Chapter 4: Ulm - Art / Politics / Spectatorship

Patrons and Narratives of the Parler School

Assaf Pinkus

Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien Band 151

Assaf Pinkus

Deutscher Kunstverlag Berlin München

Patrons and Narratives of the Parler School

The Marian Tympana 1350–1400

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Förderungs- und Beihilfefonds Wissenschaft der VG WORT

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in derDeutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind imInternet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

Druck und Bindung: DZA Druckerei zu Altenburg GmbH, AltenburgReproduktionen: UniMedia! GmbH, Ellerbek

© 2008 Deutscher Kunstverlag München BerlinISBN 978-3-422-06819-3

4 Civic Pride: Art and Politics in Ulm

4.1 Civic tension and the new construction of Our Lady in Ulm

In 1377 the city of Ulm attained the culmination of its political and eco-nomic prosperity, a glorious period that would, however, last no more than a decade. Enjoying a privileged leading position in the Swabian City League, Ulm celebrated its autonomy and victory over the armies of Charles IV, the Bavarian Landesfürsten, and the deposition of the city’s long-term Reichs-vögte (Imperial Guardian), at that time Eberhard of Württemberg. Ulm’s achievements during that period extended beyond its successful military campaign; the city also gained the fi rst signifi cant control over its spirit-ual institutions.¹ By diplomatic, military, and economic means the council managed to restrict and then abolish the extraterritorial authority claimed by the Church, and in particular that of the Augustinian monastery located outside the city walls; and during the 1370s–1380s the city obtained its in-itial release from the spiritual patronage of the Reichenau monastery over the old parish church, Our Lady in the Field (Maria über Feld, unser frowen enund veldz). As reported in detail in the 1488 Tractatus de civitate Ulmensi by the Ulmer monk Felix Fabri,² as well as in the 1383 Reichenau,³ by 1377,

137

1 For a comprehensive study of Ulm politics, see Th eodor Victor Brodek, Society and Politics in Late Medieval Ulm, 1250–1550, Ph.D. Diss. (Columbia, 1972), 1–18, 99–157.2 “Anno ergo domini 1377 dissolu-erunt Ulmenses antiquam paro-chiam, ecclesiam ad omnes Sanctos, et omnia induxerunt et humeris in-tulerunt in civitatem, in locum pro

ecclesia construenda ordinatum”, see Felix Fabri, Tractatus de civitate Ul-mensi, ed. Gustav Veesenmeyer (Tü-bingen, 1889), 37. On the reuse of the sculptures, discussed below, see ibid., 38 f., 40 f. See also Schultz discussion on the relocation of the church, in Schultz 1954, 10–51, esp. 7–9, 10–12 and passim.3 “…et cuius ecclesia basilica seu

materiale corpus extra muros dic-tae civitatis in campestri loco sita fuit hactenus pio ducti proposito intra muros dictae civitatis de novo tran-stulerunt et tam pro corpore quam pro cimiterio largo novos in ibi fun-dos amplos et praeciosos compara-runt et liberaliter donaverunt et ad dei laudem divni cultus augmentum corpus ecclesia priori longe magis

137 4.1 Civic tension and the new construction of Our Lady in Ulm

during the siege of Charles IV, both edifi ces, the Augustinian monastery and the old parish church, had already been dismantled and their stones served as spolia for the construction of the new Our Lady parish church, located within the urban walls, and under civic patronage.

Laying the foundations of the new parish church thus celebrated two of the most ambitious achievements of the local burghers (the military tri-umph and the spiritual release) and was carried out by a confi dent citi-zenry, with full awareness of the political and religious implications of the foundation.⁴ As the date of foundation, the political and religious situa-tion, as well as the identity of the church’s founders and patrons, have been relatively well documented – a rather rare phenomenon for the time and under the circumstances involved – the following study sets out to reveal the relations between intentions, narration, and spectatorship embodied in Ulm’s extraordinary civic endeavor. It fi rst surveys the political context of its foundation as a declaration of the city’s independence. Having outlined the pivotal role that the church played in Ulm’s civil life, the second section of this chapter will discuss the most unique narrative of the Ulm Grand Marian portal – that of the Legends of the Magi. Th rough unraveling the portal narrative structure, and analyzing the sculptured tympanum as vis-ual media, I shall investigate the ways by which the portal might have com-municated its information to its viewers, and consequently the active role that the ideal observer might have had in the re-narration of the sculptured narrative. Finally, I will address the issue of patronage and try to integrate the political context and the visual experience of the presumed active ob-server with the intentions of the founder of the church, Lutz Kraff t, who was probably also the portal’s commissioner.

During the fourteenth century, the Imperial city of Ulm on the Danube constituted a political center of primary importance: it spearheaded the Swabian City League, functioning as the diplomatic capital of the wealthy Imperial cities of Swabia, and it was second in economic importance only to Nürnberg. As a textile center its circulation exceeded that of the entire competing regional manufacturing centers combined, and due to its geo-graphical location at the crossroad of the Danube and the Iller rivers, its commercial routes crossed central Europe, from Venice to Antwerp, Ly-

138 4 Civic Pride: Art and Politics in Ulm

decorum etiam in ibi construere ceperunt et jugiter construunt opere mimis sumptioso…”. See Reichenau, 1383, feria tercia festum beati Micha-elis archangeli 16. Oktober Stadtta-rchiv Ulm (Schwörhaus). Transcribed by Schultz 1954, 10–11.4 See Joachim Gaus, “Dedication

Ecclesiae. Zum Grundsteinlegungsre-lief im Münster zu Ulm,” in Specker and Wortmann 1977, 61.5 See Brodek 1972, 5–6.6 See Horst Rabe, Der Rat der nieder schwäbischen Reichsstädte. Forschun gen zur deutschen Rechts-geschichte 4 (Köln, 1966), 24–26. Th e

transition of power, from aristocratic to a partially representative system, and the introduction of the leading guild into the city’s council, however, yielded no revolution; the patricians never lost their power but, rather, now had to share it with a broader circle of the rich merchants and

ons to Prague, and with the control of the Geislinger Pass in the Alb the city became a signifi cant station in the east-west direction connecting the Mediterranean with the Rhein estuary. At the end of the fourteenth cen-tury the city was conducting prosperous trade with Milan, Genoa, and Ly-ons.⁵ Nevertheless, the political ground at Ulm had never been stable. Ten-sions with the old rural nobility, the recurrent attempts of the Württemberg counts to annex the city into their properties, the heavy taxation by the Im-perial court, the inner factional partitioning of the urban patrician ruling stratum, and the reformation of the guilds, all resulted in a mobile and tur-bulent society. Personal rivalries within the city’s elite and factions gradu-ally led to a relative collapse of patrician power, and a shift from two hun-dred years of their rule to a new constitution that promised collaboration with the guilds.⁶ It is beyond the scope of this study to delve into the com-plicated fourteenth-century political structure and social confl icts of Ulm; nevertheless, the social texture left its imprint on the circumstances that led to the foundation of the new church.

Th e relocation of the new Our Lady of Ulm church was undertaken dur-ing the peak of the city’s struggle for its political and spiritual independ-ency, symbolizing the city’s leading status. Since Charles IV’s Golden Bull, issued in 1356, the relations between Ulm and the Imperial court had re-mained tense, as this document had abolished the privileges granted to the Swabian cities during the negotiations of 1347–1348. Th e most signifi cant achievement of the 1348 pact was the full control that the city gained over nominating the Ammann, namely the mayor-vogt of the city, as well as over the urban excises and other taxes. Imperial-urban alliances, however, were doomed to be ephemeral, as Charles IV had not intended to support the cities in order to release them from the sovereign claims of the Württem-bergs; but, rather, he wished to threaten the coalition of the latter with his most prominent rivals – the Habsburgs.⁷ Hence, in January 1370 Charles pawned the city to the Ammann William von Rechberg, with all the ap-pertaining incomes, a blatant violation of the 1348 status quo. Fearing that Charles’ edict might have refl ected a fi rst step in an anti-urban policy, Ulm was reluctant to accept his new stipulation and in a drastic move the coun-cil decided to withhold all excises until the crown restored the city’s privi-


guilds masters, who had never sought a real revolution but instead aspired to resemble the privileged classes. On the so-called guild’s revolu-tion, see Karl Czok, “Zunftkämpfe, Zunftrevolutionen oder Bürger-kämpfe,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx Universität Leipzig 8

(1958/1959), 129–143; Brodek 1972, 75–99.7 For a detailed study of the rela-tionship between the Württemberg counts and the cities and its impli-cations for the construction of the new church, see Brodek, 19–36, and Schultz 1954, 1–3; Wilhelm Vischer,

Geschichte des Schwäbischen Städte-bundes der Jahre 1376–1389. Forschun-gen zur deutschen Geschichte 2 (1862). For a detailed list of the members and families of the factions, see Brodek 1972, 71.

leges. In the following months, eager to pave the way for his son and suc-cessor Wenceslaus, Charles IV reversed his policy and reaffi rmed the priv-ileges of Ulm and other cities in Swabia.⁸ Th is led to a new political align-ment, and some of the rural nobility signed a defensive pact with the cities, and especially with Ulm, a provocative proceeding as far as the Württem-berg counts were concerned.

Th is appeasement, however, was only temporary; after a major defeat of the cities by the Württembergs in 1372, Charles IV’s treaty with the vic-tors was fi rmly established. Under this pressure the façade of urban unity collapsed and factionalism reappeared in Ulm, and the Roth family, sup-porting an alliance with Eberhard of Württemberg, initially rose to a lead-ing role in the new political situation, but one that they did not manage to sustain. Popular opinion generally supported the anti-Württemberg faction of the Kraff t family and their allies, the Besserers and the Ehingers, who soon held the key-offi ces in the council. During 1375–1376 Ulm began to evince its disinclination to continue close relations with Württemberg, and the council feverishly worked to establish a fully autonomous city league in Swabia. Th e cities had actually little choice, as the Württembergs had entered into a formal alliance with the Bavarian Dukes and the Emperor against the cities. For Charles, the Swabian City League, which had defi ed the provisions of the Golden Bull and expressed its opposition to the Lux-emburg dynasty by refusing to recognize Wenceslaus as king, represented a serious challenge to his royal and dynastic policies. In September 1376 and together with Eberhard, he laid siege to Ulm and shortly thereafter war broke out throughout Swabia. Ulm, however, by 1377 had forestalled any possible attack and the Imperial forces were defeated. Th e political venture undertaken by Ulm had fully proven itself, even if only for a short while.⁹

Ulm had cautiously prepared for the war. Th e council saw it as a far-reaching opportunity to expand urban authority at the expense of the church’s jurisdiction. Already in March 1376 the council had negotiated re-garding a new location and a more elaborate edifi ce for the city’s old parish church. Failing to reach an amicable settlement, it then acted unilaterally and demolished the Augustinian monastery of St. Michaelis, the old par-ish church, as well as the suburb of Schweikhofen, both of which were lo-cated outside the urban walls and might have served as shelter for the en-


8 It is remarkable that Ulm resist-ance was so fi rm that in 1392 the Im-perial court completely waived its claims to Ulm’s excise taxes, see Brodek 1972, 103.9 Th eir temporary defeat of the Im-perial forces occurred in 1389.

10 See notes 2, 23.11 See document 1395 May 15, in Hugo Bazing and Gustav Veesen-meyer, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Pfarrkirche in Ulm (Ulm, 1980), nr. 67; and for 1395 April 20: nr. 66.12 See Ulmisches Urkundenbuch, II

nr. 247, 427, 717, 755; Brodek 1972, 456, 782.13 Brodek 1972, 126.14 Ibid., tables 20–27.

emy.¹⁰ Th is simultaneous disruption under the pretext of military necessity represented the culmination of the dynamic phase of Ulm’s urban policy. In addition, Ulm’s delegate had negotiated with Reichenau in order to ob-tain release from the Order’s spiritual patronage over the old parish church of Mary in the Field. Th e treaties signed between Ulm and the Abbots of Reichenau during the 1370s–1380s ensured the council’s control over cler-ical discipline in the city, and the local pastors were gradually replaced by local patrician clerics. By 1394 Pope Boniface IX had fi nally approved the council’s full jurisdiction over the church.¹¹

Th e institutional role of the Church in medieval society can hardly be overestimated. It operated at every level, penetrating the life of nearly every-one. At Ulm, while the clerical bastion had began to crumble during the late medieval period, civic pride had become aroused already during the siege, with the desire to undertake a highly prestigious enterprise – the building of the new parish church inside the city walls. No self-respect-ing commercial city could aff ord to lack an imposing church edifi ce, espe-cially not during the competitive post plague era. At the same time, such an enterprise required careful calculation in order to maintain a balance be-tween competing political, economic, social, and religious factors. During the fourteenth century Ulm’s council aspired to delimit the rights and pre-rogatives of the ecclesiastical institutes in the city. It nominated a comptrol-ler and guardians of Our Lady, both patricians, who oversaw the urban fi -nances and the activities of the tax-collector. Th e fi rst such patrician, who was already a local priest in 1345, was Hermann Kraff t;¹² from 1377 on the council controlled the local lay clergy and the election of the parish priest; in 1352 it appointed two supervisors for the expansion of the old church, both patricians; and in 1377, with its relocation in the city, the number of guardians was raised to three, but from now on these would be composed of two guild members and one patrician.¹³

Th e list of donations drawn up by Th eodor Victor Brodeck illustrates the high prestige that Our Lady enjoyed among the citizenry of Ulm.¹⁴ Al-though the patricians preferred to donate to charitable establishments such as the Dominicans and the Holy Spirit Hospital, they nevertheless also contributed generously to Our lady; whereas the elite guildsmen favored donating to Our Lady and the Dominicans, and the regular guildsmen to Our Lady and the hospital. Th ough none of the three showed any marked preference to contribute to the Franciscans, all tended to be rather posi-tive toward Our Lady, which fulfi lled its primary communal function as a religious institution bridging class barriers. Even if each social class did have its own favorite institution, in which its particular donation would have probably been less anonymous than was the case with contributions to the enormous fabric of Our Lady, the total sum of contributions from


the patricians, guildsmen and wealthy merchants, shows unequivocally the exceptional performance of Our Lady, indicating that Ulm’s citizenry on the whole displayed a marked generosity to their church. It was the heart of their civic pride, a manifestation of the citizenry’s state of political and spiritual independence, as well as of their leading role in the Swabian City League. If the vast height of the soaring Gothic spire indeed primarily sym-bolized the pride and power of the community and not merely the role of the church in late medieval society,¹⁵ the grandiose plan for the Ulm tower, which was actually accomplished in the nineteenth century, not only re-fl ects the charged civil emotions involved in this initiative, but also hints at the exhaustion of the urban dynamism that would follow, and the empty-ing of the local coff ers. Th e role that the sculptural program of the Grand Marian portal played within the narration of Ulm civic pride will be ex-plored in the following.


15 Bork argued that the comple-tion of such a spire was dependent to a striking extent on the city’s burgher and civic patronage. For example, in his discussion on the Cologne,

Freiburg, and Strasbourg spires he suggests that in Strasbourg the citi-zenry’s control over the cathedral fab-ric reached new heights, and the spire campaign expressed their civic pride

and wealth as well as their dominant role in local urban life and politics, see Bork 2003, 25–53, esp. 33, 43–47.

35. Ulm Parish Church, Grand Marian Portal, western south-portal, around 1377.

4.2 The legends of the Magi and the active observer

Th e legendary narrative of the Magi in Ulm is vividly portrayed in the lower section of the Grand Marian portal, expanding over two pointed-arched tympana and a rectangular intermediate zone (fi g. 35, diagram 2). It be-gins with the Incarnation, featured on the right, eastern lower tympanum (fi g. 36). Winged praying angels are depicted erupting from the arch sum-mit to deliver the Annunciation to the three shepherds standing on a rocky platform. Two of them, with their backs to the viewers, are pointing toward the angelic choir, while the third is turned to the right to watch the fl ock, while praying. Th e fl ock is climbing a steep rocky mount, which creates an isolated space beneath, in which another shepherd, presumably Joseph, is sitting and playing a fl ute, accompanied by a sheepdog (fi g. 37). Under-neath this pastoral depiction, three shepherds are shown approaching the hut of the Nativity. Th ey cling to each other, bowing their heads in modesty; the one in the middle is holding a shepherd’s staff . A wall has been removed from the tiled hut to off er the observer a gaze into its interior (fi g. 38); the entire composition is evocative of a window, through which the observer-voyeur can peer. Mary, supine, is stretching out her hand to grasp the baby, who is sitting in the crib beside her. Busts of an ox and ass protrude from the back of the relief. Joseph is sitting on a stool at the other side of the bed, staff in his left hand, while his right hand touches the pillow on which Mary

143 4.2 The legends of the Magi and the active observer

Diagram 2 Ulm, Grand Marian Portal

37. Detail: A Shepherd (Joseph?).


36. Ulm, Nativity Tympanum, lower eastern tympanum.

is resting. Th e whole composition and its iconographical scheme is typically Italian, especially the fi gure of Joseph with the staff , and is almost identical, from both iconographical and stylistic aspects, to the Nativity of the Ber-gamo baptistery by Giovanni da Campione, c. 1340.¹⁶

Proceeding to the left, the observer experiences the bustling activity at the Magi’s courts when they received the news through several revelations (fi g. 39). Th e intricate narrative is divided into three horizontal bands, one atop the other. Th e upper space is occupied by the revelations to the Magi and their wives; the middle one depicts their journey to Jerusalem; and the lower one features their meeting with Herod and the resumption of their journey, now on to Bethlehem. Th e spatial division is eff ected through the middle band, which comprises a rocky landscape and serves as a platform for the upper zone, as a stage to the middle one, and as the boundary of the lower one. Following the late thirteenth- early fourteenth-century Middle High German corpus of legends Das Marienleben by Walther von Rheinau, the featured events can be narrated as follows:¹⁷

During their annual gathering, when the Magi were secluded together for three days in the mountains, praying to God to reveal to them the star that Balaam had prophesied, the Star of Bethlehem fi nally appeared, bearing a marvelous fi gure of a child with a shining cross. Th e Star spoke


38. Detail: Nativity.

16 Th e Bergamo sculpture is con-sidered as a crossroads where Ger-man and Lombard traditions merged, see White 1987, 489; Alfred Gotthold Meyer, Lombardische Denkmäler

(Stuttgart, 1893), 58, 133–138. On the artistic exchange on the Lombard-German border, see “Lombardy and Th ann: Pilgrimage and Parler art,” in Pinkus 2006, 57–65.

17 For the text, see Walther von Rheinau, 109–120; Wolfgang Stammler (ed.), Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon (Ber-lin, 1953), vol. 5, 793–795.

40. Ulm, The Magi Before the Star of Bethlehem.


39. Ulm, The Legend of the Magi, Grand Marian Portal.

and commanded them to go to the land of the Jews in quest of the newborn king. Th e event is given a literal portrayal in Ulm (fi g. 40) on the far upper left, where the three Magi, fashion-ably dressed and majestically crowned as kings, are venerating the Star of Bethlehem and pray-ing to it. Th e older king is standing at the back, while the two others are kneeling. Th e Star of Bethlehem is shown borne on a fl uff y cloud, on which a child is carrying a cross.

Moving on to the right, the scenes that fol-low are dedicated to the miracles and revela-tions experienced by the wives of the Kings, a rather unique representation with neither pre-cedent nor sequel. Behind the back of the older King is a fortifi ed structure, a narrow court fl anked by a low wall and towers at the front and back (fi g. 41). Each tower is inhabited by a male fi gure, the front one is a trumpeter, prob-ably announcing the miraculous event taking place in front of the wall: an ostrich from whose two eggs emerged a lamb and a lion. Here, the depiction features only a lamb, which according to Walther’s text symbolizes the pa-tience with which the Savior redeemed humanity from eternal death. In the small open-air court behind, a crowned queen and her companion, a ma-tron wearing a fashionable Kruseler, direct their gazes at the three Kings.

Th e next scenic prop is another fortifi ed structure, with a biphorium aperture (fi g. 42). Th is time the observer is practically invited to peer into an intimate indoor scene through a ‘keyhole.’ On the same night that Jesus was born, a queen, the wife of Caspar, gave birth to a child who, upon emerging, prophesied that a child had been born from a virgin; accordingly, that child would die in thirty-three years, just as he himself, the queen’s child, too will die in 33 days, which is what transpires. Astounded by this stark foresight, the courtly congregation in the inner room clasp their hands and pray.

Th e last miracle is located at the far right and below (fi g. 43). A queen, escorted by a matron, an attendant and a trumpeter, is descending the castle stairs to bid farewell to the Kings, who are


41. Ulm, First Reve-lation: an Ostrich Bore a Lion.

42. Ulm, Second Reve-lation: Son of Caspar.

embarking on their journey, fi rst to Jerusalem. On a rock beneath the third rider is a miniature tree, from which a dove is soaring. According to Walther, a cedar in the garden of the castle, growing high above all the mountains, swayed at the time of Jesus’ birth; a bird soared from the tree, perched on a branch and sang with a human voice about a child born of a virgin.

Th e narrative continues from the right to the left with the rider fi gure of Caspar, who is wav-ing goodbye to his queen in her confi nement chamber (fi g. 39). Th e three Magi, led by the older King, are setting off on their way to Jeru-salem. As in Th ann, the Kings are accompanied here too by a retinue of chevaliers, but whereas the Th ann retinue is pronouncedly courtly and primped (including trumpeters, squires, and servants), the Ulm retinue is ‘military’ in na-ture, consisting only of armored riders. Th e re-tinue proceeds along an elongated, rocky and arid landscape, reminiscent of Taddeo Gadi’s

landscape, as for example in the Annunciation to the Shepherds (Baron-celli Chapel, Sta. Croce, 1328–1330). Th e older King is riding downhill, a movement emphasized by the heads of the horses protruding from the re-lief frame. On the lower band the retinue is shown encountering Herod, who points upward with his fi nger, probably hinting at the divine implica-tions of Micah’s prophecy and its pending fulfi llment (fi g. 44). Th e heads of He rod’s counselors and scribes appear from three apertures in a fortifi ed citadel. Th is is the fi rst complete structure in the tympanum, in contrast to the previous ones that introduced only architectonic segments. Beyond the citadel and out of the relief frame the Kings continue on their way, now to Bethlehem, with the Star shining above their heads (fi g. 45).

Having described here these events anachronistically, giving verbal prior-ity to Walther’s textual source and narration, I address now the visual strat-egy of the sculptured narrative and its own narration. Although the narra-tive vertical axis of the rectangular zone clearly evolves from up downwards, it is diffi cult to determine what the horizontal reading direction should be. From a formalistic point of view, while the lower register runs from left to right, both the middle and upper band fl ow from right to left, as all the fi g-ures direct their gazes and gestures in that direction. Th e events and protag-onists of the two upper zones are thus oriented toward the Star of Bethle-hem on the far left. From the narrative standpoint, however, the plot pro-


43. Ulm, Third Revela-tion: a Prophesied Bird in the Cedar.

ceeds from upper left to upper right, then from middle right to middle left, and fi nally from lower left to lower right, in a Z-course. Th e upper band thus has a doubly contradictory orientation: whereas all the fi gures are di-rected to the left, the narrative appears to be fl owing backward, in an op-posite direction to the fi gures’ postures and gestures; and only when arriv-ing at the far right and descending to the middle band, do the narrative and fi gural orientation merge; in other words, text and image become united. Th e orientation discrepancy of the upper band (with the revelations to the queens) is a paradigmatic instance of focalization, with the Star of Bethle-hem functioning as a focalizor, elucidating the meaning of the entire events

of the upper and middle bands. Th e logical chronological order of the nar-rative is disrupted by the inverted direction compelled by the focalizor; hence, while the story progresses to the right, the fi gures are oriented to the left, hinting that all the events occurred simultaneously. Th is device com-pels the viewer to search for the disturbing element; once this is found the meaning becomes accessible. Th e Star cancels the sense of disorientation and brings the narrative back into focus.

Finally, the narrative fi nds its culmination on the left, western, lower tympanum with the Adoration of the Magi and their departure (fi g. 46). On a protruding lower platform, the fi gures are theatrically arranged as a tableau vivant. Mary, crowned, is sitting on a tribune under a tiled roof. Her long robe falls softly to the fl oor, with its fl ounces draped around the tribune in elegant folds; she has the Infant in her hands, holding him out to the youngest King. Mary’s regal appearance completely contradicts her do-


44. Ulm, Meeting with Herod.

mestic setting: the observer is introduced into a fourteenth-century kitchen, with a skillet, kettle, and a pot hanging on the wall behind, a domestic out-look that, with the removed front wall, constitutes a second voyeuristic in-vitation in the tympanum. Joseph appears on the roof of the edifi ce, where he is secluded and meditating. Th e young King, his crown removed, kisses Jesus’ foot. His colorful and fashionable retinue (and even his horse), all di-rect their gazes at the sacred event – as does the viewer. Th e viewer in the relief and the viewer outside it share a moment of common spectatorship,


45. Ulm, The Way to Bethlehem.

a kind of experience defi ned by Laura Mulvey as narcissist, in which the fi ctive fi gure – in our case the sculptured spectators – functions as surro-gate to the viewer.¹⁸ Moreover, the spectators in the relief, as fashionably dressed as the fourteenth century spectators themselves, became the mirror of the real spectators, melting the boundaries between art and reality and thereby inviting participation. Th e viewer is thus present in the art; or, to borrow Wolfgang Kemp’s famous phrase: Der Betrachter ist im Bild.

To the right, the regal retinue is shown departing. Th e middle King is mounting his horse with the assistance of a squire, in an image that creates a positive/negative image of the Th ann middle King dismounting his horse; the older King leads the procession to the right, while gazing back to have a last look at the Holy Family. His knights are already riding away, into the relief ’s depth and upwards. Th e rearguard is depicted from the back in a beautiful foreshortening, while the vanguard is seen vanishing between the rocks of the tympanum vault.


46. Ulm, The Adora-tion of the Magi / The Departure of the Magi.

18 See Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleas-ure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16/3 (1975), 6–18.

Th e Magi narrative of the Ulm Grand Marian portal is puzzling from any aspect with which one might choose to engage; the iconography, style, and the narration with its innovative and accentuated focalization, are all unique in (medieval) western art. Th e choice of Walther’s legends as a source has no precedent and only one fi fteenth-century sequel;¹⁹ and while the unique depiction of the departure of the Magi fi nds one earlier model in the Milanese Th ree Magi altar, the young King venerating Jesus (rather than the older one) has no other parallel, as far as I know. Th e almost free sculpture, being posited on ramps, the free movement within and outside the tympanum surface, within and across the frame, the high degree of re-alism, and particularly the bold foreshortening, have no equivalents until Ghiberti’s relief for the Florentine baptistery. No less perplexing are the ear-lier art historical attitudes to this portal. Since Hartmann and Schmitt this sculpture has been evaluated as crude, unsophisticated, and merely deco-rative, and its narrative was viewed as popular and oversimplifi ed.²⁰ Even Schultz, who recognized its affi liation to Tuscan sculpture, noting that the only parallel Journey of the Magi riding horses is to be found in the Pisano pulpits sculpture and the Milanese Th ree Magi altar, underestimated the innovative and idiosyncratic character of the Ulm narrative.²¹

According to her measurements of the tympanum size, depth, and an-gles of the vaults, as well as the subject matter of the tympanum, Schultz contends that the Marian tympanum was originally planned for the west portal but, with the change of the original Parler plan for the church, the tympanum proved too small and was removed to the main side portal that connected the church to the city market and the council hall.²² Fabri’s re-port from 1448 recounts that not only were the stones of the old church re-used for the construction of the new Our Lady within the city walls, but that the sculptured tympana too were re-installed in what are now the lat-eral portals of the new church.²³ Th e re-installment of the sculptured tym-pana in the lateral portals is clearly verifi able for the small north-western Marian portal bears an inscription with the date 1356, and its style is clearly assoc iated with the mid-century tendencies of Gmünd. Late nineteenth-


19 Th e only known depiction is in the choir stained-glass windows of the Bern Minster, 1440, by Hans Acker.20 Hartmann 1910, 72–88. He even denounced it as provincial, see ibid., 126. Schmitt saw the elaborate narra-tives of Th ann and Ulm as a futile ex-pansion, stemming from the artist’s incompetence and tendency toward decorative covering of the entire tym-

panum surface, see Schmitt 1940, 50–52; idem 1951, 107–108.21 Schultz 1954, 213–214.22 Ibid., 49–96, esp. 87, 96, and 106–121.23 “Dicunt sepelitores mortuo-rum, quod dum fodiunt ibi in altum, ubique attingunt fi rmissimos muros, puta fundamenta prioris ecclesiae pa-rochialis, quae haud dubium gloriosa fuit, ut produnt artifi ciosae sculptu-

rae de ea translatae et insertae muris illius modernae ecclesiae super ostia omnia, dempto ostio principali oc-cidentali iuxta campanarum funes, quod habet novam sculpturam, ce-tera omnia sunt de antiqua parochia,” and later: “Multus autem admodum decori illius ecclesiae conferunt anti-quae parochiae sculptilia porticibus et ostiorum superliminaribus illius su-perposita antiqua manu fabrefacta.”

century studies thus saw Fabri’s account as highly reliable, and dated all lat-eral portals to c. 1360.²⁴ Early twentieth-century studies, on the other hand, distinguished between two groups: the small Marian portal and the south-eastern Last Judgment portal (Brautportal), which reveal a stylistic homoge-neity that belongs beyond any doubt to the old church; whereas the north-eastern Passion portal and the Grand Marian portal, on the other hand, at-test to a more refi ned style and later phase of execution.²⁵ Schultz, how-ever, has shown that the second group, the Passion and the Grand Marian portals, is an heterogeneous assemblage of reliefs from the old church with some new supplements, indicated by their somewhat more elegant style in-fl uenced by the Weiche Still and the relatively later fashion of the fi gures’ costumes. Consequently, she dates the old parts of these portals, in accord-ance with Fabri, to 1356–1377, and the later additions as having been imple-mented toward the end of the fourteenth century. In her view only the up-per tympanum of the Grand Marian portal was executed at an earlier phase – namely already before or with the transposition from the old to the new church, while the double lower tympana and the intersecting rectangle, al-though also planned in advance, were executed only around 1395/1400.²⁶ On the basis of stylistic argumentation she rejects the thesis of Kletzel and Schmitt, who argued that only the rectangular zone is a later supplement;²⁷ nevertheless, since Wortmann’s analysis of the portal, her view has in turn been rejected and it is now generally accepted that the rectangular zone is indeed the only later supplement,²⁸ an adjudication also supported by the relatively late fourteenth-century attire of the fi gures.²⁹ Finally, Brigitte Th anner has claimed a stylistic homogeneity for the entire tympana, dat-ing it to after 1380.³⁰ Whatever the exact dating of the sculptural execu-tion, spanning from 1360 to 1400, it is accepted by all scholars that the orig-inal plan included an upper tympanum and two lower tympana, with no rectangular junction. With the relocation of the upper tympanum in the south-western entrance, the new dimensions and proportion of the site ne-cessitated this annexation. Schultz further observed that the original por-tal included a Maria trimeau, which was left at the west portal. All this led


See Fabri 1488, 38–40. See also notes 2, 3. Th e use of the stones from the older buildings is easily identifi ed, as only the new construction made use of brick stones (Backstein).24 See for example K. D. Hassler, Ulms Kunstgeschichte im Mittelalter. Die Kunst des Mittelalters in Schwaben (Stuttgart, 1864). A comprehensive retrospective on the subject may be found in Schultz 1954, 10–49.

25 Hartmann 1910, 67–68; Karl Friedrich, “Beiträge zur frühen Bau-geschichte des Münster,” Ulm und Oberschwaben 25 (1927), 23.26 Schultz 1955, 15–18; idem 1954, 48–49, 87–96, 87–96, 212–217.27 Otto Kletzel, Planfragmente aus der deutschen Dombauhütte von Prag in Stuttgart und Ulm (Stuttgart, 1939), 117; Schmitt 1940, 56.28 On the controversy regarding

the original plan of the portal, see chapter 1, note 45. See also Gernot Fischer, Figurenportale in Deutsch-land 1350–1530. Europäische Hochschul-schriften 28 (Frankfurt, 1989), 457–459.29 Such as the female headgear Kruseler or the male girdle worn around the waist.30 Th anner 1980, 255.

her to a rather strange and unacceptable inference: that with the distanc-ing of the two lower tympana and the loss of the monumental Maria tri-meau, the sculptor had been compelled to fi ll the empty gap with some narrative peculiarities. Seeing the abundant narrative as no more than an ‘emergency’ solution, she contends that the Ulm sculptor had probably re-lied on the Tuscan-Lombard precedents, which had already expanded the traditional Magi narrative to include their Journey, the Adoration and the meeting with Herod, but found even these insuffi cient for his extensive plane; therefore, she concludes, he had to turn to Walther’s legend.³¹ Th is reveals another peculiarity in her analysis, which does not diff erentiate be-tween the operational range and role of the sculptor, the commissioner, and the like. In addition, she asserts, as the Journey of the Magi was already de-picted in the rectangular space, it could not be repeated on the left, west-ern, lower tympana, and therefore the sculptor focused on the Departure of the Magi.

Schultz’s chain of conclusions raises much in the way of query and doubt. Were Walther’s legends truly the only applicable source available in order to fi ll up the gap? Could no other storyline, more related to the legends of the Virgin, have been portrayed other than that of the Magi? Are we really supposed to believe that it was the loss of Mary’s monumen-tal fi gure that resulted in such an unfolding of the narrative? Would it not just have been simpler to reproduce an additional Marian fi gure? Moreover, Schultz argues that the exceptional depiction of the departure of the Magi, their way back from Bethlehem, was only portrayed because a depiction of their Journey was already present in the rectangular zone. Such a suppo-sition presumes that the rectangular zone had already been sculptured at an earlier phase of execution, before the other two, lower tympana. Th is idea is contradictory both to Schultz’ own chronology of the portal, which saw the entire triple lower section as a unitary later addition, and also to both earlier and later scholars, who theorized that it was only the rectan-gular zone that was a later supplement. Even more confounding is the fact that although the only visual precedent for both the Th ann Journey and the Ulm Departure is to be found in the Milanese Th ree Magi altar, and though the Th ann and Ulm images thematically and formalistically const i-tute positive-negative images, their depictions and narratives are nonethe-less ascribed by Schultz to the random and meaningless choice of an artist possessed by a popular taste.³²


31 Schultz 1954, 96, 211–216.32 As deplored by Schmitt too, see note 20.33 Hartmann 1910, 126.

34 On action theory and narrative time, see Wolfgang Kemp, “Narra-tive,” in Robert S. Nelson and Rich-ard Shiff (eds.), Critical Terms for Art

History (Chicago, 1996), 64–67; Luh-mann 1981, 60.

Inspired by modernist art-connoisseurship and methodologies that draw a dichotomy between high and low art, the Ulm and the Th ann portals have been labeled as popular. Privileging concise iconography, typological order and abstract tendencies over strict narrativity, as well as intentional authorship over addressees, such scholars have seen these portals as noth-ing more than provincial.³³ Yet, reading the Ulm portal from the observer’s point of view, and denying the meta-narrative of the scholastic discourse in which Gothic tympana were traditionally contextualized, the Ulm por-tal seems to be rather ingenious. Unlike the typological programs of the High Gothic era, which addressed the spectators as passive receptive view-ers who needed to absorb and assimilate ‘things of greater importance’ that depended upon theological texts to which they rarely had access, the Ulm sculpture approaches its spectators as well trained and competent readers of the visual languages; thus, as active observers. Th e sophisticated focal-ization of the Ulm Journey – the Star of Bethlehem – that makes the nar-rative run backwards is innovative in more than one respect. It replaces the conventional focalization performed by the archivolt sculpture (which usu-ally featured typological events, prophets, and fi gures that prefi gured the main story depicted in the tympanum below them) with a single emblem: the Star is carrying the Infant, who, in turn, is carrying a cross. Th is is not merely a shift in location of the focalizor from the margins of the tympa-num to its center, but it is also a new activation and manipulation of the observer. Th e focalizor, like the observer, is now an internal participant in the narrative, and the observer is required to experience the focalizor within the immediate act of narration. Th us, while verbalizing what is seen, and through an eff ort to narrate the events that proceed in contradictory directions, the observer becomes aware of the planted focalizor. Whereas in High Gothic tympana narrative and focalization were separated and dis-tanced, here they are interwoven and simultaneously experienced. Th is is a crucial shift from privileging authorship and intention of the ‘author’ of the sculptured program, to prioritizing the observer.

Th e rich realistic ‘accessories’ embedded in the portal – various contem-porary fortifi ed architectural components, fashionable garments, details of landscape and domestic setting – also reveal the orientation of the por-tal toward the observer and its immediate reality experience. Th ese equate the story’s time (one that happened in the far past) with the discourse time (fourteenth-century observer and his own reality). By applying the notion of modern action theory to the vivid narrative of Ulm, the depicted events can be understood as happening in the present only if one can see some way into their immediate past and their immediate future.³⁴ Th e legends of the Magi, which constitute the fl ashbacks of the Marian portal (namely, an analeptic narration), off er access to both the past and future of their own


35 Kemp 1996, 66.36 Alois Riegl, Th e Group Por-traiture of Holland, intro. Wolfgang Kemp, trans. Evelyn M. Kain and David Britt (Vienna, 1902; Los Ange-les, 1999).37 Ibid., 271–272.

38 Richard Wollheim, Painting as an Art. Th e A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, Bollingen Series 35 (Prince ton, 1984), 101, 129, 185. For a critical reading of Wohllheim’s con-cept of spectatorship, see Rob van Gerwen (ed.), Richard Wollheim on

the Art of Painting: Art as Represen-tation and Expression (Cambridge, 2001).39 Cited according to the transcrip-tion of Hans Peter Köpf, “Lutz Kraff t, der Münstergründer,” in Specker and Wortmann 1977, 4.

story and, together with the realistic references, they make the narrative accessible and intelligible.

Th e Ulm portal, hence, not only stands out in its colorful picturesque de-pictions, but also in an elaborate narration that incorporates spatial move-ment with the parameters of action and time, landscape, signifi ers of loca-tion, voyeuristic devices, and above all – a sophisticated focalization. Th e narrative art of the Ulm portal diff ers essentially from the traditional per-ception of medieval art as the books of the illiterate. Whereas the latter tend to exploit non-narrative sequences (namely, various events gathered accord-ing to a dogmatic exemplum), or to incorporate emblematic images to be engraved on the heart of the viewer, the Ulm narrative unfolds the conven-tional scheme with non-dogmatic, marginal events, in order to commun-icate. It is not the intentions of the program’s author that have primarily to be deciphered and received, but rather an exchange between the author-nar-rator and the observer-narrator.³⁵ Th is requires the active participation of an observer experienced in the process of narration, released from the bar-rier between art and observer, and exercising a more fl exible attitude toward the dichotomy of intender and recipient. In his seminal study of Dutch group portraiture,³⁶ Alois Riegl observed that the depicted fi gures within the painted space appear to be responding to and directing their attention and gazes at an unseen protagonist located outside the painting; actual view-ers and unseen protagonist thus become interchangeable. Th e incorporation of such a pictorial device oriented this art toward the subjective involvement of the spectators, who can take mental control over the depicted realm by making it part of their own consciousness.³⁷ Richard Wollheim elaborated on the notion of “involved spectatorship,” noting that the spectator is en-couraged to take the position of the unseen protagonist, thereby adopting his or her perspective on the represented event.³⁸ He discerns two types of pictorial devices: one invites the spectator to identify with a fi gure within the represented space; in the other a represented fi gure ostensibly enters the spectator’s space. In Ulm these two kinds of spectatorships are at play: the Magi riding out of the relief frame into the space of the spectators, to whom they also direct their gaze, suggest involved spectators taking the position of protagonist outside the relief, while the voyeuristic invitations within the relief invite them to identify with a fi gure inside the carved surface.


Th e spectator of Ulm’s Grand Marian portal, however, is not merely an in-volved spectator. It would be more accurate to label him an “active observer” as, with the aid of the internal focalizors, he is invited to enact, narrate, de-cipher and give meaning to the otherwise inanimate narrative; in short: to participate. Th is suggests the rise of the individual, active observer.

4.3 Familial and public imagery: the patron-narrator

Two founding reliefs in the Ulm Minster, one installed on the south- eastern portal, the Brautportal, the other located inside the church, on the third column supporting the southern side of the nave, repeat with slight devia-tions the following dedication:

Anno domini MCCClxxvii an dem zinstag der der lest tag was des ma-natz ivnii nach der sunnen vfgang dri stund von haissen des rates wegen hie zu vlm lait lvdwig kraft kraftz am kornmarc seligen svn den ersten fundamentstain an diser pfarrkirchen.³⁹[In the year of our Lord 1377 on Tuesday, which was the last day of June, three hours after sunrise, Ludwig Kraff t, son of the deceased Kraftz from the grain market laid in this place the fi rst cornerstone of the parish church in the name and by the will of the council].

In the fi rst relief on the Brautportal, Lutz/Ludwig Kraff t, depicted kneeling and introduced by a pastor standing behind him, is off ering the model of the church to the enthroned Virgin with Child; while the other relief illus-trates Lutz/Ludwig Kraff t and Elsbeth/Elisabeth Ehinger kneeling, facing one another; in-between them the model of the church is being carried on the back of a fi gure representing an architect; and the entire depiction is lo-cated beneath a Crucifi xion scene. In both cases the patricians are not only identifi ed by an inscription, but also through their coats of arms.

A similar report is given in the 1488 Tractatus de civitate Ulmensi, by Fabri:

In the afore-mentioned year (1377), at the moment when the last day of June started and the entire clergy and the whole people were as-sembled at the building site, they were ready, then, to lay solemnly the cornerstone. According to the decision of the council, the hon-orable personage, Ludwig Kraff t, who held at that time the respected position of the Burgomaster, descended into the foundation ditch, together with several of the most highest dignitaries, to receive the tremendous boulder, which, according to the arrangement of the workmen, hung high above from a strong agrafe. On the third hour

157 4.3 Familial and public imagery: the patron-narrator

of the day, in which the Holy Spirit was sent to the Apostles, not the workmen but the elders began to bring down the stone into the pit… Th e honorable Lord Johannes Ehinger, named Habfast, and also Konrad Besserer, the city captain, and the remaining lords stood over the ditch and touched the stone with their hands and directed it downwards to the hands of the Burgomaster Ludwig Kraff t and the others waiting in the pit. All this happened with a great seriousness, while the clergy sang, the people prayed and all kinds of musicians played in such way, as one reads in Ezra 3…⁴⁰

Th e unusual duplication of the dedication has been thoroughly studied by Hans Peter Köpf and Joachim Gaus from its socio-legal, and liturgical-ty-pological aspects respectively.⁴¹ Both reliefs, as well as Fabri’s report, ind i-cate that Lutz Kraff t, as the representative of the city council, was the key fi gure in the ceremony. Unlike laying the cornerstone of cathedrals and monasteries, which is performed by the clergy, here it was undertaken by a patrician. As noted by Gaus, with the construction of the new Ulm church began the political and artistic self-articulation of the Ulm citizenry; more-over, reading Fabri’s account in relation to the reliefs, Lutz Kraff t appears to have been not merely a representative of the council, but rather the church’s founder.⁴² Th is impression becomes apparent in light of the diff er-ent genres of the communication media: while the reliefs suggest his role as the founder within a long Memoria tradition, Fabri’s allegedly ‘historical’ report indicates this by the frequent mentions of Lutz and their disposition in the text. Not only does he constitute the central protagonist of the event, but he is also referred to in each sentence, either by name, by title (Burgo-master), or by allusion, through reference to those who were both his close relatives and most important allies among the patricians – the Ehingers and Besserers. Th e other attendants from the rival families are not mentioned. Nevertheless, both Fabri’s report and the reliefs seem to be historically in-correct: at the time of the church foundation Lutz was not serving as Ulm Burgomaster; if he was a mere functionary of the council why was he cho-


40 Quoted after Bruder Felix Fab-ris Abhandlung von der Stadt Ulm, eds. and trans. Konrad Dietrich Haßler and Onophrius Millers Lob-spruch. Ulm und Oberschwaben 13–15 (1908/1909), 26. “Als nun im eben-genannten Jahr (1377) der letzte Tag des Juni angebrochen und die ganze Geistlichkeit und das ganze Volk an der Baustelle versammelt war, so waren sie bereit, feierlich den Grund-

stein zu legen. Nach dem Beschluß des Rates stieg der angesehene Herr Ludwig Kraff t, der damals die Bürger-meisterwürde innehatte, in die Fun-damentgrube hinab mit einigen von den Vornehmsten hinab, um einen gewaltigen Felsblock in Empfang zu nehmen, der nach Anordnung der Werkleute oben in der Höhe in einer starken Klammer hing. Um die dritte Stunde des Tages nun, um welche der

heilige Geist den Aposteln gesandt wurde, begannen nicht die Werkleute, sondern die Ältesten von Ulm, den Stein in die Grube hinabzulassen…Der hohe Herr Johannes Ehinger, genannt Habfast, aber und Konrad Besserer, der Stadthauptmann, und die übrigen hohen Herren standen über dem Graben und Berührten den Stein mit den Händen und richteten ihn abwärts gegen die Hände des


Bürgermeisters Ludwig Kraff t und der übrigen, die in der Grube warte-ten. All dieses geschah mit großen Ernst, während die Geislichkeit sang, das Volk betete und allerlei Arten von Musikern spielten etwas so, wie man Esra 3 liest…”41 Hans Peter Köpf, “Lutz Kraff t, der Münstergründer,” in Specker and Wortmann 1977, 9–58; Gaus 1977, 59–85.

42 Ibid., 61.43 See note 41.44 See Konrad Hannesschläger,

“Ulms Verfassung bis zum Schwör-brief von 1397,” Ulm und Oberschwa-ben 35 (1958), 7–93; Köpf 1977, 38–44.45 1393, 16th April: Stadtarchiv Ulm.46 Th ere is no evidence that it was extended, see Hannesschläger 1958, 73.47 Farbi does not specify to which

members of the Kraff ts he refers, but Kraff t of the grain market is the only one who could be identifi ed with Far-bi’s accounts, see Köpf 1977, 19–20.48 See Kraff tisches Stiftungs-Archiv, Grabamtakten; Köpf 1977, 16.49 Albrecht Schaefer, Zur Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Ulmer Patriziats (Böblingen, 1952), 5; Köpf 1977, 16.50 Ulmisches Urkundenbuch, I, nr. 25.

sen to perform the ceremony and honored with visual commemoration as the founder of the church? Th e studies by Köpf and Gaus, which were pub-lished on the six-hundredth anniversary of the Ulm church, point out the unique and pivotal roles that Lutz and the Kraff t family had exercised in both Ulm’s political aff airs and the city’s religious life.⁴³

Lutz Kraff t served several terms as Ulm Burgomaster and council mem-ber. In 1367, immediately upon the death of his father (Kraff t from the grain market), he was chosen as a council judge; he was fi rst elected Bur-gomaster in November 1372,⁴⁴ and reelected in 1376 and 1393.⁴⁵ His sec-ond term lasted until April 23rd, 1377, approximately two months before the foundation of the new church.⁴⁶ Lutz owed much of his quick pro-motion to the high prestige of his father, who was most probably the per-son recorded as Burgomaster from 1348–1349, 1350–1352, and 1354–1355.⁴⁷ Th e elder Kraff t was the fi rst Burgomaster after the Guild Constitution of 1348, which delimited patrician rule and introduced the guilds into the council, and he enjoyed a distinguished reputation for obtaining polit ical stability and the city’s independence. Lutz himself was elected with the wide support of the guildsmen (who, under his initiation, had gradually also introduced the post of judge) and due to continuing his father’s pol-icy toward Ulm’s independence as well as spearheading the Swabian City League. Th e Kraff ts also played a decisive role in Ulm’s religious institu-tions. Th ey were already the trustees and administrators of the burial of-fi ce (also nominating and paying the gravedigger) in the old church, an of-fi ce that they continued to hold in the new Our Lady church.⁴⁸ Although the name Kraff t emerged only around 1300, the family’s genealogy is trace-able in Ulm to as early as the twelfth century, when they were called ‘von Ulm,’ an Edelfreie rank that stood in close and familial relationship with the Reichenau monastery.⁴⁹ Th ey also appear to have conferred upon Ulm’s priest the rights to the goods of his parish church.⁵⁰ Th e fact that their fam-ily grave laid within the yard of that church also indicates the judicative functions they had exercised. Th e Kraff ts obviously had far-reaching sover-eignty rights over the possessions of the Reichenau in Ulm, including the


51 Köpf 1977, 16.52 Th e renovations of the old church are beyond the scope of the present work. For an introduction, see Schultz 1954, 4–6.53 1362, 12 October: Kraff tisches Stiftungs-Archiv, U 7.54 1355, 19 January: ibid., U4 and

1355 March: Stadtarchiv Ulm, A. u 3248.55 1387, 20 June: Kraff tisches Stiftungs-Archiv, U 37.56 Last designated as priest of Ulm on 5 June 1369, see Kraff tisches Stiftungs-Archiv, U 17; and later for the fi rst time in 1371 as ‘wylund’

priest on 20 June 1371, in ibid., U 18.57 See Fabri 1448, 37–41, as quoted in notes 2 and 23.58 Ulmisches Urkundenbuch, II, nr. 994, 995; Bazing and Veesenmeyer 1980, nr. 26, 27.59 1383, 6 October: ibid., nr. 37.

parish church. According to Köpf, the investiture to lay the cornerstone of the new Our Lady church belonged to their judicative rights, as ordained through Reichenau.⁵¹

Th e relocation of the old parish church was a crucial factor in the politi-cal ideology of Lutz, who was also the initiator of the Swabian League that led to the celebrated victory over the Imperial forces in 1377. Th e idea of the transfer was probably conceived at an early stage of the family politics. Lutz’ cousin, Pfaff Herman Kraff t, who served as the parish priest in 1345, may have already planned it. In 1362, when the old church was under reno-vations,⁵² he left the parsonage beyond the walls and settled in the fortifi ed city in the house annexed to the Th ree Kings chapel (Drei-König-Kapelle), possessed since 1362 as the Kraff t family fi ef,⁵³ a chapel that was actually founded in 1355 by Otto Kraff t der Lang and Lutz’ step-brother, Kräftlin Kraff t.⁵⁴ Th e proprietorship of the fi ef was traditionally granted to the old-est of the chapel’s patrons, and by 1387 this was Lutz himself.⁵⁵ In 1367 the parish priest Hermann Kraff t sought to relinquish his vicarage and post in order to obtain the benefi ce of the St. George Chapel, which he actually ac-quired in 1371.⁵⁶ Th is chapel stood on the very site where Our Lady was to be erected a few years later; the church was thus erected on Kraff t property. One may presume, therefore, that the relocation had been planned long be-fore the siege of Charles IV took place.

According to Fabri’s report, the pretext for the exceptional transforma-tion of the old church and the re-use of its stones and sculpture was to enable the burghers to visit the church without fear and risk during the war, and at the same time to prevent the enemy from entrenching and de-fending itself within the abandoned outskirts.⁵⁷ Th e petition for Reichen-au’s approval, however, had already been negotiated in 1376, which sug-gests that the real reason for the dismantling of the church and its rebuild-ing inside the urban walls was a calculated act, meant to ensure Ulm’s po-litical as well as spiritual independence. In March 1376 Lutz Kraff t had al-ready obtained a provisional affi rmation from Reichenau that the transfor-mation had been positively assessed;⁵⁸ it took another seven years until the monastery granted the city the Prasäntationsrecht (1383);⁵⁹ three and a half years later the exchange was settled (1387);⁶⁰ and it took another eight years


60 1387, 1 February: ibid., nr. 44; July fi rst 1387, in ibid., 47.61 1395, 15 May: ibid., 67.62 Köpf 1977, 54.63 For example, in 1375 his wife’s cousin Hans Ehinger was elected; in 1378 his young cousin Hans Kraff t; afterwards Hans Ehinger again;

Kräff tlin Kraff t; his brother in law Peter Leow; Chunrat Besser, and so on. For the family’s political appoint-ments, see Köpf 1977, 38–44, 55–56; Brodek 1972, 112–113.64 Fabri reports on the Lutz do-nation: “Als aber der Grundstein ge-legt war, öff nete, der ihn gelegt hatte,

seine Börse, nahm Geld heraus und bedeckte und schmückte den Grund-stein mit Gold und Silber…,” see Haßler and Lobspruch 1908–1909, 26.65 Köpf 1977, 14, 56.

before the city received the papal Patronatsrecht (1395).⁶¹ Paradoxically, ac-cording to canonical law, the allocation of a land, as well as a new edifi ce for a demolished church, constituted in themselves a Patronatsrecht.

Th e intricate negotiations for this transformation are beyond the aim of this study. Th e crucial point is that Lutz established his patronage claim; the city was to nominate its own priest on its own, and the Reichenau rights over the burgher of Ulm were to be gradually reduced and fi nally ab-rogated. Since the Kraff t family was related to the Reichenau monastery, and since it was Lutz who held the Aufsichtsrechte of the church, he was the only one among the patricians capable of negotiating this blatant demand. Furthermore, as noted by Köpf, Lutz was concomitantly the representative of both the city and the Reichenau monastery; thus, when he laid the cor-nerstone of the new church, the Reichenau patronage outwardly appeared to be continuing.⁶² In 1376 and 1377 he was obliged to be frequently absent from the city and remain in Reichenau in order to conduct the negotiations. Köpf assumes that Lutz consequently resigned his offi ce as Burgomaster in 1375/1376, but in his absence he persuaded the council to choose his close allies and relatives as his proxies. For about fi ve decades, therefore, from the mid-fourteenth century to the 1390s, the Kraff t family ruled the city in one way or another, and the construction of the new church was their fa-milial performance, and especially Lutz’ personal achievement.⁶³ Lutz was the only one with the ability to achieve the relocation of the church and the release from Reichenau, as the Kraff t family was not only among the lead-ing patricians of Ulm but also involved in the ecclesiastic offi ces; and, in addition, they had allocated part of their own terrain for the building the church and provided generous fi nancial support.⁶⁴ Lutz seems to have been almost an unrestricted Bauherr: he acquired the rights and the site for the building, the council granted him the privilege of laying the cornerstone, he provided the fi nancial means for its construction, and he appointed the church Pfl eger and the Baumeister.⁶⁵ Even if not offi cially in offi ce at the time of the construction, he was the Burgomaster de facto during that time. Bearing in mind that the Grand Marian portal was originally planned for the west façade, and that despite certain stylistic nuances all scholars have tended to date the portal to around 1360–1390s (a date also validated from

the fashion details), the sculptured tympana too may thus be ascribed to the Kraff ts’ enterprises.

Th e unique imagery of the Grand Marian portal, originally planned as the main west entrance to the ‘Kraff t church,’ is thus not surprising. As a Marian church, the portal of Our Lady of Ulm was dedicated to the Vir-gin, while the additional narrative of the Magi, not found elsewhere, may allude to a personal narration by the Kraff ts. As already mentioned regard-ing the Th ann church, the Magi imagery was a conventional means used to articulate political legitimatization and sovereignty claims of the German rulers. Since the Church did not introduce the Magi into the canonical list of saints, their cult was neither developed in nor encouraged by the eccle -s iastic institutions, but rather promoted by the laity, gaining its most sig-nifi cant momentum from the fourteenth century on.⁶⁶ Although also used by the Imperial court, images of the Magi as kings were particularly favored by German patricians and wealthy burghers. Th ey were especially venerated by the merchants, as the Magi, who had journeyed from the East to Beth-lehem, were considered the protectors of travelers and wandering trades-men. Th eir cult was circulated on the commercial routes, especially those of Milan, Cologne, along the Rhine, and above all in Alsace and southern Germany.⁶⁷ Th e Magi were the family patron-saints of the Kraff ts, who (as above-mentioned) erected a chapel in their honor in 1355. Lutz himself was buried on June 12th, 1397 in Our Lady of Ulm, where two years later an eternal fl ame was consecrated in his memory. In 1598 his tomb plaque, now lost, was relocated to the family’s Th ree Kings chapel.⁶⁸

At fi rst glance, the regal scenery of the Journey of the Magi depicted in Ulm may seem at odds with the political context in which the tympanum was executed. In light of the bitter confl ict with Charles IV one might sup-pose that the citizenry would have chosen a topic other than the Kings’ leg-ends for their new church, and selected a less royal theme that would have manifested their new political and spiritual state of independence, espe-cially as Charles IV himself was often depicted as a Magus-King in pic-torial cycles.⁶⁹ Th e Magi imagery, however, can be read on several levels, and could have thereby served the local patricians in articulating their own political ambitions. On the one hand the unprecedented depiction of the gathering of the Kings, a topic that occupies the center of the rectangular zone and forms the focus of the narrative, together with the royal portrayal of the Kings’ negotiations with Herod, may allude and refer to the consol-idation of the Swabian League and its own parley with Charles IV. On the other hand, the emphasis on majestic imagery and gestures may have re-minded the observers that Ulm, after all, was the preferred among all the Imperial cities, a status that the council did not wish to lose, for its in-trinsic political and economic advantages. At the same time, the choice of


the storyline of the Magi as a unique supplement to the Marian iconogra-phy shared by the other Parler portals in Th ann and Augsburg, attests to a private dimension of the narrative, which can be ascribed to the church’s founder, Lutz Kraff t’s own familial devotion, and political aspirations.

Th e choice of the Magi legends as the fl ashback and focalizor of mean-ing of the entire tympanum seems to encompass a sophisticated personal, devotional, and political narration. Th e Life of the Virgin, featured on the upper tympanum, forms the devotional topic of the narrative: namely, the portal (just as the church too) is dedicated to the Marian cult. Th e observer is introduced to the devotional aspects by a focalizor that draws attention to Ulm’s political ideology and fragile position between Imperial, burgher, and aristocratic interests, as well as to the identity and familial devotion of the church’s founder. Th e portal thus served the city and its citizens as a vis-ualization and paradigm of the religious and political context within which the church was founded: just as politics and devotion were one in Lutz’ ideology (namely the simultaneous release from both the Reichenau and Imperial patronage), so too was the sacred history viewed through refer-ences to the local politics; and just as the new Our Lady church cons tituted the personal production of Lutz, so too was the Life of the Virgin focal-ized through Lutz’ own family saints and their cult. Bearing in mind the new role bestowed upon the local observer, discussed earlier, the portal as a whole is a reciprocal endeavor of the patron-narrator, the observer-narrator, the artist-narrator, and the gesticulating protagonists – a narration of Ulm citizenry’s public and familial agenda. Whether the late medieval observer could be more specifi cally reconstructed from the narrative art at Ulm is a question that I leave for the conclusions of this book. Th e elaborate polit-ical and religious claims and the high expectations the city had invested in this late Gothic endeavor still fi nd an echo in Fabri’s report, which com-pares the foundation of the church to the account in Ezra 3 of the splendid consecration of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. Written about a century after the dedication of the church, it reveals the substantial role that Lutz Kraff t and ‘his’ church had played in the local social memory.


66 Hofmann 1975, 296.67 Ibid., 295–299.

68 1598, 3 November: Ratsprotokoll, Stadtarchiv Ulm (vol. 48, 496).

69 See Pujmanová 1997, 246–255; Rosario 2000, 27–46.

Chapter 4: Ulm - Art / Politics / Spectatorship

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 4: Ulm - Art / Politics / Spectatorship