Epitaph for Prince Joachim of Anhalt

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Materials:

- dry drawing material; dark chalk

Type/Ductus:

- grid

- relatively detailed underdrawing

- delicate, fine lines

- occasional hatching-strokes

Function:

- relatively binding for the final painted version; lines delineate contours and indicate the essential features; occasional representation of volume with hatching-strokes

Deviations:

- alterations made during the painting process; numerous small changes

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

- Lucas Cranach the Younger and workshop

Comments:

- executed with reference to a pre-existing design

[Smith, Sandner, Heydenreich revised 2014]

- limewood; 17 vertically aligned boards, with the following widths (reverse, from left to right):

11; 12.5; 10; 11.5; 12.5; 13; 13.5; 11; 9.5; 12.5; 8; 10.5; 13.5; 11.5; 10; 11; 18.5 cm

- two chamfered movable cross-members were inserted into the panel when it was constructed, with the following widths: top: 8.5 (l.), 9.5 (r.) cm; bottom: 9 (l.), 10 (r.) cm

- after the single boards were glue-joined the reverse of the panel was only smoothed in the area near the cross-members

The top and bottom edges of the panel were fixed with battens before the application of the ground. A barbe along each horizontal edge confirms this.

Whether the original frame was employed for this purpose can not be ascertained (compare with 'Crucifixion' documentation), as it no longer exists.

The sides of the panel remained unframed until the painting was finished. The ground and paint layers extend to the edge of the panel.

The traditional chalk/glue ground was applied in numerous layers and smoothed.

An isolating layer or a thin, very pale imprimatura toned slightly with ochre was applied after the initial underdrawing stage (?)

The underdrawing lies directly over the ground.

Two designs for the Dessau Last Supper have survived [Schade 1993 A, 23].

The infrared photographs confirm that a one-to-one preparatory drawing was made. The outlines were transferred to the ground by pouncing through a cartoon with holes (?), after first drawing a grid with a fine, hard point.

It may be assumed that this stage was for the greater part carried out by the workshop and concluded with the application of an isolating layer or a thin, very pale imprimatura toned slightly with ochre.

The underdrawing of the portraits reveal the work of a number of hands:

- loose, confident brush drawing with a black, very diluted, waterbased ink, shadows applied as a wash, probably by Lucas Cranach the Younger (e.g. Portrait of J. Pfeffinger)

- contours confidently drawn with a soft point or charcoal (e. g. Portrait of Lucas Cranach the Younger)

- pen and ink drawing (quill?) with black waterbased ink, shadows indicated with hatching-strokes (e. g. Portrait of J. Foster) workshop production, probably copied without any personal artistic input.

The subsequent paint layers were executed in mixed media, the light areas were applied first and then the dark area.

First an appropriate base tone was applied for the flesh paint, the hair and in part the robes as well as adjoining light areas.

The flesh paint was applied wet-in-wet, blurring the transition between light and shadow, with only a few economic contours, whereby different hands can be detected (see x-radiograph).

The lead white highlights on the portrait of Joachim, Duke of Anhalt and K. Cruciger were applied thickly and exhibit soft transitions (see x-radiograph).

The marbled background architecture of the room, the tiles on the floor and in part the robes were executed employing the same technique.

In contrast areas painted with an opaque to impasto application were executed very meticulously, nevertheless in part delicately modelled contours were carelessly overlapped. (Tiles in the background bordering on B. Bernard's robes).

The white tablecloth with an impasto edging also overlaps the contours of some completed objects so that it appears stereotyped (see x-radiograph).

Final ornamental details on the robes, architecture and the portraits (hair, contours of the eyes and mouths) were added with delicate, impasto brushstrokes.

A conscious decission was made not to carry out any further examinations like cross-sections or pigment and media analysis as these were not strictly necessary to complete the treatment.

- new frame

[Mieth 1993, 7, 8, 28, 35, 73, 74]

Summary of the attached pdf (in German):

Condition of the support, ground and paint layers

• a characteristic network of cracks common for paintings on wooden panel affects the ground, paint layers and in part the varnish and can be observed to varying degrees in correlation with the structure of the wood and the paint layers.

• some drying cracks in both glazes and medium rich opaque layers

• some cupping and paint loss as well as tenting

• the panel responds with relative stability to climatic fluctuations

• damage caused by water drops and splashes of lime

• mould affecting in part the ground and the paint layers

• aktive woodworm

• coating containing lead white and oil on the reverse [from 1821 and may have been applied after combating active woodworm]

• splits and losses in the support, in part open joins

• some scratches

• numerous discoloured retouches

[Mieth 1992, 9, 10]

Summary of the attached pdf (in German)

• active woodworm treated with nitrogen gas

• consolidation of wood; impregnation and reconstruction of the corner, after attaching it with dowels application of fill material

• surface cleaning, no varnish removal

• removal of overpaint

• partial adjustment (thinning) of the varnish in the areas where overpaint was removed

• retouched with watercolours and lean oil/resin paint

• protective coating

• new frame constructed to correspond with the other panels

• a backboard of aluminium and acrylic was attached

[Mieth 1993, 76-107]

[retouching and new varnish?]

It may be assumed, that this treatment was carried out before the painting was lent for the Berlin 'Kirchentag' in 1951.

[Mieth 1993, 10]

• losses reworked with tempera and oil glazes, that have dried to thick, tough layers extending over original paint (Treatment about 1900 by Prof. Bernatz ?, compare 'Crucifixion' documentation)

[Mieth 1993, 10]

• isolated exit holes, small losses and mechanical damage filled; retouched with oil glazes that extend slightly over the original (probably a treatment from 1821)

• dense white preventative (against woodworm) oil coating on the reverse

[Mieth 1993, 10, 28]