On the Stuttgart Psalter: Its Template and the „Scaleskirt“

Note

This text was created as part of the preparation for a larger paper, which aims to cover the Stuttgart Psalter in its entirety. (Dieser Artikel ist auch auf Deutsch verfügbar: dhttps://www.tribur.de/blog/2025/01/09/zum-stuttgarter-psalter-seinem-vorbild-und-dem-schuppenrock/ )

Introduction

According to recent research, it is certain that the Carolingians of the 8th/9th centuries neither possessed lorica musculata (muscle cuirass) nor scale armor resembling the lorica squamata.¹². All alleged finds have been shown through current research not to be Carolingian in origin but instead stem from Roman contexts. Other finds that were interpreted as scale armor ultimately turned out not to be armor at all. For instance, a supposed set of scale armor from Trebur was later identified as part of a Prussian helmet or shako upon re-examination.

Nevertheless, depictions of scale armor can be found in the Stuttgart Psalter. For example, Tackenberg counted, in his work Über die Schutzwaffen der Karolingerzeit und ihre Wiedergabe in Handschriften und Elfenbeinschnitzereien,³ 27 armored warriors versus 100 unarmored ones.

The Stuttgart Psalter

Origin

It is no secret that the Stuttgart Psalter draws upon a much older source. As early as 1952, Jakob Eschweiler, who participated in studies of the Psalter in the 1960s, pointed out that the illustrations must reference an earlier Psalter or biblical text.⁴. Nordenfalk was the first to suggest that these templates predate those used for the Utrecht Psalter. He identified the „rather crude but expressive scenes“ as copies of a late antique source, perhaps from the 6th century, possibly originating in the Monastery of Vivarium under Cassiodorus himself.⁵ Josephine Mütherich also supported the hypothesis of an older template and noted that a clue lies in the depiction of Goliath’s beheading by David with Goliath’s own sword—a type of scene commonly found in early aristocratic Byzantine Psalters.

Additionally, the depiction of Goliath in scale armor is noteworthy. While biblical texts from the 9th century, such as the Alcuin Bible and its model, the Jerome Vulgate, describe Goliath’s armor as lorica hamata (mail armor), and the Greek Septuagint uses the term θώρακα ἁλυσιδωτὸν (thōraka halysidōton), meaning chain mail, only a Byzantine Vulgate of the 4th/5th century uses the term lorica squamata. This Byzantine Vulgate is also the sole source where the term appears in this form.⁶. Nordenfalk already suspected that the illustrations were based on a version of the Psalterium Hebraicum rather than the usual Psalterium Gallicanum.⁷

Another clue to an earlier dating, according to Mütherich, lies in the depiction of the Three Magi in the Stuttgart Psalter, which, albeit mirrored, shows striking similarities to the Magi depicted in the mosaics of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna. These mosaics date to the late 5th or early 6th century.

Furthermore, folio 52r of the Stuttgart Psalter features a naturalistic depiction of a date palm, which also appears in Ravenna mosaics. Another example is found on folio 119r (Joseph stripped of his coat and sold into Egypt), where the inclusion of a camel—depicted with unusual naturalism for its time—suggests that the template did not originate in Francia. However, there is no comparable depiction of a camel in Ravenna mosaics, and neither camels nor date palms are native to the Exarchate of Ravenna. Thus, the tamplate may not necessarily have come from Ravenna either.

A clue suggesting that the template did not originate in or near Ravenna can also be found in the earliest known representation of the battle between David and Goliath.

The Goliath Depiction

First, let us recall the depiction of David and Goliath in the Stuttgart Psalter, found on folio 158v. Due to space constraints, both the battle scene and the beheading are combined into a single image. In manuscripts using the same iconographic template, the scenes are often framed as two separate panels or split across two pages.

Here, however, only the upper depiction of the attack is relevant. In the Stuttgart Psalter, David is on the left, with a stone in his sling and a shepherd’s staff in hand. On the right, Goliath appears in a confusingly twisted posture. It seems as though he holds the shield in his right hand and the spear in his left. However, upon closer inspection of the spear hand, we see its palm, indicating that it must be Goliath’s right hand holding the spear. This means that we are looking at Goliath’s back, not his chest. This becomes clearer when examining the belt that crosses his back—a detail to be discussed further.

While sword, lance, and shield have been „Carolingianized,“ Goliath’s armor is a lorica squamata, or more precisely a lorica plumata with midribbed scales.⁸ This clearly reflects a Byzantine-Roman influence.

The oldest template for this depiction is found on one of the silver plates from the Cyprus Treasure, which was donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art by J.P. Morgan in 1917.⁹ These plates are dated to 629–630 and were commissioned by Emperor Heraclius to commemorate his significant victory over the Sassanids. The story goes that Emperor Heraclius beheaded the Sassanid general Razatis in single man on man combat, drawing a parallel to David’s beheading of Goliath, with the emperor portrayed as David.

The positioning of David and Goliath in this plate matches the depiction in the Stuttgart Psalter. Furthermore, it confirms that we are indeed viewing Goliath’s back, as evidenced by the transition from armor to pteryges. The beheading scene also appears on the plate, albeit scaled down and adapted to the plate’s shape. Goliath’s shield bears a typical Byzantine rosette pattern, and his sword appears to be either a spatha or an early form of the spathion.

Origin

The peculiar positioning of the arms and the seemingly flawed perspective of the spear are depicted exactly as such on the Byzantine silver plates known as the Cyprus Treasure, which were gifted to the Metropolitan Museum of Art by J.P. Morgan in 1917.¹⁰. These plates are dated to 629–630 CE. However, upon closer examination—specifically by observing the border of the armor at the transition to the pteryges—it becomes clear that we are indeed viewing Goliath from behind, holding the spear in his right hand.

While the supposed „double belt“ is not visible in the combat scene, it can be identified in the smaller depiction of the beheading. It is also discernible on the plate that shows David meeting his fully armored brother. Here, it becomes evident that this is not a belt at all but the sash of a military commander: the diadema or zone stratiotike.¹¹

Thus, we must conclude that the original depiction of this motif predates 630 CE by a significant margin. It is likely to originate no later than the 6th century and more plausibly from the 5th century. By the reign of Emperor Heraclius, it appears to have already been a well-established and widely recognized image. Furthermore, the Stuttgart Psalter adopts these Byzantine military models but fails to interpret them correctly.

Analysis of the „Scaled Skirt“ on fol. 5v and its „Suspenders“

The Depiction on fol. 5v

Folio 5v is among the illustrations in the Stuttgart Psalter that perhaps causes the greatest confusion.

On the left side of the image, we see two soldiers equipped with shields and spears. They are wearing unusually loose trousers, while the figure on the right, who is also depicted with a helmet, sports a beard. A beard, often a marker of otherness or foreignness, here symbolizes evil, as no prophet is being represented.

On the right side of the image, we see a figure with long, curly hair being guided into the mountains by the hand of God. This figure represents David. The long, curly hair conforms to the standard iconographic representation of David.

Content of the Depiction

It is important to determine the specific scene being depicted here. This is not a scene derived from the Psalms but rather one that draws upon an episode from the Book of Samuel, specifically 1 Samuel 19:22 and the following verses:

The future King David is already in the service of King Saul, who, however, seeks to kill him. David flees to the prophet’s house (the house of the prophet Samuel) in Ramah, where initially Saul’s messengers fail to capture him because they fall into a prophetic trance. Subsequently, Saul himself travels to Ramah. He, too, falls into a prophetic trance, strips himself naked, and lies on the ground prophesying, allowing David to escape once again.
David then flees into the wilderness and encounters Saul again in the mountains, as the latter pursues him with 3,000 soldiers. This is the context of the relevant biblical passage.

Interpretation of the Depiction

The bearded man in the illustration is King Saul. His companion is one of his Israelite soldiers. Only Saul bears a beard, symbolizing evil, as the pursuit of David originates with him. The Israelites, represented by Saul’s companion, are thus absolved of collective guilt, as they are merely following Saul’s orders.

Saul’s bare feet and the open trouser legs symbolize his religious ecstasy and, indirectly, his nakedness. Saul is not depicted entirely nude because, as the first king of Israel, he holds a special status. Instead, his nakedness is symbolically suggested.

The trousers likely correspond to a type known from archaeological finds from the 6th–7th centuries in Byzantine-controlled regions such as Syria and Egypt.¹²

These trousers feature a slit at the back and are fastened at the ankles with ties. When these ties are undone, the appearance resembles the trousers depicted in the Psalter.

David’s cloak, notably, features a tablion, which signals his status as a high-ranking member of Saul’s court and foreshadows his future role as king— similar to practices at the Byzantine court. Notably, the cloak was created using a template that is consistently applied in the Psalter for rendering flowing cloaks. The folds of the fabric are almost identical to those in Jesus’s cloak on the preceding page. A comparative overlay of six cloaks from the Psalter using image-editing software confirmed this consistency.

The apparent suspenders and lack of armor on Saul are also clarified when attempting to reconstruct the original document’s iconography:
As the first king of Israel, Saul held a unique status that set him apart from the other armored figures, and he was likely depicted wearing a muscle cuirass. Contemporary examples of this type include the Colossus of Barletta and the Diptych of Honorius.

However, the illustrator or copyist likely misunderstood the cuirass. This confusion is not surprising, as such armor is often difficult to identify clearly (compare, for instance, the depiction of Mars as a warrior in armor on the Mosaic of March and April at the Archaeological Museum of Argos, ca. 500 CE). The cuirass is often discernible only by its outlines, as well as by the diadema or zone stratiotike—the commander’s sash wrapped around the upper abdomen.

What ensues is predictable: the copyist first sketches a tunic, starting with the collar and the central clavi as preliminary drawings. Realizing his error, he halts the work. Unable to interpret the commander’s sash, he renders it as a mistaken suspender. The sash crosses the upper abdomen, grazing the preliminary drawing of the clavi. As he works, his penstroke moves from left to right, slightly smudging the still-wet ink of the clavi. The result resembles a mishap where the supposed suspender appears to support the kremasmata—a scaled version of pteryges/pteruges, i.e., the „scaled skirt.“ Thus, the suspender is nothing more than a misinterpreted commander’s sash.

The inverted V-shape formed by the sash might initially appear unusual, but parallels can be found. For instance, the Ambo of Henry II in Aachen Cathedral incorporates Byzantine ivory panels, dated to the 6th century, possibly originating from Byzantine-controlled Egypt. One of these panels depicts a standing warrior or commander with the sash tied in precisely this configuration.

The langseax that Saul carries at his side should also be noted. In the original template, this weapon was likely a slimmer spathion or similar spatha, which had to be replaced with something contemporary. The copyist opted for a langseax, possibly to emphasize Saul’s foreignness or enmity.

Conclusion

One might reasonably ask why the illustrators and draftsmen of the Stuttgart Psalter did not simply replicate the original model in its entirety and with exact fidelity.

On the one hand, they aimed to contemporize the imagery, thereby establishing a connection to their own time. However, they retained Byzantine references to armor in order to reinforce Frankish claims to authority. This approach is comparable to the depiction of Roman armor and helmets in the Vivian Bible or the Bible of St. Paul Outside the Walls. On the other hand, the monks, living in seclusion, had only a limited understanding of military equipment.

This can be likened to an AI model trained on 9th-century artwork. If provided with a Byzantine illustration of a general as a basis for generating a new image, the AI would adopt much of the original composition but lose or simplify certain details. For instance, the commander’s sash might be reduced to a mundane belt.¹³

---

1. cf. C. Haak, Die Krieger der Karolinger – Kriegsdienst als Prozesse gemeinschaftlicher Organisation um 800 – Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 115, p. 226 ↩

2. G. Halsall, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West 450–900, p. 169 ↩

3. K. Tackenberg, Über die Schutzwaffen der Karolingerzeit und ihre Wiedergabe in Handschriften und auf Elfenbeinschnitzereien, p. 277 ↩

4. J. Eschweiler, Illustrationen zu altlateinischen Texten im Stuttgarter Bilderpsalter, in Colligere Fragmenta: Festschrift Alban Dold, Beuron, 1952, pp. 49ff. ↩

5. C. Nordenfalk, Early Medieval Painting – From the Fourth to the Eleventh Century, 1957, p. 145 ↩

6. Sander van den Brink, Loricae (1): the names of Roman body armour, online: Academia.edu ↩

7. C. Nordenfalk, Early Medieval Painting – From the Fourth to the Eleventh Century, 1957, p. 145 ↩

8. For the definition of lorica plumata as an armor with midribbed scales, distinct from chainmail-based lorica plumata, see M.A. Wijnhoven, Putting the scale into mail: Roman hybrid feathered armour.  ↩

9. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/464377  ↩

10. https://www.metmuseum.org/de/art/collection/search/464377  ↩

11. P.L. Grotowski, Costume and Armor of Warrior Saints, p. 277  ↩

12. Examples include: KTN 1733 from Antwerp (570–665 CE), Inv. 12754 from MKP Düsseldorf (undated, possibly from Akhmim-Panopolis, Egypt), and the Halabiyah trousers from Damascus (also undated).  ↩

13. This observation is consistent with tests conducted using Stable Diffusion [sd_xl_base_1.0.safetensors], CFG Scale 5, SDXL Styles “Cinematic,” and various Byzantine illustrations.  ↩