We're at the Cloisters at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and we're looking at a breathtaking series of tapestries that date to about 1,500, give or take five years, on either side. We're looking specifically at what we think is the last of the series. of tapestries, except that we're not even sure of that. We're sure of very little, except that the tapestries are very popular.
And gorgeous. And the unicorn is very popular, and much love. So this is the unicorn in captivity. There have been many.
many theories about the narrative, about the origin, about the patron, about the source of these tapestries, and we really know almost nothing. Yeah, it's one of those things that happens sometimes in art history where we can find lots of clues and sometimes the clues don't add up. We do know we're looking at this extraordinary tall representation of a unicorn captured in this circular fence that's so low we imagine.
if we look at it literally. He could easily hop out. He could hop out, but he's chained to a pomegranate tree. I guess it's probably worth noting that although the pomegranate tree's fruit is identifiable, the leaves are not what a pomegranate's leaves look like.
But so much of the rest of the surface of the tapestry is taken up by these careful botanical studies. I think that we've identified nearly everything in terms of what kinds of plants The plant life is completely identifiable in a long tradition of Northern Renaissance painting and manuscript illumination, very close attention to actual species of plants. We see that in Northern Renaissance painting like van Eyck. But actually it's more than that here because in the set of tapestries, the plants that are in the meadows are in fact the plants that one would find in the meadows.
The plants that are by the water would be those that are water-loving, etc. The shade plants are in the forest. And so there's a real attention to that being important information to convey. But strangely, in this particular one and in one other from the series, we're not in a real landscape at all. We have a very flat...
background formed by these very real plants. So there's no hills, no landscapes, no architecture in the background. We are, after all, looking at a unicorn.
We are, but in the other panels we do have figures and castles and sky and water and other animals. So perhaps this is the most allegorical of all, and I think there's a lot of attention that's been paid to this particular tapestry and what its meanings might be. It doesn't quite fit, right, because the rest of the story tells us of the successful hunt of a unicorn. And even the killing of the unicorn.
Right. And so in this last, maybe last panel, is this the resurrected unicorn? Well, that's certainly one long tradition that the unicorn is an allegory of Christ.
A creature who is very pure and who can only be caught by a virgin. Who is symbolized, of course, as the Virgin Mary. Right.
And so in medieval stories, medieval mythology, the... Unicorn, in a way, comes to represent Christ, and the virgin who can capture the unicorn is Mary. And so we've got that overlay, but we've got some contradictions here also. We do, because in most of the series, the unicorn is being...
hunted. And persecuted. And captured. But that works. You know, we have the Roman soldiers persecuting Christ.
Right. There are allegories. There are parallels there.
And so that works. But here we have the pomegranate tree, which is a traditional symbol of fertility. And marriage.
The idea of the golden chain, often representing marriage. You know, maybe the unicorn is the betrothed. So is there a kind of a lighting of symbol here?
Is there a kind of overlay of narratives? Seems like they're too traditional. Traditions coming together. Tradition where the unicorn is Christ, and this is interpreted in a very Christian context, and then a very secular context of the unicorn as the beloved, who is happy to be captured.
So it's sort of one of those things where it's got so much meaning, and it may be that it's a 21st century search for the meaning, but maybe it never had one meaning. Maybe its meaning was always multifarious. And perhaps open. I think that's right.
And of course it would help enormously. if we knew the occasion and the patrons for which this was made. Perhaps a wedding, who knows?
There is an A and there's a backward E in each of the panels, each of the tapestries. There's been much scholarly disagreement as to who those are for. Tapestries themselves are gloriously rich, brightly colored.
In fact, in a recent restoration, the backing was taken off and much of the richness of the color was photographed. It's really breathtaking. Even the front of the tapestries are just glorious.
Of course, tapestries would have been hung in a room. that was dark like this one that we're in and would have served as a way of insulating the room and keeping the warmth in. Yes, they were quite practical. But it's important to go up and look closely because when you look at the flowers and the animals and really try to decode the narrative, there's a real richness that unfolds that is-Just the sensuality of the surface.
I think that that's absolutely right. This is not only dyed wool, but it's also silk. And I think it's interesting, this idea of this- creature that's imaginary, that's pure, that can't be caught.
We can't see it, we can't find it. And maybe even our modern understanding.