Hermsdorff-Retabel [central panel]

Hermsdorff-Retabel [central panel]

Titles

Hermsdorff-Retabel [central panel]

[Thiepold 2013, 5]

Hermsdorff-Retabel

[Thiepold 2013, 5]

Rochlitz Last Supper Altar

[Thiepold 2013, 3]

Painting on softwood (?)

Medium

Painting on softwood (?)

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 5]

Recto, central panel:

The central panel of the altarpiece depicts the actual Last Supper (Mt 26,20-30, Mk 14,17-26, Lk 22,14-23).

Jesus, at the centre of the painting, sits with the twelve disciples around a circular table in a walled rectangular room. St John rests in his arms. Judas can be identified

Recto, central panel:

The central panel of the altarpiece depicts the actual Last Supper (Mt 26,20-30, Mk 14,17-26, Lk 22,14-23).

Jesus, at the centre of the painting, sits with the twelve disciples around a circular table in a walled rectangular room. St John rests in his arms. Judas can be identified in the foreground on the right wearing a yellow robe. Beside him and also sitting on a stone bench is James. Peter is depicted in a blue robe with his arms folded. Behind Christ an alpine landscape is visible through a transom window. Like the four image fields on the inner wing panel the upper edge of this scene is also framed by a decorative gilded area shaped like an arch. The pattern consists of numerous floral elements. A garland of fruit with small, round berries, leaves and a band stretches from the arch crown to the centre of both spandrels. The spandrels are filled with all sorts of foliage. In some places the ornament extends into the painted space.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 5-18]

Verso, central panel:

The verso of the central panel depicts two hovering angels, carrying an opulant golden tower monstrance. The donor Ambrosius Hermsdorff kneels at the bottom left. There is a painted scroll in the bottom right corner.

The background is dark brown, whereas at the bottom there is a strip showing a clay coloured path edged with grass.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 27-31]

Attributions
Master of the Pflock Altarpiece and Workshop
Master of the Pflock Altarpiece

Attributions

Master of the Pflock Altarpiece and Workshop

[Thiepold 2013, 127-128]

Master of the Pflock Altarpiece

[Sandner 1993, 242, 302, 304]
[Sandner 2005, 23]

Production dates
about 1518 - 1520
about 1521

Production dates

about 1518 - 1520

[Thiepold 2013, 127-128]

about 1521

[Sandner 1993, 304]

Dimensions
Dimensions of support:

Dimensions

  • Dimensions of support:

  • 153.3 x 121.4 x 5.2 cm

  • [Sommer, Ulrike/ Mai, Arne, unpublished conservation report, 31.08.2007]

Signature / Dating

None

Inscriptions and Labels

Epitaph inscription on the reverse: 'Nach christi Jhesu unssers seligmacherß geburth Im tausent funffhunderth und eynundzwenzigisten iare donerstagk zu …

Inscriptions and Labels

Inscriptions, Badges:

  • Epitaph inscription on the reverse:

  • 'Nach christi Jhesu unssers seligmacherß geburth Im tausent funffhunderth und eynundzwenzigisten iare donerstagk zu Ostern ist zu gott vorstorben der virdige her Ambrosius Hermßdorff Altarist dißes Altars hyr begraben. Gott sey im und Allen gläubigen selen genedig und barmherzigt. Gott gebe seyner und Allen glaubigen selen dy ewige ruhe Amen'

  • [Thiepold 2013, 30]

Owner
Ev.-Luth. Kirchgemeinde Rochlitz
Repository
St. Kunigundenkirche Rochlitz
Location
Rochlitz
CDA ID
DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001A
FR (1978) Nr.
FR-none
Persistent Link
https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001A/

Provenance

  • at the earliest since 1518 and at the latest since 1522 in the Church of Kunigunden (Kunigundenkirche), Rochlitz
    [Thiepold, cda 2014]
  • from 1564 in the hospital church (Heilig-Geist-Kirche), Rochlitz
  • in the hospital church until its demolition in 1904
  • after the restoration treatment carried out in Dresden it was returned to the Church of St Kunigunden (the altarpiece was probably preserved in the sacristy from about 1936 until 1972)
    [compare: Thiepold 2013, 5-6]

Exhibitions

1972 Staatliche Galerie Moritzburg, Halle, Germany

Literature

Reference on page Catalogue Number Figure / Plate
Thiepold 2013
AuthorLaura Thiepold
TitleDer Epitaphaltar des Stifters Ambrosius Hermsdorff in der Kunigundenkirche zu Rochlitz [unveröffentlichte Masterarbeit, Düsseldorf]
Place of PublicationCologne
Year of Publication2013
Sandner 2005 16-30
AuthorIngo Sandner
TitleDer Kompositionsentwurf auf dem Malgrund, der erste Schritt der Bildentstehung
Publicationin Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Sachsen, ed., Ästhetik und Wissenschaft - Beiträge zur Restaurierung und Denkmalpflege, Arbeitsheft 8
Volume8
Place of PublicationDresden
Year of Publication2005
Pages16-30
Sandner 1993 101, 242,302, 304, 360 Fig. 77
AuthorIngo Sandner
TitleSpätgotische Tafelmalerei in Sachsen
Place of PublicationDresden, Basel
Year of Publication1993
Exhib. Cat. Halle 1972 31
EditorStaatliche Galerie Moritzburg
TitleLucas Cranach und die sächsische Malerei seiner Zeit
Place of PublicationHalle
Year of Publication1972

Research History / Discussion

This work is a catholic altarpiece. The following two points of reference highlight this:

  1. The reformation only reached Rochlitz in the year 1527[1]

  2. The epitaph on the reverse makes reference to an altarist. (Altarists worked exclusively for the Catholic Church)

[Thiepold, cda 2014]

The depiction of the Last Supper initially recalls the reformation iconographic program. However, in the 16th century representations of the Last Supper were common both in the Protestant and the Catholic Churches.[2]

The fact that the altarpiece predominantly represents scenes related to the Last Supper is quite unusual. Admittedly, depictions of the Last Supper also number among the protestant altarpieces by Lucas Cranach the Elder, like for example the reformation altarpiece in Wittenberg from 1547 or the Schneeberg Altarpiece from 1539 [DE_WSCH_NONE-WSCH001F], but only in a series with other biblical scenes. Innovative it would seem is that the Hermsdorff retable is exclusively concerned with the day or evening of the Last Supper when displayed open. If this altarpiece was commissioned by the donor for the salvation of the soul, then the iconographical program is in direct contravention with the liturgy of a requiem. The depiction of the Last Supper with reference to the altarist’s function is contradictory as an altarist, in contrast to a priest[3], does not have the authority to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist and without a congregation the requiem is so to speak comprised only of the altarist’s silent prayer[4]. Using this knowledge as a starting point three theories can be deduced:

  1. The donor expressly desired that the scenes of the Last Supper were represented on his altarpiece, because the altarist was not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist and he wished to have the associated sacrament recorded in the iconographical program. The scene of the Last Supper may also recall the Viaticum, received in the hour of death in preparation for the journey.[5]

  2. The donor desired that the altarist celebrate a Holy Mass (the Last Supper) despite his limited authority.

  3. Hermsdorff commissioned the altarpiece during his lifetime and had the Last Supper depicted, because as an altarist he had never been permitted to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist. The iconographical program thus represents what he never achieved during his lifetime but fervently desired.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 38-39]

It can be excluded that the altarpiece initially served another purpose. By virtue of the modest size and the fact, that an epitaph was usually commissioned by a donor so that a requiem mass could be held in his honour in front of it, it can be excluded that the altarpiece initially served as the main altarpiece of a church.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 39]

On the basis of evidence it may be assumed that the epitaph sides were painting after Ambrosius Hermsdorff’s death, in the year 1521. This is suggested by the inscription on the epitaph, which states that Hermsdorff was the altarist of this altarpiece. This would mean that the retable must have already existed. One could assume, that the statement „dißes Altars“ [Thiepold 2013, 36] does not mean the altar retable, but the altar mensa, which was more rarely replaced. However it is more likely that the epitaph sides or reverse was painted retrospectively as is demonstrated below. The former and present location of the altarpiece also suggests that the epitaph sides were a later addition. Due to the architectural situation in the church the side altar could only be installed so that the reverse was against the wall of the north side aisle. It would appear that it was accepted that the Epitaph inscription was only visible on the reverse and would not always be visible to everybody. This suggests that Hermsdorff was not the actual donor or commissioner of the altarpiece, but that as the altarist he had the possibility to leave his epitaph inscription and his image on the verso of the central panel.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 41-42]

There is a considerable discrepancy between the brushwork on the front and the reverse of the Epitaph altar. This is most apparent in the arrangement of the folds. It seems that the artist responsible for the side with the epitaph imitated the artist who created the other image fields that perhaps already existed. The depiction of the paths with grass and stones are similar, but the painterly quality is worse on the reverse of the altar. The physiognomy of the angel recalls the typical distinctive style of the Master of the Pflocksche Altar, and is not particularly reminiscent of the Cranach workshop.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 49-65]

As was already mentioned above the shapes of the heads and the physiognomies on the inner sides of the altar were painted in a manner typically redolent of the Master of the Pflocksche Altar. The faces are elongated, the forehead is extremely high. The heads are generally narrow and long, whereas the skullcap appears spherical. This is particularly obvious in the depiction of Judas in the scene of the Last Supper. However it must be pointed out that this image draws heavily on Dürer’s Last Supper from the Passion series and the physiognomies are indeed a little strange. In addition to the physiognomies the posture and the arrangement of the folds exhibit characteristic features found in paintings attributed to the Master of the Pflocksche Altar. The knee of the free leg is often visible beneath the draperies. However the kneecap is generally positioned too low so that the thigh appears too long. It is particularly apparent in the figure of James on the Mount of Olives and Christ in the scene with the washing of the feet that the artist struggled with a correct anatomical representation of the transition from the head to the neck.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 51-62]

Different painterly qualities can be distinguished on the retable. On the exterior of the wings the representations of St John the Baptist and St Erasmus are of a considerably better quality than the other images. It may be assumed that these were painted by the Master. The images showing the preparation for the Last Supper and the Last Supper may have been executed by the Master with the assistance of workshop members. The stylistic differences evident in the images showing the ‚Agony in the Garden’ and the ‘Washing of the Feet’ suggest they were executed by a workshop member. The reverse of the altar, the side with the epitaph, may also have been painted by a workshop member.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 70], [Thiepold, cda 2014]

Other than the scene of the Last Supper a further relationship with Dürer’s work can be observed on the retable in the scene of the ‘Agony in the Garden’. Here the artist adopts an almost identical arrangement and representation to that of Dürer’s Apostles Peter, John and James in the engraving of the Agony in the Garden in the Passion series from 1508[6].

[compare Thiepold 2013, 44]

[1] see Heine, Samuel Gottlieb, ed., Historische Beschreibung der alten Stadt und Grafschaft Rochlitz in Meißen, Leipzig (1719) 161

[2] see Harbison, Craig, ‘The northern altarpiece as a cultural document’, in P. Humfrey, M. Kemp, The altarpiece in the Renaissance, Cambridge (1990) 49-75

[3] see Kasper, Walter, ‘Skandal einer Trennung - Offene Kommunion als Zeichen der Hoffnung’, In: Publik-Forum, Heft 45 (1970) 23

[4] see Sander, Kai Gallus, Email an Laura Thiepold, 21.08.2013, verfasst von Prof. dr. theol. Kai Gallus Sander (Katholische Hochschule Nordrhein-Westfalen, Campus Paderborn)

[5] see Angenendt, Arnold, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter, 2. Aufl., Darmstadt (2000) 668

[6] see Schoch, Rainer et al.: Albrecht Dürer - Das druckgraphische Werk, Bd. 1, Kupferstiche, Eisenradierungen und Kaltnadelblätter, München (2001) 131

  • Hermsdorff-Retabel [central panel], about 1518 - 1520

Images

Compare images
  • overall
  • overall
  • overall
  • overall
  • reverse
  • reverse
  • reverse
  • reverse
  • reverse
  • irr

Technical studies

04. 2012Technical examination / Scientific analysis

  • Infrared reflectography
  • irr

Underdrawing

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Material:

- an initial design was executed using diluted medium and washes: subsequently refined with a fluid, black medium and brushes of varying widths; an initial rough design may have been executed with a dry drawing material?

Type/Ductus:

- very detailed underdrawing

- thin to broader lines

- hatching-strokes; washes

Function:

- relatively binding for the final painted version; the lines delineate the main contours, describe forms within shapes and facial features; representation of volume with hatching-strokes and washes

Deviations:

- minor adjustments made to forms during the painting process; small changes (e. g. the Lamb of God, the opening in the wall behind Christ)

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

- Master of the Pflock Altar (collaborative work by two former Cranach apprentices outside the Cranach workshop)

- after a woodcut by Dürer (‚The Small Passion‘ from 1509)

[Smith, Sandner, Heydenreich, cda 2016]

  • photographed by Gunnar Heydenreich
  • photographed by Ingo Sandner
  • Infrared reflectography

Underdrawing

‚Whereas an initial rough design executed with a soft drawing implement like a stick of charcoal or dark chalk can be discerned on the open wing panels […] no such lines are visible on the central panel. However an initial definition of the main forms employing very diluted medium is visible. The actual underdrawing was executed in strong, dark brushed lines over this. The faint first lines are particularly visible in the draperies of the seated Judas in the foreground. The faithful execution of the scene with the Last Supper after Dürer’s ‚Little Passion‘ from 1509 suggests the use of a template from which the main lines were traced. There was no attempt to develop forms on the support. The painted contours on the hands and the heads are not part of the drawn design. […]

Bold washes applied with a broad brush to modulate light and shadow [for example in the draperies of Judas] are a particular feature. They may belong in part to the first phase with diluted medium, which was applied over the suspected traced lines and was subsequently reinforced.’

[Sandner 2005, 23]

‚A comparison of the hatching-strokes in the underdrawing of the Last Supper with Dürer’s prototype reveals a clear correlation. The artist has borrowed an almost identical representation of the drapery[…]. The quality of the prototype may have swayed him to modulate the shadows in the underdrawing stage revealing them later in a wash-like paint application.’

[Thiepold 2013, 72].

Verso, central panel:

The present position of the altar precludes examination of the reverse employing infrared-reflectography (central panel and additional structure). Therefore it is impossible to comment on the underdrawing.

[Thiepold, cda 2014]

Paint Layers and Gilding

Recto, central panel:

'Dynamic long brushstrokes are visible in St John's robe where there are no folds. The transitition to the the folds was achieved with a stippled application of paint. [...] The stone benches in the scene of the Last Supper have the texture of natural stone that was acheived with a stippling technique. The redition of the material quality of stone is here the most successful on the panel.'

[Thiepold 2013, 68].

Verso, central panel:

Brushstrokes are less evident on the verso of the cenntral panel. The colouration is also different from the recto. The tones are more monochrome and are slightly more pastel coloured.

[Thiepold, cda 2014]

Framing

Recto. central panel:

The central panel has an engaged frame with a sill. The gilded relief ornament on the flat surface is framed by a simple reddish-brown moulding. A brown coating covers the sill on the bottom member. The other three members exhibit an additional blue coated cove, finished off on the side closest to the painting with a guilded round moulding. The abundant use of gold leaf and the sill suggests it is a catholic altar. The depiction on the panels confirm this impression.

[Vgl. Thiepold 2013, 32].

Verso, central panel:

The central panel has an engaged frame with moulding. The members are chamfered inwards. Now the frame has a dark brown coating.

[Thiepold, cda 2014]

Conservation History

Date2007 -

Condition before treatment:

Recto, central panel:

'The wood of the panel is to a greater extent intact. The panel, particularly in the lower region, has shrunk slightly revealing the bare wood in addition to the painted surface. There are also isolated woodworm exit holes.

[...] The frame was extensively re-ground and re-coated during a past restoration treatment. The blue coating on the cove has been overcleaned and the gold on the gilded ornamented flat ledge of the frame is abraded. In numerous places losses were reintegrated with bronze paint, which now appears green or black.

The moulding along the bottom frame member was formerly gilded with silver leaf. The blackened silver has to a greater extent been abraded and only the bole is now visible.[...]

The paint layers are sound, the surface is dirty and matt. In some places there are small splashes and very small paint losses. There are old, discoloured retouches in some areas, particularly on Judas` robe.'

Verso, central panel:

'The frame was extensively re-ground and re-coated during a past restoration treatment. During this treatment the colour was altered. The flat ledge was originally rust-red and decorated with silver, now blackened ornamentation. On top of this is a light blue layer, probably a previous overpaint. The inner and outer mouldings were gilded with silver leaf. The silver has almost blackened completely and is very abraded on the outer moulding, so that the bole is now visible. [...]

The surface is very dirty and has evidently been splashed with dirty water. The varnish has yellowed. The black background was completely overpainted and exhibits numerous small losses. On the rest of the painting there are numerous discoloured retouches, in the lower region there are overpainted old splits. There are a number of new scratches on the angel and the scroll.'

[Sommer, Ulrike/Mai, Arne, Conservation Report of the Hermßdorff epitaph altar for the church community of Rochlitz, unpublished, 31.08.2007, 4-6]

Metal elements:

All the metal brackets and bands that had been mounted in visible places were removed. All the remaining metal elements were derusted, treated with rust stopper and coated with a black acrylic finish. The hidden fixture of the lunette on the upper frame of the central panel consists of a stainless steel pin and tube.

Wood:

'Losses caused by the metal brackets mounted during a former treatment were filled with lime wood. When the panel was extended during a previous restoration treatment a piece of moulding was removed from each side of the frame at the bottom. It was replaced with a corresponding lime wood moulding. Small losses in the wood were also filed with lime wood or wood-filler (covering panel, frame, central panel, predella).

Fish glue was used to glue all the inserts and loose battens and joins. A board of c. 5 mm was positioned under the central panel to make it easier to open the wings.'

Paint layers:

A partial consolidation of the paint layers was carried out employing French rabbit-skin glue (50:1000). The entire reverse of the right wing required consolidation. In all other areas a partial consolidation was carried out. Some areas could not be consolidated with glue and neutralized Acronal was employed in such situations. The surface cleaning was carried out with a fine pored sponge or cotton swabs and water without any additives. Frothing was observed in some areas.

Losses in the paint layers were filled with a chalk mix (50:1000). The retouches were carried out in gouache paints from the manufacturer Schmincke. In addition to losses in some places very discoloured, old retouches were covered up - in the draperies on the predella, in the lower area of the verso of the wing panels, in the lower area of the epitaph side and in Judas' robe on the central panel. The disturbing bare wood edge that shrinkage of the panel made visible was toned in.

'In areas where the silver had blackened some ground tin was added to the gouache. The gold-leaf gilded areas were reintegrated with an initial base layer of bole coloured gouache and finished with shell-gold. Bole and gold-leaf were only employed on the reconstructions in the frame. The degree of gloss was evened out by applying dammar in white spirits to matt areas and retouching.'

[compare: Sommer, Ulrike/Mai, Arne, Conservation Report of the Hermßdorff epitaph altar for the church community of Rochlitz, unveröffentlicht, 31.08.2007, 3-9]

  • conservation treatment by Ulrike Sommer
  • conservation treatment by Arne Mai

Date1904 -

According to the conservation report from 2007 the frame of the altar was reworked during the first restoration treatment. Sections of the wood were replaced and metal bands were used to fix the component parts of the altar together as well as metal brackets mounted to stablize the structure. At the same time hinges, grommets and latches were replaced.

[compare: Sommer, Ulrike/ Mai, Arne, Conservation report of the Hermßdorff epitaph altar for the church community of Rochlitz, unpublished, 31.08.2007, 3]

Citing from the Cranach Digital Archive

Entry with author
<author's name>, 'Hermsdorff-Retabel [central panel]', <title of document, data entry or image>. [<Date of document or image>], in: Cranach Digital Archive, https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001A/ (Accessed {{dateAccessed}})
Entry with no author
'Hermsdorff-Retabel [central panel]', <title of document, data entry or image>. [<Date of document, entry or image>], in: Cranach Digital Archive, https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001A/ (Accessed {{dateAccessed}})

Help us to improve the Cranach Digital Archive.

Please contact us, if you have noticed a mistake.