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#0306
296
JAN KLIPA
9. Ma&wra q/HFoc/aw, detail,
National Museum, Wroclaw
further details of the painting; especially in the area of
the mitre. This was additionally painted on a back-
ground that had already been gilded and decorated by
punching, as is evident in its left margin.^ Further-
more, the ribbons on the back part of the mitre (so-
called were only added subsequently - as is
apparent especially in their lower portions.^ It is pos-
sible, therefore, to surmise that in the course of work
on the painting there occurred a significant change in
intention on the part of the panel's commissioner:
originally an unspecified canon, later replaced by the
figure of a bishop. This finding fundamentally ques-
tions the hypothesis of the panel having been created
without any individual commission, a hypothesis
based on the blank field of the shield depicted below
the knees of the figure of the bishop. The situation
described above was surely very concrete, and in-
volved a very concrete actor or actors. From this
point, we may attempt a new explanation for the
meaning of the empty shield: this was evidently re-
lated to the original figure of the canon donor, since it
is also engraved in the gesso base, and outlined in a
finely drawn line. After the concept of the donor fig-
ure changed, apparently the further painting of the
shield was also abandoned, and the shield subse-
quently gilded over (the tint of the gold is slightly dif-
ferent in this place from the surrounding gilding) and
adorned with punched decorative elements.^
^ Nowhere else does painting on an already punched background on a
picture frame appear in so striking a form, while the painter or craft-
sman who decorated the panel tried to avoid this even at the price of
deforming an otherwise regular design. An example of this is the detail
of the wing of the left angel on the bottom crossbar.
^ The aforementioned is confirmed beyond question by infrared photo-
graphs, in which the canonic garment is clearly recognizable. It more-
over appears that the figure was originally to have been depicted in
strict profile, and only after the change of concept rendered in three-
quarter profile, similar to the donor in the Vyssi Brod picture.
^ It is unclear what could lead to such a decision, but since the picture
was probably intended for the larger altar retable (for it is not equipped
with openings in the bottom lath, nor had it been consecrated indepen-
dently), we may assume that the identification of the donor had been
intended and probably also realized in this broader architectural context
- either by a heraldic symbol or other identifying inscription. Together
with the altar architecture, this coat of arms or inscription is likely to
have been removed during the reconstruction of 1609. This assumption
may be contravened by the fact that a report from that very year men-
tions the panel of 'PAAo/? Przeciw'. To this we could say that the coat
of arms of the Wroclaw Bishopric may have been used (although a mi-
staken heraldic identification in the Mannerist source cannot be ruled
JAN KLIPA
9. Ma&wra q/HFoc/aw, detail,
National Museum, Wroclaw
further details of the painting; especially in the area of
the mitre. This was additionally painted on a back-
ground that had already been gilded and decorated by
punching, as is evident in its left margin.^ Further-
more, the ribbons on the back part of the mitre (so-
called were only added subsequently - as is
apparent especially in their lower portions.^ It is pos-
sible, therefore, to surmise that in the course of work
on the painting there occurred a significant change in
intention on the part of the panel's commissioner:
originally an unspecified canon, later replaced by the
figure of a bishop. This finding fundamentally ques-
tions the hypothesis of the panel having been created
without any individual commission, a hypothesis
based on the blank field of the shield depicted below
the knees of the figure of the bishop. The situation
described above was surely very concrete, and in-
volved a very concrete actor or actors. From this
point, we may attempt a new explanation for the
meaning of the empty shield: this was evidently re-
lated to the original figure of the canon donor, since it
is also engraved in the gesso base, and outlined in a
finely drawn line. After the concept of the donor fig-
ure changed, apparently the further painting of the
shield was also abandoned, and the shield subse-
quently gilded over (the tint of the gold is slightly dif-
ferent in this place from the surrounding gilding) and
adorned with punched decorative elements.^
^ Nowhere else does painting on an already punched background on a
picture frame appear in so striking a form, while the painter or craft-
sman who decorated the panel tried to avoid this even at the price of
deforming an otherwise regular design. An example of this is the detail
of the wing of the left angel on the bottom crossbar.
^ The aforementioned is confirmed beyond question by infrared photo-
graphs, in which the canonic garment is clearly recognizable. It more-
over appears that the figure was originally to have been depicted in
strict profile, and only after the change of concept rendered in three-
quarter profile, similar to the donor in the Vyssi Brod picture.
^ It is unclear what could lead to such a decision, but since the picture
was probably intended for the larger altar retable (for it is not equipped
with openings in the bottom lath, nor had it been consecrated indepen-
dently), we may assume that the identification of the donor had been
intended and probably also realized in this broader architectural context
- either by a heraldic symbol or other identifying inscription. Together
with the altar architecture, this coat of arms or inscription is likely to
have been removed during the reconstruction of 1609. This assumption
may be contravened by the fact that a report from that very year men-
tions the panel of 'PAAo/? Przeciw'. To this we could say that the coat
of arms of the Wroclaw Bishopric may have been used (although a mi-
staken heraldic identification in the Mannerist source cannot be ruled