Epitaph for Georg III. of Anhalt

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Materials:

- dry drawing material; dark chalk

Type/Ductus:

- freehand, schematic underdrawing

- delicate, fine lines

Function:

- relatively binding for the final painted version; lines delineate contours and indicate the essential features; no representation of volume

Deviations:

- almost no alterations made during the painting process

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

- Lucas Cranach the Younger or workshop

Comments:

- probably with reference to a pre-existing design

[Smith, Sandner, Heydenreich revised 2014]

- 8 limewood boards of varying widths were employed to make the panel. The boards have the following widths (Recto from left to right): 18.5(t.)/19.0(b.); 33.5(t.)/26.5(b.); 21,.0(t.)/18.5(b.); 27.0(t.)/31.5(b.); 31.0(t.)/27.5(b.); 20.0(t.)/23.5(b.); 21.5(t.)/27.0(b.); 9.5(t.)/10.5(b.) cm

they exhibit glued butt joints, which were reinforced from the front and reverse with dovetails.

The panel was probably 15 cm higher when it was made. It was cropped at the bottom after it was painted. Trucated dovetails are visible along the bottom edge.

The reverse of the the panel was planed after the planks were glued together: marks from a block-plane are visible oblique to the direction of the grain; marks from a smoothing plane are also present (possibly from 1821?).

Traditional chalk/glue ground. It lies directly over the lime wood support and as far as can be determined is thin and dense.

An redddish ochre paint layer is visible as the edge of the drying cracks(ilands of paint), which may be an imprimatura.

An underdrawing is not visible, not even through the flesh paint (there is no infrared photograph, a drawing is not visible through the flesh paint despite an increased transparency caused by the saponification of the lead white content).

Mixed-media; tempera paint with oil glazes

original coating is preserved at the bottom edge beneath the frame rebate

old frame

[Mieth 1993, 3, 25-29]

Surface

The legibility of the image is extremly compromised by surface dirt caused by dust deposits. Furthermore splashes of a watery, white substance are visible, particularly in the centre of the image.

Varnish

According to the UV-light photographs it may be assumed varnish was applied three times. The varnish with its numerous layers is in good condition and has become brown over time.

Paint Layers

In addition to the craquelée caused by the ageing of the support and the paint layers cracking caused by an incorrect technique was observed, like drying cracks and the resulting islands of paint and delamination. The phenomenon of delamination is particularly apparent in the red robe of the angel with the chalice, the sleeping apostle at the front and the robes of the kneeling Duke Georg. The white ground is visible after paint loss from the tented blisters. This damage was definately fostered by a further (the last) varnish application during the last intervention.

The cause of the islands of paint can be explained through the sequence of paint application. A tension-filled, dry paint layer was applied over an apparently dry underpaint, which when employing a mixed-media technique also happened in the Cranach workshop.

Support

• warping, above all the central plank of the wooden support

• three chamfered moveable members were inserted on the reverse

• cropped at the bottom

[Mieth 1993, 2, 3, 31, 34]

Summary of the accompanying pdf report

• consolidation of the support; adjustment of the inserted members to ensure free movement for the panel while maintaining adequate stability

• conservation of the paint layers

• surface cleaning, filling and retouching

• original coating on the frame uncovered; filling and retouching

• frame reinforced with a removable support frame

• reverse and edges of the panel as well as the wooden frame treated with a wood preservative

• a protective backboard was attached

[Mieth 1993, 22]

Further dovetails (oak wood) were inserted to reinforce the joins within the context of the Cranach exhibition in Weimar in 1953.

[Mieth 1993, 29]

During the restoration of 1821 the open joins and splits were reinforced with wooden battens and a coating was applied to the revers. The middle chamfered moveable member is probably from 1821 (beech) [...] the same applies for the marks from the smooting plane.

[Mieth 1993, 28, 29]