Hermsdorff-Retabel [right wing]

Titles

Hermsdorff-Retabel [right wing]	[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]

Wing, interior:

The upper image field on the interior of the right wing depicts the third scene of the preparation for the Last Supper or the passover. Peter kills the sacrificial lamb with a knife, while John comes running across the step towards the place of slaughter with an oval wooden tub. The scene takes place in an enclosed space. Once again an alpine landscape is visible through an arched entrance and a window in the gable end. The upper edge of the image is framed by an arch-shaped gilded zone with ornamentation. Here the pattern consists of relatively delicately wrought acanthus leaves that extend like volutes over the painted image. Two leaves surmount the crown of the arch. The one on the right recalls a vine leaf.

The lower image field depicts the fourth and last scene of the preparation. Peter and John set a table for the meal. There are already at least seven tin plates on the table cloth. Peter places a forest glass vessel containing a red liquid on the table and John distributes bread. Once again this scene takes place in an interior, which with its pillars, a column and golden capitals is distinctly more splendidly decorated than the previous room. This image field is also framed by an arch-shaped gilded zone with ornamentation. Here for the first time the decorative elements consist of garlands wrapped with bands, each of which is finished with a vine leaf in the spandrels. There is also a sort of vine leaf on the crown of the arch that extends over the painting.

[Thiepold 2013, 11-15]

Wing, exterior:

The exterior of the right wing depicts St Erasmus with his attributes, a rope winch with his intestines wrapped around it and the opulently decorated bishop¿s vestments. The landscape, the colour of the sky as well as the use of the rounded arch correspond with the wing pendant depicting John the Baptist.

[Thiepold 2013, 25-26]

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:
153.5 x 60.4 x 5.1 cm
[Sommer, Ulrike/ Mai, Arne, unpublished conservation report, 31.08.2007]

Signature / Dating: None

Owner: Ev.-Luth. Kirchgemeinde Rochlitz
Repository: St. Kunigundenkirche Rochlitz
Location: Rochlitz

CDA ID: DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001C
FR (1978) Nr.: FR-none
Persistent Link: https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001C/

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

Author	Laura Thiepold
Title	Der Epitaphaltar des Stifters Ambrosius Hermsdorff in der Kunigundenkirche zu Rochlitz [unveröffentlichte Masterarbeit, Düsseldorf]
Place of Publication	Cologne
Year of Publication	2013

Show Literature

Sandner 2005

16-30

Author	Ingo Sandner
Title	Der Kompositionsentwurf auf dem Malgrund, der erste Schritt der Bildentstehung
Publication	in Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Sachsen, ed., Ästhetik und Wissenschaft - Beiträge zur Restaurierung und Denkmalpflege, Arbeitsheft 8
Volume	8
Place of Publication	Dresden
Year of Publication	2005
Pages	16-30

Show Literature

Sandner 1993

101, 242, 302, 304, 360

Fig. 77

Author	Ingo Sandner
Title	Spätgotische Tafelmalerei in Sachsen
Place of Publication	Dresden, Basel
Year of Publication	1993

Show Literature

Exhib. Cat. Halle 1972

34, 35

Figs. 35

Editor	Staatliche Galerie Moritzburg
Title	Lucas Cranach und die sächsische Malerei seiner Zeit
Place of Publication	Halle
Year of Publication	1972

Show Literature

Research History / Discussion

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

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

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

Connected Works

Hermsdorff-Retabel [right wing], about 1518 - 1520

Images

Technical studies

04. 2012Technical examination / Scientific analysis

Infrared reflectography

Underdrawing

Interior:

Top: Peter killing the sacrificial lamb with a knife

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Material:

- fluid, black drawing medium, brushes of varying widths, presumably also a quill; an initial rough design may have been executed with a dry drawing implement, and in part with a diluted fluid medium

Type/Ductus:

- detailed underdrawing

- thin to broader lines

- hatching-strokes

Function:

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

Deviations:

- minor adjustments were made to forms during the painting process; small changes

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

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

Bottom: Peter and John set the table for the meal

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Material:

- fluid, black drawing medium, brushes of varying widths and probably also a quill; an initial rough design may have been executed with a dry drawing material?

Type/Ductus:

- detailed underdrawing

- thin to broader lines

- occasional hatching-strokes

Funktion:

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

Deviation:

- minor adjustments were made to the forms during the painting process; small changes (e. g. the position of the plates)

INTERPRETATION

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

St Erasmus [verso]

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Material:

- fluid, black medium, brushes of varying width; the initial rough detail may have been executed in a dry drawing material, with the occasional use of a diluted, fluid medium

Type/Ductus:

- detailed underdrawing

- delicate and fine to broader lines

- hatching strokes

Function:

- binding for the final painted version; the lines define the main contours, describe essential details and indicate facial features; volume is represented with hatching strokes

Deviations:

- minor corrections were made to forms during the painting process; small changes

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

- Master of the Pflocksch Altar (a co-production by two artist, formerly active in the Cranach workshop)

[Smith, Sandner, Heydenreich, cda 2016]

photographed by Gunnar Heydenreich
photographed by Ingo Sandner

Underdrawing

wing, interior:

There is a rough design on the image fields on the interior of the wing panel. Sandner assumes that it was executed with a soft drawing implement - [...] like a stick of charcoal or dark chalk[...]. The actual underdrawing was carried out over this initial rough design. Sandner presumes that the details in the background as well as the heads and the hands were drawn with an uncut quill. The type of line and the consistency of the ink indicate that a pen-like implement was employed. A fine pointed brush was employed in addition to the quill for the final underdrawing. This is particularly apparent in the lines visible under the lighter areas of paint, for example the contours of the draperies.

[compare: Sandner 2005, 23]

[compare: Thiepold 2012, 74-75]

wing, exterior:

An infrared reflectogram of the exterior of the wing panel does not exist, therefore the underdrawing could not be examined.

[Thiepold, cda 2014]

Paint Layers and Gilding

Wing, interior:

The paint application on both image fields is to a greater extent flat. Distinctive brushstrokes are apparent on Peter's dark blue robe.

[Thiepold, cda 2014]

Wing, exterior:

the poor condition of the upper paint layers makes it difficult in part to access the method of paint application. The sudarium on the crosier exhibits for example brushstrokes.

[Thiepold, cda 2014]

Framing

Wing, interior:

The frame of the inner side of the wing panel is an engaged frame with a sill. The flat ledge with gilded relief ornamentation is framed by a simple reddish-brown moulding. There is a brown sill on the bottom member of the frame. The remaining three members exhibit a blue coated cove. This is followed by gilded inner round moulding. The frequent use of gilding as well as the sill are an indication of a catholic altar. This impression is confirmed by the representation in the painting.

[compare: Thiepold 2013, 32]

Wing, exterior:

The frame on both the external sides of the wing panels is a plain, black frame, chamfered inwards.

[Thiepold 2013, 33]

Conservation History

Date2007 -

Condition before treatment in 2007:

Wing, interior:

'The external battens of the frame have been replaced on the right wing. The original batten on the right (viewed from the front) exhibits an old loss in the upper region. It was probably caused by a knot and does not extend very far in. Despite this the batten is stable. The central decorative batten on the front protrudes slightly on the left but is fixed. There is a sturdy metal bracket mounted in the top right corner. The panel and the frame exhibit little woodworm damage. The panel is intact.

[...] is in approximately the same condition as the central panel. There are hardly any retouches on the painting and only very small paint losses.

Wing, exterior:

'The panel and the frame exhibit only a limited amount of woodworm damage (exit holes). The panel is intact.

The frame on the verso also received a new ground and coating. In contrast to the central panel the first coating was also black. The outer edge of the frame was originally red. The present coating exhibits extensive flaking. The silver on the sill is extensively abraded. [...]

The paint layers are very dirty and are in part flaking. There are numerous losses in the direction of the grain, the wood is visible in places, in other places only the varnish or the upper paint layers are affected. There are discoloured retouches in numerous places, particularly in the sky and in the red robe. The colour of the sky is partially altered by overpaint.'

[Sommer, Ulrike/ Mai, Arne, Conservation Report of the Hermßdorff Epitaph Altar for the Church Community of Rochlitz, unpublished, 31.08.2007, 4-7]

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, unpublished, 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.

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

Citing from the Cranach Digital Archive

Entry with author: <author's name>, 'Hermsdorff-Retabel [right wing]', <title of document, data entry or image>. [<Date of document or image>], in: Cranach Digital Archive, https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001C/ (Accessed {{dateAccessed}})
Entry with no author: 'Hermsdorff-Retabel [right wing]', <title of document, data entry or image>. [<Date of document, entry or image>], in: Cranach Digital Archive, https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KKR_NONE-KKR001C/ (Accessed {{dateAccessed}})

Help us to improve the Cranach Digital Archive.

Please contact us, if you have noticed a mistake.