Bulletin du Musée National de Varsovie (41.2000)

Comparative studies of Western and Central European art failed to point
a work of art which could have played a role of direct prototype for any
of Beautiful Madonnas’ types.16 17 18 19 It should be remembered that Beautiful
Madonnas differ from Western figures of the Virgin with Child by kind of
decorativeness and their aesthetic values assume theological meaning. Thus, it
may be incurred that this type came into being only in workshops of Masters
of Beautiful Madonnas. It is justified to assume that Beautiful Madonnas and
Beautiful Pietas are a characteristic phenomenon of Central European art.1

The naturę of preserved works of art shows that the main artistic centres,
situated in Austria and Bohemia, had direct influence on the area of today’s
Poland, Hungary and Slovenia. It is unanimously assumed that the Beautiful
style found its fullest expression in stone sculpture which would connect its
origin with mason’s lodges - St. Steven’s cathedralls in Vienna or St. Vitus
in Prague.10

Studies aiming at determining the artistic circle responsible for Beautiful
Madonnas centre around broadly understood Parlers’ tradition. It is from
this tradition that Bohemian scholars derive motifs and formal features
characteristic for Beautiful Madonnas.20 After denouncing Clasen’s theory
of strictly West European origin of Beautiful Madonnas, Western scholars
advocate a compromise solution, joining the Parler craftsmanship with Western
influences. This inspiration from outside would cause the Parler style to evolve
towards the Beautiful style and at the same time explain the phenomenon
of the Madonna of Wrocław which, considering the ąuality of its realisation
and innovative concept, stands out from other works of art from that area.
According to Gebhardt Schmidt, the artist whose work may be related to the
origin of the Beautiful style is Heinrich Parler who in the late seventies of
the 14th century worked on portaPs decoration at St. Peter’s cathedral in
Cologne.21 Lothar Scultes goes so far as to suggest that Heinrich Parler could

16 Kruszelnicki, op. cit., pp. 70-78; the ąuoted French examples should be considered as
generał stylistic but not typological inspirations, cf. R. Recht, “Motive, Typen, Zeichnung. Das
Vorbild in der Plastik des Spatmittelalters”, in Skulptur des Mittelalters. Funktion und Gestalt,
ed. by F. Mobius, E. Schubert, Weimar 1987, pp. 363-372; R. Didier, R. Recht, “Paris, Prague,
Cologne et la sculpture de la seconde moitie di XIVc'"e siecle. A propos de l’exposition des
Parler a Cologne”, Bulletin monumentale, 138, 1980, 2, pp. 172-219.

17 Cf. M.Y Schwarz, “Piękna Madonna jako kompleksowa forma obrazowa - zarys problematyki”,
Dzieła i Interpretacje, I, 1993, p. 90.

18 Grossmann, “Salzburgs Anteil...”, op. cit., p. 39; idem, Die Breslauer..., op. cit., pp. 241-244;
L. Schultes, “Plastiky v chramu sv. Śtepana. Od Rudolfa IV k Maxmilianovi I”, in Videnska
gotika. Sochy, sklomalby a architektonicka plastiku z domu Sv. Stepana ve Vidni, exh. cat.,
Narodni Galerie, Prague 1992, pp. 79-81.

19 Kutal, Ćeske goticke..., op. cit., pp. 100-107; idem, “Ein neues...”, op. cit., pp. 546;
J. Homolka, “Prag und Bóhmen. Die Skulptur”, in Die Parler..., op. cit., vol. II, pp. 646-647.

20 Kutal, Ćeske goticke..., op. cit., p. 8Off; ide?n, “Ein neues...”, op. cit., p. 544ff; cf. also
Schmidt, “K.H. Clasen...”, op. cit., pp. 69-78.

21 G. Schmidt, “Peter Parler und Heinrich IV Parler. Peter Parler ais Bildhauer”, Wiener
Jabrbuch fur Kunstgeschichte, XXIII, 1970, p. 108ff; Schmidt, “K.H. Clasen...”, op. cit.,
pp. 72-74.

62