary, OR how the character’s alienation reveals the surrounding society’s assumptions and moral values.

Charlotte Brontë, the author of Jane Eyre, was an English author who published her novel under the pen name Currer Bell. The protagonist in this novel is a young girl named Jane, an orphan forced to attend the Lowood Institution, a girls school for orphans and the poor wherein the girls are mistreated and not taken care of adequately. The institution is under the control of a wealthy man named Mr. Brocklehurst. In this novel, the protagonist, Jane, is alienated by those in power to show the corruption of society and how the moral values of the time were easily manipulated by those in power.

First, the marginalization of Jane’s character is used to challenge the assumption that only those in power get to negate the rights of the lower classes. This idea is revealed through the intense use of irony throughout the text. For example, Mrs. Temple, one of the caretakers, is scrutinized for feeding the girls two extra lunches when their breakfast had been inedible. Mr. Brocklehurst exclaims that this would “accustom them to habits of luxury and indulgence.” He even goes further to say that curled hair is “‘in defiance of every precept and principle of this house.’” He asks “‘does she conform to the world so openly — here in an evangelical, charitable establishment — as to wear her hair one mass of curls?’” Many of the girls are told that they are going to have all of their hair cut off, a necessity in conforming with the teachings of Christianity. Mr. Brocklehurst clearly seems to believe that proper amounts of food and the luxury of specific clothing and hairstyles goes against religious principles.

Yet, irony is presented when Mr. Brocklehurst’s wife and two daughters walk in wearing velvet, fur coats, silk, beaver hats, ostrich plumes, and other clothing of the new elegant fashion while also wearing a “false front of French curls.” Despite all of their extravagance, they had even spent their time searching the girl’s rooms to make sure they did not own any clothes too luxurious. The clear irony here shows the assumption that the upper class should have control over the rest of society, even what the lower class can own and wear. In this case, Jane and the other girls clearly do not even have the right to put their hair up a certain way. The acceptance of this denial of rights shows how this was assumed to be a common practice, but the irony of which criticizes the core of the assumption.

Second, the alienation of the character of Jane is used to highlight society’s assumption that those who are not Christian are sinful and immoral. This is most notably seen through Mr. Brocklehurst’s public shaming of Jane simply based on information given to him about her life before the institution and her clumsiness. He declares, “‘this girl, this child, the native of a Christian land, worse than many a little heathen who says its prayers to Brahma and kneels before Juggernaut — this girl is — a liar!’” Here, he is implying that Jane is deceitful, ungrateful, and is marginalized by being compared to a heathen that practices Hinduism. Even though this goes against the idea of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech, it was an accepted idea in society at the time because the wealthy members of the upper class were able to control what was seen as acceptable. Brontë argues that this should not be the case through the marginalization of Jane, a small child who had been treated extremely poorly her entire childhood after the loss of both of her parents. Pulling on the emotions of the audience to react to this traumatic public shaming of a small child, Brontë is able to critique the assumption that anything that isn’t Christian is immoral.

Third and finally, Charlotte Brontë argues that wealth is a source of corruption based on how she characterizes both the upper class and the lower class, although it is assumed that the wealthy are morally righteous. This is conveyed through the exclusion of Jane. In Mr. Brocklehurst’s speech denouncing Jane as a creature of God, he says, “‘You must be on your guard against her; you must shun her example; if necessary, avoid her company, exclude her from your sports, and shut her out from your converse. Teachers, you must watch her: keep your eyes on her movements, weigh well her words, scrutinise her actions, punish her body to save her soul: if, indeed, such salvation be possible.’” It is ironic for an authority figure to preach the marginalization of a child since they are generally the ones that would preach inclusion. This promotes the idea that he is corrupt and harsh. Furthermore, Mr. Brocklehurst is characterized as a “black marble clergyman.” This paints him as very strict, rigid, and stubborn. Meanwhile, Mrs. Temple is characterized as kind and considerate as she “gently assisted [Jane] to his very feet.” This juxtaposition creates the idea that wealth has corrupted Mr. Brocklehurst and turned him into this cruel and stringent man, while the poor Mrs. Temple is still loving and sweet. This negates the assumption that the upper class is pious and morally virtuous, while painting the lower class in a much kinder light.

Overall, these assumptions reveal that the moral values of the time were not only dictated by Christianity but also the will of the upper class. There was a hierarchy of the distribution of power and the corruption of the upper class was deemed morally righteous solely based on the amount of their wealth. The members of the upper class not only had the ability to not follow their own stringent rules set in place, they also could take away the rights of the lower classes. Charlotte Brontë’s commentary criticizes these societal values and the moral standards of the time through the exclusion of the character of Jane.


Work Cited:

"Chapter VII of Jane Eyre." The Victorian Web, www.victorianweb.org/authors/bronte/cbronte/janeeyre/7.html.