DOI Heft:
Nr. 3-4
DOI Artikel:Klípa, Jan: The Madonna of Vys̆s̆í Brod and the Madonna of Wrocław and their donors: =
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.35032#0311
THE MADONNA OF VYSSI BROD AND THE MADONNA OF WROCLAW AND THE]R DONORS
301
institutions was one of permanent tension, at least since the !ast years of the tenu in office
of bishop Wenceslas of Liegnitz and lasting until the 1450s, and the fact that two of the
members of the chapter clergy achieved appointment as bishops during this period did
nothing to change this situation.^
Apart from a lack of deeper awareness of the workshop practice of the time to be able to
establish beyond doubt the concrete nature of the commission, we have too little bio-
graphical data on bishop Konrad. As duke of Oels and provost of the Wrocław Chapter,
Konrad maintained contacts with the royal court in Prague that surely did not take place
solely from a level of distance; it is evident that even before his election as bishop he had
paid repeated personal visits to Prague. At the time, he may also have become aware of the
workshop of the Master of the Madonna of Vyssi Brod, from which he could then have
commissioned a painting for the intended altarpiece.^ Alternatively, the request of the
change of the status of donor would surely have been mentioned in correspondence, either
by letter or messenger. The finished painting was probably sent to Wrocław shortly after
its completion in 1418. It is unlikely that the bishop would have personally picked it up
only on the occasion of Sigismund's coronation in 1420, since at that period Prague was
already fully in the sway of the Hussite Wars
On the basis of the hypotheses outlined in this article, two conclusions follow which
are relevant to the dating of both depictions of the Virgin. The Madonna of Vyssi Brod was
probably painted between the years 1415 and 1420, whereas we have succeeded in estab-
lishing a precise date of the origin of the Madonna of Wrocław to the turn of the years
1417 and 1418. In my opinion, the question of which panel was created first and which
followed is of little importance. What is evident, however - if we take into account the
figures decorating the frames of both panels - is that the South Bohemian picture is the
work of an artist of more conservative taste and less assurance in comparison to the author
of the Wrocław picture and its frame. The figures on the Wrocław work have a more
statuesque sensibility, and are more assured in terms of composition, more persuasive in
scale, and in some details of the drapery or the form of inscription banners already point
towards the following and later phase of painting in the Beautiful Style. These stylistic
differences are not merely the result of the paintings having been created over a prolonged
period (as is evident also from the dating stated here), but rather they reflect the creative
potential of the artists involved.* *
71vu;.s7a/<?<7 by 7?<2rbcr<3 Sfq/bnovd
Acknowledgements
Photo @ National Gallery in Prague: ill. 1;
Photo @ National Musuem in Wroclaw: 2, 9;
Reproduced from Jin Fajt (ed.): Kare/ 7k CAaf z/?oz/ /m'/oYh. Ka/n/ra a awea/ za v/d<7y
Łacembarka 7570-7457, Praha 2006, pp. 304, 532: 3-8;
Photo by author: 6, 10.
DOLA, RLoc/arwAa kyim/a, op. cit., passim.
^ It is a question if the role of the mediator could have been played by a partner institution of the Chapter of the St. Vitus
Cathedra), whose members at roughly the same time entrusted a similar commission to the same workshop (see above).
On the other hand, the influence of the fact that before 1412 Konrad was also recipient of the office of canon in Olomouc
regarding his possible awareness of the Prague artistic milieu can be ruled out with a degree of certainty.
* 1 am indebted for consultation and help in bibliographical research to Dr Romuald Kaczmarek (Instytut Historii
Sztuki, Uniwersytet Wrocławski), Dr Ondrej Jakubec (Muzeum umeni Olomouc) and Lucie Creighton (Wrocław).
301
institutions was one of permanent tension, at least since the !ast years of the tenu in office
of bishop Wenceslas of Liegnitz and lasting until the 1450s, and the fact that two of the
members of the chapter clergy achieved appointment as bishops during this period did
nothing to change this situation.^
Apart from a lack of deeper awareness of the workshop practice of the time to be able to
establish beyond doubt the concrete nature of the commission, we have too little bio-
graphical data on bishop Konrad. As duke of Oels and provost of the Wrocław Chapter,
Konrad maintained contacts with the royal court in Prague that surely did not take place
solely from a level of distance; it is evident that even before his election as bishop he had
paid repeated personal visits to Prague. At the time, he may also have become aware of the
workshop of the Master of the Madonna of Vyssi Brod, from which he could then have
commissioned a painting for the intended altarpiece.^ Alternatively, the request of the
change of the status of donor would surely have been mentioned in correspondence, either
by letter or messenger. The finished painting was probably sent to Wrocław shortly after
its completion in 1418. It is unlikely that the bishop would have personally picked it up
only on the occasion of Sigismund's coronation in 1420, since at that period Prague was
already fully in the sway of the Hussite Wars
On the basis of the hypotheses outlined in this article, two conclusions follow which
are relevant to the dating of both depictions of the Virgin. The Madonna of Vyssi Brod was
probably painted between the years 1415 and 1420, whereas we have succeeded in estab-
lishing a precise date of the origin of the Madonna of Wrocław to the turn of the years
1417 and 1418. In my opinion, the question of which panel was created first and which
followed is of little importance. What is evident, however - if we take into account the
figures decorating the frames of both panels - is that the South Bohemian picture is the
work of an artist of more conservative taste and less assurance in comparison to the author
of the Wrocław picture and its frame. The figures on the Wrocław work have a more
statuesque sensibility, and are more assured in terms of composition, more persuasive in
scale, and in some details of the drapery or the form of inscription banners already point
towards the following and later phase of painting in the Beautiful Style. These stylistic
differences are not merely the result of the paintings having been created over a prolonged
period (as is evident also from the dating stated here), but rather they reflect the creative
potential of the artists involved.* *
71vu;.s7a/<?<7 by 7?<2rbcr<3 Sfq/bnovd
Acknowledgements
Photo @ National Gallery in Prague: ill. 1;
Photo @ National Musuem in Wroclaw: 2, 9;
Reproduced from Jin Fajt (ed.): Kare/ 7k CAaf z/?oz/ /m'/oYh. Ka/n/ra a awea/ za v/d<7y
Łacembarka 7570-7457, Praha 2006, pp. 304, 532: 3-8;
Photo by author: 6, 10.
DOLA, RLoc/arwAa kyim/a, op. cit., passim.
^ It is a question if the role of the mediator could have been played by a partner institution of the Chapter of the St. Vitus
Cathedra), whose members at roughly the same time entrusted a similar commission to the same workshop (see above).
On the other hand, the influence of the fact that before 1412 Konrad was also recipient of the office of canon in Olomouc
regarding his possible awareness of the Prague artistic milieu can be ruled out with a degree of certainty.
* 1 am indebted for consultation and help in bibliographical research to Dr Romuald Kaczmarek (Instytut Historii
Sztuki, Uniwersytet Wrocławski), Dr Ondrej Jakubec (Muzeum umeni Olomouc) and Lucie Creighton (Wrocław).