DOI issue:
Nr. 3-4
DOI article:Klípa, Jan: The Madonna of Vys̆s̆í Brod and the Madonna of Wrocław and their donors: =
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.35032#0302
292
JAN KjUPA
particularly due to the portrayal of his patron
saint in a prominent position on the frame of the
panel. One may agree with this suggestion, but
less so with the dating of the work to after the
canon's death; i.e. to the period around 1450.
The argument cited in support of this claim
maintains that the prelate is kneeling on a cloud
similar to those holding the individual saints
and that it is thus ydr <2
m /TzA /rmmrcr In my
view, among the various factors favouring the
interpretation of a living donor is in particular
the fact that the figure depicts the face of a man
in the height of his mature years, and moreover
a face which is in no way that of 'a (ypg,
zWzvz&zr?//boras' ', as Kropâcek believed it to
be,^ but, on the contrary, one which captures
with an almost unflinching realism the canon's
fat cheeks, receding chin, small eyes and de-
formed skull. The fact that a living donor is
placed at the same level of prominence as inter-
cessor saints and patrons is not exceptional in
the period beginning with the second half of the
14th century, and in fact the opposite is true.
This trait is one of the characteristic features of
the period - it should suffice here to recall
Sluter's conception for the portal for the
Champmol Charterhouse, or the donor scene in
the the Duc de Berry's Brussels Book of Hours.
One may also cite examples of Charles' IV court
art - above all, the votive panel of Jan Oćko
of Vlasim. Furthermore, purely formal and tec-
tonic reasons favour placing the kneeling figure
rendered freely against a gilded background and
on a firm base.^
In conclusion, I believe that the donor of the
Vyssi Brod picture could in actual fact have
been canon Simon ofNymburk, having possi-
bly commissioned it from an established Prague
workshop close to court circles at the beginning
of his career. The sole evidence against the pos-
sibility of the work being commissioned only
BARTLOVÂ, op. cit., p. 250.
KROPÂCEK, op. cit., p. 92.
Moreover, we would also have to assess in the same way the figure of the donor depicted on the frame of the Madonna
of Wroclaw, which would render rather problematic both the theory of the origins of a picture without any specific
7. CoJax o/IAm o/ Gp/cp/MM.wp,
detail of the illumination on fol. 21v,
Jihlava, Municipal and District Archive
JAN KjUPA
particularly due to the portrayal of his patron
saint in a prominent position on the frame of the
panel. One may agree with this suggestion, but
less so with the dating of the work to after the
canon's death; i.e. to the period around 1450.
The argument cited in support of this claim
maintains that the prelate is kneeling on a cloud
similar to those holding the individual saints
and that it is thus ydr <2
m /TzA /rmmrcr In my
view, among the various factors favouring the
interpretation of a living donor is in particular
the fact that the figure depicts the face of a man
in the height of his mature years, and moreover
a face which is in no way that of 'a (ypg,
zWzvz&zr?//boras' ', as Kropâcek believed it to
be,^ but, on the contrary, one which captures
with an almost unflinching realism the canon's
fat cheeks, receding chin, small eyes and de-
formed skull. The fact that a living donor is
placed at the same level of prominence as inter-
cessor saints and patrons is not exceptional in
the period beginning with the second half of the
14th century, and in fact the opposite is true.
This trait is one of the characteristic features of
the period - it should suffice here to recall
Sluter's conception for the portal for the
Champmol Charterhouse, or the donor scene in
the the Duc de Berry's Brussels Book of Hours.
One may also cite examples of Charles' IV court
art - above all, the votive panel of Jan Oćko
of Vlasim. Furthermore, purely formal and tec-
tonic reasons favour placing the kneeling figure
rendered freely against a gilded background and
on a firm base.^
In conclusion, I believe that the donor of the
Vyssi Brod picture could in actual fact have
been canon Simon ofNymburk, having possi-
bly commissioned it from an established Prague
workshop close to court circles at the beginning
of his career. The sole evidence against the pos-
sibility of the work being commissioned only
BARTLOVÂ, op. cit., p. 250.
KROPÂCEK, op. cit., p. 92.
Moreover, we would also have to assess in the same way the figure of the donor depicted on the frame of the Madonna
of Wroclaw, which would render rather problematic both the theory of the origins of a picture without any specific
7. CoJax o/IAm o/ Gp/cp/MM.wp,
detail of the illumination on fol. 21v,
Jihlava, Municipal and District Archive